(3.238.7.202) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/02 01:28
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:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:莊鵑萍
研究生(外文):Chuan-ping Chuang
論文名稱:語意圖策略訓練於英文閱讀教學之成效
論文名稱(外文):Semantic Mapping Strategy Training in EFL Reading Instruction
指導教授:黃聖慧博士
指導教授(外文):Dr. Sheng-hui Huang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
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:2010
畢業學年度:98
語文別:英文
論文頁數:254
中文關鍵詞:英語閱讀理解語意圖閱讀策略策略訓練
外文關鍵詞:English reading comprehensionsemantic mappingreading strategystrategy training
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:819
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:219
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
閱讀是每個人得精通的重要技巧,有些學者認同語意圖對閱讀理解有益,進而有些研究學者在以英語為外語的環境,探討語意圖策略訓練對閱讀理解的成效並獲得正面結果,然而較少探究讀者在接受策略訓練後,實際使用語意圖策略的意願及能力。本研究在探討以英語為外語的高職學生,在接受策略訓練後,實際使用語意圖策略在英文閱讀的意願及能力,研究對象為中台灣某高職一班高二學生,全部學生參加四週策略訓練,其中四位自願擔任有聲思考研究個案,資料透過量性及質性工具收集並分析。
問卷結果顯示,全班的中低使用意願與個案中高或高使用意願有差距,綜合量化及質化資料結果,個案本身在其表達使用意願、實際使用意願及未來使用意願也有岐異,影響學生語意圖低使用意願的因素包括:策略使用焦慮、不熟練策略使用能力、對語意圖價值及應用負面評價、文章難度、策略使用的麻煩、偏好使用熟悉閱讀策略。
關於策略使用能力,全班及個案皆表示具有中高水準,然而,個案在語意圖要素確認、要素描述、架構連結及文章內容反映表現出不恰當之策略使用,個案在最後的面談展現較佳的策略使用品質,男性個案比女性個案展現較佳的策略使用品質。學生恰當使用內在策略會提升策略使用品質,學生內在策略應用表現在發揮後設覺知、批判性思考、活用背景知識、整合策略運用以及概念性繪圖。在使用目標策略時,學生遇到以下困難:確認重要資訊、辨別文章架構、描述語意圖要素、反映文章內容及在低度了解文章內容情況下使用語意圖策略。
根據上述結果,建議在設計策略訓練時,多留意語意圖要素確認、文章架構辨別、學生對使用策略品質及內在策略應用的覺知;策略訓練時,訓練者的觀察及反應扮演重要的角色,為提升學生使用語意圖成效,建議多留意學習者字彙量、學習者焦慮、文章難度、時間因素及語意圖使用效率。

Reading is an important skill for everyone to master. Some researchers advocated that semantic mapping is beneficial for readers’ comprehension. Some researchers conducted studies and gained positive results of semantic mapping strategy training on readers’ comprehension in EFL contexts. However, little attention was placed on readers’ abilities and willingness to actually use semantic mapping strategy. The study aims to investigate EFL vocational high school students’ willingness and abilities to use semantic mapping strategy in English reading after the strategy training. An eleventh-grade class from a vocational high school in central Taiwan received the four-week strategy training. Four students from of this class voluntarily participated in the study as cases. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed.
From the questionnaire, gaps exist between the intermediate-low willingness self-reported by students in the class and the intermediate-high or high willingness self-reported by four participants in the case study. Synthesizing quantitative and qualitative data, there were gaps as well among participants’ self-reported willingness, actual strategy use, and self-reported future use. Possible factors for their low willingness in strategy use include: anxiety, unskillful ability, negative view of the strategy value and application, difficulty level of texts, the troublesome characteristic of strategy use, and preference of using familiar reading strategies.
As for the strategy use ability, students in class self-reported intermediate-high level, as did the participants in the case study. Nevertheless, those in case study demonstrated some inappropriate strategy use in terms of element identification, element illustration, structural links, and text content reflection in the semantic map. They demonstrated higher quality of strategy use in the last posttraining interview. Two male participants presented higher quality of strategy use than the two females. Students adequately exerted internal strategy use in exerting metacognitive awareness, critical thinking, activating prior knowledge, synthesized strategy use, and conceptual mapping, which might result in higher strategy use quality. In utilizing the target strategy, participants encountered difficulties in identifying key points, recognizing text structure, illustrating elements, presenting text content, and applying the strategy with poor comprehension.
Based on the results, more attention is suggested to place on element identification, text structure recognition, students’ awareness of strategy use quality and internal strategy use in designing the strategy training. Strategy trainers’ observation and responses play an important role in the strategy training. Students’ vocabulary size, their apprehension, text difficulty level, time factor, and strategy use efficiency should be noted for facilitating semantic mapping strategy use.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION…………… 1
Background…………… 2
Rationale…………… 7
Purpose and Research Questions……………10
Significance of the Study……………10
Operational Definitions of Terms……………11

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW……………13
Studies in Reading and Reading Strategy Training……………13
Models of Reading……………13
Difficulties Encountered by Readers……………15
Reading Strategy Training……………18
Reading Strategy Taxonomy……………19
Claim for Reading Strategy Training……………21
Strategy Training Methods……………22
Reading Strategy Training Studies……………28
Studies in Semantic Mapping Strategy……………31
Basic Concepts of Semantic Mapping……………31
Definition of Semantic Mapping……………31
Background and Rationale of Semantic Mapping……………33
Types of Semantic Maps……………35
Procedures to Develop Semantic Maps……………36
Semantic Mapping as a Reading Strategy……………37
Semantic Mapping Strategy Studies……………38
Semantic Mapping Strategy Studies in L1 Context……………38
Semantic Mapping Strategy Studies in L2 Context……………41

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY……………45
Participants……………45
The Semantic Mapping Strategy Training……………47
Selection of Reading Materials……………48
Instruction Phase……………50
Practice Phase……………53
Instrumentation……………55
Quantitative Methods for Data Collection……………55
Student English Reading Questionnaire……………55
Post-training Questionnaire……………57
Qualitative Methods for Data Collection……………60
Think Aloud……………60
Students’ Reflective Interviews……………63
Students’ Learning Diaries……………64
Teacher’s Observation…………….65
Data Collection Procedures……………66
Pre-Training Phase……………66
Training Phase……………66
Post-Training Phase……………67
Data Analysis……………68

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS……………71
The Whole Class……………71
Students’ English Reading……………71
Students’ Willingness to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy in English Reading……………73
Students’ Ability to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy in English Reading……………83
Discussion on the Results of the Whole Class……………97
Self-reported Intermediate-low Willingness……………97
Revealed Willingness……………102
Self-reported Difficulties……………103
Revealed Abilities……………107
The Four Participants……………108
Mark……………108
Mark’s English Reading……………108
Mark’s Willingness to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy in English Reading……………109
Mark’s Ability to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy in English Reading……………113
Jeff……………118
Jeff’s English Reading……………118
Jeff’s Willingness to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy in English Reading……………119
Jeff’s Ability to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy in English Reading……………123
Yesica……………130
Yesica’s English Reading……………130
Yesica’s Willingness to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy in English Reading……………131
Yesica’s Ability to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy in English Reading……………135
Emily……………140
Emily’s English Reading……………140
Emily’s Willingness to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy in English Reading……………141
Emily’s Ability to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy in English Reading……………146
Discussion on the Results of Four Participants……………152
Little Willingness Regarding Actual Strategy Use and Self-reported Future Use……………152
Intermediate-high Level of Self-reported and Revealed Willingness……………157
Intermediate-high or High Level of Self-reported Ability and Different Quality of Strategy Use……………159
Internal Strategy Use……………160
Difficulties of Strategy Use……………164
Discussion on the Results of the Whole Class and the Four Participants……………168
Willingness to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy……………168
Ability to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy……………170
Students’ Learning in Semantic Mapping Strategy Training……………172
A Comparison between Previous Studies and This Study……………173

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION……………175
Summary of Findings……………175
Willingness to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy in English Reading……………175
Ability to Use Semantic Mapping Strategy in English Reading……………176
Other Findings……………177
Educational Implications……………178
Suggestions for Future Study……………181
REFERENCES……………183

APPENDICES

Appendix A Consent Sheet.. 204
Appendix B The Semantic Mapping Strategy Training Material 206
Appendix C Lesson Plan for Instruction Phase.. 215
Appendix D Sample English Reading Task for Guided Practice..218
Appendix E Sample English Reading Task for Independent Practice ..220
Appendix F Lesson Plan for Practice Phase..222
Appendix G Student English Reading Questionnaire..225
Appendix H Post-training Questionnaire..231
Appendix I Students Interview Questions..239
Appendix J Guided Questions for Students’ Learning Diaries..241
Appendix K Descriptions of Participants’ Reading Strategy Use..242
Appendix L Idea Units of Recall Protocols..244
Appendix M Summary of Descriptive Statistics of Student English Reading Questionnaire..247
Appendix N Reading Strategies Four Participants Used in Pretraining and Posttraining Tasks..251
Appendix O Time Four Participants Spent in Reading Tasks and Recall Performance..254

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Information about the Think Aloud Participants..47
Table 3.2 Articles Used in the Present Study..50
Table 3.3 Three Practice Cycles..54
Table 3.4 The Student English Reading Questionnaire Sample Items ..57
Table 3.5 Design of the Post-training Questionnaire..58
Table 3.6 The Post-training Questionnaire Sample Items..59
Table 3.7 Think Aloud Tasks ..62
Table 3.8 Data Collection Procedure..68
Table 4.1 Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Willingness to Use Semantic Mapping..74
Table 4.2 Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Students’Self-reported Motivation to Use Semantic Mapping..75
Table 4.3 Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Students’Self-reported Attitude to Use Semantic Mappingy..76
Table 4.4 Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Students’Self-reported Ease to Use Semantic Mapping..78
Table 4.5 Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Students’Self-reported Confidence to Use Semantic Mapping..79
Table 4.6 Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Abilities to Use Semantic Mapping..84
Table 4.7 Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Students’Self-reported Declarative Knowledge to Use Semantic Mapping..85
Table 4.8 Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Students’Self-reported Procedural Knowledge to Use Semantic
Mapping..86
Table 4.9 Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Students’Self-reported Conditional Knowledge to Use Semantic Mapping..88
Table 4.10 Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Students’Self-reported Implementation Ability to Use Semantic Mapping..89
Table 4.11 Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Students’Self-reported Application Ability to Use Semantic Mapping..90
Table 4.12 Four Participants’ Self-reported Willingness in the Post-training Questionnaire..109
Table 4.13 Four Participants’ Self-reported Ability in the Post-training Questionnaire..113

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 The Gradual Release of Responsibility Model 53

ENGLISH REFERENCES
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Alfassi, M. (2004). Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high school students. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(4), 171-184.
Alvermann, D. E. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive text. Journal of Educational Research, 75(1), 44-48.
Anderson, R. C. (1985). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R.B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp.469~482). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Antonacci, P. A. (1991). Students search for meaning in the text through semantic mapping. Social Education, 55(3), 174-175, 194.
Atay, D., & Ozbulgan, C. (2007). Memory strategy instruction, contextual learning and ESP vocabulary recall. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 39-51.
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive review. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Avery, P. G., Baker, J., & Gross, S. H. (1997). “Mapping” learning at the secondary level. The Clearing House, 70(5), 279-285.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Barnett, M. A. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 72, 150-162.
Barron, R. F. (1969). The use of vocabulary as an advance organizer. In H. L. Herber & R. T. Vacca (Eds.), Research in reading in the content areas: First year report (pp.29-39). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Reading and Language Center.
Berne, J. E. (2004). Listening comprehension strategies: A review of the literature. Foreign Language Annals, 37(4), 521-533.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463-494.
Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319-343.
Bobrow, D. G., & Norman, D. A. (1975). Some principles of memory schemata. In D. G. Bobrow & A. M. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 131-150). New York: Academic.
Broek, P. D., & Kremer K. E. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning (pp. 1-31). New York: Teachers College Press.
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (1990). Asking the right question: A guide to critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Calfee, R., & Drum, P. (1986). Research on teaching reading. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 804-849). New York: Macmillan.
Callahan, J. F., & Clark, L. H. (1988). Teaching in the middle and secondary schools: Planning for competence. New York: Macmillan.
Carpenter P. A., & Just, M. A. (1977). Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Carrell, P. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 121-134.
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553-573.
Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., and Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive Strategy Training for ESL Reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647-678.
Caverly, D. C., Nicholson, S. A., & Radcliffe, R. (2004). The effectiveness of strategic reading instruction for college development readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35(1), 25-49.
Chamot, A. U. (1998). Teaching learning strategies to language students. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 433719)
Chamot, A. U. & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 13-24.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., Carbonaro, G., & Robbins, J. (1993). Methods for teaching learning strategies in the foreign language classroom and assessment of language skills for instruction final report. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 365157)
Chang, C. Y. (2006). A study on the effects of vocabulary learning strategy instruction on vocabulary learning of senior high school students in Taiwan. Master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Chen, J. C. (2005). Explicit instruction of reading strategies at senior high school in Taiwan. Master thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Chen, W. H. (2004). Effects of jazz chant instruction on English learning for vocational high school students. Master thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Chen, Y. (2007). Learning to learn: The impact of strategy training. ELT Journal, 61(1), 20-29.
Cheng, C. H. (2002). Effects of listening strategy instruction on junior high school students. Master thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Chiang, P. L. (2005). Effects of language learning strategy-integrated instruction on Taiwanese junior high school students’ English learning. Master thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Chien, C. Y. (2005). A study on the effects of listening strategy instruction on Taiwanese industrial vocational high school students' EFL listening comprehension. Master thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Chien, Y. C. (2006). Impacts of English vocabulary learning strategy instruction to 5th grade elementary school students. Master thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan.
Chou, C.Y. (2005). Effects of language learning strategy-integrated instruction on EFL Taiwanese vocational high school students’ English learning. Master thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Chu, H. (2000). Orienting EFL readers toward global strategy use. Selected papers from the 9th International Symposium on English Teaching, (pp. 274-283). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Clark, K. F., & Graves, M. F. (2005). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 570-580.
Clayton Kandor, L. (1994). Effects of semantic mapping and semantic feature analysis on the outcomes of seventh-grade Spanish-speaking limited English proficient students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(10), 3856. (UMI No. 9605699)
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman.
Coleman, L. C. (1995). The effects of semantic mapping on reading comprehension levels of third-grade students in the Mississippi Delta. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(5), 1641. (UMI No. 9530512)
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Self-report of reading comprehension strategies: What are we measuring? Metacognition Learning, 1, 229-247.
Dansereau, D. F. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (pp. 209-239). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Day, R. R., & Park, J. (2005). Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(1), 60-73.
De Fina, A. A. (1999). The effect of semantic mapping on the reading comprehension of college students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(6), 1963. (UMI No. 9935634)
Derry, S. J., & Murphy, D. A. (1986). Designing systems that train learning ability: From theory to practice. Review of Educational Research, 56, 1-39.
Doyle, C.S. (1999). The use of graphic organizers to improve comprehension of learning disabled students in social studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 427 331)
Durkin, D. (1981). What is the value of the new interest in reading comprehension? Language Arts, 58, 23-41.
Dyer, P. (1985). A study of the effect of prereading mapping on comprehension and transfer of learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(9), 2641. (UMI No. 8524940)
Earle, R. A. (1969). Use of the structured overview in mathematics classes. In H. L. Herber, & P.L. Sander (Eds.), Research in reading in the content areas: First year report (pp.49-58). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Reading and Language Center.
El-Koumy, A. S. (1999). Effects of three semantic mapping strategies on EFL students’ reading comprehension. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 435193)
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Freedman, G., & Reynolds, E. G. (1980). Enriching basal reader lessons with semantic webbing. The Reading Teacher, 33, 677-684.
Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2005). Applying educational research: A practical guide. Boston: Pearson Education.
Goodman, A. D. (1994). A comparison study of the effects of two visual imagery strategies on reading comprehension in learning-disabled students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(11), 4059. (UMI No. 9408972)
Goodman, K. S. (1988). The reading process. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 11-21). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hanf, M. B. (1971). Mapping: A technique for translating reading into thinking. Journal of Reading, 14, 225-230.
Heimlich, J. E., & Pittelman, S. D. (1986). Semantic mapping: Classroom applications. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
Ho, P. Y. (2006). A study of EFL reading strategies used by vocational high school students in Taiwan. Master thesis, National Taiwan University of Science & Technology, Taiwan.
Hosenfeld, C., Arnold, V., Kirchofer, J., Laciura, J, & Wilson, L. (1981). Second language reading: A curricular sequence for teaching reading strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 14(5), 415-422.
Huang, C. Y. (2004). Think to win: An inquiry- based approach via collaborative strategic reading technique to teach English reading in a senior high EFL classroom. Master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Huang, S. C. (2000). English learning strategy training: Process, activities, and effect. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Huang, S. C. (2003). Training of foreign language learning strategies: Effects on learning process. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 482 583)
Huang, S. C. (2004). Learning strategy training in senior high school English course. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Huang, S. C., & Tzeng, C. S. (2000). Learning strategies used by high English proficiency learners in Taiwan. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 367-372). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Irwin, J. W. (1991). Teaching reading comprehension processes. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D., Pittelman, S., Toms-Bronowski, S., & Levin, K. M. (1984). An investigation of the effects of prior knowledge and vocabulary acquisition on passage comprehension. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 254830)
Johnston, P. (1983). Prior knowledge and reading comprehension test bias (Technical Report No. 289). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jones, S. (1984). The effects of semantic mapping on vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension of black inner city students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(10), 3061. (UMI No. 8417954)
Jones, B. F., Palincsar, A. S., Ogle, D. S., & Carr, E. G. (1987). Strategic teaching and learning: Cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Katayama, A. D., & Robinson, D. H. (2000). Getting students “partially” involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(2), 119-133.
Katims, D. S., & Harris, S. (1997). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students in inclusive classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41(2), 116-123.
Kern, R. G. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 135-149.
Kuan, C. S. (2003). A study of the trends in foreign language learning strategies— junior high school students and vocational high school students. Journal of Chung Chou, 18, 127-156.
Kuo, P. (2002). The instruction of semantic mapping on reading comprehension: A study at Changhua senior high school. Master thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Kymes, A. (2005). Teaching online comprehension strategies using think-alouds. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(6), 492-500.
Lan, R., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary school students in Taiwan. IRAL, 41(4), 339-379.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you don’t know, words you think you know, and words you can’t guess. In J. Coady, T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 20-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J. F. (1986). On the use of the recall task to measure L2 reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 201-212.
Liao, Y. F. (2000). A study of Taiwanese junior high school students’ EFL learning motivation and learning strategies. Master thesis, National Changhua University, Taiwan.
Lin, H. (2007). The relationships among commercial vocational high school students’ EFL anxiety, motivation and learning strategies. Master thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Lin, M. C. (2007). Effects of vocabulary learning strategy instruction on vocabulary learning of vocational high school EFL students. Master thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Lipson, M. (1995). The effect of semantic mapping instruction on prose comprehension of below-level college readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 34(4), 367-378.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 3(2), 175-181.
Longman, D. (1987). The effects of semantic mapping instruction on the text-external inferences of college developmental readers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(9), 2253. (UMI No. 8728204)
Lu, L. S. (2005). The effects of semantic mapping strategy on EFL high school students’ reading comprehension. Master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Lu, M. C. (2002). A study of the effects of vocabulary learning strategy instruction on junior high school students in Taiwan. Master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classroom. New York: Continuum.
McCarthy-Tucker, S. (1992). Semantic webbing, semantic-pictorial webbing and standard basal teaching techniques: A comparison of three strategies to enhance learning & memory of a reading comprehension task in the fourth grade classroom. (Eric Reproduction Service No. ED344200)
Marsha, B. (1984). Aspects of cohesion and coherence in context: Investigating causes of difficulty for Israeli university students reading texts in English. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 265 740)
Melendez, T. (1991). The effects of semantic mapping on the reading comprehension of Filipino-American elementary students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(7), 2311. (UMI No. 9235753)
Merkley, D. M., & Jefferies, D. (2000). Guidelines for implementing a graphic organizer. The Reading Teacher, 54, 350-357.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1996). The good language learner. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Goulden, R., Nation, P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics, 11(4), 341-363.
Novak, J. D. (1991). Clarifying with concept maps. The Science Teacher, 58(7), 45-49.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1998). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. London: Longman.
O’Malley, J. M. (1987). The effects of training in the use of learning strategies on acquiring English as a second language. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp.133-144). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 21-45.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (1994). Language learning strategies: An update (Report No. FL 022 571). (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 376707)
Oxford, R., Crookall, D., Cohen, A., Lavine, R., Nyikos, M., & Sutter, W. (1990). Strategy training for language learners: Six situational case studies and a training model. Foreign Language Annals, 23(3), 197-216.
Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Adult’s language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23(3), 359-386.
Pang, J. (2008). Research on good and poor reader characteristics: Implications for L2 reading research in China. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(1), 1-18.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1996). The development of strategic readers. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609-640). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paris, S. G., Byrnes, J. P., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Constructing theories, identities and actions of self-regulated learners. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (2nd ed) (pp. 253-288). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational psychology, 8, 317-334.
Peterson, N. (1991). Effectiveness of semantic mapping as an instructional technique in English for mainstreamed learning disabled ninth graders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(5), 1711. (UMI No. 9122138)
Prater, D., & Terry, C. (1988). Effects of mapping strategies on reading comprehension and writing performance. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 9, 101-120.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545-563). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Purdie, N., & Oliver, R. (1999). Language learning strategies used by bilingual school-aged children. System, 27, 375-388.
Rice, G. E. (1994). Need for explanations in graphic organizer research. Reading Psychology, 15(1), 39-67.
Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., Dubois, N. F., & Devaney, T. (1998). Interactive effects of graphic organizers and delayed review on concept application. The Journal of Experimental Education, 67(1), 17-31.
Roshan, V., & Dwyer, F. (1998). Effect of embedded graphic mapping strategy in complementing verbal instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(4), 389-398.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. 6, pp.573-603). New York: Academic Press.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rusciolelli, J. (1995). Student responses to reading strategies instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 28(2), 262-273.
Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in A Foreign Language, 14(1), 1-16.
Schellings, G., Aarnoutse, C., & Leeuwe, J. (2006). Third-grader’s think-aloud protocols: Types of reading activities in reading an expository text. Learning and Instruction, 16, 549-568.
Seng, G. H., & Hashim, F. (2006). Use of L1 in L2 reading comprehension among tertiary ESL learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 29-54.
Shang, H. F. (2007). Reading strategy training for the development of Chinese EFL reading comprehension. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China. Compiled by National Chengchi University, Taiwan.
Sharp, A. (2002). Chinese L1 schoolchildren reading in English: The effects of rhetorical patterns. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(2), 111-135.
Shih, M. (1992). Beyond comprehension exercises in the ESL academic reading class. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 289-318.
Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Teaching learners to think, read, and write more effectively in content subjects. Clearing House, 73(5), 266-273.
Sinatra, R. C., Berg, D., & Dunn, R. (1985). Semantic mapping improves reading comprehension of learning disabled students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 17(4), 310-314.
Sinatra, R. C., Stahl-Gemake, J., & Berg, D. N. (1984). Improving reading comprehension of disabled readers through semantic mapping. The Reading Teacher, 22-29.
Sinatra, R. C., Stahl-Gemake, J., & Morgan, N. W. (1986). Using semantic mapping after reading to organize and write original discourse. Journal of Reading, 30, 4-13.
Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press.
Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N, Javorsky, J. (2008). Early first-language reading and spelling skills predict later second-language reading and spelling skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 162-174.
Stahl, K. (2004). Proof, practice and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction in the primary graders. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 598-609.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32-71.
Sue, L. W. (2004). A study of vocational high school students’ EFL difficulties and the solutions: Based on National Tainan Commercial and Vocational Senior High School. Master thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan.
Vann, R. J., & Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2). 177-198.
Wang, K. C. (2004). Vocabulary learning difficulties for senior I students in Taiwan. Master thesis, National Chengchi University, Taiwan.
Warton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203-243.
Wenden, A. (1987). Incorporating learning training in the classroom. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 159-168). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. New York: Prentice Hall.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed) ( pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.
Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and comprehension. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed) (pp. 699-705). New York: Macmillan.
Wright, M., & Brown, P. (2006). Reading in a modern foreign language: Exploring the potential benefits of reading strategy instruction. Language Learning Journal, 33, 22-33.
Wu, C. C. (2002). A study of EFL learning strategies used by vocational high school students in Taiwan. Master thesis, National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, Taiwan.
Wu, S. F. (2007). The effects of interactive approach on senior high school students' reading & writing skills. Master thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Yang, N. D. (1995). Effective awareness-raising in language learning strategy training. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 392 278)
You, Y. (2007). Effects of explicit strategy instruction on EFL listening performance and strategy use. Master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and reading strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 37-59.
CHINESE REFERENCES
Che, B. (車蓓群主編). (2007)。職業學校英文Ⅰ~Ⅲ。台北:東大圖書。
Chen, M. (陳明華主編). (2008)。朗文全民英檢中級閱讀測驗。台北:臺灣培生教育。
Chen, X. (陳賢主編). (2007)。高職英文總複習。台北:龍騰文化。
Chen, X. (陳賢主編). (2008)。英文精通3合1,閱測、克漏字、文法。台北:龍騰文化。
Lo, M. (羅美貞). (2000)。高職英文教學面臨的困境與因應。商業職業教育,第76期,頁19-28。


連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔