跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.238.135.174) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/05 07:34
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:鍾馨慧
研究生(外文):Chung, Hsinghui
論文名稱:運用回溯性閱讀差異分析進行國小五年級學童英文閱讀差異之研究
論文名稱(外文):The Effects Of Retrospective Miscue Analysis On The Fifth Graders’ Reading Miscues
指導教授:許炳煌許炳煌引用關係
指導教授(外文):Sheu, Pinghuang
口試委員:陳淑惠林怡弟
口試委員(外文):Chen, ShuhuiLin, Yiti
口試日期:2012-07-13
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北教育大學
系所名稱:兒童英語教育學系碩士班
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:180
中文關鍵詞:閱讀差異分析回溯性閱讀差異分析閱讀理解策略閱讀認知
外文關鍵詞:miscue analysisretrospective miscue analysisreading strategiesreading cognition
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:414
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:80
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
本研究旨在運用回溯性閱讀差異分析(RMA)探討國小五年級學童的閱讀差異、閱讀理解以及閱讀認知情形,同時了解回溯性閱讀差異分析在教學現場的適用性,進而提供英語教學的省思與建議。
研究方法採個案研究方式,於研究之初先與六名個案進行第一次閱讀認知問卷訪談,瞭解個案對閱讀和自我閱讀能力的認知;之後針對兩篇短文進行閱讀差異分析(RMI),瞭解不同閱讀能力個案的閱讀差異類型,並依據閱讀差異分析結果和個案進行回溯性閱讀差異分析(RMA)會談,探討閱讀差異和閱讀理解的關係;最後再進行第二次閱讀認知問卷訪談,瞭解個案對閱讀和自我閱讀能力的認知是否產生轉變。
研究主要發現如下:
一、研究個案在重新檢視自己的閱讀過程中,肯定自己的閱讀能力,並且瞭解自己可再精進的能力。
二、研究個案對閱讀策略的認知明顯提升,也能有效運用策略,嘗試提升閱讀理解。
三、研究個案瞭解閱讀差異的出現不一定代表閱讀理解困難,因此高能力組更自信地運用字母拼讀規則解讀不熟悉單字,低能力組善用省略的閱讀差異,轉而運用其他語言線索,協助理解文意。
四、研究個案的閱讀差異以取代為主,但是運用字母拼讀規則而形成的非實字取代明顯增加;此外,低能力組修正以及省略的閱讀差異比例明顯增加,可見經過回溯性閱讀差異分析的討論,研究個案能修正自己的閱讀差異,而且更有信心地運用所知的語言線索和策略解讀文本。
五、研究個案大量運用課堂所學之文法概念與基本句型解讀文意,句子分析時的句法接受度明顯高於語意接受度。
根據研究結果發現,回溯性閱讀差異分析有助於研究個案瞭解自己的閱讀差異、運用閱讀策略以提升閱讀理解,以及提升對閱讀和自我閱讀能力的認知。因此,研究者建議英語教學工作者將回溯性閱讀差異分析概念,轉化並運用於班級的閱讀指導中,引導學生成為自信、積極的讀者。
The purpose of this case study was to investigate the effects of retrospective miscue analysis on the fifth graders’ reading miscues, reading strategies and reading cognition. Six fifth graders with different reading abilities from an elementary school in New Taipei City were participated in this study. First, the subjects were given Burke Reading Interview as pre (Burke, 1987), and they had reading miscue inventory and retrospective miscue analysis based on their oral reading of two articles. After that, the Burke Reading Interview was carried out again as post.
The major findings were as following:
1. The subjects gained higher recognition and better insights into their own reading abilities.
2. The subjects increased their cognition and the use of reading strategies.
3.The subjects recognized that miscues did not necessarily hamper comprehension.
4. Substitution was the main type of miscues and the use of nonreal word substitution was increased. However, low reading abilities subjects tried to use different cues to comprehend the texts, and as a result, the percentage of correction and omission miscue was increased.
5. The subjects used the grammatical rules and sentences patterns learned in their English classes to comprehend the texts. And the syntactic acceptability of the sentences with miscues was higher than the semantic acceptability.
Based on the findings above, retrospective miscue analysis did help the subjects to gain better insights into their miscues, reading strategies and cognition of reading abilities. Therefore, some suggestions were given to English educators and reading instruction so as to English learners could learn to be more confident and active readers.
中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
目次 iii
表次 v
圖次 vi
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 名詞釋義 5
第四節 本研究之重要性 8
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 外語閱讀理論 9
第二節 外語閱讀理解策略理論 13
第三節 閱讀差異分析 16
第四節 閱讀差異分析之相關研究 20
第三章 研究方法 25
第一節 研究對象 25
第二節 研究工具 26
第三節 研究步驟 31
第四節 資料處理 34
第四章 研究發現與分析 39
第一節 閱讀認知問卷訪談結果與討論 40
第二節 閱讀差異分析結果與討論 57
第三節 回溯性閱讀差異分析結果與討論 105
第五章 結論與建議 147
第一節 研究結論 147
第二節 教學建議 153
第三節 研究建議 156
第四節 結論 157

參考文獻
一、中文部份 159
二、英文部份 161

附錄
附錄一 閱讀認知問卷 169
附錄二 閱讀差異分析表 170
附錄三 重述資料分析表 171
附錄四 回溯性閱讀差異分析會談記畫表 172
附錄五 回溯性閱讀差異分析會談逐字稿 173
附錄六 閱讀認知問卷結果比較表 174
附錄七-1 短文1 175
附錄七-2 短文2 177
附錄八-1 讀寫測驗 179
附錄八-2 讀寫測驗 180

表 次
表 1 回溯性閱讀差異分析會談公約 19
表 2 台灣閱讀差異分析研究整理表 22
表 3 研究對象之讀寫測驗成績一覽表 25
表 4 閱讀認知問卷內容分類表 26
表 5 閱讀差異類型編碼 28
表 6 閱讀差異分析編碼範例 35
表 7 閱讀差異分析句子分析編碼 36
表 8 重述資料分析範例 37
表 9 回溯性閱讀差異分析會談逐字稿範例 38
表 10 閱讀認知問卷訪談結果 56
表 11 閱讀差異類型_高能力組 74
表 12 閱讀差異類型_低能力組 74
表 13 回溯性閱讀差異分析結果比較 145

圖 次
圖 1 閱讀理解策略 15
圖 2 研究流程圖 31
圖 3 閱讀差異分析流程圖 39
圖 4 閱讀差異類型─取代 58
圖 5 閱讀差異類型─實字取代 58
圖 6 閱讀差異類型─非實字取代 60
圖 7 閱讀差異類型─省略 62
圖 8 閱讀差異類型─顛倒 65
圖 9 閱讀差異類型─修正 67
圖 10 閱讀差異類型─嘗試修正卻失敗 69
圖 11 字形相似度_高能力組 75
圖 12 字形相似度_低能力組 76
圖 13 字音相似度_高能力組 78
圖 14 字音相似度_低能力組 79
圖 15 視覺字彙閱讀差異 81
圖 16 句法接受度─Y 83
圖 17 語意接受度─Y 85
圖 18 意義未改變─N 88
圖 19 意義大部分已改變─Y 90
圖 20 重述資料分析─角色 93
圖 21 重述資料分析─場景 95
圖 22 重述資料分析─主要事件 97
圖 23 重述資料分析─大意 99

中文部分:
林珍蒂(1995)。英文閱讀錯誤分析:透視臺灣以英語為外語學生之閱讀過程。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
林筱晴(2006)。新住民女性子女閱讀能力分析:閱讀差異分析個案研究。國立臺中教育大學語文教育所碩士論文,未出版,臺中市。
柯華葳(2008)。台灣學生的閱讀力:從PIRLS2006結果看台港學童閱讀能力差異。http://140.115.78.41/Facts_2006.htm。
孫佩詩(2006)。視覺字彙教學對國小四年級學童認字、讀字和拼字之影響:類比法與看說法之比較研究。國立臺北教育大學兒童英語教學研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
國際教育成就調查委員會(2008)。PIRLS 2006臺灣報告書。檢索日期:2010年11月23日。http://140.115.78.41/PIRLS_home.htm。
張承傑(2007)。運用閱讀差異分析探討台灣英語學習者英語閱讀的過程。國立彰化師範學院兒童英語教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化市。
張貴鳴(2002)。閱讀背後之故事:洞悉大學推薦生與非大學推薦生之閱讀過程。國立高雄師範大學英語研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
教育測驗服務社(2009)。台、日、韓多異成績統計。檢索日期:2010年11月23日。http://www.toeic.com.tw/toeic_news_19.jsp。
郭育綺(2006)。日籍學生華語閱讀之閱讀差異分析研究。國立臺中教育大學語文教育所碩士論文,未出版,臺中市。
黃思綺(2006)。閱讀放大鏡:以異讀觀點探討全語教學對國小學童英語閱讀過程之研究。國立花蓮教育大學國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮市。
黃珮君(2004)。探討以學習英文為外語的學生之閱讀過程:線索的運用與誤用。國立臺北師範學院兒童英語教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
經濟合作暨發展組織(2008)。PISA2006評量結果。檢索日期:2010年11月23日。http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/link_rank_tw.htm。
鄒美雲(2004)。國小六年級學童中、英文閱讀之研究-以誤讀分析為例。國立臺南大學語文教育學系碩士班碩士論文,未出版,臺南市。
劉素美(2002)。台灣兒童閱讀英文之個案研究。國立臺北師範學院兒童英語教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
謝依玲(2008)。運用RMA進行高職輕度智障學生閱讀理解策略教學之個案研究。國立臺北教育大學語文與創作學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。

英文部分:
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Alderson, J. (1985). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In J. C. Alderson, & A. H. Urquhart, (Eds.), Reading in a Foreign Language (pp. 1-27). London, UK: Longman.
Almazroui, K. (2007). Learning together through retrospective miscue analysis: Salem’s case study. Reading Improvement, 44(3), 153-168.
Anderson, J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460–472.
Anderson, R., & Pearson, P. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson, (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman.
Bergeron, B., & Wolff, M. (2002). Teaching reading strategies in the primary grades. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.
Bernhardt, E. (1986). Reading in the foreign language. In B. H. Wing, (ed.), Listening, reading, and writing: Analysis and application (pp. 93-115). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Bernhardt, E. (1991). Reading development in a second-language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bernhardt, E., & Kamil, M. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic Interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 15-34.
Birch, B. (2007). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Black, W. (2004). Assessing the metacognitive dimensions of retrospective miscue analysis through discourse analysis. Reading Horizons, 45(2), 73-101.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463–494.
Bosser, B. (1991). On thresholds, ceilings and short-circuits: The relation between L1 reading, L2 reading and L2 knowledge. AILA review, 8, 45-60.

Buettner, E. (2002). Sentence by sentence self-monitoring. The Reading Teacher, 56(1), 34-44.
Burke, C. (1978). The reading interview. Unpublished guide. The Reading Program, Indiana University.
Carell, P., Gajdusek, L., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading. Instructional Science, 26, 97-112.
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E., & Tarver, S. (1997). Direct instruction reading (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Carrell, L. P. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12, 159-179.
Carrell, L. P. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 121-134.
Carrell, P. (1988). Interactive text processing: Implications for ESL/ second language reading classrooms. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey, (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 239-259). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. (1988). Some causes of text-boundedness and schema-interference in ESL reading. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey, (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 101-113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P., Devine, J., & Eskey, D. (Eds.). (1988). Interactive approaches to second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P., & Eisterhold, J. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553-573.
Cattell, M. (1999). A study of the effects of metacognition on reading comprehension. Unpublished Dissertation. San Diego State University.
Chaaya, D., & Ghosn, I. S. (2010). Supporting young second language learners' reading through guided reading and strategy instruction in a second grade classroom in lebanon. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(6), 329-337.
Chamot, A., O’Malley, J., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P., & Robbins, B. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. New York: Longman.
Clarke, M. (1979). Reading in Spanish and English: Evidence from adult ESL students. Language Learning, 29(1), 121-151.
Clarke, M. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL Reading—or when language competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal, 64, 203-209.
Clarke, M., & Silberstein, S. (1977). Toward a realization of psycholinguistic principles for the ESL reading class. Language Learning, 27, 135-154.
Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In R. Mackay, B. Barkman, & R. R. Jordan, (Eds.), Reading in a second language (pp. 5-12). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Davenport, M. (2002). Miscues not mistakes: Reading assessment in the classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Devine, J. (1984). ESL readers’ internalized models of the reading process. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem, & B. P. Taylor, (Eds.), On TESOL ’83 (pp. 95–108). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Dole, J., Duffy, G., Roehler, L., & Pearson, P. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239-264.
Duke, N. (2001). Building comprehension through explicit teaching of comprehension strategies. Paper presented to the Second Annual MRA/CIERA Conference. East Lansing, Michigan.
Eskey, D. (1973). A model program for teaching advanced reading to students of English as a foreign language. Language Learning, 23, 169-184.
Eskey, D. (1988). Holding in the bottom: An interactive approach to the language problems of second language readers. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey, (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 93-100). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eskey, D., & Grabe, W. (1988). Interactive models for second language reading: Perspectives on instruction. In P. Carrell, J. Devine., & D. Eskey, (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 223-238). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K . A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal resports as data (rev.ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can't read. NY: Harper & Row.
Foorman, B., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203-212.
Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 126-135.
Goodman, K. (1973). Miscue analysis: Applications to reading instruction. Urbana, IL: Research Foundation.
Goodman, K. (1985). Unity in reading. In H. Singer, & R. B. Ruddell, (Eds.) Theoretical models and the processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 813-840). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Goodman, Y., & Paulson, E. (2000) Teachers and students developing language about reading through retrospective miscue analysis. Reports presented at National Council of Teachers of English. Urbana, IL: Research Foundation.
Goodman, Y., Watson, D., & Burke, C. (1987). Reading miscue inventory: Alternative procedures. New York: Richard C. Owen.
Gough, P. (1981). Words and contexts. In O. Tzeng, & H. Singer, (Eds.), Perception of print: Reading research in experimental psychology (pp. 85-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gough, P. (1985). One second of reading. In H. Singer, & R. B. Ruddell, (Eds.), Theoretical models and the processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 661-688). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current development in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406.
Gunning, T. (1996). Creating reading instruction for all children (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the “short circuit” in L2 reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning, 32(1), 1-31.
Kelly, P., Klein, A., & Neal, J. (1993). High-risk emergent readers’ use of cueing systems. Paper presented at National Reading Conference 43rd Annual Meeting. Charleston, SC.
Knight, S., Padron, Y., & Waxman, H. (1985). The cognitive reading strategies of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 789–792.
Lerner, J. W. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Leslie, L. (1980). Use of graphic and contextual information by average and below- average readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 139-149.
Lynch, B., & Hudson, T. (1991). EST reading. In M. Celce-Murcia, (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed., pp. 216-232). New York: Newbury IIouse.
Magliano, J. (1999). Revealing inference processes during text comprehension. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek, (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence (pp. 55-75). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Malik, A. (1990). A psycholinguistic analysis of the reading behavior of EFL-proficient readers using culturally familiar and culturally nonfamiliar expository texts. American Education Research Journal, 27, 205-223.
Martens, P. (1998). Using retrospective miscue analysis to inquire: Learning from Michael. The Reading Teacher, 52(2), 176-80.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities: 1976 to 1996. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 197-213.
McGuinness, D. (2004). Early reading instruction: What science really tells us about how to teach reading? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (2001). Teaching students with learning problems (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Methes, P. G., Simmons, D. C., & Davis, B. I. (1992). Assisted reading techniques for developing reading fluency. Reading Research and Instruction, 31(4), 70-77.
Moore, R., & Aspegren, C. (2001). Reflective conversations between two learners: Retrospective miscue analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(6), 492-503.
Moore, R., & Brantingham, K. (2003). Nathan: A case study in reader response and retrospective miscue analysis. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 466-474.
Moore, R., & Gilles, C. (2005). Reading conversations: Retrospective miscue analysis with struggling readers, Grades 4-12. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (2000). Factors influencing syntactic awareness skills in normal readers and poor comprehenders. Applied Linguistics, 21, 229-241.
Oxford, R. (2001). Language learning strategies. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan, (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 166–172). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Perfett, C. (1985). Reading abilities. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. (2nd ed.). York, UK: Guilford Press.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, and the poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press.
Rumelhart, D. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. Paper presented at the Attention and Performance VI International Symposium. Stockholm, Sweden.
Samuels, S., & Kamil, M. (1988). Models of the reading process. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey, (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 22-36). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sarig, G. (1987). High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: Some comparative process data. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey, (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 105–120). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Shannon, A. (1983). Diagnosis, remediation and management of reading miscues among children of limited English proficiency. Reading Improvement, 20(3), 224-29.
Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading (5th ed.). NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading (6th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stanovich, K. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32-71.
Stanovich, K. (1992). The psychology of reading: Evolutionary and revolutionary developments. In W. Grabe, (Ed.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (12, pp. 3-30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stokes, W. (1999). How do children learn to read? Evidence from decades of research. In I. C. Fountas, & G. S. Pinnell, (Eds.), Voices on word matters: Learning about phonics and spelling in the literacy classroom (pp. 188–197). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Strong, C. (1984). The dynamics of cueing strategy usage in grades two through four. SESA Project Report. ED263527.
Swaffar, J. (1988). Readers, texts, and second languages: The interactive process. Modern Language Journal, 80, 461-477.
Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P., & Suh, S. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories. Discourse process, 12, 1-25.
Walker, B. (1988). Diagnostic teaching of reading: Techniques for instruction and assessment. New York: Macmillan.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for leaner autonomy. New York: Prentice Hall.
Wilde, S. (2000). Miscue analysis made easy: Building on student strengths. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wilson, M. (1983). Developmental patterns of reading proficiency in adult ESL students: Implications for ESL classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Toronto, Ontario.
Wurr, A., Theurer, J., & Kim, K. (2008). Retrospective miscue analysis with proficient adult ESL readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(4), 324-333.
Yorio, C. (1971). Some sources of reading problems for foreign-language learners. Language Learning, 21(1), 107-115.
Zhang, L. J. (2002). Exploring EFL reading as a metacognitive experience: Reader awareness and reading performance. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 65–90.
Zhang, L. J. (2003). Research into Chinese EFL learner strategies: Methods, findings and instructional issues. Regional Language Centre Journal, 34(3), 284-332.
Zhang, L. J. (2008). Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: Exploring pathways to learner development in the English as a second language (ESL) classroom. Instructional Science, 36, 89-11.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊