政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/143776

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/143776

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文筆數/總筆數 : 113325/144300 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51155761 線上人數 : 923

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

搜尋範圍

查詢小技巧：

您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果

若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料

進階搜尋

主頁 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上傳 ‧ 說明 ‧ 關於政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手機版

政大機構典藏 > 外國語文學院 > 英國語文學系 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/143776

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/143776

題名:	透過學術英語讀寫課程發展中國大學生後設認知能力之個案研究 A Case Study on Developing Chinese University Students’ Metacognitive Competence through a Reading-to-write EAP Course
作者:	王畇 Wang, Yun
貢獻者:	許麗媛 Hsu, Li-Yuan 王畇 Wang, Yun
關鍵詞:	後設認知能力的培養後設認知的認知、情感和社會文化屬性以讀促寫學術素養能力的培養後設認知支架教學 Development of metacognitive competence Cognitive, affective and sociocultural nature of metacognition Reading-based writing Development of academic literacy skills Metacognitively-scaffolded instruction
日期:	2023
上傳時間:	2023-03-09 18:23:48 (UTC+8)
摘要:	近些年來，學界呼籲將後設認知這一概念的研究納入二語教學的領域（Zhang, 2018, 2019），以此作為深入了解語言學習者策略的新視角。在Flavell（1976, 1979）理論框架的指導下，Wenden（1987a, 1998）引領外語教學屆圍繞“通過提升後設認知意識使用學習策略從而更好地習得語言技能”展開了大量的研究。然而，交際教學法在二語屆的興起要求將後設認知的研究置於真實語言情境中。藉此，本文對後設認知概念的探討置於以讀促寫任務為導向的學術英語課程中進行。本文的研究重點有三。首先，在後設認知輔助教學的環境中探討中國英語學習者通過學術英語課程發展後設認知能力。其次，考察同等條件下學術素養技能的發展。最後，了解學生對後設認知輔助教學的普遍態度。在多個案研究場景下，通過對學生博文的質性數據的分析，本研究展示了研究參與者後設認知能力的成長軌跡。在課程進行中，後設認知能力的三個重要面向交互影響，呈現動態發展的體系。主要表現在後設認知知識的重塑、後設認知策略的積極使用及後設認知經驗的不斷精確化。同時，研究結果也進一步證實了後設認知能力兼具認知、情感和社會文化三大屬性。學生博文的質性數據結合前後測的量化數據結果表明，後設認知輔助教學對學習者學術素養能力的培養有正向促進作用。課後調查的量化數據進一步指出，通過學術英語課程，學習者在以下三個面向均有進步：本課程中涉及的以讀促寫任務相關的策略知識和實際應用；語篇分析知識及讀寫結合的意識的培養。最後通過課後評價，學習者普遍表現出對後設認知輔助教學的認可及對未來自主學習的積極影響。研究結果表明，後設認知能力對語言學習者而言是一筆寶貴的財富，對於了解學習者的思維過程有著巨大的潛力。本研究指出四個教學啟示供未來研究參考。第一，後設認知本質上具有生成的、有動態適應力的、及社會情境化的特點。因此，未來亟需將其研究放入各式具體領域的教學場景中考察。第二，教師在學習者後設認知能力的動態發展過程中起到重要的媒介作用，未來應予以更多關注。原因在於，相比其認知屬性，社會文化屬性在後設認知輔助教學框架中能得到充分的發展，並能與情感屬性的發展發生積極交互。第三，目前該領域較為忽視的數字化媒介應引起更多重視。例如博文作為數字化媒介手段之一，不僅充當後設能力測試的重要工具，也兼具後設認知活動的雙重功能。 In the past decades, there has been an appeal for metacognition research in the context of second language teaching and learning (Zhang, 2018, 2019) as a new lens to a deepened understanding of language learner strategies (LLSs) research. Informed by Flavell’s (1976, 1979) tripartite framework of metacognition and initiated by the first practitioner (Wenden, 1987a, 1998), a dramatic burgeoning of research efforts have been made on raising learners’ metacognitive awareness of using LLSs to acquire language skills. Yet, the rise of a communicative approach to language teaching and learning calls for the inquires of metacognition “in the context of authentic literacy engagement” (Baker, 2006, p. 74). Given that, the investigation of metacognition in the present study was contextualized in a reading-to-write-based EAP course named Reading-writing Integrated Academic English. The current research has three primary goals. First and foremost, the study aims at exploring the development of the Chinese EFL learners’ metacognitive competence in the course with the aid of metacognitive-scaffolded instruction. Second, it investigates the development of academic literacy skills by virtue of metacognitive instruction. Last, it examines the learners’ attitudes towards metacognitive instruction. In this multiple-case study, qualitative data from the blog posts revealed the participants’ metacognitive growth as a result of interactive processes of reshaped metacognitive knowledge, active use of metacognitive strategies and increasingly accurate metacognitive experiences in a set of a dynamic system over the course. The findings also attested to the cognitive, affective and sociocultural nature of metacognition. Qualitative data from blog posts combined with quantitative data yielded from the pre-/post- summary writing tests proved that metacognitive instruction promoted the growth of academic literacy skills in the learners. Furthermore, data from the post-course survey confirmed three dimensions intended for the EAP course: strategy knowledge/use for the given reading-to-write tasks, knowledge of discourse analysis and the awareness of reading-writing connection. Data from the post-course evaluation lent support to the participant’s positive attitudes towards metacognitive instruction in general. The findings and results suggest that metacognitive competence is a valuable asset for language learners and has untapped potential to contribute to the understanding of how learners learn to reason. The major pedagogical implications for future research include several directions. First, there is an urgent need of situating the studies of metacognition in a wider variety of specific-domain teaching settings considering this construct is emergent, dynamically adaptive and socially situated in essence. Second, the teacher’s central mediating role in the dynamics of metacognitive growth should be more emphasized as it can work best within L2 metacognitive instruction as the sociocultural nature of metacognition is equally important as its cognitive nature and can actively interact with its affective nature. Third, what has thus far been neglected is the digitalized mediators (e.g. blog posts) that can be utilized as assessment tools and metacognitive activities to foster metacognition.
參考文獻:	References Anderson, N. J. (2002). The Role of Metacognition in Second Language Teaching and Learning. ERIC Digest. http://www.cal.org/ericcll//DIGEST Anderson, D., Nashon, S. M., & Thomas, G. P. (2009). Evolution of research methods for probing and understanding metacognition. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 181-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9078-1 Azevedo, R. (2020). Reflections on the field of metacognition: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. Metacognition and Learning, 15, 91-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09231-x Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively oriented reading instruction. In Metacognition in Literacy Learning (pp. 83-102). Routledge. Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586. Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding?. Science Education, 84(4), 486-506. Brown, A. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (1978). Skills, plans, and self-regulation. Children`s thinking: What develops, 2. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. Metacognition, motivation, and understanding, 65-116. Carrell, P. L., & Connor, U. (1991). Reading and writing descriptive and persuasive texts. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 314-324. https://www.jstor.org/stable/328725 Casanave, C. P. (1988). Comprehension monitoring in ESL reading: A neglected essential. TESOL Quarterly, 22(2), 283-302. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3586937 Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). Language learner and learning strategies. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, 371-392. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage. Cleary, M. N. (2013). Flowing and freestyling: Learning from adult students about process knowledge transfer. College Composition and Communication, 661-687. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43490784 Cohen, A. D., & Griffiths, C. (2015). Revisiting LLS research 40 years later. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 414-429. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43893760 Connor, C. M., Day, S. L., Zargar, E., Wood, T. S., Taylor, K. S., Jones, M. R., & Hwang, J. K. (2019). Building word knowledge, learning strategies, and metacognition with the Word-Knowledge e-Book. Computers & Education, 128, 284-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.016 Conner, L. N. (2007). Cueing metacognition to improve researching and essay writing in a final year high school biology class. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-3952-x Cordeiro, C., Limpo, T., Olive, T., & Castro, S. L. (2020). Do executive functions contribute to writing quality in beginning writers? A longitudinal study with second graders. Reading and Writing, 33(4), 813-833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09963-6 Creswell, J. W. (2013). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study. BER Spearker Series. 48. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dberspeakers/48 Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 Cross, J. (2010). Raising L2 listeners’ metacognitive awareness: A sociocultural theory perspective. Language Awareness, 19(4), 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.519033 Crowhurst, M. (1991). Interrelationships between reading and writing persuasive discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 314-338. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171415 Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2005.02.001 Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.020 Davidowitz, B., & Rollnick, M. (2003). Enabling metacognition in the laboratory: A case study of four second year university chemistry students. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 43-69. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023673122220 de Blume, A. P. G., Wells, P., Davis, C. A., & Parker, J. (2017). " You can sort of feel it": Exploring metacognition and the feeling of knowing among undergraduate students. The Qualitative Report, 22(7), 2016-2033. Delaney, Y. A. (2008). Investigating the reading-to-write construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 140-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.04.001 DePalma, M.J., & Ringer, J. M. (2011). Toward a theory of adaptive transfer: Expanding disciplinary discussions of “transfer” in second-language writing and composition studies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 134-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.003 Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & De Clercq, A. (2003). Can offline metacognition enhance mathematical problem solving?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.188 Duff, P. (2018). Case study research in applied linguistics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203827147 Duffy, G. G. (2006). Developing metacognitive teachers: Visioning and the expert’s changing role in teacher education and professional development. In Metacognition in literacy learning (pp. 321-336). Routledge. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01235 Efklides, A., Samara, A., & Petropoulou, M. (1999). Feeling of difficulty: An aspect of monitoring that influences control. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(4), 461-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172973 Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving: Metacognition, motivation, and self-regulation. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 297-323). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Efklides, A. (2002). The systemic nature of metacognitive experiences. In Metacognition (pp. 19-34). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1099-4_2 Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process?. Educational Research Review, 1(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.001 Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on Activity Theory, 19(38), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1017/CB09780511812774.003 Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. the MIT Press. Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5 Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The Nature of Intelligence. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 Forgas, J. P. (1994). The role of emotion in social judgments: An introductory review and an Affect Infusion Model (AIM). European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420240102 Ferris, D. (2009). Teaching college writing to diverse student populations. University of Michigan Press. Fetterman, D. M. (2008). Emic/etic distinction. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, 1, 249. Gao, X. (2007). Has language learning strategy research come to an end? A response to Tseng et al. (2006). Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 615-620. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm034 Gao, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2011). 3. Joining Forces for Synergy: Agency and Metacognition as Interrelated Theoretical Perspectives on Learner Autonomy (pp. 25-41). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847693747-004 Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119401 Georghiades, P. (2006). The role of metacognitive activities in the contextual use of primary pupils` conceptions of science. Research in Science Education, 36(1), 29-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-3954-8 Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, practice and research implications. RELC journal, 39(2), 188-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688208092184 Goh, C. C., & Hu, G. (2014). Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening performance with questionnaire data. Language Awareness, 23(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.769558 Gutierrez de Blume, A. P. G., Wells, P., Davis, C. A., & Parker, J. (2017). " You can sort of feel it": Exploring metacognition and the feeling of knowing among undergraduate students. The Qualitative Report, 22(7), 2016-2033. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2802 Grabe, W. (2001). Reading-writing relations: Theoretical perspectives and instructional practices. Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 Reading-writing Connections, 15-47 Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2016). Reading-writing relationships in first and second language academic literacy development. Language Teaching, 49(3), 339-355. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000082 Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Second language reading-writing relations. Reconnecting Reading & Writing, 108-133. Greene, S. (1992). Mining texts in reading to write. Journal of Advanced Composition, 151-170. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20865834 Greene, S. (1993). The role of task in the development of academic thinking through reading and writing in a college history course. Research in the Teaching of English, 46-75. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171212 Griffin, T. D., Mielicki, M. K., & Wiley, J. (2019). Improving students’ metacomprehension accuracy. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105. Haas, C., & Flower, L. (1988). Rhetorical reading strategies and the construction of meaning. College Composition and Communication, 39(2), 167-183. https://www.jstor.org/stable/358026 Hacker, D. J. (2018). A metacognitive model of writing: An update from a developmental perspective. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 220-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1480373 Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2017). Self-regulated strategy development: Theoretical bases, critical instructional elements, and future research. In Design principles for teaching effective writing (pp. 119-151). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004270480_007 Hertzog, C., & Dixon, R. A. (1994). Metacognitive development in adulthood and old age. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing (pp. 227-251. The MIT Press. El-Hindi, A. E. (1997). Connecting reading and writing: College learners` metacognitive awareness. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(2), 10. Heigham, J., & Croker, R. (Eds.). (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction. Springer. Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 109-131. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264513 Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading & writing in second language writing instruction. University of Michigan Press. Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers` engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005 Hu, J., & Gao, X. (2018). Self-regulated strategic writing for academic studies in an English-medium-instruction context. Language and Education, 32(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2017.1373804 Hsiao, T. Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 368-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00155 Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005 Jafarigohar, M., & Mortazavi, M. (2017). The impact of scaffolding mechanisms on EFL learners’ individual and socially shared metacognition in writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(3), 211-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1154488 Kaplan, A. (2008). Clarifying metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: What’s the purpse?. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 477-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9087-2 Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.006 Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge University Press. Koda, K., & Zehler, A. M. (Eds.). (2008). Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic relationships in first-and second-language literacy development. Routledge. Koriat, A., & Levy-Sadot, R. (2000). Conscious and unconscious metacognition: A rejoinder. Consciousness and Cognition, 9(2), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2000.0436 Kramsch, C. (1997). Rhetorical models of understanding. Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications, 50-63. Lamb, T. (2017). Knowledge about language and learner autonomy. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02240-6_14 Lam, W. Y. (2010). Metacognitive strategy teaching in the ESL oral classroom: Ripple effect on non-target strategy use. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 2-1. https://doi.org/10.2104/aral1002 Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013). Transfer of learning transformed. Language Learning, 63, 107-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00740.x Lee, I., & Mak, P. (2018). Metacognition and metacognitive instruction in second language writing classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 1085-1097. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44987051 Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). “Completely different worlds”: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 39-69. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587974 Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 217-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.04.001 Lei, X. (2016). Understanding writing strategy use from a sociocultural perspective: The case of skilled and less skilled writers. System, 60, 105-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.06.006 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. sage. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosn006 Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14-29. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt040.0 Littlewood, W. (1996). “Autonomy”: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00039-5 Loban, W. (1963). The language of elementary school children. Lompscher, J. (1994). Learning strategies: An essential component of learning activity. LLF-Berichte/Universität Potsdam, Zentrum für Lehrerbildung, 7. Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320-337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00425.x Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471-497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004010 Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers (Vol. 65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/02656590920080010 McCombs, B. L., & Marzano, R. J. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning: The self as agent in integrating will and skill. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_5 McCulloch, S. (2013). Investigating the reading-to-write processes and source use of L2 postgraduate students in real-life academic tasks: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 136-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.009 McVee, M. B., Bailey, N. M., & Shanahan, L. E. (2008). Teachers and teacher educators learning from new literacies and new technologies. Teaching Education, 19(3), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210802250216 Mežek, Š., McGrath, L., Negretti, R., & Berggren, J. (2022). Scaffolding L2 Academic Reading and Self‐Regulation Through Task and Feedback. TESOL Quarterly, 56(1), 41-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3018 Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.249 Murray, D. M. (1982). Teaching the other self: The writer`s first reader. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 140-147. https://www.jstor.org/stable/357621 Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: A longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, and evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312438529 Negretti, R., & Kuteeva, M. (2011). Fostering metacognitive genre awareness in L2 academic reading and writing: A case study of pre-service English teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.002 Negretti, R., & McGrath, L. (2018). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacognition: Insights from an L2 doctoral research writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 12-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.12.002 Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American psychologist, 51(2), 102. Nelson, N., & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.). (1998). The reading-writing connection (Vol. 972). University of Chicago Press. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition. Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing, 13, 1-25. Nelson, N. (2008). The reading-writing nexus in discourse research. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 435-450). Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Nowacek, R. S. (2011). Agents of integration: Understanding transfer as a rhetorical act. SIU Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43501837 Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies-What every teacher should know. Heinle & Heinle. Paris, S. G. (2002). When is metacognition helpful, debilitating, or benign?. In Metacognition (pp. 105-120). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1099-4_8 Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. International Encyclopedia of Education, 2, 6452-6457. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, S (Eds.) (2002). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington DC: National Research Center. https://doi.org/10.17226/10019 Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). 2. assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3 Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 252-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.05.001 Plakans, L. (2010). Independent vs. integrated writing tasks: A comparison of task representation. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 185-194. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27785076 Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.09.002 Polio, C., & Shi, L. (2012). Perceptions and beliefs about textual appropriation and source use in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 95-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.001 Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54-66). The Guilford Press. Richa, N., & Geiger, S. (2007). Reflexivity and positionality in feminist fieldwork revisited. Politics and Practice in Economic Geography, A. Tickell, E. Sheppard, J. Peck, T. Barnes (eds.), 267-278. Ruan, Z. (2014). Metacognitive awareness of EFL student writers in a Chinese ELT context. Language Awareness, 23(1-2), 76-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.863901 Sandelowski, M. (1995). Qualitative analysis: What it is and how to begin. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(4), 371-375. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180411 Sawaki, Y., Quinlan, T., & Lee, Y. W. (2013). Understanding learner strengths and weaknesses: Assessing performance on an integrated writing task. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 73-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.633305 Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 142-175. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307 Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1), 113-125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003044231033 Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 3-16). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2243-8_1 Selfe, C. L. (1986). Computer-Assisted Instruction in Composition: Create Your Own. National Council of Teachers of English, 1111 Kenyon Rd., Urbana, IL 61801 (Stock No. 08418, $12.00 member, $15.00 nonmember). Serra, M. J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Effective implementation of metacognition. In Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 278-298). Routledge. Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading–writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.3.466 Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading–writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.2.116 Shaw, P., & Pecorari, D. (2013). Types of intertextuality in Chairman’s statements. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 37-64. Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication, 21(2), 171-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303262846 Shi, L. (2010). Textual appropriation and citing behaviors of university undergraduates. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn045 Shin, S. Y., & Ewert, D. (2015). What accounts for integrated reading-to-write task scores?. Language Testing, 32(2), 259-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214560257 Smith, F. (1983). Reading like a writer. Language Arts, 60, 558-567 Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14(1), 3-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883970140010 Spivey, N. N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7(2), 256-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088390007002004 Spivey, N. N. (1996). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing and the making of meaning. In The Constructivist Metaphor. Brill. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Concepts in developmental theories of reading skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity. Developmental Review, 10(1), 72-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(90)90005-O Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203830529 Teng, M. F., Qin, C., & Wang, C. (2022). Validation of metacognitive academic writing strategies and the predictive effects on academic writing performance in a foreign language context. Metacognition and Learning, 17(1), 167-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09278-4 Thomas, G. P. (1999). Developing metacognition and cognitive strategies through the use of metaphor in a year 11 chemistry classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology) Thomas, G., Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2008). Development of an instrument designed to investigate elements of science students’ metacognition, self-efficacy and learning processes: The SEMLI-S. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1701-1724. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701482493 Thomas, G. P. (2003). Conceptualisation, development and validation of an instrument for investigating the metacognitive orientation of science classroom learning environments: The Metacognitive Orientation Learning Environment Scale–Science (MOLES-S). Learning Environments Research, 6(2), 175-197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024943103341 Thomas, G. P., & McRobbie, C. J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to improve students` metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 222-259.https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<222::AID-TEA1004>3.0.CO;2-S Thomas, G. P. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Past, present and future considerations. In Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 131-144). Springer, Dordrecht. Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading–writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Tseng, W. T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami046 Ushioda, E. (2014). Motivation, autonomy and metacognition. Motivation and foreign language learning: From theory to practice, 31-49. Veenman, M. V., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of novices while studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learning and Instruction, 14(6), 621-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.09.004 Veenman, M. V., Hout-Wolters, V., Bernadette, H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0 Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00373.x Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429287749 Van de Kamp, M. T., Admiraal, W., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2016). Becoming original: effects of strategy instruction. Instructional Science, 44(6), 543-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9384-y Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 30-43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40539680 Watanabe, Y. (2001). Read-to-write tasks for the assessment of second language academic writing skills: Investigating text features and rater reactions. University of Hawai`i at Manoa. Wenden, A. (1987). Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners. Language Learning, 37(4), 573-597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1987.tb00585.x Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning1. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515-537. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515 Wenden, A. L. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: The neglected variable. Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research, 44-64. Whittlesea, B. W. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(6), 1235. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Sage. Wong, M. Y. (2005). Metacognitive awareness and usage (Doctoral dissertation). Yang, H. C., & Plakans, L. (2012). Second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an integrated reading-listening-writing task. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 80-103. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.6 Yin, R. K. (2013). Design and methods. Case Study Research, 3(9.2) Yin, R. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Qualitative research methods, 5(14), 359-386. Yuan, R., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Teacher metacognitions about identities: Case studies of four expert language teachers in China. TESOL Quarterly, 54(4), 870-899. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.561 Zhang, D., & Goh, C. C. (2006). Strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use: Singaporean students’ awareness of listening and speaking strategies. Language Awareness, 15(3), 199-119. https://doi.org/10.2167/la342.0 Zhang, L. J., (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students` metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410108667039 Zhang, L. J., & Qin, T. L. (2018). Validating a questionnaire on EFL writers’ metacognitive awareness of writing strategies in multimedia environments. In Metacognition in language learning and teaching (pp. 157-178). Routledge. Zhang, D., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Metacognition and self-regulated learning (SRL) in second/foreign language teaching. Second handbook of English language teaching, 883-897. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_47 Zhang, L. J., & Zhang, D. (2018). Metacognition in TESOL: Theory and practice. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0803 Zhang, L. J., & Zhang, D. (2013). Thinking metacognitively about metacognition in second and foreign language learning, teaching, and research: Toward a dynamic metacognitive systems perspective. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 396(12), 111-121. Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students` knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 320-353. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.223352 Zhao, C. G., & Liao, L. (2021). Metacognitive strategy use in L2 writing assessment. System, 98, 10247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102472 Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of educational Psychology, 82(1), 51-59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51
描述:	博士國立政治大學英國語文學系 107551505
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107551505
資料類型:	thesis
顯示於類別:	[英國語文學系] 學位論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	描述	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
150501.pdf		2017Kb	Adobe PDF2	56	檢視/開啟

在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - 回饋