閱讀障礙學生與一般學生在視知覺上之比較研究

A comparison of visual-perceptual skills between reading-disabled and average elementary students

本研究的目的，旨在比較閱讀障礙學生與一般學生在視知覺能力上之差異，並探討這些學生之視知覺能力與閱讀能力之相關，最後並分析視知覺能力對閱讀障礙學生與一般學生閱讀能力之預測。本研究對象除以三十一名國小二年級到六年級的「閱讀障礙學生」為主要對象外，另採用一對一的配對法，選取與閱讀障礙組兒童同生理年齡，且就讀於同一班級之「同年齡學生」為對照組一外，再選與閱讀障礙組兒童之閱讀成就相當，且就讀於同一學校的「同閱讀能力學生」為對照組二，共計九十三名樣本。本研究所有的學生均接受視知覺能力與閱讀能力的測驗，視知覺能力測驗包括「記憶廣度」、「序列記憶」、「部件辨識」、「組字規則」、「真字」、「假字」，閱讀能力測驗包括「中文年級認字量表」、「語文理解能力測驗」。以相依樣本單因子變異數分析、Pearson積差相關、逐步迴歸等方法進行資料分析。研究結果顯示：一、不同受試者在各視知覺能力的表現：在「記憶廣度」、「序列記憶」、「部件辨識」、「組字規則」等方面，均是同齡組顯著大於閱障組，且同齡組與同閱組亦達顯著差異，但同閱組並未與顯著優於閱障組。而在「真字」、「假字」項目，都是同齡組顯著大於閱障組，同齡組與同閱組達到顯著差異，且閱障組亦顯著優於同閱組。二、在不同受試者的視知覺能力與閱讀能力之相關部分：在認字能力方面，閱障組的相關項目有五項，即「記憶廣度」、「序列記憶」、「部件辨識」、「組字規則」、「真字」，即這五項能力與認字能力有關；同齡組僅有「真字」與認字能力相關；同閱組的「記憶廣度」、「真字」與認字能力有關。而閱讀理解方面，僅有閱障組的「部件辨識」與閱讀理解有關；其餘兩組的視知覺能力均與閱讀理解無關。三、在不同受試者的視知覺能力對閱讀能力之預測分析方面：「真字」、「序列記憶」能有效預測閱障組的認字能力；同齡組及同閱組認字能力的有效預測變項僅為「真字」。「部件辨識」則是閱障組閱讀理解能力的最佳預測變項。所有的視知覺能力均不能有效預測同齡組與同閱組的閱讀理解能力。

The researcher compared mean differences of visual-perceptual skills between a reading-disabled (RD) group and two control groups matched with age (age-matched， AM) and reading level (reading-level matched， RM) respectively. The RD group was composed of 31 students， aged 8 to 12， who had severe difficulties in reading comprehension and Chinese character recognition. Among the groups， demographic variables such as gender， social economic status， and class were controlled by careful case-by-case matching procedures. All participants received 6 tests that measured different visual-perceptual skills. Subjects were tested on visual memory span， visual sequential memory， Chinese orthographic component discrimination， Chinese orthographic knowledge， real-word orthographic decision， and pseudo-word orthographic decision. Scores on a Chinese character recognition test and a reading comprehension test were also collected as dependent measures.The major findings are as follows. 1.Visual-perceptual skills in different groups: With regard to visual memory span， visual sequential memory， orthographic component discrimination， and orthographic rules， AMs significantly outperformed the RDs and RMs. There were no significant differences between the RMs’ and RDs’ visual-perceptual skills.， Similarly， in the real- and pseudo-word decision tests， AMs again outperformed the RDs.Students’ performances had obvious distinctions between the AMs and RMs. RDs performed much better than RMs.2.Correlations among visual-perceptual skills and reading abilities: Five variables of RDs， namely， visual memory span， visual sequential memory， orthographic component discrimination， orthographic knowledge， and real-word orthographic decision， correlated significantly with character recognition (p