本研究旨在發展適合高中生的小說教學策略，並透過反思教學實踐的歷程，歸納出影響小說教學成效的相關因素，分析小說教學策略對於提升學生國語文能力──閱讀理解、思辨整合、反省探索，兼及促進學生發展語文學習興趣之潛力。研究過程採用行動研究方法，進行教學計畫、實踐、反思的循環。在教學實踐上，以普通高中國語文課本中的三篇小說──〈勞山道士〉、〈虬髯客傳〉、〈孔乙己〉為教材，除了依據文本分析的結果，規畫教學單元的學習重點外，並在整體教學中安排適切的延伸學習活動及評量任務。在教學實施的過程中，資料蒐集的方法以教室觀察、深度訪談為主，同時輔以文件資料，例如：小說學習單、學生實作成品、省思札記。依據學生國語文能力、心智成長的情形，以及他們的學習表現、省思回饋等，反思小說教學策略的實施成效。
研究結果顯示：（一）理解學生的小說學習困難，方能發展出有效的小說教學策略，回應學生的學習需求；（二）小說有其獨特的文體特色，適合透過小說結構要素規畫教學的具體內容，幫助學生有效理解小說情節、認識人物、歸因主題與作者之寫作目的，並分析小說中的寫作技巧；（三）使用高層次、發散性的提問引導學生討論與探索小說中的核心概念、抽象議題，能幫助他們發展出獨立見解並提升思考能力；（四）安排實作任務，提供學生應用與轉化所學的學習經驗，不僅能使學生主動連結小說內容與個人的生活情境、生命經驗、文化脈絡，也能觸發他們產生反省、體悟與改變；（五）使用適切教學媒材，並融入能回應學生文化差異性的教學設計，可以幫助學生領會小說中特殊的文化情境，彌補他們因文化背景不同、先備知識不足所產生的理解落差；（六）最後，透過引導學生回顧自己的小說學習經驗，並進行跨文本比較，歸納簡單的小說通則，能幫助學生整合所學，建立更完整的小說認知體系，進而發展出自己的小說學習策略。
依據研究發現，本研究針對小說教學設計、教學實踐以及未來相關研究三個層面，提出具體建議。希望在學校教育中，真正落實具有連續性的小說教學脈絡，並透過深度研究，持續充實小說教學實務理論之內涵，強化老師實施小說教學的態度與信心，鼓勵發展成長心態，以進一步開展與肯定小說教學在國語文教學中的價值。

This study aims to develop effective novel teaching approaches in senior high school. By reflecting on the process of teaching practice, this study investigates the influential factors affecting the effectiveness of various strategic approaches implemented in novel teaching, and analyzes the potential of novel teaching strategies to the enhancement of student’s Chinese language abilities—such as reading comprehension, integrative thinking, and reflective exploration, as well as to the facilitation of students’ interest in Chinese language arts. By adopting the action research method, a cycling process of planning, acting, and reflecting was executed.
In this study, three novels selected from senior high school Chinese textbook—The Monk in Laoshan, Chiou Ran Ke Juan (Chronicles of the Man with Curly Beard), and Kong Yiji, were applied and examined as the texts for novel teaching practice. In addition to designing the essential learning in each teaching unit based on textual analysis, extended learning activities and assessment tasks were constructed for the overall teaching plan. During teaching practices, methods applied for data collection were classroom observations, intensive interviews, and document references, such as students’ worksheets, project reports, as well as their reflective journals. The effectiveness of novel teaching approaches was evaluated based on students’ demonstration of Chinese language abilities, cognitive development, project performances, and so forth.
The research findings are as follows: (1) Only through understanding students’ learning difficulties can we develop effective novel teaching strategies and respond to students’ learning needs. (2) The novel has its unique stylistic characteristics. Therefore, using structural elements of novel to organize the teaching plan can help students understand plots and characters in the novel, discover the theme of the novel and the author’s central purpose, as well as analyze the embedded literary techniques of the novel. (3) Using higher-order and open questions to guide students’ discussions and explorations of the core concepts and abstractions in the novel can help students develop their personal opinions and enhance their thinking skills. (4) The performance tasks provided with learning experience for the application and transformation of the concepts learned, not only can enable students to proactively link the novel content with their life situation, lived experience, and cultural context, but also can trigger them to reflect, perceive and make changes of their own life. (5) For teaching students with different cultural backgrounds, applying appropriate instructional media and designing culturally responsive projects can help them comprehend the unique cultural context within a novel, and bridge their understanding gaps due to lack of prior knowledge. (6) Finally, by guiding students to review their novel learning experience, to make comparison between different novels, and to generalize basic principles for novel writing, students can integrate what they have learned, establish more comprehensive understanding of novel, and then develop their own novel learning strategies.
Based on the research findings, practical suggestions are addressed for novel teaching design, teaching practices, and future related research. It is hoped that the novel teaching can be continuously implemented in school contexts with more closely in-depth studies that more practical theories of novel teaching can be constructed for enhancing teachers’ attitudes toward and confidence in teaching novels. By so doing, the values of novel teaching in Chinese language arts may be further explored and established.

一、中文文獻
［東漢］班固著，吳榮曾、劉華祝等注譯（2013）。新譯漢書：（四）志（2）。臺北市：三民。
［南宋］朱熹（1996）。四書章句集注──論語集注。臺北巿：大安。
［清］郭慶藩編，王孝魚整理（2007）。莊子集釋。臺北市：萬卷樓圖書。
［清］康有為（1992）。日本書目志。載於姜義華（編校），康有為全集：第三集（頁581-1219）。上海：上海古籍。
大學入學考試中心（無日期）。學科能力測驗統計圖表。取自http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AbilityExam/AbilityExamStat.htm
王芳（2012）。人教版初中語文小說教與學策略研究（碩士論文）。取自http://0-big5.oversea.cnki.net.opac.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?recid=&FileName=1013133485.nh&DbName=CMFD2014&DbCode=CMFD&uid=WEEvREcwSlJHSldRa1Fhb09jSnZnRy9yWmNiQ3lrT3hwYzJZdzN3RnBZaz0=$9A4hF_YAuvQ5obgVAqNKPCYcEjKensW4IQMovwHtwkF4VYPoHbKxJw!!
王更生（1997）。重修增訂國文教學新論。臺北市：文海基金會。
王淑芬（2019）。少年小說怎麼讀？從讀到解讀，到孩子從小說中培養閱讀素養。臺北市：親子天下。
王開府（2008）。心智圖與概念模組在語文閱讀與寫作思考教學之運用。國文學報，43，263-296。
王蒙（1983）。漫談短篇小說的創作。載於彭華生、錢光培（主編），新時期作家談創作（頁347-369）。北京市：人民文學。
王榮生（2005）。語文科課程論基礎。上海市：上海教育。
王夢鷗（1978）。唐人小說研究（第四集）。臺北市：藝文印書館。
王潤華（1992）。魯迅小說新論。臺北市：東大。
王瓊珠（2010）。故事結構教學與分享閱讀（第二版）。臺北市：心理。
方祖燊（1995）。小說結構。臺北市：東大圖書。
皮述民、邱燮友、馬森、楊昌年（2003）。二十世紀中國新文學史。臺北市：駱駝。
卯靜儒（2014）。改革即改變嗎？──教育改革理解路徑之探索。教育學刊，42，1-37。
朱作仁（1993）。朱作仁學科教學研究文存（文集第二卷）。福州市：福建教育。
何文勝（2006）。從能力訓練角度論中國語文課程教材教法。香港：文思。
何炳驊、雲天椿、林志榮（1993）。語文教學系統理論綱要。廣州市：廣東高等教育。
辛意雲（2017）。辛老師的私房國文課：從經典中學習生活智慧。新北市：臺灣商務印書館。
辛意雲（2018a）。辛老師的私房美學課。新北市：臺灣商務印書館。
辛意雲（2018b）。略說文言文的內涵及教學方法。建中學報，24，1-16。
李崇建、甘耀明（2017）。閱讀深動力：從「對話」開啟閱讀，激發出孩子的不凡人生。臺北市：寶瓶文化。
李淑勤（2004）。少年小說教學研究（碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學，高雄市）。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4q3hxw
李喬（2016）。新版小說入門。高雄市：春暉。
余應源（1996）。語文教育學。南昌市：江西教育。
邱于芸（2014）。用故事改變世界：文化脈絡與故事原型。臺北市：遠流。
林永豐（2018）。素養導向教學設計要領。載於周淑卿、吳璧純、林永豐、張景媛、陳美如（主編），素養導向教學設計參考手冊（頁1-4）。臺北市：教育部國民及學前教育署。　
林美禮（2013）。馬來西亞華文獨立中學中文教學模式考察──以公教中學中文課為例（碩士論文）。取自http://0-cnki.sris.com.tw.opac.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?recid=&FileName=1014011766.nh&DbName=CMFD2014&DbCode=CMFD&uid=V0h6dGI1M3Z6RUNtS1hhSkZsZ3V3bUVMS1kzaDJoNlMrWDJCSC9ETWVLdGdrVi9H
吳明隆（2001）。教育行動研究導論：理論與實務。臺北市：五南。
吳芝儀、李奉儒（譯）（2008）。M. Q. Patton著。質性研究與評鑑（Qualitative research & evaluation methods）。嘉義市：濤石文化。
吳敏而（1998）。語文學習百分百。臺北市：天衛文化。
金健人（1988）。小說結構美學。臺北市：木鐸。
周彩雲（2014）。國中國文小說情境教學之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學國文學系研究所，彰化縣。
柯華葳（1993）。語文科的閱讀教學。載於李咏吟（主編），學習心理的應用（頁307-349）。臺北市：心理。
柯華葳（2017）。教出閱讀力。臺北市：親子天下。
洪文東（2000）。師院生典範式思考與敘述式思考之取向方式與表徵特性。屏東師院學報，13，251-280。
倪文尖、朱羽（2005）。重塑小說觀，建構新圖式。載於李海林（主編），語文教育研究大系‧理論卷：1978-2005（頁147-156）。上海：上海教育。
夏丏尊、葉聖陶（2013）。文章講話。北京市：中華書局。
韋志成（2002）。語文學科教育學。武漢市：華中師範大學。
胡根林（2008）。語文科文學課程內容研究（博士論文）。取自http://0-cnki.sris.com.tw.opac.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CDFD&QueryID=4&CurRec=1&dbname=CDFD0911&filename=2009074756.nh&uid=V0F4bjlqSFZVelJXRnRYaWdvRk1YZmY3UDZCYitkVWplYXNMWEpDN1ZwTjg2bG5x
孫伏園（1980）。魯迅先生二三事。湖南省：人民出版社。
唐淑華（2004）。情意教學──故事討論取向。臺北市：心理。
唐淑華（2017）。培養閱讀素養，何必遠求？從設計一本「以學生為主體」的中學課本開始。教科書研究，10（2），1-31。
高語罕（1932）。國文作法。上海市：亞東圖書館。
陳中梅（譯）（2007）。Aristotelēs原著，I. Bekker譯。詩學（Peri Poiētikēs）。臺北市：臺灣商務印書館。
陳文新（2012）。中國小說的譜系與文體形態。北京市：中國社會科學出版社。
陳平原（2003）。中國小說敘事模式的轉變。香港：中文大學。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。
陳惠邦（1998）。教育行動研究。臺北市：師大書苑。
陳滿銘（1998）。國文教學論叢。臺北市：萬卷樓圖書。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱（103年11月28日，臺教授國部字第1030135678A號）。臺北市：作者。
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校──語文領域──國語文（107年1月25日，臺教授國部字第1070007209B號）。臺北市：作者。
許順傑（2017）。高中現代小說閱讀教學策略研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學國文學系研究所，彰化縣。
許榮哲（2015）。小說課2：偷故事的人。臺北市：國語日報。
陸儉明（2007）。語文教學定位應定在哪裡？。語言文字應用，2007年（3），2-5。
張子樟（2014）。少兒文學的閱讀之旅：細讀紐伯瑞大獎小說。臺北市：五南。
張宇田（2003）。推翻一個理論命題，重新構建語文教學。南平師專學報，22（1），61-67。
張玲霞（2006）。國語文別瞎搞。臺北市：新手父母。
張素貞（1986）。細讀現代小說。臺北市：東大圖書。
張偉（2016）。小說教學的核心價值與內容選擇──從現代小說觀和語文核心素養看小說教什麼。語文建設，2016年（1），20-23。
張紫晨（主編）（1991）。中國中學教學百科全書（語文卷）。瀋陽市：瀋陽出版社。
張隆溪（譯）（2008）。P. Hanan著。魯迅小說的技巧（The technique of Lu Hsün’s fiction）。載於王秋桂等（編譯），韓南中國小說論集（頁341-382）。北京市：北京大學。
張錯（2005）。西洋文學術語手冊：文學詮釋舉隅。臺北市：書林。
黃宇（2008）。高職國文古典小說教學研究（碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學，彰化縣）。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/b5nsrr
黃郁倫、鍾啟泉（譯）（2012）。佐藤學著。學習的革命：從教室出發的改革（学校の挑戦―学びの共同体を創る、学力を問い直す―学びのカリキュラムへ、学びから逃走する子どもたち、習熟度別指導の何が問題か）。臺北市：天下雜誌。
黃清泉、蔣松源、譚邦和（1995）。明清小說的藝術世界。臺北市：洪葉文化。
黃淑瑮（2002）。小說教學研究──以高中教材為例（碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學，高雄市）。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/g5t726
黃瑞琴（1996）。質的教育研究方法。臺北市：心理。
黃錫全（2001）。先秦貨幣研究。北京市：中華書局。
黃錦鋐（1984）。中學國文教材教法。臺北市：教育文物。
華林一（譯）（2008）。C. Hamilton著。小說法程（Materials and methods of fiction）。上海市：商務印書館。
程毅中（1990）。唐代小說史話。北京市：文化藝術。
葉千華（2007）。高中古典小說創新教學之研究（碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學，高雄市）。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5k9qq5
葉聖陶（1980）。葉聖陶語文教育論集。北京市：教育科學出版社。
葉嘉瑩（2000）。唐宋詞十七講（上）、（下）。臺北市：桂冠圖書。
葉麗娟（2005）。國中國文小說教學之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學國文學系研究所，彰化縣。
楊亦婷（2014）。國中九年級小說閱讀教學研究──以PISA閱讀素養評量理念為參照（碩士論文）。取自http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/ccd=JKH638/record?r1=4&h1=0
楊昌年（2002）。現代小說。臺北市：三民書局。
楊昌年（2003）。唐傳奇名篇析評。臺北市：里仁。
楊俊鴻（2018）。素養導向課程與教學：理論與實踐。臺北市：臺灣高等教育。
楊義（1993）中國歷朝小說與文化。臺北市：業強。
楊義（2009）中國敘事學（圖文版）。北京市：人民出版社。
甄曉蘭（1995）。合作行動研究—進行教育研究的另一種方式。嘉義師院學報，9，299-318。
甄曉蘭（1999）。從知識論的辯證談課程發展問題－以台灣課程改革為例。載於國立臺灣師範大學教育學系教育部國家講座（主編），教育科學的國際化與本土化（頁589-616）。臺北市：揚智文化。
甄曉蘭（2000）。批判俗民誌及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學研究所（主編），質的研究方法（頁369-393）。高雄市：麗文。
甄曉蘭（2001）。國小教師國語教學信念及相關因素之調查研究。教育研究集刊，7（47），107-132。
甄曉蘭（2003）。課程行動研究—實例與方法解析。臺北市：師大書苑。
甄曉蘭（2004）。課程理論與實務──解構與重建。臺北市：高等教育。
趙友培（1981）。國語文輔導記。臺北市：中國語文通訊研究部。
趙金祁、洪文東（1993）。教育的語言──布魯納對教育的提示。科學教育月刊，162，5-13。
趙鏡中（2000）。以語文能力為中心的教與學。載於教育部臺灣省國民學校教師研習會（主編），九年一貫課程的教與學（頁12-20）。臺北市：教育部臺灣省國民學校教師研習會。
趙鏡中（2016）。語文學習領域的探究與省思。載於吳敏而（主編），提升閱讀力的教與學──趙鏡中先生語文教學論集（頁141-148）。臺北市：萬卷樓圖書。　
廖琇玉（譯）（2014）。T. C. Foster著。教孩子讀懂文學的19堂課（How to read literature like a professor: For kids）。新北市：木馬文化。
劉世劍（1994）。小說概說。高雄市：麗文文化。
劉真口述、胡國台訪問、郭瑋瑋紀錄（1993）。劉真先生訪問紀錄。臺北市：中央研究院近代史研究所。
魯迅（1983）。魯迅論創作。上海市：上海文藝。
魯迅（2001）。中國小說史略。香港：三聯書店。
蔡宜芸（2006）。中等學校小說情境教學研究（碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學，高雄市）。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/pcaank
蔡清田（2000）。教育行動研究。臺北市：五南。
蔡清田（2011）。課程改革中的「素養」（competence）與「知能」（literacy）之差異。教育研究月刊，203，84-96。
蔡清田（2018）。核心素養的課程發展。臺北市：五南。
蔡曉楓、鄭圓鈴、王秀梗、李函香、李怡佩、李鍑倫、…劉怡佳等（2016）。小說學習檔案。臺北市：國家教育研究院。
鄭圓鈴（2013a）。有效閱讀：閱讀理解，如何學？怎麼教？。臺北市：天下雜誌。
鄭圓鈴（2013b）。國中國語文有效閱讀教學的課堂實踐——建構式學習單的製作與使用。中等教育，64（3），92-108。
鄭圓鈴（2018）。大考國文誰不怕。臺北市：五南。
鄭燕芝（2007）。小說教學目標的確立與高效課堂的構建。語文教學與研究，7，38-39。
潘慧玲（2003）。教育研究的取徑：概念與應用。臺北市：高等教育。
薛珽懋（2012）。台灣現代小說教學研究──以中學教材為例（碩士論文，國立臺南大學，臺南市）。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/hs4e97
魏飴（1999）。小說鑑賞入門。臺北市：萬卷樓圖書。
鍾嶺崇、林偉業（2011）。說話評估與學習。載於岑紹基、羅燕琴、林偉業、鍾嶺崇等（編著），香港中國語文課程新路向（頁119-134）。香港：香港大學。
鍾德饋（2005）。在反芻的基礎上培養遷移能力──語文反芻式單元教學法實驗研究。載於謝錫金、吳惟粵（主編），中國語文新課程研究及校本教學優秀案例（頁162-181）。廣州市：廣東高等教育。
羅敬之（1986）。蒲松齡及其聊齋志異。臺北市：國立編譯館。
羅盤（1990）。小說創作論。臺北市：東大圖書。

二、英文文獻
Adler, M. J., & Van Doren, C. (1972). How to read a book. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Airasian, P. W. (1991). Perspectives on measurement instruction. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 13-16, 26.
Almasi, J. F. (1996). A new view of discussion. In L. B. Gambrell & J. F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions! Fostering engaged reading (pp. 2-24). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s educational objectives. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Banks, J. A. (1991). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Baumann, J. F., & Bergeron, B. S. (1993). Story map instruction using children’s literature: Effects on first graders’ comprehension of central narrative elements. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(4), 407-437.
Baumann, J. F., & Stevenson, J. A. (1986). Teaching students to comprehend anaphoric relations. In J. W. Irwin (Ed.), Understanding and teaching cohesion comprehension (pp. 95-124). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Benton, M., & Fox, G. (1985). Teaching literature: Nine to fourteen. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. HandbookⅠ: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Boulineau, T., Fore ,C., III, Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2004). Use of story-mapping to increase the story-grammar text comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(2) , 105-121.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61-100.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Byrnes, J. P. (1966). Cognitive development and learning in instructional contexts. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Campbell, H. K. (2007). Less is more: Teaching literature with short texts—grades 6-12. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Carter, R. A., & Long, M. N. (1991). Teaching literature. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development. New York, NY : Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Cormier, S. M., & Hagman, J. D. (Eds.). (1987). Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and applications. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Cuban, L. (1990) Reforming again, again, and again. Education Researcher, 19(1), 3-13.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Enter the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dimino, J. A., Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Blake, G. (1990). Story grammar: An approach for promoting at-risk secondary students’ comprehension of literature. Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 19-32.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London, UK: Croom Helm.
Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Erickson, H. L. (1995). Stirring the head, heart, and soul: Redefining curriculum and instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Erickson, H. L. (2007). Concept-based curriculum and instruction for the thinking classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Erickson, H. L. (2008). Stirring the head, heart, and soul: Redefining curriculum, instruction, and concept-based learning (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Erickson, H. L., Lanning, L. A., & French, R. (2017). Concept‐based curriculum and instruction for the thinking classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Estes, T. H., Mintz, S. L., & Gunter, M. A. (2011). Instruction: a models approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Farrel, E. J. (1991). Instructional models for English language arts, K-12. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 63-84). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible learning for literacy, grades K-12: Implementing the practices that work best to accelerate student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2009). In a reading state of mind: Brain research, teacher modeling, and comprehension instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Fisher, R. (1990). Teaching children to think. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers: teaching comprehension, genre, and content literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Seabury Press.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Gall, M. (1984). Synthesis of research on teachers’ questioning. Educational Leadership, 42(3), 40-47.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6 (4), 126-135.
Goodman, K. S. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. In F. Gollasch (Ed.), Language and literacy: The selected writings of Kenneth Goodman Vol. Ⅰ (pp.123-134). Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gottsdanker-Willekens, A. E. (1986). Anaphoric reference instruction: Current instructional practices. In J. W. Irwin (Ed.) Understanding and teaching cohesion comprehension (pp. 83-94). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relationships in narrative and expository text? In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 17-43). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Gray, W. S. (1960). The major aspects of reading. In H. M. Robinson (Ed.), Sequential development of reading abilities (pp. 8-24). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Greeno, J. G., Smith, D. R., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In D. Detterman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99-167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hamilton, C. (1918). Materials and methods of fiction (revised and enlarged). London, UK: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Handal, G., & Lauvas, P. (1987). Promoting reflective teaching. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Hare, V. C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 62-78.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding and engagement. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Huang, Z. (1991). A meta-analysis of student self-questioning strategies. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hofstra University, New York, NY.
Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Irwin, J. W. (1982). Coherence factors in children’s textbooks. Reading Psychology, 4, 11-23.
Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.
Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing.
Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension strategy instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & R. Nixon (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer.
Kennedy, X. J., & Gioil, D. (2005). Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, and Drama. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kissner, E. (2006). Summarizing, paraphrasing, and retelling: skills for better reading, writing, and test taking. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lanning, L. A. (2013). Designing a concept-based curriculum for English language arts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Lazar, G. (2008). Literature and language teaching: a guide for teachers and trainers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2 (4), 34-46.
Lukens, R. J., & Cline, R. K. J. (1995). A critical handbook of literature for young adults. New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Mandel, B. J. (Ed.). (1980). Three language-arts curriculum models: Pre-kindergarten through college. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 111-151.
Marini, A., & Genereux, R. (1995). The challenge of teaching for transfer. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 1-19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. P. (2013). Essential questions: opening doors to student understanding. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Morner, K., & Rausch, R. (1991). NTC’s dictionary of literary terms. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Morrow, L. M. (1984). Reading stories to young children: Effects of story structure and traditional questioning strategies on comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 273–288.
Nuttall, C. (2005). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Education.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris, France: Author.
Owen, S. (1996). The end of the Chinese ‘Middle ages’: Essays in Mid-Tang literary culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Peterson, R., & Eeds, M. (2007). Grand conversations: literature groups in action. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Pellegrino, J. W. (2017). Teaching, learning and assessing 21st century skill. In S. Guerriero (Ed.), Pedagogical knowledge and the changing nature of the teaching profession (pp. 223-252). Paris, France: OECD.
Protherough, R. (1986). Teaching literature for examinations. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Popkewitz, T. S. (1982). Educational reform as the organization of ritual: stability as change. Journal of Education, 164(1), 5-29.
Purves, A. C., Rogers, T., & Soter, A. O. (1990). How porcupines make love Ⅱ: Teaching a response-centered literature curriculum. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question-answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516-522.
Raphael, T. E., Highfield, K., & Au, K. H. (2006). QAR now: A powerful and practical framework that develops comprehension and higher-level thinking in all students. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Redfield, D. L., & Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(2), 237-245.
Robinson, H. M. (1966). The major aspects of reading. In H. A. Robinson (Ed.), Reading: Seventy-five years of progress (pp. 22-32). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1991). Literary theory. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 57-62). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Make just one change: Teach students to ask their own questions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Royer, J. M. (1979). Theories of the transfer of learning. Educational Psychologist, 14 (1), 53-69.
Salomon, G, & Perkins, D. N. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22-32.
Salomon, G, & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113-142.
Shanahan,T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: IES practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Showalter, E. (2003). Teaching literature. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
Simmons, J. S., & Deluzain, H. E. (1992). Teaching literature in middle and secondary grades. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Stoodt, B. D. (1981). Reading instruction. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taba, H. (1966). Teaching strategies and cognitive functioning in elementary school children (Cooperative research project). Washington, DC: Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State College.
Taylor, K. K. (1983). Can college students summarize? Journal of Reading, 26(6), 524-528.
Valette, R. M., & Disick, R. S. (1972). Modern language performance objectives and individualization: A Handbook. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Vierra, A., Pollock, J., & Golez, F. (1998). Reading educational research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thoght and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concepts of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45-65). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design ( expanded 2nd edition). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Williams, J. P. (1973). Learning to read: A review of theories and models. Reading Research Quarterly, 8(2), 121-146.
Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic differences in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(4), 404-425.
Wood, Margo. (1994). Essentialss of classroom teaching: elementary language arts. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Zeichner, K. (2001). Educational action research. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 271-283). London, UK: Sage.