English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 112721/143689 (78%)
Visitors : 49506718      Online Users : 801
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/31815


    Title: 透過後設論述觀念教授高中生英文閱讀之研究
    The Use of Metadiscourse to Teach High School Students` Reading Comprehension
    Authors: 楊憶琴
    Yang, Yih-chin
    Contributors: 林啟一
    Lin, Chi-yee
    楊憶琴
    Yang, Yih-chin
    Keywords: 後設論述
    後設論述基模
    英文閱讀
    metadiscourse
    metadiscourse schema
    English reading comprehension
    Date: 2004
    Issue Date: 2009-09-14 12:17:31 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文旨在探討透過後設論述觀念的教授,對高中生英文閱讀表現有否顯著效益,同時加以深入分析後設論述觀念,對於不同英語能力程度的學生在其閱讀表現有否不同的效益。
    壹、研究方法
    (一) 本行動研究以八十位桃園縣立某高中二年級兩班社會組學生為本實驗教學之對象。將兩班學生分成實驗組和控制組,同時在實驗組班級中,依據其在英語分級測驗的成績分配出高分組和低分組。
    (二) 兩組受試者先進行閱讀理解的前測,並填寫一份有關其已知語言學習策略之問卷,實驗組學生接受十二週後設論述觀念的閱讀教學,而控制組學生只接受一般高中英文課程教學。
    (三) 此外,實驗組學生並填寫有關於後設論述觀念的前後問卷,兩組受試者前後測成績皆以獨立及相依樣本t 檢定統計方法來分析學生的成績。 問卷的結果以百分比形式及統計卡方方法表列;百分比同質性檢定用來分析高分組和低分組學生們對於後設論述觀念教授的不同反應。 統計顯著水準.05 用於所有分析中以決定顯著差異是否存在。
    (四) 最後,實驗組受試者須填寫一份有關於他們對後設論述觀念教授的觀感以及策略應用之問卷。
    貳、研究結果
    (一) 實驗組和控制組間其閱讀表現並有顯著差異。 實驗組學生因有後設論述觀念教授而在閱讀表現上有顯著提升。
    (二) 實驗組的高分組與低分組在前後測閱讀表現有顯著差異。 高分組及低分組學生皆因有後設論述觀念教授而在閱讀表現上有顯著提升。尤其對高分組學生閱讀表現助益更大
    (三) 問卷結果顯示,大部分實驗組學生對於後設論述觀念教授在閱讀表現上的效益抱持肯定態度。高分組及低分組學生皆持正面態度。
    (四) 問卷結果顯示,大部分實驗組學生認為對於後設論述基模中的文本後設論述觀念的學習,較優於人際間後設論述觀念的學習。
    (五) 問卷結果顯示,大部分實驗組學生認為,應用文本後設論述中的連接轉折詞及順序詞 對於提升他們英文閱讀能力幫助極大。 
    參、研究限制
    (一) 本研究在實際高中英文閱讀教學情境中進行,僅以研究者所任教之兩個班級為對象,目的在於透過後設論述觀念教授高中生英文閱讀之研究,探討此教學方法應用於台灣高中學生在英語閱讀學習之成效及可能遭遇的學習瓶頸。因此,若欲據以推論其它不同學校與不同程度學生之教學應用,尚需進ㄧ步探究。
    (二) 國外文獻多數討論後設論述觀念與英文作文教學應用,有關於和英語閱讀學習成效的文獻則極為稀少。本研究根據研究結果,提出後設論述觀念教授與第二外語英語閱讀教學意涵上的探討,提供台灣英語教師教學策略的的思考和想法。
    This study explores whether if there are significant effects of metadiscourse schema on senior high EFL students’English reading comprehension. The study further investigates if there are significant effects of metadiscourse schema on reading comprehension for students with different language proficiency levels. It also reports the students’responses to metadiscourse schema on: the textual and interpersonal aspects.
    The subjects are eighty second-graders from Y.F. Senior High School in Taoyuan County. They are equally divided into the experimental and control groups based on the statistical s-shape distribution. The experimental group is further categorized into high-and low-proficiency subgroups based on the score of the placement test. Subjects in the experimental group take the instruction of metadiscourse schema for reading comprehension in twelve weeks. All subjects take the pre-and post-test for reading comprehension and fill in Questionnaire I.
      The independent and dependent-sample t-test is used to analyze the subjects’ scores in the tests. The results of Questionnaire II are tabulated in terms of frequency and percentage. The results of Questionnaire II between high-and low-proficiency groups are analyzed by the test of homogeneity of proportions. Besides, the results of Questionnaire III also be discussed and analyzed. The .05 level of significance is used in all analysis as the criterion level for determining a significant difference.
    The major findings in this study are summarized as follows:
    1.There is a significant difference in the reading performance between the experimental and control groups. When metadiscourse schema is instructed to the experimental group, the EG subjects have the significant improvement in reading performance.
    2.There are significant differences for the high-and low-proficiency groups in the experimental group between Questionnaire II before and after the metadiscourse instruction. HPG gain more benefit from the instruction of metadiscourse schema than LPG.
    3.The results of Questionnaire III on the students’ responses to metadiscourse schema show that most subjects’ perception of the effects of metadiscourse schema on the reading performance is positive.
    4.EG subjects gain more benefit from the instruction of the textual metadiscourse than the interpersonal metadiscourse.
    5.The results of Questionnaires II on the instruction of metadiscourse schema indicate that logical connectives and frame markers in the textual metadiscourse are the features most frequently used by senior high EFL students
    Based on the above-mentioned findings, pedagogical implications are provided and further research suggested.
    Reference: Barnet, M.A. (1989). More than Meets the Eye: Foreign Language Reading. Language in Education: Theory and Practice, no.73. Cal/ERIC Series on Language & Linguistics. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Baker, D. (1989). Language testing: A critical survey and practical guide. London: Edward Arnold.
    Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
    Barnett, M. A. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. Modern Language Journal 72, 150-160.
    Barnittz, J.G. (1985). Reading development of nonnative speakers of English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
    Beauvais, Paul, (1989). A speech-act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication 61:11-30.
    Bernhardt, E. B. (1986). Cognitive processes in L2: An examination of reading behaviors. In J. P. Lantolf & A. Labarca (Eds.), Research in second language learning: Focus on the classroom (pp. 35-50). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Brown, A. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. E Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
    Brown, A.L., Campion, J.C., & Day, J.D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10 (2), 14-21.
    Campbell, Paul,1(975). The personae of scientific discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 61:391-405.
    Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16,479-488.
    Carrell, Patricia L., (1987). Content & formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 461-481.
    Carrell, P.L. & Eisterhold, J. (1983). Schema Theory & ESL Reading Pedagogy, TESOL Quarterly,17, 553-73.
    Carrell, P. L. (1984a). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 441-469.
    Carrell, P. L. (1984b). Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension. Language Learning, 34, 87-112.
    Carrell, P. L. (1984c). Inferencing in ESL: Presuppositions and implications of factive and implicative predicates. Language Learning, 34, 1-21.
    Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 461-481.
    Carrell, P. L., Devine, J., & Eskey, D. E. (1988). Interactive approaches to second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press
    Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-133.
    Carrell, P. L. (1992). Awareness of text structure: Effects on recall. Language Learning, 42, 1-20.
    Chamot, Anna Uhl and J. Michael O`Malley (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
    Chamot, Anna Uhl and J. Michael O`Malley. (1996). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A model for linguistically diverse classrooms. The Elementary School Journal 96: 259-273.
    Cheng, X. (1994). The effect of teaching metadiscorse on the writing quality of university level student writers (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, AAG9507279.
    Chen, C. (1999). Application of discourse grounding to the teaching of advanced English writing. The Proceeding of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching: 135-146. Taipei
    Clark.C.H., & Bean,T.W. (1982). Improving advanced organizer research: Persistent problems & future decisions. Reading World, 22,2-16.
    Coady, James. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of ESL reader. In Reading in a Second Language. Ronald Mackay, Bruce Barkman, and R. R. Jordan (eds.), 5-12. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
    Cohen, A., Glasman, H., Rosenbaum-Cohen, P.R., Ferrara, J., & Fine, J. (1979). Reading English for specialized purposes: Discourse analysis and the use of student informants. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 551-564.
    Cohen, Andrew D. (1998). Strategies for Learning and Using a Second Language. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
    Crismore, A. (1984). Metadiscourse as rhetorical act in social studies text: Its effects on student performance and attitude. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois. New York: Peter Lang.
    Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
    Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. and Steffensen, M., (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written in American and Finnish university students,Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
    Cummins, J. (1979a, October). Cognitive/Academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question, and some other matters. Working papers on bilingualism, 19 (1), 121 -129.
    Cummins, J. (1979b). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research 34, 46-49.
    Cummins, J. (1981). Four misconceptions about language proficiency in bilingual education. NABE Journal, 5(3), 31-45.
    Dechant, E. (1964). Improving the teaching of reading. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Dechant, E. (1991). Understanding & teaching reading: An interactive model. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Dole, Janice, Gerald G. Duffy, Laura R. Roehler, and P. David Pearson (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research 61 (2): 239-264.
    Ehninger, D., Monroe, A., Grusbeck. (1978). Principles and types of communication (8th edition). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
    El-binary, P., & Brown, R., (1992). Skilled and not-so-skilled reading: Good information processing or not-so-good processing. In M. Pressley, K. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.).
    Fitzgerald, J. (1985). English-as-a-second-language learners’ cognitive reading process: a review of research in the United States: Review of Educational Research. Washington: Vol. 65, Iss. 2, pg. 145.
    Fisherman, A. (1978). The effect of anaphoric reference and noun phrase Organizers on paragraph comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior,10: 159-70.
    Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Gambrell, L.B., & Heathington, B.S. (1981, Fall). Adult disabled readers` metacognitive awareness about reading tasks and strategies. Journal of Readng Behavior, 13, 215-222.
    Goodman, Kenneth S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist. 6(1):126-135.
    Goodman, K. S. (1970). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In H. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 259-271). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    Genung, John F. (1981). Handbook of Rhetorical Analysis. Studies in Style and Invention, Designed to Accompany the Autghor’s Practical Elements of Rhetoric. Bosten: Ginn,
    Geva, E. (2000). Processing novel phonemic contrasts in the acquisition of L2 word reading. Scientific Studies in Reading, 4, 295-312.
    Goodman, Kenneth S. (1971). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. In the Psychology of Second Language Learning, Paul Pimsleur and Terence Quinn (eds.), 135-142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Goodman, Kenneth S. (1973a). On the psycholinguistic method of teaching reading. In Psycholinguistics and Reading. Frank Smith (ed.) 177-182. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second-language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375-406.
    Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension, Norwood, NJ; Ablex.
    Grimes, J.E. (1975). The thread of discourse. The Hague: mouton.
    Graves, Michael F., Connie Juel, and Bonnie Graves (1998). Teaching Reading in the 21st Century. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
    Grove. M. P. (1981) Psycholinguistic theories & ESL reading. In C.W. Twyford, W. Diehl, & K. Feathers (Eds.), Reading English as a second language: Moving from theory (pp.3-20). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
    Hadwin, Allyson Fiona and Phillip Winne (1996). Study strategies have meager support: A review with recommendations for implementations. Journal of Higher Education 67 (6): 692-713.
    Halliday, Michael, (1973). Exporations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.
    Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. Baltimore: University Park.
    Harvey, Stephanie and Anne Goudivs (2000). Strategies That Work: Teaching Comprehension to Enhance Understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
    Hyland, K., (1998a). Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
    Hyland, K., (1997). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
    Hyland, K., (1999). Talking to students:Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
    Haynes, M.,(1984). Patterns and perils of guessing in second language reading. In J. Handscombe, R. Oren, & B. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL `83 (pp. 163-176). Washington, DC: TESOL.
    Intaraprawat, P. & Steffensen, M., (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.
    Irwin,J.W., (1986). Teaching reading comprehension process. Englewood Cliffs.NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Johnson, P., (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a text. TESOL Quarterly, IS, 16e181.
    Krashen, S. D., (1988). Do we learn to read by reading? The relationship between free reading and reading ability. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in content: Connecting observation and understanding: Vol. 2. Advances in discourse processes (pp. 269- 298). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Lau, H.H., (2003). Signals of Specification in Papers on Applied Linguistics. The Twelfth International Symposium on English Teaching (p.452-458).
    Lautamatti, L., (1978). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified d iscourse. In V. Kohonen and N.E. Enkvist (eds.) Textlinguistics, cognitive learning and language teaching (pp.71-104). Turku: University of Turku.
    McLaughlin, B., (1985). Theories of second-language learning. Baltimore, MD: Arnold.
    Mauranen, A., (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
    Meyer, Greg, (1980). The Pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10:1-35.
    Meyer, B.J.F., (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
    Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C., (2002). Assessing students` metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory. Journal of Educational Psycho on. Pressley, M., Beard Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 91-127). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    Nist, S., & Holschuh, J., (2000). Comprehension strategies at the college level. In R. Flippo & D. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 75-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    O`Malley, J. Michael and Anna Uhl Chamot,(1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
    Oxford, Rebecca L., (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
    __ (1997). Constructivism: Shape-shifting, substance, and teacher education applications. Peabody Journal of Education 72 (1): 35-66.
    Pearson, P. David, Laura Roehler, Janice Dole, and Gerald Duffy, (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (2nd ed.), S. S. Samuels and A. E. Farstrip (eds.), 145-199. Newark, DE: International Reading Association
    Rigg, P., (1976). Reading in ESL. In J. F. Fanselow & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL `76 (pp. 203-210). New York: TESOL.
    Rigg, P., (1977). The miscue-ESL project. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL `77 (pp. 906-118). Washington, DC: TESOL.
    Rigg, P., (1986). Reading in ESL: Learning from kids. In P. Rigg & D. S. Enright (Eds.), Children and ESL: Integrating perspectives (pp. 55-91). Washington, DC: TESOL.
    Rigg, P., (1988). The miscue-ESL project. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, t D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 20-219). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Robbins, B., (1985). Language proficiency level and the comprehension of anaphoric subject pronouns by bilingual and monolingual children. In P. Larsen, E. L. Judd, & D. S. Merserchmitt (Eds.), On TESOL 84: A brave new world for TESOL (pp. 45-54). Washington, DC: TESOL.
    Roller, C. M., & Matambo, A. R., (1992). Bilingual readers` use of background knowledge in learning from text. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 129-i41.
    Romatowski, J. A., (1981). A study of oral reading in Polish and English: A psycholinguistic perspective. In S. Hudelson (Ed.), Linguistics and literacy series: 1. Learning to read in different languages (pp. 21-26). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
    Rumelhart, D. E., (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. E Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
    Rumelhart, D. E., (1985). Toward an interactive model of reading. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and process of reading (3rd ed., pp. 722-750). Newark, DE: International Reading Association
    Schiffrin, D., (1980). Metatalk: organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse.Sociological Inquiry: Language and social interaction, 50, 199-236.
    Schumacher, G. M. (1987). Executive control in studying. In B. Britton & S.M. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading. (pp.107-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Smith, D.E.A.,(1984). Medical discourse: Aspects of author’s comment. The ESP Journal, 3, 25-36.
    Tremonti, J.B.,& Alegero, C., (1967). Reading and study habits in content areas. Reading Improvement, 4,54-57.
    Vacca, R.T.,(1981). Content area reading. Boston: Little, Brown.
    Valero-Garces, C., (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for specific Purposes, 15(4), 279-294.
    Vande Kopple, W., (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36,82-93.
    Vygotsky, Lev Semonovich, (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Williams, J.W., (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
    Young, D. J., (1993). Processing strategies of foreign language readers: Authentic and edited input. Foreign Language Annals-Winter 1993, 26 (4), 451- 468.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    英國語文學系英語教學碩士在職專班
    91951010
    93
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0919510102
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[英國語文學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML2470View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback