臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
基於閱讀與寫作的交互關係，研究者在結合閱讀與寫作這個領域一直企圖想從文字操控策略尋求更有效的讀寫教學方式。在主張讀寫策略明示教學的氛圍下，摘要寫作策略、語意圖策略、和觀念/功能擷取策略（如REAP、ReQuest）一直深受研究閱讀與寫作結合這方面的學者的喜愛。然而，前人應用於讀寫教學研究的文字操控策略，往往太過於機械化，以致無法培養出學習對象的評判思考和整體寫作能力。因此，本研究企圖探究更具彈性的文字操控策略，將之應用於閱讀及寫作的活動中，其中又以摘要寫作為主要（教學與練習）任務。
因此，本研究旨在探討文字操控策略教學對高中生的整體寫作能力的影響，尤其是以英語為外語學習的學生。本研究特別針對兩組不同的文字操控策略，比較其教學前後的英文閱讀成績，篇章結構成績，和段落寫作成績。本研究以中台灣的七十位高中生作為研究對象，其中實驗組有33位，而對照組有37位。前測結果顯示，從英文閱讀成績，篇章結構成績，和段落寫作成績來看，這兩組沒有明顯差異。隨後實驗組和對照組分別接受22週的互動教學法與文法翻譯法的教學與練習，緊接著進行後測。後測與前測為難易度相當但完全不同的試卷。
本研究之結果顯示：（一）實驗組的閱讀測驗後測成績與對照組之後測成績有顯著差異，可見互動教學法的文字操控策略比文法翻譯法更能有效提升英文閱讀能力。（二）實驗組的篇章結構測驗在教學後之成績與對照組之表現有顯著的差異，可見互動教學法的文字操控策略比文法翻譯法更能幫助學生有效掌握篇章結構能力。（三）從段落寫作成績來看，實驗組的整體寫作能力在教學後進步之幅度與對照組進步之幅度有顯著之差異，可見由摘要寫作策略、語意圖策略、和觀念/功能擷取策略所交織而成的互動教學法，比起傳統的文法翻譯法，是較有效的文字操控策略，更能有效地將閱讀能力轉換為寫作能力。
　　基於以上發現，本研究者建議英語教學教師考慮將互動教學法納入讀寫課程。一旦互動教學法的文字操控策略在讀者心中內化吸收，學生的英文閱讀理解力，篇章結構認知，和段落寫作能力必能同時提升。本實驗不足的是，受限於長時間的實驗與段考的壓力，本實驗只能從課本取文，卻因此削弱了學生對策略使用的興趣與動機。在此強烈建議未來的研究能從泛讀的角度，也就是「自由自主閱讀」的閱讀模式，探討互動教學法在英文閱讀與寫作課程上對以英文為外語之學生的實效。

ABSTRACT
On the grounds of the interrelations between reading and writing, researchers in the Reading-Writing Connection have resorted to input-manipulating strategies for effective reading-to-write instructions. The demand for explicit teaching of the reading-to-write strategies has increased the popularity of summarizing strategies, mapping strategies, and notional/ functional abstracting strategies (e.g., REAP and ReQuest) with researchers in reading-writing connections. However, most of the input-manipulating strategies applied to previous reading-to-write instructions were too mechanical to develop their subjects’ critical thinking ability and their holistic writing ability. Therefore, this study aimed to probe other input-manipulating strategies that allow more flexible manipulation of inputs in their reading-to-write tasks, i.e., summary writing tasks in particular.
Since the purpose of this thesis was to explore the effectiveness of input-manipulating strategy instruction on overall writing skills of EFL senior high school students in Taiwan, the present research attempts to offer a comparison between two sets of encoding strategies, in terms of the subjects’ performances in the reading comprehension tests, the discourse structure tests, and the passage writing tests in the pretest and in the posttest. Seventy senior high school students in central Taiwan participated in this experiment: 33 for the experimental group, and 37 for the control group. The results of the pretest showed that the two groups were of homogeneity in their abilities in reading comprehension, discourse structures, and overall writing. After a 22-week instruction, that is, the Interactive Approach for the experimental group and the Grammar-Translation Method for the control group, both groups took the posttest.
All the data analyses were analyzed via the independent-sampling t-tests. Three findings were revealed from the analysis of the results. First, the experimental group showed significant improvement of reading comprehension ability, as compared with the control group. This implies that the Interactive Approach as a set of input-manipulating strategies is significantly more effective than the Grammar-Translation Method in facilitating cultivating the subjects’ reading comprehension ability. Second, the experimental group showed significant differences in the discourse structure tests, as compared with the control group. This implies that the Interactive Approach as a set of input-manipulating strategies is significantly more effective than the Grammar-Translation Method in helping the subjects discriminate discourse structures. Third, based on the results of the passage writing scores, the experimental group also outperformed the control group to a significant level. This suggests that the Interactive Approach as a set of input-manipulating strategies also significantly surpassed the Grammar-Translation Method in enhancing the subjects’ passage writing skills. Thus, it is concluded that the Interactive Approach, composed of summary strategies, mapping strategy, and notional/functional abstracting strategies, serves as a more effective set of bypass strategies from reading to writing than the conventional Grammar-Translation Method does.
Based on the findings, the researcher suggests that EFL senior high school teachers should consider the possibility of incorporating the Interactive Approach in their reading-to-write class. The Interactive Approach, once internalized in the readers’ mind, can not only enhance their reading comprehension or discourse structure but also their overall writing abilities. However, confined by the duration of the experiment and the demands for passing achievement tests, the selection of instructional material in the current study was restricted to textbooks, which diminished the students’ interests and motivation for strategy use. Therefore, the Interactive Approach instructed in an extensive model (i.e., Free Volunteer Reading model) investigated in authentic EFL reading-to-write classes is strongly recommended for future research.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract (Chinese) …………………i
Abstract (English) …………… iii
Acknowledgements ……………… vi
Table of Contents ………………viii
List of Tables ……………………xi
List of Figures …………… xiii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background of this Study …………………1
Rationale of this Study……………………… 9
Research Questions of this Study ………12
Significance of this Study………………… 13
Definition of Terms …………………15
Summary of Chapter On ……………20

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
Interrelation between Reading and Writing .……21
Correlationships between reading proficiency and writing competence .................22
Shared encoding processes in reading and writing ….23
Reading-to-Write Implementation...………………..25
The essence of Explicit Teaching…..…………...26
Cognitive effects of reading-to-write tasks …………28
Summary of reading-to-write implementation……………30
Input Manipulation Strategies……………………………31
Summarizing Strategies …………..31
The bottom-up model ............32
The top-down model ………………………33
GIST …………………………….35
Summary of summarizing strategies……………36
Mapping Strategies …………………… 37
The formats of Thinking Maps® and the relationships between concepts…………………………… .38
Empirical effects of Mapping Strategies ………40
Interrelation between Mapping and Summarization…… 41
Summary of mapping strategies…………………… 43
Notional/Functional Abstracting Strategies …… 44
Definition of Notional/ Functional Abstracting Strategies……44
Function of Notional/Functional Abstracting Strategies… 44
Strategy I: REAP………………………………… 45
Strategy II: Reciprocal questioning (ReQuest)…….48
Summary of Notional/Functional abstracting strategies...........50
Summary of Chapter Two ……………………… 51

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
Framework of Present Study …………………… 54
Subjects………………………… 56
Material…………………………………… 57
Instrument ……………………………58
Pretest and Posttest ………………………58
Components of Tests………………………… 58
Validity and reliability of Instruments……………60
Grading criteria for composition tests……………66
Experimental Procedures…………………………………68
Preparatory stage……………………… 68
Teaching procedures……………………………… 69
The experimental group ………………………69
The control group …………………… 71
Post-test …………………………… 73
Raters and grading procedures ……………………74
Data Analysis………………………… 75
Pilot Study………………………… 76

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS
Results of the Homogeneity Tests ……… 80
Results of the Independent Samples t-test....82
Results of the two groups’ RC scores…… 82
Results of the two groups’ DS scores……… 83
Results of the two groups’ PW scores……………84
Summary of Chapter Four……………………… 85

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Discussion……………… 87
Conclusion………………… 96
Limitations and Suggestions.......97
REFERENCES…………………………………100

APPENDIXES
Appendix A Teaching materials and extended exercise texts……………….111
Appendix B The pretest …………… 112
Appendix C The posttest…………… 120
Appendix D Teaching procedures of Notional/Functional Abstraction…….128
Appendix E Format of Thinking Maps……131
Appendix F Chinese/English summarizing procedures……132
Appendix G Lesson plan for overall instructional procedures…133
Appendix H Instructional procedures for the experimental group… 135
Appendix I Instructional procedures for the control group………137
Appendix J Example of whole instructional procedures in the experimental group: A PowerPoint presentation (CD-Rom)…………138
Appendix K Examples of student A’s extended exercises: The whole package of the Interactive Approach……………………………………139
Appendix L Sample of student B’s extended activity: Tree Maps that combine gist annotations and intention annotations……………… 143
Appendix M Sample of peer Re-Quest in notional abstraction……………144

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Test of the Two Groups’ Homogeneity of RC Pretest, DS Pretest, and PW Pretest ………………………………… 56
Table 3.2 Paired Samples Correlations within a Group for the Criterion Validity Test ………………………… 63
Table 3.3 Paired Samples T-Test within a Group for the Criterion Validity Test…………………… 63
Table 3.4 Paired-Sample Correlations within a Group for the Test-Retest Reliability in the Pretest and the Posttest ……………………… 64
Table 3.5 Paired-Sample T-Test within a Group for the Test-Retest Reliability in the Pretest and the Posttest …………………………… 64
Table 3.6 Paired-Sample Correlations and Paired-Sample T-Test within a Group for the Equivalent-Form Reliability in the Pretest and in the Posttest …… 65
Table 3.7 Paired-Sample correlations for the Pre- & Post-RP Scores, and that for the Pre-& Post- DS Scores, in terms of Passage Difficulties …………… 65
Table 3.8 The Writing Assessment Criteria in this Experiment (Adapted from the Writing Assessment Criteria by CEEC) ………………… 67
Table 3.9 Paired-sample T-Test for the Same Subjects on the Pretest Scores and the Posttest Scores in the Pilot Study……………………… 78
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of the Two Groups’ RC Tests, DS Tests, and PW Tests in the Pretest…………………………… 81
Table 4.2 Test of the Two Groups’ Homogeneity of RC Pretest, DS Pretest, and PW Pretest …………… 81
Table 4.3 Independent Samples T-Test of the Two Groups’ RC Scores in the Pretest and Posttest……………………… 83
Table 4.4 Independent Samples T-Test of the Two Groups’ DS Scores in the Pretest and in the Posttest…………………… 84
Table 4.5 Independent Samples T-Test of the Two Groups’ PW Scores in the Pretest and the Posttest…………… 85

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 The Formats of Thinking Maps and Respective Functions .…………..39
Figure 3.1 The Flow Chart of Test-Retest Procedures on Instrumental Validity and Reliability ……………… 60
Figure 3.2 The Flow Chart of the Instructional Procedures in the Experimental Group …………………………71
Figure 3.3 The Flow Chart of the Instructional Procedures in the Control Group...73

REFERENCES
Almasi, J. F. (2003). Teaching strategic processes in reading. NY: Guilford Press.
Armbruster, B. (Ed.). (2002). Put reading first. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2001). Strategies for reading for information. Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent readers. NY: The Guilford Press.
Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70-77.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Buckner, J. (2004). Empowering students from thinking to writing. In D. Hyerle, L. Alper, & S. Curtis (Eds.), Student success with Thinking Maps® (pp. 75-86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Carson, J. & Leki, I. (Ed.). (1993). Reading in the composition classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, I. D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. Journal of Experimental Education, 71(1), 5-23.
Chang, S. S., Chang, S. P., & Lin S. J. (張紹勳、張紹評、林秀娟) (2003). SPSS for Window統計分析---初等統計與高等統計(上冊) [SPSS for Window statistic analysis: Basic statistics and advanced statistics (12th ed.)]。松崗電腦圖書。
Chang, S. S. & Lin S. J. (張紹勳、林秀娟) (2005). SPSS高等統計分析 [SPSS advanced data analysis]。滄海書局。
Chang, S. S. & Lin S. J. (張紹勳、林秀娟) (2005). SPSS多變量統計分析 [SPSS multivariate data analysis]。滄海書局。
Chang, W. et al. (2001). The final report on the possibility of the independent administration of English writing ability (III). Taipei: CEEC.
Cunningham, J. W. (1982). Generating interactions between schemata and text. In J. A. Niles, & L.A. Harris (Eds.), New inquires in reading research and instruction, (pp. 42-47). Washington, DC: National Reading Conference.
Deal, R. (1988). The reading-writing connection: Does it hold between languages? Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Colorado.
Deming, M. P. (2000, July 7). Reading and writing: Making the connection for basic writers. Basic Writing e-Journal, 2(2). Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://www.asu.edu/clas/english/composition/cbw/summer_2000_V2N2.htm#Mary
DePinto-Piercy, T. & Hyerle, D. (2004). Maps for the road to reading comprehension: Bridging reading text structure to writing prompts. In D. Hyerle, L. Alper, & S. Curtis (Ed.), Student success with Thinking Maps® (pp. 63-74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Devine, J. (1993). The role of metacognition in second language reading and writing. In J. G. Carson, & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 105-127). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
DeWitt, S. L., & Behan, L. (2008). Summary writing. Retrieved June, 28, 2008, from Ohio State University at Marion, Department of English Web Site:
http://english.marion.ohio-state.edu/behan/summary_writing.htm
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.
Foil, C. R., & Alber, S. R. (2002). Fun and effective ways to build your students’ vocabulary. Intervention in School & Clinic, 37(3), 131-140.
Friend, R. (2001). Teaching summarization as a content area reading strategy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(4), 320-329.
Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Education Psychology, 26 (1), 3-24.
Ghaith, G. M., & Harkouss, S. A. (2003). Role of text structure awareness in the recall of expository discourse. Foreign Language Annual, 36, 86-96.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.
Greaney, G. L. (1997). Less is more: Summary writing and sentence structure in the advanced ESL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 3(9). Retrieved July 7, 2008, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Greaney-Writing.html
Griffith, P. L., & Ruan, J. (2005). What is metacognition and what should be its role in literacy instruction? In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. K. Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Hedge, T. (2003). Teaching and learning in the language classroom (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hsu, H. C. (2003). A case study of the process of web-reading and summary writing for EFL college novice writers in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Hsu, J. Y. (2004). Reading, writing, and reading-writing in the second language classroom: A balanced curriculum [Electronic version]. Paper presented at Annual International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 21, 1-34. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/e1/30.pdf
Huang, C. T. & Liu, L. X. (2005). 國內一所英語教學的典範學校: 個案研究。[A model school for EFL instruction in Taiwan: A case study.] 第22屆中華民國英語文教學研討會 [Paper presented at Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China.]
Hyerle, D. (2004). Thinking Maps® as a transformational language for learning. In D. Hyerle, L. Alper, & S. Curtis (Ed.), Student Success with Thinking Maps® (pp. 1-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2007). Graphic organizers in reading instruction: Research findings and issues. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19 (1), 34-55.
Johns, A. (1991). Insights into the reading-writing relationship. Paper presented at the California TESOL Conference (CATESOL), Santa Clara.
Juan, E. U., & Palmer, J. C. (1998). A product-focused approach to text summarization. The Internet TESL Journal, 4(1), Retrieved July, 6, 2008, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Juan-TextSummary.html
Kim, S. A. (2001). Characteristics of EFL readers’ summary writing: A study with Korean university students. Foreign Language Annual, 34, 569-581.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice Hall.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Beverly Hills: Laredo.
Krashen, S. D. (1994). The pleasure hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (pp. 299-320). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insight from the research. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kress, G. (1985). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kuo, P. C. (2003). The instruction of Semantic Mapping on reading comprehension: A study at Changhua senior high school. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University, Taiwan.
Lardner, T. & Lundberg, T. (2001). Exchanges reading and writing about
consumer culture. White Planes, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Leeds, B. (1996). Writing in a second language: Insights from first and second language teaching and research. White Planes, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Leki, I. (1992). L2 composing: Strategies and perceptions. In B. Leeds (Ed.), Writing in a Second Language: Insights from First and Second Language Teaching and Research (pp. 27-37). White Planes, NY: Addison Wesley Longman..
Leu, D. J., Jr. & Kinzer, C. K. (1995). Effective Reading Instruction, K-8 (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lin, S. et al. (2001). The final report on the possibility of the independent
administration of English writing ability (IV). Taipei: CEEC.
Liu, S. H. (2003). A study on the effects of English summary writing instruction on Taiwanese senior high school students' reading and writing abilities. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Lu, L. S. (2005). The effects of semantic mapping strategy on EFL high school students’ reading comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Magno, C. (2008). Reading strategy, amount of writing, metacognition, metamemory, and apprehension as predictors of English written proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 29. Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/pta_July_08_cm.php
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Nuttall, C. (2000). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language (Rev. ed.). Oxford, UK: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.
Pan, S-H. (2002). A study of the effects of summary writing with structure guidelines on the writing of EFL beginning writers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan.
Pan, Y. C. (2004). A study of the effects of reading and summary model essays on EFL writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Parodi, G. (2003). Relationships between reading and writing: Discourse and cognitive perspectives. Valparaiso: Editorial Universitaria de Valparaiso.
Parodi, G. (2007). Reading-writing connections: Discourse-oriented research. Reading and Writing, 20, 225-250.
Pearson, P. D. and Leys, M. (1984). Teaching comprehension. In T. L. Harris & E. T. Cooper (Ed.), Reading, thinking and concept development: Strategies for the classroom. New York: The College Board.
Piercy, T. D., & Hyerle, D. (2004). Maps for the road to reading comprehension: Bridging reading text structure to writing prompts. In D. Hyerle, L. Alper, & S. Curtis (Eds.), Student success with Thinking Maps® (pp. 1-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL Writing. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Regents.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scott, V. M. (1995). Rethinking foreign language writing. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Smith, F. (1996). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (5th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, M. S. (1994). Second language learning: Theoretical foundations. New York: Longman House.
Su, F. H. (2003). The infrastructure of English education. English Teaching &
Learning, 28(2), 1-17.
Swain. M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Tankersley, K. (2003). Threads of reading: Strategies for literacy development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66-73.
Tierney, R. J., & Gee, M. (1990). Reading comprehension. In D. Bogdan & S. B. Straw (Eds.), Beyond communication: Reading comprehension and criticism (pp. 167-196). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook and Heinemann.
Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading. Language Art, 60, 568-580.
Tierney, R. J., Readence, J. E., & Dishner, E. K. (1995). Reading strategies and practices: A compendium (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 2). New York: Longman.
Tsang, W. K. (1996). Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing performance. Applied Linguistics, 17 (2), 210-233.
Unrau, N. J. (1997). Thoughtful teachers, thoughtful learners: A guide to helping adolescents think critically. Ontario, Canada: Pippin.
Yao, S. F. (2004). A study of integrating reading and writing in a senior high school classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.
Zhan, H. P., & Wang, Y. Z. (2000). The application of semantic mapping on the reading instruction of the learning disabled. Citizen Education, 40(4), 36-43.