以POE為多元識讀教學策略中之效能學習探討｜國立清華大學博碩士論文庫

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	賈純如 Chun-Ju Jea
論文名稱：	以POE為多元識讀教學策略中之效能學習探討 Exploring Factors of Effective Learning: A POE-Based Strategy in Multi-Literacy
指導教授：	陳惠邦
口試委員:
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：
論文出版年：	2016
畢業學年度：	104
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	226
中文關鍵詞：	效能學習、高層次學習、學習阻礙、多元識讀、POE策略
外文關鍵詞：	effective learning, high-level learning, hindrance to learning, multi-literacy, POE-based strategy
相關次數：	點閱：2 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究目的在探討以POE為多元識讀教學策略中之效能學習，並尋求對於高層次學習與學習阻礙的瞭解，以覺察出識讀課程中可提升更具效能的學習。採行動研究設計，研究對象為新竹市舞蹈班42位五、六年級學生。班級行動研究以多元方式執行，包括老師的提問、觀察、訪談、學習日記與學習檔案分析，整合在實行效能學習過程中評估學生的學習表現。本研究採行更精確的質性與量化並用分析。
主要研究結果如下:
1. POE策略有效的鷹架學生在多元識讀中的學習，深具影響性地促進與挑戰學生的思考於變動學生的成就趨向正面的方向。

2.多元識讀學習中以POE為策略，證實對高層次學習者延伸深度思考。學習者主動駕馭學習過程中檢視其意涵、調整學習策略與監控自我的學習。

3.產生學習阻礙的學生，對於學習意圖少有洞悉自己的學習能力與修正自己對學習的努力。他們缺乏自我調整與行動取向參與在自己的學習過程。因此老師需採行同儕合作學習作為促進學習表現的因應策略。

4.高層次學習者，具有來自視覺思考與觀察的敏銳描述。他們能夠克服困難並著手尋求學習過程中的方法。特別是，進行在多元識讀中以POE為策略，他們能整合豐富的自我提問與分析而成為最佳策略以完成學習。

5.對於不同階層學習表現，有效教學法含括學習者不同需求。對於高層次學習者，可成為協同學習的領導角色與進行行動學習。相對於避免學習阻礙的產生，需要建構先備知識，鷹架學習與省思學習過程。同時要求學生增加對學習的自我覺察，面對與克服學習的阻礙。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors of effective learning using a POE-based strategy in multi-literacy and sought the understanding for high-level learning and hindrances of learning to appreciate about promoting more effective learning in literacy curriculum. The study was conducted by action research design and the participants included 42 pupils (sixth-grade & fifth-grade) who have talent with dance skills in primary school in Hsinchu City. Class action research was conducted with multiple methods including the teacher’s questioning, observations, interviews, learning journal and learning portfolio analysis, combining with assessments of pupils’ academic performance through the effective learning process. Both qualitative and quantitative instruments were used which might be analyzed more precisely. The major results of this study were as follow:

1.The POE strategy effective scaffolding pupils’ learning in multi-literacy, influentially fostered and challenged pupils’ thinking to shift their achievement trajectories in positive directions.

2.Multi-literacy learning tasks demonstrated extending deeper thinking for high-level learners using a POE-strategy. They actively drove the learning procedures to examine implications, orchestrated the learning strategies and oversaw their own learning.

3.The learners who emerged hindrances to learning had little insight into their own ability to learn intentionally and revised their own learning efforts. They were deficient self-regulated and behaviorally active participated in their own learning processes. Thus, teacher needed to adopt the peer group cooperation as a resource for promoting learning performance.

4.High-level learners had delicate description from visual thinking and observation. They could negotiate the puzzle and initiate seeking approach in the learning process. Especially, they generated plenty self-questioning and analyzed the best strategy, and then completed the tasks using a POE strategy in multi-literacy.

5.With different level performance, effective pedagogies embraced to take the diverse needs of range of learners. With high-level learners, the worth modeling are collaborative leadership and action learning. Comparatively, avoiding hindrance of learning, it needs to build prior knowledge, scaffolding learning and reflect on their learning processes. Simultaneously, pupils required to increase awareness of their own learning, faced and overcame their obstacle with learning.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS i 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  vii 
ABSTRACT (Chinese)  viii
ABSTRACT  ix
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Motivation and purpose of the study 1
1.2 Research questions 7
1.3 Significance of the study 8
1.4 Definition of terms 9
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1 Understanding and enhancing effective learning. 10
2.1.1 Conceptions of effective learning. .11
2.1.2 Promoting self-directed learners. .12
2.2 Raising learners self-awareness to improve ‘ learning about learning’ .16
2.2.1 Self-regulated learning and Self-efficacy .16 
2.2.2 Meta-learning and Reflection .19
2.3 Extending reading and writing capabilities through multi-literacy .22
2.3.1 Supporting learning environment through multi-literacy  .22
2.3.2 Multi-literacy as a bridge for reading and writing  24
2.4 Challenging pupils’ thinking through a POE strategy 27
2.4.1 Expanding pupils’ visual literacy experiences through wordless animated short films 27  
2.4.2 Implement a POE strategy to create effective learning 31
2.5 Summary 33
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 34 
3.1 The rationale for action research  34
3.2 Research Design 34
3.3 Participants 36
3.4 Research Materials and Instruments 36
3.4.1 Digital picture books 36
3.4.2 Animated film 37
3.4.3 Wordless animated short films 37
3.4.4 Instruments 39
3.5 Data Collection Procedure 41
3.6 Data Analysis 45
3.7 Merits and Limitations of this Action Research 45
CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSES AND FINDINGS 47
4.1 Results 1: What underlying facts cause the factors of high-level learning and hindrances to learning through a POE-based strategy in multi-literacy?  47
4.1.1 Introduction  48
4.1.2 Pupils’ narrative reading and writing using a POE-based strategy in multi-literacy 48
4.1.3 Descriptive Statistics of Pupils’ narrative reading and writing performance using a POE-based strategy  48
  4.1.4 The Percentile rank distinguished high level and hindrances to learning with narrative reading and writing performance 50 
4.1.5 The narrative writing performance of high level learning and hindrances to learning in multi-literacy 51
4.1.6 The teacher’s evaluation from observation on literacy learning process 54  
4.1.7 Teaching Reflective 55
4.2 Results 2: What occurs in the learning processes that can shift pupils’achievement trajectories in positive directions. 57
4.2.1 Introduction  57
4.2.2 Questioning to improve ‘Learning and Thinking’ 58
4.2.3 Questioning to extend pupils’ thinking about ‘learning how to learn’  68
4.2.4 Teaching Reflective  76 
4.3 Results 3: How effective learning can be supported and promoted through learners’ experiences in multi-literacy?  78
4.3.1Introduction 78   
4.3.2 Findings from Pupils’ Interviews  78
4.3.3 Pupils’ Metacognitive Worksheet  82
4.3.4 Pupils’ Self- assessment of Story Writing 92
4.3.5 Pupils’ Learning Journal 94
4.3.6 Teaching Reflective  102
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION  105
5.1 Introduction  105
5.2 The Rationale for exploring effective learning using a POE-based strategy in multi-literacy in this study.  105
5.3 Results from Responses to Three Research Questions  .106
5.3.1 Responses to Research Question One: What did underlying facts cause the factors of high-level learning and hindrances to learning through a POE-based strategy in multi-literacy? 106
5.3.2 Responses to Research Question Two: What did occur in the learning processes that can shift pupils’ achievement trajectories in positive directions?  107
5.3.3 Responses to Research Question Three: How did effective learning can be supported and promoted through learners’ experiences in multi-literacy? 108
5.4 Review of Research Findings .110
5.5 Implications for Practice. 111
5.6 Limitations of this study  .112
5.7 Concluding Remarks. 113
APPENDICES 115
Appendix A: Literacy Lesson Plan 1.  115 
Appendix A.1. Story Map  .120
Appendix B: Reading-Writing Interviews  .122
Appendix B.1. .閱讀與寫作訪談  123
Appendix C:識讀課程計畫流程圖  124
Appendix C.1. Literacy Lesson Plan 2  .125
Appendix C.2.識讀課程計畫2   .135
Appendix D: Questioning to extend pupil’s thinking about a story  144
Appendix E: The POE Strategy Analytic Rubric  146
Appendix E.1. The Rubric for Assessing Pupils’ POE strategy in Multi-literacy (Grade 6)  148
Appendix E.2. The Rubric for Assessing Pupils’ POE Strategy in Multi-literacy (Grade 5)  151
Appendix F: Percentile Rank of pupils’ narrative reading and writing performance  .156
Appendix G: Narrative Writing Analytic Rubric  156
Appendix G.1.敘事寫作評分表 157 
Appendix G.2.敘事寫作評分統計表  158 
Appendix H: Learning Skills Rubric with Links to Literacy Learning Expectations
Appendix H.1.連結識讀學習期待學習技巧評分表  164 
Appendix H.2.連結識讀學習期待學習技巧評分統計表  166
Appendix H.3.The outcome of learning skills with links to literacy learning expectations. 167 
Appendix I: BLOOM’S TAXONOMY: Questioning to extend pupils’ thinking   167  
Appendix I.1.透過提問擴展學生對故事  169
Appendix I.2. Pupils’ respond from “Questioning to extend pupils’ thinking”
Appendix J: Questioning to extend pupils’ thinking about ‘learning how to learn’
Appendix K: Metacognitive Worksheet  181
Appendix L: Understanding Pupils’ narrative experience in multi-literacy  182
Appendix M: The statistic of understanding Pupils’ narrative experience in multi-literacy  193 
Appendix N: Self-assessment: Story Writing Rubric 195
Appendix N.1.自我評量:故事寫作評分表  95
Appendix N.2. The statistic of Story Writing Self-assessment  196
Appendix O: My learning Journal  197
Appendix O.1.我的學習日記   198
Appendix P: Rubric for pupil Reflection  199
Appendix P.1. Pupils’ learning Journal  199
Appendix P.2.The statistic of reflection journal   209
Appendix P.3. The statistic of reflection journal average  210
REFERENCES  211







List of Tables
Table 3.1 Digital picture books for narrative reading and writing  37
Table 3.2 Animated films for narrative reading and writing   37
Table 3.3 Wordless animated short films for narrative reading and writing   38
Table 3.4 The timetable of action research   45
Table 4.1 The percentage of pupils’ narrative reading and writing performance (Grade 6)  49
Table 4.2 The percentage of pupils’ narrative reading and writing performance(Grade 5)  50
Table 4.3 A percentile rank: Above 85 & Below15  51
Table 4.4 The statistics of narrative writing making progress in multi-literacy(G6)  52
Table 4.5 The statistics of narrative writing making progress in multi-literacy(G5)  53
Table 4.6 The percentage of pupils’ learning skills from high-level learning and hindrances to learning(G5&G6)  55
Table 4.7 Pupils’ responses to ‘Bloom’s Taxonomy questioning’ about observation in wordless animated short film  59 
Table 4.8 Responses from pupils’ thinking about ‘learning how to learn’   69
Table 4.9 Findings from pupils interviews.  79
Table 4.10 Meta-learning from pupils’ narrative writing experiences in multi-literacy  83
Table 4.11The percentage from pupils described awareness of learning experiences  92
Table 4.12 Pupils’ learning journal in wordless animated short film   94
Table 4.13 The Statistic of Pupils’ Learning Journal  101





List of figures
Figure 1.1 Meta-learning as an additional cycle in learning 3
Figure 1.2 Model of POE Strategy 5
Figure 3.1 The Action Research Process  35
Figure 3.2 Action Research Phase1 to Phase2  41
Figure 3.3 A Diagram of the Research Process: Phase 1  42
Figure 3.4 A Diagram of the Research Process: Phase2  43
Figure 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Pupils’ Performance on Narrative Reading and Writing using a POE-based Strategy (Grade 6)  49
Figure 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Pupils’ Performance on Narrative Reading and Writing using a POE-based Strategy (Grade 5)  50
Figure 4.3 The narrative writing performance of high level learning and hindrances to learning in digital picture books and animated films(Grade 6)  52
Figure 4.4 The narrative writing performance of high level learning and hindrances to learning in digital picture books and animated films(Grade 5) 53
Figure 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of learning skills from learners who were high-level learning and hindrances to learning  54 
Figure 4.6 Pupils described awareness of learning experiences  92
Figure 4.7 Pupils’ Self- assessment of Story Writing   93
Figure 4.8 Pupils’ Learning Journal  102
Figure 4.9 The finding of Action Research from phase 1 to phase 2  104
       

                                

REFERENCES
Ainsworth, S. (2008). How do animations influence learning? (RIETFSL report
37-67). Retrieved from In D. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Current
Perspectives on Cognition, Learning, and Instruction: Recent Innovations in
Educational Technology that Facilitate Student Learning. Website: http://
www.csuchico.edu~nschwartz/Ainsworth.pdf
Archambault, I., Eccles, J.S., & Vida, M.N. (2010). Ability Self-Concepts and
Subjective Value in Literacy: Joint Trajectories From Grades 1 Through 12.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 804–816.
Athanasia, C., Vasilis, G., & Athanasios, G. (2014). Development and evaluation of
metacognition in early childhood education. Journal Articales presented at
Early Child Development & Care, 184(8), 1223–1232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2013.861456.
Au, R.C.P., Watkins, Hattie, Alexander, & Patericia. (2009). Reformulating
the Depression Model of Learned Hopelessness for Academic Outcomes.
Educational Research Review, 4(2), 103-117.
Bamford, A. (2003). The Visual Literacy White Paper (ADUTS Report 1-8).
Retrieved from Art and Design University of Technology, Sydney.
website:http://www.aperture.org/wp-content/05/visual-literacy-wp.pdf.
Barbot, B., Randi, J., Tan, M., Levenson, C., Friedlaender, L., & Grigorenko, E.L.
(2013). From perception to creative writing: A multi-method pilot study of a
visual literacy instructional approach. Learning and Individual Differences,
28, 167-176.
Bibby, T. (2009). How do children understand themselves as learners? Towards
a learner-centred understanding of pedagogy. Pedagogy, Culture and
Society, 17(1),41- 55.doi: 1468-1366.
Biggs, J.B. (1985). The role of meta-learning in study processes. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 55 (3), 185–212. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.
1985.tb02625.x.
Boud, D. & Walker, D. (1990). Making the most of experience. Studies in
Continuing Education, 12(2), 61-80.
Browning, E. & Hohenstein, J. (2015). The Use of Narrative to Promote Primary
School Children's Understanding of Evolution. Elementary Education 3-13,
43(5),530-547.
Carnell, E. & Lodge, C. (2002). Supporting Effective Learning. London, England:
SAGE. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446220672.
Chapman, C. & King, R. (2005). Differentiated Assessment Strategies. London,
England: Corwin Press.
Conner, C. (2006). Learning How to Learn: Tool for Schools. London, England:
Routledge.
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). MULTILITERACIES Literacy learning and the
design of social futures. London, Endland: Routledge.
Costu,B., Ayas,A., & Niaz, M. (2012). Investigating the effectiveness of a POE
-based teaching activity on students’ understanding of condensation.
Instructional Science, 40(1), 47-67.doi: 10.1007/s11251-011-9169-2.
Conner, C. (2004). What leaders need to know about the relationship between
learning and teaching(pp37-52). Retrieved from Institute of Education.
Crick, R.D., Stringher, C., & Kai Ren (2014). Learning to Learn: International
Perspectives from Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H-P. (2008). How can primary school
students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A
meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational
Research Review, 3(2), 101-129.
Ertmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J., (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated,
and reflective. Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/BF00156001.
Fisher, R. (1995). Stories for thinking-the Philosophy in Primary Schools. Early
Child Development and Care, 107(1). doi: org/10.1080/0300443951070110.
Fisher, R & Williams, M. (2006). Unlocking Literacy: A Guide for Teachers. London,
England:David Fulton.
Gao, P. (2014). I love to learn, but I hate to be taught. Journal of Education and
Training Studies, 2(3). doi: 10.11114/jets.v2i3.329.
Gaeta Gonzalez, & Martha Leticia. (2013). Learning Goals and Strategies in the
Self-regulation of Learning. US-China Education Review, 3(1), 46-50.
Gale, Foster, S.T. (2007). Generative Instruction and Learning: Strategies for
Increasing Student Achievement in Low Performing and At-risk Students.
University of South Carolina. ProQuest.
Garrison, D.R. (1997). Self-Directed Learning: Toward a Comprehensive Model.
Education & Educational Research, 48(1), 18-33.
Haysam,J., & Bowen, M. ( 2010). Predict, Observe, Explain : Activities Enhancing
Scientific Understanding. Virginia: NSTA (National Science Teachers
Association).
Hewitt, D. (2008). Understanding effective learning-strategy for classroom.
London, England: McGraw-Hill Education.
Hinchman, K.A., & Sheridan-Thomas, H.K. (2008). What Do We Know about
Multiple Literacies? Best practices in adolescent literacy instruction. New
York, NY: Guilford Press. pp275-296.
Holum, A. & Gahala, J. (2001). Critical Issue: Using Technology to Enhance Literacy
Instruction. EDRS.

London, England: Routledge.
Ireson, J. (2008). Laerners,Learning and Educational Activity. London, England:
Routledge.
Israel, S.E, Block, C.C., Bauserman, K,L., & Kinnucan-Welsch,K. (2005).
Metacognition in Literacy Learning: Theory, Assessment, Instruction, and
Professional Development. London, England: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
James, M. & Pollard, A. (2014). Principles for Effective Pedagogy: International
Responses to Evidence from the UK Teaching & Learning Research
Programme. London, England: Routledge.
Karabulut, U.S. (2002). Curricular Elements of Problem-Based Learning
That Cause Developments of Self-Directed Learning Behaviors Among
Students and Its Implications on Elementary Education. (Master's Thesis,
University of Tennessee). Retrieved from http://trace.tennessee.edu/
utk_gradthes/2078.
Joe, R. (2006). Does Action Learning Promote Collaborative Leadership?
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(2), 152-168.
Kearney, M., Treagust, D.F., Yeo, S. & Zadink, M.G. (2001). Student and Teacher
Perceptions of the Use of Multimedia Supported Predict–Observe–Explain
Tasks to Probe Understanding. Research in Science Education, 31(4),
pp589–615.doi: 10.1023/A:10131026209449.
Kiiveri, K., Määttä, K., & Uusiautti, S. (2012). Literacy Matters-The 21st -Century
Children’s Opinions on the Significance of literacy. Problems of Education in
the 21st Century Vol. 49.
Koh, C., Tan,O.S., John Wang, C.K., Ee,J, & Liu, W.C. (2007). Perceptions of Low
Ability Students on Group Project Work and Cooperative Learning . Asia
Pacific Education Review, 8(1), pp89-99.doi: 10.1007/BF03025835.
Lavey, V. (2011). What Makes an Effective Teachers ? Quasi-Experimental
Evidence.(NBER working papers). Retrieved from Hebrew University of
Jerusalem and University of Warwick. doi:10.3386/w16885.
LePine, J.A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C.L. (2004). Challenge and Hindrance Stress:
Relationships With Exhaustion, Motivation to Learn, and Learning
Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883-891.
Lodge, C. (2008). Engaging student voice to improve pedagogy and learning:
An exploration of examples of innovative pedagogical approaches for
school improvement. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning,
4(5), 4-19. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883.
Lockyer, L. (2008). Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning
Objects: Issues, Applications, and Technologies: Issues, Applications, and
Technologies. IGI Global.
Macceca, S. (2007). Reading Strategies for Social Studies. California: Shell
Education.
MacGilchrist, B., Reed,J., & Myers,K. (2004). The Intelligent School. London,
England: SAGE.
Macmillan, P. (2013). The Reflective Journal. London, England: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Maureen, O.(2005). Multiliteries for 21st Century Schools. Retrieved from The
Australian National Schools Network website: http://www.darlingdeer.
com.au/Muliteracies.
Martin, M. (2007). Building a Learning Community in the Primary Classroom.
Dunedin Academic Press.
Mclnerney, D.M. & Liem, A.D. (2008). Teaching and Learning: International Best
Practice. North Carolina: IAP.
Montgomery, D. (2008). Realising potential, understanding need, Curriculum
Briefing: Motivating underachievers: realising potential, 6(3), 3–6.
Mortimore, P. (2006). School Effectiveness and the Management of Effective
Learning and Teaching. An International Journal of Research, Policy and
Practice (pp.290-310). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pajares, F. (1996). Current Directions in Self-efficacy Research. Advances in
motivation and achievement. No.10, 1-49. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Paris, S.G. & Paris, A.H. (2001). Classroom Applications of Research on Self-
Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101.
Park, C. (2003). Engaging Students in the Learning Process: the learning journal.
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(2), 183–199.
Pekrun, R.,Daniels, L.M., Goetz,T., & Stupnisky, R.H. (2010). Boredom in
Achievement Settings: Exploring Control-Value Antecedents and
Performance Outcomes of a Neglected Emotion. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102(3), 531-549.
Pedron, C. (2006). An Innovative Tool for Teaching Structural Analysis and
Design. Switzerland:vdk Hochschulverlag AG.
Pullen, D.L. & Cole, D,R. (2010). Multiliteracie and Teachnology Enhanced
Education:Social Practice and the Global Classroom. USA:IGI Global.
Saurino, Penelope, & Saurino, Dan R. (2006). A Multiliteracies Model for the
Middle Grades. Middle Grades Research, 1(1), 49.
Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the
Schools, 22(2), 208-223.
Schunk, D.H. (2005). Self-Regulated Learning:The Educational Legacy of Paul R.
Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 85–94, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Shannon, M. (2012). How Do Wordless Picture Books Help Develop Writing For
All Students? Education Masters. St.John Fisher College.
S.M.Hafizur. (2012). Influence of professional learning community (PLC) on
learning a constructivist teaching approach (POE): A case of secondary
science teachers in Bangladesh. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and
Teaching, 13(1), Article 3.
Starnes, B.A., & Paris, C. (2000). Choosing to learn. Academic Journal Article Phi
Delta Kappan, 81(5), 392-97.
Stipek, D.J.(2002). Motivation to Learn: Integrating Theory and Practice.Pearson
College Div.
Stronge, J.H. (2007) . Qualities of Effective Teachers. ASCD.
Sue, F. (2014). Understanding Assessment in Primary Education.London, England:
SAGE.
Tileston, D.W. (2010). Ten Best Teaching Practices: How brain research
and learning styles define teaching competencies. California:SAGE.
Ursyn, A. (2013). Perceptions of Knowledge Visualization: Explaining Concepts
through Meaningful Images: Explaining Concepts through Meaningful
Images .IGI Global,P418.
Vincent, J. (2006). Children writing: Multimodality and assessment in the writing
classroom. Literacy, 40(1), P51-57.
Wall, K. (2012). ’It wasn't too easy, which is good if you want to learn: an
exploration of pupil participation and Learning to Learn. The Curriculum
Journal, 23 (3), 283-305.
Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom
practice? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(3), 211-239.
Watkins, C. (2003). Learning a sense-maker’s guide. ATL(The Association of
Teachers and Lecturers).
Watkins, C. (2006). When Teachers Reclaim Learning. Promoting 3-19
Comprehensive Education, No.48, 121-129.
Watkins, C. ,Carnell,E. , Lodge,C. , Wagner,P., & Whalley,C. (2005). Learning
about Learning: Resources for Supporting Effective Learning. London,
England:Routledge.
Watkins, C. ,Carnell, E., & Lodge, C. (2007). ’Effective Learning in Classrooms’.
London,England: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Watkins, C. (2010). Learning,Performance and Improvement. INSI,Research
Matters, No.34.
Watkins, C. (2015). ‘Metalearning in classrooms’. Paper presented at the SAGE
Handbook of learning. London, England:SAGE.
White, R., & Gunstione, R. (2014). Probing Understanding. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S.,＆Rodriguez, D. ( 1998). The Development of Children's
Motivation in School Contexts. Review of Research in Education, No.23,
73-118.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic
Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 329-339.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An
Overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
Zimmerman,B.J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
Zimmerman,B.J. & Schunk,D.H (2011). Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning
and Performance. New York, NY:Routledge.
Centre for Research and Innovation in Learning and Teaching. ( 2009).
Digital Literacy: New Approaches to Participation and Inquiry Learning to
Foster Literacy Skills among Primary School Children. ( National College of
Ireland)
Harvard Educational Review. (1996). A Pedagogy of Multi-literacies: Designing
Social Futures. (The President and Fellows of Harvard College). 66(1)
,1996.
NSIN Research Matters. (2002). The National School Improvement Network’s
bulletin that shares ideas from research and encourages discussion and
reflection.No.17.
UNESCO. (2014). EFA Global Monitoring Report–2013–2014–Teaching and
Learning Achieving quality for all.
向天屏. (2006). The teaching and learning of the self-regulated writing process
in a primary-5 class.(博士論文)。取自台灣碩博士論文系統。（系統編號
094NTNU5332071）
李婉芬,林志明＆唐文華. (2007). Using 3D Computer Animation to Assist
Elementary Students in Learning the Conception of Magnetic Field.物理教育
學刊;8卷1期 (2007 / 12 / 01)，P17-31.
李新鄉,黃文宏,李茂能&盧茲里. (2015). The Impact of STS Teaching Strategies
and Self-regulated Learning on Underachievers' Learning of Natural Science
and Technology in Elementary Schools. 南台人文社會學報; 13期 (2015 / 05
/ 01)，P1-44.
林芳瑛. (2013). The Effects of Self-regulated Learning Curriculum on Middle-
grade Elementary School Students’ Learning Motivation and Learning
Self-efficacy. (碩士論文)。取自台灣碩博士論文系統。(系統編號
101NTNU5328016)
施文雅. (2010). A Study on the Relationship among Self-regulated Learning
Abilities, Frustration Tolerance and Academic Performance of Fifth and
Sixth Grade Students. (碩士論文)。取自台灣碩博士論文系統。(系統編號
098NKNU5332079)
徐靜嫻.(2006). Multi-literacy and the Use of Animated Narratives in the
Development of an Integrated Chinese Language Curriculum. Journal of
National Taiwan Normal University. Humanities &Social Sciences, 51(1&2)
P55-77.
陳怡琪. (2011). The Effects of Multi-level Questioning Instruction on Fifth
Graders’ Reading Comprehension, Metacognition and Reading Motivation.
(碩士論文)。取自台灣碩博士論文系統。(系統編號 099NPTT5328014)
陳瑩雯. (2013). Effect of Using POE Animation on The Learning Outcomes of
Reviewing A Lesson for Elementary School Students- using The Teaching
Unit "Combustion and Fire Fighting" as An Example. (碩士論文)。取自台灣碩
博士論文系統。(系統編號 101NTPT0147025)
葉宛婷. (2005). The study of interactive picture books teaching to promote
science reading comprehension of elementary students. (碩士論文)。取自台灣
碩博士論文系統。(系統編號093NTPTC147013)
楊愷悌,邱美虹＆王子華.(2009). A Study of the Effectiveness of Implementing
Digital Video Clips Supported POE Teaching Strategy in Improving
Elementary School High-Grade Students' Alternative Conceptions about the
Classification of Vertebrates.科學教育學刊; 17卷5期(2009 / 10 / 01)，
P387-407.
趙上瑩. (2013). Effects of Picture Book Instruction on Preschool and Elementary
School Students' Learning Achievement: A Meta-analysis. (碩士論文)。取自台
灣碩博士論文系統。(系統編號101NTNU5611006)
鍾瑞珠. (2014). A Study of The Teaching Process on E-books Narrative Writing
Books into First Grade Students of Elementary School. (碩士論文)。取自台灣
碩博士論文系統。(系統編號102NTPT1461004)
蕭靖惠＆徐秀菊.(2010). Narrative Curriculum in Picture Books Creation.視覺藝
術論壇; 5期(2010 / 07 / 01)，P142 -162.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文