本研究主要在探究以「質疑作者法」教學對國中生英文閱讀後內容回憶、推論及理解的影響。實驗對象為台北市某國中九年級兩班共62名學生。其中一班31名學生為實驗組接受「質疑作者法」閱讀訓練，而另一班31名學生為對照組仍為傳統教師講述上課方式。
「質疑作者法」是一教學策略，強調多鼓勵讀者深入文章內容，並建構自己想法。教師在課堂討論中用問題引導重要訊息、處理困惑意見、接受深層思考以及示範思考過程。學生由於有較多機會參與意見交流，學會如何理解多又好。
教學訓練每週兩節持續五週。訓練前一週和訓練後一週以閱讀後內容回憶和簡答題，測量參與實驗者的閱讀理解能力。內容回憶用來評估質詢作者訓練在故事記憶，和三個推論層次(文本推論、讀者推論、錯誤推論)的效力。簡答題作為了解學生回答事實、詮釋、和回應三種問題在訓練後的效力。除此之外，實驗組作完一份問卷，以了解學生對此訓練之觀感。
本研究結論為：第一、在讀後回憶上，兩組並無顯著差別，實驗組沒有比對照組產生更多回憶。「質疑作者法」無法增加實驗組記憶閱讀內容的數量。第二、實驗組在衍生讀者推論上有顯著差異，此組產生較多讀者推論。「質疑作者法」有效地增加實驗組閱讀時進行以讀者為主推論的潛力。第三、實驗組於回答詮釋類問題時，表現優於對照組。此方法促進讀者對文章意義的掌握。第四、實驗組對此訓練抱持正向態度，表示此課程創造更多師生互動，及學生主動學習機會，學生期待未來有更多此類課程。
本文依據研究結果，建議將「質疑作者法」納入台灣英語教學課堂予以運用。有別以往偏向傳統單向講授法，此方法有助於引導台灣英語學習者英語閱讀時，融入個別想法或背景知識，不侷限文章框架，能建構個人意義，甚至更進一步培養具有獨立思考能力、熱愛閱讀的終生學習者。

The study aims to investigate the effects of Questioning the Author on the reading comprehension of junior high school students in Taiwan. The participants were sixty-two ninth graders from two classes in one junior high school in Taipei city. One class consisting of thirty-one students formed an experimental group, receiving the Questioning the Author training while the other class, comprised of thirty-one students, was a control group provided with the traditional teacher-lecture lesson.
“Questioning the Author” is a teaching strategy that encourages readers to engage with the text and construct their own ideas. Teachers use queries to highlight important information, deal with confusing ideas, invite deep thinking and model thinking process in a classroom discussion. With more idea-sharing, students learn to understand and comprehend better.
The training period of Questioning the Author lasted for five weeks. Each group was presented two classes per week. “Written recall” and “Short-answer comprehension questions” were used as measures one week before and after the intervention to detect participants’ reading comprehension. “Written recall” was used to see how well subjects could retell the story and how many inferences they drew while reading. “Short-answer comprehension questions” was employed to find whether Questioning the Author was beneficial for subjects to answer factual, interpretive or responsive questions. ANCOVA analyses were applied to observe the effect on recall, inference generation and three types of questions. The Experimental Group took a questionnaire to trace their perception toward the training.
The results of the study were: (1) there was no significant difference on participants’ written recall. The Experimental Group did not recall more than the Control Group; (2) concerning reader-based inference, the Experimental Group reached a significant difference. The Questioning the Author lesson was helpful in making more reader-based inferences; (3) regarding interpretive questions, a significant difference was found between the Experimental Group and the Control Group, though there was no difference in factual and responsive questions; (4) the Experimental Group expressed positive attitudes toward the training and desired more Questioning the Author lessons. Based on the findings, it is suggested that Questioning the Author, different from the traditional method, can be applied in Taiwan English-learning classrooms to lead EFL learners in Taiwan to construct meaning of the text by incorporating personal thinking or background knowledge and further to develop avid lifelong readers with independent thinking ability.

Agnes, M. (Ed.). (2000). Webster’s new world college dictionary (4th ed.).
Foster City, CA: IDG Books Worldwide, Inc.
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Almasi, J. F. (2003). Teaching strategies processes in reading. New York, NY: the Guildford Press.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 255-291). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Applegate, M. D., Quinn, K. B., & Applegate, A. J. (2002). Levels of thinking required by comprehension questions in informal reading inventories. The Reading Teacher, 56(2), 174-180.
Baker, L., Dreher, M. J., & Guthrie, J. T. (2000). Why teachers should promote reading engagement. In L. Baker, M. J. Dreher, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: the Guildford Press.
Barrett, T. (1976). Taxonomy of reading comprehension. In R. Smith and T. Barrett (Eds.), Teaching reading in the middle grades. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. A. (1998). Evidence for mental models: How do prior knowledge, syntactic complexity, and reading topic affect inference generation in a recall task for nonnative readers of Spanish? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 176-193.
Baumann, J. F., & Ivey, G. (1997). Delicate balances: Striving for curricular and instructional equilibrium in a second-grade, literature/strategy-based classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(3), 244-275.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Inviting students into the pursuit of meaning.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 225-241.
Beck. I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2002). Questioning the author: Making sense of social studies. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 44-48.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text, Newark, DL: International Reading Association.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., McCaslin, E. S., & Burkes, A. M. (1979). Instructional dimensions that may affect reading comprehension: Examples from two commercial reading programs (LRDC Publication 1979/20). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
Beck, I. L. McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 385-414.
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: the Guilford Press.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Brantmeier, C. (2005). Effects of reader’s knowledge, text type, and test type on L1 and L2 reading comprehension in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 37-53.
Brisbois, J. E. (1992). Do first language writing and second language reading equal second language reading comprehension? An assessment dilemma. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference. (EDIC Document Reproduction Service No. 354499)
Cairney, T. H. (1990). Teaching reading comprehension: Meaning makes at work. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.
Carrell, P. L. (1992). Awareness of text structure: Effects on recall. Language Learning, 42(1), 1-20.
Chang, C. (2002). The reader effect (instruction/awareness of text structure) and text effect (well-structured vs. bad-structured texts) on first and second/foreign language reading comprehension and recall—What does research teach us? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465180)
Chu, H. J., Swaffar, J., & Charney, D. H. (2002). Cultural representations of rhetorical conventions: the effects on reading recall. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 511-541.
Chu, H. (2002). Inference generation in L2 text memory: Effects of rhetorical convention, content familiarity, and grade level. English Teaching and Learning, 26(3), 59-78.
Danks, J. H., & End. L. J. (1987). Processing strategies for reading and listening. In R. Horowitz and S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehension oral and written language (pp. 271-294). Academic Press.
Denis, R., & Moldof, E. (1983). A handbook on interpretive reading and discussion. Chicago: The Great Books Foundation.
Dillon, J. T. (1982). The multidisciplinary study of questioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2).
Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teaching: A manual of practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
DuBravac, S., & Dalle, M. (2002). Reader question formation as a tool for measuring comprehension: narrative and expository textual inferences in a second language. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(2), 217-231.
Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observation reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481-533.
Fielding, L. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62-67.
Flippo, R. F. (1997). Reading assessment and instruction. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Frantzen, D. (2003). Factors affecting how second language Spanish students derive meaning from context. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 168-199.
Fry, E. B., Kress, J. E., & Fountoukidis, D. L. (2000). The reading teacher’s book of lists (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Galda, L., Cullinan, B. E., & Strickland, D. S. (1993). Language, literacy, and the child. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Gambrell, L. B, Block, C. C, & Pressley, M. (2002). Improving comprehension instruction: An urgent priority. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 3-16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gauthier, L. R. (2000). The role of questioning: Beyond comprehension’s front door. Reading Horizons, 40(4). 239-252.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1999). Intentions in the experience of meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2001). Authorial intentions in text understanding. Discourse Processes, 32(1), 73-80.
Gorder, B. L. V. (2003). When less is more: Questioning the text as a strategy for reading success. Voices from the Middle, 11(1), 35-37.
Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Hu, X. (2002). Improving comprehension through discourse processing. New directions for teaching and learning, 89, 33-44.
Gray, W. S. (1960). The major aspects of reading. In H. Robinson (Ed.), Sequential development of reading abilities (Vol. 90, pp. 8-24). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Griggs, M. C., Danne, Y. J., & Campbell, J. R. (2003). The nation’s report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Hammadou, J. (1991). Interrelationships among prior knowledge, inference, and language proficiency in foreign language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 27-38.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Heilman, A. W., Blair, T. R., & Rupley, W. H. (1994). Principles and practices of teaching reading (8th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1976). Aims of interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1987). Cultural literacy: what every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hill, C., & Parry, K. (1994). Models of literacy: the nature of reading tests. In C. Hill & K. Parry (Eds.), From testing to assessment. New York, NY: Longman.
Huang, S. C. (2004). The effect of a reading & writing approach to EFL instruction on students’ motivation. Unpublished master’s thesis, NTNU, Taipei.
Huang, S. J. (2004). Effects of attention-oriented pre-reading materials on situational EAP reading motivation and analysis of learner preference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, NTNU, Taipei.
Hyman, R. T. (1982). Questioning for improved reading. Educational Leadership, 40(1), 307-309.
Indian fables. Available: http://www.omcetrum.cz/cesky/baiky/anglicke/
oo_bajky_ang.htm. Retrieved on December 4th, 2004.
Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension theory as a guide for the design of thoughtful questions. Top Lang Disorders, 25(1), 51-64.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271-300.
Lee, J. F. (1986). On the use of the recall task to measure L2 reading comprehension. Studies of Second Language Acquisition. 8, 201-212.
Lewin, L. (2004). Talking back to authors. Educational Leadership, 62(2). 58-63.
McDaniel, C. (2004). Critical literacy: a questioning stance and the possibility for change. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 472-481.
McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Transforming knowledge into professional development resources: Six teachers implement a model of teaching for understanding text. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 391-408.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Worthy, M. J. (1993). Grappling with text ideas: Questioning the author. The Reading Teacher, 46(7), 560-566.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Hamilton, R., & Kucan, L. (1999). “Questioning the Author” accessibles: Easy access resources for classroom challenges. Bothell, WA: Wright Group.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1-43.
Mills, H., Stephens, D., O’Keefe, T., & Waugh, J. R. (2004). Theory in practice: The legacy of Louise Rosenblatt. Language Arts. 82, 47-55.
Ministry of Education. (2003). Nine-year curriculum guidelines for elementary and junior high schools: Language domain.
Morrow, L. M. (1992). The impact of a literature-based program on literacy achievement, use of literature, and attitudes of children from minority backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(3), 251-275.
Morrow, L. M., & Gambrell, L. B. (2000). Literature-based reading instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, R. Barr. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (Vol. 3, pp. 563-586). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Publishers.
Morrow, L. M., Pressley, M., Smith, J. K., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 54-76.
Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based Processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52(2), 439-481.
Ogle, D., & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2002). Beyond literature circles: Helping students comprehend informational texts. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practice (pp.259-274). New York, NY: the Guildford Press.
Olivier, D. (1999). Aesop’s fables. (Rev. ed.). Taipei: Cavesbooks.
Palincsar, A. S. (2003). Collaborative approaches to comprehension instruction. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 99-114). New York, NY: the Guilford Press.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulated comprehension. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (pp. 35-71). New York: JAI Press.
Pearson, P. D. (1985). Changing the face of reading comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 38(8), 724-738.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1996). Comprehension instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (Vol. 2, pp. 815-860). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York, NY: Holt. Rinehart, & Winston.
Penticoff, J. (2002). A personal journey through the mosaic of thought. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(7), 634-640.
Pressley, M. (1998). Comprehension strategies instruction. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning. New York, NY: the Guilford Press.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., & Wharton-McDonald, R. (2002). The need for increased comprehension instruction. In M. Pressley (Eds.) Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (2nd ed., pp. 236-288). New York, NY: the Guilford Press.
Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (2nd ed.). New York, NY: the Guilford Press.
Raphael, T. (1986). Teaching question-answer relationships. The Reading Teacher, 39, 516-520.
Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1982). The effect of metacognitive awareness training on children’s question-answering behavior (Tech. Rep.No. 238). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading, March.
Raphael, T. E., Wonnnacut, C. A., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). Increasing students’ sensitivity to sources of information: An instruction study in question-answering relationships (Tech. Rep. No. 284). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading, July.
Robinson, R. D. (Ed.). (2005). Readings in reading instruction: Its history, theory, and development. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1983). Literature as exploration (4th ed.). New York: the Modern Language Association of America.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1993). The transactional theory: Against dualisms. College English, 55, 377-386.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (2005). From literature as exploration and the reader, the text, the poem. Voices from the Middle, 12(3), 25-30.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530.
Rubin, D. (1993). A practical approach to teaching reading (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: A Division of Simon & Schuster.
Salinger, T., & Fleischman, S. (2005). Teaching students to interact with text. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 90-92.
Sandora, C., Beck. I., & McKeown. M. (1999). A comparison of two discussion strategies on students’ comprehension and interpretation of complex literature. Journal of Reading Psychology. 20, 177-212.
Selley, N. (1999). The art of constructivist teaching in the primary school: A guide for students and teachers. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Smith, N. B. (1963). Reading instruction for today’s children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Swaffar, J., Arens, K., & Byrnes, H. (1991). Reading for meaning: An integrated approach to language learning. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York, NY: the Guilford Press.
Tierney, R. J., Readence, J. E., & Dishner, E. K. (1990). Reading strategies and practices: A compendium. Needham Heights, MA: A Division of Simon & Schuster.
Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, D. D. (1992). A revision perspective on “Learning to learn from text: A framework for improving classroom practice.” In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 514-519). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Trabasso, T., & Bouchard, E. (2002). Teaching readers how to comprehend text strategically. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practice (pp. 176-200). New York, NY: the Guildford Press.
Van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F. Jr., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effect of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1081-1087.
Van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Villaume, S. K., & Brabham, E. G. (2003). Comprehension instruction: Beyond strategies. In R. D. Robinson, (Ed.). (2005). Readings in reading instruction: Its history, theory, and development (pp. 113-121). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Wade, S. E., & Moji, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 609-627). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Wolf, D. F. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used to measure FL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 473-489.
Wigg, E. H., & Wilson, C. C. (1994). Is a question a question: passage understanding by preadolescents with learning disabilities. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 241-250.
宋麗玲, 2002. "文學閱讀策略:西班牙兒童文學教學之測試研究," 第二外語文學教學研討會論文集, 台北: 淡江大學, 頁41-54.