| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中山大學 === 教育研究所 === 107 === The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to explore on junior high school students’ reading literacy and argumentation ability from the Interactive Response System Argumentation Teaching (IRSA). On the first stage, 149 junior high school students completed a pilot instrument to examine its reliability and validity. On the second stage, a conveniently sampling selection was conducted 31 junior high school students to implement a 8-week IRSA teaching as an experimental group (EG), in addition, 27 students from the same school were conduct a typical Chinese class during the same time as the Comparison group (CG). Moreover, for recognizing the differences of the EG students’ reading literacy and argument ability, 6 target students were recruited with either the highest or the lowest scores on their pre-test of reading literacy and reading literacy test. The investigator developed a series of well-structured reading literacy scale, reading literacy test, learning sheet and interview protocol. On the first stage, I used expert content validity, exploratory factor analyses, internal consistency and item analysis to examine the reliabilities, validity and discrimination of the draft of instruments. On the second stage, I conducted ANCOVA, paired t-test and content them analyses to compare the similarities and differences between the EG and CG students. It was found that (1) the EG students outperformed in reading literacy total score（F = 5.77*, p < .05）and the subscale of Assessing and Retrieving (F = 30.28***, p < .001) than the CG counterparts; (2) EG high-reading literacy group students’ score on Reflection and Evaluation (t = -3.16*, p < .05) was significantly higher than their pretest; the EG low-reading literacy group students’ Reading literacy total score（F = 5.77*, p < .05）and “Assessing and Retrieving”（F = 30.28***, p < .001）were significantly improved than their pretest; (3) EG students’ ability on “Making arguments” and Giving supplemental reasoning” made a significant progress than their pretest. The results might contribute empirical evidences for the future related studies and reading literacy teaching for the secondary school students.
|
|---|
