题名

三種早期閱讀介入方案對社經弱勢幼兒的教學效果研究

并列篇名

The Effects of 3 Early Reading Programs on Social-Economically Disadvantaged Kindergartners

DOI

10.6778/NTTUERJ.201006.0093

作者

簡淑真(Shu-Jane Chien)

关键词

早期介入 ; 早期閱讀 ; 社經弱勢幼兒 ; early intervention ; reading intervention ; disadvantaged children

期刊名称

臺東大學教育學報

卷期/出版年月

21卷1期(2010 / 06 / 01)

页次

93 - 123

内容语文

繁體中文

中文摘要

本研究以不等組前後測的準實驗設計,探討偏遠社經弱勢地區幼兒閱讀早期介入教學成效。共有375個平均齡63個月的(至2005年9月)幼兒參與,其中社經弱勢幼兒271人(三實驗組:聲韻57人、識字88人、繪本59人;弱勢社經對照組67人)、優勢社經對照組104人。實驗教學採平衡教學取向,強調閱讀,不教書寫,教學設計配合有效教學原則,由受過訓的原班教師以外加方式進行,每日40分鐘,每週4日,進行30週。對照組則進行原來的統整課程。所有弱勢幼兒都做前測,優勢對照組是後來加入的,無前測。五組幼兒都接受四次後測(國幼班上、下期末、小一上期中、末)。結果發現:一、介入教學即時效果顯著:國幼班畢業前,聲韻組在和聲韻有關分數、繪本組在聽覺詞彙分數上都明顯提升,且顯著優於弱勢對照組;識字組的認字量,則不只領先弱勢各組,甚至高過優勢對照組。二、三種介入教學各在其目標能力上有長期效果:小一上的注音及國語文分數,聲韻組、繪本組都顯著高於弱勢對照組;識字組在識字量上仍顯著高於弱勢對照組。三、介入教學雖能拉近弱勢組與優勢的距離,但仍未能超越優勢對照組:優勢對照組在各種測驗上,除了國幼班將結束時在常用字識字測驗上曾被識字組超過,其餘都一路顯著領先弱勢各組。研究者據此提出和弱勢幼兒閱讀介入相關的結論與建議。

英文摘要

This study examined the effects of 3 early reading programs on social-economically disadvantaged kindergarteners. A total of 347 kindergartners, averagely aged 63 months, participated in the study. The disadvantaged children were grouped into 4 subgroups. Children in the experimental groups received intervention sessions of 3 programs. There were phonological/phonetic training (PH group, 57 children), character recognition training (CH group, 88 children), and picture book reading training (PIC group, 67 children). Children were given a 40-minute teaching session per day, 4 days per week, for 30 weeks. A group of 67 children from poor families and another group of 104 children, who were from middle-class families, served as disadvantaged and affluent control groups respectively. Besides pretests, all children received post-tests at 4 time points in kindergarten and first grade. Main findings were: 1. At the end of kindergarten year, the 3 intervention groups outperformed the disadvantaged control group at scores of the target reading abilities taught in the corresponding programs. 2. The intervention effects lasted for at least 6 months. At the end of the first semester in first grade, when compared to the disadvantaged group, the PH group outperformed on the Chinese phonetic symbol tests, CH on the Chinese recognition tests, and PIC group on the reading comprehension tests, respectively. The effect of PH group was particularly evident with superiority. 3. The affluent control group outperformed the disadvantaged children on of every test scores collected in this study. However, when the SES was statistically controlled, there were no significant difference among PH, PIC and the affluent group on tests of Chinese phonetic symbol and character recognition. These results indicate that early reading intervention in kindergarten is feasible and its effect can last for at least 6 months which prevents disadvantaged children from academic failures in their first semester of schooling.

主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
社會科學 > 社會學
参考文献
  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. 王麗雲、游錦雲(2005)。學童社經背景與暑期經驗對暑期學習成就進展影響之研究。教育研究集刊,51(4),1-41。
    連結:
  3. 陳淑麗(2008)。國小弱勢學生課業輔導現況調查之研究。台東大學教育學報,19,1-32。
    連結:
  4. 曾世杰、簡淑真(2006)。全語法爭議的文獻回顧:兼論其對弱勢學生之影響。台東大學教育學報,17(2),1-31。
    連結:
  5. 黃毅志(2003)。「台灣地區新職業聲望與社經地位量表」之建構與評估:社會科學與教育社會學研究本土化。教育研究集刊,49(4),1-31。
    連結:
  6. 行政院主計處(2005a)。台灣地區家庭收支調查。2007年7月9日,取自http://fies2.tpg.gov.tw/doc/result/94/212/13-36.xlsA
  7. 台東縣政府(2007)。台東縣教育報告書。2008年2月11日,取自http://210.240.134.171
  8. 陳修元(2001)。簡單兩百字識字量表。未出版。
  9. 行政院主計處(2005b)。人力資源統計年報。2007年10月29日,取自http://www.stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=17286&ctNode=517
  10. 教育部國教司(2007)。教育部全球資訊網。2008年2月11日,取自http://www.edu.tw/
  11. Adams, M. J.(1990).Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
  12. Alexander, K. L.,Entwisle, D. R.,Olson, L. S.(2007).Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap.American Sociological Review,72(2),167-180.
  13. Bear, D. R.,Invernizzi, M.,Templeton, S.,Johnston, F.(2004).Words their way.Columbus, OH:Pearson Education, Inc..
  14. Blachman, B. A.(1994).Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner-city classrooms: Does it make a difference?.Reading and Writing,6(1),1-18.
  15. Chapman, J. W.,Tunmer, W. E.,Prochnow, J. E.(2001).Does success in the Reading Recovery program depend on developing proficiency in phonological processing skills? A longitudinal study in a whole language instructional context.Scientific Studies of Reading,5,141-176.
  16. Englert, C. S.,Hiebert, E. H.(1984).Children's developing awareness of text structures in expository materials.Journal of Educational Psychology,76,65-74.
  17. Entwisle , D. R.,Alexander, K. L.,Olson , L. S.(1997).Children, schools and inequality.Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
  18. Foorman, B. R.,Torgesen, J.(2001).Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,16(4),203-212.
  19. Foorman, B.,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,90,37-55.
  20. Jeynes, W. H.,Littell, S. W.(2000).A meta-analysis of studies examining the effect of whole language instruction on the literacy of low-SES students.Elementary School Journal,101,21-33.
  21. Juel, C.(1988).Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades.Journal of Educational Psychology,80,437-447.
  22. Juel, C.(1993).What makes literacy tutoring effective?.Reading research quarterly,31,268-289.
  23. Juel, C.,Minden-Cupp, C.(2000).Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strategies.Reading Research Quarterly,35,458-492.
  24. McGee, L.,Richgels, D. J.(2003).Designing early literacy programs.New York:The Guilford Press.
  25. National Reading Panel(2000).Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the Scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.Washington, DC:National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
  26. Pikulski, J. J.(1994).Preventing reading failure: A review of five effective programs.Reading Teacher,48(1),30-39.
  27. Shankweiler, D. P.,Liberman, I. Y.(1989).Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle.Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press.
  28. Stahl, S. A.,Miller, P. D.(1989).Whole language and language experience approaches for beginning reading: A quantitative research synthesis.Review of educational research,59,87-116.
  29. Stanovich, K. E.(1993).Does reading make you smarter? Literacy and the development of verbal intelligence.Advanced Child Development Behavior,24,133-80.
  30. Stanovich, K. E.(1986).Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the development of reading fluency.Reading Research Quarterly,16,32-71.
  31. 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.
  32. Torgesen, J. K.,Alexander, A.,Wagner, R.,Rashotte, C.,Voeller, 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.
  33. Torgesen, J. K.,Wagner, R. K.,Rashotte, C. A.(1994).Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading.Journal of Learning Disabilities,27,276-286.
  34. Vaughn, S.,Klingner, J. K.,Bryant, D. P.(2001).Collaborative strategic reading as a means to enhance peer-mediated instruction for reading comprehension and content-area learning.Remedial and Special Education,22(2),66-74.
  35. Vellutino, F. R.,Scanlon, D. M.,Sipay, E. R.,Small, S. G.,Pratt, A.,Chen, R.(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 reading disability.Journal of Educational Psychology,88(4),601-638.
  36. 王瓊珠(2003)。行政院國科會專題研究計畫成果報告(NSC91-2413-H-133-014)行政院國科會專題研究計畫成果報告(NSC91-2413-H-133-014),台北:台北市立師範學院。
  37. 台東縣政府教育局(2006)。台東縣教育白皮書。台東:台東縣政府教育局。
  38. 巫有鎰(1999)。影響國小學生學業成就的因果機制以台北市和台東縣作比較。教育研究集刊,43,213-242。
  39. 巫有鎰、黃毅志(2009)。山地原住民的成績比平地原住民差嗎?可能影響台東縣原住民各族與漢人國小學生學業成績差異的因素機制。台灣教育社會學研究,6,41-89。
  40. 林俊瑩、黃毅志(2008)。影響台灣地區學生學業成就的因果機制:結構方程模式的探究。台灣教育社會學研究,8(1),45-88。
  41. 洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、張郁雯、陳秀芬(2006)。識字畫評估測驗。台北:教育部。
  42. 陳怡靖、陳密桃、黃毅志(2006)。台灣地區高中多元入學與教育機會的關聯性之實徵研究。教育與心理研究,23(3),433-459。
  43. 陳淑麗、熊同鑫(2007)。台東地區弱勢國中學生課輔現況與困境之探究。教育資料與研究雙月刊,76,105-130。
  44. 陸莉、劉鴻香(1998)。修訂畢保德圖畫詞彙測驗指導手冊。台北:心理。
  45. 曾世杰、王素卿(2003)。音素覺識在中文閱讀習得歷程中的角色:個案研究。台東大學教育學報,14,1-28。
  46. 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。
  47. 甄曉蘭(2005)。行政院國家科學委員會專案研究報告行政院國家科學委員會專案研究報告,台北:國立台灣師範大學教育學系。
  48. 簡淑真、曾世杰(2007)。教育部委託報告教育部委託報告,台北:教育部。
被引用次数
  1. 蔡宜靜、許秀萍(2016)。對話式閱讀對於弱勢幼兒的語言能力之影響。新竹教育大學教育學報,33(2),61-93。
  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. 簡馨瑩,陳淑芳(2021)。音素辨識遊戲對幼兒在聲韻覺識能力的效果研究。課程與教學,24(4),1-26。
  4. 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。
  5. 賴文鳳、劉祐如(2017)。部落原住民族幼兒敘說能力與聲韻覺識的關係初探。人類發展與家庭學報,18,65-87。
  6. 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。
  7. 蘇宜芬、洪儷瑜、吳昭容、孔淑萱(2013)。偏遠地區漢族與泰雅族國中生識讀能力及相關因素的探討。教育心理學報,44(S),561-578。
  8. 蘇宜芬、吳昭容、白芸凌、孔淑萱(2012)。偏遠地區泰雅族與漢族中學生中文識讀能力之分析。當代教育研究,20(2),135-169。
  9. 辛靜婷(2016)。原住民族幼兒雙文化聲韻介入課程之成效與教學歷程。課程與教學,19(4),191-228。
  10. 周姍姍,王馨敏(2021)。曾世杰教授專題演講「教育能造成改變:以弱勢兒童低學力問題為例」學術活動紀實。人類發展與家庭學報,22,112-119。
  11. (2010)。補救補救教學:提升基礎學力的迷思與證據本位的努力。教育研究月刊,199,43-52。
  12. (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。
  13. (2018)。幼兒園教師在主題統整課程中實施弱勢幼兒閱讀差異化教學之專業發展歷程研究。臺東大學教育學報,29(2),99-132。
  14. (2019)。發展遲緩幼兒及一般幼兒對不同表徵繪本之眼動注意力與繪本理解差異之研究。臺東大學教育學報,30(2),71-101。
  15. (2020)。故事結構教學提升偏鄉幼兒故事理解能力之研究。樹德科技大學學報,22(1),67-86。