大學生以瞬識字及字母拼讀直接教學法對國中英語低成就學生的補救教學成效研究

The Effects of Sight Words and Direct Instruction phonics remedial programs implemented by college students on seventh–grade Taiwanese Students with Low English Achievement

本研究將32名七年級英語低成就學生隨機分派成實驗組及對照組各16名。研究以220個瞬識字（sight words）和一套依直接教學法設計、有逐字教案的字母拼讀教材為補救教材。實驗組接受為期10週、每週4次、每次40分鐘的英語補救教學。由27位接受英語補救教學課程的大學生擔任補救教師。每位大學生每週教學2次，對照組16名學生只接受原校提供的英語課程。
主要發現有三：(1)實驗組學生在瞬識字認讀能力明顯比對照組學生進步，介入的效果值達 .87。實驗組學生前後測差異由平均41.19字提升至182.63字，對照組學生前後測則無顯著差異；(2)實驗組學生後測的字母拼讀能力方面顯著優於對照組好，介入的效果值達2.09。實驗組對目標字的認讀率達73.9%；對照組學生平均僅42.8%；(3)補救教學的效果未反應至學校段考成績上，實驗組和對照組之間沒有顯著差異。

The participants of the present study were 32 seventh–graders whose English performance was ranked the first or the second from the bottom in their classes in a junior high school. They were randomly assigned to the experimental group and the control group. In addition to their original English class, students in the experimental group received a remedial program in which four 40-minute 1-on-1 or 1-on-2 tutorial sessions per week were held for 10 weeks. The goal of the program was to enhance their English decoding skills. The 220 Dolch sight words and a Direct Instruction phonics program with scripted lesson plans (Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons; Engelmann, 1985) were adopted as tutorial materials. As part of the course requirements, 27 college students who were taking a course entitled English Remedial Instruction under the supervision of the professor and a teaching assistant, served as tutors in the experiment. The control group received no supplemental tutorial program.
The results of the study revealed that the experimental group outperformed the control group on the total number of sight words learned. In the experimental group, the average pretest and posttest scores were 41.19 and 182.63, which indicated a significant growth, whereas in the control group, the average pretest and posttest scores were 51.44 and 59.60, which suggested only very limited growth. In addition, the experimental group also outdid the control group on the curriculum-based measurement of DISTAR materials. Students in the experimental group recognized 73.9% target words, while those in the control group recognized only 42.8%. Finally, the effectiveness of the remedial program did not manifest itself on the participants’ school monthly English examinations. That is, there were no significant differences in the mean monthly English exam scores between the experimental and the control groups.