臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在現今英語教學環境中，國中生較缺乏機會增進寫作能力，且由於升學取向的教學原因，導致英語教學方面過份注重閱讀能力的教導，故此造成學生對於寫作方面的不重視。近年來，合作式學習常被應用於英語教學中，藉此降低學生對學習的焦躁感以及提升其英語能力。本研究旨在探討經由引導閱讀短篇故事及寫作課程，對國中英文讀寫能力的效益。文中亦探究在閱讀及寫作銜接課程中，學生對於英文閱讀、英文寫作、以及英文閱讀與寫作結合的態度和反應。此外，針對此課程中學生單字及轉折語運用能力做進一步的分析。
本研究涵蓋質性及量化的研究，包含以全民英檢試題進行前、後測，閱讀課程中的課堂小考、寫作課程中的三次摘要寫作練習以及問卷調查分析。受試者為台南縣一所國民中學之44位國一學生，根據全民英檢前測，學生被分為高分組及低分組，以利實驗教學進行之比較及分析。本研究的主要發現如下:

1.雖然高分組在全民英檢前測及後測的分數均比低分組高，但是兩組在閱讀及寫作兩方面皆有顯著的進步。
2.在閱讀課程中，課堂小考顯示兩組於閱讀能力以及單字習得皆有顯著進步；在寫作課程中，兩組在單字及轉折語應用，亦有增多的趨勢。
3.在問卷調查方面，學生對於英文引導閱讀及寫作課程皆抱持正面的態度。在引導閱讀方面，低分組比高分組顯示出更高的興趣，而高分組認為與不同程度的同儕討論文章很具挑戰性；在引導寫作方面，高分組對於寫作，閱讀與寫作融合，以及同儕批改課程回應皆比低分組有更高的意願。
4.學生皆認為小組討論可以幫助他們了解文章內容，得到更多寫作靈感，及經由同儕批改的方式，降低學習的焦慮感，進而增進寫作能力。
5.大多數學生喜歡閱讀英文短篇故事，且藉由所學到的文法而能更深入了解故事精髓、產生共鳴、進而提升學習興趣。但是，兩組學生，尤其是低分組，認為文章中的文法及單字對他們來說較難、且需花較多時間理解。

綜上所述，老師可以利用此種教學法，引導學生進入愉快的學習環境，慎選有趣而適合學生程度的故事書，降低學生對閱讀及寫作的恐懼，進而提升國中學生的英文讀寫能力。

Based on the current English curriculum, EFL learners at junior high schools are lack of opportunities to practice their writing skills. The emphasis of reading instruction might cause relatively negative attitudes towards another productive form of English learning�owriting. For years, cooperative learning has been applied in language teaching to promote language abilities of the English learners by lowering their anxiety. The main purpose of the study is to explore the effectiveness of fostering junior high school learners’ L2 literacy through short story reading and guided peer-reviewing writing. Besides, learners’ attitudes towards English reading, writing, and reading-to-writing connection are also investigated. Moreover, the examination on the application of vocabulary and discourse markers was also discussed in this study.
This qualitative-and-quantitative study included an experimental teaching of reading to writing analyzing GEPT pre- and post-tests, class quizzes, and three writing drafts as well as a questionnaire survey. Approximately 44 seventh-graders from a junior high school in Tainan County were involved in the study. For conducting a comparative study, the study subjects were divided into the high-EPL group and the low-EPL group based on the results of GEPT pre-test. The findings of the study were expected to apply in the teaching of English classes at junior high schools to enhance learners’ motivation and L2 literacy in both high-EPL and low-EPL groups. Additionally, peer editing of the writing drafts and group discussion of the chosen reading texts can promote EFL learners’ positive attitudes toward reading-to-writing instruction. Based on the data analyses, the findings of the study were summarized as follows:
1. Although the high-EPL group outperformed the low-EPL group on pre- and post-GEPT tests on reading and writing parts, both groups developed a significant improvement.
2. During the reading process, both high-EPL and low-EPL subjects gained the improvement on reading abilities and vocabulary acquisition, while in the writing process, the two groups increased the amount of using new target words and discourse markers into their drafts to make them more fluent and insightful.
3. Students had positive attitudes toward English guided reading and writing based on the questionnaire. The Low-EPL group revealed much more positive attitudes toward reading instruction. Moreover, the high-EPL group considered it was challenging to discuss with peers of various language proficiency levels. On the contrary, the high-EPL group had higher positive attitudes than the low-EPL group on guided writing, reading-to-writing, and peer-reviewing instruction.
4. The group discussion helped them to interpret the texts, gather more ideas for writing, and improve their writing by peer-reviewing to reduce their anxiety.
5. The majority of the subjects enjoyed reading the short story selected by the instructor because they believe in gaining grammar usage and exploration of the other culture motivating them to interact with the characteristics in the story. However, both groups, especially the low-EPL group, considered the selected material was a little bit difficult for them to comprehend on grammar and lots of vocabularies.
To sum up, the guidance of reading and writing short stories can be regarded as a powerful tool to teaching reading and writing within an EFL classroom as well as to create a pleasant learning atmosphere. Selecting appropriate reading materials might also be a great issue for the instructors to consider precisely.

Abstract (Chinese) i
Abstract (English) ii
Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xi

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Motivation 3
Purpose of the Study 4
Assumptions 5
Research Questions 5
Significance of the Study 7
Limitation of the Study 8
Definition of Terms 9
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 15
Historical Perspectives on Reading and Writing 15
The Concept of Reading 20
Reading Attitudes 20
The Notion of Schema 22
Reading Strategies 23
Bottom-up Reading 26
Top-down Reading 27
Interactive Reading 27
The Concept of Writing 28
Product-based Writing 29
Process- based Writing 30
Teacher and Peer Reviewing 32
Reading and Writing Interaction 37
Related Studies 39
Summary 43
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 45
Subjects 45
Introduction 46
Overview 46
Materials 49
Instruction Procedures 50
Measurements 55
Scoring Criterion 55
Questionnaires 57
GEPT 58
Analyzing the Results 58
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 59
Overview 59
1. EFL Learners’ Improvement on Literacy Abilities of Pre- and Post-GEPT tests 59
RQ-1 59
Discussion 62
2. The Literacy Improvement of High-EPL and Low-EPL Groups on Pre- and Post-
GEPT tests 63
RQ-2 63
Discussion 67
3. The Perspectives on Reading Treatment of the Junior High School Students 68
RQ-3 68
Discussion 74
4. The Perspectives on Writing Treatment of the Junior High School Students 75
RQ-4 75
Discussion 83
5. The Improvement during the Process of Reading and Writing Instruction 83
RQ-5 83
Discussion 92
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS 95
Conclusions 95
Pedagogical Implications 97
Limitations 97
Suggestions 99
REFERENCES 101
APPENDIXES 109
APPENDIX A: Class Schedule 109
APPENDIX B: Target Words 112
APPENDIX C: Discourse Markers 117
APPENDIX D: Analytic Scoring Criterion 119
APPENDIX E: Assignment of Practicing Writing a Summary 120
APPENDIX F: Writing Drafts (One, Two, and Three) 121
APPENDIX G: Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension Quizzes 123
APPENDIX H: Questionnaire 135

Anderson, N. J. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Ajideh, P. (2003) Schema theory-based pre-reading tasks: A neglected essential in the
ESL reading class. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 3(1), Retrieved April 3, 2008, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/ajideh/article.pdf
Baker, W., & Boonkit, K. (2004). Learning strategies in reading and writing: EAP contexts. RELC Journal, 35, 299-328.
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). NY: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Carrell, P. L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? The Language Teacher, 22(3), Retrieved March 29, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/98/mar/carrell.html.
Chang, Y. F. (2007). A comparative study of peer evaluation on English writing between high and low English proficiency high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Chen, D. W. (2001). The identity crisis of EFL composition instruction in Taiwan. Paper
presented at the 18th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei.
Chen, F. (2003). The EFL beginning writers’ perception and metacognitive knowledge of English writing—A study on the freshman at university of science and technology. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Chou, P. Y. (2006). A research on developing young EFL learners’ L2 literacy through task-based reading-to-writing instruction. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chen Kung University, Taiwan.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257-276.
Dechant, E. (1991). Understanding and teaching reading: An interactive model. Hillsdale, NJ: McCormick, Thomas W. 1988. Theories of reading in dialogue: An interdisciplinary study. New York: University Press of America.
Dole, J.A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239-264.
Douglas, B. H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Douglas, B. H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: San Francisco State University.
Eskey, D. (1993). 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). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. Press.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 22-53.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
Gardner, A., & Johnson, D. (1997). Teaching personal experience narrative in the elementary and beyond. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona Writing Project Press.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, K. S. (1970). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In Singer, H. & R. B.Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Goodman, K. (1986). What’s whole in whole language ? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Heath, S. B. (1992). Sociocultural contexts of language development: Implications for the classroom. In P. A. Richard-Amato & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers (pp. 102-125). New York: Longman.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. Modern Language Journal, 80, 287-308.
Hedge, T. (2003). Teaching & learning in the language classroom. UK: OUP.
Hesham, S. A. (2005). Teaching reading comprehension to ESL/EFL learners. The Reading Matrix, 5(2), 63-73.
Huang, C. C. (2003). Senior high school students’ vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. Paper presented at the Twelfth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 391-402), Taipei: Crane.
Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal, 44, 279-285.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Kate, M. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284.
Kern, R. G., & Schultz, J. M. (1992). The effects of composition instruction on intermediate level French students’ writing performance: Some preliminary findings. The Modern Language Journal, 76, 1-13.
Kroll, B. (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lao, C. Y., & Krashen, S. (2000). The impact of popular literature study on literacy development in EFL: More evidence for the power of reading. System, 28(1), 261-270.
Lazarus, B. D., & Callahan, T. (2000). Attitudes toward reading expressed by elementary school students diagnosed with learning disabilities. Reading Psychology, 21, 271-282.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57-68). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lerner, J. (2003). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (9th ed.). NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (2003). Assessment and instruction of reading and writing difficulty: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
McCurdy, P. (1992, March). What students do with composition feedback. Paper presented at the 27th Annual TESOL Convention, Vancouver, B.C.
McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(3), 226-248.
McGowan, S. (1992). Ruskin to McRuskin—Degrees of Interaction. In P. O. Holt & N. Williams (Eds.), Computers and writing: State of arts (pp. 297-318). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Oxford, England.
McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934-956.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). New York, NY: Longman.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 261-276.
Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Heinemann.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. NewYork: Newbury House.
Pappas, C., Kiefer, B., & Levstick, L. (1995). An integrated language perspective in the elementary school theory into action. New York: Longman.
Paran, A. (1996). Reading in EFL: Facts and fictions. ELT Journal, 50(1), 25-34.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Merrill.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in ESL writing classes. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
Ruiz-Funes, M. (1999). The process of reading-to-write used by a skilled Spanish-as-a-foreign-language student: A case study. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 45-62.
Sainsbury, M. (2004). Children’s attitudes to reading. Education Review, 17(2), 49-54.
Scarcella, R., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in thecommunicative classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Shin, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, 20(6), 17-48.
Song, M. (2003). Teaching reading strategies in an ongoing EFL university reading classroom. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ajelt/vol8/art3.htm
Sperling, R. A., & Head, D. M. (2002). Reading attitudes and literacy in prekindergarten and kindergarten children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, 233-236.
Spivey, N. N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading & writing. Written Communication, 7, 256-287.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching students writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217-233.
Su, S. M. (2003, Novemenber). Product-oriented or process-oriented approach toward teaching ESP—In the case of an EFL nursing English course. In Yui-nam Leung (Chair), Curriculum Reform in ELT. Symposium conducted at the 12th International Symposium on English Teaching, Hsinchu.
Taylor, B. (1981). Content and written form: A two-year street. TESOL Quarterly, 15(1), 5-13.
Tsao, C. H. (2004). On the relative effectiveness of the process- and product-oriented approaches to teaching English composition. Journal of Taiwan Normal University, 51(1), 23-39.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, H. L. (2006). Effects of little English books on reading and writing performance of students in elementary school in southern Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Wang, Y. (2000). Children's attitudes toward reading and their literacy development. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 120-125.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2003). The differences between L2 mature and immature writers: A metacognitive approach. In the Proceedings of the Twentieth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 597-609). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2006). A study of EFL writers’ performance of reading-to-writing task. Language Literacy Studies and International Studies: An International Journal, 3, 31-50.
Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 697-715.
Zhang, S. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.