跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.9.172) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/10 11:13
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:梁嘉蔆
研究生(外文):Jia-Ling Liang
論文名稱:交互教學法對國小六年級學生英語閱讀策略與閱讀理解之研究
論文名稱(外文):The Study of Reciprocal Teaching on the Sixth Graders’Reading Comprehension Strategies and Comprehension Ability
指導教授:許炳煌許炳煌引用關係
口試委員:林怡弟楊志強
口試日期:2014-01-23
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:2014
畢業學年度:102
語文別:中文
論文頁數:147
中文關鍵詞:交互教學法閱讀理解閱讀理解策略教學閱讀策略使用
外文關鍵詞:Reciprocal Teaching,reading comprehension,readingcomprehensions strategy instruction,reading strategy use
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:14
  • 點閱點閱:480
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:9
摘要

本研究旨在探討交互教學法對國小六年級不同英語閱讀能力學生的英語閱讀理解與策略使用的影響。本研究以台北市信義區某國小112名學童為研究對象,依劍橋兒童英語認證測驗前測成績依分數高低將學生分為高、中、低三個族群。成績位於前27%分為高分組,後27%分為低分組,其餘為中分組。在為期14週每週一節之實驗教學過程中,研究對象中56名學童為實驗組,採交互教學法進行閱讀教學;56名學童為控制組,採實施傳統字義與文法講述法進行閱讀教學。
本研究採量化方式進行。實驗教學前,施以劍橋兒童英語認證Mover級讀寫前測測驗,以測量學生之英語閱讀理解能力;並施以英語閱讀策略使用前測問卷,以測量學生之英語閱讀策略使用能力。實驗教學後再施以劍橋兒童英語認證Mover級讀寫後測測驗與英語閱讀策略使用後測問卷。
研究結果顯示交互教學法的閱讀教學,對中、低成就學生之閱讀理解能力有顯著影響。在閱讀策略使用方面,交互教學法的閱讀教學則對高、中、低成就學生均有顯著影響。而傳統字義與文法講述法的閱讀教學,對低成就學生的閱讀理解也有顯著影響,但對中高成就學生則無。在閱讀策略使用上,傳統字義與文法講述法的閱讀教學對高、中、低成就學生均無顯著影響。根據研究結果,建議國小六年級以上可將交互教學法列入英語閱讀教學的課程中,配合台北市六年級英語加課,進行每週一節之英語閱讀教學。



關鍵字:交互教學法、閱讀理解、閱讀理解策略教學、閱讀策略使用

Abstract
This studied aimed to investigate the effect of Reciprocal Teaching on six graders’ English reading comprehension and comprehension strategies use. The participants were 112 students from Taipei City. They were divided into high, intermediated and low level group of English reading comprehension according to the scores of the pre reading comprehension test.
During the 14 weeks experiment course, the experiment group received reading strategy instruction of Reciprocal Teaching and the control group received reading instruction of vocabulary and grammar translation teaching. Both of them took areading strategy questionnaire and a reading comprehension test at the beginning and at the end of the instruction to find the changes in both the questionnaire responses and reading test scores.
The findings indicated that Reciprocal Teaching had significantly positive effects on the reading comprehension performance of the intermediated and low level groups.As for the reading strategy use, Reciprocal Teaching had significantly positive effects on the high,intermediated and low level groups.As for the control group, the vocabulary and grammar translation instructionalso had significant impact on the low level students. However,there were no significant changes of scores of reading test for the high and intermediated level students in the control group. As for the reading strategy use,the vocabulary and grammar translation instruction had no significant effects on the high, intermediated and low reading level students.



Keywords: Reciprocal Teaching, reading comprehension,
readingcomprehensions strategy instruction, reading strategy use

目次
摘要………………………………………………………………………………......i
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………iii
目次…………………………………………………………………………………..v
附錄………………………………………………………………………………….vii
表次………………………………………………………………………….…….…ix
圖次…………………………………………………………………….………….....xi
第一章緒論…………………………………………………………………………..1
第一節研究背景與動機…………………………………………….……........1
第二節研究目的與問題……………………………………………………….4
第三節名詞解釋 ……………………………………………………………...5
第二章文獻探討……………………………………………………………..……..7
第一節閱讀理解模式………………………………………….……… …......7
第二節閱讀理解策略……………………………………….…..………........11
第三節閱讀理解策略教學…………………………………………..…….….19
第四節交互教學法……………………………………..…………...………..28
第五節交互教學法之相關研究………………………………..…….............37
第三章研究方法……………………………………………………………………49
第一節研究設計……………………………………………………………………49
第二節研究對象……………………………………………………….…………50
第三節研究工具…………………………………………………………………51
第四節研究步驟…………………………………………………………………62
第五節實驗教學設計……………………………………………………………66
第六節資料處理與分析…………………………………………………………76
第四章研究結果與討論…………………………………………………….……79
第一節英語閱讀理解前、後測分析結果…………………………………....80
第二節英語閱讀策略使用前、後測分析結果.................................90
第三節分析與討論………………………………………………………...100
第五章結論與建議…………………………………………………………..105
第一節結論……………………………………………………………………......106
  第二節對閱讀策略教學的建議………………………….…….…….108
  第三節 研究限制與後續研究建議………………………………...110
參考文獻…………………………………………………………………..……….113
一、 中文部分……………………………………………………………….113
二、英文部分……………………………………………………………….115

參 考 文 獻
一、 中文部分
王靜儀 (2004)。交互教學法增進國中生英語閱讀能力及後設認知之效應。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
林佳蓉 (2008)。合作學習融入國小英語教學對五年級學童閱讀能力之影響。國立臺北市教育大學兒童英語教育學系英語教學碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
林思燕 (2006) 。交互教學法對台灣國中生英語閱讀能力與後設認知之效益。國立政治大學英語教育學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
林進財 (2008)。教學原理。臺北:五南。
周筱婷 (2008)。交互教學法在閱讀理解及策略使用成效之研究:以台灣國中生為例。國立彰化師範大學英語學系碩士論文,未出版,彰化市。
柯華葳 (2008)。教出閱讀力。臺北:天下。
柯華葳、幸曼玲、陸怡琮、辜玉旻 (2010)。閱讀策略教學手冊。臺北:教育部。
胡美娥 (2008)。運用交互教學法對於提升國小五年級學生英語閱讀理解策略學習及英語閱讀態度之行動研究。國立臺北教育大學兒童英語教育學系英語教學碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
陳美靜、朱淑芬 (2005)。為孩子開啟學習之窗-以教科書課文內容為介入方案之閱讀理解策略教學研究。教育部九十四年度行動研究成果報告,未出版,臺北市。
教育部 (2008)。九年一貫英語課程綱要。臺北:作者。
張春興 (1989)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北:東華。
黃政傑 (1996)。創思與合作的教學法。臺北:師大書苑。
黃政傑、林佩璇 (1996)。合作學習。臺北:五南
曾鈺惠 (2009) 。後設認知閱讀策略訓練對國中生英語閱讀理解及態度的效益研究。國立政治大學英語教學碩士在職專班碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
劉瑾珊 (2008)。後設認知策略於學習障礙學生閱讀理解教學上之應用。雲嘉特教,7,66-74。
戴維揚 (2007)。就典範轉移論辯認知與後設認知的教學策略與評量機制。中等教育,58(6),86-115。
蘇宜芬、林清山 (1992)。後設認知訓練課程對國小低閱讀能力學生的閱讀理解能力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學系教育心理學報,25,245-267。




















二、英文部分
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
Beard, R. (2003 ). Uncovering the key skills of reading. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp.199-208). London, UK: SAGE.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehensive strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(3), 463-494.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carrell, L. G., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading. Instructional Science, 26, 97–112.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Choo, T., Eng, T., & Ahmad, N. (2011). Effects of reciprocal teaching strategies on reading comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 140-149.
Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learner, teachers, and researcher. New York:Newbury House
Dole, J. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction, In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp.347-372). New York:Routledge.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: IRA.
Fan, Y. (2010). The effect of comprehension strategy instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Asia Social Science, 6(8), 19-29.
Farivar, S. H. (1985). Developing and implementing a cooperative learning program in a middle elementary classroom. Disseration Abstracts Internation, 46, no.1823, 6-10.
Gagn’e, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of Reading Specialist, 6, 126-35.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavanaugh & J. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye (pp. 331–358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gough, P. B. (1991). The complexity of reading. In R. R. Hoffman & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectives (pp.141-152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.
Guthrie, J. T. (2003). Concept-oriented reading instruction: Practices of teaching reading for understanding. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp.115-140). New York: The Guilford Press.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403-423.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3/4), 255-278.
Jason, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Becon.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An Index of Factorial Simplicity, Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using collaborative strategic reading. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(6), 32-37.
Koda, K. (2004). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge university press.
Lai, Y., Tung, Y., & Luo, S.(2008) Theory of Reading Strategies and its Application by EFL Learners: Reflections on Two Case Studies. Journal of Lunghwa University of Science and Technology, 26, 153-167
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 261-276.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and it’s implication for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, I (2), 117-175.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1987, April). Collaborating for collaborative learning of text comprehension. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportivecontexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 211-225.
Palincsar, A. S. (2003). Collaborative approaches. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp.99-114). New York: The Guilford Press.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 239-316.
Pars, S., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulations for learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89-101.
Person, P. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp.3-31). New York: Routledge.
Pressley, M., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 513-555.
Raphale, T. E., George, M., Weber, C. M., & Nies, A. (2009). Approaches to Teaching Reading Comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 449-469). New York: Routledge.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1985). Toward an interactive model of reading. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed.)(pp. 722-750). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1), 1-17.
Shiraki, S. (1995). The role of local reading strategies in EFL reading comprehension. Memoirs of Osaka Kyoiku University Ser.V, 44(1), 157-166.
Snow, C. E., & Sweet, A. P. (2003). Reading for comprehension. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp.1-11). New York: The Guilford Press.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
Stoodt, B. D. (1989). Reading Instruction (2nd ed). New York: Harper & Row.
Taraban, R., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. S. (2000). Metacognition and freshman academic performance. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(1), 12-20.
Verdugo, D. R. (2004). Cognitive reading instruction for FL learners of technical English. In M. Singhal & Liontas, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Online Conference on Second and Foreign Language Teaching and Research - September 25-26, 2004- Beyond Borders (pp. 91-106). Retrieved December 21, 2012, from
http://www.readingmatrix.com/onlineconference/proceedings2004.h tml.
Wichadee, S. (2011).The effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL Thai students’ reading comprehension ability. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(5), 31-40.
Yuko, I. (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies: Pedagogical implications for EFL/ESL teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150-159.
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.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top