電腦輔助教學系統對提高國中聽覺障礙學生聽辨能力及語詞清晰度之成效
127
0
0
全文
(2) 38℃. A. Ken. 102. 7. 17.
(3) C. I.
(4) II.
(5) The Effects of Computer Assisted Instruction on Improving Speech Identification and Word Intelligibility of Junior High School Students with Hearing Impairment Lai, Yu-Ching. Abstract The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effects of computer assisted instruction on improving speech identification and word intelligibility of junior high school students hearing impairment. A single-subject experimental study of multiple baseline design across subjects was used. The participants were three junior high school students with moderate to severe hearing impairment in the special class for hearing impairment in Taoyuan County. The independent variable was the training program using computer assisted instruction, whereas the dependent variables were the abilities of speech identification and word intelligibility of three participants. During two weeks, eight sessions of experimental training was administrated. Retention phases began a week after experimental training was finished. Participants’ speech identification was evaluated one a day in the three days. Data were analyzed mainly through visual analysis and C statistics. In addition, the error patterns and rates of articulation were analyzed. A self-constructed questionnaire was used to investigate the acceptability of the computer assisted instruction. The major findings were as following 1. Computer assisted instruction resulted in enhanced and retained effects on speech identification capabilities of three participants. The effect on improving tone identification was better than word identification. 2. Computer assisted instruction resulted in enhanced effect on word III.
(6) intelligibility and reduction of articulation errors in three participants. 3. Computer assisted instruction was highly acceptable for parents and teachers of three participants, but it wasn’t highly acceptable for three participants. Further suggestions were proposed for future studies and training as based on the main findings of this study.. Key Words Computer Assisted Instruction, Students with Hearing Impairment, Speech Identification, Word Intelligibility.. IV.
(7) ..................................................................................................... I Abstract ..................................................................................................... III ............................................................................................................ V ..................................................................................................... VII ...................................................................................................... IX. ............................................................................................... 1 .............................................................................. 1 .......................................................... 3 .............................................................................. 4 ....................................................................................... 7 .................................. 7 ........................ 11 .................... 13 ............ 17 ..................................................................................... 21 ............................................................................ 21 ............................................................................ 24 ............................................................................ 27 ............................................................................ 29 ................................................................ 37 ............................................................................ 45 ........................................................................ 51 .................... 52 .................... 62 ........................ 73 V.
(8) .................................................................... 80 ............................................................................ 82 ................................................................................ 87 ..................................................................................... 87 ............................................................................ 87 ..................................................................................... 88 ................................................................................................... 91 ........................................................................................... 91 ........................................................................................... 95 ......................................................................................................... 99 ........................................................................ 99 .............................................................. 100 .............................................................. 101 .......................................................... 102 ................................................................... 103 .................................................................. 113. VI.
(9) 3-1. ................................................................................. 22. 3-2. ......................................................... 29. 3-3. ................................................. 30. 3-4. ................................................. 31. 3-5. ......................................................................... 38. 3-6. ............................. 40. 3-7. ............................. 40. 3-8. ............................................. 43. 4-1. ................................................. 54. 4-2. ................................................. 65. 4-3. ......................................................... 75. VII.
(10) VIII.
(11) 3-1. ..................................................................... 25. 3-2. ............................................................. 34. 3-3. ................................................................. 35. 3-4. ......................................................................... 41. 4-1. ......... 56. 4-2. ......... 56. 4-3. ......... 57. 4-4. ......... 58. 4-5. ......... 59. 4-6. ......... 60. 4-7. C. ........ 61. 4-8. C. ........ 61. 4-9. C. ........ 62. 4-10. ....... 67. 4-11. ....... 67. 4-12. ....... 68. 4-13. ....... 69. 4-14. ....... 70. 4-15. ....... 71. 4-16. C. ...... 72. 4-17. C. ...... 72. 4-18. C. ...... 73. 4-19. ............................... 76. 4-20. ........................... 77. 4-21. ............................... 78. 4-22. ........................... 78 IX.
(12) 4-23. ............................... 79. 4-24. ........................... 80. X.
(13) 2002. 2010. (speech). 2005. 2002. 2002. 1994. 2009. Davis 1. 2009. Hardick 1981.
(14) 2001. 2011. 1997. 1986. 1994 Elfenbein, Hardin-Jones. & Davis, 1994. 2009 1993. 2011. 2008. 1996 2004. 2005. 2009. 1996 2001 2. 2005 2005. 2007.
(15) Watson & Kewley-Port, 1989. 3.
(16) 1-1. 1-2. 2-1. 2-2. 3-1 3-2. 2012 4.
(17) Computer Assisted Instruction. CAI. 1990. Erber 1982 discrimination. detection identification. 5. comprehension.
(18) Schmidt-Nielsen 1995. speech intelligibility. 1996. 6.
(19) 2002. 1993. 97.8%. 1993 et al., 1994. 1998. 1986. 1994 Elfenbein. Markides, 1970 2000 1997 50% 30% 7. 1986.
(20) 1998. 2000. lexical tone. 2005. 2006. 2007a. 2011 Li. Thompson. 1977. 1999 2011. 2008 2010. Han et al., 2007. 1997. 2010. 2011 1993 2000. 2002. 8. 94.70%.
(21) 1990. 2006 1999. 2004. 2011. 2010 Han et al, 2007. Monsen, 1979. Schmidt-Nielsen 1995. speech intelligibility. 1996. Kent, 1992. word identification. Schiavetti, 1992. 9.
(22) 1998. Samar. Metz, 1988. Schiavetti, 1992. 1997. 2000. 1998. 25. 6. 98 30.74% 50%. 2003. 37. 18.19%. 42.79% Ertmer 2008. 28%. 1993. 10. 26.
(23) (. ). 4000. 2001 1986 (. 1985. 2000. 1994. ). 18 1994 11. Hallahan & Kauffman, 1997.
(24) (. ). 1989. (. 1994. ). 2003 Elfenbein et al., 1994 Ertmer, 2008 (. Han et al., 2007. ). 1986 (. 1993. 1989. 1993. 1986. 1994. ). Elfenbein et al., 1994. 2011. Ertmer, 2011. 2008. Kant & Adhyaru, 2009 2011 Abraham & Weiner, 12.
(25) 1985. auditory-verbal approach cued speech method. visible speech. vorbo-tonal. computer based training. 1997 2006 13.
(26) (. ). (. ). (. ). (. ). (. ). (. ). 1997. Rhoades 2001 Dornan 2007. 29. 2-6. 2008 3 2009. 14.
(27) Guberina 1955. 1952 1991. 1993. (. ). (. ). (. ). (. ) 1993. Asp 1991. 1995. 15.
(28) Watson & Kewley-Port, 1989. Bench, 1992 2011. 7. 2008. (CAST). 1996 2007. 2004. 2005. 16. 15. 1996 2001.
(29) 1986. Sweetow & Sabes, 2010 Sweetow. Sabes 2006. Bernstein, Goldstein & Mahshie, 1988. 1970 17.
(30) Watson & Kewley-Port, 1989. LACE Communication Enhancement. Listening and Auditory. I Hear What You Mean aural. rehabilitation Stacey, et al., 2010. Sweetow, 2007. Tye-Murray, Tyler, Lansing & Berlschy,. 1990. LACE. Listening and Auditory Communication Enhancement. CASPER. Computer-Assisted Speech Perception Evaluation and Training Computer Aided Speech-Reading Training Tracking Simulation. LACE. CATS Computer-Assisted. Sweetow 2006. 65 LACE LACE 2008 15. CAST. 6 3. 12. CAST 18. CAST. 15.
(31) 1996. 1996 2005 2007. 1. 2. 3.. 19.
(32) 20.
(33) multiple probe design. 3-1. 21.
(34) (. ). (. ). (. ). (. ) 1. 2.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 3-1. 22.
(35) (. ). (. ). (. ). (. ). 7 40. 23. 8 20.
(36) /. 3-1. 24.
(37) 3-1. IQ 114. 14. 14. 15. 85dB. 110dB. 80dB. 100dB. 95dB. 78dB. 25dB. 50dB. 30dB. 35dB. 40dB. 30dB. PR83. FSIQ 72 PR3. IQ 87. PR19. VCI 74 PR4 PRI 85 WMI 63 PSI 75. 2 3. PR16 PR1 PR5. 4 10. 11. 32dB 25. 6.
(38) 2 5. 80%. 45%. 8~10. 60% 40%. 26.
(39) 8~10. 2 3 3 6 7. 40~50% 30%. 3~5. Multiple Baseline Across-subjects Designs A-B 27.
(40) 2006. A. B. M. 3-2. A. 12 40~13. B. 7 40~8 20. 12 40~13 00. M. 28. 00.
(41) (1A). (1B). (1M). (2A). (2B). (3A). (2M). (3B) 3-2. 2008. (. ). Ling. 29. (3M).
(42) (. ). (. ). (. ). 10. 10 70% 70%. 70%. 70%. 10 10 70% 70% 3-3. 70% 3-4. 3-3 30. 70%.
(43) 3-4. (. ) 10. (. ). 1.. 14 31.
(44) 14. 2.. 7 7. 3.. 19 19. 4.. 40 10 1~2. (. ). (. ). 32.
(45) (. ). (. ). 8. 10. MP3 Digital Player. T.sonic 650. TCE9590. 10 60dB. 1998 30. A B C 33.
(46) 10. 3-2 1.. 2000. 2.. 3. 10 3-2 A. B. C. Word 180. 34.
(47) 100. 3-3. 10. 3-3. 35.
(48) 100. 10 10. 1. 2. 3.. 30 10. 81%. 30. 36.
(49) 3-5. 37.
(50) 3-5. 38.
(51) 102. 2. 25. 3. 30 3-6. 3-7. 3-4. 26.7%. 37.5%. 39. 8.
(52) 100%. 3-6. 3-7. 40.
(53) 3-4. (%). (%). 1. 30. 90. 2. 20. 100. 3. 30. 100. 4. 40. 100. 5. 30. 100. 6. 30. 100. 7. 50. 100. 41.
(54) 30. 20 20. 12 40. 13 00. 0.75. 60%. MP3 Digital Player 10. 60dB. 42.
(55) 0.75 7 40~8 20. 70% 0.75. 8. 3-8 Ling. 3-8. 1. Ling. 1 Ling. 10. 9. 2.. 9 43. 10. 20.
(56) 10. 3.. 4.. 9. 1. 44.
(57) C. C. (. ) A. B 45. M.
(58) 1.. (1). (2). 0.75. 0.75. (3). (4). 0.75. 0.75. 2.. 46.
(59) (1). (2). (3). (4). (. )C C. Z 1.. Z. 2.. Z Z. 47.
(60) (. ). 1. 1 2.. 100%. 3.. (. ). ( ) (. ). (. ). (. ). 48. (. ).
(61) 80% 83% 83%. 80%. =. 100%. 49.
(62) 50.
(63) C. (%). 51.
(64) C. .05 p<.05. 4-1. 4-1 50%. 70% 90%. 100% 70%. ). ( 90% 50%. 70%. 100%. 52.
(65) 4-1. 60%. 80% 70%. (. 70%. ) 40%. 60%. 4-1. 90%. 80% 70%. ) 80%. 90%. 100%. 53. (.
(66) 4-1. 4-1 54.
(67) 4-1 4-2 (. ) 4-1. 100%. 50. 50. %. 0%. 25%. 37.5%. 4-1. 70. 100 %. 20%. 100% 100%. (. ) 4-2. 50%. 0%. 20%. 90%. 20. 0%. 100% 100% 55.
(68) 4-1. 3. 8. 1. 100%. 50 2. 100%. 100 25%. 0. 70~90. 10% 75%. 100%. 100%. 70~100. 50~50. 2. 37.5%. 90. 50~50. 1. 3. =. 100~100 20. 100~100. 100 100% = 10. 75%. 4-2 /. 50~70. /. 20. 0%. 90~100. 10. 100%. 4-3 4-4 (. ) 4-3. 28.57%. 0%. 10~50 % 34.29 % 56. 0 %. 0.
(69) 37.5% 72.5. 25%. 4-1 60. 80 %. 20 %. 66.67%. 33.33%. 4-1. 4-3. 7. 8. 1. 28.57%. 34.29 2. 0%. 40~40. 2. 37.5%. 72.5. 10~50. 1. 70. 60~80 0. 66.67%. 25%. 60~80. 10% 75%. 3. =. 75%. 57. 33.33% 60~80. 20. 60~80. 80 100% = 8. 20.
(70) (. ) 4-4 4-1 34.29 20%. 72.5. 0%. 10. 100%. 4-4 /. /. 40~60. 20. 80~70. 0%. (. 10. 100%. ) 4-5. 33.33%. 16.67%. 30. 62.5% 58. 80 %. 40%. 50%.
(71) 80. 100 %. 10%. 100% 100%. 4-5. 12. 8. 1. 33.33%. 56.67 2. 62.5%. 90. 40~80 1. 50% 80~100. 40. 90~100. 10% 75%. (. 100%. 100. 16.67% 30~80. 2. 3. =. 100% 100~100. 10. 100~100. 0. 100 100% = 10. 75%. ) 4-6 4-1 56.67 10%. 25%. 59. 90.
(72) 100% 100%. 4-6 /. /. 80~90. 10. 100~100. 25%. 0. 100%. C C C. 4-7 4-8. 4-9. C 4-3 Z. 2.7952. . 01 4-1. C. Z. C. Z. 60. 0.8101. 0.5916.
(73) 4-7. *p<.05. C C. Sc. Z. 0.7655. 0.2739. 2.7952**. 0.2500. 0.3086. 0.8101. -0.2000. 0.3381. -0.5916. **p<.01. C 4-8 Z. 2.7436. . 01. C. Z. C. Z. 0.8837. 1.3260. 4-8. *p<.05. C C. Sc. Z. 0.6609. 0.2409. 2.7436**. 0.2727. 0.3086. 0.8837. 0.4483. 0.3381. 1.3260. **p<.01. 61.
(74) C 4-9 Z. 2.5588. . 01. C. Z. C. Z. 1.1251. 1.2910. 4-9. *p<.05. C C. Sc. Z. 0.5435. 0.2124. 2.5588**. 0.3750. 0.3086. 1.2151. 0.4167. 0.3227. 1.2910. **p<.01. C. .01 62.
(75) p<.01. 4-2. 4-2 60%. 60% 80%. 70%. (. 70%. ) 60%. 90%. 4-2. 20%. 40%. 60 (. 60%. ) 30%. 20%. 63.
(76) 4-2. 60%. 90%. (. 70%. (. ) 60%. 64. ) 70%.
(77) 4-2 65.
(78) 4-10 4-11 (. ) 4-10. 100%. 60. 60. %. 0%. 37.5%. 50%. 4-2. 60. 20%. 90% 100%. (. ) 4-11 4-10 60%. 76.25%. 0%. 12.5%. 100% 66. 90 %.
(79) 100%. 4-10. 3. 8. 1. 100%. 37.5%. 60 100%. 100%. 60~90. 60~60. 0. 60~80. 10% 75%. 90 50%. 60~60. 2. 100%. 76.25. 2. 1. 3. =. 90~90 20. 90~90. 90 100% = 9. 75%. 4-11 /. 60~60. /. 0. 12.5%. 100%. 4-12 4-13 (. 80~90. ) 67. 10. 0.
(80) 4-12. 28.57%. 0%. 10~50 %. 20 %. 34.29 %. 33.33%. 0%. 37.78 %. 4-2 20. 60 %. 10 %. 66.67%. 0%. 4-2. 4-12. 7. 8. 1. 28.57%. 34.29 2. 0%. 10~30. 2. 33.33%. 37.78. 10~50. 1. 46.67. 20~60 20. 66.67%. 0%. 30~40. 10% 75%. 3. =. 75% 68. 0% 40~60. 10. 40~60. 60 100% = 6. 20.
(81) (. ) 4-13 4-2. 4-12. 34.29. 37.78. 10 87.5%. 100%. 4-13 /. /. 30~20. 10. 40~40. 87.5%. (. 0. 100%. ) 4-14. 41.67%. 8.33%. 30. 70 %. 30%. 50 % 37.5% 4-2 %. 25% 50. 10% 69. 90.
(82) 66.67%. 66.67%. 4-2. 4-14. 12. 8. 1. 41.67%. 50. 37.5%. 71.25. 2. 8.33% 30~70 30~60. 1 2. 75%. 73.33. 50~90 30. 66.67%. 25%. 60~70. 10%. (. 3. =. 66.67% 70~80. 10. 70~80. 10. 90 100% = 9. 75%. ) 4-15 4-2 4-14. 50. 71.25. 62.5%. 70.
(83) 100%. 4-15 /. /. 60~60. 0. 70~70. 62.5%. 0. 100%. C C C. 4-16 4-17. 4-18. C 4-16 Z. + 3.0835. . 05 4-2. C. Z. C. Z. 71. 0.4826. 0.3698.
(84) 4-16. C C. Sc. Z. 0.5703. 0.3739. 3.0835*. 0.1489. 0.3086. 0.4826. 0.1250 *p<.05. 0.3381. 0.3698. **p<.01. C 4-17 Z. + 1.7001. . 05. C. Z. 2.5869. C. Z. 4-17. *p<.05. .01. 1.1220. C C. Sc. Z. 0.4096. 0.2409. 1.7001*. 0.7983. 0.3086. 2.5869**. 0.3793. 0.3381. 1.1220. **p<.01. 72.
(85) C 4-18 Z. + 1.9609. . 05 4-2. C. Z. C. Z. 1.4432. 0.5581. 4-18. *p<.05. C C. Sc. Z. 0.4165. 0.2124. 1.9609*. 0.4454. 0.3086. 1.4432. 0.1887. 0.3381. 0.5581. **p<.01. (. ). (. ). (%). 73.
(86) 4-3. 4-3. 50% 60%. 86.67%. 4-3. 40% 40%. 53.33%. 4-3 26.67%. 20%. 53.33%. 74.
(87) 4-3. ( ). (. ). (. (. ). ). 4-19. 4-20. (83.3%) (66.7%). (100%) 75. (66.7%). ( ).
(88) (33.3%) 66.67% 0%. 33.3% 33.3%. ( 66.7%. 100%. (33.3%). 0%. 25%. (11.1%). ). 1 1. 0%. (83.3% ~ 25%). 4-19. %. %. %. 9/2. 22.2%. 9/2. 22.2%. 9/1. 11.1%. 9/6. 66.7%. 9/3. 33.3%. 9/0. 0%. 3/2. 66.7%. 3/0. 0%. 3/0. 0%. 3/0. 0%. 3/1. 33.3%. 3/0. 0%. 6/5. 83.3%. 6/6. 100%. 6/2. 25%. *. 76.
(89) 4-20. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 3. 3. 0. 1. 2. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 2. 0. 3. 3. 0. 1. 1. *. 4-21. 4-22. (100%). (100%). 1 (66.7%). 100%. 83.3%. 100%. 66.7% (88.9%) 44.4% 83.3%. 33.3% 33.3%. (100% ~ 0%). 77.
(90) 4-21. %. %. %. 9/3. 33.3%. 9/4. 44.4%. 9/3. 33.3%. 9/6. 66.7%. 9/5. 55.6%. 9/8. 88.9%. 3/0. 0%. 3/1. 33.3%. 3/0. 0%. 3/3. 100%. 3/2. 66.7%. 3/0. 0%. 6/6. 100%. 6/5. 83.3%. 6/2. 33.3%. * 4-22. 0. 1. 2. 0. 3. 1. 0. 2. 1. 0. 3. 3. 0. 3. 2. 0. 0. 8. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2. 4. 1. 0. 5. 0. 0. 2. * 78.
(91) 4-23. 4-24. (100%) (88.9%) 100% 88.9%. 66.7%. (88.9%) 100% 66.7%. 100%. 0%. (100% ~ 0%). 4-23. %. %. %. 9/5. 55.6%. 9/9. 100%. 9/2. 22.2%. 9/8. 88.9%. 9/6. 66.7%. 9/8. 88.9%. 3/1. 33.3%. 3/0. 0%. 3/0. 0%. 3/3. 100%. 3/3. 100%. 3/0. 0%. 6/5. 83.3%. 6/6. 100%. 6/4. 66.7%. *. 79.
(92) 4-24. 1. 2. 2. 0. 3. 6. 2. 0. 0. 0. 2. 6. 0. 1. 5. 0. 0. 8. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2. 1. 1. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4. 1. 0. 0. 6. 0. 1. 3. *. 80.
(93) 。. 81.
(94) 10. 4-1 .01. 100%. 2007b. 60%. Wu. 2007. 82. 80%.
(95) 2007a. 2004. 10. 4-2. .05 90% 70%. 2008. 70%. CAST. 50%. 80%. Tye-Murray. Mean”. 83. 2012. I Hear What You.
(96) 2006. 。. 2006. 84. 1997.
(97) 4-3 50% 40%. 86.67% 53.33% 26.67%. 2000. 53.33%. 30.74%. 。 Tye-Murray. 2012 85.
(98) 4-19. 1985. 4-20. 4-21. 1986. 1993. 1998. 86.
(99) 87.
(100) 10 10%. 10%. 88.
(101) 89.
(102) 90.
(103) 2005. 1997. 2009. 2009. 22 55-85 2005. 2011. 2006 30 95-111 1993. 1998. 2001 9 133-158 2008. 1996. -. 91.
(104) 2005. 2006 1990. CAITOOL. 1993. 1996. 1985 1 141-164 1991. Zagreb 10-36. 2002 1995 11 43-56 2004. 2000. 2010 3. 77-86. 2011. 2007 92.
(105) 2006 2013.01.31. World Wide Web. http://www.set.edu.tw/actclass/book/default.asp 2004. 2007a 54 1. 97-120. 2007b 32 4. 47-64. 2004 26 221-245 1999. 1989 5. 165-204 1997 15 151-171 2000 18 53-78 1998 2001. 2011. 2012 2009 93.
(106) 2010. 35 3. 77-101. 1997 5 139-168 1993 2011 11 2. 28-36. 1986. 2010 18. 24. 14 33-40 2008 3 202-212. 2008. 2006 31 115-137 2005. e-learning. 2003 38 4. 146-152. 2002. 1996. 27 11 94.
(107) 919-924 1986 2 127-165 1998. 2011. 1990. 2008. 2001. 1994. 10 72-79. 2009. 2005. Abraham, S., & Weiner, F. (1985). Efficacy of word training vs. syllable training on articulatory generalization by severely hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 87(2), 95-105. Bench, R. J. (1992). Communication skills in hearing-impaired children. London: Whurr. 95.
(108) Bernstein, L. E., Goldstein, M. H., Jr., & Mahshie, J. J. (1988). Speech training aids for hearing-impaired individuals: I. Overview and aims. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 25(4), 53-62. Davis, J. & Hardick. E. (1981) Rehabilitative audiology for children and adults. New York: John Wiely & Sons. Dornan, D. (2007). Outcomes of an auditory-verbal program for children with hearing loss: A comparative study with a matched group of children with normal hearing. Volta Review, 107(1), 37-54. Elfenbein, J. L., Hardin-Jones, M. A., & Davis, J. M. (1994). Oral communication skills of children who are hard of hearing. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 37(1), 216. Erber, N. P. (1982). Auditory training. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf. Ertmer, D. J. (2008). Speech intelligibility in young cochlear implant recipients: gains during year three. Volta Review, 107(2), 85-99. Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Assessing speech intelligibility in children with hearing loss: toward revitalizing a valuable clinical tool. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42(1), 52-58. Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1997). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education (7 ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Han, D., Zhou, N., Li, Y., Chen, X., Zhao, X., & Xu, L. (2007). Tone production of Mandarin Chinese speaking children with cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 71(6), 875-880. Kant, A., & Adhyaru, M. (2009). Home auditory training program (HAP) for cochlear implantees and hearing impaired children using hearing aids-an outcome of a three-year research project. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery:Official Publication of 96.
(109) the Association of Otolaryngologists of India, 61(1), 54-58. Kent, R. D. (1992). Intelligibility in Speech Disorders: Theory, Measurement and Management. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishings. Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1977). The Acquisition of Tone in Mandarin-Speaking Children: Journal of Child Language. Markides, A. (1970). The speech of deaf and partially-hearing children with special reference to factors affecting intelligibility. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 5, 126-140. Monsen, R. B. (1979). Acoustic Qualities of Phonation in Young Hearing-Impaired Children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 22, 270-288. Rhoades, E. (2001). Language progress with an auditory-verbal approach for young children with hearing loss. International Pediatrics, 16(1),41-47. Schiavetti, N. (1992). Scaling procedures for the measurement of speech intelligibility. In R. D. Kent (Ed.), Intelligibility in speech disorders: therapy, measurement, and management (pp. 11-34). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishings. Schmidt-Nielsen, A. (1995). Intelligibility and acceptability testing for speech technology. In A. Syrdal, Bennett, R., & Greenspanenspan (Eds.), Applied speech technology (pp. 195-231). Boca Raton: CRC Press, Inc. Samar, V. J., & Metz, D. E. (1988). Criterion validity of speech intelligibility rating-scale procedures for the hearing-impaired population. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31(3), 307-316. Stacey, P. C., Raine, C. H., O'Donoghue, G. M., Tapper, L., Twomey, T., & Summerfield, A. Q. (2010). Effectiveness of computer-based auditory training for adult users of cochlear implants. International Journal of Audiology, 49(5), 347-356. 97.
(110) Sweetow, R. W. (2007). Listening and communication enhancement (LACE). Seminars in Hearing, 28(2), 133-141. Sweetow, R. W. (2008). The need for auditory training. ASHA Leader, 13(5), 5-6. Sweetow, R. W., & Sabes, J. H. (2006). The need for and development of an adaptive Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) Program. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 17(8), 538-558. Sweetow, R. W., & Sabes, J. H. (2010). Auditory training and challenges associated with participation and compliance. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21(9), 586-593. Tye-Murray, N., Tyler, R., Lansing, C., & Berlschy, M. (1990). Programs in action: evaluating the effectiveness of auditory training stimuli using a computerized program. Volta Review, 92(1), 25-30. Tye-Murray, N., Sommers, M. S., Mauzé, E., Schroy, C., Barcroft, J., & Spehar, B. (2012). Using patient perceptions of relative benefit and enjoyment to assess auditory training. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 23(8), 623-634. Watson, C. S., & Kewley-Port, D. (1989). Advances in Computer-Based Speech Training: Aids for the Profoundly Hearing Impaired. Volta Review, 91(5), 29-45. Wu, J. L., H. M. Yang, et al. (2007). Effects of computer-assisted speech training on Mandarin-speaking hearing-impaired children. Audiology & Neuro-Otology, 12(5), 307-312.. 98.
(111) 99.
(112) 100.
(113) Ling. 101.
(114) 30. 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5.. 6.. 7.. 8.. 9.. 10.. 11.. 12.. 13.. 14.. 15.. 16.. 17.. 18.. 19.. 20.. 21.. 22.. 23.. 24.. 25.. 26.. 27.. 28.. 29.. 30. 102.
(115) 103.
(116) 104.
(117) 105.
(118) 106.
(119) 107.
(120) 108.
(121) 109.
(122) 110.
(123) 111.
(124) 112.
(125) 這份問卷是想瞭解這幾週以來，你用電腦輔助教學系統練習聽和說的感覺，依照 你的想法，從題目選項中勾選一個最符合的答案。. 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5.. 113.
(126) 親愛的家長您好： 孩子在這幾週使用了電腦輔助教學系統進行訓練，目前訓練已告一段落，想 請家長對這幾週的訓練，請依照您的想法，從題目選項中勾選一個最符合的答案， 謝謝！. 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. ~~~. ~~~ 114.
(127) 親愛的老師您好： 學生在這幾週使用了電腦輔助教學系統進行訓練，目前訓練已告一段落，想 請老師對這幾週的訓練，請依照您的想法，從題目選項中勾選一個最符合的答案， 謝謝！. 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. ~~~. ~~~ 115.
(128)
相關文件
Most of teachers agree with positive effects of the 99 curriculum on practical instruction in school, however, they seem to concern inequalities of content between volumes and
肢體傷殘、視障、聽障、言語障礙、自閉 症、注意力不足／過度活躍症、特殊學習
• elearning pilot scheme (Four True Light Schools): WIFI construction, iPad procurement, elearning school visit and teacher training, English starts the elearning lesson.. 2012 •
As to the effects of internet self-efficacy on information ethics, students who get high, middle, and low scores on basic computer operation also perform differently on
The study applies Discriminate Analysis to discuss the aspects of Junior high school students living Adjustment Scale and then develops a scale to be the standard of Junior
In different gender、time for study、time for cram、the parents education level and household income of junior high school students , some aspects of the academic stress were
This research tries to understand the current situation of supplementary education of junior high school in Taichung City and investigate the learning factors and
Keywords: Junior high students, Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), English teaching and learning methods, perceived usefulness, perceived ease to use, willingness
