科學多重文本閱讀理解能力之評量發展暨性別差異研究－以核四廠續建與停建爭議題本為例

A Study on the Development of Assessment Tool and Gender Differences in 5th -9th Graders' Scientific Multi-Text Reading Comprehension: A Case Study on the Issue of Whether to Continue the Construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant

10.3966/207136492017081002004

林小慧(Hsiao-Hui Lin)；曾玉村(Yu-Htsuen Tzeng)

性別差異 ； 科學多重文本閱讀理解評量 ； 驗證性因素分析 ； gender differences ； scientific multiple text reading comprehension assessment ； confirmatory factor analysis

師資培育與教師專業發展期刊

10卷2期（2017 / 08 / 01）

81 - 109

繁體中文

本研究主要目的，在發展「科學多重文本閱讀理解評量」，並探討男女學生在科學多重文本閱讀理解能力的表現是否存在性別差異，共計有1535位5-9年級學生參與本研究。首先發展評量之科學題本為「核四廠續建與停建爭議」，包含「提取訊息」、「概化訊息」、「解釋訊息」以及「整合訊息」四個分評量，共計11題選擇題及8題建構題。其次探究5-9年級學生其科學多重文本閱讀理解能力是否存在性別差異。分析結果顯示，評分者內之Cronbach's α值均大於.80，表示評分者內一致性尚稱良好。評分者間之Kendall ω和諧係數值大於.79，p值小於.001，達顯著相關，顯示評分者間有相同相對等級的評分趨勢。其次，題本之內部一致性，除「解釋訊息」外，其餘亦均大於.70，全評量α則在.85以上，顯示SMTRCA之Cronbach's α尚在可接受範圍內。再者，驗證性因素分析也支持「科學多重文本閱讀理解評量」四因素之假設模式，兩者適配尚稱符合。本研究初步發現「科學多重文本閱讀理解評量」可分為「提取訊息」、「概化訊息」、「解釋訊息」以及「整合訊息」四個分評量，而該四個分評量分數所表徵之一階潛在因素，可被「科學多重文本閱讀理解評量」解釋的變異量分別為.68、.35、.81、.73。最後，獨立樣本t檢定與二因子變異數分析結果顯示，5-9年級學生在「理解文本能力」的表現，均無顯著的性別差異，但在「闡釋文本能力」的表現則均是女生顯著優於男生。此外，5年級學生之「科學多重文本閱讀理解能力」的表現，並未有性別上的差異。然而，6-9年級學生在「科學多重文本閱讀理解能力」的表現，則有顯著的性別差異，而且均為女生優於男生。

The main purpose of this study was to develop the Scientific Multi-Text Reading Comprehension Assessment (SMTRCA), and to explore whether gender differences exist in the performance of scientific multi-text reading comprehension. 1535 students from grade 5 to 9 participated in this study. To this end, we used scientific texts describing the dispute regarding whether to continue the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant construction in Taiwan, and developed assessment items according to our rubric. Test items included 11 close-ended and 8 open-ended questions and were categorized into 4 subscales: information retrieval, information generalization, information interpretation, and information integration. Base on the test results, we explored the gender differences of scientific multi-text reading comprehension ability in grades 5-9 children. The analysis results showed that the Cronbach's α values were above .80, indicating that the intra-rater consistency was good. Secondly, Kendall's coefficient of concordance was more than .79 and its p value was smaller than .001, denoting a consistent scoring pattern between raters. Additionally, except for the information interpretation subscale, Cronbach's α values for the other three sub-scales were larger than .70, indicating that they were all within acceptable range. Thirdly, confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable goodness-of-fit among the SMTRCA and the four factors. The SMTRCA accounted for .68, .35, .81, and .73 of the variance associated with the first order factors of 4 subscales. Finally, the results of Independent-Sample T Test and two-way ANOVA showed no significant gender differences in the comprehension ability of the children in grades 5 -9. But the performance of girls was significantly better than boys in their interpretation ability. Additionally, there were no gender differences in the scientific multi-text reading comprehension ability of the children in grade 5. However, there were significant gender differences in the scientific multi-text reading comprehension ability of the children in grades 6 -9, and the performance of girls was better than boys.

1. 林小慧、曾玉村(2017)。科學多重文本閱讀理解評量及規準之建構與信效度分析—以氣候變遷與三峽大壩之間的關係題本為例。教育心理學報
   連結：
2. 唐淑華、蔡孟寧、林烘煜(2015)。多文本課外閱讀對增進國中學生理解歷史主題之研究：以「外侮」主題為例。教育科學研究期刊，60(3)，63-94。
   連結：
3. Balota, D. A.(Ed.),d'Arcais, G. B. F.(Ed.),Rayner, K.(Ed.)(1990).Comprehension processes in reading.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Bråten, I.,Strømsø, H.(2010).When law students read multiple documents about global warming: Examining the role of topic-specific beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing.Instructional Science,38(6),635-657.
5. Bråten, I.,Strømsø, H. I.,Britt, M. A.(2009).Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students' construction of meaning within and across multiple texts.Reading Research Quarterly,44(1),6-28.
6. Chall, J. S.(1996).Stages of reading development.Orlando, FL:Harcourt Brace.
7. Chall, J. S.,Indrisano, R.(1995).Literacy development.Journal of Educational,177,63-83.
8. Cizek, G. J.,Bunch, M. B.(2007).Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
9. Dedze, I.(1995).Reading achievement within the educational system of Latvia: Results from the IEA Reading Literacy Study.annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,San Francisco, CA.:
10. Downing, S. M.(Ed.),Haladyna, T. M.(Ed.)(2006).Handbook of test development.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Gambrell, L. B.(Ed.),Almasi, J. F.(Ed.)(1996).Lively discussions!: Fostering engaged reading.Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
12. Hyde, J. S.(1981).How large are cognitive gender differences? A meta - analysis using ω2 and d.American Psychologist,36(8),892-901.
13. Hyde, J. S.,Linn, M. C.(1988).Gender differences in verbalability: A meta-analysis.Psychological bulletin,104(1),53.
14. Kintsch, W.(1988).The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review,95(2),163-182.
15. Klecker, B. M.(2006).The "gender gap" in NAEP fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade reading scores across years.Reading Improvement,43(1),50-56.
16. Klecker, B. M.(2014).NAEP fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade reading scores by gender: 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013.The 43rd annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association,Knoxville, TN.:
17. Lietz, P.(2006).A meta-analysis of gender differences in reading achievement at the secondary school level.Studies in Educational Evaluation,32(4),317-344.
18. Logan, S.,Johnston, R.(2009).Gender differences in reading ability and at titudes: Examining where these differences lie.Journal of Research in Reading,32(2),199-214.
19. Lynn, R.,Mikk, J.(2009).Sex differences in reading achievement.Trames,13(63/58),3-13.
20. Maccoby, E. E.,Jacklin, C. N.(1974).The psychology of sex differences.Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
21. Royer, J. M.,Carlo, M. S.,Dufresne, R.,Mestre, J.(1996).The assessment of levels of domain expertise while reading.Cognition and Instruction,14(3),373-408.
22. Saito, M.(1998).Gender vs . socioeconomic status and school location differences in grade 6 reading literacy in five African countries.Studies in Educational Evaluation,24(3),249-261.
23. Stoet, G.,Geary, D. C.(2013).Sex differences in mathematics and reading achievement are inversely related: Within- and across-nation assessment of 10 years of PISA data.PLoS One,8(3)
24. Takala, S.(Ed.)(2009).Reference supplement to the manual for relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (Section H).Strasbourg, France:Council of Europe/Language Policy Division.
25. Valenti, S.,Neri, F.,Cucchiarelli, A.(2003).An overview of current research on automated essay grading.Journal of Information Technology Education,2(1),319-330.
26. van Oostendorp, H.(Ed.),Goldman, S. R.(Ed.)(1999).The construction of mental representations during reading.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
27. van Oostendorp, H.(Ed.),Goldman, S.(Ed.)(1999).The construction of mental representations during reading.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Wolfe, M. B.,Goldman, S. R.(2005).Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning.Cognition and Instruction,23(4)
29. 林小慧(2015)。嘉義縣=Chiayi，國立中正大學=National Chung Cheng University。
30. 楊蕙如、陸怡琮(2010)。閱讀目的對成人閱讀多重文本的理解表徵建構之影響。臺灣心理學會第49屆年會，嘉義=Chiayi: