文本分析校準閱讀策略教學之研究

Research on Text Analysis to Calibrate Reading Strategy Instruction

文本分析是閱讀理解與閱讀教學的第一步，研究者反思師資生缺乏文本分析及策略教學能力，進行文本分析校準閱讀策略教學模式之行動研究，檢視此一教學模式對師資生文本分析及閱讀教學的學習歷程與學習成效之影響。以40位師資生為對象，運用「what－how－why」三層次文本分析扣連課文本位閱讀策略，進行為期17週的三階段行動研究。結果顯示，在學習歷程方面，師資生初始對文本分析茫然無措，透過課前預習思考、課堂探究演練、課後作業複習及師生會談，逐漸精熟文本分析及閱讀策略教學設計。在學習成果方面，相較於前測，師資生的文本分析知能後測有顯著提升。比對三個教學循環的作業成績及回饋、晤談資料，本教學模式可提升師資生文本分析校準閱讀策略教學知能與表現。期末試教的三方評分及質性回饋顯示，教學能提升師資生的閱讀理解教學實踐表現。研究結果顯示，本教學模式適用於師資培育，是可提升師資生文本分析校準閱讀策略教學的有效模式，也能精進研究者的教學專業知能。研究的啟發如下：導入翻轉學習的預習監控機制建構自學力，課堂教學及課後複習培養閱讀探究力。而依評分量尺進行三方評分與回饋，讓學生能連結課程、教學與評量，並引導師資生學習及反思的方向。

Research Motivation and Objective

Text analysis is the first step in reading comprehension and reading instruction. It not only demonstrates teachers’ professional competence in reading instruction but also directly influences students’ levels of comprehension and their ability to learn independently through reading. In classroom practice, researchers have found that preservice teachers need to cultivate their abilities in text analysis and reading strategy instruction－an area that has rarely been addressed in teacher education and empirical research. Therefore, this action research on deepening text analysis and reading strategy instruction aims to explore the learning processes and outcomes of preservice teachers within a calibrated instructional model for reading strategies based on text analysis, as well as the reflections and professional growth of the instructors during the research process.

Literature Review

Text analysis involves breaking down the text to observe how its parts are integrated, and interpreting and analyzing meaning from different perspectives (Chen, 2006; Kintsch, 1988). Reading instruction grounded in text analysis can guide students from recognizing surface codes such as vocabulary and syntax, to understanding text-base model and meanings between the lines, and further to connecting prior knowledge, deeply interpreting the author’s intent and implied messages, and inferring to construct new situation model of mental representation. This process fosters higher-level reading comprehension and equips students with transferable literacy skills.

Buckingham (2003) divided text analysis into three stages: description, interpretation, and evaluation. Hsu (2015) pointed out that text analysis involves two aspects: the core content and the writing form. He summarized text analysis into three steps: first, understanding “what” is written; second, analyzing “how” it is written; and third, exploring “why” the author wrote it this way. Reading comprehension is a process of seeking meaning through thought, and instruction in reading strategies should align with both the reading process and the stages of cognitive development.

A synthesis of the literature identifies reading strategies including: decoding, vocabulary, prediction, text structure, summarization, inference, questioning, and comprehension monitoring. Based on this, the researcher proposed a three-level instructional model for calibrated text analysis: 1. What - grasping the main content and modes of expression in the text, including vocabulary, key points, and genre. 2. How - designing reading strategy instruction based on text structure (narrative/story, expository, argumentative) and writing techniques (rhetoric, syntax, metaphor), incorporating strategies such as vocabulary, prediction, summarization, text structure, and questioning. 3. Why - exploring the author’s purpose and message, connecting with life experiences and personal insights, and applying critical thinking to examine and evaluate the content, form, and meaning.

Research Method

This study targeted 40 preservice teachers, employing the “what–how– why” three-level text analysis framework integrated with curriculum-based reading strategies to construct a calibrated instructional model. Primary school Mandarin texts were used as the main materials, aligned with the 2019 Mandarin curriculum guidelines and literacy issues. The model combined text analysis with reading strategy instruction, employing flipped learning, explicit instruction with gradual release of responsibility, and cooperative learning in the design of teaching activities.

The action research lasted 17 weeks across three instructional cycles, each structured as “pre-class preparation – in-class exploration and practice – postclass review.” A mixed-methods approach was used: quantitative data included text analysis questionnaires, scores from pre-class preparation and post-class assignments, and microteaching evaluations; qualitative data included teacher– student group discussions, teaching feedback, and one-on-one interviews with both teachers and students.

Results

During the instruction process, the teacher continuously identified students’ learning difficulties through classroom performance, assignments, feedback, and self-reflection, thus making timely adjustments: In addition to sharing exemplary work from the first cycle, the teacher added targeted reviews in the second cycle to address recurring misconceptions and learning blind spots. In the third cycle, rubrics for microteaching were announced before practice, serving as scaffolds that clarified evaluation standards and the direction to guide students’ learning. More practice was added on analyzing the structures of narratives and argumentative texts.

During the teaching process, preservice teachers felt confused about text analysis. Through pre-class preparation, in-class exploration, post-class reviews, and discussions, they gradually became proficient in both text analysis and the design of reading strategy instruction.

In terms of learning outcomes, compared to pretests, preservice teachers’ posttest results showed significant improvement in text analysis knowledge. A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant differences among the three dimensions, with “why” significantly higher than “what” and “how,” and “what” higher than “how.” The lowest scores in “how” indicated room for improvement in transforming text analysis into reading strategy instruction. Across three instructional cycles, assignment scores (except for Pre-study 5) showed a steady upward trend. Students reported that comprehensive “what–how–why” text analysis improved their ability to calibrate reading strategies. Triangulated evaluations and qualitative feedback from final microteaching confirmed that the model enhanced preservice teachers’ practice in reading comprehension instruction.

Discussion and Recommendations

Findings show that the calibrated instructional model of text analysis and reading strategies is suitable for teacher education. It effectively enhances preservice teachers’ competence in text analysis, reading strategy design, and reading comprehension instruction, while also advancing instructors’ professional expertise.

Based on the results, the study suggests that reading courses in teacher education begin with text analysis as the first step of reading instruction. Using primary school texts as the main teaching material, teacher educators should adopt the “what–how–why” problem–solution framework to guide inquiry into text content, writing techniques, text structures, and the author’s purpose. Following the sequence of “pre-class preparation – in-class exploration and practice – post-class review,” preservice teachers can strengthen comprehension and develop independent text analysis skills, supported by scaffolding from both instructors and peers.

Given the lowest scores in “how,” it is recommended that teacher education programs integrate teaching practicums, enabling preservice teachers to apply reading instruction in real classrooms and better understand learners’ perception. This would strengthen their ability to translate text analysis into strategy instruction.

Additionally, instructors can refine their teaching practices by: 1. Providing more feedback and assignment reviews to clarify misconceptions. 2. Introducing rubrics not only for microteaching but also for assignments, to guide learning directions. 3. Implementing differentiated instruction according to preservice teachers’ abilities and attitudes. Future research could extend this model to in-service teachers across subject areas in primary schools, to examine the model’s effectiveness in enhancing teachers’ knowledge and practice of reading instruction.