1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Liberal Arts
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 重複閱讀對於國小高年級低閱讀能力學童提升閱讀能力之成效
The Effect of Repeated Reading on the Improvement of Reading Ability for Senior Elementary School Students with Low Reading Ability
作者 金紹敏
Jin, Shao-Min
貢獻者 林巧敏
Lin, Chiao-Min
金紹敏
Jin, Shao-Min
關鍵詞 重複閱讀
低閱讀能力
報讀系統
圖像漫畫
Graphic comics
Repeated reading
Poor readers
Text-to-speech system
日期 2023
上傳時間 6-Jul-2023 16:22:20 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究目的旨在探討重複閱讀對於提升兩位高年級低閱讀能力受試者的口語閱讀流暢度、識字量、閱讀理解能力之成效，研究方法為單一個案研究法中的多重介入設計A1-B1-M1-G1-A2-B2-M2-G2，將自變項設計為兩種方式：重複閱讀結合報讀系統與重複閱讀結合圖像漫畫，由此可比較不同設計方式對於提升受試者在閱讀能力上的立即、維持與類化成效差異。本研究結果如下：
一、口語閱讀流暢度：兩種重複閱讀設計對於提升兩位高年級低閱讀能力受試者的口語閱讀流暢度（包含朗讀速度與朗讀正確率），皆有中等至大的立即成效。朗讀速度資料顯示兩者皆沒有維持與類化成效；而重複閱讀結合報讀系統對於提升朗讀正確率有中等的維持成效，且對於聲韻覺識、聽音辨字能力佳者有類化成效，但對於字形辨識能力佳者無類化成效。最後，重複閱讀結合圖像漫畫則皆無維持與類化成效。
二、識字量：本研究結果顯示重複閱讀對於提升高年級低閱讀能力受試者的識字量有立即、維持成效，但類化成效較不顯著。在相同形式但字數較多的文本無類化成效，亦即當維持期結束，在類化期提供受試者字數多一百字的文本，受試者無法表現得與介入期一樣好，在分數呈現下滑的情況下，判斷為無類化成效。然而第二部分的資料顯示，甲在兩種識字測驗上皆有進步，乙僅在心理出版社的識字測驗上有進步。但因為較多項數據顯示無類化成效，且乙在閱讀評量教學網測驗的前後測中表現退步，因此判斷重複閱讀對於提升高年級低閱讀能力受試者的識字量有立即、維持成效，但類化成效較不顯著。
三、閱讀理解：重複閱讀對於提升高年級低閱讀能力受試者的閱讀理解有立即、維持與類化成效，且報讀系統相較圖像漫畫對於提升閱讀理解的立即成效更大：報讀系統對於提升兩位受試者的閱讀理解皆有大的立即成效，圖像漫畫則僅有小至中的立即成效，但兩種重複閱讀皆有中度的維持成效。且在經過一學期的重複閱讀教學介入，即使讓受試者接受不同形式的閱讀測驗，受試者仍能呈現較前測更好的閱讀表現。綜上所述，重複閱讀對於提升高年級低閱讀能力學童的閱讀理解有立即、維持與類化成效
四、兩種教學比較：本研究結果顯示重複閱讀結合報讀系統對於提升高年級低閱讀能力受試者的朗讀正確率與閱讀理解之成效較圖像漫畫佳，而重複閱讀結合圖像漫畫對於提升高年級低閱讀能力者的朗讀速度之成效較報讀系統佳。
The purpose of the study is to investigate the effectiveness of repeated reading for oral reading fluency, literacy, and reading comprehension. Two senior elementary school students with low reading ability were recruited. A single case study method with multiple interventions A1-B1-M1-G1-A2-B2-M2-G2 was adopted. To compare the immediate, maintenance, and generalized effects of the different designs on the subjects’ reading ability, two self-variable items were designed: repeated reading combined with a text-to-speech (TTS) system and with graphic comics. The result of the present study is as follows:
1.Oral Reading Fluency: Both designs of repeated reading showed moderate to large immediate effects on improving the oral reading fluency (including the reading speed and accuracy) of two participants. However, there were no maintenance or generalization effects observed in reading speed. Repeated reading combined with the TTS system had a moderate maintenance effect on improving reading accuracy, and it showed a generalization effect for students with good phonological awareness but not for those with good visual word recognition skills. On the other hand, repeated reading combined with graphic comics showed no maintenance or generalization effects.
2.Literacy: The results of this study revealed that repeated reading had immediate and maintenance effects on literacy of two participants, but the generalization effect was not significant. When presented with texts of the same format but with more words, there was no generalization effect observed. In other words, when the maintenance period ended and participants were given texts with an additional one hundred words during the generalization phase, they were unable to perform as well as during the intervention phase, resulting in a decline in scores. However, the data from the second part indicated that participant A showed improvement on both vocabulary tests, while participant B only showed improvement on the test from the psychological publishing company. Nevertheless, due to the lack of significant generalization effects in multiple data sets and the regression in participant B`s performance on the pre- and post-tests, it can be concluded that repeated reading has immediate and maintenance effects on literacy of two participants, but the generalization effect is not significant.
3.Reading Comprehension: Repeated reading had immediate, maintenance, and generalization effects on improving the reading comprehension of two participants. Moreover, the TTS system yielded greater immediate effects on improving reading comprehension compared to graphic comics. Both repeated reading approaches showed moderate maintenance effects. Even after a semester of repeated reading intervention, the participants exhibited better reading performance compared to the pre-test when presented with different forms of reading assessments. In summary, repeated reading has immediate, maintenance, and generalization effects on improving the reading comprehension of two participants.
4.Comparison of the Two Instructional Approaches: The results of this study indicate that repeated reading combined with the reading system is more effective than repeated reading combined with graphic comics in improving the accuracy of oral reading and reading comprehension among the participants with low reading proficiency. However, repeated reading combined with graphic comics is more effective than the reading system in improving reading speed among the participants.
參考文獻 Algozzine, B., Marr, M. B., Kavel, R. L., & Dugan, K. K. (2009). Using peer coaches to build oral reading fluency. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(3), 256-270.
Barbetta, P. M., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1993). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of sight words by students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 111-119.
BBC NEWS.(1998,January 13). English schools told to go back to basics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/46975.stm
Becker, W. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged—What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 518-543.
Begeny, J. C., Mitchell, R. C., Whitehouse, M. H., Harris Samuels, F., & Stage, S. A. (2011). Effects of the HELPS reading fluency program when implemented by classroom teachers with low‐performing second‐grade students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(3), 122-133.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children`s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of educational psychology, 96(1), 31.
Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24(3-4), 291-322.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development.
Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain. New York.
Devault, R., & Joseph, L. M. (2004). Repeated readings combined with word boxes phonics technique increases fluency levels of high school students with severe reading delays. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 49(1), 22-27.
Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading research quarterly, 481-533.
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5-21.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Tejero Hughes, M., & Watson Moody, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of educational psychology, 92(4), 605.
Frith, U. (2001). Mind blindness and the brain in autism. Neuron, 32(6), 969-979.
Gagné, R. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction Robert Gagné. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart ja Winston.
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Applied research in education and behavioral sciences. In Single case research methodology (pp. 1-18). Routledge.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and special education, 7(1), 6-10.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and writing, 2(2), 127-160.
Hudson, A., et al. (2020). "Fluency interventions for elementary students with reading difficulties: a synthesis of research from 2000–2019." Education Sciences 10(3): 52.
Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of learning disabilities, 20(4), 196-205.
Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of continuing professional development: A framework for analysis. Journal of in-service education, 31(2), 235-250.
Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. John Wiley & Sons.
Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (1995). Comprehension monitoring and the level of comprehension in high-and low-achieving primary school children`s reading. Learning and Instruction, 5(2), 143-165.
Ku, Y. M., & Anderson, R. C. (2003). Development of morphological awareness in Chinese and English. Reading and Writing, 16(5), 399-422.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of educational psychology, 95(1), 3.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive psychology, 6(2), 293-323.
Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2014). Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychological rehabilitation, 24(3-4), 445-463.
Liberman, A. M. (1992). The relation of speech to reading and writing. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 94, pp. 167-178). North-Holland.
Liberman, A. M. (2017). The relation of speech to reading and writing. In Speech and reading (pp. 17-31). Routledge.
Lundberg, I. (l995). The computer as a tool of remediation in the education of students with learning disabilities-A theorybased approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18(2), 89-99.
Lyon, G. R. (1998). Why reading is not a natural process. Educational leadership, 55(6), 14-18.
Miles, K. P., Rubin, G. B., & Gonzalez‐Frey, S. (2018). Rethinking sight words. The Reading Teacher, 71(6), 715-726.
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., & Sainsbury, M. (2016). PIRLS 2016 reading framework. PIRLS, 11-29.
National Reading Panel (US). (2000). National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: an Evidence-based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
National Research Council. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. National Academies Press.
Norton, E. S. (2020). What educators need to know about rapid automatized naming (RAN). LDA Bulletin, 52(1), 25-28.
Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual review of psychology, 63(1), 427-452.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. cambridge University press.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD publishing. P.31
Rack, J. P. (1985). Orthographic and phonetic coding in developmental dyslexia. British Journal of Psychology, 76(3), 325-340.
Rasinski, T. V. (2004). Assessing reading fluency. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (PREL).
Rayner, K., & Reichle, E. D. (2010). Models of the reading process. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(6), 787-799.
Rupley, W. H., Willson, V. L., & Nichols, W. D. (1998). Exploration of the developmental components contributing to elementary school children`s reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 143-158.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The reading teacher, 32(4), 403-408.
Shanahan, T. (2005). The National Reading Panel Report. Practical Advice for Teachers. Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL).
Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). Dyslexia (specific reading disability). Pediatrics in Review, 24(5), 147-153.
SKY NEWS.(2021, November 23). Perrottet: NSW schools must ‘go back to basics’, stop being ‘woke’ in the classroom. https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/paul-murray/perrottet-nsw-schools-must-go-back-to-basics-stop-being-woke-in-the-classroom/video/3764cffb78cd50a801d5b68560304e33
Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties before Kindergarten. Preventing reading difficulties in young children, 137-171.
Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1994). The road not taken: An integrative theoretical model of reading disability. Journal of learning disabilities, 27(2), 91-103.
Spinks, J. A., Liu, Y., Perfetti, C. A., & Tan, L. H. (2000). Reading Chinese characters for meaning: The role of phonological information. Cognition, 76(1), B1-B11.
Stewart, M. T. (2004). Early literacy instruction in the climate of No Child Left Behind. The Reading Teacher, 57(8), 732-743.
Tan, L. H., Spinks, J. A., Eden, G. F., Perfetti, C. A., & Siok, W. T. (2005). Reading depends on writing, in Chinese. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(24), 8781-8785.
Taylor, B., Harris, L. A., Pearson, P. D., & Garcia, G. (1995). Reading Difficulties. The United State of America: MaGraw-Hill.
Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and special education, 25(4), 252-261.
Therrien, W. J., & Kubina Jr, R. M. (2006). Developing reading fluency with repeated reading. Intervention in school and clinic, 41(3), 156-160.
Thurlow, R., & van den Broek, P. (1997). Automaticity and inference generation during reading comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13(2), 165-181.
Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., ... & Lesaux, N. (2017). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Center on Instruction.
Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (2017). Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read. In Reading acquisition (pp. 175-214). Routledge.
Turmler, W. & Hoover, W. (1992). Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read. In: P.Gough, L. Ehri & R. Treiman (eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 175--214). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum Associates.
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2008). Repeated reading intervention: Outcomes and interactions with readers` skills and classroom instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 272.
Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of learning disabilities, 45(3), 244-256.
Vaughn, S., & Wanzek, J. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 46-53.
Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. S. (2002). Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. The Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 2-13.
Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541-561.
Wanzek, J., Roberts, G., & Al Otaiba, S. (2014). Academic responding during instruction and reading outcomes for kindergarten students at-risk for reading difficulties. Reading and writing, 27(1), 55-78.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of educational research, 83(2), 163-195.
World Health Organization. (2019). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision. https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/

王立志，楊憲明（2012）。發展性閱讀障礙之分類研究及相關議題探討。特殊教育與復健學報，101(27), 55-80。
王立志，楊憲明（2015）。漢語發展性閱讀障礙學生之亞型分類研究。特殊教育研究學刊, 40(1), 55-83。
王宣惠（2011）。不同閱讀能力學童詞素覺識表現之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系，臺北市。
王梅軒，黃瑞珍（2005）。國小課程本位閱讀測量方法之信度與效度研究。特殊教育研究學刊， (29)， 73-94。
王瓊珠（1992）。國小六年級閱讀障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀認知能力之比較研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。
王瓊珠（2010）。故事結構教學與分享閱讀（第二版）。心理出版社。
王瓊珠（2012）。台灣中文字詞教學研究之文獻回顧與展望∗。教育心理學報,44(2), 253-272。
王豔碧，余林（2007）。我國近十年來漢語閱讀障礙研究回顧與展望。心理科學進展, 15(004), 596-604。
朱經明（2002）。特殊教育與電腦科技（初版三刷）。台北：五南。
江慧專（2019）。重複閱讀結合動物輔助學習對提升學習障礙學生閱讀能力及動機之成效。國立屏東大學特殊教育學系，屏東縣。
吳思娜，舒華，劉艷茹（2005）。語素意識在兒童漢語閱讀中的作用。心理與行為研究,3(1), 35。
吳瑞屯（1990）。中文字辨識歷程的個別差異分析。中華心理學刊,32, 63-74。
呂偉白（2020）。簡介Chall的閱讀發展階段論─從學以讀到讀以學。呂偉白的公開講義。取自http://blog.ncue.edu.tw/weipailu/doc/40199
李秀敏（2013）。重複閱讀教學策略對提升輕度智能障礙兒童朗讀流暢度之成效。國立臺北教育大學教育學院特殊教育學系，臺北市。
李佳昕（2013）。運用眼動儀探討學習障礙生閱讀不同教材編輯模式之研究。中原大學工業與系統工程學系，桃園市。
李俊仁，柯華葳（2007）。以認知因素區辨不同閱讀能力組的效能分析。特殊教育研究學刊, 32(1), 1-14.
李偉德（2001）。閱讀理論之探究。測驗統計簡訊。
李鈺淳（2018）。重複閱讀提升閱讀困難兒童閱讀理解與流暢度之成效。國立臺南大學特殊教育學系，臺南市。
孟瑛如，田仲閔，魏銘志，周文聿（2017）。國民小學四至六年級學童識字診斷測驗。第二版。臺北市，心理出版社。
孟瑛如，張淑蘋，范姜雅菁，陳虹君，周文聿（2017）。國民小學四至六年級學童識字診斷測驗。第二版。臺北市，心理出版社。
林敏宜（2000）。童話書的欣賞與應用。臺北市，心理出版社。
林敬修（2008）閱讀流暢性之教學-以重複閱讀為例。特殊教育文集,(10), 34-55。
宣崇慧，盧台華（2006）。聲韻覺識能力及口語詞彙知識與國小一至二年級學童字, 詞閱讀發展之探究. 特殊教育研究學刊,(31), 73-92.
柯玉真（2013）。不同閱讀能力學童詞義技能、聲韻處理與中文閱讀能力之研究。國立臺中教育大學特殊教育學系，臺中市。
柯華葳（2017）。教出閱讀力！2017暢銷增修版。親子天下。
柯華葳，陳冠銘（2004）。文章結構標示與閱讀理解-以低年級學生為例。教育心理學報, 36(2), 185-200。
柯華葳、李俊仁（1996）。初學識字成人語音覺識與閱讀能力的關係。國立中正大學學報：社會科學分冊，7（10），29-47。
柯華葳、詹益綾（2007）。國民小學閱讀理解篩選測驗指導手冊，臺北市：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
洪采菱（2008）。廣泛閱讀與重複閱讀教學法對國小一年級學童識字能力、口語閱讀流暢力及閱讀理解之影響。
秦麗花(2001)。單一受試研究效果值分析。測驗統計簡訊，39，15-26。
張庭瑋（2017）。識字教學結合重複閱讀對國小學習障礙者閱讀流暢度及文本理解能力之研究。臺北市立大學身心障礙者轉銜及休閒教育碩士學位學程，臺北市。
張琦，江新（2015）。中級和高級漢語學習者語素意識與閱讀關係的研究。華文教學與研究, 59(3), 11-17。
張新仁，韓孟蓉（2004）。不同識字教學法對國小低年級學生識字教學成效之研究. 教育學刊, (22), 71-88。
張毓仁，吳明隆，胡芝妮（2011）。國小四，五和六年級學童國語文課程本位朗讀流暢能力之比較。教育研究月刊。
張毓仁、柯華葳、邱皓政、歐宗霖、溫福星（2011）。教師閱讀教學行為與學生閱讀態度和閱讀能力自我評價對於閱讀成就之跨層次影響: 以 PIRLS 2006 為例。教育科學研究期刊, 56(2), 69-105。
教育部（2013）身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定辦法。取自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=h0080065
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校—國語文。取自 https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebContent/index.aspx?sid=11&mid=5721
莊梅君，劉秀丹（2014）。可預測性繪本教學方案對國小聽覺障礙學生閱讀理解的成效。特殊教育研究學刊,39(3), 29-48。
許美雲（2009）。不同重複閱讀教學法對國小一年級學童認字能力、閱讀流暢度與閱讀理解之影響。國立屏東教育大學教育心理與輔導學系，屏東縣。
陳木金，許瑋珊（2012）。從 PISA 閱讀評量的國際比較探討閱讀素養教育的方向。教師天地期刊, 181, 4-15。
陳宜君（2016）。重複閱讀教學對國小弱讀者閱讀表現之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系，臺北市。
陳東甫（2008）。電腦語音文字同步系統結合重複閱讀教學對識字困難學生學習成效之研究。國立嘉義大學教育科技研究所，嘉義市。
陳東甫，劉漢欽（2007）。電腦語音合成系統在閱讀教學上的應用與省思。國小特殊教育(43), 70-80。
陳淑麗，曾世杰（2005）。唸名速度及注音覺識在中文閱讀障礙亞型分類上的角色—個案補救教學研究。載於洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、陳長益主編，突破學習困難—評量與因應之探討（頁179-214）。心理出版社，臺北市。
陳瑋婷（2005）。後設認知策略在學習障礙學生閱讀理解教學上之應用。國小特殊教育, (39), 1-9。
陳慶順（2001）。識字困難學生與普通學生識字認知成分之比較研究。特殊教育研究學刊，21，215-237。
陳穎相，廖晨惠（2015）。中文句型特徵與教學之探究。特殊教育與輔助科技半年刊,13, 46-51。
曾世杰（1999）。國語文低成就學童之工作記憶, 聲韻處理能力與唸名速度之研究。學童閱讀困難的鑑定與診斷, 5-28。
曾世杰（2004）。聲韻覺識、唸名速度與中文障礙。臺北市，心理出版社。
程炳林（2000）。閱讀理解。教育大辭書。取自 Available:http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1314195/
鈕文英，吳裕益（2019）。單一個案研究法：設計與實施。心理出版社股份有限公司，新北市。
黃芸（2003）。中文閱讀障礙研究—以國中小學生為例。私立中原大學心理學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
黃鳳姿（2016）。重複閱讀教學結合多媒體文本對國小三年級識字困難學生閱讀流暢能力之影響。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。
楊志偉，龔耀先，李雪蓉（1998）。漢語兒童閱讀障礙的臨床評定與分型研究。中國臨床心理學雜誌,6(3), 136-139。
楊宜蓁，王欣宜（2017）。淺談故事結構策略在國小閱讀障礙學生教學之應用。特殊教育與輔助科技半年刊,17, 43-50。
廖晨惠，黃忻怡，曹傑如，白鎧鋕（2012）。國小低年級學童聲韻覺識, 聲旁表音覺識, 造詞能力, 斷詞能力, 與中文閱讀之 縱貫性研究。測驗統計年刊, 20(2), 31-65。
劉義翔，黃瑞珍（2017）。國小中年級閱讀障礙兒童伴隨語言問題之研究。特殊教育學報, (46), 31-53。
歐育璋（2012）。重複閱讀與故事結構對國小學習障礙學生閱讀理解教學之比較研究。國立屏東教育大學特殊教育學系，屏東縣。
歐素惠，王瓊珠（2004）。三種詞彙教學法對閱讀障礙兒童的詞彙學習與閱讀理解之成效研究。特殊教育研究學刊,26 , 271-292。
潘世尊（2016）。以 PIRLS 閱讀理解歷程為基礎之 [提問] 策略教學。弘光學報, (78), 147-161。
錡寶香（2009）。兒童語言與溝通發展。臺北市，心理出版社。
謝幸雯（2010）。多媒體繪本重複閱讀教學對國語學業成就低落學童閱讀學習成效之影響。國立臺北教育大學特殊教育學系，臺北市。
謝嘉恩，柯華葳，李俊仁（2019）。「2019閱讀理解測驗」測驗使用與解釋說明。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系，國立清華大學教育與學習科技學系出版。
謝錫金，林偉業，林裕康，羅嘉怡（2005）。兒童閱讀能力進展：香港與國際比較。Hong Kong University Press。
鍾明興（2012）。重複閱讀對國小學習障礙學生朗讀流暢度與閱讀理解的影響之研究。國立屏東教育大學特殊教育學系，屏東縣。
羅育齡（2020）。推動閱讀教學的手：「德州讀寫計畫」推行經驗分享。臺灣教育評論月刊, 9(12), 91-95。
蘇宜芬，洪儷瑜，陳柏熹，陳心怡（2018）。閱讀理解成長測驗之編製研究。教育心理學報,49(4), 557-580.
鐘明興（2012）。重複閱讀對國小學習障礙學生朗讀流暢度與閱讀理解的影響之研究。國立屏東教育大學特殊教育學系，屏東縣。
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班
110913022
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110913022
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 林巧敏zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Chiao-Minen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 金紹敏zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Jin, Shao-Minen_US
dc.creator (作者) 金紹敏zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Jin, Shao-Minen_US
dc.date (日期) 2023en_US
dc.date.accessioned 6-Jul-2023 16:22:20 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 6-Jul-2023 16:22:20 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 6-Jul-2023 16:22:20 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0110913022en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/145742-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 110913022zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究目的旨在探討重複閱讀對於提升兩位高年級低閱讀能力受試者的口語閱讀流暢度、識字量、閱讀理解能力之成效，研究方法為單一個案研究法中的多重介入設計A1-B1-M1-G1-A2-B2-M2-G2，將自變項設計為兩種方式：重複閱讀結合報讀系統與重複閱讀結合圖像漫畫，由此可比較不同設計方式對於提升受試者在閱讀能力上的立即、維持與類化成效差異。本研究結果如下：
一、口語閱讀流暢度：兩種重複閱讀設計對於提升兩位高年級低閱讀能力受試者的口語閱讀流暢度（包含朗讀速度與朗讀正確率），皆有中等至大的立即成效。朗讀速度資料顯示兩者皆沒有維持與類化成效；而重複閱讀結合報讀系統對於提升朗讀正確率有中等的維持成效，且對於聲韻覺識、聽音辨字能力佳者有類化成效，但對於字形辨識能力佳者無類化成效。最後，重複閱讀結合圖像漫畫則皆無維持與類化成效。
二、識字量：本研究結果顯示重複閱讀對於提升高年級低閱讀能力受試者的識字量有立即、維持成效，但類化成效較不顯著。在相同形式但字數較多的文本無類化成效，亦即當維持期結束，在類化期提供受試者字數多一百字的文本，受試者無法表現得與介入期一樣好，在分數呈現下滑的情況下，判斷為無類化成效。然而第二部分的資料顯示，甲在兩種識字測驗上皆有進步，乙僅在心理出版社的識字測驗上有進步。但因為較多項數據顯示無類化成效，且乙在閱讀評量教學網測驗的前後測中表現退步，因此判斷重複閱讀對於提升高年級低閱讀能力受試者的識字量有立即、維持成效，但類化成效較不顯著。
三、閱讀理解：重複閱讀對於提升高年級低閱讀能力受試者的閱讀理解有立即、維持與類化成效，且報讀系統相較圖像漫畫對於提升閱讀理解的立即成效更大：報讀系統對於提升兩位受試者的閱讀理解皆有大的立即成效，圖像漫畫則僅有小至中的立即成效，但兩種重複閱讀皆有中度的維持成效。且在經過一學期的重複閱讀教學介入，即使讓受試者接受不同形式的閱讀測驗，受試者仍能呈現較前測更好的閱讀表現。綜上所述，重複閱讀對於提升高年級低閱讀能力學童的閱讀理解有立即、維持與類化成效
四、兩種教學比較：本研究結果顯示重複閱讀結合報讀系統對於提升高年級低閱讀能力受試者的朗讀正確率與閱讀理解之成效較圖像漫畫佳，而重複閱讀結合圖像漫畫對於提升高年級低閱讀能力者的朗讀速度之成效較報讀系統佳。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of the study is to investigate the effectiveness of repeated reading for oral reading fluency, literacy, and reading comprehension. Two senior elementary school students with low reading ability were recruited. A single case study method with multiple interventions A1-B1-M1-G1-A2-B2-M2-G2 was adopted. To compare the immediate, maintenance, and generalized effects of the different designs on the subjects’ reading ability, two self-variable items were designed: repeated reading combined with a text-to-speech (TTS) system and with graphic comics. The result of the present study is as follows:
1.Oral Reading Fluency: Both designs of repeated reading showed moderate to large immediate effects on improving the oral reading fluency (including the reading speed and accuracy) of two participants. However, there were no maintenance or generalization effects observed in reading speed. Repeated reading combined with the TTS system had a moderate maintenance effect on improving reading accuracy, and it showed a generalization effect for students with good phonological awareness but not for those with good visual word recognition skills. On the other hand, repeated reading combined with graphic comics showed no maintenance or generalization effects.
2.Literacy: The results of this study revealed that repeated reading had immediate and maintenance effects on literacy of two participants, but the generalization effect was not significant. When presented with texts of the same format but with more words, there was no generalization effect observed. In other words, when the maintenance period ended and participants were given texts with an additional one hundred words during the generalization phase, they were unable to perform as well as during the intervention phase, resulting in a decline in scores. However, the data from the second part indicated that participant A showed improvement on both vocabulary tests, while participant B only showed improvement on the test from the psychological publishing company. Nevertheless, due to the lack of significant generalization effects in multiple data sets and the regression in participant B`s performance on the pre- and post-tests, it can be concluded that repeated reading has immediate and maintenance effects on literacy of two participants, but the generalization effect is not significant.
3.Reading Comprehension: Repeated reading had immediate, maintenance, and generalization effects on improving the reading comprehension of two participants. Moreover, the TTS system yielded greater immediate effects on improving reading comprehension compared to graphic comics. Both repeated reading approaches showed moderate maintenance effects. Even after a semester of repeated reading intervention, the participants exhibited better reading performance compared to the pre-test when presented with different forms of reading assessments. In summary, repeated reading has immediate, maintenance, and generalization effects on improving the reading comprehension of two participants.
4.Comparison of the Two Instructional Approaches: The results of this study indicate that repeated reading combined with the reading system is more effective than repeated reading combined with graphic comics in improving the accuracy of oral reading and reading comprehension among the participants with low reading proficiency. However, repeated reading combined with graphic comics is more effective than the reading system in improving reading speed among the participants.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 中文摘要 I
Abstract II
目次 IV
表目次 VI
圖目次 IX
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究問題 5
第四節 研究範圍與限制 5
第五節 名詞解釋 6
第二章 文獻探討 8
第一節 閱讀能力的分析與探究 8
第二節 閱讀困難及其亞型的特徵與可能成因 20
第三節 低閱讀能力學童促進閱讀能力的相關策略 24
第四節 重複閱讀的理念與相關實證研究 30
第三章 研究設計與實施 45
第一節 研究方法與架構 45
第二節 研究對象 49
第三節 研究工具 55
第四節 教學設計 59
第五節 研究程序 65
第六節 資料分析 65
第四章 研究結果分析 69
第一節 口語閱讀流暢度分析 69
第二節 識字量分析 102
第三節 閱讀理解分析 108
第四節 兩種教學設計對於學生閱讀成效之比較 129
第五章 結論與建議 134
第一節 研究結果 134
第二節 教學建議 137
第三節 未來研究建議 138
參考文獻 140
附錄 150
附錄一 心理出版社股份有限公司同意書 150		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 6303722 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110913022en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 重複閱讀zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 低閱讀能力zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 報讀系統zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 圖像漫畫zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Graphic comicsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Repeated readingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Poor readersen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Text-to-speech systemen_US
dc.title (題名) 重複閱讀對於國小高年級低閱讀能力學童提升閱讀能力之成效zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Effect of Repeated Reading on the Improvement of Reading Ability for Senior Elementary School Students with Low Reading Abilityen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Algozzine, B., Marr, M. B., Kavel, R. L., & Dugan, K. K. (2009). Using peer coaches to build oral reading fluency. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(3), 256-270.
Barbetta, P. M., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1993). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of sight words by students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 111-119.
BBC NEWS.(1998,January 13). English schools told to go back to basics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/46975.stm
Becker, W. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged—What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 518-543.
Begeny, J. C., Mitchell, R. C., Whitehouse, M. H., Harris Samuels, F., & Stage, S. A. (2011). Effects of the HELPS reading fluency program when implemented by classroom teachers with low‐performing second‐grade students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(3), 122-133.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children`s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of educational psychology, 96(1), 31.
Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24(3-4), 291-322.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development.
Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain. New York.
Devault, R., & Joseph, L. M. (2004). Repeated readings combined with word boxes phonics technique increases fluency levels of high school students with severe reading delays. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 49(1), 22-27.
Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading research quarterly, 481-533.
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5-21.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Tejero Hughes, M., & Watson Moody, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of educational psychology, 92(4), 605.
Frith, U. (2001). Mind blindness and the brain in autism. Neuron, 32(6), 969-979.
Gagné, R. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction Robert Gagné. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart ja Winston.
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Applied research in education and behavioral sciences. In Single case research methodology (pp. 1-18). Routledge.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and special education, 7(1), 6-10.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and writing, 2(2), 127-160.
Hudson, A., et al. (2020). "Fluency interventions for elementary students with reading difficulties: a synthesis of research from 2000–2019." Education Sciences 10(3): 52.
Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of learning disabilities, 20(4), 196-205.
Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of continuing professional development: A framework for analysis. Journal of in-service education, 31(2), 235-250.
Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. John Wiley & Sons.
Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (1995). Comprehension monitoring and the level of comprehension in high-and low-achieving primary school children`s reading. Learning and Instruction, 5(2), 143-165.
Ku, Y. M., & Anderson, R. C. (2003). Development of morphological awareness in Chinese and English. Reading and Writing, 16(5), 399-422.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of educational psychology, 95(1), 3.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive psychology, 6(2), 293-323.
Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2014). Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychological rehabilitation, 24(3-4), 445-463.
Liberman, A. M. (1992). The relation of speech to reading and writing. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 94, pp. 167-178). North-Holland.
Liberman, A. M. (2017). The relation of speech to reading and writing. In Speech and reading (pp. 17-31). Routledge.
Lundberg, I. (l995). The computer as a tool of remediation in the education of students with learning disabilities-A theorybased approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18(2), 89-99.
Lyon, G. R. (1998). Why reading is not a natural process. Educational leadership, 55(6), 14-18.
Miles, K. P., Rubin, G. B., & Gonzalez‐Frey, S. (2018). Rethinking sight words. The Reading Teacher, 71(6), 715-726.
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., & Sainsbury, M. (2016). PIRLS 2016 reading framework. PIRLS, 11-29.
National Reading Panel (US). (2000). National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: an Evidence-based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
National Research Council. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. National Academies Press.
Norton, E. S. (2020). What educators need to know about rapid automatized naming (RAN). LDA Bulletin, 52(1), 25-28.
Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual review of psychology, 63(1), 427-452.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. cambridge University press.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD publishing. P.31
Rack, J. P. (1985). Orthographic and phonetic coding in developmental dyslexia. British Journal of Psychology, 76(3), 325-340.
Rasinski, T. V. (2004). Assessing reading fluency. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (PREL).
Rayner, K., & Reichle, E. D. (2010). Models of the reading process. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(6), 787-799.
Rupley, W. H., Willson, V. L., & Nichols, W. D. (1998). Exploration of the developmental components contributing to elementary school children`s reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 143-158.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The reading teacher, 32(4), 403-408.
Shanahan, T. (2005). The National Reading Panel Report. Practical Advice for Teachers. Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL).
Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). Dyslexia (specific reading disability). Pediatrics in Review, 24(5), 147-153.
SKY NEWS.(2021, November 23). Perrottet: NSW schools must ‘go back to basics’, stop being ‘woke’ in the classroom. https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/paul-murray/perrottet-nsw-schools-must-go-back-to-basics-stop-being-woke-in-the-classroom/video/3764cffb78cd50a801d5b68560304e33
Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties before Kindergarten. Preventing reading difficulties in young children, 137-171.
Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1994). The road not taken: An integrative theoretical model of reading disability. Journal of learning disabilities, 27(2), 91-103.
Spinks, J. A., Liu, Y., Perfetti, C. A., & Tan, L. H. (2000). Reading Chinese characters for meaning: The role of phonological information. Cognition, 76(1), B1-B11.
Stewart, M. T. (2004). Early literacy instruction in the climate of No Child Left Behind. The Reading Teacher, 57(8), 732-743.
Tan, L. H., Spinks, J. A., Eden, G. F., Perfetti, C. A., & Siok, W. T. (2005). Reading depends on writing, in Chinese. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(24), 8781-8785.
Taylor, B., Harris, L. A., Pearson, P. D., & Garcia, G. (1995). Reading Difficulties. The United State of America: MaGraw-Hill.
Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and special education, 25(4), 252-261.
Therrien, W. J., & Kubina Jr, R. M. (2006). Developing reading fluency with repeated reading. Intervention in school and clinic, 41(3), 156-160.
Thurlow, R., & van den Broek, P. (1997). Automaticity and inference generation during reading comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13(2), 165-181.
Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., ... & Lesaux, N. (2017). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Center on Instruction.
Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (2017). Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read. In Reading acquisition (pp. 175-214). Routledge.
Turmler, W. & Hoover, W. (1992). Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read. In: P.Gough, L. Ehri & R. Treiman (eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 175--214). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum Associates.
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2008). Repeated reading intervention: Outcomes and interactions with readers` skills and classroom instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 272.
Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of learning disabilities, 45(3), 244-256.
Vaughn, S., & Wanzek, J. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 46-53.
Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. S. (2002). Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. The Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 2-13.
Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541-561.
Wanzek, J., Roberts, G., & Al Otaiba, S. (2014). Academic responding during instruction and reading outcomes for kindergarten students at-risk for reading difficulties. Reading and writing, 27(1), 55-78.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of educational research, 83(2), 163-195.
World Health Organization. (2019). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision. https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/

王立志，楊憲明（2012）。發展性閱讀障礙之分類研究及相關議題探討。特殊教育與復健學報，101(27), 55-80。
王立志，楊憲明（2015）。漢語發展性閱讀障礙學生之亞型分類研究。特殊教育研究學刊, 40(1), 55-83。
王宣惠（2011）。不同閱讀能力學童詞素覺識表現之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系，臺北市。
王梅軒，黃瑞珍（2005）。國小課程本位閱讀測量方法之信度與效度研究。特殊教育研究學刊， (29)， 73-94。
王瓊珠（1992）。國小六年級閱讀障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀認知能力之比較研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。
王瓊珠（2010）。故事結構教學與分享閱讀（第二版）。心理出版社。
王瓊珠（2012）。台灣中文字詞教學研究之文獻回顧與展望∗。教育心理學報,44(2), 253-272。
王豔碧，余林（2007）。我國近十年來漢語閱讀障礙研究回顧與展望。心理科學進展, 15(004), 596-604。
朱經明（2002）。特殊教育與電腦科技（初版三刷）。台北：五南。
江慧專（2019）。重複閱讀結合動物輔助學習對提升學習障礙學生閱讀能力及動機之成效。國立屏東大學特殊教育學系，屏東縣。
吳思娜，舒華，劉艷茹（2005）。語素意識在兒童漢語閱讀中的作用。心理與行為研究,3(1), 35。
吳瑞屯（1990）。中文字辨識歷程的個別差異分析。中華心理學刊,32, 63-74。
呂偉白（2020）。簡介Chall的閱讀發展階段論─從學以讀到讀以學。呂偉白的公開講義。取自http://blog.ncue.edu.tw/weipailu/doc/40199
李秀敏（2013）。重複閱讀教學策略對提升輕度智能障礙兒童朗讀流暢度之成效。國立臺北教育大學教育學院特殊教育學系，臺北市。
李佳昕（2013）。運用眼動儀探討學習障礙生閱讀不同教材編輯模式之研究。中原大學工業與系統工程學系，桃園市。
李俊仁，柯華葳（2007）。以認知因素區辨不同閱讀能力組的效能分析。特殊教育研究學刊, 32(1), 1-14.
李偉德（2001）。閱讀理論之探究。測驗統計簡訊。
李鈺淳（2018）。重複閱讀提升閱讀困難兒童閱讀理解與流暢度之成效。國立臺南大學特殊教育學系，臺南市。
孟瑛如，田仲閔，魏銘志，周文聿（2017）。國民小學四至六年級學童識字診斷測驗。第二版。臺北市，心理出版社。
孟瑛如，張淑蘋，范姜雅菁，陳虹君，周文聿（2017）。國民小學四至六年級學童識字診斷測驗。第二版。臺北市，心理出版社。
林敏宜（2000）。童話書的欣賞與應用。臺北市，心理出版社。
林敬修（2008）閱讀流暢性之教學-以重複閱讀為例。特殊教育文集,(10), 34-55。
宣崇慧，盧台華（2006）。聲韻覺識能力及口語詞彙知識與國小一至二年級學童字, 詞閱讀發展之探究. 特殊教育研究學刊,(31), 73-92.
柯玉真（2013）。不同閱讀能力學童詞義技能、聲韻處理與中文閱讀能力之研究。國立臺中教育大學特殊教育學系，臺中市。
柯華葳（2017）。教出閱讀力！2017暢銷增修版。親子天下。
柯華葳，陳冠銘（2004）。文章結構標示與閱讀理解-以低年級學生為例。教育心理學報, 36(2), 185-200。
柯華葳、李俊仁（1996）。初學識字成人語音覺識與閱讀能力的關係。國立中正大學學報：社會科學分冊，7（10），29-47。
柯華葳、詹益綾（2007）。國民小學閱讀理解篩選測驗指導手冊，臺北市：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
洪采菱（2008）。廣泛閱讀與重複閱讀教學法對國小一年級學童識字能力、口語閱讀流暢力及閱讀理解之影響。
秦麗花(2001)。單一受試研究效果值分析。測驗統計簡訊，39，15-26。
張庭瑋（2017）。識字教學結合重複閱讀對國小學習障礙者閱讀流暢度及文本理解能力之研究。臺北市立大學身心障礙者轉銜及休閒教育碩士學位學程，臺北市。
張琦，江新（2015）。中級和高級漢語學習者語素意識與閱讀關係的研究。華文教學與研究, 59(3), 11-17。
張新仁，韓孟蓉（2004）。不同識字教學法對國小低年級學生識字教學成效之研究. 教育學刊, (22), 71-88。
張毓仁，吳明隆，胡芝妮（2011）。國小四，五和六年級學童國語文課程本位朗讀流暢能力之比較。教育研究月刊。
張毓仁、柯華葳、邱皓政、歐宗霖、溫福星（2011）。教師閱讀教學行為與學生閱讀態度和閱讀能力自我評價對於閱讀成就之跨層次影響: 以 PIRLS 2006 為例。教育科學研究期刊, 56(2), 69-105。
教育部（2013）身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定辦法。取自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=h0080065
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校—國語文。取自 https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebContent/index.aspx?sid=11&mid=5721
莊梅君，劉秀丹（2014）。可預測性繪本教學方案對國小聽覺障礙學生閱讀理解的成效。特殊教育研究學刊,39(3), 29-48。
許美雲（2009）。不同重複閱讀教學法對國小一年級學童認字能力、閱讀流暢度與閱讀理解之影響。國立屏東教育大學教育心理與輔導學系，屏東縣。
陳木金，許瑋珊（2012）。從 PISA 閱讀評量的國際比較探討閱讀素養教育的方向。教師天地期刊, 181, 4-15。
陳宜君（2016）。重複閱讀教學對國小弱讀者閱讀表現之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系，臺北市。
陳東甫（2008）。電腦語音文字同步系統結合重複閱讀教學對識字困難學生學習成效之研究。國立嘉義大學教育科技研究所，嘉義市。
陳東甫，劉漢欽（2007）。電腦語音合成系統在閱讀教學上的應用與省思。國小特殊教育(43), 70-80。
陳淑麗，曾世杰（2005）。唸名速度及注音覺識在中文閱讀障礙亞型分類上的角色—個案補救教學研究。載於洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、陳長益主編，突破學習困難—評量與因應之探討（頁179-214）。心理出版社，臺北市。
陳瑋婷（2005）。後設認知策略在學習障礙學生閱讀理解教學上之應用。國小特殊教育, (39), 1-9。
陳慶順（2001）。識字困難學生與普通學生識字認知成分之比較研究。特殊教育研究學刊，21，215-237。
陳穎相，廖晨惠（2015）。中文句型特徵與教學之探究。特殊教育與輔助科技半年刊,13, 46-51。
曾世杰（1999）。國語文低成就學童之工作記憶, 聲韻處理能力與唸名速度之研究。學童閱讀困難的鑑定與診斷, 5-28。
曾世杰（2004）。聲韻覺識、唸名速度與中文障礙。臺北市，心理出版社。
程炳林（2000）。閱讀理解。教育大辭書。取自 Available:http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1314195/
鈕文英，吳裕益（2019）。單一個案研究法：設計與實施。心理出版社股份有限公司，新北市。
黃芸（2003）。中文閱讀障礙研究—以國中小學生為例。私立中原大學心理學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
黃鳳姿（2016）。重複閱讀教學結合多媒體文本對國小三年級識字困難學生閱讀流暢能力之影響。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。
楊志偉，龔耀先，李雪蓉（1998）。漢語兒童閱讀障礙的臨床評定與分型研究。中國臨床心理學雜誌,6(3), 136-139。
楊宜蓁，王欣宜（2017）。淺談故事結構策略在國小閱讀障礙學生教學之應用。特殊教育與輔助科技半年刊,17, 43-50。
廖晨惠，黃忻怡，曹傑如，白鎧鋕（2012）。國小低年級學童聲韻覺識, 聲旁表音覺識, 造詞能力, 斷詞能力, 與中文閱讀之 縱貫性研究。測驗統計年刊, 20(2), 31-65。
劉義翔，黃瑞珍（2017）。國小中年級閱讀障礙兒童伴隨語言問題之研究。特殊教育學報, (46), 31-53。
歐育璋（2012）。重複閱讀與故事結構對國小學習障礙學生閱讀理解教學之比較研究。國立屏東教育大學特殊教育學系，屏東縣。
歐素惠，王瓊珠（2004）。三種詞彙教學法對閱讀障礙兒童的詞彙學習與閱讀理解之成效研究。特殊教育研究學刊,26 , 271-292。
潘世尊（2016）。以 PIRLS 閱讀理解歷程為基礎之 [提問] 策略教學。弘光學報, (78), 147-161。
錡寶香（2009）。兒童語言與溝通發展。臺北市，心理出版社。
謝幸雯（2010）。多媒體繪本重複閱讀教學對國語學業成就低落學童閱讀學習成效之影響。國立臺北教育大學特殊教育學系，臺北市。
謝嘉恩，柯華葳，李俊仁（2019）。「2019閱讀理解測驗」測驗使用與解釋說明。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系，國立清華大學教育與學習科技學系出版。
謝錫金，林偉業，林裕康，羅嘉怡（2005）。兒童閱讀能力進展：香港與國際比較。Hong Kong University Press。
鍾明興（2012）。重複閱讀對國小學習障礙學生朗讀流暢度與閱讀理解的影響之研究。國立屏東教育大學特殊教育學系，屏東縣。
羅育齡（2020）。推動閱讀教學的手：「德州讀寫計畫」推行經驗分享。臺灣教育評論月刊, 9(12), 91-95。
蘇宜芬，洪儷瑜，陳柏熹，陳心怡（2018）。閱讀理解成長測驗之編製研究。教育心理學報,49(4), 557-580.
鐘明興（2012）。重複閱讀對國小學習障礙學生朗讀流暢度與閱讀理解的影響之研究。國立屏東教育大學特殊教育學系，屏東縣。		zh_TW