三種閱讀策略教學課程對低閱讀能力大學生閱讀策略運用與摘要表現影響之研究

Abstract

本研究透過兩個實驗探討不同閱讀能力大學生閱讀策略使用差異，以及閱讀策略教學課程對低閱讀能力大學生閱讀策略運用及摘要表現的影響。 實驗一以42名不同閱讀能力的台灣師範大學大學生為研究對象，以放聲思考原案分析，探討不同閱讀能力的大學生在閱讀策略使用上的差異。結果顯示，高閱讀能力的大學生比低閱讀能力者在精緻化策略、重新建構策略、理解監控策略的使用較頻繁。實驗二根據實驗一的發現，針對低閱讀能力大學生較少使用的策略設計三種閱讀策略教學課程，並進一步探討不同閱讀策略教學課程對學生策略使用與摘要表現的影響。 實驗二的研究對象為83名低閱讀能力大學生，其中，19名學生接受精緻化策略教學課程（實驗一）；20名學生接受組織統整策略教學課程（實驗二）；24名學生接受理解監控策略教學課程（實驗組三）；另有20名學生為控制組。實驗組接受為期四週，每週一節（50分鐘）的閱讀策略教學課程；控制組不接受教學課程。所得資料以共變數分析、趨向分析驗證假設。結果顯示： 在中測，閱讀策略教學對三個實驗組學生的閱讀策略使用有增進效果，不過在摘要能力上，只有「理解監控策略教學組」有顯著增進效果。 在後測，閱讀策略教學對三個實驗組學生的閱讀策略使用有增進效果，其中，「組織統整策略教學組」的增進效果比「精緻化策略教學組」、「理解監控策略教學組」為高。在摘要方面則是只有「精緻化策略教學組」與「組織統整策略教學組」對於學生的摘要能力有提升效果。 四週閱讀策略教學結果顯示，閱讀策略教學課程有助於三個實驗組大學生的閱讀策略運用。實驗組在前、中、後測的趨向分析結果顯示，各組學生在其所接受訓練的閱讀策略類型之使用進步情形呈現直線趨向。摘要能力方面，閱讀策略教學課程對於「組織統整策略教學組」、「精緻化策略教學組」的摘要表現有增進作用，其中又以「組織統整策略教學組」有較佳的摘要能力增進效果。至於，閱讀策略教學課程對「理解監控策略教學組」的摘要能力增進作用，則會受到文本難度影響，當文本比較簡單時，讀者的摘要表現較好，當文本變難時，讀者的摘要表現反而不理想。 The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of three reading strategy instructions on strategic reading and summary performance of college students with low reading ability. Experiment one（E1）was designed to investigate the reading strategy difference between good readers and poor readers. Participants were 42 college students with different reading ability (21 good readers, 21 poor readers.) The think aloud method was adopted to investigate the reading strategy difference between two groups. The results in E1 showed that students with high reading ability use re-construction, elaboration, and monitoring strategy more often than the students with low reading ability. The design of experiment two （E2）was based on the empirical finding of E1. Three reading strategy instructions with direct teaching and reciprocal teaching were conducted to investigate the effects of strategy instruction on low reading ability college students’ reading strategy and summary performance. The participants in E2 were 83 students among four groups. There were 19 in the elaboration strategy group (G1), 20 in the organization strategy group (G2), 24 inthe monitor strategy group (G3), and 20 in the control group (G4). The G1, G2 and G3 except G4 received 50 minutes reading comprehension strategies courses once a week in four weeks. The strategy training included three modes of instruction: elaboration, organization, and monitor during the fall of 2009. Students were taught and practice reading strategy during the training. They were asked to summary after a think aloud procedure at testing sessions. The data obtained were analyzed by ANCOVA and trend analysis. The results were as follows: The outcome of the mid-test displayed that the improvement of reading strategy performance among G1, G2 and G3 was increased. The improvement of summary performance increased significantly only in G3. The outcome of the post-test displayed that the improvement of reading strategy performance among G1, G2 and G3 was increased. G2 had a better improvement than G1 and G3. The outcome of the post-test illustrated that the improvement of summary performance increased only in G1 and G2.The trend analysis at three time points: pre-test, mid-test, and post-test was adopted for the progress of strategy and summary performance . There is a linear trend for the G1, G2 and G3. The results of this study suggested that the three reading strategy instructions can help to improve the utilization of reading strategies in G1, G2 and G3. The effects of the three reading strategies on summary performance were better in G2 than in G1. The summary performance in G3 relates with the difficulty of texts. The summary performance of G3 is better in easier texts. Moreover, the achievement of summary performance in G3 decreased when the texts became more difficult.