淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-2607201911502900
中文論文名稱 運用交流式策略教學法在閱讀教學之研究-以國小四年級閱讀低成就學生為例
英文論文名稱 A Study of Using Transactional Strategies Instruction in Reading Teaching:the Reading Low-achievement Students in Grade 4
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 課程與教學研究所碩士班
系所名稱(英) Graduate Institute of Curriculum and Instruction
學年度 107
學期 2
出版年 108
研究生中文姓名 黃怡甄
研究生英文姓名 I-Chen Huang
電子信箱 agemini1230@gmail.com
學號 606750189
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2019-06-18
論文頁數 172頁
口試委員 指導教授-黃儒傑
委員-林吟霞
委員-陳瑞貴
中文關鍵字 交流式策略教學法  閱讀理解教學  閱讀理解策略 
英文關鍵字 transactional strategies instruction  reading comprehension teaching  reading omprehension strategy 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本研究旨在探討交流式策略教學法之實施歷程及學生閱讀理解之效果。以七位國小四年級閱讀低成就學生為研究對象,並以行動研究方式實施三個循環的閱讀教學課程,進行十七週共三十四節課。經由錄影、訪談、協同教師觀課記錄、議課記錄、教師省思札記、學生作品、個別閱讀會談記錄、閱讀理解前後測等多元方法進行資料蒐集與分析,以及透過計畫、行動、觀察、反省的循環歷程,提出研究結果且獲致以下結論:
壹、交流式策略教學法之實施歷程
一、實施交流式策略教學要長期進行
二、學生熟練多理解策略的應用有助內化策略的應用
三、鼓勵學生表達應用理解策略的思維歷程
四、鼓勵學生閱讀時保持積極的態度
五、逐漸撤除鷹架有助提升學生理解監控的能力
貳、學生閱讀理解之效果
一、閱讀低成就學生閱讀時能應用理解策略
二、交流式策略教學法能提升閱讀低成就學生之閱讀理解能力
參、教學者透過行動研究與省思而獲得專業成長
最後,根據本行動研究的歷程與研究結論,分別對教學者與未來研究者兩方面提出建議。
英文摘要 This study aims to explore the process of implementing the teaching method of interactive strategy and the effect of students’ reading comprehension, studying seven reading low-achievement students in the fourth grade by conducting a three-cycle reading course for 17 weeks (a total of 34 sessions) in the form of action research. The data collection and analysis was conducted by multiple methods, such as video recording, interviews, observation records of collaborative teachers, lecture records, teachers’ thoughts, students’ works, individual reading interview records, and pre-test post-test of reading comprehension, through the cycle of planning, action, observation, and reflection. The research reached the following conclusions:
First, the implementation process of the Transactional Strategies Instruction:
1. Implementing Transactional Strategies Instruction should be carried out for a long time.
2. Students' proficiency in understanding the application of strategies can help the application of internalization strategies.
3. Encourage students to express the thinking process of application understanding strategies.
4. Encourage students to maintain a positive attitude in reading.
5. Gradually removing the scaffold helps improve students' ability to understand surveillance.
Second, the effect of students' reading comprehension.
1. Students of reading low-achievement can apply comprehension strategies to read.
2. Transactional Strategies Instruction can improve reading comprehension ability of reading low-achievement students.
Third, the teacher gains professional growth through action research and reflection.
Finally, based on the history of the study and the conclusions of the study, recommendations are made to both the educator and the future researcher.
論文目次 目 次
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 3
第三節 重要名詞解釋 4
第四節 研究範圍與限制 5
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 閱讀理解 7
第二節 閱讀教學的意涵及閱讀理解教學法 14
第三節 交流式策略教學法 17
第三章 研究方法與設計 25
第一節 研究方法 25
第二節 研究場域及參與者 28
第三節 閱讀教學設計 30
第四節 資料的蒐集與分析 32
第五節 研究的信效度與倫理 37
第四章 研究結果與討論 39
第一節 交流式策略教學法的實施歷程與檢討 39
第二節 交流式策略教學法對閱讀低成就學生閱讀理解之效果 79
第三節 教學者的省思與專業成長 124
第五章 結論與建議 131
第一節 結論 131
第二節 建議 135
參考文獻 138
附錄一 家長同意書 146
附錄二 協同教師觀課記錄 147
附錄三 議課記錄 148
附錄四 教師省思札記 149
附錄五 個別閱讀會談紀錄表 150
附錄六 閱讀理解測驗前後測 151

表 次
表3- 1 七位學生閱讀理解前測成績 29
表3- 2 第一循環教學實施期程 30
表3- 3 研究目的、研究問題與資料蒐集之對應表 34
表3- 4 資料編碼表 36
表4- 1 第一循環之閱讀教學規劃表 40
表4- 2 第二循環之閱讀教學規劃表 55
表4- 3 第三循環之閱讀教學規劃表 70
表4- 4 六位學生對於教學者提問的回應 101
表4- 5 四位學生對於第九章和第十章的提問 103
表4- 6 學生對佟家兄弟的回應 104
表4- 7 學生對過錯樹的回應 105
表4- 8 閱讀理解前測成績結果 122
表4- 9 閱讀理解後測成績結果 123
表4- 10 閱讀理解前後測成績答對率之相依樣本t檢定 124

圖 次
圖2-1 逐漸釋放責任的模型 23
圖3-1 研究流程圖 27
圖3-2 質性研究三角校正關係圖 38
圖4-1 小宣作品 81
圖4-2 小威作品 82
圖4-3 小育作品 82
圖4-4 小文作品 83
圖4-5 小菁作品 83
圖4-6 小宏作品 84
圖4-7 小宇作品 84
圖4-8 作品190218-小宣 89
圖4-9 作品190218-小威 89
圖4-10 作品190218-小育 90
圖4-11 作品190218-小文 90
圖4-12 作品190218-小菁 91
圖4-13 作品190218-小宏 91
圖4-14 作品190218-小宇 92
圖4-15 學生小育練習使用視覺化策略的組織圖 98
圖4-16 學生小宏練習使用視覺化策略的組織圖 99
圖4-17 學生小威練習使用視覺化策略的組織圖 100

參考文獻 參考文獻
一、中文部分
王文科(1991)。教育心理學。臺北市:五南。
王怡卉(2005)。持續安靜閱讀對國小五年級學生閱讀態度與閱讀能力之影響。國立台中師範學院語文教育學系,未出版,台中市。
江明倩(2016)。運用交互教學法提升國中學生閱讀理解能力之行動研究。淡江大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文,未出版,新北市。
呂淑華(2010)。分享式閱讀教學對國小二年級學童閱讀態度及閱讀理解之成效研究。臺北市立教育大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
李俊仁(2010)。工作記憶與閱讀。載於柯華葳(主編),中文閱讀障礙。臺北:心理。
吳敏而(2013)。多文本閱讀的教學研發。國立臺北教育大學語文集刊,23,123-157。
吳訓生(2000)。國小低閱讀能力學生閱讀理解策略教學效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文,未出版,彰化。
吳訓生(2002)。國小高、低閱讀理解能力學生閱讀理解策略之比較研究。特殊教育學報,16,65-104。
孟瑛如(2011)。學習障礙與補救教學—教師及家長實用手冊(一版十刷)。臺北:五南。
邱瓊慧(譯)(2015)。學習困難學生閱讀理解概論(原作者:Janette K. Klingner、Sharon Vaughn、Alison Boardman)。臺北市:心理。(原著出版年:2007)
岳修平(譯)(1998)。教育心理學―學習的認知基礎(原作者:ED Gagne,CW Yekovich,FR Yekovich)。臺北市:遠流。(原著出版年:1993)
柯華葳(2004)。我可以學得更好。臺北市:心理。
柯華葳(2006)。教出閱讀力。臺北市:天下雜誌。
柯華葳、張郁雯、詹益綾、丘嘉慧 (2017)。PIRLS 2016臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養國家報告。桃園市:國立中央大學。取自https://sites.google.com/site/reading8learning01/pirls/pirls-2011
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(1),87-113。
洪月女、楊雅斯(2014)。讀報結合閱讀理解策略教學對國小四年級學童學習成效之研究。教育科學研究期刊,59(4),1-26。
洪月女(2016)。學科閱讀研究與教學之探討。高雄師大學報:教育與社會科學類。40,19 -39。
徐翊瑄(2009)。建構多文本閱讀教學之行動研究。國立臺北教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
教育部(2011)。閱讀理解-文章與試題範例。臺北市:作者。
曾世杰(2004)。聲韻覺識、唸名速度與中文閱讀障礙。臺北市:心理。
張德銳、丁一顧、簡賢昌、高紅瑛、李建民、李俊達……蔡美錦(2014)。教學行動研究:實務手冊與理論介紹。臺北市。高等教育。
趙鏡中(2011)。提升閱讀力的教與學―趙鏡中先生語文教學論集。臺北市:萬卷樓。
蔡清田(2013)。教育行動研究。臺北市:五南。

二、英文部分
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic
processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp.255-291). New York, NY:Longman.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. (1984). Matacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson ,
R. Barr , M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal(eds.), Handbook of reading research
(pp.353-394). New York: Longman.
Block, C. C. (2008). Michael Pressley's Educational Legacy and Directions He Identified for Future Research in Reading Instruction, Educational Psychologist, 43:2,97-106, DOI: 10.1080/00461520801942284.
Bell, R. Q. (1968). A Reinterpretation of the Direction of Effects in Studies of
Socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 83-96.
Brown, R. (2008). The road not yet taken: A transactional strategies approach to
comprehension instruction. Reading Teacher, 61(7), 538-547.
Casteel, C. P., Isom, B. A., & Jordan, K. F. (2000). Creating confident and competent
Readers:Transactional strategies instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic,
36, 67–75.
Chall, J. S. (1979). Reading research-For whom? Curriculum Inquiry, 9(1),
37-43.
Dole, J. A. (2000). Explicit and implicit instruction in comprehension. In B. M.
Taylor,M. F. Graves & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for Meaning: Fostering
Comprehension in The Middle Grade (pp. 1-31). NY: Teachers College.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new:research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research,61, 239-264.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199.
Duffy, G. G., Roeler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Polin, R., Rackliffe, G., & Tracy, A.(1987).Developing and evaluating measures associated with strategic reading.Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 223-246.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. (2002). Effective Practices for Developing Reading
Comprehension. In Alan E. Farstrup & S. Jay Samuels (Eds.), What Research
Has to Say About Reading Instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association, Inc.
Durkin, D. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension
instruction.Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533
Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read (Vol. 6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
El-Dinary,P.B.,Pressley,M.,& Schuder,T.(1992). Teachers Learning Transactional Strategies instruction. In C.K.Kinzer & D.J.Leu(Eds.),Literacy research,theory,and practice:Views from many perspectives:41st yearbook of
the national reading conference(pp.453462).Chicago:National Reading Conference.
Frederiksen.J.R.(1982).A componential theory of reading skills and their interactions. In R.J.Sternberg, (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human Intelligence. Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gagné, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown and Company.
Gaskins, I. W., Anderson, R. C., Pressley, M., Cunicelli, E. A., & Satlow, E. (1993).
Six teachers' dialogue during cognitive process instruction. The Elementary
School Journal, 93(3), 277-304.
Goodman, K. S.(1976). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In A.Flurkey &
J. Xu (Eds., 2003), On the revolution of reading: The selected writings of
Kenneth S. Goodman (pp. 46–58). Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, K. S.(1996). On Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Garner, R. (1980). Monitoring of understanding: An investigation of good and poor
readers' awareness of induced miscomprehension of text. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 12(1), 55-63.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
Gough, P. B. (2004). One second of reading: Postscript. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J.
Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1180-
1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Harris, K., & Pressley, M. (1991). The Nature of Cognitive Strategy Instruction:
Interactive Strategy Construction. Exceptional Children, 57(5), 392-404.
Hiebert, E. H., & Raphael T. E. (1996). Psychological Perspectives on Literacy and
Extensions to Educational Practice. In Berliner, D. C., & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.),
Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 550-602). New York: Simon &
Schuster Macmillan.
Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In L. B.
Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared
cognition (pp. 283-307). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
Association.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American
Psychologist, 49, 294-303.DOI: 10.1037//0003-066X.49.4.294
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Laberge, J. R., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information
processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The
SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction.
Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357-371.
Mayer, R.E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson
Education. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implication for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Child Health and Development.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-
fostering comprehension- monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2,
117-175.
Paris, S. G. & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study
strategies of good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13,
5-22.
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: a review of
research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School
Journal, 88, 151-165.
Pearson, P. D. & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching Reading Comprehension. New
York: Holt,Rinehart,Winston.
Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Cunicelli, E. A., Burdick, N. J., Schaub-Matt, M., Lee, D.
S., & Powell, N. (1991). Strategy instruction at Benchmark School: A faculty
interview study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14(1), 19-48.
Pressley, M., Harris, K.R., & Marks, M. (1992). But good strategy instructors are
constructivists! Educational Psychology Review, 4, 3-31.
Pressley, M., P.B. El-Dinary, I. Gaskins, T. Schuder, J.L. Bergman, J. Almasi, and R.
Brown. (1992). Beyond Direct Explanation: Transactional Instruction of
Reading Comprehension Strategies.The Elementary School Journal 92, 5: 513–
555.
Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. B. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for
educators, researchers, and policymakers. New York, NY: HarperCollins
College Publishers.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced
teaching.New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Rosenshine, B. V. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In P. L. Peterson, & H.
J. Walberg (Eds.). Research on Teaching. McCutchan Publishing Corporation. Rosenshine, B.V.(1980). Skill hierarchies in reading comprehension. In R.J. Spiro,
B.C. Bruce & W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading
Comprehension .Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In P. D.
Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of Reading
Research (pp.745-798). New York: Longman.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of the
Research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate
questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research,
66, 181-221.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of
the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1995). Literature as exploration. New York: Modern Language
Association.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students’ thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock, (Ed.).
Handbook of research on teaching.New York: MacMillan.
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2019-07-30公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2019-07-30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 2486 或 來信