The Study of 6th Grade Students’ Performance on Metacognitive Knowledge of Reading Strategies Inventory in History Text and its Correlation with Reading Comprehension and Reading Motivation

• Main Authors: Chi-Hsuan Weng, 翁啟軒
• Other Authors: Huan-Wen Chen
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2007
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/66878724772912445915

碩士 === 國立臺南大學 === 測驗統計研究所 === 95 === The main purpose of this study is to develop the Metacognitive Knowledge of Reading Strategies Inventory in History Text, abbreviated as MKRSIHT in the following, and investigate whether MKRSIHT is an important predictor of the performance on Reading Comprehension Test in History Text, after taking into account the factor of reading motivation. In addition, this study also investigated whether MKRSIHT and Reading Learning Approach have interaction effect on performance on Reading Comprehension Test in History Text. The three testing instruments “MKRSIHT”, “Reading Comprehension Test in History Text”, and “Reading Learning Approach Scale” were administered to 6th students in this research, and the sample size amounts to 379 people. The research data was analyzed using ITEMAN, SPSS and AMOS, and the statistical methods used were CTT item analysis, path analysis, ANOVA, Chi-Square testing, and multiple regression. The main findings are reported in the following: 1. The Pearson correlation of MKRSIHT with Reading Comprehension Test in History Text is higher than that of MKRSIHT and with scores on language, mathematics, and social studies. The Cronbachα coefficient of MKRSIHT is .66, the P average of MKRSIHT is .54, and the rpb average of MKRSIHT is .37. 2. MKRSIHT and Reading Learning Approach have no interaction effect on the Reading Comprehension Test in Historical Text. 3. MKRSIHT can explain 33% of the variation of Reading Comprehension Test in History Text. The performance of high ability students on Reading Comprehension Test in History Text is much better than that of the middle and lower ability students. 4. Reading Learning Approach can only explain 2% of the variation of MKRSIHT. Only the performance of master type students on MKRSIHT is better than that of performance type students. 5. The master type students performed better than the performance type ones on two reading strategies, namely, “cause and effect relationships” and “summary”. 6. In terms of unique contribution to accounting for the variance of MKRSIHT after taking into account of the contribution of the other variables, among the ten background variables predicting the performance on MKRSIHT, “subscription of newspaper”, ”magazine reading”, ”availability of computer at home”, ” availability of encyclopaedia”, and ”comfortable reading environments” are the top five ones.