Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: Effects of Three-Ty

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: Effects of Three-Ty"

서수 설
4 years ago
Views:

1 Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: Effects of Three-Type-Word-Relation Intervention on the Ability of Acquiring Word Relations from Scripts for Middle Schoolers with Intellectual Disability Purpose: We tested the effects of the direct teaching intervention for three types of word relations (i.e., category and instance, synonym, & antonym) on the emergence of untaught analogical word relations after reading a paragraph. Methods: Two middle school students with intellectual disabilities participated and an multiple probe design across participants was employed. The independent variable of this study was the completion of the direct teaching intervention of three analogical relations with the pre-developed instructional materials. The dependent variables were the percentage of correct responses to (a) the probe worksheets prior to and after the direct teaching intervention, and (b) practice tests in the intervention phase. Results: After the intervention, the percentage of Participant A s correct responses increased for both probe worksheets. The percentage of Participant B s correct responses increased for one out of two probe worksheets. Conclusion: Result demonstrated that the direct teaching intervention for three types of word relations was effective to acquire the analogical word concepts and the analogical relationships based on the reading paragraphs. Key words : Analogy, Reading Comprehension, Applied Behavior Analysis, Intellectual Disability Corresponding Author: Han, Yoon-Seon, Pusan National University, Dept. of Special Education. Busandaehakro, Jangjeondong, Busan, Korea. diaze7@yahoo.com

2 . (Kamil, 2003; Murnane & Levy, 1996). Skinner 2 (textual response) (reading comprehension) (Skinner, 1957; Staats, 1968). Skinner(1957) (echoic), (tact), (mand), (autoclitic), - (intraverbal) (verbal behavior) (verbal operant). (printed stimulus). (decoding) (Staats, 1968)....,, (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990; Ehri, 1998; Fuchs et al., 2012; Rieben & Perfetti, 1991).. (, 1999; Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Stevenson, 2004; Yildirim, Yildiz, & Ates, 2011)., (Ackerman, Peters, & Dykman, 1971; Carver, 2000; Hu & Nation, 2000). (,,, 2009; Cain, Oakhill, & Elbro, 2003; Prior, Goldina, Shany, Geva, & Katzir, 2014)... (, 1999).. Cain, Lemmon Oakhill(2004) 9~10..

3 . Goswami(1986) 5 7 beak peak, bean., beak (rhythm) eak peak. Vosniadou Ortony(1989).. (schema) (Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977)... (, 2012; Stoller & Grabe, 1995; Seal, 1991)... Bereiter Engelmann (Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966; Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2002; Herman et al., 1999)... (1999),,. 2,,..., (,, )?

4 , (,, )? , 57.. < -1>. A B ( ) 14 ( ) 15 ( ) REVT ( ) 9 6~11 8 6~11 KISE-KIT ,? :,,,, (2009). (REVT). : ; (2001). KISE. :

5 . 9m x 7.3m.. 1) 기초선에서사용한연구도구 ( A: 9, B: 8 ) 3-4 B1 (, 2009) ,,,,,. 9~12 4-4, 4, KNISE-KIT(,,, 2002) A4. < 1>. 2) 중재단계에서사용한연구도구 (,, 2013).,,. < 2>. B2(, 2013), 2 (,,,

6 ,, 2010), KNISE-KIT < 3> 1 < 4>.. (12 ) %. (10 ) %.,,. 1:1 (direct teaching) A B.,,, (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2000) ( ).. ( : ) ( : ).

7 10. ( : ) ( : )..

8 (multiple probe design across participants) (Kazdin, 2011) ,,.. [ -1]. 1) 기초선.,.. 45,.. 2) 중재,,..,. 10., < -2>.

9 1.. ( ) ( :, OO? // :. : OO? // :,. :,. /. ) 4.,, ( ) ) )) // // // 5. [ ]. 6. ( :,, ). 7. /. ( - - ): ( /, ) 8.,. 9.,,. ( :,, OO. OO ,. 12.,, O, X. 13. OX. 14.,. 15.,. 16. ( KNISE-KIT : = : 10.) 17.,, (,, ).

10 . 12, (interscorer agreement, ISA) (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007) %.. [ -1] A B,,. A 1 2 8%, 17%. A (3 ) 100%. (4 ) 60% (5 ) 100%. A 80%, 80%, 80%. 80%, 100%, 100%. 1 2 A. 1 83% 8% % 17% 4.5.

11 B %, 67%. B (4 ) 100%. (5 ) 80% (6 ) 100%. A 100%, 100%, 80% 93%. 100%, 100%, 80% 93%. 1 2 A. 1 50% 17% % 67%.

12 연구대상자 A 연구대상자 B

13 IV. (textural response) (, 1996). (Baumann, 2009; Cain, Lemmon, & Oakhill, 2004; Cain, Oakhill, & Elbro, 2003; Stahl & Nagy, 2006; Yildirim, Yildiz, & Ateş, 2011). 1:1... (,, 2007;,, 2011).. 80%. A 8% 17% B 17% 67%. A B,,, A 4 (60%) 80% 100%. A 100%, 60%, 100% 2 80% %. 3 80%. B, (,, ) 9 80% 100% 3. A B. A B. 9

14 , (response to intervention) (Connor, Bocian, Sanchez, & Beach, 2014; Fuchs et al., 2012). (,, 2013)..,,. (,, 2013),.. (applied research) (experimentally) (confounding variables) (Kazdin, 2011). A B. A B. 2 B A. ( ). B 2 B. 2

15 .. ( :, ).. 2. ( : 100%) (2009). :. (2013). :. (2001).. :., (2013). :.,, (2009). :., (2007) ,,,, (2009). :.,, (2002). Korea Institute for Special Education-Korean Intelligence Test for Children. :.

16 (1999) (1996).. ᆞ (2012) , (2011) (1999) ,,,, (2010). :. Ackerman, P. T., Peters, J. E., & Dykman, R. A. (1971). Children with specific learning disabilities: WISC profiles. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, doi: / Baumann, J. F. (2009). Vocabulary and reading comprehension: The nexus of meaning. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension. New York, NY: Routledge. Bereiter, C., & Engelmann, S. (1966). Teaching disadvantaged children in the preschool. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-HalI. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2002). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis (Report No. 59). Available from www. csos.jhu.edu Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Elbro, C. (2003). The ability to learn new word meanings from context by school-age children with and without language comprehension difficulties. Journal of Child Language, 30, doi: /s Cain, K., Lemmon, K., & Oakhill, J. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: the influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, doi: / Carver, R. P. (2000). The causes of high and low reading achievement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Connor, R. E., Bocian, K. M., Sanchez, V., & Beach, K. D. (2014). Access to responsiveness to intervention model: Does beginning intervention in kindergarten matter? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, doi:0.1177/ Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill-Prentice Hall. Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J.

17 L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp.3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bryant, V. J., Hamlett, C. L., & Lambert, W. (2012). First grade cognitive abilities as long-term predictors of reading comprehension and disability status. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, doi: / Goswami, U. C. (1986). Children's use of analogy in learning to read: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 42, Herman, R., Aladjam, D., McMahon, P., Masem, E., Mulligan, I., Smith, O., & Woodruff, D. (1999). An educator s guide to school wide reform. Retrieved from district_organization/reform Hu, M., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2000). Models of teaching (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: reading for the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Murnane, R., & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills: Principles for educating children to thrive in a changing economy. New York, NY: Martin Kessler. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40, doi: / Prior, A., Goldina, A., Shany, M., Geva, E., & Katzir, T. (2014). Lexical inference in L2: predictive roles of vocabulary knowledge and reading skill beyond reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 27, doi: /s Rieben, L., & Perfetti, C. A. (1991). Learning to read: Basic research and its implications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Seal, B. D. (1991). Vocabulary learning and teaching. In: Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp ). Boston, MA: Heinle ELT. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Staats, A. W. (1968). Learning, language, cognition. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

18 Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stoller, F. L., & Grabe, W. (1995). Implications for L2 vocabulary acquisition and instruction from L1 vocabulary research, In Huckin, T., Haynes, M., Coady, J. (Eds.), Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning (pp ). Norwood, NJ: Praeger. Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Yildirim, K., Yildiz, M., & Ateş, S. (2011). Is vocabulary a strong variable predicting reading comprehension and does the prediction degree of vocabulary vary according to text types. Educaitonal Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11, : / : / :

21 1 [,,,,,,,,, ] 1. : = : 2. : = : 3. : = : 4. : = : 5. : = : 6. : = : 7. : = : 8. : = : 9. : = : 10. : = : 2 [,,,,,,,,, ] 1. : = : 2. : = : 3. : = : 4. : = : 5. : = : 6. : = : 7. : = : 8. : = : 9. : = : 10. : = : 3 [,,,,,,,,, ] 1. : = : 2. : = : 3. : = : 4. : = : 5. : = : 6. : = : 7. : = : 8. : = : 9. : = : 10. : = : 1 [,,,,,,,,, ] 1. : = : 2. : = : 3. : = : 4. : = : 5. : = : 6. : = : 7. : = : 8. : = : 9. : = : 10. : = : 2 [,,,,,,,,, ] 1. : = : 3 [,,,,,,,,, ] 1. : = :

22 : = : 3. : = : 4. : = : 5. : = : 6. : = : 7. : = : 8. : = : 9. : = : 10. : = : [,,,,,,,,, ] 1. : = : 2. : = : 3. : = : 4. : = : 5. : = : 6. : = : 7. : = : 8. : = : 9. : = : 10. : = : 3 2 [,,,,,,,,, ] 1. : = : 7. : = : 2. : = : 8. : = : 3. : = : 9. : = : 4 : = :. 10. : = : 5. : = : 6. : = : 2. : = : 3. : = : 4. : = : 5. : = : 6. : = : 7. : = : 8. : = : 9. : = : 10. : = : [,,,,,,,,, ] 1. : = : 2. : = : 3. : = : 4. : = : 5. : = : 6. : = : 7. : = : 8. : = : 9. : = : 10. : = :

24 : 2. : 2. (,, ).. : A, B. :.

27 2, 17-31, , * ,. K 1 2 2,.,,,.,.,.,,.,. :,,, : 2009/08/19 : 2009/09/09 : 2009/09/30 2007 * ( :

27 2, 17-31, , * ** ***,. K 1 2 2,.,,,.,.,.,,.,. :,,, : 2009/08/19 : 2009/09/09 : 2009/09/30 * 2007 ** *** ( : 27 2, 17-31, 2009. -, * ** ***,. K 1 2 2,.,,,.,.,.,,.,. :,,, : 2009/08/19 : 2009/09/09 : 2009/09/30 * 2007 ** *** (: dminkim@cau.ac.kr) 18 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009. Ⅰ. (,,, 2004). (,, 2006).,,, (Myrick,