唐淑華陳妍岐Yen-Chi Chen2019-08-282013-01-012019-08-282012http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22GN0696000357%22.&%22.id.&http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/90167本研究旨在探討「多文本閱讀討論」在提升學生對歷史理解、歷史解釋與歷史研究之思維能力，以及對於歷史學習態度方面是否有顯著成效。採用準實驗法中「不相等控制組前後測設計」，實驗對象為85位八年級學生，分為三組，兩組實驗組（A、B）、一組控制組。實驗組A採用「閱讀＋討論」的「多文本閱讀討論」教學方式；實驗組B採用「閱讀但不討論」的「多文本閱讀」教學方式，控制組未閱讀任何文本與討論。實驗設計四個主題的課程，實驗組A總計十二堂課、實驗組B總計七堂課。實驗前、後所有學生皆接受「歷史思維能力」與「歷史學習態度」測驗，測驗分數與學習單、活動回饋問卷與訪談資料皆為本實驗的分析對象，以了解三組學生在歷史思維能力與歷史學習態度上是否有所提升。 研究結果顯示，多文本閱讀討論能夠顯著提升學生歷史思維的能力，惟在歷史解釋的後測分數上較不顯著；多文本閱讀討論亦能提升學生歷史學習態度，尤其對態度較佳的前60%學生而言效果更加顯著。僅閱讀多文本無法顯著提升學生歷史思維能力，但是在學習態度上，對態度較佳的前30%-60%學生而言有正向影響。 此外，本研究亦對多文本閱讀討論教學方案的設計與實施過程，做詳細的紀錄與分析，並提出相關建議做為未來歷史思維能力研究上的參考。The purpose of this study was to observe how the historical thinking of Secondary School Students, in the scope of comprehension, interpretation, research, as well as their attitudes of historical learning, were enhanced with the approach of multiple texts reading and discussion. The pre& post test nonequivalent-control-group design was applied in this experiment, in which 85 eighth-grade students were divided into 3 groups, i.e. two experimental groups (Group A & Group B), and one Control Group. Group A adopted the “multiple texts reading and discussion” method (Reading and Discussion), Group B adopted the “multiple texts reading” method (Reading only), while the Control Group required no reading and discussion at all. Four major topical courses were designed for the experiment. Prior to which, all students were required to take a historical thinking and historical learning attitude pretest. During the experiment, Group A participated in 12 lessons and Group B in 7 lessons. All students then took a historical thinking and historical learning attitude posttest when the experiment was completed. All raw materials such as the pre& post test scores, learning sheets, the feedbacks of and the interviews with students were further analyzed for concluding the objectives of experiment, and particularly for measuring if and how the historical thinking and historical learning attitudes of each of the three groups of students could be improved with the experiment. The findings showed that the “multiple texts reading and discussion” method (Group A) could not only significantly enhance historical thinking (whereof the “historical interpretation” posttest scores made insignificant difference), but also historical learning attitudes, especially for the top 60 percent students who had better learning attitudes. The “multiple texts reading” (Group B) method could not enhance historical thinking, but it could enhance historical learning attitudes, especially for the top 30-60 percent students who had better learning attitudes. The detailed records, analyses and recommendations in respect to the experiment were all provided as a reference in the current study for those who plan to further explore the research of historical thinking in the future.多文本閱讀討論多文本閱讀歷史思維能力multiple texts reading and discussionmultiple texts readinghistorical thinking