Illuminating Thinking in Post-Reading Online Discussion by University EFL Learners

討論閱讀文本能促進讀者對文本的深層理解；然而，對以英語為外語的閱讀者來說，以英語口語進行討論並同時構思有其難度。若改以線上書寫討論或能降低其難度，因為線上的文字記錄可幫助相互的理解，書寫表達可展延構思的時間，有利思考。本研究旨在描繪並比較兩班修習不同課程的學生在線上討論時接續思考的過程。參與者為28位修習大一英文（FE）以及16位修習互動式英文閱讀課程（IER）的學生。前者為大一新生，後者大多數為大三及大四學生。他們在上過一個閱讀單元後作一節課的小組線上討論。討論文本經質性與量化分析後發現IER學生的討論較FE學生的討論繁複；他們在線上討論所書寫的句子與每則的發文的長度均遠勝於FE學生，同時他們所產出的討論文本其難度較FE的文本高。此外，IER學生的討論運用較多頻率及較多類型的思考。在八種思考類型中，兩班學生均很少使用的類型為比較，問題解決，及通論。IER學生使用影響多於原因而FE學生使用原因多於影響。這些思考類型的相關發現可作為研發英文教材及教法的參考，以提升大學生思考力。

關鍵字

線上討論；思考類型；英語學習者

並列摘要

Discussion is instrumental in promoting deeper understanding of texts. Yet, for EFL readers, oral discussion may pose difficulties when generating deliberate thoughts. It is therefore proposed that online discussion, with its written input and extenuated time for output, could be an alternative to mediate thinking for EFL learners. This study was thus conducted to profile and compare the chaining of thoughts by two cohorts of varied English proficiency levels in online postreading discussion. Twenty-eight university students taking a general English course, Freshman English (FE), and sixteen students, mostly juniors and seniors, taking an elective course, Interactive English Reading (IER), engaged in small-group discussion after instruction on a reading unit. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the discussion texts revealed a higher degree of complexity in IER discussion than in FE discussion. IER discussion texts contained longer sentences, longer turns, and thus a higher text difficulty than FE texts. Moreover, analyses of thinking type indicated a higher frequency and greater variety of thinking types in IER discussion than in FE discussion. Specifically, the rare use of ＂comparison＂, ＂solution＂, and ＂generalization＂ by both cohorts and the varied pattern in the employment of ＂effect＂ and ＂cause＂ between cohorts speak to a potential direction in EFL instruction and material development for fostering thinking at the tertiary level.

並列關鍵字

online discussion ； types of thinking ； EFL learners

參考文獻

Anderson, L. W.(Ed.),Krathwohl, D. R.(Ed.)(2001).A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives.New York, NY:Longman.