33 research outputs found

    Remediation of fluency: Word specific or generalised training effects?

    Get PDF
    The present study examines whether reading fluency benefits more from repeated reading of a limited set of words or from practicing reading with many different words. A group of 37 reading delayed Dutch children repeatedly read the same 20 words with limited exposure duration, whereas another group of 37 poor readers received the same reading exercises with 400 different words. Results demonstrated that improvements in accuracy and speed of trained words were larger for the repeated reading group than for the children who had only practiced with these words once. No difference in generalisation of effects to untrained neighbour and control words was found between the two conditions. Furthermore, rapid naming skill was unrelated to improvements in reading fluency and transfer effects in both training conditions. Results demonstrate that the practical value of repeated reading lies in its word specific training effects. © Springer 2006

    The lies we tell and what they say about us: using behavioural characteristics to explain Facebook activity

    Get PDF
    Are there two definable groups of users of social networking sites based on the individual’s interaction style, that is whether the prime goal is to self-promote (broadcast) or maintain relationships (communicate)? Do such groups indulge in differing patterns of deceptive behaviour? Measures of personality, behaviour, and Facebook activity were completed by 113 undergraduate students all of which were active Facebook users. Regression analyses showed that while broadcasting behaviour was predicted by risk taking, an out-going personality and an absence of quality interaction; low mild social deviance predicted communication behaviour. Unexpectedly, cluster analysis identified three, not two, distinct groups of users: high broadcasters, high communicators and a high interaction group. Although each group mainly interacted with known others, their style of the interaction varied. Communicators’ interaction style supported group cohesion often through the use of ‘white lies’ or social oil; while the remaining two groups indulged in deceptive behaviour designed to self-promote or aggrandize the individual
    corecore