| 摘要(英) |
According to a study by Taiwanese students on the PIRLS 2006 PIRLS and 2015 PISA, students learned that school curricula need cross-cutting, multi-text reading and digital literacy courses to enhance students′ ability to focus, integrate information and learn from digital tools and share ideas and other problem solving skills with others. Among many learning modes, interest-driven topic-based reading mode proposed by Chang-Yen Liao, Wan-Chen Chang, Bing-Cheng Chen and Tak-Wai Chan (2016) is not only in line with cross-domain and multi-text reading and digital learning, but also some research indicates that the theme of deep reading mode has good learning outcomes in digital learning popularization schools. Therefore, the researcher does an action research on implementing deep reading in general classroom to explore the applicability of the deep reading mode in general schools and the change of students′ knowledge integration ability. In this study, we add the concept map and t writing in the syntopical deep reading mode. The research focus is shifted from deep reading to deep learning. Therefore, the teaching mode of this study is called syntopical deep learning mode.
Participants in the study were 26 fifth-grade students from a certain country in Taoyuan City, and the researcher was the class advisor. The study went through three phases, which lasted for three semesters and included five learning topics. Gradually adopted the mode of paper reading and digital reading, and evaluated the impact of 26 fifth grade students on the concept of integrating natural thematic. The study found that no matter through the paper or digital mode, students can use concept maps to integrate the concept of multi-text content. Then add writing in the theme of syntopical deep learning mode, found that this model has a positive influence on writing. The action research also promotes the growth of teachers′ professional knowledge through the design and implementation of multi-text reading teaching materials through the application of the deep reading mode and concept map.
|
| 參考文獻 |
中文文獻
王文科(1999)。教育研究法 (五版)。臺北：五南。
王子彰(2010)。國一學生持有之閱讀信念與科學閱讀態度調查研究(未出版之碩士論文)。
國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
王開府(2008)。心智圖與概念模組在語文閱讀與寫作思考教學之運用。國文學報，43，
263-296。
王翌蘋(2009)。自我調整策略發展寫作教學與概念圖寫作教學對提升國小六年級學生之
寫作自我調整、寫作表現與寫作動機之比較(未出版之碩士論文)。國立屏東教育大
學，屏東市。
王禎慧(2013)。概念構圖與自我調整策略發展模式 對國小高功能自閉症兒童記敘文寫作
表現之成效(未出版之碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學，新竹市。
王韻齡(2017)。未來大學入學考試題目三大改變。親子天下，95，64-65。
田育瑄(2016)。閱讀素養：不只讀，還要能創造和分享。2018年1月3日，取自親子天
下https://goo.gl/A2ufd2。
李式群(2014)。概念圖教學策略對自閉症資優生寫作成效研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立
彰化師範大學，彰化市。
呂尚芝(2010)。概念構圖寫作教學策略對不同語文能力國小四年級學生寫作表現之影響
(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中正大學，嘉義市。
吳敏而(2013)。多文本閱讀的研發。臺北教育大學語文集刊，23，123-157。
林宜利(2003)。「整合繪本與概念構圖之寫作教學方案」對國小三年級學童記敘文寫作
表現之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
林郁展(2003)。概念構圖在國小「過程導向」寫作教學的應用研究(未出版之碩士論文)。
國立嘉義大學，嘉義市。
林達森(2003)。概念圖的理論基礎與運用實務。花蓮師院學報，17，107-132。
柯華葳、詹益綾(2006)。國民小學二至六年級閱讀理解篩選測驗。臺北市：教育部特殊
教育小組。
柯華葳、詹益綾、丘嘉慧(2012)。臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養PIRLS2011報告。
行政院國家科學委員專題研究成果報告(編號：NSC 99-MOE-S008-001)。桃園市：
國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。
柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅(2008)。臺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-S008-002)。桃園市：
國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。
夏林清(1997)。行動研究方法導論-教師動手做研究。臺北：遠流。
唐淑華(2017)。中學活動閱讀新猷：以多文本讀寫進行大問題探索。教育研究月刊，279，
58-75。
唐淑華、蔡孟寧、林烘煜(2015)。多文本課外閱讀對增進國中生理解歷史主題之研究：
以「外侮」主題為例。教育研究期刊，60 (3)，63-94。
張春興(2004)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北：東華。
張世平、胡夢鯨(1998)。行動研究。臺北：師大書苑。
陳秋妤(2007)。概念構圖寫作教學對國小四年級寫作困難學生寫作學習效果之研究(未出
版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
陳惠邦(1998)。教育行動研究(初版)。臺北：師大書苑。
陳鳳如(2017)。平衡歷程與成果取向之寫作教學的理念與應用。教育研究月刊，279，
15-32。
教育部(2010)。閱讀理解策略教學手冊。臺北：教育部。
教育部(2011)。在職教師閱讀教學增能研習手冊。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課程手冊。臺北：教育部。
國民中學學生基本學力測驗推動工作委員會(2010)。寫作測驗評分規準。2018年1月3
日，取自https://cap.nace.edu.tw/exam_3_1.html。
曾世杰(2017)。大量閱讀，像海綿般吸取知識？落伍了！親子天下，86，66-68。
程遠茜(2017)。放下課本，開啟少年深閱讀。親子天下，86，84-87。
黃茂在、陳文典(2011)。科學閱讀的想法與實例探討。教育研究月刊，210，85-97。
楊斐鈞(2017)。主題深讀模式與平台之實踐：透過多文本閱讀與討論以提升學生想法運
用與文本理解的表現(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中央大學，桃園市。
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。
蔡清田(2000)。教育行動研究。臺北：五南。
賴慶三(2006)。國小職前教師科學閱讀教學模組發展之研究。國民教育，46(3)，3-8。
英文文獻
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. Oxford, England: Grune & Stratton.
Alexander, J. E., & Filler, R. C. (1976). Attitudes and reading. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Altricher, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2005). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to action research across the professions. Routledge.
Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas. The Professor′s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom, 1996. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents. The quality of learning, 276-314.
Downing, J. A., & Leong, C. K. (1982). Psychology of reading. New York: Macmillan.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College composition and communication, 31(1), 21-32.
Hartman, D. K., & Hartman, J. A. (1993). Reading across texts: Expanding the role of the reader. The Reading Teacher, 47(3), 202-211.
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful Learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science education, 86(4), 548-571.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press.
Rye, J.A. & Rubba, P.A. (1998). An exploration of the concept map as an interview tool facilitate the externalization of students’ understandings about global atmospheric change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 521-546.
Rosenberg, M.J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In C. I. Hoveland & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds). Attitude organization and change. New Haven:Yale University Press.
Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading–writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 116.
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.
Tompkins, G. E. (1994). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
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(3), 420.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1060-1106.
|
[Endnote RIS 格式]
[相關文章]
[文章引用]
[完整記錄]
[館藏目錄]
[檢視]
plurk
funp
live
udn
HD
myshare
netvibes
friend
youpush
delicious
baidu
Google bookmarks
del.icio.us
hemidemi
facebook
twitter
google
reddit