本研究旨在探究附加問題類型(統整性問題及事實性問題)及附加問題位置(讀文章時及讀文章後)對以英文為外語之高中生閱讀回憶總量及閱讀回憶層次 以及其感受的附加問題支援度的影響。
六十二位十二年級生參與此研究。他們閱讀兩種主題的文章(海豚及動物測 試),回答兩種不同的問題類型—統整性問題及事實性問題,兩種問題類型分別 放置於兩種不同的問題位置—相關段落之後及全文後。將主題、問題類型及問題 位置平衡次序後,學生被指派進行八種實驗情形之其中一種。資料搜集一共進行 兩次。每次搜集資料時,學生閱讀兩篇文章之其中一篇,伴隨一種問題類型,問 題放置於兩種問題位置的其中一種;閱讀後,他們填寫一份問卷,調查對文本的 感受,包含熟悉程度、難易程度和有趣程度,以及調查對附加問題有效程度的感 受,包含附加問題對於協助記憶文本、理解文本架構和理解文本主旨的有效程 度;休息十分鐘後,學生回憶文本內容。兩次資料搜集都遵循相同的流程。資料 分析方面,回憶的資料以加權換氣式分析法進行分析。按照訊息的重要程度,換 氣單位被評予 1 至 4 分的加權分數,分數被換算為百分比後進行分析。
以文章主題、問題類型及問題位置作為自變數,變異數分析回憶總量百分 比、四層次的回憶百分比及對文本的感受後有許多發現。首先,雖然問題類型及 問題位置對於回憶總量和一至四層次訊息的回憶皆無顯著影響,卻發現主題有影 響。在回憶總量和第一、二、四層次訊息的回憶方面,閱讀海豚文章的學生回憶 都較閱讀動物測試文章的學生少,並且學生認為海豚文章明顯比動物測試文章困 難。第二,對較簡單的動物測試文章而言,統整性問題促進第四層次訊息的回憶, 而對於較困難的海豚文章而言,事實性問題提升第四層次訊息的回憶。第三,對 統整性問題而言,放置於全文後的問題比放置於相關段落之後的問題導致更多第 二層次訊息的回憶;相反地,對事實性問題而言,放置於相關段落之後的問題提 升較多第二層次訊息的回憶。最後,對附加問題有效程度的感受方面,以問題類型及問題位置為自變數的變異數分析顯示學生認為讀文章時回答的問題比文本後的問題較能幫助他們理解文本架構。
這些發現顯示,以增強文本較高層次訊息的記憶來說,在較簡單的文本中, 統整性問題可能比事實性問題更有效。這些發現也顯示,以增加文本低層次訊息 的記憶而言,全數置於文本後的統整性問題較有效果。最重要的是,要使學習者 達到最大程度的閱讀理解,難度適當的閱讀素材是必要的條件。

The study investigates the effects of adjunct question type, integrative questions versus factual questions, and adjunct question position, during-reading versus post-reading, on EFL learners’ reading comprehension as indicated by the amount and the level of information recalled.
Sixty-two twelfth graders participated in this study. They read two texts on two different topics (Dolphin and Animal Testing), responding to two different question types placed at two different question positions. With topic, question type, and question position counter-balanced, the students were assigned to one of the eight treatment conditions. Data collection consisted of two sessions. In each session, the students read one of the two texts, accompanied by one type of questions placed in one of the two question positions. After reading, they filled out a questionnaire on text perceptions of familiarity, difficulty, and interest, and on the perceptions of the question feasibility in terms of text memory, understanding of text structure, and understanding of text main idea. After ten-minute break, they produced their recall of the text content. The same procedure was followed in both sessions. For data analysis, recall data were coded using weighted pausal unit system, with pausal units weighted from 1 to 4 points based on the importance of the information, which were computed into percentage for analysis.
With text topic, question type, and question position as the independent variables, ANOVA analyses on percentage of total and 4 component recalls and on text perceptions reveal several findings. First of all, albeit neither question type nor question position made a significant difference on the students’ total recall and recall of four levels, topic was found to have an effect. The students reading Dolphin Text produced consistently less recall than those reading Animal Text for total recall and recall of level one, two, and four, and the students rated Dolphin Text as significantly more difficult than Animal Text. Secondly, for the easier Animal Text, integrative questions boosted more recall of level four ideas, while for the more difficult Dolphin Text, factual questions enhanced more recall of level four ideas. Thirdly, for integrative questions, post reading questions resulted in more recall of level two ideas than during reading questions; on the contrary, for factual questions, during reading questions enhanced more recall of level two ideas. Finally, on perceptions of the feasibility of adjunct questions, ANOVA analysis, with question type and question position as the independent variables, shows the students considered during-reading questions better assisted their understanding of text structure than post-reading questions.
The findings indicate that in terms of reinforcing recall of higher-level text information, integrative questions may be a more effective textual support than factual questions for easier texts. The findings also suggest that in terms of increasing recall of lower-level text information, integrative questions placed altogether at the end of text are more effective. Above all, reading materials of appropriate difficulty are essential for learners to achieve maximal reading comprehension.

Al-sheri, S., & Gitsaki, C. (2010). Online reading: A preliminary study of the
impact of integrated and split-attention formats on L2 students’ cognitive
load. ReCALL, 22, 356–375. doi:10.1017/S0958344010000212
Anderson, R. C. (1972). How to construct achievement tests to assess
comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 42, 145-170.
Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate
productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 280-318
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Assessing second language reading comprehension. In
Reading Development in a Second Language: Theoretical, Empirical, and
Classroom Perspectives (pp.191-219). New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. New
York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Brantmeier, C., Callender, A., McDaniel, M. (2011). The effects of embedded and
elaborative interrogation questions on L2 reading comprehension. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 23, 187-207.
Brantmeier, C., Callender, A., McDaniel, M., & Yu, X. (2012). Textual
enhancements and comprehension with adult readers of English in China.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 24, 158-185.
Carrell, P. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL
Quarterly, 19, 727-752.
Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Gilabert, R., & Gil, L. (2009). Impact of
question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension.
Learning and Instruction, 19, 13-27. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.12.003
Chu, H. J., & Hsu, J. H. (2000). Constructing a textbase: Macrostrategy training
and recall. Studies in English Literature & Linguistics, 26, 151-170.
Dornisch, M. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2004). Elaborative questions in web-based
text materials. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31, 49-59.
Glengerg, A. M., & Langston, W. E. (1992). Comprehension of illustrated text:
Pcitures help to build mental models. Journal of Memory and Langauge, 31,
129-151.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theories to
Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Graff, M. (2003). Assessing learning from hypertext: An individual differences
perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14, 425–438.
Halford, G. (1993). Children's Understanding: Development of Mental Models.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Halpain, D. R., Glover, J. A., & Harvey, A. L. (1985). Differential effects of higher
and lower order questions: Attention hypotheses. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77, 703–715.
Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review
of Educational Research, 56, 212-242.
Hung, H. C. M. (2007) Reducing extraneous cognitive load by using integrated
format in reading comprehension for EFL/ESL. In: C. Gitsaki (Ed.), Language
and Languages: Global and Local Tensions (pp.130-146). Newcastle, UK:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Johnson, R. (1970). Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of
linguistic units. Journal of Verbal Learning and Linguistic Behavior, 9, 12-20.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Peverly, S. T., & Wood, R. (2001). The effects of adjunct questions and feedback
on improving the reading comprehension skills of learning-disabled
adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology 26, 25–43. doi:
10.1006/ceps.1999.1025
Pillay, H. K. (1994). Cognitive load and mental rotation: Structuring orthographic
projection for learning and problem solving. Instructional Science, 22, 91-113.
Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are
superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87, 455-467.
Rouet, J.-F., Vidal-Abarca, E., Erboul, A. B., & Millogo, V. (2001). Effects of
information search tasks on the comprehension of instructional text. Discourse
Processes, 31, 163-186. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3102_03
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual
differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly,
16, 32-71.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.
Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional
design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
Taylor, B. M., Peterson, D. S., Pearson, P. D., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). Looking
inside classrooms: Reflecting on the "how" as well as the "what" in effective
reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 56, 270-279.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment
in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
Whilite, S. C. (1985). Differential effects of high-level and low-level postpassage
questions. American Journal of Psychology, 98, 41–58.
Winn, W., Li, T. Z., & Schill, D. (1991). Diagrams as aids to problem solving: Their
role to outlines in facilitating search and computation. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 39, 17-29.
Wu, H. (2006). The Effects of Comic Strip and the Sequencing of Its Presentation
on the Reading Recall and Inference Generation of EFL Junior High Students in
Taiwan. Master Thesis. National Normal University.
Wu, S. D. (2013). The Effects of QtA on EFL Senior High School Students’ Reading
Comprehension and Written Response. Master Thesis. National Normal University.