英文科主題深讀：以多文本閱讀與概念圖活動提升國中生英文學業表現

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：34

、訪客IP：3.145.60.166

姓名

李佩蓁(Pei-Jhen Li) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

英文科主題深讀：以多文本閱讀與概念圖活動提升國中生英文學業表現
(Theme-based Deep Reading of English: The Design of Multi-text Reading and Concept Map Activities to Enhance Junior High Students’ English Academic Performance)

相關論文

★ 探索電玩遊戲頻率對於視覺注意力表現能力的效應	★ 代理表現學習模式—以動物同伴為例
★ 常用邏輯句型重組之學習	★ 電腦支援國小數學文字題擬題活動初探
★ 解釋數學：透過科技支援創作與討論以增強小學生的數學溝通能力	★ 提問式鷹架教學結合數位閱讀寫作系統對國小低年級學生語文能力的影響
★ 數學島：興趣驅動之國小數學線上平台設計與初步評估	★ 以「猜擬題」活動增進學生數學文字題解題能力
★ 基於學生練習使用回饋之學習成效預測模型與動態題數練習機制	★ 透過主題地圖與寵物同伴促進閱讀更深更廣的書籍
★ 具推薦書籍功能之閱讀島系統架構設計	★ 透過學生影片創作進行國小數學學習:趣創者理論之應用
★ 英文單字樂園：學生自創字卡搭配複習機制強化英文字彙學習之系統設計及學習成效初探	★ 設計與實作明日寫作系統增進國小學生寫作表現
★ 設計與實踐「提升式寫作」活動以提升國小學生寫作品質與寫作興趣	★ TTPR：設計科技強化型全肢體反應為了小學生和國中生在印尼學習英語詞彙

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

閱讀可以說是教育的核心，現行教育體制和國際趨勢皆重視透過閱讀歷程整合知識、溝通表達，英文閱讀也不再是強記生硬的字彙與艱澀的文法，而是透過其與世界接軌的窗口。在英文學習中，閱讀一直是英文學習中重要的一環，在教學現場發現多數國中生礙於對英文字彙的陌生而排斥學習，或深感習得無助，在面臨缺少充足的英文字彙和語感的情況下，對於各種情境難以順利表達、陳述正確的句子，在學業表現方面也因學習困難，產生習得無助感。
本研究嘗試透過英文科主題深讀模式進行英文多文本閱讀活動，透過設計閱讀流程、同儕合作討論、概念圖整合，在獲得知識歷程融入情境，進而更喜愛閱讀，培養興趣、養成習慣，並能延伸在閱讀中培養的信心和學習模式轉移到學業成就表現。研究中主要應用「主題深讀」活動在英文科方面的學習並探討「英文科主題深讀」活動對於學生在英文學習上的影響。研究實驗，邀請國中七年級兩班共四十二位學生參與，自七年級上學期末至七年級下學期，活動進行為期約半年的時間，以小組形式進行「明日星球」平台中「跨域主題深讀」系統四個主題的英文多文本以及小組討論繪製概念圖活動：在第一階段，學生在「跨域主題深讀」平台體驗自主學習，並依步驟共享、討論、觀看其他提問和建議；並經由至第二階段的小組討論整合概念圖架構，繪製出概念圖後上台進行全班分享。
初步結果顯示，透過「英文科主題深讀」活動能幫助學生在英文科學業成績的表現，並與其他科目相比成效斐然；其次，「英文科主題深讀」活動對提升閱讀後概念擷取與組織的能力有所幫助，能吸收知識並在「跨域主題深讀」平台系統中以英文撰述表達；而在繪製概念圖的階段察覺學生對主題內容掌握更加精確，呈現出的概念圖作品較有組織性且品質更好，提高了概念圖的精緻度，以英文表達的概念數逐漸增加的結果並不僅僅代表記憶英文字彙的進步，而是在活動中能內化的文本的知識內容再輸出表達；最後，經由訪談和問卷調查瞭解「英文科主題深讀」活動能維持自我效能和英文興趣。

摘要(英)

Reading is considered as the core of learning. The international education trend emphasized the importance of the integration between knowledge and communication through reading. When we mention about English reading, it is no longer about memorizing vocabulary and difficult grammar, but a window connecting to the world. In middle school, however, lots of EFL students with learned helplessness rejected to learn English because they were unfamiliar with vocabulary and had problems with grammar. The students with the lack of sufficient English vocabulary and sense of language would be difficult to express fluently in various situations. Furthermore, the learning difficulties also affect their academic performance.
This study attempts to use theme-based deep reading model with English multi-text readings to develop the reading comprehension. Through the design of the reading process includes collaborative discussions and the integration of concept maps, students learn better and even more like reading. They have interest in readings, develop habits, and transfer their confidence and learning model to the academic performance. There were 42 seventh grader students participated in the reading activities of interdisciplinary theme for about half a year. The students used the system of " The Deep Reading of Interdisciplinary Theme" in the website "The Planet of Tomorrow." At first, students followed the steps to share, discuss, and watch other feedbacks, also they had to learn to take notes and summary by themselves. In the second part, they integrated the ideas of the theme reading context with team members through the group discussion. In the end, by drawing concept maps and doing presentation on stage, students learned collaboration and tried to share their ideas in class.
The preliminary results showed that this model can help students’ English Academic Performance. Secondly, it is helpful to organize the ideas and enhance the conceptual capture after reading. Moreover, during drawing the concept map and staging, it is observed that students have a more accurate grasp of the content and students would like to express in English more often. Finally, it is understood that these activities can maintain self-efficacy and interest in English through students’ interviews and questionnaire surveys. Over all, this model is not only improve students’ English academic performance but also assists students to integrate ideas and the understanding of textual knowledge. In addition, it raises students’ willingness and confidence in English learning.

關鍵字(中)

★ 多文本閱讀
★ 英文科主題深讀
★ 概念圖
★ 學業表現
★ 自我效能

關鍵字(英)

★ multi-text reading
★ Theme-based Deep Reading of English
★ concept map
★ academic performance
★ self-efficacy

論文目次

中文摘要 v
Abstract vi
致謝 vii
目錄 viii
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 3
1.3 研究問題 3
1.4 名詞解釋 4
1.4.1 主題深讀 4
1.4.2 「跨域主題深讀」平台 4
1.4.3 多文本 (Multiple text) 4
1.4.4 概念圖(Concept Map) 5
1.4.5 英文閱讀學習成效 5
1.5 研究限制 5
1.6 論文架構 6
第2章文獻探討 9
2.1 「主題深讀」學習模式的演進 9
2.2 多文本閱讀 11
2.3 「興趣驅動創造者理論」 14
2.4 概念圖 18
2.5 自我效能 21
第3章英文科主題深讀 23
3.1 多文本閱讀模式 24
3.2 明日星球跨域主題深讀系統介紹 26
3.3英文主題閱讀教材 29
3.4 概念圖 34
第4章研究方法 37
4.1 研究背景與對象 37
4.1.1 研究背景 37
4.1.2 研究對象 38
4.2 研究流程 39
4.2.1 研究準備與規劃 40
4.2.2 研究活動設計與實施 41
4.2.3 研究成果討論 43
4.3 活動安排 43
4.3.1 學生分組合作討論 43
4.3.2 跨域主題深讀多文本閱讀活動 44
4.4 研究模式與平台介紹 45
4.4.1 明日星球「跨域主題深讀」平台 45
4.4.2 學生平台操作 45
4.4.3 教師後台檢視 51
4.5 資料蒐集工具與分析 55
4.5.1 概念圖的分析資料 55
4.5.2 問卷 58
第5章研究結果與討論 61
5.1 英文學業成績表現 61
5.1.1 活動組學業成績優於一般組 61
5.1.2 與國文數學兩科學業成績的差異 63
5.2 閱讀後擷取關鍵概念的能力 64
5.2.1 使用英文表達概念比例變多 65
5.2.2 逐漸能夠精準地掌握主題重要訊息 65
5.3 小組概念圖 66
5.3.1 不同主題的概念數分佈 66
5.3.2 概念圖的精緻化 67
5.3.3 正確表達主題文本重點的能力增加 70
5.3.4 英文概念數增加 72
5.4 自我效能 74
5.5 活動訪談 76
5.5.1 學習英文的改變 76
5.5.2 個人參與 78
5.5.3 小組概念圖 79
5.5.4 自我效能表述 80
第6章結論與建議 83
6.1 結論 83
6.1.1參與「英文科主題深讀」活動對學生在英文科學業成績表現的影響 83
6.1.2「英文科主題深讀」活動有助於提升閱讀後概念擷取與個人組織能力 84
6.1.3「英文科主題深讀」活動對維持自我效能和英文興趣的輔助 85
6.2 貢獻 85
6.3 未來展望 86
參考文獻 88
中文文獻 88
英文文獻 90
附錄一、主題多文本範例 94
附錄二、概念圖專家效度範例 97
附錄三、自我效能問卷 99
附錄四、訪談大綱 101

參考文獻

中文文獻
王文華（2017）。王文華教你五方法熟讀社會科，再也不用死背硬記。2020 年 6 月 25 日，取自親子天下 https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5074282-/?page=1。
田育瑄（2016）。閱讀素養：不只讀，還要能創造和分享。2020 年 6 月 25 日，取自親子天下 https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5072652-/?page=2。
余民寧（1997）。有意義的學習-概念構圖之研究。臺北：商鼎。
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。
吳裕聖、曾玉村（2011）。鷹架式概念構圖教學策略對學童生物文章的閱讀表徵與情意之影響。教育心理學報，43(1)，1-23。
李仰曼（2017）。提升偏鄉中學生對英文學習之能力。臺灣教育評論月刊，6(2)，68-71。
林文毅（2017）。篇章閱讀新進展——多文本閱讀理解本質特徵分析。應用心理學， 24(3)，280-288。
林微庭、陳浩然、劉貞妤 & 江欣粦（2016）利用 Lexile Analyzer 探討國高中英語教科書之可讀性。 Journal of Textbook Research， 9(3)。
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。
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。
翁筱涵（2018）。交互教學法結合即時反饋系統 ZUVIO 運用於國中學習障礙學生閱讀成效之研究。淡江大學教育科技學系數位學習碩士在職專班學位論文， 1-127。淡江大學，新北市。
張心怡（2019）。社會科主題深學：衝突式多文本閱讀與論證活動設計與實驗(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中央大學，桃園市。
張春興（2004）。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北：東華。
教育部（2010）。閱讀理解策略教學手冊。臺北：教育部。
陳德懷（2016）。明日閱讀：明日主題學習的基礎。臺北市：天下雜誌。
曾園馨（2019）。以多文本閱讀與概念圖進行寫作之行動研究：從主題深學到寫作(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中央大學，桃園市。
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。
楊斐鈞、廖長彥、張菀真、陳秉成、陳德懷（2017）。主題深度閱讀模式的發展。第21屆全球華人計算機教育應用大會論文集（83-86頁），北京，中國：全球華人計算機教育應用學會。
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。
劉沛琳（2008）。概念構圖理解策略在大學英文閱讀教學之成效。課程與教學季刊，11(4)， 137-162。

英文文獻
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2000). Taxonomy of teaching and learning: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Educational psychology, 479-480.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of educational psychology, 51(5), 267.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory (p. 47-105). Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Per- spectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164–180.
Bandura, A. (2010). Self‐efficacy. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology, 1-3.
Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on complex decision making. Journal of personality and social psychology, 60(6), 941.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2003). A longitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. Reading and Writing, 16(3), 195-218.
Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students′ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and instruction, 20(4), 485-522.
Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and sourceseparation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. vanden Broek (Eds.), Narrative, comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (p. 209-233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Broggy, J., & McClelland, G. (2008). An investigation to determine the impact of concept mapping on learning in an undergraduate physics course. New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences, (4), 34-38.
Brown, A. L., Palincsar, A. S., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Instructing comprehension-fostering activities in interactive learning situations. Learning and comprehension of text, 255-286.
Chan, T. W., Looi, C. K., Chang, B., Chen, W., Wong, L. H., Wong, S. L., et al. (2019). IDC theory: creation and the creation loop. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14(26).
Chan, T. W., Looi, C. K., Chen, W., Wong, L. H., Chang, B., Liao, C. C. Y., et al. (2018). Interest-driven creator theory: towards a theory of learning design for Asia in the twenty-first century. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(4), 435–461.
Chan, T. W., Looi, C. K., Chen, W., Wong, L. H., Chang, B., Liao, C. C. Y., et al. (2020). IDC Theory: Habit and the habit loop. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 15, 1-19.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational research methods, 4(1), 62-83.
Davis, D. S., Huang, B., & Yi, T. (2017). Making sense of science texts: A mixed‐methods examination of predictors and processes of multiple‐text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 227-252.
Dohn, N. B., Madsen, P. T., & Malte, H. (2009). The situational interest of undergraduate students in zoophysiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 33(3), 196-201.
Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Epistemic beliefs and comprehension in the context of reading multiple documents: Examining the role of conflict. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 100-114.
Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2003). Effect of choice on cognitive and affective engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 207–215.
Hagen, Å. M., Braasch, J. L., & Bråten, I. (2014). Relationships between spontaneous note‐taking, self‐reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(S1), S141-S157.
Hartman, D., & Allison, J. (1996). Promoting inquiry-oriented discussions using multiple texts. Lively discussions, 106-133.
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.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of educational research, 70(2), 151-179.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Karimi, M. N. (2015). EFL learners′ multiple documents literacy: Effects of a strategy‐directed intervention program. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 40-5
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20-39.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
McClure, J.R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H.K.(1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475-492.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (1998). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 1(1), 1-31.
relevance and learning from text (p. 19-52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Situational interest and academic achievement in the active-learning classroom. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 58-67.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2014). Situational interest and learning: Thirst for knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 32, 37-50.
Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document
Ruiz‐Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569-600.
Salmerón, L., Gil, L., & Bråten, I. (2018). Effects of reading real versus print-out versions of multiple documents on students’ sourcing and integrated understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 52, 25-35.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 207-231.
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Interest—The curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science,17(1), 57-60.
Wolters, C. A., & Hussain, M. (2015). Investigating grit and its relations with college students’ self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 10(3), 293-311.
Wong, L. H., Chan, T. W., Chen, Z. H., King, R. B., & Wong, S. L. (2015). The IDC theory: Interest and the interest loop. In 23rd International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2015 (p. 804-813). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.

指導教授

陳德懷

審核日期

2020-7-24

推文