研究生: |
李慧鈴 Lee, Hui-Ling |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
從學習評量觀點進行國語文閱讀理解教學之行動研究 Action Research on Teaching in Chinese Reading Comprehension from the Perspective of Learning Assessment |
指導教授: |
唐淑華
Tang, Shu-Hua |
學位類別: |
博士 Doctor |
系所名稱: |
教育學系 Department of Education |
論文出版年: | 2020 |
畢業學年度: | 108 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 208 |
中文關鍵詞: | 學習評量 、學習進展 、閱讀策略 、閱讀理解 |
英文關鍵詞: | learning assessment, learning progression, reading strategy, reading comprehension |
DOI URL: | http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202001167 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:230 下載:25 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究旨在探討從學習評量的觀點進行國語文閱讀理解教學之實施成效。研究者以國文課文為教學媒材,以國中學生為研究對象,正式研究期程為13個月,研究目的在了解:一、從學習評量觀點進行國語文閱讀理解課程之設計與實施歷程;二、探討從學習評量觀點進行國語文閱讀理解課程之實施成效;三、探究課程實施後,學生對本課程之態度與教師之專業成長。
為達上述研究目的,研究者蒐集歷程中的資料及課程結束後學生的各項表現。量化資料為:107年國文會考成績、閱讀推理測驗及學習策略問卷;質性資料為:課堂學習記錄、預習討論單、自我評估表、整體課程回饋表及訪談資料等,以此來檢視學生閱讀理解的學習狀況及對於本課程之看法。資料分析結果如下:
一、課程設計與實施之歷程:1.先評估學生閱讀理解之起點行為、2.配合閱讀策略教學,設計「預習討論單」及「自我評估表」、3.依學生需求設計「差異化討論單」、4.課堂上提供學生自學、同儕討論及師生討論之時間。
二、課程實施後,學生在107年國文會考成績及標準化測驗之結果表現良好。
三、學生對本課程之態度:學生認為此課程安排及進行方式有助於他們的學習,讓其對文章內容有更多及更為深刻的理解。
四、教師之專業成長:藉由學生之學習進展及學習表現來修正教學方向,並從實際教學中去發現不足與困境,以尋求解決之策略。
最後,根據研究結果,提出相關的建議,以做為教學實務工作者及未來研究之參考。
This study aimed to explore the implementation effectiveness of teaching in Chinese reading comprehension from the perspective of learning assessment. The researcher selected Chinese textbooks as the teaching materials and recruited junior-high-school students as research participants. The formal study period was 13 months. The research purposes were as follows: 1. to understand the design and implementation processes of a Chinese reading comprehension course from the perspective of learning assessment; 2. to explore the effectiveness of the Chinese reading comprehension course from the perspective of learning assessment; and 3. to explore students’ attitude toward the course and teachers’ professional development following the course implementation.
To achieve the aforementioned purposes, the researcher collected data from the course implementation processes and about students’ performance after their participation in the course. The quantitative data included the Chinese examination results of the 2018 Comprehensive Assessment Program for Junior High School Students (CPA), reading reasoning test results, and learning-strategy questionnaire survey results. The qualitative data included classroom learning records, preview discussion lists, self-assessment reports, overall course feedback reports, and interview data. These data were employed to examine students’ learning performance on reading comprehension and their views about the course. The data-analysis results are presented as follows.
1. Regarding course design and implementation processes, (1) the initial behavior of students’ reading comprehension was first assessed; (2) a preview discussion list and self-assessment report form were designed according to the instruction of reading strategies; (3) according to students’ needs, differential discussion lists were designed; and (4) time for students’ self-learning, peer discussion, and teacher-student discussion were provided during class.
2. Following the course implementation, students exhibited satisfactory performance in the 2018 Chinese CPA test and standardized test.
3. Regarding students’ attitude toward the course, students indicated that the course arrangement and implementation were conducive to their learning, facilitating their profound understanding of the articles they read.
4. Regarding teachers’ professional development, instructional directions can be modified according to students’ learning progression and performance, and inadequacy, difficulties, solutions can be identified from actual teaching activities.
Finally, according to the research results, related suggestions were proposed to serve as a reference for teaching practitioners and future studies.
壹、中文部分
內政部(2010)。92年臺閩地區少年身心狀況調查(AB020002)【原始數據】。取自https://srda.sinica.edu.tw。 doi:10.6141/TW-SRDA-AB020002-1。
王金國(2018)。真的「以學生為中心」了嗎?。臺灣教育評論月刊,7(12),117-123。
白明靜(2007)。「自我調整策略方案」對國中生英語科自我調整輔導成效之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立東華大學教育研究所,花蓮市。
江文慈(2003)。運用評分準則提升評量品質。e師代-花蓮縣九年一貫雙月刊,8,1-4。
江文慈(2007)超越測量:評量典範轉移的探索與啟示。教育實踐與研究,20(1),173-200。
江芳盛、李懿芳(2009)。國際學生評量計畫(PISA)試題特色分析及其對我國教育之啟示。教育資料與研究,87,27-50。
李坤崇(1999)。多元化教學評量。臺北市:心理出版社。
岳修平(譯)(1998)。E.D. Gagne, C. W. Yekovich & F.R.Yekovich著。教學心理學─學習的認知基礎(The cognitive psychology of school learning)。臺北市:遠流。
幸曼玲、陸怡琮、辜玉旻(2010)。閱讀理解策略教學手冊。臺北市:教育部。
林沛穎、林昱成(2014)。從三環評量理論探討融合教育之學習評量。特殊教育與輔助科技,10,52-58。
林玫君(2010)。表演藝術評分規範之建立—以小學低年級「戲劇創作能力之應用」為例。當代教育研究,18(2),113-154。
林芳瑛(2013)。自我調整學習課程對國小中年級學童學習動機及學習自我效能之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系碩士在職專班,臺北市。
林清山、程炳林(1996)。國中生自我調整學習因素與學習表現之關係暨自我調整的閱讀理解教學策略效果之研究。教育心理學報,28,15-58。
林葦玲(2013)。運用交互教學法提升國中學生閱讀理解能力之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺灣師範大學教育學系在職進修碩士班,臺北市。
林碧珍(2002)。協助教師撰寫數學日誌以促進反思能力之協同行動研究。新竹 師院學報,15,149-180。
柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅(2008)。PIRLS 2006報告:臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養。桃園市:國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。
柯華葳(2010a)。閱讀成分與閱讀發展。載於柯華葳(主編),中文閱讀障礙(頁25-42)。臺北市:心理。
柯華葳(2010b)。千呼萬喚始出來。載於幸曼玲、陸怡琮、辜玉旻(編),閱讀理解策略教學手冊(頁1-3)。臺北市:教育部。
柯華葳、張郁雯、丘嘉慧、詹益綾、游婷雅(2012)。PIRLS 2011報告:臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養。桃園市:國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。
柯華葳、張郁雯、詹益綾、丘嘉慧(2017)。PIRLS 2016報告: 臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養。桃園市:國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。
柯華葳、詹益綾(2007)。國民中學閱讀推理測驗使用手冊。臺北市:國立
臺灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
胡永崇(2008)。閱讀理解的教學評量方式。屏師特殊教育,16,1-9。
唐淑華(2010)。從希望感模式論學業挫折之調適與因應:正向心理學提供的「第三種選擇」。臺北市:心理。
唐淑華(2017)。培養閱讀素養,何必遠求?從設計一本「以學生為主體」的中學課本開始。教科書研究,10(2),1-31。
唐淑華(2018)。青少年閱讀素養之培育-談不同學科領域的文本引導。臺北市:學富。
孫劍秋、林孟君 (2012)。談閱讀素養評量對十二年國教閱讀教學的意涵。北市大語文學報,9,85-89。
國立臺南大學PISA國家研究中心(2011)。PISA閱讀素養應試指南。取自
http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/download/sample_papers/2009/2011_1205_guide_reading.pdf
張良丞、許添明、吳新傑(2016)。國民中學適足教育經費:臺灣偏遠與非偏遠 地區學校的比較。教育科學研究期刊,61(3),43-67。
張郁雯(2012)學習進展:形成性評量與總結性評量之整合架構。教育人力與專業發展,29(4),15-25。
教育部(2011)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要語文學習領域(國語文)。臺北市:作者。
教育部(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市:作者。
教育部(2018)。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學:國語文。取自
https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/46/pta_18510_4703638_59125.pdf
教育部(2019)。國民中小學學生成績評量準則。取自
https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/Tw/Law/LawDetail?filter=CCE6B166-542B-4923-A20C-4612EE02AF28&id=956854f5-0ca1-45a1-ab18-cb4c34ddaec2
梁雲霞、陳芸珊(2013)。國中小學生學習策略使用之分析。教育研究與發展期刊,9(2),33-64。
陳木金、許瑋珊(2012)。從PISA閱讀評量的國際比較探討閱讀素養教育的方向 ,教師天地,181,4-15。
陳明蕾(2019)。台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。
程炳林(2001)。動機、目標設定、行動控制、學習策略之關係:自我調整學習歷程模式之建構及驗證。師大學報:教育類,46(1),67-92。
辜玉旻(2016)。國小高年級學童的閱讀理解監控能力。教育研究月刊,269,45-59。
黃智淵、陸怡琮(2006)。閱讀自我調整策略教學對不同閱讀能力的國小學童之影響。屏東教育大學學報,24,81-106。
廖晉斌(2004)。國文閱讀理解策略教學對增進國中生閱讀理解能力、閱讀策略運用及學業成就效果之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系,彰化縣。
甄曉蘭(2003)。課程行動研究。臺北市:師大書苑。
甄曉蘭(2008)。促進學習的課堂評量--概念分析與實施策略。中等教育,59(1),92-109。
趙婉君(譯)(2002)。Light, R. J. 著。哈佛經驗:如何讀大學—菁英學生暢談怎樣善用大學資源(Making the Most of College)。臺北市:立緒文化。
蔡培村、王美玉(2016)。105教調0003監察院調查報告。取自https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=a2d604b5-6930-4b92-9949-b9d280faa777
齊瑮琛、邱貴發(2015)。文言文閱讀理解歷程探究。華語文教學研究,12(2),51-74。
劉佩雲(2000)。自我調整學習模式之驗證。教育與心理研究,23,173-206。
歐滄和(2002)。教育測驗與評量。臺北市:心理。
鄭圓鈴(2015)。國中教育會考-國文科試題之評量指標與試題分析。國立臺北教育大學語文集刊,27,27-60。
潘麗珠(2013)。以積極思維面對十二年國教的國文教學示例--格式塔理論融入〈旅夜書懷〉之意象分析。中等教育,64(3),6-16。
課文本位閱讀理解教學研發團隊(2012)。閱讀理解策略成分與年級對照表。
取自http://pair.nknu.edu.tw/pair_system/Search_index.aspx?PN=Reader
課文本位閱讀理解教學研發團隊(2018)。國中閱讀教學策略與成分表。
取自https://pair.nknu.edu.tw/pair_system/Search_index.aspx?PN=Reader2
盧雪梅(2005)。學校課程評鑑的學生學習成效評估---以表現標準報告學生學習成就:以閱讀為例。國教新知,52(2),54-61。
謝進昌(2015)。有效的中文閱讀理解策略:國內實徵研究之最佳證據整合。教育科學研究期刊,60(2),33-77。
簡馨瑩(2011)。從PISA探討教室裡的閱讀教學。教師天地,172,37-43。
簡馨瑩、宋曜廷、張國恩(2009)。變與不變:兩位國小教師學習自詢策略教學之歷程分析。教育心理學報,40(4),619-640。
顏惠君(2015)。提升國中生國文閱讀理解能力之差異化教學實踐歷程與實施成效探究(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育系,臺北市。
蘇宜芬(2017)。理解監控。載於柯華葳(主編),閱讀理解策略教學(頁141-156)。臺中市:教育部國民及學前教育署。
貳、外文部分
Armbruster, B. B., L, F.,& Osborn, J.(2003).Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read(2nd ed.)Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B.,& William, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Black, P. & William, D.(1998). Inside the black box: Rasing standards through classroom assessment. London, UK: School of Eductaiong, King’s College London.
Block, C. C.; Parris, S. R.; Reed, K. L.; Whiteley, C. S.; Cleveland, M. D.(2009) Instructional Approaches that Significantly Increase Reading Comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2),262-281.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guide, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction (pp. 393- 452), New Jersey,NJ: Lawence Erlbaum.
Chall, J.S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Cheung, W. M., Tse, S. K., Lam, J. W. I.,& Ka Yee Loh, E. (2009). Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 2006 (PIRLS): Pedagogical correlates of fourth-grade students in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(3), 293-308. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01395.x
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
Cox, K. E.,& Guthrie, J. T. (2001). Motivational and cognitive contributions to students’ amount of reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 116–131.
Earl, L. M.(2003).Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Heritage, M. (2008). Learning Progressions: Supporting Instruction and Formative Assessment. Retrieved from http://repositorio.sineace.gob.pe/repositorio/bitstream/handle/sineace/281/learning%20progressions_heritage-%20%28ppt%2024%20diapos%29%20.pdf?sequence=9&isAllowed=y
Hess, K. (2008). Developing and using learning progressions as a schema for measuring progress. Paper presented at CCSSO Student Assessment Conference, Orlando, FL.
Hess, K.& Kearns J. (2011). Learning Progressions Frameworks Designed for Use with The Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts & Literacy K-12. Retrieved from http://www.naacpartners.org/publications/ELA_LPF_12.2011_final.pdf
James, M.,& Pollard, A. (2011). Introduction. Research Papers in Education, 26(3), 269-273.
Kaput, K (2018). Evidence for student-centered learning.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED581111.pdf
Lapan, R. T., Kardash, C. M.& Turner, S. (2002). Empowering students to become self-regulated learners. Professional School Counseling, 5 , 257-265.
Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching( 8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Mercer, C. D.,& Pullen, P. C. (2005). Students with learning disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P.,& Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Retrieved from https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2011/downloads/P11_IR_FullBook.pdf
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
O’Reilly, T.,& Sheehan, K. M. (2009). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning: A 21st century approach for assessing reading competency.
Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-09-26.pdf
Parr, J. M., Glasswell, K. and Aikman, M. 2007. Supporting teacher learning and informed practice in writing through assessment tools for teaching and learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 69–87.
Pearson, P. D.,& Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.
Pintrich, P. R.& DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Pressley, M.,& Woloshyn, V. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children’s academic performance (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Pressley, M. (2000).What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of ? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Ed.), Handbook of reading research. (pp.545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Renaissance Learning. (2013). Core Progress for reading: Empirically validated learning progressions. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
Schunk, D. H. (1983). Progress self-monitoring: Effects on children's self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 57(2), 89-93.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program inreading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Stobart, G. & Gipps, C. (1997). Assessment: A teacher's guide to the issues(3 rd ed.). London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning.
Phi Delta Lappan, 83(10), 758-765.
Stenhouse , L . ( 1975 ) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development . London, UK: Heinimann.
Timperley, H. (2009). Using assessment data for improving teaching practice. Paper presented at the Assessment and Student Learning: Collecting, Interpreting and Using Data to Inform Teaching. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference/RC2009/17august/7
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs
of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wang, J. H.,& Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 162-186.
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J.,& Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.727-747). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.