臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

快速全球化的社會中，線上資源成為資訊來源、和他人溝通及閱讀理解的重要媒介，因此，線上閱讀理解近年來成為重要的研究議題，以了解個人在線上辨識重要問題、擷取、統整、評鑑資訊並且與他人溝通重要資訊所需要的新的閱讀理解技能、策略和氣質，而這些能力也符應了社會領域中學生必須解讀、闡釋多種資訊、傾聽、發現多元觀點的社會領域學習新趨勢。本研究目的在結合線上資源，發展國中學生社會領域線上閱讀素養評量，描述國中二年級學生社會領域線上閱讀素養的表現概況，研究中參考國際學生學習評量計畫（Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA），以擬真的線上網路閱讀進行評量，內容包含擷取訊息、統整解釋及批判性思考線上文本，題型包含選擇題與開放性試題。 本研究以627位國中二年級學生為施測樣本，初步探討此評量的效度。甲式評量的內部一致性為0.62，乙式評量的內部一致性為0.48，平均通過率為0.46，表示這份測驗對研究中的國中二年級學生是較困難的。學生達進階水準有68人（10.85%），精熟水準172人（27.43%），基礎水準286人（45.61%），未達基礎水準101人（16.11%）。未達基礎水準學生的導航能力不足，無法擷取所需資訊，基礎水準學生能歸納出單一文本內容的重要意涵，精熟水準學生能閱讀篇幅較長或閱讀難度高的單一文本，進階水準學生能歸納多元文本的資訊並進行批判思考。社會領域線上閱讀素養與在校成績的相關為0.44～0.52（數學、英語、自然、國文、社會），和在校成績的相關以社會與國文成績最高，大致呈現合理的相關組型。整體而言，本研究所編製的社會領域線上閱讀素養評量具有良好的幅合和區辨效度。男、女生在社會領域線上閱讀素養的表現，女生比男生略好，效果量為0.22。

The purpose of this study is to develop an Electronic Reading Assessment on Social Studies (ERASS) to explore the characteristics of Taiwanese 8th graders’ on-line reading development in social studies. The ERASS contains 3 aspect of on-line reading process: retrieving information, synthesizing information and critical thinking. The assessment system divided into two interfaces: questions and reading content. The reading content imitates a real-world online website, and the item types included in this assessment are multi-choice and constructive response. There are 627 8th graders sampled from four local schools in Tainan. The results indicate that ERASS is a little difficult for most 8th graders (mean proportion correct is 0.46). The Stratified Cronbach alpha of Form-A is 0.62, and it of Form-B is 0.48. The correlation coefficient between ERASS and the school grades of five subjects (Mathematics, English, Science, Chinese and Social Studies) ranged from 0.44 to 0.52. The pattern of correlation coefficient demonstrates sensible support for the convergent and discriminate validity. Girls perform better than boys on this assessment and the effect size is 0.22.

中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………...i
英文摘要…………………………………………………………………….……….ii
目 次………………………………………………………………………......…... iii
表 次…………………………………………………………………………....…..iv
圖 次………………………………………………………………………….......... v

第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 5
第三節 名詞釋義 6
第四節 研究限制 6
第贰章 文獻探討 7
第一節 社會領域學習 7
第二節 線上閱讀素養 14
第叁章 研究設計 19
第一節 研究流程 19
第二節 研究樣本 20
第三節 研究工具 22
第四節 資料分析 29
第肆章 結果與討論 30
第一節 社會領域線上閱讀素養評量心理計量特徵 30
第二節 社會領域線上閱讀素養學生表現概況 37
第伍章 結論與建議 48
第一節 研究結論 48
第二節 研究建議 50
參考文獻 51
附錄一 55

林煥祥、劉聖忠、林素微、李暉（2008）。台灣參加PISA成果報告。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫（NSC95-2522-S-026-002）。花蓮縣：國立花蓮教育大學；高雄市：國立高雄師範大學。
柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅（2008）。台灣四年級學生閱讀素養PIRLS2006報告。行政院國家科學委員專題研究計畫（NSC 96-MOE-S-008-002）。桃園縣：國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。
教育部（2008）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要社會學習領域綱要。民99年1月20日。取自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_97.php。
薛理桂、林巧敏（2006）。台灣電子文件發展策略之分析研究。教育資料與圖書館學，44，197-214。
Alexander, M. E., Commander, N., Greenberg, D., & Ward, T. (2010). Using the four questions technique to enhance critical thinking in online discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6, 409-415.
Alexander, P.A., & Jetton, T.L. (2002). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.) Handbook of reading research, volume III (pp. 285-310).
Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 8-19.
Armbruster, B. B., & Gudbrandsen, B. (1986). Reading Comprehension Instruction in Social Studies Programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 36-48.
Astleitner, H. (2002). Teaching critical thinking online. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 53-76.
Cemalettin AYAS. (2006). An examination of the relationship between the integration of technology into social studies and consructivist pedagogies. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5.
Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 331-362.
Chou, L. F., & Hung, P. H. (in press). A Preliminary Validity Study for the On-line Literary Reading Assessment. The 76th Annual and the 17th International Meeting of the Psychometrics society.
Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458-464.
Coiro, J. (2009). Rethinking online reading assessment. Educational Leadership, 66, 59-63.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers as they search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214-257.
Crowe, A. R. (2006). Technology, citizenship, and the social studies classroom: education for democracy in a technological age. International Journal of Social Education, 21, 111-121.
De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., & Onghena, P. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of gender differences in academic self-concept and language achievement: a multivariate multilevel latent growth approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 132-150.
De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Van Landeghem, G., Opdenakker, M. C., & Onghena, P. (2003). The effect of schools and classes on language achievement. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 841-859.
Doolittle, P. E., & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical framework for the use of technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 31, 71-103.
Friedman, A. (2006). The Internet''s potential to affect social studies and democracy. International Journal of Social Education, 21, 44-58.
Friedman, A. M., & D. Hicks. (2006). The state of the field: Technology, social studies, and teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6.
Gilster, P.( 1997).Digital literacy. The thinking and survival skills new4! Users need to make the internet personally and professionally meaningful. New York: Wiley.
Hicks, D., Doolittle, P. & Lee, J. (2004). Social studies teachers’ use of classroom-based and web-based historical primary sources. Theory and Research in Social Education, 32, 213-247.
Johnston, P. (2005). Literacy assessment and the future. International Reading Association, 58, 684-686.
Kimsey, M. B., & Cameron, S. L. (2005). Teaching and assessing information literacy in a geography program. Journal of Geography, 104, 17-23.
Labbo, L. (1999). Formative assessment of reading comprehension by computer: advantages and disadvantages of the accelerated reader software. Reading Online, Retrieve from http://www.readingonline.org.
Leu, D. J. (2002). The new literacies: research on reading instruction with the Internet and other digital technologies. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Leu, D. J. (2007). Expanding the reading literacy framework of PISA 2009 to include online reading comprehension. A working paper commissioned by the PISA 2009 Reading Expert Group. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction with networked technologies for information and communication. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 108-127.
Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., Liu, Y., & O’Neil, M. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? Secondary school literacy: what research reveals for classroom practice. Urbana, IL: National council of teachers of English.
Leu, D. J., Castek, J., Hartman, D. K., Coiro, J., Henry, L. A., Kulikowich, J. M. and Lyver, S. (2005). Evaluating the development of scientific knowledge and new forms of reading comprehension during online learning North Central Regional Educational Laboratory/Learning Point Associates , Naperville, IL — Final Research Report.
LeVine, R. A., LeVine, S. E., & Schnell, B. (2001). “Improve the women”: Mass schooling, female literacy, and worldwide social change. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 1-50.
Lietz, P. (2006). A meta-analysis of gender differences in reading achievement at the secondary school level. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 317-344.
Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 199-214.
Marksa, G. N. (2008). Accounting for the gender gaps in student performance in reading and mathematics: evidence from 31 countries. Oxford Review of Education, 34, 89-109.
Massey, D. D., & Heafner, T. L. (2004). Promoting reading comproiiension in sociai studies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 26-40.
OECD (2008). Reading literacy: a framework for PISA 2009. Retrieved from: http://mypisa.acer.edu.au/
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Executive summary. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2004). Learning for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. [On-line]. Available at: http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=42.
Pescatore, C. (2007). Current events as empowering literacy: For English and social studies teachers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51, 326-339.
Reinking, D. (1998). Introduction: synthesizing technological transformations of literacy in a post-typographic world. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: transformation in a post-typographic world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shiveley, J. M., & VanFossen, P. J. (1999). Critical thinking and the Internet opputunities ofr the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 90, 42-46.
Shiveley, J. M., & VanFossen, P. J. (2009). Toward assessing internet use in the social studies classroom: developing an inventory based on a review of relevant literature. Journal of Social Studies Research, 33, 1-32.
Taiwan PISA National Center as National University of Taiwan. (2011). Taiwan PISA 2009 short report. Retrieved from http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/download/data/Taiwan-
PISA2009ShortReport.PDF
VanFossen, P. (2000). An analysis of the use of the internet and world wide web by secondary social studies teachers in Indiana. International Journal of Social Education, 14, 87-109.
Wade, R. (2001). Social action in the social studies: from the ideal to the real. Theory Into Practice, 40, 23-28.
Wade, S. E. (1983). A synthesis of the research for improving reading in the social studies. Review of Educational Research, 53, 461-497.
Wagemaker, H., K. Taube, et al. (1996). Are girls better readers? Gender differences in reading literacy in 32 countries. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Whitworth, S., & Berson, M. J. (2003). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination of the effectiveness literature (1996- 2001). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2, 472-509.
Wilkinson, G. L., & Bennett. L. T. (1997). Consolidated listing of evaluation criteria and quality indicators. University of Georgia.