課文本位閱讀策略教學對原住民國小學童閱讀理解與詞彙理解的影響

Examining the Effects of Textbook-based Approach to Reading Instruction on Indigenous Children's Reading and Vocabulary Comprehension

10.6384/CIQ.202107_24(3).0002

陸怡琮(I-Chung Lu)

原住民學童 ； 詞彙理解 ； 課文本位閱讀教學 ； 閱讀理解 ； 閱讀策略 ； indigenous children ； vocabulary ； Textbook-based Approach to Reading Instruction (TARI) ； reading comprehension ； reading strategies

課程與教學

24卷3期（2021 / 07 / 01）

25 - 53

繁體中文

本研究的目的在檢視課文本位閱讀教學模式對原住民學童閱讀理解與詞彙理解的影響，並了解師生對教學成效的看法。研究採準實驗設計，在國語課中實施三個學期融入多重閱讀策略的實驗教學。研究對象為三所排灣族國小25位四年級學童為實驗組，另二所排灣族國小31位學童為對照組。實驗組接受課文本位閱讀教學，對照組接受一般國語教學。教學開始前一學期期末與實驗教學的三個學期期末，兩組學生皆接受閱讀理解與詞彙理解的評量，第三學期期末實驗組學生填答回饋單，教師參與回饋會議。結果顯示，在排除教學前的差異後，兩組原住民學生在四下期末的閱讀理解無差異，但實驗組在五年級兩個學期末的閱讀理解皆顯著優於對照組。實驗組在四下與五下學期末的詞彙理解都明顯較對照組為佳，但在五上兩組間的差異未達顯著。實驗組師生都對教學成效抱持相當正面的看法。

The textbook-based approach to reading instruction (TARI) is an instructional model of teaching multiple strategies in the language arts curriculum. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of TARI on indigenous children's reading and vocabulary comprehension and to probe students' and teachers' perceptions of TARI. This study adopted a quasi-experimental design. Twenty-five indigenous fourth-graders from three Paiwan elementary schools served as the experimental group, and 31 indigenous fourth-graders from the other two Paiwan schools were assigned to the control group. For three semesters in the language arts classes, the experimental group received TARI and the control group received regular instruction. The students' reading and vocabulary comprehension was assessed a total of four times: once at the end of the semester before the instruction began; one time each at the end of the three semesters during which the experiment was conducted. After the instruction, the students of the experimental group filled out a questionnaire about TARI and their teachers reported perceptions of TARI in a teachers' meeting. The results revealed that, after controlling for the differences in reading comprehension between the two groups before the instruction, the two groups of students were not found to differ in reading comprehension at the end of the second semester in grade 4, but the experimental group performed significantly better than the control group at the end of both semesters in grade 5. Also, the experimental group scored significantly higher in vocabulary comprehension than the control group at the end of second semesters in both grades 4 and 5, while the two groups did not differ in vocabulary comprehension at the end of the first semester in grade 5. Students and teachers of the experimental group held positive perceptions toward TARI.

1. 孔淑萱,白芸凌,蘇宜芬,吳昭容(2012)。偏遠地區泰雅族與漢族中學生中文識讀能力之分析。當代教育研究季刊，20(2)，135-169。
   連結：
2. 林怡君,張麗麗,陸怡琮(2013)。Rasch 模式建構國小高年級閱讀理解測驗。教育心理學報，45(1)，38-60。
   連結：
3. 柯華葳(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. 陳明蕾(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：
5. 陳淑麗,曾世杰,洪儷瑜(2006)。原住民國語文低成就學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. 陸怡琮(2017)。促進國小教師摘要策略教學的專業發展。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，10(2)，59-80。
   連結：
7. 陸怡琮(2011)。摘要策略教學對提升國小五年級學童摘要能力與閱讀理解的成效。教育科學研究期刊，56(3)，91-118。
   連結：
8. 趙曼妏,趙曼寧(2012)。影響國三學生語文成績之因素探究。教育與社會研究，24，41-74。
   連結：
9. 謝進昌(2015)。有效的中文閱讀理解策略：國內實徵研究之最佳證據整合。教育科學研究期刊，60(2)，33-77。
   連結：
10. 譚光鼎,林明芳(2002)。原住民學童學習式態的特質－花蓮縣秀林鄉泰雅族學童之探討。教育研究集刊，48(2)，233-261。
    連結：
11. Afflerbach, P.,Pearson, P. D.,Paris, S. G.(2008).Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies.The Reading Teacher,61,364-373.
12. Almasi, J.F.,Hart, S. J.(2011).Best practices in omprehension instruction.Best practice in literacy instruction,New York, NY:
13. Brown, R.,Pressley, M.,Van Meter, P.,Schuder, T.(1996).A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers.Journnal of Educational Psychology,88,18-37.
14. Collins, C.(1991).Reading instruction that increases thinking abilities.Journal of Reading,34,510-516.
15. Duffy, G. G.,Roeher, L. R.,Sivan, E.,Rackliffe, G.,Book, C.,Meloth, M. S.,Vavrus, L. G.,Wesselman, R.,Putnam, J.,Bassiri, D.(1987).Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies.Reading Research Quarterly,22,347-368.
16. Duke, N.,Pearson, P. D.(2002).Effective practices for developing reading comprehension.What research has to say about reading instruction,Newark, DE:
17. Durkin, D.(1978).What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction.Reading Research Quarterly,22,347-368.
18. Gagné, E. D.(1985).The cognitive psychology of school learning.Boston, MA:Little, Brown and Company.
19. Hung, L. Y.,Chen, H.F.(2017).Three-year longitudinal study of reading comprehension in one primary school.Promoting textbook base reading comprehension strategy instruction in Taiwan,Hong Kong:
20. Lu, I. C.,Yeh, Y.W.,Huang, B. C.,Guo, Y. C.(2017).A school-University collaboration for the implementation of the Textbook-based Approach to Reading Instruction (TARI).Promoting textbook base reading comprehension strategy instruction in Taiwan,Hong Kong:
21. National Assessment Governing Board(2008).Reading assessment and item specifications for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress.Washington, DC:American Institutes for Research.
22. National Reading Panel(2000).Teaching children to read: Report of the national reading panel.Rockville, MD:NICHD Clearinghouse.
23. Ness, M.(2011).Explicit reading comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms: Teacher use of reading comprehension strategies.Journal of Research in Childhood Education,25,98-117.
24. Palincsar, A. S.,Brown, A. L.(1984).Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction,1(2),117-175.
25. Pressley, M.(2000).What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of?.Handbook of reading research, Vol. 3,Mahwah, NJ:
26. Pressley, M.(2002).Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension.What research has to say about readng instruction,Newark, DE:
27. Pressley, M.(1998).Comprehension strategies instruction.Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning,New York, NY:
28. Pressley, M.,Afflerbach, P.(1995).Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum Associates.
29. Pressley, M.,Wharton-McDonald, R.,Mistretta, J.,Echevarria, M.(1998).The nature of literacy instruction in ten grade-4/5 classrooms in upstate New York.Scientific Studies of Reading,2,159-191.
30. Wharton-McDonald, R.,Swiger, S.(2009).Developing higher order comprehension in the middle grades.Handbook of research on reading comprehension,New York, NY:
31. 孔淑萱,洪儷瑜,吳昭容(2011)。影響不同弱勢族群學生識讀能力相關因素之研究－以偏遠地區漢族與泰雅族國中生為對象。2011年弱勢學生增能教育學術研討會論文集，臺北市:
32. 巫有鎰(1999)。影響國小學生學業成就的因果機制－以臺北市和臺東縣作比較。教育研究集刊，43，213-242。
33. 沈欣怡,蘇宜芬(2011)。推論性問題引導課程對國小四年級學童推論理解與閱讀理解能力之影響。教育心理學報，43，337-356。
34. 林淑敏(2000)。臺中市，國立臺中師範學院國民教育研究所。
35. 柯華葳(2011)。語文課與閱讀能力的培養。教育研究月刊，210，5-14。
36. 洪儷瑜,陳心怡,陳柏熹,陳秀芬(2014).詞彙成長測驗.臺北市:中國行為科學社.
37. 原住民族委員會（2019）。107 學年度原住民族教育調查統計。臺北市：原住民族委員會。
38. 屠淑玲(2017)。新竹市，國立清華大學中國文學系碩士班。
39. 教育部(2008).悅讀 101－國民中小學提升閱讀計畫.臺北市:作者.
40. 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，43，205-226。
41. 陸怡琮(2017)。科技部專題研究計畫成果報告科技部專題研究計畫成果報告,科技部。
42. 陸怡琮(2019)。國語文閱讀理解與閱讀策略教學。樂在閱讀教學：文本分析與理解策略應用，臺北市:
43. 曾玉村(2017)。總論：閱讀理解的認知歷程與策略教學。閱讀理解策略教學，臺北市:
44. 游靜秋(2016)。臺北市，臺北市立大學學習與媒材設計學系課程與教學碩士學位在職專班。
45. 劉乃綸,林俊瑩(2017)。學業成就的族群差異性：以屏東縣國小學生為例。教育與多元文化研究，15，47-81。
46. 課文本位閱讀理解教學研發團隊（2012）。閱讀理解策略成分與年級對照表。取自 http://pair.nknu.edu.tw/pair_system/Search_index.aspx?PN=Reader。
47. 譚光鼎（編）,游美慧（編）,劉美惠（編）(2012).多元文化教育.臺北市:高等教育.