| 摘要: | 本研究乃接續前兩年之研究計畫,主要以年級間縱貫面與年級內橫斷面的比較,探討閱讀障礙與高閱讀能力學生閱讀理解策略的使用情形。以台中市南屯國小四、五、六年級之閱讀障礙與高閱讀能力學生各三名,共十八名學生為本研究之樣本,採克漏字閱讀理解材料之閱讀實作情境,配合閱讀理解策略晤談方式,錄音騰為逐字稿資料之後進行各項策略的歸類與分析比較,結果如下: 1.所有學生使用的閱讀理解策略共歸為十大類,依使用次數的多寡依序為:(1)前後文線索(forward and backward cues)、(2)上下關鍵字(neighboring key words)、(3)先前經驗(prior experience)、(4)文意合理化(reasoning meaning)、(5)注意標題(noticing title)、(6)參照文章用字(imitate words)、(7)上下詞意(neighboring phrases)、(8)文章組織(text texture)、(9)精緻化(elaboration)、(10)擬物化(involving role)。2.閱讀障礙學生在各年級間的閱讀理解的策略使用上並無明顯的差異且沒有因年級的增加而在策略使用上有明顯的改變。3.高閱讀能力學生在各年級間的策略使用類別上同質性相當高,且較低年級的高閱讀能力學生在文章難度增加時,其策略使用方式與較高年級的高閱讀能力學生並無明顯差異。4.閱讀障礙學生最常使用的策略類別為上下關鍵字策略,其次為文意合理化、前後文線索策略與先前經驗等策略類別。文意合理化策略中以改變文意此小類居使用多數;前後文線索策略則主要以前文線索為使用多數。5.高閱讀能力學生最常使用的策略類別為前後文線索,其次則為先前經驗、上下關鍵字、注意標題等策略類別,而前後文線索主要集中於前文線索此小類;先前經驗則以語言經驗的使用居多數。6.高閱讀能力學生在前後文線索及先前經驗兩項策略使用次數明顯較高於閱讀障礙學生;而在上下關鍵字與文意合理化兩項策略的使用上則明顯較低於閱讀障礙學生。7.有效的閱讀理解策略使用必須配合策略知識、內容知識、及相關的後設認知知識。
The purpose of this study for the third year was to compare the reading comprehension strategies used by students with reading disabilities and students with proficient reading abilities. The subjects were eighteen forth, fifth, and sixth-grade elementary students, including three students with reading disabilities and three students with proficient reading abilities for each grade. A qualitative research method was employed to study the differences of reading strategies used between students with/without reading disabilities, including the students of different grades but with the same reading abilities and the students of same grades but with different reading abilities. The qualitative data collected during the individual reading narrative texts in Cloze procedure and interview were analyzed by using modified analysis and constant comparative analysis. The main findings were summarized as follows: (1) The reading comprehension strategies used by the subjects were grouped in order into ten categories, including: (a) forward and backward cues, (b) neighboring key words, (c) prior experience, (d) reasoning meaning, (e) noticing title, (f) imitate words, (g) neighboring phrases, (h) text texture, (i) elaboration, and (j) involving role. (2) There was no difference of reading comprehension strategies used by the students with reading disabilities among three grades. (3) There was no difference of reading comprehension strategies used by the students with proficient reading abilities among three grades. (4) The most frequently used reading comprehension strategies by students with reading disabilities were (a) neighboring key words, (b) reasoning meaning, (c) forward and backward cues, and (d) prior experience. (5) The most frequently used reading comprehension strategies by students with proficient reading disabilities were (a) forward and backward cues, (b) prior experience, (c) neighboring key words, and (d) noticing title. (6) The students with proficient reading abilities tended to use forward and backward cues and prior experience strategies more frequently then students with reading disabilities, and tended to use neighboring key words and reasoning meaning less frequently then students with reading disability. (7) The knowledge of strategy, knowledge of content, and metacognition skills should be applied when students employed effective reading comprehension strategies. |
