본 연구는 국내 읽기학습장애 관련 연구문헌에 나타난 읽기장애의 개념 정의 문제, 읽기장애의 선별ㆍ진단 절차 및 진단도구의 경향을 분석하여 앞으로의 읽기장애 연구의 토대를 마련하고자 시도되었다. 국회도서관과 한국교육 학술정보원(RISS4U)DB에서 추출한 1994년 이후의 논문 44편을 분석하여 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다.
첫째, 30편(68.2%)의 논문에서 읽기성취불일치(86.7%), 지능(76.7%), 제외(53.1%), 학습장애 선별척도(13.3%), 읽기문제(13.3%), 기타(10.01%), 준거 중 1가지 이상을 바탕으로 읽기장애의 조작적인 정의를 제시하였다. 읽기성취, 지능, 제외준거의 3가지 항목을 적용하여 읽기장애를 정의한 논문이 15(50%)편이었다.
둘째, 선별정보가 제시된 논문은 41편(93.18%)이었다. 국어과학업성취도, 독해 및 단어재인 준거요소를 바탕으로 1단계(68.3%)를 적용하여 선별하였으며, 선별주체는 담임(67.7%)인 경우가 가장 많았다.
셋째, 진단절차는 모든 논문에서 제시되었으며 가장 많이 사용된 준거는 읽기성취(95.5%), 지능(93.2%), 제외(50%)준거였다. 23편(52.3)%의 논문에서 3단계 진단절차를 적용하였다. 지능검사(97.7%)와, 기초학습기능검사(90.9%)는 가장 많이 사용된 진단도구이다.
이러한 결과 읽기장애의 진단 시 읽기영역만의 특정성을 반영하는 좀 더 객관적인 판별절차 및 진단도구의 활용에 대한 연구가 필요하다.
본 연구는 국내 읽기학습장애 관련 연구문헌에 나타난 읽기장애의 개념 정의 문제, 읽기장애의 선별ㆍ진단 절차 및 진단도구의 경향을 분석하여 앞으로의 읽기장애 연구의 토대를 마련하고자 시도되었다. 국회도서관과 한국교육 학술정보원(RISS4U)DB에서 추출한 1994년 이후의 논문 44편을 분석하여 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다.
첫째, 30편(68.2%)의 논문에서 읽기성취불일치(86.7%), 지능(76.7%), 제외(53.1%), 학습장애 선별척도(13.3%), 읽기문제(13.3%), 기타(10.01%), 준거 중 1가지 이상을 바탕으로 읽기장애의 조작적인 정의를 제시하였다. 읽기성취, 지능, 제외준거의 3가지 항목을 적용하여 읽기장애를 정의한 논문이 15(50%)편이었다.
둘째, 선별정보가 제시된 논문은 41편(93.18%)이었다. 국어과학업성취도, 독해 및 단어재인 준거요소를 바탕으로 1단계(68.3%)를 적용하여 선별하였으며, 선별주체는 담임(67.7%)인 경우가 가장 많았다.
셋째, 진단절차는 모든 논문에서 제시되었으며 가장 많이 사용된 준거는 읽기성취(95.5%), 지능(93.2%), 제외(50%)준거였다. 23편(52.3)%의 논문에서 3단계 진단절차를 적용하였다. 지능검사(97.7%)와, 기초학습기능검사(90.9%)는 가장 많이 사용된 진단도구이다.
이러한 결과 읽기장애의 진단 시 읽기영역만의 특정성을 반영하는 좀 더 객관적인 판별절차 및 진단도구의 활용에 대한 연구가 필요하다.
The purpose of present study was to review the definitions and concepts adapted by the different investigators and the criteria and instruments used for identifying the children with learning disability in reading in the Korean research articles. The 44 articles published between 1994 and 2006 were ...
The purpose of present study was to review the definitions and concepts adapted by the different investigators and the criteria and instruments used for identifying the children with learning disability in reading in the Korean research articles. The 44 articles published between 1994 and 2006 were obtained through the data bank of the Korean Congress Library and the RISS-4U of the Korea Academic Research and Information Center and analysed. The following results were obtained. 1. In 30(68.2%) among the total 44 articles, the investigators used more than one of the following criteria, reading achievement test score(86.7%), IQ(76.7%), the exclusion criteria(53.1%), the selection rating scale(13.3), reading test(13.3%), and the special education criteria(3.1%) to operationally define learning disability in reading. The most frequently used criteria was the agreement among the 3 areas, the reading achievement test score, IQ, and the exclusion criteria(53%). 2. The 41(93.18%) studies provided informations regarding what kinds of criteria they used for identifying the children. And both the Korean language achievement test and the comprehension-word recognition test among others were the most frequently used as the primary selection tools(68.3%) and the tests were mainly administered by the classroom teachers(67.7%). 3. All of the studies reviewed in the present study provided informations on their diagnostic processes and the areas they searched were, the reading ability(95.5%), intellectual functioning 93.2%), and the exclusion criteria(50%). It was also, found that 52.3% of the studies applied the 3-step diagnostic method. In the diagnostic processes IQ test(97.7%) and the primary academic skill test(90.9%) were the most frequently adapted tools.
The purpose of present study was to review the definitions and concepts adapted by the different investigators and the criteria and instruments used for identifying the children with learning disability in reading in the Korean research articles. The 44 articles published between 1994 and 2006 were obtained through the data bank of the Korean Congress Library and the RISS-4U of the Korea Academic Research and Information Center and analysed. The following results were obtained. 1. In 30(68.2%) among the total 44 articles, the investigators used more than one of the following criteria, reading achievement test score(86.7%), IQ(76.7%), the exclusion criteria(53.1%), the selection rating scale(13.3), reading test(13.3%), and the special education criteria(3.1%) to operationally define learning disability in reading. The most frequently used criteria was the agreement among the 3 areas, the reading achievement test score, IQ, and the exclusion criteria(53%). 2. The 41(93.18%) studies provided informations regarding what kinds of criteria they used for identifying the children. And both the Korean language achievement test and the comprehension-word recognition test among others were the most frequently used as the primary selection tools(68.3%) and the tests were mainly administered by the classroom teachers(67.7%). 3. All of the studies reviewed in the present study provided informations on their diagnostic processes and the areas they searched were, the reading ability(95.5%), intellectual functioning 93.2%), and the exclusion criteria(50%). It was also, found that 52.3% of the studies applied the 3-step diagnostic method. In the diagnostic processes IQ test(97.7%) and the primary academic skill test(90.9%) were the most frequently adapted tools.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.