臺灣九年級學生閱讀樂趣與策略對PISA閱讀素養解釋力之探討

The Predicting Power of Reading Enjoyment and Strategy for Taiwan 9th Graders' PISA Reading Literacy

10.6384/CIQ.201110.0002

洪碧霞(Pi-Hsia Hung)；林素微(Su-Wei Lin)；吳裕益(Yuh-Yih Wu)

PISA ； 閱讀素養 ； 閱讀樂趣 ； 閱讀策略 ； 性別差異 ； 台灣九年級學生 ； PISA ； reading literacy ； enjoy reading ； reading strategies ； 9(superscript th) graders of Taiwan

課程與教學

14卷4期（2011 / 10 / 01）

1 - 23

繁體中文

閱讀能力是國民社會參與和生涯發展的重要基礎，本研究的目的在分析臺灣九年級學生閱讀的樂趣與策略（包含認知與後設認知策略）對PISA2009閱讀素養的解釋力，希望提供閱讀教學改革方案研擬的參考。PISA2009臺灣15歲學生共5831人參與，其中九、十兩年級學生分別為1870及3953人。本研究循PISA抽樣設計邏輯，由樣本加權推估母群，九年級學生為97872人，十年級為190976人。基於教學介入急迫性的需求，以及避免高中入學考試篩選效應對校際變異討論的干擾，研究中的分析討論以九年級學生為主，十年級學生的資料僅做為參照。分析結果顯示，與臺灣九年級學生閱讀素養相關最高的是閱讀樂趣，閱讀策略對閱讀素養也有不錯的解釋力。整體而言，這些變項對於學生閱讀素養的校內變異和校際變異解釋比率大致為四到五成左右。如果男學生在這些變項與女學生達到同樣水準，他們閱讀素養的預測分數可提高24分。如果社經地位較低學生能與高社經背景學生達到相同的閱讀樂趣與策略水準，閱讀素養預測分數將可提高48分，相當於0.7個閱讀水準的幅度。同時考量性別與社經變項，表現最薄弱的社經弱勢男學生，若能與社經優勢女學生達到相同的閱讀樂趣與策略水平，閱讀素養預期可提升69分左右，相當於1個閱讀水準的幅度。本研究分析顯示閱讀的樂趣和策略對臺灣九年級學生閱讀素養有不容忽視的解釋力，後續閱讀教學的首要急務在提升落後學生閱讀樂趣，並針對所有學生，積極研擬有效的閱讀教學介入方案，激勵學生對閱讀學習的投入，協助學生發展閱讀策略，培育能以閱讀進行有效學習的國民。

Reading is required in meeting individual's needs for participation in society and career development. The purpose of this study is to examine the reading enjoyment strategies, and metacognition accounted for reading literacy of 9th graders of PISA 2009. 5831 Taiwanese students, 1870 9th graders and 3953 10th graders, participated in this survey. For weighted number of participating students, there are 97872 9th graders and 190976 10th graders. For the importance and urgency of intervention, this study focuses the discussion on 9th graders, with 10th graders as reference group. The results show that boys and socio-economically disadvantaged students have lower levels of engagement and strategies learning less effectively than girls and socio-economically advantaged students. Enjoy reading and reading strategies (i.e., cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies) are strongly associated with reading literacy. There are 40% to 50% of variations of reading literacy--for within school and between schools can be so explained. If boys enjoyed reading as much as girls and shared their levels of knowledge about effective reading strategies, the predicted reading performance of boys will increase by 24 points. For socio-economically disadvantaged students, they can get extra 48 points, about 0.7 reading literacy levels, if they enjoyed reading as much as socio-economically advantaged students and shared their levels of knowledge about effective reading strategies. If disadvantaged boys had the same levels of enjoyment of reading and effective reading strategies as advantaged girls do, their scores in reading would be higher than what they currently demonstrate in PISA: equivalent to 110 points or more. The results indicate that a large part of the gap in reading performance between boys and girls and socio-economically disadvantaged and advantaged students can be closed if they have similar reading enjoyment and reading strategies. Thus, the teachers can adopt these variables into consideration for developing engaged readers. For example, teachers can make reading more rewarding by using reading strategies that student find meaningful and functional, and can also help students develop comprehension skills by modeling these skills or strategies use and by systematically teaching these strategic approaches to reading. As students' abilities of reading improve, reading will become a more positive and productive experience.

1. Lin, C.-J.(2010).Effects of Socio-Economic Status (SES) on Literacy in Various Subject Areas and Different Grades at School and Student Levels.Journal of Education,23,177-209.
   連結：
2. Ayers, L. (1909). Laggards in our schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
3. 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 [on-line]. Available:http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.cfm.
4. Bank, B. J.,Biddle, B. J.,Good, T. L.(1980).Sex roles, classroom instruction,and reading achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology,72,119-132.
5. Below, J. L.,Skinner, C. H.,Fearrington, J. Y.,Sorrell, C. A.(2010).Gender Differences in Early Literacy: Analysis of Kindergarten through Fifth-Grade Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Probes.School Psychology Review,39(2),240-257.
6. Brown, R.,Pressley, M.,Van Meter, P.,Schuder, T.(1996).A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade readers.Journal of Educational Psychology,88,18-37.
7. Brozo, W. G.(2002).To be a boy, to be a reader.Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
8. Bruning, R. H.,Schraw, G. J.,Norby, M. M.,Ronning, R. R.(2010).Cognitive Psychology and Instruction.NJ:Pearson Educaiton.
9. Clary, L.(2001).Getting adolescents to read.Journal of Reading,34,340-345.
10. Coles, M.,Hall, C.(2001).Gendered reading: Learning from children' s reading choices.Journal of Research in Reading,25,96-108.
11. Davenport, E. C.,Davision, M. L.,Chan, C. K.,Choi, J.,Guven, K.,Harring, J.(2002).The Minnesota Basic Skills Test: Performance gaps for 1996 to 2001 on the reading and mathematics tests, by gender, ethnicity, limited English proficiency, individualized education plans, and socio-economic status.Minneapolis:Office of Educational Accountability, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota.
12. De Corte, E.,Verschaffel, L.,De Ven, V.(2001).Improving text comprehension strategies in upper primary school children: A design experiment.British Journal of Educational Psychology,71,531-559.
13. Kamil, M.L.(ed.),Mosenthal,P.B.(ed.),Pearson, P.D.(ed.),Barr, R.(ed.)(2000).Handbook of Reading Research.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
14. Klecker, B. M.(2006).The gender gap in NAEP fourth-,eighth-, and twelfth- grade reading scores across years.Reading Improvement,43,50-56.
15. Klinger, J. K.,Vaughn, S.(1996).Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language.Elementary School Journal,96,275-293.
16. Leinhardt, G.,Seewald, A.,Engel, M.(1979).Learning what' s taught: Sex differences in instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology,71,432-439.
17. Libsch, M. K.,Breslow, M.(1996).Trends in nonassigned reading by high school seniors.NASSP Bulletin,80,111-116.
18. Mastropieri, M. A.,Scruggs, T. E.(1997).Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities: 1976 to 1996.Remedial and Special Education,18,197-213.
19. Nippold, M. A.,Duthie, J. K.,Larson, J.(2005).Free time preferences of older children and young adolescents.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,36,93-102.
20. OECD(2010).PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn- Student engagement,strategies and practices.OECD Publishing.
21. OECD(2010).PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background. Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes.OECD Publishing.
22. OECD(2010).PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science.OECD Publishing.
23. Palincsar, A. S.,Brown, A. L.(1984).Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction,1,117-175.
24. Paris, S.,Paris, A. H.(2001).Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning.Educational Psychologist,36,89-101.
25. Pressley, M.(2006).Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching.NY:Guilford Press.
26. Rosenshine, B.,Meister, C.(1994).Reciprocal Teaching:A Review of the Research.Review of Educational Research,64,479-530.
27. Ruddell, R.(ed.),Unrau, N.(ed.)(2004).Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading.Newark, NJ:International Reading Association.
28. Thrupp, M.,Lauder, H.,Robinson, T.(2002).School composition and peer effects.International Journal of Educational Research,37(5),483-504.
29. Wentzel, K.R.(ed.),Wigfield, A.(ed.)(2009).Handbook of Motivation in School.New York:Taylor Francis.
30. Wigfield, A.(ed.),Wentzel, K.R.(ed.)(2009).Handbook of Motivation at School.New York:Routledge.
31. Willms, J.D.(1997).Parental choice and education policy.Edinburgh, UK:Centre for Educational Sociology, University of Edinburgh.
32. Yang-Hansen, K.(2008).Ten-year trend in SES effects on reading achievement at school and individual levels: a cross-country comparison.Educational Research and Evaluation,14(6),521-537.
33. 宋曜廷、黃嶸生、張國恩(2002)。具多重策略的閱讀理解輔助系統之設計與應用。第四屆華人心理學家學術研討會暨第六屆華人心理與行為科際學術研討會，臺北:
34. 蘇宜芬(1991)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所。

1. 蘇泓誠(Hung-Cheng Su);陳佳欣(Chia-Hsin Chen)(2022)。不同心態之臺灣學生成就動機與數學素養關聯研究。臺灣數學教育期刊。9(2)。63-86。