國小學生「線上閱讀素養測驗」之編製與線上閱讀能力表現之初探

Developing Online Reading Skill Test to Assess Elementary Students' Online Reading Performance

劉宜芳(I-Fang Liu)；柯華葳(Hwa-Wei Ko)

新素養 ； 線上閱讀 ； new literacies ； online reading

測驗學刊

61卷4期（2014 / 12 / 01）

509 - 532

繁體中文

本研究的目的為發展一份中文版「線上閱讀素養測驗」，並測量國小學童的能力表現。測驗發展指標之建構，乃基於線上閱讀行為的研究與專家生手間的比較研究。指標分為線上閱讀能力與線上環境操控兩面向，架構線上閱讀中之搜尋、評估、整合等三項認知歷程的能力成分。施測對象為台灣北部與中部地區的國小四至六年級學童，共計167位。試題以項目反應理論進行分析，所有試題之鑑別度介於0.33～2.05之間，平均鑑別度為0.76。試題難度介於-3.03～2.79之間，平均難度為-0.23。信度考驗結果顯示，測驗之實徵信度達0.75，傳統K-R信度值達0.66。測驗與國語和資訊成績效標間之相關亦達顯著，最精確之能力測量範圍介於-2.00～-0.13之間，適合作為區辨基礎能力的工具。學生能力表現分析則發現，六年級學生的表現顯著優於四年級。學生在整合能力試題的答對率最低，最需要教學上的支持。

The purpose of this study was to develop a measurement tool of online reading skills (ORS), which evaluated elementary students' performance. Research that considered online reading behaviors and studies comparing expert -novice performance were used to construct the test. In the test, there were two dimensions, online reading and online operations, which include four abilities: searching skills, evaluating skills, integration skills and navigation skills. A sample of 167 fourth to sixth grade students, which recruited from 5 schools, participated in this study. Test items were analyzed by the IRT, 2PL model. The mean of discrimination parameter, which range from 0.33 to 2.05, was 0.76. The mean of difficulty parameter, which range from-3.03 to 2.79, was-0.22. The KR-20 and empirical reliability of the test was 0.66 and 0.75, respectively. Moreover, criterion validity has significantly positive correlation with students' Chinese and technology score in the school. The ORS can efficiently measure students' online reading skills with fair reliability and validity specifically when the skill score is located between-2.00 to-0.13. The results indicate that the score of sixth grade significant better than fourth grade. All students perform poorly in hypertexts integration, which need more guiding support.

1. 林珊如(2003)。大學教師網路閱讀行為之初探。圖書資訊學刊，1(1)，75-92。
   連結：
2. 張貴琳(2012)。國中學生線上閱讀素養發展現況調查。教育研究與發展期刊，8(2)，87-118。
   連結：
3. Bilal, D.(2000).Children's use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: I. Cognitive, physical, and affective behaviors on fact-based search tasks.Journal of the American Society for Information Science,51(7),646-665.
4. Bilal, D.,Kirby, J.(2002).Differences and similarities in information seeking: Children and adults as web users.Information Processing & Management,38(5),649-670.
5. Bock, R. D.,Thissen, D.,Zimowski, M. F.(1997).IRT estimation of domain scores.Journal of Educational Measurement,34(3),197-211.
6. Bråaten, I.,Strømsø, H. I.,Salmerón, L.(2011).Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change.Learning and Instruction,21(2),180-192.
7. Brand-Gruwel, S.,Wopereis, I.,Walraven, A.(2009).A descriptive model of information problem solving while using internet.Computers & Education,53(4),1207-1217.
8. Britt, M. A.,Aglinskas, C.(2002).Improving students' ability to identify and use source information.Cognition and Instruction,20(4),485-522.
9. Coiro, J.(2009).Rethinking online reading assessment.Educational Leadership,66(6),59-63.
10. Coiro, J.,Dobler, E.(2007).Reading comprehension on the internet: Exploring the online comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet.Reading Research Quarterly,42,214-257.
11. Demirbilek, M.(2009).Effects of interface windowing modes on disorientation in a hyper-media learning Environment.Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,18(4),369-383.
12. Henry, L. A.(2006).SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the internet.The Reading Teacher,59(7),614-627.
13. Hsieh-Yee, I.(2001).Research on web search behavior.Library & Information Science Research,23(2),167-185.
14. Judd, V. C.,Farrow, L. I.,Tims, B. J.(2006).Evaluating public web site information: A process and an instrument.Reference Services Review,34(1),12-32.
15. Kim, S. H.(1997).BILOG 3 for Windows: Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models.Applied Psychological Measurement,21(4),371-376.
16. Kintsch, W.(1988).The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological review,95(2),163-182.
17. Kintsch,W.,van Dijk, T. A.(1978).Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review,85(5),363-394.
18. Lazonder, A. W.,Biemans, H. J.,Wopereis, I. G. J.(2000).Differences between novice and experienced users in searching information on the world wide web.Journal of the American Society for Information Science,51(6),576-581.
19. Lewis, D. M.,Mitzel, H. C.,Green, D. R.,Patz, R. J.(1999).The bookmark standard setting procedure.Monterey, CA:McGraw-Hill.
20. Liu, A.(2013).,未出版
21. Liu, Z.(2005).Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years.Journal of Documentation,61(6),700-712.
22. Macedo-Rouet, M.,Rouet, J. F.,Epstein, I.,Fayard, P.(2003).Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension.Science Communication,25(2),99-128.
23. McNamara, D. S.,Kintsch, E.,Songer, N. B.,Kintsch,W.(1996).Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text.Cognition and Instruction,14(1),1-43.
24. Moore, P.(1995).Information problem solving: A wider view of library skills.Contemporary Educational Psychology,20(1),1-31.
25. Nandakumar, R.,Stout,W.(1993).Refinements of Stout's procedure for assessing latent trait unidimensionality.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,18(1),41-68.
26. Naumann, J.,Richter, T.,Flender, J.,Christmann, U.,Groeben, N.(2007).Signaling in expository hypertexts compensates for deficits in reading skill.Journal of Educational Psychology,99(4),791-807.
27. Niemi, D.(1997).Cognitive science, expert-novice research, and performance assessment.Theory into Practice,36(4),239-246.
28. Rouet, J. F.,Favart, M.,Britt, M. A.,Perfetti, C. A.(1997).Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise.Cognition and Instruction,15(1),85-106.
29. Rouet, J. F.,Ros, C.,Goumi, A.,Macedo-Rouet, M.,Dinet, J.(2011).The influence of surface and deep cues on primary and secondary school students' assessment of relevance in web menus.Learning and Instruction,21(2),205-219.
30. Ruddell, R. B.(Ed.),Unrau, N.(Ed.)(2004).Theoretical models and processes of reading.New York, NY:International Reading Association.
31. Salmerón, L.,García, V.(2011).Reading skills and children's navigation strategies in hypertext.Computers in Human Behavior,27(3),1143-1151.
32. 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.
33. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development=OECD(2010).PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science.
34. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development=OECD(2010).PISA 2009 results:What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Volume I).
35. Wallace, R. M. C.,Kupperman, J.,Krajcik, J.,Soloway, E.(2000).Science on the web: Students online in a sixth-grade classroom.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,9(1),75-104.
36. Wiley, J.,Goldman, S. R.,Graesser, A. C.,Sanchez, C. A.,Ash, I. K.,Hemmerich, J. A.(2009).Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks.American Educational Research Journal,46(4),1060-1106.
37. Wineburg, S. S.(1991).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.
38. 柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅(2008)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告,桃園縣:國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。

1. 陳佳欣,林素微(2023)。臺灣學生後設認知與閱讀素養的關聯：PISA 2009與PISA 2018資料的比較。測驗學刊，70(3)，193-220。
2. 劉宜芳、柯華葳(2017)。線上閱讀研究之回顧與展望。教育科學研究期刊，62(2)，61-87。
3. (2018)。國中生線上閱讀環境態度之測量及其與線上閱讀能力的潛在關聯探討。教育學刊，50，109-147。
4. (2018)。以PIRLS 架構和Rasch 模式建構閱讀理解測驗。市北教育學刊，60，1-30。