探討閱讀能力與文本架構對於國小學童使用理解策略的影響

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：19

、訪客IP：18.222.193.207

姓名

林常仁(Chang-jen Lin) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

探討閱讀能力與文本架構對於國小學童使用理解策略的影響
(Exploring the differences in comprehension strategies used between reading narrative and expository texts by different reading ability children)

相關論文

★ 以眼動型態探討背景知識對詞彙辨識的影響	★ 合作寫作對於國小學童科學概念學習之影響
★ 影響國小學童家長送子女參加課後補習之相關因素研究---以桃園縣中壢市為例	★ 國小學童圖文閱讀的理解策略
★ 幼童敘說書面故事之後設認知表現	★ 新移民家庭子女口語敘說能力之發展
★ 圖文提示對學童閱讀科學說明文記憶與理解之影響	★ 識字教學法與口語詞彙能力對新移民女性中文識字學習之影響
★ 先備知識對於不同閱讀能力的學童在閱讀歷程中自我提問的影響	★ Exploring Computer-based Nature Science Instruction Based on the Cognitive Load Theory: Spatial Contiguity Effect, and Effects of Prior Knowledge on Performance Assessments
★ 教師示範與文本提示對國小學童自我解釋與閱讀理解表現之影響	★ 國小學童之工作記憶能力對於閱讀理解監控表現的影響
★ 成人與幼童的言談行為分析：比較電子書與紙本書親子共讀的情境	★ 探討幼兒的早期書寫表現及其影響因素
★ 探究教師閱讀教學自我效能與閱讀自我調整教學信念及實踐之關係	★ L2詞素結構註解與L1字義註解於線上閱讀環境中對EFL字彙學習影響之探討

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

本研究目的為探討不同閱讀國小六年級學童閱讀兩種文本架構使用理解策略的情形，以及不同閱讀能力讀者分別閱讀不同文本架構使用理解策略上的情況，文本架構分為故事體與說明文各一篇文章，並利用放聲思考活動進行資料蒐集。本研究對象為30位國小六年級學童，其中包含18位優讀者及12位弱讀者。研究結果顯示，讀者閱讀不同文本架構所增進理解的策略而不同，於故事體中採用推論下結論和見解與觀點；以找重點和理解監控進行說明文的理解。當探討優、弱讀者閱讀故事體時，發現所採用的理解策略沒有差異，而閱讀說明文時，則發現優讀者與弱讀者使用策略類似(如:推論下結論)；弱讀者閱讀說明文較常採用重讀理解文章內容。分別探討優、弱讀者是否因文本架構而使用策略有變化，研究結果得知優、弱讀者閱讀不同文本架構使用策略有差異，優讀者閱讀不同文本所採用的策略變化較弱讀者大，優讀者閱讀故事體使用推論下結論和見解與觀點，說明文則會採用找重點進行理解；弱讀者僅在閱讀故事體時利用推論下結論進行理解。因此，優、弱讀者隨著閱讀不同文本架構，而運用不同的理解策略，但是優讀者運用策略較弱讀者有彈性。

摘要(英)

The purpose of this study was to obtain a better understanding of the comprehension strategies used by good and poor readers when they are required to read narrative and expository texts. Thirty sixth graders were divided into two groups (good vs. poor readers) based on their performance on a standardized comprehension test. Each student was asked to use think-aloud to read two types of article which are narrative and expository texts. From the analysis of the think-aloud protocols, the result shows that both groups used different strategies by two articles. All readers used “inferring and conclusion” and “making comments” to read narrative text, and used “noting main ideas” and “comprehension monitoring” in reading expository text. Although two groups used strategies influence by text structure, good readers used strategies vary than poor readers, regardless of the text types. Good readers and poor readers used the similar strategies in the narrative, such as “summarizing”, “inferring and conclusion” and “making comments”; Good readers used “summarizing”, “noting main ideas” and “paraphrasing” whereas poor readers used “reread” and “summarizing” in expository text. In sum, good readers more flexibly use different strategies to address comprehension obstacles in both texts.

關鍵字(中)

★ 閱讀能力
★ 文本架構
★ 理解策略
★ 放聲思考

關鍵字(英)

★ Comprehension strategies
★ Text structure
★ Think-aloud

論文目次

目錄 i
圖目錄 iii
表目錄 iv
第一章緒論 1
第一節研究背景與動機 1
第二節研究目的與問題 4
第三節名詞解釋 4
第二章文獻探討 7
第一節閱讀理解策略 7
第二節文本架構的本質對讀者的影響 14
第三節不同閱讀能力讀者理解文章的特性及其差異 20
第三章研究方法與設計 27
第一節研究對象 27
第二節研究工具 28
第三節研究流程及研究程序 30
第四節資料分析 32
第四章結果分析與討論 35
第一節理解策略的分析架構 35
第二節讀者閱讀故事體與說明文使用理解策略的情形 41
第三節優、弱讀者閱讀不同文本使用理解策略的差異比較分析 54
第五章結論與建議 61
第一節結論 61
第二節建議 62
參考書目 65
附錄一指導語 73
附錄二研究題材－故事體 74
附錄三研究題材－說明文 75

參考文獻

王瓊珠(2004)。故事結構教學與分享閱讀。台北：心理。
吳訓生(2002)。國小高、低閱讀理解能力學生閱讀理解策略之比較研究。特殊教育學報，16，65-104。
林寶貴、錡寶香(2002)。中文閱讀理解測驗。台北市：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
曾彥翰、蔡昆瀛(2007)。文章結構教學對增進國小聽覺障礙學生說明文閱讀理解成效之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，32(2)，67-91。
張菀真、辜玉旻(2011) 國小高、低閱讀能力學童圖文閱讀的理解策略。臺北市立教育大學學報，42(2)，93-122。
教育部（2014）。教育部推廣閱讀情形報告。取自 http://www.ey.gov.tw/Upload/RelFile/26/716421/02簡報檔_教育部閱讀推動情形報告(院會報告)103_0311ok.pdf
教育部(2015)。課文本位閱讀理解教學。取自 http://140.127.56.86/pair_System/Search_index.aspx？PN=PlanInfo
Afflerbach, P. P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers′ main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), 31-46.
Afflerbach, P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge and text genre on readers′ prediction strategies. Journal of Literacy Research, 22(2), 131-148.
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text？ Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 331-346.
August, D. L., Flavell, J. H., & Clift, R. (1984). Comparison of comprehension monitoring of skilled and less skilled readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 39-53.
Baker, L., & Anderson, R. I. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2),281-294.
Bakken, J. P., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. Journal of Special Education, 31(3), 300-324
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55(1), 10-20.
Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & Mcnamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children′s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 137-164.
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717-726.
Bråten, I. (1993). Cognitive strategies: A multi-componential conception of strategy use and strategy instruction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 217–242
Bråten, I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Does naturally occurring comprehension strategies instruction make a difference when students read expository text？ Journal of Research in Reading, 36(1), 42-57.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2003). A longitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. Reading and Writing, 16(3), 195-218.
Bryant, D. P., Ugel, N., Thompson, S., & Hamff, A. (1999). Instructional strategies for content-area reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), 293-302.
Dewitz, P., & Dewitz, P. K. (2003). They can read the words, but they can′t understand: Refining comprehension assessment. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 422-435.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Dymock, S. (2007). Comprehension strategy instruction: Teaching narrative text structure awareness. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 161-167.
Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children′s developing awareness of text structures in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 65-74.
Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(2), 93-105.
Garner, R., & McCaleb, J. L. (1985). Effects of text manipulations on quality of written summaries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(2), 139-149.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223-234.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371.
Gurney, D., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Carnine, D. (1990). Story grammar Effective literature instruction for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(6), 335-342.
Hock, M., & Mellard, D. (2005). Reading comprehension strategies for adult literacy outcomes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(3), 192-200.
Johnston, P. H., & Winograd, P. N. (1985). Passive failure in reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 17(4), 279-301.
Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 65-77.
Kamberelis, G., & Bovino, T. D. (1999). Cultural artifacts as scaffolds for genre development. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2), 138–170.
Kendeou, P., Muis, K. R., & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors in reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(4), 365-383.
Kendeou, P., & Van Den Broek, P. (2005). The Effects of Readers′ Misconceptions on Comprehension of Scientific Text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 235.
Kendeou, P., & Van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577.
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and note taking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303-323.
Kintsch, W., Mandel, T. S., & Kozminsky, E. (1997). Summarizing scrambled stories. Memory and Cognition, 5(5), 547-552.
Kletzien, S. B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1),67-86.
Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajšanski, I. (2006). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension in elementary-school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(4), 439-451.
Lau, K. L. (2006). Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: a think‐aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 383-399.
Law, Y. K. (2008). Chinese children‘s constructive activity and text comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(4), 379-403.
Long, S. A., Winograd, P. N., & Bridge, C. A. (1989). The effects of reader and text characteristics on imagery reported during and after reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(3),353-372.
McGee, L. M. (1982). Awareness of text structure: Effects on children′s recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(4),581-590.
Meyer, B. J., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1),72-103.
Meyer, B. J., & Rice, G. E. (1984). The structure of text. Handbook Of Reading Research, 1, 319-351.
Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18(7-9), 657-686.
Palincsar, A. S., Magnussen, S. J., Pesko, S., & Hamlin, M. (2005). Attending to the nature of subject matter in text comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 257–278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989). Strategies that improve children′s memory and comprehension of text. The Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 3-32.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of？ In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr(Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 3 (pp. 545-561) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal Protocols Of Reading: The Nature Of Constructively Responsive Reading. Routledge.
Pressley, M. (2002a). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn of-the-century status report. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 11–27). New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M. (2002b). Metacognition and self-regulated instruction. In A. Farstrup & S. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed.) (pp. 291–309). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 13(1), 5-22.
Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(4),273-295.
Ruffman, T. (1996). Do children understand the mind by means of simulation or a theory？ Evidence from their understanding of inference. Mind & Language, 11(4), 388-414.
Sáenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23(1), 31-41.
Samuelstuen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge, and strategies in comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46(2), 107-117.
Schellings, G., Aarnoutse, C., & van Leeuwe, J. (2006). Third-grader′s think-aloud protocols: Types of reading activities in reading an expository text. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 549-568.
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2003). Students′ strategic use of multiple sources during expository text reading: A longitudinal think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 113-147.
Taylor, B. M. (1980). Children′s memory for expository text after reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(3),399-411.
Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students′ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(2),134-146.
Tilstra, J., & McMaster, K. L. (2013). Cognitive processes of middle grade readers when reading expository text with an assigned goal. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 66-74.
Trabasso, T., & Van Den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(5), 612-630.
Wigent, C. A. (2013). High school readers: A profile of above average readers and readers with learning disabilities reading expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 134-140.
Weaver, C. A., & Bryant, D. S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory & Cognition, 23(1), 12-22.
Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, 2, (pp. 230-244). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(4), 408-428.
Williams, J. P. (2003). Teaching text structure to improve reading comprehension. In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 355–382). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Wolman, C. (1991). Sensitivity to causal cohesion in stories by children with mild mental retardation, children with learning disabilities, and children without disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 25(2), 135-154.
Wong, B. Y., & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigating awareness of and teaching passage organization in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(8), 477-482.
Zabrucky, K., & Moore, D. (1989). Children′s ability to use three standards to evaluate their comprehension of text. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(3), 336-352.
Zabrucky, K., & Ratner, H. H. (1989). Effects of reading ability on children′s comprehension evaluation and regulation. Journal of Literacy Research, 21(1), 69-83.
Zabrucky, K., & Ratner, H. H. (1992). Effects of passage type on comprehension monitoring and recall in good and poor readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 24(3), 373-391.

指導教授

辜玉旻(Yu-min Ku)

審核日期

2015-10-15

推文