英文閱讀能力與先備知識對閱讀物理篇章推論的影響

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：9

、訪客IP：3.142.151.216

姓名

韓佩倫(Pei-lun Han) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

英文閱讀能力與先備知識對閱讀物理篇章推論的影響
(English Reading Ability and Prior Knowledge Effect on Inference During Physical Text Reading)

相關論文

★ 以同儕互評與討論提升小六學童之寫作表現 ~以行動學習輔具教室為例	★ 從眼動資料探討字形與聲旁在篇章閱讀的效果
★ 從眼動資料探討連接詞與閱讀歷程之關係	★ EFL大學生閱讀英文的眼動資料分析
★ 以眼動型態探討背景知識對詞彙辨識的影響	★ 閱讀教學與國民小學學童閱讀動機及行為的關係—以2005年PIRLS資料為例
★ 合作寫作對於國小學童科學概念學習之影響	★ 記憶廣度與語境效應對閱讀歧義句的影響：來自眼動的證據
★ 由句法探討手語聽障生書面語閱讀的現象	★ 正負數量表徵的心理數線發展
★ 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	★ 國小學生對統計圖理解層次之研究
★ 國小學童對幽默漫畫閱讀歷程之研究	★ 成人與小六學童在中文多義詞語意激發和選擇的比較
★ 線上閱讀測驗之發展與學生能力表現之探究	★ 關係子題及線圖對國小數學低成就學生理解比較型文字題之影響

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)

本研究旨在探討高低先備知識與高低英語閱讀能力的讀者在閱讀英語物理文本的推論歷程。為了得知讀者的閱讀歷程，本研究採放聲思考作業，為2(組別：高先備知識低英語閱讀能力組，高英語閱讀能力低先備知識組) x 2(實驗材料：有/無引導插入句)的混合設計。中央大學大學部的學生為受試對象，理工相關科系的學生為物理高先備知識組，文、商學院的學生為物理低先備知識組，並以GEPT中級的閱讀項目區分受試者英語閱讀能力，前30%的學生為高英語閱讀能力組，後30%的學生為低英語閱讀能力組。每位受試者閱讀兩篇實驗材料內容，兩篇內容的差別在於有無引導插入句。插入引導句呈現的目的是在探討引導句的有無可否增加低先備知識讀者的推論。每篇材料有三個閱讀理解題項，讀者在閱讀完文本之後立即回答三個閱讀理解題項，以確認理解程度及引導插入句所發揮的作用。
本研究發現當讀者閱讀英語物理篇章時，學科知識為影響推論的主要因素。閱讀歷程中，高先備知識低英語閱讀能力讀者產生精緻化推論，藉由語境線索觸發先備知識達到正確推論；低先備知識高英語閱讀能力讀者產生解釋推論，採逐字閱讀，遇到學科詞彙會整合前後詞彙並觸發一般知識(real world knowledge)形成推論，但因學科詞彙知識不足，不正確推論次數明顯多於正確推論次數。比較兩組讀者閱讀有卅無引導插入句文本的理解分數發現低先備知識組的讀者閱讀有引導插入句文本的理解分數有顯著的高於閱讀無引導插入句文本。根據本研究結果建議，授課教師可視學習者程度採用合適教材並在教學過程中補充文句與段落間的知識概念，以利學習者有效達到閱讀理解。

摘要(英)

This study examined the EFL readers with high-low English reading ability and high-low prior knowledge by recording participants’ on-lined reading Physical text processing. The experimental design was 2 ( group: high prior knowledge low English ability, low prior knowledge high English ability) × 2 ( material : with / without bridging inference sentences). The participants were recruited from the undergraduate students of NCU. The Engineering undergraduate students form a high prior knowledge group; whereas, the college of Liberal Arts, and the school of Management students form a low prior knowledge group. In order to check the participants’ English ability, GEPT was conducted. Two Physic articles were read, which differ in the existence of bridging inference sentences. The existence of bridging inference sentences act as support to enhance participants’ making inferences during reading. There are three reading comprehension questions in each article. Every participant has to answer those questions to examine their comprehension of the article, as well as make sure the effect of the bridging inference sentences.
The result of the study provided that the domain knowledge is the main factor to affect readers’ making inference. High prior knowledge participants generated elaborative inferences by reading context. Low prior knowledge participants generated explanation-based inferences by reading word-by-word. When reading domain vocabulary, low prior knowledge participants attempted to construct a meaningful referential with real world knowledge. Due to the lack of domain knowledge, the number of incorrect inference which low prior knowledge participants generated was more than correct inference. Comparing two groups reading comprehension question scores, the articles with inference sentences showed to help low prior knowledge participants gained higher scores. The result suggested that the teachers should provide supporting knowledge to suit students’ domain knowledge as well as fill the gap between sentences, which would help learners comprehend the article effectively.

關鍵字(中)

★ 英語閱讀能力
★ 先備知識
★ 一般知識
★ 推論策略
★ 科學文本

關鍵字(英)

★ scientific text
★ real world knowledge
★ inference strategy
★ prior knowledge
★ English ability

論文目次

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........................................................................................ 3
第三節名詞釋義.................................................................................................... 4
第四節研究限制.................................................................................................... 5
第二章文獻探討..............................................................................................6
第一節閱讀理解理論............................................................................................ 6
第二節引導插入句................................................................................................7
第三節影響閱讀理解的因素................................................................................ 7
第一項先備知識與閱讀理解..........................................................................7
第二項第二語言能力與先備知識對閱讀的影響..........................................9
第三項推論.....................................................................................................14
第四節小結........................................................................................................20
第三章研究方法............................................................................................21
第一節英語閱讀能力作業.................................................................................. 22
第二節放聲思考作業.......................................................................................... 23
第四章結果分析與討論...........................................................................30
第一節兩組讀者閱讀無引導插入句時運用推論策略百分比與分佈差異......30
第二節兩組讀者閱讀有引導插入句時運用推論策略百分比與分佈差異......31
第三節先備知識與英語能力對推論形成的影響..............................................32
第四節有卅無引導插入句文本的閱讀理解分數差異......................................35
第五節精緻化推論與解釋推論..........................................................................36
第六節閱讀引導插入句與一般文句的差異.....................................................38
第七節物理詞彙與一般生字的處理方式..........................................................39
第八節討論..........................................................................................................44
第五章結論與建議.......................................................................................47
參考文獻................................................................................... 51
附錄
附錄一英語閱讀能力作業內容............................................................................57
附錄二放聲思考指導語與練習材料....................................................................67
附錄三實驗材料-有引導插入句文本..................................................................69
附錄四實驗材料-無引導插入句文本..................................................................73
附錄五受試者放聲思考逐字稿............................................................................77
表目次
表3-1 推論閱讀測驗-有引導插入句.......................................................................24
表3-2 推論閱讀測驗-無引導插入句.......................................................................25
表3-3 閱讀理解題項................................................................................................26
表3-4 受試者逐字稿範本........................................................................................28
表3-5 推論項目策略一覽表................................................................................... 29
表4-1-1 兩組受試者在無引導插入句的推論策略次數及百分比........................30
表4-1-2 兩組受試者閱讀無引導句的推論策略差異............................................31
表4-2-1 兩組受試者在有引導插入句的推論策略次數及百分比........................32
表4-2-2 兩組受試者閱讀有引導句的推論策略差異............................................32
表4-3-1高先備知識低英語能力組推論的次數及百分比.....................................33
表4-3-2低先備知識高英語能力組推論的次數及百分比.....................................34
表4-4-1組別與材料二因子混合設計變異數分析摘要表.....................................35

參考文獻

參考文獻
洪月女 (2009)。以古德曼的閱讀理論探討中英文閱讀之異同。新竹教育大學人文社會學報，3，87-114。
曾筱婷 (2006)。 EFL大學生閱讀英文的眼動資料分析。國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。未出版。
Afflerbach, P. P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly 25 , 31-46.
Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32, 10–14.
Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 10, 213–250.
Akyel, A. & Ercetin, G. (2009). Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced learners of English. System, 37, 136-152.
Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. (1995). Embedded clause effects on recall: Does high prior knowledge of context domain overcome syntactic complexity in students of Spanish? Modern Language Journal, 79, 491–504.
Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. (1998). Evidence for mental models: How do prior knowledge, syntactic complexity, and reading topic affect inference generation in a recall task for nonnative readers of Spanish? Modern Language Journal, 98, 176–193.
Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Top Lang Disorders, 25(1), 65–83.
Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Tumer, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177-220.
Caillies, S., Denhiere, G., & Kintsch, W. (2002). The effect of prior knowledge on understanding from text: Evidence from primed recognition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 267-286.
Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or reading proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12, 159-179.
Carrell, P. L. (1992). Awareness of Text Structure: Effects on Recall. Language Learning, 42, 1-18.
Chen, Q. & Donin, J. (1997). Discourse processing of first and second language biology texts: Effects of language proficiency and domain-specific knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 209-227.
Collins, A. Brown, J. S., & Larkin, K. M. (1980). Inference in text understanding. In R. J. Spiro,B . C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer( Eds.) Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 385-407). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading Comprehension of Scientific Text: A Domain-Specific Test of the Direct and Inferential Mediation Model of Reading Comprehension. Journal of Education Psychology, 102, 687-700.
de Bot, K., Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. B. (1997).Toward a lexical processing model for the study of second language vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from ESL reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,19, 309–329.
Donin, J., Graves, B., & Goyette, E. (2004). Second language text comprehension: Processing within a multilayered system. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 53-76.
Dubin, F., & Olshtain, E. (1993). Predicting word meanings from contextual clues: Evidence from L1 readers. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 181–202). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375-406.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
Grasser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, P., & Wiemer-Hasting, K. (2001). Constructing inferences and relations during text comprehension. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 249–271). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Halldorson, M & Singer, M. (2002). Inference processes: Integrating relevant knowledge and text information. Discourse Processes, 34, 145-161.
Hoover, M., & Dwivedi, V. (1998). Syntactic processing by skilled bilinguals. Language Learning, 48, 1–29.
Horiba, Y. (2000). Reader control in reading: Effects of language competence, text type, and task. Discourse Processes, 29, 223–267.
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, 1567-1577.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constration-intergration model. Psychological Review, 95, 263-182.
Kintsch, W. (2005). An overview of top-down and bottom-up effects in comprehension: The CI perspective. Discourse Processes, 39, 125-128.
Lau, K. L. (2006). Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: A think-aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 383-399.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-Level and Lower-Level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 261-276.
Nassaji, H. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learner’s lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 387-401.
Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NY., Prentice Hall.
O’Reilly, T. & MaNamara, D. S. (2007). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional high-stakes measures of high school students’’ science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 161-196.
Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 399–438.
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning & Instruction 19, 228-242.
Phillip, L. M. (1988). Young Readers’’ Inference Strategies in Reading Comprehension. Cognition and Instruction 5, 193-222.
Pressley, M., & Afferbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of the constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Pulido, D. (2007). The effect of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics 28, 66–86
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rowe, M., & McNamara, D. (2008). Inhibition needs no negativity: Negative links in the construction-integration model. In B.Love, K.McRae, & V. Sloutsky( Eds), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci2008) (p. 1777–1782). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Rumelhart, D. E. (2004). Toward an Interactive Model of Reading. In R. B. Ruddell, & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 1149-1179). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hi1lsdale, NJ: Er1baum.
Singer, M., & Halldorson, M. (1996). Constructing and validating motive bridging inferences. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 1-38.
Singer, M. & O’Connell, G. (2003). Robust inference processes in expository text comprehension. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15, 607-631.
Stanovich, K. E. (1984). The interactive-compensatory model of reading: A confluence of developmental, experimental, and educational psychology. RASE, 5, 11-19.
van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335–351.
Verhoeven, L. & Perfetti, C. (2008). Advances in Text Comprehension: Model, Process and Development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 293-301.
Walker, J. (1975). The flying circus of physics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wiley, J. & Myers, J. L. (2003). Availability and accessibility of information and causal inferences from scientific text. Discourse Processes, 36, 109-129.
Wiley, H. I. & Deno, S. L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on a State Standards Assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207-214.
Yang, Yu-Fen. (2006). Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies? Reading Psychology, 27, 313-343.

指導教授

柯華葳(Hwa-wei Ko)

審核日期

2012-1-20

推文