111

8920111127

1.2.3.
4.

85

()

/
83

1.

intentionality

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

112

2.

(1)

(2)

()

(3)

3.

87

8587

Piaget Vygotsky

78.85%

88

1.

2.

85

3. 4.
5. 6.

7.

8.

1.

9.

2. 3.

10.

88

85

87

113

Gersten & Domino1993

Stern, 1992

Maclnis &

Hemming, 1995

()

()

()

Van Kleeck1995

()

Van Kleeck

114

()

C93

W7173

76

10

G79
818115

H9294

92

Jaworski

1994

()

()

TWY
45
TLCW
38
TSH30

()

typical case sampling

Y73

6685

10

()

115

25

YC

10

HG

89

22589591428

CD

15

1.

H G

2.

YCW

3.

()

()

T P T

()

()

116

Lincoln Guba1985

credibility

transferability dependabil-

ityconfirmability

()
V8

()

28

()
1.

2.

3.

1. triangulation

2. peer debriefing

3. member checking

()

4. coding

typi-

cal case sampling

JJ

()

JP

R D W N

BI S

R V A D-

W/Y/89.4.25/1
Y 89.4.25
()
1.

2.

3.

()

117

CW

X
I

X
I

X
I

H1

H2

()

CW

118

JC/89.3.9/1

JP/89.3.10.

P T

314YP
P

P
DYN/89.3.14

JP/89.3.14

JP/89.3.17

DN/C/89.4.
17DN/W/89.3.
10DN/Y/89.4.
17DN/G/89.3.31
Y

DN/Y/89.4.25

()

Y 3 7

(C)

(W)

DWY/89.3.6.

A/89.3.7.
/3

C
G
W
T

T
Ss
T

SsA/89.3.7./3

119

JC/89.3.27/1
Y

345

120

JC/89.3.8/1

JP/89.3.8

JC/89.4.12/3

()
T
P

JP/89.2.25
P

JC/89.2.25

T
P
T

P T

JP/89.3.14
HCW

JP/89.3.24.

P
T T

V/89.3.
21./4

121

JC/89.3.28/1
T

P T

JP/89.3.21.
T

JP/89.3.9.

122

V/89.03.
15

()

1.

2.

DW/C/89.3.4/

3.

()
1.

123

(2)

12

DW/Y/89.3.23

3.

JP/89.3.10

2.

(1)

P T

124

A/89.

(9)

4.14

(10) JC/89.4.18/6

DB/W/89.4.14

TIR/TW/
89.03.31/6

(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)
(5)

(6)
(7)
(8)

A/89.4.14

Y TW

IR/TW/890331/1

22
12

IR/W/890331/7

JC/89.3.15/1

IS/B/89.04.12/2IS/E/89.04.
12/2IS/B/
89.04.12/3IS/B/89.04.12
/2IS/C/89.4.12
/2IS/B/89.4.12IS/F/
89.4.12

125

()

IR/TS/89.3.31/2IR/TL/89.

03.31/2

JC/89.03.29/1

()

()

1.

2.

()

3.

4.

()

126

()

p629-644

83

Good, T. L. & Brophy, J. E. (2000). Looking in classrooms (8ed), New York:

Longman
Gersten, R. & Domino, J. (1993). Visions
and Revisions: A Special Education
Perspective on the Whole Language
Controversey.
Remedial & Special
Education, V.14, Issue 4, p.5-13.
Lincoln, Y. S, & Guba, E, G (1985).
Naturalistic inguiry Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
James, C (1992). Teachers: Beliefs and
knowledge. In Handbook of educational psychology, p.709-725.
New
York: Macmillan.
Maclnnes. C. & Hemming., H. (1995).
Linking the Needs of Students with
Learning Disabilities to a Whole Language Curriculum, Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol.28, num. 9, p.535544.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in
language teaching, Oxford: Oxford.
Schon, D, A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Van Kleeck, A. (1995). Emphasizing Form
and Meaning Separately in Prereading
and Early Reading Instruction. Topics
in Language Disorders, 16(1), p.27-49.

88

87

4p35-67
87
p89-108

85
.
87
9p215-282.
(85)
NSC85-2413H023-005
88

127

Bulletin of Special Education 2000, 20, 111127

National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.

CONSTRUCTIVIST LANGUAGE ART

INSTRUCTION IN A RESOURCE ROOM:
AN COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH

Li-Hwa Chin
Nei-Wei elementary school of Kaohsiung

Hsienlan

Wu

Department of special education, National Kaohsiung Normal University

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to explore the kind of literacy activities and possible supporting
strategies for resource room teachers to enhance literacy acquisition for students with learning
difficulties. The study was undertaken through collaborative action research which involved
mostly the resource room teacher and partly the researcher in planning the teaching strategies.
Participant observation,researchers diaries, student documents,audio- and video-recording and
interviews were employed during the 2-month period study.
The findings reveal that teachers and researchers personal beliefs in language instruction and
dialogues between professionals are important for each professional development.

Students

demonstrate highly valued learning potentials, though word attack skills and writing skills are yet
to be improved; Suggestions and discussions are provided at the end of the article.
Key words: constructivist language art instruction, resource room collaborative action research,
qualitative research