國小二、三年級學童朗讀流暢能力之成長模式探究

Growth Model of Oral Reading Fluency Among Second and Third Graders

10.6251/BEP.202112_53(2).0009

張郁雯(Yuwen Chang)

朗讀流暢能力 ； 分段成長模式 ； 成長斜率 ； 標準文本 ； oral reading fluency ； piecewise growth model ； growth rate ； standard passages

教育心理學報

53卷2期（2021 / 12 / 01）

463 - 479

繁體中文

朗讀流暢性測驗常用於設定學童的成長目標以及監控其學習進展。先前以課文為測試文本的研究指出朗讀流暢能力的成長符合線性模式。本研究以標準文本探討國小二、三年級學童朗讀流暢能力的成長模式並估計其成長率。研究參與者為新北市兩所小學的二年級學生57名，三年級學生51名。每三週個別施測一次朗讀流暢測驗，一個學年共施測13次。以階層模式分析資料，結果發現分段成長模式比線性成長模式與資料的適配度較好，意即學童在同年度的上、下學期有不同的成長速度。二上、二下、三上以及三下每個學期可以進步的字數分別為13、18、20和6個字。二年級上學期初，每分鐘朗讀的正確字數平均為109個字；三年級上學期初約為137個字，下學期期末平均為165個字。二年級學童在學期初的朗讀流暢能力與其成長率之間沒有顯著之相關。然而，在三年級上學期，朗讀流暢能力與其成長率相關值為0.32達顯著水準。下學期成長率與朗讀流暢初始能力卻呈現顯著的負相關。最後，作者根據研究結果對朗讀流暢性研究與教學實務之意涵提出討論。

Fluent reading is an indication of proficient decoding and comprehension. Studies have demonstrated that oral reading fluency (ORF) correlates positively with reading comprehension. The ORF assessment comprises a set of individually administered 1-minute reading probes. These tests are designed to monitor learning progress toward predetermined instructional goals and identify children who may require additional instructional support. Although many studies have explored Mandarin ORF performance levels at each grade, the reading probes used are generally adopted from textbooks. However, results have indicated that the curriculum-based ORF is 50 characters per minute more than that measured by the standard probe assessment. This suggests that reading fluency levels are affected by the equivalence of the reading probes. This study is the first to use standard probes to investigate the developmental and expected growth of Mandarin ORF in the second and third grades of elementary schools. The number of correct words read per minute (the level) and the growth rate of student reading fluency are two key indicators of reading progress. However, few studies have investigated the growth rate of Mandarin ORF. Early studies tended to assert that within-year ORF growth is linear rather than quadratic, but recent research has indicated that growth rates differ within a school year. This study examined the growth model of reading fluency and estimated its growth rate. Students with a large vocabulary tend to have a higher ORF level. According to the Matthew effect, students with higher ORF levels have a greater growth rate. Previous Mandarin ORF research does not support this inference. Furthermore, the correlation between initial ORF levels and growth rates has not been reported. However, this issue is important; if students with different ORF levels have different growth rates, then appropriate learning growth goals should be set based on their initial abilities when planning interventions. This study tracked the development of ORF skills over the course of one academic year to investigate the following research questions: (1) What are the growth models of ORF for second- and third-grade students in elementary schools? (2) What is the growth rate of ORF over the semesters for second- and third-grade students? (3) Is the growth rate for reading fluency related to the ORF level at the beginning of the semester? The participants comprised 57 second-grade and 51 third-grade students and 53 girls and 55 boys. The students underwent an ORF test (Chang, 2018). For each grade, 19 reading probes, with a text length of 350-400 characters, were used. The alternate-form reliability was between .80 and .89. The generalizability coefficients for the second- and third-grade conditions were approximately .84 and .85, respectively, when one reading probe was used to estimate ORF performance. When three reading probes were used, the generalizability coefficients were .94 and .95, respectively. The correlation coefficients between ORF score and reading comprehension test score were .60 and .67, respectively. The ORF tests were administered at 3-week intervals during each semester in the 2012 academic year. Each student took ORF tests at 13 time points, with three reading probes administered at the beginning of the school year (pretest), at the end of the first semester (midterm test), and at the end of the second semester (posttest). The average score across the three reading probes was calculated to obtain reliable growth rates. At each of the other time points, a single ORF score was collected. Eight examiners were trained in the administration and scoring of the ORF tests in a 4-hour workshop, during which the assessment and scoring procedures were introduced and the examiners practiced the procedures in pairs to ensure they could conduct the procedure reliably. Overall interrater reliability was .99 for this study. A hierarchical linear model was used to assess the goodness of fit between the data and five models: the null model (M0), random intercept model (M1), random coefficient model (M2), piecewise growth model (M3), and quadratic growth model (M4). The intraclass correlation (ICC) of the M0 model for the second grade was .73, meaning that 73% of the difference in reading fluency scores originated in differences between students (level 2) and 27% of the variance originated from differences within individuals (level 1). The ICC for the third grade was .81. The results suggested high heterogeneity between students and the necessity of a hierarchical model. Among five models, a piecewise growth model had the lowest deviance value and thus the best fit with the data. Thus, the children had different growth rates in the two semesters within the same academic year. On average, the number of characters the second and third graders could read correctly per minute was 109 and 137 at the beginning of the academic year, respectively. At the end of the third grade, the mean ORF was 165 characters. In the fall, the second-grade ORF growth averaged 13 characters per semester, whereas the average was approximately 18 characters per semester in the spring. The third graders' mean growth rates were 20 and 6 characters in the first and second semesters, respectively. The second-grade growth rates in the two semesters were similar, but ORF gains were more modest during the second half of the academic year for the third grade. The correlation between ORF and the growth rate for the second-grade students was not significant. However, in the first semester of the third grade, the correlation between ORF and growth rate was significant and had a correlation coefficient of .32 . In the second semester, the correlation between ORF and growth rate was -.43. In different grades and semesters, the relationships between initial ORF and growth rate varied. This finding reminds teachers that they should consider the students' grades and initial ORF when setting teaching goals. The results of this study established the expected ORF level and growth rate for second- and third-grade students, enabling teachers to identify high-risk students that are falling behind in reading to determine the effects of intervention by examining their change in growth rate and adjust their instruction accordingly. Knowing student's ORF scores may help teachers plan reading instruction that is more responsive to the individual. By collecting multiple assessment scores, educators and researchers no longer must assume linear developmental trends because nonlinear functions can be fit to the time-series data. The nonlinear growth pattern suggests that instructional goals derived from a linear change model may require revision and that student growth expectations may require modification at different points in the academic year. The results only partially support the Matthew effect. At the beginning of the semester, the growth rate of the second-year students with strong ORF was not significantly greater than that of those with weaker ORF. However, in the first semester of the third grade, the level of ORF and the growth rate was significantly and positively correlated. Participants with strong reading fluency grew faster in their reading ability during the fall semester than those with weaker ORF. Therefore, the results may enable educators to recognize the need for more intensive instructional support during periods when rapid growth is expected, which is the second semester of the second grade through the first semester of third grade.

1. 王梅軒, M.-H.,黃瑞珍, R.-J.(2005)。國小課程本位閱讀測量方法之信度與效度研究。特殊教育研究學刊，29，73-94。
   連結：
2. 王瓊珠, C.-C.,洪儷瑜, L.-Y.,張郁雯, Y.-W.,陳秀芬, H.-F.(2008)。一到九年級學生國字識字量發展。教育心理學報，39(4)，555-568。
   連結：
3. 柯華葳, H.-W.(2020)。臺灣閱讀策略教學政策與執行。教育科學研究期刊，65(1)，93-114。
   連結：
4. 張郁雯, Y.(2018)。朗讀流暢性測驗標準文本之發展研究。教育實踐與研究，31(2)，1-23。
   連結：
5. 陳明蕾, M.(2018)。課文本位閱讀策略教學對國小學童閱讀表現與策略使用覺知情形之影響。教育心理學報，49(4)，581-609。
   連結：
6. 蘇宜芬, Y.-F.,張祐瑄, Y.-H.,李孟峰, M.-F.,黃鈺茜, Y.-C.(2016)。國小二至六年級朗讀流暢度篩檢準確度及切截點分析。教育科學研究期刊，61(4)，33-57。
   連結：
7. Arnesen, A.,Braeken, J.,Baker, S.,Meek-Hansen, W.,Ogden, T.,Melby-Lervåg, M.(2017).Growth in oral reading fluency in a semitransparent orthography: Concurrent and predictive relations with reading proficiency in Norwegian, Grades 2–5.Reading Research Quarterly,52(2),177-201.
8. Bliese, P. D.(2000).Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis.Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions
9. Burns, M. K.,Silberglitt, B.,Christ, T. J.,Gibbons, K. A.,Coolong-Chaffin, M.(2016).Using oral reading fluency to evaluate response to intervention and to identify students not making sufficient progress.The fluency construct: Curriculum based measurement concepts and applications
10. Campbell, D. T.,Kenny, D. A.(1999).A primer on regression artifacts.Guilford.
11. Chall, J. S.(1996).Stages of reading development.McGraw-Hill.
12. Christ, T. J.,Silberglitt, B.,Yeo, S.,Cormier, D.(2010).Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: An evaluation of growth rates and seasonal effects among students served in general and special education.School Psychology Review,39(3),447-462.
13. Deno, S. L.,Fuchs, L. S.,Marston, D.,Shin, J.(2001).Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities.School Psychology Review,30(4),507-524.
14. Fuchs, L. S.,Deno, S. L.(1994).Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum?.Exceptional Children,61(1),15-24.
15. Fuchs, L. S.,Fuchs, D.,Hamlett, C. L.,Walz, L.,Germann, G.(1993).Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?.School Psychology Review,22(1),27-48.
16. Graney, S. B.,Missall, K. N.,Martínez, R. S.,Bergstrom, M.(2009).A preliminary investigation of within-year growth patterns in reading and mathematics curriculum-based measures.Journal of School Psychology,47(2),121-142.
17. Hintze, J. M.,Christ, T. J.(2004).An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring.School Psychology Review,33(2),204-217.
18. Hintze, J. M.,Shapiro, E. S.(1997).Curriculum-based measurement and literature-based reading: Is curriculum-based measurement meeting the needs of changing reading curricula?.Journal of School Psychology,35(4),351-375.
19. Hintze, J. M.,Shapiro, E. S.,Lutz, J. G.(1994).The effects of curriculum on the sensitivity of curriculum-based measurement in reading.Journal of Special Education,28(2),188-202.
20. Hudson, R. F.,Pullen, P. C.,Lane, H. B.,Torgesen, J. K.(2009).The complex nature of reading fluency: A multidimensional view.Reading and Writing Quarterly,25(1),4-32.
21. Jenkins, J. R.,Graff, J. J.,Miglioretti, D. L.(2009).Estimating reading growth using intermittent CBM progress monitoring.Exceptional Children,75(2),151-163.
22. Kim, J.(2004).Summer reading and the ethnic achievement gap.Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,9(2),169-188.
23. Kim, Y. S.,Petscher, Y.,Foorman, B. R.,Zhou, C.(2010).The contributions of phonological awareness and letter-name knowledge to letter-sound acquisition-a cross-classified multilevel model approach.Journal of Educational Psychology,102(2),313-326.
24. Kuhn, M. R.,Schwanenflugel, P. J.,Meisinger, E. B.(2010).Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency.Reading Research Quarterly,45(2),232-251.
25. LaBerge, D.,Samuels, S. J.(1974).Toward a theory of automatic information process in reading.Cognitive Psychology,6(2),293-323.
26. National Reading Panel(2000).,National Institute for Literacy.
27. Raudenbush, S. W.,Bryk, A. S.(2002).Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods.SAGE Publications.
28. Reed, D. K.,Zimmermann, L. M.,Reeger, A. J.,Aloe, A. M.(2019).The effects of varied practice on the oral reading fluency of fourth-grade students.Journal of School Psychology,77,24-35.
29. Reschly, A. L.,Busch, T. W.,Betts, J.,Deno, S. L.,Long, J. D.(2009).Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence.Journal of School Psychology,47(6),427-469.
30. Santi, K. L.,Barr, C.,Khalaf, S.,Francis, D. J.(2016).Different approaches to equating oral reading fluency passages.The fluency construct curriculum-based measurement concepts and applications
31. Shin, J.,McMaster, K.(2019).Relations between CBM (oral reading and maze) and reading comprehension on state achievement tests: A meta-analysis.Journal of School Psychology,73,131-149.
32. Stanovich, K. E.(1980).Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency.Reading Research Quarterly,16(1),32-71.
33. Stanovich, K. E.(1986).Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.Reading Research Quarterly,21,360-407.
34. Walberg, H. J.,Strykowski, B. F.,Rovai, E.,Hung, S. S.(1984).Exceptional performance.Review of Educational Research,54(1),87-112.
35. Wayman, M. M.,Wallace, T.,Wiley, H. I.,Tichá, R.,Espin, C. A.(2007).Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading.Journal of Special Education,41(2),85-120.
36. Zvoch, K.(2016).The use of piecewise growth models to estimate learning trajectories and RTI instructional effects in a comparative interrupted time-series design.The Elementary School Journal,116(4),699-720.
37. 吳明隆, M.-L.,張毓仁, Y.-J.,曾世杰, S.-J.,柯華葳, H.-W.,林素貞, S.-J.(2013)。國小低年級學童中文朗讀流暢能力的發展軌跡分析。臺東大學教育學報，24(2)，33-65。
38. 張毓仁, Y.-J.,吳明隆, M.-L.,胡芝妮, C.-N.(2011)。國小四、五和六年級學童國語文課程本位朗讀流暢能力之比較。教育研究月刊，210，49-61。
39. 張毓仁, Y.-J.,邱皓政, H.-J.,柯華葳, H.-W.,曾世杰, S.-J.,林素貞, S.-J.(2011)。聲韻覺識、唸名速度和流暢性對中文閱讀理解的影響：結構方程模式與增益效度之探究。教育與心理研究，34(1)，1-28。
40. 葉靖雲, C.-Y.(1998)。課程本位閱讀測驗的效度研究。特殊教育與復健學報，6，239-260。
41. 葉靖雲, C.-Y.(1993)。課程本位閱讀測驗的效度研究。特殊教育學報，8，273-323。

1. 楊憶婷,陳育新,張美珍(2022)。國小學生參與博物館小記者播報活動口語表現之研究。科技博物，26(2)，139-167。
2. (2023)。廣泛閱讀對國小中年級學生閱讀理解、閱讀流暢度之分析。市北教育學刊，71，37-65。