博碩士論文 110127008 詳細資訊




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:46 、訪客IP:3.128.255.103
姓名 黃郁婷(Yu-Ting Huang)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 學習與教學研究所
論文名稱
(Effects of Self-questioning Instruction on Taiwanese High School Students’ Quality of Question Generation and Reading Comprehension)
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★ 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
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]   至系統瀏覽論文 (2026-1-9以後開放)
摘要(中) 本研究旨在探討自我提問教學對於台灣高中生在提問層次及閱讀理解表現上的影響,並分析提問層次與閱讀理解表現的關聯。研究者以北部某高中的57位高一生為研究對象,進行兩堂課的自我提問教學,教導學生自我提問的意義、PISA閱讀素養問題層次,以及提問句型,並透過課堂閱讀與討論熟悉自我提問。此外,本研究亦探討讀者的先備知識與後設認知覺識對提問層次及閱讀理解表現的影響。研究者以單組前後測設計,分別於教學介入前後蒐集學生的文本主題先備知識、自我提問層次表現、閱讀理解表現,以及針對閱讀策略的後設認知覺識。研究結果顯示,學生提出的問題仍以低層次的「表徵字面意義」為主,而自我提問層次與閱讀理解表現在教學介入前後並無顯著差異。此外,提問層次與閱讀理解間並未發現關聯。從讀者特性對自我提問的表現來看,學生的先備知識與後設認知覺識有交互作用。在低先備知識者的表現中,後設認知覺識越高,提問層次越高。而從讀者特性對閱讀理解的表現來看,先備知識的差異會影響其在閱讀理解的表現,在高層次的「省思形式與內容」表現上尤其顯著。先備知識越高,「省思形式與內容」的閱讀理解表現越佳。
摘要(英) The present study explored the effects of self-questioning instruction on Taiwanese high-school students’ performance of question quality and reading comprehension. Besides, the relationship between the quality of questions and reading comprehension was analyzed. Participants were 57 tenth graders in a high school located in northern Taiwan. During the intervention, purposes of self-questioning while reading, question types under PISA reading literacy framework, and question stems were mentioned and modeled by the instructor then practiced by the participants through reading and discussion. In addition, readers′ prior knowledge and metacognitive awareness were examined to determine their effects on performance of question quality and reading comprehension. The experiment was under single-group design to collect data on reader characteristics and learning outcomes before and after the intervention.

The results indicated that students generated most of the questions on lower level (i.e., representation of literal meaning) before and after the intervention. No significant difference was shown on students′ quality of questions and reading comprehension. No correlation was found between the quality of questions and reading comprehension. Regarding the influence of readers’ characteristics, an interaction was discovered between students’ prior knowledge and metacognitive awareness on self-questioning performance. Among low-knowledge readers, the higher their metacognitive awareness was, the higher quality of questions they generated. On the other hand, students’ difference on prior knowledge positively affected their reading comprehension performance, especially on higher order of reading literacy (i.e., reflections on form and content).
關鍵字(中) ★ 自我提問
★ 自我提問教學
★ 問題生成
★ 閱讀理解
★ 先備知識
★ 後設認知覺識
關鍵字(英) ★ self-questioning
★ self-questioning instruction
★ question generation
★ reading comprehension
★ prior knowledge
★ metacognitive awareness
論文目次 Contents
Abstract i
Contents ii
List of Tables v
List of Figure vi
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Purposes of the Study and Research Questions 5
1.3 Definition of Terms 6
1.3.1 Self-questioning 6
1.3.2 Reading Comprehension 6
1.3.3 Prior Knowledge 7
1.3.4 Metacognitive Awareness 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review 8
2.1 Self-questioning and Reading 8
2.2 Question Types and Embedded Cognitive Levels 9
2.3 Self-questioning Instruction 16
2.3.1 Teacher-initiated Question vs. Student-generated Question 16
2.3.2 Questioning Prompt 18
2.3.3 Teaching Procedure and Learning Outcomes 19
2.4 The Role Reader Characteristics Play in Reading to Learn 23
2.4.1 Prior Knowledge and Reading Comprehension 23
2.4.2 Metacognitive Awareness and Reading Comprehension 26
2.4.3 Effects of Reader Characteristics on Question Generation 30
Chapter 3: Methodology 32
3.1 Participants 32
3.2 Experimental Design and Procedure 32
3.3 Measures 34
3.3.1 Prior Knowledge Test 34
3.3.2 Experimental Reading Materials 34
3.3.3 Self-generated Questions 35
3.3.4 Reading Comprehension Assessment 36
3.3.5 Metacognitive Awareness Questionnaire 37
3.4 Instructional Procedure 38
3.4.1 Questioning Prompts 40
3.4.2 Reading Materials 41
3.5 Data Analysis 42
3.5.1 Prior Knowledge 42
3.5.2 Self-generated Questions 42
3.5.3 Reading Comprehension 45
3.5.4 Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies 53
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion 54
4.1 Descriptive Statistics on all Variables 54
4.2 Performance on the Quality of Students’ Self-generated Questions 56
4.3 Performance on Reading Comprehension 60
4.4 Relationship between Self-questioning and Reading Comprehension 63
4.5 The Influence of Prior Knowledge and Metacognitive Awareness 64
Chapter 5: Conclusions 71
5.1 Conclusions 71
5.2 Instructional Implications 72
5.3 Limitations of the Study 73
5.4 Recommendations for Future Research 74
References 75
Appendixes 82
Appendix 1: Prior Knowledge Test 82
Appendix 3: Experimental Text— The Black Death 84
Appendix 4: Expert Validity Questionnaire on the Experimental Reading Materials 85
Appendix 5: Directions while Reading 89
Appendix 6: Reading Comprehension Test— Plant-based Meat 90
Appendix 7: Reading Comprehension Test— The Black Death 92
Appendix 8: Expert Validity Questionnaire on Reading Comprehension Assessment 94
Appendix 9: Questionnaire on Metacognitive Awareness 97
Appendix 10: Lesson Plan 98
Appendix 11: Handout 104
Appendix 12: Scoring Rubrics for Prior Knowledge 107
參考文獻 丁美娟(2020)。PISA 三層次提問融入國文教學提升國中生閱讀素養之行動研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中興大學,臺中市。

黃昶慈(2010)。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(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中央大學,桃園市。

謝進昌(2015)。有效的中文閱讀理解策略:國內實徵研究之最佳證據整合。教育科學研究期刊,60(2),33-77。

Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: a multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. III (pp. 285−310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Alexander, P. A., Jetton, T. L., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest, and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 559–575.

Baker, L., & Beall, L. C. (2009). Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 373-388). New York: Routledge.

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills in reading. In D. P. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Research directions: Social studies texts are hard to understand: Mediating some of the difficulties. Language Arts, 68(6), 482–490.

Berkeley, S., Marshak, L., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2011). Improving student comprehension of social studies text: A self-questioning strategy for inclusive middle school classes. Remedial and Special Education, 32(2), 105-113.

Caillies, S., Denhière, G., & Kintsch, W. (2002). The effect of prior knowledge on understanding from text: Evidence from primed recognition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 267-286.

Cameron, C., Van Meter, P., & Long, V. A. (2017). The effects of instruction on students′ generation of self-questions when reading multiple documents. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(2), 334-351.

Crabtree, T., Alber-Morgan, S. R., & Konrad, M. (2010). The effects of self-monitoring of story elements on the reading comprehension of high school seniors with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 187-203.

Cromley, J. G. (2005). Metacognition, cognitive strategy instruction, and reading in adult literacy. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 5(7), 187-205.

Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students′ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.

Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462-473.

Darjito, H. (2019). Students′ Metacognitive Reading Awareness and Academic English Reading Comprehension in EFL Context. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 611-624.

Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 256.

Day, R.R. and Park, J.-S. (2005). Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17, 60–73.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145-186.

Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51-93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Fitrisia, D., Tan, K. E., & Yusuf, Y. Q. (2015). Investigating metacognitive awareness of reading strategies to strengthen students’ performance in reading comprehension. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 30(1), 15-30.

Fox, E. (2009). The role of reader characteristics in processing and learning from informational text. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 197-261.

Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 143-158.

Graesser, A.C., & Person, N.K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.

Hailikari, T., Nevgi, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2007). Exploring alternative ways of assessing prior knowledge, its components and their relation to student achievement: a mathematics-based case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 320−337.

Hagaman, J. L., & Reid, R. (2008). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of middle school students at risk for failure in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 222–234.

Hu, H. W., Chiu, C. H., & Chiou, G. F. (2019). Effects of question stem on pupils’ online questioning, science learning, and critical thinking. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(4), 564-573.

Joseph, L. M., Alber-Morgan, S., Cullen, J., & Rouse, C. (2016). The effects of self-questioning on reading comprehension: A literature review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32(2), 152-173.

King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students′ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(4), 366-381.

King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.

King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 13-17.

Marbach‐Ad, G., & Sokolove, P. G. (2000). Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 854-870.

Mckeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 78-93.

McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1-43.

Meniado, J. C. (2016). Metacognitive Reading Strategies, Motivation, and Reading Comprehension Performance of Saudi EFL Students. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 117-129.

Ministry of Education. (2014). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education. New Taipei City: National Academy for Educational Research.

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students′ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

OECD (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. Paris: OECD Publishing.

O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43(2), 121–152.

Otero, J. (2009). Question generation and anomaly detection in texts. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser, Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 47-59). New York: Routledge.

Paris, 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.

Paul, R., & Norbury, C. F. (2012). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Raphael, T. E.(1982). Question-answering strategies for children. The Reading Teacher, 36, 186-190.

Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. The reading teacher, 59(3), 206-221.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.

Reynolds, R. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1982). Influence of questions on the allocation of attention during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 623–632
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181-221.

Rouse, C. A., Alber‐Morgan, S. R., Cullen, J. M., & Sawyer, M. (2014). Using prompt fading to teach self‐questioning to fifth graders with LD: Effects on reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(3), 117-125.

Rouse-Billman, C., & Alber-Morgan, S. (2019). Teaching self-questioning using systematic prompt fading: Effects on fourth graders’ reading comprehension. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 63(4), 352-358.

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.

Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 159−189.
Smith, R., Snow, P., Serry, T., & Hammond, L. (2021). The role of background knowledge in reading comprehension: A critical review. Reading Psychology, 42(3), 214-240.

Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Growth of cognitive strategies for reading comprehension. In K. C. Perencevich, A. Wigfield, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Motivating reading comprehension (pp. 273-306). New York: Routledge.

Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1-35.

van den Broek, P., Young, M, Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71-98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van den Broek, P., Tzeng, Y., Risden, K., Trabasso, T., & Basche, P. (2001). Inferential questioning: Effects on comprehension of narrative texts as a function of grade and timing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 521–529.

Wong, B. Y. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 227-268.

Zhang, L. J. (2008). Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: exploring pathways to learner development in the English as second language (ESL) classroom. Instructional Science, 36, 89–116.
指導教授 辜玉旻(Yu-Min Ku) 審核日期 2024-1-9
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明