本研究旨在探究一閱讀教學策略「質疑作者教學法」(Questioning the Author)，對於以英文為外語的高中生之閱讀理解能力及回應寫作的質量影響。
94個十一年級的學生(其中46位在質疑作者教學法組，另外48位在控制組)參與此項為期四週六回的閱讀訓練。每一回訓練都以一則短篇故事做為教材，質疑作者教學法組著重釐清作者寫作意圖及以讀者為中心的問答；而控制組以傳統問答教學，並只著重在文字表面。前測及後測分別在教學訓練前後實施，學生在前後測時，都需於閱讀一篇短文後，回答閱讀測驗及寫作回應短文內容。此外，實驗組還需在後測時完成關於此教學法的問卷。由閱讀測驗中收集來的資料分別以事實、詮釋、回應類問題三個層面分析；回應寫作中以質量兩大層面分析，量的方面包含寫作字數、思考單位數及一個思考單位所含字數，質的方面則將各個思考單位歸類為文本回應、個人回應、智力回應和錯誤理解。最後，讀者對於此教學法的喜好、所察覺的進步及此教學法的可行性將由問卷資料分析得知。
以組別當作自變數，前測作為共變量，共變數分析後測，發現在三類閱讀測驗問題及寫作回應的質量均有一些顯著的改變。首先、在閱讀測驗方面，實驗組於回答回應類問題上優於控制組，卻在提升回答事實和詮釋類問題時不具優勢。第二、在回應寫作方面，儘管兩組的平均文長和思想單位數差不多，實驗組在一個思想單位中的平均字數高於控制組，這間接指出質疑作者教學法能提升思考複雜度卻不影響思考內容多寡。第三、以上的推測也進一步由寫作回應的內容相佐證，實驗組能產生出較多的智力回應、較少的文本回應和錯誤理解，並且在個人回應上兩組沒有顯著改變。第四、問卷分析顯現學生對於質疑作者教學法持有正向的態度，學生喜歡此教學法、且期待未來有更多的相關課程、並嘗試將此閱讀法於自行閱讀時應用。
本文依據研究結果建議質疑作者教學法足以作為一個有效提升以英語為外語學習的高中學生在閱讀理解及讀後寫作回應的高階思考能力。

This study investigates the effects of an approach to reading instruction, QtA approach, on levels of reading comprehension and on the quantity and quality of written response by EFL senior high school students.
Ninety-four eleventh graders, 46 in QtA Group, the Experimental Group, and 48 in Control Group, participated in the study in six sessions during a four-week intervention. For each session, one story was covered in two different approaches for the two groups. QtA Group was taught in QtA Approach, with a focus on clarifying authorial intents and reader initiating questions, while Control Group was guided through traditional question-and-answer approach, with a focus on textual message. Prior to and after teaching intervention, pretest and posttest were implemented. In both tests, students read a passage before they answered reading comprehension questions and performed a written response. Additionally, Experimental Group completed a perception questionnaire in the posttest. Data from reading comprehension questions were analyzed in terms of factual, interpretive, responsive, and incorrect dimensions; data from written response were analyzed by its quantitative measures of words, thought units, and words per thought unit, and by its qualitative features of textual, personal, intellectual and incorrect response. In addition, readers’ preference for, perceived ability growth from, and perceived feasibility of QtA were analyzed based on the data from Perception Questionnaire.
With Group as an independent variable, Pretest as a covariate, ANCOVA analyses on Posttest in three types of reading comprehension questions and four levels of written response reveal several significant findings. First, for reading comprehension questions, QtA Group performed significantly better than Control Group in responsive questions but not in factual and interpretive questions, indicating that QtA approach facilitates comprehension at the responsive level. Second, for written response, QtA Group generated more words per thought unit, despite that there was no difference between groups in the text length and the number of thought unit, indirectly reflecting the impact of QtA approach in boosting complexity in thought, albeit not in the quantity of content. This conjecture is further supported by the findings that QtA Group produced more intellectual responses and fewer textual responses and incorrect responses but no different number of personal responses than Control Group. Additionally, the questionnaire analyses point to students’ positive perception towards QtA approach. Students favored, expected the future implementation of, and transferred the use of QtA.
These findings suggest that QtA approach can be an effective instructional approach to facilitating EFL high school students’ higher-order thinking not only in reading comprehension but also in written response to reading.

Abrahamsen, E.P., & Sprouse, P.T. (1995). Fable
comprehension by children with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 302-308.
Almasi, J. F., & Garas-York, K. (2009). Comprehension and
discussion of texts. In S.E. Israel and G.G. Duffy (Eds.),
Handbook on research on reading comprehension (pp. 470-
493). New York: Routledge.
Alvermann, D.E., O’Brien, D.G. & Dillon, D.R. (1990). What
teachers do when they say they're having discussions of
content reading assignments. Reading Research Quarterly,
24, 296-322.
Anderson, P.L., & Corbett, L. (2008). Literature circles for
students with learning disabilities. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 44, 25-33.
Anderson, N. L., & Briggs, C. (2011). Reciprocity between
reading and writing: Strategic processing as common
ground. The Reading Teacher, 64(7), 546-549.
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(3), 685-730.
Applegate, M.D., Quinn, K.B., & Applegate, A.J. (2002).
Levels of thinking required by comprehension questions in
informal reading inventories. The Reading Teacher, 56(2),
174-180.
Baker, L., Dreher, M.J., & Guthrie, J.T. (Eds.). (2000).
Engaging young readers. New York: Guilford.
Baleghizadeh, S. (2011). The impact of students’ training in
questioning the author technique on EFL reading
comprehension. Social and Behavioral Science, 29, 1668-
1676.
Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (2001a). Inviting students into
the pursuit of meaning. Educational Psychology Review,
13(3), 225-241.
Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (2001b). Text talk: Capturing
the benefits of read-aloud experiences for young children.
Reading Teacher, 55, 10-20.
Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (2006). Improving comprehension
with questioning the author. New York: Scholastic.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Hamilton, R.L., & Kucan, L.
(1998). Getting at the meaning: How to help students
unpack difficult text. American Educator, 22(1), 66-71.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy,
J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom
implementation to engage students with text. The
Elementary School Journal, 96, 385-414.
Brock, C. A. (1986). The effects of referential questions on
ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 47-59.
Brown, A.L., & Palincsar, A.S. (1984). Reciprocal teaching
of comprehension –fostering and comprehension-monitoring
activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Brown, R., El-Dinary, P.B., Pressley, M., & Coy-Ogan, L.
(1995). A transactional strategies approach to reading
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 49(3), 256-258.
Carrison, C., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2005). From silence to a
whisper to active participation: Using literature circles
with ELL students. Reading Horizons, 46(2), 93-113.
Carter, R. A., & Long, M. N. (1991). Teaching literature.
London: Longman
Chiang, M. H. & Huang, C. W. (2005). The effectiveness of
Literature Circles in EFL setting:A classroom
investigation. Retrieved Jan 30, 2013, from http://
192.192.169.250/edu_paper/data_image/e0000884/0n0/20050300/
p0000078.pdf
Chiang, M. H. (2007). A novel idea : English as foreign
language reading via virtual Literature Circles. English
Teaching and Learning, 31(4), 1 -37
College Entrance Examination Center. (2002). Senior high
basic English vocabulary list. Retrieved Oct 13, 2012,
from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/Research/paper_doc/ce37/5.pdf
Collie, J. & Stephen, S. (1987). Literature in the language
classroom: A resource book of ideas and activities. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
DaLie, S.O. (2001). Students becoming real readers:
Literature circles in high school English classes. In B.
O. Erickson (Ed.), Teaching Reading in High School English
Classes (pp. 84-100). Urbana: NCTE.
Demetriou, A., Mouyi, A., & Spanoudis, G. (2010). The
development of mental processing. Retrieved Sept 2, 2013
from researchgate.net
Dickinson, D.K., & Smith, M.W. (1994). Long-term effects of
preschool teachers’ book readings on low-income
children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading
Research Quarterly, 29, 104-122.
Duke, N.K., & Pearson, D. (2002). Effective practices for
developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S.
J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading
instruction (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Ellis, K. (1993). Teacher questioning behaviour and student
learning: What research says to teachers. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the western states communication
association. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_s
torage01/0000019b/80/13/f8/25.pdf.
Fung, I.Y.Y., Wilkinson, I.A.G., & Moore, D.W. (2003). L1-
assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL students’
comprehension of English expository text. Learning and
Instruction, 13, 1-31
Gall, M.D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review
of Educational Research, 40, 707-721
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances
critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1).
Retrieved August 24, 2013, from
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v7n1/gokhale.jte-
v7n1.html?ref=Sawos.Org
Greenway, C. (2002). The process, pitfalls and benefits of
implementing a Reciprocal Teaching intervention to improve
the reading comprehension of a group of Year
6 pupils. Educational Psychology in Practice, 18(2), 113-
137.
Hsu, J. Y. (2004). Reading without teachers: literature
circles in an EFL classroom. Proceedings of 2004 Cross-
strait Conference on English Education (pp. 401-421).
Taipei, Taiwan ELT Publishing Co.
Hunt, K. (1965). A synopsis of clause-to-sentence length
factors. English Journal, 54(2), 300, 305-309.
Kay, J. (2008). Discovering fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
King, C. (2001). “I like group reading because we can share
ideas” - the role of talk within the literature circle.
Reading, Literacy and Language, 35(1), 32-36.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text
comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85,
363-394.
Kintsch, W. (1986). Learning from text. Cognition and
Instruction, 3, 87-108.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse
comprehension:A construction-integration model.
Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and
learning. American Psychologist. 49, 294-303.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second
language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I.L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading
comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction and social
interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271-299.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I.L. (2003). Inviting students to talk
about expository texts: A comparison of two discourse
environments and their effects on comprehension. Reading
Research & Instruction, 42(3), 1-31.
Lai, H.-Y. T. (2008). English as an international language?
Taiwanese university teachers' dilemma and struggle.
English Today, 2, 39-45.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development.
TESOL Quarterly, 12,439-448.
Lawrence, J., & Snow, C. (2011). Oral discourse and reading.
In M, Kamil., P, Pearson., E, Moje., & P, Afflerbach.
(Series Eds) Handbook of reading research: Vol. 4. (pp.
320-337). New York: Routledge.
Liu, Y.C., & Chu, H.C. (2008). Questioning the Author:
Effects on recall inference generation and response to
questions by EFL junior high school students. English
Teaching and Learning, 32, 77-121.
Malloy, J.A. & Gambrell, L.B. (2010). The contribution of
discussion to reading comprehension and critical thinking.
In A. McGill-Franzen & R.L. Allington (Eds.), Handbook of
reading disability research. Hoboken: Routledge.
Many, J., & Wiseman, D.L. (1992). The effect of teaching
approach on third-grade students' response to literature.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 265-287.
Martin, J. (1998). Literature circles. Thresholds in
Education, 24(3), 20-25.
McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., & Blake, R. (2009). Rethinking
reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of
instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading
Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218-253.
McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., & Worthy, M.J. (1993). Grappling
with text ideas: Questioning the author. The Reading
Teacher, 46, 560-566.
Miller, R.G., & Calfee, R.C. (2004). Making thinking
visible. Science and Children, 42(3), 20-25.
Ministry of Education. (2008). The 2008 Senior High School
Curriculum Guidelines of the English subject. Retrieved
September 22, 2012, from
http://english.tyhs.edu.tw/downloads/center-file/01-2.pdf
Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom
discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in
the Teaching of English, 40, 392-412.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading
comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Pressley, M. (2001). Comprehension instruction: What makes
sense now, what might make sense soon. Reading Online,
5(2). Retrieved Oct 20, 2012, from
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?
HREF=/articles/handbook/pressley/index.html
Pressley, M.(1998). Reading instruction that works: The case
for balanced reading. New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T.,
Bergman, J.L., Almasi, J., et al.(1992). Beyond direct
explanation: Transactional instruction of reading
comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal,
92, 513–555
Pressley, M., Almasi, J., Schuder, T., Bergman, J., Hite,
S., El-Dinary, P.B., et al. (1994).Transactional
instruction of comprehension strategies: The Montgomery
County, Maryland, SAIL Program. Reading and Writing
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 5–19.
Rau, W. & Heyl, B. S. (1990). Humanizing the college
classroom: Collaborative learning and social organization
among students. Teaching Sociology, 18, 141-155.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think.
Washington, DC: National Academic Press
Reutzel, D.R., Smith, J.A., & Fawson, P.C. (2005). An
evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading
comprehension strategies in the primary years using
science information texts. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 20, 276-305.
Roberts, S.K., Jensen, S.J., & Hadjiyianni, E. (1997). Using
literature study
groups in teacher education courses: Learning through
diversity. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(2),
124–134.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation
and response. Theory into Practice, 21, 268-277
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1986). The aesthetic transaction. Journal
of Aesthetic Education, 20, 122-128.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1989). Writing and reading transactional
theory. In J. Mason (Ed.), Reading and Writing Connections
(pp. 153–176). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1998). Readers, texts, authors.
Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 34(4), 885-
996.
Sandora, C., Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1999). A comparison of
two discussion strategies on students' comprehension and
interpretation of complex literature. Reading Psychology,
20, 177-212.
Schuder, T. (1993). The genesis of transactional strategies
instruction in a reading program for at-risk students.
Elementary School Journal, 94, 183-200.
Slater, W.H. & Horstman, F.R. (2002). Teaching reading and
writing to struggling middle school and high school
students: The case for reciprocal teaching. Preventing
School Failure, 46(4), 163-166.
Spack, R. (1985). Literature, reading, writing, and ESL:
Bridging the gaps. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 703-725.
Stein, D., & Beed, P.L. (2004). Bridging the gap between
fiction and nonfiction in the literature circle setting.
The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 510–518.
Taylor, P. (2002). A cylindrical model of communication
behavior in crisis negotiations. Human Communication
Research, 28(1), 7– 48.
Thurber, J. (1983a). The moth and the star. Retrieved from
http://www.fiftytwostories.com/?p=1295.
Thurber, J. (1983b). The seal who became famous. Retrieved
from http://lingualeo.ru/jungle/99560.
Van den Broek, P., Tzeng, Y., Risden, K., Trabasso, T., &
Basche, P. (2001). Inferential questioning: Effects on
comprehension of narrative texts as a function of grade
and timing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 521–
529.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Westera, J., & Moore, D.W. (1995) Reciprocal teaching of
reading comprehension in a New Zealand high school,
Psychology in the Schools, 32(3), 225-232.
Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2005). Overview and a conceptual
framework for discussions. Retrieved January 20, 2013,
from www. quickreads. org.
Wilkinson, I.A.G., & Son, E.H. (2011). A dialogical turn in
research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M.L.
Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp.359–387). New
York: Routledge.
Wu, S.-Y., & Rubin, D. L. (2000). Evaluating the impact of
collectivism and individualism on argumentative writing
by Chinese and North American college students. Research
in the Teaching of English, 35, 148-178.
Zeidner, M. & Bensoussan, M. (1988). College students’
attitudes towards written versus oral tests of English as
a Foreign Language. Language Testing, 5(1), 100–114.