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

The Relationship between Metacognition and Reading Literacy of Taiwan Students: A Comparison between PISA 2009 and PISA 2018

陳佳欣(Chia-Hsin Chen)；林素微(Su-Wei Lin )

性別 ； 社經地位 ； 後設認知 ； 階層線性模式 ； 閱讀素養 ； ESCS ； gender ； hierarchical linear modeling ； metacognition ； reading literacy

測驗學刊

70卷3期（2023 / 09 / 30）

193 - 220

繁體中文;英文

教育部於108學年度正式推動十二年國民基本教育新課綱，專家學者積極宣導「閱讀素養」是一種跨領域資訊處理以及解決真實生活情境問題的重要能力與態度，教師亦嘗試在課堂活動中進行多元閱讀策略教學。本研究旨在探討臺灣學生後設認知與閱讀素養的關聯，並以PISA 2009與PISA 2018的資料庫做為研究依據，檢視兩個世代臺灣學生在進行閱讀任務時，對於閱讀策略之運用是否適當的覺察能力。本研究考量到學生與學校通常存在著巢套關係，即學生的個人學習表現可能會受到學校群體資源的影響，因此決定採用階層線性模式（HLM）進行分析，同時亦納入性別、社經地位等背景因素，透過兩個世代臺灣學生在後設認知與閱讀素養的表現情形與關聯，檢視臺灣近十年閱讀教育改革的可能成效。PISA 2009與PISA 2018資料的比較結果如下：（1）臺灣學生的閱讀素養有所進步，尤其是九年級學生明顯進步且略勝於十年級學生；（2）兩項後設認知（即理解與記憶策略覺察和摘要策略覺察）仍低於OECD國家的平均水準，尤其後者有大幅落後OECD國家平均的現象；（3）後設認知的性別差距擴大；（4）十年級學生的校際變異比例（ICC）明顯下降；（5）ESCS最低25%和最高25%的學生閱讀素養差距更甚。因此，教育工作者需積極培養學生的後設認知，以增進學生的閱讀素養。

In 2019, Taiwan's Ministry of Education introduced 12-Year Basic Education, aiming to enhance students' reading literacy skills. Experts stressed the importance of reading for problem-solving and cross-disciplinary understanding. Teachers aimed to teach diverse reading strategies. This study explored the relationship between metacognition and reading literacy in Taiwan, using PISA 2009 and 2018 data. The analysis used hierarchical linear modeling to account for nested influences of students and schools. Gender and ESCS were considered to assess the educational reform's impact. Results showed: (1)Reading skills improved in Taiwan over the past decade, especially for ninth graders. (2)Metacognitive abilities in reading were still below OECD averages, notably in Understanding and Remembering strategies. (3)Gender differences in metacognition grew. (4)The ICC value decreased significantly for tenth graders. (5)ESCS-based reading performance gap widened between the highest and lowest quartiles. Therefore, nurturing metacognition is crucial for enhancing reading literacy.

1. 林素秋, S. C.(2017)。閱讀理解策略教學成效之行動研究：以國小中年級弱勢低閱讀能力學童為對象。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，10(2)，29-58。
   連結：
2. 林素微, S. W.(2019)。中學生閱讀策略使用與數學素養的關聯及其意涵。測驗學刊，66(3)，213-248。
   連結：
3. 柯華葳, H. W.(2020)。臺灣閱讀策略教學政策與執行。教育科學研究期刊，65(1)，93-114。
   連結：
4. 洪碧霞, P. H.,林素微, S. W.,吳裕益, Y. Y.(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)，1-23。
   連結：
5. 唐淑華, S. H.(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。
   連結：
6. 孫劍秋, C. C.,林孟君, M. C.(2013)。從臺灣中學生 PISA 閱讀素養的表現談精進學生閱讀素養的教學策略。中等教育，63(3)，35-51。
   連結：
7. 張芳全, F. C.(2016)。臺灣國中學校效能之多層次模型分析：以 TIMSS 2011 為例。彰化師大教育學報，30，59-86。
   連結：
8. 張郁雯, Y. W,柯華葳, H. W.(2019)。影響數位閱讀表現的學生與環境因素：PIRLS 2016 資料探討。教育心理學報，51(1)，161-182。
   連結：
9. 張貴琳, K. L.,黃秀霜-Huang, H. S.,鄒慧英, H. I.(2010)。從國際比較觀點探討臺灣學生 PISA 2006 閱讀素養表現特徵。課程與教學，13(1)，21-46。
   連結：
10. 陳順利, S. L.,黃毅志, Y. J(2015)。解除 Coleman 等人報告書的魔咒：學校中的班級因素對學業成績之影響。教育科學研究期刊，60(2)，111-138。
    連結：
11. 陸怡琮, I. C.(2011)。摘要策略覺察教學對提升國小五年級學童摘要能力與閱讀理解的成效。教育科學研究期刊，56(3)，91-118。
    連結：
12. 黃建皓, J. H.(2012)。家庭社經地位與班級經營效能對學生自我效能感之影響：階層線性模式分析。教育經營與管理研究集刊，8，107-130。
    連結：
13. 楊文佳, M. K.,張國祥, K. C.,薛寶嫦, P. S.,麥瑞琪, S. K.(2014)。閱讀參與、家庭和學業背景對閱讀素養表現之影響：探討學業抗逆生及優勢低表現生的學習特徵。課程與教學，17(3)，207-229。
    連結：
14. 鄒慧英, H. Y.,黃秀霜, H. S.,陳昌明, C. M.(2011)。從 PISA 2009 建構反應題剖析臺灣學生的閱讀問題。課程與教學，14(4)，25-48。
    連結：
15. 劉宜芳, I. F.,柯華葳, H. W.(2014)。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。測驗學刊，61(4)，509-532。
    連結：
16. Amini, D.,Anhari, M. H.,Ghasemzadeh, A.(2020).Modeling the relationship between metacognitive strategy awareness, self-regulation and reading proficiency of Iranian EFL learners.Cogent Education,7(1)
17. Banditvilai, C.(2020).The effectiveness of reading strategies on reading comprehension.International Journal of Social Science and Humanity,10(2),46-50.
18. Brown, A. L.(1978).Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of meta-cognition.Advances in instructional psychology
19. Callan, G. L.,Marchant, G. J.,Finch, W. H.,Flegge, L.(2017).Student and school SES, gender, strategy use, and achievement.Psychology in the Schools,54(9),1106-1122.
20. Cohen, M.(1998).Determining sample sizes for surveys with data analyzed by hierarchical linear models.Journal of Official Statistics,14,267-275.
21. Costa, P.,Araújo, L.(2018).Skilled students and effective schools: Reading achievement in Denmark, Sweden, and France.Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,62(6),850-864.
22. de Jager, B.,Jansen, M.,Reezigt, G.,Jansen, G. G. H.(2005).The development of meta-cognition in primary school learning environments.School Effectiveness and School Improvement,16(2),179-196.
23. Espinoza, A. M.,Strasser, K.(2020).Is reading a feminine domain? The role of gender identity and stereotypes in reading motivation in Chile.Soc Psychol Educ,23,861-890.
24. Flavell, J. H.(1979).Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new of cognitive-developmental inquiry.American Psychologist,34,906-911.
25. Flavell, J. H.(1976).Metacognitive aspects of problem solving.The Nature of Intelligence,12,231-236.
26. Garzón, D. F. M.,Bustos, A. P. H.,Lizarazo, J. O. U.(2020).Relationship between meta-cognitive skills, gender, and level of schooling in high school students.Suma Psicológica,27(1),9-17.
27. Haris, M.,Irma, C.(2022).The importance of metacognitive strategies in reading literacy: Results of the PISA testing in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology,21(2),116-124.
28. Janis, E. J.,Scott, G. P.(1987).Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction.Educ. Psychol,22,255-278.
29. Koli -vehovec, S.,Bajsanski, I.,Zubkovi , B. R.(2010).Metacognition and reading comprehension: Age and gender differences.Drustvena Istrazivanja: Journal for General Social Issues,15(6),327-344.
30. Koyuncu, İlhan.,Bulus, M.,Firat, T.(2022).The moderator role of gender and socioeconomic status in the relationship between metacognitive skills and reading scores.Participatory Educational Research,9(3),82-97.
31. Lin, W.,Martin, V.,Hilde, V. K.(2019).Factors associated with reading comprehension of secondary school students.Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,19(4),34-47.
32. Marchant, G. J.,Finch, W. H.(2016).Student, school, and country: The relationship of SES and inequality to achievement.Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science,6(4),187-196.
33. Marks, G. N.(2015).Are school-SES effects statistical artefacts? Evidence from longitudinal population data.Oxford Review of Education,41(1),122-144.
34. Mina, R.,Ehsan, M. K.,Massound, K.(2017).The relationship between metacognitive reading strategies use and reading comprehension achievement of EFL learners.Open Journal of Modern Linguistics,7,65-74.
35. Mokhtari, K.,Sheorey, R.(2002).Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies.Journal of Developmental Education,25,2-11.
36. Mu-Hsuan, C.(2016).A task-based language teaching approach to developing metacognitive strategies for listening comprehension.International Journal of Listening,1-20.
37. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development=OECD(2010).PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background: Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes.Author.
38. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development=OECD(2012).PISA 2009 technical report.Author.
39. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development=OECD(2019).PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework.Author.
40. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development=OECD(2020).PISA 2018 technical report.Author.
41. Perry, L. B.,Saatcioglu, A.,Mickelson, R. A.(2022).Does school SES matter less for high-performing students than for their lower-performing peers? A quantile regression analysis of PISA 2018 Australia.Large-Scale Assessments in Education,10
42. Thomas, G. P.,McRobbie, C. J.(2001).Using a metaphor for learning to improve students’ metacognition in the chemistry classroom.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(2),222-259.
43. Vandergrift, L.,Goh, C. C. M.(2011).Teaching and learning second language listening: : Metacognition in action.Routledge.
44. Wang, J.,Spencer, K.,Xing, M.(2009).Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language.System,37,46-56.
45. Wu, J. Y.(2014).Gender differences in online reading engagement, metacognitive strategies, navigation skills and reading literacy.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,30,252-271.
46. Yilmaz, K. E.(2021).An investigation of the mediating role of various variables in the effect of both gender and economic, social and cultural status on reading literacy.International Journal of Progressive Education,17(1),376-391.
47. Zhussupova, R.,Kazbekova, M.(2016).Metacognitive strategies as points in teaching reading comprehension.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,228,593-600.
48. 張貴琳, K. L.(2014)。青少年線上閱讀素養之關聯變項探討。市北教育學刊，45，29-68。
49. 教育部（2022 年 7 月 29 日）。新世代雙閱讀：提升國民中小學學生閱讀素養實施計畫。https://www.ccjh.ptc.edu.tw/uploads/1660028935568T4328UZZ.pdf [Ministry of Education. (July 29, 2022). New generation dual reading: Implementation plan for enhancing reading literacy of elementary and junior high school students. https://www.ccjh.ptc.edu.tw/uploads/1660028935568T4328UZZ.pdf]
50. 陳木金, M. J.,許瑋珊, W. S.(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。
51. 劉潔玲, K. L.(2015)。香港學生在歷屆學生能力國際評估計劃的閱讀表現對中文科課程和教學的啟示。教育學報，43(1)，59-84。