本研究主旨在於探討台灣國中學生在做答閱讀測驗考試之表現及其策略使用上之成效。研究對象為二百八十二位國中三年級學生，依據閱讀測驗分數結果分為高分組和低分組。本研究所使用之閱讀測驗是依照基測模擬試題編製而成，在難度上屬於中偏易。在完成閱讀測驗測後，二百八十二位學生填寫做答策略使用調查問卷後，本研究分析學生在理解題幹，理解選項和選擇正確選項時常使用的做答策略及學生對於做答時的後設認知。此外，本研究亦探討高低分組的做答策略差異。
本研究的主要發現如下：
(1) 為了理解題幹，本研究大部分的學生依賴單字、文法和句型結構的知識;回到文章尋
找相關資訊和花費比較多的時間在困難的題幹上也是本研究大部分學生常使用的做答
策略。比較高低分組學生問卷結果顯示，這些選項皆呈現出顯著差異。本研究大部分的學生亦採用翻譯來理解題幹，但高低分組學生問卷結果顯示，翻譯策略並未呈現顯著差異。相對於翻譯，本研究大部分的學生並未採用釋意來理解題幹，但在高低分組學生問卷結果顯示，釋意策略卻呈現出顯著差異。
(2) 為了理解選項意思，本研究大部分的學生最常使用的做答策略依次為回到文章尋找相關資訊，花費比較多的時間在困難的選項上及透過文法和先備知識協助選擇選項。比較高低分組學生問卷結果顯示，這些選項皆呈現出顯著差異。本研究大部分的學生並未採用釋意來理解選項，但高低分組學生問卷結果顯示，釋策略卻呈現出顯著差異。
(3) 為了選擇正確答案的選項，刪除選項為常見的作答策略。依據文法、句型結構和先備知識，本研究大部份學生會刪除重複及不合理的選項。對於困難的選項，他們會延後處理並回到文章尋找相關資訊。這些選項之使用在高低分組皆呈現出顯著差異。為了選擇正確答案的選項，本研究大部分的學生亦會採用他們先備知識，但高低分組學生問卷結果顯示，此策略卻未呈現出顯著差異。此外，當對答案不確定時，高分組的學生會專注在不熟悉的選項，試圖去理解它。
(4) 在閱讀測驗的做答過程中，本研究大部份的學生會注意答題的進度和檢查答案的確定性。在做答完畢後，大部份的學生都可以理解文章的大意。高低分組的學生在這些選項皆呈現出顯著差異。此外，高分群的學生在做答前會先計畫自己的做答方式，也比低分群的同學更清楚自己的做答策略為何。
依據研究結果，本研究建議英文教師課堂上教授常用的閱讀測驗做答策略。藉由這些做答策略的練習，能協助學生在答題時調整自己的做答方式。而高低分群的做答策略差異，也值得討論並讓低成就學生熟習高成就學生使用的策略。

關鍵詞:台灣中學生，閱讀測驗，做答策略

This study aims to investigate adolescent EFL learners’ use of test-taking strategies on the reading comprehension test and the differences between students of high and low English proficiency levels in their use of test-taking strategies. Two hundred eighty twos students who enrolled in eight third-year classes in a junior high school in Taipei participated in this study. The students were asked to take a reading comprehension exam first. After the test, they were divided into high, mid and low groups. The researcher conducted a survey to examine the use of test-taking strategies of 89 high and 37 low students when reading question stems and choosing options. Furthermore, the participants’ awareness of the test-taking strategies was also surveyed in the questionnaire. The major findings of this study are summarized as follows:
(1) To understand question stems, most of the participants in this study relied on their linguistic and structural knowledge. Going back to the text and spending more time on difficult questions were frequently adopted by the participants in this study as well. Between high and low level proficiency readers, significant differences were found on these test-taking strategies mentioned above. In order to understand the stems, translation skill was also widely adopted by most of the participants in this study, but it showed no significant difference between high and low level groups. As for the paraphrase skill, it was not widely adopted by most of the participants in this study when they tried to understand stems. However, comparing the participants of high and low level groups, it showed significant difference on the test-taking strategy of paraphrase.
(2) To understand options, the test-taking strategies that were often and always used were “going back to the text,” “spending more time on difficult options,” “making use of grammar knowledge,” and “selecting options through background knowledge.” Between high and low level proficiency readers, significant differences were found on these test-taking strategies mentioned above. The paraphrase skill was not widely adopted by most of the participants in this study when they tried to understand options. However, comparing the participants of high and low level groups, it showed significant difference on the paraphrase skill.
(3) To choose the correct options, the test-taking strategy of elimination was widely adopted by the participants in this study. Based on lexical, sentential, and structural knowledge as well as background knowledge, the participants eliminated the overlapping or unreasonable options to help themselves make the decision on options. When encountering difficulties, they postponed choosing options and went on with the test. Going back to the text also played an important role on option decision. Significant differences were found on these test-taking strategies mentioned above between high and low level proficiency readers. For most of the participants in this study, background knowledge had an impact on choosing options. However, comparing the participants of high and low level groups, it showed no significant difference on the test-taking strategy of background knowledge. Moreover, more high proficiency participants than the low proficiency participants focused on unfamiliar options when they tried to choose options
(4) During the exam, most of the participants checked their own progress and the accuracy of the chosen answers. After the exam, most of them knew the main idea of the passage. Significant differences were found on these test-taking strategies mentioned above between high and low level proficiency readers. Moreover, the high-proficiency participants had plans in mind before the test and were more aware of the strategies they used.
From the findings, it is suggested that EFL teachers introduced the frequently used test-taking strategies to the students. Practicing these test-taking strategies might be able to help students adjust themselves. The differences in their use of test-taking strategies between high and low level groups can be compared and discussed in the instruction so that the low English proficiency students can benefit from their expert test-takers.
Key words: EFL learners, Reading Comprehension, Test-taking strategies

Alderson, J.C. (2002). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allan, A. (1992). Development and validation of a scale to measure test-wiseness in reading
test-takers. Language Testing, 9(2), 101-122.
Anderson, N., Bachman, L., Perkins, K., & Cohen, A. (1991). An exploratory study into the
construct validity of a reading comprehension test: Triangulation of data sources.
Language Testing, 8(1),41-66
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and
testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4),460-472
Bachman,L. F. (1985). Performance on cloze test: Triangulation of data sources. Language
Testing, 8, 41-66
Bachman,L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxgord, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Bachman,L. F., & Cohen,A.D. (Eds.). (1998). Interfaces between second language acquisition
and language testing research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),
Handbook of reading re search (pp. 353-394).
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984b). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In J. Flood (Ed.),
Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, language, and the structure of prose
(pp.21-44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984b). Metacognitive skills and reading. In D.P. Pearson (ED.),
Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Barnett, M.A. (1988) Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2
comprehension. Modern Language journal 72, 150-160.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern
Language Journal, 65,24-35
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly,
20, 463-494.
Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 Readers. TESOL
Quarterly, 26, 319-343
Brown, J. D. (1983). A closer look at cloze: Validity and reliability. In J. W. Oller (ed.), Issues in
language testing research (pp. 237-250). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Brown, J. D. (1984). A cloze is a cloze is a cloze? In J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem & B. P. Taylor
(Eds.), On TESOL ’83: The question of control: Selected papers from the Seventeenth
Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Toronto,
Canada, March 15-20, 1983 (pp. 109-119). Washington, D.C.: TESOL Publications.
- 56 -
Brown, J. D. (1986). Cloze procedure: A tool for teaching reading. TESOL Newsletter, XX(5),
1-7.
Brown, J. D. (1988). Tailored cloze: Improved with classical item analysis techniques. Language
Testing, 5(1), 19-31.
Brown, A., & DeLoache, J. S. (1978). Skills, plans and self-regulation. In R. Siegler (Ed.),
Children's thinking: What develops? (pp. 3-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence, Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 479-487.
Carrell, P. L. (1984). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly,
18 (3), 441-467.
Carrell, P. L. (1985) Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19
(4), 727-752.
Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language
Journal, 73, 121-134.
Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL
reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (4), 647-678.
Carrell, P. L. (1991) Strategic reading. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table
on Languages and Linguistics 1991: Linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the
art (pp. 167-178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Chamot, A.U., & Kupper.L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign
Language Annals, 22, 13-24.
Cheng, Hsiao-Ying (2008). The Effects of Test-taking Strategy Instruction on EFL Learners'
Performance on Cloze Tests - A Case Study of Low Achievers in a Vocational High
School
Cohen, A. D. (1984). On taking language tests: What the students report. Language Testing, 1(1),
70-81.
Cohen, A. D. (1994). Assessing language ability in the classroom (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
Cohen, A. D.(1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York: Longman.
Cohen, A. D. (2006). The coming of age of research on test-taking strategies. Language
Assessment Quarterly, 3(4), 307-331.
Cohen, A. D.& Upton, T. A. (2006). Strategies in responding to the new TOEFL reading tasks
(Monograph No.33). Princeton, NJ: ETS. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-06-06.pdf
Dechant, Emerald.(1991). Understanding and teaching reading: An interactive model. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 522 pages. 0805808248. Location: Dallas SIL Library 372.41
D293u.
Devine, J. (1984). ESL readers’ internalized models of the reading process. TESOL’ 83, 95-108
- 57 -
Devine, J.(1987). General language competence and adult second language reading
in research on reading English as a second language, J. Devine, P.L. Carell and D.E.
Eskey (Eds.). Washington, D.C.: TESOL
Eskey, D. E.(1973). A model program for teaching advance reading to students of English as a
foreign language. Language Learning, 23, 169-189.
Eskey, D.E.(1988). "Holding in the Bottom: an Interactive Approach to the Language Problems
of Second Language Readers," in Carrell, P.L., Devine, J. and Eskey, D.E. (eds) (1988)
Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge:CUP.
Eskey, D.E. and Grabe, W. (1988). "Interactive Models for Second Language Reading:
Perspectives on Instruction," in Carrell, P.L., Devine, J. and Eskey, D.E. (eds) (1988)
Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: CUP.
Flavell, J. L. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The
nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hallsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flavell, J.H. & Wellman, H.M. (1977). Metamemory. In R.V. Kail & J.W. Hagen (Eds.),
Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ; Ablex.
Garner, R., & Alexander P. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions.
Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 143-158.
Goodman, K. S. (1971). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. In Pimsleur, P. &
Quinn, T. (Eds.) The psychology of second language learning (pp. 135-142). Cambridge:
University Press.
Goodman, K. S. (1975). "The Reading Process," in Carrell, P.L., Devine, J. and Eskey, D.E. (eds)
(1988) Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge: CUP.
Grabe, W. (1991) Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly
25, 159-167.
GloverJ. A. & Bruning, R. H. (1987). "Educational psychology". Boston, MA: Little, Brown &
Company.
Gordon, C. (1987). The effect of testing method on achievement in reading comprehension tests
in English as a foreign language. Unpublished master’s thesis, School of Education,
Tel-Aviv University.
Hacker, D.J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C.
Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1-23).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Helfeldt, J. P., &Henk, W.A.(1990). Reciprocal question-answer relationships: an instructional
technique for at-risk readers. Journal of Reading, 34, 509-514.
Homburg, T. J., & Spaan, M. C. (1981). ESL reading proficiency assessment:
Testing strategies. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL ’81 (pp.
- 58 -
25-33). Washington, DC: TESOL Publications.
Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of
successful and nonsuccessful second language learners. System, 5, 110-23.
Hosenfeld, C. (1984). Case studies of ninth grade readers. In C. Alderson and
Urquhart, A.H. (eds). Reading in a Foreign Language. London: Longman. pp.231-244
Hsiao-Ying Cheng, (2008) The Effects of Test-taking Strategy Instruction on EFL Learners'
Performance on Cloze Tests - A Case Study of Low Achievers in a Vocational High School
Jacobs, J.E. & Paris, S.G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition,
measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist 22 (3&4), 255-278
Klein- Braley, C. (1983). A cloze is a question. In J. W. Oller (ed.), Issues in language
testing research. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Klein- Braley, C. (1997). C-Tests in the context of reduced redundancy testing: An appraisal.
Language Testing, 14(1), 47-84.
Kluwe, R.H.(1982). “Cognitive knolwedge and executive control: Metacognition”, in D.R.
Griffin (Ed.). Animal Mind-Human Mind:201-224. New York:Springer-Verlag
Kuo, W. C. (2003). Differences in processing tactics on cloze tests between successful and less
successful readers: a case study. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal
University.
Long, M, (1991) Teaching literature, Longman
McCombs, B. L.(1987). Self regulated learning and academic achievement: a phenomenological
view. In B. J. Eimwerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement (pp. 51-82). New York: Springer-Verlag.
McNeil, J. D. (1987). Metacognition in reading comprehension. Reading comprehension: New
directions for classroom practice (pp. 91-105). IL: Glenvien.
Myers, M.,& Paris, S.G. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knolwedge about reading. Journal of
Educational Psychology,70, 680-690.
Nevo N. (1989). Test-taking strategies on a multiple-choice test of reading comprehension.
Language Testing, 6(2), 199-215.
Nikolov, M. (2006). Test-taking strategies of 12- and 13-yesr-old Hungarian Learners of EFL:
Why whales have migraines. Language Learning, 56(1), 1-51.
Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle
Publishers.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Küpper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985).
Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning,
35(1), 21-45.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1988). How to teach learning strategies. In A. U. Chamot, J.
M. O’Malley & L. Küpper (Eds.), The cognitive academic language learning approach
- 59 -
training manual (pp. 121-122). Arlington, VA: Second Language Learning.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Padrón, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1988). The effect of ESL students' perceptions of their
cognitive reading strategies on reading achievement. TESOL Quarterly, 22,146-150
Padrón, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1999). Effective instructional practices for English language
learners. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), New directions for
teachig practice and research (pp.171-203). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use
to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26-56.
Purpura, J.E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test
performance with high- and low-ability test-takers: A structural equation modeling
approach. Language Testing, 15(3), 333-379.
Purpura, J.E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language test: A structural
equation modeling approach. In Milanovis, M. (Ed.), Studies in language testing 8.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us.TESOL Quarterly, 9(1),41-51.
Sarig, G. (1987). High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: Some comparative
process data. In: J. Devine, P. Carrel, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English
as a second language (pp. 105-120). Washington D.C.: TESOL.
Sheorey, R. & K. Mokhtari (2001). “Coping with academic materials: differences in the reading
strategies of native and non-native readers.” System 29: 431-449.
Smith, H.(1967). The responses of good and poor readers when asked to read for different
purposes. Reading Research Quarterly 3, 53-83.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in
the development of reading fluency.Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
Strang,R.,& Rogers,C.(1965). How do students read a short story? English Journal (54).
Tsai, Yi-chun, (2009). EFL Learners’ Test-taking Strategy Uses in Reading Comprehension
Questions--A Study on High School Students in Southern Taiwan
Wenden, A. (1986). Helping language learner think about their learning. ELT journal,40(1),3-12