近年來，台灣英語學習熱潮及對英語能力檢定的要求已蔚為風氣。十二年國民義務教育也要求國中生具備足夠的英語閱讀能力。因此，學校教師極需協助學生提升閱讀理解的能力。文獻顯示出互惠教學法可應用在不同程度的學生身上。在英語為母語的國家及英語為第二外語的學習環境中，互惠教學法的效益已得到證實。但在以英語為外語的台灣，大多數的相關研究僅著重一般的學生。有鑑於此，本研究⽬目標在於探索互惠教學法是否對英語中低學習表現的台灣國中學生也具有同樣的效益。
此項研究在桃園市某國中實施，並以行動研究方式進行，為期七週。七位八年級學生參與此項研究，由研究者擔任閱讀課程的授課教師，所採用的教材為圖畫書。研究者觀察學⽣生的課堂表現並加以記錄。研究實施期間學生必須填寫課堂學習單以便瞭解學⽣生使用策略的程度，及在學習歷程中的改變及進步。此外，為了瞭解學生對互惠教學法的看法，在課程結束後學生須填寫一份問卷。在問卷填寫完畢之後，研究者一對一訪談七位參與的學生，以更進一步瞭解他們如何理解故事內容，以及在英語學習動機上的改變。
研究結果顯示，互惠教學法對學⽣生的閱讀理解有正向的影響。學生認為小組討論、同儕間的幫助、小組互動、及策略使用有助於閱讀理解。然而，在研究過程中，我們也發現學⽣生會在課堂上聊天及少數學⽣生參與程度較低。儘管如此，大多數的學生對互惠教學法持正⾯面的態度及表⽰示未來希望繼續使用互惠教學法的策略來進行閱讀。大多數學⽣生亦反應互惠教學法讓他們提升了英語學習的動機。依此結果，本論⽂文針對英語閱讀教學提出了相關建議。

In Taiwan, the trend of English learning and requirement of English proficiency test have prevailed these years. Twelve-year compulsory education requires the junior high school students’ to be equipped with good English reading ability. Therefore, school teachers make efforts to provide instructional assistance of reading
comprehension to students. Reciprocal Teaching has been shown to facilitate students to solve different learning problems. Its positive effect has been widely examined in
English-speaking and ESL contexts. In Taiwan, an EFL context, most studies focus on the average students. This study therefore aims to explore the impact of Reciprocal
Teaching on EFL learners with mid and low proficiency.
The study was carried out in a junior high school in Taoyuan City, adopting an action-research method. Seven eighth-graders participated in the reading course offered by the researcher. The implementation lasted for seven weeks, and picture books were adopted as the main reading materials. Students’ in-class performance was observed and audio-recorded and their strategy use was documented in the weekly worksheet. The documentation revealed students’ changes and progress during the intervention. Also, to better understand students’ perception of Reciprocal Teaching, a questionnaire was distributed and collected after the intervention. Interview was conducted to further understand how the students understand the stories and to explore their motivational change toward English learning with Reciprocal Teaching.
The result showed that Reciprocal Teaching could facilitate students’ comprehension, and students attributed their improvement in comprehension to the
support from the peers, interaction, and strategy use. However, some unexpected difficulties aroused during the implementation, including students’ off-task conversation and lack of engagement. In spite of this, most students reported their positive attitude toward Reciprocal Teaching and indicated that they would like to
continue using the approach. Besides, most students’ motivation toward English learning increased with Reciprocal Teaching. Based on the result, this thesis provided suggestions on English reading instruction.

Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of Reciprocal Teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35 (2), 309-322.

Allen, S. (2003). An analytic comparison of three models of reading strategy instruction. IRAL, 41(4), 319-338.
Anderson, R. C. & Pearson, P. D. (1998). A Schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In Carrell, P., Devinne, J. & Eskey D.
(Eds) Interactive Approaches to second language reading (pp37-55).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive Skills and Reading. In P. D.Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 353 - 394). New York: Longman.

Borkowski, J. G. (1985). Sign of intelligence: Strategy generalization and metacognition. In S. Yussen (Ed.), The development of reflection in children. (pp. 105-144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Borkowski, J.G., Carr, M., Rellinger, L., & Pressley, M. (1990). Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of metacognition, attributions and self-esteem. In
B. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction(Vol. 1, pp. 53-92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Borkowski, J.G., Estrada, T.M., Milstead, M., & Hale, C.A. (1989). General problem-solving skills: Relations between metacognitive and strategic processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 57-70.

Borkowski, J. G. (1992). Metacognitive theory: A framework for teaching literacy, writing, and math skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 253-257.

Bossard, N. (1997). Project MERIT (Making Excellent Readers Intelligent Thinkers). Retrieved 2015, from Florida Department of Education, Dade-Monroe Teacher Education Center Website: http://www.miamisci.org/tec/
introduction.html

Brown, A. L. and Palincsar, A. S. (1982) Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of informed self control training. Topics in Learning and Learning
Disabilities, 2 , 1-17.

Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading.The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 121-134.

Carrell, P.C. , Pharis ,B. G, & Liberto, J. C . (1989) Metacognitive Strategy Training for ESL Reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (4), 647-678.

Carrell, P.L, Gajdusek, L & Wise, T. (2001) Metacognition and EFL/ ESL Reading.In Hartman (Ed) Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory,Research and Practice. (pp 229-243). (Vol. 19). Springer Science & Business
Media.

Carter, C. J. (1997). Why Reciprocal Teaching?. Educational Leadership, 54, 64-69.

Casanave, C. P. (1988). Comprehension monitoring in ESL reading: A neglected essential. Tesol Quarterly, 22(2), 283-302.

Chang, W. C. (2002). 張武昌。<國中基本學力測驗英語科雙峰現象形成原因之探討>。<<國中基本學力測驗專刊～飛揚>>，16。Retrieved August 2015, from http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/flying/flying1120/flying16-5.htm

Chang, W. C.(2006). English language education in Taiwan: A comprehensive survey. Educational Resources ad Research, 69, 129-144.

Chern, C, L. (2005). The role of junior high school EFL reading and instruction in Nine Year Integrated Curriculum. In The Grade 1-9 Curriculum: Challenges
and strategies for English Education. Taipei; NTNU.

Chern, C, L. (2006). An overview of EFL reading research in Taiwan. English Teaching & Learning. Special Issue, (2), 1-19.

Choo, T. O. L., Eng, T. K., & Ahmad, N. (2011). Effects of Reciprocal Teaching strategies on reading comprehension. Reading Matrix: An International
Online Journal, 11(2).

Chou, H, T. (2008). Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on reading comprehension and strategy use: A study at an EFL junior high school in Taiwan. (Unpublished master’s thesis), National Changhua University of Education, Changhua,Taiwan.

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. NY:Longman.

Cooper, T., & Greive, C. (2009). The Effectiveness of the Methods of Reciprocal Teaching. Teach, 3 (13),45-52.

Coley, J.D., DePinto. T., Craig, S., & Gardner, R. (1993). From college to classroom: Three teachers’ accounts of their adaptations of Reciprocal
Teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 94 (2), 255-266.

Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80 (2), 131-142.

Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G, Roehler, L.R., & Pearson, P.D. (1991) Moving from the old to the new : Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of
Educational Psychology, 61(2), 239-264.

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.

Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10),906-911.

Fung, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted Reciprocal Teaching to improve ESL students’ comprehension of English expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13(1),1-31.

Garner, R. (1982). Verbal-report data in reading strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(2), 159-167.

Greenway, C. (2002). The process, pitfalls, and benefits of implementing a reciprocal teaching intervention to improve the reading comprehension of a group of year 6 pupils. Educational Psychology in Practice, 18(2), 113-137.

Hassan, F. (2003). Metacognitive strategy awareness and reading comprehension.Retrieved August, 2015, from http//www.melta.org.my/ET/2003/2003-16.pdf

Hermann, B. A. (1988). Two approaches for helping poor readers become more strategic. The Reading Teacher, 46, 24-28.

Jacob, J.E. & Paris, S.G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3-4),255-278.

Klinger, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal Teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second
language. The Elementary School Journal, 275-293.

Kozminsky. (2001). How do general knowledge and reading strategies ability relate to reading comprehension of high school students at different educational levels?. Journal of Research in Reading, 24 (2), 187-204

Lin, S. Y (2007). The effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Taiwanese junior high school students’ English reading comprehension and metacognitive awareness (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal Teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders.
The Elementary School Journal, 469-484.

Meyer, K. (2010). “Diving into reading”: Revisiting Reciprocal Teaching in the middle years. Literacy Learning:The middle years, 18(1), 41-52.

Moore, P. J. (1988). Reciprocal Teaching and reading comprehension: A review.Journal of Research in Reading, 11(1), 3-14.

Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2),
249-259.

Oczkus, L. D. (2003). Reciprocal Teaching at Work: Strategies for Improving Reading Comprehension. Order Department, International Reading Association, 800 Barksdale Road, PO Box 8139, Newark, DE 19714-8139.

Naiman, S., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., and Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistic Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Oxford, R. L.(1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.

Oxford, R. L (1994) Language learning strategies: An update. CAL Online Resource: Digest, 1-5.

Palincsar, A. S. (1986) Metacognitive Strategy Instruction. Exceptional Children,53(2), 118-124.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal Teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction,
1(2), 117-175.

Palincsar, A.S. (1984). Reciprocal Teaching: working within the zone of proximal development. American Educational Research Association. 23-27.

Palincsar, A.S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction.Educational Psychologist, 21(1), 73-98.

Paris, S.G, & Meyer, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 8(1), 5-22.

Paris,S. G. (1978). Coordination of means and goals in the development of mnemonic skills. In P.A. Ornstein (Ed,), Memory development in children.Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Paris S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983) Becoming a strategic reader.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.

Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning:a program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (6), 1239-125.

Paris, S. G., Wixson, K.k. & Palincsar, A.S. (1986). Instructional Approaches to Reading Comprehension. Review of Research in Education, 13, 91-128.

Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development,55, 2083–2093.

Pearson, P.D,, Dole, J.A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: a review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School
Journal. 88 (2), 151-165.

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal Teaching: A review of the research. Review of educational research, 64 (4), 479-530.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly,9, 41-51.

Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children's awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 454-461.

Schmitt, M. C., & Newby, T. J. (1986). Metacognition: Relevance to instructional design. Journal of Instructional development, 9(4), 29-33.

Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategicreading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 454–461.

Schmidt, R., & Watanbe, Y. (2001). Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dornyei & Schmidt (Eds.),
Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 313-359). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review 7(4), 351-373.

Schraw, G., & Graham, T. (1997). Helping gifted students develop metacognitive strategies. Roeper Review, 20 (1), 4-8.

Shen, H. J. (2003). The Role of Explicit Instruction in ESL/EFL Reading. Foreign Language Annals, 36 (3), 424-453.

Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29 (4),
431-449.

Shiau, J, C. (2010). Using reciprocal teaching to develop thinking in a senior high EFL classroom in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan
Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Singhal, M (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers. The reading matrix, I (1). Retrieved from http://
www.readingmatrix.com/articles/singhal/

Souvignier, E & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension.
Leaning Instruction, 16 (1), 57-71.

Su, H. C. (2007). A survey of junior high school English teachers in teaching reading. (Unpublished master thesis), National Kaohsiung Normal University.

Sun, L. E. (2003). Reciprocal Teaching as a Reading Strategy Instruction to
Improve EFL Junior High School Students’ Metacognitive Awareness and English Reading Comprehension. Kaohsiung Normal University Journal, 34 ,15-37.

Todd, R. B., & Tracey, D. H. (2006). Reciprocal Teaching and Comprehension: A Single Subject Research Study. Online Submission.

Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J.K. (1999). Teaching reading comprehension through collaborative strategic reading. Intervention in School & Clinic, 34 (5), 284-289.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. The development of higher Psychological Process. in Cole, M., Steiner, V.J, Scribner, S., & Souberman,E. (Eds). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, R. M., & Gambrell, L.B. (1988). Reading comprehension in the elementary school. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Wu, C. Y. (2011). Reciprocal Teaching for Low Achievers in an EFL Context.(Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei,Taiwan.

Wu, H. H. (2012). Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategies Training on English Reading Comprehension and Strategy Use of EFL Junior High School Students
in Central Taiwan. (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Yang, Y, F. (2010). Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning system for college remedial reading instruction. Computers & Education, 55, 1193-1201.