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

Abstract

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。

Purpose: In recent years, the poor reading and writing abilities of students with sociallyand 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, schoolbased 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 int