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

Improving the Reading and Writing Abilities of First-Grade Students in Educational Priority Areas Schools-A Multi-Tier Teaching Intervention Model

10.6172/BSE.201311.3803003

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

多層級介入 ； 早期介入 ； 注音 ； 補救教學 ； multi-tier intervention ； early intervention ； Zhuyin Fuhao ； remedial intervention

特殊教育研究學刊

38卷3期（2013 / 11 / 25）

55 - 80

繁體中文

本研究在台東縣5所教育優先區國民小學執行一個學校本位的語文能力提升方案，對一年級學生提供初級及次級的國語文介入，初級介入目標在提升普通班的教學品質，次級介入則在提供低成就學生密集的補救教學。研究檢驗這個早期多層級的介入方案，是否能有效提升教育優先區學校學生的基礎語文能力。初級介入共有239位學生參與，實驗組134人；對照組有3所國小參與，105人；次級介入中的實驗組和對照組分別有29人及17人。主要研究發現有三：一、在初級和次級兩層級，學生注音和識字能力的進展，在整體上，實驗學校比對照學校好，成長趨勢也比對照組學校好。智力對注音和識字能力的前測分數有影響，但在介入後，智力對後測分數的影響就近乎消失，尤其在次級介入層級，智力對後測更不具影響力。二、初級介入：實驗組學生在「脫離讀寫困難」和「達同儕水準」兩項指標均有良好表現，實驗組的識字能力介入前有54%的學生符合研究者界定的讀寫困難評準，介入後，僅剩下12.9%的學生仍為讀寫困難，有71.8%的學生達到同儕水準。三、次級介入：實驗組學生發生讀寫困難的比率明顯較對照組低，介入後，實驗組的拼音和識字分別有62.1%和58.6%的學生回到同儕水準，但未經介入的對照組學生，其後測的識字能力達同儕水準的比率，反而低於前測。

In recent years, the poor reading and writing abilities of students with socially- and economically-disadvantaged background have become a major concern of educators, researchers, and decision makers in Taiwan. Considerable resources, such as the Project for the Implementation of Remedial Instruction by the Ministry of Education, have been allocated to provide intervention to the students who have poor literacy competence. However, providing intervention to only the last-ranking students may be insufficient in remote areas, because almost all the students there have reading and writing difficulties. Thus, a successful resolution should not only offer supplemental remedial programs to the weakest, but also include school-wide preventive intervention programs aiming at effective literacy instruction in regular classrooms. This study assesses a 2-tier, school-based Chinese literacy intervention program provided to first-grade students in five elementary schools in an educational priority area in Taiwan. Both tiers adopted effective remedial principles supported by empirical research. Tier 1 was conducted to improve the teaching and learning quality of regular classes, whereas Tier 2 provided a systematic and intensive remedial intervention to the 6 last-ranking students in each class. This study investigates whether an early multi-tier intervention program can effectively improve the students' Chinese literacy skills and prevent them from developing reading and writing difficulties. Methods: Eight schools with 239 students participated in this study. We assigned these eight schools to two different groups: a treatment group of five schools (134 students) and a control group of three schools (105 students). In Tier 2, the treatment and control groups had 29 and 17 students, respectively. We used descriptive statistics to describe the characteristics of the schools and students, and their test score distributions. We used ANCOVA, MANCOVA, and HLM to assess the intervention effects. Findings: The intervention effects for Zhuyin Fuhao (ZYFH; Mandarin phonetic symbols) skills and Chinese character size were significant for both tiers in both semesters of the trial period, and the treatment group outperformed the control group. Although intelligence quotient (IQ) scores have a significant effect on the pre-tests of ZYFH dictation, Chinese character size, and sight word accuracy, this effect diminishes in the corresponding post-tests. The post-intervention percentages of students without reading and writing difficulty and returning to the peer-level in ZYFH dictation were significantly higher than the corresponding pre-intervention percentages for both groups. In Chinese character size, only percentages in the treatment group with same directions were observed and significant. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 results of the HLM growth model also show that the scores for ZYFH skills and Chinese character size in the treatment group were significantly higher than those in the control group after controlling for IQ scores. Conclusions/Implications: In both tiers, the students in the treatment group exhibited better overall progress in ZYFH and Chinese character size than those in the control group. Tier 1 intervention: More than half of the students in the treatment group had reading and writing difficulties before the intervention. After the intervention, the percentage of students in the treatment group without reading or writing difficulties and returning to the peer-level was significantly higher. Tier 2 intervention: Students in the treatment group had a lower percentage of with reading or writing difficulties than students in the control group. After the intervention, more than half of the students in the treatment group returned to the peer-level in ZYFH dictation and Chinese character size. In summary, this rarely-seen school-wide experiment shows that, regardless of student IQ scores, a 2-tier intervention program can effectively improve the Chinese reading and writing abilities of disadvantaged first graders, and prevent them from having reading or writing difficulties.

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. 張新仁、韓孟蓉(2004)。不同識字教學法對國小低年級學生識字教學成效之研究。教育學刊，22，71-88。
   連結：
4. 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)，25-46。
   連結：
5. 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：
6. 陳淑麗、曾世杰、蔣汝梅(2012)。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。特殊教育研究學刊，37(3)，27-58。
   連結：
7. 簡淑真(2010)。三種早期閱讀介入方案對社經弱勢幼兒的教學效果研究。臺東大學教育學報，21(1)，93-123。
   連結：
8. 洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、張郁雯、陳秀芬（2006a）：識字量評估測驗。臺北：教育部。[Hung, Li-Yu, Wang, Chiung-Chu, Chang, Yu-Wen, & Chen, Hsiu-Fen (2006a). Chinese character size test. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.]。
9. 教育部（2008）。教育部推動教育優先區計畫（97 年度）。臺北：作者。[Ministry of Educaion (2008). Year 2008 policy to promote Educational Priority Areas Project. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.]。
10. 洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、張郁雯、陳秀芬（2006b）：常見字流暢性測驗。臺北：教育部。[Hung, Li-Yu, Wang, Chiung-Chu, Chang, Yu-Wen, & Chen Hsiu-Fen (2006b). Sight word fluency test. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.]。
11. 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.
12. Berkeley, S.,Bender, W. N.,Peaster, L. G.,Saunders, L.(2009).Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress.Journal of Learning Disabilities,42(1),85-95.
13. Blaunstein, P.(Ed.),Lyon, R.(Ed.)(2006).It Doesn't Have to be This Way.Lanham, MD:Scarecrow Press, Inc..
14. Braden, J. P.(1987).A comparison of regression and standard score discrepancy methods for learning disabilities identification: Effects on racial representation.Journal of School Psychology,25(1),23-29.
15. Campbell, F. A.,Ramey, C. T.,Pungello, E.,Sparlin, H.,Johnson, S. M.(2002).Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes for the abecedarian project.Applied Developmental Science,6(1),42-57.
16. Case, L. P.,Speece, D. L.,Silverman, R.,Ritchey, K. D.,Schatschneider, C.,Cooper, D. H.,Montanaro, E.,Jacobs, D.(2010).Validation of a supplemental reading intervention for first-grade children.Journal of Learning Disabilities,43(5),402-417.
17. Denton, C. A.,Fletcher, J. M.,Anthony, J. L.,Francis, D. J.(2006).An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties.Journal of Learning Disabilities,39(5),447-466.
18. Foorman, B. R.(Ed.)(2003).Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale.Timonium, MD:York Press.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Gersten, R.,Compton, D.,Connor, C.,Dimino, J.,Santoro, L.,Linan-Thompson, S.,Tilly, W. D.(2009).Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention (RTI) and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades.Washington, DC:National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
23. Hall, N.,Larson, J.,Marsh, J.(2003).Handbook of early childhood literacy.London, UK:Sage.
24. 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),101-114.
25. Kush, J. C.,Watkins, M. W.,Ward, T. J.,Ward, S. B.,Canivez, G. L.,Worrell, F. C.(2001).Construct validity of the WISC-III for white and black students from the WISC-III standardization sample and for black students referred for psychological evaluation.School Psychology Review,30(1),70-88.
26. Lyon, G. R.(Ed.)(1994).Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues.Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brook.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. O'Connor, R.(2000).Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,15(1),43-54.
30. Pikulski, J. J.(1994).Preventing reading failure: A review of five effective program.Reading Teacher,48(1),30-39.
31. Raudenbush, S. W.,Bryk, A. S.(2002).Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Vellutino, F. R.,Scanlon, D. M.,Lyon, G. R.(2000).Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability.Journal of Learning Disabilities,33(3),223-238.
37. Vellutino, F. R.,Scanlon, D. M.,Sipay, E. R.,Small, S. G.,Pratt, A.,Chen, R.,Denckla, M. B.(1996).Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of special teading disability.Journal of Educational Psychology,88(4),601-638.
38. 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(4),437-480.
39. Wasik, B. A,Slavin, R. R.(1993).Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs.Reading Research Quarterly,28(2),179-200.
40. 王瓊珠(2004)。故事結構教學加分享閱讀對增進國小閱讀障礙學生讀寫能力與故事結構概念之研究。台北市立師範學院學報：教育類，35(2)，1-22。
41. 江美滿(2009)。YiLan, Taiwan，佛光大學傳播學系=Department of communication, Fo Guang University。
42. 江素枝、陳惠萍、黃秀霜(2009)。可預測書教學對偏遠地區國小學生閱讀理解能力及閱讀動機影響之研究。教育學誌，21，91-146。
43. 陳淑麗編(2008)。奇妙文字國。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:永齡教育基金會=Yonglin Education Charity Foundation。
44. 陳淑麗(2009)。弱勢學生讀寫希望工程─課輔現場的瞭解與改造。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological。
45. 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=43, Special Issue on Reading，205-226。
46. 陳淑麗、蘇倩慧、曾世杰(2010)。透過國語文補救教學提升低成就兒童的口語能力。教育與心理研究，33(3)，25-46。
47. 曾世杰編(2007)。ㄅㄆㄇ注音王國。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:彩虹愛家協會=Rainbow Family Life Education Association。
48. 曾世杰、陳淑麗(2007)。注音補救教學對一年級低成就學生的教學成效實驗研究。教育與心理研究，30(3)，53-77。
49. 黃秀霜、鄭美芝(2003)。國小注音符號能力診斷測驗。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、張毓仁(2015)。國小二年級不同補救教學方案之實施與成效之比較：攜手計畫與永齡希望小學。當代教育研究季刊，23(2)，35-74。
5. (2016)。透過詞彙教學方案增加低成就學童閱讀能力。臺東大學教育學報，27(2)，51-76。