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

The Comparison of the Implementation and Reading Progress between Two Remedial Programs on Second Grade Students

10.6151/CERQ.2015.2302.02

陳淑麗(Shu-Li Chen)；曾世杰(Shih-Jay Tzeng)；張毓仁(Yu-Jen Chang)

攜手計畫 ； 永齡希望小學 ； 補救教學 ； 弱勢低成就學生 ； after school alternative program (ASAP) ； yonglin school of hope ； remedial instruction ； disadvantaged low-achievers

當代教育研究季刊

23卷2期（2015 / 06 / 01）

35 - 74

繁體中文

教育部的攜手計畫與永齡教育基金會的永齡希望小學，分別是公私立機構相當具有代表性的課後補救方案。本研究旨在比較這兩種方案在國小二年級國語文補救教學的執行和成效差異。主要發現有三：一、兩方案的執行方式不同，永齡方案從個案的篩選與管理、補救教材、師資的培訓與督導到成效評估，已建立完整的架構，各校執行方式一致；攜手方案補救教學執行方式差異性較大，由教師自主，大多數教師採用學校教科書為補救教材，在職教師仍看重作業指導；二、永齡組的補救成效明顯比攜手組較佳，但成效主要在識字和聽寫層次，閱讀理解的差異則不顯著；三、經過一年補救教學，在幫助學生脫離讀寫困難以及讓學生回到同儕水準行列上，永齡組的進展都比攜手組好。

Issues related to remedial instruction to underachievers have concerned educators, researchers, and policy makers in Taiwan in recent years. The ＂After School Alternative Program (ASAP)＂ of Ministry of Education (MOE) and ＂Yonglin School of Hope＂ of Yonglin Education Foundation are the representative remedial programs by the public sector (government agents) and private sector (non-profit charity foundation), respectively. The objective of this study is to compare the implementation and effects of these 2 remedial programs. The participants are second graders of the primary schools. Major findings are: (1) the implementation frameworks of the 2 remedial instruction programs are different. From the screening and management of cases, the provision of the remedial material, the training and supervision of the remedial teachers, as well as the assessment of the effects, Yonglin program has built a complete framework and maintained a consistent execution. ASAP has more variation in the implementation because the teachers are free to make their own instructional decisions. Most teachers adopt the materials used in the regular classes as the remedial teaching materials. In- service teachers still emphasize on the homework completion. (2) Yonglin program shows better reading progress than ASAP. The major significant differences between programs are in word recognition and dictation scores; the difference in reading comprehension is not significant. (3) After one year of remedial instruction, the progress of the students in Yonglin program is more significant than that of ASAP in both helping students mitigate difficulties in reading and writing, and match the level of performance of their peers.

1. 朱家儀、黃秀霜、陳惠萍(2013)。「攜手計畫課後扶助方案」補救教學方法之探究。課程與教學，16(1)，93-114。
   連結：
2. 李孟峰、連廷嘉(2010)。「攜手計畫－課後扶助方案」實施歷程與成效之研究。教育實踐與研究，23(1)，115-114。
   連結：
3. 宣崇慧、盧臺華(2010)。直接教學法對二年級識字困難學生識字與應用詞彙造句之成效。特殊教育研究學刊，35(3)，103-129。
   連結：
4. 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：
5. 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：
6. 曾世杰、陳淑麗、蔣汝梅(2013)。提昇教育優先區國民小學一年級兒童的讀寫能力-多層級教學介入模式之探究。特殊教育研究學刊，38(3)，55-80。
   連結：
7. 曾世杰、簡淑真(2006)。全語法爭議的文獻回顧：兼論對弱勢學生之影響。臺東大學教育學報，17(2)，1-32。
   連結：
8. 湯維玲、蔡佩娟(2013)。一位國小校長推動攜手計畫補救教學之行動研究。課程與教學，16(1)，69-92。
   連結：
9. 黃毅志(2003)。「臺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)，1-33。
   連結：
10. 蘇宜芬、簡邦宗、楊政育、陳學志(2008)。認字補救學習系統之建立與效果評估研究。教育心理學報，39(4)，589-601。
    連結：
11. 楊惠芳（2011 年9 月26 日）。施行補救教師至少研習8 小時。國語日報，15 版。[Yang, H.-F. (2011, September 26). The remedial teachers need remedial courses at least for 8 hours. Mandarin Daily News, pp. A15.]
12. 教育部（ 2012） 。教育施政理念與政策。取自http://www.edu.tw/files/site_ content/EDU01/10109 教育施政理念與政策.pdf [Ministry of Education. (2012a). The policies of Taiwan education. Retrieved from http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/EDU01/10109 教育施政理念與政策.pdf]
13. 陳智華（2013 年11 月21 日）。開課到國三，補救教學將增500 班。聯合新聞網。取自http://mag.udn.com/mag/edu/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=486594。[Chen, C.-H. (2013, November 21). The remedial courses will be implemented in ninth-grade and add 500 classes. United Daily News. Retrieved fromhttp://mag.udn.com/mag/edu/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=486594]
14. 許秩維（2011）。年度教育新聞12 年國教居首。取自http://www2.cna.com.tw/Topic/Popular/2633-1/201112290014.aspx[Hsu, C.-W. (2011). Twelve-years compulsory education program is the headline of the annual news. Retrieved from http://www2.cna.com.tw/Topic/Popular/2633-1/201112290014.aspx]
15. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425(2002).
16. 教育部（2012）。教育有愛、學習無礙－公告｢國語文補救教學教材｣。取自 http://priori.moe.gov.tw/modules/bulletin/index.php?page=article&storyid=355 [Ministry of Education. (2012b). The announcement about “the Chinese language remedial materials”. Retrieved from http://priori.moe.gov.tw/modules/bulletin/ index.php?page=article&storyid=355]
17. Arndt, E. J.,Foorman, B. R.(2010).Second graders as spellers: What types of errors are they making?.Assessment for Effective Intervention,36,57-67.
18. Blaunstein, P.,Lyon, R.(2006).Why kids can't read: Challenging the status quo in education.Boston, MA:Rowan & Littlefield.
19. 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, NY:Brookline Books.
20. Chen S.-L,Tzeng S.-J.,Chu S.-Y.(2015).Evaluating effectiveness of two types of Chinese remedial materials for low-achieving and disadvantaged second-graders.The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,24(1),111-123.
21. Chudowsky, N.,Chudowsky, V.,Kober, N.(2009).,未出版
22. 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.
23. Dynarski, M.,James-Burdumy, S.,Moore, M.,Rosenberg, L.,Deke, J.,Mansfield, W.(2004).When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st century community learning centers program: New findings.Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
24. 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.
25. Foorman, Barbara R.(Ed.)(2003).Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale.Timonium, MA:York Press.
26. 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.
27. Gaskins, I. W.,Ehri, L. C.,Cress, C.,O'Hara, C.,Donnelly, K.(1997).Analyzing words and making discoveries about the alphabetic system: Activities for beginning readers.Language Arts,74(3),172-184.
28. Hall, N.,Larson, J.,Marsh, J.(2003).Handbook of early childhood literacy.London, UK:Sage.
29. Hedges, L. V.,Nowell, A.(1995).Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals.Science,269,41-45.
30. James-Burdumy, S.,Dynarski, M.,Moore, M.,Deke, J.,Mansfield, W.,Pistorino, C.(2005).,U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
31. 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.
32. Juel, C.,Minden-Cupp, C.(2000).Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strategies.Reading Research Quarterly,35,458-492.
33. 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.
34. Liberman, I. Y.,Shankweiler, D.,Liberman, M.(1989).The alphabetic principle and learning to read.Phonology and reading disability,Ann Arbor, MI:
35. Marks, G. N.(2005).Cross-national differences and accounting for social class inequalities in education.International Sociology,20(4),483-505.
36. 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.
37. Neuman, S. B.(Ed.),Dickinson, D. K.(Ed.)(2003).Handbook of early literacy research.New York:Guilford Press.
38. OECD(2010).PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background: Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes.OECD Publishing.
39. Pikulski, J. J.(1994).Preventing reading failure: A review of five effective programs.The Reading Teacher,48(1),30-39.
40. Reutzel, D. R.,Oda, L. K.,Moore, B. H.(1989).Developing print awareness: The effects of three instructional approaches on kindergarteners' print awareness, reading readiness, and word reading..Journal of Reading Behavior,21(3),197-217.
41. Shanahan, T.,Barr, R.(1995).Reading recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at risk learners.Reading Research Quarterly,30,958-996.
42. 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..
43. Torgesen, J. K.(2000).Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,15(1),55-64.
44. 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.
45. Vandell, D. L.,Reisner, E. R.,Brown, B. B.,Dadisman, K.,Pierce, K. M.,Lee, D.,Pechman, E. M.(2005).,Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
46. Vandell, D. L.,Reisner, E. R.,Brown, B. B.,Pierce, K. M.,Dadisman, K.,Pechman, E. M.(2004).,Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin-Madison,Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
47. Vandell, D. L.,Reisner, E. R.,Pierce, K. M.,Brown, B. B.,Lee, D.,Bolt, D.,Pechman, E. M.(2006).,Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research..
48. Vellutino, F. R.,Fletcher, J. M.,Snowling, M. J.,Scanlon, D. M.(2004).Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades?.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,45(1),2-40.
49. 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 reading disability.Journal of Educational Psychology,88(4),601-638.
50. Wasik, B. A.,Slavin, R. E.(1993).Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs.Reading Research Quarterly,28(2),179-200.
51. 王尤秋(2009)。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan，國立臺北教育大學=National Taipei University of Education。
52. 王瓊珠(2005)。高頻部首／部件識字教學對國小閱讀障礙學生讀寫能力之影響。臺北市立師範學院學報，36(1)，95-124。
53. 余文玲(2009)。屏東縣=Pingtung，國立屏東大學=National Pingtung University。
54. 吳苓瑜(2008)。新竹市=Hsinchu，國立新竹教育大學=National Hsinchu University of Education。
55. 宋美瑤(2008)。新竹市=Hsinchu，國立新竹教育大學=National Hsinchu University of Education。
56. 李珮瑜、洪儷瑜(2014)。學校行政執行層級與國中國語文補教教學成效之關係。2014 全球教育論壇：教育革新與學生學習國際學術研討會，Taipei:
57. 柯華葳(1999)。閱讀理解困難篩選測驗。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:教育部=Ministry of Education。
58. 洪麗雯(2007)。雲林縣=Yunlin, Taiwan，國立雲林科技大學=National Yunlin University of Science and Technology。
59. 洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、張郁雯、陳秀芬(2006)。識字量評估測驗。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:教育部=Ministry of Education。
60. 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。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理出版社=Psychology Publication Press。
61. 張奕華、許正妹(2010)。非營利組織與學校策略合作及其學習成效－以永齡希望小學為例。中國行政，82，51-80。
62. 張嘉寧(2007)。嘉義縣=Chiayi，國立嘉義大學=National Chiayi University。
63. 莊瓊珠(2013)。嘉義縣=Chiayi，南華大學=National Nanhua University。
64. 陳美芳(1999)。聽覺記憶測驗。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:教育部=Ministry of Education。
65. 陳淑麗(2009)。弱勢學童讀寫希望工程－課輔現場的瞭解改造。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理出版社=Psychology Publication Press。
66. 陳淑麗(2008)。國小學生弱勢學生課輔現況調查研究。臺東大學教育學報，19(1)，1-23。
67. 陳淑麗、曾世杰、蔣汝梅(2012)。反敗為勝方案介入成效之研究－不同介入長度的比較。特殊教育研究學刊，37(3)，1-33。
68. 傅淳玲、黃秀霜(2000)。小學國語文低成就學生後設語言覺知實驗教學成效分析。中華心理學刊，42(1)，87-100。
69. 曾世杰、陳淑麗(2007)。注音補救教學對一年級低成就兒童的教學成效實驗研究。教育與心理研究，30(3)，53-77。
70. 黃秀霜(1999)。中文年級識字量表。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:教育部=Ministry of Education。
71. 黃淑容(2009)。臺東縣=Taitung，國立臺東大學=National Taitung University。
72. 臺灣PISA 國家研究中心(2011)。臺灣PISA 2009 結果報告。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:心理出版社=Psychology Publication Press。
73. 蔡佩津(2013)。臺東縣=Taitung, Taiwan，國立臺東大學=National Taitung University。

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(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。
3. 陳盈宏(2017)。偏遠地區國民小學補救教學方案執行之研究：網絡治理觀點。教育科學期刊，16(1)，57-77。
4. 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。
5. 孔淑萱(2019)。同儕輔助學習策略對提升國小三年級學生語文能力表現之研究：差異化教學之本土實踐。課程與教學，22(2)，205-233。
6. 李昭鋆、余民寧(2018)。補救教學中個別化教學對學生學習成效之影響分析。教育科學研究期刊，63(1)，247-271。
7. 謝進昌,蔡明學,陳敏瑜(2019)。低成就學生之國語文成長軌跡分析及其影響因素研究。嘉大教育研究學刊，42，27-65。
8. 謝廷豪,鄭正豐,廖元良,陳姿樺(2020)。Holland職業類型對參與補救教學之高職生數學態度與學習滿意度影響之研究。臺灣數學教育期刊，7(1)，55-78。
9. 葉珍玲,許添明(2021)。偏鄉學校變革之挑戰：「教育優先區－成功專案」推動歷程研究。彰化師大教育學報，35，1-27。
10. (2016)。歐盟與臺灣補救教學政策之比較研究：以中輟為例。教育研究月刊，267，110-121。
11. (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。
12. (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。
13. (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。