比較台灣大學生對中文及英文閱讀信念與閱讀策略之研究

Abstract

中文摘要

本研究主要的目的是在比較學生的中文及英文閱讀信念與閱讀策略，及探究兩者之間的關聯。共有432位臺灣的大學生參與此研究，本研究所探討的閱讀信念以兩個閱讀信念模式為主軸─情意建構模式及知識傳遞模式。

研究者提出四個研究問題，第一個問題試圖比較及了解學生對中文及英文的閱讀信念，第二個問題則是比較及了解學生對中文及英文的閱讀策略，第三個問題企圖探討中文及英文閱讀信念和策略兩者之間的關聯。針對以上的三個問題，資料蒐集採取問卷調查的方式。至於第四個研究問題，研究者試圖針對不同閱讀信念模式的學生，觀察他們閱讀策略實際運用的情況，來進一步了解中文英文閱讀信念和閱讀策略之間的關聯，針對學生的實際閱讀策略運用，研究者是採用放聲思考的方法來蒐集資料。

本研究的主要發現為：(一)整體來說，學生在中文閱讀信念量表的得分顯著高於英文量表。並且學生對中文及英文抱有不同的閱讀信念模式，在閱讀中文的時候，學生普遍抱持較強的情意建構信念模式；然而在閱讀英文的時候，學生只有對情意建構模式中的個人解讀部份之得分高於知識傳遞模式，至於情意建構模式中的另一類別─情感的投入，在學生閱讀英文時，則和知識傳遞模式的得分無顯著差別。(二)閱讀策略量表的分析結果顯示，學生的中文及英文閱讀策略之間有明顯的相似以及差異之處。就相似處而言，學生不管在閱讀中文或英文時，都普遍喜歡使用的閱讀策略有三個：運用圖表來幫助理解，將內容與已知的相連結，以及來回重讀。就差異性來說，學生在讀中文時會使用較多的閱讀策略，並且會用較高比例的統整型策略；但是在讀英文時，則使用較少策略，並且對非統整型策略的運用比例較高。(三)研究結果顯示學生中文及英文的閱讀信念和閱讀策略兩者之間有顯著的正相關；此外雖然研究中發現，情意建構模式信念較強的學生會使用較多的策略，而知識傳遞模式信念較強的學生則使用較少的策略，但是各組學生之間的差異未達統計上顯著之標準。(四)放聲思考的資料分析結果顯示，不管在閱讀中英文時，有著不同閱讀信念模式的學生，會展現出不同的策略運用型態。情意建構模式信念較強的學生容易運用較多高層次的閱讀策略，而相反的，知識傳遞模式信念較強的學生則容易使用較多低層次的閱讀策略。然而研究發現此一差異性，在學生閱讀中文時比閱讀英文時明顯，因為學生在閱讀英文時，不管那一類型信念模式的學生，都過度局限於使用少數幾種區域型的閱讀策略。ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine learners’ beliefs about reading and reading strategies in L1 and L2. Four hundred and thirty-two Taiwanese college students participated in this study. The primary concern was to investigate whether learners’ beliefs about reading relate to their use of reading strategy in L1 (Chinese) and L2 (English) when reading for academic purposes. Readers’ beliefs were investigated in terms of the two implicit models of reading, the transaction and transmission beliefs. Four major research questions were addressed in the study. The first research question concerned students’ beliefs about reading in L1 and L2. The second inquiry attempted to compare students’ reported use of reading strategies between languages. The third question intended to investigate whether learners’ beliefs about reading were related to their reported use of reading strategies in L1 and L2. To address these three questions, four measurement questionnaires were developed in this study to collect data. Lastly, since the fourth research question aimed to examine whether students with distinctive beliefs about reading in the two languages show any differences in how they process texts, the think-aloud method was used to collect information about students’ actual use of reading strategies. The findings of the study were: (1) Students showed somewhat different reading belief patterns between L1 and L2. More specifically, when reading in L1, students tended to hold stronger transaction than transmission beliefs. On the other hand, when reading in L2, students were found to show differential strengths of two kinds of transaction beliefs identified in the study, with stronger endorsement to Transaction I beliefs (i.e. Reader Interpretation) than to Transaction II beliefs (i.e. Reader Engagement); no difference was found, however, between students’ Transaction II and Transmission beliefs. Furthermore, in general, students were found to hold stronger beliefs about reading in L1 than in L2, either transaction or transmission beliefs. (2) Both similarities and differences were found in students’ reported use of reading strategies between L1 and L2. Concerning the similarities between the languages, three strategies including using tables and pictures, linking content with what one already knows, and re-reading were found to be frequently used by students no matter whether they read in L1 or L2. As for the differences, students reportedly applied significantly more reading strategies in L1 than in L2. Moreover, while students reportedly used a significantly higher amount of general strategies when reading in L1, they tended to apply a significantly larger proportion of non-general strategies when reading in L2. (3) Students’ beliefs about reading and their reported use of strategies were found to be positively correlated in either L1 or L2. More specifically, both transaction and transmission beliefs were significantly correlated with the two reading strategy categories (i.e. general versus non-general). Regarding the reported uses of strategies by readers with distinctive belief types, even though there was a tendency for readers with strong transaction beliefs to report more use of reading strategies than those with strong transmission beliefs in either L1 or L2, the differences among groups were not statistically significant. (4) The qualitative results of the study have revealed that students with distinctive belief types in both languages seemed to exhibit distinctive patterns of strategy use. There was a tendency for readers with high transaction beliefs to process the text at a higher level and those with high transmission beliefs at a lower level. The differences, however, were more apparent in L1 than in L2. When reading in L2, although readers with distinctive belief types showed different strategy patterns, in general, they all tended to heavily rely on several local strategies.