1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 外國語文學院
  3. 英國語文學系
  4. 學位論文
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/31817
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor林啟一zh_TW
dc.contributor.author林思燕zh_TW
dc.creator林思燕zh_TW
dc.date2006en_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-09-14T04:17:42Z-
dc.date.available2009-09-14T04:17:42Z-
dc.date.issued2009-09-14T04:17:42Z-
dc.identifierG0929510082en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/31817-
dc.description碩士zh_TW
dc.description國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description英國語文學系英語教學碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description92951008zh_TW
dc.description95zh_TW
dc.description.abstract本研究的目的在探討「交互教學法」對台灣國中生英文閱讀能力與後設認知之效益，並研究國中生對此教學的回應。參與本研究的學生為82名苗栗縣某公立高中的兩班九十五學年度九年級學生，實驗組施以12週交互教學法，控制組則為傳統老師講授方式，在教學活動前後，實驗組和控制組所有學生皆施以閱讀理解測驗（採自全民英檢初級閱讀測驗）及後設認知問卷，實驗組多加施以交互教學法回饋問卷。\r\n本研究結果摘要如下：\r\n1. 實驗組與控制組在閱讀理解測驗表現有顯著差異，亦即，交互教學法有效地增進學生閱讀理解表現。\r\n2. 後設認知方面，實驗組在「閱讀信心」、「閱讀困難」和「閱讀能力強的人應具備的能力」三項後設認知能力表現顯著提高，在「有效閱讀策略」與「補救策略」二項之後設認知表現亦有明顯進步。\r\n3. 交互教學法有助於增強學生對閱讀策略的觀念和用法，大部分受試者認為「摘要」與「預測」是最實用的閱讀策略。\r\n4. 回饋問卷顯示，大部分實驗組學生對交互教學法持正面支持態度，並表示願意將所學之閱讀策略運用在未來的英語閱讀中。\r\n根據上述結果，本研究建議國中英語教師可運用「交互教學法」增進學生英\r\n語閱讀能力與後設認知能力，並提升學生學習英語的興趣。同時為了讓「交互教學法」發揮最大效用，教師應考慮學生在語言學習上之個別差異，以避免學生心理上的排斥與學習上的反效果。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThis study aimed to examine the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching in promoting EFL junior high school students’ reading comprehension and metacognitive awareness. In addition, students’ responses to reciprocal teaching were probed. Participants of this study included 82 ninth-graders from two intact classes in one public senior high school in Miaoli in the fall semester of 2006. The experimental group was engaged in reciprocal teaching and the control group was instructed in the traditional teacher-centered method. The reading comprehension test of GEPT at elementary level was used as the pretest and posttest to measure the participants’ reading ability before and after the instruction. Additionally, two questionnaires were adopted: one for investigating the effects of reciprocal teaching on students’ metacognitive awareness and the other for measuring the experimental group’s attitudes towards reciprocal teaching. \r\n After twelve weeks of experiment, the main results of this study can now be summarized as follows:\r\n1. The participants’ reading comprehension ability improved significantly after the implementation of reciprocal teaching.\r\n2. The participants’ metacognitive awareness was significantly higher especially in the categories of students’ reading confidence, students’ perceptions of reading difficulties, and students’ perceptions of a good reader. Students’ perceptions of repair strategies and effective strategies, though no significantly different , the participants did make progress in recognition of top-down and bottom-up strategies.\r\n3. Reciprocal teaching helped the participants build up knowledge and use the instructed strategies. The strategies viewed by the participants as the most practical ones were “summarizing” and “predicting”. \r\n4. According to the findings from the response questionnaire, the participants’ attitudes toward and responses to reciprocal teaching may be described as being supportive and positive. In addition, most of the participants expressed their willingness to employ the instructed strategies in their future English reading.\r\n The results suggest that reciprocal teaching can be a viable approach to help improve junior high school students’ reading comprehension ability and metacognitive awareness of English reading. Besides, students’ interest in learning can be stirred up. Yet, it should be noted that when conducting reciprocal teaching, teachers need to be taken into account students’ personal difference in language learning to avoid potential rejection.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsAcknowledgments..........................................iii\r\nChinese Abstract...................................................x\r\nEnglish Abstract.................................................xii\r\nTable of Contents................................................iv\r\nList of Tables..................................................viii\r\nList of Figures..................................................ix\r\nChapter\r\n1. Introduction...................................1\r\n 1.1 Motivation and Goal...................1\r\n 1.2 Purpose of the Study.............8\r\n 1.3 Significance of the Study.......9\r\n2. Literature Review..................10\r\n 2.1 Reading Comprehension Processes.....10\r\n 2.2 Metacognition..............16\r\n 2.3 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension....21\r\n 2.4 Reciprocal Teaching.............26\r\n 2.4.1 Theoretical Rationale.......26\r\n 2.4.2 Four Strategies of Reciprocal Teaching..29\r\n 2.4.2.1 Prediction....30\r\n 2.4.2.2 Clarifying........32\r\n 2.4.2.3 Question Generating.....33\r\n 2.4.2.4 Summarizing............35\r\n 2.4.3 Overview of Reciprocal Teaching.....37\r\n 2.4.4 Research on Reciprocal Teaching.....43\r\n2.5 Research Questions................46\r\n3. Method.........................................47\r\n 3.1 Participants................47\r\n 3.2 Instruments..................48\r\n 3.2.1 A Pretest and Posttest in Reading Comprehension.....................48\r\n 3.2.2 Metacognitive Awareness Questionnaire....................................49\r\n 3.2.3 Reading Materials for Reciprocal Teaching................................52\r\n 3.2.4. Students’ Response Questionnaire.............................................52\r\n 3.3 Procedures..............................53\r\n 3.3.1 Pilot Study....................54\r\n 3.3.2 A Pretest in Reading Comprehension and a Metacognitive Awareness Questionnaire 1 ...........55\r\n 3.3.3 Teaching Sessions..........55\r\n 3.3.4 A Posttest in Reading Comprehension, a Metacognitive Questionnaire 2, and Students’ Response Questionnaire...60\r\n 3.4 Data Analysis.................................60\r\n4. Results.....................62\r\n 4.1 Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Students’ Reading Comprehension.................................62\r\n 4.2 Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Students’ Metacognitive Awareness...................................64\r\n 4.2.1 Students’ Reading Confidence.......64\r\n 4.2.2 Students’ Perceptions of Reading Difficulties............................66\r\n 4.2.3 Students’ Perceptions of Repair Strategies.................................67\r\n 4.2.4 Students’ Perceptions of Effective Reading Strategies...............68\r\n 4.2.5 Students’ Perceptions of a Good Reader.....................................70\r\n 4.3 Students’ Responses to Reciprocal Teaching...71\r\n 4.3.1 Students’ Responses to Question 1: My Evaluations of Reciprocal Teaching...........71\r\n 4.3.2 Students’ Responses to Question 2: My Beliefs in the Effects of the Four Instructed Strategies........73\r\n 4.3.3 Students’ Responses to Question 3: My Fondness for Reciprocal Teaching..................74\r\n 4.3.4 Students’ Responses to Question 4: My Willingness to Implement these Strategies in my Future English Reading.......................................79\r\n5. Discussion.............................81\r\n 5.1 Discussion of the Major Findings......81\r\n 5.1.1 The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Students’ Reading Comprehension.........................81\r\n 5.1.2 The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Students’ Metacognitive Awareness of English Reading.....82\r\n 5.1.2.1 Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Confidence..83\r\n 5.1.2.2 Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Difficulties..84\r\n 5.1.2.3 Metacognitive Awareness of Repair Strategies...85\r\n 5.1.2.4 Metacognitive Awareness of Effective Strategies....86\r\n 5.1.2.5 Metacognitive Awareness of a Good Reader...87\r\n 5.1.3 Students’ Responses to Reciprocal Teaching..............................89\r\n 5.2 Pedagogical Implications........94\r\n 5.3 Limitations of this Study.............100\r\n 5.4 Suggestions for Future Studies..............101\r\nReferences...............................................104zh_TW
dc.language.isoen_US-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0929510082en_US
dc.subject交互教學法zh_TW
dc.subject英文閱讀能力zh_TW
dc.subject後設認知zh_TW
dc.subjectReciprocal Teachingen_US
dc.subjectEnglish Reading Comprehensionen_US
dc.subjectMetacognitive Awarenessen_US
dc.title交互教學法對台灣國中生英文閱讀能力與後設認知之效益zh_TW
dc.titleThe Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Taiwanese Junior High School Students` English Reading Comprehension and Metacognitive Awarenessen_US
dc.typethesisen
dc.relation.referenceAdams, A., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1982). Instructional strategies for studying content area texts in the intermediate grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 27-55.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAdams, M. J., & Collins, A. (1979). A schema-theoretic view of reading. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 1-22). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAlexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285-310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAllen, S. (2003). An analytic comparison of three models of reading strategy instruction. IRAL, 41(4), 319-338.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAlvermann, D. E., & Eakle, A. J. (2003). Comprehension instruction: Adolescents and their multiple literacies. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 12-29). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAnderson, N. J. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies. Canada: Heinle & Heinle.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAnderson, N. J. (2001). Developing metacognitive skills in foreign language learners. In the Selected Papers of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 1-7). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAnderson, V., & Roit, M. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy instruction for delayed readers in grades 6-10. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 121-137.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceArabsolghar, F, & Elkins, J. (2001). Teachers’ expectations about students’ use of reading strategies, knowledge and behavior in Grades 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(2), 154-162.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceArmbruster, B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: The U.S. Department of Education.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBacon, S. M. (1992). The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing, strategies, and cognitive response in foreign language listening. The Modern Language Journal, 76(2), 160-178.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSamuels, S. J., & Kamil, M. L. (1989). Models of the reading process. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp.22-36). New York: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 454-461.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchraw, G. (1998a). On the development of adult metacognition. In C. M. Smith & T. Pourchot (Eds.). Adult learning and development: Perspectives from educational psychology (pp.89-106). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchraw, G. (1998b). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 3-16). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchraw, G., & R. S. Dennison (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceShuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 411-436.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSinghal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers. The Reading Matrix, 1(1), 1-23. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.readingmatrix.com/archives/archives_vol1_no1.htmlzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBlock, E. L. (1992). See how they read: comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319-343.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHashey, J. M., & Connors, D. J. (2003). Learn from our journey: Reciprocal teaching action research. Reading Teacher, 57(3), 224-232.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSlater, W. H., & Horstman, F. R. (2002). Teaching reading and writing to struggling middle school and high school students: The case for reciprocal teaching. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 163-166.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, F. (1977). Reading without nonsense (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, F. (1978). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. US: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, F. (1982). Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, F. (1994). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (5th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSnow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSong, M. (1998). Teaching reading strategies in an ongoing EFL university reading classroom. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8, 41-54.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceStainthorp, R. (2000). The National Literacy Strategy and individual differences. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(2), 299-307.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceStanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHassan, F. (2003). Metacognitive strategy awareness and reading comprehension. Retrieved January 5, 2007, from http://www.melta.org.my/ET/2003/2003-16.pdfzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBorkowski, J. G. (1992). Metacognitive theory: a framework for teaching literacy, writing, and math skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 253-257.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSteffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R. C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 10-29.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSu, Y. F. (1986).Effects of metacognitive training program on reading comprehension and metacognitive skills of sixth grade less skilled readers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSwaby, B. E. R. (1991). Teaching and learning reading: A pragmatic approach. Glenview, ll: Scott, Foresman and Company.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTaraban, R., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. (2000). College students’ academic performance and self-reports of comprehension strategy use. Reading Psychology, 21, 283-308.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTaylor, B. M., & Frye, B. J. (1992). Comprehension strategy instruction in the intermediate grades. Reading Research and instruction, 32(1), 39-48.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceThomas, E. J. (1957). Effects of facilitative role interdependence on group functioning. Human Relations, 10, 347-366.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTovani, C. (2000). I read it, but I don’t get it: Comprehension strategies for adolescent readers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVacca, R., & Vacca, J. (1989). Content area reading. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVaughn, S., & Klingner, J. K. (1999). Teaching reading comprehension through collaborative strategic reading. Intervention in School & Clinic, 34(5), 284-289.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHelfeldt, J. P., & Henk, W. A. (1990). Reciprocal question-answer relationships: an instructional technique for at-risk readers. Journal of Reading, 34, 509-514.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBossard, N. (1997). Project MERIT (Making Excellent Readers Intelligent Thinkers). Retrieved November 1, 2006, from Florida Department of Education, Dade-Monroe Teacher Education Center Web site: http://www.miamisci.org/tec/introduction.htmlzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWang, C. Y. (2004). The Effects of Reciprocal Instruction on EFL Reading Comprehension and Metacognition of Junior High School Students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWeir, C., & Urquhart, S. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. New York: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWenden, A. L., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWeinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 305-327, N. Y.: Macmillan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWertsch, J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1979, February). A social interaction analysis of learning disabilities remediation. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, San Francisco.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWestera, J., & Moore, D. W. (1995). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension in a New Zealand high school. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 225-231.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 227-268.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHelfeldt, J. P., & Lalik, R. (1976). Reciprocal student-teacher questioning. Reading teacher, 30, 283-287.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYang, C. M. (2005). The effects of thinking aloud on junior high school students’ lexical inferencing in English reading comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYang, R. C. (2002). Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Reading Comprehension, Metacognition, Reading Motivation of Fifth-Grade Students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Pingtung University of Education, Pingtung, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. B. Bruce & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZygouris-Coe, V. & Glass, C. (2004). FOR-PD’s reading strategy of the month: Prediction wheel. Retrieved October 11, 2006, from University of Central Florida, Florida’s Instructional Technology Resource Center Web site: http://www.itrc.ucf.edu/forpd/strategies/stratWheel.htmlzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, A. L. (1985). Metacognition: the development of selective attention strategies for learning from texts. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 501-526). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.). Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, A. L., Armbruster, B., & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 49-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, A. L., & Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10(2), 14-21.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guide, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction (pp. 393- 452), New Jersey: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHerrmann, B. A. (1988). Two approaches for helping poor readers became more strategic. The Reading Teacher, 46, 24-28.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBruce, M. E., & Robinson, G. L. (2001, July 1-4). The clever kid`s reading program: metacognition and reciprocal teaching. Paper presented at the Annual European Conference on Reading, Dublin, Ireland.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBruer, J. (1993). “The mind’s journey from novice to expert.” American Educator, 17(2), 6-45zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBuehl, D. (2001). Classroom strategies for interactive learning (2nd ed.). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCarrell, P. L. (1989). Introduction. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp.1-7). New York: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCarrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-134.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCarrell, P. L. & Eisterhold, J. C. (1987). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. In M. H. Long & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings (218-232). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCarrell, P., Pharis, B., & Liberto, J. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647-678.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCarter, C. J. (1997). Why reciprocal teaching. Educational leadership, 54(6), 64-68.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCasanave, C.P. (1988). Comprehension monitoring In ESL reading: A neglected essential. TESOL Quarterly, 22(2), 283-302.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Teaching students to summaries: Task Demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 473-493.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChan, S. Y. (2004). The research of reciprocal teaching on improving the comprehension ability of the elementary school students of resource classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taitung University, Taitung, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChang, M. M. (1995). Teacher-oriented learning vs. cooperative learning in English reading class. 《國立屏東技術學院學報》，4,271-277。zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChang, 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 October 19, 2006, from http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/flying/flying11-20/flying16-5.htmzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChang, W. C. (2006). 張武昌。English language education in Taiwan: A comprehensive survey. 《教育資料與研究》，69，129-144。zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChen, H. C. (1998). The performance of junior college students studying English through cooperative learning. Paper from Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of English Teaching (pp. 1231-1240). Taipei: Crane.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCheng, C. K. (2000). Cooperative learning in second language instruction. Hwa Kang Journal of Foreign Languages & Literature, 7,185-195。zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCheng, L. Y. (1991). The study of freshman English reading: the application of metacognitive strategies. Proceedings of the Second Educational Research in Taiwan Province (pp. 596-635). Taichung; Taiwan Province Government.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChiu, C. H. (1998). The Effects of Metacognitive Strategy Training on English Reading Comprehension and Attitudes of EFL Students in Senior High School. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChodos, L. B., Hould, S. M., & Rusch, R. R. (1977). Effect of student-generated pre-questions and post statements on immediate and delayed recall of fourth grade social studies content. In P. D. Pearson & J. Hansen (Eds.), Reading theory, research, and practice, 26th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 11-16). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChou, C. T. (2003). 周中天。〈英語科成績兩極化的省思〉。《國中基本學力測驗專刊~飛揚》，19。Retrieved September 20, 2006, from http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/flying/flying11-20/ flying19-6.htmzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHuang, C. Y. (2004). The Effects of Self-regulated Strategy Instruction on Fifth Graders` Reading Comprehension and Self-regulation. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Pingtung University of Education, Pingtung, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceClarke, M. A. (1979). Reading in Spanish and English: evidence from adult ESL students. Language Learning, 29, 121-150.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCleveland, L., Connors, D., Dauphin, T., Hashey, J., & Wolf, M. (2001). Action research on reciprocal teaching. Vestal, NY: Vestal Central Schools.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCoady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In R. Mackay, B. Barkman & R. R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language (pp.5-12). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCochran, J. A. (1993). Reading in the content areas for junior high school and high school. MA: Simon & Schuster.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning, insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. New York: Newbury House Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceColeman, J. (1961). The adolescent society. New York: Free Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceColey, 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCross, D. R., & Pairs S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCummins, J. (1994). The acquisition of English as a second language. In K. Spangenberg-Urbschat & R. Richard (Eds.), Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction for ESL students (pp. 36-62). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHuang, Q. Y. (1996). Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Reading Comprehension Ability,Metacognitive Ability and Reading Attitude of Elementary School Sixth Grade Students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDavey, B. (1983). Thinking aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 27, 44-47.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDay, R. R, & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDelclos, V. R., & Harrington, C. (1991). Effects of strategy monitoring and proactive instruction on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 35-42.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDermody, M. (1988, February). Metacognitive strategies for development of reading comprehension for younger children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDeshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1993). Strategy mastery by at-risk students: Not a simple matter. Elementary School Journal, 94, 153-167.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDeutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDevine, J. (1987). General language competence and adult second language reading. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 73-85). New York: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDole, 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 Research, 61(2), 239-264.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDoolittle, P. E., Hicks, D., Triplett, C. F., Nichols, W. D., &Young, C. A. (2006). Reciprocal teaching for reading comprehension in higher education: a strategy for fostering the deeper understanding of texts. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 106-118.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDuffy, 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHsu, M. L. (2002). The effect of pair thinking aloud procedures on Taiwanese senior high school students’ EFL reading comprehension and metacognition awareness. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDuke, N. & Pearson, D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205-242). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEdiger, A. (2001). Teaching children literacy skills in a second language. In M. C. Muricia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 153-169). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEricsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEskey, D. E. (1989). Holding in the bottom: An interactive approach to the language problems of second language readers. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 93-100). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEskey, D. E., & Grabe, W. (1988). Interactive models for second language reading: Perspectives on instruction. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 223-238). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEverson, H. & Tobias, S. (2001). The ability to estimate knowledge and performance in college: A Metacognitive Analysis. In H.J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognitive in learning and instruction (pp. 69-83). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceField, M. L. (1985). A psycholinguistic model of Chinese reader. In P. Larson, E. L. Judd & D. S. Messerschmitt (Eds.), On TESOL’84 (pp. 171-182). Washington, D. C.: TESOL.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFlavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp.231-235). Hallsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFlavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFlavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children`s oral communication skills (pp. 35-60). New York: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHudelson, S. (1994). Literacy development of second language children. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children (pp.129-158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFlood, J. (1986). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed), Children’s oral communicative skills (pp.35-60). New York: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFoster, E., & Rotoloni, R. (2005). Reciprocal Teaching: General overview of theories. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved January 6, 2007, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/reciprocalteaching.htm.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G.., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Education Research Journal, 34(1), 174-206.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFung, I. Y. Y., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL student’s compression English expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13, 1-31.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGagn’e, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGarner, R. (1982). Verbal-report data in reading strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(2), 159-167.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGarner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGarner, R., & Kraus, C. (1981-1982). Good and poor comprehenders differences in knowing and regulating reading behaviors. Educational Research Quarterly, 6, 5-12.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGaskins, I. (1994). Classroom applications of cognitive science: Teaching poor readers how to learn, think, and problem solve. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 129-154). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGelzheiser, L. M. (1986). Instruction that affords skill transfer. New York: Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBaker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills of reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 354-394). New York: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGibson, E. J., & Levin, H. (1975). The psychology of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGoodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 126-135.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGrabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGrabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2001). Reading for academic purposes: Guidelines for the ESL/EFL teacher. In M. C. Muricia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 187-203). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGrabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. London: Pearson.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGraves, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B. B. (1998). Teaching reading in the 21st century. MA: Allyn and Bacon.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGreenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 95-116). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGreenway, 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGuthrie, J., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 199-205.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHalls, D., & Beggs, E. (1998). Defining learner autonomy. In W. A. Renandya & G. M. Jacobs. (Eds.), Learners and language learning: Anthology Series 39. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre: 26-39.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceIlola, L. M., Power, K. M., & Jacobs, G. (1989). Structuring student interaction to promote learning. English Teaching Forum 27(3), 12-16.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHarvey, S. & Goudvis, A (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. York. ME: Stenhouse.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3-4), 255-278.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJohnson, D. W., ＆ Johnson, R, T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJones, R. C. (2006). Strategies for Reading Comprehension. Reading Quest: Making Sense in Social Studies. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from http://www.readingquest.org/zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJohnston, P. H. (1983). Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJohnston, P. H. (1984). Background knowledge, reading comprehension and test bias. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 219-239.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJohnston, P., & Pearson, P. D. (1982). Prior knowledge, connectivity, and the assessment of reading comprehension. Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, California: Kagan Publishing.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKaufman, K., & Woods, A. (2003). Reading for Success. Taiwan: Foremost Publishing.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 53-61.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBarnett, M. A. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 72(2), 150-162.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKern, R. G. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. Modern Language Journal, 73, 135-147.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKim, A. H., Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., Woodruff, A. L., Reutebuch, C. K., & Kouzekanani, K. (2006). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students with disabilities through Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading. Remedial and Special Education, 27(4), 194-255.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKing, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 307-317.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKletzien, S. B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly 16, 67-86.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKlingner, 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, 96(3), 275-293.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKlingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Promoting reading comprehension, content learning, and English acquisition through Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR). The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 738-747.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKrashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKuo, L. H. (2004). The correlation between Chinese reading and English reading of senior high EFL students in Hsinchu and Miaoli areas. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKurtz, B. E., & Borkowski, J. G. (1987). Development of strategic skills in impulsive and reflective children: A longitudinal study of metacognition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 43, 129-148.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1), 91-106.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLe Fevre, D. M., Moore, D. W., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2003). Tape-assisted reciprocal teaching: Cognitive bootstrapping for poor decoders. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 37-58.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLee, H. H., Huang, H. W., & Huang, C. Y. (1997). Effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension ability, metacognitive ability, and reading attitude of elementary school sixth-grade students. Journal of National Chia-i Teachers College, 11, 89-117.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLevine, A. & Reves, T. (1990). Does the method of vocabulary presentation make a difference? TESL Canada Journal, 8, 37-51.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLiang, Y. F. (2002). The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategy Training on Mildly Disabled Learners in Junior High School. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLijern, J. T. (1993). Reciprocal teaching of metacognitive strategies to strengthen reading comprehension of high school students in Spanish: A descriptive case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Akron.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLin, P. H. (2004). The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Reading Comprehension of Junior High School Students with Learning Disabilities. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLin, S. M. (2003). The effectiveness of reciprocal teaching instruction on reading comprehension in science text for elementary school fifth grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taichung University, Taichung, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLochhead, J., & Whimbey, A. (1987). Problem solving and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLu, Y. C. (2005). The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Reading Instruction of Modern Literature. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Ping Tung University of Science and Technology, Ping Tung, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90(5), 469-484.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 131-156.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMarkman, E. M., (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643-655.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMcCrindle, A., & Christensen, A. (1995). The impact of learning journals on metacognitive and cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction, 5, 167-185.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMcNeil, J. D. (1987). Metacognition in reading comprehension. In J. McNeil (Ed.), Reading comprehension: New directions for classroom practice (2nd edit.) (pp. 91-105). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMeijnen, G. W., Lagerweij, N. W., & Jong, P. F. (2003). Instruction characteristics and cognitive achievement of young children in elementary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(2), 159-187.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMiller, G. E. (1987). The influence of self-instruction on the comprehension monitoring performance of average and above-average readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 303-317.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMikulecky, B. S. (1990). A short course in teaching reading skills. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMonteiro, S. Q. (1992). A Contrastive Investigation of ‘Reading Strategy Awareness’ and ‘Reading Strategy Use’ By Adolescents Reading in the First Language (Portuguese) and in the Foreign Language (English). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Essex.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newberry House.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNuttall, C. (2000). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBlanton, L. P., & Blanton, W. E. (1994). Providing reading instruction to mildly disabled students: Research into practice. In K.D. Wood & B, Algozzine (Eds.), Teaching reading to high-risk learners (pp.9-48). MA: Simon & Schuster.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOczuks, L. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work: Strategies for improving reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceO’ Donnell. M. P., & Wood, M. (1999). Becoming a reader: A developmental approach. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceO’Malley, J. M. (1987). The effects of training in the use of learning strategies. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Great Britain: Prentice Hall.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceO’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceO’ Neill, S. P. (1992). Metacognitive strategies and reading achievement among developmental students in an urban community college. Reading Horizons, 32 (4), 316-330.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePalincsar, A. S. (1982). Improving the reading comprehension of junior high school students through the reciprocal teaching of comprehension-monitoring strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePalincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1-2), 73-98.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePalincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension -foster and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 117-175.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePalincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1988). Teaching and practicing thinking skills to promote comprehension in the context of group problem solving. RASE, 9(1), 53-59.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBlock, C. C. (1993). Strategy instruction in a literature-based program. Elementary School Journal, 94, 139-151.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePalincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L., & Martin, S. M. (1987). Peer interaction in reading comprehenaion instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3), 231-253.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePalincsar , A. S., David, Y., Winn, J., Stevens, D., & Brown, A. L. (1990, April). Examining the differential effects of teacher- versus student- controlled activity in comprehension instruction. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePalincsar, A. S., & Klent, L.(1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 211-225, 229.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceParis, 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), 1239-1252.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceParis, S. G., & Lindauer, B. K. (1982). The development of cognitive skills during childhood. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 333-349). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceParis, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceParis, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 151-165.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit an implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(3), 201-209.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBlock, C., Rogers, L., Johnson, R. (2004). Comprehension process instruction: Creating reading success in grades K-3. The Guilford Press: New York, NY.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePhakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26-56.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePhilip, B., & Hua, T. K. (2006). Metacognitive strategy instruction (MSI) for reading: co-regulation of cognition. Jurnal e-Bangi, 1. Retrieved January 19, 2007, from http://pkukmweb.ukm.my/~ebangi/tankimhua-edited.pdfzh_TW
dc.relation.referencePressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRaphael, T. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516-522.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRhodes, L. (1979). Comprehension and predictability: An analysis of beginning reading materials. In R. Carey & J. Harste (Eds.), New perspectives on comprehension. Bloomington: Indiana University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRogoff, B., & Gardner, W. (1984). Guidance in cognitive development: An examination of mother-child instruction. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 95-116), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J Spiro, B. C. Brace & W. E. Brewer (Eds), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 35-58). Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSalataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1), 1-16.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBlock, E. L. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463-495.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSalinger, T. (2003). Helping older, struggling readers. Preventing School Failure, 47(2).zh_TW
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.languageiso639-1en_US-
item.openairetypethesis-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
index.html115 BHTML2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.