初級與次級國語文介入對弱勢低學力學校的成效研究：不同介入長度的比較

The Effects of a Tier 1 Plus Tier 2 Reading Intervention on Low-Achieving Disadvantaged Schools: The Comparison between Different Intervention Durations

10.6172/BSE201211.3703002

陳淑麗(Shu-Li Chen)；曾世杰(Shih-Jay Tzeng)；蔣汝梅(Lu-May Chiang)

反敗為勝 ； 弱勢學童 ； 補救教學 ； 語文低成就 ； disadvantaged students ； low-achieving students ； remedial reading intervention ； TASP

特殊教育研究學刊

37卷3期（2012 / 11 / 25）

27 - 58

繁體中文

本研究在五所偏遠地區國小執行一個反敗為勝方案，提供初級及次級的國語文介入，初級介入目標為提升普通班的教學品質，次級介入則提供低成就學生密集的補救教學，研究旨在檢驗此方案能否有效地解決弱勢學校國語文成就低落的問題。本研究共有1,471位學生參與，分為三組，其中有兩組為實驗組，分別提供一年和兩年的介入，有一組為對照組。主要研究發現有三：一、在初級和次級兩層級學生語文能力的進展，整體而言，實驗組比對照組好，但成效主要在識字層次，高層次的閱讀理解成效則不明顯；二、初級介入：整體而言，實驗組兒童發生閱讀困難的機率較對照組低，達同儕水準的機率則較對照組高；在次級介入補救教學層級，實驗組兒童發生閱讀困難的機率則明顯較對照組低；三、介入時間愈長，成效愈好，介入兩年的學校成效整體比介入一年者好；介入的時間愈長，兒童發生閱讀困難的機率愈低。國內目前極為看重弱勢學生成就低落的問題，但介入努力的層次大多停留在班級或個別學生的短期介入，少見全校動員的長期介入。本研究結果指出，在全校動員、普通班及補救教學班級合作的情況下，全校兒童的語文能力都有較佳的進展，發生閱讀困難的機率降低，而且方案執行的時間愈長，成效愈佳。方案的成效目前僅限於識字層次，閱讀理解教學是否有成效？仍待更長時間的觀察。本研究提供了一個執行的範例，只要方法得當，即使是最偏遠、弱勢的學校，也有機會把兒童的國語文能力帶起來。

Purpose: In Taiwan, providing low-achieving disadvantaged students with effective remedial intervention has been one of the major concerns in the education administration and research communities. Most intervention efforts were short-term and took place at class-wise or student-wise level. Attempt of long-term school-wise intervention is rare. This study provides a ”Turn Around School Project (TASP)” to 5 elementary schools in a remote area in Taiwan where most students are both socio-economically and culturally disadvantaged. The TASP has Tier 1 and Tier 2 reading intervention. The purpose of Tier 1 and Tier 2 intervention is to improve the teaching/learning quality in regular classes, and provides intensive remedial intervention program to low-achieving students, respectively. And the objective of our study is to assess if TASP can effectively improve the students' Chinese literacy performance. Methods: Eight schools with 1,471 students participated in our study and were assigned to 3 different groups, 2 treatment groups and 1 control group. The 2 treatment groups provide 1-year and 2-year intervention, separately. Descriptive statistics were used to describe characteristics of the participated schools and the students and distributions of test scores. ANCOVA and GLMM are used to compare intervention effects of the 3 groups by the grade. Findings: In Tier 1 ANCOVA analyses, the treatment effect for the character dictation is significant in Grade 2 and Grade 3 and the treatment groups outperform the control group; the effect for word recogntion is significant for Grades 2 to 5; the effect for reading comprehension achieves statistical significance in Grade 5. In Tier 2 ANCOVA analyses, the treatment effect is significant for character dictation in Grade 2, for accuracy of sight characters in all grades except in Grade 5, for word recognition in Grade 4 and Grade 5, for reading comprehension in Grade 3 and Grade 6. In Tier 1 GLMM analyses after controlling for IQ, the odds of having reading difficulty is lower and the odds of returning to the peer-level is higher in the treatment groups than those in the control group. Similarly, the GLMM analyses in Tier 2 show that the odds of having reading difficulty is lower in the treatment groups than those of the control group. Conclusions/Implications: Overall, the schools in the treatment groups have better progress in the Chinese literacy performance in comparison with that of control group; but most of the progress is observed in character and word level; The treatment effect in the reading comprehension is not significant. Our findings also indicate that the treatment does reduce the chances of students developing reading difficulty and increase the chances of returning to peer-level compared with the control group. The longer the intervention duration, the better results and lower the odds of students developing reading difficulty.

1. 王瓊珠、洪儷瑜、陳秀芬(2007)。低識字能力學生識字量發展之研究─馬太效應之可能表現。特殊教育研究學刊，32(3)，1-16。
   連結：
2. 洪儷瑜、黃冠穎(2006)。兩種取向的部件識字教學法對國小低年級語文低成就學生之成效比較。特殊教育研究學刊，31，43-71。
   連結：
3. 陳淑麗(2008)。二年級國語文補救教學研究─一個長時密集的介入方案。特殊教育研究學刊，33(2)，27-48。
   連結：
4. 陳淑麗、曾世杰、洪儷瑜(2006)。原住民國語文低成就兒童文化與經驗本位補救教學成效之研究。師大學報：教育類，51(2)，147-171。
   連結：
5. Al Otaiba, S.,Fuchs, D.(2006).Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study.Journal of Learning Disabilities,39(5),414-431.
6. Blaunstein, P,Lyon, R.(2006).Why kids can't read: Challenging the status quo in education.Boston, MA:Rowan & Littlefield.
7. Chall, J. S.,Bissex, G. L.,Conard, S. S.,Harris-Sharples, S. H.(1996).Qualitative assessment of text difficulty: A practical guide for teachers and writers.Brookline, MA:Brookline Books.
8. Denton, C. A.,Fletcher, J. M.,Anthony, J. L.,Francis, D. J.(2006).An evaluation of intensive intervention for atudents with persistent reading difficulties.Journal of Learning Disabilities,39(5),447-466.
9. Denton, C. A.,Mathes, P. G.(2003).Intervention for struggling readers: Possibilities and challenges.Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale,Timonium, MD:
10. Foorman, B. R.,Francis, D. J.,Fletcher, J. M.,Schatschneider, C.,Mehta, P(1998).The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children.Journal of Educational Psychology,90(1),37-55.
11. Foorman, B. R.,Torgesen, J.(2001).Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,16(4),203-212.
12. Fuchs, D.,Compton, D. L.,Fuchs, L. S.,Bryant, J.,Davis, G. N.(2008).Making "secondary intervention" work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the national research center on learning disabilities.Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,21(4),413-436.
13. Gersten, R.,Compton, D.,Connor, C.,Dimino, J.,Santoro, L.,Linan-Thompson, S.,Tilly, W. D.(2009).,Washington, DC:National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
14. Gunn, B.,Biglan, A.,Smolkowski, K.,Ary, D.(2000).The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students in early elementary school.Journal of Special Education,34(2),90-103.
15. Kamps, D.,Abbott, M.,Greenwood, C.,Wills, H.,Veerkamp, M.,Kaufman, J.(2008).Effects of small-group reading instruction and curriculum differences for students most at risk in kindergarten: Two-year results for secondary- and tertiary-level interventions.Journal of Learning Disabilities,41(2),101-14.
16. Langer, J. A.(2001).Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well.American Educational Research Journal,38(4),837-880.
17. Mathes, P. G.,Denton, C. A.,Fletcher, J. M.,Anthony, J. L.,Francis, D. J.,Schatschneider, C.(2005).The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers.Reading Research Quarterly,40(2),148-182.
18. McMaster, K. L.,Fuchs, D.,Fuchs, L. S.,Compton, D. L.(2005).Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods.Exceptional Children,71(4),445-463.
19. O''Connor, R.(2000).Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,15(1),43-54.
20. O''Connor, R. E.,Fulmer, D.,Harty, K. R.,Bell, K. M.(2005).Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes.Journal of Learning Disabilities,38(5),440-455.
21. Pikulski, J. J.(1994).Preventing reading failure: A review of five effective program.Reading Teacher,48(1),30-39.
22. Stanovich, K. E.(1986).Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.Reading Research Quarterly,21(4),360-407.
23. Taylor, B. M.,Pearson, P. D.,Clark, K. F.,Walpole, S.(1999).CIERA ReportCIERA Report,未出版
24. Taylor, B. M.,Pearson, P. D.,Peterson, D. S.,Rodriguez, M. C.(2005).The CIERA school change framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading improvement.Reading Research Quarterly,40(1),40-69.
25. Torgesen, J. K.(2000).Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problems of treatment resisters.Learning Disabilities Research and Practices,15(1),55-64.
26. Torgesen, J. K.,Alexander, A. W.,Wagner, R. K.,Rashotte, C. A.,Voeller, K. K.,Conway, T.(2001).Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches.Journal of Learning Disabilities,34(1),33-58.
27. Torgesen, J. K.,Rashotte, C. A.,Alexander, A.,Alexander, J.,MacPhee, K.(2003).Progress toward understanding the instructional conditions necessary for remediating reading difficulties in older children.Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale,Baltimore, MD:
28. Torgesen, J. K.,Wagner, R. K.,Rashotte, C. A.,Rose, E.,Lindamood, P.,Conway, T.,Garvan, C.(1999).Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology,91(4),579-593.
29. Vellutino, F. R.,Scanlon, D. M.,Sipay, E. R.,Small, S. G.,Pratt, A.,Chen, R.,Denckla, M. B.(1996).Cognitive profiles of difficultto-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of special reading disability.Journal of Educational Psychology,88(4),601-638.
30. Vellutino, F. R.,Scanlon, D. M.,Zhang, H.,Schatschneider, C.(2008).Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties.Reading and Writing,21,437-480.
31. Wanzek, J.,Vaughn, S.(2008).Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students with low response to intervention.Journal of Learning Disabilities,41(2),126-142.
32. 吳武典、張正芬(1984)。國語文能力測驗。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育中心=Special Education Center, National Taiwan Normal University。
33. 柯華葳(1999)。閱讀理解困難篩選測驗。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:教育部特殊教育工作小組=Ministry of Education, Special Education Unit。
34. 洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、張郁雯、陳秀芬(2006)。常見字流暢性測驗。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:教育部=Ministry of Education。
35. 洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、張郁雯、陳秀芬(2006)。識字量評估測驗。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:教育部=Ministry of Education。
36. 洪儷瑜、張郁雯、陳秀芬、陳慶順、李瑩玓(2003)。基本讀寫字綜合測驗。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological。
37. 陳淑麗(2008)。國小學生弱勢學生課輔現況調查研究。台東大學教育學報，19(1)，1-32。
38. 陳淑麗、洪儷瑜(2011)。花東地區學生識字量的特性：小型學校─弱勢中的弱勢。教育心理學報（閱讀專刊），43，205-226。
39. 曾世杰、陳淑麗(2007)。注音補救教學對一年級低成就學童的教學成效實驗研究。教育與心理研究，30(3)，53-77。
40. 黃秀霜(2001)。中文年級認字量表。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological。

1. 蔡佩津、曾世杰、陳淑麗、張毓仁(2017)。永齡國語文補救教學方案及補救教師專業背景對國小二年級學生讀寫進展之成效研究。特殊教育研究學刊，42(2)，85-112。
2. 曾世杰,陳淑麗(2019)。國語文補救教學長期介入對低年級低成就學生的影響。教育研究與發展期刊，15(2)，57-88。
3. 曾世杰,陳淑麗(2020)。以漫畫提升二年級語文低成就兒童的中文閱讀理解。課程與教學，23(2)，129-152。
4. 曾世杰、陳淑麗、林慧敏(2018)。以讀寫合一課程提昇五年級偏鄉地區學生的寫作能力。教育研究與發展期刊，14(4)，71-100。
5. 陳秀芬、洪儷瑜(2017)。運用教學反應結果作為國中閱讀障礙學生鑑定研判標準之試探性研究。特殊教育研究學刊，42(1)，1-26。
6. 洪儷瑜,李佩臻(2022)。偏鄉國小國語補救教學實施跨年級教學之行動研究。課程與教學，25(1)，35-66。
7. 蔣汝梅、曾世杰、陳淑麗(2013)。提升教育優先區國民小學一年級學生的讀寫能力─多層級教學介入模式之探究。特殊教育研究學刊，38(3)，55-80。
8. 劉素珠、黃彥融、施又瑀(2014)。彰化縣國民小學推動補救教學之現況研究。學校行政，94，50-79。
9. 劉鎮寧(2016)。中小學補救教學政策執行問題之分析―以高雄市為例。學校行政，101，166-184。
10. 彭湘寧、林珮伃(2014)。提升臺灣低社經幼兒語言發展的「對話式閱讀」延伸實驗。幼兒教育年刊，25，185-204。
11. 張鑑如,李宇雯(2022)。雙親家庭親職參與及家庭社會經濟背景與幼兒語言發展關聯之研究。當代教育研究季刊，30(2)，167-205。
12. (2012)。由補救教學到三層級學習支援。教育研究月刊，221，13-24。
13. (2013)。學校學習支援系統中差異化教學的實施。教育研究月刊，233，5-20。
14. (2018)。從「讀書」到「閱讀」：國中小國語文閱讀教育趨勢的流變。教育研究月刊，294，49-71。
15. (2019)。以同儕輔助學習策略之次級介入提升國小學生語文能力：試探性研究。臺東大學教育學報，30(1)，33-72。