本研究之目的在於瞭解知識信念與閱讀任務對多文本閱讀之影響。多文本閱讀意指針對單一主題閱讀多篇文本，並統整不同文本的內容，以形成對該主題更全面的認識。由於，多文本閱讀的歷程相當複雜，因此，瞭解影響讀者跨文本統整的因素至關重要。本研究奠基於前人的研究基礎，進一步探討歷史知識信念（分為簡單性/確定性信念及統整信念）與閱讀任務（分為摘要及論證）對歷史科多文本閱讀表徵之影響。研究對象為桃園市某一公立高中的85位高一學生，採2（簡單性/確定性信念：適合或不適合）× 2（統整信念：適合或不適合）× 2（閱讀任務：摘要或論證）完全受試者間設計，並控制主題知識帶來的潛在影響。參與者須完成歷史知識信念問卷、主題知識測驗，並且於閱讀三篇歷史科文本後，撰寫摘要或論證類型的短文。研究結果顯示：（一）持有不適合的「簡單性/確定性」信念的學生其總分表現較差，容易抄寫單一文本的句子，或僅對單一文本進行精緻化，鮮少進一步統整多文本內容。（二）摘要組的總分表現低於論證組，摘要任務使學生更傾向於抄寫及文本內精緻化，論證任務則使學生傾向於跨文本精緻化及增述。（三）「統整」信念與閱讀任務對總分有顯著的交互作用，但是可能由於閱讀任務的難度過高，持有適合統整信念的學生在摘要任務中的總分低於統整信念不適合組。

It has been widely recognized that constructing a coherent representation based on multiple texts is difficult. However, epistemological beliefs and reading task that may facilitate or constrain the integration of multiple texts are not well understood by researchers. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of epistemological beliefs and reading task on students’ reading of multiple historical texts. Participants included 84 senior high school students in Taoyuan. The research had a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design: simplicity/ certainty beliefs (activity-inappropriate/activity-appropriate) × integration beliefs (activity-inappropriate/activity-appropriate) × reading task (summary/argumentation). The results of the study showed that (1) students with inappropriate simplicity/ certainty beliefs tended to copy sentences from a single text, or only elaborate a single text; (2) writing argument might bring about better integration than writing summaries; and (3) integration beliefs and the reading task had significant interaction on the total score. However, the total score of the students with appropriate integration beliefs in the summary task is lower than students with inappropriate integration beliefs. This study discusses several possible explanations for the results.

吳敏而（2013）。多文本閱讀的教學研發。臺北教育大學語文集刊，23，123-157。
呂紹海、巫俊明（2008）。國小「自然與生活科技」教科書中科學史內容之分析。新竹教育大學教育學報，25（2），1-31。
林麗月（2000）。另一種「教科書」－國中參考書中的歷史知識。歷史教育，7，1-11。
邱紹一、黃德祥、洪福源、林重岑（2011）。臺灣高職生知識論信念的架構驗證。新竹教育大學教育學報，28（2），117-144。
唐淑華、蔡孟寧、林烘煜（2015）。多文本課外閱讀對增進國中學生理解歷史主題之研究—以「外侮」主題為例。教育科學研究期刊，60（3），63-94。
涂金堂（2016）。大學生知識信念量表之複核效度考驗與相關研究。臺中教育大學學報：教育類，30（1），1-25。
教育部（2019）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校語文領域-國語文。臺北市: 教育部。
陳新豐（2016）。國小高年級學童線上數位閱讀認知負荷量表編製。教育研究與發展期刊，12（4），1-22。
趙鏡中（2011）。提昇閱讀力的教與學：趙鏡中先生語文教學論集。臺北市：萬卷樓。.
Adler, M., & Van Doren, C. (1972). How to read a book. New York: Simon & Schuster.
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., Zohar, A. R., & Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 973-999.
Beker, K., Jolles, D., Lorch, R. F., & van den Broek, P. (2016). Learning from texts: Activation of information from previous texts during reading. Reading and Writing, 29(6), 1161-1178.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. (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. (2009). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1–31.
Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. (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., Britt, M., Strømsø, H., & Rouet, J. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 48-70.
Britt, M., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 25(4), 313-339.
Buehl, M., Alexander, P., & Murphy, P. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(3), 415-449.
Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. (2010). Understanding and integrating multiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology, 31, 30–68.
Hagen, Å., Braasch, J., & 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.
Hartman, D. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 520-561.
Hartman, D., & Allison, J. (1996). Promoting inquiry-oriented discussions using multiple texts. In L. Gambrell, & J. Almasi, Lively discussions! Fostering engaged reading (pp. 106-133). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hartman, D., & Hartman, J. (1993). Reading across texts: Expanding the role of the reader. The Reading Teacher, 47(3), 202-211.
Hemmerich, J., & Wiley, J. (2002). Do argumentation tasks promote conceptual? In W. Gray, & C. Schunn, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 453-458). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hofer, B. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405.
Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
Hynd, C. (1999). Teaching students to think critically using multiple texts in history. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(6), 428-436.
Jacobson, M., & Spiro, R. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 301-333.
King, P., & Kitchener, K. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5-18.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: Construction-Integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309-328.
Le Bigot, 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, 445-470.
Maggioni, L., Alexander, P., & VanSledright, B. (2004). At a crossroads? The development of epistemological beliefs and historical thinking. European Journal of School Psychology, 2(1-2), 169-197.
Maggioni, L., VanSledright, B., & Alexander, P. (2009). Walking on the borders: A measure of epistemic cognition in history. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(3), 187-214.
Muis, K., Bendixen, L., & Haerle, F. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 3-54.
Perfetti, C., Rouet, J., & Britt, M. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. Van Oostendorp, & S. Goldman, The construction of mental representation during reading (pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Pichert, J., & Anderson, R. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(9), 309–315.
Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17-37.
Primor, L., & Katzir, T. (2018). Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-16.
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(3), 478.
Rowe, D. (1987). Literacy learning as an intertextual process. In J. Readence, & R. Baldein, Research in literacy: Merging perspectives (pp. 101-112). NY: National Reading Conference.
Saussure, F. (1996). A Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw Hill.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504.
Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and education on epistemological beliefs. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 551-562.
Stahl, S., Hynd, C., Britton, B., McNish, M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430-456.
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Dimensions of topic-specific epistemological beliefs as predictors of multiple text understanding. Learning and Instruction, 18, 513-527.
Strømsø, H., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 192-204.
van den Broek, P., Lorch, R., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory and Cognition, 29, 1081-1087.
VanSledright, B., & Reddy, K. (2014). Changing epistemic beliefs? An exploratory study of cognition among prospective history teacher. Revista Tempo e Argumento, 6(11), 28-68.
Voss, J. F., Wiley, J., & Kennet, J. (1998). Student perceptions of history and historical concepts. In J. F. Voss, & M. Carretero (Vol. Eds.), Cognitive and Instructional Processes in History and the Social Sciences: Vol. 2, (pp. 307–330). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wade-Stein, D., & Kintsch, E. (2004). Summary Street: Interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 333–362.
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., Steffens, B., & Britt, M. A. (2020). Epistemic beliefs about the value of integrating information across multiple documents in history. Learning and Instruction, 65, 101266.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.
Wineburg, 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), 73-87.
Wineburg, S. (2007). Unnatural and essential: The nature of historical thinking. Teaching History, 129, 6-11.
Wolfe, M., & Goldman, S. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467-502.