學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 融入知識翻新教學對國小學童閱讀理解和閱讀動機之影響
Effects of knowledge building on elementary school students’ reading comprehension and reading motivation作者 黃姿瑋 貢獻者 洪煌堯
黃姿瑋關鍵詞 閱讀理解
閱讀動機
知識翻新教學
reading comprehension
reading motivation
knowledge building日期 2015 上傳時間 17-八月-2015 14:17:07 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究旨在探討融入知識翻新（knowledge building）教學能否提升國小學生的閱讀理解和閱讀動機。研究對象為新北市某國小兩班三年級學生：其中一班為實驗組（n=24人），另一班則為控制組(n=27)。前者採用知識翻新原則進行教學，並輔以知識論壇（Knowledge Forum）線上學習平台；後者則採傳統講述教學。實驗時間共計18週。 本研究的研究目的在瞭解經過二種不同教學方式後，兩組學生的閱讀動機和閱讀理解表現是否具有差異。資料來源包含：（1）PIRLS閱讀測驗前後測成績；（2）平台討論貼文內容；（3）平台參與活動量（包括貼文數、回文數等量化資料）；及（4）閱讀動機量表前後測分數。資料分析採質性內容分析、單因子共變數分析、相依樣本t檢定、卡方檢定等方式。除探討二種教學之不同外，本研究並進一步探討實驗組學生在平台上的活動情形。 研究結果顯示：（1）基於知識翻新教學的平台討論活動，有助於提升學生高層次閱讀理解想法的討論，但討論內容缺乏深度；（2）知識翻新教學有助於提升學生閱讀理解能力；（3）學生參與閱讀理解討論之程度和品質皆與閱讀理解進步程度有正相關；（4）知識翻新教學對於學生閱讀動機並無顯著提升，但其閱讀動機提升程度與平台活動的參與程度具有正相關。根據研究結果，本研究提出相關討論與建議，以供後續閱讀教學及研究之參考。
The aim of the study was to investigate whether engaging students in a computer supported collaborative knowledge building environment can help them improve their reading comprehension and reading motivation. Participants in this study were 51 third-grade students from two classes in an elementary school in New Taipei City. Of the two classes, the experimental class has 24 students, and the control class has 27 students. The students taking part in the experimental course received knowledge building pedagogy with Knowledge Forum (an online multimedia platform) being used for students to collaboratively construct their reading comprehension of the textbook articles online. The duration of the study was 18 weeks. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the differences of the instructional effects between the two classes in terms of the reading comprehension and motivation. Data mainly came from: (1) pre-post PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) test that investigated students’ reading comprehension; (2) the idea and discussion content contributed to Knowledge Forum; (3) participants’ interaction records automatically documented in the Knowledge Forum data (e.g., number of students’ notes contributed or built on); and (4) the pre-post MRQ (i.e., the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire) scores that measured students’ reading motivation. Both quantitative and qualitative data analyses were conducted. For quantitative data, one-way ANCOVA, paired t-test and chi-square were used to examine students’ reading comprehension and reading motivation; for qualitative data, content analysis was used to evaluate the quality of students’ ideas and discussion. The main findings were as follows: (1) knowledge building pedagogy were conducive to promoting the kind of online discussion that supports higher-level reading comprehension, but were unable to deepen the depth of discussion; (2) knowledge building pedagogy was conducive to enhancing reading comprehension; (3) both the degree of participation and the quality of discussion were found correlated with the degree of students’ advancement in reading comprehension; and (4) knowledge building pedagogy did not enhance students’ reading motivation; however, there was a correlation between pre-post change scores in reading motivation and the degree of online participation. Based on the results, some suggestions and implications were discussed.參考文獻 王文科（1991）。教育心理學。臺北：五南。江逸之（2007）。全球都相信閱讀就是競爭力。遠見雜誌，254，126-132。江美滿（2010）。借鏡日本：閱讀教育就是心的教育。親子天下，16，143-145。李素足（1999）。台中縣市國小中、高年級學童閱讀動機的探討。國立臺中師範 學院國民教育所碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。宋曜廷、劉佩雲、簡馨瑩（2003）。閱讀動機量表的修訂及相關因素研究。中國測驗學會測驗學刊，50(1)，47-52。李燕妮（2006）。分享式閱讀教學對國小低年級學童閱讀理解能力及閱讀動機之影響。國立臺南師範學院教育學系課程與教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。林建平（1995）。國小學童的閱讀動機、理解策略與閱讀成就之相關研究。臺北市立師範學院學報，26，267-294。林秀娟（2001）。閱讀討論教學對國小學童閱讀動機、閱讀態度和閱讀行為之影響。國立臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。林士郁（2002）。父母創意教養方式、父母閱讀教養方式、閱讀動機與閱讀行為、創造力之關係。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。林玫伶（2004）。校園閱讀的「天花」與「種花」~深耕閱讀的理念與實際。教師天地，129，50-52。洪月女（譯）（1998）。談閱讀（原作者：K. S. Goodman）。臺北：心理出版社。（原著出版年，1996）胡永崇（2008）。閱讀理解的教學評量方式。屏師特殊教育，16，1-9。施頂清（2000）。自我發問策略與合作學習（小組討論）對國中生國文閱讀理解的效果比較考驗。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。柯華葳（1993）。臺灣地區閱讀研究文獻回顧。載於曾志朗（主編），中國語文心理學研究第一年度結案報告（31-76頁）。嘉義，臺灣：國立中正大學認知科學研究中心。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。柯華葳（2009）。閱讀的關鍵，在思考。親子天下雜誌特刊，1，20-27。柯華葳、邱嘉慧、詹益綾、游婷雅、楊芝瑜（2013）。臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養（PIRLS 2011 報告）。中壢：國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。張春興（1989）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北：東華。莊佩玲（2002）。不同閱讀教學方法對國小學生閱讀動機及班級閱讀氣氛影響之比較研究。國立臺南師範學院國民教育所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。陸建國（2004）。實施班級閱讀的作法。國教輔導，43(5)，43-47。郭翠秀（2007）。閱讀教學與國民小學學童閱讀動機及行為的關係—以2005年PIRLS資料為例。國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園市。教育部（2010年4月8日）。「悅讀101」教育部國民中小學提升閱讀計畫。取自：http://epaper.edu.tw/topical.aspx?topical_sn=436。教育部（2012年1月30日）。悅讀101! 教育部101年度全方位推動國民中小學閱讀政策。取自： http://www.eycc.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=583DE2B2364F19DF&sms=8A4486FBFD6DD5D3&s=30C91F5E41A2647E。張毓仁、柯華葳、邱浩政、歐宗霖、溫福星（2011）。教師閱讀教學行為與學生閱讀態度和閱讀能力自我評價對於閱讀成就之跨層次影響：以PIRLS 2006 為例。教育科學研究期刊，56(2)，69-105。陳欣希（2013）。課文本位閱讀理解教學研習手冊。教育部閱讀師資培訓區域人才培育中心研究計劃。湯平志（2000）。小組合作學習對國小中年級學童識字能力閱讀理解能力暨閱讀態度影響之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義市。曾瑞譙（2003）。推行閱讀運動啟發學生的創造力。臺灣教育，621，50-55。楊淑娟（2003）。加拿大及早開啟夢想之窗。載於齊若蘭、游常山、李雪麗（主編），閱讀—新一代知識革命（38-45頁）。臺北：天下雜誌。楊麗秋、黃秀霜、陳惠萍（2009）。書談閱讀教學對國小國語科低成就學童閱讀動機之影響。課程與教學季刊，12(3)，153-186。趙維玲（2001）。Booktalk對國小學童閱讀動機和閱讀行為之成效探討。國立臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。趙鏡中（2011）。提升閱讀力的教與學。臺北：萬卷樓。蔡宜芳（2009）。質問作者策略教學對國小高年級學童閱讀提問表現、閱讀理解、後設認知與閱讀動機之影響。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。賓靜蓀（2010）。動機，閱讀教學的關鍵。親子天下，19，136-139。臺北：親子天下。齊若蘭（2003）。哪個國家學生閱讀能力最強？。載於齊若蘭、游常山、李雪麗（主編），閱讀—新一代知識革命（26-37頁）。臺北：天下雜誌。賴苑玲（2000）。讓我們來參與閱讀活動。社教資料雜誌，269，1-3。Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children`s motivations for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452-477.Beck, I. L., McKeownm M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 385-414.Beck, I. L., & McKeownm M. G. (2006). Improving comprehension with questioning the author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach. New York: Scholastic.Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt-Brace.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,78(4), 256-262Gambrell, L. B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation. The Reading teacher, 50(1), 14-25.Guthrie, J. T. (1991). Reading interests. The Reading Teacher, 34(8), 984-986.Guthrie, J. T., & McCann, A. D. (1997). Characteristics of classrooms that promote motivations and strategies for learning. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp.128-148). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., & Teo, C. L. (2008). Principle-based design to foster adaptive use of technology for building community knowledge. In G. Kanselaar, V.Jonker, P.A. Kirschner, &F.J. Prins (Eds.), International. Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a learning world. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2008, Vol.1 (pp.374-381). Utrecht, the Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Hong, H. Y., &; Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(5), 613-627.King, A.（1994）. Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom：Effect of teachingchildren how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.Kush, J. C., & Watkins, M. W. (1996). Long-term stability of children`s attitude toward reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(5), 315-319.Lee, E. Y., Chan, C. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57-87. doi:10.1007/s11412-006-6844-4Lerner, J. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S. (2012). Methods and procedures in TIMSS and PIRLS 2011. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Transforming knowledge into professional development resources: Six teachers implement a model of teaching for understanding text. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 391-408.Miller, S. D., & Meece, J. L. (1997). Enhancing elementary students` motivation to read and write: A classroom intervention study. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 286-299.Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K.T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2011/reports/international-results-pirls.htmlOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: Author.Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework: key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: Author.Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdfOshima, J., Oshima, R., Murayama, I., Inagaki, S., Takenaka, M., Nakayama, H., et al. (2004). Design experiments in Japanese elementary science education with computer support for collaborative learning: Hypothesis testing and collaborative construction. International Journal of Science Education, 26(10), 1199-1221.Polloway, E. A., & Patton, J. R. (1997). Strategies for teaching learners with special need (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.) Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court. Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, &; R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of education (pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In A. Kovalchick, & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara, CA.Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building： Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp.97-118). New York: Cambridge University.Sun, Y., Zhang, J., &; Scardamalia, M. (2008). Addressing gender gap in literacy through knowledge building: A follow-up analysis of different content areas. Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.U.S. Department of Education. (1997). America reads challenge. Department of Education, Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Reading first. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html.Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1995). Dimensions of children`s motivations for reading: An initial Study. Reading Research Report No. 34. Maryland.Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., & McGrough, K. (1996). A questionnaire measure of children’s motivation for reading. Instructional Resource No.22. Maryland.Wigfield, A. (1997). Relations motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational Psychologist, 32, 59-68.Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children`s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational psychology, 89, 420-432.Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004).Children`s motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 299-309.Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C., & Morley, E. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262-307. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
教育研究所
102152016資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102152016 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 洪煌堯 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 黃姿瑋 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) 黃姿瑋 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 2015 en_US dc.date.accessioned 17-八月-2015 14:17:07 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 17-八月-2015 14:17:07 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 17-八月-2015 14:17:07 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0102152016 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/77611 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 教育研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 102152016 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在探討融入知識翻新（knowledge building）教學能否提升國小學生的閱讀理解和閱讀動機。研究對象為新北市某國小兩班三年級學生：其中一班為實驗組（n=24人），另一班則為控制組(n=27)。前者採用知識翻新原則進行教學，並輔以知識論壇（Knowledge Forum）線上學習平台；後者則採傳統講述教學。實驗時間共計18週。 本研究的研究目的在瞭解經過二種不同教學方式後，兩組學生的閱讀動機和閱讀理解表現是否具有差異。資料來源包含：（1）PIRLS閱讀測驗前後測成績；（2）平台討論貼文內容；（3）平台參與活動量（包括貼文數、回文數等量化資料）；及（4）閱讀動機量表前後測分數。資料分析採質性內容分析、單因子共變數分析、相依樣本t檢定、卡方檢定等方式。除探討二種教學之不同外，本研究並進一步探討實驗組學生在平台上的活動情形。 研究結果顯示：（1）基於知識翻新教學的平台討論活動，有助於提升學生高層次閱讀理解想法的討論，但討論內容缺乏深度；（2）知識翻新教學有助於提升學生閱讀理解能力；（3）學生參與閱讀理解討論之程度和品質皆與閱讀理解進步程度有正相關；（4）知識翻新教學對於學生閱讀動機並無顯著提升，但其閱讀動機提升程度與平台活動的參與程度具有正相關。根據研究結果，本研究提出相關討論與建議，以供後續閱讀教學及研究之參考。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The aim of the study was to investigate whether engaging students in a computer supported collaborative knowledge building environment can help them improve their reading comprehension and reading motivation. Participants in this study were 51 third-grade students from two classes in an elementary school in New Taipei City. Of the two classes, the experimental class has 24 students, and the control class has 27 students. The students taking part in the experimental course received knowledge building pedagogy with Knowledge Forum (an online multimedia platform) being used for students to collaboratively construct their reading comprehension of the textbook articles online. The duration of the study was 18 weeks. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the differences of the instructional effects between the two classes in terms of the reading comprehension and motivation. Data mainly came from: (1) pre-post PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) test that investigated students’ reading comprehension; (2) the idea and discussion content contributed to Knowledge Forum; (3) participants’ interaction records automatically documented in the Knowledge Forum data (e.g., number of students’ notes contributed or built on); and (4) the pre-post MRQ (i.e., the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire) scores that measured students’ reading motivation. Both quantitative and qualitative data analyses were conducted. For quantitative data, one-way ANCOVA, paired t-test and chi-square were used to examine students’ reading comprehension and reading motivation; for qualitative data, content analysis was used to evaluate the quality of students’ ideas and discussion. The main findings were as follows: (1) knowledge building pedagogy were conducive to promoting the kind of online discussion that supports higher-level reading comprehension, but were unable to deepen the depth of discussion; (2) knowledge building pedagogy was conducive to enhancing reading comprehension; (3) both the degree of participation and the quality of discussion were found correlated with the degree of students’ advancement in reading comprehension; and (4) knowledge building pedagogy did not enhance students’ reading motivation; however, there was a correlation between pre-post change scores in reading motivation and the degree of online participation. Based on the results, some suggestions and implications were discussed. 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..................................5第三節 重要名詞釋義.......................................6第四節 研究範圍與限制.....................................8第二章 文獻探討...........................................9第一節 知識翻新教學.......................................9第二節 閱讀動機........................................14第三節 閱讀理解........................................19第三章 研究方法........................................24第一節 研究設計........................................24第二節 教學設計與實施...................................26第三節 研究流程........................................33第四節 資料來源與分析...................................34第四章 研究結果........................................44第一節 知識論壇中學習活動情形............................44第二節 國小學生閱讀理解變化情形與其平台活動之相關..........60第三節 國小學生閱讀動機變化情形與其平台活動之相關..........71第五章 結論與建議.......................................80第一節 結論..............................................80第二節 建議..............................................84參考文獻.................................................88附錄一 實驗組教學活動流程範例............................95附錄二 閱讀動機量表使用同意書............................99 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2008542 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102152016 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 閱讀理解 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 閱讀動機 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識翻新教學 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) reading comprehension en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) reading motivation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) knowledge building en_US dc.title (題名) 融入知識翻新教學對國小學童閱讀理解和閱讀動機之影響 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Effects of knowledge building on elementary school students’ reading comprehension and reading motivation en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王文科（1991）。教育心理學。臺北：五南。江逸之（2007）。全球都相信閱讀就是競爭力。遠見雜誌，254，126-132。江美滿（2010）。借鏡日本：閱讀教育就是心的教育。親子天下，16，143-145。李素足（1999）。台中縣市國小中、高年級學童閱讀動機的探討。國立臺中師範 學院國民教育所碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。宋曜廷、劉佩雲、簡馨瑩（2003）。閱讀動機量表的修訂及相關因素研究。中國測驗學會測驗學刊，50(1)，47-52。李燕妮（2006）。分享式閱讀教學對國小低年級學童閱讀理解能力及閱讀動機之影響。國立臺南師範學院教育學系課程與教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。林建平（1995）。國小學童的閱讀動機、理解策略與閱讀成就之相關研究。臺北市立師範學院學報，26，267-294。林秀娟（2001）。閱讀討論教學對國小學童閱讀動機、閱讀態度和閱讀行為之影響。國立臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。林士郁（2002）。父母創意教養方式、父母閱讀教養方式、閱讀動機與閱讀行為、創造力之關係。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。林玫伶（2004）。校園閱讀的「天花」與「種花」~深耕閱讀的理念與實際。教師天地，129，50-52。洪月女（譯）（1998）。談閱讀（原作者：K. S. Goodman）。臺北：心理出版社。（原著出版年，1996）胡永崇（2008）。閱讀理解的教學評量方式。屏師特殊教育，16，1-9。施頂清（2000）。自我發問策略與合作學習（小組討論）對國中生國文閱讀理解的效果比較考驗。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。柯華葳（1993）。臺灣地區閱讀研究文獻回顧。載於曾志朗（主編），中國語文心理學研究第一年度結案報告（31-76頁）。嘉義，臺灣：國立中正大學認知科學研究中心。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。柯華葳（2009）。閱讀的關鍵，在思考。親子天下雜誌特刊，1，20-27。柯華葳、邱嘉慧、詹益綾、游婷雅、楊芝瑜（2013）。臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養（PIRLS 2011 報告）。中壢：國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。張春興（1989）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北：東華。莊佩玲（2002）。不同閱讀教學方法對國小學生閱讀動機及班級閱讀氣氛影響之比較研究。國立臺南師範學院國民教育所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。陸建國（2004）。實施班級閱讀的作法。國教輔導，43(5)，43-47。郭翠秀（2007）。閱讀教學與國民小學學童閱讀動機及行為的關係—以2005年PIRLS資料為例。國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園市。教育部（2010年4月8日）。「悅讀101」教育部國民中小學提升閱讀計畫。取自：http://epaper.edu.tw/topical.aspx?topical_sn=436。教育部（2012年1月30日）。悅讀101! 教育部101年度全方位推動國民中小學閱讀政策。取自： http://www.eycc.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=583DE2B2364F19DF&sms=8A4486FBFD6DD5D3&s=30C91F5E41A2647E。張毓仁、柯華葳、邱浩政、歐宗霖、溫福星（2011）。教師閱讀教學行為與學生閱讀態度和閱讀能力自我評價對於閱讀成就之跨層次影響：以PIRLS 2006 為例。教育科學研究期刊，56(2)，69-105。陳欣希（2013）。課文本位閱讀理解教學研習手冊。教育部閱讀師資培訓區域人才培育中心研究計劃。湯平志（2000）。小組合作學習對國小中年級學童識字能力閱讀理解能力暨閱讀態度影響之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義市。曾瑞譙（2003）。推行閱讀運動啟發學生的創造力。臺灣教育，621，50-55。楊淑娟（2003）。加拿大及早開啟夢想之窗。載於齊若蘭、游常山、李雪麗（主編），閱讀—新一代知識革命（38-45頁）。臺北：天下雜誌。楊麗秋、黃秀霜、陳惠萍（2009）。書談閱讀教學對國小國語科低成就學童閱讀動機之影響。課程與教學季刊，12(3)，153-186。趙維玲（2001）。Booktalk對國小學童閱讀動機和閱讀行為之成效探討。國立臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。趙鏡中（2011）。提升閱讀力的教與學。臺北：萬卷樓。蔡宜芳（2009）。質問作者策略教學對國小高年級學童閱讀提問表現、閱讀理解、後設認知與閱讀動機之影響。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。賓靜蓀（2010）。動機，閱讀教學的關鍵。親子天下，19，136-139。臺北：親子天下。齊若蘭（2003）。哪個國家學生閱讀能力最強？。載於齊若蘭、游常山、李雪麗（主編），閱讀—新一代知識革命（26-37頁）。臺北：天下雜誌。賴苑玲（2000）。讓我們來參與閱讀活動。社教資料雜誌，269，1-3。Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children`s motivations for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452-477.Beck, I. L., McKeownm M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 385-414.Beck, I. L., & McKeownm M. G. (2006). Improving comprehension with questioning the author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach. New York: Scholastic.Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt-Brace.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,78(4), 256-262Gambrell, L. B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation. The Reading teacher, 50(1), 14-25.Guthrie, J. T. (1991). Reading interests. The Reading Teacher, 34(8), 984-986.Guthrie, J. T., & McCann, A. D. (1997). Characteristics of classrooms that promote motivations and strategies for learning. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp.128-148). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., & Teo, C. L. (2008). Principle-based design to foster adaptive use of technology for building community knowledge. In G. Kanselaar, V.Jonker, P.A. Kirschner, &F.J. Prins (Eds.), International. Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a learning world. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2008, Vol.1 (pp.374-381). Utrecht, the Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Hong, H. Y., &; Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(5), 613-627.King, A.（1994）. Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom：Effect of teachingchildren how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.Kush, J. C., & Watkins, M. W. (1996). Long-term stability of children`s attitude toward reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(5), 315-319.Lee, E. Y., Chan, C. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57-87. doi:10.1007/s11412-006-6844-4Lerner, J. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S. (2012). Methods and procedures in TIMSS and PIRLS 2011. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Transforming knowledge into professional development resources: Six teachers implement a model of teaching for understanding text. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 391-408.Miller, S. D., & Meece, J. L. (1997). Enhancing elementary students` motivation to read and write: A classroom intervention study. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 286-299.Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K.T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2011/reports/international-results-pirls.htmlOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: Author.Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework: key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: Author.Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdfOshima, J., Oshima, R., Murayama, I., Inagaki, S., Takenaka, M., Nakayama, H., et al. (2004). Design experiments in Japanese elementary science education with computer support for collaborative learning: Hypothesis testing and collaborative construction. International Journal of Science Education, 26(10), 1199-1221.Polloway, E. A., & Patton, J. R. (1997). Strategies for teaching learners with special need (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.) Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court. Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, &; R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of education (pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In A. Kovalchick, & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara, CA.Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building： Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp.97-118). New York: Cambridge University.Sun, Y., Zhang, J., &; Scardamalia, M. (2008). Addressing gender gap in literacy through knowledge building: A follow-up analysis of different content areas. Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.U.S. Department of Education. (1997). America reads challenge. Department of Education, Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Reading first. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html.Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1995). Dimensions of children`s motivations for reading: An initial Study. Reading Research Report No. 34. Maryland.Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., & McGrough, K. (1996). A questionnaire measure of children’s motivation for reading. Instructional Resource No.22. Maryland.Wigfield, A. (1997). Relations motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational Psychologist, 32, 59-68.Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children`s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational psychology, 89, 420-432.Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004).Children`s motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 299-309.Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C., & Morley, E. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262-307. zh_TW
