臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

中文摘要本研究旨在探討學習策略教學對國小六年級學童之閱讀理解表現及閱讀後設認知能力是否具有立即和持續的效果。本研究之研究設計係採「不相等控制組前後測設計」之準實驗研究法進行實驗，研究樣本取自高雄市莒光國小六年級之兩個班級的53名學生，其中一班被隨機分派為實驗組，有26名學生；另一班則被分派為控制組，有27名學生。實驗組學生接受為期六週，每週3次，每次40分鐘之實驗教學；控制組學生則在實驗組進行教學的同時，自行閱讀實驗組教學的教材而不另作教學處理。本研究的學習策略教學內容係以Gagne(1974)的訊息處理模式、McKeachie等人(1987)的三大類學習策略及Heilman、Blair和Rupley(1990)的不同閱讀階段之閱讀理解策略為理論基礎而設計的，共有九個學習單元，而以Paris、Cross和Lipson(1984)的告知式學習策略方案(Informed Strategies for Learning，簡稱ISL)來進行教學。本研究以「閱讀理解測驗(一）」、「閱讀理解測驗(二）」、「科學文章閱讀理解測驗」及「閱讀後設認知評量表」分別測量受試者在實驗處理前、實驗處理結束後三天內及兩週後的閱讀理解、閱讀類化和閱讀後設知能力(閱讀覺察加上克漏字和錯誤偵測)，測驗所得資料係以獨立樣本單因子共變數分析來驗證各項假設。此外，亦利用皮爾遜(Pearson)積差相關來考驗閱讀理解、閱讀類化與閱讀後設認知能力等變項彼此間的相關。實驗處理結果顯示：學習策略教學僅對增進國小六年級學童之克漏字和錯誤偵測有立即效果，而對增進其之閱讀理解、閱讀類化、閱讀後設認知能力及閱讀覺察並未具有立即及持續效果。為對實驗處理所得的結果有更深入的瞭解，乃採用事後回溯研究法作進一步的分析。主要發現為：1.實驗教學結束三天內，國小六年級高、低閱讀覺察學童在閱讀類化、閱讀後設認知能力及閱讀覺察上有顯著的差異。實驗教學結束兩週後，國小六年級高、低閱讀覺察學童在閱讀後設認知能力及閱讀覺察上有顯著的差異。至於在閱讀理解及克漏字和錯誤偵測上，國小六年級高、低閱讀覺察學童在實驗教學結束三天內及兩週後並無顯著的差異。2.以學童五年級下學期國語科學業總成績為標準，分別將國小六年級實驗組與控制組學童分成高、中、低三種程度，在學習策略教學結束三天內及兩週後，兩組各程度學童在閱讀理解各項進、退步百分比上並無顯著的差異。3.以學童五年級下學期自然科學業總成績為標準，分別將國小六年級實驗組與控制組學童分成高、中、低三種程度，在學習策略教學結束三天內，實驗組與控制組自然科高學業成就者，在閱讀類化的進、退步百分比上有顯著的差異。兩組各程度學童在其餘各項進、退步百分比上並無顯著的差異。4.以學童五年級下學期國語科、自然科學業總成績為標準，分別將國小六年級實驗組與控制組學童分成高、中、低三種程度。在學習策略教學結束三天內，實驗組與控制組國語、自然高學業成就者，在閱讀理解、閱讀類化及閱讀後設認知能力的進步百分比上有顯著的差異；實驗組與控制組國語、自然低學業成就者，在閱讀後設認知能力的進步百分比上有顯著的差異。學習策略教學結束兩週後，實驗組與控制組國語、自然高學業成就者，在閱讀覺察、克漏字和錯誤偵測的進步百分比上有顯著的差異；實驗組與控制組國語、自然低學業成就者，在克漏字和錯誤偵測的進、退步百分比上有顯著的差異。兩組各程度學童在其餘各項進、退步百分比上並無顯著的差異。研究者乃根據上述的研究結果加以討論並提出建議，以做為教育應用及未來研究的參考。

AbstractThe purpose of this study is to investigate the immediate and continuing effects of learning strategy instruction on reading comprehension and reading metacognitive abilities for the sixth-grade students.An experiment with pretest-posttest nonequivalent-control-group design was conducted. The Subjects were 53 sixth-grade students in 2 classes drawn from Chu Kuang Elementary School in Kaohsiung City. Twenty-six students in one class were randomly assigned to the experimental group, and 27 students in the other class were assigned to the control group. The experimental group received 6 weeks, 3 times a week, each time 40 minutes of learning strategy instruction in which Informed Strategies for Learning(Paris, Cross &Lipson，1984) was used, whereas the control group received reading materials only. The instruction contents included 9 units designed on the basis of Gagne’s Information Process Model (1974), Mckeachie’s categories of learning strategies (1978), and Heilman, Blair and Rupley’s different reading stages (1970).This study used ‘Reading Comprehension Test (1)’, ‘Reading Comprehension Test (2)’, ‘Reading Comprehension Test on Science Text’, and ‘Reading Metacognition Scale’ to measure reading comprehension, reading generation, reading metacognitive abilities (include reading awareness, cloze and error-detection) in pre-testing and 3-day, 2-week post-testing. All the data gained from these tests were using independent sample one factor ANCOVA to verify all hypotheses. In addition, Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation was also used to find the relations among reading comprehension, reading generation and reading metacognitive abilities.The results of this experiment were:Learning strategy instruction only had the immediate effect on the improvement of the sixth graders’ cloze and error-detection, but didn’t have the immediate and continuing effects on reading comprehension, reading generation, reading metacognitive abilities and reading awareness.An ex-post facto research was conducted for further analysis to understand the results gained from this experiment more deeply.The main findings were:1.In 3 days after the learning strategy instruction, the differences of reading generation, reading metacognitive abilities and reading awareness between high and low reading awareness sixth-grade students were significant. In 2 weeks after the learning strategy instruction, the differences of reading metacognitive abilities and reading awareness between high and low reading awareness sixth-grade students were significant. No differences of reading comprehension, cloze and error-detection between high and low reading awareness sixth-grade students were found in 3 days or 2 weeks after the learning strategy instruction.2.The experimental group(EG) and the control group(CG) were divided into high, middle and low levels separately by using their fifth grade average Chinese score as the standard, but no significant differences of the progress and retrogression percentages on those of measures were found between EG and CG each level students in 3 days or 2 weeks after the learning strategy instruction.3.EG and CG were divided into high, middle and low levels separately by using their fifth grade average Natural Science score as the standard, there were significant differences of the progress and retrogression percentages on reading generation between EG and CG high level students in 3 days after the learning strategy instruction. But no significant differences of the progress and retrogression percentages on the other measures were found between EG and CG each level students in 3 days or 2 weeks after the learning strategy instruction.4.EG and CG were divided into high, middle and low levels separately by using their fifth grade average Chinese and Natural Science score as the standard. In 3 days after the learning strategy instruction, there were significant differences of the progress percentages on reading comprehension, reading generation, and reading metacognitive abilities between EG and CG high level students; there was significant difference of the progress percentages on reading metacognitive abilities between EG and CG low level students. In 2 weeks after learning strategy instruction, there were significant differences of the progress percentages on reading awareness, cloze and error-detection between EG and CG high level students; there were significant differences of the progress and retrogression percentages on cloze and error-detection between EG and CG low level students. No significant differences of the progress and retrogression percentages on the other measures were found between EG and CG each level in 3 days or 2 weeks after the learning strategy instruction.The researcher discussed and provided suggestions for application on education and the future study.

目 次中文摘要 …………………………………………………………… Ⅰ英文摘要 …………………………………………………………… Ⅲ圖次 ………………………………………………………………… Ⅸ表次 ………………………………………………………………… Ⅹ第一章 緒 論……………………………………………………… 1第一節 研究動機與目的……………………………………… 1第二節 名詞釋義……………………………………………… 5第三節 研究假設……………………………………………… 10第四節 研究限制……………………………………………… 12第二章 理論基礎與文獻探討…………………………………… 14第一節 學習策略的理論基礎………………………………… 14第二節 閱讀理解的理論基礎………………………………… 20第三節 學習策略教學與閱讀理解成效之有關研究………… 32第四節 研究架構……………………………………………… 36第三章 研究方法………………………………………………… 37第一節 研究設計……………………………………………… 37第二節 研究樣本……………………………………………… 39第三節 研究工具……………………………………………… 39第四節 研究步驟……………………………………………… 48第五節 資料處理 ………………………………………………… 53第四章 結果與討論……………………………………………… 57第一節 結果…………………………………………………… 57第二節 討論…………………………………………………… 108第五章 結論與建議……………………………………………… 113第一節 結論…………………………………………………… 113第二節 建議…………………………………………………… 118參考書目…………………………………………………………… 125一、中文部分…………………………………………………… 125二、英文部分…………………………………………………… 128附錄………………………………………………………………… 131附錄一 閱讀後設認知評量表………………………………… 133附錄二 閱讀理解測驗(一)、(二)…………………………… 141附錄三 科學文章閱讀理解測驗……………………………… 155附錄四 學習策略教學之教材………………………………… 167附錄五 試教教學記錄表及心得……………………………… 191附錄六 教學活動設計………………………………………… 195附錄七 學習策略之使用方法與時機………………………… 207

參考書目一、 中文部分余民寧(民84)。成就測驗的編製原理。台北市：心理出版社。李金泉(民82)。SPSS/PC+實務與應用統計分析。台北市:松崗圖書公司。李永吟主編(民82)。學習輔導。台北市：心理出版社。李美鈴(民86)。教學取向與閱讀能力對國小學童閱讀後設認知訓練成效影響之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系研究所碩士論文(未出版)。邱上真(民80)。學習策略教學的理論與實際。特殊教育與復建學報， 1期，1-49。林清山譯(民80)。教育心理學─認知取向。台北市：遠流出版社。林清山主編(民87)。有效學習的方法。台北：教育部訓育委員會。林建平(民81)。學習策略的訓練及其成效。初等教育學刊，創刊號， 133-158。林建平(民83)。整合學習策略與動機的訓練方案對國小閱讀理解困難兒 童的輔導效果。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文(未 出版)。林建平(民86)。學習策略─理論與實務。台北市:五南圖書出版公司。林玟慧(民84)。閱讀理解策略教學對國中閱讀障礙學生閱讀效果之研 究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系研究所碩士論文(未出版)。林蕙蓉(民84)。國小學童後設認知策略教學對國語科閱讀理解效能之研 究。台南師院學報，28期，271-312。胡永崇(民84)。後設認知策略教學對國小閱讀障礙學童閱讀理解成效之 研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文(未出版)。胥彥華(民78)。學習策略對國小六年級學生閱讀效果之研究。國立台灣 教育學院特殊教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。涂志賢(民87)。相互教學法對國小六年級學童國語科閱讀理解、後設認 知、自我效能影響之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士 論文(未出版)。郭生玉(民84)。心理與教育測驗。台北市：精華書局。張新仁(民79)。從資訊處理談有效的學習策略。教育學刊，9期，47-66。張瑛玿(民83)。自我發問策略對國小學生的閱讀理解與自我發問能力之 影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文(未出版)。陳李綢(民80)。思考模式、學術經驗與認知策略訓練對大學生後設認知 與智力的影響。教育心理學報，24期，196-209。陳密桃(民81)。從認知心理學的觀點談閱讀理解。教育文粹，21期， 10-19。陳建明(民86)。閱讀理解策略教學效果之個案研究─以花蓮縣安通部落 阿美族國小學生為例。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文 (未出版)。黃瓊儀(民85)。相互教學法對國小高年級學童閱讀理解能力、後設認知 能力與閱讀態度之影響。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文 (未出版)。黃國禎(民87)。直接教學法對國小數學科低成就學生教學效果之研究。 國立彰化師範師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。曾陳密桃(民79)。國民中小學生的後設認知及其閱讀理解之相關研究。 國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文(未出版)。楊芷芳(民83)。國小不同後設認知能力兒童的閱讀理解能力與閱讀理解 策略之研究。國立台中師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文(未出 版)。劉兆文、陳怡欣(民88)。從閱讀的認知歷程談有效教學策略。教師天地， 102期，78-85。鄭宇樑(民86)。後設認知閱讀教學對國小學生科學文章閱讀理解、閱讀 態度及後設認知能力影響之研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究 所碩士論文(未出版)。蘇宜芬(民80)。後設認知訓練課程對國小低閱讀能力學生的閱讀理解能 力與後設認知能力之影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究 所碩士論文(未出版)。二、英文部分Alexander, J. E., &Heathington, B. S. (1988). Assessing and correcting classroom reading problems. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.Baker, L., &Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacogntive skills of reading.In P. D. Person (Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York:Longman.Brown, A. L., Armbruster, B. B., &Baker, L. (1984). The role ofmetacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasnu(Ed.). A decade of reading research: Implications for practice (pp.49-75). Hillsadle, NJ:Erlbaum.Cross, D. R. &Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and Instructional Analyses of Children’s Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (2),131-142.Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura &C. J. Braninerd (Eds.), Structural/process theories of complex human behavior. Alphen a.d. Rijn, The Netherlands: Sitjhoff &Noordhoff.Gagne, R. M. (1974). Essentials of learning for instruction. Illinois: Dryden Press.Gagne, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Harris, P. L., Kruithof, A., Terwogt, M. M., &Visser, P. (1981). Children’s detection and awareness of textual anomaly. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 358- 362.Heilman, A., Blair, T., & Rupley, W. (1990). Principles and practicesof teaching reading. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.Kobasigawa, A., Ransom, C. C., &Holland, C. J. (1980). Children''''s knowledge about skimming. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 26, 169-182.Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational psychology: a cognitive approach. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., &Smith, D. (1987). Teaching and learning in the college classroom . A review of the research literature 1986 and November 1987 supplements. The Regents of University Michigan.Myers , M., &Pairs, S. G. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680-690.Palincsar, A. S., &Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.Paris, S. G. (1984). Teaching children to control their reading comprehension skill. Final Report to the National Institute of Education. University of Michigan.Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., &Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed Strategies for Learning: A Program to Improve Children’s Reading Awareness and Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6),1239-1252.Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.Paris, S. G., &Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The Benefits of Informed Instruction for Children’s Reading Awareness and Comprehension Skills. Child Development, 55, 2083-2093.Paris, S. G., &Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 5-22.Pearson, P. D., &Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.Pressley-Forrest, D. L., & Gillies, L. A. (1985). Children''''s flexible use of strategies during reading. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), cognitive strategy research educational appllications. N.Y.: Springer-Verlag.Weinstein, C. E., &Underwood, V. L. (1985). Learning strategies:The how of learning. In J.W. Segal, S. F. Chiman, &R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (vol.1): relating instruction to research. Hillsdale: LEA.Williamson, R. A. (1989). The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on StudentPerformance Gains on Third Grade Basal Reading Instruction. Doctor al Dissertation. Texas A &M University.