檔案評量對EFL學生閱讀學習之成效 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學英國語文學系碩士在職專班碩士論文. 指導教授：余明忠先生 Advisor：Dr. Ming-chung Yu. 檔案評量對 EFL 學生閱讀學習之成效. 政治大. The Effects of立 the Portfolio Assessment on EFL Learners’. ‧ 國. 學. Reading Performance. ‧. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 研究生：張斐華撰 Name：Fei-hua Chang 中華民國九十九年十二月 December, 2010.

(2) THE EFFECTS OF THE PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT ON EFL LEARNERS’ READING PERFORMANCE. A Master Thesis. 立. 治 to 政 Presented 大 Department of English,. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. National Chengchi University. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. In Partial Fulfillment. Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts. by Fei-hua Chang December, 2010.

(3) Acknowledgements. My warmest thanks go to Dr. Chih-hsin Lin, chair of department of English of National Chengchi University, for her inspiring guidance and encouragement throughout my research for this work. For the reading of the manuscript and for. 政治大. helpful suggestions and other support, I want to thank Dr. Ming-chung Yu, Dr.. 立. Chi-yee Lin, and Dr. Chia-yi Lee. My gratitude is also extended to all the teachers in. ‧ 國. 學. English Teaching Master of Arts (ETMA) for their instruction during my study at. ‧. National Chengchi University.. Nat. io. sit. y. Finally, I would like to extend my heart-felt thanks to my family. Their tolerance. er. and care supported me throughout the final stage of my research. My parents’ and. al. n. v i n Cand sisters’ support and blessing, cooperation and efficient U h eespecially n g c hmyi husband’s housekeeping have made this work possible.. iii.

(4) Table of Contents. Acknowledgements………………….……………………………………….….……iii Chinese Abstract………………………………………………………………...…….xi English Abstract…………………………………………………………….....…….xiii Chapter One: Introduction…………………………………………………………..1. 政治大 Reading……………………………………………………………...………1 立. Background and Rationale……………………………………………………….1. ‧ 國. 學. Reading Strategy Instruction and Assessment…………………...………….1 Previous Studies Which Help Reading with Portfolio Assessment…………2. ‧. Need for This Study………………………………………………………………3. sit. y. Nat. Purpose of This Study………..….….…………………………………………....6. n. al. er. io. Significance of This Study……………………………………………………….7. i n U. v. Chapter Two: Literature Review………………………………………..…………..9. Ch. engchi. Reading……………………………………………………………...……………9 Definition and Importance of Reading………………..……...……………..9 Reading Problems and Strategies………………………...…………… ….10 Reading Strategy Instruction………………………………………………11 Assessment……………………………………………………………………...12 Traditional Assessment………….…………………………………………13 Alternative Assessment…………………….……………………………...14 Portfolio Assessment………………………………………………………15 Implementation of Reading Portfolio Assessment………………………...16 iv.

(5) Areas Not Treated in the Previous Literature…………………………………...20 Competence to Be Assessed in PA……..………………………………….20 PA and Strategy Instruction ……………………………………………….21 English Learning Environment, Students’ Age, and Students’ Achievement …………………………………………………………....21 Detailed Change in Students’ Learning Process during RPA…….………..24 Research Questions……………..………………………………...…………….24 Chapter Three: Methodology…….……………………………………………...…26. 政治大 Instruments……………………………………………………………………...27 立. Participants……………………………………………………………...………26. ‧ 國. 學. Questionnaires……………………….…..……………...……..…...……...27 Portfolio…………………….……………………………...........................29. ‧. Conference………...………………………………………………………31. sit. y. Nat. Observation………………………………………………...……………...32. al. er. io. Simulated GEPT Reading Comprehension Tests………………………….32. v. n. Procedure…………………………………...…………………………………...32. Ch. engchi. i n U. Data Analysis……………………………………………………...…………….34 Investigation of Change in Using the Reading Strategies..………..………34 Searching for Change in Implementing the Three PA Elements........................35. Examination of Change in Developing the Three Learning Traits…..........37 Chapter Four: Results………………………………………………………………39 Research Question (1)………..…………………………………………………39 Reading Performance of the Low Achievers in Strategy Use………..........39 Performance in Strategy Use on the Questionnaire and Checklists......39 Performance in Strategy Use on the Checklists………………….......42 v.

(6) Performance in Strategy Use on the Conference Reflection and Goal Form........................................................................................44 Performance in Strategy Use during the Conference and on the Questionnaire…….…..................................................................46 Performance in Strategy Use on the Simulated GEPT Reading Comprehension Tests………………………………….…………...47 Research Question (2)……………………………………………………..........48 Performance of the Low Achievers in Implementing the Three Elements...48. 政治大 Difference in Reflecting Performance……..…………………….......52 立. Difference in Selecting Performance…..………………………….....48. Difference in Sharing Performance……………...…………..…….....56. ‧ 國. 學. Research Question (3)………..…..……………………...…………………...…58. ‧. Performance of the Low Achievers in Developing the Three Traits……....58. y. Nat. Evidence of Developing Higher Motivation…………………………58. er. io. sit. Evidence of Developing Positive Response…………………..……...59 Evidence of Developing Learner Responsibility……...………..…….61. al. n. v i n Ch Chapter Five: Discussion…………………………………………………………...62 engchi U Research Question (1)………..…………………………………………………62. Discussion over the Low Achievers’ Performance in Strategy Use….…....62 Strategy Use on the Questionnaire and Checklists...............................62 Strategy Use on the Checklists……………………………………….64 Strategy Use on the Conference Reflection and Goal Form…............64 Strategy Use during the Conference and on the Questionnaire............64 Strategy Use on the simulated GEPT Reading Comprehension Tests……………………………………………………………......65. vi.

(7) Research Question (2)……………………………………………………..........66 Discussion over the Low Achievers’ Performance in Implementing the Three Elements……..…………………………………………………...66 Selecting Performance…………………………………….……….....67 Reflecting Performance……………………………...…………….....67 Sharing Performance………………………...………………..……...67 Research Question (3)………..…..……………………...…………………...…69 Discussion over the Low Achievers’ Performance in Developing. 政治大 Development of Higher Motivation…………………………...……..69 立. the Three Traits.........................................................................................69. Development of Positive Response………………………………......70. ‧ 國. 學. Development of Learner Responsibility……………………………...71. ‧. Connection between Reading and Learning Performance. y. Nat. through RPA……………………………………………………….72. er. io. sit. Learner Autonomy and Change in Reading Performance……..….….73 Learner Autonomy and the Three Learning Traits…………..…….....75. al. n. v i n C h Traits and Change The Three Learning in Reading Performance....…75 engchi U Chapter Six: Conclusion………………………………………………………..…..77 Summary………………………………………………………………………..77 Changed Reading Behaviors of Low Achievers…………………………..77 Changed Learning Behaviors of Low Achievers………………………….78 Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………………….78 Limitations and Suggestions……………………………………………………82 References………………….……………………………………….….…………….85. vii.

(8) Appendices……………………………………..……..…………………...…………95 Appendix A— Syllabus…………………………………………………………96 Appendix B— Introductory Letter……………………………………………...98 Appendix C— Portfolio Contents………………………………………………99 Appendix D— Reading Journal...……………………………………………..100 Appendix E— Six-Strategy Checklist…………………………………………101 Appendix F— Evaluation Criteria…………………………………………….102 Appendix G— Final Grade Form……………………………………………...104. 政治大 Appendix I— Conference 立 Reflection & Goal Form…………………………..107 Appendix H— Conference Preparation Questions……………………………106. ‧ 國. 學. Appendix J– Learning Experience Questionnaire……………………………..108 Appendix K— Motivation Questionnaire…..…………………………………110. ‧. Appendix L— Response Questionnaire……………………………………….111. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. Appendix M — Anecdotal Notes……………………………………………...112. Ch. engchi. viii. i n U. v.

(9) List of Tables. Table 1 Learning Experience Questionnaire Answers of the Low Achievers……………...41 Table 2 Averages and Sums on Six-strategy Checklists of the Low Achievers………………..42. Table 3. 政治大. How the Low Achievers Answer Reading Strategy Questions…………………....44 Table 4. 立. Conference Reflection and Goal Forms (Q2 & Q4) of. ‧ 國. 學. the Low Achievers…………………..…………………………………………..45. ‧. Table 5. y. sit. io. er. Table 6. Nat. Reading Journals of the Low Achievers………………………………………...…49. Conference Reflection and Goal Forms (Q1 & Q6-9) of. al. n. v i n Ch the Low Achievers……………………………………..…………………….….51 engchi U. Table 7. Conference Reflection and Goal Forms (Q3 & Q5) of the Low Achievers………………………..……………………………………..53 Table 8 Final Grade Forms of the Low Achievers…………………………………………55 Table 9 Response Questionnaire Answers of the Low Achievers…...........................................60. ix.

(10) List of Charts. Chart 1 Mental State in Terms of Challenge Level and Skill Level…………………...…...63. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. x. i n U. v.

(11) 國立政治大學英國語文學系碩士在職專班碩士論文提要. 論文名稱:檔案評量對 EFL 學生閱讀學習之成效. 指導教授:余明忠先生. 研究生:張斐華. 立. 政治大. ‧ 國. 學. 論文提要內容:. ‧. 本論文旨在探討閱讀檔案評量結合閱讀策略教學對於中台灣低成就國中生. y. Nat. 的影響。本研究對象為兩名八年級國中生，在七年級時因段考成績被學校歸為低. er. io. sit. 成就組。這兩名學生上學期的英語成績平均相近，上課參與度高，作業確實繳交。本研究採用 Li (2008)與 Yang (2007)針對國中基本學力測驗英語閱讀測驗題. al. n. v i n 型提出之六大分類：確認文章主旨、引導正確結論、導出暗示推論、猜測字詞意 Ch engchi U 義、尋找細部資訊、找出字詞指涉，並將此分類納為閱讀策略教學之目標。學生. 必須遵照閱讀檔案評量進度表，在接受閱讀策略教學同時，透過讀書心得練習策略，並透過閱讀檔案進行自評。研究為期十七週，每週一節課。為求完整了解學生閱讀與學習行為改變，並探究閱讀檔案評量結合閱讀策略教學之成效，本研究除蒐集學生閱讀檔案，亦施行仿全民英檢閱讀測驗，發放問卷，和學生進行面談，並觀察學生學習狀況。本研究發現閱讀檔案評量結合閱讀策略教學能夠幫助低成就國中生精熟閱讀策略及提高閱讀成效。即使學生在進行檔案評量前後，對自己使用閱讀策略的認知和實際進行檔案評量的表現有所出入，學生於閱讀時進行選擇、反省、 xi.

(12) 分享之情形仍較進行檔案評量前增加，充分體現檔案評量的精神。而學生閱讀行為之改變均符合 Benson (2003)所談之促進學習自主原則。一旦學生學習自主性增加，學習動機隨之提高，學習反應良好，也同時負起學習責任(Cameron, 2007; Chen, 2004; Sarwar, 2002; ÜSTÜNLÜOGLU, 2009)。本研究因此建議教育部基測委員會不應該僅以單選題型式來測驗學生閱讀能力，而應該嘗試其他題型。此外，本研究也建議英語教師設計適合學生的閱讀教材，或訂出學生閱讀分級讀本的規則，並建議編者把閱讀檔案評量與閱讀策略教學融入課本中。而按學生個別差異進行適性及彈性的調整仍有其必要. 政治大. 性，以期發揮檔案評量結合策略教學對於學生閱讀表現之最大成效。. 立. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. xii. i n U. v.

(13) Abstract. The present study aims to investigate the effects of reading portfolio assessment (RPA) and reading strategy instruction on the junior high low achievers in central Taiwan. Participants in the present study were two eighth graders who were identified as low achievers according to their performance in monthly exams when in the seventh grade. They had something in common: having similar English. 政治大. average scores last semester, taking active participation in class, and finishing assignments by due dates.. 立. According to Li’s (2008) and Yang’s (2007) categorization of reading strategies,. ‧ 國. 學. the Basic Competence Test (BCT) English reading comprehension tests are designed. ‧. based on the following six reading strategies— identifying the main idea, drawing. y. Nat. correct conclusions, drawing implications and inferences, determining the meaning. er. io. sit. out of the context, finding the detailed information, and finding the targets of the references. Following the RPA syllabus, the participants received reading strategy. n. al. Ch. instruction, practiced the strategies through. engchi. v i n journals, U. and assessed themselves. through reading portfolios. The observation took one class period every week for 17 weeks. With the help of simulated General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) reading comprehension. tests,. questionnaires,. reading. portfolios,. conferences,. and. observations, the findings of the present study showed the participants’ change in reading/learning behaviors and the effectiveness of RPA/reading strategy instruction. The results indicated that RPA and reading strategy instruction may make the junior high low achievers master reading strategies and perform well in reading. Even though there is inconsistence between their understanding of their strategy use before RPA and their actual performance during RPA, they thoroughly show Katz xiii.

(14) and Johnson-Kuby’s (1996) three elements of portfolio assessment with increase in selection, reflection, and sharing when reading. The changed reading behaviors correspond to Benson’s (2003) principles for fostering learner autonomy; because of increased learner autonomy, they raise their learning motivation, have positive learning response, and take responsibility for their learning (Cameron, 2007; Chen, 2004; Sarwar, 2002; ÜSTÜNLÜOGLU, 2009). At last, the present study suggested that the BCT committee consider trying more diverse ways to test reading ability, rather than focusing only on single choice. 政治大 materials suitable for students or set up a system to get students to read higher level 立 questions. Furthermore, this study suggested that English teachers design reading. books, and that textbook editors include RPA and reading strategy instruction.. ‧ 國. 學. Meanwhile, editors and teachers have to keep in mind that personal and diverse. ‧. adjustments are permitted in order to have the best effectiveness on students’ learning. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. of reading, as long as the adjustments follow guidelines for RPA.. Ch. engchi. xiv. i n U. v.

(15) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. This chapter presents the general background, the rationale, the need for this study, the purpose, and the significance of this research. Background and Rationale Reading Reading is a fluent process of combining the text and readers’ background. 政治大 a great deal in developing reading comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and 立 knowledge to build meaning and to get comprehension (Nunan, 2003). Reading helps. writing styles. Besides, evidence shows that reading makes students happy, improves. ‧ 國. 學. cognitive development, and lowers fear for writing (Krashen, 2004). All in all, reading. ‧. is important to facilitate language learning and to enhance learning motivation. For. y. Nat. junior high school students in Taiwan, reading plays an even more practical role. It. er. io. sit. helps them get ready for the Basic Competence Test (BCT). Since 2001, the BCT has been held twice a year; junior high school students can take both of the tests and can. al. n. v i n choose the better score for C their entrance into senior h e n g c h i U high schools. In the BCT, there. are five main subjects, and English is one of them. The major characteristic of the English BCT is that the proportion of the reading comprehension tests increases (Huang, 2004; Liu, 2001; You, 2004). Out of approximately 45 questions in the English BCT every year, reading comprehension questions take about 21 (Liu & Stewart, 2009). Accordingly, English reading comprehension gains a lot of importance in the BCT. Reading Strategy Instruction and Assessment If students cannot understand their reading, they meet difficulties in building meaning and getting comprehension. There are six reading strategies for the BCT 1.

(16) reading comprehension test (Li, 2009; Yang, 2007): (1) finding details, (2) identifying the main idea, (3) drawing conclusions, (4) drawing inferences, (5) finding references, (6) guessing the meaning. Students may encounter reading problems if they cannot make use of the six strategies; on the contrary, students may have little trouble in their reading if they can get familiar with the six strategies. Based on Bloom’s theory of mastery learning (Chen, 2000), rubrics or checklists used in reading strategy instruction may help students master reading strategies and help them read better. Mastery learning is more effective compared to conventional instruction (Kulik, Kulik,. 政治大 respectively on each strategy were created (Yang, 2007); tips and examples of using 立 & Bangert-Drowns, 1990). To help students master the six strategies, exercises. each strategy were also proposed (Li, 2009). They both aim to help students read well. ‧ 國. 學. and do well in the standardized test— the BCT. However, Ediger (2001) proposed that. ‧. standardized tests fail to assess students’ reading ability, claiming that their reading. y. sit. io. er. assessment.. Nat. achievement should be evaluated through a reading curriculum with portfolio. Previous Studies Which Focus on Portfolio Assessment to Improve Reading Performance. al. n. v i n Unlike tests that only C look at product, portfolio h e n g c h i U assessment (PA) looks at both. process and product. PA also provides students with more autonomy in learning than tests can do. Many studies on PA confirm that portfolios can make students more. motivated, positively responsive, and responsible as a learner: PA makes students take more learning interest (Chang, 2003; Lin, 2007) and also makes them have higher learning motivation (Chang, 2003; Chang & Chang, 2003; Lin, 2009). Furthermore, PA makes them show positive learning response and makes them believe PA to improve their ability (Chang, 2003; Wang, 2002). PA even enhances learning, promotes reflective learning attitude (Yip, 2005), and makes students better learners (Chen, 1999) to take responsibility for their own learning (Rosenbloom, 1995). 2.

(17) Combined with some instructional plans, PA is used to teach students to solve reading problems and to read well. Hetterscheidt, Pott, Russell, and Tchang (1992) included voice recording and self assessment in a reading portfolio. Katz and Johnson-Kuby (1996) recommended using portfolios for all kinds of assessment, including reading assessment. Ferris (1998) got students to read with a reading portfolio, finding it effective to encourage reading. Ediger (2001) offered a reading framework, which contains a reading portfolio. Gardner (2003) started a daily Drop Everything and Read (DEAR) program and checked students’ growth with a reading. 政治大 rubric in a reading portfolio. They all regarded the reading portfolio as a good tool to 立 portfolio. Lin (2007) made students read aloud and recorded their progress with a. Need for This Study. 學. ‧ 國. foster learning of reading.. ‧. There are six missing links found in the previous studies: the competence to be. y. Nat. assessed in PA, PA and strategy instruction, the English learning environment, the age. er. io. process.. sit. of students, the achievement of students, and detailed change in students’ learning. al. n. v i n As for the competence C to be assessed in PA, only h e n g c h i U one competence may be treated. or measured equally in PA. Furthermore, it is workable to assess only one competence in PA (Genesee & Upshur, 1996). Few studies have focused PA on only one competence, and different competences are often evaluated together through PA. For instance, the whole language portfolio or the integrated skill portfolio both aim at more than one competence (Chen, 2006; Lin, 2009; Rosenbloom, 1995; Teng, 2005). Competences are actually hard to be treated or measured evenly (Lin, 2009). When narrowed down to a specific competence, PA may give the most help to assess, instruct, and achieve the competence, but so far there has been little information about PA assessing one competence. Moreover, reading is the only competence chosen in 3.

(18) the present study to be assessed. The reasons for choosing reading over the other three language skills are as follows. First, reading takes an increasing proportion in the BCT (Huang, 2004; Liu, 2001; You, 2004). Second, reading is important in fostering language learning and raising learning motivation (Krashen, 2004). Thus, to assess only reading without worrying about equal treatment or measurement, reading portfolio assessment (RPA) is worth exploring. When it comes to PA and strategy instruction, little information is revealed about RPA and reading strategy instruction. The importance of strategy instruction in. 政治大 strategies and are instructed how to use strategies in order to enhance learning. Coady 立 reading cannot be overlooked. It is a contemporary trend that students are taught. (1979) suggested a model of strategy instruction for EFL/ESL readers in which the. ‧ 國. 學. reader’s process strategies interacts with conceptual abilities and background. ‧. knowledge. Nunan (1999) also claimed that in contemporary language education,. y. Nat. learners are shown a range of effective language learning strategies, and learners learn. er. io. sit. how to apply these strategies to their own learning. Students may learn to read with RPA more effectively if they also receive reading strategy instruction. With the help of. al. n. v i n C h they may become RPA and reading strategy instruction, better readers on their own. engchi U. Accordingly, the effects of RPA into which reading strategy instruction is incorporated need probing. Speaking of the English learning environment, many studies on RPA have been in the context of English as native language (Ediger, 2001; Ferris, 1998; Gardner, 2003; Hetterscheidt et al., 1992; Katz & Johnson-Kuby, 1996). Since English is not mother tongue in Taiwan, the effects of RPA in the context of English as foreign language (EFL) may be very different. Language/culture is one of the three indispensible perspectives to view assessment and instruction as a whole (Larsen-Freeman, 1987). What is more, Porter and Samovar (1994) proposed the 4.

(19) difference between high-context and low-context cultures. In high-context cultures such as those in Taiwan, people tend to read nonverbal behaviors and read the environment; they expect that others are also able to understand the unarticulated communication. Hence, people from different cultures learn language differently under the same assessment and instruction. That is to say, under the same RPA and reading strategy instruction, reading and learning behaviors may end up very differently due to different contexts and cultures. Thus, RPA in the EFL context is worth probing.. 政治大 suitable ones to implement RPA. The reasons are given as follows. Firstly, there is 立. As far as students’ age is concerned, high school teenagers may be the most. little information about RPA on high school teenagers in Taiwan. Secondly, the. ‧ 國. 學. cognitive development of high school teenagers enables them to carry out RPA. High. ‧. school teenagers are around 14 years old in the last stage of Piaget’s cognitive. y. Nat. development. In Piaget’s cognitive development, people at the age of 11 and up get to. er. io. sit. think logically, they become concerned with hypothetical problems, and they get to test hypotheses systematically (Atherton, 2010). These cognitive strategies may help. al. n. v i n C h which are threeU crucial elements of PA. Thirdly, selection, reflection, and sharing, engchi RPA conversely helps high school teenagers in cognitive strategy practice and in. cognitive development. Reading, the focus of RPA, facilitates cognitive development; the more students read, the better they do in history and language tests (Ravitch and Finn, 1987), or the less they have fear for writing (Lee & Krashen, 1997). Therefore, RPA on EFL high school teenagers is worth looking into. Concerning students’ achievement, low achievers may be the most valuable to be studied. It is found that low achievers’ learning motivation is raised, but not as much as that of the non-low achievers in class after PA (Lin, 2009). On the authentic teaching and learning scene, it is usually harder for the low achievers to raise much 5.

(20) motivation in and adapt themselves well to a new curriculum. However, Rosenbloom (1995) succeeded in using PA and the whole language literacy instruction to help students who have literacy problems. Hence, it may be worthwhile to try RPA along with some reading instruction to assist the low achievers in reading well. Besides, little information in earlier RPA research is about low achievers (Ferris, 1998; Gardner, 2003; Hetterscheidt, et al., 1992; Katz & Johnson-Kuby, 1996; Lin, 2007). Thus, RPA on EFL junior high low achievers is worth studying. As for detailed change in students’ learning process, it is worthwhile to explore. 政治大 change after using portfolios, but few of them discuss detailed change in learning 立. in detail students’ change during RPA because studies on RPA and PA praise students’. process. Most of them look at students’ achievement after implementing portfolios,. ‧ 國. 學. not their detailed development (Chen, 2006; Ferris, 1998; Lin, 2007; Lin, 2009; Teng,. ‧. 2005). Portfolios are effective, encouraging, and good tools to change students, and. y. Nat. PA helps bring out in students three learning traits— higher learning motivation,. er. io. sit. positive learning response, and a sense of responsibility (Apple & Shimo ,2004; Chang, 2003; Chang & Chang, 2003; Chen, 1999; Gottlieb, 1995; Huerta-Macias,. al. n. v i n 1995; Lin, 2007; Lin, 2009;CLittle, 2005; Rosenbloom, h e n g c h i U 1995; Scharer, 2000; Singer, 1993; Song & August, 2002; Ushioda & Ridley, 2002; Wang, 2002; Wolf, 1989; Yip,. 2005). Therefore, RPA— a kind of PA— is assumed to change students in reading performance and to turn them into learners with the same three traits. Not just looking at students’ change after RPA, the present study needs to discuss in detail students’ change during RPA by comparing their reading/learning behaviors before RPA to those during RPA. Purpose of This Study This study is intended to explore the detailed reading development of EFL junior high low achievers during RPA. In the present study, the design of RPA is primarily 6.

(21) based on the theories of PA and strategy instruction. The intention of this study comes from the following. First, previous RPA studies seldom incorporate reading strategy instruction. Second, little information is shown about RPA applied in the EFL environment. Even if there are RPA studies on EFL learners, the studies are rarely focused only on high school low achievers or seldom focused on their detailed change during RPA. Previous findings confirm the positive effects of PA, which produces more motivated, positively responsive, and responsible learners. Since RPA is viewed as a. 政治大 low achievers’ change separately in their reading and learning performance, we may 立. kind of PA, RPA may make learners develop the same three traits. By looking at the. know whether the theories of PA and reading strategy instruction are put into good. ‧ 國. 學. practice. On the other hand, by looking for connections between their change in. ‧. reading performance and that in learning performance, we may know whether the. y. Nat. design of RPA in this study is capable of making the low achievers change their. er. io. sit. reading behaviors and thus further change their learning behaviors as expected. To sum up, three research questions of this study are as follows; the first two are about. al. n. v i n reading performance while C the last one is about learning h e n g c h i U performance: (1) Does RPA cause low achievers to get better at using reading strategies? (2) Does RPA lead low achievers to implement the three elements of PA— selection, reflection, and sharing? (3) Does RPA assist low achievers to develop the three learning traits—more motivated, positively responsive, and responsible? Significance of This Study This study may bring implications for students, English teachers, and textbook editors in Taiwan on two aspects. The first aspect is that PA on a particular competence may be effective for high school low achievers in Taiwan. English teachers in Taiwan may set up PA on a 7.

(22) specific competence. In this way, teachers may give students practical and concrete suggestions about acquiring a particular competence without depending only on test scores or blurring the focus of students’ progress in a certain competence. Students may clearly view their growth of a specific competence through contents of their own portfolios, such as journals and checklists. Even if they rank low in grades, they still may keep some time learning at their own pace other than following the tight schedule, which low achievers often find it hard to keep up with. Even more, textbook editors may divide textbook contents into several competences and give guidelines for. 政治大 own portfolio on each specific competence. 立. carrying out PA. Students may therefore benefit from creating and maintaining their. The second aspect is that each student may still show personal characteristics. ‧ 國. 學. even in a homogeneous class or under the same curriculum. Portfolios are about. ‧. personal selection, individual reflection, and spontaneous share, so students may not. y. Nat. perform exactly the same as one another in reading and learning. Instead, they may. er. io. sit. display uniqueness in their own portfolios. English teachers in Taiwan may apply RPA and notice different changes shown in different students’ reading and learning. al. n. v i n behaviors. Textbook editors,Cwhen editing PA intoUtextbook contents, may also point hengchi. out that guidelines for PA are to be followed, but one student’s performance during PA may be different from another’s. Students may perform in various ways the three elements of PA: selection, reflection, and sharing. Hence, it may be exclaimed that RPA is not about unification but about diversity.. 8.

(23) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW. This study is going to discuss reading and portfolio assessment. Previous studies on reading and portfolio assessment are going to be reviewed. Reading Reading is described as the component for the purpose of teaching and testing (Chapelle et al., 1997; Gillet & Richards, 1979). Reading is important in testing of all. 政治大 Performance Assessment Program 立. content areas, so teaching reading is an integral part of all content areas. Through the Maryland School. (Billmeyer, 1996), reading. 學. ‧ 國. process is identified as critical for success in all content areas, so every teacher is supposed to be a reading teacher.. ‧. Definition and Importance of Reading. y. Nat. Reading is defined as a fluent process of readers combining text information and. er. io. sit. their background knowledge to build meaning and to get comprehension. The text, the reader, fluency, and strategies combined are the act of reading (Nunan, 2003).. al. n. v i n C hdevelopment. Ravitch cognitive and engchi U. Reading affects. Finn (1987) found that. when exposed to more publications, students generally do better in history and language tests; meanwhile, the amount of reading in free time are positively related to language test results. Besides, studies show that people who are good at thinking love reading more. Emery and Csikszentmihalyi (1982) reported that 15 people from blue-collar families become professors afterwards because they grow up with more publications and read more books than the other 15 who are also from blue-collar families but become blue collars afterwards. Moreover, fear for writing and reading are negatively related. Lee and Krashen (1997) declared that people who read more have less fear for writing. In their research, the correlation between the reading 9.

(24) amount and the scores on the fear-for-writing scale is negative. Being a good reader is a must in all curricula. The society pushes for higher reading test scores, and the future work place expects students to perform at a higher level. Also, reading is the first of the 3rs (Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic) and should receive much attention in the curriculum (Ediger, 2001). Reading Problems and Strategies Reading problems occur when readers cannot decode and comprehend the text they read (Laberge & Samuels, 1974). When students encounter reading problems,. 政治大 the same time. In other words, reading strategy instruction may help students in 立 they may be taught reading strategies to help both decode and comprehend a text at. reading fluency. Strategies and fluency are important components of reading (Nunan,. ‧ 國. 學. 2003). Olshavsky (1977) and Sarig (1987) viewed strategies as ways of getting round. ‧. difficulties encountered while reading. Yang (2007) also described that reading. y. Nat. strategy instruction aims to enable students to internalize strategies they have learned,. er. io. sit. to solve problems they encounter, and to enhance their comprehension ability. As Oxford (1996) put it, strategies are the tools for active and self-directed. al. n. v i n C h for developing communicative involvement which is necessary ability. Strategies are engchi U also defined as conscious actions which learners take to achieve desired objectives or. goals, while a skill is a strategy that has become automatic (Kawai, Oxford, & Iran-Nejad, 2000). It is claimed a prime consideration to teach students how to use a range of reading strategies that match their purposes for reading (Anderson, 1991; Chamot & O’Malley, 1994). Reading skills and strategies are closely related, so useful and practical strategies must be included to help students acquire reading skills (Yang, 2007). Students should be encouraged to transform strategies into skills through reading strategy instruction. As students consciously learn and practice specific reading strategies, the strategies move from conscious to unconscious; from 10.

(25) strategy to skill (Nunan, 2003). Thus, reading strategy instruction is recommended to help students solve reading problems. Reading Strategy Instruction Positive effects of strategy instruction emerge for proficiency in reading (Park-Oh, 1994). Reading strategy instruction is included in discussion about what the text might mean and how students come to understand information in the text. Teachers explain and model effective comprehension strategies, and students are coached to use the strategies (Pressley, 1998). Oxford (2001) also claimed the most. 政治大 might be useful, how to use and evaluate it, and how to transfer it to other related 立. effective strategy instruction appears to include demonstrating when a given strategy. tasks and situations. It is argued that strategy instruction directs to get the answer. ‧ 國. 學. rather than to understand the reading text. In other words, strategy instruction is only. ‧. training of test taking techniques. Nuttal (1996) thus encouraged test designers to. y. Nat. define skills and write questions which involve such skills. In this way, reading. er. io. sit. strategy instruction not only fosters test taking techniques but also guides reading comprehension. Auerbach and Paxton (1997) also declared that readers’ proficiency. al. n. v i n C hof their reading process may enhance if they are aware and strategies. Accordingly, engchi U. the Basic Competence Test (BCT) committee in Taiwan set six strategies for its reading comprehension test (Li, 2009; Yang, 2007): (1) finding details, (2) identifying the main idea, (3) drawing conclusions, (4) drawing inferences, (5) finding references, (6) guessing the meaning. Junior high school students are expected to master the strategies so as to have good reading performance. In reading strategy instruction, rubrics or checklists may be utilized to make sure students can use and evaluate a given reading strategy. Rubrics or checklists are developed based on Bloom’s theory of mastery learning. The theory assumes that under systematic instruction, students can get help when bumping into difficulty. With 11.

(26) clear goals, students have enough time to reach mastery learning, and almost all of them can master what they have learned (Chen, 2000). Kulik, Kulik, and Bangert-Drowns (1990) showed that mastery learning is more effective than conventional instruction. In a mastery learning environment, the teacher directs a variety of techniques with frequent and specific feedback. Mistakes made by students along their leaning path are regularly corrected. To help students learn from their mistakes and master the six reading strategies, Yang (2007) designed handouts for students to practice the six strategies, implemented her reading skill instruction, and. 政治大 On the other hand, Li (2008) offered tips and examples of using the six strategies to 立. used the BCT reading comprehension tests to measure her students’ reading ability.. teachers, so that teachers can lead students to get familiar with the strategies. Both of. ‧ 國. 學. them aim to assist students in reading well and doing well in standardized tests, such. ‧. as in the BCT.. y. Nat. However, reading comprehension tests belong to quantitative assessment. Both. er. io. sit. quantitative and qualitative assessment should be included to evaluate growth and development in reading skills (Nunan, 2003). Therefore, a tool which can present. al. n. v i n C h Ediger (2001) argued more reading process is needed. that standardized tests fail to engchi U assess students’ reading ability, claiming that reading achievement should be evaluated through a reading curriculum with portfolio assessment. Assessment Strictly speaking, testing, assessment, and evaluation are different tools to value students’ performance. Evaluation takes place on the largest scale because it looks at students’ textbooks and the whole curriculum, while the range of testing is the smallest and the most definite. Testing has correct or best answers, like monthly exams or pop quizzes. Different from testing, assessment diagnoses students’ language ability, like interviews, projects, or portfolio assessment (Shih et al., 1999). 12.

(27) Furthermore, Brown (2003) distinguished assessment from testing, stating that assessment, an ongoing process with a wider domain, can give a more authentic depiction of students’ competence. Hence, assessment is exactly the tool which can show more reading growth and development. Assessment is often classified into two types: traditional assessment and alternative assessment. Traditional Assessment It is pointed out that traditional assessment mostly includes paper-and-pencil tests (Collette & Chiappetta, 1989; Khattri & Sweet, 1996). For junior high school. 政治大 paper-and-pencil test and a standardized one. However, Strickland and Morrow (1989) 立. students, the BCT is the threshold to higher education, and it is also a. stated that a standardized test cannot reflect skills and knowledge developing in young. ‧ 國. 學. children. Traditional assessment is not sensitive to young children’s development of. ‧. personal characteristics. Ediger (2001) also claimed the state mandated testing, a. y. Nat. standardized test, has ten weaknesses: (1) It lacks validity without covering what has. er. io. sit. been taught. (2) It lacks reliability with a large standard of error. (3) It incorporates multiple choice test items that can be mass scored by computers. (4) It has multiple. al. n. v i n C h to each other. (5) choice test items that are unrelated It contains information and skills engchi U that teachers do not teach and students do not learn. (6) Parents may not evaluate the specifics on how well students have achieved. (7) It provides a numerical score, but how well students are doing may not be known to parents. (8) It does not analyze and diagnose difficulties faced by students. (9) It lacks evaluation items on how well students have performed. (10) It is written by test specialists who are far removed from the local school setting. Moreover, traditional assessment is less effective in five other issues (Linn and Gronlund, 1995): (1) It may harm students’ privacy by comparing their test sheets. (2) It may increase anxiety and may interfere with learning. (3) It may classify students 13.

(28) and may damage their self esteem. (4) It may hinder students’ creativity. (5) Test sheets from textbook publishers may lack validity and reliability. Lin (2009) even noted diverse types of assessment tell teachers about students’ individual needs. In contemporary assessment, learners are trained to assess their own learning process, and they can identify their own strengths and weaknesses; however, in traditional assessment, teachers alone assess the learners’ progress. Traditional assessment is characterized by standardized tests designed, administered, and graded by outside authorities, and the tests do not reflect actual language use (Nunan, 1999). Thus,. 政治大. traditional assessment alone is less effective in meeting students’ needs and in improving their education.. 立. Alternative Assessment. ‧ 國. 學. Due to the less effectiveness of traditional assessment, alternative assessment. ‧. took place during the 1990s (Cunningham, 1998). Mueller (2006) defined alternative. y. Nat. assessment as the measurement of students’ ability to solve problems by using what. er. io. sit. they previously have learned. Alternative assessment is distinctively different from traditional assessment in the learning focus; alternative assessment puts emphasis on. al. n. v i n traditional C assessment emphasizes h e n g c h i U product.. process while. Besides, alternative. assessment differs from traditional assessment in ten other aspects (Brown, 2003): (1) It is not about one-shot exams, but about continuous assessment. (2) It is not timed and not in a multiple-choice format, but untimed and in a free-response format. (3) It uses no decontextualized test items, but contextualized communicative tasks. (4) It is not about scores without any feedback, but about individualized communicative tasks. (5) It gives no norm-referenced scores, but criterion-referenced scores. (6) It is not focused on the right answer, but open-ended answers. (7) It is not summative, but formative. (8) It is not oriented to product, but to process. (9) It is about interactive performance. (10) It fosters not extrinsic but intrinsic motivation. 14.

(29) Greene and Jalkio (2004) proposed that students often lose the connections between the course objectives and their learning objectives. They tend to focus on a specific work to earn extra credits without relation to course objectives. Gottlieb (1995) stated that alternative assessment may guide students to focus on their learning by illustrating students’ progress over a longer period of time. When the learning process is shown, teachers, students, and even school administers can clearly articulate the learning objectives which they all agree on, and can work together on the objectives. Portfolio Assessment 政治大 Portfolio assessment (PA) is one kind of alternative assessment. Portfolios, 立. providing concrete instances of learner achievement, are increasingly being accepted. ‧ 國. 學. by employers and educational institutions (Nunan, 1999). Portfolios are also included. ‧. in the diverse forms of assessment with feedback gained not only from teachers and. y. Nat. parents but also from students themselves and their peers in order to reflect and. er. io. sit. reinforce instruction (Lazear, 1999). Gottlieb (1995) claimed that portfolios “serve as a guide for students in making choices and in demonstrating how they reason, create,. al. n. v i n CGenesee strategize, and reflect” (p.12). (1996) defined that a portfolio is a h e n gandcUpshur hi U purposeful collection of students’ work which demonstrates to students and others. their effort, progress, and achievement in given areas. That is to say, a portfolio is a multidimensional and organized collection of students’ work. It represents cognitive, affective, and psychomotor dimensions of learning (Hansen, 1992). The philosophy of PA follows three rules: selection, reflection, and sharing (Katz & Johnson-Kuby, 1996). They are the three crucial elements of PA. About general guidelines for using portfolios, Genesee and Upshur (1996) claimed that a portfolio can have a very specific focus or a broad focus, and any form can serve as a portfolio, such as a file folder or a box. The portfolio should be kept in common accessible 15.

(30) places for students to update and review their works at all times, and students should share with the teacher to joint goal setting. Lustig (1996) even gave examples of how to carry out PA step by step, noting that PA is a tool to reach final assessment. Benefits of PA are depicted as follows: PA shows greater promise than standardized testing in enhancing multiple learning domains or skills and in promoting learner autonomy (Chen, 2006). PA endows students more autonomy, makes them actively join and decide their own learning process and evaluation, and helps them greatly raise learning interest (Shih et al., 1999). Venn (2000) stated that. 政治大 based on student samples and measures multiple dimensions of student progress. 立 PA promotes self evaluation, reflection, and critical thinking. It measures performance. Moreover, it provides flexibility in measurement, gives extensive input, fosters. ‧ 國. 學. cooperative learning, and structures learning in stages. Teachers and students are. ‧. made to share responsibility, discussing goals and progress in learning. Apple and. y. Nat. Shimo (2004) conducted research on the use of a language portfolio by learners at two. er. io. sit. Japanese universities, finding that most learners feel encouraged in learning autonomy, improve their linguistic competence, and enjoy the experience of constructing a. al. n. v i n C are language portfolio. Portfolios encouraging, and good tools to facilitate U h eeffective, i h ngc. students’ learning. PA is confirmed by a number of research to bring out three traits in students: higher learning motivation, positive learning response, and a sense of responsibility (Apple & Shimo ,2004; Chang, 2003; Chang & Chang, 2003; Chen, 1999; Gottlieb, 1995; Huerta-Macias, 1995; Lin, 2007; Lin, 2009; Little, 2005; Rosenbloom, 1995; Scharer, 2000; Singer, 1993; Song & August, 2002; Ushioda & Ridley, 2002; Wang, 2002; Wolf, 1989; Yip, 2005). Hence, RPA—a kind of PA— is assumed to turn students into learners with the same three traits. Implementation of Reading Portfolio Assessment PA has those benefits mentioned above. Most of the PA studies are focused on at 16.

(31) least two competences. For example, the PA for whole language includes all school subjects (Rosenbloom, 1995); the PA for integrated ability contains four language skills (Chen, 2006; Teng, 2005); the PA for literacy includes reading and writing (Betz, 1995; Yawkey et al., 1994). Since PA can have a very specific focus (Genesee & Upshur, 1996), and reading is considered important in fostering language learning and raising learning motivation (Krashen, 2004), reading portfolio assessment (RPA) is a good choice to view readers’ growth, experience, and achievement. RPA also conforms to what Grade and Stoller (2001) proposed about reading assessment. In a. 政治大 effectiveness of various practices. What works and what does not work should be 立. reading course, teachers need to know how to assess both students’ progress and. determined through formal and informal assessment. According to Brindley (2003), a. ‧ 國. 學. valid assessment provides information on the ability we want to assess and nothing. ‧. else. Therefore, if we want to find out about a person’s reading performance, it is a. y. Nat. valid use of RPA. An assessment is reliable when learners’ scores or judges’ ratings. er. io. sit. make little difference across different occasions or different judges (ibid.), and information from previous RPA studies showed that grading of students and that of. al. n. v i n teachers are in fairly close C agreement on their quality h e n g c h i U of reading performance (Lin, 2007). Reading portfolios contain students’ collection, selection, inspection, and. reflection on their reading response works in a folder over a period of time. Thus, reading portfolios give students self-assessment skills and opportunities to monitor their own reading development (Education Development Center, 2008). In the previous studies on RPA, there is little information about RPA and reading strategy instruction. The previous RPA studies scarcely make it clear which reading techniques or strategies they have adopted. Based on the reading techniques and strategies offered to help readers (Prince George’s County Public Schools, 2010), Ediger (2001), Ferris (1998), Gardner (2003), and Katz and Johnson-Kuby (1996) 17.

(32) may adopt the technique of Respond to Reading because the students are made to respond to stance questions by writing journals or logs, and their response is required to provide support from the text. Gardner (2003) and Katz and Johnson-Kuby (1996) may utilize the technique of Questions-Answers-Relationships on account that the students are helped in process interviews or book talks to develop responses to questions and to provide textual support. Hetterscheidt, Pott, Russell, and Tchang (1992) and Lin (2007) may apply the technique of Think Aloud because as the students read, they are made to use the mental process model of an expert reader. Lin. 政治大 questioning, clarifying, and predicting because the students are taught word meaning 立. (2007) may also use the strategy of Reciprocal Teaching which includes summarizing,. inference skills. Furthermore, Ediger (2001) and Lin (2007) may use the technique of. ‧ 國. 學. Use a Reader’s Checklist because the students are made to refer to rubrics or. ‧. strategies for reading before, during, and after reading.. y. Nat. Also in the previous RPA studies, few are conducted in the EFL context and on. er. io. sit. high school teenagers. There is especially little information about the low achievers. Moreover, most of the RPA studies discussed the effects of RPA on a class of students. al. n. v i n C h students and elaborating instead of focusing on several on their learning process engchi U during RPA. The reviewed RPA studies are stated as follows.. Hetterscheidt, Pott, Russell, and Tchang (1992) used the computer as a reading portfolio and applied RPA to the 5th graders in the USA. Students and teachers modeled and discussed good oral reading skills as part of their reading workshops. Then, they talked about how well the students thought they had read and where they could improve before and after they listened to the playback. With the computer, everything was there in the reading portfolio: voice recordings, reading samples, and assessment logs, the students were immediately involved in self evaluation and critical thinking. Their ownership of learning process was promoted as well. 18.

(33) Katz and Johnson-Kuby (1996) applied RPA and other portfolio assessments to the 8th graders in the USA. They agreed a reading portfolio might contain a tape of a child reading a self-selected text, a process interview, reading journals, or reading logs. The reading portfolio was found a more accurate determiner of growth, and it helped reduce parents’ doubt about placement in High School English Program. Ferris (1998) encouraged his two college classes in the USA to read with RPA. The major portion of the reading portfolio consisted of reaction papers written in response to research articles that the students selected to read. They considered the. 政治大 effective method of encouraging reading. 立. assessment beneficial and held positive response to it. The assessment was proved an. Ediger (2001) set up a reading curriculum and used RPA to check reading. ‧ 國. 學. achievement without focusing on a certain grade or level of students. Entries of the. ‧. reading portfolio might include cassette recording of students’ oral reading, journal. y. Nat. writing of acquired impressions of content learned in the reading curriculum, or. er. io. sit. rubrics developed to assess products/ processes in reading. The students would individually learn as much as possible and would indicate achievement in a self. n. al. preferred way.. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Gardner (2003) incorporated a daily Drop Everything and Read (DEAR) program into RPA, and applied the program and the assessment to students from the 1st to the 5th grade in the USA. The students had structured time— 30 minutes at most— to do reading and had an additional 15 minutes to write in their reader-response logs. They ended up working in a community of readers and learners, focusing on lifelong learning strategies and participating in student-centered learning. Furthermore, they explored ideas, made reflections, and did some revision. Through reading and discussion, they reached the goal of thinking and understanding. Lin (2007) evaluated students in the 3rd year of junior college in Taiwan with 19.

(34) RPA. A rubric was used in self/peer assessment to keep the record of the students’ reading improvement or stagnancy in reading aloud activities. The students were asked to read aloud in the classroom and to think aloud while decoding unfamiliar words. Besides, they were taught word meaning inference skills to facilitate fluent reading. The students were more willing to do outside reading and more interested in reading English materials. They thought that the assessment effectively reflected learning process and improvement. The more they felt their reading ability improved, the more their test scores were enhanced.. 政治大 Areas that are not investigated in the earlier studies are about the competence to 立 Areas Not Treated in the Previous Literature. be assessed in PA, PA and strategy instruction, the English learning environment,. ‧ 國. 學. students’ age, students’ achievement, and detailed change in students’ learning process. y. Nat. Competence to Be Assessed in PA. ‧. during RPA.. er. io. sit. PA has been created to evaluate different competences, but few studies discuss reading portfolio assessment (RPA). The portfolio only for one main competence is. al. n. v i n Ch scarcely discussed. Portfolios used are often the U whole language portfolio including engchi. all school subjects (Rosenbloom, 1995), the English learning portfolio concerning four language skills (Teng, 2005), or the literacy portfolio regarding reading and writing (Betz, 1995). They all combine at least two main competences, so the competences may not be treated and measured evenly (Lin, 2009). Narrowing down to one competence may develop PA to the fullest. Moreover, reading is now emphasized more than the other three language skills at junior high school because reading comprehension has become the main part to test students’ English basic competence in the BCT. Consequently, RPA is worth trying to see if junior high school students’ reading performance is thus improved. 20.

(35) PA and Strategy Instruction When it comes to PA and strategy instruction, little information is revealed about RPA and reading strategy instruction. The importance of strategy instruction in reading cannot be overlooked. Coady (1979) suggested a model of the EFL/ESL reader in which the reader’s process strategies interact with conceptual abilities and background knowledge. Nunan (1999) also claimed that in contemporary language education, learners learn a range of effective language learning strategies and are shown how to apply these strategies to their own learning. The learners are explicitly. 政治大 for example, students may learn 立. taught the underlying strategies as part of the curriculum. Take RPA and reading strategy instruction. to read with RPA more. effectively if they also receive reading strategy instruction. They may thus learn to use. ‧ 國. 學. reading strategies and become better readers on their own. Accordingly, the effects of. ‧. RPA into which reading strategy instruction is incorporated need probing.. y. Nat. English Learning Environment, Students’ Age, and Students’ Achievement. er. io. sit. About the English learning environment, few studies on RPA are in the context of EFL (English as foreign language). RPA is widely used in the context of English as. al. n. v i n C h is a foreign language native language; however, English in Taiwan, so the effects of engchi U RPA may vary. Language/culture is one of the three indispensible perspectives to view methodology as a whole; language learning/learner and language teaching/teacher are the other two perspectives (Larsen-Freeman, 1987). What is more, Porter and Samovar (1994) have proposed the difference between high-context and low-context cultures. In low-context cultures, people articulate what they want directly. On the contrary, in high-context cultures such as those of Taiwan, people tend to read nonverbal behaviors and read the environment; they expect that others are also able to understand the unarticulated communication. People from different cultures learn language differently, even receiving the same instruction. Hu (2002) declared that 21.

(36) Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) fails to make the expected impact on English language teaching in the Chinese context because CLT and the Chinese culture of learning are in conflict. It is sometimes argued that the idea of increased learner autonomy as a goal in the classroom is a European concept, not as effective in other cultures (Benson, 2001). Cassim (2009) even claimed that portfolio designers working in regions outside Europe should be mindful of context, and a well-developed portfolio would be related to national, regional and then to broader international standards. Besides, Council of Europe (2001) noted that it should be kept. 政治大 not to be applied to every learning context in the same manner. Consequently, under 立 in mind that the descriptors and the description given to each level of the learners are. the same RPA and reading strategy instruction, reading and learning behaviors may. ‧ 國. 學. end up very differently due to different contexts and cultures. Hence, the effects of. ‧. RPA in the EFL learning setting need discussing.. y. Nat. As far as students’ age is concerned, high school teenagers may be the most. er. io. sit. suitable ones to implement RPA. There are three reasons as follows. First, little information is revealed about RPA on high school teenagers in Taiwan.. al. n. v i n C h of high schoolUteenagers allows them to put RPA Second, cognitive development engchi. into practice. High school teenagers are around 14 years old in the last stage –formal. operational stage— according to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. In Piaget’s cognitive development, people at the age of 11 and up have these characteristics: thinking logically, becoming concerned with hypothetical problems, and testing hypotheses systematically (Atherton, 2010). Based on Oxford’s (1990) strategy classification system, these characteristics conform to cognitive strategies: analyzing and reasoning, receiving and sending messages, creating structure for input and output, and practicing. The cognitive strategies are also seen in behaviors of selection, reflection, and sharing, which are three crucial elements of PA (Katz & Johnson-Kuby, 22.

(37) 1996), so adolescents with these characteristics may bring RPA to its full effect. Third, RPA on the contrary helps high school teenagers in cognitive strategy practice and in cognitive development. Data from studies of adolescents do not support the assertion that all individuals will automatically move to the next cognitive stage as they biologically mature. For formal operations, maturation establishes the basis, but a special environment is required for most adolescents to attain this stage (Huitt & Hummel, 2003). In order to provide a helping environment, Huitt (1997) offered examples of teaching adolescents to use formal operations: encouraging. 政治大 teaching concepts for reflection, and continuing the appropriate strategies. These 立. explanation of how problems are solved, asking for more than one final answer,. teaching examples are seen during RPA and enable the adolescents to practice. ‧ 國. 學. cognitive strategies. To put it differently, RPA gives high school teenagers a helping. ‧. environment in which they can practice cognitive strategies and attain this formal. y. Nat. operational stage. In addition, cognitive code learning assists cognitive development. er. io. sit. in transformational grammar and cognitive psychology (Nunan, 1995). The three elements of PA comply with the emphasis of cognitive code learning: language. al. n. v i n C h problem-solving learning is an active, rule-seeking, process in which learners are engchi U. encouraged to reflect and discuss (ibid.). Moreover, reading, the significant component in RPA, facilitates cognitive development; the more students read, the better they do in history and language tests (Ravitch and Finn, 1987), or the less they have fear for writing (Lee and Krashen, 1997). Therefore, RPA may foster high school teenagers’ cognitive development. About students’ achievement, studies on RPA are scarcely focused on low achievers. After PA, Lin (2009) found learning motivation of low achievers is not raised as much as that of the other non-low achievers is in the same class. Besides, previous studies on RPA discuss one or two whole classes mixed with high, mid, and 23.

(38) low achievers. Rosenbloom (1995) claimed that PA and the whole language literacy instruction work well together to help students with literacy problems. Moreover, Chen (2000) put forth that mastery learning provides students extra time and extra help to correct their mistakes and to lessen misunderstanding. Mastery learning justifies the necessity of complementary instruction for those who have learning problems. Rubrics or checklists in the portfolio might function as tools to administer mastery learning techniques (Bloom, 1984), working together with reading strategy instruction to make low achievers better readers. Therefore, EFL high school low. 政治大 improve their reading and learning performance. 立. achievers are worth exploring to see if RPA and reading strategy instruction together. Detailed Change in Students’ Learning Process during RPA. ‧ 國. 學. Studies on RPA and PA praise the outcome of students’ change in learning, but. ‧. few of them go further into students’ change in learning process. Most of them look. y. Nat. into the performance of one or two whole classes, not detailed development of given. er. io. sit. individuals. Since portfolios are effective, encouraging, and good tools to change students’ learning, and since portfolios also make good outcome of students, such as. al. n. v i n responsibility, automaticity,C and good learning (Chang, h e n g c h i U 2003; Chang & Chang, 2003;. Chen, 1999; Chen, 2006; Ferris, 1998; Hetterscheidt, et al, 1992; Lin, 2007; Lin, 2009; Rosenbloom, 1995; Teng, 2005; Wang, 2002; Yip, 2005), it is worthwhile to explore the detailed improvement of certain individuals during RPA. Accordingly, EFL high school low achievers are worth investigating to view their reading and learning change in detail. Research Questions The areas that are not treated in the previous studies may influence effects of RPA on students’ reading and learning performance. Therefore, three research questions are proposed; the first two are about reading performance while the last one 24.