過去數十年來，研究者致力於發展各種閱讀教學法，以提升學習者的閱讀理解能力。一些研究者也試圖將詞彙銜接性概念融入閱讀教學中。然而，較少有研究利用詞彙銜接性來提升低學習成就者的英語閱讀能力，關於詞彙銜接性教學如何影響高低學習成就者的研究也寥寥可數。
本研究旨在探究詞彙銜接性教學對台灣普通高中英語課堂中學生閱讀理解之影響，並比較高低學習成就者的學習效益。本研究共有五十二名高中二年級學生參與，其中各二十六名學生作為本次研究主題的實驗組及對照組。在進行詞彙銜接性教學前後，研究者提供兩組學生閱讀理解測驗，以作為前測及後測。為期四週的教學以Hoey（1991）的詞彙銜接性為理論基礎，指導學生識別閱讀篇章中的詞彙關係（重複、同反義、上下位關係和共指關係），並完成詞彙鏈。教學結束後，參與者填寫改編自Wilawan（2023）的詞彙銜接性學習體驗問卷。前測和後測的結果通過配對樣本t檢定和描述性統計進行定量分析。問卷由四級李克特量表封閉式及開放式問題組成，進行量化的統計和內容分析。
幾項研究結果顯示：(1) 接受詞彙銜接性教學的學生在閱讀理解測驗中有顯著的進步，尤其在「主旨理解」和「細節理解」的向度更為顯著。(2) 低學習成就者在閱讀理解測驗中的進步超越高學習成就者，在「細節理解」的向度較為明顯。(3) 大多數接受詞彙銜接性教學的學生皆對詞彙銜接性教學表達正面的態度。(4) 低學習成就者對詞彙銜接性教學的感受比高學習成就者更為正面，顯示他們相信該教學的學習效果，也有意願於在未來應用所學到的詞彙銜接的技巧，並感性上享受詞彙銜接性教學的學習過程。
總體而言，本研究佐證現有文獻證實詞彙銜接性教學對學生的閱讀理解具有正面影響，尤其在低學習成就者更為顯著。教學應用上，詞彙銜接性教學可以實施於正規課堂、差異化教學或補救教學。教師也可以將該教學應用於發展閱讀策略和字彙教學。然而，研究結果的可推論性仍有多種侷限，包括參與者的人數、實驗的時程和施測工具的選擇。儘管如此，期待本研究仍然可以揭示將詞彙銜接性概念應用於閱讀教學的可能性，並帶給EFL高中生英語閱讀理解正面效益。

In the past decades, researchers have strived to develop various reading instructions to facilitate learners’ reading comprehension. Many researchers also turn their attention to integrating cohesion concepts to reading skill training. Few studies, however, focused on utilizing lexical cohesion to develop lower proficiency learner’s reading skills. The research which explored the effect of the lexical cohesion instruction on higher and lower proficiency learners is also scant.
This study investigates the impact of lexical cohesion instruction on English reading comprehension among EFL learners, with a particular focus on comparing the reading comprehension of students with higher and lower English proficiency levels in a senior high school regular English classroom in Taiwan. Fifty-two 11th grade students participated in the study, with twenty-six students respectively served as the control group and the experimental group. Both groups of students took a reading comprehension test as a pre-test and post-test before and after the lexical cohesion instruction. The 4-week instruction, which was developed from Hoey’s (1991) lexical cohesion framework, guided students to identify the word relations (repetition, paraphrase, hyponymy, and co-reference) in reading passages and complete the lexical chains. After the instruction, the participants took the Lexical Cohesion Learning Experience Questionnaire adapted from Wilawan (2023). The results of the pre-test and the pos-test were analyzed quantitatively with paired-samples t-tests and descriptive statistics. The questionnaire, which was composed of four-level Likert scale closed-ended questions and open-ended questions, were quantitatively analyzed by statistics and content analysis.
Several findings indicated that (1) students who received the lexical cohesion instruction showed a significant improvement on the reading comprehension test, especially in the dimension of reading for main idea and details. (2) The reading comprehension improvement of the lower English proficiency students outperformed the higher proficiency learners, especially in the dimension of reading for details. (3) Most students who received the lexical cohesion instruction showed positive attitude toward the instruction. (4) Lower English proficiency learners perceive the instruction more positively than their counterparts, suggesting that they believe in the instruction’s learning outcomes, incline to apply the skills of the instruction in the future, and affectively enjoy the learning process of the lexical cohesion instruction.
In conclusion, the present study contributes to the existing literature that the lexical cohesion instruction could have positive effect on students’ reading comprehension, particularly for the lower English proficiency learners. Pedagogical implications suggested that the instruction could be utilized in regular classroom settings, differentiated instruction, or remedial classes. Practitioners can also consider applying the instruction in developing reading strategies and vocabulary introduction. Nonetheless, the generalizability of the results was constrained by several limitations, including the size the participants, the duration of the intervention, and the choice of the instruments. Despite the limitations, it is hoped that the present study sheds light on the possibility of utilizing lexical cohesion concepts in reading instruction, and surely brings benefits to students in EFL contexts.

Afflerbach, P.P. (1990). The Influence of Prior Knowledge on Expert Readers’ Main Idea Construction Strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, XXV/1, 31-46.
Ajideh, P. (2007). Lexical Chains or Semantic Networks as Effective Top-down Pre-reading Activities. Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(4), 93-109.
Bamberg, B. (1983). What makes a text coherent?. College composition and communication, 34(4), 417-429.
Barzilay, R. & Elhadad, M. (1997). Using lexical chains for text summarization. In Proceedings of the ACL’97/EACL’97 workshop on intelligent scalable text summarization, Madrid, Spain.
Bayraktar, H. (2011). The role of lexical cohesion in L2 reading comprehension.
Brown, G., Brown, G. D., Yule, G., Brown, G. R., & Gillian, B. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge university press.
Carrell, P.L., (1988). Interactive text processing: Implications for ESL/second language reading classrooms. In: Devine, J., Carrell, P.L., Eskey, D.E. (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 239–259.
Carriedo, N., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (1996). Main Idea Comprehension: Training Teachers and Effects on Students. Journal of Research in Reading, 19(2), 128-153.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Crossley, Scott A & Danielle S. McNamara. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18(2). 119–130.
Donohadi, F. A. (1996). Teaching logical relationship by recognizing cohesive devices and analyzing cohesive chains in order to help SMU students comprehend reading texts (Doctoral dissertation, Widya Mandala Catholic University Surabaya).
Ercan, G., & Cicekli, I. (2007). Using lexical chains for keyword extraction. Information Processing & Management, 43(6), 1705-1714.
Fu, C. (2020). Application of cohesion theory in reading comprehension of CET-4. English Language Teaching, 13(4), 86- 90. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n4p86
Graesser, A.C. & McNamara, D.S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 371–398
Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, 1976; Martin JR.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
He, Q. (2014). A study of lexical cohesion theory in reading comprehension. International journal of English linguistics, 4(6), 143.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoey, M. (1994). Pattern of Lexis in Narrative: A Preliminary Study. In S-K. Tanskanen, & B. Warvik (eds.) Topics and Comments: Papers from the Discourse Project, 13, 1-39.
Hyde, C. L. (2002). A comparison of the effect of two types of pre-reading vocabulary lists on learner reading comprehension: Glossed difficult words vs. key cohesive lexical chains. Retrieved October, 15, 2010.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Konarizadeh, M., Fahimniya, F., & Eftekhary, A. A. (2014). The Effect of Teaching Lexical Cohesive Devices through Short Stories on. The Iranian EFL Journal, 10(10.35), 11.
Li, Z., & He, B. (2014, September). Adding Lexical Chain to Keyphrase Extraction. In 2014 11th Web Information System and Application Conference (pp. 254-257). IEEE.
Lin, S. W. (2022). Analysis of Teacher Cognitions and Practices from a Global Englishes Perspective: Cases of High School English Teachers in Taiwan. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 19(1), 35-58.
Lotfipour-Saedi, Kazem & Shahin Moghaddassi-Sarabi. 2004. Lexical chains, their discoursal vales and cognitive effects: Explorations in the setting of a short story by Edgar Allan Poe. Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities 47(190). 71–87.
McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 55(1), 51.
Morris, J., & Hirst, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text. Computational linguistics, 17(1), 21-48.
O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse processes, 43(2), 121-152.
Salataci, R. & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible Effects of Strategy Training on L1 and L2
Reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14 (1), 1-17.
Smith, R., Snow, P., Serry, T., & Hammond, L. (2021). The role of background knowledge in reading comprehension: A critical review. Reading Psychology, 42(3), 214-240.
Somasundaran, S., Burstein, J., & Chodorow, M. (2014, August). Lexical chaining for measuring discourse coherence quality in test-taker essays. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International conference on computational linguistics: Technical papers (pp. 950-961).
Taiwanese Ministry of Education. (2018). 12-year compulsory education English curriculum. Retrieved from https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/le/26192/74206.pdf.
Urquhart, A.H. & Weir, C.J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. New York: Longman.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension.
Wilawan, S. (2011). Effects of Lexical Cohesion and Macrorules on Efl Students’ Main Idea Comprehension. Reading Improvement, 48(2), 71-87.
Wilawan, S. (2023). Using Lexical Cohesion Cloze Exercises to Improve EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension. World Journal of English Language, 13(6), 1-1.