臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

根據長期與教學現場交流發現，學生大多以閱讀教科書為主，較少閱讀課外讀物，教科書內容較單一，使得學生缺乏多元的知識。而學生在學習時通常會涉及到需要閱讀不同來源的文本，為了解決教學現場的限制與困境，本研究提出「主題深讀模式」，提供主題式的多文本讓學生進行深度閱讀，並且藉由KWL教學模式、閱讀理解策略、PNIQ階段，以提問方式讓學生進一步思考，並將模式分為「讀」、「創」、「登」三階段。本研究目的為發展與評估「主題深讀」模式，並且探討學生運用「主題深讀」模式在想法運用與多文本理解的表現。
本研究分兩階段進行：第一階段為前導研究，此階段主要為發展支持學生進行多文本閱讀與討論的模式，並且設計與開發基於模式的平台，首先導入「主題深讀」活動，由6名五年級教師帶領6個班共計179名學生進行，並瞭解此模式與平台的可行性；第二階段為正式研究，此階段由3名五年級教師帶領3個班共計89名學生進行，分為「主題深讀組」（n=28）以主題深讀模式讓學生進行閱讀活動；「傳統主題深讀組」（n=31）教師以傳統的教學方式搭配主題深讀模式讓學生進行閱讀活動，也就是讓學生閱讀單篇文章就寫下想法或心得；「傳統教學組」（n=30）學生進行傳統的課堂閱讀教學，學生閱讀多篇文章皆為獨立的。因此，欲比較與分析在此模式下對學生評估此模式是否能夠促進學生的文本理解，以及想法運用的影響，並且透過訪談以了解學生的知覺經驗。
研究結果發現，藉由主題深讀模式可以讓學生有較好的想法運用表現。「主題深讀組」的學生在閱讀後的想法類型多為單文本內直接使用想法，學生的想法來源多採用自己與同學先前的想法，從不同角度獲得想法，想法較為多元，而學生也能同時衡量多篇文章，想法廣度較為廣泛；而「傳統主題深讀組」在閱讀後的想法類型多為文本外延伸感受，學生在討論後的想法來源多為產生想法，但想法較為單一，並且篇重在某些文章上。此外，本研究也藉由閱讀理解測驗了解學生在經過此模式後的表現，發現三組別前後測皆有顯著的增加，其中「主題深讀組」的進步幅度最高，透過此模式增進了學生的文本理解能力。

According to the investigation of the present teaching site found that most of the students to read the textbooks and less reading extracurricular materials. For example, the textbooks are too focusing specific domain knowledge to make students lack the diversity of knowledge. On the other hand, students have to read the textbook from different sources within learning. To this end, this study proposed a syntopical reading model for deep learning, which provided multiple theme-based texts for students to read to solve the limitations and difficulties in the present teaching site. Additionally, the syntopical reading model combined KWL teaching model, which including the reading comprehension strategies and PNIQ method to facilitate students deep thinking and creating. By doing so, the students could share their idea and creation with others. Therefore, the model was divided into three steps: (1) reading, (2) creating and (3) staging. As above mentioned, the purpose of this study is to develop and investigate syntopical reading model. Additionally, to identify the effect of this model and model-based platform on students’ idea generation and text comprehension performance.
This study was conducted into two phases. The first phase is a pilot study that developing a model supported students to conduct multi-text reading and discussion. Subsequently, we develop a model-based platform. The participants were 6 fifth grader classes included 6 teachers and 179 students. The purpose of this pilot study is to understand the feasibility of the model and platform. The second phase is a formal study. The participants were 3 fifth grader classes included 3 teachers and 89 students that divided into three group (1) “Syntopical deep reading group” (n=28): students used syntopical reading model for deep learning; (2) “Traditional syntopical deep reading group” (n=31): teacher used traditional teaching methods with syntopical reading model for deep learning. That is, let students read a single article to write down the idea or experience report; (3) “Traditional teaching group” (n=30): teacher used traditional reading teaching in classroom while students read many articles are independent. Therefore, to compare and analyze whether students can promote text comprehension and idea generation, then through interview to understand the student's perceptual experience.
The results indicated that “Syntopical Reading Model for Deep Learning” activity could help students demonstrated better idea generation performance. Regarding the “Syntopical deep reading group”, students demonstrated that the type of idea mostly direct the use of idea within a single text after reading. For instance, students' ideas come from their own and classmates’ previous ideas after discussion. Therefore, students not only from different perspectives to get more ideas but also measure multiple articles at the same time that the breadth of ideas is more extensive. Regarding the “Traditional syntopical deep reading group”, students demonstrated that the type of idea mostly extend the feelings out of the text after reading. For example, students’ ideas come from generate ideas but that too single and focus on certain articles.
In addition, reading comprehension test was applied to understand students’ performance. The results found that three groups before and after the test have a significant increase. Among them, “Syntopical deep reading group” had the highest level of progress. Thus, Syntopical Reading Model had improved students' text comprehension.

摘要 i
Abstract iii
誌謝 v
目錄 vii
圖目錄 xi
表目錄 xiii
第1章 緒論 1
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究目的 6
1-3 研究問題 6
1-4 名詞解釋 7
1-5 研究限制 8
1-6 論文架構 8
第2章 文獻探討 11
2-1 多文本閱讀 11
2-2 多文本閱讀學習與教學 21
第3章 活動與系統設計 29
3-1 活動設計 29
3-2 系統設計 35
第4章 前導研究 45
4-1 研究目的 45
4-2 研究對象與環境 45
4-3 研究流程 46
4-4 資料收集與分析 47
4-5 分析結果 47
4-6 討論 51
4-7 前導研究的啟示 51
第5章 實驗研究 53
5-1 研究對象 53
5-2 研究設計 54
5-3 研究流程 55
5-4 研究工具 58
5-5 資料收集 60
5-6 資料分析 61
第6章 研究結果 67
6-1 三組學生在閱讀理解前後測比較 67
6-2 主題深讀活動比較：主題二—東方之最 69
6-3 主題深讀活動比較：主題三—五月、風箏、少年 79
6-4 訪談結果 85
第7章 結論與未來展望 91
7-1 結論 91
7-2 研究貢獻 94
7-3 未來展望 94
參考文獻 97
中文文獻 97
英文文獻 99
附錄一、背景知識問卷 103
附錄二、訪談大綱—前導研究 104
附錄二、訪談大綱—正式研究 105

吳敏而（2013）。多文本閱讀的教學研發。臺北教育大學語文集刊，23，123–157。
柯華葳、詹益綾（2006）。國民小學（二至六年級）閱讀理解篩選測驗。臺北：教育部。
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成果報告 (編號: NSC 96-MOE-S-008-002)。桃園市：國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要。臺北：教育部。
教育部（2016）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要 語文領域 國語文課程手冊。臺北：教育部。
徐翊瑄（2009）。建構多文本閱讀教學之行動研究。國立台北教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/41601032895774192670
唐淑華、蔡孟寧、林烘煜（2015）。多文本課外閱讀對增進國中學生理解歷史主題之 研究：以「外侮」主題為例。教育科學研究期刊，60（3），63-94。
楊坤堂、張世慧、李水源、吳純純（2001）國小兒童書寫語文能力診斷測驗。臺北：心理。
趙金婷、蕭景祥（2010）。兒童閱讀後現代圖畫故事時拒絕反應之探究。台中教育大學學報：人文藝術類，24（2），55-81。
廖長彥、張菀真、陳秉成、陳德懷（2016）。興趣驅動之提問式主題閱讀模式發展與評估。教育學報，44（2），1-25。
劉明洲、王振宇（2005）。網路主題式學習歷程與成就之研究。教學科技與媒體，74，4-21。
劉中琪、張菀真、廖長彥、鄭年亨、陳德懷（2017）。重新定義兒童中文打字技能的練習：嘗試建立綜合性原則。第21屆全球華人計算機教育應用大會論文集（712-719頁），北京，中國：全球華人計算機教育應用學會。
Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text, discourse, and process: Toward a multidisciplinary science of texts. Norwood, NJ: Longman.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 111-130.
Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 26(3), 321-348.
Beker, K., Jolles, D., Lorch, R. F., & Broek, P. (2016). Learning from texts: activation of information from previous texts during reading. Reading and Writing, 29, 1161-1178.
Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 209.
Crossley, S. A., Muldner, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Idea Generation in Student Writing: Computational Assessments and Links to Successful Writing. Written Communication, 33(3), 328-354.
De Bono, E. (1985). The CoRT thinking program. Thinking and learning skills, 1, 363-388.
Gelzheiser, L., Hallgren‐Flynn, L., Connors, M., & Scanlon, D. (2014). Reading thematically related texts to develop knowledge and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 68(1), 53-63.
Hartman, D. K., & Hartman, J. A. (1993). Reading across texts: Expanding the role of the reader. The Reading Teacher, 47(3), 202-211.
Hartman, J. A., & Hartman, D. K. (1994). Arranging multi-text reading experiences that expand the reader's role (Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report No. 604). Retrived from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/17586/ctrstreadtechrepv01994i00604_opt.pdf
Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 520-561.
Hynd, C. R. (1999). Teaching students to think critically using multiple texts in history. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(6), 428-436.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration　model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.
Kobayashi, K. (2009). Comprehension of relations among controversial texts: Effects of external strategy use. Instructional Science, 37(4), 311-324.
Liu, E. C. C., Liao, C. C. Y., & Chan, T. W. (2013). My-Pet-Typing: Design and evaluation of flow-based typing game. International Journal on Digital Learning Technology, 5(2), 27–44.
Macedo-Rouet, M., Braasch, J. L., Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. F. (2013). Teaching fourth and fifth graders to evaluate information sources during text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 204-226.
Moffett, J. (1983). Reading and writing as meditation. Language Arts, 60(3), 315-332.
Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2014). Fostering multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition and learning, 9(1), 51-74.
Ogle, D. M. (1986). KWL: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The reading teacher, 39(6), 564-570.
Pantaleo, S. (2003). Exploring grade 1 students' textual connections. Journal of research in childhood education, 18(3), 211-225.
Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 430-456.
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2003). Students' strategic use of multiple sources during expository text reading: A longitudinal think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 113-147.
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 192-204.
Sipe, L. R. (2001). A palimpsest of stories: Young children's construction of intertextual links among fairytale variants. Literacy Research and Instruction, 40(4), 333-352.
Shanahan, C. (2003). Using multiple texts to teach content. Napierville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Walker, N. T.＆Bean, T W. (2005). Sociocultural Influences in Content Area Teachers' Selection and Use of Multiple Texts. Reading Research and Instruction, 44(4), 61-77.
Wolfe, M. B., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467-502.
Wolf, M., & Barzillai, M. (2009). The importance of deep reading. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 32–37.