國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	朱子昀 Chu, Tzu-Yun
論文名稱：	「作者質疑法」對台灣國中生閱讀動機與閱讀理解力的影響 Effects of Questioning the Author on Reading Motivation and Reading Comprehension of Junior High School Students in Taiwan
指導教授：	朱錫琴 Chu, Hsi-Chin
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2015
畢業學年度：	104
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	121
中文關鍵詞：	作者質疑法、閱讀動機、回想、推理、回應寫作、以讀者為基礎的回應、基於文本的回應
英文關鍵詞：	Questioning the Author, reading motivation, recall, inference making, response writing, reader-based response, text-based response
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：223 下載：63
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

這項研究的目的是探討作者質疑法（QTA）對台灣國中學生在閱讀動機和閱讀理解方面的影響。作者質疑法是一種教學方式，它邀請讀者與文本對話，自己建立文本涵義，並挑戰作者。該方法是基於作者並非不會犯錯的假設，並使用詢問及閱讀中的討論，以促進文本的涵義建構。
在台灣中部的一所國中裡，兩班共61位八年級學生參加了這項持續七週的研究。其中一個由29位學生組成的班級為實驗組，接受QTA方法學習閱讀五個故事，而其他32位學生為對照組，則接受傳統方法學習相同的五個故事。在教學活動的前一週和後一週，兩組學生皆填寫閱讀動機問卷（MRQ），閱讀一個故事，並進行回想和回應寫作。此外，QTA組另於後測後填寫感知問卷。
量化之測量工具反映出QTA不同的效果。首先在閱讀動機方面，利用前測作為共變量和組別作為獨立變量的ANCOVA分析，在MRQ問卷中所有項目作為一個整體的結果顯示QTA對於閱讀動機並無顯著影響。其次，在回想寫作中，學生的寫作內容被歸類為文本直接回想的單位以及推理位，而在前者部分， QTA並未顯示出其對於學生記憶文本內容的效果。然而，我們間接發現QtA正面作用在學生對於文本的推理上；對照組在前測中表現較實驗組為突出，然而在後測時反而未能有好表現。第三，在回應寫作方面，我們從開放式編碼中發現四種類型的回應：語言上的評論，內容上的評論，基於文本的回應和以讀者為基礎的回應。將每種類型在前後測中所佔的比例予以計算之，結果發現，相較於前測，在後測時，QTA組在以讀者為基礎的回應之比例上有顯著的增加，且在語言上的評論比例則急遽下降，而控制組則未顯示出這些現象。而在內容上的評論和基於文本的回應此兩項回應方面，兩組間並無差異。此外，質性的感知問卷分析反映出大致上學生對於此教學法以及教材皆持正面態度。
這項研究的結果顯示出QTA教學法在台灣的國中閱讀教學方面具有可行性，尤其透過其提升學生推理能力及回應的效果，學生於閱讀時的注意力將從語言解碼轉移至文本涵義之建構。

The aim of this study is to probe the effects of Questioning the Author (QtA) on the reading motivation and reading comprehension of junior high school students in Taiwan. Questioning the Author is a teaching approach which invites readers to have conversations with the text, to build up meanings one their own, and to challenge the author. The approach is formulated based on the assumption that the author is not infallible and thus uses queries and during-reading discussions to facilitate meaning construction.
Sixty-one eighth graders in two classes in a junior high school in central Taiwan participated in this study in seven weeks. One class of twenty-nine students formed the experimental group, who were guided through five stories using QtA approach, while the other, of thirty-two students, formed the control group, who were taught the same five stories using traditional approach. In the pretest and posttest weeks, prior to and after the five-week treatment, students in both groups filled out a Motivations for Reading (MRQ) questionnaire, read one story, and performed a recall and response writing for the story. Additionally, the QtA group responded to a perception questionnaire in the posttest.
The quantitative measures reflected disparate QtA effects. First, for reading motivation, ANCOVA analyses, with pretest as a covariate and group as an independent variable, on the MRQ questionnaire items as a whole showed no significant effect of QtA treatment on reading motivation. Secondly, for written recall, which was coded into units of text retention and units of inference, no significant effect was found for QtA approach in text retention. Nevertheless, positive effect, albeit indirect, was found on the inferences generated in recall; the control group significantly outperformed the experimental group in the pretest yet showed no such excel in the posttest. Thirdly, for response writing, four types of response were emerged from open-coding: comment on language, comment on content, text-based response and reader-based response; for each type of response in the pre- and posttests, a proportion was calculated. It was found that in comparison with pretest, at posttest, QtA group has a remarkable increase in the proportion of reader-based response and a drastic drop in comment on language, which were not revealed by the control group. As for comment on content and text-based response, no such gap was found between groups. In addition, qualitative analysis on perception questionnaire reflected that students in general held a positive attitude toward the approach as well as the materials.
The results of this study suggested the feasibility of QtA approach in supporting the reading instruction at junior high schools in Taiwan, especially via its functions of boosting inference making and response generation, and as such, diverting attention from language decoding to meaning construction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


ABSTRACTS    iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS    v
TABLE OF CONTENTS    vi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION    1
Background and Motivation    1
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions    5
Definition of Terms    6
Questioning the Author (QtA):    6
Factual pausal units:    6
Inferences:    7
Responsive thought units:    7
Motivation:    7
Significance of the Study    7
Organization of the Study    8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW    9
Theoretical Background    9
The Current Comprehension Theories    9
Theories about Motivation    14
Questioning and Comprehension    18
Questioning the Author    19
Assumptions of QtA    19
QtA and Its Six Features    21
Techniques of QtA    24
Previous Studies on QtA    28
Potential Impacts of QtA on the Comprehension and    31
Motivation of EFL Students    31
CHAPTER THREE: METHODLOLGY    33
Pilot Study    33
Assessing Reading Material in the Pilot Study    33
Implementing Treatment    34
Main Study    36
Participants    36
Selection and Development of Teaching Material    36
Test Materials for Pre / Posttest    39
Treatment Procedure    42
Procedure for Control Group (hereafter Group C)    48
Data Collection    49
Design for the Pretest and the Posttest    49
Data Collection Procedure    50
Scoring    51
Data Analysis    54
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS    56
Effects of QtA Lessons on Comprehension    56
Effects of QtA Lessons on Text Retention    56
Effects of QtA Lessons on Reading Motivation    66
Results of the Students’ Perception of QtA    67
Perceptions of QtA Lessons    67
Oral Feedbacks from Control Group    75
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION    77
Discussion    78
QtA and Reading Comprehension    78
QtA and Reading Motivation    81
Students’ Perceptions of QtA Lessons    82
Pedagogical Implications    84
Limitations and Implications for Further Studies    85
On treatment duration    86
Implication for treatment material    86
On measurement    87
Conclusion    87
References    89
APPENDICES    90
Appendix A  Consent Form    90
Appendix B  Pretest-Posttest Reading Materials    91
Appendix C  The recall and feedback sheet for pretest and posttest    93
Appendix D  An Example of Queries Discussed in a Treatment Story    94
Appendix E  Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) (Original English Version)    98
Appendix F  Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) (Adapted Version)    100
Appendix G  Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) (Chinese Version)    102
Appendix H  Sample Reading (Include All Treatment Stories and Queries)    105
Appendix I  Comprehension Checks for Treatment stories    112
Appendix J  The Pretest and Posttest Stories with Pausal Unit System    118
Appendix K  The Perception Questionnaire for QtA (English version)    120
Appendix L  The Perception Questionnaire for QtA (Chinese version)    121


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1.Information about the treatment material    37
Table 2.Data on passages used in pretest and posttest    40
Table 3.The Aspects on Which the Queries in A Missing Man Found focus    44
Table 4.A Comparison of Schedules between Group E and Group C    48
Table 5.The counter-balance design for pretest and posttest    50
Table 6.Data Collection Procedure for Pre /Posttest of Both Groups    51
Table 7.Mean percentage in the pretest and adjusted mean percentage of recall units in posttest    57
Table 8.ANCOVA on mean percentage of recalled units    58
Table 9.Mean number of inference units in pretest and posttest recall    59
Table 10.Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test on scores of interpretive thought units    59
Table 11.Frequency and percentage of units of Four types of response in Response writing    63
Table 12.Mean Scores for Group and Pre-Posttest on MRQ    66
Table 13.ANCOVA on MRQ    67
Table 14.Students’ comments on their favorite and disfavored processes of QtA (Q.2)    69
Table 15.Students’ perception of QtA materials and techniques (Q.4)    70
Table 16.Students’ perception of QtA impacts on English reading motivation (Q.5)    72
Table 17.Students’ perception of QtA impacts on English reading comprehension (Q.6)    74

Figure 1.Percentage of each response type for Group E    65
Figure 2.Percentage of each response type for Group C    65
                                

References

Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, C., & Urquhart (1984). Reading in a foreign language. Harlow: Longman.
Anderson, R. C., Chin, C., Commeyras, M., Stallman, A., Waggoner, M., & Wilkinson, I. (1992). The Reflective Thinking Project. In K. Jongsma (Chair), Understanding and enhancing literature discussion in elementary classrooms. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Andreassen, R., & Braten, I. (2010). Examining the prediction of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 263–283. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01413.x
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685-730.
Baker, L., Dreher, M. J., & Guthrie, J. T. (2000). Why teachers should promote reading engagement. In Baker, L., Dreher, M. J., & Guthrie, J. T. (Eds), Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation (pp.1-16). New York: Guilford.
Baleghizadeh, S. (2011). The Impact of Students’ Training in Questioning the Author Technique on EFL Reading Comprehension. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1668–1676.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 773–785. doi:10.1037/a0020084
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kukan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the Author: A Yearlong Classroom Implementation to Engage Students with Text. Elementary School Journal, 96, 385-414
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the Author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2006). Improving Comprehension with Questioning the Author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach. New York: Scholastic
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading Development in a Second language: Theoretical, Empirical, and Classroom Perspectives. (pp. 191-218). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blau, E. K. (1982). The effect of syntax on readability for ESL students in Puerto Rico. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 517- 526.
Brown, R., El-Dinary, P. B., Pressley, M., & Coy-Ogan, L. (1995). A transactional strategies approach to reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 49, 256-258.
Cairney, T. H. (1990). Teaching reading comprehension: meaning makers at work. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Caram, C. A., & Davis, P. B. (2005). Inviting student engagement with questioning. Kappa Delta PI Record, 42. 19-23. DOI:10.1080/00228958.2005.10532080
Chi, Michelene T. H., Bassok, M. , Matthew W. L., Reinmann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-Explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
Chun, M. (1997). Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments. Language Learning & Technology 1, 60-81.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in second language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Day, R. R., & Park, J. S. (2005). Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17, 1539-1578
Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and Teaching: A Manual of Practice. London: Croom Helm.
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the
reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 347-368.
Grellet, F. (1981). Developing reading skills: A practical guide to reading comprehension exercises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griggs. W., Daane, M., Jin, Y., & Campbell, J. (2003). The nation's report card: Reading 2002 (NCES-2003-521). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education Sciences.
Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A., & Wigfield, A. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 306-332.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1997a). Motivation for reading: An overview. Educational Psychology, 89, 420-432.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in Reading. Handbook of Reading Research, 3, 405.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2004). Motivation for reading during the early adolescent and adolescent years (pp. 55-69). Bridging the Literacy Achievement Gap, Graded 4-12.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Mestsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and Cognitive Predictors of Text Comprehension and Reading Amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231-256.
James I., & Carter, T. S. (2006). Questioning and Informational Texts: Scaffolding Students Comprehension of Content-Areas. Florida: The Forum on Public Policy.
Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (1977). Mosaic of thought: Teaching reading comprehension in a reader's workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition (pp. 93-100). Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W. (2004). The Construction-Integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In Ruddell, R., & Unrau, N. (Eds.) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5, 11-13.
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T.A. (1978).Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Kintsch, W., & Gemsbacher, M. A. (Ed). (1994). The Psychology of Discourse Processing. Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 721-739.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271-299.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (2003). Inviting students to talk about expository texts: A comparison of two discourse environments and their effects on comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 42, 1-29.
Langer, J. A. (1986). Children Reading and Writing: Structures and Strategies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Liu, Y. C., & Chu, H. C. (2008). Questioning the Author: Effects on the Reading Comprehension of EFLJunior High School Students in Taiwan. Proceedings of the 24thInternational Conference on Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China & 2008 International Conference on English Instruction and Assessment. Chiayi City: National Chung-cheng University.
Long, M. H., & Ross, R. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In Tickoo, M. L. (Ed.), Simplification: theory and application: Anthology Series, 31, 29-52. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Worthy, M. J. (1993). Grappling with text ideas: Questioning the Author. The Reading Teacher,46, 560.
Malloy, J. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2010). The contribution of discussion to reading comprehension and critical thinking. In McGill-Franze, A., & Allington, R. L. (Eds.), Handbook of reading disability research. Hoboken: Routledge.
McMahon, S. I., , Raphael, T. E., Goately, V. S., Boyd, F. B., & Pardo, L. S. (1992). The Book Club Project. In Jongsma, K. (Chair), Understanding and enhancing literature discussion in elementary classrooms. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX
Mori, S. (2002). Redefining Motivation to Read in a Foreign Language, Reading in a Foreign Language 14, 91-110.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C.
Nienhuis, D., & Adams, M. (2013). Bedtime Stories. Taipei: Hebron Soft Limited.
Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. (New edition). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening Dialogue: Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the English Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
O’Flahavan, J.F., & Stein, C. (1992). The Conversational Discussion Groups Project. In K. Jongsma (Chair), Understanding and enhancing literature discussion in elementary classrooms. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1239-1252.
Park, Y. (2011). How motivational constructs interact to predict elementary students’ reading performance: Examples from attitudes and self-concept in reading. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 347–358. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.009
Penticoff, J. (2002). A personal journey through the Mosaic of Thought. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 45, 634-670.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B. & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, 2, 815-861. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, 3, 545-560. Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.
Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1982). Questioning-answering strategies for children. The Reading Teacher, 36, 186-191.
Raphael T. E., Wonnacott, C. A., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). Teaching question answer relationships (revised). The Reading Teacher, 39, 516-522.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181-221.
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. (1985). The transactional theory of the literary work: Implications for research. In Charles Cooper. (Eds.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1986). The aesthetic transaction. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20, 122-128.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1991). Literary Theory. In Jensen, F. J., Lapp, D., & Squire, J. (Eds), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 57-62). New York: McMillian.
Salinger, T, & Fleischman, S. (2005). Teaching students to interact with text. Educational Leadership, 63, 90-92.
Sandora, C., Beck I. L., & McKeown, M. (1999). A comparison of two discussion strategies on students' comprehension and interpretation of complex literature. Reading Psychology, 20, 177-212.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schaffner, E., Schiefele, U., & Ulferts, H. (2013). Reading amount as a mediator of the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 48, 369–385.
Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E, Moller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of Reading Motivation and Their Relation to Reading Behavior and Competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 427-463.
Taboada, A., Tonks, S., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing January 2009, 22, 85-106.
Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 1-35.
Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22, 85–106. doi:10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y
The Wise Man of Gotham. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from The Gold Scales website, http://oaks.nvg.org/pega4.html
Urlaub, P. (2012). Reading strategies and literature instruction: Teaching learners to generate questions to foster literary reading in the second language. Science Direct System, 40, 296-304
Young, D. J. (1999). Linguistic simplification of SL reading material: Effective instructional practice? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 350-366.
Westera, J., & Moore, D. W. (1995). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension in a New Zealand high school, Psychology in the Schools, 32, 225-232.
Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogical turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In Kamil, M. L., Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., & Afflerbach, P. P. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, 4, (pp. 359-387). New York: Routledge.
Wu, S. C. (2013). The effects of QtA on EFL senior high school students’ reading comprehension and written response. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文