國小寫字困難學童與普通學童寫字相關認知能力之分析研究

The cognitive components relating to handwriting performance of students with and without Chinese handwriting difficulties

李瑩玓(Ying-Ti Li)

指導教授 ： 洪儷瑜

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/特殊教育學系/碩士(2000年)

摘要

本研究旨在探討國小寫字困難學童各寫字能力表現、錯誤類型犯錯情形、寫字技能及態度與普通學生之差異，並分析各寫字表現與認知能力的關係。
研究對象為台北縣國小三年級聽寫表現有顯著困難，認字能力無明顯困難之寫字困難個案23名，以及與之配對的普通學生23名，分別進行抄字、抄短文、自發性書寫等寫字表現測驗，以及視覺動作統整、注意力刪除、記憶廣度、序列記憶、組字規則、部件辨識及拼音等認知能力測驗。
研究結果發現如下：
1. 寫字表現方面
(1) 在寫字速度方面，兩組皆以抄短文的速度最快，自發寫最慢，且熟悉字顯著高於罕見字、罕見字的近端抄寫顯著高於遠端，兩組不同之處在於普通配對學生在熟悉字的近遠端抄寫並沒有顯著差異，但寫字困難組近端抄寫顯著高於其遠端抄寫。
(2) 普通學生抄字、抄短文與自發寫三項寫字表現皆有顯著相關，但寫字困難學生僅抄字與抄短文有顯著相關。
2. 寫字相關表現方面
寫字困難學生的特徵包括：所寫字體忽大忽小、在遠端抄寫及抄短文時間架結構問題較為明顯、抄寫時易犯部件錯誤結構正確的錯字、自發寫時易犯部件正確結構正確的錯字、較不喜歡寫字且覺得寫字很累。
3. 認知能力方面
(1) 寫字困難學生在拼音測驗的得分顯著低於普通配對學生，其餘認知能力兩組並無顯著差異。
(2) 各項寫字能力與認知能力的相關在寫字困難組及配對組有差異，就普通學生而言，抄字與注意力及部件辨識有相關，抄短文與注意力有相關，但自發寫則與各認知能力的相關皆不明顯；而就寫困組而言，抄字與部件辨識有相關，抄短文與部件辨識、拼音及序列記憶有相關，而自發寫與部件辨識及拼音有相關。

關鍵字

寫字困難 ； 認知能力 ； 國小學生

並列摘要

Two major purposes of this study were to compare the handwriting performance, error types, skill and attitudes of the third graders with and without handwriting difficulties (HWD in short), and to analyze the cognitive components that relate to handwriting performances.
Twenty-three non-dyslexia third graders with HWD and twenty-three grade-match (GM in short) normal students served as subjects. All the participants were measured their handwriting performance which were copying characters, copying a short essay, free writing, and their cognitive abilities included visual-motor integration, attention, visual serial memory, aural memory span, radical recognition, Chinese orthographic rule and phoneme blending tasks.
The main findings of this research were stated as follows:
1. The characteristics of handwriting performances:
(1) The handwriting speed in copying a short essay was faster than other tasks, copying familiar characters were faster than unfamiliar characters, and near copying unfamiliar characters were faster than far copying unfamiliar characters in GM and HWD groups. The difference between GM and HWD group was that the near copying familiar characters were faster than far copying familiar characters in HWD group but wasn’t found in GM group.
(2) The performances of copying characters, copying a short essay and free writing were correlated with each other at significant level in GM group, and the performances of copying characters and copying a short essay were correlated in HWD group.
2. The characteristics of HWD group were observed as follows: irregular word sizes, inconsistent radical sizes and spacing in far copying and copying a short essay, more error characters with non-exist radicals or wrong structures in copying task, more error characters with wrong structures in free writing tasks, and more negative attitudes toward handwritings than GM group.
3. The characteristics of cognitive abilities:
(1) The phoneme blending scores of HWD group were significant poor than GM group.
(2) The correlation between handwriting performances and cognitive abilities of HWD group was different from GM group. As to the GM group, the copying characters task was correlated with attention and radical recognition, the copying a short essay task was correlated with attention, but the free writing task didn’t correlated with any of the cognitive components; as for the HWD group, the copying characters task was correlated with radical recognition, the copying a short essay task was correlated with radical recognition, phoneme blending and visual serial memory abilities, and the free writing task was correlated with radical recognition and phoneme blending.

並列關鍵字

handwriting difficulties ； cognitive components ； elementary students

參考文獻

林寶貴、錡寶香（民89）：國小學童書寫語言測驗指導手冊。台北：師大特教系。

陳慶順（民89a）：識字困難學生與普通學生識字認知成分之比較研究。國立台灣師大特殊教育系碩士論文，未出版。

葉靖雲（民88）：作文能力與作文評量。中華民國特殊教育學會八十八學年度年刊─迎千禧談特教，台北：中華民國特殊教育學會。

American Psychiatric Association(1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, the 4th ed. Washington, D. C., Author.

Askov, E., Otto, W., & Askov, W. (1970). A decade of research in handwriting: Progress and prospect. The Journal of Educational Research, 64(3), 99-111.