資訊素養與閱讀策略融入國小四年級「我們的水族箱」主題探究：以Big6模式為例

The Integration of the Big6 Information Literacy and Reading Strategies Instruction in a Fourth Grade Inquiry-Based Learning Course, "Our Aquarium"

10.6182/jlis.2013.11(1).095

林菁(Lin Ching Chen)；謝欣穎(Hsin-Ying Hsieh)

資訊素養 ； 閱讀策略 ； 自然學習領域 ； Big6模式 ； Information Literacy ； Reading Strategies ； Science Courses ； Big6 Model

圖書資訊學刊

11卷1期（2013 / 06 / 01）

95 - 130

繁體中文

本研究旨在利用Big6模式將資訊素養和閱讀策略融入國小四年級自然與生活科技領域「我們的水族箱」主題探究，以探討學生在探究過程中的學習表現，及合作的老師對此課程的看法。此融入課程依照Big6模式設計，從定義問題開始，經過尋找策略、取得資訊、使用資訊及統整資訊階段，最後以自我評估反省為終了。整個研究進行一學期，以參與觀察、訪談、問卷、測驗與文件分析等多元方法蒐集資料。研究結果發現資訊素養和閱讀策略可經由Big6模式的主題探究融入課程，學生在尋找策略、取得資訊、使用資訊和統整資訊階段表現佳，但在定義問題和反省評估階段則仍有進步的空間。學生已會使用許多閱讀策略，但仍未能將它們內化。學生在自然與生活科技領域的學科表現也有進步。參與研究的老師認為不同領域老師間的協同合作是融入課程能否成功的關鍵。

This study investigated the student performance in an inquiry learning course which integrated information literacy and reading strategies in a fourth-grade science class. The curriculum design was based on the Big6 model, which includes the stages of task definition, information seeking strategies, location & access, use of information, synthesis, and evaluation. The study duration was one semester. The data was gathered through participant observations, interviews, surveys, tests, and from documents generated in the course implementation. The results showed that the integration of information literacy and reading strategies instruction was feasible. The students performed well in information seeking strategies, locating & accessing information, using and synthesizing information. In contrast, their abilities in task definition and evaluation needed further improvement. Also, while the students did acquire various reading strategies during the inquiry process, they needed more exercises to internalize the skills. The performance on the acquisition of subject knowledge was also improved through the inquiry learning. The participating instructors considered that the collaboration between teachers of different subject matters was the key to a successful integrated instruction.

1. 林菁(2008)。資訊素養融入大學生主題探究之研究。教育資料與圖書館學，46(2)，233-266。
   連結：
2. 林菁(2011)。資訊素養融入國小一年級「校園生物大搜索」主題探究—以Super3模式為例。教育資料與圖書館學，4(4)，539-570。
   連結：
3. American Association of School Librarians(2009).Empowering learners: Guidelines for school library programs.Chicago, IL:American Association of School Librarians.
4. American Association of School Librarians(2009).Standards for the 21st-century learner in action.Chicago, IL:American Association of School Librarians.
5. American Association of School Librarians,Association for Educational Communication and Technology(1998).Information power: Building partnerships for learning.Chicago, IL:American Library Association.
6. Bass, J. E.,Contant, T. L.,Carin, A.(2009).Methods for teaching science as inquiry.Boston, MA:Pearson.
7. Caldwell, J.(2002).Reading assessment: A primer for teachers and tutors.New York:The Guilford Press.
8. Chamberlain, K.,Crane, C. C.(2009).Reading, writing, & inquiry in the science classroom grades 6-12.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin.
9. Chu, S. K.,Tse, S. K.,Loh, E. K.,Chow, K.(2011).Collaborative inquiry projectbased learning: Effects on reading ability and interests.Library & Information Science Research,33(3),236-243.
10. Clark, R. C.,Mayer, R. E.(2011).E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass/PF.
11. Criswell, B.(2011).Framing inquiry in high school chemistry: Helping students see the bigger picture.Journal of Chemical Education,89,199-205.
12. Curzon, S.(Ed.),Lampert, L.(Ed.)(2007).Proven strategies for building an information literacy program.New York:Neal-Schuman.
13. Eisenberg, M. B.,Berkowitz, R.(1999).Teaching information & technology skills: The big6 in elementary schools.Worthington, OH:Linworth.
14. Eisenberg, M. B.,Lowe, C. A.,Spitzer, K. L.(2004).Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age.Westport, CT:Libraries Unlimited.
15. Fang, Z.,Lamme, L. L.,Pringle, R. M.(2010).Language and literacy in inquiry-based science classrooms, grade 3-8.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin.
16. Fang, Z.,Wei, Y.(2010).Improving middle school students' science literacy through reading infusion.The Journal of Educational Research,103(4),262-273.
17. Fontichiaro, K.(2009).21st-centruy learning in school libraries.Santa Barbara, CA:ABC-CLIO.
18. Fontichiaro, K.(Ed.)(2009).21st-century learning in school libraries.Santa Barbara, CA:ABC-CLIO.
19. Fontichiaro, K.(Ed.)(2009).21st century learning in school libraries.Santa Barbara, CA:ABC-CLIO.
20. Gess, A.(2009).Collaboration: Finding the teacher, finding the topic, finding the time.Library Media Connection,27(4),24-25.
21. Grassian, E.,Kaplowitz, J.(2001).Information literacy instruction: Theory and practice.New York:Neal-Schuman.
22. Hammerman, E.(2006).Essentials of inquiry-based science, K-8.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin.
23. Harada, V.,Yoshina, J.(2004).Inquiry learning through librarian-teacher partnerships.Worthington, OH:Linworth.
24. Harvey, S.,Goudvis, A.(2007).Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding and engagement.Portland, ME:Stenhouse.
25. Hoyt, L.(2005).Spotlight on comprehension: Building a literacy of thoughtfulness.Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
26. Kerr, M. A.,Symons, S. E.(2006).Computerized presentation of text: Effects on children's reading of information al material.Reading and Writing,19(1),1-19.
27. Kirschner, P. A.,Sweller, J.,Clark, R. E.(2006).Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.Educational Psychologist,41(2),75-86.
28. Kuhlthau, C.,Maniotes, L.,Caspari, A.(2007).Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century.Westport, CT:Libraries Unlimited.
29. Lowery, J.(2005).Information literacy and writing: Natural partners in the library media center.Knowledge Quest,34(2),13-15.
30. Merriam, S. B.(1998).Qualitative research and case study applications in education.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
31. Mullis, I. V. S.,Martin, M. O.,Foy, P.,Drucker, K. T.(2012).,Chestnut Hill, MA:TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
32. Mullis, I.,Martin, M.,Kennedy, A.,Foy, P.(2007).,Chestnut Hill, MA:TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
33. National Research Council(2000).Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
34. Ness, M.(2011).Teachers' use of and attitudes toward informational text in K-5 classrooms.Reading Psychology,32(1),28-53.
35. Nielsen Norman Group(2010).Usability of website for children: Design guidelines for targeting users aged 3-12 years.Fremont, CA:Nielsen Norman Group.
36. Okemura, A.(2008).Designing inquiry-based science units as collaborative partners.School Library Monthly,25(3),47-51.
37. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(2009).PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science.
38. PISA國家研究中心(2009)。,台南=Tainan:國立台南大學=National University of Tainan。
39. Sabol, E.(2007).Teaching information literacy to high school freshmen.Library Media Connection,25(4),36-38.
40. Springer, K.(2010).Educational research: A contextual approach.Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.
41. Taylor, T.,Arth, J.,Solomon, A.,Williamson, N.(2007).100% information literacy success.Clifton Park, NY:Thomson Delmar Learning.
42. Wilhelm, J. D.(2007).Engaging readers & writers with inquiry.New York:Scholastic.
43. Wray, D.(2012).Teaching literacy across the primary curriculum.Exeter EXI INX:Learning Matters.
44. 林菁、李佳憓(2009)。國小圖書老師與班級教師合作設計資訊素養融入教學。教育資料與圖書館學，47(2)，199-230。
45. 林煥祥(2008)。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告國科會專題研究計畫成果報告,花蓮=Hualien:國立花蓮教育大學=National Hualien University of Education。
46. 柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅(2008)。,未出版
47. 國立中正大學教育學研究所編(2000)。質的研究方法。嘉義=Chiayi:麗文文化=Liwen Publisher。
48. 張瓊穗、翁婉慈(2005)。以資訊大六之觀點來檢驗國小高年級學童資訊素養之研究─以台北市天母國小為例。國立臺北教育大學學報，18(2)，297-322。
49. 陳海泓(2008)。紙本閱讀和電腦閱讀文章對國小五、六年級學生閱讀理解之影響。教育學誌，12，121-168。
50. 謝錫金、林偉業、林裕康、羅嘉怡(2005)。兒童閱讀能力進展：香港與國際比較。香港=Hong Kong:香港大學出版社=Hong Kong University Press。

1. 吳仙凰(2022)。探究大學生西譯中過程的資訊素養表現。外國語文研究，36，75-113。