淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


系統識別號 U0002-1607200523254900
中文論文名稱 相互作用理論在外語閱讀教學之研究
英文論文名稱 Toward an Aesthetic Response:Effects of Incorporating Transactional Theory into EFL Reading Classroom
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 93
學期 2
出版年 94
研究生中文姓名 梁淑芳
研究生英文姓名 Shu-Fang Liang
學號 888010047
學位類別 博士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2005-06-23
論文頁數 217頁
口試委員 指導教授-陳秀潔
委員-林春仲
委員-魏叔倫
委員-陳純音
委員-陳建平
中文關鍵字 美國路意斯‧羅森布萊特  相互作用理論  輸出/美感經驗立場  讀者反應  文學讀者反應教學法  以讀者為中心  以文本為中心  以教師為中心  傳統教學理論  傳統文法翻譯教學法  引導式閱讀日記 
英文關鍵字 Louise Rosenblatt  Transactional Theory  efferent/aesthetic stance  reader response  transactional reader-response approach  reader-centered  text-centered  teacher-centered  traditional grammar-translation approach  Traditional Theory  guided reading journal 
學科別分類
中文摘要 過去數十年來,英文課堂教學鼓勵運用美國路意斯‧羅森布萊特的「相互作用理論」與日俱增。此理論主張重新認識在語言教室中的文學與美感經驗閱讀。在台灣,傳統的文法翻譯教學法(亦即以教師為中心或文本為中心的教學法)仍然廣泛應用於大部分的大學英文閱讀教學中。而許多本國外語老師或外語研究學者仍然對「相互作用理論」相當陌生。
本實驗研究採用「相互作用理論」教授文學作品,並比較相互作用讀者反應教學法與傳統的文法翻譯教學法在外文閱讀的教學效益。研究對象是本論文研究者以文學為主的「英文閱讀」課程的學生,分佈於台灣南部兩所科技大學與技術學院的日、夜間部的四個班級。研究組別採交互分布設計。實驗組共計71位學生,控制組有66位學生。測驗工具包括教材、測驗與問卷的前測與後測,期中考試、引導式閱讀日記以及半結構式訪談。教材為以「愛」為主題的文學作品。前測與後測採用本研究者自編的「英文閱讀成就測驗」與「態度問卷」。統計方式主要以「共變數分析」剖析實驗組及控制組之間的差異。另外以「皮爾遜相關係數」分析成就測驗後測各分項與態度問卷各分項之間的相關性。除此之外,也分析引導式閱讀日記與半結構式訪談,以瞭解學生建構意義的過程。
研究結果顯示,在英文閱讀能力方面,實驗組比控制組表現優異,而此表現和字彙及克漏字有正相關。在學生的態度方面,實驗組在對文學以及相互作用讀者反應教學上,表現比控制組優異,有顯著差異。然而,就其對英文的態度,實驗組與控制組並無顯著差異。就日記評量方面,記錄顯示學生所採五種主要反應方式為:探究背景知識、正確詮釋、角色介入,情節介入和文學批評。
總之,本研究顯示:將「相互作用理論」與英語閱讀教學相互結合,確實可以提供閱讀文學作品的大學生一個舒適、受尊重以及有效的英語閱讀學習環境。

英文摘要 During the last decades, the English classroom instruction evolutionarily encouraged the application of Louise Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory, which advocated the re-recognition of literature as well as aesthetic reading in the language classrooms. In Taiwan, the traditional grammar-translation approach, the teacher and/or text-centered instruction, is still popularly employed in most of the universities, while Transactional Theory is still unknown to many EFL teachers and researchers.
The purpose of this experimental study was to employ Transactional Theory to teach literary works and to compare the teaching efficiency of the transactional reader-response approach with that of the traditional grammar-translation approach used in the EFL reading classrooms. The subjects were students in the researcher’s four literature-based reading classes, two classes at one technological college and two at the other technological university, in southern Taiwan. The intersection disposition was designed. The experimental group comprised 71 students and the control group, 66 students. Materials in this study included teaching materials, two pretests, two posttests and mid-term examination, guided reading journals and semi-structured interview. Teaching materials were eight literary works on love—one poem, one play and six short stories. Two sets of tests were developed: the English Reading Achievement Test and the Attitude Questionnaire. The collected data were analyzed by using ANCOVA (analysis of covariance). In addition, Pearson correlation was conducted to measure relationships between variables. Qualitative tools such as guided reading journals and semi-structured interviews were used to explore students’ meaning-making processes.
In terms of English reading ability, the results showed that students in the experimental group which interact the transactional approach to EFL reading instruction performed better on English Reading Achievement Test than those subjects taught with the traditional approach. The transactional approach to literature instruction changed the students’ attitudes in the experimental group toward literature and the transactional reader-response approach. However, their attitudes toward English did not change. From the guided reading journals entries in the experimental group, five major response patterns were categorized: schema inquiry, correct interpretation, character involvement, plot involvement, and literary criticism.
In conclusion, the study demonstrates that incorporating Transactional Theory into reading classrooms provides a comfortable, respectful and effective environment for college students in terms of their reading English literary works.
論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHINESE ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Research Questions and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Organization of the Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Significant of Louise Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 20
Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Related Studies of the Application of Transactional Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
CHAPTER IV RESULTS & DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
The English Reading Achievement Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
The Attitude Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
The Correlation between Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Guided Reading Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Summary of the Main Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Limitations and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Implications for EFL Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 The Efferent/Aesthetic Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 3.1 The Study Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93



LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 The Subjects and Treatments of the Two Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 3.2 The Basic Information about the Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 3.3 The Basic Information about Teaching Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table 3.4 Synthesis Judgment Item Analysis on the English Reading Achievement Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
Table 3.5 Two-Way Specification Table of the English Reading
Achievement Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
Table 3.6 Reliability Analysis of the English Reading Achievement
Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
Table 3.7 Survey of Attitude Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Table 3.8 Teaching Approaches and Assessments for the Experimental Group and the Control Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
Table 4.1 Mean and Standard Deviation for the Total Scores of the
English Reading Achievement Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
Table 4.2 Pretest as Covariance of Homogeneity within Regression
Test for the Total Scores of the English Reading
Achievement Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97
Table 4.3 Mean and Standard Deviation for the Scores of the English
Reading Achievement Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
Table 4.4 Homogeneity within Regression Test for the Scores of the
English Reading Achievement Test, Entrance Exam and
Mid-term Exam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98
Table 4.5 Analysis of Covariance for the Scores of the English Reading
Achievement Test, Entrance Exam and Mid-term Exam . . . . . . . .
98
Table 4.6 Mean and Standard Deviation for the Pretest Scores of the
ERAT, Entrance Exam and the Posttest Scores of the ERAT . . . . .
99
Table 4.7 Homogeneity within Regression Test for the Pretest Scores of
the ERAT and the Posttest Scores of the ERAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99
Table 4.8 Analysis of Covariance for the Pretest Scores of the ERAT, Entrance Exam and the Posttest Scores of the ERAT . . . . . . . . . . .
100
Table 4.9 ANCOVA Summary of the English Reading Achievement Test in the Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
101
Table 4.10 Mean and Standard Deviation for the Total Scores of the
Attitude Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
102
Table 4.11 Homogeneity within Regression Test for the Total Scores of
Attitude Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
102
Table 4.12 Analysis of Covariance for the Total Scores of the Attitude Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
103
Table 4.13 Mean and Standard Deviation for the Pretest and the Posttest Scores of Students’ Attitude Toward English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
104
Table 4.14 Homogeneity within Regression Test for the Pretest and the
Posttest Scores of Students’ Attitude Toward English . . . . . . . . . . .
104
Table 4.15 Analysis of Covariance for the Pretest and the Posttest
Scores of Students’ Attitude Toward English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
104
Table 4.16 Mean and Standard Deviation for the Pretest and the Posttest Scores of Students’ Attitude Toward Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
105
Table 4.17 Homogeneity within Regression Test for the Pretest and the Posttest Scores of Students’ Attitude Toward Literature . . . . . . . . .
106
Table 4.18 Analysis of Covariance for the Pretest and the Posttest
Scores of Students’ Attitude Toward Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
106
Table 4.19 Mean and Standard Deviation for the Pretest and the Posttest
Scores of the Transactional Reader-Response Approach . . . . . . . .
107
Table 4.20 Homogeneity within Regression Test for the Pretest and the
Posttest Scores of the Transactional Reader-Response Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

107
Table 4.21 Analysis of Covariance for the Pretest and the Posttest
Scores of the Transactional Reader-Response Approach . . . . . . . .
108
Table 4.22 ANCOVA Summary of the Attitude Questionnaire in the Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
109
Table 4.23 Pearson Correlation between the Posttests of the ERAT and the AQ in the EG: Methods vs. Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
110
Table 4.24 Pearson Correlation between the Posttests of the ERAT and the AQ in the CG: Methods vs. Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111
Table 4.25 Pearson Correlation between the Posttests of the ERAT and the AQ in the EG: Stances vs. Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
112
Table 4.26 Pearson Correlation between the Posttests of the ERAT and the AQ in the CG: Stances vs. Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
113
Table 4.27 A Comparison of the Ranks between the Length of Teaching Materials and Students’ Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
128


LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Patterns of Reading Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Appendix 2a The English Reading Achievement Test (draft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Appendix 2b The English Reading Achievement Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Appendix 3a The Background Information – Chinese version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Appendix 3b The Background Information – English version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Appendix 3c The Attitude Questionnaire (draft) – Chinese version . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Appendix 3d The Attitude Questionnaire (draft) – English version . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Appendix 3e The Attitude Questionnaire (pretest & posttest) – Chinese version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
199
Appendix 3f The Attitude Questionnaire (pretest & posttest) – English version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
201
Appendix 4a Mid-term Examination – the control group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Appendix 4b Mid-term Examination – the experimental group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Appendix 5 Student Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Appendix 6 Reading Syllabus for Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Appendix 7 Guidelines for Reading Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Appendix 8 Quiz 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Appendix 9 Quiz 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

參考文獻 References

Ali, S. (1993). The reader-response approach: An alternative for teaching literature in a second language. Journal of Reading, 37(4), 288-296.
Allen, C. (1988). Louise Rosenblatt and theories of reader-response. Reader, essays in reader-oriented theory, criticism, & pedagogy, 20, 32-39. Also in J. Cliff (Ed.), The Experience of Reading (pp. 15-22). Porthmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Alwasilah, A. C. (2002). Critical thinking crucial to global success. Jakarta Post,
May, 2.
Anderson, G. et al. (1985). Differences in the free-reading books selected by high, average, and low achievers. Reading Teacher, 39(3), 326-330.
Applebee (1978). The child’s concept of story. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
Appleman, D. (2000). “I understood the grief”: Theory-based instruction to
ordinary people. In N. J. Karolides (Ed.), Reader-response in secondary and
college classrooms. 2nd ed. (pp.123-134). Mahwah: Erlbaum Associates. Also in N. J. Karolides (Ed.). (1992). Reader response in the classroom: Evoking and interpreting meaning in literature. (pp. 92-101). Mahwah: Erlbaum Associates.
Asselin, M. (2000). Reader response in literature and reading instruction. Teacher Librarian,27(4), 14811782.
Atwell, N. (1988). A special writer at work. In T. Newkirk & N. Atwell (Eds.),
Understanding writing: Ways of observing, learning and teaching. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Benton, M. (1992). Secondary worlds: Literature teaching and the visual arts.
Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open UP.
Benton, M., et al. (1988). Young readers responding to poems. London:
Routledge.
Berger, L. R. (1996). Reader response journals: You make the meaning?—and
how? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(5), 380-385.
Bleich, D. (1980). The identity of pedagogy and research in the study of response to literature. College English 42(4): 350-366.
Bleich, D. (1978). Subjective criticism. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP.
Booth, W. C. (1983). The Rhetoric of fiction. 2nd ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
Bosma, B. (1992). Fairy tales, fables, legends, and myths: Using folk literature in your classroom. New York and London: Teachers College Columbia U.
Boyum, J. G. (2000). Reader response at the movies. In N. J. Karolides (Ed.), Reader response in secondary and college classrooms. 2nd ed. (p. 77-92). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bottigheimer, R. B. (Ed.). (1992). Fairy tales and society: Illusion, allusion, and paradigm. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P.
Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Brown, J. & T. Gifford. (1989). Teaching A level English literature: A
Student-Centered Approach. London: Routledge.
Brumfit C. & R. Carter. (Ed.). (1986). Literature and language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford UP.
Buckley, M. H. (1992). Falling into the white between the black lines: When teachers transact with text. In N. J. Karolides (Ed.), Reader response in the classroom: Evoking and interpreting meaning in literature. (pp. 45-58). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carico, K. M. (2001). Negotiating meaning in classroom literature discussions.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 44(6), 510-518.
Carlisle, A. (2000). Reading logs: An application of reader-response theory in ELT. ELT Journal 54(1), 12-19.
Carter, R. (1988). The integration of language and literature in the English curriculum: A narrative on narratives. In S. Holden (Ed.), Literature and language. Oxford: Modern English Publications.
Carrell, P. (1989). SLA and classroom instruction: Reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 1988, 9, 233-242.
Chase, N. D. & C. R. Hynd. (1987). Reader response: an alternative way to teach students to think about text. Journal of Reading, 30(6), 530-539.
陳靖奇. (1992). 文學與臺灣地區的英文教學. The English Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 73-82.
Chin, Ching-fang. (2004). The effects of reader response approach on English poetry teaching in senior high school. A Master Thesis, National Chengchi University.
Chuang, W. S. & S. M. Wu. (2002, Febulary 22). Time to deliver educational reform. Taipei Time, 12.
Church, G. W. (1998). The significance of Louise Rosenblatt on the field of teaching literature. Doctoral Dissertation, University of New York at Buffalo.[UMI No: 9822124]
Clifford, J. (Ed.). (1991). The experience of reading: Louise Rosenblatt and reader-response theory. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Cooper, C. R. (Ed.). (1989). Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature. San Diego: U of California.
Corcoran, B. (1991). From transaction to resistance: An antipodean journey. In J. Clifford (Ed.), The experience of reading: Louise Rosenblatt and reader-response theory (pp. 147-164). Porthmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Cronin, F. C. (1992). A reader-response approach to The Catcher in the Rye: Key issues/Developmental questions. In N. J. Karolides (Ed.), Reader response in the classroom (pp.164-175). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crumbley, D. L. (2000). Using short stories to teach critical thinking and
communication skills to tax students. Accounting Education, 9(3): 291-296.
Daidone, J. (1991). Gallup study finds student attitudes on CPA career mixed.
Journal of Accountancy, 170(2), 20-21.
Davies, J. (1970). Language and learning. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Davis, T. F.& K. Womack.(2002). Formalist Criticism and Reader-Response Theory. New York: Palgrave.
Day, R. (2002). Critical thinking in the EFL classroom. In Selected Papers from the Eleventh International Symposium on English Teaching/Fourth Pan Asian Conference. 72-78. Taipei: English Teachers’ Association.
de Beaugrande, R. (1985). Poetry and the ordinary reader: A study of immediate responses. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 3, 1-21.
Dekker, M. (1991). Books, reading, and response: A teacher-researcher tells a story. The New Advocate, 4, 37-46.
Demers, P. (Ed.). (1986). The creating word. New York and London: MacMillan.
Dewey, J. (1984). The public and its problems. In A. Boydston (Ed.), vol.2 of John Dewey: The later works. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.
Dias, P (1987). Making sense of poetry: patterns in the process. Ottawa: Canadian Council of Teachers of English.
Dias, P. & M. Hayhoe. (1988). Developing response to poetry. Milton Keynes: Open UP.
Dilenschneider, R. L. (2001). Critical thinking. Executive Excellence, May, 5.
Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teaching: A Manual of practice. London &
Sydney: Croom Helm.
Dorocak, J. R. & Purvis, S. E. C. (1998). Using fiction in accounting courses: Why not admit it? Advances in Accounting Education, 1, 69-92.
Dressman, M., & J. P. Webster. (2001). Retracing Rosenblatt: A textual archaeology. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(1),110-145.
Duff, O. B. (1992). Empathizing with the African-American experience: Role visualization through composition. In N. J. Karolides (Ed.), Reader response in the classroom: Evoking and interpreting meaning in literature (pp. 207-219). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dugan, J. (1997). Transactional literature discussions: Engaging students in the appreciation and understanding of literature. The Reading Literature, 51(2), 86-96.
Duke, C. R. (1984). The role of reflection, problem-solving and discussion in the teaching of literature. Paper presented at The 3rd Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English Spring Conference. 10p.
Durant, A. & N. Fabb. (1990). Literary studies in action. London and New York:
Routledge.
Eeds, M. & D. Wells. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning
construction in literature study groups. Research in the Teaching of English,
23(1), 4-9.
Evans, E. (1991). Transactions overseas: Louise Rosenblatt and the pedagogy of literature in school in the United Kingdom and Elsewhere. In J. Clifford (Ed.), The Experience of reading (pp.63-76). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Fillion, B. (1981). Reading as inquiry: An approach to literature learning. English Journal, 70(1), 39-45.
Flood, J., & D. Lapp. (1988). Research and practice: a reader response approach to the teaching of literature. Reading Research and Instruction, 27(4), 61-66.
Freund. E. (1987). The Return of the reader: reader-response criticism. London and New York: Methuen.
Furniss, D. W. (1992). Reading and teaching from the outside: Responding to native American literature. In N. J. Karolides (Ed.), Reader response in the classroom: Evoking and interpreting meaning in literature (pp. 198-206). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Galda, L., & S. Guice. (1997). Response-based reading instruction in the elementary grades. In S. A. Stall & D. A. Hayes (Eds.), Instructional models in reading. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Gopen, G. D. (1984). Rhyme and reason: Why the study of poetry is the best preparation for the study of law. College English, 46(4), 333-347.
Graves, D. (1989). When children respond to fiction. Language Arts, 66,
776-783.
Griffithe, P. L., & K. L. Laframboise. (1998). Literature case studies: Case method and reader response come together in teacher education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(5), 364-375.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York:
Teacher Collage P.
Hancock, M. R. (1991). A case study investigation of the process and content of six-grade literature response journals (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 1239A. (University Microfilms No. 91-27667)
Hancock, M. R. (2000). A celebration of literature and response: Children, books, and teachers in K-8 classrooms. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.
Hancock, M. R. (1993). Exploring and extending personal response through literature journals. The Reading Teacher, 46(6), 466-474.
Hancock, M. R. (1992). Literature response journals: Insights beyond the printed page. Language Arts, 69(1), 36-42.
Helliwell, R. (2000). Keys to critical. Management, July, 44-45.
Herz, S. K., & D. R. Gallo. (1996). From Hinton to Hamlet: Building bridges
between young adult literature and the classics. Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Hirvela, A. (1996). Reader-response theory and ELT. EFL Journal, 50(2), 127-134.
Holbrook, H. T. (1987). Reader response in the classroom. Journal of Reading, 30, 556-559.
Holland, N. N. (1989). The dynamics of literary response. New York: Columbia
UP.
Howes, A. B. (1968). Teaching literature to adolescents. Oakland: Scott,
Foresman and Company.
Hsueh, Y. P. (2001). Transaction-based senior high EFL literature Instruction
in Taiwan. A Master Thesis, National Chung Chen U.
Hu, B. T. (2003). Teaching English through literature: A study in the application of reader response theory in the teaching of literary works to senior high school students in Taiwan. A Master Thesis, National Chengchi U.
Huang, W. L. (1996). The head starters. Free China Review, 46(10), 4-11.
Jackson, D. (1983). Encounters with books: Teaching fiction 11-16. New York and London: Methuen.
John, J. (1986). Language versus literature in university departments. English
Teaching Forum, 24(4), 18-22.
Johnson, P. (1975). Getting acquainted with a poem. College English, 37,358-367.
Karolides, N. J. (Ed.). (2000). Reader response in secondary and college classrooms. 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Karolides, N. J. (Ed.). (1992). Reader response in the classroom: Evoking and
Interpreting meaning in literature. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associations, Publishers. In Karolides, N. J. (Ed.), Reader response in secondary and college classrooms. (pp. 207-223). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Karolides, N. J. (2000). Role-playing experiences: Exploring readers’ responses to literature. In Karolides, N. J. (Ed.). Reader response in secondary and college classrooms. 2nd ed. (pp. 207-223). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kazemek, F. E. (1985). Functional literacy is not enough: Adult literacy as a development process. Journal of Reading, 28(4), 332-335.
Kintgen, E. (1983). The perception of poetry. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Knapp, J. V. (2002). Teaching poetry via HEI (Hypothesis-Experiment-
Instruction). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 45(8), 718-729.
Knapp, J. V. (2000). Wandering between two worlds: The MLA and English
department follies. Style, 34, 635-669.
Kuo, C. H. (1997). Teaching literature to science students. The Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on English Teaching. 350-357.
Langer, J. A. (1989). The process of understanding literature. Technical Report. Center for the Learning and Teaching of literature. Albany, New York.
Langer, J. A. (Ed.). (1992a). Literature instruction: A focus on student response.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Langer, J. A. (1992b). Rethinking literature instruction. In J. A. Langer (Ed.).
Literature instruction: A focus on literary response. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Langer, J. A. (1995). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction. New York: Teachers College P.
Langer, J. A. & A. N. Applebee. (1986). Moving toward excellence: Writing and learning in the secondary school. Final Report to the National Institute of Education (Grant No. NIE-G-82-0027). Stanford: Stanford University.
Lazar, Gillian. (1993). Literature and language teaching: A guide for teachers and trainers. New York, NY: Cambridge UP.
LeNoir, W. D. (1992). Influences of reader response pedagogical theory found in
teaching materials for three widely-anthologized short stories. Doctoral
Dissertation: Auburn U.
林伯英. (1987). 如何以較整合的方式改進國內大一英文教學. Papers from the
Third Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 57-74.
Lin, H. C., & H. J. Sher. (2000). Reader’s response approach to English poetry teaching. Selected Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching. 411-420.
Lin, Yi-Wen. (2000). The application of young adult realistic fiction and the reader response approach in EFL reading instruction in senior high school. Masters Thesis: National Kaohsiung Normal U.
Luce, R. (2000). Mending walls: Using a reader-response approach to teach poetry. In N. J. Karolides (Ed.), Reader-response in secondary and college classrooms. 2nd ed. (pp. 93-110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Also in N. J. Karolides (Ed.). (1992), Reader response in the classroom: Evoking and interpreting meaning in literature (pp. 61-74). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Lynch, B., & T. Hudson. (1991). EST reading. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. (2nd ed., pp. 216-232). New York: Newbury House.
Lytle, S. (1982). Exploring comprehension style: A study of twelfth-grade readers’ transactions with text. (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University).
Mailloux, S. (1982). Interpretive conventions. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Maitino, J. R. & D. R. Peck. (Ed.). (1996). Teaching American ethnic literatures:
Nineteen essays. Albuquerque: U of New Mexico P.
Many, J. & C. Cox. (1992). Reader stands and literary understanding: Exploring the theories, research and practice. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
Marckwardt, A. H. (1978). The place of literature in the teaching of English as a
second or foreign language. Hawaii: UP of Hawaii.
Marshall, J. D. (1987). The effects of writing on students’ understanding of literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 30-63.
Mathis, J. B. (2001). Respond to stories with stories: Teachers discuss multicultural children’s literature. Social Studies, 92(4), 155-160.
McAlpine, C. G. (1995). An analysis of the new criticism and reader response theories of criticism with implications for teaching literature in the secondary schools. Ann Arbor: UMI.
McCormick, K. (1991). “First steps” in “Wandering Rocks”: Students’
differences, literary transactions, and pleasures. In J. Clifford (Ed.), The experience of reading (pp.127-146). Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Mcintosh, J. L. (1992). Student reader response journals in secondary English
classrooms as a meaningful base for the study of literature. Master’s Thesis:
York U.
Mezirow, J., & Associates. (1991). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A
guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc.
Nardocchio, E. F. (Ed.). (1993). Reader response to literature: The empirical
dimension. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1981). Reading, thinking and writing: Results from the 1979-1980 National Assessment of reading and literature. Denver, Co.: National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Newell, J. (1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol
analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 265-287.
Newell, G. E. (1996). Reader-based and teacher-centered instructional tasks: Writing and learning about a short story in middle-track classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(1), 147-172.
Newell, G.E., & Winograd, P. (1989). The effects of writing on learning from
expository text. Written Communication, 6(2), 196-217.
Nissel, M. (1987). The oral responses of three fourth graders to realistic fiction and fantasy. (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 4894A.
Nunan, D. (1997). Contemporary trends in English language teaching. The Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on English Teaching, 422-435.
Ole, B. P. (1991). On the language-literature rift and the case for using
literature in language classes. Selected Papers from the Seventh Conference on English Teaching and Learning. (pp. 27-46). Taipei: Crane.
Parker, J. (1999). Thinking critically about literature. Teaching in Higher Education, 4(4), 473-483.
Petrosky, Anthony. (1982). From story to essay: Reading and writing. College
Composition and Communication, 33, 19-32.
Poe, E. A. (2000). Intensifying transactions through multiple text exploration. In N. J. Karolides (Ed.), Reader Response in secondary and college classrooms. 2nd ed. (pp. 193-205). Also in N. J. Karolides (Ed.). (1992), Reader response in the classroom: Evoking and interpreting meaning in literature (pp. 155-163). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Price, M. (1989). Reader-Response Criticism: A Test of Its Usefulness in Writing
about Literature. New York: Peter Lang.
Probst, R. E. (1986a). Mom, Wolfgang, and me: Adolescent literature, critical theory, and the English classroom. English Journal, 75(6), 33-39.
Probst, R. E. (1986b). Three relationships in the teaching of English. English Journal, 75(1), 60-68.
Probst, R. E. (1988). Response and analysis: Teaching literature in junior and senior high school. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.
Probst, R. E. (1989). Transactional theory and response to student writing. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response (pp. 68-79). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
Probst, R. E. (1992a). Five kinds of literary knowing. In J. Langer (Ed.), Literature instruction: A focus on student response. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
Probst, R. E. (1992b). Reader response theory and the problem of meaning. Publishing Research Quarterly, 8(1), 64-73.
Probst, R. E. (1994). Reader response theory and the English curriculum. English
Journal, 83(3), 37-44.
Purves, A. C. (1988). The aesthetic mind of Louise Rosenblatt. Reader Essay in
Reader-Oriented Theory, Criticism, & Pedagogy, 20, 68-76.
Purves, A. C., & Rippere, V. (1968). Elements of writing about a literary work: A study of response to literature.(Research Report No. 9). Urbana, Il: National Council of Teachers of English.
Purves, A. C. (1979). That sunny dome: Those caves of ice: a model for research in reader response. College English, 40(7): 802-812.
Purves, A. C., T. Rogers, & A. O. Soter. (1990). How porcupines make love II:
Teaching response-centered literature curriculum. New York & London:
Longman.
Richards, I. A. (1929). Practical Criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Roen, D. H. (2000). A writing-to-learn/ Reader-response approach to teaching Antigone. In N. J. Karolides. (Ed.), Reader response in secondary and college classrooms. (pp. 225-234). See also in N. J. Karolides (1992). (Ed.), Reader response in the classroom. (pp. 176-184). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rogers, T. & A. O. Soter. ( 1997). Reading across cultures: Teaching in diverse
society. New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia U.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1968). A way of happening. Educational Record. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1971). Patterns and process—a polemic. Use of English, 22(3), 203-211.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1985a). The transactional theory of the literary work: Implications for research. In C. Cooper.(Ed.). Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature: Points of departure. (pp.33-53). New Jersey: Ablex.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1985). Viewpoints: Transaction versus interaction—a terminological rescue operation. Research in the Teaching of English, 19(1), 96-107.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1988). Writing and reading: The transactional theory. Reader,
Essays in Reader-Oriented Theory, Criticism, & Pedagogy, 20, 7-31.
Rosenblatt, L. M.. (1991). Literature—S. O. S.! Language Arts, 68, 444-448.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1993a). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. In K. E. Holland, R. A. Hungerford, & S. B. Ernst (Eds.), Journeying: Children
responding to literature. Portmouth: Heinrmann.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1993b). Transactional theory: Against dualisms. College English, 5(4): 377-386.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory
of the literary work, with a new preface and epilogue. Carbondale and
Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1999). Literature as exploration. 5th ed. New York: MLA. Original ed. 1938.
Rouse, J. (1991). A transactional affair. In J. Clifford (Ed.), The experience of
reading (pp.197-208). Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Rubinstein, S. L. (1967). Composition: A collision with literature. In G. Tate & P. J. Corbett (Eds.), (pp. 79-83). New York: Oxford UP.
Salvatori, M. (1986). The pedagogical implications of reader-response theory. Reader, Essays in Reader-Oriented Theory, Criticism, & Pedagogy, 16, 1-19.
Salvatori, M. (1983). Reading and writing a text: Correlations between reading and writing patterns. College English, 45(7): 657-666.
Short, M. (Ed.). (1989). Reading, analyzing and teaching literature. London and
New York: Longman.
Sims, J. (2004). Analysis of incoming freshman: Listening improving, grammar and reading declining. Selected Papers from the Thirteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 166-177.
Sloan, G. D. (1991). The child as critic: Teaching literature in elementary and
middle schools. New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia U.
Smell, R. D. (Ed.). (1995). Literature throughout foreign language education: The implications of pragmatics. Trowbridge, Wiltshire: Modern English Publications and the British Council.
Soter, A. O. (1999). Young adult literature and the new literary theories:
Developing critical readers in middle school. New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia U.
Squire, J. (1964). The responses of adolescents while reading four short stories. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Stevenson, F. (1997). Literature as reflection on/of language. The Proceedings of the Six International Symposium on English Teaching, 686-691.
Stibbs, A. (1991). Reading narrative as literature: Signs of life. Milton Keynes:
Open UP.
Suleiman, S. R. & I. Crosman. (Ed.). (1980). The reader in the text: Essays on
audience and interpretation. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Thomson, J. (1987). Understand teenager’s reading. Melbourne: Methueu.
Tiemey, R. J. Sota, A., O’Flahavan, J. F., & McGinley,W. (1989). The effects of
reading and writing upon thinking critically. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 134-169.
Tompikins, J. P. (Ed.). (1992). Reader-response criticism: From Formalism to
Post-structualism. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP.
Tseng, Heng-hsiung. (1993). The triangular relationship among English teaching,
literature and linguistics: On Andersen’s “Paper Pills.” Papers from the Tenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning. Taipei: Crane.
Tzeng, J. L. (2001). National reading week for children. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 522-524.
Varvel, L. (2000). Reader response to drama: Prospecting for human understandings and connections. In Karolides, N. J. (Ed.). (2000). Reader response in secondary and college classrooms. 2nd ed. (pp. 159-177). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vipond, D., Hunt, R. (1984). Point-driven understanding: Pragmatic and cognitive dimensions of literary reading. Poetics, 13, 261-277.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Thought and language. P. D. Arnott (Trans & Ed. 1962), New York: MIT.
Wang, Bernice Y. L., et al. (2002). Effects of guided journal writing on students’ story understanding. Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 179-192.
Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Widdowson, H. (1985). The teaching, learning, and study of literature. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Ed.), English in the world. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.


Teaching Materials Cited

de Maupassant, G. (2003). The necklace. In B. Goodman, Literature for English: Intermediate level (pp. 92-97, 104-109). Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill/Contemporary.
Denver, J. (1980). Perhaps love. Cherry Lane Music Publishing Co., Inc.
Hemingway, E. (1953). Cat in the rain. In E. Hemingway, In our time. Macmillan: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Hughes, L. (1995). Thank you, m’am. In G. Fearon, Reading comprehension workshop: Reflections (pp. 14-21). Paramus, NJ: Educational Publisher.
Robinson, N. (2000). Mom, you’re fired! In E. Fry, Reading drills: Jamestown’s reading improvement: Introductory level (pp. 48-51). Lincolnwood, IL: Jamestown Publishers.
Rably, S. (1998). A mother’s story. In R. R. Day & J. Yamanaka. Impact issues: 30 key issues to help you express yourself in English (pp. 29-30). Hong Kong: Longman.
Munro, H. (2000). The open window. In A. Martin & R. Hill (Ed.), Modern short stories (pp. 10-14). Longman: Pearson Education Limited.
Wilde, O. (2000). The nightingale and the rose. In A. Martin & R. Hill (Ed.), Modern short stories (pp. 80-86). Longman: Pearson Education Limited.

論文使用權限
  • 不同意紙本論文無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用。
  • 不同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信