臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

教師運用有聲思考提昇科大學生英文嬝玨z解之探討

摘要
本研究旨在探討教師如何運用有聲思考法介入學生之學習過程及其使用之成效。其主要目的是探討教師何時介入，用什麼策略介入學生之嬝爭x難，以及學生在各方面之進步情形，和學生對教師運用有聲思考之看法。
本研究之對象為六位科技大學應用外語系之學生。教學之前或之後，每位學生均須以有聲思考法自行讀完一篇文章，並接受前測及後測。教學時，教師需先以有聲思考法示範如何使用文章主旨、背景知識、及補救策略去了解文意。然後學生再嬝爸熀g文章，當學生有困難時，教師則適時的介入並提供幫助，之後學生需再完成兩篇嬝玫蝖C資料收集主要包含學生有聲思考逐字稿、嬝玫蝮禤B學生訪談、及教師反思札記。資料分析則包括資料轉換、解碼、教師介入策略分類、兩次介入情形之比較、及分析學生嬝甽i步情形及學生對此訓練之看法。
研究發現教師介入應以學生之背景知識為基礎，以連結其舊有的經驗，經過討論以克服困難達到學習的目的。教師的介入方式分為二種情形：(1) 當學生背景知識不足時 (2) 當學生缺乏背景知識時。教師介入策略發現有七種即：讚美、暗示策略、提供線索、連結背景知識、重點提醒、引導討論、及直接介入。其研究結果發現如下：
（1） 當學生的背景知識不太充足，老師應適時給予適當的協助，以讚美、暗示策略、提供線索、連結背景知識、重點提醒的方式，以提昇學生後設認的能力，以達到自我修正的目的。
（2） 當學生不會利用背景知識來了解文意及需要更多資訊時，老師需要給予較多的協助，以暗示策略、提供線索、連結背景知識、重點提醒、討論提示、及直接介入，來幫助其了解文意。
（3） 教師第一次介入時，應多給予學生鼓勵及支持。第二次教師介入時，教師應減少介入的次數，鼓勵學生自我運用策略去了解文意，以逐步的方式幫助學生達到自我嬝牧滲鄐O。
（4） 研究中發現介入前，學生大部份以局部策略去了解文意，經教師介入後，有聲思考有助於學生運用文章主旨、背景知識等整體策略了解整體的文意，並運用補就策略去克服嬝爭x難。總之，學生之監控策略及整體策略之使用情形提高，理解力亦大幅提昇。整體而言，以前後測分數較低的學生進步情形較大。
（5） 學生對教師運用有聲思考法來介入學習之方法，大都持肯定之態度，前後測分數較低的學生較希望教師給予直接或較多的幫助，前後測分數較高的學生較希望教師給予間接的幫助，以暗示、或提供線索的方式取代直接給予答案。前後測分數較低的學生認為教師運用有聲思考有助於其提高自信，並且增強嬝狗鄐O。前後測分數較高的學生認為教師運用有聲思考有助於其使用各種策略之應用，並提昇其嬝玨z解之層次。
實驗証明教師運用有聲思考法介入學生學習為有效的補救教學方式，有聲思考有助於學生監控策略之運用並提昇嬝玨z解能力。研究者建議教師可設計嬝物e之活動，提供與課文有關之圖片，營造出一個學習環境，以促進學生運用背景知識；當學生有困難時，教師如給予間接的幫助，並提供較多的時間讓學生反覆思考，將有助於其監控策略之運用。假如教師可以正確地診斷出學生的背景知識，適當地使用介入的策略，一步一步地引導學生，必能有效地提昇學生嬝牧滲鄐O。

ABSTRACT
Think –Aloud with Teacher Intervention on
the Reading Comprehension of EFL Technological University Students

The purpose of this study is to explore how the teacher applied the think aloud to intervene in students’ reading processes to promote their reading comprehension and the effectiveness of the think aloud as teacher intervention. It also aims to investigate when to intervene, what intervention strategy to use to help students overcome their reading difficulties, students’ improvement and students’ perceptions of the think aloud as teacher intervention.
The subject of this study is six technological university students, majoring in Applied Foreign Languages Department. Before and after the intervention, each student had to read an article with the think aloud independently and received a comprehension test. During the intervention, the teacher first modeled how to use the main idea, prior knowledge, and repair strategy with the think aloud to construct the meaning of the context. Then, each student read two articles, when the student had reading difficulties, the teacher provided the intervention or support appropriately. After that, each student had to complete two comprehension tests. Finally, each student was required to answer the oral interview respectively.
Data collection was mainly based on students’ think aloud transcription data, comprehension tests, and students’ oral interviews, while the teacher’s reflection was served as the minor data in the present study. Data analysis was conducted by transcribing, coding, categorizing the intervention strategies into the two different timing interventions, and comparing students’ improvement and students’ perceptions.
The research finding indicated that teacher intervention should be based on students’ prior knowledge so as to relate to their past experiences and help them overcome their reading difficulties through the interaction. The timing of teacher intervention can be divided into two parts: (1) students’ prior knowledge was insufficient (2) students lacked prior knowledge. To scaffold students’ problems, seven intervention strategies were used: praising, suggesting, prompting, linking, reinforcing, discussing, and telling. The results of this study are summarized as below:
1. When students’ prior knowledge was insufficient, the teacher only needed to provide some scaffolds or interventions such as: praising, suggesting, prompting, linking, and reinforcing, to increase students’ monitoring and metacognitive awareness so as to help them remediate their problems by themselves.
2. When students lacked prior knowledge, the teacher needed to provide more scaffolds or explicit explanation such as: suggesting, prompting, linking, reinforcing, discussing, and telling, to guide students’ to interpret the meaning of the context.
3. In the first intervention, the teacher should provide more encouragement and supports to the students. In the second intervention, the teacher should release the scaffolds and encourage students to take more responsibility. In other words, the teacher should guide students’ reading step by step when they encountered the reading difficulties so as to help them become independent readers.
4. All the students showed progress in their reading comprehension, global strategy use, and metacognition, especially the students who scored lower on reading comprehension tests.
5. All the students expressed positive attitudes toward the think aloud with teacher intervention. When students encountered the problems, the students who scored lower wished to get more intervention or even the direct answers from the teacher, while the students who scored higher wished the teacher to provide more clues and step by step instruction instead of direct answers.
The results of this study indicate that the think aloud with teacher intervention is an effective method in English Remediation, and the think aloud with teacher intervention facilitated students’ monitoring and enhanced their reading comprehension. The researcher suggests that the teacher could design the pre-reading activity, such as: providing pictures, to create an environment for activating students’ prior knowledge. When students encounter reading difficulties, the teacher should provide indirect intervention and more waiting time for the students to apply rereading or rechecking on the context so as to increase their monitoring comprehension. If teachers accurately diagnose students’ prior knowledge, apply the teacher intervention strategies appropriately, and guide the students’ reading step by step, students’ reading will be promoted more effectively.

CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………….1
Rationale of the Study……………………………………………………..6
Research Questions and Purpose of the Study…………………………..10
Significance of the Study………………………………………………10
Definition of Terms……………………………………………………….12
Summary………………………………………………………………….14
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Vygotsky’s Perspectives…………………………………………………….....15
Krashen’s Hypothesis……………………………………………………….....18
Scaffolding Theory.............................................................................................21
Metacognition…………………………………………………………………30
The Think Aloud Method……………………………………………………...36
Summary……………………………………………………………………....50
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Setting and Participants……………………………………………………….52
Intervention Materials………………………………………………………...55
Pilot Study…………………………………………………………………….57
Intervention Procedures……………………………………………………….63
Data Collection………………………………………………………………..67
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………….71
Credibility……………………………………………………………………...88
Summary………………………………………………………………………89
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
When does the Teacher Intervene in the Students’ Reading Process to
Provide the Scaffolding in Reading, and How?.................................................91
In what ways does the Think Aloud as Teacher Intervention Enhance
Students’ Reading Comprehension?.................................................................120
How do Students Respond to the Think Aloud as the Teacher Intervention…134
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONSAND IMPLICATIONS
Summary of the Study………………………………………………………147
Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………152
Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………159
Suggestions for Future Research…………………………………………160
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..162

APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………178
Appendix A: Teaching Materials Checklist 178
Appendix B: The Content of Materials 179
Appendix C: Formal Interview 180
Appendix D: Comprehension Test of Biological Clock 181
Appendix E: Comprehension Test of Afraid to Fly 182
Appendix F: Comprehension Test of Headache 183
Appendix G: Comprehension Test of Left-handedness 184
Appendix H: Text for Pre-intervention Phase 185
Appendix I: Text for 1st Intervention 187
Appendix J: Text for 2nd Intervention 189
Appendix K: Text for Post-intervention Phase
Appendix L: Extracted excerpt in the post intervention 191
193

References
English References
Ackert, P. (1999). Cause and effect: intermediate reading practice (3rd ed.). Boston:
MA: International Thomson Company.

Anderson, N. J. (2001). Developing metacognitive skills in foreign language
learners. Selected Papers from the 10th International Symposium on
English Teaching. Taipei: Crane, 1-7.

Anderson, N. J., & Vandergrift, L. (1996). Increasing metacognitive awareness
in the L2 classroom by using think-aloud protocols and other verbal report
formats. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the
world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 3-18). National Foreign Language Resource Center. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.

Baker, L. (1996). Social influences on Metacognitive development in reading. In C. Cornoldi, & J. Oakill (Eds.), Reading Comprehension Difficulties-Processess and Intervention. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of ReadingRresearch, 1, 353-394. New York: Longman.

Baumann, J. F. (1984). The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for teaching
main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, pp. 93-117.

Bauman, J. F., Jones, L. A., & Kessell, N. S. (1993). Using think alouds to enhance
children’s comprehension monitoring abilities. The Reading Teacher, Nov.
1993, 184-193.

Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 131-156.

Berkowitz, S. J., & Taylor, B. M. (1997). The effect of text type and familiarity on
the nature of information recalled by readers. In M. Kamil (Ed.), Directions
in reading: Reading and instruction (pp. 157-167). Washington, DC: National
Reading Conference.

Block, E. (1985). The comprehension strategies of non-proficient native and non-
native readers of English: A descriptive study of process in process.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University.

Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463-494.

Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2
readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 319-343.

Brown, A. L., Armbruster, B. B., & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: from
research to practice (pp. 49-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.

Brown, A. L. & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules of summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22,
1-14.

Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell, & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology, (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.

Bruner, J. (1978). Berlyne Memorial Lecture: Acquiring the uses of language.
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 32(4), 204-218.

Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: a historical and conceptual perspective. In: J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21-33.

Bruner, J. (1989). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. V.
Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, Communication, and Cognition. NY: Cambridge
Universtiy Press.

Burns, P. C., Roe, B. D., & Ross, E. P. (1999). Teaching Reading in Today’s School.
Boston: Houghton Mufflin Co.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A
theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.

Byrnes, B. (2001). Cognitive development and learning in instructional contexts.
Allyn and Bacon: Needham Heights, M.A.

Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York, NY: Routledge.

Carr, S. C., & Thompson, B. (1996). The effects of prior knowledge and schema
activation strategies on the inferential reading comprehension of children
with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19,
48-61.

Carr, S. C. (2002). Assessing learning processes. Intervention in School & Clinic., 37(3), 156-164.

Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (4), 727-752.

Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-134.

Carrell, P. L. (1992). Awareness of text structure: Effects on recall. Language Learning, 42(1), 1-20.

Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (4), 647-678.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.

Chern, C. L. (1993). Think aloud: A ESL reading instructional tool. Tunghai Journal,
34, 179-198.

Chi, F. M. (1995). EFL readers and a focus on intertextuality. Journal of Reading,
38, 638-644.

Chi, F. M. (1997). Investigating and comparing the reading processes between good
and poor senior high school readers. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference
on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 19-33).
Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.

Chi, F. M. (1998). Intertextuality as a constructive reading strategy: Three successful
Taiwanese EFL college cases. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics,
24, 49-62.

Chi, F. M. (1999). The role of small-group text talk in EFL reading: A thematic
analysis. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., LTD.

Chi, F. M. (2002). A collaborative tale with two Taiwanese EFL college groups.
English Teaching and Learning, 27(1), 21-39.

Chiang, L. C. (2002). Promoting EFL students’ reading comprehension through
strategic instruction. Journal of Science and Technology, 11(6), 469-480.

Chu, H. J. (2000). Orienting EFL readers toward global strategy use. In English Teachers’ Association (Ed.), Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching (p. 274-283). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.

Clark, K. F., & Graves, M. F. (2005). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 58 (6), 570-580.

Clay, M. M. (1985). The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties (3rd ed.).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (1993a). Introduction. In Lyons, C. A., Pinnell, G. S., & DeFord, D. E. (Eds.), Partners in learning: Teachers and children in Reading Recovery. New York: Teacher College Press, Columbia University.

Clay, M. M. (1993b). Reading Recovery: a guidebook for teachers in training. Auckland, NZ, Henemann.

Cohen, A. (1983). Studying second-language learning strategies: how do we get
the information? Applied Linguistics, 5, 101-112.

Cohen, N. L. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. In C. N.
Candlin (Ed.), London: Longman.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship:
Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. (Tech. Rep. No. 403)
Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study
of Reading.

Collins, A., & Stevens, A. L. (1991). A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching. In P.
Goodyear (Ed.), Teaching knowledge and intelligent tutoring. Westport, CT:
Ablex.

Cooper, J. D., McWilliams, J., Boschken, I., & Pistochini, L. (2004, May 20). Stopping reading failure: Reading intervention for intermediate-grade students.
Retrieved May 20, 2004, from
http://www.eduplace.com/intervention/soar/articles/cooper.html

Craig, M. T., & Yore, L. D. (1996). Middle school students’ awareness of strategies
for resolving comprehension difficulties in science reading. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29(4), 226-238.

Davey, B. (1983). Think aloud: Modelling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 27, 44-47.

De Almeida, M., & Andrea, M. (2000). A Vygotskian approach to evaluation
in foreign language learning contexts. ELT Journal, 54(4), 335-45.

De Guerrero, M. (1996). Krashen’s i+1 and Vygotsky’s ZPD: Really two very
different notions. TESOL-GRAM (Puerto Rico TESOL Newsletter), 9.

Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1986). Learning strategies: An instructional
alternative for low-achieving adolescents. Exceptional Children, 52, 583-590.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking
to the educative process. Boston: Heath.

Dixon-Krauss, L. A. (1995). Partner reading and writing: Peer social dialogue and the zone of prosimal development. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27:1.

Dole, J., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on
the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research
Quarterly, 31(1), 62-88.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to
say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.

Dunn, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998). i + 1 and the ZPD: Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411-442.

Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children’s developing awareness of text
structure in expository materials. Joournal of Education Psychology, 68,
65-75.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological
Review, 87, 215-251.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fawcett, G.. (1993). Using students as think aloud models. Reading Research and Instruction, 33(2), 95-104.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Foley, C. L. (1992). Evaluating the use of prediction: An experimental study with
junior high remedial readers in individualized and small group setting.
Journal of Research in Reading, 15(1), 28-38.

Gaffney, J. S., Methven, J. M., & Bagdasarian, S. (2002). Assisting older students
to read expository text in a tutorial setting: A case for a high-impact
intervention. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18: 119-150.

Gallimore, R., Dalton, S., & Tharp, R. G. (1986). Self-regulation and interactive thinking: the impact of teaching condition on teachers’ cognitive activity. Elementary School Journal, 85, 613-631.

Gagne, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

Gagne, E. D., Walker Yekovich, C., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York: Harper Collins.

Garner, R. (1980). Monitoring of understanding: an investigation of good and poor
readers’ awareness of induced miscomprehension of text. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 12, 55-63.

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Publishing Corporation.

Ghaith, G. (2003). Effect of think alouds on literal and higher-order reading comprehension. Educational Research Quarterly, 26(4), 13-21.

Gifford, C. & Mullaney, J. (1999). From rhetoric to reality: Applying the
communication standards to the classroom. NECTFL Review, 46, 12-18.

Gordon, L. A., & Day, J. D. (1996). Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension texts. Journal of Education Psychology, 88(2), 288-298.

Graesser, A., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L. (1991). Narrative representation and
Comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson
(Eds.). Handbook of reading research, 2, 171-204. White Plains, NY:
Longman.

Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life, in: B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds). Everyday Cognition: its development in social contexts. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future: The zo-ped. In: B. Rogoff & J. Wertsch (Eds) Children’s Learning in the ‘Zone of Proximal Development, pp. 45-64. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Guerra, C. (1996). Krashen’s i + 1 issue revisited from a Vygotskian perspective.
TESOL-GRAM (The Official Newsletter of Puerto Rico TESOL), 23, 7-8.

Harland, T. (2003). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and problem-based
learning: linking a theoretical concept with practice through action research.
Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 263-272.

Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding & Cooperative Learning: Human Learning and
Instruction. NY: City College of City University of New York.

Hiebert, E. H., Englert, C. S., & Brennan, S. (1983). Awareness if text structure
in recognition and production of expository discourse. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 15, 63-79.

Hiebert, E., & Taylor, B. (Eds.). (1994). Getting reading right from the start:
Effective early literacy interventions. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding scientific competences within
classroom communities of inquiry. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: instructional approaches & issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books, pp.74-107.

Irwin, J. W. (1991). Teaching reading comprehension processes, 2nd ed. Englewood
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). The role of a summarization
strategy and self-monitoring instruction. Journal of Special Education, 34(3),
127-139.

Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching
comprehension in reader’s Workshop. Portsmouth, NG: Heinemann.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York,
Longman.

Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In M.
Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.)
(pp. 219-232). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Language Teaching & Testing Center (2003). The GEPT report for students’ English
proficiency of technical university and colleges. Retrieved Dec. 25, 2004, from
http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/reasearch.

Lin, S. L. (1996). A study on comprehension strategies of proficient TVES readers.
Unpublished Master Thesis, National Chang-hua University of Education.

Lin, S. J., & Su. S. C. (2003). Do ESP college students still need English remedial
Instruction? Students in English Language and Literature, 12, Aug. 2003.

Lipson, M. Y. (1996). Conversation with children and other classroom-based asses-
ment strategies. In Putnam. L. R. (Ed.) How to Become a Better Reading
Teacher-Strategies for Assessment and Intervention. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.

Liu, C. C. (1998). Good TVES readers’ comprehension monitoring strategies and
the functions of the researcher’s intervention in their reading processes.
Unpublished Master Thesis, National Chang-hua University of Education.

Liu, M. H. (1995). A comparative study on comprehension monitoring strategies
used by Chinese college freshmen in reading English exposition. Unpublished
Master Thesis: National Kaohsiung Normal University.

Loxterman, J. A., Beck, I. L., & McKeown M. G.. (1994). The effects of thinking aloud during reading on students’ comprehension of more or less coherent text. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(4), 353-368.

Lyons, C., Pinnell, G., & DeFord, D. (1993). Partners in learning: Teachers and
children in Reading Recovery. New York: Teachers College Press.

Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 94-113.

McNeil, J. D. (1998). Reading comprehension: New direction for classroom practice
(2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Mercer, R. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Bristol, PA: Multilingual
Matters.

Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, E. (1984). The structure of text. In P. D. Person (Ed.), Hankbook of reading research (pp. 319-351). New York: Longman.

Meyer, B., Brandt, D. F., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top level structure in text:
Key for reading comprehension of ninth grade students. Reading Research
Quarterly, 16, 72-101.

Neal, J. C., & Kelly, P. R. (2002). Delivering the promise of academic success
through late intervention. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18: 101-117.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

Olshavsky, J. E. (1976-1977). Reading as problem solving: An investigation of
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 12, 656-674.

O’Malley, J. 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.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. V. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Olson, G. M., Duffy, S. A., & Mack, R. L. (1984). Thinking-out-loud as a method for
studying real time comprehension processes. In D. Kieras & M. Just (Eds),
New methods in the study of immediate processes in comprehension.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Oster, L. (2001). Using the think-aloud for reading instruction. Reading
Teacher, 55(1), 64-69.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Newbury House Publishers.

Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning and interaction
Three communicative strands in the language classroom. Modern language Journal, 81, 443-456.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-
fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition
and instruction, 1, 117-175.

Pearson, P. D. (1985). Changing the face of reading comprehension instruction.
The Reading Teacher, 38, 724-738.

Pearson, P. D. (1996). Reclaiming the center, The first R: every child’s right to read.
N. Y.: Teachers College Columbia University. pp. 259-274.

Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction, In R. Barr, M.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, 11,
815-860. NY: Longman.

Pinnell, G. S., DeFord, D. E., Lyons, C. A., & Bryk, A. (1994). Comparing
instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders.
Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 8-39.

Pressley, M. (1998). Teaching Instruction that Works: The Case for Balanced
Teacher. NY: The Guilford Press.

Pressley, M. (2000). Comprehension instruction in elementary school: A quarter-
century of research progress. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. van den
Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle
grades. New York: Teachers College Press.

Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction. In C. C. Block (Ed.),
Comprehension instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., & McDonald, R. W. (1997). Skilled comprehension and its development
Through instruction. School Psychology Today, 26(3), 448-466.

Reutzel, D. R., & Fawson, P. (1991). Literature webbing predictable books: A
prediction strategy that help below-average, first-grade readers. Reading
Research & Instruction, 30(4), 20-30.

Roehler, L. R. & Duffy, G. G.. (1991). Teachers’ instructional actions, In R. Barr, M.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. II,
pp.861-883. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Rogoff, B. (1986). Adult assistance of children’s learning. In: T. E. Raphael
(Ed.) The Contexts of School-Based Literacy. NY: Random House.

Rogoff, B. (1990), Apprenticeship in Thinking-Cognitive Development in Social
Context. NY: Oxford Universtiy Press.

Schmitt, M. C. (1988). The effects of an elaborated directed reading activity on the
metacomprehension skills of third graders. In J. E. Readence & R. S. Baldwin
(Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research. Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Schmitt, M. C., & Baumann, J. F. (1990). Metacomprehension during basal reading
instruction: Do teachers promote it? Reading Research and Instruction, 29(3),
1-13.

Schraw, G., Wise, S. L., Roos, L. L. (2000). Metacognition and computer-based
testing. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of
metacognition (pp. 223-260). Lincolin, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurement.

Seidenberg, P. L. (1982). Implications of schema theory for learning disabled readers.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 18-22.

Shieh, Y. L. (1992). Reading English exposition for gist by Chinese EFL learners:
comprehension, recall, and instruction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Taiwan: National Normal University.

Silven, M., & Vauras, M. (1992). Improving reading through thinking aloud.
Learning and instruction, 2, 69-88.

Sinatra, R., & Dowd, C. A. (1992). Using syntactic and semantic clues to learn
vocabulary. Journal of Reading, 35(3), 224-229.

Sjostrom, C. L., & Hare, V. C. (1984). Teaching high school students to identify main
ideas in expository text. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 114-117.

Steinberg, I., Bohning, G., & Chowing, F. (1991). Comprehension monitoring
strategies of nonproficient college readers. Reading Research and
Instruction, 30, 63-75.

Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative
learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main
idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 8-16.

Stone, N. J. (2000). Exploring the relationship between calibration and self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 437-475.

Taylor, B. M. (1982). Text structure and children’s comprehension and memory for
Expository material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 323-340.

Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on
middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text.
Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134-146.

Taylor, B. M., Graves, M. G., & VanDen Broek, P. (2000). Reading for meaning.
Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association.

Tharp, R. G.., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: teaching, learning
and schooling in social context. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Tudge, J. R. H. (1992). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: a
Vygotskian analysis. Child Development, 63, 1364-1379.

Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Shank, M., & Leal, D. (1999). Exceptional lives: Special
education in today’s schools (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall, Inc.: Upper Saddle River,
N.J.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
(Original work published in 1934)

Wade, S. E. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The Reading
Teacher, 43, 442-451.

Wade, S. E., Buxton, W. M., & Kelly, M. (1999). Using think-alouds to examine
Reader-text interest. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2), 194-216.

Walker, B. J. (1996). Diagnostic Teaching of Reading : Techniques for instruction and
assessment. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wang, X. L., Bernas, R., & Eberhard, P. (2001). Effects of teachers’ verbal and non-
verbal scaffolding on everyday classroom performances of students with down
syndrome. International Journal of Early Years Education, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2001.

Ward, L., & Traweek, D. (1993). Application of a metacognitive strategy to
assessment, intervention and consultation: a think-aloud technique. Journal of
School Psychology, 31, 469-485.

Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.
Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, 2, 230-245.
New York: Longman.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press.

Wilhelm, J. D. (2001a). Improving comprehension with think-aloud strategies. NY:
Scholastic.

Wilhelm, J. D. (2001b). Think-alouds: Boost reading comprehension. Instructor,
111(4), 26-28.

Winfield, E. T. (1984). Fourth grade teachers’ encouragement of comprehension
monitoring strategies among good and poor readers. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation. University of Marland.

Winograd, P. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts, Reading ResearchQuarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 404-425.

Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89-100.

Wood, D.; & Wood, H. (1996). Vygotsky, tutoring and learning. Oxford Review
of Education, 22(1), 5-12.

Yang, Y. F. (1999). The role of teacher’s intervention in the think-aloud method.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 16th Conference on English
Teaching and Learning in the R.O.C., pp.253-269.

Yang, Y. F. (2001a). Social influence of teacher intervention on readers’ comprehension difficulties. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic China. Taipei: Crane, 378-390.

Yang, Y. F. (2001b). Time and frequency of teacher intervention in students’ vocabulary comprehension process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Technological and Vocational Education, pp.63-72.

Yang, Y. F. (2002). Reassessing readers’ comprehension monitoring. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 14(1), Apr. 2002.

Yang, & Kuo, (2001). Vocabulary comprehension strategies employed by proficient
less-proficient readers in NYUST. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 16th
Conference on Technical and Vocational Education, pp. 73-82.

Yang, Y. F. & Shen, Y. M. (1997). The diagnosis and remediation of English
language learning. Journal of Yunlin Institute of Technology, 6(3), 317-338.

Young, D. J. (1993). Processing strategies of foreign language readers: Authentic
and edited input. Foreign Language Annuals, 26(4), 451-468.

Zhang, Z. (1993). Literature review on reading strategy research. Conference
paper. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. 366908).

Chinese References
Chi, F. M. (紀鳳鳴). (1997). 探討並比較良好與不良好高中嬝牧怐瑣讀過程.
第十四屆中華民國英語文教學研討會論文集. 台北: 文鶴.

Huang, Z. L. (黃自來). (1997). 談加強字彙教學研究之必要性. 第六屆中華民國英語文教學研討會論文集. 台北: 文鶴..

Jong, L. Z., & Yang, Y. F. (莊麗容, 楊育芬). (1995). 五專學生對英文重修課程之觀點研究 人文及社會學科教學通訊, 第六卷, 第四期, pp. 96-112.

Yang, Y. F. (楊育芬). (2000). 英文教師介入學生嬝爭x難的時機與效果探討.
行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告. NSC 89-2411-h-224-014.