1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. 文學院
  4. 學位論文
  5. Item

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

題名 不同城鄉學生組成之線上讀書會對於閱讀成效的影響研究
The Effects of Urban and Rural Group Members in On-line Reading Groups on Reading Performance
作者 黃姮惠
Huang, Heng Hui
貢獻者 陳志銘
Chen, Chih Ming
黃姮惠
Huang, Heng Hui
關鍵詞 城鄉差距
偏遠地區
線上讀書會
文學圈
閱讀成效
rural-urban disparity
online reading group
literature circle
reading comprehension
日期 2013
上傳時間 10-二月-2014 14:53:43 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究透過網路通訊平台Skype經營線上讀書會，讓偏遠地區學童與來自不同區域的學童進行閱讀討論活動，藉此觀察研究對象之間的互動討論情形與討論的對話內容層次，以探究偏遠地區學童與來自不同城鄉區域的學童組成線上讀書會，對於閱讀成效的影響。本研究之實驗對象共分為三組，實驗組一為偏鄉地區與都會地區國小六年級學童各2名，合計4名之國小六年級學童；實驗組二為偏鄉地區不同國小六年級學童各2名，合計4名之國小六年級學童；對照組為偏鄉地區相同國小共4名之國小六年級學童。本研究在實驗前後實施閱讀理解測驗，並針對各組線上讀書會的討論對話進行內容分析，實驗結束後再針對研究對象進行半結構式訪談。研究結果歸納如下：
一、基於文學圈經營線上讀書會為一可行之線上合作學習模式
二、偏遠地區學童與都會地區學童的線上讀書會成員的異質組合，有助於提升偏遠地區學童的閱讀理解成效
三、偏遠地區學童與都會地區學童的線上讀書會成員組合，有助於激發高層次之討論對話
四、同為偏遠地區但不同學校的線上讀書會成員組合，有助於營造愉快的討論氣氛
五、在討論對話中，偏遠地區學童發表高層次思考型問答以及使用推理用語的次數越多，其閱讀理解成效越好
本研究之研究結果可作為教師基於同步討論經營有效線上讀書會的實施模式參考，也對於有興趣於線上讀書會的研究者提供許多值得探究的研究方向。
In order to explore the possibility of using information and communication technology to help the children in rural areas and the effects of rural-urban disparity on collaboration learning, this study organizes three online reading groups with different compositions of group members by implementing Literature Circles, a student-led and structured book club. The members of experiment group1 are 2 sixth graders from a rural school and 2 sixth graders from an urban school. The members of experiment group2 are 4 sixth graders. All of them are from rural schools but half of them are from a different school. The members of the control group were 4 sixth graders. All of them are classmates in a rural school. The results of reading comprehension tests and the dialogues of three groups are analyzed to collect quantitative data. A semi-structured interview is conducted to collect qualitative data.
The research outcomes shows that the heterogeneous group of rural-urban students could best improve the reading comprehension of rural students and produce high level thinking dialogues. In addition, the group of rural students from different schools could conduct the dialogues in the most delightful atmosphere among all three groups.
Based on the research outcomes, relevant applications or in-depth researches could be further preceded in the future.
參考文獻 一、中文文獻
1. 江宗瑾。 (2010)。SQ3R教學策略融入網路讀書會對提昇國小學童閱讀素養成效之研究。 (碩士)，國立臺東大學，台東縣。
2. 行政院研究發展考核委員會。 (2013)。偏遠地區定義。取自http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/24/99entrynorm/%E9%99%84%E4%BB%B6%E4%BA%8C%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%83.htm。
3. 何琦瑜、賓靜蓀。 (2012)。封面故事。親子天下， 33。
4. 吳清山，林天祐。 (2003)。教育小辭書。臺北市: 五南。
5. 吳祥坤。 (2009)。國中學生基本學力測驗城鄉差距成因之比較研究─以台北市A校與金門縣B校為例。 (碩士)，銘傳大學，台北市。
6. 呂美慧。 (2012)。教育大辭書。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1453892/?index=2。
7. 李美華。 (2005)。學校城鄉差距與學生家庭社經地位對數位落差影響之研究－以國民中學為例。 (碩士)，國立政治大學，台北市。
8. 李家同。 (2010)。大量閱讀的重要性。台北市：博雅書屋。
9. 杜春梅。 (2006)。虛擬學習社群在閱讀學習成效之研究-以苗栗縣福基國小學生網路讀書會為例。 (碩士)，育達商業技術學院。
10. 侯秋玲，吳敏而。 (2005)。文學圈之理論與實務。臺北市: 朗智思維科技。
11. 柯華葳。 (2010)。提升學生閱讀理解工作坊。取自http://teachernet.moe.edu.tw/MAIN/Upload/FileUpload/53/2010-11-05_1.pdf。
12. 翁子岳。 (2011)。偏遠地區國小實施網路課業輔導之個案研究。 (碩士)，國立屏東教育大學，屏東縣。
13. 財團法人網路資訊中心。 (2012)。 2012年台灣寬頻網路使用調查。取自http://stat.twnic.net.tw/。
14. 教育部。 (2010)。2010創造公平數位機會白皮書。http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/url/20120920154036/99.06%202010%E5%89%B5%E9%80%A0%E5%85%AC%E5%B9%B3%E6%95%B8%E4%BD%8D%E6%A9%9F%E6%9C%83%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8.pdf。
15. 畢家瑞。 (2012，12)。水是未來十年的衝突根源。天下雜誌， 513。
16. 許惠玲。 (2007)。探討兒童閱讀理解能力－以「文學圈」在國小六年級閱讀討論活動為例。 (碩士)，國立新竹教育大學，新竹市。
17. 陳淑麗，洪儷瑜。 (2011)。花東地區學生識字量的特性：偏遠小校—弱勢中的弱勢。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系教育心理學報， 43， 205-226。
18. 陳琬玲。 (2007)。網路讀書會對提升國小四年級學童閱讀動機與使用滿意度之研究。 (碩士)，國立屏東教育大學，屏東縣。
19. 黃貞瑜。 (2007)。Blog出閱讀的火花－國小四年級學童網路讀書會之行動研究。(碩士)，國立屏東教育大學，屏東縣。
20. 蔡依真。 (2008)。「別再叫我文化不利」--弱勢學童課外閱讀行為之個案分析。 (未出版之碩士論文)，國立中正大學，嘉義縣。
21. 蘇玉芬。 (2006)。國民小學高年級資訊能力檢測之城鄉差距—台北市和南投縣為例。 (碩士)，亞洲大學，台中市。
22. 蘇宜芬。 (2004)。閱讀理解的影響因素及其在教學上的意義。教師天地， 129。
二、英文文獻
1. Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, J., & Nguyen, K. (1998). Intellectually stimulating story discussions. In F. Osborn (Ed.), Literacy for all: Issues inteaching and learning (pp. 170–186). New York: The Guilford Press.
2. Andresen, Martin A. (2009). Asynchronous Discussion Forums: Success Factors, Outcomes, Assessments, and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249-257.
3. Babbie, Earl R. (1992). The practice of social research. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
4. Baer, John. (2003). Grouping and Achievement in Cooperative Learning. College Teaching, 51(4), 169-174.
5. Barnes, Douglas R, Todd, Frankie, & Barnes, Douglas R. (1995). Communication and learning revisited: Making meaning through talk: Boynton/Cook Publishers Portsmouth.
6. Beach, Richard, & Yussen, Steven. (2011). Practices of Productive Adult Book Clubs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(2), 121-131.
7. Beck, I. L., McKeowan, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, NJ:International Reading Association.
8. Boardman Moen, Christine. (2005). Literature Circles Revisited. Book Links, 14(5), 52-53.
9. Bowers-Campbell, Joy. (2011). Take It Out of Class: Exploring Virtual Literature Circles. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(8), 557-567. doi: 10.1598/jaal.54.8.1
10. Cakir, Hasan, Delialioglu, Omer, Dennis, Alan, & Duffy, Thomas. (2009). Technology Enhanced Learning Environments for Closing the Gap in Student Achievement between Regions: Does It Work? AACE Journal, 17(4), 301-315.
11. Chuanyou, Bao. (2006). Policies for Compulsory Education Disparity between Urban and Rural Areas in China. Frontiers of Education in China, 1(1), 40-55.
12. Cianca, Sherri. (2012). Cross-Age Reading Buddies and Cultural-Sensitive Literature: Student-Centered English Language Instruction in an Ethiopian Budget School. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26(4), 392-417.
13. Daniels, Harvey. (2002). Literature circles : voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups. Portland, Me.: Stenhouse Publishers.
14. Daniels, Harvey. (2006). What`s the Next Big Thing with Literature Circles? Voices From the Middle, 13(4), 10-15.
15. Day, Deanna, & Kroon, Sally. (2010). Online Literature Circles Rock! Organizing Online Literature Circles in a Middle School Classroom. Middle School Journal, 42(2), 18-28.
16. de Klerk, Werner, & Nienaber, Alida W. (2011). A Discussion of a Unique Collaboration Model between Schools. Online Submission.
17. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6-28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005
18. Farenga, Stephen J, & Ness, Daniel. (2005). Encyclopedia of education and human development: ME Sharpe.
19. Fister, Barbara. (2005). "Reading as a Contact Sport" Online Book Group and the Social Dimensions of Reading. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 44.
20. Gambrell, Linda B. (2011). Seven Rules Of Engagement: What`s Most Important to Know About Motivation to Read. Reading Teacher, 65(3), 172-178. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01024
21. Gambrell, Linda B., Hughes, Elizabeth M., Calvert, Leah, Malloy, Jacquelynn A., & Igo, Brent. (2011). AUTHENTIC READING, WRITING, AND DISCUSSION: An Exploratory Study of a Pen Pal Project. Elementary School Journal, 112(2), 234-258.
22. Goatley, Virginia J., & Brock, Cynthia H. (1995). Diverse learners participating in regular education "Book Clubs`. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 352.
23. Gunawardena, Charlotte N, Lowe, Constance A, & Anderson, Terry. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of educational computing research, 17(4), 397-431.
24. Guthrie, John T., Wigfield, Allan, Humenick, Nicole M., Perencevich, Kathleen C., Taboada, Ana, & Barbosa, Pedro. (2006). Influences of Stimulating Tasks on Reading Motivation and Comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 232-245.
25. Henri, France. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117-136): Springer.
26. Hou, Huei-Tse. (2012). Analyzing the Learning Process of an Online Role-Playing Discussion Activity.
27. Kajder, Sara, & Bull, Glen. (2003). Scaffolding for struggling students. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31(2), 32.
28. Kelly, Courtney R. (2012). Recognizing the "Social" in Literacy as a Social Practice: Building on the Resources of Nonmainstream Students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(7), 608-618.
29. Kong, Ailing, & Fitch, Ellen. (2002). Using Book Club to engage culturally and linguistically diverse learners in reading, writing, and talking about books. Reading Teacher, 56(4), 352.
30. Krathwohl, David R. (2002). Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy. Theory into practice.
31. Lapp, Diane, & Fisher, Douglas. (2009). It`s All About the Book: Motivating Teens to Read. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(7), 556-561. doi: 10.1598/jaal.52.7.1
32. Larson, Lotta C. (2009). Reader Response Meets New Literacies: Empowering Readers in Online Learning Communities. Reading Teacher, 62(8), 638-648.
33. Lew, Marvin, Mesch, Debra, Johnson, David W, & Johnson, Roger. (1986). Components of cooperative learning: Effects of collaborative skills and academic group contingencies on achievement and mainstreaming. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(3), 229-239.
34. Macdonald, Janet. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: process and product. Computers & Education, 40(4), 377-391.
35. Maher, Damian. (2009). The importance of elementary school students’ social chat online: Reconceptualising the curriculum. Computers & Education, 53(2), 511-516. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.009
36. Marshall, Jodi Crum. (2006). The Effects of Participation in Literature Circles on Reading Comprehension.
37. Mitra, Sugata, Dangwal, Ritu, & Thadani, Leher. (2008). Effects of remoteness on the quality of education: A case study from North Indian schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 168-180.
38. Nystrand, Martin. (2006). Research on the Role of Classroom Discourse As It Affects Reading Comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 392-412.
39. Nystrand, Martin, Gamoran, Adam, Kachur, Robert, & Prendergast, Catherine. (1997). Opening dialogue: Teachers College Press New York.
40. Peowski, Laura. (2010, Winter). Where Are All the Teens? Engaging and Empowering Them Online. Young Adult Library Services.
41. Polleck, Jody N. (2011). Using Book Clubs to Enhance Social-Emotional and Academic Learning With Urban Adolescent Females of Color. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 27(1/2), 101-128. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2011.532717
42. Raphael, Taffy E., & McMahon, Susan I. (1994). Book club: An alternative framework for reading instruction. Reading Teacher, 48(2), 102.
43. Rettberg, Cathy. (2006, Fall). Teen Book Discussion Go Online. Young Adult Library Services.
44. Scharber, Cassandra. (2009). Online Book Clubs: Bridges Between Old and New Literacies Practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(5), 433-437.
45. Short, K. G., & Pierce, K. M. (1990). Talking about books: Creating literature communities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
46. Soter, Anna O., Wilkinson, Ian A., Murphy, P. Karen, Rudge, Lucila, Reninger, Kristin, & Edwards, Margaret. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 372-391. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2009.01.001
47. Sportsman, Emily L., Certo, Janine L., Bolt, Sara E., & Miller, Jeffrey A. (2011). Literature Circles: Social and Leadership Development Among At-Risk Students. School Psychology Forum, 5(1), 13-28.
48. Taylor, Barbara M, Pearson, P David, Peterson, Debra S, & Rodriguez, Michael C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 3-28.
49. Thomas, Matt, & Hofmeister, David. (2002). Assessing the effectiveness of technology integration: message boards for strengthening literacy. Computers & Education, 38(1–3), 233-240. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00079-3
50. Turner, Julianne C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children`s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410.
51. Watson, Scott B., & Marshall, James E. (1995). Heterogeneous grouping as an element of cooperative learning in an elementary education science. School Science & Mathematics, 95(8), 401.
52. Webb, Noreen M, Farivar, Sydney H, & Mastergeorge, Ann M. (2002). Productive helping in cooperative groups. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 13-20.
53. Wegerif, Rupert, & Mercer, Neil. (1997). Using computer-based text analysis to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in research on collaborative learning. Language and Education, 11(4), 271-286.
54. What Works, Clearinghouse. (2010). Book Clubs. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: What Works Clearinghouse.
55. White, K. V. (2008). Professional materials: Reading for Themselves: How to Transform Adolescents Into Lifelong Readers Through Outof-Class Book Clubs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(8), 696-699. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.51.8.9
56. Whittingham, Jeff. (2013). Literature Circles: A Perfect Match for Online Instruction. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 57(4), 53-58.
57. Whittingham, Jeff L., & Huffman, Stephanie. (2009). The Effects of Book Clubs on the Reading Attitudes of Middle School Students. Reading Improvement, 46(3), 130-136.
58. Williams, Leonard, & Lahman, Mary. (2011). Online Discussion, Student Engagement, and Critical Thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 7(2), 143-162. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2011.564919
59. Yang, Dazhi, Richardson, Jennifer, French, Brian, & Lehman, James. (2011). The development of a content analysis model for assessing students` cognitive learning in asynchronous online discussions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59(1), 43-70. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9166-1
60. Young, Deidra J., & et al. (1996). Science Achievement and Educational Productivity: A Hierarchical Linear Model. Journal of Educational Research, 89(5), 272-278.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班
100913028
102
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100913028
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 陳志銘zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chen, Chih Mingen_US
dc.contributor.author (作者) 黃姮惠zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Huang, Heng Huien_US
dc.creator (作者) 黃姮惠zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Huang, Heng Huien_US
dc.date (日期) 2013en_US
dc.date.accessioned 10-二月-2014 14:53:43 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 10-二月-2014 14:53:43 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 10-二月-2014 14:53:43 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0100913028en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/63694-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100913028zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 102zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究透過網路通訊平台Skype經營線上讀書會，讓偏遠地區學童與來自不同區域的學童進行閱讀討論活動，藉此觀察研究對象之間的互動討論情形與討論的對話內容層次，以探究偏遠地區學童與來自不同城鄉區域的學童組成線上讀書會，對於閱讀成效的影響。本研究之實驗對象共分為三組，實驗組一為偏鄉地區與都會地區國小六年級學童各2名，合計4名之國小六年級學童；實驗組二為偏鄉地區不同國小六年級學童各2名，合計4名之國小六年級學童；對照組為偏鄉地區相同國小共4名之國小六年級學童。本研究在實驗前後實施閱讀理解測驗，並針對各組線上讀書會的討論對話進行內容分析，實驗結束後再針對研究對象進行半結構式訪談。研究結果歸納如下：
一、基於文學圈經營線上讀書會為一可行之線上合作學習模式
二、偏遠地區學童與都會地區學童的線上讀書會成員的異質組合，有助於提升偏遠地區學童的閱讀理解成效
三、偏遠地區學童與都會地區學童的線上讀書會成員組合，有助於激發高層次之討論對話
四、同為偏遠地區但不同學校的線上讀書會成員組合，有助於營造愉快的討論氣氛
五、在討論對話中，偏遠地區學童發表高層次思考型問答以及使用推理用語的次數越多，其閱讀理解成效越好
本研究之研究結果可作為教師基於同步討論經營有效線上讀書會的實施模式參考，也對於有興趣於線上讀書會的研究者提供許多值得探究的研究方向。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) In order to explore the possibility of using information and communication technology to help the children in rural areas and the effects of rural-urban disparity on collaboration learning, this study organizes three online reading groups with different compositions of group members by implementing Literature Circles, a student-led and structured book club. The members of experiment group1 are 2 sixth graders from a rural school and 2 sixth graders from an urban school. The members of experiment group2 are 4 sixth graders. All of them are from rural schools but half of them are from a different school. The members of the control group were 4 sixth graders. All of them are classmates in a rural school. The results of reading comprehension tests and the dialogues of three groups are analyzed to collect quantitative data. A semi-structured interview is conducted to collect qualitative data.
The research outcomes shows that the heterogeneous group of rural-urban students could best improve the reading comprehension of rural students and produce high level thinking dialogues. In addition, the group of rural students from different schools could conduct the dialogues in the most delightful atmosphere among all three groups.
Based on the research outcomes, relevant applications or in-depth researches could be further preceded in the future.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 目錄
謝辭 I
摘要 III
英文摘要 V
目錄 VI
圖目錄 VIII
表目錄 X
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 前言 1
第二節 研究背景與動機 1
第三節 研究目的與問題 6
第四節 研究範圍與限制 7
第五節 名詞解釋 7
第二章 文獻探討 10
第一節 城鄉差距對於學習的影響 10
第二節 讀書會在教學上的應用 16
第三節 讀書會的經營模式 21
第四節 內容分析法 27
第三章 研究方法與實驗設計 31
第一節 研究架構 31
第二節 研究對象 33
第三節 研究方法 34
第四節 研究工具 40
第五節 實驗設計 41
第六節 資料處理分析 47
第七節 研究流程 47
第四章 實驗結果分析 49
第一節 實驗背景說明 49
第二節 閱讀理解測驗分析結果 49
第三節 討論過程內容分析 50
第四節 主要偏鄉研究對象學童閱讀理解測驗分數與討論對話表現的相關性分析 67
第五節 訪談資料分析 69
第六節 觀察與討論 73
第五章 結論與建議 75
第一節 結論 75
第二節 建議 77
參考文獻 79
附錄一 半結構式訪談大綱 87		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1148749 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100913028en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 城鄉差距zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 偏遠地區zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 線上讀書會zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 文學圈zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 閱讀成效zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) rural-urban disparityen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) online reading groupen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) literature circleen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) reading comprehensionen_US
dc.title (題名) 不同城鄉學生組成之線上讀書會對於閱讀成效的影響研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Effects of Urban and Rural Group Members in On-line Reading Groups on Reading Performanceen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文文獻
1. 江宗瑾。 (2010)。SQ3R教學策略融入網路讀書會對提昇國小學童閱讀素養成效之研究。 (碩士)，國立臺東大學，台東縣。
2. 行政院研究發展考核委員會。 (2013)。偏遠地區定義。取自http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/24/99entrynorm/%E9%99%84%E4%BB%B6%E4%BA%8C%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%83.htm。
3. 何琦瑜、賓靜蓀。 (2012)。封面故事。親子天下， 33。
4. 吳清山，林天祐。 (2003)。教育小辭書。臺北市: 五南。
5. 吳祥坤。 (2009)。國中學生基本學力測驗城鄉差距成因之比較研究─以台北市A校與金門縣B校為例。 (碩士)，銘傳大學，台北市。
6. 呂美慧。 (2012)。教育大辭書。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1453892/?index=2。
7. 李美華。 (2005)。學校城鄉差距與學生家庭社經地位對數位落差影響之研究－以國民中學為例。 (碩士)，國立政治大學，台北市。
8. 李家同。 (2010)。大量閱讀的重要性。台北市：博雅書屋。
9. 杜春梅。 (2006)。虛擬學習社群在閱讀學習成效之研究-以苗栗縣福基國小學生網路讀書會為例。 (碩士)，育達商業技術學院。
10. 侯秋玲，吳敏而。 (2005)。文學圈之理論與實務。臺北市: 朗智思維科技。
11. 柯華葳。 (2010)。提升學生閱讀理解工作坊。取自http://teachernet.moe.edu.tw/MAIN/Upload/FileUpload/53/2010-11-05_1.pdf。
12. 翁子岳。 (2011)。偏遠地區國小實施網路課業輔導之個案研究。 (碩士)，國立屏東教育大學，屏東縣。
13. 財團法人網路資訊中心。 (2012)。 2012年台灣寬頻網路使用調查。取自http://stat.twnic.net.tw/。
14. 教育部。 (2010)。2010創造公平數位機會白皮書。http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/url/20120920154036/99.06%202010%E5%89%B5%E9%80%A0%E5%85%AC%E5%B9%B3%E6%95%B8%E4%BD%8D%E6%A9%9F%E6%9C%83%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8.pdf。
15. 畢家瑞。 (2012，12)。水是未來十年的衝突根源。天下雜誌， 513。
16. 許惠玲。 (2007)。探討兒童閱讀理解能力－以「文學圈」在國小六年級閱讀討論活動為例。 (碩士)，國立新竹教育大學，新竹市。
17. 陳淑麗，洪儷瑜。 (2011)。花東地區學生識字量的特性：偏遠小校—弱勢中的弱勢。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系教育心理學報， 43， 205-226。
18. 陳琬玲。 (2007)。網路讀書會對提升國小四年級學童閱讀動機與使用滿意度之研究。 (碩士)，國立屏東教育大學，屏東縣。
19. 黃貞瑜。 (2007)。Blog出閱讀的火花－國小四年級學童網路讀書會之行動研究。(碩士)，國立屏東教育大學，屏東縣。
20. 蔡依真。 (2008)。「別再叫我文化不利」--弱勢學童課外閱讀行為之個案分析。 (未出版之碩士論文)，國立中正大學，嘉義縣。
21. 蘇玉芬。 (2006)。國民小學高年級資訊能力檢測之城鄉差距—台北市和南投縣為例。 (碩士)，亞洲大學，台中市。
22. 蘇宜芬。 (2004)。閱讀理解的影響因素及其在教學上的意義。教師天地， 129。
二、英文文獻
1. Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, J., & Nguyen, K. (1998). Intellectually stimulating story discussions. In F. Osborn (Ed.), Literacy for all: Issues inteaching and learning (pp. 170–186). New York: The Guilford Press.
2. Andresen, Martin A. (2009). Asynchronous Discussion Forums: Success Factors, Outcomes, Assessments, and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249-257.
3. Babbie, Earl R. (1992). The practice of social research. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
4. Baer, John. (2003). Grouping and Achievement in Cooperative Learning. College Teaching, 51(4), 169-174.
5. Barnes, Douglas R, Todd, Frankie, & Barnes, Douglas R. (1995). Communication and learning revisited: Making meaning through talk: Boynton/Cook Publishers Portsmouth.
6. Beach, Richard, & Yussen, Steven. (2011). Practices of Productive Adult Book Clubs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(2), 121-131.
7. Beck, I. L., McKeowan, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, NJ:International Reading Association.
8. Boardman Moen, Christine. (2005). Literature Circles Revisited. Book Links, 14(5), 52-53.
9. Bowers-Campbell, Joy. (2011). Take It Out of Class: Exploring Virtual Literature Circles. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(8), 557-567. doi: 10.1598/jaal.54.8.1
10. Cakir, Hasan, Delialioglu, Omer, Dennis, Alan, & Duffy, Thomas. (2009). Technology Enhanced Learning Environments for Closing the Gap in Student Achievement between Regions: Does It Work? AACE Journal, 17(4), 301-315.
11. Chuanyou, Bao. (2006). Policies for Compulsory Education Disparity between Urban and Rural Areas in China. Frontiers of Education in China, 1(1), 40-55.
12. Cianca, Sherri. (2012). Cross-Age Reading Buddies and Cultural-Sensitive Literature: Student-Centered English Language Instruction in an Ethiopian Budget School. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26(4), 392-417.
13. Daniels, Harvey. (2002). Literature circles : voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups. Portland, Me.: Stenhouse Publishers.
14. Daniels, Harvey. (2006). What`s the Next Big Thing with Literature Circles? Voices From the Middle, 13(4), 10-15.
15. Day, Deanna, & Kroon, Sally. (2010). Online Literature Circles Rock! Organizing Online Literature Circles in a Middle School Classroom. Middle School Journal, 42(2), 18-28.
16. de Klerk, Werner, & Nienaber, Alida W. (2011). A Discussion of a Unique Collaboration Model between Schools. Online Submission.
17. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6-28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005
18. Farenga, Stephen J, & Ness, Daniel. (2005). Encyclopedia of education and human development: ME Sharpe.
19. Fister, Barbara. (2005). "Reading as a Contact Sport" Online Book Group and the Social Dimensions of Reading. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 44.
20. Gambrell, Linda B. (2011). Seven Rules Of Engagement: What`s Most Important to Know About Motivation to Read. Reading Teacher, 65(3), 172-178. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01024
21. Gambrell, Linda B., Hughes, Elizabeth M., Calvert, Leah, Malloy, Jacquelynn A., & Igo, Brent. (2011). AUTHENTIC READING, WRITING, AND DISCUSSION: An Exploratory Study of a Pen Pal Project. Elementary School Journal, 112(2), 234-258.
22. Goatley, Virginia J., & Brock, Cynthia H. (1995). Diverse learners participating in regular education "Book Clubs`. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 352.
23. Gunawardena, Charlotte N, Lowe, Constance A, & Anderson, Terry. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of educational computing research, 17(4), 397-431.
24. Guthrie, John T., Wigfield, Allan, Humenick, Nicole M., Perencevich, Kathleen C., Taboada, Ana, & Barbosa, Pedro. (2006). Influences of Stimulating Tasks on Reading Motivation and Comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 232-245.
25. Henri, France. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117-136): Springer.
26. Hou, Huei-Tse. (2012). Analyzing the Learning Process of an Online Role-Playing Discussion Activity.
27. Kajder, Sara, & Bull, Glen. (2003). Scaffolding for struggling students. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31(2), 32.
28. Kelly, Courtney R. (2012). Recognizing the "Social" in Literacy as a Social Practice: Building on the Resources of Nonmainstream Students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(7), 608-618.
29. Kong, Ailing, & Fitch, Ellen. (2002). Using Book Club to engage culturally and linguistically diverse learners in reading, writing, and talking about books. Reading Teacher, 56(4), 352.
30. Krathwohl, David R. (2002). Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy. Theory into practice.
31. Lapp, Diane, & Fisher, Douglas. (2009). It`s All About the Book: Motivating Teens to Read. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(7), 556-561. doi: 10.1598/jaal.52.7.1
32. Larson, Lotta C. (2009). Reader Response Meets New Literacies: Empowering Readers in Online Learning Communities. Reading Teacher, 62(8), 638-648.
33. Lew, Marvin, Mesch, Debra, Johnson, David W, & Johnson, Roger. (1986). Components of cooperative learning: Effects of collaborative skills and academic group contingencies on achievement and mainstreaming. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(3), 229-239.
34. Macdonald, Janet. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: process and product. Computers & Education, 40(4), 377-391.
35. Maher, Damian. (2009). The importance of elementary school students’ social chat online: Reconceptualising the curriculum. Computers & Education, 53(2), 511-516. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.009
36. Marshall, Jodi Crum. (2006). The Effects of Participation in Literature Circles on Reading Comprehension.
37. Mitra, Sugata, Dangwal, Ritu, & Thadani, Leher. (2008). Effects of remoteness on the quality of education: A case study from North Indian schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 168-180.
38. Nystrand, Martin. (2006). Research on the Role of Classroom Discourse As It Affects Reading Comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 392-412.
39. Nystrand, Martin, Gamoran, Adam, Kachur, Robert, & Prendergast, Catherine. (1997). Opening dialogue: Teachers College Press New York.
40. Peowski, Laura. (2010, Winter). Where Are All the Teens? Engaging and Empowering Them Online. Young Adult Library Services.
41. Polleck, Jody N. (2011). Using Book Clubs to Enhance Social-Emotional and Academic Learning With Urban Adolescent Females of Color. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 27(1/2), 101-128. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2011.532717
42. Raphael, Taffy E., & McMahon, Susan I. (1994). Book club: An alternative framework for reading instruction. Reading Teacher, 48(2), 102.
43. Rettberg, Cathy. (2006, Fall). Teen Book Discussion Go Online. Young Adult Library Services.
44. Scharber, Cassandra. (2009). Online Book Clubs: Bridges Between Old and New Literacies Practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(5), 433-437.
45. Short, K. G., & Pierce, K. M. (1990). Talking about books: Creating literature communities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
46. Soter, Anna O., Wilkinson, Ian A., Murphy, P. Karen, Rudge, Lucila, Reninger, Kristin, & Edwards, Margaret. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 372-391. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2009.01.001
47. Sportsman, Emily L., Certo, Janine L., Bolt, Sara E., & Miller, Jeffrey A. (2011). Literature Circles: Social and Leadership Development Among At-Risk Students. School Psychology Forum, 5(1), 13-28.
48. Taylor, Barbara M, Pearson, P David, Peterson, Debra S, & Rodriguez, Michael C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 3-28.
49. Thomas, Matt, & Hofmeister, David. (2002). Assessing the effectiveness of technology integration: message boards for strengthening literacy. Computers & Education, 38(1–3), 233-240. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00079-3
50. Turner, Julianne C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children`s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410.
51. Watson, Scott B., & Marshall, James E. (1995). Heterogeneous grouping as an element of cooperative learning in an elementary education science. School Science & Mathematics, 95(8), 401.
52. Webb, Noreen M, Farivar, Sydney H, & Mastergeorge, Ann M. (2002). Productive helping in cooperative groups. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 13-20.
53. Wegerif, Rupert, & Mercer, Neil. (1997). Using computer-based text analysis to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in research on collaborative learning. Language and Education, 11(4), 271-286.
54. What Works, Clearinghouse. (2010). Book Clubs. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: What Works Clearinghouse.
55. White, K. V. (2008). Professional materials: Reading for Themselves: How to Transform Adolescents Into Lifelong Readers Through Outof-Class Book Clubs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(8), 696-699. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.51.8.9
56. Whittingham, Jeff. (2013). Literature Circles: A Perfect Match for Online Instruction. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 57(4), 53-58.
57. Whittingham, Jeff L., & Huffman, Stephanie. (2009). The Effects of Book Clubs on the Reading Attitudes of Middle School Students. Reading Improvement, 46(3), 130-136.
58. Williams, Leonard, & Lahman, Mary. (2011). Online Discussion, Student Engagement, and Critical Thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 7(2), 143-162. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2011.564919
59. Yang, Dazhi, Richardson, Jennifer, French, Brian, & Lehman, James. (2011). The development of a content analysis model for assessing students` cognitive learning in asynchronous online discussions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59(1), 43-70. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9166-1
60. Young, Deidra J., & et al. (1996). Science Achievement and Educational Productivity: A Hierarchical Linear Model. Journal of Educational Research, 89(5), 272-278.		zh_TW