二年級國語文補救教學研究─一個長時密集的介入方案

The Effectiveness of a Remedial Reading Program for Second Graders: A Case of Long-Term Intensive Intervention

本研究以33 位小二語文低成就兒童為對象，由大學生提供一年的語文補救教學，目的是探究實驗兒童是否能夠在密集的補救教學中受益。主要發現有四，1.實驗組兒童語文能力的進展顯著比對照組好，第一學期兩組的注音能力有顯著差異，到了第二學期，識字能力的差異也顯現，但閱讀理解則都沒有差異；2.實驗組的注音能力已趕上同儕水準，但識字能力僅能避免馬太效應的發生，未能有效縮短差距；3.不同閱讀困難程度兒童，語文能力回到同儕水準的機會，因成分而異：不同注音困難程度兒童，都有高比率的機會拉回同儕水準，但識字越困難的兒童，其回到同儕水準的比率相對較低；4.智力只和前測有顯著相關，不能有效預測成效，對實驗組的成效最具預測力的是前測成績和教學效能。

An early remedial reading program was taught by trained undergraduate students to 33 2nd-grade underachievers for 2 semesters. In addition to examining whether the children, as a group, were improved as a result of this systematic and intensive remedial instruction, the researcher also looked at the differences between the experimental and control groups. The 4 major findings were: (1) children in the experimental group made better progress than their peers in the control group. Using the pretest and IQ as covariates, the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group on Chinese Phonetic Symbols (Chu-Yin Fu-Hao, CYFH) at the end of the first semester, and on character recognition at the end of second semester. However, no significant between-group difference was found for reading comprehension. (2) Children in the experimental group caught up with the national norm when it came to CYFH ability. However, no such catching-up was found with character recognition. The mean gap between the experimental group and the national norm did not close, although it seemed that, when the two means were compared, the program successfully prevented the so-called “the poor gets poorer” phenomenon. (3) No matter how slow they were in CYFH learning, a majority of children caught up with their peers after the remedial program. With respect to character recognition, however, those who were rated the lowest in the pretest seemed to be the most unlikely to catch up with their peers. (4) IQ only correlated with pretest scores; it was not a good predictor of later reading progress. The better predictors of reading progress were pretest scores and teaching quality.