政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/99655
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113392/144379 (79%)
Visitors : 51223261      Online Users : 931
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/99655


    Title: 知識翻新對國小四年級學生閱讀理解和寫作表現之影響
    Effects of knowledge building on elementary school students’ reading comprehension and writing performance
    Authors: 王靜華
    Contributors: 洪煌堯
    王靜華
    Keywords: 閱讀理解
    寫作表現
    知識翻新
    知識論壇
    reading comprehension
    writing performance
    knowledge building
    Knowledge Forum
    Date: 2016
    Issue Date: 2016-08-03 10:45:09 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 　　本研究探討電腦支援合作知識翻新（knowledge building）活動對國小四年級學童閱讀理解與寫作表現的影響。研究對象為新北市某公立國小的兩班學生共53人。其中，實驗組（n=25）採知識翻新活動﹔控制組(n=28)採傳統講述教學活動。研究方法採準實驗設計中的「不等組前後測設計」；在為期十八週的實驗期間進行前測、實驗處理及後測。
    　　研究資料來源包含：(1)PIRLS閱讀測驗前後測成績；(2)教學科技平台討論內容；(3)教學科技平台活動參與量；(4)寫作表現分數；(5)實驗組與控制組學生的半結構訪談；以及(6)實驗組的段考學習成績。資料分析同時使用質性與量化兩種方式。質性分析內容包括半結構訪談與平台討論內容，量化資料分析內容包含閱讀測驗成績、平台活動參與程度、以及寫作表現分數。透過多元資料分析以瞭解經過不同教學方法後，兩組學生的閱讀理解與寫作表現上是否有所差異。
    　　研究結果顯示：(1) 知識翻新有助於提升學生的整體閱讀理解，且使用知識論壇進行閱讀理解提問，也有助於提昇學生的提問能力；(2) 知識翻新有助於提升學生整體寫作表現，且知識論壇上的貼文與討論活動也有助於改善學生的寫作品質；(3) 知識翻新能幫助學生改進其想法概念，且實驗後期於知識論壇的活動量也有呈現增加的趨勢；及(4)經過知識翻新活動後，實驗組的低學業成就學生之閱讀理解表現優於控制組的低學業成就學生，但二組在寫作方面則無顯著差異。
    　　本研究嘗試改變過去的學習模式，透過知識翻新：鼓勵學生產生並反思想法，讓學生的學習更具主動性；及鼓勵同儕間的互助與互動以改進閱讀想法，讓學生在閱讀理解與寫作表現的成效產生正向的成長。
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of knowledge building activities on grade-four students’ reading comprehension and writing performance. This study adopted a quasi-experimental design. In the experiment group, the participants were 25 grade-four students; in the control group, the participants were 28 grade-four students. The experiment class engaged in knowledge building and sustained ideational writing in order to enhance their writing performance (for 18 weeks). In contrast, the control group engaged in teacher-directed instruction.
    Data sources mainly came from: (1) pre-post PIRLS reading comprehension test; (2) students’ notes posted in Knowledge Forum; (3) students’ online discussion activities in Knowledge Forum, such as number of notes contributed, number of notes read, and number of notes built-on to other’s notes; (4) pre-post writing test; (5) semi-structured interview; and (6) student’ end-of-the-semester grades. To analyze, one-way ANCOVA, paired t-test and chi-square was employed to quantitatively examine students’ reading comprehension and writing test after the course. In addition, qualitative content analysis was also performed to evaluate the quality of students’ notes and to understand how students changed their views of ideas.
    The findings were as follows: (1) knowledge building pedagogy was conducive to enhancing students’ high-level reading comprehension and encouraging more in-depth questioning activities in Knowledge Forum; (2) after being engagaed in Knowledge building for a semester, students were able to demonstrate better writing performance, and more active discussion activities in the Knowledge Forum; (3) Knowledge building pedagogy changed students’ views of ideas and improved their idea generation capacity; and (4) Low achievers in the experiment group were able to demonstrate better reading comprehension than those in the control group.
    Overall, the findings suggested that knowledge building practice was able to help change the traditionally more authoritative and teacher-directed one-way instruction,  
    to an alternative, more student-centered, idea generation and improvement pedagogy, that helped students attain better reading comprehension and writing performance.
    Reference: 王萬清（1997）。國語科教學理論與實際。臺北市：師大書苑。
    王詩妮、吳東光與孟瑛如（2014）多媒體註解輔助低閱讀能力學生線上閱讀理解之成效研究。臺灣科技大學人文社會學報，10(4)，333-352。
    王瑀（2004）。以同儕互評與討論提升小六學童之寫作表現~以行動學習輔具教室為例（未出版碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。
    王德蕙、李奕璇、曾芬蘭與宋曜廷（2013）「國民中學學生基本學力測驗寫作測驗」信度與效度分析研究。測驗學刊，60(1)，151-184。
    王瓊珠主編（2010）。故事結構教學與分享閱讀。臺北：心理文化出版。
    朱璟淳（2012）。電腦支援合作學習融入國小閱讀理解之研究—以說明文體為例（未出版碩士論文）。國立新竹教育大學，新竹市。
    吳宜貞（2002）。家庭環境因素對兒童閱讀能力影響之探討。教育心理學報，34(1)，1-19。
    吳錦勳（2007）。越寫越聰明。天下雜誌，1012，84-93。
    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（未出版碩士論文）。國立中正大學，嘉義縣。
    李榮哲（2010）。 高中生同儕回饋對作文表現的影響（未出版碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。
    杜淑貞（2001）。小學作文教學探究。臺北市：文津。
    周文君（2002）。「多元智能統整-合作-反省思考」寫作教學對國小學童寫作態度與寫作表之影響（未出版碩士論文）。國立屏東師範學院，屏東縣。
    周惠菁（2011）。美國新一波教育革命──寫作真的很重要。天下雜誌。取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5009267
    孟瑛如、吳東光、陳虹君（2014）。RTI 理念融入多媒體閱讀理解教材以提升一般生及閱讀低成就學生在閱讀及識字成效之教學研究，臺中教育大學學報，28(1)，1-23。
    岳修平（譯）（2001）。教學心理學：學習的認知基礎（原作者：E. D. Gagne, C. W. Yekovich, & F. R. Yekovich）。臺北：遠流文化。
    林秀玲（2008）。發問策略教學對學生提問能力與閱讀理解之影響——以國小四年級國語科教學為例（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。
    林清山（譯）（1990）。教育心理學──認知取向（原作者：R. E. Mayer）。臺北：遠流出版公司。
    林義雄與陳澤民（譯）（1996）。數學心理學（原作者：R.R.Skemp）。台北：九章出版社。
    邱景玲（2007）。鷹架式寫作教學對國小學童寫作成效影響之研究（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。
    信世昌（2009）。教育科技在語文教育之應用。載於臺灣教育傳播暨科技學會（主編）教育科技理論與實務（頁163-183）。臺北市；學富文化。
    柯華葳（2007）。教出閱讀力。臺北：天下雜誌。
    柯華葳（2009）。教出閱讀力2。臺北：天下雜誌。
    柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤與游婷雅（2006）。臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養（PIRLS 2006 報告）。中央大學學習與教學研究所。
    洪月女（2009）以古德曼的閱讀理論探討中英文閱讀之異同。新竹教育大學人文社會學報，3(1)，87-114。
    洪蘭（2002）。活化大腦，激發創造力。天下雜誌，海闊天空特刊，92-94。
    唐淑華（1991）。以多文本取向進行課外閱讀之規畫與運用，教育研究月刊，210，21-35。
    孫春在，林珊如（2007）。網路合作學習：數位時代的互動學習環境、教學與評量。台北：心理出版。
    涂亞鳳（2006）。心智繪圖寫作教學法對國中生語文創造力及寫作表現影響之研究。慈濟大學教育研究所教學碩士論文（未出版碩士論文）。慈濟大學，花蓮縣。
    國民教育社群網（2012）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。取自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_97.php。
    國立臺灣師範大學心理與教育測驗研究發展中心(2015)。寫作測驗評分規準。取自http://cap.ntnu.edu.tw/exam_31.html。
    張淑慧（1998）。合作學習對國小五年級學童網路閱讀理解及策略影響研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立嘉義大學，嘉義縣。
    張新仁（1992）。寫作教學研究。高雄：復文圖書有限公司。
    許宜文（2007）。作文數位教材教學對國小學童寫作態度與寫作表現影響之研究（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。
    郭生玉、陳鳳如（1995）。整合性過程導向寫作教學法對國小兒童寫作品質及寫作歷程的影響。師大學報，40，1-36。
    陳秀玲（2010）。資訊科技融入閱讀教學對學生閱讀理解效應之行動研究（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。
    陳佳音（2005）。線上閱讀討論對國小學童之閱讀理解能力與閱讀態度影響之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺南大學，臺南市。
    陳昭智（2013）。運用心智圖法對國中生國語文閱讀理解之影響探究（未出版碩士論文）。國立暨南大學課程教學與科技研究所，南投。
    陳滿銘（2013）語文能力與讀寫互動關係。中等教育，64(3)，17-34。
    陳鳳如（1994）。閱讀與寫作，整合的教與學。學生輔導。62，20-29。
    陳鳳如（2004）。寫作討論對大學生學術性論文寫作品質及寫作歷程的影響─從探索、閱讀到寫作。師大學報，49(1)，139-158。
    陳鳳如（2012）。自我詢問檢核策略的介入對讀者覺察能力的實驗效果。新竹教育大學教育學報。30(1)，39-69。
    陳鴻基（2008）。「合作式電腦心智繪圖寫作教學」對國小四年級學生寫作成效與寫作態度之影響（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺南大學，臺南市。
    曾世杰（2004）。聲韻覺識、唸名速度與中文閱讀障礙。臺北市：心理。
    曾祥芹（2001）。現代文章學引論。北京：中國文聯出版社。
    黃永和（2009）。情境學習與教學研究。臺北市：國立編譯館。
    黃思華（2014）。互動式電子書對原住民高中職學生閱讀理解能力之研究。教育科技與學習，2(2)，143-164。
    黃筱雯、蔡家姍（2009）。國中學生語言能力、閱讀理解能力及寫作表現三者之關係研究：以桃園縣為例。教育科學期刊，4(2)，118-160。
    葉玉珠（2002）。高層次思考教學設計的要素分析。國立中山大學通識教育學報，創刊號，75-101。
    葉玉珠、高源令、修慧蘭、陳世芬、曾慧敏、王珮玲、陳惠萍著（2010）。教育心理學。臺北：心理出版社。
    詹志禹（2004）。臺灣發明家的內在動機、思考取向及環境機會：演化論的觀點。 教育與心理研究，27(4），775-806。
    詹志禹主編（2002）。建構論：理論基礎與教育應用。臺北：遠流文化。
    廖本裕（2010）。寫作歷程模式數位教學平台之設計與實施成效之研究。教育學刊，34，109-141。
    蔡怡玉（2005）。電腦輔助教學對國小閱讀理解困難學生教學成效之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立台南大學，臺南市。
    賴麗珍（譯）(2007)。創意思考教學的 100個點子(100 Ideas for Teaching Creativity)（原作者：Stephen Bowkett）。臺北市：心理。
    錢昭君（2010）。心智圖寫作教學方案對國小學生創造力及寫作表現之影響（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。
    瞿吟楨（2012）。編織式創意記敘文寫作教學。臺北市：秀威資訊。
    羅景瓊、蘇照雅（2009）。網路同步學習中實施腦力激盪法激發創意思考之研究。生活科技教育月刊，42(5)，58-70。

     
    Anderson, R. C. (1984). Role of reader`s schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, and R. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools (pp. 372 – 384). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading and writing. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9–30.
    Bereiter, C. (2002).Constructivism, Socioculturalism, and Popper’s World 3. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 21-23.
    Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can children really create knowledge? Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1).
    Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovic College.
    Chan, C. K.K., Brutis, P. J., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Constructive activity in learning from text. American educational research journal, 29(1), 99-118.
    Flower,L.,& Hayes. J.R.(1981a) A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing .College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
    Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
    Gibson, E. J., & Levin, H.(1975). The psychology of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT
    Gordon, C. (1990). Changes in readers’ and writers’ metacognitive knowledge: Some observations. Reading Research and Instruction, 30 (1), 1-14.
    Graesser, A.C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Theories of text comprehension: The importance of reading strategies to theoretical foundations of reading comprehension (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Haneda, M., & Wells, G. (2000). Writing in knowledge-building communities. Research in the Teaching of English, 34 (3), 430-457.
    Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano, & J.R. Sauire (eds), Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice (pp. 6-45). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    Hayes, R. (1996). A New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in Writing. In Levy, C.M. & Ransdell, S. (Eds), The Science of Writing. Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. London: Routledge.
    Hillocks, G. (1986). What Works in Teaching Composition: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Treatment Studies. American Journal of Education, 39(1), 133-170.
    Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E.; Barrows, Howard S.(2008) Facilitating Collaborative Knowledge Building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48-94.
    Hong, H.-Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613-627.
    Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(5), 613-627.
    Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-447.
    Karau, Steven J.; Williams, Kipling D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (4): 681–706.
    Kintsch, E. (1990). Macroprocesses and microprocesses in the development of summarization skill. Cognition and Instruction, 7 (3), 161-195.
    Kintsch, W., & Welsch, D.M. (1988). The construction-integration model: a framework for studying memory for text. In W. E. Hockley & S. Lewandowsky (Eds.) Relating memory and data: essay on human memory (pp. 1-28). NJ: Erlbaum.
    Knapper, C.K. & Cropley A.J. (2000). Lifelong learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
    Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-212.
    LaBerge, D.,& Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
    Nonaka, I., & Konno, N.(1998). The Concept of `Ba`: Building a foundation for knowledge creation, California Management Review, 40(3). 40-54.
    Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    OECD. (2000). Literacy in the Information Age : Final Report of the International Adult Literacy Survey. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/41529765.pdf
    OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do(Volume I). Paris: Author. Press.
    Olson, D.R. (1997). Talking about text and culture of literacy. In B. Davis & D. Corson (Eds.), Oral discourse and education (pp.1-9). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
    Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination : principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York: Scribner.
    Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Science Education, 39, 313-319.
    Polman, J. L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22 (4), 431-466.
    Robert G. Roth (1987). The evolving audience: alternatives to audience accommodation. College Composition and Communication, 38(1), 47-55.
    Rodamn, G..(1965). Pre-writing: The stage of discovery in the writing process. College Composition Communication, 16, 106-112.
    Rumelhart, D.E. (1985). Toward an interactive model of reading. In Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. 3rd edition. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P.D. Pearson (Eds.) Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.) Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
    Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In education and Technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and remedial capabilities in children`s composing. The psychology of written language: Developmental and educational perspectives, (pp. 67-95). New York: Wiley.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). An Attainable Version of High Literacy: Approaches to Teaching Higher-Order Skills in Reading and Writing. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9-30.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge building organizations. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The developmental health and wealth of nations (pp. 274-289). New York: Guilford.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge building organizations. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The developmental health and wealth of nations (pp. 274-289). New York: Guilford.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003a). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K.E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118).New York: Cambridge University Press.
    So, H. J., Seah, L. H., Toh-Heng, H. L. (2009). Designing collaborative knowledge building environments accessible to all learners: Impacts and design challenges. Computers and Education, 54, 479-490.
    Tan, S. C. (2010). Developing 21st century teachers as a knowledge builder. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 1–8.
    Von Glasersfeld, E.(1989). Constructivism in education. In T.Husen & N. Postlethwaite (eds.), International encyclopedia education (pp.11-12). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
    Weinstein, C. S. (1991). The classroom as a social context for learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 493-525.
    What does a Knowledge Building classroom look like? by (2015, Dec 25).[Online forum comment]. Retrieved from http://ikit.org/professionaldevelopment/what-does-a-knowledge-building-classroom-look-like
    White, B. (1989). A microworld-based approach to science education. Newton, MA: Bolt Beranek & Newman.
    Wiely, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301-311.
    Wittrock, M. C. (1991). Generative teaching of comprehension. The Elementary School Journal, 92(2), 169-184.
    Wixson, K. K., & Peters, C. W. (1984). Reading redefined: A Michigan Reading Association position paper. Michigan Reading Journal, 17, 4-7.
    Wong, B.Y.L., & Jone. W.(1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training, Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(3), 228-240.
    Zhang, J., & Sun. Y. (2011). Reading for idea advancement in a Grade 4 knowledge building community. Instructional Science, 39(4), 429–452.
    Zhang, J., & Sun. Y., Scardamalia, M.(2010). Knowledge building and vocabulary growth over two years, Grades 3 and 4. Instructional Science, 38(2), 141-171.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    教育學系
    103152006
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103152006
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Education] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    200601.pdf1673KbAdobe PDF2296View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback