臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
此論文研究目的有二：(1) 提出一適用於EFL環境的統整型探究式閱讀教學法(2)探討此一教學法在EFL閱讀課中之成效、優點、缺點及障礙。研究問題有二：(1) 與接受傳統閱讀教學法的學生相較，接受統整型探究式閱讀教學法的學生在閱讀理解測驗中表現如何？(2)此統整型探究式閱讀教學法應用於EFL環境中的優點、缺點及障礙為何？前測與後測的閱讀成績進行比較以回答問題一。教學日誌、小組訪談及實驗組的統整型探究式閱讀教學表此三項質性研究工具經綜合判讀以回答問題二。本研究於苗栗縣某縣立國中進行，研究者的兩個常態編班組成的八年級班擔任實驗組與控制組。本實驗採前後測的準實驗設計搭配質性研究且採用經教育部審定之國中英語教科書作為教材。該教科書單冊有九課，且採用每課的閱讀文章進行實驗教學。
實驗發現接受統整型探究式閱讀教學法的學生在閱讀理解的能力測驗中表現較接受傳統閱讀教學法的學生為佳，且前者的標準差增加幅度較後者為低，但兩種差異皆未達顯著程度。經發現此新式閱讀教學法主要優點為：學生的課堂參與和上課氣氛較熱烈且學生的角色從被動的知識接收者轉變為主動的知識發掘者。主要的缺點為課本閱讀文章中的重要句型及生字片語用法較少闡述且文法的教學與解釋不足。主要的的障礙有：實驗組學生在統整其閱讀前問題的答案時屢遭遇困難且於提出及回答某些類型的閱讀後問題有困難。主要的建議為：提供範例與固定句型供學生模仿以提出閱讀後問題及把探究式的文法教學技巧融入此統整型探究式閱讀教學法中。
關鍵詞: 閱讀教學；探究式教學法；閱讀理解

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study is to present an integrated inquiry-based method for EFL reading instruction and to explore this teaching method in terms of its efficacy, strengths, weaknesses and obstacles in EFL reading classrooms. Two research questions are raised: (1) How do EFL students under the integrated inquiry-based method for EFL reading instruction perform in reading comprehension tests, compared with students under the traditional method ? (2) What are the strengths, weaknesses as well as obstacles of the integrated inquiry-based reading method in EFL reading classrooms? To answer Question 1, pre-test and post-test reading exams are employed. To answer Question 2, three instruments are employed: teaching log, group interview and integrated inquiry-based reading chart.
This research is conducted with a pretest-posttest nonequivalent groups quasi-experiment design that is carried out at a junior high school in Miaoli County. Two of the researcher's three classes of the eighth graders are chosen as the Control Group and the Experimental Group. In order to make this research applicable to ordinary junior high English classrooms in Taiwan, the textbook is adopted as the main teaching material. The reading section of each lesson is used for the purpose of this research.
It is found that students under the integrated inquiry-based method for reading instruction outperform those under the traditional method for reading instruction in reading comprehension test and that the former’s standard deviation has increased less than the latter’s, but neither of the differences has reached the significant level.
The most noteworthy strengths of this method are active participation along with lively class atmosphere and change of students’ role from passive receivers into active discoverers. The major weakness is that comparatively little time is spent on the explanation of grammar, important sentence patterns or even word usages. The obstacles are that Group E have difficulty generating as well as answering certain types of post-reading questions and that Group E constantly runs into difficulties in summarizing and integrating their answers to their pre-reading questions. Major suggestions to this method are to provide not only example questions, but also fixed question patterns for each of the four post-reading question types and to adopt inquiry-based grammar instruction techniques while incorporating them into this method.

Keywords: reading instruction; inquiry-based; reading comprehension

ABSTRACT (English i
ABSTRACT (Chinese) iii
ACKNOWLEDMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Purpose of the Study 3
Significance of the Study 3
Research Questions 4
Definitions of Terms 5
Organization of the Thesis 7
Summary of Chapter One 8
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 9
Current EFL Reading Instruction in Taiwan 9
Origin of Inquiry-based Approach 11
Definitions of Inquiry-based Approach 13
Benefits of Inquiry-based Approach 16
Applications of Inquiry-based Approach in Reading 16
ReQuest Procedure 17
Question-Answer Relationships (QARs) 21
Question-Only Method 25
Inquiry Chart (I-Chart) 28
Reciprocal Teaching (RT) 31
Summary of the Five Techniques 35
Summary of Chapter Two 37
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 38
Participants 38
Teaching Materials 39
Treatment 40
Research Instruments 46
Data Collecting Procedures 50
Data Analysis 50
Pilot Study 51
Summary of Chapter Three 52
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 55
Results and Discussion of the Pretests and Posttests 55
Comparison between Group C’s and Group E’s Pretests 55
Comparison between Group C’s Pretest and Posttest 56
Comparison between Group E’s Pretest and Posttest 56
Comparison between Group C’s and Group E’s Posttests 57
Discussion of Pretest and Posttest Results 58
Results and Discussion of the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Charts 58
Task 1: Generating Topic-related Questions 59
Task 2: Finding and Summarizing the Answers to their Topic-related Questions 60
Task 3 & 4: Creating and Answering Four Types of Post-reading
Questions 61
Results and Discussion of the Teaching Log 67
The Strengths of the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method 68
The Weaknesses of the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method 70
The Obstacles to the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method 72
Improvements to the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method 73
Results and Discussion of the Group Interview 74
The Strengths of the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method 75
The Weaknesses of the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method 78
The Obstacles to the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method 80
Improvements to the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method 82
Answers to Research Questions 83
Summary of Chapter Four 84
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 86
Findings of this Research 86
Improvements to this Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method 88
Limitations of this Research 89
Suggestions for Future Research 90
Conclusion of this Research 91
REFERENCES 93
APPENDIXES 101
Appendix A: Reading Texts 101
Appendix B: The Introductory Instruction on Question Formation 104
Appendix C: The Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Chart 109
Appendix D: Pretest Reading Questions
Appendix E: Posttest Reading Questions
Appendix F: Teaching Log 111
Appendix G: Group Interview Questions 112
Appendix H: A Complete Set of Questions and Answers Developed from One
Reading Text 113
Appendix I: Excerpt from Interview Transcriptions 119


LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Result of Group C and Group E’s Test of Homogeneity 39
Table 3.2 Detailed Contrast between Group C and Group E 39
Table 4.1 Comparison between Group C’s and Group E’s Pretests 56
Table 4.2 Comparison between Group C’s Pretest and Posttest 56
Table 4.3 Comparison between Group E’s Pretest and Posttest 57
Table 4.4 Comparison between Group C’s and Group E’s Posttests 58
Table 4.5 Strengths of the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method Found in the
Group Interview 77
Table 4.6 Weaknesses of the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method Found in the
Group Interview 80
Table 4.7 Obstacles to the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method Found in the
Group Interview 81
Table 4.8 Suggestions for the Integrated Inquiry-based Reading Method Found in the
Group Interview 82



LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 The Cycle of the Inquiry-based Approach 13
Figure 2.2 The Classification of Questions and Answers in Question-Answer
Relationships (QARs) 22
Figure 2.3 Chart of Question Answer Relationships 24
Figure 2.4 A typical Inquiry Chart (I-Chart) 30
Figure 2.5 The Chart of Reciprocal Teaching for Classroom Applications 33
Figure 2.6 Comparison between theFive Inquiry-based Reading Techniques 36
Figure 3.1 A Concise Contrast between the Methods, Key Features and Instruction
Procedures of Group C and Group E 46

REFERENCES
Alderson, J. C. (1987). Innovation in language testing: Can the micro-computer help? Special report no. 1: Language testing update. Lancaster, UK: Institute for English
Alverman, D., & Phelps, S. (1998). Content reading and literacy (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for Learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Bloom, B. S. & David R. K. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York , Longmans.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America's research universities [Online]. Available: http://notes.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf
Brown, A. L., Palincsar, A. S., & Purcell, L. (1986). Poor readers: Teach, don't label. The school achievement of minority children: New perspectives (pp. 105-43). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Browne, M. N. & Keeley, S. M. (1990). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Bruce, B.C., & Davidson, J. (1996). An inquiry model for literacy across the curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 281–300.
Calhoun, D. H. (1996). Which “Socratic method”? Models of education in Plato’s dialogues. Pages 49-70 in: Knowledge, Teaching and Wisdom. K. Lehrer, B. J. Lum, B. A. Slichta, and N. D. Smith, eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Callison D. J. (2003) Key Words, Concepts and Methods for Information Age Instruction: Methods for teaching information inquiry. Baltimore: LMS Associates.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2002) Why It Makes Sense to Teach Grammar Through Context and Through Discourse. New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Eds. E. Hinkel & S. Fotos. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 119–133.
Chen, Ching I. (2003). Reading Instruction in Junior high School: How do Junior High school English Teachers Instruct English? M. A. thesis. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Chern, C. (2003). English language teaching in Taiwan today. In W. K. Ho & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today: Changing politics and practices (pp. 427-437). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2006). Guided inquiry-based math learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 171-185). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Concept to Classroom, Educational Broadcasting Corporation (2004) at http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/index.html”
Cresswell J (1994) Research design: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.
Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum & The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original works published 1902 and 1915)
Ellis, R. (2002) Methodological Options in Grammar Teaching Materials. New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms.Eds. E. Hinkel & S. Fotos. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 119–133.
Englert, C. S., & Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Reconsidering instructional research in literacy from a sociocultural perspective. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 225-29.
Fuller, T. W. (2002). Quality assurance checklist for inquiry based teaching resources. Retrieved at http://teachspacescience.org/graphics/pdf/10000820.pdf
Haskell, J. (1987) X-Word Grammar: A Grammar for the Classroom. A TESOL Professional Anthology.Ed. Carol Cargill. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 223–245.
Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. Publication No. EDO-SE-93-4 Retrieved from Eric Website Access: http://www.ericse.org/digests/dse93-4.html
Hoffman, J.V. (1992). Critical reading/thinking across the curriculum: Using I-Charts to support learning. Language Arts 69: 121-127.
King, A. (1991). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664-687.
King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 13-17.
Lai, T., Hsu, Y., Yang, F. & Tsai, M. (2008). Teacher Guidance in two Inquiry-based Instructions for Non-science Majored High School Students. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 6343-6348). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Legenza, A. (1978). Inquiry training for reading and learning improvement. Reading Improvement, 15, 309–316.
Liang, T. L. (2002). Implementing cooperative learning in EFL teaching process and effects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Roc.
Lin, Cheng-Lung. (2002). Constructivism and Second Language Learning: A Web-Based Reading-Writing Activity. M.A. thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Lin, C. S. (林清山) (1997) 教育心理學─認知取向 (3版)。台北市:遠流
Looi, C.K. (1998). Interactive learning environments for promoting inquiry learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 27 (1) 3-22.
Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90(5), 469-84.
Manzo, A.V. (1968). Improving reading comprehension through reciprocal questioning. Unpublished doctoral diss., Syracuse University.
Manzo, A.V. (1969a). Improving reading comprehension through reciprocal
Manzo, A.V., and A. Legenza. (1975). Inquiry training for kindergarten children. Educational Leadership 32: 479-483.
Manzo, A.V. (1985). Expansion modules for the ReQuest, CAT, GRP, and REAP reading strategy study procedures. Journal of Reading, 28:498-503.
Manzo, A.V., & Manzo, U.C. (1993). Literacy disorders: Holistic diagnosis and remediation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Manzo, A. V. (1998). Fusion methods for content area literacy: 5 easy pieces. California Reading Association.
Mao, S., & C. Chang. (1998). Impacts of an Inquiry Teaching Method on Earth Science Students’ Learning Outcomes and Attitudes at the Secondary School Level. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China. Part D: Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 8(3), 93-101.
Minstrell, J., & Van Zee, E.H. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Owens, R.F., Hester, J.L., & Teale, W.H. (2002). Where do you want to go today? Inquiry-based learning and technology integration. The Reading Teacher, 55, 616-625
Palincsar, A. S., and Brown, A. L.. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 2: 117-175.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 39(8), 771-77.
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1991). Dialogues promoting reading comprehension. In B. Means, C. Chelemer, & M. S. Knapp (Eds.), Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students (pp. 112-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 211-25, 229.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rabi, I. I. (1960). My life and times as a physicist. Claremont College.
Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students' perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System, 30. 85-105.
Raphael, T. E. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children. The Reading Teacher, 36(2), 186-190.
Raphael, T. E. (1984). Teaching learners about sources of information for answering comprehension questions. Journal of Reading 27: 303-311.
Raphael, T. E. (1986) Teaching Question Answer Relationships, Revisited. The Reading Teacher. Vol. 39 (6), 516-522.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.
Saskatchewan Education (1991). Inquiry learning. In Incorporating the common essential learnings and the adaptive dimension: A resource package. Regina, SK, Canada: Saskatchewan Education, Curriculum & Instruction Branch. Retrieved from http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/policy/incel/section_4.html
Sheingold, Karen (1987). Keeping children's knowledge alive through inquiry. School Library Media Quarterly, Vol. 15, Issue 2, p80-85.
Shih, S. C. (1991). A causal model on factors affecting EFL reading comprehension of two-year college students in Taiwan. Journal of National Taipei College, 4, 25-110
Short, K.G., Schroeder, J., Laird, J., Kauffman, G., Ferguson, M.J., & Crawford, K.M. (1996). Learning together through inquiry: From Columbus to integrated curriculum. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Song, Bailin (1995). What does reading mean for East Asian students? College ESL Volume 5 (2), 35-48.
Spronken-Smith, R., Bullard, J. O., Ray, W, Roberts, C., & Keiffer, A. (2008). Where might sand dunes be on Mars? Engaging students through inquiry-based learning in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 32(1), 71-86.
Wells, G. (2001). Dialogic inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (2002). Psychology for Language Teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 5th edition.
Wyatt, S. (2005). Extending inquiry-based learning to include original experimentation. The Journal of General Education, 54(2), 83-87.
Yang, Y. F. (1996). Comparison of reading strategies in L1 and L2. In The Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 127-135). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Yao, C. K. (1993). Analysis of reading strategies that Taiwanese graduates employed in processing Chinese and English academic texts. In The Papers from the Tenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp.231-249). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.