National Academy for Educational Research

　　不論國內或國外的研究均指出，對一、二年級低成就兒童進行語文補救教學的成效最佳，但是對於中、高年級相關的研究就少了很多，台灣尤然。本研究分別對四、五年級的學生進行解碼及策略並重的讀寫教學實驗：四年級部分：共有弱勢低成就學生三組，A實驗組（6校36人）：接受2學期的實驗教學；B對照組（6校38人）：上學期接受審定版傳統教學，下學期接受實驗教學，即僅接受1學期的實驗教學；C對照組（6校39人）：接受2學期的審定版傳統教學。研究者在上、下學期末進行後測；五年級部分：以五年級普通班級學生為對象進行教學實驗一學期，實驗組+對照組)，實驗組（3校53人）接受研究者編製的教材，對照組（3校41人）接受審定版教材。資料分析時，先以統計方式控制實驗組與對照組的智商、父母教育背景及前測分數，研究結果如下： 四年級 1.介入1學期後，四年級A實驗組和另外兩組在後測的字、詞、閱讀測驗、及課程本位的選擇題平均值均無顯著差異，唯一有差異的是課程本位的非選擇題。2. 介入2學期後，3組的字、詞分數仍無顯著差異，但在閱讀測驗上，A實驗組與B對照組的平均值顯著優於C對照組。 亦即，參加實驗教學的四年級學生，不論是參加1學期或2學期的補救(A實驗組或B對照組)，其後測閱讀測驗與課程本位非選擇題的成績都顯著較兩學期都參加教師自選補救教材的C對照組學生優秀。而參與2學期後，A、B組標準化閱讀測驗的分數也顯著優對照組。 五年級 實驗組後測閱讀測驗及課程本位的非選擇題閱讀測驗均顯著優於對照組，但在後測的字與詞與對照組無顯著差異。 以上顯示，實驗教材不僅適合做為國語低成就學生的補救教材，同時也適合給一般生使用，經一學期的實驗在閱讀測驗與課程本位選擇題成績上都有很好的效果。

　　In this project, we conducted an experiment in which the effectiveness of a supplemental balanced and strategic reading intervention curriculum was used in a remedial program aiming on promoting the reading/writing competence of 4th- and 5th-grade disadvantaged poor readers. The program targets the decoding (character and word recognition), fluency, and reading comprehension strategies of the participants. Part I. We examined the effectiveness of the intervention curriculum that is developed for 4th –grade low achievers with a pretest-posttest non-equivalent group experimental design. Twelve teachers from disadvantaged schools who delivered the Hand-in-Hand afterschool remedial program to 4th graders were assigned to the experiment group and control group. The teacher-student ratio in both groups is 1 to 6. Another group of 6 teachers served as a control group. Teachers in the experiment group were prepared to being familiar with the teaching methods and materials that were developed by the researchers. The remedial program was be arranged in the first semester during a 15-week period with a total of 60 40-minute sessions. Researchers do not get involve the instruction of teachers in the control group. Teachers in the control group deliver their Hand-in-Hand program with their traditional methods. Part II. We examined the effectiveness of the researcher-developed intervention curriculum for 5th-grade low achievers. Students’ outcome measures are test scores at the levels of character, word, and reading comprehension. The control group receives intervention with traditional teaching methods. Results show that, compared to the control groups, the reading comprehension scores of the experiment groups outperformed the control groups, in both 4th-graders and 5th-graders. It implies that the researchers-developed curriculum successfully raised the reading comprehension of students, but did not show any effect at character and word levels.