1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Education
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 中學生的知識翻新活動 對其英語閱讀想法、興趣與理解的影響
EFFECTS OF KNOWLEDGE BUILDING ACTIVITIES ON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ READING IDEAS, INTEREST, AND COMPREHENSION
作者 許涵屏
Hsu, Han Pin
貢獻者 洪煌堯
許涵屏
Hsu, Han Pin
關鍵詞 知識翻新
想法品質
知識論壇之鷹架
英語閱讀理解
閱讀興趣
Knowledge building
Idea quality
Scaffold of knowledge forum
Reading comprehension
Reading interest
日期 2022
上傳時間 1-Jul-2024 13:33:51 (UTC+8)
摘要 21世紀是知識經濟的時代，透過閱讀可以獲得大量的知識，具有良好的閱讀理解能力可以幫助我們識別大量的資訊，並培養批判思考之能力。因此本研究旨在探討在知識翻新活動中，學生輔以知識論壇中的鷹架進行英語閱讀，對學生課堂參與、想法品質、英語閱讀、英語學習態度之影響。 本研究採取準實驗方法研究設計，以彰化縣某國中八年級兩班的學生為研究對象，實驗組為28人，而控制組為27人。教學活動兩班皆分成四人為一組的方式進行，課堂中皆使用知識論壇Knowledge Forum進行教學與討論，實驗教學一週一節課，每節課45分鐘，共11週。研究分為兩階段，兩組的差異為使用鷹架不同，實驗組學生分別於第一階段使用「annotation」鷹架，第二階段使用「promising ideas」鷹架；控制組學生僅使用知識論壇的基本功能。實驗資料來源分別為：閱讀理解測驗前後測試題、閱讀興趣量表、知識論壇上學生發表之想法以及半結構式訪談。資料分析於前測階段使用獨立樣本T檢定檢定兩組的在閱讀理解與閱讀興趣之同質性，後測則分別採用ANCOVA共變數分析閱讀理解之差異，獨立樣本Ｔ檢定分析課堂參與、想法品質以及閱讀興趣。 本研究之研究結果為：（1）經由訪談學生的資料顯示，學生對於使用知識論壇與同儕的想法互動有極好的評價，可以降低學生面對面發言之緊張感，並提升發言的信心。（2）經由統計資料顯示學生的知識翻新活動對兩組間的學生之想法品質僅在第二階段的「特定性」有顯著差異。（3）學生的知識翻新活動僅對兩組間在第二階段「直接提取」方面造成顯著差異；而兩組組內學生除第一階段控制組在「直接推論」前後測無顯著差異，其餘閱讀理解過程皆有顯著提升。（4）學生的知識翻新活動未能對兩組間學生在自我閱讀與知識翻新情境中閱讀的閱讀興趣造成顯著差異，不過皆能提升兩組組內學生在不同情境中之閱讀興趣。
21th century is the era of knowledge-economy. People can attain a lot of knowledge through reading. Having good reading comprehension skills can help us tell lots of information and develop critical thinking skills. The study investigates the influence of class-involvement, idea quality, reading comprehension, and reading interest of the students under the knowledge-building principles. The study adopted a quasi-experimental design. The participants are the eighth-graders in Changhua. There are 28 people in the experiment group, and 27 people in the control group. Two groups are divided into four groups respectively. They all read and discuss the context with their classmates by using the knowledge forum. The experiment lasted for 11 weeks. Each class has 45 minutes. There are two phrases in the experiment. The difference within two phrases is the scaffold which the experiment group use in the first phrase is “annotation” and in the second phrase is “promising ideas.” The control group only use the basic default of the knowledge forum. The data are as followings, the reading comprehension tests, the quionnaire of the reading interests, the ideas on the knowledge forum, and semi-structured interview. In the pretest phase, independent samples T-tests was used to examine the homogeneity of reading comprehension and interest between two groups. In the posttest phase, ANCOVA was used to analyze the differences on reading comprehension, and independent samples T-tests was used to analyze class-engagement, idea quality, and reading interest. The findings are as follows: (1) Students have the great comments on using the knowledge forum and discussing with their classmates which can lower their nervousness. (2) There was only a statistically significant difference of “Specific” idea between two groups. (3) There was only a statistically significant difference on “Focus on and Retrieve Explicitly Stated Information” in the second phrase, but a significant difference on four levels of reading comprehension within the group, except on the “Make Straightforward Inferences.” (4) There was no statistically significant difference on the reading interests between two groups, but within two groups.
參考文獻 王文吟、陳一銘 (2018)。營造良好學校閱讀環境的因素與策略探討。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(5)，234-238。 林怡伶、張鑑如 (2016)。學步兒氣質、家庭閱讀環境與閱讀興趣之關係初探。 人類發展與家庭學報，(17)，67-89。 https://doi.org/10.6246/JHDFS.201611_(17).0004 呂書嫻 (2019)。素養導向的國中英語教科書之內容分析－以臺灣及日本為例。 [未出版碩士論文]。淡江大學。 李隆盛、楊叔蓉 (2015)。善用主動學習轉化課堂教學。臺灣教育評論月刊， 4(7)，50-54。 李佳琪、洪智倫 (2019)。Cool English平臺教材融入教學對國小四年級學生英語聽讀學習成效與學習動機影響之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，12(1)， 163-205。 林倍伊、林顯達、李佩蓉、詹雯靜、洪國財、洪煌堯 (2016)。在不同模式的電腦支援協作學習環境下, 師培生理解教學理論層次之差異—以Blackboard 和Knowledge Forum 為例。資訊社會研究，(31)，66-102。 柯華葳 (2020)。臺灣閱讀策略教學政策與執行。教育科學研究期刊，65(1)，93-114。 柯華葳、張郁雯、詹益綾、丘嘉慧 (2017)。PIRLS 2016 臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養國家報告。教育部委託專案報告 (MOST102-2511-S-008-018-MY4)。國立中央大學習與教學研究所。 陳木金、許瑋珊 (2012)。從PISA閱讀評量的國際比較探討閱讀素養教育的方向。教師天地，181，4-15。 陳子怡 （2020）。以學習共同體進行讀報教育對學生閱讀興趣與能力之影響 [未出版碩士論文]。淡江大學。 張淑惠、蔡銘修 (2019)。讓教室變成遊戲室─以即時回饋系統輔助技能檢定學科模擬測驗。臺灣教育評論月刊， 8(4)，98-102。 徐庭蘭 (2006)。以圖畫書為媒介之親子共讀活動對一位注意力缺陷過動症幼兒口語表達與注意力行為影響之研究。醫護科技學刊， 8(3)，197-212。 徐詩惠 (2020)。運用身教式持續安靜閱讀及其延伸方案對國中生閱讀興趣及閱讀理解影響之研究 [未出版碩士論文]。慈濟大學。 楊時芬、歐陽誾（2020）。PaGamO線上遊戲平臺對不同成就之七年級學生數學學習態度與學習成就之影響。教育傳播與科技研究，(124)，17-36。http://doi:10.6137/RECT.202012 (124).0002 教育部國民及學前教育署 (2013)。分組合作學習教學手冊。取自https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Book/UpLoad/Book/2074/分組合作學習教學手冊.pdf 教育部（2020, April 23）。提升閱讀風氣 教育部關注偏遠學校閱讀推動。教育部全球資訊網。https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=3DC15FB845B3F8C1. 教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。取自 https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/file/946/67018.pdf 教育部（2020）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校議題融入說明手冊。取自https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/file/29143/83847.pdf 余民寧、韓珮華（2009）。教學方式對數學學習興趣與數學成就之影響：以TIMSS 2003台灣資料爲例。測驗學刊，56(1)，19-48。 蘇宜芬(2004)。閱讀理解的影響因素及其在教育上的意義。教師天地，129， 21-28。   Afflerbach, P., Cho, B. Y., & Kim, J. Y. (2015). Conceptualizing and assessing higher-order thinking in reading. Theory into Practice, 54(3), 203-212. Anderson, L. W. (2001). Krathwohl. DR (Ed.), Airasian, PW, Cruikshank, KA, Mayer, RE, Pintrich, PR, Raths, J., & Wittrock, MC, 38-62. Babbitt Bray, G., & Barron, S. (2004). Assessing reading comprehension: The effects. of text-based interest, gender, and ability. Educational Assessment, 9(3-4), 107-128. Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary educational psychology, 39(3), 206-219. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.003 Björk, J., & Magnusson, M. (2009). Where do good innovation ideas come from? Exploring the influence of network connectivity on innovation idea quality. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 662-670. Chen, B. (2017). Fostering scientific understanding and epistemic beliefs through judgments of promisingness. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 255-277. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9467-0 Chen, B., Chuy, M., Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2011). Evaluation by grade 5 and 6 students of the promisingness of ideas in knowledge-building discourse. Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., Resendes, M., Chuy, M., & Bereiter, C. (2012). Students’ intuitive understanding of promisingness and promisingness judgments to facilitate knowledge advancement. Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2015). Advancing knowledge‐building. discourse through judgments of promising ideas. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 345-366. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9225-z Cadiz, J. J., Gupta, A., & Grudin, J. (2000). Using Web annotations for asynchronous collaboration around documents. In Wendy Kellogg& Steve Whittaker (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 309-318). Association for Computing Machinery. Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., & Resendes, M. (2013). Dynamics of Promisingness Judgments in Knowledge Building Work of 8-to 10-Years-Olds. In Poster presented at the 2013 AERA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Chan, C. K., & Chan, Y. Y. (2011). Students' views of collaboration and online. participation in Knowledge Forum. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1445-1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.003 Chen, C. M., Wang, J. Y., & Chen, Y. C. (2014). Facilitating English-language Reading performance by a digital reading annotation system with self-regulated learning mechanisms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 102-114. Dean, D. L., Hender, J., Rodgers, T., & Santanen, E. (2006). Identifying good ideas: constructs and scales for idea evaluation. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 7(10), 646-699. Ediger, A. M. (2008). Developing strategic L2 readersƒ by reading for authentic. purposes. In Esther Usó-Juan & Alicia Martínez-Flor (Ed.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 303-328). De Gruyter Mouton. Goodman, K. S. (1997). The reading process. In Viv Edwards, David Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp.1-7). Springer. Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL quarterly, 25(3), 375-406. Girotra, K., Terwiesch, C., & Ulrich, K. T. (2010). Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Management science, 56(4), 591-605. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students' recall of expository texts. Reading research quarterly, 465-483. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and. expository writing. The role of interest in learning and development, 11, 217-218 Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students' recall of expository texts. Reading research quarterly, 465-483. Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational psychology review, 13(3), 191-209. Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational research review, 1(2), 69-82. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 111-127. Hoff, C., Wehling, U., & Rothkugel, S. (2009). From paper‐and‐pen annotations to. artefact‐based mobile learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 219-237. Hong, H. Y., & Lin-Siegler, X. (2012). How learning about scientists' struggles influences students' interest and learning in physics. Journal of educational psychology, 104(2), 469. Hong, H. Y., Ma, L., Lin, P. Y., & Lee, K. Y. H. (2020). Advancing third graders’ reading comprehension through collaborative Knowledge Building: A comparative study in Taiwan. Computers & Education, 157, 103962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103962 Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., & Teo, C. L. (2015). Fostering sustained. idea improvement with principle-based knowledge building analytic tools. Computers & Education, 89, 91-102. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281-300. Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European journal of psychology of education, 14(1), 23-40. Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and instruction, 15(5), 381-395. Krapp, A. (2007). An educational–psychological conceptualisation of interest. International journal for educational and vocational guidance, 7(1), 5-21. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218. Liu, Y. H. (2010). Application of schema theory in teaching college English reading. Canadian Social Science, 6(1), 59-65. Lin, K. Y., Hong, H. Y., & Chai, C. S. (2014). Development and validation of the knowledge-building environment scale. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 124-132. Lin, P. Y., Hong, H. Y., & Chai, C. S. (2020). Fostering college students’ design thinking in a knowledge-building environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 949-974. Lustyantie, N., & Aprilia, F. (2020). Reading interest and achievement motivation: A study in an EFL context. TESOL International Journal, 15(4), 147-166. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357-371. Malekzadeh, B., & Bayat, A. (2015). The effect of mind mapping strategy on comprehending implicit information in EFL reading texts. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 2(3), 81-90. Marshall, C. C. (1997, July). Annotation: from paper books to the digital library. In Robert B. Allen & Edie Rasmussen(Eds.), Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on Digital libraries (2nd ed., pp. 131-140). Association for Computing Machinery Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of educational psychology, 85(3), 424. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., & Sainsbury, M. (2016). PIRLS 2016 reading framework. PIRLS, Nederland. Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Hendrick, B. D., Li, M., Montalbano, C., & Wei, L. (2018). Quality talk: Developing students’ discourse to promote high-level comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 1113-1160. NAEP (2019). Reading Framework for The 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress. OECD (1996). The Knowledge-Based Economy. OECD, Paris. OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework, PISA. OECD. Paris. Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Revised ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Pan, C. Y., & Wu, H. Y. (2013). The Cooperative Learning Effects on English Reading Comprehension and Learning Motivation of EFL Freshmen. English Language Teaching, 6(5), 13-27. Plevinski, J., Weible, J., & DeSchryver, M. (2017). Anchored annotation to support. collaborative knowledge construction. Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a case study. In Allan Wigfield & Jacquelynne S. Eccles(Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 173-195). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-750053-9.X5000-1 Reinig, B. A., & Briggs, R. O. (2008). Onthe relationship between idea-quantity and idea-quality during ideation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 403-420. Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational researcher, 33(2), 12-20. Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository text. Learning and individual differences, 8(2), 141-160. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). The effect of reader purpose on interest and. recall. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(1), 1-18. Schraw, G. (1997). Situational interest in literary text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(4), 436-456. Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the. classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211-224. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational psychology review, 13(1), 23-52. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in. knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the learning sciences, 1(1), 37-68. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The journal of the learning sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and. technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of. knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67-98. Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 880-907. Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning. In Nicolas Balacheff, Sten Ludvigsen, Ton Jong, Ard Lazonder & Sally Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 233-249). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7 Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Rand Corporation. Springer, S. E., Harris, S., & Dole, J. A. (2017). From Surviving to Thriving: Four Research‐Based Principles to Build Students’ Reading Interest. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 43-50. Suk, N. (2017). The effects of extensive reading on reading comprehension, reading rate, and vocabulary acquisition. Reading research quarterly, 52(1), 73-89. Tseng, S. S., & Yeh, H. C. (2018). Integrating reciprocal teaching in an online. environment with an annotation feature to enhance low-achieving students’ English reading comprehension. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(6), 789-802. Van de Ven, A. (1986). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management Science 32(5):590–607. Wang, L., Lee, H., & Ju, D. Y. (2019). Impact of digital content on young children’s reading interest and concentration for books. Behaviour & information technology, 38(1), 1-8. Woolley, G. (2011). Reading comprehension. In Reading comprehension (pp. 15-34). Springer Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1174-7 Zhang, J., & Sun, Y. (2011). Reading for idea advancement in a grade 4 knowledge building community. Instructional Science, 39(4), 429-452. Zhao, W., Song, Y., Zhao, Q., & Zhang, R. (2019). The effect of teacher support on primary school students’ reading engagement: the mediating role of reading interest and Chinese academic self-concept. Educational Psychology, 39(2), 236-253.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
教育學系
109152001
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109152001
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 洪煌堯zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 許涵屏zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Hsu, Han Pinen_US
dc.creator (作者) 許涵屏zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Hsu, Han Pinen_US
dc.date (日期) 2022en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2024 13:33:51 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Jul-2024 13:33:51 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2024 13:33:51 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109152001en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152144-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 教育學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 109152001zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 21世紀是知識經濟的時代，透過閱讀可以獲得大量的知識，具有良好的閱讀理解能力可以幫助我們識別大量的資訊，並培養批判思考之能力。因此本研究旨在探討在知識翻新活動中，學生輔以知識論壇中的鷹架進行英語閱讀，對學生課堂參與、想法品質、英語閱讀、英語學習態度之影響。 本研究採取準實驗方法研究設計，以彰化縣某國中八年級兩班的學生為研究對象，實驗組為28人，而控制組為27人。教學活動兩班皆分成四人為一組的方式進行，課堂中皆使用知識論壇Knowledge Forum進行教學與討論，實驗教學一週一節課，每節課45分鐘，共11週。研究分為兩階段，兩組的差異為使用鷹架不同，實驗組學生分別於第一階段使用「annotation」鷹架，第二階段使用「promising ideas」鷹架；控制組學生僅使用知識論壇的基本功能。實驗資料來源分別為：閱讀理解測驗前後測試題、閱讀興趣量表、知識論壇上學生發表之想法以及半結構式訪談。資料分析於前測階段使用獨立樣本T檢定檢定兩組的在閱讀理解與閱讀興趣之同質性，後測則分別採用ANCOVA共變數分析閱讀理解之差異，獨立樣本Ｔ檢定分析課堂參與、想法品質以及閱讀興趣。 本研究之研究結果為：（1）經由訪談學生的資料顯示，學生對於使用知識論壇與同儕的想法互動有極好的評價，可以降低學生面對面發言之緊張感，並提升發言的信心。（2）經由統計資料顯示學生的知識翻新活動對兩組間的學生之想法品質僅在第二階段的「特定性」有顯著差異。（3）學生的知識翻新活動僅對兩組間在第二階段「直接提取」方面造成顯著差異；而兩組組內學生除第一階段控制組在「直接推論」前後測無顯著差異，其餘閱讀理解過程皆有顯著提升。（4）學生的知識翻新活動未能對兩組間學生在自我閱讀與知識翻新情境中閱讀的閱讀興趣造成顯著差異，不過皆能提升兩組組內學生在不同情境中之閱讀興趣。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 21th century is the era of knowledge-economy. People can attain a lot of knowledge through reading. Having good reading comprehension skills can help us tell lots of information and develop critical thinking skills. The study investigates the influence of class-involvement, idea quality, reading comprehension, and reading interest of the students under the knowledge-building principles. The study adopted a quasi-experimental design. The participants are the eighth-graders in Changhua. There are 28 people in the experiment group, and 27 people in the control group. Two groups are divided into four groups respectively. They all read and discuss the context with their classmates by using the knowledge forum. The experiment lasted for 11 weeks. Each class has 45 minutes. There are two phrases in the experiment. The difference within two phrases is the scaffold which the experiment group use in the first phrase is “annotation” and in the second phrase is “promising ideas.” The control group only use the basic default of the knowledge forum. The data are as followings, the reading comprehension tests, the quionnaire of the reading interests, the ideas on the knowledge forum, and semi-structured interview. In the pretest phase, independent samples T-tests was used to examine the homogeneity of reading comprehension and interest between two groups. In the posttest phase, ANCOVA was used to analyze the differences on reading comprehension, and independent samples T-tests was used to analyze class-engagement, idea quality, and reading interest. The findings are as follows: (1) Students have the great comments on using the knowledge forum and discussing with their classmates which can lower their nervousness. (2) There was only a statistically significant difference of “Specific” idea between two groups. (3) There was only a statistically significant difference on “Focus on and Retrieve Explicitly Stated Information” in the second phrase, but a significant difference on four levels of reading comprehension within the group, except on the “Make Straightforward Inferences.” (4) There was no statistically significant difference on the reading interests between two groups, but within two groups.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的與研究問題 7 第三節 名詞解釋 8 第四節 研究範圍與限制 13 第二章 文獻探討 14 第一節 閱讀理解 14 第二節 閱讀興趣 20 第三節 知識翻新原則 24 第四節 知識論壇中的鷹架 33 第三章 研究方法 40 第一節 研究對象與情境 40 第二節 研究設計 41 第三節 教學活動設計 44 第四節 研究工具與資料分析 50 第四章 研究結果 61 第一節 學生的知識翻新活動參與情形之影響 61 第二節 學生的知識翻新活動對其想法品質提升之影響 77 第三節 學生的知識翻新活動對其閱讀理解之影響 83 第四節 學生的知識翻新活動對其閱讀興趣之影響 92 第五章 結論與建議 97 第一節 研究結論 97 第二節 建議 99 參考文獻 103 附錄一 英語閱讀理解測驗與評分規準 115 附錄二 英語閱讀興趣量表 126 附錄三 知識翻新之閱讀學習環境訪談訪綱 130 附錄四 著作權授權契約書 132zh_TW
dc.format.extent 4187643 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109152001en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識翻新zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 想法品質zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識論壇之鷹架zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 英語閱讀理解zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 閱讀興趣zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Knowledge buildingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Idea qualityen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Scaffold of knowledge forumen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Reading comprehensionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Reading interesten_US
dc.title (題名) 中學生的知識翻新活動 對其英語閱讀想法、興趣與理解的影響zh_TW
dc.title (題名) EFFECTS OF KNOWLEDGE BUILDING ACTIVITIES ON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ READING IDEAS, INTEREST, AND COMPREHENSIONen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王文吟、陳一銘 (2018)。營造良好學校閱讀環境的因素與策略探討。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(5)，234-238。 林怡伶、張鑑如 (2016)。學步兒氣質、家庭閱讀環境與閱讀興趣之關係初探。 人類發展與家庭學報，(17)，67-89。 https://doi.org/10.6246/JHDFS.201611_(17).0004 呂書嫻 (2019)。素養導向的國中英語教科書之內容分析－以臺灣及日本為例。 [未出版碩士論文]。淡江大學。 李隆盛、楊叔蓉 (2015)。善用主動學習轉化課堂教學。臺灣教育評論月刊， 4(7)，50-54。 李佳琪、洪智倫 (2019)。Cool English平臺教材融入教學對國小四年級學生英語聽讀學習成效與學習動機影響之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，12(1)， 163-205。 林倍伊、林顯達、李佩蓉、詹雯靜、洪國財、洪煌堯 (2016)。在不同模式的電腦支援協作學習環境下, 師培生理解教學理論層次之差異—以Blackboard 和Knowledge Forum 為例。資訊社會研究，(31)，66-102。 柯華葳 (2020)。臺灣閱讀策略教學政策與執行。教育科學研究期刊，65(1)，93-114。 柯華葳、張郁雯、詹益綾、丘嘉慧 (2017)。PIRLS 2016 臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養國家報告。教育部委託專案報告 (MOST102-2511-S-008-018-MY4)。國立中央大學習與教學研究所。 陳木金、許瑋珊 (2012)。從PISA閱讀評量的國際比較探討閱讀素養教育的方向。教師天地，181，4-15。 陳子怡 （2020）。以學習共同體進行讀報教育對學生閱讀興趣與能力之影響 [未出版碩士論文]。淡江大學。 張淑惠、蔡銘修 (2019)。讓教室變成遊戲室─以即時回饋系統輔助技能檢定學科模擬測驗。臺灣教育評論月刊， 8(4)，98-102。 徐庭蘭 (2006)。以圖畫書為媒介之親子共讀活動對一位注意力缺陷過動症幼兒口語表達與注意力行為影響之研究。醫護科技學刊， 8(3)，197-212。 徐詩惠 (2020)。運用身教式持續安靜閱讀及其延伸方案對國中生閱讀興趣及閱讀理解影響之研究 [未出版碩士論文]。慈濟大學。 楊時芬、歐陽誾（2020）。PaGamO線上遊戲平臺對不同成就之七年級學生數學學習態度與學習成就之影響。教育傳播與科技研究，(124)，17-36。http://doi:10.6137/RECT.202012 (124).0002 教育部國民及學前教育署 (2013)。分組合作學習教學手冊。取自https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Book/UpLoad/Book/2074/分組合作學習教學手冊.pdf 教育部（2020, April 23）。提升閱讀風氣 教育部關注偏遠學校閱讀推動。教育部全球資訊網。https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=3DC15FB845B3F8C1. 教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。取自 https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/file/946/67018.pdf 教育部（2020）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校議題融入說明手冊。取自https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/file/29143/83847.pdf 余民寧、韓珮華（2009）。教學方式對數學學習興趣與數學成就之影響：以TIMSS 2003台灣資料爲例。測驗學刊，56(1)，19-48。 蘇宜芬(2004)。閱讀理解的影響因素及其在教育上的意義。教師天地，129， 21-28。   Afflerbach, P., Cho, B. Y., & Kim, J. Y. (2015). Conceptualizing and assessing higher-order thinking in reading. Theory into Practice, 54(3), 203-212. Anderson, L. W. (2001). Krathwohl. DR (Ed.), Airasian, PW, Cruikshank, KA, Mayer, RE, Pintrich, PR, Raths, J., & Wittrock, MC, 38-62. Babbitt Bray, G., & Barron, S. (2004). Assessing reading comprehension: The effects. of text-based interest, gender, and ability. Educational Assessment, 9(3-4), 107-128. Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary educational psychology, 39(3), 206-219. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.003 Björk, J., & Magnusson, M. (2009). Where do good innovation ideas come from? Exploring the influence of network connectivity on innovation idea quality. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 662-670. Chen, B. (2017). Fostering scientific understanding and epistemic beliefs through judgments of promisingness. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 255-277. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9467-0 Chen, B., Chuy, M., Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2011). Evaluation by grade 5 and 6 students of the promisingness of ideas in knowledge-building discourse. Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., Resendes, M., Chuy, M., & Bereiter, C. (2012). Students’ intuitive understanding of promisingness and promisingness judgments to facilitate knowledge advancement. Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2015). Advancing knowledge‐building. discourse through judgments of promising ideas. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 345-366. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9225-z Cadiz, J. J., Gupta, A., & Grudin, J. (2000). Using Web annotations for asynchronous collaboration around documents. In Wendy Kellogg& Steve Whittaker (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 309-318). Association for Computing Machinery. Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., & Resendes, M. (2013). Dynamics of Promisingness Judgments in Knowledge Building Work of 8-to 10-Years-Olds. In Poster presented at the 2013 AERA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Chan, C. K., & Chan, Y. Y. (2011). Students' views of collaboration and online. participation in Knowledge Forum. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1445-1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.003 Chen, C. M., Wang, J. Y., & Chen, Y. C. (2014). Facilitating English-language Reading performance by a digital reading annotation system with self-regulated learning mechanisms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 102-114. Dean, D. L., Hender, J., Rodgers, T., & Santanen, E. (2006). Identifying good ideas: constructs and scales for idea evaluation. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 7(10), 646-699. Ediger, A. M. (2008). Developing strategic L2 readersƒ by reading for authentic. purposes. In Esther Usó-Juan & Alicia Martínez-Flor (Ed.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 303-328). De Gruyter Mouton. Goodman, K. S. (1997). The reading process. In Viv Edwards, David Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp.1-7). Springer. Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL quarterly, 25(3), 375-406. Girotra, K., Terwiesch, C., & Ulrich, K. T. (2010). Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Management science, 56(4), 591-605. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students' recall of expository texts. Reading research quarterly, 465-483. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and. expository writing. The role of interest in learning and development, 11, 217-218 Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students' recall of expository texts. Reading research quarterly, 465-483. Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational psychology review, 13(3), 191-209. Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational research review, 1(2), 69-82. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 111-127. Hoff, C., Wehling, U., & Rothkugel, S. (2009). From paper‐and‐pen annotations to. artefact‐based mobile learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 219-237. Hong, H. Y., & Lin-Siegler, X. (2012). How learning about scientists' struggles influences students' interest and learning in physics. Journal of educational psychology, 104(2), 469. Hong, H. Y., Ma, L., Lin, P. Y., & Lee, K. Y. H. (2020). Advancing third graders’ reading comprehension through collaborative Knowledge Building: A comparative study in Taiwan. Computers & Education, 157, 103962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103962 Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., & Teo, C. L. (2015). Fostering sustained. idea improvement with principle-based knowledge building analytic tools. Computers & Education, 89, 91-102. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281-300. Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European journal of psychology of education, 14(1), 23-40. Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and instruction, 15(5), 381-395. Krapp, A. (2007). An educational–psychological conceptualisation of interest. International journal for educational and vocational guidance, 7(1), 5-21. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218. Liu, Y. H. (2010). Application of schema theory in teaching college English reading. Canadian Social Science, 6(1), 59-65. Lin, K. Y., Hong, H. Y., & Chai, C. S. (2014). Development and validation of the knowledge-building environment scale. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 124-132. Lin, P. Y., Hong, H. Y., & Chai, C. S. (2020). Fostering college students’ design thinking in a knowledge-building environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 949-974. Lustyantie, N., & Aprilia, F. (2020). Reading interest and achievement motivation: A study in an EFL context. TESOL International Journal, 15(4), 147-166. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357-371. Malekzadeh, B., & Bayat, A. (2015). The effect of mind mapping strategy on comprehending implicit information in EFL reading texts. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 2(3), 81-90. Marshall, C. C. (1997, July). Annotation: from paper books to the digital library. In Robert B. Allen & Edie Rasmussen(Eds.), Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on Digital libraries (2nd ed., pp. 131-140). Association for Computing Machinery Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of educational psychology, 85(3), 424. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., & Sainsbury, M. (2016). PIRLS 2016 reading framework. PIRLS, Nederland. Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Hendrick, B. D., Li, M., Montalbano, C., & Wei, L. (2018). Quality talk: Developing students’ discourse to promote high-level comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 1113-1160. NAEP (2019). Reading Framework for The 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress. OECD (1996). The Knowledge-Based Economy. OECD, Paris. OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework, PISA. OECD. Paris. Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Revised ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Pan, C. Y., & Wu, H. Y. (2013). The Cooperative Learning Effects on English Reading Comprehension and Learning Motivation of EFL Freshmen. English Language Teaching, 6(5), 13-27. Plevinski, J., Weible, J., & DeSchryver, M. (2017). Anchored annotation to support. collaborative knowledge construction. Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a case study. In Allan Wigfield & Jacquelynne S. Eccles(Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 173-195). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-750053-9.X5000-1 Reinig, B. A., & Briggs, R. O. (2008). Onthe relationship between idea-quantity and idea-quality during ideation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 403-420. Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational researcher, 33(2), 12-20. Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository text. Learning and individual differences, 8(2), 141-160. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). The effect of reader purpose on interest and. recall. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(1), 1-18. Schraw, G. (1997). Situational interest in literary text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(4), 436-456. Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the. classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211-224. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational psychology review, 13(1), 23-52. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in. knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the learning sciences, 1(1), 37-68. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The journal of the learning sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and. technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of. knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67-98. Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 880-907. Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning. In Nicolas Balacheff, Sten Ludvigsen, Ton Jong, Ard Lazonder & Sally Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 233-249). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7 Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Rand Corporation. Springer, S. E., Harris, S., & Dole, J. A. (2017). From Surviving to Thriving: Four Research‐Based Principles to Build Students’ Reading Interest. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 43-50. Suk, N. (2017). The effects of extensive reading on reading comprehension, reading rate, and vocabulary acquisition. Reading research quarterly, 52(1), 73-89. Tseng, S. S., & Yeh, H. C. (2018). Integrating reciprocal teaching in an online. environment with an annotation feature to enhance low-achieving students’ English reading comprehension. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(6), 789-802. Van de Ven, A. (1986). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management Science 32(5):590–607. Wang, L., Lee, H., & Ju, D. Y. (2019). Impact of digital content on young children’s reading interest and concentration for books. Behaviour & information technology, 38(1), 1-8. Woolley, G. (2011). Reading comprehension. In Reading comprehension (pp. 15-34). Springer Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1174-7 Zhang, J., & Sun, Y. (2011). Reading for idea advancement in a grade 4 knowledge building community. Instructional Science, 39(4), 429-452. Zhao, W., Song, Y., Zhao, Q., & Zhang, R. (2019). The effect of teacher support on primary school students’ reading engagement: the mediating role of reading interest and Chinese academic self-concept. Educational Psychology, 39(2), 236-253.zh_TW