本研究旨在探討進行深度討論教學，對八年級學生思考層次和批判思考能力的影響，並了解在國中實施深度討論教學的情況。
為因應時代的變動，除了閱讀的基本能力之外，培養思考能力亦非常重要，在教育領域，強調深度學習與知識翻新的學習趨勢日益重要，教師不僅需關注這樣的潮流，更應思考如何讓學習的核心回歸到學生身上，以培養他們應對未來的能力。
本研究的目的在於探究深度討論教學對八年級學生思考層次和批判思考能力的影響。研究以新北市某國中為場域，採取準實驗設計，將學生分為實驗組和對照組進行深度討論教學與自主閱讀討論。研究使用量表作為量化工具，並進行問卷調查和訪談以收集質性資料。在閱讀文本的選擇上，使用多文本的方式，由研究者選擇同一主題、不同立場的新聞，作為進行深度討論時所使用的文本。
研究發現，兩組學生的以量表施測的分數無顯著差異，但實驗組學生在高層次思考的提問和回應上有逐步增加的趨勢，顯示深度討論教學對培養學生高層次思考能力具有正面的影響。此外，學生普遍喜歡深度討論，認為這樣的閱讀與討論方式有助於提升思考能力和學習興趣，並增加了參與度。
整體而言，本研究在批判思考能力整體提升上可能受限於研究時間與檢測方式因素而未達到顯著水準，而本研究結果亦顯示深度討論教學對學生思考層次和高層次思考能力有所促進，並獲得了學生正面的反饋，是值得推廣應用的閱讀教學模式。

This study aims to investigate the impact of Quality Talks on the levels of thinking and critical thinking ability of eighth-grade students and to understand the implementation of such teaching methods in junior high schools.
In response to the evolving demands of the times, it is crucial to develop not only basic reading skills but also thinking abilities. In the field of education, there is an increasing emphasis on deep learning and knowledge innovation. Educators need to stay attuned to these trends and consider how to refocus the core of learning back onto students to better prepare them for future challenges.
The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of Quality Talks on eighth-grade students' levels of thinking and critical thinking skills. Conducted at a junior high school in New Taipei City, the research utilized a quasi-experimental design, dividing students into an experimental group and a control group to engage in Quality Talks and self-directed reading discussions. Quantitative data were gathered using scales, while qualitative data were collected through surveys and interviews. For the reading materials, a multi-text approach was employed, with the researcher selecting news articles on the same topic but from different perspectives to facilitate Quality Talks.
The study found that there was no significant difference in scores between the two groups on the scales administered. However, students in the experimental group showed a gradual increase in higher-order thinking questions and responses, indicating that Quality Talks positively impacts the development of higher-order thinking skills. Additionally, students generally favored Quality Talks, believing that this approach enhanced their thinking abilities and learning interest while increasing engagement.
Overall, while the study did not achieve a significant overall improvement in critical thinking skills, possibly due to time constraints and assessment methods, it shows that Quality Talks promotes higher-order thinking and receives positive feedback from students. This reading instruction model is thus deemed worthy of further promotion and application.

林奕吾(2017)。以深度討論進行讀書會之互動模式研究。國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文,台北市。
蕭淑芬(2017)。國小國語課深度討論教學模式之行動研究。國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文,台北市。
徐筱玲、陳浩然、林微庭(2019)。深度討論和高層次思考:台灣大學生之研究。教育資料與圖書館學,56(1),107-130。
陳昭珍、黃子純、李純瑀、陳冠蓉、顧蕙倩、陳嘉琪、王世豪(2020)。深度討論教學法理論與實踐。臺北市:元照。
韋雅寧(2010)。國中生讀報教育與批判思考能力之實驗研究。國立臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導研究所碩士論文,台北市。
李盈萱(2020)。視覺資訊圖於大一英文學生之深度討論的運用。國立臺灣師範大學文學院英語學系碩士論文,台北市。
張家銘(2020)。中級華語課深度討論教學模式之行動研究。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學系碩士論文,台北市。
葉芷均(2024)。深度討論教學法融入高中國文課之行動研究。國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文,台北市。
張心怡(2018)。社會科主題深學：衝突式多文本閱讀與論證活動設計與實驗。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所碩士論文,桃園市。
趙金婷(2007)。幼兒對不同版本故事書的文本互織反應之探究。新竹教育大學教育學報,24(1),1-27。
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。 閱讀研究, 14(2)
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。
唐淑華(2021) 多文本主題式閱讀對高一學生學科閱讀素養之準實驗研究。課程與教學,24(4),27-62
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。
陳海泓(2019)。文本結構與文本分析三層次:以〈運動家的風度〉一課為例。載於黃秀霜、詹士宜、陳海泓、王秀梗(主編),樂在閱讀教學:文本分析與理解策略應用(3-38)。新北市:心理。
洪儷瑜(2016)。多文本閱讀策略教學在國中歷史科教學之運用。人文與社會科學簡訊,17(2),32-40
宣皓萍(2021)。使用多文本閱讀策略教學提升國小高年級學童的閱讀理解表現。。國立中央大學碩士論文,桃園市。
教育部(2018)。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。
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-議題融入說明手冊。臺北市：教育部。
教育部國教署(2022)。新世代雙閱讀-提升國民中小學學生閱讀素養實施計畫。臺北市：教育部。
魏美惠(1999)判斷思考能力之探討。資優教育季刊,72,0-15。
吳清山(2017)素養導向教育的理念與實踐。教育行政與評鑑學刊,21,1-24
世界經濟論壇(WEF)報告，2016，The Future of Financial Service，世界經濟論壇。
世界經濟論壇(WEF)報告，2020，The Future of Financial Service，世界經濟論壇。
世界經濟論壇(WEF)報告，2023，The Future of Financial Service，世界經濟論壇。
丘愛鈴(2022)。二十一世紀學習的新趨勢：自主學習與深度學習的理論與教學策略，台灣教育研究期刊,3（2）,147-170 。
王金國(2000)。簡介小組討論教學法。教育研究,8,137-147。
林寶山(1996)。討論教學的技巧,黃政傑編:多元化的教學方法。台北:師大書苑。
施頂清(2000)。自我發問策略與合作學習(小組討論)對國中生國文閱讀理解的效果比較考驗(碩士論文)。
林清山〈1994〉。教育心理學。台北:遠流。322-349。
張玉成(1993)。思考技巧與教學。台北:心理出版社。
Stella Cottrell(2019)。批判性思考：跳脫慣性的思考模式（第二版）（鄭淑芬譯）。臺北：寂天文化。（原著出版年：2002）游恆山編譯〈1989〉。心理學。台北:五南。
陳麗華、李涵鈺、林陳涌(2004)國內批判思考測驗工具及其應用之分析。課程與教學季刊,7(2),1-24
曾玉村等著；柯華葳編主編(2017)。閱讀理解策略教學。臺中市:教育部國民及學前教育署
張玉燕〈2002〉。批判性思考教學探討。台北市立師範學院。初等教育學刊,第十二期,217
葉玉珠(2000)。智能與批判思考。國立中山大學社會科學季刊,2(1),1-28。
葉玉珠、葉碧玲、謝佳蓁(2000)：「中小學批判思考技巧測驗之發展」。中國測驗學會測驗年刊,47,27-46。
葉玉珠(1999)。批判思考意向量表。未發表之量表。
葉玉珠(2003)。「批判思考測驗-第一級」指導手冊。台北:心理。
郭上賓(2009)。探討國小五年級學童學習風格及學習動機與科學批判思考之相關性。臺北市立師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
盧玉玲、連啟瑞(1999)。批判性思考潮流下的科學教育。國民教育,39(4),12-15。
蘇明勇、黃萬居(2006)。蘇格拉底詰問模式對六年級學生批判思考能力與傾向之影響。科學教育學刊,14(5),597-614。
黃千慈(2016)。合作學習策略對提升國中生國文閱讀理解能力之教學成效研究。台灣首府大學教育研究所碩士論文,台南市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/uehcb9
黃國將(2022)聯合國教育的未來倡議對臺灣推動十二年國教之啟示。臺灣教育評論月刊,11（11）,43-48
沈文蓓(1997)。小學高年級學生小組討論之歷程分析。國立臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading comprehension research (pp. 69-90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Davies, M., & Meissel, K. (2016). The use of Quality Talk to increase critical analytical speaking and writing of students in three secondary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 342-365.
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron, R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9-26).New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Ennis,R.H.& Norris,S.P.(1989).Evaluation critical thinking. Educational leadership.42(8) ,40-45.
E. Vraga, M. Tully, J. Kotcher, A. Smithson & M. Broeckelman-Post. 2015.“A Multi-Dimensional Approach to Measuring News Media Literacy.”Journal of Media Literacy Education,7(3)，41–53
Garcia, J.R.(1994).Use of technology in developing problem solving critical thinking skill. ERIC:ED 369 944.
Hui-Chuan Wang. (2017). The Effects of the Cooperative Translation Task on EFL College Students' Translation Learning,Language and International Studies,17,97- 125. Doi:10.3966/ 181147172017060017004
Hobbs, R. 2010a. Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Hartman, D. K., & Hartman, J. A. (1993). Reading across texts: Expanding the role of the reader. The Reading Teacher, 47(3), 202-211.
Hartman, D., & Allison, J. (1996). Promoting inquiry-oriented discussions using multiple texts. In L.B. Gambrell & J.F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions! Fostering engaged reading (pp. 106-133). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
John.D Strebe.(2017).Engaging Students Using Cooperative Learning.New York:Routledge.
Li, M., Murphy, P. K., Wang, J., Mason, L. H., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., & Chung, K. S. (2016). Promoting reading comprehension and critical–analytic thinking: A comparison of three approaches with fourth and fifth graders. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 101-115.
Mengyi Li,Karen Murphy,&Carla M.Firetto. (2014). International Journal of Education Psychology, Vol.3No.3, 205-234.
Murphy,P.K.,Wilkinson,I.A.O.,Hennessey,M.N,&Alexander,J.F.(2009).Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ high-level comprehension of text:A meta-analysis.Journal of Educational Psychology,101,740-764.
Maree J. Davies &S Esling.(2020)The use of Quality Talk to foster ctitical thinking in a low socio-economic secondary Geography classroom.Australian Journal of Language and Literacy.Vol43,issue1.
Reninger, K. B., & Rehark, L. (2009). Discussions in a fourth-grade classroom: Using exploratory talk to promote children's dialogic identities. Language Arts, 86(4), 268-279.
Murphy P. K. (Ed.). (2017). Classroom discussions in education. New York, NY:Routledge.
Murphy, P. K., & Firetto, C. M. (2017). Quality Talk: A blueprint for productive talk. In P. K. Murphy (Ed.), Classroom discussions in education (pp. 101–134). New York, NY: Routledge.
Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Allen, E., Baszczewski, S., Swearingen, A., Wei, L., & Butler, A. M. (2018). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understanding and argumentation performance in science through Quality Talk discussions. Science Education, 102(6), 1239-1264.
Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Hendrick, B. D., Mengyi Li, Montalbano, C. and Liwei Wei. Quality Talk: Developing Students’ Discourse to Promote High-level Comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 55.5 (2018): 1113-1160.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N, & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ high-level comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740-764.
Kahne, J., Lee, N., & Feezell, J. T. 2012. “Digital Media Literacy Education and Online Civic and Political Participation.” International Journal of Communication, 6: 1–24.
OECD (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact
OECD (2019). OECD learning compass 2030. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning
Pea, R. (2016). The prehistory of the learning sciences. In Evans, M. A., Packer, M. P. (Eds.), Reflections on the Learning Sciences, 32-58. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Pithers, R. T. & Soden, R. (2000).Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42(3), 237-249.
Potter, J. W. 2004. Theory of media literacy: A cognitive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
P21, The Partnership for 21st Century Learning (n.d.). Framework for 21st Century Learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_framework_0116.pdf
Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Reninger, K. (2005). Who’s doing the talking and why does it matter? Small-group discussions about literature to promote students’ high-level thinking and comprehension. Paper presented at the Dublin Literacy Conference, Dublin City Schools, Dublin, OH.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2010). A brief history of knowledge building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 36(1), 1-16.
Tzeng, J. Y. (2015). Learning sciences: core issues and research trends. Bulletin of Educational Research, 61(3), 105.
UNESCO (2021).Reimagining Our Future Together. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/reimagining-our-futures-together-new-social-contract-education
Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Developing a model of Quality Talk about literary text. In M. G. McKeown and L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing Reading Research to Life (pp. 142-169). NY: Guilford Press.