| 參考文獻 |
吳訓生（2002）。國小高、低閱讀理解能力學生閱讀理解策略之比較研究。特殊教育學報，16，65-104。
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。
林小慧、曾玉村（2017）。科學多重文本閱讀理解能力之評量發展暨性別差異研究─以核四廠續建與停建爭議題本為例。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，10（2），81-109。
洪儷瑜、陳心怡、陳柏熹、陳秀芬（2014）。詞彙成長測驗。台北市：中國行為科學社。
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。
教育部（2019）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校語文領域─國語文。臺北市：教育部。
陳明蕾（2019）。臺灣十年來教師閱讀教學與學生閱讀表現關係之探討：來自 PIRLS 2006、2011與2016 的證據。教育心理學報，51（1），51-82。
陳海泓（2019）。文本結構與文本分析三層次：以〈運動家的風度〉一課為例。載於黃秀霜、詹士宜、陳海泓、王秀梗（主編），樂在閱讀教學：文本分析與理解策略應用（3-38）。新北市：心理。
陳新豐（2016）。國小高年級學童線上數位閱讀認知負荷量表編製。教育研究與發展期刊，12（4），1-22。
曾玉村（2017）。總論：閱讀理解的認知歷程與策略教學。載於柯華葳（主編），閱讀理解策略教學（1-22頁）。臺中市：教育部。
趙金婷（2007）。幼兒對不同版本故事書的文本互織反應之探究。新竹教育大學教育學報，24（1），1-27。
劉湘瑤、李麗菁、蔡今中（2007）。科學認識觀與社會性科學議題抉擇判斷之相關性探討。科學教育學刊，15（3），335-356。
蘇宜芬、洪儷瑜、陳心怡、陳柏熹（2015）。閱讀理解成長測驗。台北市：中國行為科學社。
Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading comprehension research (pp. 69-90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.
Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64-76.
Anmarkrud, Ø., McCrudden, M. T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension processes and offline products. Instructional Science, 41(5), 873-894.
Barzilai, S., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Individual differences in multiple document comprehension. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 99-116). New York, NY, London, UK: Routledge.
Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. R., & Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 973-999.
Beker, K., van den Broek, P., & Jolles, D. (2019). Children’s integration of information across texts: Reading processes and knowledge representations. Reading and Writing, 32(3), 663-687.
Boscolo, P., Arfé, B., & Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students′ academic writing: an intervention study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 419-438.
Braasch, J. L., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 167-181.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 111-130.
Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30, 9-24.
Bråten, I., Braasch, J. L., & Salmeron, L. (2016). Reading multiple and non-traditional texts: New opportunities and new challenges. In E. B. Moje, P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N. K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. V). New York, NY: Routledge.
Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In M. J. Lawson & J. R. Kirby (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276-314). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209-233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Britt, M. A., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Larson, A. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (2004). Using intelligent feedback to improve sourcing and integration in students’ essays. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 359-374.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth‐grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.
Daher, T. A., & Kiewra, K. A. (2016). An investigation of SOAR study strategies for learning from multiple online resources. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 10-21.
De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139-156.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Duke, N.K., Pearson, P.D., Strachan, S.L., & Billman, A.K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S.J. Samuels & A.E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51-93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Felton, M. K., & Herko, S. (2004). From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents′ persuasive writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(8), 672-683.
Florit, E., Cain, K., & Mason, L. (2020). Going beyond children′s single‐text comprehension: The role of fundamental and higher‐level skills in 4th graders’ multiple‐document comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 449-472.
Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. (2010). Understanding and integrating multiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology, 31, 30-68.
Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading from words to multiple texts (160-179). New York, NY: Routledge.
Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 317-351). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.
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.
Hagerman, M. S. (2017). Disrupting students’ online reading and research habits: The LINKS intervention and its impact on multiple internet text integration skills. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 18(1), 105-156.
Hartman, D., & Allison, J. (1996). Promoting inquiry-oriented discussions using multiple texts. In L.B. Gambrell & J.F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions! Fostering engaged reading (pp. 106-133). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 520-561.
Hartman, D. K., & Hartman, J. A. (1993). Reading across texts: Expanding the role of the reader. The Reading Teacher, 47(3), 202-211.
Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups′ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368.
Hynd, C. R. (1999). Teaching students to think critically using multiple texts in history. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(6), 428-436.
Jacobson, M., & Spiro, R. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 301-333.
Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 85-97.
Karimi, M. N. (2015). EFL Learners′ multiple documents literacy: Effects of a strategy‐directed intervention program. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 40-56.
Karimi, M. N., & Shabani, M. B. (2013). Comparing the strategic behavior of more successful vs. less successful readers of multiple technical reading texts. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 125-138.
Kim, H. J. J., & Millis, K. (2006). The influence of sourcing and relatedness on event integration. Discourse Processes, 41(1), 51-65.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: Construction-Integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 242-262.
Kobayashi, K. (2009). Comprehension of relations among controversial texts: Effects of external strategy use. Instructional Science, 37(4), 311-324.
Kobayashi, K. (2015). Learning from conflicting texts: The role of intertextual conflict resolution in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 36(6), 519-544.
Küçükoğlu, H. (2013). Improving reading skills through effective reading strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 709-714.
Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177-190.
Linderholm, T., Therriault, D. J., & Kwon, H. (2014). Multiple science text processing: Building comprehension skills for college student readers. Reading Psychology, 35(4), 332-356.
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2015). Examining response confidence in multiple text tasks. Metacognition and Learning, 10(3), 407-436.
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20-39.
List, A., Du, H., & Lee, H. Y. (in press). How do students integrate multiple texts? An investigation of top-down processing. European Journal of Psychology of Education.
Lundstrom, K., Diekema, A. R., Leary, H., Haderlie, S., & Holliday, W. (2015). Teaching and learning information synthesis: An intervention and rubric based assessment. Communications in Information Literacy, 9(1), 60-82.
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.
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.
Merkt, M., Werner, M., & Wagner, W. (2017). Historical thinking skills and mastery of multiple document tasks. Learning and Individual Differences, 54, 135-148.
Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and summary: Learning to read and write in history by focusing on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41(2), 212-249.
Muijselaar, M. M., Swart, N. M., Steenbeek-Planting, E. G., Droop, M., Verhoeven, L., & de Jong, P. F. (2017). Developmental relations between reading comprehension and reading strategies. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(3), 194-209.
O’Reilly, T., Weeks, J., Sabatini, J., Halderman, L., & Steinberg, J. (2014). Designing reading comprehension assessments for reading interventions: How a theoretically motivated assessment can serve as an outcome measure. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 403-424.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Towards a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Volume III (pp. 545–562). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Primor, L., & Katzir, T. (2018). Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-16.
Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 148-166.
Rogne, W. M., & Gamlem, S. M. (2019). Pupils’ information processing and its implications for learning and assessment: A think-aloud study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(4), 520-533.
Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Rowe, D. (1987). Literacy learning as an intertextual process. In J. Readence, & R. Baldein (Eds.), Research in literacy: Merging perspectives (pp. 101-112). NY: National Reading Conference.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.
Salmerón, L., Cañas, J. J., Kintsch, W., & Fajardo, I. (2005). Reading strategies and hypertext comprehension. Discourse Processes, 40(3), 171-191.
Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Cañas, J. J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1157-1171.
Samuelstuen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge, and strategies in comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46(2), 107-117.
Schellings, G., Aarnoutse, C., & Van Leeuwe, J. (2006). Third-grader′s think-aloud protocols: Types of reading activities in reading an expository text. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 549-568.
Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Learning in a sheltered Internet environment: The use of WebQuests. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 423-432.
Shanahan, T. (2005). The national reading panel report: Practical advice for teachers. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In V. Patel (Ed.), Tenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 375-383). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 7-26.
Spoehr, K. T., & Spoehr, L. W. (1994). Learning to think historically. Educational Psychologist, 29(2), 71-77.
Stadtler, M., Bromme, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (2018). Learning from multiple documents: how can we foster multiple document literacy skills in a sustainable way?. In E. Manalo, Y. Uesaka, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), Promoting spontaneous use of learning and reasoning strategies: theory, research, and practice (pp. 46-61). Singapore: Routledge.
Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013). Dealing with uncertainty: Readers’ memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as function of presentation format and source expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 130-150.
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., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Dimensions of topic-specific epistemological beliefs as predictors of multiple text understanding. Learning and Instruction, 18(6), 513-527.
Strømsø, H., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 192-204.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991a). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 495-519.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991b). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73-87. |
[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