臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究欲發展「歷史科文本後設認知閱讀策略知識量表」（Metacognitive Knowledge of Reading Strategies Inventory in Historical Text, 以下簡稱為MKRSIHT），探討MKRSIHT是否可以為解釋歷史科文本閱讀理解能力的重要變項，再者，當加入閱讀動機變項（即閱讀學習取向變項）探討時，MKRSIHT是否與閱讀學習取向變項對於歷史科文本閱讀理解能力是否具有交互作用效果，另外一方面，閱讀學習取向變項是否可以為解釋MKRSIHT的重要變項；第三，欲探討不同類型閱讀學習取向學生在MKRSIHT閱讀策略成份的表現差異情形；最後，探討不同閱讀背景變項對於MKRSIHT的預測結果。
本研究所使用的「MKRSIHT」、「歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗」及「電腦化閱讀學習取向量表」三項工具係針對國小六年級學童所編製，有效樣本共379人。蒐集的研究資料將以ITEMAN、SPSS、AMOS等軟體進行資料分析，採用的分析方法包括古典測驗理論項目分析、路徑分析、變異數分析、卡方考驗及多元迴歸分析等方法，主要發現如下：
一、MKRSIHT與歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗之相關皆高於與在校月考成績（國語、數學、社會）之相關；MKRSIHT的Cronbachα係數為.66，平均試題難度為.54，全試題點二系列相關之平均為.37。
二、MKRSIHT與閱讀學習取向兩者對於歷史科文本閱讀理解能力之交互作用效果未達顯著差異。
三、MKRSIHT能力變項可解釋歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗的總變異達33%。且高MKRSIHT能力組學童在歷史科文本閱讀理解能力的表現明顯優於中、低MKRSIHT能力組學童。
四、閱讀學習取向變項可以解釋MKRSIHT能力的總變異僅達2%。然而只有精熟型閱讀學習取向學童在MKRSIHT的表現明顯優於表現型閱讀學習取向學童。
五、精熟型閱讀學習取向學童在「讀取必要重點-因果關係」與「摘要」此兩個閱讀策略成份所認定的重要性明顯高於表現型閱讀學習取向學童。
六、對於10個不同閱讀背景變項預測MKRSIHT能力而言，以「訂報與否」、「看雜誌與否」、「有無電腦」、「有無百科全書」、「有無舒適讀書環境」此五個預測變項所增加的解釋力12%為最大，但「看雜誌與否」、「有無電腦」及「有無舒適讀書環境」三者之標準化係數並未達顯著水準；其次為「家中藏書量」變項增加的獨特解釋力為5%居中；最後，以「整月請假天數」變項增加的獨特解釋力3%為最小。

The main purpose of this study is to develop the Metacognitive Knowledge of Reading Strategies Inventory in History Text, abbreviated as MKRSIHT in the following, and investigate whether MKRSIHT is an important predictor of the performance on Reading Comprehension Test in History Text, after taking into account the factor of reading motivation. In addition, this study also investigated whether MKRSIHT and Reading Learning Approach have interaction effect on performance on Reading Comprehension Test in History Text.
The three testing instruments “MKRSIHT”, “Reading Comprehension Test in History Text”, and “Reading Learning Approach Scale” were administered to 6th students in this research, and the sample size amounts to 379 people. The research data was analyzed using ITEMAN, SPSS and AMOS, and the statistical methods used were CTT item analysis, path analysis, ANOVA, Chi-Square testing, and multiple regression. The main findings are reported in the following:
1. The Pearson correlation of MKRSIHT with Reading Comprehension Test in History Text is higher than that of MKRSIHT and with scores on language, mathematics, and social studies. The Cronbachα coefficient of MKRSIHT is .66, the P average of MKRSIHT is .54, and the rpb average of MKRSIHT is .37.
2. MKRSIHT and Reading Learning Approach have no interaction effect on the Reading Comprehension Test in Historical Text.
3. MKRSIHT can explain 33% of the variation of Reading Comprehension Test in History Text. The performance of high ability students on Reading Comprehension Test in History Text is much better than that of the middle and lower ability students.
4. Reading Learning Approach can only explain 2% of the variation of MKRSIHT. Only the performance of master type students on MKRSIHT is better than that of performance type students.

5. The master type students performed better than the performance type ones on two reading strategies, namely, “cause and effect relationships” and “summary”.
6. In terms of unique contribution to accounting for the variance of MKRSIHT after taking into account of the contribution of the other variables, among the ten background variables predicting the performance on MKRSIHT, “subscription of newspaper”, ”magazine reading”, ”availability of computer at home”, ” availability of encyclopaedia”, and ”comfortable reading environments” are the top five ones.

中文摘要 ....................................................................................................................... i
英文摘要 ....................................................................................................................... iii
誌謝 ........................................................................................................................ v
目錄 ........................................................................................................................ vi
表目錄 ....................................................................................................................... viii
圖目錄 ....................................................................................................................... x
第一章 緒論............................................................................................................... 1
第一節 研究動機....................................................................................................... 1
第二節 研究目的. ..................................................................................................... 6
第三節 研究問題. ..................................................................................................... 6
第四節 名詞解釋................. ..................................................................................... 7
第二章 文獻探討....................................................................................................... 8
第一節 後設認知. ................. ................................................................................... 8
第二節 閱讀理解.... ................. ................................................................................ 21
第三節 動機因素................... ................. ................................................................. 24
第三章 研究方法................ ................. .................................................................... 31
第一節 研究對象....................................................................................................... 31
第二節 研究工具....................................................................................................... 32
第三節 研究程序....................................................................................................... 49
第四節 資料分析....................................................................................................... 51
第四章 研究結果與討論.... ......... ............................................................................ 52
第一節 MKRSIHT的信度與效度............................................................................. 52
第二節 MKRSIHT與閱讀學習取向之關係探討..................................................... 59
第三節 不同類型閱讀學習取向學生在MKRSIHT閱讀策略成份的表現
差異情形....................................................................................................... 65
第四節 不同背景變項對於MKRSIHT的獨特解釋力............................................. 68
第五章 結論與建議.... ......... ....... ............................................................................ 71
第一節 研究結論....................................................................................................... 71
第二節 研究建議....................................................................................................... 74
第三節 研究限制....................................................................................................... 75
參考文獻 .......................................... ............................................................................ 77
附錄一 歷史科文本後設認知閱讀策略知識量表作答說明………………….. 83
附錄二 MKRSIHT試題內容格式審......................................................................... 84
附錄三 MKRSIHT正式施測題本............................................................................. 85
附錄四 台灣史閱讀理解測驗與電腦化閱讀學習取向量表作答說明……….. 89
附錄五 歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗試題內容格式審............................................... 90

附錄六 歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗正式施測題本................................................... 91
附錄七 電腦化閱讀學習取向量表計分說明........................................................... 93
表目錄
表1 後設認知知識之構念成份……............…................................................................. 11
表2 歷史科文本後設認知閱讀策略成份......................................................................... 17
表3 正式施測各縣市施測人數分配表............................................................................. 31
表4 不同閱讀歷程之歷史科文本後設認知閱讀策略..................................................... 33
表5 歷史科文本後設認知閱讀策略知識量表預試題本之雙向細目表......................... 33
表6 歷史科文本後設認知閱讀策略知識量表逐題參數............................................... 35
表7 MKRSIHT預試分析結果第5題各選項選填情形……............................................. 35
表8 MKRSIHT預試分析結果第14題各選項選填情形……........................................... 36
表9 歷史科文本後設認知閱讀策略知識量表預試分析結果……………….…….. 36
表10 歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗預試題本之雙向細目表…………………………….... 38
表11 歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗試題與閱讀策略之對應……………………………..... 39
表12 歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗逐題參數………………………………………...….... 39
表13 歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗第10題各選項選填人數……………..…..…………..... 40
表14 歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗第13題各選項選填人數……………..…………...….... 40
表15 歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗預試分析結果……………..…..…............................. 41
表16 歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗正式施測逐題參數………..…..…............................... 42
表17 歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗正式施測分析結果……..…..…............................... 43
表18 歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗與在校月考成績之相關………..….............................. 43
表19 電腦化閱讀學習取向量表評量內涵架構………..….............................................. 44
表20 電腦化閱讀學習取向預試結果古典項目分析逐題描述統計表……………….... 45
表21 電腦化閱讀學習取向預試結果古典項目分析摘要表………………………….... 46
表22 電腦化閱讀學習取向預試結果各分量表之相關……………………………….... 46
表23 電腦化閱讀學習取向正式施測古典項目分析逐題描述統計表……………….... 47
表24 電腦化閱讀學習取向正式施測結果古典項目分析摘要表…………………….... 47
表25 電腦化閱讀學習取向分量表與歷史科文本閱讀理解分測驗之相關表………… 48
表26 研究實施流程表…...…........…...…...…...…...…...…...…...….....…………...….... 51
表27 MKRSIHT與歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗、在校月考成績之相關……………....... 53
表28 MKRSIHT、歷史科文本閱讀理解能力及閱讀學習取向三者間各變項相關
對照表………………………………………………………….....……………....... 55
表29 MKRSIHT、歷史科文本閱讀理解能力及閱讀學習取向三者預測模式之
χ2數據適配性……...……......................................................................................... 56
表30 MKRSIHT、歷史科文本閱讀理解能力及閱讀學習取向三者預測模式之
適配度指標……...……..…........................................................................................ 56
表31 歷史科文本後設認知閱讀策略知識量表逐題參數……...……..…………........ 57
表32 MKRSIHT正式施測結果第7題各選項選填情形……...……..….................…….. 58
表33 歷史科文本後設認知閱讀策略知識量表正式分析結果……..............…..….. 58

表34 不同程度MKRSIHT能力者在歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗表現之描述統計值………………………………………………….………………………………… 59
表35 不同類型閱讀學習取向學生在歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗表現之描述統計值……………………………………………………………………….…………… 59
表36 MKRSIHT能力與閱讀學習取向之獨立樣本二因子變異數分析……………..….. 60
表37 MKRSIHT能力事後比較摘要表…………………………………………….……. 61
表38 不同程度MKRSIHT能力者在歷史科文本閱讀理解測驗之獨立樣本單因
子變異數分析摘要表……………………………………………………….…….. 61
表39不同程度MKRSIHT能力者在MKRSIHT量表各試題答對率摘要表……….… 63
表40 不同類型閱讀學習取向學生在MKRSIHT表現之描述統計值………………… 64
表41 不同類型閱讀學習取向學生在MKRSIHT之獨立樣本單因子變異數分
析摘要表…………………………………………………………………….…….. 64
表42 閱讀學習取向事後比較摘要表…………………………………………….……... 64
表43 不不同類型閱讀學習取向學生在MKRSIHT閱讀策略成份相關統計量
及卡方考驗結果…………………………………………………………….…...... 66
表44 不同類型閱讀學習取向學生在確認的閱讀策略成份上選填百分比之事
後比較摘要表………………………………………………………................…... 67
表45 不同背景變項預測MKRSIHT之多元迴歸分析模式摘要表………….….... 69
圖目錄
圖1 策略運用的動機關聯跟起因……............................................................................... 26
圖2 MKRSIHT、歷史科文本閱讀理解及閱讀學習取向之預測模式構念圖………..… 50
圖3 MKRSIHT、歷史科文本閱讀理解及閱讀學習取向之預測模式構念圖驗證
結果................................................................................................................................. 54

王德蕙（民95）。題組(testlet)測驗分數信度估計方法之比較-以閱讀理解測驗為例。國立台南大學測驗統計所碩士論文（未出版）。
王瓊珠（民93）。故事結構教學與分享閱讀。台北市：心理出版社。
林秀貞（民86）。國小六年級學童社會科閱讀理解研究。國立高雄師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
林雪美（民93）。台灣地區近三十年自然災害的時空特性。師大地理研究報告，41，99-128。
林蕙蓉（民84）。國小學童後設認知策略教學對國語科閱讀理解效能之研究。國立台南師院學報，28，271-312。
吳宜貞與黃秀霜（民87）。家庭環境變項、認字、語意區辨及閱讀理解能力之關係分析。教育與心理研究，21，357-380。
柯華葳（民79）。國小社會科課文理解研究。載於台灣省教育廳主編，台灣省第一屆教育學術論文發表會論文集（頁289-316）。
胡永崇（民84）。後設認知策略教學對國小閱讀障礙學童閱讀理解成敗之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
張春興（民83）。教育心理學。台北：東華書局。
梁瑜芳（民91）。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研究。國立高雄師範大學英語系碩士論文（未出版）。
許雅惠（民91）。融合閱讀理解策略教科書之教學研究－以電動機單元為例。臺北市立師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
陳密桃（民79）。國民中小學生的後設認知及其閱讀理解之相關研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
楊淑晴（民88）。英文學習策略研究之綜覽。國立編譯館館刊，28（1），307-328。
鄭麗玉（民80）。促進後設認知策略的閱讀教學。教師之友，33，14-17。
齊若蘭、游常山、李雪莉(民92)。閱讀－新一代知識革命。台北市：天下雜誌。
賴明貞（民93）。國小社會科教科書可閱讀性分析與高年級學童閱讀理解情形之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
蘇玉凰（民93）。高中生英文閱讀理解之後設認知策略使用量表之編製。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
蘇宜芬（民80）。後設認知訓練課程對國小低閱讀能力學生的閱讀解與後設認知
能力之影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
尤淑雅（譯）(民87) 。R. Fry著。有效閱讀。台北縣：同學。
趙永芬（譯）(民92)。L. Robb著。中學生閱讀策略。台北市：天衛文化。
Anderson, L. W. (2005). Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31, 102-113.
Baker, L. & Cerro, L. C. (2000). Assessing metacognition in children and adults. In G. Schraw, & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 99-145). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements and Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Beck, I. L., Mckeown, M. G., & Gromoll, E. (1989). Learning from social studies texts. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 99-158.
Block, C. C. (2005). What are metacognitive assessments? In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 83-100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., Relfinger, L., & Pressley, M. (1990). Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of metacognition, attributions and self-essteem. In B. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (vol. 1, pp. 53-92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L.K. S., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacognition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. Schraw, & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 1-41). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements and Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Borkowski, J. G. & Muthukrishna, N. (1992). Moving cognition into the classroom: ‘’Working models’’ and effective strategy teaching. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 477-501). San Diego : Academic Press.
Borkowski, J. G. & Muthukrishna, N. (1995). Learning environments and skill generalization: How contexts facilitate regulatory processes and efficacy beliefs. In F. E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Memory performance and competencies: Issues of growth and development (pp. 283-300). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 46-53.
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances Instructional Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chan, L. K. S. (1994). Relationship of motivation, strategic learning, and reading achievement in grades 5, 7, and 9. Journal of Experimental Education, 62(4), 319-339.
Chan, L. K. S. (1996). Motivational orientations and metacognitive abilities of intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(4), 184-193.
Cross, D., & Paris, S. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142.
Dobbs, O. (2003). Using reading strategies to reduce the failure rate in the content area. Subject: Social Studies. Grade level: 6-7-8. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 479208)
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Fordham, N. W., Wellman, D., & Sandmann, A. (2002). Taming the text: Engaging and supporting students in social studies readings. Social Studies, 93(4), 149-158.
Garner, R. (1988). Verbal-report data on cognitive and metacognitive strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and Study strategies: Issues in assessment , instruction, and evaluation (pp. 63-76). New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2005). Roles of motivation and engagement in reading comprehension assessment. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Current issues in reading comprehension and assessment (pp.187-213 ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harp B. (2000). The handbook of literacy assessment and evaluation (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Jacobs, J. E., Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278.
Kelemen, W. L., Frost, P. J., & Weaver, C. A. (2000). Individual differences in metacognition: Evidence against a general metacognitive ability. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 92-107.
Lederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1), 91-106.
Hickey, D. T. (1997). Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 32, 175-193.
McCormick, C. B. (2001). Metacognition and Learning. In W. M. Reynolds, G. E. Miller, & B. Irving (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Educational Psycchology (Vol. 7, pp. 79-101). Dordrecht Boston: Kluwer.
McLain, Gridley, & McIntosh (1991).Value of a scale used to measure metacognitive reading awareness. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 81-87.
Miholic, V. (1994). An inventory to pique students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Reading, 38(2), 84-86.
Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Myers, M. P. & Savage, T. (2005). Enhancing student comprehension of social studies material. Social Studies, 96(1), 18-23.
Paris, S. G.. (1991). Assessment and remediation of metacognitive aspects of children''s reading comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 12(1), 32-50.
Paris, S. G. & Flukes, J. (2005). Assessing children’s metacognition about strategic reading. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 121-139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The Benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083-2093.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M., & Wixson, K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.
Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. (1986). Children’s reading strategies, metacognition, and motivation. Developmental Review, 6, 25-56.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pereira-Laird, J. A., & Deane, F. P. (1997). Development and validation of a self-report measure of reading strategy use. Reading Psychology, 18, 185-235.
Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In C. Ames & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 6. Motivation enhancing environments (pp. 117-160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 220-227.
Pintrich, P. R. & De Groot, E. V.（1990）.Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R., Anderman, E. M., & Klobucar, C. (1994). Intraindividual differences in motivation and cognition in students with and without learning . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(6), 360-370.
Pintrich, P. R., Roeser, R. W., & De Groot, E. A. M. (1994). Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents'' motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 139-161.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Predictive validity and reliability of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw, & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43-97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements and Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Piper, S. G. (1992). A metacognitive skills/reading comprehension intervention program for sixth grade social studies students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350561)
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roeschl-Heils, A., Schneider, W., & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2003). Reading, metacognition and motivation: A follow-up study of German students in grades 7 and 8. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(1), 75-86.
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and Learning From Text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257-279.
Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children''s awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43(7), 454-461.
Schmitt, M. C. (2005). Measuring students’ awareness and control of strategic processes. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 101-119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between two and twenty. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351-371.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 27, 51-79.
Tregaskes, M. R. & Daines, D. (1989). Effects of metacognitive strategies on reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 29(1), 52-60.
van Kraayenoord, C. E. & Schneider, W. (1999). Reading achievement, metacognition, reading self-concept and interest: A study of German students in grades 3 and 4. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(3), 305-324.
Wilson, J. (1997, November). Beyond the basics: Assessing students’ metacognition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Hong Kong Educational Research Association, Victoria, Australia.
Woods, M. L. & Moe, A. J. (1995). Analytical reading inventory : assessing reading strategies for literature/story, science, social studies : for use with all students including gifted and remedial. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. :Merrill.
Yore, L. D. & Craig, M. T. (1992). Middle school students'' metacognitive knowledge about science reading and science text: Objective assessment, validation, and results. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 356134)