跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.236.23.193) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/26 07:43
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:賴慧芬
研究生(外文):Hui-fen Lai
論文名稱:專業知識對較熟練讀者建構大意過程之影響
論文名稱(外文):The Influences of Domain Knowledge on ESP More Proficient Readers'' Processes of Main Idea Construction
指導教授:楊育芬楊育芬引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yu-fen Yang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立雲林科技大學
系所名稱:應用外語系碩士班
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:2004
畢業學年度:92
語文別:英文
論文頁數:167
中文關鍵詞:閱讀監控專業知識專技英文閱讀大意建構閱讀策略
外文關鍵詞:domain knowledgecomprehension monitoringmain-idea constructionESP readingreading strategies
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:270
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:72
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:4
本研究探討專業知識在讀者建構大意的過程中所扮演的角色。研究中十二位較熟練讀者分別閱讀熟悉領域及不熟悉領域之文章,資料分析則依據讀者於閱讀過程中的有聲思考逐字稿。研究發現,閱讀熟悉領域及不熟悉領域文章,讀者經歷兩種不同的過程。閱讀熟悉領域文章時,讀者成功解讀術語或理解關鍵句後,隨即啟動其專業知識,整個理解過程和大意建構都由專業知識主導,讀者對於文章理解程度通常超越字面意義。閱讀不熟悉文章時,讀者因無法解讀術語、亦無專業知識,故只好啟動非專業知識,即普通常識,及運用閱讀策略等方法,完成文章閱讀並建構大意。因缺乏專業知識,讀者僅能了解文章字面意義,所建構的大意也是難以理解。專業知識在閱讀過程中發揮六種功能,第一,它幫助讀者選擇字義;第二,它使讀者有能力預測文章內容;第三,它使讀者有能力確認文章的敘述是否正確;第四、它協助讀者進一步闡述文字內容;第五,它讓讀者有批判文字敘述的能力;最後,它幫助讀者採取由上而下的閱讀策略。本研究亦發現,即使閱讀熟悉領域文章,若讀者相關專業知識不足,仍會有無法啟動專業知識或啟動不相關專業知識的表現。研究建議,專業科目教師在指定閱讀作業前,應先使讀者熟悉各種術語及專業領域基本概念,並先定義文章論述領域的範圍,此舉可避免學生啟動不相關專業知識。此外,學生亦應被告知隨時啟動其專業知識的重要性。英文閱讀老師可訓練其學生倚賴文章中的例子及主題句,以推敲專業領域文章的真正意涵,並鼓勵學生經常啟動普通常識以彌補專業知識之不足。
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the role of domain knowledge on readers’ processes of main-idea construction. Twelve ESP more proficient readers were arranged to read domain-familiar and domain-unfamiliar texts, and their verbal reports were transcribed for data analysis. The findings of the data analysis revealed that the readers went through different processes in reading domain-familiar and domain-unfamiliar texts. In reading domain-familiar texts, the readers activated their domain-specific knowledge at the time when they successfully decoded key terms or sentences. Once the domain-specific knowledge was activated, it dominated the readers’ whole comprehension processes and the construction of main-idea statements. The readers’ comprehension usually reached the inferential standard. In reading domain-unfamiliar texts, the readers were unable to decode specialized terms; thus, they tended to activate their domain-general and applied general reading strategies. Without the support of domain-specific knowledge, the subjects could only literally understand the prints, and the main-idea statements they constructed were commonly incomprehensible. The domain-specific knowledge functioned in six ways to facilitate the readers’ reading processes. Firstly, it helped the readers select proper word meanings among several possible meanings. Secondly, it enabled the readers to predict content of the texts. Thirdly, it allowed the readers to confirm the correct description in the texts. Fourthly, it aided the readers to elaborate statements in the texts. Fifthly, it allowed the readers to criticize statements in the texts. Finally, it assisted the readers to utilize top-down reading strategies. The present study also found that some readers still had difficulties activating domain-specific knowledge or activated unrelated domain-specific knowledge in reading domain-familiar texts because their domain knowledge was insufficient. The results of the present study suggest that teachers of content areas should familiarize the students with technical terms and basic concepts before the reading homework is assigned. They should also define the scope of the content prior to students’ reading so that students will not activate unrelated domain-specific knowledge. Students should also be advised the importance of activating their domain-specific knowledge all the time. On the other hand, English reading teachers are suggested to train students to rely more on explicit examples or topic sentences to infer meanings of ESP texts. It is also recommended that English teachers encourage students to activate their domain-general knowledge constantly.
TABLE of CONTENTS

Chinese Abstract ………………………………………………………………… i
English Abstract ……….………………………………………………………… ii
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………….. iv
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………….…….. v
List of Tables ………….………………………………………………….…..….. x
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………...……. xii

CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………...........…….. 1
Background of the Study …………………………………………………….. 1
The Purpose of the Current Study ………………………………………….. 7
Research Questions ………………………………………….……………….. 8
Definitions of Terms ………………………………………………………….. 8
Significance of the Current Study ………………………….………….…….. 9

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES ………………..............…… 11
An Overview of Reading Comprehension ………………......…………………. 11
The Three Reading Models ……………………………………………… 11
The Standards of Reading Comprehension ……………………………… 12
The decoding …………………………………….......…………….…… 13
Literal Comprehension ………………………….....………….………. 14
Inferential Comprehension ………………………………….……… 15
Comprehension Monitoring ………………………………...…….….. 17

The Influences of Domain Knowledge on Reading Comprehension ……….. 20
The Schema Theory ……………………………………………………….. 20
The Influences of Background Knowledge on Reading
Comprehension of L1 Readers …………………………………………….. 24
The Influences of Background Knowledge on Reading
Comprehension of L2 Readers …………………………………………….. 25
Studies on ESP Reading ……………………………………………………….. 28
An Overview of English for Specific Purposes ……………………. 28
The Threshold in Reading ESP Texts …………………………………… 29
Studies on Main-idea Construction …………………………………………… 31
An Overview of Summarization …………………………………………… 31
An Overview of Main-idea Construction …………………….………. 32

III. METHOD ………………………………………………………… 35
Subjects …………………………………………………………………………. 35
Materials ………………………………………………………………………… 37
Selection of Textbooks ……………………………………………………… 37
Selection of Passages ……………………………………………………….. 37
Interrater Reliability of Texts …………………………………………….. 39
Text Difficulty ………………………………………………………………. 40
Procedures ………………………………………………………………………. 41
Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………. 42
Decoding ……………………………………………………………………. 44
Literal Comprehension ……………………………………………………… 46
Inferential Comprehension ………………………………………………….. 47
Comprehension Monitoring ………………………………………………… 47
Inter-rater Scoring ……………………………………………………..…… 50

IV. RESULTS ……………………………………………….......…………. 57
When Related Domain-specific Knowledge Was Sufficient ………………….. 57
The Activation of Domain-Specific Knowledge in Reading ……….. 57
The Functions of Domain-Specific Knowledge in Reading
Comprehension ......................................... 58
Deciding the Correct Word Meanings ……………………… 59
Predicting the Texts ………………………………………… 61
Confirming the Correct Description in the Texts …... 63
Elaborating the Statement in the Texts ……………….. 66
Criticizing Statements in the Texts ……………………… 68
Activating Top-down Reading Strategies ……………….. 71
Upgrading Comprehension Standards ……………………... 73
When Related Domain-Specific Knowledge Was Absent ……………………. 75
Problems Occurring in the Absence of Domain-Specific Knowledge ….. 75
Problems to Decode Technical Terms ……………………… 76
Problems to Infer Real Meanings …………………………. 77
Problems to Monitor Comprehension …………….……….. 78
Remedial Reading Strategies to Compensate the Absence of Domain-Specific
Knowledge ………………………………………………………………….. 82
Activating Domain-General Knowledge ……………………… 82
Applying General Reading Strategies ……………………… 84
When Related Domain-Specific Knowledge Was Available but Insufficient …89
Delay of Activating Related Domain-Specific Knowledge ………………… 90
Activation of Unrelated Domain-Specific Knowledge …………………….. 91

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ……………………………. 95
Summary of the Findings ……………………………………………………… 95
Discussion of the Results ………………………………………………………. 97
The Readers’ Processes in Reading Domain-familiar and
Domain-unfamiliar Texts …………………………………………….……. 97
The Four Figures of ESP Reading Processes ………………….……. 97
The Activation of Domain-Specific Knowledge in Reading ….….. 103
The Functions of Domain-Specific Knowledge in Main-idea Construction. 106
Micro Process …………………………………………………… 106
Disambiguation ……………………………………. 106
Confirmation ………………………………………. 107
Elaboration ………………………………………… 108
Criticism …………………………………………… 108
Macro Process …………………………………………………… 109
Prediction …………………………………………. 109
Utilization of Reading Strategies……………. 110
Upgrade of Comprehension Standard…………….. 110
Summary ………………………………………………………... 113
The Absence of Domain-Specific Knowledge in Main-idea Construction … 114
Problems Occurring in the Absence of Domain-Specific Knowledge. 115
Decoding Problems …………………………………………….. 115
Inferential Problems …………………………………………. 116
Comprehension Monitoring Problems ………………………. 116
Remedial Reading Strategies to Compensate the Absence of
Domain-specific Knowledge …………………………………………. 118
Activation of Domain-General Knowledge …………………. 118
Application of General Reading Strategies ……………. 119
Problems Occurring in the Insufficiency of Domain-Specific
Knowledge …………………....……………………………………… 120
Activation of Unrelated Domain-Specific Knowledge …… 120
Degrade of Comprehension Standard ………………………. 121
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………… 122
Pedagogical Implications of the Current Study ……………………………… 124
Implications for Instructors of Content Areas ………………………….. 124
Implications for English Reading Teachers ……………………………….. 126
Limitations of the Study …………………………..………………….………… 128
Suggestions for Further Studies ……………………………………………… 129

REFERENCES …………………………………….…………………...………… 131

APPENDIX …………………………………………………………..…………… 139
I. Text for Experiment (Accounting) ………………….………………………… 139
II. Text for Experiment (Psycholinguistics) ………………..…….…………… 140
III. Text for Think-aloud Task Training …………..………………..………… 141
IV. Example of the Subjects’ Protocols from Accounting Group ..………… 142
V. Example of the Subjects’ Protocols from Psycholinguistics Group …… 152
VI. Ratings of the Subjects’ Reading Performance …………..…………… 161





List of Tables

Table 3.1. Details of the 12 Subjects………………………………….. 36
Table 3.2 Checklist for Material Selection ……………………………………… 38
Table 3.3 Calculation of Interrater Reliability on Accounting Text …….. 40
Table 3.4 Reading Order in the Experiment ………………….…………………. 42
Table 3.5 Part of Subject A’s Protocols ………………………………………. 45
Table 3.6 Part of Subject C’s Protocols ………………………………………… 46
Table 3.7 Part of Subject G’s Protocols ………………………………………… 46
Table 3.8 Part of Subject A’s Protocols ………………………………………… 47
Table 3.9 Part of Subject K’s Protocols ……………………………….…….. 48
Table 3.10 Part of Subject G’s Protocols …………………………… 49
Table 3.11 Part of Subject I’s Protocols ……………………………. 49
Table 3.12 Rater 1’s Rating on Subjects C’s Protocols ……….. 51
Table 3.13 Rater 2’s Rating on Subject J’s Protocols ……….… 52
Table 3.14 The Calculation of Interrater Reliability on Accounting
Text ................................………. 53
Table 3.15 The Calculation of Interrater Reliability on
Psycholinguistics Text …..................... 54
Table 3.16 Scores of Comprehension Monitoring of Accounting Text. 55
Table 3.17 Scores of Comprehension Monitoring of Psycholinguistics Text …… 56
Table 4.1 Part of Subject L’s Protocols ………………………………………… 58
Table 4.2 Subject A’s and J’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text …… 59
Table 4.3 Subject E’s and H’s Protocols in Reading Psycholinguistics Text ….. 60
Table 4.4 Subject B’s and K’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text …… 62
Table 4.5 Subject D’s and L’s Protocols in Reading Psycholinguistics Text ….. 63
Table 4.6 Subject E’s and G’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text …… 64
Table 4.7 Subject F’s and I’s Protocols in Reading Psycholinguistics Text …… 65
Table 4.8 Subject A’s and H’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text ... 67
Table 4.9 Subject F’s and J’s Protocols in Reading Psycholinguistics Text …... 68
Table 4.10 Subject E’s and H’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text ………... 69
Table 4.11 Subject D’s and K’s Protocols in Reading Psycholinguistics Text …. 71
Table 4.12 Part of Subject A’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text …………. 72
Table 4.13 Part of Subject B’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text …………. 73
Table 4.14 Number of Subjects Reaching Standard of Inferential Comprehension on Accounting Text …………………………………………………. 74
Table 4.15 Number of Subjects Reaching Standard of Inferential Comprehension on Psycholinguistics Text …………………………………………… 75
Table 4.16 Part of Subject C’s Protocols in Reading Psycholinguistics ……….. 76
Table 4.17 Part of Subject L’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text ……….… 78
Table 4.18 Part of Subject A’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text ………… 79
Table 4.19 Part of Subject L’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text ………… 80
Table 4.20 Part of Subject G’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text ………… 81
Table 4.21 Part of Subject E’s Protocols in Reading Psycholinguistics ……….. 83
Table 4.22 Part of Subject H’s Protocols in Reading Accounting ……………… 84
Table 4.23 Part of Subject B’s Protocols in Reading Psycholinguistics Text ….. 85
Table 4.24 Part of Subject K’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Test ………… 86
Table 4.25 Part of Subjects J’s Protocols in Reading Psycholinguistics Text ….. 87
Table 4.26 Part of Subject I’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text ………….. 88
Table 4.27 Part of Subject B’s Protocols ……………………………………….. 90
Table 4.28 Part of Subject D’s Protocols ……………………………………….. 91
Table 4.29 Part of Subject C’s Protocols in Reading Accounting Text …….…… 92
Table 4.30 Part of Subject K’s Protocols in Reading Psycholinguistics Text …... 94
List of Figures

Figure 5.1. The Process of Comprehending Domain-familiar Texts (A) ………… 98
Figure 5.2. The Process of Comprehending Domain-familiar Texts (B) ………… 99
Figure 5.3 The Process of Comprehending Domain-unfamiliar Texts (A) ……… 101
Figure 5.4 The Process of Comprehending Domain-unfamiliar Texts (B) ……… 102
Adamson, H. D. (1990). ESL Students’ Use of Academic Skills in Content Courses. English for Specific Purposes, 9, pp. 67 – 87.
Adamson, H. D. (1991). Academic Competence. English for Specific Purposes, 5, pp. 55 – 79.
Aebersold, J. A. and Field, M. L. (1997). From Reader to Reading Teacher. Cambridge University Press.
Afflerbach, P. P. (1990). The Influence of Prior Knowledge on Expert Readers’ Main Idea Construction Strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 25, Nov., 1990.
Alderson, J. C. and Urquhart, A. H. (1985). The Effect of Students’ Academic Discipline on Their Performance on ESP Reading Tests. Language Testing, 2, pp. 192 – 204.
Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York: Worth Publishers.
Block, E. L. (1986). The comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, pp. 463 – 494.
Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., and Jones, R. S. (1983). The Development for Plans for Summarizing Texts. Child Development, 54, 968 – 979.
Carmichael, C. A. and Hayes, B. K. (2001). Prior Knowledge and Exemplar Encoding in Children’s Concept Acquisition. Child Development, 72 (4), pp. 1071-1090.
Carr, S. C. and Thompson, B. (1996). The Effect of Prior Knowledge and Schema Activation Strategies on the Inferential Reading Comprehension of Children with and without Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(1), pp. 48 – 61.

Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21, pp. 416 – 428.
Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive Awareness and Second Language Reading. The Modern Language Journal, 73, pp. 121 – 134.
Casanave, C. P. (1988). Comprehension Monitoring in ESL Reading: A Neglected Essential. TESOL Quarterly, 22, pp. 283 – 302.
Chang, H. O. (2001). Solving Problems in Content Textbook Reading: A Learning-centered Approach. Selected Papers from the tenth International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., Ltd. pp. 208 – 218.
Chen, B. C. (1999). Discrepancy of Reading Strategies for Academic Purposes between High Achievers and Low Achievers at A Junior College in Taiwan. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., Ltd. pp. 223 – 234.
Cheng, Y. (2000). The Effects of Formal Schemata on the Reading Comprehension of English Expository Texts by Chinese Students. Doctoral Dissertation at the Southern Illinois University. Miami: UMI Dissertation Services.
Chu, H. C. J., Swaffar, J. and Charney, D. H. (2002). Cultural Representations of Rhetorical Conventions: The Effects on Reading Recall. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), pp. 511 – 541.
Collier, V. P. (1989). How Long? A Synthesis of Research on Academic Achievement in a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, 23, pp. 309 – 531.
Cordero-Ponce, Wanda L. (2000). Summarization Instruction: Effects on Foreign Language Comprehension and Summarization of Expository Texts. Reading Research and Instruction, 39, 329 – 350.
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing Language for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Droop, M. and Verhoeven, L. (1998). Background knowledge, linguistic complexity, and second language reading comprehension, Journal of Literacy Research, 30, pp. 253 – 271.
Dudley-Evans, T. and St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in ESP. A Multi-Disciplinary Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Fincher-Kiefer, R. (1992). The Role of Prior Knowledge in Inferential Processing. Journal of Research in Reading, 15, pp. 12 – 27.
Garner, R. (1988). Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., and Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Gough, P. B., Hoover, W. A. and Peterson, C. L. (1996). Some Observations on a Simple View of Reading. pp. 1 – 13. Reading Comprehension Difficulties. Edited by Cesare Cornoldi and Jane Oakhill. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. pp. 1 – 13.
Hacker, D. (1998). Definitions and Empirical Foundations. Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Edited by Douglas J. Hacker, John Dunlosky, & Arthur C. Graesser. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp. 1 – 23.
Hammadou, J. (1991). Interrelationships among Prior Knowledge, Inference, and Language Proficiency in Foreign Language Reading. The Modern Language Journal, 75, pp. 27 – 38.

Harris, T. L. & Hodge, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hauptman, P. C. (2000). Some Hypotheses on the Nature of Difficulty and ease in Second Language Reading: An Application of Schema Theory. Foreign Language Annuals, 33, pp. 622 – 631.
Henk, W. A, Stahl, N. and Melnick, S. (1993). The Influence of Readers’ Prior Knowledge and Level of Involvement on Ambiguous Text Interpretation: An Extension Study. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(3), pp. 1 – 12.
Huang, C. C. (1999). The Effects of Vocabulary Knowledge and Prior Knowledge on Reading Comprehension of EFL Students in Taiwan. Doctoral Dissertation at the College of Education of Ohio University. Miami: UMI Dissertation Services.
Huang, C. C. (2000). A Threshold for Vocabulary Knowledge on Reading Comprehension. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Huang, C. C. (2001). An Investigation of ESP Students’ Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading Comprehension. Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching. Pp. 435 – 445. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Hudson, T. (1991). A Content Comprehension Approach to Reading English for Science and Technology. TESOL Quarterly, 25, pp. 77 – 104.
Irwin, J. W. (1991). Teaching Reading Comprehension Processes. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
Jitendra, A. K., Cole, C. L., Hoppes, M. K., and Wilson, B. (1998). Effects of Direct Instruction Main Idea Summarization Program and Self-monitoring on Reading Comprehension of Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities, Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 379 – 396.
Johnston, P. and Afflerbach, P. (1985). The Process of Constructing Main Ideas From Text. Cognition and Instruction, 2, pp. 207 – 232.
Kintsch, E. (1990). Macroprocesses and Microprocesses in the Development of Summarization Skills. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 161 – 195.
Kong, H. C. (1996). Teaching College English: From ESL to ESP. Studies in English Language and Literature, 1, p. 40 – 45.
Larson, K. D., Wild, J. J., and Chiappetta, B. (1999). Fundamental Accounting Principles. McGraw-Hill.
Laufer, B. and Sim, D. (1985). Measuring and Explaining the Reading Threshold Needed for English for Academic Purposes Texts. Foreign Language Annals, 18, pp. 405 – 411.
Lee, J. F. (1986). Background Knowledge and L2 Reading. The Modern Language Journal, 70, pp. 350 – 354.
Li, S. and Munby, H. (1996). Metacognitive Strategies in Second Language Academic Reading: A Qualitative Investigation. English for Specific Purposes, 15, pp. 199 – 216.
Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. (1999). How Languages Are Learned. Oxford University Press.
Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C. and Estes, T. H. (2001). Content Area Literacy. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Meigs, R. F. (2001). Financial Accounting. McGraw Hill.
Murphy, P. K. and Alexander, P. A. (2002). What Counts? The Predictive Powers of Subject-Matter Knowledge, Strategic Processing, and Interest in Domain-specific Performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 2002, 70(3), pp. 197 – 214.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press.
Nicaise, M. and Gettinger, M. (1995). Fostering Reading Comprehension in College Students. Reading Psychology, 16, 283 – 337.
Oakhill, J. and Yuill, N. (1996). Higher Order Factors in Comprehension Disability: Processes and Remediation. Reading Comprehension Difficulties. Edited by Cesare Cornoldi and Jane Oakhill. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. pp. 69 – 92.
Ou, H. C. (1997). A Comparative Study of English Reading Proficiency between Comprehensive University and Technological Institute Seniors. Studies in English Language and Literature, 2, pp. 1 – 12.
Peretz, A. S. and Shoham, M. (1990) Does Topic Familiarity Affect Assessed Difficulty and Actual Performance on Reading Comprehension Tests in LSP? 9th Annual Meeting of the Academic Committee for Research on Language Testing.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. England: Oxford University Press
Perfetti, C. A., Marron, M. A., and Foltz, P. W. (1996). Sources of Comprehension Failure: Theoretical Perspectives and Case Studies. Reading Comprehension Difficulties. Edited by Cesare Cornoldi and Jane Oakhill. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. pp. 137 – 165
Raymond, P. M. (1993). The Effects of Structure Strategy Training on the Recall of Expository Prose for University Students Reading French as A Second Language, Modern Language Journal, 77, 445 – 458.
Ruffman, T. (1996). Reassessing Children’s Comprehension-Monitoring Skills. Reading Comprehension Difficulties. Edited by Cesare Cornoldi and Jane Oakhill. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. pp. 33 – 67.
San Min Book Co., Ltd. (2000). English Textbook for Vocational High Schools.
Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting General Metacognitive Awareness. Metacognition in Learning and Instruction. Edited by Hope J. Hartman. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 1 – 16.
Sherrard, C. (1989). Teaching Students to Summarize: Applying Textlinguistics. System, 17, 1-11.
Smith, F. (1994). Understanding Reading. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Steinberg, D. D. (1998). An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.
Sutarsyah, C., Nation, P., and Kennedy, G. (1994). How Useful is EAP Vocabulary for ESP? A Corpus-Based Study. RELC Journal, 25(2), pp. 34 – 50.
The Far East Book Company (2000). English Textbook for Vocational High Schools.
Tsai, M. J. (1999). ESP Reading for Students with Less Languages Proficiency. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., Ltd. pp. 527 – 537.
Van Dijk, T. A. and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies for Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Yang, Y. F. (2002a). Reassessing Readers’ Comprehension Monitoring. Reading in a Foreign Language. 14, pp. 18 – 42.
Yang, Y. F. (2002b). Developing the Vocabulary Size and Analysis Test for Identifying TVES College Students’ Reading Levels. In Department of English, Shih-Shin University (Ed.), Proceeding of the Nineteenth International Conference on English Teaching and Learning, pp. 489 – 499, Taipei: Crane.

Yang, Y. F. and Kuo, H. H. (2003). Influences of Lexical Processing on Reading. Reading Psychology, 24, pp. 87 – 103.
Young, D. (1999). Linguistic Simplification of SL Reading Material: Effective Instructional Practice? The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), pp. 350 – 366.
Joe, 周碩貴 (2003). 科技大學學生英文字彙量與閱讀補救教學研究. 行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫. NSC91-2411-H-224-008.
Hsu, 許蔚農 (2000). 專業英文教學之探討 – 以 「國際貿易英文習作為例」,國立屏東商業技術學院學報,2,pp. 159 – 166.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top