增進學生文本理解的國小國語文專家教師提問策略分析

Investigating Elementary Expert Teachers' Questioning Strategies that Promote Students' Mandarin Chinese Text Comprehension

蔡曉楓(Hsiao-Feng Tsai)；陳欣希(Hsin-Hsi Chen)

言談鷹架策略 ； 教師提問 ； 國語文 ； 閱讀理解 ； discursive scaffolding strategies ； Mandarin Chinese ； reading comprehension ； teachers' questioning

教育實踐與研究

32卷2期（2019 / 12 / 01）

1 - 38

繁體中文

本研究探討國小中年級國語文任課教師運用提問教學時所使用的問題層次及言談鷹架策略。本研究使用質量混合法，以9位專家教師運用國教院研發之「十二年國民教育國小組國語文素養導向教材模組」進行的文本提問教學影片為研究材料。研究者先以量化內容分析法分析教師提問的PIRLS四層次問題層次與言談鷹架策略的比例，之後再以Nvivo對師生對話的段落進行第2次的質性分析，了解教師如何根據對話目的轉換問題層次與言談鷹架策略。本研究成果有三：（1）專家教師使用的問題層次比例由高至低依序為層次二、一、三、四；（2）專家教師所運用的言談鷹架策最多的是「澄清／延伸」，多用於層次一、二的問題；其次是鼓勵學生提供新答案的「高層次思考」，多用於層次三、四的問題；（3）專家教師的提問引導可分為「建構文本細節」、「帶入策略、解決問題」及「發展對文本的評價」三大原則。另外本研究的結論有以下2點：（1）在專家教師的延伸問題中，不同層次的問題扮演不同的角色；（2）專家教師根據教學原則調整問題層次與言談鷹架策略。本研究可做為國小中年級國語文任課教師以多層次問題進行教學的參考。

This study investigated how expert Chinese language teachers led inquiry-based reading comprehension of texts through multi-level questioning, and how these teachers implemented specific discursive scaffolding strategies in various levels of questioning. The study employed mixed research method, combining quantitative and qualitative content analysis to examine the transcripts of instructional videos from nine expert teachers who used the Literacy-oriented Elementary Mandarin Chinese Textbooks as experimental teaching materials. The results indicated that the most frequently asked questions initiated by the expert teachers during classes were still level one and two questions. Moreover, teachers used clarification and follow-up as the discursive scaffolding strategies when they initiated level one and level two questions, whereas higher order thinking scaffolding strategy such as requesting alternative answers typically was associated with teachers' level three and four questions. Lastly, there were three different objectives for teachers to use in their questioning strategies, namely ＂construct details,＂ ＂incorporate reading strategies to solve puzzles,＂ and ＂develop criticisms.＂ The teachers flexibly switched questioning levels and discursive scaffolding strategies based on their purpose of dialogue to meet learners' needs. The study concludes that different levels of questions expert teachers asked played different roles in classroom discussion, and that the teachers adjusted question levels and discursive scaffolding strategies based on their instructional principles. The study serves as a reference for future research in instructional dialogue and questioning.

1. 周婉湘, W. -H.(2014)。這一頁不用讀？幼兒與成人共讀對圖畫書近文本的回應與理解。教育實踐與研究，27(2)，1-32。
   連結：
2. 林汝軒, R. -H.(2012)。鷹架教學理論在身心障礙學生語言教學上的應用。國小特殊教育，53，55-66。
   連結：
3. 許淑玫, S. -M.,游自達, T. -T.(2000)。交互教學歷程中學生發問類型及教師鷹架之探討。課程與教學季刊，3(4)，1-30。
   連結：
4. 陳昇飛, S. -F.(2010)。幼稚園的課室言談分析－新移民子女的語言學習。臺中教育大學學報：教育類，24(2)，47-69。
   連結：
5. 陸怡琮, I. -C.(2011)。摘要策略教學對提升國小五年級學童摘要能力與閱讀理解的成效。教育科學研究期刊，56(3)，91-118。
   連結：
6. 游美惠=You. M. -H.(2000)。內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。調查研究，8，5-42。
   連結：
7. 蔡敏玲, M. -L.,戴芳煒, F. -W.(2008)。畫一個星星給我：和幼兒一起編織文學密網。教育實踐與研究，21(1)，133-162。
   連結：
8. 謝進昌, C. -C.(2015)。有效的中文閱讀理解策略：國內實徵研究之最佳證據整合。教育科學研究期刊，60，33-77。
   連結：
9. Alexander, P.(Ed.),Winne, P.(Ed.)(2006).Handbook of Educational Psychology.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
10. Almasi, J. E.,O’Flahavan, J. F,Arya, P.(2001).A comparative analysis of student and teacher development in more and less proficient discussions of literature.Reading Research Quarterly,36,96-120.
11. Alvermann, D. E.,Hayes, D. A.(1989).Classroom discussion of content area reading assignments: An intervention study.Reading Research Quarterly,24,305-333.
12. Anderson, R. C.,Chinn, C.,Chang, J.,Waggoner, J.,Nguyen, K.(1998).Intellectually stimulating story discussions.Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning,New York, NY:
13. Anderson, R. C.,Nguyen-Jahiel, K.,McNurlen, B.,Archodidou, A.,Kim, S. -Y.,Reznitskaya, A.,Gilbert, L.(2001).The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children.Cognition and Instruction,19,1-46.
14. Applebee, A. N.,Langer, J. A.,Nystrand, M.,Gamoran, A.(2003).Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English.American Educational Research Journal,40,685-730.
15. Beck, I. L.,McKeown, M. G.,Hamilton, R. L.,Kucan, L.(1997).Questioning the Author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text.Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
16. Bengtsson, M.(2016).How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis.Nursing Plus Open,2,8-14.
17. Biancarosa, C.,Snow, C. E.(2006).Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York.Washington, DC:Alliance for Excellent Education.
18. Casper, T. P.(1964).Saint Louis, Missouri,Saint Louis University.
19. Cazden, C. B.(1988).Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
20. Cotton, K. (2001). Classroom questioning. School Improvement Research Series, 5. Retrieved from School Improvement Program of the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Web site: https://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/ClassroomQuestioning.pdf
21. Creswell, J. W.(2014).Research design qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
22. Davies, M.,Meissel, K.(2016).The use of quality talk to increase critical analytical speaking and writing of students in three secondary schools.British Educational Research Journal,42(2),342-365.
23. Fisher, D.,Frey, N.,Hattie, J.(2016).Visible learning for literacy: Implementing the practice that work best to accelerate student learning.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Literacy.
24. Fisher, D.,Frey, N.,Hattie, J.,Thayre, M.(2017).Teaching literacy in the visible learning classroom.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Literacy.
25. Gilson, C. M.,Little, C. A.,Ruegg, A. N.,Bruce-Davis, M.(2014).An investigation of elementary teachers’ use of follow-up questions for students at different reading levels.Journal of Advanced Academics,25(2),101-128.
26. Guszak, F. J.(1967).Teacher questioning and reading.Reading Teacher,21(3),227-234.
27. Hacker, D. J.(Ed.),Dunlosky, J.(Ed.),Graessar, A. C.(Ed.)(2009).Handbook of metacognition in education.New York, NY:Routledge.
28. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement=IEA(2015).PIRLS 2016 assessment framework.Chestnut Hill, MA:Boston College.
29. Kamil, P. B.(Ed.),Mosenthal, M. L.(Ed.),Pearson, P. D.(Ed.),Barr, P.(Ed.)(2000).Handbook of reading research.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
30. Kintsch, W.(1998).Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
31. Kintsch, W.(1988).The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review,95(2),163-182.
32. Kintsch, W.(2011).An overview of top-down and bottom-up effects in comprehension: The CI perspective.Discourse Processes,39(2-3),125-128.
33. Marshall, J. D.,Smagorinsky, P.,Smith. M.(1995).The language of interpretation: Patterns of discourse in discussions of literature.Urbana, IL:National Council of Teachers of English.
34. Mercer, N.(2019).Language and the joint creation of knowledge: The selected works of Neil Mercer.New York, NY:Routledge.
35. Mercer, N.(1996).The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom.Learning and Instruction,6,359-379.
36. Mercer, N.(2008).Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding.Human Development,51,90-100.
37. Mercer, N.(2004).Social cultural discourse analysis: Analyzing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking.Journal of Applied Linguistics,1,137-168.
38. Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). Accountable talk sourcebook: For classroom conversation that works. Retrieved from University of Pittsburgh, Institute for Learning Research and Development Center Web site: https://ifl.pitt.edu/documents/AT-SOURCEBOOK2016.pdf
39. Murphy, P. K.,Wilkinson, I. A. G.,Soter, A.,Hennessey, M. N.,Alexander, J. F.(2009).Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ high-level comprehension of text: A meta-analysis.Journal of Educational Psychology,101,740-764.
40. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development=NICHD(2000).Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.Washington, DC:Author.
41. Nystrand, M.(2006).Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension.Research in the Teaching of English,40,392-412.
42. Palincsar, A. S.,Brown, A. L.(1984).Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction,1,117-175.
43. Paris, S. G.,Lipson, M. Y.,Wixson, K. K.(1983).Becoming a strategic reader.Contemporary Educational Psychology,8(3),293-316.
44. Parker, M.,Hurry, J.(2007).Teachers’ use of questioning and modelling comprehension skills in primary classrooms.Educational Review,59(3),299-314.
45. Pearson, P. D.(Ed.)(1984).Handbook of Research on Reading.New York, NY:Longman.
46. Pearson, P. D.(Ed.),Barr, R.(Ed.),Kamil, M. L.(Ed.),Mosenthal, P.(Ed.)(1984).Handbook of reading research.New York, NY:Longman.
47. Piaget, J.(1977).The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
48. Redfield, D. L.,Rousseau, L. W.(1981).A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning behavior.Review of Educational Research,51,237-245.
49. Reninger, K.(2007).Columbus, Ohio,The Ohio State University.
50. Rogoff, B.(Ed.),Wretsch, J. V.(Ed.)(1984).Children’s learning in the "zone of proximal development".San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
51. Rose, S.,Spinks, N.,Canhoto, A. I.(2014).Management research: Applying the principles.New York, NY:Routledge.
52. Ruddell, R. B.(Ed.),Ruddell, M. R.(Ed.),Singer, H.(Ed.)(1994).Theoretical models and processes of reading.Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
53. Samson, G. E.,Strykowski, B.,Weinstein, T.,Walberg, H. J.(1987).The effects of teacher questioning levels on student achievement.Journal of Educational Research,80,290-295.
54. Shanahan, T.(2005).The national reading panel report: Practical advice for teachers.Naperville, IL:Learning Point Associates.
55. Snowling, M. J.(Ed.),Malden, C. H.(Ed.)(2005).The science of reading: A handbook.Hoboken, NJ:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
56. Soter, A. O.,Wilkinson, I. A.,Murphy, P. K.,Rudge, L.,Reninger, K.(2006).Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., & Reninger, K. (2006). Analyzing the discourse coding manual. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio..
57. Soter, A. O.,Wilkinson, I. A.,Murphy, P. K.,Rudge, L.,Reninger, K.,Edwards, M.(2008).What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension.International Journal of Educational Research,47,372-391.
58. Spiro, R. J.(Ed.),Bruce, B. C.(Ed.),Brewer, W. F.(Ed.)(1980).Theoretical issues in reading comprehension.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
59. Stierer, B.(Ed.),Maybin, J.(Ed.)(1994).Language, literacy and learning in educational practice: A reader.Philadelphia, PA:Multilingual Matters.
60. Sweet, A. P.(Ed.),Snow, C. E.(Ed.)(2003).Rethinking reading comprehension (Solving problems in the teaching of literacy).New York, NY:Guilford Press.
61. Van den Branden, K.(2000).Does negotiation of meaning promote reading comprehension? A study of multilingual primary school classes.Reading Research Quarterly,35,426-443.
62. Vygotsky, L. S.(1962).Thought and language.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
63. Wertsch, J. V.(Ed.)(1985).Culture, communication and cognition.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
64. Winne, P. H.(1979).Experiments relating teachers’ use of higher cognitive questions to student achievement.Review of Educational Research,49,13-50.
65. Wolf, M. K.,Crosson, A. C.,Resnick, L. B.(2005).Classroom talk for rigorous comprehension instruction.Reading Psychology,26,27-53.
66. Wood, D.,Bruner, J. S.,Ross, G.(1976).The role of tutoring in problem solving.Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines,17,89-100.
67. 柯華葳, H. -W.,幸曼玲, M. -L.,陸怡琮, Y. -C.,辜玉旻, Y. -M.(2010).閱讀理解策略教學手冊.台北=Taipei:教育部=Ministry of Education.
68. 柯華葳, H. -W.,詹益綾, Y. -L.,張建妤, C. -Y.,游婷雅, T. -Y.(2008).PIRLS 2006 報告：臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養.桃園=Taoyuan:國立中央大學學習與教學研究所=Graduate Institute of Learning and Instruction, National Central University.
69. 教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育語文領域（國語文）課程綱要。取自https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/36/pta_10140_5747840_02639.pdf [Ministry of Education. (2018). Curriculum guidelines of Mandarin education in 12-Year Basic Education Curricula. Retrieved from Ministry of Education Web site: https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/36/pta_10140_5747840_02639.pdf]
70. 教育部=Ministry of Education(2011).閱讀理解文章與試題範例.台北=Taipei:作者=Author.
71. 教育部=Ministry of Education(2012).閱讀理解－問思教學手冊.台北=Taipei:作者=Author.
72. 曹純瓊, C. -C.(2000)。鷹架式語言教學對國小高功能自閉症兒童口語表達能力學習效果研究。特殊教育研究學刊，20，193-220。
73. 許淑玫, S. -M.(2008)。交互教學歷程中學生錯誤發問類型及教師鷹架建構之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，1(1)，73-96。
74. 陳昇飛, S. -F(2006)。從教室言談看學童語文知識之建構－Vygotsky 社會建構取向。當代教育研究季刊，14(4)，129-169。
75. 蔡曉楓, H. -F.,鄭圓玲, Y. -L.,陳欣希, H. -H.(2016)。國家教育研究院專題研究計畫結案報告國家教育研究院專題研究計畫結案報告,未出版

1. 鄧宗聖(2021)。反思Covid-19的虛假訊息：大學生批判框架轉化設計之實踐行動研究。教育實踐與研究，34(3)，31-71。
2. 戰寶華(2022)。翻轉教室與問題導向學習融入全英語課程之行動研究。教育實踐與研究，35(2)，1-57。