UbD 逆向設計結合六層次閱讀認知能力提問教學對國中一年級學生 …

15 5

57 8
UbD

108 6 23 108 8 27 108 11 1
77
2019 12 − 40 −
Journal of Educational Theory and Practice
Action Research on the Influence of UbD
Backward Design Combined with Six-Level
Reading Cognitive Ability Questioning Instruction
on the Reading Comprehension Performance of
Seven-grade Students
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of UbD backward design combined with six-level reading cognitive ability questioning instruction on the cognitive ability, interest and motivation of Chinese reading, and the impact of paper-and-pencil test. In this study, 24 seven-grade students were participated. The researcher used UbD backward design combined with six-level reading cognitive ability questioning instruction to teach Chinese for 15 weeks and 5 lessons per week. The data collected was mainly qualitative information such as classroom observations, students’ worksheets, colleague feedbacks, interview records; part of the data was collected through quantitative method, for instance, the score in pre-test and post-test, achievement test of six levels cognitive ability with the comparison of students’ performance, and student questionnaires. After 57 classes of action research, 8 units of plan teaching, the main results were as follows: 1. UbD backward design combined with six-level reading cognitive ability questioning
instruction effectively improved students' cognitive ability in reading comprehension, including the ability of information acquisition, comprehensive analysis and oral expression.
2. The instruction enhanced students' interest and motivation in learning. 3. The instruction improved the paper-and-pencil test results of reading comprehension.
Keywords: UbD backward design, six-level reading cognitive ability, questioning instruction
78

2016a 108

Understanding by Design UbD
UbD

UbD
1998 Grant Wiggins Jay McTighe UbD
Wiggins & McTighe, 2005/2008
UbD

2007UbD

Wiggins & McTighe, 2005/2008UbD

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, PIRLS
2006
2010

2005 —
B. S. Bloom

2007-2011 2012 2012a
2011 PIRLS 2001 14 2006 2 2011 1
2016 3 2006

2012b 2006 22 2011 9 2016 8

2011

the Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA
80

Wiggins McTighe

UbD
UbD
UbD

UbD Understanding by Design
Wiggins & McTighe, 2005/2008 G. Wiggins J. McTighe 1998 UbD
Wiggins & McTighe, 2011/2015 UbD

81
2019 12 − 40 −

2007
UbD

G. Wiggins & J. McTighe, 2005

F. BobbittW. W. ChartersR. W. Tyler 2009UbD

2015

1. 2013 PISA

2. 2015

2018 3. 2016b MAPS
MAPS

2009

83
2019 12 − 40 −

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

3.
4.

1. 2. 3. 4.

218-19

12 12 1

45 19.87

……

2008

1.
15 5 8
85
2019 12 − 40 −
57
2 2

1 107/08/31~ 107/09/10

2 107/09/11~ 107/09/18
3 107/09/19~ 107/09/28
4
2.

8

3

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. 2. 3. 4.

87
2019 12 − 40 −

34 5
6
4.

2016

→
4

3 14 107 9 19 107 10 24 107 11 21
14
4
1 P 107 12 20

5

89
2019 12 − 40 −

8
8
2

2005

15 57
8

T 3 S4 S4 T 1070904
91
2019 12 − 40 −
T S15 S15…… T S15 T S15 T 1070917

C1-1070919 C2-1071024 C2-1071121 C4-1071121
P-1071220 T S15 S15
92

2004

T 30 1. 2. 3. 4. 3 3 TOO S3…… T 19 XX
S19…… T S19 TOO S3…… T S3 T 22 S22…… T S22 T6 S6 T
93
2019 12 − 40 −

P-1071220 C3-1070919 C3-1071024 C4-1071024 C1-1071121 C2-1071121 T 21 S21 T S10 T S10 T
94
UbD
S2 T S1 S11 T S15 TOO S3 T S24 T 1071121

2018

T OO OO 2 S14 S14…… TOO~~~XXXX
95
2019 12 − 40 −
S13 T 2 1070926
C1-1070919 C2-1070919 C3-1070919 C4-1070919 C3-1071024 C1-1071121
C4-1071121 S24 1070920

107 9 19

C1-1070919 C2-1070919
96
107 10 24

C1-1071024 C2-1071024 C3-1071024 C4-1071024
/ C5-1071024

C6-1071024
107 11 21
C1-1071121 C2-1071121 C3-1071121
C4-1071121
97
2019 12 − 40 −

75% 100% 7 8

2 1
1
2 1
2
6
1

17
13 12 9 6 2
3
/2
1
5
3

5 62.5 37.5 0 0
6
7
8 45.83 50 4.17 0
9
10 12.5 75 0 12.5
13
24 4 9

28 12
42.85% 6
6
99
2019 12 − 40 −
35
32 7 22
68.75% 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
% 100 95.83 95.83 95.83 91.67 83.33 91.67 % 93.67 89.59 79.64 92.31 90.05 85.52 91.40
8 9 10 14 15 16 17
% 83.33 100 91.67 75 45.83 54.17 50 % 84.16 95.02 88.24 66.97 55.66 52.49 46.61
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
% 45.83 58.33 83.33 50 8.33 54.17 29.17 % 33.48 61.54 91.86 47.51 20.36 53.39 27.60
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
% 70.83 62.5 29.17 54.17 25 66.67 50 % 61.09 53.85 25.34 62.90 31.22 57.01 48.42
32 33 34 35 % 79.17 66.67 54.17 45.83
% 69.68 66.97 60.63 38.91
3 11.24
9.40

100
UbD
12 6 6 6
45 107 8 30

SPSS t
8
24 6.75 2.21163 -1.857 .076
24 7.7083 2.36789 24 2.0417 2.07426
-4.015 .001** 24 3.6250 1.43898 24 4.2500 3.26043
-3.122 .005** 24 6.3333 2.74522
24 1.0417 1.92194 -5.692 .000***
24 3.7500 1.72576 24 1.9167 2.43018
-5.079 .000*** 24 4.0417 1.62799 24 3.8750 1.59653
-1.204 .241 24 4.3333 1.68540 24 19.8750 8.81852
-6.883 .000*** 24 29.7917 8.05405
*p.05 **p.01 ***p.001
8 UbD

t

101
2019 12 − 40 −
…… UbD


UbD

2015
24 23
SPSS t

UbD
102
UbD
103
2019 12 − 40 −

1997 2015CP4755-56 201658743-47 2014
3789-91 2016a—
https://www.parenting.com.tw/ 2016bMAPS 2007 2010
2005218-39 2009··
291045-50 2012a
New Horizons in Education60276-82 2012b
2016
570-76 2008 18 2013

http://teachernet.moe.edu.tw/UpLoad/Book/2074/%E5%88%86%E7%B5%84%E5% 90%88%E4%BD%9C%E5%AD%B8%E7%BF%92%E6%95%99%E5%AD%B8%E 6%89%8B%E5%86%8A.pdf
2015·· 2018 2018

https://www.naer.edu.tw/files/14-1000-14031,r13-1.php?Lang=zh-tw 2012 2011
09/105-27 2007UbD 48211-13
doi: 10.7053/TF.200704.0011
104
UbD
2009 200427321-41 2005 2013PISA
2013 2015
60233-77doi10.6209/JORIES.2015.60(2).02 Dewey, J.2017 1910 Lichtman, M.2010
2010 Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J.2008
2005 Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J.2015
2011 Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2013). The Understanding by Design Guide to Creating
High-Quality Units. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
105

Documents

UbD 逆向設計結合六層次閱讀認知能力提問教學 對國中一年級學生 …

UbD 逆向設計結合六層次閱讀認知能力提問教學對國中一年級學生 …