臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　閱讀是科學學習的途徑之一，多數學習者透過閱讀來建構科學概念，在閱讀過程中，學習者會監控並調整閱讀行為和狀態，以提升學習成效。然而學習者本身工作記憶廣度的大小會影響其認知資源上的分配，採取不同的SRL策略類型或組合，導致不同的閱讀理解表現，但過去的研究並未深入探討工作記憶廣度與閱讀歷程間的關聯性。故本研究目的在於分析工作記憶廣度如何影響學習者在SRL策略使用上的不同，進而影響其閱讀理解表現。
　　本研究採質量混合設計，探討非生物主修之大學生於網路平台進行科學文本線上閱讀的自我調節學習行為和表現。本研究以參與者的先備概念測驗表現來確認其對文章內容的概念很有限，接著以分類工作記憶廣度測驗表現進行分組，請參與者進行線上科學文本閱讀任務。在進行閱讀任務的過程中，錄下參與者以滑鼠輔助閱讀等行為及放聲思考所展現的閱讀歷程與理解內容，以分析不同工作記憶廣度的參與者，其SRL策略的使用類型與頻率和閱讀理解表現是否不同?有何不同?除量化資料外，研究者亦以工作記憶廣度高、中、低三組中的高理解和低理解典型個案各兩名，以分析不同廣度的參與者在閱讀任務中使用的SRL策略的模式與類型如何影響閱讀理解的表現。
　　研究結果顯示，參與者工作記憶廣度的大小與其閱讀理解表現並未呈現顯著正相關，但部分認知策略如總結、推論和連結資訊等，則與閱讀理解表現呈顯著正相關；並另有少部分認知策略如假設、重新閱讀等與閱讀理解表現為負相關。分組比較的結果亦發現，高、中、低工作記憶廣度的參與者，在使用SRL策略的類型與頻率上並無顯著差異，唯中、低工作記憶廣度的參與者使用較多「控制情境」策略輔助閱讀，且中廣度者顯著使用較多「重新閱讀」認知策略來閱讀。質性資料則進一步說明，無論工作記憶廣度大小，當參與者能使用較多有助理解的認知策略，且交互使用後設認知及認知策略、利用後設認知策略來判斷所閱讀的訊息是否有助理解，且將注意力放在重要訊息上加以組織，則能建立較高理解層次的推理命題或延伸概念，展現較佳的閱讀理解表現，唯工作記憶廣度較為不足的參與者，閱讀過程中常輔以「控制情境」策略協助閱讀。然而當參與者使用較多無助理解的認知策略，如假設、重新閱讀等，且較少使用「控制情境」策略幫助閱讀，則大多僅能組織段落內相關訊息產生文意命題，極少整合或連結跨段落內相關訊息，則無法達到較高層次的理解程度。
　　本研究顯示在閱讀理解過程中，學習者的工作記憶廣度大小會影響閱讀理解過程的認知和後設認知策略使用模式，進而影響閱讀理解表現。中、低廣度的學習者可運用控制情境策略來克服工作記憶廣度較小的限制，達到同樣的閱讀理解表現。

Reading is one of the ways in learning science, and most learners learn science concepts through reading. According to current SRL model, learners automatically monitor and regulate their reading behavior and learning status to understand the text. Previous studies have shown that the learners’ working memory span may affect their allocation of cognitive resources and use of SRL strategies in read, which may result in difference in reading comprehension. However, previous studies did not explore whether working memory span would affect SRL behaviors in reading nor the relationship between and among working memory span, use of SRL and reading comprehension. The purpose of this study is to analyze whether and how the working memory span affect learners’ use of SRL strategies in reading a science text, and whether the difference in working memory span and SRL results in different reading comprehension performance.
This study used a mixed-method approach to explore non-biology majored college students’ SRL behaviors and reading comprehension when reading a science text in a computer-based learning environment. A biology concept test was used to assess if the participants possessed little understanding about the topic of the text. A categorization working memory span test was then implemented to assess the participants’ working memory span.
During the reading task, tools were given to allow the participants to highlight sentences when they read, and the participants were asked to think-aloud during the entire reading process. The participants’ non-verbal reading behaviors and audio data of self-reported thinking process were recorded and transcribed for further analysis. The researcher analyzed and compared differences in types and frequencies of SRL strategies as well as performance of reading comprehension for groups with high, medium, and low span of working memory span. Qualitative case studies were conducted on high and low performers with high, medium, and low span in order to understand if their SRL patterns affected the reading comprehension.
The results showed that there was no significant positive correlation between the working memory span and performance of reading comprehension. Some cognitive strategies, such as summarization, inference, and coordination of information sources were significantly and positively correlated with reading performance. Negative correlations were found between reading performance and few cognitive strategies, including hypothesizing and re-reading. Comparisons between the groups with high, medium, or low working memory span indicated that no difference was found on the types and frequencies of SRL strategies, except that learners with medium span used significantly more re-reading than their counter parts. Participants with medium and low working memory span used more control of context during reading.
The qualitative analysis indicated that, regardless the working memory span, the participants could effectively combine metacognitive and cognitive strategies to help them understand the text. The high performers paid attention on inferring and summarizing important information to build their understanding and utilized metacognitive strategies to evaluate whether the information they just read was relevant and adequate to the key ideas of the text. Thus, the high performers generated more propositions about key concepts of the text and achieve the level of situational understanding. Only the participants with the lower working memory span frequently used control of context strategy to facilitate their read process. Low performers, on the other hand, more frequently used strategies such as hypothesizing and re-reading; in addition, less control of context were used while reading the text. They could only coordinate information within the same paragraph and seldom linked the relevant information across paragraphs. Thus, they understood the text at the text-based level and mainly synthesized propositions for substance understanding rather than for conceptual understanding.
This study concluded that working memory span affects learners’ patterns of metacognitive and cognitive strategies during reading process and, in turn, may result in different level of reading comprehension. Moreover, learners with medium and low working memory span can achieve equal performance on reading comprehension by using control of context appropriately to facilitate information processing.

目 錄
中文摘要 ···································································································· i
英文摘要··································································································· ii
誌謝········································································································· iv
目錄·········································································································· v
表目錄······································································································ vii
圖目錄·····································································································viii
一、緒論··································································································· 1
1. 1 研究動機······················································································ 1
1. 2 研究問題與假設············································································· 2
1. 3 名詞解釋······················································································ 3
1. 3. 1 閱讀理解表現······································································· 3
1. 3. 2 自我調整學習策略································································· 3
1. 3. 3 工作記憶廣度······································································· 3
二、文獻探討····························································································· 4
2. 1 閱讀理解······················································································ 4
2. 1. 1 閱讀理解歷程······································································· 4
2. 1. 2 閱讀理解評量······································································· 5
2. 2 自我調整學習················································································ 6
2. 2. 1 自我調整學習理論································································· 6
2. 2. 2 自我調整學習能力的評量························································ 8
2. 3 工作記憶····················································································· 10
2. 3. 1 Baddeley和Hitch的工作記憶模型··········································· 10
2. 3. 2 工作記憶廣度測驗································································ 10
2. 4 閱讀理解、自我調整學習與工作記憶間的關聯性································· 11
2. 4. 1 閱讀理解與自我調整學習間的關聯性······································· 11
2. 4. 2 閱讀理解與工作記憶廣度間的關聯性······································· 12
2. 4. 3 自我調整學習與工作記憶廣度間的關聯性································· 13
三、研究方法···························································································· 15
3. 1 研究架構····················································································· 15
3. 2 研究對象····················································································· 15
3. 3 研究工具····················································································· 16
3. 3. 1 工作記憶廣度測驗································································ 16
3. 3. 2 先備概念測驗······································································ 19
3. 3. 3 純文字科學文章··································································· 19
3. 4 研究流程····················································································· 24
3. 5 資料分析····················································································· 25
四、研究結果與分析··················································································· 26
4. 1 工作記憶廣度、SRL策略與閱讀理解表現之描述性分析························ 26
4. 2 工作記憶廣度、SRL策略與閱讀理解表現之相關性分析························ 29
4. 3 工作記憶廣度與SRL策略之描述性及推論性分析································ 33
4. 4 工作記憶廣度、SRL策略與閱讀理解表現之放聲思考分析····················· 37
4. 4. 1 高理解參與者於SRL策略使用模式與類型之異同處···················· 39
4. 4. 2 低理解參與者於SRL策略使用模式與類型之異同處···················· 51
五、結論與建議························································································· 61
5. 1 結論與討論·················································································· 61
5. 1. 1 工作記憶廣度、SRL策略與閱讀理解表現之統計分析·················· 61
5. 1. 2 工作記憶廣度、SRL策略與閱讀理解表現之質性分析·················· 62
5. 1. 3 小結·················································································· 63
5. 2 建議··························································································· 64
5. 2. 1 教學上的啟示與應用····························································· 64
5. 2. 2 未來研究發展之建議····························································· 64
參考文獻·································································································· 65
一、中文部分······················································································ 65
二、英文部分······················································································ 65
附錄一 純文字科學文章············································································· 70
附錄二 閱讀理解命題編碼表······································································· 71
附錄三 SRL策略編碼表············································································· 73
附錄四 參與者閱讀歷程特徵分析表······························································ 74

參考文獻
一、中文部分
王石番(1989)。傳播內容分析法-理論與實證。臺北市：幼獅文化。
吳訓生(2002)。國小高、低閱讀理解能力學生閱讀理解策略之比較研究。特殊教育學報，16，65-104。
張哲維(2009)。探討不同類型多媒體教材對低工作記憶能力者之學習成效─以國中數學「式子的化簡」為例(碩士論文)。取自
https://ir.nctu.edu.tw/bitstream/11536/43938/1/352701.pdf
張菀真、辜玉旻(2011)。國小高、低閱讀能力學童圖文閱讀的理解策略。臺北市立教育大學學報，42(2)，93-122。
鄭俐玲(2001)。工作記憶子成分與中文閱讀之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台東師範學院，台東市。


二、英文部分
Azevedo, R., Greene, J. A., & Moos, D. C. (2007). The effect of a human agent’s external regulation upon college students’ hypermedia learning. Metacognition
Learning, 2, 67–87.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974).Working Memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent advance in learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-90). New York: Academic Press.
Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning From Text With Diagrams: Promoting Mental Model Development and Inference Generation. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(1), 182-197.
Bühner, M., Kröner, S., & Ziegler, M. (2008). Working memory, visual-spatial-intelligence and their relationship to problem-solving. Intelligence, 36, 672-680.
Carretti, B., Borella, E., Cornoldi, C., & De Beni, R. (2009). Role of working memory inexplaining the performance of individuals with specific reading comprehension difficulties: A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences,19, 246-251.
Carretti, B., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Palladino, P. (2004). What happens to information to be suppressed in working-memory tasks? Short and long term effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A(6), 1059-1084. doi: 10.1080/02724980343000684
Carretti, B., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Romanò, M. (2005). Updating in working memory : A comparison of good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91, 45-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2005.01.005
Cain, K., Lemmon, K., & Oakhill, J. (2004). Individual Differences in the Inference of Word Meanings From Context: The Influence of Reading Comprehension,
Vocabulary Knowledge, and Memory Capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology,96(4), 671-681. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671
Carretti, B., Mammarella, I. C., & Borella, E. (2011). Age differences in proactive interference in verbal and visuospatial working memory. Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, iFirst, 1-13. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2011.603695
Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 59-74. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.002
Daneman, M. D., & Caperter, P. A. (1980). Individual Differences in Working Memory and Reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
De Beni, R., Palladino, P., Pazzaglia, F., & Cornoldi, C.(1998). Increases in Intrusion Errors and Working Memory Deficit of Poor Comprehenders. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51(2),305-320.
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-Term Working Memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211-245.
Fox, E. (2009). The Role of Reader Characteristics in Processing and Learning From Informational Text. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 197-261.
Gerbner, G. (1969). Toward “Cultural Indicators”: The Analysis of Mass Mediated Message Systems. AV Communication Review, 17(2), 137-148.
Graesser, A. C., & Britton, B. K. (1996). Five metaphors for text understanding. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 341-351).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430-445.
Hathorn, L. G., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). The roles of embedded monitoring requests and questions in improving mental models of computer-based scientific text.
Computers & Education, 59, 1021-1031.
Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. J. H. (2008). Criteria, strategies and research issues of context-aware ubiquitous learning. Journal of Educational Technology
& Society, 11(2), 81-91.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. The American Psychologist, 49(4), 294-303.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris, & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's Reading Comprehension and Assessment (pp.71-92). Mahwah,
N. J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Gemballa, S. (2011). Can differences in learning strategies explain the benefits of learning from static and dynamic visualizations? Computers & Education, 56, 176-187. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.008
Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, 177–189.
Lau, K. L. (2006). Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: A think-aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 383-399.
Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177-190.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Elzen-Rump, V. d. (2007). Self-Regulated Learning with a Text-Highlighting Strategy. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215(3), 174-182.
McNeil, L. (2011). Investigating the contributions of background knowledge and reading comprehension strategies to L2 reading comprehension: an exploratory study. Read Writ, 24, 883-902.
Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 615-629.
Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp.291-309). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
(pp.451-502). CA: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Palladino, P., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Pazzaglia, F. (2001). Working memory and updating processes in reading comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 29(2), 344-354.
Park, H.-R., & Kim, D. (2011). Reading-strategy use by English as a second language learners in online reading tasks. Computers & Education, 57, 2156-2166.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293-316.
Passolunghi, M. C., & Mammarella, I. C. (2010). Spatial and visual working memory ability in children with difficulties in arithmetic word problem solving. European
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(6), 944-963.
Radvansky, G. A., & Copeland, D. E. (2001). Working memory and situation model updating. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1073–1080.
Rawson, K., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1004–1010.
Swanson, H. L. (1994). Short-term Memory and Working Memory: Do Both Contribute to Our Understanding of Academic Achievement in Child and Adults With Learning Disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(1), 34-50.
Samuelstuen, M. S., & Braten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge, and strategies in comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46(2), 107-117.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition as Part of a Broader Perspective on Learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.
Smith, B. L., Holliday, W. G., & Austin, H. W. (2010). Students’ Comprehension of Science Textbooks Using a Question-Based Reading Strategy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 363-379.
Swanson, H. L., Jerman, O., & Zheng, X. (2008). Growth in working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math
difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 343-379.
Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2001). Mathematic problem solving and working memory in children with learning disabilities: Both executive and phonological
processes are important. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 294-321.
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The Nature of Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity: Active Maintenance in Primary Memory and Controlled Search from Secondary Memory. Psychological Review, 114(1), 104-
132.
Unsworth, N., Redick, T. S., Spillers, G. J., & Brewer, G. A. (2012). Variation in working memory capacity and cognitive control: Goal maintenance and microadjustments of control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(2), 326-355.
van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist approaches in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299–316.
Weaver, C. A. (1990). Constraining factors in calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 214–222.
Weaver, C. A., Bryant, D. S., & Burns, K. D. (1995). Comprehension monitoring: Extensions of the Kintsch and van Dijk model. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, & C.
Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honour of Walter Kintsch (pp. 177–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173-187.
Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327-353.
Winne, P. H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 397-410.
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the Comprehension in Metacomprehension. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(4), 408-428.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp.277-304). Mahwah, N. J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
531-566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of self-regulation
(pp. 13-39). CA: Academic Press.
Zheng, X., Swanson, H. L., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Working memory components as predictors of children’s mathematical word problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 481-498.