淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


系統識別號 U0002-0107202014523900
中文論文名稱 探討大學生高成就與低成就英語學習者線上閱讀理解策略之運用
英文論文名稱 Online Reading Comprehension Strategies Used by Higher- and Lower-Achieving University EFL Students
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 英文學系博士班
系所名稱(英) Department of English
學年度 108
學期 2
出版年 109
研究生中文姓名 李天苓
研究生英文姓名 Tian-ling Li
學號 803110179
學位類別 博士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2020-06-11
論文頁數 226頁
口試委員 指導教授-林銘輝
委員-張世豪
委員-楊捷閔
委員-林進瑛
委員-張偉鈺
中文關鍵字 線上閱讀策略  高成就與低成就者  英語學習者 
英文關鍵字 online reading strategies  hither- and lower-achievers  EFL students 
學科別分類
中文摘要 此次研究旨在探討台灣大學生使用線上閱讀策略的運用,藉以提昇閱讀理解。為達此目的,兩項研究分別進行。第一項研究以一班34人的大一新生為主 (20人為高成就者以及14人為低成就者),第二項研究以兩班16人二年級以上的大學生為主其中8人為控制組(4人為高成就者,4人為低成就者),8人為實驗組(4人為高成就者,4人為低成就者)。收集研究資料依序為量化為先,質化為後。完成8週和6週的資料蒐集後,量化與質化分析分別完成。研究結果顯示: 其一、在第一項研究中,高成就與低成就學生增進了閱讀策略的了解與使用;相反地, 第二項研究中,實驗組高成就與低成就的學生在閱讀策略了解與使用上並未有顯著的增加。除此之外,第一項研究顯示,諸多閱讀策略與閱讀成績有相關;然而,此項結果並未在第二項研究中發現。此外,第一項與第二項研究中的高成就與低成就的參與者對此項閱讀策略皆保持正面的觀感。


英文摘要 This research intends to investigate reading strategies used by EFL readers of a Taiwanese university in the enhancement of comprehension within academic contexts when reading online texts. To meet this goal, two empirical studies (Study 1 and Study 2) were conducted separately. A class of 34 freshmen (20 higher-achievers and 14 lower-achievers) joined the first study and two classes of 16 including 8 students (4 higher-achievers and 4 lower-achievers) in the control group and 8 students (4 higher-achievers and 4 lower-achievers) in the experimental group participated in the second study. Data collection were undertaken in two sequential ways that were designed with an initial quantitative survey, followed by a qualitative way during 8 weeks for the first study and 6 weeks for the second study. Completing the data collection, the data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Following that, the research results revealed that: First, in the first study, both higher- and lower-achievers improved their awareness and application of online reading strategies. In contrast, both higher- and lower-achievers in the experimental group had no significant increase in their awareness of and application of reading strategies. In addition, in the first study higher- and lower-achievers had correlations between multiple reading-strategies and reading performance; however, this was not the case in the experimental group of the second study. Besides that, both higher- and lower-achievers in the first and second studies held positive perceptions towards these online reading strategies.
論文目次 Contents
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
Chapter I: Introduction 1
Research Purposes 10
Significance of the Study 11
Organization of the Dissertation 12
Chapter II: Literature Review 14
Theories of Reading, Strategies and Reading Strategies 14
Definition of reading 14
Purposeful reading 15
Meaning-constructing reading 16
Successful reading 21
Definition of online reading 22
Definition of strategies 23
Historical theoretical views about strategies 23
Current theoretical views about strategies 24
Definition of reading strategies 25
Metacognition, cognition and reading strategies for comprehension 27
Awareness, action of reading strategies for comprehension 28
Online Reading Comprehension Strategies 31
Inferencing strategies 31
Three components of inferences 32
Regression of inferences 33
Self-regulated strategies 34
Metacognition and self-regulated strategies 34
Monitoring and control 35
Regression of self-regulation 36
Support strategies 37
Metalinguistic level 37
Text level 38
Online text level 39
Online context level 39
Online dictionary level 40
Research on Reading Comprehension Strategies 41
Research within L1 and L2 contexts 41
Research within L2 contexts 44
Research within Taiwanese contexts 47
Chapter III: Research Methods 52
Study 1 53
Participants 53
Procedures 54
Reading material 56
Treatment 56
Instruments 58
Data analysis 62
Quantitative analysis 62
Qualitative analysis 66
Study 2 68
Participants 68
Procedures 69
Reading material 72
Treatment 72
Instruments 73
Data analysis 76
Quantitative analysis 76
Qualitative analysis 80
Chapter IV: Results 82
Results for Reliability 82
Study 1 83
Demographics 83
Results from quantitative analysis 85
Question 1 85
Question 2 91
Question 3 97
Question 4 108
Results from qualitative analysis 109
Advantages of using online reading comprehension strategies 110
Disadvantages of using online reading comprehension strategies 113
Study 2 115
Demographics 115
Results from quantitative analysis 117
Question 1 117
Question 2 124
Question 3 130
Question 4 139
Results from qualitative analysis 140
Advantages of using (online) reading comprehension strategies in the control
and experimental groups 141
Disadvantages of using (online) reading comprehension strategies in the
control and experimental groups 144
Chapter V: Discussion 147
Study 1 147
Question 1 147
Imbalance of awareness 147
Gained awareness 148
The role of L1 149
Question 2 150
Flexible use of online reading comprehension strategies 150
Monitoring and control 151
Active and multiple-strategic users 151
Problem solvers 152
Question 3 153
Strategies and reading comprehension 153
Significances between pre- and post-tests 154
Interactive reading 155
Question 4 156
Diversities of awareness strategies and positive perceptions 156
Adjusting the trend of reading and positive perceptions 157
Strategic interventions 158
Study 2 160
Question 1 160
Imbalance of awareness 160
Gained awareness 161
The role of L1 161
Question 2 162
Flexible use of online reading comprehension strategies 162
Monitoring and control 163
Active and multiple-strategic users 163
Problem solvers 164
Question 3 164
Strategies and reading comprehension 164
Significances between pre- and post-tests 165
Interactive reading 166
Question 4 167
Satisfaction with the strategies 167
Strategic interventions 168
Reading scores 168
Chapter VI: Conclusion 170
Summary 170
Use of online reading strategies 171
Strategic interventions 173
Pedagogical Implications 174
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 176
References 179
Appendices 196
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
List of Tables
Table 1 Divergences between Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Performance of Reading Comprehension Strategies 4
Table 2 Reliability for Questionnaires 83
Table 3 Age of Participants 83
Table 4 Majors of Participants 84
Table 5 Students’ Awareness of Online Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-stages 86
Table 6 Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Awareness of Online Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-phases 90
Table 7 Students’ Application of Online Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-stages 92
Table 8 Comparisons of Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Applying Online Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-stages 96
Table 9 Average Scores of Final Post-test between Higher-level and Lower-level Achievers 98
Table 10 Average Scores of Reading at Pre- and Post-tests 99
Table 11 Average Scores of the Readings between Higher- and Lower-achievers at Pre- and Post-tests 102
Table 12 Comparison between Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Awareness and Application of Online Reading Comprehension Strategies and Final Post-test 106
Table 13 Comparison between Three Predictors and Final Post-test 107
Table 14 Comparisons between Higher- and Lower- achieving Students’
Perceptions of Online Reading Comprehension Strategies 109
Table 15 Age of Participants 115
Table 16 Majors of Participants 116
Table 17 Students’ Awareness of (Online) Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-stages in the Control and Experimental Groups 118
Table 18 Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Awareness of (Online) Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-phases in the Control and Experimental Groups 122
Table 19 Students’ Application of (Online) Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-stages in the Control and Experimental Groups 125
Table 20 Comparisons of Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Applying (Online) Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-stages in the Control and Experimental Groups 128
Table 21 Average Scores of Final Post-test between the Control and Experimental Groups 131
Table 22 Average Scores of the Readings at Pre- and Post-tests 132
Table 23 Average Scores of the Readings between Higher- and Lower-level Participants in the Control and Experimental Groups 135
Table 24 Comparisons between Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Awareness and Application of (Online) Reading Comprehension Strategies and Final Post-test in the Control and Experimental Groups 137
Table 25 Comparisons between Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Perceptions of (Online) Reading Comprehension Strategies in the Control and Experimental Groups 140
List of Figures
Figure 1 Flowchart of Measuring Procedures for Study 1 56
Figure 2 A Sample of Screen-shot for Part of a Reading Material 57
Figure 3 Procedures for Qualitative Analysis 68
Figure 4 Flowchart of Measuring Procedures for Study 2 72
參考文獻 References
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.
Ahmadian, M., & Gholami, P. P. (2017). EFL learners’ use of online metacognitive reading strategies and its relation to their self-efficacy in reading. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 17(2), 117-132.
Alexander, S., & Robinson, L. (2015). Core 3: Nonfiction Reading. Korea: Compass.
Ali, A. M., & Razali, A. B. (2019). A review of studies on cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies in teaching reading comprehension for ESL/EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 12(6), 94-111.
Alrabah, S., & Wu, S. (2019). A descriptive analysis of the metacognitive reading strategies employed by EFL college students in Kuwait. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(1), 25 – 35.
Altay, İ. F., & Altay, A. (2017). The impact of online reading tasks and reading strategies on EFL learners’ reading test scores. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 136-152.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460 – 472.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, clicking, and reading English: Online reading strategies in a second/foreign language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 1-33.
Anderson, N. J. (2009). ACTIVE reading: The research base for a pedagogical approach in the reading classroom. In Z. Han & N. J. Anderson (Eds.), Second language reading research and instruction: crossing the boundaries (pp.117-143). MI: University of Michigan Press.
Annury, M. N., Mujiyanto, J., Saleh, M., & Sutopo, D. (2019). The use of metacognitive strategies in EFL reading comprehension. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 343, 62 – 66.
Armbrecht, J. (2018). An investigation of the reading strategies employed by college students in their online classes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://Armbrecht_unr_0139D_12522.pdf
Baker, L. (2008). Metacognition in comprehension instruction: what we’ve learned since NRP. In C.C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: research-based practices (2nd ed., pp. 65-79). New York: Guilford Press.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 1-74). NY: Longman Press.
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social science (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463-494.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445-457.
Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language curriculum: From teacher- to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 87-107.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: principles and classroom practices (2nd ed.). NY: Pearson Education.
Byien, C. (2019). What is PISA? Retrieved from http://m.parenting.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5033385
Cambridge Dictionary. (2018). Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/English
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Retrieved from http://campbell&Stanley-1959-Exptl&QuasiExpt1DesignsF
orResearch.pdf
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130.
Cheng, G., Poon, L. K. M., Lau, W.W. F., & Zou, R. C. (2019). Exploring the relationship between self-regulated learning strategies and computer programming achievement in higher education. Proceeding of the 5th International Conference on Education, 5, 67-74.
Chiou, H. (2010). Quantitative research and statistical analysis in social & behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Taipei: Wunan.
Chou, M. (2013). Strategy use for reading English for general and specific academic purposes in testing and non-testing contexts. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 175-197.
Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies for learning and using a second language. New York: Cambridge UP.
Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 30-35.
Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 352-392.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.
Creswell, J. w. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (4th ed.). CA: Sage.
Daeli, N. H., Hutapea, Y. J. N., Gea, F. D. N., Lestari, I., & Saragih, E. (2020). Identifying reading comprehension questions of national examination for senior high school students. JOLT, 8(1), 83-90.
Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Duffy, G. G. (2003). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies. New York: Guilford.
Ebrahimi, S. S. (2012). Reading strategies of Iranian postgraduate English students living at ESL context in the first and second language. IACSIT, 195-199
Elleman, A. M., & Compton, D. L. (2017). Beyond comprehension strategy instruction: What’s next ? Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1044/2017LSHESS-16-0036
Estacio, M. J. M. (2013). Bilingual Readers’ metacognitive strategies as predictors of reading comprehension. Philippine ESL Journal, 10, 179-199.
Fadlelmula, F. K., & Özgeldi, M. (2010). How a learner self-regulates reading comprehension: a case study for graduate level reading. US-China Education Review, 7(10), 22-28.
Fan, H. (2009). The effectiveness of metacognitive strategies in facilitating Taiwanese university learners in EFL reading comprehension (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest dissertation and theses database. (Document ID3354803)
Fesel, S. S., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). Individual variation in children’s reading comprehension across digital text types. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(1), 106-121.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906-911.
Foltz, P.W. (1996). Comprehension, coherence and strategies in hypertext and linear text. In J. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. P. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fotovatian, S., & Shokrpour, N. (2007). Comparison of the efficiency of reading comprehension strategies on Iranian University students’ comprehension. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2), 47-63.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Fung, I. Y. Y., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL students’ comprehension of English expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13, 1-31.
Gilakjani, A. P., & Sabouri, N. B. (2016). A study of factors affecting EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill and the strategies for improvement. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(5), 180 – 187.
Goldman, S. R. (2015). Reading and the web: broadening the need for complex comprehension. In R. J. Spiro, M. DeSchryver, P. Morsink, M. S. Hagerman, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Reading at a crossroads? Disjuncture and continuities in current conceptions and practices. New York: Routledge.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: moving from theory to practice. NY: Cambridge UP.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and research reading (2nd ed.). Edinburg: Pearson Education.
Habibian, M. (2015). The impact of training metacognitive strategies on reading comprehension among ESL learner’s. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(28), 61- 69.
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165-191). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 520-561.
Healey, J. F. (2016). The essentials of statistics: a tool for social research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Nelson Education.
Horner, S. L., & Shwery, C. S. (2002). Becoming an engaged, self-regulated reader. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 102-109.
Huang, H., Chern, C., & Lin, C. (2006). EFL learners’ online reading strategies: A comparison between high and low EFL proficient readers. English Teaching and Learning, 30(4S), 1-22.
Huang, H., Chern, C., & Lin, C. (2009). EFL learners’ use of online reading strategies and comprehension of texts: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 52, 13-26.
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Hudson, T. (2011). Teaching second language reading. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University.
İlter, İ. (2019). The efficacy of context clue strategy instruction on middle grades students’ vocabulary development. RMLE Online, 42(1), 1-15.
Intrator, S. M. (2000). Click, click, click …what do we known about reading hypertext? Knowledge Quest, 28(4), 31-34.
Irgatoğlu, A. (2018). Avoiding the use of L1 in foreign language reading comprehension activities. Language Teaching and Educational Research, 1(1), 52-65.
Ismail, N. M., & Tawalbeh, T. I. (2015). Effectiveness of a metacognitive reading strategies program for improving low achieving EFL readers. International Education Studies, 8(1), 71-87.
Iwai, Y. (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies: pedagogical implications for EFL/ESL teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150-159.
Jou, Y. (2015). Investigation of technological university students’ use of metacognitive reading strategies in first and second languages. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 180-188.
Kanniainen, L., Kiili, C., Tolvanen, A., Aro, M., & Leppänen, P. H. T. (2019). Literacy skills and online research and comprehension: struggling readers face difficulties online. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 2201-2222.
Khusniyah, N. L. (2019). Implementation online reading strategies on English reading comprehension skills. ELITE Journal, 1(1), 87-94.
Kosakiewicz, L. (2017). The impact of reading digital text on comprehension scores. Retrieved from http://
summplementary%20materials/scores%10and%20reading%20comprehension%202017.pdf
Kung, L. Y., & Aziz, A. A. (2020). An action research on metacognitive reading strategies instruction to improve reading comprehension. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 9(2), 86-94.
Kymes, A. D. (2007). Investigation and analysis of online reading strategies (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://digital.library.okstate.edu/etd/umi-okstate-2231.pdf
Lau, K. (2006). Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: a think-aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 383-399.
Lau, K., & Chan, D.W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177- 190.
Lee, J. Y. (2018). The Use of Test-taking Strategies and Students’ Performances in Answering TOEIC Reading Comprehension Questions. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 15(2), 33-64.
Lee, J. Y. (2019). Teaching test-taking strategies to EFL student readers with different language proficiencies: An empirical reassessment. ESP Today, 7(2), 165-181.
Leu, D. J., Kiili, C., & Forzani, E. (2016). Individual differences in the new literacies of online research and comprehension. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Reading: Reader, Text, and Context (pp. 259-272). New York: Routledge.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2017). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Education, 197(2), 1- 18.
Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An overview. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov
Martin, F., & Tutty, J. (2008). Effects of practice in a linear and non-linear web-based learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 81-93.
McNamara, D. S., & Shapiro, A. M. (2005). Multimedia and hypermedia solutions for promoting metacognitive engagement, coherence, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 1-29.
Mekala, S., & Geetha, R. (2019). Promoting self-regulated learning through metacognitive strategies. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P4-2258090849/
promoting-self-regulated-learning-through-metacognitive
Meurer, J. L. (1991). Schemata and reading comprehension. Retrieved from http://schemata_and_readingcomprehension_
Schemata_and_rea.pdf
Minguela, M., Solé, I., & Pieschl, S. (2015). Flexible self-regulated reading as a cue for deep comprehension: evidence from online and offline measures. Read Writ,28, 721-744.
Mistar, J., Zuhairi, A., & Yanti, N. (2016). Strategies training in the teaching of reading comprehension for EFL learners in Indonesia. English Language Teaching, 9(2), 49-56.
Mokhtar, A. A., Rawian, R. M., Hussain, M. N. M., & Mohamed, A. R. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of Malaysian adult ESL learners in vocabulary acquisition. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(7), 174-180.
Mosenthal, P. B., & Kirsch, I.S. (1991). Toward an explanatory model of document literacy. Discourse Processes, 14 (2), 147-180.
Namaziandost, E., Esfahani, F. R., Ahmadi, S., & Yates, G. (2019). Varying levels of difficult in L2 reading materials in the EFL classroom: impact on comprehension and motivation. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1-9.
Nelson, T.O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of
Learning and Motivation, 26, 125-173.
Nguyen T. M. T., & Trinh, L. Q. (2011). Learners’ metacognitive strategy use and reading comprehension:
insights from a Vietnamese context. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 1(1), 9-19.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Ojala, M. (2000). Online reading as a nonlinear activity. Econtent, 23(5), 6.
Oxford Dictionary. (2018). Retrieved from https://en.
oxforddictionaries.com/definition
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Pani, S. (2004). Reading strategy instruction through mental modeling. ELT Journal, 58(4), 355-362.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293-316.
Park, H., & Kim, D. (2011). Reading-strategy use by English as a second language learner in online reading tasks. Computers & Education, 57, 2156-2166.
Park, J., Yang, J., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2014). University level second language readers’ online reading and comprehension strategies. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 148-172.
Peterson, R. A. (2009). Constructing effective questionnaires. CA: SAGE.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26-56.
Pinninti, L. R. (2016). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies: An Indian context. The Reading Matrix, 16(1), 179-193.
Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. Retrieved from http://www.oelp.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/Metacognition-and-self-regulated-comprehension-pressley.pdf
Pulido, D. (2007). The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 66-86.
Rastegar, M., Kermani, E. M., & Khabir, M. (2017). The relationship between metacognitive reading strategies use and reading comprehension achievement of EFL learner. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 7, 65-74.
Roehling, J. V., Hebert, M., Nelson, J. R., & Bohaty, J. J. (2017). Text structure strategies for improving expository reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 71(1),71-82.
Romly, R., Badusah, J., & Maarof, N. (2017). Metacognitive online reading strategies in reading academic texts among ESL university students. Retrieved from http://www.
researchgate.net/publication/316273424_Metacognitive_online_reading_strategies_in_reading_academic_texts_among_ESL_university_students
Sain, N., Bown, A., Fluck, A., & Kebble, P. (2017). ESL learners’ online research and comprehension strategies. In K. Borthwick, L., Bradley, & S.Thouësny (Eds), CALL in a climate of change: adapting to turbulent global conditions.EUROCALL (pp.271-276).
Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1), 1-17.
Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In M. Barzillai, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & P., van den Broek (Eds.). Learning to Read in a Digital World (pp. 91-120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.
Schraw G., & Gutierrez, A. P. (2015). Metacognitive strategy instruction that highlights the role of monitoring and control processes. Metacognition: Fundaments, Applications, and Trends, 3-16.
Seedanont, C., & Pookcharoen, S. (2019). Fostering metacognitive reading strategies in Thai EFL classrooms: a focus on proficiency. English Language Teaching, 12(7), 75-86.
Seng, G. H., & Hashim, F. (2006). Use of L1 in L2 reading comprehension among tertiary ESL learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 29-54.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognition awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Retrieved from: http://cognitive flexibility theory advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains
Srisang, P. (2017). Influence of inferential skills on the reading comprehension ability of adult Thai (L1) and English (L2) students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http:// srisang_PhD_2017.pdf
Tseng, M. (2006). A comparative study on Taiwanese college students’ reading comprehension of printed text and hypertext (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.airitilibrary.com
Tseng, M. (2008). Comparing EFL learners’ reading comprehension between hypertext and printed text. CALL-EJ Online, 9(2). Retrieved from http://callej.org/journal/9-2/tseng.html
Tseng, M. (2010). Factors that influence online reading: An investigation into EFL students’ perceptions. The Reading Matrix, 10(1), 96-105.
Vianty, M. (2007). The comparison of students’ use of metacognitive reading strategies between reading in Bahasa Indonesia and in English. International Education Journal, 8(2), 449-460.
Wang, Y. (2016). Reading strategy use and comprehension performance of more successful and less successful readers: A think-aloud study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16(5), 1789 – 1813.
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Weih, T. G. (2018). Teaching reading comprehension to students in grades 4-6. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515-537.
Whitworth, A. (2017). Using literature circles to enhance student knowledge of nonfiction text (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest dissertation and theses database. (Document ID10600249)
Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268-288.
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 37-59.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 13-39). London: Elseiver.







論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2025-07-22公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2025-07-22起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2487 或 來信 dss@mail.tku.edu.tw