跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.14.81) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/10 23:43
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:施哲仁
研究生(外文):Che-Jen Shih
論文名稱:使用自我發問策略在闡述性文章之閱讀理解與主要意義回憶的成效探討
論文名稱(外文):The Effect of Self-Questioning Strategies on Comprehension and Retention of Main ideas in Reading Expository Texts
指導教授:蔣 湧 濤
指導教授(外文):Yung-Tao Chiang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:元智大學
系所名稱:應用外語學系
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:2006
畢業學年度:94
語文別:英文
論文頁數:130
中文關鍵詞:自我發問策略
外文關鍵詞:self-questioning strategeis
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:7
  • 點閱點閱:275
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:1
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
本次研究探索自我發問策略對闡述性文章的理解與回憶的成效, 三十一位元智大學英語系學生參與實驗;十六個學生參與實驗組; 十五個學生參與控制組
研究者依造前測的表現將參與者歸類為高閱讀能力者與低閱讀能力者.
此研究有五個假設: (1)實驗組在接受訓練後在文本明確問題上有較優異且達顯著的表現 (2)實驗組在接受訓練後在文本暗示問題上有較優異且達顯著的表現   (3) 實驗組在接受訓練後在腳本暗示問題上有有較優異且達顯著的表現. (4)實驗組在接受訓練後在主要意義問題上有較優異且達顯著的表現 (5)實驗組在接受訓練後在托福閱讀測驗有有較優異且達顯著的表現. 另外實驗組對於自我發問策略的態度與觀感也透過問卷調查.
結果顯示雖然大體而言實驗組表現優於控制組,但是確未達統計標準. 因此所有的假設並未成立. 由於此次實驗結果仍然顯示自我發問策略有些許正向在理解與回憶上助益, 尤其是對實驗組低閱讀能力參與者. 再者, 透過問卷調查, 參與者對於自我發問策略持有正面的態度與觀感. 因此歸納上述資, 自我發問策略仍然值得更進一步的研究.
This study explored the effect of self-questioning strategies on reading comprehension and reading retention of expository text. Thirty one sophomores from Yuan Ze University participated in the formal study and were further divided into groups according to their reading abilities. Participants in the experimental group received eight hours of training in self-questioning strategies, while those in the control group did not receive any treatment. The specific research questions included whether the experimental group could outperform the control group in answering text explicit questions, text implicit questions, script implicit questions, and main idea questions in researcher-designed tests, and in answering those test items in a past-year TOEFL reading test. Participants’ interest in, familiarity with, and attitude toward the self-questioning strategies were also investigated through the Passage Questionnaire (Chu, 2002) and through a researcher-designed attitude questionnaire.
The result of this study showed that the experimental group generally performed better than the control group, even though the mean differences did not reach statistical significance (p<.05). That is to say, none of the hypotheses were confirmed. Despite this conclusion, the overall results of this study still favored the experimental group, especially for participants with lower reading abilities. It is possible that this slight improvement in reading comprehension and reading retention might have stemmed from the process of questioning forming and answering. Also, results from the attitude questionnaire indicated that all the participants in the experimental group held an extremely positive attitude toward using the self-questioning strategies. This data indicates that self-questioning strategies may be beneficial to readers to some degree, and therefore may deserve further investigation.
Acknowledgement
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
CHAPTER ONE INTERODUCTION 3
1.1 Purpose of the study 4
1.2 Research questions 4
1.3 esearchypotheses 4
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Models of reading 6
2.2 The differences between narrative text and expository
text 11
2.3 Theoretical perspectives of questioning 14
2.4 Question prompts 18
2.5 Reviews of self-questioning studies 23
2.5.1 Effects of questioning on reading comprehension
of narrative texts 24
2.5.2 Effects of questioning on reading comprehension
of expository texts 26
2.6 Definition of terms 30
CHAPTER METHOD 32
3.1 Participants 33
3.2 Instruments 34
3.2.1Formal reading texts 35
3.2.2 Reading texts for training 36
3.3 Formal reading tests 36
3.4 Research-designed test 37
3.4.1 Assumptions about reading 37
3.4.2 Reliability of the tests 39
3.4.3 Modifications of the tests 40
3.4.4 Scoring of the tests 42
3.5 Procedures 45
3.5.1 Pilot study 46
3.5.2 Training procedures 46
3.5.3 Test-taking procedures 47
CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS50
4.1 The effects of self-questioning strategies on
reading comprehension 52
4.2 The effects of self-questioning strategies on
reading retention of main ideas 60
4.3 The attitude toward questioning strategies 62
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION 66
5.1 The effects of self-questioning strategies on good
readers 66
5.2 The effects of self-questioning strategies on poor
readers 69
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 75
6.1 Summary 75
6.2 Limitations of the study 77
6.3 Pedagogical implications 78
6.4 Suggestions on future research 81
References 83
Appendix
A Personal Data Form 92
B Consent Form 93
C Lesson Plan 94
D In Class Reading Text 96
E In Class Reading Test 98
F Training Material Handout 100
G Item Analysis 102
H Correlation 103
I The Reading Text: Rescued Whales 104
J The Memory Test for Rescued Whales 106
K The Comprehension Test for Rescued Whales 107
L The Memory Test for Skin 110
M The Reading Comprehension Test for Skin 111
N TOEFL Reading Text 114
O TOEFL Reading Test 116
P Attitude Questionnaire 119
Q The Result in the Pre-Test 120
List of Tables
Table
1 Scoring rubrics for main idea questions with two correct
answers 44
2 Scoring rubrics for main idea questions with one correct
answer45
4.1.1 Summary of analysis of variance for text explicit
questions 52
4.1.2 Comparing of means for text explicit
questions 53
4.2.1 Summary of analysis of variance for text implicit
questions 54
4.2.2 Comparing of means for text implicit
questions 55
4.3.1 Summary of analysis of variance for script implicit
questions 56
4.3.2 Comparing of means for script implicit
questions 57
4.4.1 Estimated marginal means for TOEFL reading
test 59
4.4.2 Summary of analysis of variance for TOEFL 59
4.5.1 Summary of analysis of variance for main idea
questions 61
4.5.2 Comparison of means for main idea questions 61
5 Results of the attitude questionnaire (a) 63
6 Results of the attitude questionnaire (b) 64
List of Figures
Figure
1 Estimated marginal means for text explicit questions
(qa2) 53
2 Estimated marginal means for text implicit questions
(qb2)56
3 Estimated marginal means for script implicit questions
(qc2)58
4 Estimated marginal means for TOEFL 60
5 Estimated marginal means for main idea questions (m2) 62
Adams, M. J., & Collins, A (1979). A schema-theoretic view of reading. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New Directions in Discourse Processing. (pp. 1-22). Norwood, N.J. : ABLEX Pub. Corp
Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic process in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds). Handbook of reading research. White Plains, NY: nLogman.
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/ summarization facilitate learning from expository Text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 331-346.
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. B. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer (Eds.) Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Black, J. B. (1985). An exposition on understanding expository text. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds), Understanding Expository Text (pp. 249-267). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings, J. T. (1989) Evaluation to improve learning. (Y. Qiui., G. Wang., X. C. Xia, B. Y. Hong., W. M. Gone., & Y. L. Li.). Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book Company, Ltd. (Original work published 1981).
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). 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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L. (1988). Introduction : Interactive approaches to second language reading. In P. L. Carrell., J. Devine., & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading (pp. 1-7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carrel, P. L., & Grabe, W. (2002). Reading. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 233-250). New York: Oxford University Press.
Chu, H. J., Swafar, J. & Charney, D. H. (2002) Cultural representations of rhetorical conventions: The effects on reading recall. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 511-541.
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R.E. (1983). Reading strategies training for meaningful learning from prose. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications (pp. 87-131). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 256-252.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L, S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities : A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71 , 279-320.
Goldman, S. R., & Murray, J. D. (1992). Knowledge of connectors as cohesive devices in text: A comparative study of native English and English as a second Language Speaker. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 504-519.
Goodman, K.S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the reading Specialist, 6, 126-135
Goodman, K.S. (1971). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. , In P. Pimsleur., & T. Quinn (Eds.), Psychology of Second Language Learning (pp. 135-142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Gordon, H. Bower, k., Randolph. K., & Cirilo. (1985). Cognitive psychology and text processing. In A. Teun, &. V. Dijk. (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis Volume 1 Disciplines of Discourse (pp. 93-101). London: Academic Press.
Cote’, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1-53.
Grabe, W. (1984). Reassessing the term “ Interactive.” In P. L. Carrell., J. Devine., & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading (pp. 56-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 3, 375-396.
Grasser, A. C., Swamer, S. S., Baggett, W. B., & Sell, M. A. (1996). New models of deep comprehension. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Grasser (Eds.), Models of Understanding Text (pp.1-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Griffery, Q. L. (1985). An examination of the effects of story structure and self-questioning strategy on the reading comprehension of learning disabled Elementary Aged Children. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Gunn, T. M. (2000). The effects of question construction on expository text comprehension. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.
King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366-381.
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal. 27, 664-687.
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychology Review, 85, 363-394.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294-303.
Kubiszyn. T., & Borich, G. (1997). Educational testing and measurement. (Y. Q. Liu., S. M. Wang., & M. X. Qiu). Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book Company, Ltd. (Original work published 1996.)
Lapp, D., Flood , J., & Ranck-Buhr, W. (1995). Using multiple text formats to explore scientific phenomena middle school classrooms. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 11, 173-186.
Lorch, R. F.,& Van Den Broek, P. (1997). Research for the future. Understanding reading comprehension: Future and current contributions of cognitive science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 213-246.
Mannes, S., & George, M. (1996). Effects of prior knowledge on text comprehension: A simply modeling approach. In B.K. Britton & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of Understanding (pp. 115-139). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30-42.
Meyer, B. J. F. Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems (1981). In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding Expository Text (pp. 11-31). Hillsadle, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meyer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of American Psychology, 84, 405-412.
McNamara, D. W., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interaction of text coherence, background knowledge, and level of text understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, (1), 1-43.
Nolte, B. Y., & Singer, H. (1985). Active comprehension: Teaching a process of reading comprehension and its effects on reading achievement. The Reading Teacher, 39, 24-31.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities . Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York : Holt, Rinhart and Winston.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181-221.
Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students’ awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 217-235.
Raphael, T, E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, Revisited. The Reading Teacher, 40, 516-522.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Understanding and summarizing brief stories. In Basic Samuels (Eds.), Attention and Performance VI (pp. 265-303). Hillsdale, N: Erlbaum.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition., In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, and W. E. Brewer (Eds), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Samuels, S. J., & Kamil, M. L. (1983). 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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Singer, H., & Dolan, D. (1982). Active comprehension: Problem-solving schema with question generation for comprehension of complex short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 167-180.
Shih, D. Q. (2000). The effects of comparative tests between self-questioning strategy and cooperative learning (Group discussions) on junior high school students’ Chinese reading comprehension. Unpublished Master Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Short, E. J., & Ryan, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and less skilled readers: Remediating deficit through story grammar and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 225-235.
Taboada, A. M. (2003). The Association of student questioning with reading comprehension. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Marryland.
Van Den Broek, P., Tzeng, Y., Risden, K., Trabasso, T. & Basche, P. (2001). Inferential questioning: Effects on comprehension of narrative texts as a function of grade and time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 521-529.
Widdowson H. (1979). The process and purpose of reading. In H. Widdowson (Ed.), Explorations in applied linguistics (pp. 171-183). New York: Cambridge University press.
Williams, J. P. (1986). Research and instructional development on main idea skills. In J. F. Baumann (Ed.), Teaching Main Idea Comprehension (pp. 73-95). Newark, Del. : International Reading Association
Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Review of Educational Research, 55, 227-268.
Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones. W. (1982). Increasing meta-comprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228-239.
Zhang, Y. S. (1994). The effects of self-questioning strategy on reading comprehension and self-questioning ability of elementary school students. Unpublished Master Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊