排序方式： 共有3条查询结果，搜索用时 0 毫秒
1
1.
Aaron P. G. Joshi R. M. Ayotollah Mahboobeh Ellsberry Annie Henderson Janet Lindsey Kim 《Reading and writing》1999,11(2):89-127
Word recognition skill is the foundation of the reading process. Word recognition could be accomplished by two major strategies: phonological decoding and sight-word reading, the latter being a marker for proficient reading. There is, however, a controversy regarding the relationship between decoding and sight-word reading, whether the two are independent or the latter is built on the foundations of the former. A related controversy about instructional strategy could be whether to use whole-word method to improve word recognition skills, or to first build decoding skills and then introduce sight words. Five goals were set up to address these issues: (a) developing a criterion that can be used easily by classroom teachers to assess sight-word reading ability, (b) examining this relationship between decoding and sight-word reading, (c) identifying the mechanism that can explain the relationship, (d) examining factors that facilitate sight-word reading, and (e) discussing potential instructional implications of these findings. In order to accomplish these goals, naming time and word-naming accuracy of three groups of subjects (elementary school children, children identified as having reading disability, and college students) were studied by using a variety of verbal materials. The over-all conclusions are that the difference in naming time of letters and words can be used as a metric for assessing sight-word reading skill. Sight-word reading appears to be intimately related to decoding. Sight-word reading is accomplished by parallel processing of constituent letters of words and is influenced also by the semantic nature of words. It is conjectured that sight-word reading instruction is likely to be successful if decoding skills are firmly established first. 相似文献
2.
3.
Journal weighted impact factor: A proposal 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
The impact factor of a journal reflects the frequency with which the journal's articles are cited. It is the best available measure of journal quality. For calculation of impact factor, we just count the number of citations, no matter how prestigious the citing journal is. We think that impact factor as a measure of journal quality, may be improved if in its calculation, we not only take into account the number of citations, but also incorporate a factor reflecting the prestige of the citing journals relative to the cited journal. In calculation of this proposed “weighted impact factor,” each citation has a coefficient (weight) the value of which is 1 if the citing journal is as prestigious as the cited journal; is >1 if the citing journal is more prestigious than the cited journal; and is <1 if the citing journal has a lower standing than the cited journal. In this way, journals receiving many citations from prestigious journals are considered prestigious themselves and those cited by low-status journals seek little credit. By considering both the number of citations and the prestige of the citing journals, we expect the weighted impact factor be a better scientometrics measure of journal quality. 相似文献
1