臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究主要在探討爭議性文章的閱讀理解。爭議性議題在日常生活中隨處可見，但相關的研究則較著重在論點的寫作，較少涉及理解的層面，因此本研究由爭議性文章的結構、標示和讀者的先備知識為切入，並控制讀者的先前態度，以進一步瞭解這些因子對文本基礎和情境模式理解的影響。本研究以「基因改造食品」的正反方論點做為閱讀的材料，高中一年級學生為實驗參與者，以團體施測的方式進行。
本研究共分兩個實驗。實驗一主要探討不同文章結構和先備知識對爭議性文章理解的影響。文章結構是借用了說明文的比較類結構中「分隔結構」和「間隔結構」，並由「間隔結構」中再發展出「論點交錯結構」，以這三種結構做為爭議性文章的結構。先備知識是以自編的測驗區分為高、低知識者。結果發現，只有先備知識高低會影響爭議性文章的文本基礎理解和情境模式理解，不同的結構並不會影響理解的成績，而知識與結構間也無交互作用存在。
實驗二則是探討標示與先備知識對理解的影響。標示分為二種：強調關鍵句的「內容標示」和強調正反方立場的「立場標示」。結果發現，在文本基礎理解上，只有先備知識會影響理解，標示並無法提高高中生的理解。在情境模式理解上，先備知識與標示有交互作用，高先備知識者閱讀不同的標示在表現上並沒有差異，但對低知識者而言，內容標示則能有效的提升情境模式理解的成績。
研究結果的解釋與應用在文中有詳細討論。

目錄
第一章 緒論………………………………………….1
第二章 文獻回顧…………………………………………4
一、先備知識的相關研究………………………………………4
二、文章結構的相關研究………………………………………9
三、爭議性問題為閱讀實驗材料的相關研究………………………21
四、由文獻到研究…………………………………………30
第三章 實驗一…………………………………………32
第四章 實驗二…………………………………………41
第五章 綜合討論…………………………………………49
參考書目…………………………………………53
附錄…………………………………………58
表目錄
表1-1 文章結構分析與內容摘要…………………………34
表1-2 先備知識與文章結構在調整後文本基礎得分的描述統計摘要表…………………………38
表1-3 先備知識與文章結構在「文本基礎」得分之二因子共變數分析摘 要表…………………………39
表1-4 先備知識與文章結構在調整後「情境模式理解」得分的描述統計摘要表…………………………39
表1-5 先備知識與文章結構在「情境模式理解」得分之二因子共變數分析摘要…………………………40
表2-1 調整後不同先備知識與標示在調整後「文本基礎理解」得分之描述統計表…………………………44
表2-2 先備知識與標示在「文本基礎」得分之二因子共變數分析摘要表…………………………45
表2-3 不同先備知識與標示在調整後「情境模式理解」得分之描述統計表…………………………45
表2-4 先備知識與標示在「情境模式」得分之二因子共變數分析摘要表…………………………46
圖目錄
圖2-1 標示與先備知識在情境模式理解之得分圖………………………47
附錄
附錄1 指導語………………………………58
附錄2-1 先備知識測驗………………………………59
附錄2-2 先備知識測驗之項目分析表………………………61
附錄3 議題態度和瞭解程度測量………………………62
附錄4-1 文章內容(實驗一)………………………………63
附錄4-2 標示後的文章內容(實驗二)………………………78
附錄5-1 閱讀理解測驗………………………………86
附錄5-2 閱讀理解測驗之項目分析表………………………88

Mayer, R. E.著，林清山譯（1990）。教育心理學－認知取向。台北：遠流出版社。
梁若玫(1992)，先前知識與文章結構對國中生文章記憶及理解的影響。台灣師範大學教育與心理輔導學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
Brewer, W. F. (1980). Literary theory, rhetoric, and stylistics: Implications for psychology. In R. J. Spirom, B. C. Bruce, W. F. Brewer (Eds), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. (pp.221-244). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., Georgi, M. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1994). Learning from history texts: From causal analysis to argument. In G. Leinhardt, I. Beck, & C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 47-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & La Vancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
Chiesi, H. L., Spilich , G. J., &Voss, J. E. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to hign and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 275-290.
Cook, L. K.& Meyer, R. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 448-456.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A.(1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(4), 561-584.
Englert, C. S. & Hiebert, C. H. (1984). Children’s developing awareness of text structure in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 65-74.
Fortner, B. T., Henk W. A.(1991).Effects of issue-related attitude on readers’ comprehension and judgments of unbiased text. Reading Research and Instruction, 30(2), 1-16.
Hare, V. C., Rabinowitz, M., & Schieble, K. M. (1989). Text affects on main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 72-88.
Henk, W. A. (1988). Effects of top-level comparison-contrast text structures on reading comprehension performance. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 1-17.
Henk W. A. & Holmes, B. C.(1988). Effect of content-related attitude on the comprehension and retention of expository text. Reading Psychology, 9(3), 203-225.
Hollingsworth, P. M. & Reutzel, D. R. (1990). Prior knowledge, content-related attitude, reading comprehension: testing Mathewson’s affective model of reading. Journal of Educational Research, 83(4), 194-199.
Just, M. A., ＆Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122-149.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Kintsch, W.& van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Kletzien, S. B. (1992). Proficient and lexx proficient comprehenders’ stragegy use for different top-lvevel structures. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(2), 191-215.
Lipson, M. Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 243-260.
Lipson, M. Y. (1983). The influence of religious affiliation on children’s memory for text information. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 448-457.
Loman, N. L. & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 402-412.
Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Lorch, E. P. (1985). Topic structure representation and text recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 137-148.
Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P. (1995). Effects of organizational signals on text-processing strategies. Journal of Education Psychology, 87(4), 537-544.
Marr, M. B., & Gormley, K. (1982). Children’s recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Readigng Research Quarterly, 18, 89-104.
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357-371.
Methewson, G. C. (1985).Toward a comprehensive model of affect in the reading process. In H. Singer and R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, (pp. 841-856). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1981). Basic research on prose comprehension: A critical review. In D. F. Fisher & C. W. Peters(Eds). Comprehension and the competent reader : Interspaciality perspectives. New York: Praeger.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. Britton, & J. Black (Eds.), Unerstanding expository text (pp.11-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1981). Information recall from prose by young, middle, and old adults. Experimental Aging Research, 7, 253-268.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. H. & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key or reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72-103.
Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-209.
Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F & Georgi, M. C. (1994). How students use texts to learn and reason about historical uncertainty. In M. Carretero & J. F. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 257-283). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 16-20.
Richgels, D. J., McGee, L. M., Lomax, R. G., Sheard, C. (1987). Awareness of four text structures: Effects on recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(2), 177-196.
Roller, C. M. (1990). Commentary: The interaction between knowledge and structure variables in the processing of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 79-89.
Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A. & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple source of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Education Psychology, 88(3), 478-493.
Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A.& Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 85-106.
Schnotz, W. (1984). Comparative instructional text. In H. Mandhl, N. Stein, & T Trabasso (Eds.). Learning and the comprehension of text (pp.53-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Spilich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Text processing of domain related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 257-273.
Spyridakis, J. H., Standal, T. C. (1987). Signal in expository prose: Effects on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 285-298
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.
Taylor, B. (1980). Childern’s memory for expository text after reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 399-411.
Taylor, B. M., & Samuels, S. J. (1983). Children’s use of text structure in the recall of expository material. American Educational Research Journal. 20, 517-528.
Valencia, S. W., Stallman, A. C., Commeryras, M., Pearson, P. D., & Hartman, D. K. (1991). Four Measures of topical knowledge: A study of construct validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 204-233
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Walker, C. H. (1987).Relative importance of domain knowledge and overall aptitude on acquisition of domain-related information. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 25-42.
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), 73-87.
Wineburg, S. S. (1994). The cognitive representation of historical texts. In G. Leinhardt, I. L. Beck, & C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in History (pp.85-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yekovich, F. R.,Walker, C. H., Ogle, L. T., & Thompson, M. A. (1990). The influence of domain knowledge on inferencing in low-aptitude individuals. In A. C. Graesser & G. H. Bower (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, vol. 25: Inferences and text comprehension. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Yochum N. (1991). Children’s learning from informational text: The relationship between prior knowledge and text structure. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(1), 87-108.