本研究旨在探討國小英語教師幫助學生思考學習之教學策略及信念。研究主題如下：（一）國小英語教師對於幫助學生思考學習所採用的教學策略；（二）國小英語教師教學策略使用的過程；（三）國小英語教師使用其教學策略的主要信念。
本研究主要採用探索型(exploratory case study)和解釋型(explanatory case study)個案研究。參與本研究的主要對象為兩位台灣國小英語教師。資料收集的方式主要為訪談和教室觀察，期間為九十六年八月底至十月中。研究者在徵得兩位教師的同意後，隨即開始進行訪談和教室觀察。包含其中一位教師五個小時的訪談及十個小時的教室觀察；另一位教師一個半小時的訪談及九個小時的教室觀察。訪談資料以錄音的方式保存並逐字轉記為文字；教室觀察資料以錄影的方式保存並擷取相關片段轉記為文字。資料分析主要採取持續比較分析法(constant comparative method)和樣板式分析法(template approach)。過程包括先採用持續比較分析法將教學策略的型態從收集的語料中加以標記並分類，並歸納兩位教師對於使用教學策略幫助學生思考學習的主要信念；另輔以Gallimore and Tharp (1990)所提出的六大教學策略作為分類的樣板，以檢視教學策略的歸納是否有所遺漏。
本研究獲致之主要發現如下:（一）兩位教師認為學生的思考學習主要分為三類：注意力、記憶、批判性思考；（二）兩位教師採用不同的教學策略來幫助學生的思考學習；（三）兩位教師對於思考學習的信念在其教學策略的使用上扮演很重要的角色，學生的思考學習也因此有所差異。
本研究的主要發現和維果斯基的「最近發展區」及「鷹架作用」的概念相符合，參與研究之教師認為教師之引導及協助在幫助學生學習第二語言時扮演相當重要的角色。以下發現與本研究之預期相符合:（一）在兩位教師的教學策略裡可以發現，其中有部份吻合前述文獻中所提及之教師幫助學生思考學習之教學策略；（二）教師信念對於其教學策略的使用有相當程度之影響。
本研究之非預期發現如下:（一）對本研究其中一位教師而言，思考學習有階段性之分；（二）針對教師在幫助學生批判性思考所扮演的角色，兩位教師持有不同見解；（三）兩位教師並沒有察覺學生在思考學習上可能是主動的；（四）兩位教師皆著重在加強學生的單字記憶力而非引導學生的批判性思考。
本研究對於日後國小英語教學的應用如下:（一）國小英語教師須意識到學生的批判性思考可能需要老師的引導；（二）國小英語教師須意識到老師須循序漸進的引導似乎可以幫助學生的批判性思考；（三）培育英語師資時應提供如何幫助學生思考學習的相關課程，此外，應教導實習教師學習如何幫助學生融入於思考學習。
相關後續研究之建議如下:（一）可持續探究教師信念對於其教學策略的影響；（二）將學生的觀點納入考量以分辨教學策略對於幫助學生思考學習的成效；（三）將家長的觀點納入考量以研究家長意見對於教學策略的影響性。

This study aimed to investigate elementary school EFL teachers’ use of scaffolding strategies for enhancing EFL students’ cognitive engagement, and to examine whether the teachers’ beliefs correspond to their strategy use. The three main focuses of the study included: 1) the types of scaffolding strategies used by elementary English teachers to enhance EFL students’ cognitive engagement; 2) the processes of using these scaffolding strategies; 3) the teachers’ beliefs in using these scaffolding strategies.
The present study utilized an exploratory-explanatory case study design. Two elementary English teachers participated in this study. Data were collected from interviews and classroom observations during late-August to mid-October 2007. The researcher carried out all the interviews and classroom observations after she got the two teachers’ permission to participate in this study. Five hours of interviews and eleven hours of classroom observations were collected from one teacher, while one and a half hours of interviews and nine hours of classroom observations were collected from the other. The interview data were audio-taped and then transcribed word by word. The classroom observation data were video-taped, and the useful parts were transcribed word by word. The researcher adopted constant comparative method and the template approach for data analysis. The process of data analysis with the use of constant comparative method included categorizing the types of scaffolding strategies from the collected data and analyzing the two elementary English teachers’ beliefs of using scaffolding strategies. In addition, Gallimore and Tharp’s (1990) six teaching strategies were used as a template to confirm that there was no missing code in the data analysis process.
The three major findings of this study are as the following: 1) the two elementary English teachers in this study believed that cognitive engagement is classified into three categories: attention, memory, and critical thinking; 2) the two elementary English teachers in this study used scaffolding strategies in different ways to help students achieve different categories of cognitive engagement; 3) the two elementary English teachers’ different beliefs of cognitive engagement played an important role in their use of scaffolding strategies, and they guided students to achieve different levels of cognitive engagement in class based on their beliefs.
The findings of the present study, in general, respond to EFL teachers’ perceptions of ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978) and scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Rose, 1976) which pointed out the importance of teacher’s role in assisting students’ second language learning. The expected findings discussed are as the following: 1) similar scaffolding strategies for enhancing students’ cognitive engagement found in the present study were recognized in previous studies; 2) teachers’ beliefs played an important role in teachers’ use of scaffolding strategies.
Unexpected, or interesting findings discussed are as the following: 1) one teacher in the present study believed that cognitive engagement was a sequential concept; 2) the two teachers in the present study showed different perceptions of the role of EFL teacher in initiating students’ critical thinking; 3) The two teachers in the present study were not aware that students could be active listeners or learners in class; 4) The two teachers in the present study put more emphasis on students’ memory of vocabulary and sentences than on critical thinking.
Three pedagogical implications are suggested in this study: 1) Elementary English teachers need to be aware that critical thinking of some students’ might need assistance from teachers; 2) elementary English teachers need to be aware that step-by-step assistance is more likely to help students achieve critical thinking; 3) teacher education should provide related courses about cognitive engagement, and practice teachers should learn how to assist students in engaging cognitively in English class.
Finally, this study suggests three directions for further research: 1) the future study should investigate on teachers’ beliefs or perspectives on using scaffolding strategies in class; 2) the future study should take students’ perspectives into account to identify the effectiveness of scaffolding strategies in enhancing EFL students’ cognitive engagement; 3) the future study should take parents’ expectation or perceptions of English teaching into account to investigate how parents’ expectations and feedback influence teachers’ scaffolding strategies.

ABSTRACT iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
LISTS OF TABLES x
LISTS OF FIGURES xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Terminologies 2
1.3 Needs for the Study 3
1.4 Purpose of the Study 5
1.5 Significance of the Study 6
1.6 Overview of the Study 6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Socio-cultural Theory and Second Language Learning 7
2.1.1 Zone of Proximal Development 7
2.1.2 Scaffolding 9
2.2 Empirical Research of Scaffolding 11
2.2.1 Scaffolding in General Education 11
2.2.1.1 Scaffolding Used in Reading Lessons 11
2.2.1.2 Scaffolding Used in Computer-Mediated Lessons 12
2.2.2.1 Instructional Conversations 14
2.2.2.1.1 Asking Questions 15
2.2.2.1.2 Giving Feedback 18
2.2.3 Teacher’s Belief and Goals for Scaffolding Second Language Learning 21
2.3 Summary 22
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 25
3.1 Overview 25
3.2 Research Questions 25
3.3 Participants 26
3.4 Data Collection 29
3.5 Data Collection Procedures 30
3.5.1 Interviews 31
3.5.2 Observations 32
3.6 Data Analysis 34
3.7 Trustworthiness 36
3.8 Summary 37
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS 39
4.1 Scaffolding Strategies for Enhancing EFL Students’ Cognitive Engagement 39
4.2 Process of Using Scaffolding Strategies 45
4.3 Teacher Beliefs of Using Scaffolding Strategies for Enhancing Students’ Cognitive Engagement 77
4.4 Discussions 111
4.5 Summary 118
CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 121
5.1 Summary of the Study 121
5.2 Limitations of the Study 124
5.3 Pedagogical Implications 126
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research 127
5.5 Conclusion 128
REFERENCES 130
APPENDIX 1: Timetable of Interviews and Observations 144
APPENDIX 2: First Interview Questions 146
APPENDIX 3: Follow-up Interview Questions 147
APPENDIX 4: Consent Form to Participants 148
APPENDIX 4: Consent Form to Participants 149
APPENDIX 5: Consent Form to Parents 150
APPENDIX 6: A Letter to Parents 151
APPENDIX 7: Worksheet in Amy’s Class 152
APPENDIX 8: Worksheet in Amy’s Class 153
APPENDIX 9: Sample Field Notes of Classroom Observation 154
APPENDIX 10: Sample Field Notes of Interview 155
APPENDIX 11: Sample Transcript of Classroom Observation 156
APPENDIX 12: Sample Transcript of Interview 158

Almarza, G. (1996). Student foreign language teacher’ knowledge growth. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 50-78). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the Passé Composé and the Imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 226-243.
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1996). Reconciling content acquisition and language acquisition in bilingual classrooms. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17, 2-4.
Barnes, D. (1975). Language, the learner and the School. Aylesbury: Hazell Watson and Viney.
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52 (1), 1-42.
Britan, G. (1978). Experimental and contextual models of program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 1, 229–234.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman.
Bruner, J. 1978. The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R., J. Jarvelle & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The Child's Concept of Language (pp. 148-73). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bruner, J. (1984). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: The hidden agenda. In B. Rogoff & James Wertsch (Eds.), Children learning in the zone of proximal development (pp. 93-97). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Calfee, R.C., & Patrick, C.L. (1995). Teach our children well: Bringing K-12 education into the 21st century. Stanford, CA: Stanford Alumni Association.
Cavalier, J. C., & Klein, J. D. (1998). Effects of cooperative versus individual learning and orientating activities during computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 461, 5–17.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Chance, P. (1986). Thinking in the classroom: A survey of programs. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8 (13), 1-10.
Chaudron, C. (1986). Teachers's priorities in correcting learners' errors in French immersion classes. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 64-84). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Chaudron, C. (1987). The role of error correction in second language teaching. In B. K. Das (Ed.), Patterns in classroom interaction in Southeast Asia (pp. 17-50). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chun, A. E., Day, R. R., Chenoweth, N. A., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors, interaction, and correction: A study of native-nonnative conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 537-547.
Cullen, R. (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal, 52(3), 179-187.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). A template approach to text analysis: developing and using codebooks. In B.F. Crabtree., & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing Qualitative Research (pp. 93-109). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
De Guerrero, M.C.M. (1996). Krashen’s i + 1 and Vygotsky’s ZPD: Really two very different notions. TESOL-GRAM (The Official Newsletter of Puerto Rico TESOL), 23, 9.
De Guerrero M. C. M. & Villamil O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (3), 273-284.
Doughty, C. J. (1994). Fine-turning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Strategic interaction and language acquisition: theory, practice, and research (pp. 96-108). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (1993). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Dunn, W. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and Krashen’s i+1: Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411-442.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers' beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32 (1), 54-72.
Flick, U. (2006). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Forman, E. A., McCormick, D. E., & Donato, R. (1993, March). The social and institutional context of learning mathematics: An ethnography study of classroom discourse. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.
Fraenkel, J. P., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. G. (1990). Teaching mind and society: A theory of education and schooling. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford, Blackwell.
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003) Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 511, 21–38.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Research design. In R. C. Bogdan & S. K. Biklen (3th ed.). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (pp. 66-68). Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
Goldenberg, C. (1991). Instructional Conversations and Their Classroom Application. (Educational Practice Report 2). Santa Cruz, CA: The National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 34 1-253).
Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 43, 249–279.
Graves, M. F., & Avery, P. G. (1997). Scaffolding Students' Reading of History. Social Studies , 88(3), 134-138.
Greene, B. & Land, S. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the world wide web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 232, 151–179.
Gutierrez, K. D. (1994). How talk, context, and script sharp contexts for learning: a cross-case comparison of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education, 5, 335-365.
Guerra, C. (1996). Krashen’s i + 1 issue revisited from a Vygotskian perspective. TESOL-GRAM (The Official Newsletter of Puerto Rico TESOL), 23, 7-8.
Han, Z-H. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 582-599.
Han, Z-H. (2002). A study of impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543-572.
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hussin, H. (2006). Dimensions of questioning: A Qualitative study of current classroom practice in Malaysia. Journal of Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 10 (2), 1-18.
Ho, D. G. E. (2005). Why do teachers ask questions they ask? RELC Journal, 36(3), 297-310.
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47-63. Retrieved February 25, 1998, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v9n1/pdf/hoepfl.pdf
Hsu, W. H. (2001). How classroom questioning influences second language acquisition. PhD thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Jasper M (1994) Issues of phenomenology for researchers of nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1 (9), 309-314.
Jensen, E., & Vinther, T. (2003). Exact repetition as input enhancement in second language assessment. Language Learning, 53(3), 373-428.
Johnson, K.E. (1992). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 83-108.
Johnson, K. E (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Klein, J. D. & Pridemore, D. R. (1994). Effects of orienting activities and practice on
achievement, continuing motivation and student behaviors in a co-operative
learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 424,
41–54.
Kinginger, C. (2001). i + 1≠ ZPD. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 417-425.
Kinginger, C. (2002). Defining the zone of proximal development proximal development in US foreign language education. Applied Linguistics, 23, 240-261.
Kramsch, C. (1992). Contexts de comprehension. In R. J. Courchene, J. I. Glidden, J. St. John, & C. Therien (Eds.), Comprehension-based second language teaching (pp. 63-76). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kublin, K. S., Wetherby, A. M., Crais, E. R., & Prizant, B. M. (1998). Prelinguistic dynamic assessment: A transactional perspective. In A. M. Wetherby, S. F. Warren, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic communication (pp. 285-312). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 483, 61–78.
Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Sociocultural theory and L2 learning: An exegesis. In E. Hinkel. (Ed.), Handbook of second language research (pp. 335-354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. VanPatten & J. Willams. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 197-221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lee, Y. A. (2006). Respecifying display questions: interactional resources for language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (4), 691-713.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25 (1), 37-63.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. (Rev. Ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lin X. & Lehman J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 367, 837–858.
Lin, C. C. (2001). EFL teachers’ perceptions of networked-based language teaching. In L. Hsien-Chin & C. Reung-Fu (Eds.), Language research and English teaching challenges and solutions (pp. 127-148). Taipei: Cranes Publishing Company.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.
Long, M. H. (1981). Questions in foreign talk discourse. Language Learning, 31, 135-157.
Long, M., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268-286). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-80.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 33-66.
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35-66.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversation interaction and second language development: Recasts, response and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356.
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Martin, P. (1990). The Pattern of Language Communication in Brunei Darussalam and its pedagogical ’Implications. In V. Bickley (Ed.), Language use, language teaching and the curriculum (pp. 175-85). Hong Kong: Education Department.
Martinez, C. (2000). Constructing meaning: A study of a teacher’s educational beliefs and literacy practices in a first grade bilingual classroom. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(11), 4265A. (UMI No. 9993004).
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522-525.
Mastrini-McAteer, M. L. (1997). Teacher beliefs and practices as they relate to reading instruction and student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(12), 4601A. (UMI No. 9817730).
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCormick, D., & Donato, R. (2000). Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom. In J. Hall & L. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 183–202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McLellan, J.A.H., & Chua-Wong, P. S. H. (1996). A study of negotiation for
meaning in language and content lessons in Brunei Darussalam. Paper presented
at Centre for British Teachers Conference on ‘English across the curriculum’,
Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam, August 1996.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1984) Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. New York: Sage.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2th ed.). New York: Sage.
Mollica, A. (1994). Planning for successful teaching: The lesson outline. Mosaic, 2, 13-15.
Moll, L.C. (1992). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Morris, F. (2002). Learner-learner interaction in the Spanish foreign language classroom: The effects of recasts and negotiation on L2 development. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction with a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617-673.
Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student's second language learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43-62.
Nunan, D. (1991) Language teaching methodology. New York: Prentice Hall.
Nunn, R. (1999). The purpose of language teachers’ questions. Interactional Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 23-34.
Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.
Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. (2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 942, 75–92.
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child EFL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519-533.
Oskoz, A., & Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (2001). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and teacher beliefs: A pilot study. In X. Bonch-Bruevich, W. J. Crawford, J. Hellermann, C. Higgins, & H. Nguyen (Eds.), The past, present, and future of second language research (pp. 209–228). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, J. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 11 (pp. 815-860). New York: Longman.
Ping, L. C., & Swe, K. M. (2004). Engaging junior college students in computer-mediated lessons using scaffolding strategies. Journal of Educational Media, 29 (2), 97-112.
Richard-Amato, P. A. (1983). ESL in Colorado’s Jefferson county schools. In J. Oller, Jr. & P. Richard-Amato (Eds.), Methods that work (pp. 393-413). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Robert, M. A. (1995). Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. In Schmidt, R. W., (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Roehler, L. R., & Cantlon, D. J. (1997) Scaffolding: a powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning (pp. 6-42). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing “no”: the relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 47, 547-583.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. & Steinbach, R. (1984) Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8, 173–190.
Schinke-Llano, L. (1993). On the value of a Vygotskian framework for SLA theory and research. Language Learning, 43, 121-129.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300.
Smith, D. (1996). Teacher decision making in the adult ESL classroom. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 197-216). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Spradley, J. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt.
Stake, R. (1994). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 86-109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991). The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning in social activity. Research Report: 2, National Center of Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Retrieved on December 7, 2004 from, http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/cnrcdsll/rr2.htm.
Tharp, R.G., & Yamauchi, L.A. (1994). Effective instructional conversation in Native American classrooms (Educational Practice Report No. 10). Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge, Public Opinion Quarterly, 34,159-170.
Tucker, R. A., Jr. (2001). Beliefs and practices of teachers of English as a foreign language in Guiyang China middle schools. Dissertation Abstracts International,
62 (03), 886A. (UMI No. 3010126).
van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wells, G. (1996). Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(2), 74-101.
Wertsch, J.V. (1979). The regulation of human action and the given-new organization of private speech. In G. Ziven (ed.), The Development of self-regulation through private speech (pp. 79–98). New York: J. Wiley and Sons.
Wertch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325-340.
Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In Willis, J., & Willis, D. (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 52-62). Oxford: Heinemann.
Wong, E. D. (1991). Beyond the question/nonquestion alternative in classroom discourse. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1), 159-162.
Wood, P., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17, 89-10.
Wu, K. Y. (1993). Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. RELC, Journal, 24(2), 49-67.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Zaidah, Z. (2003). An investigation into the effects of discipline-specific knowledge, proficiency and genre on reading comprehension and strategies of Malaysia ESP Students. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Reading.
林靜宜 (民92)。「國小英語教學現況民意調查」分析報告。臺北中華民國全國教師會。
江美香（民94）。苗栗縣國小英語教學現況調查研究。國立臺東大學教育研究所碩士論文。