臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

論文摘要：
本研究主旨在探討後設認知閱讀策略訓練對國中英文資源班學生閱讀理解之效益。特別是探討此訓練對於改善國中英文資源班學生的英文閱讀理解能力、對後設認知策略應用在閱讀的認知以及學習三項後設認知閱讀策略是否具有效果，進而研究受試學生對本後設認知閱讀策略訓練所作的回應。
本研究的對象是九位高雄市楠梓國中英文資源班二年級的學生。所有受試學生在三個月內學習三項後設認知閱讀策略，包括預測策略、畫故事圖策略、和自詢策略。在資料分析上，由於受試對象只有九位，所以主要是針對受試學生英文閱讀策略的訪談摘要、所有問卷，以及一些詢問學生對後設認知閱讀策略訓練的開放性問題作質化分析。此外，本研究者對學生的英文閱讀理解測驗成績和後設認知策略閱讀的問卷(MSI)作量化分析。
本研究的主要發現如下：
1.該後設認知閱讀策略訓練能幫助大部份資源班學生提升他們的英文閱讀
理解能力。
2.該後設認知閱讀策略訓練能幫助大部分資源班學生使用後設認知策略，
如預測策略及畫故事圖策略，應用在英文閱讀，並且有效提昇英文閱
讀理解能力，然而許多學生覺得自詢策略較難學習，而較無意願應用在
英文閱讀上。
3.該後設認知閱讀策略訓練能幫助所有參與實驗的資源班學生覺察後設認
知策略應用在閱讀的重要性，並且加強他們對高層次的閱讀修補策略之
覺察以及良好讀者所具備能力。
4.九位受試學生對該後設認知閱讀策略訓練皆抱持肯定的態度並且樂於運
用本次所教的任何一種後設認知閱讀策略於將來的英文閱讀中。
根據以上研究結果本研究者提出三點有關後設認知閱讀策略訓練在國中英文資源班閱讀教學的建議：
1.英文教師應避免過度強調背誦英文字彙的教學，並且藉由後設認知閱讀
策略訓練，營造一個活潑有善的學習環境，以加強低成就的學生在學習
英文閱讀的信心。
2 英文教師在教導一項新的閱讀策略時，必須告知學生有關的內容、使用
方法、使用時機及使用目的。此外，教師要能夠親自試範新策略的使用
步驟，直到學生熟練新策略的使用。
3.英文教師應多提供給學生有足夠的時間和機會，去熟練新策略的使用，
並且常在於英文文章的閱讀過程中，使用後設認知閱讀策略。

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effects of the Metacognitive Reading Strategy Training (MRST) on English reading for mildly disabled learners. Specifically, the students’ English reading comprehension, metacognitive reading awareness, use of metacognitive strategies, oral reading interviews, and responses to the MRST are explored.
The subjects of the study were nine 8th-grade low-achievement learners whose academic performance on the bottom was from 5% to 20% of the class. All of the subjects accepted the MRST in a three-month reading program. In data collection, the students’ English reading comprehension tests, their perception of reading, their responses to the MSI were analyzed quantitatively. In addition, the profiles of the students’ interviews and their responses to the MSI, their responses to the perception of reading, and their responses to the MRST were analyzed and synthesized qualitatively.
Based on the data analyses, the findings of the study are summarized as follows:
1.The MRST were effective in enhancing mildly disabled
learners’metacognitive reading awareness, but the training
effect on the subjects varied by different individual
learning abilities.
2.The MRST helped the students promote their reading
comprehension, but the training effect on the subjects also
varied by different reading abilities of the subjects.
3.The MRST helped the students perceive the importance of the
fixed-up behaviors in dealing with reading difficulties and
their perception of nature of good reading and good readers.
4.The MRST helped the students evaluate different reading
strategies in an effective way.
5.All of the students in this study exhibited a positive
attitude toward the MRST and expressed their willingness to
use the learned metacognitive strategies in their English
reading.
Based on the results of the study, the researcher suggests that the EFL teachers improve the mildly disabled learners’ reading comprehension by using the metacognitive reading strategies. Besides, the teachers are encouraged to teach students metacognitive knowledge in terms of their personal abilities, reading progress and effective reading strategies. To put the theory into practice, teachers should provide students with opportunities to practice the strategies in or out of class. If students are able and willing to use the taught metacognitive reading strategies that have learned, they will become active, critical, and independent readers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Page
Background and Motivation 1
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 5
Definition of Terms 5
Significance of the Study 7
Limitations of the Study 8
CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERVIEW
Difficulties in Reading Comprehension for 9
Mildly Disabled Learners
The Process of Reading Comprehension 10
Reading Problems of Mildly Disabled Learners 14
Metacognition in Reading Comprehension 18
The Definition of Metacognition 18
Metacognitive Differences among Students 22
Metacognitive Strategy Training 24
The Factors of Successful Strategy Training 25
Some Cases of Integration of Reading Strategy Training 27
Selected Metacognitive Reading Strategies 30
Prediction 31
Self-questioning 33
Story Mapping 35
CHPATER THREE METHODOLOGY
Subjects 40
Instruments 40
The Materials for the MRST 41
The Pretest and Post-test English Reading 41
Comprehension Tests
The Pretest and Post-test Questionnaires 42
on the Students’Metacognitive Strategy
Index (MSI)
The Profiles of the Students’ Reading 43
Interviews about the Students’ Responses
to the MRST
The Pretest and Post-test Questionnaires 43
on the Students’ Perception of Reading
The Questionnaire on the Students’ Responses to 44
the MRST
The Transcripts of the Students’ Reading 45
Interview Records
Procedures 47
Date Analysis 47
A Quantitative Analysis 48
A Qualitative Analysis
CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS
Comparison of Metacognitive Strategy Index (MSI)for
Students Between the Pretest and the Post-test 50
Comparison of Reading Comprehension Tests for Students
Between the Pretest and the Post-test 68
Comparison of Perception of Reading for Students
Between the Pretest and the Post-test 69
Evaluation of Responses to the Three Metacognitive
Strategies for Students 76
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions 82
Implications 86
Suggestions 88
REFERENCES 90
Appendix A-1: The Pretest English Reading 99
Comprehension-1
Appendix A-2: The Pretest Englis Reading 101
Comprehension-2
Appendix A-3: The Pretest English Reading 103
Comprehension-3
Appendix B-1: A Training Guide for Prediction 105
Appendix B-2: A Training Guide for Story Mapping 112
Appendix B-3: A Training Guide for Self-questioning 116
Appendix C-1: The Post-test English Reading Comprehension-1
Appendix C-2: The Post-test English Reading Comprehension-2
Appendix C-3: The Post-test English Reading Comprehension-3
Appendix D: The Questionnaire on the Students’ 131
Metacognitive Strategy Index
Appendix E-1: The Profile of Reading Interview about
the Students’ Responses to the MRST-1 135
Appendix E-2: The Profile of Reading Interview about
the Students’ Responses to the MRST-2 136
Appendix E-3: The Profile of Reading Interview about
the Students’ Responses to the MRST-3 137
Appendix F: The Questionnaire on the Students’Perception
of Reading 138
Appendix G: The Questionnaire on the Students’ Responses
to the MRST 140
Appendix H: The Transcripts of the Students’ Reading
Interview Records 141

REFERENCES
Abromitis, B. (1994). The Role of metacognition in reading comprehension: implications for instruction. (Eric Digest. ED 371291)
Anderson, T. H. (1980). Study skills and learning strategies. In H. F. O’Nail, Jr., & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 483-502). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Antonacci, P. A. (1991). Students Search for Meaning in the text through semantic mapping. Social Education, 55(3), 174-175.
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Meyer, J. L. (1991). Improving content-area reading using instructional graphics. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(4), 393-415.
Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 365-374.
Baker, L., & Anderson, R. I. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 281-294.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills in reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Bartel, N. R. (1990). Teaching students who have reading problems. In D. D. Hammill & N. R. Bartel (Eds.), Teaching students with learning and behavioral problems (5th ed., pp. 401-433). Boston: Allen and Bacon.
Baumann, J. F., & Murray, B. A. (1994). Current practices in reading assessment. In K.D. Wood, & B, Algozzine (Eds.), Teaching reading to high-risk learners (pp.123-148). MA: Simon & Schuster.
Beattie, J. (1994). Characteristics of students with learning disabilities and how teachers can help. In K.D. Wood, & B, Algozzine (Eds.), Teaching reading to high-risk learners (pp.123-148). MA: Simon & Schuster.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1981). Developing questions that promote comprehension: the story map. Language Arts, 58, 913-918.
Blanton, L. P., & Blanton, W. E. (1994). Providing reading instruction to mildly disabled students: Research into practice. In K.D. Wood, & B, Algozzine (Eds.), Teaching reading to high-risk learners (pp.9-48). MA: Simon & Schuster.
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Teaching test-based concepts. In E. L. Swanson & B, Keogh (Eds.), Learning disabilities: theoretical and research issues
(pp. 247-259). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brasche, H. P. (1991). The design of a computer-mediated reading tool for the enhancement of second language reading comprehension through the provision of on line cues. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Toronto, Toronto.
Brezin, M. L. (1980). Cognitive monitoring: From learning theory to instructional application. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 28, 227-242.
Brown, A. L. (1985). Metacognition: the development of selective attention strategies for learning from texts. In H. Singer & R. b. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 501-526). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1984). Instructing comprehension-fostering activities in interactive learning situations. In H. Mandl, N.L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp.255-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bryan, R., & Bryan, J. H. (1986). Understanding learning disabilities (3rd ed.).
CA: Mayfield.
Carrell, P. L. (1988). Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL reading. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 101-113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Charmello, C. (1933). Self-questioning prediction strategy’s effect on comprehension. Unplished master’s thesis, Kean College of New Jersey, NJ.
Chen, H. C., & Graves, M. F. (1996). Effects of previewing and providing background knowledge on Taiwanese college students’ comprehension of American short stories. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 636-686.
Cheng, Y. L. (1991). The study of freshman English reading: The application of metacognitive strategies. Proceedings of the Second Educational Research in Taiwan Provience (pp. 596-635). Taichung: Taiwan Province Government.
Chiu, Mei-jiang (1999). Reading comprehension. Taipei: Chien Hong Publishing Co, Ltd.
Cochran, J. A. (1993). Reading in the content areas for junior high school and high school. MA: Simon & Schuster.
Cummins, J. (1998 ). Using text as input for computer-supported Language Learning. CAELL Journal, 9(1), 3-10.
Daines, D. (1986). Are teachers asking higher level questions? Education, 106(4), 368-374.
Dechant, E. V. (1982). Improving the teaching of reading (3rd ed.).
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Derry, S. J. (1990). Remediating academic difficulties through strategy training: The acquisition of useful knowledge. Remedial and special education, 11(6), 19-31.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J .B. (1993). Skills mastery by at-risk students: Not a simple matter. Elementary School Journal, 94, 153-167.
Dillon, J. T. (1982). The effects of questions in education and other enterprises. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14, 127-152.
Dixcon, R. A. (1989). Metacognitive skills and the adult developmental readers: issues in identification and instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ball State, Indiana.
Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read (6th ed.). MA: Simon & Schuster.
Ekwall, E. E., & Shanker, J. L. (1988). Diagnosis and remediation of the disabled reader (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Evans, S. S., Evans, W. H., & Gable, R. A. (1994). What research in special education assessment says to reading teachers. In K.D. Wood, & B, Algozzine (Eds.), Teaching reading to high-risk learners (pp.123-148). MA: Simon & Schuster.
Farr, R. (1989). Reading for the English teacher. Paper presented at the Texas Councilof Teachers of English, Midland, Texas.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice-Hall.
Forgan, H. W., & Mangrum II, C. T. (1989). Teaching content area reading skills (4th ed.). Ohio: Merrill.
Forrest-Pressley, D. L., & Waller, T. G. (1980). What do children know about their reading and study skills? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Fry, E. (1963). Teaching faster reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gagne, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
Garner, R. (1988). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Garner, R. (1992). Metacogniton and self-monitoring strategies. In S.J. Samuels & A.E. Favstrup (Eds.),What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed.). International Reading Association.
Gerber, P. J. (1986). Special educators'' perceptions of parental participation in the individual education plan process. Psychology in the Schools, 23(2).
Goetz, E. T., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Radin, D. J. (1983). Reading in perspective: what real cops and real burglars look for in a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 500-510.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading specialist, 4, 126-135.
Goodman, L. (1990). Time and learning in the special education classroom. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406.
Graves, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B. B. (1998). Teaching reading in the 21st century.
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hacker, D. J. (1988). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J., Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational theory and practice (p.1-24). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hanf, M. B. (1971). Mapping: A technique for translating reading into thinking. Journal of Reading, 14, 225-230.
Hayes, B. L. (Ed.). (1991). Effective strategies for teaching reading. MA:Simon & Schuster.
Heilman, A. W., Blair, T. R., & Rupley, W. H. (1990). Principles and practices of teaching reading. (7th ed.). Ohio: Merrill.
Henley, M., Ramsey, R. S., & Algozzine, R. F. (1966). Characteristics of and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities (2nd ed.). MA: Simon & Schuster.
Johnston, P. (1984). Background knowledge, reading comprehension and test bias. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 219-239.
Johnston, P., & Pearson, P. D. (1982). Prior knowledge, connectivity, and the assessment of reading comprehension. Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the study of Reading.
King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehensin of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 336-381.
Kolers, P. A. (1970). Three stages of reading. In H. Levin & J. P. Williams (Eds.), Basic studies on reading (pp. 90-180). New York: Basic Books.
Kuo, C. T. (1993). Effects of metacognitive training on the uses of reading strategies and metacognitive abilities. Educational Research and Infornation, 1(5), 26-50.
Lesgold, A. M., & Perfetti, C. A. (1978). Interactive processes in reading comprehension. Discourse Process, 1, 323-326.
Lipson, M. (1995). The effects of semantic mapping instruction on propose comprehension of below-level college readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 34 (4), 367-378.
McIntosh, A. (1995). Conceptual teaching + semantic mapping = discovering connections. Perspectives in Education and Deafness, 14 (1), 11, 16-17.
Naughton,V. M. (1994). Creative mapping for content reading. Journal of Reading. 37(4), 324-327.
Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London: Heinemann International.
O’shea, D. J. (1994). Teacher effectiveness research into reading practice. In K.D. Wood, & B, Algozzine (Eds.), Teaching reading to high-risk learners (pp.123-148). MA: Simon & Schuster.
O’shea, D. J., & O’shea L .J. (1994) What research in special Education says to reading Teachers. In K.D. Wood, & B, Algozzine (Eds.), Teaching reading to high-risk learners (pp. 49-81). MA: Simon & Schuster.
Olson, J. P., & Dillner, M. H. (1976). Learning to teach reading in the elementary school. NY: Macmillan.
O’Malley, L. M., Chamot, A. V., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R.P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language learning, 35, 21-46.
Orasanu, J. (Ed.). (1986). Reading comprehension: from research to practice. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Paris, S. G. & Cross, D. R. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239-1252.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.
Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (1986). Self-regulated learning among exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 53(2), 103-108.
Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: the role of context versus translation as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal,
80, 478-493.
Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & O’Scullivan, J. (1985). Children’s metamemory and the teaching of memory strategies. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G.E. Mackinnon & T. Gray Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition and huaman Performance (pp.111-149). New York: Academic Press.
Reid, D. K. (1988). Teaching the learning disabled: a cognitive developmental approach. MA: Simon & Schuster.
Rhodes, L. (1979). Comprehension and predictability: An analysis of beginning reading materials. In R. Carey & J. Harste (Eds.), New perspectives on comprehension. Bloomington: Indiana University.
Rubin, D. (1993). A practical Approach to teaching reading (2nd ed.). MA: Simon & Schuster.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce & W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp35-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 454-461.
Schmitt, M. C., & Newby, T. J. (1986). Metacognition: Relevance to Instruction Design. Journal of Instructional Development, 9(4), 29-33.
Schulze, R. A. (1983). From word to meaning: foreign language reading instruction after the elementary course. The Modern language Journal, 67, 127-134.
Schumaker, J. B., Denton, P. H., & Deshler, D. D. (1984). Learning strategies curriculum: The paraphrasing strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
Smith, F. (1977). Reading without nonsense (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College press.
Stanvich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1982). Automatization failure in learning disabilities. Topics in learning disabilities, 2, 1-11.
Stevens, K. C. (1982). Can we improve reading by teaching background information? Journal of Reading, 25, 326-329.
Tulving, E., & Gold, C. (1963). Stimulus information and contextual information as determinants of tachistoscopic recognition of words. Journal of experimental Psychology, 66, 319-327.
Webster, J. P. (1998). Semantic mapping. TESOL Journal, 7(5), 42-43.
Whitman, T. L. (1990). Self-regulation and mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94(4). 347-362.
Wong, B.Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: a review. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 227-268.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1986). Metacognition and special education: A Review of a view. Journal of Special Education, 20(1), 10-25.