臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討台灣高中學生於學測英語閱讀測驗中的英文後設認知閱讀策略使用。台灣中部某高中 201 位學生參加本項研究。藉由一份修改自Mokhtari 和 Sheorey(2002)的閱讀策略問卷，以及大學學科能力測驗的閱讀能力測驗為主要研究工具，研究者能回答研究問題。主要的研究發現如下：
1. 台灣高中學生使用英語後設認知閱讀策略的頻率為中等。
2. 就三種英語後設認知閱讀策略而言，高中學生最常使用整體性閱讀策略，接著是支持性策略，而最少使用的是問題解決策略。
3. 英文閱讀能力較高的學生和較低的學生，在後設認知閱讀策略的使用上的確有所不同，特別是在整體性閱讀策略的使用方面更是如此。根據本研究，閱讀能力較高的學生常使用略讀以及尋讀的閱讀策略，相反地，閱讀能力較低的學生常使用翻譯的閱讀策略。
根據以上的結果，研究者建議英語教學者應將策略教學融入於課程中，如此一來可讓學習者意識到閱讀策略的存在，並能立刻做練習，漸漸能成為有策略的讀者，並且能夠掌管自己的閱讀過程。除此之外，教師亦可藉由訓練略讀和尋讀的方式來幫助學生理解文章。最後，學生在翻譯策略的使用上亦應謹慎，以避免過度依賴此項策略。

This study investigates Taiwanese senior high school students’ use of metacognitive reading strategies when taking the college entrance English reading tests. A total 201 participants from a high school in Central Taiwan joined the study. By adopting a modified Survey of Reading Strategy (M-SORS) questionnaire from Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002), and a college entrance English reading test, the researcher was able to answer the research questions of the present study. The major findings are as follows:
1. Taiwanese senior high school students used metacognitive reading strategies at the medium level.
2. Among the three groups of metacognitive reading strategies, senior high school students tended to rely on global reading strategies the most, followed by support strategies, and problem solving strategies.
3. There was a significant difference between high and low reading proficiency learners’ use of metacognitive reading strategies, especially in the use of global reading strategies. According to the present study, skimming and scanning were the most used metacognitive reading strategy by high proficiency students. However, low achievers’ frequent use of the translation method was found.
The findings of this study reaffirm the importance of reading strategy instruction. English teachers are suggested to incorporate the teaching of reading strategies into their curricula to raise students’ awareness, and provide opportunities for hands-on practice. Through reading strategy instruction, students can become strategic readers who are able to successfully govern their reading process. Moreover, English teachers are suggested to train students to skim and scan in order to improve their reading comprehension. Finally, the translation strategy should be used with caution as students may readily become overly dependent on this strategy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES viii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background and Rationale 1
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 5
Significance of the Study 6
Definition of Terms 7

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 9
Language Learning Strategies 9
Classification of Language Learning Strategies 9
Reading and Reading Strategies 13
Metacognition and Metacognitive Strategies 15
Taxonomy of Metacognition 15
Relationship between Metacognition and Reading 18
Metacognitive Reading Strategy 20
Measuring Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use 22
Studies on Learners’ Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use 24
Metacognitive Strategy Use When Taking English Reading Tests 28

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 32
Participants 32
Instruments 33
Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) 33
Pilot Study for Testing the M-SORS 34
English Reading Proficiency Test 35
Piloting English Reading Proficiency Test 36
Data Collection Procedure 37
Data Analysis 38

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 39
Metacognitive Reading Strategies Used by Senior High School Students 40
The Frequency of Use of Overall Metacognitive Reading Strategies 41
The Frequency of Use of Individual Strategies 41
The Frequency of Use of Three Categories of Metacognitive Reading Strategies 44
The Top Ten Most Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies 50
The Ten Least Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies 52
High and Low Reading Proficiency Learners’ Use of Metacognitive Reading Strategies 54
Overall Strategy Use between High and Low Reading Proficiency Students 56
Strategy Category Use between High and Low Reading Proficiency Group 56
Ten Most Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies by High and Low English Reading Proficiency Students 57
Ten Least Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies by High and Low English Reading Proficiency Students 60
Individual Strategies Used Significantly Different by High and Low Reading Proficiency Learners 63
Summary 67

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 68
Major Findings of the Present Study 68
The Frequency in the Use of Metacognitive Reading Strategies and Preference for the Use of Global Reading Strategies 69
The Importance of Skimming and Scanning 70
The Effect of Using Translation 71
Pedagogical Implications 72
The Use of Skimming and Scanning 73
Be Careful About Applying Translation 73
Direct Teaching of Metacognitive Reading Strategies 74
Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Future Research 75
Conclusion 76
REFERENCES 77
APPENDICES 87
Appendix A Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) 87
Appendix B Modified- Survey of Reading Strategy (M-SORS)
89
Appendix C Original SORS 91
Appendix D Modified- Survey of Reading Strategy (M-SORS)
93

REFERENCES
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364-373.
Ahmadi, M. R., Hairul, N. I., & Pourhossein, A. G. (2012). Impacts of learning reading strategy on students’ reading comprehension proficiency. The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 1(1), 78-95.
Ahmadi, M. R., Ismail, H. N., & Abdullah, M. K. K. (2013). The Importance of Metacognitive Reading Strategy Awareness in Reading Comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 235-244.
Almasi, J. F. (2003). Teaching strategic process in reading. New York, NY: Guilford.
Anderson, N. J. (1989). Reading comprehension tests versus academic reading: what are second language readers doing?(Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin).
Anderson, N. J., Bachman, L., Perkins, K., & Cohen, A. (1991). An exploratory study into the construct validity of a reading comprehension test: Triangulation of data sources. Language Testing, 8(1), 41-66.
Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 757-771). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Anderson, N. J. (2008). Metacognition and good language. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 99-109). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Asmawati, A. (2015). The Effectiveness of Skimming–Scanning Strategy in Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension at the Second Grade of SMK Darussalam Makassar. ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning, and Research Journal), 1(1), 69-83.
Auerbach, E. R., & Paxton, D. (1997). It’s not the English thing: Bringing reading strategies into the ESOL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 321–330.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford university press.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr,M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of research in reading (pp. 353- 394). New York, NY: Longman.
Baker, L. (2008). Metacognition in comprehension instruction: What we’ve learned since NRP. In C. C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 65-79). New York, NY: Guilford.
Barnett, M. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 72, 150-162.
Blackowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2008). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent learners (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Gulfport.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463-494.
Cantrell, C. S., & Carter, J. (2009). Relationships among learner characteristics and adolescents’ perceptions about reading strategy use. Reading Psychology, 30, 195–224.
Carrell.P. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-134.
Carrell, P. L., Gajdusek, L., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading. Instructional Science, 26, 97-112. doi:10.1023/A:1003092114195
Chou, M. H. (2013). Strategy use for reading English for general and specific academic purposes in testing and nontesting contexts. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 175-197.
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children's metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of educational psychology, 80(2), 131.
Cohen, A. D. (1984). On taking language tests: What the students report. Language testing, 1(1), 70-81.
Cohen, A. D. (1994). Assessing language ability in the classroom.
Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462-473.
Damankesh, M., & Babaii, E. (2015). The washback effect of Iranian high school final examinations on students’ test-taking and test-preparation strategies. Studies in educational evaluation, 45, 62-69.
Dermitzaki, I., Andreou, G., & Paraskeva, V. (2008). High and low reading comprehension achievers’ strategic behaviors and their relation to per- formance in a reading comprehension situation. Reading Psychology, 29, 471–492.
Dollerup, C., Glahn, E., & Hansen, C. R. (1982). Reading strategies and test-solving techniques in an EFL-reading comprehension test: A preliminary report. Journal of Applied Language Study, 1(1), 93-99.
Eskey, D. E. (2005). Reading in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Book on Second Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 563-579). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Farr, R., Pritchard, R., & Smitten, B. (1990). A description of what happens when an examinee takes a multiple‐choice reading comprehension test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(3), 209-226.
Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. InJ. M. Scandura & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Structural/process theories of complex human behavior (pp. 213-245). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Sijthoff and Noordhoff.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Grabe, W. (2002). Reading in a second language. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 49-59). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Grabe, W. (2004). Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 44-69.
Gredler, G. R. (2002). Snow, CE, Burns, MS, & Griffin, P.(eds.)(1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 432 pp., $35.95.Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 343-344.
Green, S. (2016). Two for one: Using QAR to increase reading comprehension and improve test scores. The Reading Teacher, 70(1), 103-109.
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 179-206). Routledge.
Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2007). Strategic reading awareness of college bilingual students in an EFL learning context. Korea TESOL, 9(1), 27–44.
Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2011). Reading strategy instruction, metacognitive awareness, and self-perception of striving college developmental readers. Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 37, 3-17.
Hong-Nam, K., Levell, A. G., & Maher, S. (2014). The Relationships Among Reported Strategy Use, Metacognitive Awareness, and Reading Achievement of High School Students. Reading Psychology, 35, 762-790. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.807900
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Huff, J. D., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Using strategy instruction and confidence judgments to improve metacognitive monitoring.Metacognition and Learning, 4(2), 161-176.
Israel, S. E. (2007) Using metacognitive assessments to create individualized reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
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. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2203&4_4
Johnston, P. H. (1983). Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis. New Jersey: I. R. A.
Ke, S., & Chan, S. D. (2017). Strategy use in L2 Chinese reading: The effect of L1 background and L2 proficiency. System, 66, 27-38.
Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (Eds.). (2005). Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kletzien, S. B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading research quarterly, 67-86.
Koch, H., & Spörer, N. (2017). Students Improve in Reading Comprehension by Learning How to Teach Reading Strategies. An Evidence-based Approach for Teacher Education. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16(2), 197-211.
Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajšanski, I. (2006). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension in elementary-school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(4), 439.
Malcolm, D. (2009). Reading strategy awareness of Arabic-speaking medical stu- dents studying in English. System, 37, 640–651.
McNeil, J. (1987). Reading Comprehension (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Mermelstein, A. D. (2015). Asian EFL University Students' Preference toward Teaching Approaches. CATESOL Journal, 27(2), 259-279.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing.Language testing, 13(3), 241-256.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive aware- ness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.
Mokhtari, K., Sheorey, R., & Reichard, C. (2008). Measuring the reading strategies of first- and second-language readers. In K. Mokhtari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first- and second-language learners: See how they read (pp. 43-65). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (Eds.). (2008). Reading strategies of first- and second-language learners: See how they read. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
McCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) & W.M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 79-102). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
McDonough, S. H. (1995). Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language. Oxford University Press.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition. Metacognition: Knowing about knowing, 1-25.
O'malley, J. M., O'Malley, M. J., & Chamot, A. U. (1990).Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge university press.
O’Malley, M., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524490
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies. New York, 3.
Papatga, E., & Ersoy, A. (2017). Improving reading comprehension skills through the SCRATCH program. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9(1), 124-150.
Paris, S., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13(1), 5–22.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paris, S., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (vol. 2, pp. 609-640). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C., & Hogaboam, T. (1975). Relationship between single word decoding and reading comprehension skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 461-469.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacog- nitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26–56.
Poole, A. (2009). The relationship of reading proficiency to online strategy use: A study of U.S. college students. Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 35, 3-12.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (2012). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Routledge.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of?.
Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test takers' cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language learning, 47(2), 289-325.
Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high-and low-ability test takers: A structural equation modelling approach. Language Testing, 15(3), 333-379.
Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, D. B. (2004). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys (Vol. 81). John Wiley & Sons.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. Rudell, M. R. Rudell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.) (pp. 864-894). Newark, DA: International Reading Association.
Sasmita, A. (2013). The effectiveness of skimming and scanning training on reading comprehension achievement in English. Jurnal Penelitian, Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 1(12), 34-39.
Schreiber, F. J. (2005). Metacognition and self- regulation in literacy. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan- Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive aware- ness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431–449.
Shih, Y. C., Chern, C. L., & Reynold, B. L. (2018). Bringing Extensive Reading and Reading Strategies into the Taiwanese Junior College Classroom. Reading in a Foreign Language, 30(1), 130-151.
Singhal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive aware- ness and L2 readers. Reading Matrix: An International Online Reading Journal, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/journal.html
Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. (2002). Reconceptualizing reading comprehension. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, &M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction (pp. 17-53). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Taillefer, G. & Pugh, T. (1998). Strategies for professional reading in L1 and L2. Journal of Research in Reading, 21 (2), 96-108.
Taillefer, G. (2005). Foreign Language Reading and Study Abroad: Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic Questions. The Modern Language Journal, 89 (4), 503-528.
Taraban, R., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. S. (2000). Metacognition and Freshman Academic Performance. Journal of Development Education, 24(1), 12-20.
Tsai, Y. R., Ernst, C., & Talley, P. C. (2010). L1 and L2 Strategy Use in Reading Comprehension of Chinese EFL Readers. Reading Psychology, 31 (1), 1-29.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning1. Applied linguistics, 19(4), 515-537.
Winograd, P., & Hare, V. C. (1988). Direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies: The nature of teacher explanation. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment instruction and evaluation (pp. 121-139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zafarani, P., & Kabgani, S. (2014). Summarization strategy training and reading comprehension of Iranian ESP learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1959-1965.
Zhang, L., Goh, C. C., & Kunnan, A. J. (2014). Analysis of test takers’ metacognitive and cognitive strategy use and EFL reading test performance: A multi-sample SEM approach. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), 76-102.
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacog- nitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 37–59.
Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2012). Effects of MST (Metacognitive Strategy Training) on Academic Reading Comprehension of Chinese EFL Students. US-China Foreign Language, 10 (2), 933-943.
Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive Strategy Use and Academic Reading Achievement: Insights from a Chinese Context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 54-69