跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(35.168.110.128) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/16 05:52
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:張貴鳴
研究生(外文):Guei-ming Chang
論文名稱:閱讀背後之故事:洞悉大學推薦生與非大學推薦生之閱讀過程
論文名稱(外文):THE STORIES BEHIND READING: INSIGHTS INTO THE READING PROCESS OF RECOMMENDED AND NON-RECOMMENDED COLLEGE STUDENTS
指導教授:張玉玲張玉玲引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ye-ling Chang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:英文
論文頁數:110
中文關鍵詞:大學推薦生與非大學推薦生閱讀過程閱讀錯誤分析閱讀理解能力閱讀態度
外文關鍵詞:Recommended and non-recommended college studentsReading processReading miscue analysisReading comprehensionReading attitudes
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:671
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:6
本論文的主旨在於藉由閱讀錯誤分析來研究大學推薦生與大學非推薦生之閱讀過程的差異,本研究著重比較兩組學生的閱讀信念、閱讀理解上的差異,還有在閱讀過程中所用的策略有何不同。
本研究的受試者總共包括四為大學推薦生與四為大學非推薦生,他們都就讀於高雄師範大學英語系一年級新生,在閱讀訪談後,兩組學生分別閱讀兩篇文章 然後回想敘述其內容,而研究者則將整個過程錄音並用閱讀錯誤記錄表加以分析學生之閱讀結果與錯誤。
本研究的發現如下:
1. 根據閱讀訪談的結果,大學推薦生傾向有高主動性的閱讀態度。比如說因為他們有國外學習的經驗與受國外教育環境影響,他們會花較多的時間來主動閱讀;而大學非推薦生就傾向較被動,甚至不喜歡閱讀英文文章。
2. 在閱讀理解方面,兩組學生有其差異,大學推薦生在理解兩篇文章上都比非大學推薦生來得好。
3. 藉由閱讀錯誤分析 ,兩組學生在語意線索上與語法關係上有所差異。大學推薦生傾向兩者的運用來理解文章;而非大學推薦生較傾向用語法來幫助理解文章。
4. 關於語形與語音的相似性上,兩組學生的表現有所不同。大學推薦生在語形與語音線索上的運用,有高度的相似性;但非大學推薦生則只有語形線索上的運用,沒有語音線索上的配合運用。
5. 在回述故事內容上,兩組學生呈現差異,但差異並不是很大。大學推薦生的回述故事的分數比非大學推薦生的分數來得高,顯示出大學推薦生能說出更多有關故事細節或概念的部份。
最後,本研究建議英語教學老師能利用「下而上」及「上而下」的閱讀理解策略來引導學生理解文章。此外,老師可以藉由閱讀錯誤分析來診斷出大學推薦生與非大學推薦生的各種閱讀上的弱點。最後,老師可為這些學生設計適合他們的閱讀課程,這樣一來,大學推薦生與非大學推薦生對閱讀的興趣與他們的閱讀能力都有所提升。
The aim of the present study is to investigate the differences in reading comprehension and achievement between the recommended and non-recommended college students by means of oral reading miscue analysis. This study also revolves around the comparison of reading beliefs, comprehension and what differences of linguistic extents between the two groups of college students.
The subjects of this study included 4 recommended college students and 4 non-recommended college students at NKNU. After the reading interview, both groups of students read two reading selections and then they are asked to recall the story. The researcher recorded the whole process and then analyzed the results by means of the reading miscues inventory. The findings of this comparative study are as follows:
1. From the reading interview responses, the recommended students tended to show active reading attitudes. For example, they spent much time in reading because of the influence of foreign learning environment and the experiences of going abroad. However, the non-recommended college students tended to show passive reading attitudes and do not enjoy reading English materials very much.
2. The comprehension of the two groups of students showed the differences. The recommended college students’ comprehension in the two reading selections are better than that of the non-recommended college students.
3. From the reading miscue analysis, it shows difference in meaning construction, and grammatical relationship. The recommended college students tended to comprehend the texts from using both the meaning cueing information and grammatical cueing information while the non-recommended college students seems merely from the grammatical cueing information.
4. Regarding the graphic and sound similarity, the recommended college students tended to utilize grapho-phonemic cueing information in reading process. By contrast, the non-recommended college students seem to tend to use graphic cueing information rather than grapho-phonemic cueing information.
5. The retelling scores of the two groups of students present difference, but not very significant. The recommended college students’ retelling scores show that they can retell more details or more main concepts than the non-recommended college students.
In order to help students read with sense, English teachers can guide students to comprehend texts with both bottom-up and top-down strategies. Furthermore, they can diagnose different types of reading weaknesses of the recommended and the non-recommended college students by means of oral reading miscue analysis. Finally, they can design appropriate reading programs fro them. In this way, both recommended students and non-recommended students’ reading interests and abilities can be promoted respectively.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUTION 1~10
Background and Motivation 1
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Question 6
Significance of the Study 7
Definition of Terms 7
Limitations 10
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW 11~31
The Multiple-way College Entrance Policy 11
Purposes 11
Implementation 11
Psychological Views of the Reading Process 12
Issues on the Bottom-up and Top-down Information Processing 16
The Interactive Reading Processing 19
Issues on Oral Reading Miscue Analysis 22
Reading Miscue Analysis for EFL/ESL Students 25
Theoretical Orientation to Reading Instruction 28
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY 32~39
Subjects 32
Instruments 33
Reading Interview Questions 33
Two Reading Selections 34
Two Typescripts 35
A Reading Miscue Coding Form 35
A Reader Profile 36
Retelling Guides 36
General Procedures for Data Collection 37
Pre-taping 37
Taping 37
Post-taping 38
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISSCUTION 40~54
The Analysis of Reading Behaviors 40
Comparison of the Reading Behaviors 40
The Analysis of Reading Comprehension 44
Comparison of Reading Comprehension 44
The Analysis of Reading Miscues 45
Comparison of Meaning Construction 46
Comparison of Grammatical Relationships 50
Comparison of Graphic/Sound Similarity 52
The Analysis of Retelling Scores 54
Comparison of Retelling Scores 54
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS 55~59
Conclusions 55
Implications 57
Suggestions 59
REFERENCE 60
APPENDIX 64
Appendix A: Blank Forms of Reading Miscue Analysis 64
Appendix B: Reading Miscue Analysis Criteria 84
Appendix C: Sample of Reading Miscue Analysis of the Recommended
College Students 87
Appendix D: Sample of Reading Miscue Analysis of the Non-recommended
College Students 99
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. A Percentage Report of the Meaning Construction, Grammatical Relationship, Graphic and Sound Similarity and Retelling Scores
made by Recommended and Non-recommended College Students 47
2. Mean Scores of Meaning Construction, Grammatical Relationships,
Graphic and Sound Similarity and Retelling Scores for Recommended
and Non-recommended College Students 48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. A Psycholinguistic Reading Model 14
2. An Interactive Model of Reading 20
3. The Line Chart of Meaning Construction, Grammatical
Relationship, Graphic and Sound Similarity and Retelling Score for Recommended and Non-recommended Students 48
REFERENCES
Allen, D., & Watson, D. (Eds.) Research findings in miscue analysis. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Anderson, R. C. & Pearson, P. D. (1988). A Schema-theoretic view of basic processd in reading comprehension. In P. L. Carell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, J.C. (1988). Reading in a foreign language: a reading problem or a language problem? In P. L. Carrell, J.Devine, & D.E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp.56-70). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barlett, F. C. (1932). Remmbering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burk, C. & D. Watson. (1988). Reading is like a psycholinguistic guessing game. In Chang Y. L. (Ed.), The reading package for teaching of reading.
Carrell, P. L., Devine, J & Eskey, E. (1988). Interactive approached to second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1988). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy.
In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 73-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chippendale, E. K. (1985). An introduction to miscue analysis. Language Institute.
Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In M. Ronald, B. Barkman, & R. R. Jordan. (Eds.), Reading in a second language. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Connor, U. (1981). The application of reading miscue analysis to diagnosis of English as a second language learners’ reading skills. In C, Twyford, Reading English as a second language: Moving from theory. Indiana University, Bloomington.
Dechant, E. (1991). Understanding and teaching reading: an interactive model. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaumn Associate, Inc.
Devine, J. & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Downing, J. & Leong, C. K. (1982). Psychology of Reading. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.
Eskey, D. E. (1988). Holding in the bottom: an interactive approach to the language problems of second language readers. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 97-100). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Finocchiaro, M, (1974). English as a second language: from theory to practice. New York: Regents.
Fry, E. (1991). Ten best ideas for reading teachers. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game. In H. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp.497-505). Newark, Del: International Reading Association.
Goodman, K. S. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscue: applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 5, 9-30.
Goodman, K. S. (1970). Behind the eye: what happens in reading. In K. S. Goodman & O. S. Niles (Eds.), Reading: process and program. Urbana, III: National Council of Teachers of English.
Goodman, K. S. (1973a). Analysis of oral reading miscue: applied psycholinguistics. In Smith F. (Eds.), Psycholinguistics and Reading (pp. 158-176). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Goodman, K. S. (1973b). Miscue analysis: applications to reading instruction. Urbaba, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and National Council of Teachers of English.
Goodman, K. S. (1988). The reading process. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine. & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading.
Goodman, Y. M., Watson, D. J., & Burke, C. L. (1978). Reading miscue inventory manual: alternative procedure. New York: Richard C. Own Publishers Inc.
Groff, P. (1980). A critique of an oral reading miscues analysis. Reading World. 19(3), 254-64.
Hittleman, D. R. (1978). Developmental reading: A psycholinguistic perspective. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Johnson, P. (1981). Effect on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a text. TESOL Quarterly, 15 (2), 169-181.
Kim, Y. H. (1994). Context effects on word recognition and reading comprehension of poor and good readers: A test of the interactive-compensatory hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 178-187.
Lesgold, A.M., & Perfetti, C. A. (1981). Interactive Processes in Reading. New Jersey: Lawernece Erlbram Association.
Lin, Z. D. (1995). English reading miscue analyses: windows on reading process of EFL students in Taiwan. Master thesis of National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Mitchall, D. C. (1982). The Process of Reading: A cognitive analysis of fluent reading and learning to read. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Paulston, C. B. & Burker, M. N. (1978). Teaching English as a Second Language Techniques and Procedures. Taiwan: Rainbow Bridge Book Co.
Rayner, K. & A. Pollatsek. (1980). The psychology of reading. Englewood Gliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ruddell, R. B. & Speaker, R. B. (1985). The interactive reading process. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell, Theroretical models and processes of reading (pp. 751-793). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rumelhart, D. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI. Hillsdale, N. J. : Erlbaum.
Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of language. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues on reading comprehension.
Samuels, S. J. & Kamil, M. L. (1987). Models of reading. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp.22-36). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C. & Brewer, W. F. (1980). Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erbaum.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
Stoller, F. (1984). Implications of the interactive model of reading for recognition skills instruction. Paper presented at the 18th TESOL Conference, Huston.
Uliji, J. (1980). Foreign language reading research: recent trends and future prospects. Journal of Research in Reading, 3, 17-37.
Wixson, K. L. (1979). Miscue analysis: a critical review. Journal of Reading Behavior 11(2), 107-115.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊