1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 高中英文教學融入英文小說 - 採用傳統教學與討論式教學對於學生閱讀能力影響之研究
Incorporating English novels into the senior high school English curriculum: A comparison of the lecture approach and the discussion-based approach and their connections with students` English reading ability
作者 莊弘哲
Chuang, Hung-Che
貢獻者 余明忠
Yu, Ming-Chung
莊弘哲
Chuang, Hung-Che
關鍵詞 英文小說閱讀
傳統教學
討論式教學
閱讀能力
English novel reading
Group discussion
Conventional instruction
Reading comprehension
日期 2019
上傳時間 7-Aug-2019 17:02:54 (UTC+8)
摘要 當學生被分配完成任務或實現目標時，教師的教學策略乃成為學習策略。教師採用閱讀具體課外材料的教學策略，可以鼓勵學生注意課程的學習目標。這項研究調查了兩種不同的方法之間的差異：小組討論（GD）與傳統教學。
本研究共有68名參與者來自一所桃園市立高中。兩班具有相似教育背景的11年級學生被分配為對照組和實驗組。這兩班學生基本特質雖具有相似性，但仍對兩班前測結果進行t檢定來確認這些學生的英文學業表現上無顯著差距。
前測和後測的效標參考照評估工具乃採用頗具公信力的全民英檢中級（GEPT）中客觀試題，不含非選部分。教學實驗合計17週的時間。
結果總結如下：
1.小組討論（GD）方法有助於促進11年級學生的閱讀理解。
2. GD方法有助於提高十一年級學生的閱讀及學習興趣
3. GD方法加強了高成就學習者及低成就學習者的閱讀能力。
4.幾乎所有參與者都對GD方法表現出積極的看法。
5.有限的詞彙和文化差異導致閱讀指定小說的相互困難。
文末謹提供相關英語教師和未來的研究人員若干建議。
A teacher`s instructional strategies become learning strategies when students are assigned to accomplish tasks or meet goals. Using the instructional strategies of reading specific out-of-class material, a teacher can encourage students` attentiveness of the learning goals of a course. This study investigated the difference between two dissimilar approaches – group discussion (GD) versus conventional instruction.
A total of 68 participants in this study were incorporated from a municipal senior high school in Taoyuan, Taiwan. Two classes of 11th graders with akin schooling background were assigned as control and experiment groups. In spite of the similarity of the two classes, a t-test was used to analyze the results of their pretest to confirm that the students were of similar achievement levels.
The General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) was adopted as criterion-referenced assessment instrument for both pretest and posttest. The length of the experiment lasted 17 weeks.
The results are summarized as follows:
1. Group Discussion (GD) approach helped promote 11th graders’ reading comprehension.
2. GD approach helped increase 11th graders’ interest in reading and learning.
3. GD approach enhanced the reading abilities of the high achievers as well as the low achievers.
4. Almost all participants showed positive perception toward GD approach.
5. Limited vocabulary and cultural gap contributed to difficulties in reading the designated novel.
Finally, some recommendations were presented for teachers and future researchers.
參考文獻 Aebersold, J. A., & Field, M. L. (1997). From Reader to Reading Teacher: Issues and Strategies for Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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(3), 685-730.
Aydınoğlu, N. (2013). Use of Literature in Language Teaching Course Books. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education. 2. 36-44.
Berger, A. (1998). Media Research Techniques. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bibby, S. & McIlroy, T. (2013). Literature in Language Teaching: What, Why, and How. The Language Teacher. 37. 19-21.
Black, T. R. (1999). Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences: An Integrated Approach to Research Design, Measurement and Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Block, E. (1986). The Comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463-494. doi10.2307/3586295.
Brophy, J. (2006). History of Research on Classroom Management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice & Contemporary Issues (pp. 17-43). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Brown, A. L., Palincsar, A. S., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Instructing Comprehension-Fostering Activities in Interactive Learning Situations. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein & T. Trabasso (eds.). Learning and Comprehension of Text, 255-286. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553-573.
Carter, R., & Long, M. (1991). Teaching literature. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Chen, A. H. (2001). Balancing Communicative Language Teaching and Grammar in Taiwan. Hsiuping Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1, 13-24.
Chou, C., Huang, W., & Huang, P. (2011). A Study on the Correlations among English Self-efficacy, English Learning Strategies, and English Learning Achievement. Kaohsiung Normal University Journal. 31, 33-58.
Christensen, C. R., Garvin, D. A., & Sweet, A. (1991). Education for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Clarke, D. F. (1989). Communicative Theory and Its Influence on Materials Production. Language Teaching, 22(2), 73-86.
Clarke, M. A., & Silberstein, S. (1977). Toward a Realization of Psycholinguistic Principles. In The ESL Reading Class. Language Learning, 27(1), 135-154.
Cohen, A. D. (1986). Mentalistic Measures in Reading Strategy Research: Some Recent Findings. English for Specific Purposes, 5(2), 131-145.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the Research Agenda. Language Learning, 41(4), 469-512.
Day, R. R., Bamford, J., Renandya, W. A., Jacobs, G. M., & Yu, V. W. S. (1998). Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom. RELC Journal, 29(2), 187-191.
Duffy, G. G. (1993). Rethinking Strategy Instruction: Four Teachers` Development and Their Low Achievers` Understandings. The Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 231-247.
Ellis, R. (1991). The Interaction Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation. Paper Presented at the Regional Language Center Seminar, Singapore, April, 22-28, 1991. (ERIC document no. ED338037).
Eskey, D. E. (1988). Holding in the Bottom: An Interactive Approach to the Language Problems of Second Language Readers. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading, 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 93-100.
Fielding, L. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Synthesis of Research / Reading Comprehension: What Works. Educational Leadership, 51, 5, 62-68.
Fotos, S. & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about Grammar: a Task-based Approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 605-628.
Furuhata, H. (1999). Traditional, Natural and TPR Approaches to ESL: A Study of Japanese Students. Language Culture and Curriculum, 12(2), 128-142.
Gajdusek, L. (1988). Toward Wider Use of Literature in ESL: Why and How. TESOL Quarterly, 22(2), 227-257.
Gareis, E., Allard, M., & Saindon, J. (2009). The Novel as Textbook. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), 136-147.
Ghiabi, S. (2014). Investigation of the Effect of Using a Novel as an Extensive Reading on Students’ Attitudes and Reading Ability. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(4), 55-64.
Goodman, K. S. (1968). The Psycholinguistic Nature of the Reading Process. In K. S. Goodman (Ed.), The Psycholinguistic Nature of the Reading Process (pp. 13-26). Detroit: Wayne State University.
Goodman, K. S. (2014). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In Making Sense of Learners / Making Sense of Written Language (pp. 115-124). Routledge.
Goodwin, L., Miller, J. E., & Cheetham, R. D. (1991). Teaching Freshmen to Think: Does Active Learning Work? BioScience, 41(10), 719-722.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. Visible Language, 6(4), 291-320.
Grabe, W. (1988). Reassessing the term interactive. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading, 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 56-70.
Hajizadeh, R. (2011). Teaching Novels to Improve EFL Skills: Useful Tips. International Journal of Arts & Sciences. 4(18):275–283.
Hancock, O. H. (1998). Reading Skills for College Students (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hester, K. B. (1953). Classroom Problems in the Teaching of Reading. The Elementary School Journal, 84-87.
Hişmanoğlu, M. (2005). Teaching English through Literature. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 1(1) 53-66.
Hittleman, D. R. (1988). Using Literature to Develop Daily-Living Literacy: Strategies for Students with Learning Difficulties. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 4, 1-12.
Hudson, T. (1991). A Content Comprehension Approach to Reading English for Science and Technology. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 77-104.
Hurst, N. (1990). The Literature Option at CPE. Modern English Teachers, 17, 1, 68-75.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1992). The Action Research Planner (3rd ed.). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Kooy, M., & Chiu, A. (1998). Language, Literature, and Learning in the ESL Classroom. English Journal, 78-84.
Kong, N. (2011). Establishing a Comprehensive English Teaching Pattern Combining the Communicative Teaching Method and the Grammar-Translation Method. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 76-78.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. 1994. The pleasure hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 299-322.
Lake, D. A. (2001). Student Performance and Perceptions of a Lecture-Based Course Compared with the Same Course Utilizing Group Discussion. Physical Therapy, 81(3), 896-902.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Lazar, G. (1990). Using Novels in the Language-Learning Classroom. ELT Journal, 44(3), 204-214.
Leki, I. (1991). The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College‐Level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218.
Literature [Def. 1]. (n.d.). Macmillan Dictionary Online. In Macmillan English Dictionary. Retrieved January 16, 2017, from https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/literature.
Liu, Q. & Shi, J. (2007). An Analysis of Language Teaching Approaches and Methods: Effectiveness and Weakness. US-China Education Review. 4, 1, 26.
McKay, S. (1982). Literature in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 529-536.
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second Language Learning: An Information‐Processing Perspective. Language Learning, 33(2), 135-158.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oller Jr, J. W. (1983). Story Writing Principles and ESL Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 39-53.
Pardede, P. (2011). Using Short Stories to Teach Language Skills. Journal of English Teaching, 1(1), 14-27.
Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. International Reading Association. The reading teacher, 58(3), 272-280.
Peacock, M. (1997). The Effect of Authentic Materials on the Motivation of EFL Learners. ELT Journal, 51(2), 144-156.
Pedersen, E. M. (1993). Folklore in ESL/EFL Curriculum Materials. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372629).
Phillips, M. K. & C. C. Shettlesworth. (1978). How to ARM your students: a consideration of two approaches to providing materials for ESP. In R. A. Hawkey (Ed.) English for Specific Purposes. ELT Documents 101.
Povey, J. F. (1967). Literature in TESL Programs: The Language and the Culture. TESOL Quarterly, 1(2), 40-46.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading. Chair, Snow, C. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Retrieved from https://www.videnomlaesning.dk/media/2526/reading-for-understanding.pdf
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The Learning Style Preferences of ESL Students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-111.
Resnick, L. B., & Weaver, P. A. (1979). Theory and practice of early reading. (Vol. 1) Learning to read is natural. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Materials Development and Research - Making the Connection. RELC Journal, 37(1), 5-26.
Rowling, J. K. (1998). Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. NY: Scholastic.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 864-894). Newark, DE, US: International Reading Association.
Rumelhart, D. E. (2017). Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition. In Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 33-58). Taylor & Francis.
Sacks, A. (2013). Whole Novels for the Whole Class: A Student-Centered Approach. (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Sadoughvanini, S. & Shamsudin, S. (2013). Communicative Approach to Language Teaching and Learning and EFL Context. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2(1):30-38.
Şen, H. Ş. (2009). The relationship between the use of Metacognitive Strategies and Reading Comprehension. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2301-2305.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. RAND Education and the S&TPI. Retrieved from https://www.videnomlaesning.dk/media/2526/reading-for-understanding.pdf
Song, M. J. (1998). Teaching Reading Strategies in an Ongoing EFL University Reading Classroom. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8(1), 41-54.
Topping, D. M. (1968). Linguistics or Literature: An Approach to Language. TESOL Quarterly, 2(2), 95-100.
Tsai, C. H. (2012). Students’ Perceptions of Using a Novel as Main Material in the EFL Reading Course. English Language Teaching, 5(8), 103.
Tsai, T. (2004). The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Teaching English Reading Comprehension and Attitude of Senior Students in High School. Journal of Research on Elementary and Secondary Education, 13, 261-283. National Chiayi University.
Tsou, W. J. (2007). An Approach to Teaching the English Novel to High School Students in Taiwan: Its Corrections with English Reading Ability and the Students’ Attitudes to Novel Reading and Teaching (Master’s Thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan).
Van, T. T. M. (2009). The Relevance of Literary Analysis to Teaching Literature in the EFL Classroom. In English Teaching Forum (Vol. 47, No. 3, p. 2). Washington, DC: US Department of State. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of English Language Programs.
Widdowson, H. G. (1982). The use of literature. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL `81: Selected papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Detroit, Michigan, March 3-8, 1981 (pp. 203-214). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Wilen, W. W. (2004). Refuting Misconceptions about Classroom Discussion. The Social Studies, 95(1), 33-39.
Williams, R. (1986). Top Ten Principles for Teaching Reading. ELT Journal, 40(1), 42-45.
Wu, H. K., & Huang, Y. L. (2007). Ninth‐Grade Student Engagement in Teacher‐Centered and Student‐Centered Technology‐Enhanced Learning Environments. Science Education, 91(5), 727-749. National Taiwan Normal University.
Zohrabi, M., Torabi, M. & Baybourdiani, P. (2012). Teacher-Centered and/or Student-Centered Learning: English Language in Iran. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(3), 18-30.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
英語教學碩士在職專班
102951012
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102951012
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 余明忠zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Yu, Ming-Chungen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 莊弘哲zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chuang, Hung-Cheen_US
dc.creator (作者) 莊弘哲zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chuang, Hung-Cheen_US
dc.date (日期) 2019en_US
dc.date.accessioned 7-Aug-2019 17:02:54 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 7-Aug-2019 17:02:54 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 7-Aug-2019 17:02:54 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0102951012en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125019-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 英語教學碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 102951012zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 當學生被分配完成任務或實現目標時，教師的教學策略乃成為學習策略。教師採用閱讀具體課外材料的教學策略，可以鼓勵學生注意課程的學習目標。這項研究調查了兩種不同的方法之間的差異：小組討論（GD）與傳統教學。
本研究共有68名參與者來自一所桃園市立高中。兩班具有相似教育背景的11年級學生被分配為對照組和實驗組。這兩班學生基本特質雖具有相似性，但仍對兩班前測結果進行t檢定來確認這些學生的英文學業表現上無顯著差距。
前測和後測的效標參考照評估工具乃採用頗具公信力的全民英檢中級（GEPT）中客觀試題，不含非選部分。教學實驗合計17週的時間。
結果總結如下：
1.小組討論（GD）方法有助於促進11年級學生的閱讀理解。
2. GD方法有助於提高十一年級學生的閱讀及學習興趣
3. GD方法加強了高成就學習者及低成就學習者的閱讀能力。
4.幾乎所有參與者都對GD方法表現出積極的看法。
5.有限的詞彙和文化差異導致閱讀指定小說的相互困難。
文末謹提供相關英語教師和未來的研究人員若干建議。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) A teacher`s instructional strategies become learning strategies when students are assigned to accomplish tasks or meet goals. Using the instructional strategies of reading specific out-of-class material, a teacher can encourage students` attentiveness of the learning goals of a course. This study investigated the difference between two dissimilar approaches – group discussion (GD) versus conventional instruction.
A total of 68 participants in this study were incorporated from a municipal senior high school in Taoyuan, Taiwan. Two classes of 11th graders with akin schooling background were assigned as control and experiment groups. In spite of the similarity of the two classes, a t-test was used to analyze the results of their pretest to confirm that the students were of similar achievement levels.
The General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) was adopted as criterion-referenced assessment instrument for both pretest and posttest. The length of the experiment lasted 17 weeks.
The results are summarized as follows:
1. Group Discussion (GD) approach helped promote 11th graders’ reading comprehension.
2. GD approach helped increase 11th graders’ interest in reading and learning.
3. GD approach enhanced the reading abilities of the high achievers as well as the low achievers.
4. Almost all participants showed positive perception toward GD approach.
5. Limited vocabulary and cultural gap contributed to difficulties in reading the designated novel.
Finally, some recommendations were presented for teachers and future researchers.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgments IV
Chinese Abstract V
Abstract VI
Table of Contents VII
List of Tables and Figures XII
Chapter 1 1
Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 3
1.3 Significance of the Study 4
Chapter 2 5
Literature Review 5
2.1 Reading Comprehension 5
2.1.1 The Nature of Reading Comprehension 6
2.1.2 The Models of Reading Comprehension 7
2.1.3 Reading Strategies and Instructions 10
2.2 The Learning Hypotheses 12
2.2.1 The Affective Filter Hypothesis and the Pleasure Hypothesis 12
2.2.2 The Episode Hypothesis 13
2.2.3 The Input Hypothesis 13
2.2.4 The Interaction Hypothesis 14
2.3 The Features of Literature and the Benefits of using it in the EFL Context 14
2.4 The Selection of Reading Materials: Why Novels? 17
2.5 Teaching Literature in EFL: Teaching Approaches 18
2.5.1 The Lecture Approach 18
2.5.2 The Discussion-Based Approach 19
2.6 Summary 20
2.7 Research Questions 22
Chapter 3 23
Methodology 23
Overview 23
Design of the Study 23
Other details of the Study 24
Pretest Posttest Nonequivalent Group Design 25
3.1 Participants 26
3.2 Instruments 27
3.2.1 The Lesson Plan 27
3.2.2 The Pretest 28
3.2.3Three Types of Worksheets for Each Chapter of the Novel 29
3.2.3.1 Simple Question Worksheet for Each Chapter of the Novel 29
3.2.3.2 In-class Worksheets for Each Chapter 29
3.2.3.3 Post-Reading Worksheets for Each Chapter of the Novel 29
3.2.4 Posttest 30
3.2.5 Likert-scale Questionnaire 30
3.3 Teaching Material 31
3.4 Procedure 32
3.5 Data Analysis 36
3.5.1 Comparing the Improvement of the Control group and Experiment group 36
3.5.2 Comparing the Improvement of Different Achievers in both Groups 36
3.5.3 Analyzing the Questionnaire 36
3.5.3.1 Previous Experience in Reading Novels 37
3.5.3.2 The Students’ Improvements in Reading Ability from the Novel Reading 37
3.5.3.3 Determining the Contribution of Novel Reading to Their Learning in Normal Curriculum and Their Interest in Learning English 37
3.5.3.4 Perceptions about the Novel Reading Course 38
3.5.3.5 Possibility of Reading Novels and Taking Novel Courses in the Future 38
3.5.3.6 Comparing the Responses from Those Who Have Read Novels Before and Those Who Haven’t from Both the Control Group and the Experimental Group 39
Chapter 4 41
Results 41
4.1.1 Comparison of the General Reading Ability Improvement of the Two Classes 41
4.1.2 Comparison of the Reading Ability Improvement of Different Achievers 42
4.2 Results of the Questionnaire and its Correspondence to Each Group 43
4.3.1 Overview of the responses 43
4.3.2 The responses to the questionnaire from those who have prior experience in reading English novels and those who haven’t from the control group and the experiment group 51
4.3.2.1 How those from the control group (Class A) and the experimental group (Class B) who have prior experience in reading novels responded to the questionnaire 51
4.3.2.2 How those from the control group (Class A) and the experimental group (Class B) who did not have prior experience in reading novels responded to the questionnaire 56
4.4 Statistical Analysis of the Questionnaire 60
4.4.1 Statistical Analysis of the Overall Results 60
4.4.2 Analysis of Those Who Have Prior Experience in Reading English Novels Both Groups 60
4.4.3 Analysis of Those Who Do Not Have Prior Experience in Reading English Novels from Both Groups 60
Chapter 5 65
Discussions 65
5.1 Discussion of the Findings 65
5.1.1 The effects of different approaches on students’ reading abilities in general and between different proficiency groups 65
5.1.2 The Overall Responses in the Questionnaire 67
5.1.3 The responses to the questionnaire of those who have prior experience in reading English novels and those who haven’t from the control group and the experiment group 70
Chapter 6 75
Conclusions 75
6.1 Summary of major findings 75
6.2 Pedagogical Implications 77
6.3 Limitations of the Study 78
6.4 Suggestions for Future Research 78
References 81
Appendix 89
Appendix 1. The Pretest and Posttest 89
Appendix 2. The Simple Question Worksheets 97
Appendix 3. The In-class Worksheets 114
Appendix 4. The Post-Reading Worksheets 148
Appendix 5. Questionnaire for the Control Group 165
Appendix 6. Questionnaire for the Experiment Group 166
Vita 167		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102951012en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 英文小說閱讀zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 傳統教學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 討論式教學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 閱讀能力zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) English novel readingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Group discussionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Conventional instructionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Reading comprehensionen_US
dc.title (題名) 高中英文教學融入英文小說 - 採用傳統教學與討論式教學對於學生閱讀能力影響之研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Incorporating English novels into the senior high school English curriculum: A comparison of the lecture approach and the discussion-based approach and their connections with students` English reading abilityen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Aebersold, J. A., & Field, M. L. (1997). From Reader to Reading Teacher: Issues and Strategies for Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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(3), 685-730.
Aydınoğlu, N. (2013). Use of Literature in Language Teaching Course Books. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education. 2. 36-44.
Berger, A. (1998). Media Research Techniques. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bibby, S. & McIlroy, T. (2013). Literature in Language Teaching: What, Why, and How. The Language Teacher. 37. 19-21.
Black, T. R. (1999). Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences: An Integrated Approach to Research Design, Measurement and Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Block, E. (1986). The Comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463-494. doi10.2307/3586295.
Brophy, J. (2006). History of Research on Classroom Management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice & Contemporary Issues (pp. 17-43). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Brown, A. L., Palincsar, A. S., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Instructing Comprehension-Fostering Activities in Interactive Learning Situations. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein & T. Trabasso (eds.). Learning and Comprehension of Text, 255-286. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553-573.
Carter, R., & Long, M. (1991). Teaching literature. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Chen, A. H. (2001). Balancing Communicative Language Teaching and Grammar in Taiwan. Hsiuping Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1, 13-24.
Chou, C., Huang, W., & Huang, P. (2011). A Study on the Correlations among English Self-efficacy, English Learning Strategies, and English Learning Achievement. Kaohsiung Normal University Journal. 31, 33-58.
Christensen, C. R., Garvin, D. A., & Sweet, A. (1991). Education for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Clarke, D. F. (1989). Communicative Theory and Its Influence on Materials Production. Language Teaching, 22(2), 73-86.
Clarke, M. A., & Silberstein, S. (1977). Toward a Realization of Psycholinguistic Principles. In The ESL Reading Class. Language Learning, 27(1), 135-154.
Cohen, A. D. (1986). Mentalistic Measures in Reading Strategy Research: Some Recent Findings. English for Specific Purposes, 5(2), 131-145.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the Research Agenda. Language Learning, 41(4), 469-512.
Day, R. R., Bamford, J., Renandya, W. A., Jacobs, G. M., & Yu, V. W. S. (1998). Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom. RELC Journal, 29(2), 187-191.
Duffy, G. G. (1993). Rethinking Strategy Instruction: Four Teachers` Development and Their Low Achievers` Understandings. The Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 231-247.
Ellis, R. (1991). The Interaction Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation. Paper Presented at the Regional Language Center Seminar, Singapore, April, 22-28, 1991. (ERIC document no. ED338037).
Eskey, D. E. (1988). Holding in the Bottom: An Interactive Approach to the Language Problems of Second Language Readers. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading, 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 93-100.
Fielding, L. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Synthesis of Research / Reading Comprehension: What Works. Educational Leadership, 51, 5, 62-68.
Fotos, S. & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about Grammar: a Task-based Approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 605-628.
Furuhata, H. (1999). Traditional, Natural and TPR Approaches to ESL: A Study of Japanese Students. Language Culture and Curriculum, 12(2), 128-142.
Gajdusek, L. (1988). Toward Wider Use of Literature in ESL: Why and How. TESOL Quarterly, 22(2), 227-257.
Gareis, E., Allard, M., & Saindon, J. (2009). The Novel as Textbook. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), 136-147.
Ghiabi, S. (2014). Investigation of the Effect of Using a Novel as an Extensive Reading on Students’ Attitudes and Reading Ability. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(4), 55-64.
Goodman, K. S. (1968). The Psycholinguistic Nature of the Reading Process. In K. S. Goodman (Ed.), The Psycholinguistic Nature of the Reading Process (pp. 13-26). Detroit: Wayne State University.
Goodman, K. S. (2014). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In Making Sense of Learners / Making Sense of Written Language (pp. 115-124). Routledge.
Goodwin, L., Miller, J. E., & Cheetham, R. D. (1991). Teaching Freshmen to Think: Does Active Learning Work? BioScience, 41(10), 719-722.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. Visible Language, 6(4), 291-320.
Grabe, W. (1988). Reassessing the term interactive. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading, 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 56-70.
Hajizadeh, R. (2011). Teaching Novels to Improve EFL Skills: Useful Tips. International Journal of Arts & Sciences. 4(18):275–283.
Hancock, O. H. (1998). Reading Skills for College Students (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hester, K. B. (1953). Classroom Problems in the Teaching of Reading. The Elementary School Journal, 84-87.
Hişmanoğlu, M. (2005). Teaching English through Literature. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 1(1) 53-66.
Hittleman, D. R. (1988). Using Literature to Develop Daily-Living Literacy: Strategies for Students with Learning Difficulties. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 4, 1-12.
Hudson, T. (1991). A Content Comprehension Approach to Reading English for Science and Technology. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 77-104.
Hurst, N. (1990). The Literature Option at CPE. Modern English Teachers, 17, 1, 68-75.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1992). The Action Research Planner (3rd ed.). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Kooy, M., & Chiu, A. (1998). Language, Literature, and Learning in the ESL Classroom. English Journal, 78-84.
Kong, N. (2011). Establishing a Comprehensive English Teaching Pattern Combining the Communicative Teaching Method and the Grammar-Translation Method. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 76-78.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. 1994. The pleasure hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 299-322.
Lake, D. A. (2001). Student Performance and Perceptions of a Lecture-Based Course Compared with the Same Course Utilizing Group Discussion. Physical Therapy, 81(3), 896-902.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Lazar, G. (1990). Using Novels in the Language-Learning Classroom. ELT Journal, 44(3), 204-214.
Leki, I. (1991). The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College‐Level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218.
Literature [Def. 1]. (n.d.). Macmillan Dictionary Online. In Macmillan English Dictionary. Retrieved January 16, 2017, from https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/literature.
Liu, Q. & Shi, J. (2007). An Analysis of Language Teaching Approaches and Methods: Effectiveness and Weakness. US-China Education Review. 4, 1, 26.
McKay, S. (1982). Literature in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 529-536.
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second Language Learning: An Information‐Processing Perspective. Language Learning, 33(2), 135-158.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oller Jr, J. W. (1983). Story Writing Principles and ESL Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 39-53.
Pardede, P. (2011). Using Short Stories to Teach Language Skills. Journal of English Teaching, 1(1), 14-27.
Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. International Reading Association. The reading teacher, 58(3), 272-280.
Peacock, M. (1997). The Effect of Authentic Materials on the Motivation of EFL Learners. ELT Journal, 51(2), 144-156.
Pedersen, E. M. (1993). Folklore in ESL/EFL Curriculum Materials. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372629).
Phillips, M. K. & C. C. Shettlesworth. (1978). How to ARM your students: a consideration of two approaches to providing materials for ESP. In R. A. Hawkey (Ed.) English for Specific Purposes. ELT Documents 101.
Povey, J. F. (1967). Literature in TESL Programs: The Language and the Culture. TESOL Quarterly, 1(2), 40-46.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading. Chair, Snow, C. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Retrieved from https://www.videnomlaesning.dk/media/2526/reading-for-understanding.pdf
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The Learning Style Preferences of ESL Students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-111.
Resnick, L. B., & Weaver, P. A. (1979). Theory and practice of early reading. (Vol. 1) Learning to read is natural. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Materials Development and Research - Making the Connection. RELC Journal, 37(1), 5-26.
Rowling, J. K. (1998). Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. NY: Scholastic.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 864-894). Newark, DE, US: International Reading Association.
Rumelhart, D. E. (2017). Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition. In Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 33-58). Taylor & Francis.
Sacks, A. (2013). Whole Novels for the Whole Class: A Student-Centered Approach. (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Sadoughvanini, S. & Shamsudin, S. (2013). Communicative Approach to Language Teaching and Learning and EFL Context. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2(1):30-38.
Şen, H. Ş. (2009). The relationship between the use of Metacognitive Strategies and Reading Comprehension. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2301-2305.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. RAND Education and the S&TPI. Retrieved from https://www.videnomlaesning.dk/media/2526/reading-for-understanding.pdf
Song, M. J. (1998). Teaching Reading Strategies in an Ongoing EFL University Reading Classroom. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8(1), 41-54.
Topping, D. M. (1968). Linguistics or Literature: An Approach to Language. TESOL Quarterly, 2(2), 95-100.
Tsai, C. H. (2012). Students’ Perceptions of Using a Novel as Main Material in the EFL Reading Course. English Language Teaching, 5(8), 103.
Tsai, T. (2004). The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Teaching English Reading Comprehension and Attitude of Senior Students in High School. Journal of Research on Elementary and Secondary Education, 13, 261-283. National Chiayi University.
Tsou, W. J. (2007). An Approach to Teaching the English Novel to High School Students in Taiwan: Its Corrections with English Reading Ability and the Students’ Attitudes to Novel Reading and Teaching (Master’s Thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan).
Van, T. T. M. (2009). The Relevance of Literary Analysis to Teaching Literature in the EFL Classroom. In English Teaching Forum (Vol. 47, No. 3, p. 2). Washington, DC: US Department of State. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of English Language Programs.
Widdowson, H. G. (1982). The use of literature. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL `81: Selected papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Detroit, Michigan, March 3-8, 1981 (pp. 203-214). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Wilen, W. W. (2004). Refuting Misconceptions about Classroom Discussion. The Social Studies, 95(1), 33-39.
Williams, R. (1986). Top Ten Principles for Teaching Reading. ELT Journal, 40(1), 42-45.
Wu, H. K., & Huang, Y. L. (2007). Ninth‐Grade Student Engagement in Teacher‐Centered and Student‐Centered Technology‐Enhanced Learning Environments. Science Education, 91(5), 727-749. National Taiwan Normal University.
Zohrabi, M., Torabi, M. & Baybourdiani, P. (2012). Teacher-Centered and/or Student-Centered Learning: English Language in Iran. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(3), 18-30.		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU201900570en_US