本研究的核心目的為探討認知與情意的個體差異因素，在多文本閱讀情境當中的效果。多文本閱讀意指針對特定主題，從多個資訊來源進行閱讀理解之行為，其中包括來源資訊的辨認、調節與統整等較高層次的認知程序，從複雜的多文本情境當中建立整合的認知表徵(cognitive representations)。現代網路資訊的多樣性，使得多文本的閱讀能力成為重要的新素養之一，因此探討讀者於資訊整合的認知程序，以及其影響因素成為現今的關鍵研究議題。而過去的研究範疇多數關注於認知層面的因素探討，而較少結合情意面向進行著墨，因此本研究將以「認知情意投入模型」(Cognitive Affective Engagement Model, CAEM)作為理論框架，選定「新冠疫苗的選擇」作為時事主題，蒐集不同來源以及觀點衝突的文本，檢視大學生從行為傾向(behavioral dispositions)與情意投入(affective engagement)兩個面向的模式與學習產出，使用集群分析，對學生於個體差異因素產生的閱讀預設立場，以及學生如何使用文本的閱讀行為指標來分群，探討個體差異因素、閱讀行為以及多文本任務產出表現之間的關聯。

This study examined the effect of cognitive and affective factors in students’ learning from multiple texts. Multiple text comprehension refers to the behavior to extract information from multiple sources under a certain topic, and requires higher-level cognitive process such as identifying, corroborating and summarizing across sources to achieve an integrated cognitive representation of complicated multiple texts’ context. The Internet created a vast variety of information sources, which make the ability to perform multiple text comprehension become a crucial competency and therefore a critical research topic. Prior works have mainly focused on factors within cognitive dimension, and limited work is done to examine the combined effect of affective factors. Based on the cognitive affective engagement model (CAEM) of multiple-source use, this study plan to use ‘choosing the COVID-19 vaccines’ as the reading topic relevant to the readers, and select texts with varied opinions as well as expertise from the Internet, and to conduct cluster analysis to identify reading profiles from students’ multiple text use behavior as well as from the default stances among students' individual difference factors, then explore the relationship between the reading profiles and the learning outcome.

摘要 II
Abstract III
目錄 1
表目錄 4
圖目錄 5
第一章 緒論 6
1.1 研究背景與動機 6
1.2 研究目的 10
1.3 研究問題 11
1.4 名詞解釋 11
第二章 文獻探討 15
2.1 多來源文本閱讀 15
2.1.1 建構-整合模型 17
2.1.2 文件模型 17
2.1.3 多文件任務導向相關性評估與內容萃取模型 18
2.1.4 認知情意投入模型 19
2.1.5 多文本整合框架 20
2.2 多來源的閱讀建構模式 21
2.2.1 個體差異因素帶動行為與表現預測 28
2.2.2 基於問題種類的文本選擇行為模式 30
2.2.3 基於時間分布的閱讀行為模式 33
2.2.4 檢視情意面向的興趣操作與效果 38
2.2.5 認知情意投入理論模型探討 42
2.2.6 基於預設立場的集群分析 45
第三章 研究方法 49
3.1 研究進程 49
3.2 研究架構 51
3.3 研究對象 52
3.4 研究工具 53
3.3.1 先備知識 54
3.3.2 閱讀主題興趣 55
3.3.3 閱讀主題態度 56
3.3.4 來源評估能力 57
3.3.5 閱讀任務 58
3.3.6 閱讀文本 59
3.3.7 文本評估 63
3.3.8 回答產出 63
3.5 資料收集 64
3.5.1 前測資料 65
3.5.2 行為紀錄蒐集 65
3.5.3 文本評估 66
3.5.4 回答產出文章 66
3.6 資料分析 66
3.7 前導測試與專家諮詢 70
第四章 結果與討論 71
4.1 描述性統計 71
4.1.1 前測 72
4.1.2 行為變數 74
4.1.3 文本評估 78
4.1.4 回答產出 79
4.2 集群分析 79
4.2.1 閱讀時間集群 80
4.2.2 讀者特質集群 84
4.2.3 行為模式與讀者特質模式 88
4.3 文本評估 89
4.4 回答產出 91
4.5 綜合分析與討論 93
4.5.1 閱讀行為模式 93
4.5.2 讀者特質模式與預設立場的對應關係 100
4.5.3 讀者特質與行為模式 106
4.5.4 讀者特質、行為模式與文本評估 108
4.5.5 讀者特質、行為模式與回答產出 112
第五章 結論 115
5.1 研究發現 115
5.2 結論 126
5.3 研究建議 129
5.4 教學建議 131
5.5 研究限制 133
參考文獻 137
附錄 143

Agresti, A. (2003). Categorical data analysis: John Wiley & Sons.
Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of educational psychology, 94(3), 545.
Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude structure and behavior. Attitude structure and function, 241, 274.
Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14(4), 367-381.
Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64-76.
Baldwin Jr, D., Daugherty, S. R., Rowley, B. D., & Schwarz, M. (1996). Cheating in medical school: a survey of second-year students at 31 schools. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 71(3), 267-273.
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., IvaniÚc, R., & Ivanič, R. (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context: Psychology Press.
Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86-103.
Barzilai, S., & Ka’adan, I. (2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 193-232.
Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39-85.
Benjet, C., Bromet, E., Karam, E. G., Kessler, R. C., McLaughlin, K. A., Ruscio, A. M., . . . Hill, E. (2016). The epidemiology of traumatic event exposure worldwide: results from the World Mental Health Survey Consortium. Psychological medicine, 46(2), 327-343.
Bigot, L. L., & Rouet, J.-F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students' comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 445-470.
Braasch, J. L., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational psychologist, 52(3), 167-181.
Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse processes, 32(2-3), 191-213.
Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students' ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485-522.
Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso, 209-233.
Britt, M. A., & Rouet. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes, 276-314.
Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. (2020). Multiple document comprehension. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
Britt, M. A., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Larson, A. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (2004). Using intelligent feedback to improve sourcing and integration in students' essays. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14(3, 4), 359-374.
Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30, 9-24.
Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). What really matters: The role of behavioural engagement in multiple document literacy tasks. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(4), 680-699.
Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational psychologist, 46(1), 48-70.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of Internet-based learning activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(6), 1027-1042.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2009). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse processes, 47(1), 1-31.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). When law students read multiple documents about global warming: Examining the role of topic-specific beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing. Instructional Science, 38(6), 635-657.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 111-130.
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 180-192.
Davis, D. S., Huang, B., & Yi, T. (2017). Making sense of science texts: A mixed‐methods examination of predictors and processes of multiple‐text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 227-252.
De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of educational psychology, 97(2), 139.
Du, J. T., & Evans, N. (2011). Academic users' information searching on research topics: Characteristics of research tasks and search strategies. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(4), 299-306.
Everitt, B. S. (1992). The analysis of contingency tables: CRC Press.
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356-381.
Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. Reading—from words to multiple texts, 160-179.
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of educational psychology, 90(3), 414.
Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness—A neglected variable in discourse processing. Cognitive science, 10(2), 179-194.
Istance, D., & Kools, M. (2013). OECD work on technology and education: Innovative learning environments as an integrating framework. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 43-57.
Jorm, C., Roberts, C., Gordon, C., Nisbet, G., & Roper, L. (2019). Time for university educators to embrace student videography. Cambridge Journal of Education, 49(6), 673-693.
Kazan, E., & Usmen, M. A. (2018). Worker safety and injury severity analysis of earthmoving equipment accidents. Journal of safety research, 65, 73-81.
Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2008). Students evaluating Internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of educational computing research, 39(1), 75-95.
Kim, J. S., Samson, J. F., Fitzgerald, R., & Hartry, A. (2010). A randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–6: Effects on word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency. Reading and Writing, 23(9), 1109-1129.
Kintsch, W. (1988). THE ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE IN DISCOURSE COMPREHENSION - A CONSTRUCTION INTEGRATION MODEL. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.163
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Researching new literacies: Web 2.0 practices and insider perspectives. E-Learning and Digital Media, 4(3), 224-240.
List, A. (2014). Modeling multiple source use: Using learner characteristics and source use behaviors to predict response quality. University of Maryland, College Park,
List, A. (2020). Investigating the Cognitive Affective Engagement Model of Learning From Multiple Texts: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Reading Research Quarterly.
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017a). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational psychologist, 52(3), 182-199.
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017b). Text navigation in multiple source use. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 364-375.
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational psychologist, 54(1), 20-39.
List, A., Alexander, P. A., & Stephens, L. A. (2017). Trust but verify: Examining the association between students' sourcing behaviors and ratings of text trustworthiness. Discourse processes, 54(2), 83-104.
List, A., Du, H., & Wang, Y. (2019). Understanding students’ conceptions of task assignments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101801.
List, A., Grossnickle, E. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2016a). Profiling students’ multiple source use by question type. Reading Psychology, 37(5), 753-797.
List, A., Grossnickle, E. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2016b). Undergraduate students’ justifications for source selection in a digital academic context. Journal of educational computing research, 54(1), 22-61.
List, A., Stephens, L. A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Examining interest throughout multiple text use. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 307-333.
Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H., & McGill, L. (2012). Learning at the digital frontier: a review of digital literacies in theory and practice. Journal of computer assisted learning, 28(6), 547-556.
Loughlin, S., Grossnickle, E., Dinsmore, D., & Alexander, P. (2015). “Reading” paintings: Evidence for trans-symbolic and symbol-specific comprehension processes. Cognition and Instruction, 33(3), 257-293.
Lund, E. S., Bråten, I., Brandmo, C., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2019). Direct and indirect effects of textual and individual factors on source-content integration when reading about a socio-scientific issue. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 335-356.
Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013). Text belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 151-175.
Mason, L., Zaccoletti, S., Scrimin, S., Tornatora, M. C., Florit, E., & Goetz, T. (2020). Reading with the eyes and under the skin: Comprehending conflicting digital texts. Journal of computer assisted learning, 36(1), 89-101.
McCrudden, M. T., Stenseth, T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2016). The effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on Norwegian students’ document selection: A mixed methods study. Journal of educational psychology, 108(2), 147.
Murphy, P. K., Rowe, M. L., Ramani, G., & Silverman, R. (2014). Promoting critical-analytic thinking in children and adolescents at home and in school. Educational psychology review, 26(4), 561-578.
Pearson, K., Harris, J. A., Treloar, A. E., & Wilder, M. (1930). On the theory of contingency. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 25(171), 320-327.
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. The construction of mental representations during reading, 88108.
Petty, R. E., & Brinol, P. (2010). Attitude change.
Pirolli, P. (2007). Information foraging theory: Adaptive interaction with information: Oxford University Press.
Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106(4), 643.
Poitras, J., & Le Tareau, A. (2008). Dispute resolution patterns and organizational dispute states. International Journal of Conflict Management.
Primor, L., & Katzir, T. (2018). Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2294.
Reader, W. R., & Payne, S. J. (2007). Allocating time across multiple texts: Sampling and satisficing. Human–Computer Interaction, 22(3), 263-298.
Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational psychologist, 52(3), 148-166.
Rokach, L., & Maimon, O. (2005). Clustering methods. In Data mining and knowledge discovery handbook (pp. 321-352): Springer.
Rouet. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning: Psychology Press.
Rouet, & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. Text relevance and learning from text, 19-52.
Rouet, Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers' representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational psychologist, 52(3), 200-215.
Rouet, Ros, C., De Pereyra, G., Macedo-Rouet, M., & Salmerón, L. (2013). Teeneagers’ developing awareness of source quality. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Valencia, Spain.
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest.
Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 7-26.
Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 191-210.
Stenseth, T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2016). Investigating interest and knowledge as predictors of students' attitudes towards socio-scientific issues. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 274-280.
Strømsø, Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Do students’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing predict their judgement of texts’ trustworthiness? Educational Psychology, 31(2), 177-206.
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Brante, E. W. (2020). Profiles of warm engagement and cold evaluation in multiple-document comprehension. Reading and Writing, 33(9), 2337-2359.
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Stenseth, T. (2017). The role of students’ prior topic beliefs in recall and evaluation of information from texts on socio-scientific issues. Nordic Psychology, 69(3), 127-142.
Trakhman, L. M. S., Alexander, P. A., & Silverman, A. B. (2018). Profiling reading in print and digital mediums. Learning and Instruction, 57, 5-17.
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(4), 1060-1106.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of educational psychology, 91(2), 301.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of educational psychology, 83(1), 73.
Wolfe, M. B., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467-502.