本研究旨在探究大學生運用網路多文本閱讀的資訊建構歷程與學習成效之關聯。研究者以130位修習教育統計課程之大學生為研究對象，搭配具有資訊搜尋提示之作業任務，讓學生能在作業提示的引導下有更完整的作答，並透過課後測驗作為學習成效的評估。學生除了將網路多文本的統計知識整合外，也需要對網路訊息的可信度反思以及進行資訊驗證。本研究將學生的作業反思編碼，透過描述性統計以瞭解學生閱讀網路多文本之資訊建構歷程，並以相關研究法分析大學生對多文本訊息內容的反思與學習成效之關聯性與預測成效。根據資料分析結果，本研究獲致以下結論:
一、透過具有資訊搜尋提示之作業任務能瞭解學生閱讀線上多文本資訊建構歷程。
二、九成的學生需閱讀2至7個網站能完成量測尺度與統計圖表的作答。此外，有33.6%的學生在量測尺度大題僅參考1個網站、25.6%的學生在統計圖表大題僅參考1個網站；學生依賴具有知識含量的教育、維基百科、政府相關網站；八成的學生認為文本作者來自權威性的專家時具有可信度；九成的學生認為多方驗證可以提升訊息的正確性。
三、搭配具有資訊搜尋提示的作業時，六成學生表示他們會將生活經驗與所得的網路資訊連結，並內化為自己的知識。
四、對於統計知識較弱的學生，過度探索網路多文本時會導致其學習成效不彰。
五、透過資訊搜尋提示瞭解學生的資訊建構歷程，並採用Pearson相關分析與迴歸分析發現「學生在量測尺度大題的固化知識程度」與學習成效呈現正向相關與正向預測；「學生透過專家學者或教科書進行資訊驗證」與學習成效呈現負向相關與負向預測。

　　This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the information construction process (sourcing) and learning effectiveness of college students by using multiple-text reading on the Internet. Participants were 130 college students who took the educational statistics course. Participants were instructed to integrate the statistical knowledge from multiple sources; meanwhile, they also need to reflect on the credibility of the Internet information and justify the Internet information. Students’ reflections of the source prompts were coded, and were analyzed with descriptive statistics in order to understand how the students build up the information construction process from multi-text reading. Correlational and regression analyses were used to investigate the association of college students’ reflections on the content of multiple-text reading and learning effectiveness.
　　The major findings were as follows:
1.Ninety percent of students need to read 2 to 7 online texts to complete the assignment with source prompts. Besides, 33.6% and 25.6% of students used only one website to complete their online assignment for the measurement scale and the statistical chart, respectively. Students build up the knowledge with education websites, Wikipedia, and government websites; 80% of the students believe that texts written by expert is the most reliable; 90% of the students think that they justify their knowledge claims by multiple sources.
2.Sixty percent of students think that they internalize the Internet information into their own knowledge when reading online information with source prompts.
3.For students with weak statistical knowledge, excessively exploring multiple texts on the Internet may lead to ineffective learning.
4.Students’ degree of knowledge (scale of measure) are positively correlated with learning effectiveness; justification by expert is negatively correlated with learning effectiveness.

第一章　緒論　1
　　第一節　研究動機　1
　　第二節　研究目的　4
　　第三節　研究問題　4
　　第四節　名詞解釋　5
　　第五節　研究限制　6
第二章　文獻探討　7
　　第一節　多文本閱讀之內涵　7
　　　　一、多文本閱讀之基礎概念　7
　　　　二、多文本閱讀之相關理論　10
　　　　三、多文本閱讀之相關研究　11
　　第二節　資訊建構歷程之內涵　17
　　　　一、資訊建構歷程之基礎概念　17
　　　　二、訊息來源之類別與使用特色　19
　　　　三、資訊建構歷程之教學介入與訊息提示　23
　　　　四、資訊建構歷程之相關研究　25
第三章　研究設計與實施　29
　　第一節　研究架構　29
　　第二節　研究方法與對象　31
　　第三節　研究工具　32
　　第四節　研究程序　39
　　第五節　資料處理與分析方法　40
第四章　研究結果與分析　42
　　第一節　資訊搜尋提示促發大學生內容反思之描述性統計　42
　　第二節　資訊建構反思與學習成效之關聯與預測　51
第五章　結論與建議　59
　　第一節　研究結論　59
　　第二節　後續研究建議　66
參考文獻　67
中文部分　67
英文部分　69
附錄一　量測尺度作業任務　75
附錄二　統計圖表作業任務　76

中文部分
唐淑華（2013）。如何讓中學生喜愛閱讀？—談融入學科領域的課外閱讀。人文與社會科學簡訊，14(4)，18-27。
唐淑華（2017）。中學閱讀活動新猷：以多文本讀寫進行大問題探索。教育研究月刊，279，58-75。doi:10.3966/168063602017070279005
李家同(2010)。大量閱讀的重要性。臺北:博雅。
廖長彥、張菀真、陳秉成、陳德懷（2016）。興趣驅動之提問式主題閱讀模式發展與評估。教育學報，44（2），1-25。
劉宜芳、柯華葳(2017）。線上閱讀研究之回顧與展望。教育科學研究期刊，62(2)，61-87。doi: 10.6209/JORIES.2017.62(2).03
連啟舜(2002)。國內閱讀理解教學研究成效之統合分析研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所，台北市。
連啟舜、陳弘輝、曾玉村(2016)。閱讀之摘要歷程探究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系，教育心理學報，48(2)，133-158。doi:10.6251/BEP.20151124
林羿妏（2012）。大專院校學生的Facebook使用特性、批判思考與資訊驗證行為的關係(未出版之碩士論文)。國立交通大學教育研究所，新竹市。
林羿妏、陳昭秀(2012)。大專院校生的批判思考意向與Facebook特性對其資訊驗證行為的影響，國立臺灣科技大學人文社會學報，8(1)，17 – 36。 doi：10.29506/JLASS.201203.0002
柯華葳 (2013)。閱讀是新世紀必要的學習管道。人文與社會科學簡訊，14(4)，4-11。
許文怡、梁朝雲(2007)。訊息來源可信度、情感認同與涉入程度對大學生採信消費性網路謠言之影響，教育資料與圖書館學，45 (1)，99－120。
許文怡、梁朝雲(2007)。訊息來源可信度、情感認同與涉入程度對大學生採信消費性網路謠言之影響，教育資料與圖書館學，45(1)，99-120。
徐翊瑄 (2009)。建構多文本閱讀教學之行動研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學課程與教學傳播科技研究所，臺北市。
陳茵嵐（2007）。中學生網路資訊驗證課程設計暨教學實驗研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立交通大學教育研究所，新竹巿。
卓秋汝(2012)。多文本閱讀對小一學生概念發展之研究─以「家」與「朋友」為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學語文與創作學系，臺北市。
楊斐鈞（2017）。主題深讀模式與平台之實踐：透過多文本閱讀與討論以提升學生想法運用與文本理解的表現（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所，桃園市。
吳欣純(2012)。社群網站使用者使用動機、資訊驗證態度、資訊可信度感知與資訊分享行為之研究－以Facebook網站為例(未出版之碩士論文)。交通大學教育研究所，新竹市。
汪志堅、李欣穎(2005)。來源可信度、情感認同與涉入程度對網路謠言闢謠效果之影響。管理學報，22(3)，391-413。doi： 10.6504/JOM.2005.22.03.08


英文部分
Alexander, P. A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.722511
Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts: A discussion. Zeitschrift für P€adagogische Psychologie, 23, 139-145.
Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text, discourse, and process: Toward a multidisciplinary science of texts. Norwood, NJ: Longman.
Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Sourcing in text comprehension: A review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review, 1–27. doi:10.1007/s10648-017-9421-7
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 111-130. doi: 10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7
Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2019). Teaching sourcing in upper secondary school: A comprehensive sourcing intervention with follow-up data. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(4), 481–505. doi:10.1002/rrq.253
Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 26(3),321–348. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9371-x
Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002) Improving Students' Ability to Identify and Use Source Information, Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522. doi: 10.1207/ S1532690XCI2004_2
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.921572
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12,91-142.
Gale M. Sinatra, & Doug Lombardi (2020) Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments, Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 120-131. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181
Gerjets, P., Kammerer, Y., & Werner, B. (2011). Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during Web search: Integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye-tracking data. Learning and Instruction, 21, 220-231.
Gibbs, R. W., Kushner, J. M., & Mills, W. R. (1991). Authorial intentions and metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20,11–29. doi:10.1007/BF01076917
Glogger, I., Holzapfel, L., Schwonke, R., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2009). Activation of learning strategies in writing learning journals. The specificity of prompts matters. Zeitschrift für Padagogische Psychologie, 23, 95-104.
Gregory, M. J. (2007). The effect of teaching intertextuality to high school students on performance on multiple text responses to literature.( master's thesis, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning University of Manitoba Winnipeg).
Hagen, Å. M., Braasch, J. L., & Bråten, I. (2014). Relationships between spontaneous note taking ,self‐reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(S1), S141–S157. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01536.x
Hartman, D. K. (1994). The intertextual links of readers using multiple passages: A postmodern/semiotic/cognitive view of meaning making.In R.B. Ruddell, M.P. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading, (4th.ed., pp.616–636). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hartman, D. K.(1995).Eight Readers Reading: The Intertextual Links of Proficient Readers Reading Multiple Passages.Reading Research Quarterly,30,520–561. doi:10.2307/747631
Hartman, D. K., & Hartman, J. A. (1993). Reading across texts: Expanding the role of the reader. The Reading Teacher, 47(3), 202-211. doi:10.2307/20201234
Helge I. Strømsø , Ivar Bråten , M. Anne Britt, & Leila E. Ferguson (2013)Spontaneous Sourcing Among Students Reading Multiple Documents. Cognition and Instruction,31(2), 176–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769994
Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45, 323–345. doi:10.1080/01638530802145486
Kammerer, Y., Meier, N., & Stahl, E. (2016). Fostering secondary-school students' intertext model formation when reading a set of websites: The effectiveness of source prompts. Computers & Education, 102, 52–64. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.07.001
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Laupa, M. (1991). Children’s reasoning about three authority attributes: Adult status, knowledge, and social position. Developmental Psychology, 27, 321–329.
Lee, Y.-H. (2018). Internet-based epistemic beliefs, engagement in online activities, and intention for constructivist ICT integration among pre-service teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3747
Madden, A. D., Ford, N. J., & Miller, D. (2007). Information resources used by children at an English secondary school:Perceived and actual levels of usefulness. Journal of Documentation, 63, 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710743289
McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-truth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mônica Macedo-Rouet , Jason L.G. Braasch , M. Anne Britt, & Jean-François Rouet (2013) Teaching Fourth and Fifth Graders to Evaluate Information Sources During Text Comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 204–226. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769995
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). ePIRLS 2016 International Results in Online Informational Reading. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development .(2019). Chinese Taipei - Country Note - PISA 2018 Results. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_TAP.pdf
Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d). Retrieved from https://www.lexico.com/definition/post-truth
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. Van Oostendorp &S. R. Goldman (Eds.). The construction of mental representation during reading (pp. 99–122).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478–493.
Sarah McGrew, Joel Breakstone, Teresa Ortega, Mark Smith, & Sam Wineburg (2018) Can Students Evaluate Online Sources? Learning From Assessments of Civic Online Reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(2), 165–193. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320
Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023
Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 430–456. doi:10.2307/748185
Stavrositu, C., & Sundar, S.S. ( 2008). If Internet credibility is so iffy, why the heavy use? The relationship between medium use and credibility. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11, 65–68. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.9933
Strømsø, H. I., & Kammerer, Y. (2016). In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.). Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 247–264). New York, NY: Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Walker, N. T., ＆Bean, T W. (2005). Sociocultural Influences in Content Area Teachers' Selection and Use of Multiple Texts. Reading Research and Instruction, 44(4), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070509558437
Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation,comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46,1060–1106. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209333183