中學生閱讀策略使用與數學素養的關聯及其意涵

Relationship between Reading Strategies and Mathematical Literacy

林素微(Su-Wei Lin)

社經文化地位 ； 階層線性模式 ； 補救教學 ； 數學素養 ； 閱讀策略 ； ESCS ； Hierarchical Linear Modeling ； Mathematical Literacy ； Reading Strategies ； Remedial Teaching

測驗學刊

66卷3期（2019 / 09 / 01）

213 - 248

繁體中文

好的開始是成功的一半，如何讀懂問題是邁向成功解題的重要關鍵。國際學生能力評量計畫（Programme for International Student Assessment，PISA）的數學素養旨在評估學生面對未來學習或工作挑戰準備度，其試題貼近生活化、偏重情境的描述，致使題目文字量較高，閱讀負荷相對較重。因此，本研究嘗試探討學生閱讀策略（包含認知與後設認知策略）與數學素養的關聯性。研究針對PISA 2009的臺灣資料，並基於九、十年級入學方式不同可能造成校際差異的考量，因此針對此兩年級分別進行分析。研究中以相關變項資料均完整的樣本進行分析，經過母群加權後，兩年級各為99,314及190,417人。主要分析方法為描述性統計與階層線性模式（Hierarchical Linear Modeling，HLM）。結果顯示，閱讀策略對於九年級學生閱讀素養的校內和校際變異解釋比率為21%和29%，而十年級則分別為8%和11%，顯示這些變項與學生數學素養的關聯值得重視，其中又以九年級的解釋力較十年級高。若社經文化地位最低者與最高者有相同的閱讀策略運用時，將明顯提高其數學素養；低數學素養學生若與高素養學生有相同的閱讀策略運用時，九、十年級預期將有2個年級與1個年級的進步幅度。研究建議，數學教育者應針對這些閱讀策略變項積極規劃有效的數學閱讀理解教學介入方案，考量較低年級者之閱讀策略與數學素養的關聯較強，閱讀策略的教學應及早啟動，且數學課室中的閱讀策略教學應以控制策略和後設認知策略為主要考量，以協助學生發展有效的數學理解，以提升其數學表現。

A good beginning is half the battle won. In the process of mathematical problem solving, understanding the problem is the first step. The comprehension of problem is the key to success in problem solving. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) aims to assess the students' readiness of future learning and working challenges. The reliance on contextual description has caused the reading load of the PISA items to be heavier than traditional items in mathematics. The purpose of this study is to examine the reading strategies, and metacognition accounted for mathematical literacy of 9th and 10th graders of PISA 2009. After excluding the students who did not respond to the reading strategies and metacognition questionnaire, and weighting to ensure that each sampled student appropriately represents the correct number of students in the full PISA population, 99,314 and 190,417 Taiwanese 9th and 10th graders participated in this study. The main methods of analysis are descriptive statistics and Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM). The results show that reading strategies (i.e., cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies) are strongly associated with mathematical literacy. There are 21% and 29%, 8% and 11% of the variance of 9th and 10th graders' mathematical literacy-for within school and between schools can be so explained. Further, if students with the lowest socio-economic status or achievement had used the same reading strategies as their counterparts with the highest socio-economic status or achievement, then their mathematics abilities would be substantially enhanced. Thus, the teachers could consider trying to adapt these variables into consideration for developing mathematical engaging students and as early as possible.

1. Lin, C.-J.(2010).Effects of Socio-Economic Status (SES) on literacy in various subject ar-eas and different grades at school and student levels.教育學誌,23,177-209.
   連結：
2. 洪碧霞,林素微,吳裕益(2011)。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。課程與教學，14(4)，1-24。
   連結：
3. 洪儷瑜(2001)。義務教育階段之弱勢學生的補救教育之調查研究。師大學報：教育類，46(1)，45-65。
   連結：
4. Anderson, R. C,Spiro, R. J.,Anderson, M. C.(1978).Schemata as scaffolding for the representation of information in connected discourse.American Educational Re-search Journal,15,433-440.
5. Arikan, S.,Yildirim, K.,Erbilgin, E.(2016).Exploring the relationship among new lit-eracies, reading, mathematics and science performance of Turkish students in PISA 2012.International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education,8(4),573-588.
6. Berk, L. E.,Winsler, A.(1995).Scaffolding children's learning: Vygotsky and early chil-dhood education.Washington, DC:National Association for the Education of Young Children.
7. Borasi, R.,Siegel, M.(2000).Reading counts: Expanding the role of reading in mathe-matics classrooms.New York, NY:Teachers College Press.
8. Borasi, R.,Siegel, M.,Fonzi, J.,Smith, C.(1998).Using transactional reading strategies to support sensemaking and discussions in mathematics classrooms.Journal for Re-search in Mathematics Education,29(3),275-305.
9. Brown, R.,Pressley, M.,van Meter, P.,Schuder, T.(1996).A quasi-experimental valida-tion of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade readers.Journal of Educational Psychology,88,18-37.
10. Bruning, R. H.,Schraw, G. J.,Norby, M. M.,Ronning, R. R.(2010).Cognitive psychol-ogy and instruction.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.
11. Clarke, D.(2002).Making measurement come alive with a children's storybook.Austra-lian Primary Mathematics Classroom,7(3),9-13.
12. Columba, L.,Kim, C. Y.,Moe, A. J.(2005).The power of picture books in teaching math and science: Grades PreK-8.Scottsdale, AZ:Holcomb Hathaway.
13. Conley, M. W.(2008).Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: What we know about the promise, what we don't know about the potential.Harvard Educational Review,78,84-106.
14. Courtade, G. R.,Lingo, A. S.,Karp, K. S.,Whitney, T.(2013).Shared story reading.Tea-ching Exceptional Children,45(3),34-44.
15. Culyer, R. C.(1988).Reading and mathematics go hand in hand.Reading Improvement,25,189-195.
16. Deci, E. L.,Ryan, R. M.(2000).The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.Psychological Inquiry,11,227-268.
17. Dirks, E.,Spyer, C.,van Lieshout, E. C.,de Sonneville, L.(2008).Prevalence of combined reading and arithmetic disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities,41,460-473.
18. Donahue, D.(2003).Reading across the great divide.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Liter-acy,47(1),24-37.
19. Draper, R. J.,Sieber, D.(2004).Different goals, similar practices: Making sense of mathematics and literacy instruction in a standards-based mathematics classroom.American Educational Research Journal,41(4),927-962.
20. Dreyer, C.,Nel, C.(2003).Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension with-in a technology-enhanced learning environment.System,31(3),349-365.
21. Duru, A.,Koklu, O.(2011).Middle school students’ reading comprehension of mathe-matical texts and algebraic equations.International Journal of Mathematical Educa-tion in Science and Technology,42(4),447-468.
22. Dynak, J.(1997).Structuring literacy course tasks to foster deliberate use of strategy in-struction by preservice math teachers.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,40(4),280-285.
23. Earp, N. W.,Tanner, F. W.(1980).Mathematics and language.Arithmetic Teacher,28(4),32-34.
24. Fletcher, J. M.(2005).Predicting math outcomes: Reading predictors and comorbidity.Journal of Learning Disabilities,38,308-312.
25. Fountas, I. C.,Pinnell, G. S.(2001).Guiding readers and writers grades 3-6: Teaching comprehension, genre, and content literacy.Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
26. Franz, D. P.,Hopper, P. F.(2007).Is there room in math reform for preservice teachers to use reading strategies? National Implications.National Forum of Teacher Educa-tion Journal,17(3),1-9.
27. Garafalo, J.,Lester, F. K.(1985).Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathema-tical performance.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,16(3),163-176.
28. Geary, D. C.(2010).Mathematical disabilities: Reflections on cognitive, neuropsychology-ical, and genetic components.Learning and Individual Differences,20(2),130-133.
29. Geary, D. C.,Hamson, C. O.,Hoard, M. K.(2000).Numerical and arithmetical cogni-tion: A longitudinal study of process and concept deficits in children with learning dis-ability.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,77,236-263.
30. Grimm, K.(2008).Longitudinal associations between reading and mathematics achie-vement.Developmental Neuropsychology,33(3),419-420.
31. Jennings, C. M.(1992).Increasing interest and achievement in mathematics through chil-dren's literature.Early Childhood Research Quarterly,7(2),263-276.
32. Kelly, G. J.,Luke, A.,Green, J.(2008).Introduction: What counts as knowledge in edu-cational settings: Disciplinary knowledge, assessment, and curriculum.Review of Re-search in Education,32,vii-x.
33. Lee, V. E.(2000).Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social context: The case of school effects.Education Psychologist,35,125-141.
34. Leppänen, U.,Niemi, P.,Aunola, K.,Nurmi, J.-E.(2006).Development of reading and spelling Finnish from preschool to grade 1 and grade 2.Scientific Studies on Reading,10,3-30.
35. Light, J. G.,DeFries, J. C.(1995).Comorbidity of reading and mathematics disabilities: Genetic and environmental etiologies.Journal of Learning Disabilities,28,96-106.
36. Menke, D.,Davey, B.(1994).Teachers’ views of textbooks and text reading instruction: Experience matters.Journal of Reading,37(6),464-470.
37. Murphy, S. J.(1999).Learning math through stories.School Library Journal,122-123.
38. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics=NCTM(2000).Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA:Author.
39. Olson, M. R.,Truxaw, M. P.(2009).Preservice science and mathematics teachers and discursive metaknowledge of text.Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,52(5),422-431.
40. Ombra, A. I.(2016).Effects of reading skills on students’ performance in science and mathematics in public and private secondary schools.Journal of Education and Learning,10(2),177-186.
41. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development=OECD(2012).PISA 2009 technical report.Paris, France:Author.
42. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development=OECD(2010).PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn- Student engagement, strategies and practices (Volume III).Paris, France:Author.
43. Ostler, E.(1997).The effect of learning mathematic reading strategies in secondary stu-dents.Critical reading in the content areas,Dubuque, IA:
44. Pape, S. J.(2004).Middle school children's problem-solving behavior: A cognitive analy-sis from a reading comprehension perspective.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,35,187-219.
45. Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46. Pressley, M.(2006).Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching.New York, NY:The Guilford Press.
47. Pritchard, R. E.,Romeo, G. C.,Muller, S. A. B.(1999).Integrating reading strategies into the accounting curriculum.College Student Reading,33(1),77-82.
48. Raymond, A. M.(1995).Engaging young children in mathematical problem solving: Pro-viding a context with children's literature.Contemporary Education,66,172-174.
49. Roberson, S.,Summerlin, J.(2005).,未出版
50. Rosenshine, B.,Meister, C.(1994).Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research.Re-view of Educational Research,64,479-530.
51. Rubinsten, O.(2009).Co-occurrence of developmental disorders: The case of developmen-tal dyscalculia.Cognitive Development,24,362-370.
52. Ruddell, R.(Ed.),Nrau, N. U.(Ed.)(2004).Theoretical models and processes of reading.Newark, NJ:International Reading Association.
53. Schoenfeld, A. H.(Ed.)(1987).Cognitive science and mathematics education.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Er-lbaum Associates.
54. Shanahan, T.,Shanahan, C.(2008).Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Re-thinking content area literacy.Harvard Educational Review,78(1),40-59.
55. Shin, T.,Davison, M. L.,Long, J. D.,Chan, C.,Heistad, D.(2013).Exploring gains in reading and mathematics achievement among regular and exceptional students using growth curve modeling.Learning and Individual Differences,23,92-100.
56. Silver, E. A.(Ed.)(1985).Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
57. Stinnett, M.(2013).Research in reading.Illinois Reading Council Journal,41(2),72-76.
58. Thomas, D. A.(1988).Reading and reasoning skills for mathematics problem solvers.Journal of Reading,32(3),244-249.
59. Thrupp, M.,Lauder, H.,Robinson, T.(2002).School composition and peer effects.In-ternational Journal of Educational Research,37(5),483-504.
60. van de Walle, J.,Karp, K. S.,Bay-Williams, J. M.(2013).Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.
61. Vilenius-Tuohimaa, P.,Aunola, K.,Nurmi, J.(2008).The association between mathema-tical word problems and reading comprehension.Educational Psychology,28(4),409-426.
62. Vukovic, R. K.(2012).Mathematics difficulty with and without reading difficulty: Find-ings and implications from a four-year longitudinal study.Exceptional Children,78(3),280-300.
63. Vygotsky, L. S.,Cole, M.(Ed. & Trans.),John-Steiner, V.(Ed. & Trans.),Scribner, S.(Ed. & Trans.),Souberman, E.(Ed. & Trans.)(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological proces-ses.Cam-bridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
64. Wentzel, K. R.(Ed.),Wigfield, A.(Ed.)(2009).Handbook of motivation at school.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
65. Wentzel, K. R.(Ed.),Wigfield, A.(Ed.)(2009).Handbook of motivation in school.New York, NY:Taylor & Francis.
66. Whitin, D. J.,Wilde, S.(1995).It's the story that counts: More children's books for mathematical learning, K-6.Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
67. Whitin, D. J.,Wilde, S.(1992).Read any good math lately? Children's books for mathe-matical learning, K-6.Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
68. Willms, J. D.(1997).Parental choice and education policy (No. 12, CES Briefing).Edi-nburgh, UK:Centre for Educational Sociology, University of Edinburgh.
69. Yang, K. L.(2012).Structures of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategy use for read-ing comprehension of geometry proof.Educational Studies in Mathematics,80(3),307-326.
70. Yang, K. L.,Lin, F. L.(2009).Designing innovative worksheets for improving reading comprehension of geometry proof.Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psy-chology of Mathematics Education(Vol. 5),Thessaloniki, Greece:
71. Yang, K. L.,Lin, F. L.(2012).Effects of reading-oriented tasks on students’ reading 5 comprehension of geometry proof.Mathematics Education Research Journal,24(2),215-238.
72. 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 Evalu-ation,14(6),521-537.
73. Zambo, R.(2005).The power of two: Linking math and literature.Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School,10,394-400.
74. 林碧珍(1990)。新竹師院輔導區國小數學科怎樣解題教材實施情況調查與學習成效研究。新竹師院學報，3，363-391。
75. 郭靜姿（編）,蔡明富（編）(2002).解脫「數」縛：數學學障學生教材設計.臺北市:國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育中心.
76. 黃敏晃(1986)。如何解數學題？數學解題策略簡介。科學月刊，18，515-522。
77. 詹士宜(2003)。以認知負荷取向分析數學學習困難學生在多媒體數學解題歷程之教學。中華民國特殊教育學會年刊，臺北市:
78. 臺灣 PISA 國家研究中心（編）(2015).臺灣 PISA 2012 結果報告.臺北市:心理.
79. 臺灣PISA國家研究中心（編）(2011).臺灣PISA 2009 結果報告.臺北市:心理.

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. 盧秀琴,莊淑芬(2021)。學生及學校因素對合作式問題解決表現之多層級分析。測驗學刊，68(3)，175-207。
3. 蘇泓誠,陳佳欣(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。