「質疑作者教學法」對高中生英文閱讀理解及寫作之影響

全文

(1) 國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Master Thesis Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 「質疑作者教學法」對高中生英文閱讀理解及寫作之影響 The Effects of QtA on EFL Senior High School Students’ Reading Comprehension and Written Response. 指導教授 : 朱錫琴博士 Advisor: Dr. Hsi-Chin Janet Chu 研究生 : 吳詩純 Shih-Chun Daphne Wu. 中華民國一百零二年十二月 December, 2013. .

(2) 中文摘要本研究旨在探究一閱讀教學策略「質疑作者教學法」(Questioning the Author)，對於以英文為外語的高中生之閱讀理解能力及回應寫作的質量影響。 94 個十一年級的學生(其中 46 位在質疑作者教學法組，另外 48 位在控制組)參與此項為期四週六回的閱讀訓練。每一回訓練都以一則短篇故事做為教材，質疑作者教學法組著重釐清作者寫作意圖及以讀者為中心的問答；而控制組以傳統問答教學，並只著重在文字表面。前測及後測分別在教學訓練前後實施，學生在前後測時，都需於閱讀一篇短文後，回答閱讀測驗及寫作回應短文內容。此外，實驗組還需在後測時完成關於此教學法的問卷。由閱讀測驗中收集來的資料分別以事實、詮釋、回應類問題三個層面分析；回應寫作中以質量兩大層面分析，量的方面包含寫作字數、思考單位數及一個思考單位所含字數，質的方面則將各個思考單位歸類為文本回應、個人回應、智力回應和錯誤理解。最後，讀者對於此教學法的喜好、所察覺的進步及此教學法的可行性將由問卷資料分析得知。以組別當作自變數，前測作為共變量，共變數分析後測，發現在三類閱讀測驗問題及寫作回應的質量均有一些顯著的改變。首先、在閱讀測驗方面，實驗組於回答回應類問題上優於控制組，卻在提升回答事實和詮釋類問題時不具優勢。第二、在回應寫作方面，儘管兩組的平均文長和思想單位數差不多，實驗組在一個思想單位中的平均字數高於控制組，這間接指出質疑作者教學法能提升思考複雜度卻不影響思考內容多寡。第三、以上的推測也進一步由寫作回應的內容相佐證，實驗組能產生出較多的智力回應、較少的文本回應和錯誤理解，並且在個人回應上兩組沒有顯著改變。第四、問卷分析顯現學生對於質疑作者教學法持有正向的態度，學生喜歡此教學法、且期待未來有更多的相關課程、並嘗試將此閱讀法於自行閱讀時應用。本文依據研究結果建議質疑作者教學法足以作為一個有效提升以英語為外語學習的高中學生在閱讀理解及讀後寫作回應的高階思考能力。. 關鍵字: 質疑作者教學法、閱讀理解、回應寫作、思考層級、外語學習、高中 i .

(3) . ABSTRACT This study investigates the effects of an approach to reading instruction, QtA approach, on levels of reading comprehension and on the quantity and quality of written response by EFL senior high school students. Ninety-four eleventh graders, 46 in QtA Group, the Experimental Group, and 48 in Control Group, participated in the study in six sessions during a four-week intervention. For each session, one story was covered in two different approaches for the two groups. QtA Group was taught in QtA Approach, with a focus on clarifying authorial intents and reader initiating questions, while Control Group was guided through traditional question-and-answer approach, with a focus on textual message. Prior to and after teaching intervention, pretest and posttest were implemented. In both tests, students read a passage before they answered reading comprehension questions and performed a written response. Additionally, Experimental Group completed a perception questionnaire in the posttest. Data from reading comprehension questions were analyzed in terms of factual, interpretive, responsive, and incorrect dimensions; data from written response were analyzed by its quantitative measures of words, thought units, and words per thought unit, and by its qualitative features of textual, personal, intellectual and incorrect response. In addition, readers’ preference for, perceived ability growth from, and perceived feasibility of QtA were analyzed based on the data from Perception Questionnaire. With Group as an independent variable, Pretest as a covariate, ANCOVA analyses on Posttest in three types of reading comprehension questions and four levels of written response reveal several significant findings. First, for reading comprehension questions, QtA Group performed significantly better than Control Group in responsive questions but not in factual and interpretive questions, indicating that QtA approach facilitates comprehension at the responsive level. Second, for written response, QtA Group generated more words per thought unit, despite that there was no difference between groups in the text length and the number of ii .

(4) . thought unit, indirectly reflecting the impact of QtA approach in boosting complexity in thought, albeit not in the quantity of content. This conjecture is further supported by the findings that QtA Group produced more intellectual responses and fewer textual responses and incorrect responses but no different number of personal responses than Control Group. Additionally, the questionnaire analyses point to students’ positive perception towards QtA approach. Students favored, expected the future implementation of, and transferred the use of QtA. These findings suggest that QtA approach can be an effective instructional approach to facilitating EFL high school students’ higher-order thinking not only in reading comprehension but also in written response to reading.. Key words: Questioning the Author, reading comprehension, written response, thinking level, EFL, senior high school. iii .

(5) . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Chu, Hsi-chin, my research advisor, for her patient guidance, warm-hearted encouragement, and tireless assistance. Without Professor Chu, I could hardly complete such a complicated study involving sophisticated statistics. I would also like to thank Professor Chern, Chiou-lan, and Professor Chuang, Kun-liang for their valuable and constructive suggestions during the planning of this research work. Professor Chu and Professor Chern’s devotion in research of reading arouse my interest in studying the interrelationship between reading and thinking. And Professor Chuang has been my great inspiration in applying literature work in reading after taking his Literature and English Teaching course. My thanks also go to my school which provided me the administrative support for this study. What’s more, my special thanks should definitely go to my participants, students of Class Mei and Sheng in the eleventh grade in the year 2013. Without their participation, this study could not have been possible. In addition, my gratitude should be extended to my family and friends who gives my supports and encouragement in completing this research project. Especially, my colleagues, Alice, Candace, Cindy and Eileen, have served as my second rater in data analysis even in the busy school year. My data analysis stage could not be accomplished and solid without their generous help. Last but not the least, I would like to express my profound thanks to my special friend, Nash, who has always been the one who raises me up when I am down and weary. Every time I have doubt in attending to both my teaching job and research work, he has never given second thought to my ability and renders great tolerance of my moodiness under pressure. His warm company and faith in me is my utmost driving force.. iv .

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstracts………………………………………………………………………………………..i Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………iv List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………......ix CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 Background and Motivation ............................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................ 4 Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 5 Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER TWO : LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................... 7 The Current Comprehension and Learning Theories ......................................................... 7 Kintsch’s Construction–Integration Model................................................................. 7 Rosenblatt’s Transactional Model .............................................................................. 8 Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory ........................................................................... 10 Development of Research on Reading Instruction Models .............................................. 11 Transactional Models for Reading Instruction ................................................................. 13 Reciprocal Teaching (RT)......................................................................................... 13 Transactional Strategies Instruction (TSI) ................................................................ 15 Literature Circle ........................................................................................................ 16 Questioning the Author (QtA) .................................................................................. 18 Characteristics ................................................................................................... 18 Procedure .......................................................................................................... 19 Previous QtA Studies........................................................................................................ 20 Research Questions........................................................................................................... 23. v .

(7) . CHAPTER THREE : METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 24 Pilot Study ........................................................................................................................ 24 Pilot Study on Teaching Material and Procedure ..................................................... 24 Pilot Study on Test Material and Procedure ............................................................. 25 Main Study ....................................................................................................................... 26 Participants ................................................................................................................ 26 Materials Selection.................................................................................................... 27 Deciding text genre for treatment and for pre and posttest. ............................. 27 Teaching materials............................................................................................ 28 Test materials selection and modification. ....................................................... 29 Segmentation and generation of queries for treatment material. ..................... 31 Comprehension check for treatment material. ................................................. 31 Instruments ................................................................................................................ 32 Short-answer comprehension questions. .......................................................... 32 Written response instruction sheet.................................................................... 32 Study Design ............................................................................................................. 33 Treatment procedure......................................................................................... 34 Experimental group. ................................................................................. 34 A sample segment on QtA lesson. .................................................... 35 Control group. .......................................................................................... 36 Design for the Pretest and Posttest............................................................................ 38 Data collection procedure................................................................................. 39 Scoring. ............................................................................................................ 39 Scoring of comprehension questions........................................................ 39 Coding of written response. ..................................................................... 40 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 42 CHAPTER FOUR : RESULTS ............................................................................................ 43 Effects of QtA Lessons on Comprehension ..................................................................... 43 Effect of QtA Lessons on Comprehension Questions .............................................. 43 Effects of QtA Lessons on Three Types of Comprehension Questions ................... 44 Factual questions. ............................................................................................. 44 Interpretive questions. ...................................................................................... 46 vi .

(8) . Responsive questions. ...................................................................................... 46 Effects of QtA Lessons on Written Response .................................................................. 48 Effects of QtA Lessons on Writing Quantity ............................................................ 48 Number of words. ............................................................................................. 48 Number of thought units. ................................................................................. 49 Words per unit in writing.................................................................................. 50 Effects of QtA Lessons on Writing Quality .............................................................. 51 Textual response. .............................................................................................. 51 Personal response. ............................................................................................ 52 Intellectual response. ........................................................................................ 53 Incorrect response. ........................................................................................... 54 Results of the Perception Questionnaire ........................................................................... 55 Preference toward QtA Approach ............................................................................. 56 Perception of Growth in Ability through QtA Lessons ............................................ 58 Feasibility of QtA Materials and Lessons ................................................................. 59 CHAPTER FIVE : DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION ................................................. 61 Summary of the Findings ................................................................................................. 61 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 62 QtA and Reading Comprehension ............................................................................ 63 QtA and Quantity of Response Writing .................................................................... 65 QtA and Quality of Response Writing ...................................................................... 66 Students’ Perceptions of QtA Lessons ...................................................................... 69 Pedagogical Implication ................................................................................................... 71 Implication for Future Study ............................................................................................ 73 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………75 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………76 APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………..82 Appendix A: A Sample Teaching Material in Segments with Queries………………….82 Appendix B: Test Material………………………………………………………………85 Appendix C: Short-answer Comprehension Questions .................................................... 87 vii .

(9) . Appendix D: Pre/Posttest Writing ........................................................................................ 89 Appendix E: Perception Questionnaire ................................................................................ 90 Appendix F: A QtA Lesson Excerpt..................................................................................... 94. viii .

(10) . LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Treatment Materials…………………………………………………………………29 Table 2: Test Materials………………………………………………………………………..30 Table 3: Data Collection and Treatment Schedule……………………………………………34 Table 4: Queries Used in the Sample Lesson…………………………………………………35 Table 5: QtA Discussion Moves………………………………………………………………36 Table 6: Segment Routine Comparison……………………………………………………….37 Table 7: Class Routines Comparison between Experimental Group and Control Group…….38 Table 8: Data Collection Procedure…………………………………………………………..39 Table 9: Mean Scores for Group and Pre-Posttest on Comprehension Questions……………44 Table 10: ANCOVA Summary for Comprehension Questions……………………………….44 Table 11: Mean Scores for Group and Pre-Posttest on Factual Questions……………………45 Table 12: ANCOVA Summary for Factual Questions………………………………………...45 Table 13: Mean Scores for Group and Pre-Posttest on Interpretive Questions……………….46 Table 14: ANCOVA Summary for Interpretive Questions……………………………………46 Table 15: Mean Scores for Group and Pre-Posttest on Responsive Questions……………….47 Table 16: ANCOVA Summary for Responsive Questions……………………………………47 Table 17: Mean Scores for Group and Pre-Posttest on Number of Words……………...……48 Table 18: ANCOVA Summary for Number of Words………………………………………..49 Table 19: Mean Scores for Group and Pre-Posttest on Thought Units……………………….49 Table 20: ANCOVA Summary for Thought Units……………………………………………50 Table 21: Mean Scores for Group and Pre-Posttest on Words per Unit………………………50 Table 22: ANCOVA Summary for Words per Unit…………………………………………...51 Table 23: Mean Scores for Group and Pre-Posttest on Textual Response……………………51 Table 24: ANCOVA Summary for Textual Response………………………………………...52 Table 25: Mean Scores for Group and Pre-Posttest on Personal Response…………………..52 ix .

(11) . Table 26: ANCOVA Summary for Personal Response……………………………………….53 Table 27: Mean Scores for Group and Pre-Posttest on Intellectual Response………………..53 Table 28: ANCOVA Summary for Intellectual Response…………………………………….54 Table 29: Mean Scores for Group and Pre-Posttest on Incorrect Response………………….54 Table 30: ANCOVA Summary for Incorrect Response……………………………………….55 Table 31: Preference toward QtA Lessons……………………………………………………56 Table 32: Ranking of Favorite Features of QtA Approach………………………………...…57 Table 33: Ranking of Self-assessment in Ability Growth in QtA Approach…………………58 Table 34: Feasibility toward QtA Lesson…………………………………………………….59. x .

(12) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Being an English educator, the researcher has been seeking approaches to facilitate EFL learners’ reading ability, thinking skills and motivation in reading. The current study is conducted to see whether an updated reading approach centered on constructing a dialogue around the text can promote learners’ reading comprehension and the quality of written response.. Background and Motivation As an English teacher of senior high school for three years, the researcher has noticed that in most of the English classrooms, students are often lack of engagement with reading texts. When it comes to teaching reading, traditional language teaching methods are still being used by most teachers. Being the center of the classroom, teachers generally decode the text by giving grammar analysis, vocabulary supplement or sentence translation along with a few literal comprehension questions. Students sitting in the classroom might jot down definition of the new vocabulary, underline important phrases, and do pattern practice in the textbook in silence, waiting to receive information without much sophisticated thinking. Besides, when students respond, teachers offer brief response based on the explicit information on the paper, and then evaluate the correctness of the response, as depicted by initiation-responseevaluation (IRE) pattern (Alvermann, O’Brien, & Dillon, 1990; Beck, McKeown, Sandora, Kucan, & Worthy, 1996). Students’ lack of motivation and teachers’ unidirectional instructions build up a learning environment wanting enthusiasm. As such, students only receive fragments of basic language information in class. When reading by themselves, they have trouble comprehending the deeper meaning of a text and sorting out the main idea from details. 1 .

(13) . Such unsatisfactory learning results and atmosphere often remind the educators to reflect on the aim of language learning and teaching. The goal of English curriculum, according to Applebee, Langer, Nystrnd and Gamoran (2003), is to foster the abilities to “read with ease, write fluently, think deeply and communicate effectively” (p.687). This goal corresponds to the demand of the updated 2008 Senior High School Curriculum Guidelines of English subject proposed by the Ministry of Education, which highly encourages the development of critical thinking ability. Instead of doing mechanical drills and responding to factual questions all the time, students need to learn to reason, compare, and connect while reading to reach a higher level understanding. High-level comprehension is defined as “critical, reflective thinking about and around the text” by Wilkinson (2005, p.2). High-level comprehension requires readers to engage with the text to attain deep knowledge of the topic and to reflect on their own thinking. Higher-order thinking involves readers to elaborate and go beyond what is given in the text (Wilkinson, 2005). Therefore, an engaged reading class should go beyond developing basic comprehension; instead, it allows the interplay of readers’ long-term motivation, knowledge, social competence and reading skills (Baker, Dreher, & Guthrine, 2000). How to build an engaged reading class and promote high-level comprehension is of English educators and researchers’ main concern. To meet such demand, a current reading instructional model, Questioning the Author (hereafter QtA), is developed to build an interactive learning environment and foster active thinkers and efficient readers. QtA proposed by McKeown, Beck, &Worthy (1993) in 1990s’ is a reading approach utilizing a series of open-ended questions to help students understand what the author tries to show through the text, not just what the author tells. While examining the positive factors influencing comprehension and revising incomprehensible texts, they found one of the keys is to be able to “connect, recognize and construct logical relationships among ideas” (Beck & McKeown, 2006, p.21). The text itself might not be coherent or clear 2 .

(14) . enough, which needs readers to actively build meaning from it. This QtA process is thus constructed as a conversation among teachers and students who query a text collaboratively, segment by segment. Teachers ask questions to assist students in extending meaning during reading rather than to elicit factual information. The responsibility of constructing the text ideas would be mainly on students. Therefore, QtA classroom provides supportive contexts for high-quality text talk through text discussion at various levels, from clarifying ideas, drawing interpretations to relating experiences (Duke & Pearson, 2002).. Purpose of the Study The study intends to probe into the effect of QtA on dimensions of reading comprehension of EFL senior high school students and on the kinds of thinking manifested in students’ written response to reading text. The three levels of comprehension ability that would be tapped into are: literal, interpretive and responsive. As for reader-text interaction displayed in written response, four types of response (intellectual, textual, personal, and incorrect) as categorized by Kucan and Beck (2003) would be used as a framework for analysis. Besides, students’ perceptions toward QtA instruction will also be investigated. Therefore, the purposes of the current study are three folds. First, this study intends to explore whether QtA instruction makes a difference in senior high school students’ reading comprehension as measured by three levels of understanding, factual, interpretive and responsive. Secondly, the content of senior high school students’ post-reading response writing will be examined to see whether QtA instruction makes a difference in the quantity of writing as measured by the number of words, number of thought unit, number of words per thought unit and in the quality of writing as coded by the four types: textual, personal, intellectual, and incorrect response. Finally, students’ perceptions toward QtA instruction and self-assessment of ability growth in English as a result of receiving QtA instruction will be presented. 3 .

(15) . Definition of Terms Reading Comprehension: Reading comprehension is the outcome of cognitive processing of textual information (Nystrand, 2006). Readers construct understanding of written language by integrating their prior knowledge with the text information (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). Factual questions: Factual questions tap understanding of explicit textual information and the answers are right in the text (Pearson & Johnson, 1978). It only requires readers to recall what they have understood directly from the text. Interpretive questions: Interpretive questions require readers to draw their background knowledge to fill up textual gaps or make a conclusion about the text, forming inferences or deriving a theme (Applegate, Quinn, & Applegate, 2002). Responsive questions: Responsive questions have the readers go beyond the text to freely express personal idea related to the behaviors of the characters or the story plot. There is no right or wrong answer. Response Writing: Readers write freely about anything on their mind after reading a passage to probe readers’ most authentic thinking stance. Kinds of Response: Based on the kinds of reader-text interaction readers engaged in, readers’ response can be categorized into four types: textual response, personal response, intellectual response, and incorrect response (Kucan & Beck, 2003). Textual response is the “information in the text itself.” In this textual response, readers “paraphrase and summarize the text” without further interpreting the information (Kucan & Beck, 2003, p.13). 4 .

(16) . Personal response is readers’ “personal experience or knowledge related to the text information” (Kucan & Beck, 2003, p.13). Readers often express their personal feelings toward the text or comment whether they know the text information or not. Intellectual response occurs when readers try to “create an understanding of text ideas.” Readers show this effort by “creating possible interpretations of the text through making inferences, questioning, and attempting to make sense of the text ideas” (Kucan & Beck, 2003, p.13). Incorrect response is the wrong interpretation of the text made by the readers.. Significance of the Study The current study is significant in the following aspects: Firstly, from the study, it would inform the field regarding the feasibility of QtA reading approach for EFL senior high school students in Taiwan, since the effect of QtA has been found for English as L1 readers and for junior high EFL readers. Secondly, the study would shed light on whether QtA instruction can promote learners’ reading comprehension beyond factual level via short-answer comprehension questions and response writing. Most importantly, in the era of educational reform, critical thinking is one of the vital goals in cultivating an independent learner. Whether QtA instruction can serve as an effective method to facilitate readers’ interaction with a text and to develop thinking skills would intrigue many people in the field of English education.. Organization of the Study The study begins with the first chapter, including background and motivation, purpose of the study and research questions, definition of terms, and significance of the study. The second chapter discusses the theoretical background of the issue and previous studies on QtA. The third chapter describes the design of the main study. The fourth chapter illustrates the 5 .

(17) . results of the study. The last chapter ends the study by presenting the discussion of the results, pedagogical implications, and suggestions for future research.. 6 .

(18) . CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter comprises five parts. In the first part, the current theories about reading comprehension and learning will be introduced. The second part presents general development of research on reading instruction models. Four prominent instructional models for reading will be presented in the third part. The fourth part elaborates on the characteristics and procedure of QtA. Finally, several previous QtA studies will be depicted.. The Current Comprehension and Learning Theories What is comprehension? With the understanding of research in psychology and brain studies, the definition of reading comprehension has evolved from applying a range of cognitive skills in deciphering meaning of a text (Brown, El-Dinary, Pressley, & Coy-Ogan, 1995; Westera & Moore, 1995) to a more dynamic model. Wilkson and Son (2011) defined comprehension as “a dynamic and context-sensitive process” (p.359). Readers’ interpretations vary resulting from the differences in individual knowledge and in the sociocultural context in reading (Rosenblatt, 1982, 1986). Aside from diverse background knowledge, interaction among readers also plays a major role in assisting learners’ cognitive growth (Malloy & Gambreall, 2010; Vygotsky, 1978). The social context of discussing a text with others helps scaffold readers’ thinking and gradually the more advanced thinking skill will be internalized. The following are a few recent learning and reading comprehension theories that denote the contribution of reader knowledge to reading comprehension. Kintsch’s Construction–Integration Model One important cognitive view of comprehension that accounts the role of reader knowledge is the construction-integration model (1988) proposed by Kintsch. In the model, there are three levels of analyses (the surface structure, the textbase, and the situation model) 7 .

(19) . illustrated as the mental representations formed while comprehending (Kintsch, 1986). The most basic component is the surface structure. It consists of the original words and phrases of the text, like the individual node in a network (Kintsch, 1994, 1998). Another set of relation is the textbase built from propositions expressing the semantic content in a framework of the text. It is directly derived from the explicit content without adding any extra information (Kintsch, 1986, 1994, 1998). The comprehension network produced by textbase is still incoherent and primitive, which needs the readers to establish links from their prior knowledge and personal experience (Kintsch, 1988). The third representation is situation model which integrates the textbase and relevant prior knowledge and contain deeper level of understanding (Kintsch, 1986, 1994, 1998). During comprehension, when readers are able to make inferences in the text by offering missing links based on their personal knowledge, they are creating a situation model (Kintsch, 1978). The entire process of constructing linguistic input into a textbase and integrating the textbase with the comprehender’s prior knowledge into a coherent network is called a construction-integration model (Kintsch, 1988). For a learner to be able to actively use the information in the text, it is more preferable to teach them to learn from the text instead of only remembering it. Remembering a text involves only the textbase where learners reproduce the text in a similar form. Nevertheless, when learners learn from a text, they can use the information in the text in other ways such as solving new problems and answering inference questions (Kintsch, 1994). However, to enable people to learn from a text, content overlap between text and reader’s prior knowledge is one major condition; that is, it is essential for readers to activate their prior knowledge while comprehending to make connection (Kintsch, 1986, 1994). In a successful reading, readers should actively make sense of the text information through integrating it with prior knowledge and building meaning in constructive manner (Beck et al., 1996). Rosenblatt’s Transactional Model To tease out the source of text meaning predetermined by the author or interpreted by the 8 .

(20) . individual reader, two reading comprehension models are derived. One is transmission model, in which a standard meaning of the text is expected to be arrived at and readers play a passive role in accepting information in the text. The other is transactional model, in which individual interpretations are valued and readers take an active stance in creating their own meaning of the text (Roberts, Jensen, & Hadjiyianni, 1997). In consistent with Kintsch’s integration-construction model, transactional model proposed by Rosenblatt accentuates readers’ contribution. According to Rosenblatt (1982), reading is a “transactional process that goes on between a particular reader and a particular text at a particular time, and under particular circumstances” (p.123). That is, reading is an interactive process among the reader, the text and the world. The same text might be approached and interpreted differently in diverse situations or by readers of different background knowledge. Besides, while reading, we constantly set up a tentative framework based on our past experience and revise it when it does not fit. Readers select the attention focus toward the text and synthesize ideas into the mental idea framework (Rosenblatt, 1982, 1986, 1989, 1998). The above-mentioned “selective attention” of readers, in another word, is the stance readers adopt in reading, which reflects the purpose of a reader (Rosenblatt, 1982, 1989). Rosenblatt developed a stance continuum to describe the mental set of a reader. On one side of the continuum is the efferent stance. Readers in efferent stance centers on what is to be remembered after the reading event by summarizing the information, and memorizing the details of the text; while aesthetic stance in the other end centers on what is being experienced during the reading. In aesthetic reading, readers apply their past world experience to connect the text with their personal feeling so as to participate in the story. Whether a reading is read efferently or aesthetically does not reside in the text but in the reader. Any reading can be read in both ways (Rosenblatt, 1982, 1986, 1989). Rosenblatt (1982) suggested that beyond efferent reading, aesthetic reading should be 9 .

(21) . taught because aesthetic reading usually can give readers an intrinsic purpose. When living through the text experience, readers feel the text more related to their personal life and would be inspired to read more. Besides, when having a dialogue about the text with teachers or other peers, students can develop cognitive abilities such as organizing, interpreting and explaining and even arouse their metalinguistic awareness. Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory Other than reading comprehension theories, one major learning theory suggested by Vygotsky also echoes the reading approach of current study. Vygotsky (1978) proposed Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to illustrate the interrelationship between learning and interacting. He argued that only when children are interacting with others can development processes occur. Zone of proximal development is “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving, and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers.” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.86) Namely, through cooperation with peers, learners can be pushed up to a higher level in development process. Hence, to boost higher mental function as learners’ independent development, participating in a social context is an essential prerequisite (Kucan & Beck, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978). The independent reading comprehension skill can likewise be fostered by participating in oral discourse among peers and a teacher. Participating in reading discussion serves as a context for practicing and learning comprehension skills (Lawrence & Snow, 2011) as well as for the generation of unique ideas. While responding to a text and exchanging opinion with others, learners internalize and improve their comprehension skills. Readers’ comprehension and perspective is thus constructed with the scaffolding of oral discussion by the teacher and peers. Apart from improving reading comprehension, readers’ cognitive growth would also be developed when they have to explain or discuss their ideas with other learners (Nystrand, 10 .

(22) . 2006;. Vygotsky,. 1978).. The. above. two. theories. of. reading. comprehension,. integration-construction theory and transactional model, and Vygotsky’s theory of learning, as well as transactional model, form the major theoretical background of the current study.. Development of Research on Reading Instruction Models Like reading theories, with greater understanding of the factors interplaying in reading and comprehension, reading instruction models are changing and progressing. Wilkinson and Son (2011) have reviewed three waves of research on reading instruction introduced by Pressley (1998) and further proposed a fourth wave. Together these four waves underscore the development of our thinking about reading process and outcome. The first wave of studies from 1970s to early 1980s accentuated instruction of single strategy such as summarizing, generating questions and creating mental image of the text, etc. These studies investigated and confirmed the effect of single strategy instruction on reading comprehension. These single strategies were then integrated into multiple strategies instruction in the second wave in the 1980s. The second wave of multiple strategies instruction combined several strategies in one approach. Studies on multiple strategies instruction generally found it effective compared with those without receiving any treatment (Brown & Palincscar, 1984; Greenway, 2002; Slater & Horstman, 2002; Westera & Moore, 1995). The third wave began from 1989 when Pressley et al. (1992) came up with Transactional Strategies Instruction. It is also made up with a small repertoire of strategies like the second wave (multiple strategies instruction) but used in more flexible ways and more collaborative contexts. That is, participants transact with the text to construct understanding with their teachers and peers, accompanied by discussion of when and where to use what strategies (Pressley et al., 1992, 1994). Metacognition, which has readers actively monitor their use of cognitive skills, is the main concern for strategies instruction in this period (Pressley et al., 1994). 11 .

(23) . Despite the positive effects found on multiple strategies instruction, some researchers still think it is not without flaws. One of the problems with strategy instruction which emphasizes isolated skills might be “too mechanical” and “rote” (Pressley et al., 1992; Wilkinson & Son, 2011). Students’ attention would be turned to acquiring strategies on surface level, instead of reading for meaning (Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1998). The ultimate aim for reading ability instruction should be allowing students’ flexible use of strategies by themselves, argued by Wilkinson and Son (2011). Compared with strategies instruction, content approach directly underscoring important ideas and making connections may be more likely to assist students in building a coherent concept (McKeown, Beck & Blake, 2009). Because of the aforementioned concerns toward strategies instruction and comprehension outcome, more “fluid and context sensitive process” is called for. Thus, the reading research trend in recent years appeals to a more “dynamic and flexible approach,” which is the dialogic approaches (Wilkinson & Son, 2011, p.367). As indicated by Wilkinson and Son, dialogic approach forms the core of the 4th wave. Besides emphasizing students’ control of their learning through collaborative inquiry to construct meaning as advocated in the third wave (Transactional Strategies Instruction), dialogic approaches additionally stress the importance of placing various perspectives together and having the meaning arise from the discourse interaction among students. The main feature of dialogic approaches is discussion. Discussion facilitates reading comprehension in the following ways. First, when discussing a text, readers can engage in a text more actively to generate meaning from it. Discussion scaffolds readers to incorporate higher level of interaction with text (Sandora, Beck & McKeown, 1999; Wilkinson & Son, 2011). Secondly, when readers make public of their opinions about the text, they would start to consider and mediate different thoughts. Besides, during the process of constructing ideas, readers can internalize the thinking skills that are essential to apply in new reading (Wilkinson 12 .

(24) . & Son, 2011). Since the recent development of reading theories and trend of reading instruction points to the importance of higher-level interpretation, discussion is one of the ideal ways to extend time of engaging in text conversation and to incorporate various perspectives for comprehension (Lawrence & Snow, 2011). Consequently, the discussion approaches that emphasize using text as a conversation context such as the one reviewed in the following section turn out to be one of the most effective methods to help students appreciate the text ideas and gain deeper understanding (Kucan & Beck, 2003).. Transactional Models for Reading Instruction Reading instruction approaches utilized by teachers to scaffold and increase readers’ understanding of what is read have been modified following the education aim and research trend (Pressley, 2001). After the general development of reading instruction models are overviewed, the following are four noteworthy instructional models for reading corresponding with different waves of comprehension instruction research, Reciprocal Teaching, Transactional Strategies Instruction, Literature Circle, and Questioning the Author. These instructional techniques have a common focus of helping readers promote active engagement with text, yet they adopt diverse routes to that aim. The first two instructional techniques, Reciprocal Teaching and Transactional Strategies Instruction, encourage readers to assume more active roles through using and practicing reading strategies. The last two techniques, Literature Circle and Questioning the Author, encourage readers to respond actively to the text through collaborative discussion (Beck et al., 1996). Reciprocal Teaching (RT) Developed in the second wave of reading instruction studies, Reciprocal Teaching (RT) is a multiple strategies reading instruction constructed as a dialogue between students and the teacher during reading (Brown & Palincsar, 1984). In the beginning, the teacher serves as an 13 .

(25) . expert modeling reading for students. Then, gradually students take turns being the dialogue leader. (Greenway,. 2002).. It. consists. of. four. “comprehension-fostering. and. comprehension-monitoring” strategic activities (Brown & Palincsar, 1984, p.119): summarizing, questioning, clarifying and predicting (Brown & Palincsar, 1984; Slater & Horstman, 2002). RT developers (Brown & Palincsar, 1984) have compared the effect of Reciprocal Teaching Instruction and Locating Information Instruction (typical explicit questions answering). A total of twenty-four seventh grade poor readers were instructed with expository passages in the 20-day intervention. All the participants received the daily assessment by reading passages and answering 10 comprehension questions for each passage. In the end of the intervention, a series of transfer tests on the target four RT reading strategies (summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting) were administered. Students in RT group, with an adult modeling text interaction, compared with those in Locating Information Instruction group, as traditional classroom practice, generated more focused discussion dialogue, improvement in daily comprehension assessment and better quality of summary writing and questioning ability. Another study has proved the effectiveness of RT used in a high school remedial program. Westera and Moore (1995) targeted at forty-six poor comprehenders in eighth grade and divided them into three groups. During the five-week intervention, one group received 12-16 thirty-minute RT sessions (extended program); another group received only 6-8 thirty-minute RT sessions (short program); the other group did not receive any treatment. The participants were instructed with expository and narrative articles, and assessed by standardized. PAT. Reading. Comprehension. instrument.. Significant. gains. of. the. comprehension assessment were observed with students in the extended program and the gains were maintained even in the follow-up assessment administered 3-7 months later. With ESL learners, modified form of Reciprocal Teaching has been used. Fung, 14 .

(26) . Wilkinson and Moore (2003) applied 20-day intervention of L1-assisted reciprocal teaching on 12 Taiwanese 7th graders who read English expository text. They made significant gains on researcher-developed as well as standardized comprehension test. Besides, some qualitative changes can be observed in think-aloud task while reading L1 and L2 texts. Although the gains were not compared with the control group, some qualitative improvements were observed. There is a need for a control group to validate the growth from the treatment, which will be employed in the current study. The above three empirical studies show that students with poor comprehension ability and second language learners can benefit from Reciprocal Teaching. They learn how to foster and monitor their comprehension through practicing using multiple cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Transactional Strategies Instruction (TSI) Derived from psychology and reader response theory in the third wave of reading instruction studies, Transactional Strategies Instruction was developed by Pressley et al. (1992) to mend the deficiency of multiple strategies instruction. TSI assists readers in co-constructing text understanding via interacting with the text through discussion of when and where to use various types of cognitive strategies. It encourages readers to apply world knowledge in personal text interpretation (Pressley et al., 1992). TSI tries to incorporate explicit strategy instruction with individual knowledge construction and its ultimate goal is the readers’ self-regulated use of reading strategies (Brown et al., 1995; Pressley et al., 1994). TSI has been empirically tried out in high school curriculum and even shown its effects on young children at primary grades. Reutzel, Smith and Fawson (2005) compared two reading comprehension instruction approaches (Single Strategy Instruction and Transactional Strategies Instruction) of teaching second graders science information texts. Single Strategy Instruction (SSI) teaches one comprehension strategy at a time. They found no difference between the two groups in reading comprehension performance assessed by standardized test 15 .

(27) . and reading recall of main idea, reading motivation as well as strategy use. However, there are significant differences in elaborated knowledge acquisition (based on idea units recalled), retention of science content knowledge and curriculum-based reading comprehension scores. Besides, TSI is also effective to at-risk students. Another study investigating the effect of TSI for remedial reading program also found that students became literate and were able to be engaged in the discussion of the text (Schuder, 1993). Literature Circle Literature Circle emerged in the fourth wave of reading instruction brings “the interpersonal, dialogic nature of the talk” into the center of reading (King, 2001, p.34). It is one of the most popular reading comprehension instruction models in language learning curriculum in recent decades (Anderson & Corbett, 2008). This student-centered learning approach empowers students through decision making by letting them choose their own books and own reading roles in a book club of four to six students (Anderson & Corbett, 2008; DaLie, 2001). Each role in Literature Circle shares different responsibility and has to cooperate with their peers to actively explore their chosen book. The following are seven common roles in Literature Circle roles and their responsibilities: (1) discussion director, raising open-ended questions and facilitating group discussion (2) illustrator, representing key scenes from reading with their own drawing or picture from the Internet (3) literary luminary, highlighting key quotes and details from the text that he/she thinks is interesting, exciting, or inspiring, etc. (4) vocabulary enricher, looking up definitions of important or unfamiliar words (5) connector, finding relationships between the text and the real world (6) summarizer, helping their peers see the general picture of the reading (7) investigator, finding further background information on any related topic (DaLie, 2001, pp.89-91). Literature Circle is found to be effective not only for English native speakers (Martin, 1998) but also for English language learning (ELL) students with passive class participation and oftentimes deficient second language ability (Anderson& Corbett, 2008; Carrison & 16 .

(28) . Ernst-Slavit, 2005). In Carrison and Ernst-Slavit’s (2005) study, twenty-four ELL students with homogenous English ability received Literature Circle intervention in two months. Through pre- and post- surveys, classroom observation, student literature response journals and reading assessment (from pre-and post- Qualitative Reading Inventory scores), these ELL students were found to be more enthusiastic and confident in reading, become more outspoken in class discussion, and have better literacy skills indicated by increased reading comprehension scores. In Taiwanese EFL context, Literature Circles have been prevalent in college level English class. Literature Circles syllabus has been designed to promote it (Hsu, 2004). Chiang (2005; 2007) had tried it on her university students and found that by participating in literature circles, students developed their general English proficiency, were more engaged in reading and discussion, learned to make connection and fostered a sense of community. Not only fiction but also non-fiction genres are appropriate in Literature Circles setting. Stein and Beed (2004) were curious about whether Literature Circles would also work with biographies reading on their third graders. The researchers brainstormed some new roles in response to the characteristics of biographies. Students’ response to pre- and post-literature circle interviews triangulated the researchers’ observation, which proved that Literature Circles can engage students in reading non-fiction and bring them in-depth and interesting discussion of text content. Despite that Literature Circle holds the dialogic perspective that is necessary for the boost of reader engagement and thinking, the teacher does not play a pivotal role in the instruction. Another dialogic approach, QtA, might place the teacher in a more centralized position in text selection and discussion leading. The most productive in-class discussion for high-level thinking, according to Nystrand (2006), is the one with teachers having “considerable control of text and topic while allowing students considerable interpretive flexibility and opportunity to elaborate their ideas for extended periods of time” (p.398). 17 .

(29) . Hence, Questioning the Author could be the choice. Questioning the Author (QtA) Questioning the Author (QtA), a discussion-based approach that is designed to enhance readers’ comprehension and engagement with the text, was developed by Beck and McKeown in the 1990s when they were trying to revise a text to make it more coherent and comprehensible for students. In the revision process, the researchers found their effort of “grappling with ideas” (Beck & McKeown, 2006, p.22) by figuring out what the writers tried to express is what they should teach the students. Readers can be instructed to own a “reviser’s eye” when they tried to make the text understandable (McKeown, Beck & Worthy, 1993, p.561). The following are several characteristics and procedures that make QtA unique. Characteristics. To begin with, the notion of “fallibility of the author” (Beck & McKeown, 2006, p.30) is highlighted to lead readers to challenge the authority of authors. Writers are also human beings and they might not always be clear in stating their ideas. With this concept, readers would not take all the blame about their inability to comprehend. Instead, they will have more confidence in understanding the text and take a more active stance in decoding texts. Secondly, the role of teachers and students are different from that in traditional classrooms. QtA approach proceeds by actively engaging readers in discussion of a text during reading. Students build up the meaning collaboratively with their peers and take most control of the topic; while the teacher acts as a discussion director and facilitator. Knowledge about the text is constructed with the help of peers and teachers instead of being entirely predetermined by teachers solely. Through pooling various perspectives in the underlying meaning of the reading, “a critical disposition toward text” (Duke & Pearson, 2002, p.231) can be promoted. Thirdly, QtA approach is referred to as a content approach because it focuses on engaging students in building a coherent mental representation of the text ideas without 18 .

(30) . explicit attention to which reading strategy they apply to achieve the goal (McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009). It is the meaning of the text that content approach accentuates not the method readers should employ while reading. Fourthly, the teacher-posed Queries in QtA are “open-ended, but goal directed “(Beck & McKeown, 2001a, p.230) questions to probe readers’ response to the text. They are different from the questions that are adopted in conventional classrooms. In traditional classroom, teachers direct factual questions to students after or before reading to evaluate students’ understanding and to expect quick retrieval for answers. However, in a QtA class, open-ended Queries are used during reading to assist students’ discussion of the major text ideas to build up meaning (Dickinson and Smith, 1994). Traditional questions often result in brief student response and little engagement in reading. QtA Queries, on the contrary, often elicit longer and more elaborated response with high engagement (Beck & McKeown, 2006). Last but not the least, a reading passage is divided into segments. Each segment, not necessarily a paragraph, contains an important idea that the instructors want the readers to pay attention to. With smaller portion of text being read each time, readers are instructed to discuss the text during the course of initial reading. The discussion takes place when the representation of the text is still developing (Sandora, Beck, & McKeown, 1999). Procedure. In the very beginning, teachers have to read the text and determine the boundaries of segments. Each segment contains one major understanding that teachers want students to pause and think. The range of one segment does not need to be a complete paragraph. It could be one sentence or several paragraphs as long as there is an essential concept within. After deciding on the segments, a series of queries corresponding to each segment would be designed. These queries can be categorized into three types. One is Initiating Queries, which ask students to pause and think about what they have just read in the segment. Another type is Follow-up Queries, which are applied to help readers elaborate their response and 19 .

(31) . make connections. The other type is Narrative Queries, which were developed specifically for narrative text to probe further into stories. When starting a QtA lesson, teachers have to orient students first by telling them the notion of “the fallibility of the author” and showing them how a QtA lesson works. This seemingly minor step would render readers the power of deconstructing writer authority and help them take active stance in reading. Besides, QtA lesson orientation can also help students know how QtA might benefit them and how the lesson proceeds. For implementation, the most integral part is to flexibly use discussion moves to sustain students’ conversation about the text and help them stay focused. The six discussion moves that will be further explained in chapter three comprise marking, turning back, revoicing, recapping, modeling, and annotating.. Previous QtA Studies Questioning the Author approach is not only rooted in solid theoretical background but also supported by research evidence. The following are the review of several QtA studies. When observing QtA lessons, researchers have found that teacher’s talk have decreased in quantity and increased in quality (Beck et al., 1996). Teachers’ questions focused more on constructing and extending meaning and teachers more often used students’ response to prompt the next question (Beck &McKeown, 2001a). More importantly, students’ talk and participation have greatly improved as well. Students actively collaborate to build meaning, initiate questions and respond to their peers. Relative to baseline data before QtA implementation, students produced two to three more times of talking amount (Beck et al., 1996; Beck & McKeown, 2001a). The effect of QtA as a content approach was compared with the strategy approach, along with the basal instruction approach, serving as a control group. McKeown, Beck, and Blake (2009) carried out a two-year study on fifth graders from six intact classrooms. In the first 20 .

(32) . year, the participants were instructed with five narrative texts. In the second year, five other narratives texts and three expository texts were used as treatment texts. The participants were divided into two experimental groups (content instruction and strategy instruction) and one control group (basal instruction). The content instruction, based on QtA approach, had the students pay attention to the content of the text through meaning-based questions about the text. For strategy instruction, students were directly taught explicit comprehension strategies. The basal instruction, the controlled instruction, was based on the questions in the teacher’s edition of the basal reader. The outcomes of the three approaches were assessed by the lesson-text comprehension assessments (sentence verification techniques and story oral recall) and beyond-text comprehension assessments (comprehension-monitoring task and a task that assessed knowledge of strategies) as well as oral discussion text. Three major findings were yielded. Firstly, for the lesson-text comprehension, the content approach group excelled strategy approach group and basal instruction group on recall length for both expository and narrative texts, and recall quality for narrative texts. Yet, there were no differences on the scores of sentence verification technique. Secondly, for the beyond-text assessments, there were no differences among three groups on comprehension monitoring task and strategies task. However, from the analysis of discussion transcript, content approach group again focused more on text and provide longer responses than students in strategy instruction and basal instruction group. QtA yielded better quantity and quality in the discussion and recall. The characteristics of interaction and meaning highlights make QtA more effective than baseline approach and strategy instruction in facilitating quantity and quality of readers’ in-class discussion and reading comprehension. Another study compared QtA with Great Book Approach, another discussion approach that also centered on creating meaning of a text (instead of literal aspect) but conducting collaborative discussion after reading. QtA group (where the discussion occurred during the course of reading) were found to perform better than Great Book Approach in free recall and 21 .

(33) . open-ended reading questions (where the discussion occurred after reading) (Sandora, Beck, & McKeown, 1999). The possible explanation is that in Great Books approach, students can only interact with the text once after the whole reading; whereas in QtA approach, the interaction is distributed across the story during reading. Readers’ thinking is activated more successfully when they have more opportunities to interact with the text online. In Taiwanese EFL environment, Liu and Chu (2008) conducted a 5-week experiment on sixty-two ninth grader to compare the effect of QtA approach with the traditional learning method on readers’ recall, inference generation and comprehension. Participants were given five narrative fables for instructional treatment. They answered reading comprehension questions (factual, interpretive, and responsive questions) and performed written recall in the pretest and posttest. The recalls were analyzed by pausal units to tabulate the kinds of inference readers generated (text-based, reader-based, and incorrect inferences). Statistically significant results in favor of QtA group were found on the interpretive question score and reader-based inference generation. The authors suggested that with the above positive effects, QtA might facilitate aesthetic reading more than efferent reading in helping readers using their personal knowledge to interpret the text. The above four reviewed studies all point to the positive effects of QtA, especially in the aspect of higher-level comprehension (Liu & Chu, 2008; McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009; Sandora, Beck, & McKeown, 1999) and better discussion quality (Baleghizadeh, 2011; Beck et al., 1996; Beck & McKeown, 2001a; McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009). Hence, QtA might be an instructional means for optimal reading. The empirical researches reviewed so far demonstrated the benefits of QtA in oral recall, written recall, discussion, comprehension questions, etc. Indeed, what is measured is of great influence on what students show in the assessment (Kucan & Beck, 2003). Since response frees readers from showing memory of text at surface level, instead of having students show the understanding by recalling, the current study employs free response writing to tap into 22 .

(34) . readers’ transaction with the text. Thus, one research question of the current study probes into the effects of QtA instruction on four types of discourse references displayed in response writing. There are two reasons why participants’ written response, instead of oral response, is examined. The first reason is that writing about reading has often been thought of as the visible thinking, which unravels reader’s transaction with the text in an organized and clear way so that we can see how they understand (Miller & Calfee, 2004; Spack, 1985). The other is that EFL learners tend to feel less anxious in writing test than in speaking test (Zeidner & Bensoussan, 1988). It is probable that EFL writing can yield more production of readers’ thought. Other than written response, the participants’ reading comprehension ability assessed by traditional short-answer questions and perception toward QtA inquired from questionnaire are of main concern as well.. Research Questions Three research questions are raised for the present investigation: 1. Does QtA instruction make a difference in senior high school students’ reading comprehension as measured by three levels of short-answer questions, factual, interpretive, and responsive? 2. Does QtA instruction make a difference in the quantity of senior high school students’ post-reading response writing as indicated by number of words, number of thought unit, number of words per thought unit, and the quality of response writing in terms of four types of response, textual, personal, intellectual, and incorrect? 3. What are students’ perceptions toward QtA instruction and self-assessment of ability growth in English?. 23 .

(35) . CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Pilot Study The pilot study was conducted to see whether the treatment material and procedure, as well as the test material and procedure were appropriate for the data collection. Participants for the pilot study were composed of forty 12th graders of senior high who were not included in the main study. Results of the pilot study are presented in the following two parts. The first part is about the treatment. The second part regards the pre- and post-test. Pilot Study on Teaching Material and Procedure The appropriateness of QtA treatment material and procedure would be the first main concern in the pilot study. Within two class periods, students were instructed to read a narrative story in QtA approach followed by a 10 multiple-choice reading comprehension questions. The treatment story, “The Blanket,” in pilot study is one of the six treatment stories to be adopted in the main study. The selection procedure of the treatment material is illustrated with detail in the Main Study section. The reason why “The Blanket” was used in pilot study is that its number of words and readability level are closest to the average of treatment materials of the main study. The story was divided into 15 segments and was meant to be covered within two class periods. The first period began with 10 minutes of QtA orientation and 40 minutes to cover the first half of the story with 8 segments. The remaining 7 segments constituting the second half of the story were read and discussed in 35 minutes in the second class period. The last 15 minutes in the second period were left for students to do the 10 multiple choice questions (five factual questions and five interpretive questions). The detailed steps of QtA instruction are elaborated in the Main Study section. 24 .

(36) . In the first period of the pilot treatment, students were found to be not motivated in participation. Therefore, three changes were made in the second period, which led to improved classroom participation. As a result, these changes were implemented in the main study.. In the first change, to boost students’ initiations, students were arranged into small groups and rewards were given to the group volunteering to respond. Secondly, more Follow-up Queries like “What do you think about other peers’ comment?” would be adopted to prompt more elaborated interaction. By applying this kind of query, students will attend to topics of current discussion more. They would listen more attentively to others’ response and co-construct the meaning of the text together. Thirdly, some students responded that they needed more time for discussion. The number of segments would therefore be trimmed to 12 segments, instead of 15 for each story, to allow more extended discussion in each segment. In the end of the treatment, a tally from the in-class poll was given and up to 93% of the students considered the text appropriate in terms of difficulty level. What’s more, around 80 % of the participants thought their comprehension of the story was improved with the implementation of QtA. Pilot Study on Test Material and Procedure The other purpose of the pilot study is to examine the suitability of test material and procedure. In one 50-minute class period, the same participants were instructed to finish four tasks (reading, response writing, short-answer questions, and perception questionnaire). For the first ten minutes, students were instructed to read a fable story closely. After 10 minutes, the fable story was collected and students were required to write a response in about 120 words regarding anything they want to say about the fable. When the response writing was finished in 20 minutes, they were asked to do the third task of answering 9 short-answer comprehension questions (three factual questions; three interpretive questions; three responsive questions) in 10 minutes. The last 10 minutes was reserved for the students to 25 .

「質疑作者教學法」 對高中生英文閱讀理解及寫作之影響

「質疑作者教學法」對高中生英文閱讀理解及寫作之影響