Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/58883| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 吳政達<br>郭昭佑 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | 蕭英全 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Hsiao, Ying Chuan | en_US |
| dc.creator | 蕭英全 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator | Hsiao, Ying Chuan | en_US |
| dc.date | 2012 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-07-11T10:23:12Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2013-07-11T10:23:12Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2013-07-11T10:23:12Z | - |
| dc.identifier | G0099911010 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/58883 | - |
| dc.description | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 學校行政碩士在職專班 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 99911010 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 101 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究旨在分析「國中基測國文科試題閱讀試題」與「PISA, PIRLS, NAEP等閱讀理解歷程概念」之關連，企盼能瞭解98年度至101年度基測國文科試題命題取向，以提供九年一貫國語文課綱、閱讀素養教學以及大型閱讀測驗命題建議。\n 本研究係採取文獻分析法及內容分析法。針對國中基測國文科試題進行閱讀理解歷程概念主次類目分類劃記，接著分析其分佈情形並探討其試題之差異性。 \n研究結果與發現如下： \n\n一、各年度就主類目而言，以「統整」劃記數最多，其次為「解碼」、「檢索/擷取訊息」，劃記數最少的是「省思文本內容」。\n二、各年度次類目的劃記數分布並不平均，其中以「4-2比較及對照文章訊息」、「1-3包含字義了解和語法分析兩個歷程，閱讀時須經過這兩種過程始能了解文意」、「2-1找出與閱讀目標有關的訊息、事實或支持的細節」呈現最多。\n三、多項次類目於命題時被忽視，顯示試題分布極度不平均，集中於初、中階閱讀理解歷程概念。\n四、「92國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要」和PISA,PIRLS,NAEP等閱讀素養測驗架構焦點不同。\n伍、「基測國文試題」和PISA,PIRLS,NAEP等閱讀素養測驗架構焦點不同。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study aims to analyze the correlation between “the Basic Competence Tests in Mandarin Reading for Junior High School Students (BCT)” and “Comprehension Processes among PISA, PIRLS and NAEP”, hoping to understand the index of the Basic Competence tests questions of Mandarin Reading for Junior High School Students from 2009 to 2012. The result can be used to provide suggestions for Taiwan’s Grade 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines of Mandarin, reading literacy education and the following examination questions of reading assessments in Taiwan. \nLiterature review and content analysis are adopted as the research processes in this study. “Comprehension Processes among PISA, PIRLS and NAEP” is used as content analysis category to categorize the index of the Mandarin Reading test questions of BCT, analyzing the distribution of each category and discussion the differences among the test questions.\nThe findings of the study are as follows: \n1. When it comes to the numbers of major categories, “Integration” is ranked first, followed by “Decoding” and “Retrieving Information”. At the bottom is “Reflecting on and evaluating the content of a text”.\n2. The numbers of minor categories are not equally distributed. Among all the minor categories, “4-2, Comparing and contrasting the information in the text”, “1-3, Understanding texts by acquiring the meanings of words and analyzing sentence structures” and “2-1, Finding out information, facts or supporting details related to reading texts” are on the top of the list.\n3. Plenty of comprehension processes are ignored during question- formulation for reading tests. Basic and intermediate comprehension processes instead of higher ones are a lot more emphasized.\n4. “2003 Grade 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines of Mandarin” and “Reading Assessment Framework Among PISA, PIRLS and NAEP” aim differently.\n5. “The Basic Competence Tests in Mandarin Reading for Junior High School Students” and “Reading Assessment Framework Among PISA, PIRLS and NAEP” aim differently. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄\n第一章 緒論.......................................1\n第一節 研究動機............................1\n第二節 研究目的與待答問題..................4\n第三節 名詞釋義............................5\n第四節 研究範圍與研究限制..................8\n第二章 文獻探討..................................10\n第一節 閱讀理解相關概念之探討.............10\n第二節 PISA內涵之探討與試題範例...........14\n第三節 PIRLS內涵之探討與試題範例..........35\n第四節 NAEP內涵之探討與試題範例...........51\n第三章 研究設計與實施............................63\n第一節 研究架構..........................63\n第二節 研究方法與對象....................64\n第三節 研究工具..........................67\n第四節 研究流程..........................77\n第五節 資料分析與處理....................79\n第四章 研究結果與討論............................80\n第一節 PISA, PIRLS, NAEP閱讀架構與國內閱讀能 \n力指標比較結果與討論...............80\n第二節 基測國文試題閱讀理解歷程概念之分佈結果\n與討論.............................86\n第三節 基測國文歷年試題閱讀理解歷程概念之差異 \n 分析結果與討論....................100\n第五章 結論與建議...............................107\n第一節 結論..............................107\n第二節 建議..............................110\n參考文獻........................................114\n 中文部份.................................114\n英文部份.................................117\n附錄............................................121\n 閱讀理解歷程 (層次)／認知目標主次類目專家意見修正表................................121\n 閱讀理解歷程 (層次)／認知目標主次類目專家意見修正統整表............................129\n 92年九年一貫閱讀分段能力指標............131\n表 次\n表1-1 九年一貫課程目標與基本能力對照表........................6\n表1-2 國語文領域三年度使用教科書及基測施測時間統整表..........8\n表2-1 PISA 2009 電子文本試題環境之概略分配比率表..............17\n表2-2 PISA 2009 試題文本型式之概略分配比率表.................18\n表2-3 PISA 2009 試題情境之概略分配比率表......................18\n表2-4 PISA 2009 試題閱讀歷程之概略表..........................19\n表2-5 PISA 2009「擷取與檢索」不同閱讀素養水準的描述表..........20\n表2-6 PISA 2009「統整與解釋」不同閱讀素養水準的描述表..........21\n表2-7 PISA 2009「省思與評鑑」不同閱讀素養水準的描述表...........22\n表2-8 PISA閱讀素養構面整理表.................................23\n表2-9 PISA 2009不同閱讀水準的描述表...........................25\n表2-10 2006年及2001年參與PIRLS的國家與地區表................37\n表2-11 2006 PIRLS亞洲國家之閱讀歷程表現表(一).................42\n表2-12 2006 PIRLS亞洲國家之閱讀歷程表現表(二).................43\n表2-13 1992 NAEP閱謮架構實施年份與年級對照表..................51\n表2-14 NAEP 認知目標與文本類型對照表..........................55\n表2-15 NAEP文本類型對應年級之出題比例表......................56\n表2-16 NAEP 各年級試題分配百分比表............................57\n表3-1國中基測國文試題統整表..................................66\n表3-2閱讀理解歷程 (層次)／認知目標類目表.....................68\n表3-3 評分員基本資料表.......................................74\n表3-4基測試題評分員相互同意度、評分員信度、研究者信度一覽表..75\n表3-5 專家學者基本資料表.....................................76\n表4-1 PISA, PIRLS, NAEP閱讀素養測驗架構比較表..................80\n表4-2 PISA, PIRLS, NAEP及Swaby, Gagne, Pearson and Johnson\n 閱讀理解歷程統整表.....................................85\n表4-3 閱讀理解歷程類目與92九年一貫國語文領域課綱閱讀能力指標對照簡表.................................................85\n表4-4 基測試題主類目劃記數、百分比統計一覽表.................87\n表4-5 基測試題次類目劃記數、百分比統計一覽表.................87\n表4-6 基測試題各主類目於不同年度所佔劃記數、百分比統計一覽表.100\n表4-7 基測各年度次類目劃記數最高前五項列表..................104\n\n\n\n\n\n圖 次\n圖2-1 PISA 2009 閱讀歷程架構圖................................23\n圖2-2 PISA閱讀素養結構圖.....................................24\n圖3-1 研究架構圖.............................................63\n圖3-2 研究流程圖.............................................78\n圖4-1 基測試題主類目劃記數、百分比統計長條圖..................86\n圖4-2 「解碼」之次類目劃記數比較圖.............................89\n圖4-3 「檢索擷取訊息」之次類目劃記數比較圖.....................90\n圖4-4 「推論」之次類目劃記數比較圖.............................91\n圖4-5 「統整」之次類目劃記數比較圖.............................93\n圖4-6 「解釋」之次類目劃記數比較圖.............................95\n圖4-7 「省思文本內容」之次類目劃記數比較圖.....................96\n圖4-8 「評鑑文本形式」之次類目劃記數比較圖....................98\n圖4-9 基測國文試題各主類目於不同年度所佔比例趨勢走向圖......102\n圖4-10 基測國文試題各年度於不同主類目所佔比例趨勢走向圖.....103\n圖4-11 基測國文試題於主類目「解碼」項下各次類目所佔比例趨勢走向圖...................................................105\n圖4-12 基測國文試題於主類目「檢索／擷取訊息」項下各次類目所佔比例趨勢走向圖.........................................105\n圖4-13 基測國文試題於主類目「統整」項下各次類目所佔比例趨勢走向圖...................................................106\n圖4-14 基測國文試題於主類目「解釋」項下各次類目所佔比例趨勢走向圖...................................................106 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 1866711 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.source.uri | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099911010 | en_US |
| dc.subject | 閱讀素養 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 國中基測 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 九年一貫國語文課綱 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 內容分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Reading Literacy | en_US |
| dc.subject | the Basic Competence Tests for Junior High School Students | en_US |
| dc.subject | Grade 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines of Mandarin | en_US |
| dc.subject | Content Analysis | en_US |
| dc.title | PISA,PIRLS,NAEP閱讀素養測驗架構之應用研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | An Application Study on Reading Assessment Framework Among PISA, PIRLS and NAEP | en_US |
| dc.type | thesis | en |
| dc.relation.reference | 中文部份\n王文科、王智弘 (2009)。教育研究法。台北：五南。\n王石番 (1996)。傳播內容分析法—理論與實證。台北：幼獅。\n王睎，黄慧娟，許明 (2003)。閱讀素養的界定與測評。上海教育科研，上海市。\n台灣PISA國家研究中心 (2010a)。關於PISA-評量宗旨。2012年12月8日。取自：http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/pisa_tw_02.htm\n台灣PISA國家研究中心 (2010b)。關於PISA-計畫概述。2010年12月8日。取自：http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/pisa_tw.htm\n台灣PISA國家研究中心 (2010c)。關於PISA-參與國家。2012年12月8日。取自：http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/pisa_tw_06.htm\n台灣PISA國家研究中心 (2010d)。台灣PISA 2009精簡報告。2012年12月8日。取自：http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/download_tw.htm\n台灣PISA國家研究中心 (2010e)。關於PISA-評量內涵。2012年12月8日。取自：http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/pisa_tw_03.htm\n江芳盛、李懿芳 (2009)。國際學生評量計畫 (PISA) 試題特色分析及其對我國教育之啟示。教育資料與研究雙月刊，87，27-50。\n何佳怡 (2009)。提升國中生國文「反思與評價」閱讀素養之教學策略研究－以PISA閱讀試題分析為架構。國立台北市立教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。\n吳京玲、陳正專 (2010)。美國《二十一世紀核心技能》之探究。教育研究月刊，189，28-39。\n吳清山 (2010)。教改失敗了嗎？師友月刊，512，35-40。\n幸曼玲（2008）。閱讀的心理歷程與閱讀教學。教師天地，154，24-34。\n林怡君 (2010)。以NAEP 架構建置國小高年級閱讀理解測驗。國立屏東教育大學教育心理與輔導學系碩士論文，未出版，屏東市。\n林項爵（2009）。海闊天空的下一代─培養孩子的關鍵能力。北縣教育，66，31-34。\n林煥祥主編 (2008)。臺灣參加PISA 2006成果報告。行政院國家科學委員會。編號：NSC95-2522-S-026-002。\n柯華葳、柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅 (2008)。臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養 (PIRLS 2006 報告)。中壢：國立中央大學 學習與教學研究所。\n洪碧霞 (2009)。台灣PISA 2009結果報告。2012年12月9日。台灣PISA 國家研究中心，台南大學。取自：http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/download_tw.htm\n胡清暉 (2010年12月8日)。PISA學力評量 台灣3項排名均下滑。自由時報電子報。取自http://www.libertytimes.com.tw\n國中基測推動工作委員會試題研究組(2009)。九十八年第一次國民中學學生基本學力測驗試題說明，未出版，台北市。取自：http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/\n國中基測推動工作委員會試題研究組(2009)。九十八年第一次國民中學學生基本學力測驗試題說明，未出版，台北市。取自：http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/\n國中基測推動工作委員會試題研究組(2010)。九十九年第一次國民中學學生基本學力測驗試題說明，未出版，台北市。取自：http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/\n國中基測推動工作委員會試題研究組(2010)。九十九年第一次國民中學學生基本學力測驗試題說明，未出版，台北市。取自：http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/\n國中基測推動工作委員會試題研究組(2011)。一百年第一次國民中學學生基本學力測驗試題說明，未出版，台北市。取自：http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/\n國中基測推動工作委員會試題研究組(2011)。一百年第一次國民中學學生基本學力測驗試題說明，未出版，台北市。取自：http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/\n國中基測推動工作委員會試題研究組(2012)。一百零一年第一次國民中學學生基本學力測驗試題說明，未出版，台北市。取自：http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/\n張銘秋、謝秀月、徐秋月（2010）。PISA 科學素養之試題認知成份分析。課程與教學季刊，13 (1)，1-20。\n教育部 (2003)。92年國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。2013年2月1日取自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_92.php。\n教育部 (2010)。我國參與國際學生能力評量計畫（PISA）2009結果(2010年12月7日)。教育部、國科會新聞稿。\n梁惠棉 (2011)。台灣與上海的PISA 2009閱讀素養表現比較研究。國立暨南國際大學教育政策與行政學系碩士論文，未出版，南投縣。\n莊淇銘 (2010 a)。網路學習的優勢及盲點。師友月刊，512，16-21。\n莊淇銘 (2010 b)。培養知識社會關鍵競爭力。師友月刊，513，14-19。\n陳密桃（1990）。國民中小學生的後設認知及其閱讀理解之相關研究。政治大學博士論文，未出版，台北市。\n陳密桃(1992)。從認知心理學的觀點談閱讀理解。教育文粹，21，10-19。\n陳慧 (2007)。PISA問題解決能力測評的研究。上海師範大學碩士學位論文，未出版，上海市。\n曾建銘 (2009)。TASA與其它國際評量之比較。研習資訊，26 (6)，21-25。\n黃麗菁 (2011)。閱讀態度與閱讀策略對閱讀素養之影響—以PISA 2009 上海、香港、韓國、台灣為例。私立明道大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化縣。\n新北市政府 (2012年12月)。迎接12年國教來臨，新北市推動深度教育變革。未來少年，24，1。\n楊孝濚 (1989)。內容分析。載於楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦園等編。社會及行為科學研究法下冊。台北：東華。\n廖凰伶（2000）。直接教學與全語教學對國中低閱讀能力學生閱讀理解表現之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化市。\n遠見雜誌 (1995)。二十一世紀城市競爭力。遠見雜誌，115，65。\n歐用生 (2000)。內容分析法。載於黃光雄、簡茂發 (主編)，教育研究法。台北市：師大書苑。\n蔡聖賢 (2009)。從國中基測國文現象，省思閱讀教育推動成效。教育資料與研究雙月刊，90，183-197。\n賴苑玲 (2009)。南投縣國小高年級學童閱讀習慣、閱讀理解與對參與「希望閱讀」與「焦點300」閱讀活動態度之研究。社會科教育研究，14，1-30。\n\n英文部份\nAlexander, J.E., & Heathington, B.S.(1988). Assessing and correcting classroom reading problem. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.\nAlexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3) (pp. 285-310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\nBeach, R., & Hynds, S. (1996). Research on response to literature. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2) (pp. 453-489). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\nBerelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. NY: Free Press.\nBudd, R. W., Thorp, R. K., & Donohew, L. (1967). Content analysis of communications.New York: The Macmillan Co.\nClay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.\nColeman, J.S., Kelly, D.L., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D., and York, R.L. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.\nDOI: 10.1080/03057640903103736\nEntwisle, D.R., and Alexander, K. (1993). Entry Into School: The Beginning School Transition and Educational Stratification in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 19: 401–423.\nFleischman, H., Hopstock, P., Pelczar, M., and Shelley, B. (2010). Highlights From PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy in an International Context. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.\nGagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd ed.). New York, HarperCollins.\nHaahr, J. H., Nielsen, T. K., Hansen, M. E., Jakobsen, S. T. (2005) Explaining Student Performance: Evidence from the international PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS surveys. Danish Technological Institute. \nHall, K. (1998). Critical literacy and the case for it in the early years of school. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 11, 183-194.\nHopstock, P., Pelczar, M. (2011). Technical Report and User`s Guide for the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC Retrieved from http://www.astrid-online.it/rassegna/\nRassegna-21/01-03-2006/DanishTecnologicalInstitute-Explaini.pdf\nHerbert Spencer (1859). What Knowledge is of Most Worth? Retrieved from http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/23356/\nLau, J. (2012, December 13) So Asian Kids Are Good at Math. What Does That Mean?. The International Herald Tribune. Retrieved from http://global.nytimes.com/\nMcLanahan, S.S., and Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\nMullis, I. V. S., Kennedy, A. M., Martin, M. O. (2007). PIRLS 2006 Technical Report. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.\nMullis, I. V. S., Kennedy, A. M., Martin, M. O., and Sainsbury, M. (2006). PIRLS 2006 Assessment Framework and Specifications. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.\nMullis, I. V. S., Kennedy, A. M., Martin, M. O., Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 International Report. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.\nMullis, I. V. S., Kennedy, A. M., Martin, M. O., Trong, K. L. (2007). PIRLS 2006 Encyclopedia: A Guide to Reading Education in the Forty PIRLS 2006 Countries. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.\nMullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & González, E. J. (2004). International achievement in the processes of reading education: Results from PIRLS 2001 in 35 countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.\nMullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.\nMullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., González, E. J., & Kennedy, A. M. (2003). PIRLS 2001 international report: IEA`s study of reading literacy achievement in primary school in 35 countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.\nNational Assessment Governing Board (2008a). Reading Assessment and Item Specifications for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.\nNational Assessment Governing Board (2008b). Reading Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. \nNational Center for Education Statistics (2003). A Content Comparison of the NAEP and PIRLS Fourth-Grade Reading Assessments, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. \nNational Center for Education Statistics (2006). U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. \nNational Center for Education Statistics (2009). U.S. Performance Across International Assessments of Student Achievement, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. \nNational Center for Education Statistics (2010). The Nation’s Report Card: Grade 12 Reading and Mathematics 2009. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.\nNational Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Year in Review: a compilation of results from the 2009 mathematics, reading, science, and High School Transcript Study reports. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. \nOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2000). Literacy in the Information Age FINAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ADULT LITERACY SURVEY, OECD, Paris. \nOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. OECD, Paris.\nOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2009). PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics and Science. PISA, OECD Publishing.\nOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do: Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume 1). PISA, OECD Publishing.\nOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2012). PISA 2009 Technical Report. PISA, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264167872-en\nPearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.\nPerkins, R., Moran, G., Shiel, G., Cosgrove, J. (2011). Reading Literacy in PISA 2009: A Guide for Teachers. Educational Research Centre. Dublin.\nSchmid, C.L. (2001). Educational Achievement, Language-Minority Students, and the New Second Generation. Sociology of Education, 74: 71–87.\nShavit, Y., and Blossfi eld, H.P. (Eds.). (1993). Persistent Inequality: Changing the Educational Stratification in Thirteen Countries. Boulder, CO: Westview.\nShiel, G., Eivers, E. (2009). International comparisons of reading literacy: what can they tell us?. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39 (3), 345–360.\nSimon, H. A. (1996). Observations on the sciences of science learning, Paper prepared for the Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning for the Sciences of Science Learning: An Interdisciplinary Discussion. Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University.\nSwaby, B. E. R. (1989) Diagnosis and correction of reading difficulties. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.\nTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS (2012, December 11). US Students Far From First in Math, Science. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes.com | zh_TW |
| item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
| item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
| item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec | - |
| item.grantfulltext | open | - |
| item.openairetype | thesis | - |
| item.languageiso639-1 | en_US | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 101001.pdf | 1.82 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.