本研究旨在探討將深度討論融入高中英文閱讀課，是否能增進學生的閱讀理解能力及閱讀態度? 研究目的有三: 其一為探討深度討論在個案高中合宜的教學模式；其二為探究進行深度討論教學對個案高中學生閱讀理解與態度之影響；其三為依據研究結果提出建議，作為學校與教師未來設計課程之參考。
採用行動研究法，以臺中市一所公立學校24位高二學生為研究對象，透過英文課進行十週的深度討論課程，利用Lexile閱讀檢測系統、學生學習紀錄、錄音轉譯編碼資料、教學省思札記、學生問卷、訪談等資料的蒐集與分析，所獲得的研究結果如下：
一、深度討論在個案高中合宜的進行教學模式為，第一以異質性分組進行討論，搭配明確的討論規則，並善加運用多元適當的合作學習策略。第二教師本身需要具備深度討論是以學生為學習主權的認知，並且以此為依據調整教學方針，提供舒適自在的討論環境。第三掌握學生多元的學習特質，為各別學生提供適當的鷹架與協助。
二、研究對象在接受實驗課程後，整體的英文閱讀理解表現達顯著進步，同時又以低分組閱讀理解的進步幅度為最大。在英文閱讀態度方面，整體的英文閱讀態度達顯著進步，低分組在實驗後顯示具有最佳的閱讀態度，同時低分組閱讀態度的提升幅度也最大。

This study aims to explore the effectiveness of implementing Quality Talk in EFL reading classes of high school in Taiwan. Apart from analyzing the outcome of students’ English reading comprehension performance, the English reading attitude was also assessed.
The three purposes of this study were to find out the appropriate teaching model of Quality Talk in the high school, to examine the effects of Quality Talk on students’ English reading comprehension and attitude, and to offer the suggestions for the teachers who would like to incorporate Quality Talk into curriculum.
This was an action research, the researcher conducted the Quality Talk for 10 weeks in the EFL reading classes of a public high school in Taichung City. Twenty four 11th graders participated in the group discussion. Besides the collection and analysis of students’ learning observations, transcripts, teaching journals, and interviews, the reading attitude questionnaire and reading comprehension test were also employed. The statistical methods, including descriptive statistics and paired-sample t-test, were used to analyze the collected data. The results obtained are as follows:
1. The appropriate teaching model of Quality Talk in the EFL reading classes of high school was first conduct group discussion through heterogeneous grouping and with clear discussion rules. Various and appropriate cooperative learning strategies were encouraged to be adopted based on students’ performance. Second, the teacher should understand that discussion sessions were student-centered and that teaching methods should be devised accordingly to provide a student-friendly discussion environment. Third, the teacher should provide proper assistance and scaffolding for each student according to their different learning abilities.
2. After Quality Talk, the performance of the research subjects’ English reading comprehension was significantly improved. In addition, learners from low-achieving groups show the most considerable improvement in English reading comprehension tests. The performance of the research subjects’ English reading attitude is also significantly improved. Moreover, learners from low-achieving groups have the best English reading attitude and the greatest improvement in English reading attitude tests.

壹、 中文部分
王櫻慧（2003）。小組討論在閱讀理解教學上之成效。國立高雄師範大學英語學 系碩士論文，高雄市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/t3238t
史美瑤（2012）。21世紀的教學：以「學生學習為中心」的教師發展。評鑑雙月刊，36，42-44。
江幸宜（2019）。英文讀報教育對高中學生英文閱讀態度及英文閱讀能力之影響。國立臺南大學教育學系課程與教學碩博士班碩士論文，台南市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/23326a
余民寧（2013）。他們透過網路閱讀，到底學到了什麼？人文與社會科學簡訊，14（3），120-126。
吳明隆（2001）。教育行動研究導論：理論與實務。台北：五南。
宋曜庭、劉佩雲、簡馨瑩（2003）。閱讀動機量表的修定及相關因素研究。中國測驗學會測驗學刊，50(1)，47-72。
沈文蓓（1997）。小學高年級學生小組討論之歷程分析。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，台南市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/352mnm
卓珈郁（2020）。以文學圈進行小組討論對於高中生英文閱讀能力及興趣影響之研究。國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文，台北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5224zg
林秀娟（2001）。閱讀討論教學對國小學童閱讀動機、閱讀態度和閱讀行為之影響。臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，台南市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/g8sq46
林奕吾（2017）。以深度討論進行讀書會之互動模式研究。國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文，台北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/me8du5
林寶山（1998）。教學原理與技巧。臺北市：五南。
施怡帆（2007）。泛讀課程與大一英文學生閱讀態度之研究。國立嘉義大學外國語言學系研究所碩士論文，嘉義市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/x26n87
柯華葳（1999）。閱讀能力的發展。載於曾進興主編，語言病理學基礎第三卷（頁81-119）。台北：心理。
柯華葳、陳冠銘（2004）。文章結構標示與閱讀理解－以低年級學生為例。教育心理學報，36(2)，185-200。
洪蘭、曾志朗（2001）。兒童閱讀的理念－認知神經心理學的觀點。教育資料與研究，38，1-4。
胡雯俐（2015）。合作學習對高中生英語閱讀理解表現之影響。東海大學教育研究所在職專班碩士論文，台中市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/f4r7u5
徐筱玲、陳浩然、林微庭（2019）。深度討論和高層次思考：台灣大學生之研究。教育資料與圖書館學，56（1），107-130。
馬玉華（2014）。融入式閱讀教學對技專生英文閱讀態度/動機之影響。淡江大學英文學系博士班博士論文，新北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/8hv3qq
高聖婷（2003）。大班級小組討論對提昇英語閱讀理解能力成效之研究。淡江大學英文學系碩士論文，新北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/6y7jja
國立成功大學人類研究倫理治理架構（2011）。何謂研究倫理。　取自https://rec.chass.ncku.edu.tw/about_research_ethics/definition
張春興（1996）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北市：東華。
張啟唐（2018）。英文分級讀本對國中學生英文閱讀態度與閱讀動機影響之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文，高雄市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/st7d2t
教育部(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
連啟舜（2002）。國內閱讀理解教學研究成效之統合分析研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，台北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/gpr74a
陳玟里（2003）。合作學習閱讀理解策略對高職學生閱讀成就與閱讀態度之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文，彰化縣。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ekp2v8
陳昭珍、黃子純、李純瑀、陳冠蓉、顧蕙倩、陳嘉琪、王世豪（2020）。深度討論教學法理論與實踐。臺北市：元照。
黃千慈（2016）。合作學習策略對提升國中生國文閱讀理解能力之教學成效研究。台灣首府大學教育研究所碩士論文，台南市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/uehcb9
黃郁倫、鍾啟泉(譯) (2012)。佐藤學著。學習的革命：從教室出發的改變。臺北市：天下。
黃麗菁（2011）。閱讀態度與閱讀策略對閱讀素養之影響—以PISA 2009上海、香港、韓國與臺灣為例。明道大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文，彰化縣。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/3hzv5d
楊芷芳（1994）。國小不同後設認知能力兒童的閱讀理解能力與閱讀理解策略之研究。國立台中師範學院初等教育學系碩士論文，台中市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/f8yu9m
賈馥茗（2001）。教育心理學。臺北：空大。
蔡玉珊（2020）。運用合作學習於高中英文閱讀理解教學之行動研究。國立中正大學教學專業發展數位學習碩士在職專班碩士論文，嘉義縣。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/849r8z
蔡清田（2003）。課程政策決定。台北：五南。
蔡銘津（1995）。文章結構分析策略教學對增進學童閱讀理解與寫作成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文，高雄市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/3uutym
鄭雅丰、鄭雅靜（2010）。教師在閱讀討論教學中的引導行為之探討。大葉大學通識教育學報第6期，頁165-180。
蕭淑芬（2017）。國小國語課深度討論教學模式之行動研究。國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文，台北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/z9354w

貳、 英文部分
Alexander, J E., & Heathington, B. S. (1988). Assessing and correcting classroom reading problem. Glenview, Illinoies: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Alexander, J. E., & Filler, R. C. (1976). Attitudes and reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Brookfield & Preskill. (1999). Discussion as a Way of Teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Clark, L.H. ,& Starr, I.S. (1996). Secondary and middle school teaching methods. New Jersey：Pretice-Hall.
Davies, M., & Meissel, K. (2016). The use of quality talk to increase critical analytical speaking and writing of students in three secondary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 342-356
Dillon, J. T. (1994). Using discussion in classroom. Buckingham：Open University Press.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gall, M. D., & Gillett, M. (1980). The discussion method in classroom teaching. Theory into Practice, 19(2), 98-103.
Gettys, C. M., & Fowler, F. (1996). The relationship of academic and recreational reading attitudes school wide: A beginning study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Regional Education Association, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Gillam, S.L., & Reutzel, D.R. (2013). Speaking and listening standards. In L.M. Morrow, T. Shanahan, & K. K. Wixson (Eds.), Teaching with the Common Core Standards for English language arts, pre-K–2 (pp. 107–127). New York, NY: Guilford.
Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Engaging adolescents in reading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hyde, A. A., & Bizar, M. (1989). Thinking in context: Teaching cognitive process across the elementary school curriculum. New York: Longman.
Iordanou, K., Kendeou, P., & Beker, K. (2016). Argumentative reasoning. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.). Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 67–98). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jakobson, R. (1987) Language in literature. In K. Pomorska & S. Rudy, (Eds) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lehman, B. A., & Scharer, P. L. (1996). Reading alone, talking together: The role of discussion in developing literary awareness. The Reading Teacher, 50(1), 26-35.
Li, M., Murphy, P. K., Wang, J., Mason, L. H., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., & Chung, K. S. (2016). Promoting reading comprehension and critical-analytic thinking: A comparison of three approaches with fourth and fifth graders. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 217-225.
McCarthey, S. J., & Moje, E. (2002). “Conversations”: Identity matters. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(2), 228-253.
McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J. & Ellsworth, R.A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 934-956.
Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, C.（2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Murphy P. K. (Ed.). (2017). Classroom discussions in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Murphy, P. K., & Firetto, C. M. (2017). Quality Talk: A blueprint for productive talk. In P. K. Murphy (Ed.), Classroom discussions in education (pp. 101–134). New York, NY: Routledge.
Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Allen, E., Baszczewski, S., Swearingen, A., Wei, L., & Butler, A. M. (2018). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understanding and argumentation performance in science through Quality Talk discussions. Science Education, 102(6), 1239-1264.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N, & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ high-level comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740-764.
Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
OECD (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework－Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. OECD Publishing.
OECD.(2013c). Literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology－rich environments. Retrived from http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/PIAAC%20Framework%202012--%20Revised%2028oct2013_ebook.pdf
Orlich, D. C., Kauchak, D, P., Hard, R. J., Pendergress, R. A., Callahan, R. C., Keogh, A, J., & Kravas, C. H. (1985) . Teaching strategies: A guide to better Instruction (2nd ed.). Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company.
Payne, B. D., & Manning, B. H. (1992). Basal reader instruction: Effects of comprehension monitoring training on reading comprehension, strategy use and attitude. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(I), 29–38.
Presslaey, 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). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and change (pp. 1-14). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978) The reader, the text, and the poem. A transactional theory of reading. Carbondale, IL, Southern Illinois University Press.
Sandora, C., Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1999). A comparison of two discussion strategies on students’ comprehension and interpretation of complex literature. Reading Psychology, 20(3), 177–212.
Saunders, W.M., & Goldenberg, C. (1999). Effects of instructional conversations and literature logs on limited- and fluent-English-proficient students’ story comprehension and thematic understanding. The Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 277–301.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Defining comprehension. Reading for Understanding (pp.11-21). Santa Monica, US: Rand.
Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Reninger, K. (2005). Who’s doing the talking and why does it matter? Small-group discussions about literature to promote students’ high-level thinking and comprehension. Paper presented at the Dublin Literacy Conference, Dublin City Schools, Dublin, OH.
Wade, S., Thompson, A., and Watkins, W. (1994). The role of belief systems in authors' and readers' constructions of texts. In Garner, R., and Alexander, P. A. (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 265-293). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Watson, R. (2001). Literacy and oral language: Implications for early literacy acquisition. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 43–53). New York, NY: Guilford.
Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Developing a model of Quality Talk about literary text. In M. G. McKeown and L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing Reading Research to Life (pp. 142-169). NY: Guilford Press.