本文旨在探討如何藉由第一語或第二語的讀前素材，增進台灣大學生的英語專業領域閱讀理解，研究對象為300名就讀公私立大學主修英文之學生，並以政治學專業知識為施測的素材。為了探討知識程度與英文閱讀程度高低的學生能否受惠於讀前閱讀，所有參與的學生必須完成由政治專業領域專家設計的學科內容知識測驗與全民英檢之閱讀測驗，再依此二分數將學生分成三組，一組學生實施第一語的讀前閱讀素材輔助，另一組學生接受第二語的讀前閱讀素材輔助，最後一組學生為控制組。三組學生皆必須完成專業領域文章閱讀並填答測驗問題。爾後學生根據一份開放性問卷，回應對於不同語言讀前教材的觀感以及對語言的偏好，同時說明他們在閱讀學術英語文章時語言能力與專業知識的運用狀況。
透過綜合化量化與質化的研究方法，研究者先採用變異數分析，比較中英文的讀前輔助、政治專業程度高低和英語程度高低等因素，對學生專業閱讀測驗的成績影響，先以量化統計數據呈現學生的實際表現，再分析開放性調查問卷描述的觀點，探討學生對於不同語言的閱讀輔助，以及閱讀時所使用的英語和專業知識。
統計結果顯示，分配到實驗組的兩組的學生，顯著表現得比控制組為佳，然而接受中文與英文閱讀輔助兩組之間並沒有顯著差異；另外，統計數據亦顯示，學科背景知識與英文能力對閱讀理解有顯著的影響，具有高學科知識或高英文閱讀能力的學生，對於專業英語閱讀理解的表現較佳。
另一方面，質性分析結果顯示，大部分學生認為中文與英文的讀前輔助，對於閱讀理解所造成的影響不同。就讀前的準備階段來說，大學生普遍認為，以中文提供新知比英文更符合閱讀習慣，也認為中文書寫的資料比英文對於理解專業文章更有幫助，其中尤其以英文程度低的學生，更加認為中文的功效大於英文；相較之下，英文程度高的學生並無特別偏愛中文。研究結果顯示量化研究與質化研究的結果不盡相同。而就探討英文程度和學科背景知識對於閱讀專業文章的貢獻來說，參與者普遍認為，專業知識與語言程度兩種因素可以決定英語專業領域文章閱讀理解的成敗，其中之一的知識體系可以彌補另一知識體系的缺失。
實務教學方面，就統計數據來說，中英文的輔助效果可相提並論，因此就專業閱讀的目的來說，應該鼓勵大學生設法讀懂學術英語文章。然而質性分析驗證了母語心理層面的優勢不該被忽略，英文專業閱讀應適時以中文輔助。本文發現增進專業知識或增加英語程度，皆可幫助專業英語閱讀的理解，因此學生應精進專業或提升英文程度以改善學術英文閱讀。根據本文發現，作者建議將第二語的學習融入專業學科的學習，另外也建議學科專業教師與語言教師合作教學。再者，針對英語程度較低的大學生，教師有必要增加學生閱讀的自信心，以降低閱讀英文的焦慮。

This research initiated an investigation of the effects between the pre-reading inputs from L1 (Chinese) and L2 (English) to clarify how L2 domain-specific reading comprehension for EFL university students could be improved. The participants were 300 university students majoring in English in public or private universities in Taiwan. The materials used were from the specific domain of political science. Focusing on how students of high/low content knowledge in political science and of high/low English reading proficiency might benefit from this intervention, the study recruited the participants to complete two tests: a content knowledge test designed by the field experts and a reading proficiency test from the GEPT reading section. The participants were divided into three pre-reading treatment groups: one read L1, another read L2 pre-reading material, while the other served as a control group. All three groups read a domain-specific article and answered comprehension questions. An open-ended survey questionnaire was then administered to illicit students’ perceptions toward the effects of and preference for pre-reading inputs in different languages, and how they perceived the importance of linguistic and content knowledge in domain-specific academic reading.
This study adopted a mixed-method approach, and the statistical results of the participants’ actual performances on academic reading were presented first. Analysis of Variance was used to detect the influence of pre-reading treatments, content knowledge levels, and English reading proficiency on the performance of domain-specific reading comprehension. Qualitatively, an open-ended survey questionnaire was designed to collect the students’ self-reported perceptions toward the effects of, and preference over, pre-reading support in different languages, and also how students utilized content knowledge and reading proficiency.
The statistical analysis revealed that the experimental groups performed significantly better than the control group. However, the statistical comparison of the effects between L1 and L2 pre-reading support showed no significant difference on their performances of domain-specific reading comprehension. Also, both content knowledge and L2 reading proficiency exhibited an apparent influence on the results of academic reading comprehension: with more content knowledge or higher L2 reading proficiency, the students performed better.
The qualitative analyses found that most students considered that pre-reading support in different languages had differential effects on their academic reading comprehension. Feeling more comfortable about acquiring new information in the first language than the second, they rated Chinese to be more beneficial in the pre-reading stage to have helped them understand academic reading text in L2. It was also discovered that the participants with lower L2 proficiency preferred L1 more than L2, while higher proficiency participants showed less preference for L1. These findings were at odds with the quantitative analysis. With regards to the perceived contributions of English proficiency and content knowledge to domain-specific reading, the results demonstrated that the participants believed these two factors might have determined the success of their L2 academic reading comprehension, and one knowledge base could have compensated for the lack of the other.
Pedagogically, the results showed that the participants could benefit from two language sources equally. University students should be encouraged to work out the meanings of English academic readings. Also, due attention should be given to the psychological merits of L1, as English domain-specific reading could be improved by providing students with L1 support alongside L2 reading. In addition, it is clearly beneficial to increase students’ L2 proficiency and enhance their knowledge acquisition in content areas to facilitate academic reading. The present study suggests that L2 reading could be integrated into domain-specific instruction, and the teamwork between educational practitioners of content and language teachers in ESP courses should be considered. For readers with lower English proficiency, teachers need to boost their confidence toward L2 reading and lowering their anxiety in reading.

REFERENCES
Alba, J., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93, 203- 231.
Alderson, C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem. In C. Alderson, & A. H. Urquuhart (Eds.), Reading in foreign language (pp.114-141). London: Longman
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: CUP.
Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. H (1985).The effect of students' academic discipline on their performance on ESP reading tests. Language Testing, 2, 192-204.
Alderson, J.C., & Urquhart, A.H. (1988). This test is unfair: I'm not an economist. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp.168-182). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP essentials: A teacher’s guide to principles and practice. Reading: Garnet.
Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 373-404.
Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M. & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-mater knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64, 201-252.
Al-Shumaimeri, Y. A. N. (2006). The effects of content familiarity and language ability on reading comprehension performance of low-and high-ability Saudi tertiary students studying English as a foreign language. King Saud University, Educational Sciences & Islamic Studies, 18(2), 1-19.
Anderson, R.C. (1978). Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. In A. Lesgold, J. Pellegrino, S. Fokkema, & R. Glaser (eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction (pp. 37-55). New York, NY: Plenum.

Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
Anderson, R. C. (1985). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning and memory. In H. Singer, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp.372-384). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, D. P. (1998). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 37-55). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1-12.
Anderson, R. C., Pichert, J. W., & Shirey, L. L. (1983). Effects of the reader’s schema at different points in time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 271–279.
Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Anderson, M. C. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding for the representation of information in connected discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 15 (3), 433-440.
Anderson, T. H. (1980). Study strategies and adjunct aids. In R. I. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, linguistics, and education (pp. 483-502). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anton, M., & Decamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314-342.
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource? ETL Journal, 41, 241–247
Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32.
Ausubel , D. P. (1961). In defense of verbal learning. Educational Theory. 11, 15-24.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bartlett, F. C. (1932/reissued 1995). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bean, T. W. (1997). Preservice teachers’ selection and use of content area literacy strategies. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(3), 154-169.
Bernhardt, E. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bernhardt, E. B. & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16, 15-34.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133-150.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. New York: Routledge.
Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137–164.
Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1987). OE versus MC response formats-It does make a difference for diagnostic purposes. Applied Psychological measurement, 11, 385-395.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463-494.
Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 319-343.
Braine, G. (ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brandao, A. C. P., & Oakhill, J. (2005). “How do you know this answer?”
Brandford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigation of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 711-726.
Brown, C. (1992). International relations theory: New normative approaches. New York: Columbia University Press.
Children’s use of text data and general knowledge in story comprehension. Reading and Writing, 18, 687–713.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
Campion, M. E. & Elley, W. B. (1971). An academic vocabulary list. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Carpini, D .& Keeter, S. (1993). Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1179-1206.
Carpini, D. & Keeter, S. (1991). Stability and change in the U.S. public’s knowledge of politics. Public Opinion Quarterly, 583-612.
Carrell, P.L. & Eisterhold, J.C. (1983). Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy. In P.L. Carrell , J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 73-92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning, 33, 183-207.
Carrell, P. L. (1984a). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 441-469.
Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 461-81.
Carrell, P. L. (1988). Interactive text processing: Implications for ESL and second language classrooms. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading (pp. 239-259). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.
Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12, 159-179.
Carrell, P. L.(1984b). Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension. Language Learning, 34, 87-112.
Carroll, J. B., & Maxwell, S. E. (1979). Individual differences in cognitive abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 603–640.
Carter, R. (1988). Vocabulary, cloze and discourse: An applied linguistics view. In R. Carter, & M. McCarthy (Eds.) Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 161-180). New York: Longman.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classroom: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, H.C. & Graves, M. F. (1995). Effects of previewing and providing background knowledge on Taiwanese college students’ comprehension of American short stories. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 663–686.
Clapham, C. (1996). The Development of IELTS: A study of the effect of background knowledge on reading comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clarke, M. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading--or when language competence interferes with reading performance. The Modern Language Journal, 64 (2), 203-209.
Colina, A., & Garcia, M. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. IRAL, 47(3/4), 325-345.
Cook, G. W. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, L. K. & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Reading strategy training for meaningful learning from prose. In M. Pressley, & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications (pp. 87- 126). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557-591.
Cook, V. J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Review, 57 (3), 402-423.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-251.
Cummins, J. (1980). The construct of language proficiency in bilingual education. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.). Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2005). Teaching for cross-language transfer in dual language education: Possibilities and pitfalls. TESOL Symposium on Dual Language Education, Bogazici University, Turkey, September 23.
Cziko, G. A. (1978). Difference in first and second language reading; the use of syntactic, semantic and discourse constraints. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 473-489.
De Groot, A. M. B., & Nas, G. L. (1991). Lexical representationof cognates and non-cognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90–123.
Diakidoy, I. N., Stylianou, P., Karefillidou, C., & Papageorgiou, P. (2004). The relationship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of text at increasing grade levels. Reading Psychology, 26, 55–80.
Dornyei, Z. & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing language for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. (1998). Developments in ESP: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunne, T., Kurki, M. & Smith, S. (2010). International relations theory: Discipline and diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunston, P. J. (1992). A critique of graphic organizer research. Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 57-65.
Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader-text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 515–528.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 9-24.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elly, W. B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19 (1), 53-67.
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245.
Eskey, D. E. (1986). Theoretical foundations. In F. Dubin, D.E. Eskey, & W. Grabe (Eds.), Teaching second language reading for academic purposes (pp. 2-23). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Eskey, D. E. (1988). Holding in the bottom: An interactive approach to the language problems of second language readers. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 93-100). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Eysenck, M. (1979). Anxiety, learning and memory: A reconceptualization. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 363-385.
Ferguson, G. (2003). Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts: functions, attitudes and policies. AILA Review, 16, 28-51.
Ferris, D. R. (2001). Teaching writing for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 298-314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language reading instruction in the United States: A research review. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27,115-149.
Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001a). The EAP curriculum: Issues, methods, and challenges. In J. Flowerdew, & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp.177-194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001b). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forget, M. (2004). MAX teaching with reading & writing: Classroom activities for helping students learn new subject matter while acquiring literacy skills. Victoria, BC: Trafford.
Gee, T. C., & Rakow, S. J. (1987). Content reading specialists evaluate teaching practices. Journal of Reading, 31, 234-237.
Gernsbacher, M. (1995). The structure building framework: What it is, what it might also be, and why. In Britton, B.K., & Graesser, A.C. (Eds.), Models of text understanding (pp. 289-311). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Gillet, A. & Wray, L. (2006). EAP and success. In Gillet, A. & Wray, L. (Eds.) Assessing the effectiveness of EAP programmes. London: BALEAP.
Glenberg, A. M., Meyer, M., & Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 69-83.
Goff, D. A., Pratt, C., & Ong, B. (2005). The relations between children’ s reading comprehension, working memory, language skills and components of reading decoding in a normal sample. Reading and Writing, 18, 583–616.
Goodman, K. (1970). Reading as a psycholinguistic guessing game. In H. Singer, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp.497-508). Newark, N.J.: International Reading Association.
Goodman, K. S. (1998). In defense of good teaching: What teachers need to know about the “reading wars.” York, ME: Stenhouse.
Gordon, C. M. (1987). The effect of testing method on achievement in reading comprehension tests in English as a foreign language. MA thesis. School of Education, Tel Aviv University.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavanagh, & I. G. Mattingley (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye (pp. 331–358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Graves, M. F., Cooke, C. L., & Laberge, M. J. (1983). Effects of previewing difficult short stories on low ability junior high school students' comprehension, recall, and attitudes. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 262-276.
Hauptman, P. C. (2000). Some hypotheses on the nature of difficulty and ease in second language reading: an application of schema theory. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 622–631.
Herber, H. (1978). Teaching reading in the content areas. (2nd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Heywood, A. (2000). Key concepts in politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heywood, A. (2002). Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holley, C., Dansereau, D., McDonald, B., Garland, J., & Collins, W. (1979). Evaluation of hierarchical mapping techniques as an aid to prose processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 227-237.
Horiba, Y. (1990). Narrative comprehension processes: A study of native and non-native readers of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 74 (2),188-202.
Horiba, Y. (1996). Comprehension processes in L2 reading: Language competence, textual coherence, and inferences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (4), 433-473.
Huang, S. C. (2004). Effects of attention-oriented pre-reading materials on situational EAP reading motivation and analysis of learner preference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate Institute of English, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Huang, S. C., Cheng, Y. S., & Chern, C. L. (2006). Pre-reading materials from subject matter texts – Learner choices and the underlying learner characteristics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 193-206.
Hudson, T. (1982).The effects of induced schemata on the short Circuit in L2 Reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.) (1988), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: CUP.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity Revisited: How Far Should We Go? English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385-395.
Iyengar, S. (1990). Shortcuts to political knowledge: The role of selective attention and accessibility. In John A. F., & James H. K. (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 160-185). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Jennings, M. K. (1996). Political knowledge over time and across generations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 228-252.
John, T., & Davies, F. (1983).Text as a vehicle for information: the classroom use of written texts in teaching reading in a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 1(1), 1-19.
Johns, A. M. & Dudley-Evans, T. (1991). English for specific purposes: International in scope, specific in purpose. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 297-314.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Johnson-Laird, P. W. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jonson, P. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 503-516.
Jordan, R. R. (1980). Looking for information. London: Longman.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.
Katz, S., Lautenschlager, G. J., Blackburn, A. B., & Harris, F. H. (1990). Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT. Psychological Science, 1, 122-127
Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 441-461.
Kintsch W. & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris, & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Current issues in reading comprehension and assessment (pp.71-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction- integration model. Psychological Review, 92, 163-182.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Knight, T. (1996). Learning vocabulary through shared speaking tasks. The Language Teacher, 20, 24-29.
Kobayashi, M. (2002). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: text organization and response format. Language Testing, 19, 193-220
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57, 1-44.
Koh, M. Y. (1985). The role of prior knowledge in reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign language, 3, 275-380.
Krekeler, C. (2006). Language for special academic purposes (LSAP) testing: the effect of background knowledge revisited. Language Testing, 23(1), 99-130.
Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In De Groot, A.M. B. & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: psycholinguistic perspectives(pp.169–99). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149-174.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Lambert, R. D. et al. (1988). The social source of political knowledge. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 2, 359-374.
Lantolf, J. (2000).Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79-96.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd edition). NY: Oxford.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Lee, J. W., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713-739.
Lee, S. (2009). Citizens’ local political knowledge and the role of media access, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 809-826.
Levine, G.S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 343-364.
Lightbown, P. (1991). What have we here? Some observations of the influence of instruction on L2 Learning. In R. Phillipson, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research (pp.197-212). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lin, T. J., & Wang, S.H. (2007). Changes and sources of political knowledge in Taiwan. Soochow Journal of Social and Political Sciences, 25(3), 93-129.
Lin, Y. H., & Chern, C. L. (2014). The effects of background knowledge and L2 reading proficiency on Taiwanese university students' summarization performance. Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly, 22(4), 149-186.
Liu, J.Y., Chang, Y.J., Yang, F.Y., & Sun, Y.C. (2011). Is what I need what I want? Re-conceptualizing college students’ needs in English courses for general and specific/academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 271-280.
Luiten, J., Ames, W., & Ackerson, G. (1980). A meta-analysis of effects of advance organizers on learning and retention. American Educational Research Journal, 17(2), 211-218.
Luskin, R. C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 856-899.
Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12, 331–361.
Manhart, J. J. (1996). Factor analytic method for determining whether multiple-choice and constructed response tests measure the same construct. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
Manzo, A., Manzo, U., & Estes, T. (2001). Content area literacy: Interactive teaching for active learning (3rd edition). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Manzo, U., Manzo, A. V., & Thomas, M. M. (2009). Content area literacy: A framework for reading-based instruction.(5th edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Marr, M. B. , & Gormley, K. (1982). Children's recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 89-104.
Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Master, P. (2005). Research in English for specific purposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.99-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19,30-42.
Mayer, R. E. (1994). Visual aids to knowledge construction. In W. Schontz & R. W. Kulhavy (Eds.), Comprehension of Graphics (pp.120-134). North-Holland: Elsevier Science B. V.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Nation, I. S. P. & Coxhead, A. (2001). The specialised vocabulary of English for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purpose(pp.252-267). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (1986). Vocabulary lists: Words, affixes and stems. Victoria University of Wellington: English Language Institute, Occasional Publication, No.12.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). Enhancing the interpretation of “significant” findings: The role of mixed methods research. The Qualitative Report, 9(4), 770-792.
O’Reilly, T. & MaNamara, D. S. (2007). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional high-stakes measures of high school students' science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 161-196.
Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 399-438.
Pavlenko, A. & Lantolf, J. (2000) Second language learning as participation and the (re) construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.),Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155-177).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson. D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Pearson, P. D., Garavaglia, D., Lycke, K., Roberts, E., Danridge, J., & Hamm, D. (1999). The impact of item format on the depth of students’ cognitive engagement. Washington, DC: Technical Report, American Institute for Research.
Perfetti, C. A., Liu, Y., Fiez, J., Nelson, J., Bolger, D. J., & Tan, L.H. (2007). Reading in two writing systems: Accommodation and Assimilation in the brain's reading network. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(2), 131-146.
Popkin.S., Gorman, J., Phillips, C., & Smith. J. (1976). Comment: What have you done for me lately? Toward an investment theory of voting. American Political Science Review, 70, 779-805.
Potter, M. C., So, K., Eckardt, V., & Feldman, L. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 23-38.
Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258-284.
Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, J. S., & Morgan, R. F. (2003). Reading to learn in the content areas. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Ringler, L. H., & Weber, C. K. (1984). A language thinking approach to reading. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Ink.
Robinson, J. P. (1972). Mass communication and information diffusion. In F. G. Kline, & P. J. Tichenor (Eds.,),Current perspectives in mass communication research, (pp.71-93). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Rolin-Ianziti&Varshney, (2008). Students’ views regarding the use of the first language: An exploratory study in a tertiary context maximizing target language use, The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(2): 249-273.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1969). Towards a transactional theory of reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1, 31-49.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell, & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and processes of reading (pp. 1363-1398). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Roever C& Pan Y. (2008). GEPT: General English Proficiency Test: Test Review. Language Testing. 25, 403-408.
Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (1994). Reading as a meaning-construction process: The reader, the text and the teacher. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.),Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1462-1521). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ruiz-Funes, M. T. (2002). On teaching foreign languages: Linking theory to practice. Westport, CT.: Bergin & Garvey.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In: R. J. Spiro et al. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rumelhart, D. E. (2004). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. B. Ruddell, & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp.1149-1179). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp.99-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sadoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E.T. (1991). A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 463-484.
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E., & Garza, T. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 83, 202-218.
Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning for academic achievement? TESOL Quarterly, 18, 199-219.
Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C. (1994). The effects of topic familiarity on second language listening comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 78, 179-189.
Schneider, W., Körkel, J., & Weinert, F. E. (1989). Domain-specific knowledge and memory performance: A comparison of high- and low-aptitude children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 306–312.
Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 1, 147-170.
Singer, M., Harkness, D., & Stewart, S. T. (1997). Constructing inferences in expository text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 24, 199–203.
Smith, F. (1982). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (3rd edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
Sridhar, K & Shridhar. S. (1986). Bridging the paradigm gap: second language acquisition theory and indigenized varieties of English.” World Englishes, 5(1), 3-14.
Stanovich, K. (1980). Towards an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 10–29.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. London: Oxford.
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37, 760-770.
Swaffar, J. K. (1988). Readers, texts, and second languages: The interactive processes. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 123-149.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235–253). MA: Newbury House, Rowley.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251-274.
Taglieber, L. K., Johnson, L. L., & Yarbrough, D. B. (1988). Effects of prereading activities on EFL reading by Brazilian college students. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 455-472.
Tudor, I. (1988). A comparative study of the effect of two pre-reading formats on L2 reading comprehension. RELC, 19(2),71-86.
Tudor, I. (1989). Pre-reading: A categorization of formats. System, 17, 323-338.
Tudor, I. (1990). Pre-reading format and learner proficiency level in L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 13(2), 93–106.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but ….The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 531-540.
Upton, T. A. (1997). First and second language use in reading comprehension strategies of Japanese ESL students. TESL-EJ: Assessing the Metacognitive Growth of ESL Student Writers, 3(1), 22.
Urquhart, A. H., & Weir, C. J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. London: Longman.
Vacca, R., & Vacca, J. (1999). Content area reading. New York: Longman.
Vacca, R., & Vacca, J. A. L. (2005). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (8th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Vaughan, J.L., and Estes, T. H. (1986). Reading and Reasoning Beyond the Primary Grades. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Vygotsky, L (1987). The collected works of L.S Vygotsky. Thinking and Speaking. NY: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace. M. (1980). Study skills in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, R. (1991). Linguistic diversity and reading in American society. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp.97-119). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Widdowson, H. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford:Oxford university Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, E. (1984). Reading in the language classroom. London: Macmillan.
Williams, E. (1987). Classroom reading through activating content-based schemata.Reading in a Foreign Language, 4, 1-7.
Wu, J. R. W., & Wu, R. Y. F. (2010). Relating the GEPT reading comprehension tests to the CEFR. Studies in Language Testing, 33, 204-224.
Wu, R. Y. F. (2011). Establishing the validity of the General English Proficiency Test reading component through a critical evaluation on alignment with the Common European Framework of Reference. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Bedfordshire.
Yamashita, J (2001). Transfer of L1 reading ability to L2 reading: Anelaboration of the linguistic threshold, studies in language and culture. The Journal of Nagoya University Graduate School of Languages and Cultures,23(1), 189– 200.
Yamashita, J. (2002). Mutual compensation between L1 reading and L2 language proficiency in L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 80-94.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. In James C., & Huckin T. (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp.5-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zuck, L. V., & Zuck, J. G. (1984). The main idea:Specialist and non-specialist judgments. In A. K. Pugh, & J. M. Ulijn (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes (pp. 130-95). London: Heinemann.