臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

概念圖常用於科學學習，是一種能將內在知識結構表徵於外的工具，過去研究缺乏自我調節學習(SRL)特質是否影響概念圖輔助學習成效之探討。本研究探討具有高、低SRL能力的學生，使用專家概念圖或自創概念圖輔助閱讀有關血液循環科學文本的閱讀理解成效。本研究採質量混合設計。參與班級隨機分配使用研究者提供的專家概念圖或自己創作概念圖進行閱讀理解。本研究者亦使用量表分出每班的高、低SRL組別。所有學生均接受30分鐘的概念圖教學活動，再進行45分鐘的線上閱讀理解任務。本研究另自各班的高、低SRL組隨機抽取 3人，共24人，放聲說出使用概念圖進行閱讀理解的思考過程，分析其閱讀理解歷程、概念圖使用方式，以及SRL策略對使用概念圖輔助閱讀理解歷程之影響。
量化分析發現，自創概念圖或使用專家概念圖於理解基礎概念、圖文整合以及心智模式建立的成效差不多。高、低SRL學習者使用兩種概念圖於理解基礎概念、圖文整合以及心智模式建立的輔助成效也無顯著差異。細部分析則發現，專家概念圖對高SRL學習者於前述三個方面較有幫助，而低SRL在文本基礎理解階段適合用自創概念圖，在情境理解和心智模式建立階段，則兩種類型的概念圖皆無幫助。本研究根據質性分析結果提出高、低SRL個案自創概念圖或使用專家概念圖的文意命題和推理命題表現、以及SRL策略表現摘要表。本研究亦比較高、低SRL學習者使用不同概念圖類型輔助閱讀簡單和複雜的文本段落時，閱讀理解的歷程中展現哪些特徵、或發生哪些困難而影響閱讀理解表現品質。個案分析的結果不僅支持量化研究之發現，本研究亦提出高、低SRL學習者由於SRL能力不同，使用自創概念圖或專家概念圖輔助閱讀理解時所展現的閱讀理解特徵。
本研究說明高、低SRL能力如何影響自創概念圖或專家概念圖幫助閱讀理解之歷程，以及提供實質證據確認概念圖於閱讀理解過程中扮演的角色。本研究亦對如何針對高、低SRL能力之學生設計概念圖教學活動以及認知和後設認知鷹架提供教學上的建議。

Concept mapping can externalize inner knowledge structure and, therefore, is a common aid in science learning. Doing concept mapping can be demanding, and yet the extent to which self-regulated learning (SRL) influences effectiveness of concept mapping is unexplored. This study explored influence of SRL skills on effectiveness of using learner- or expert-generated concept map to assist reading comprehension. This study is a mixed method study. Four classes were randomly assigned into one of the two conditions: using learner-generated or expert-generated concept map to assist reading comprehension. Participants of each class were categorized into high or low SRL groups based on their source of a SRL survey. All students received a 30-minute instruction about concept mapping, followed by a 45-minute task on reading an explanatory text about blood circulation. Three students of the high and of the low SRL groups from each class were invited to think-aloud during the task. Their strategies of SRL and of concept mapping, as well as process of reading comprehension were analyzed.

Quantitative results showed that learner- or expert-generated concept map has similar effects on conceptual understanding, graph-text integrations, and mental model construction. The effects did not varied for the high and the low SRL students. Data of more in-depth analyses suggested that expert-generated map better assisted high SRL students for achieving textbase understanding and situation model. On the other hand, learner-generated map was more suitable for textbase understanding of the low SRL students. Either concept mapping condition was not helpful for mental model construction for the low SRL group. For case studies, numbers of synthesized propositions and demonstrated SRL strategies were compared for the high and the low SRL groups and for both concept mapping conditions. Characteristics for using concept mapping to assist reading comprehension were summarized for cross-group comparisons. Our qualitative findings support the quantitative results.

This study provides evidence for the role that concept mapping plays in reading comprehension and for explaining how SRL skills influence effectiveness of learner- or expert-generated concept mapping on facilitating reading comprehension. This study has implications on designing concept mapping instructions and scaffolds for students with high and low SRL skills.

中文摘要 i
ABSTRACT iii
誌謝 v
目錄 vi
圖目錄 x
表目錄 xii
第一章、緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 3
1.3 研究問題與假設 3
1.4 名詞釋義 4
1.4.1. 閱讀理解 4
1.4.2. 心智模式 4
1.4.3. 閱讀理解歷程 5
1.4.4. 自我調節學習歷程 6
1.5 研究範圍與限制 7
第二章、文獻探討 8
2.1 閱讀理解 8
2.1.1. 閱讀理解定義 8
2.1.2. 閱讀理解歷程理論 10
2.1.3. 科學閱讀理解歷程中心智模式建立的困難 13
2.1.4. 概念圖定義與內涵 14
2.1.5. 概念圖的組成與功能 15
2.2 概念圖輔助閱讀理解歷程 16
2.2.1. 概念圖幫助閱讀理解的相關研究 16
2.2.2. 概念圖幫助閱讀理解的歷程 17
2.3 自我調節學習 19
2.3.1. 自我調節學習定義和內涵 19
2.3.2. 自我調節學習的評量 21
2.3.3. 自我調節學習與閱讀理解 22
2.4 自我調節學習和概念圖於閱讀理解上的相關研究 24
第三章、研究方法 27
3.1 研究對象 27
3.2 研究設計與流程 27
3.3 研究工具 30
3.3.1. 血液循環概念測驗 30
3.3.2. 科學閱讀自我調整學習策略量表 34
3.3.3. 血液循環科學文本 35
3.3.4. 血液循環專家概念圖 39
3.3.5. 血液循環心智模式評分表和閱讀命題編碼表 42
3.3.6. 概念圖閱讀理解訪談 45
3.3.7. 概念圖閱讀理解自我調節行為編碼表 47
3.4 教學設計 49
3.5 資料分析 53
3.5.1. 血液循環概念表現分析: 53
3.5.2. 閱讀理解表現分析 53
3.5.3. 閱讀理解過程中展現之自我調節學習能力分析 54
第四章、結果與討論 56
4.1 不同概念圖類型對血液循環概念測驗表現分析 56
4.1.1. 血液循環概念測驗之敘述性統計分析 56
4.1.2. 血液循環概念測驗選擇題之敘述性和推論性統計分析 56
4.1.3. 血液循環概念測驗配合題之敘述性和推論性統計分析 58
4.1.4. 血液循環概念表現短文寫作(心智模式)敘述性和推論性統計分析 59
4.2 不同概念圖類型和自我調節學習能力高低對血液循環概念表現之影響 61
4.2.1. 概念圖類型和自我調節學習能力對於血液循環概念測驗表現分析 61
4.2.2. 自我調節學習能力對「血液循環概念測驗選擇題」表現之敘述統計和推論性統計分析 63
4.2.3. 自我調節學習能力對「血液循環概念測驗配合題」表現之敘述統計和推論性統計分析 65
4.2.4. 自我調節學習能力對「血液循環概念測驗短文寫作題」(心智模式)表現之敘述統計和推論性統計分析 67
4.3 高、低自我調整學習能力表現之學生自創概念圖或使用專家概念圖輔助於血液循環閱讀理解之閱讀理解歷程表現分析 72
4.4 高、低自我調節學習能力表現之學生自創概念圖或使用專家概念圖輔助閱讀理解歷程中自我調節學習能力表現差異性分析 76
4.4.1. 自創組高低SRL簡單段落的閱讀理解表現 82
4.5 不同自我調節學習能力表現之學生自創概念圖或使用專家概念圖輔助閱讀理解之歷程與表現之關聯 95
4.5.1. 不同SRL之學習者自創概念圖閱讀理解歷程 95
4.5.2. 不同SRL之學習者使用專家概念圖閱讀理解歷程 119
第五章、結論與建議 147
5.1 結論 147
5.1.1. 使用自創概念圖或專家概念圖學生對於血液循環概念測驗表現的差異性 148
5.1.2. 不同自我調節學習能力表現之學生經由不同概念圖(自創概念圖和專家概念圖)輔助閱讀理解後，對血液循環概念測驗表現的差異性 148
5.1.3. 不同自我調節學習能力表現之學生(24人)在自創概念圖或使用專家概念圖輔助閱讀歷程中，其在閱讀頁面完成度、文意命題分數和推理命題分數之閱讀理解表現，和自我調整學習能力表現的差異性，如何影響閱讀理解歷程。 149
5.1.4. 不同自我調節學習能力表現之學生(24人)，如何運用SRL能力影響自創概念圖和使用專家概念圖輔助閱讀理解之歷程和品質 152
5.2 建議 155
5.2.1. 對未來研究的建議 155
5.2.2. 對教學與設計教材的建議 156
第六章、參考文獻 158
第七章、附錄 163
7.1 血液循環概念測驗 163
7.2 科學閱讀自我調整學習策略量表 167
7.3 血液循環科學文本 171
7.4 專家概念圖 175
7.5 血液循環心智模式評分表 176
7.6 閱讀理解評量編碼表 179
7.7 概念圖科學閱讀理解任務後的半結構式訪談大綱 185
7.8 概念圖教學活動的概念圖 191

中文部分:
許朝貴、耿正屏(1995)。 國一學生理解人體血液循環路逕的困難分析。科學教育6，1-26。
陳雅文(2004)。國小高年級學生閱讀理解策略量表編製研究。台中師範學院教育測驗統計所碩士班。
黃柏蒼(2003)。國一學生學習人體循環系統單元基模建構之探討。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士班。
黃珍鈴(2017)。探討閱讀科學超文本時，閱讀策略的自我效能，自我調整學習表現與閱讀理解表現之關連。國立交通大學教育研究所學位論文。
英文部分:
Akinsanya, C., & Williams, M. (2004). Concept mapping for meaningful learning. Nurse Education Today, 24(1), 41-46. .
Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: General discussion of the conference. In R. C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 415-431). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. Handbook of reading research, 1, 255-291.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view.
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students' learning with hypermedia? Journal of educational psychology, 96(3), 523.
Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary educational psychology, 29(3), 344-370.
Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students' conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1-2), 87-111.
Baker, L. (2003). Reading comprehension and science inquiry: Metacognitive connections. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspective on theory and practice (pp. 239–257). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.

Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & Mcnamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children's comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 137-164.
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation. European psychologist, 1(2), 100-112.
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13(1), 31-42.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of educational psychology, 96(1), 31.
Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., & hen, I.-D. (2002). The Effect of Concept Mapping to Enhance Text Comprehension and Summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(1), 5–23.
Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self‐explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive science, 13(2), 145-182.
Clifton, C., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1981). Integrating new information with old knowledge. Memory and Cognition, 9, 142-148.
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational psychologist, 18(2), 88-108.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nomial scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Ehrlich, M.-F., Remond, M., & Tardieu, H. (1999). Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: Differences in metacognitive monitoring. Reading and Writing, 11(1), 29-63.
Eme, E., Puustinen, M., & Coutelet, B. (2006). Individual and developmental differences in reading monitoring: When and how do children evaluate their comprehension? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(1), 91-115.
Guastello, E. F., & Beasley, T. M. (2000). Concept Mapping Effects on Science Content Comprehension of Low-Achieving Inner-City Seventh Graders. Remedial And Special Education, 21(6), 356-365.
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. Metacognition in educational theory and practice, 165-191.
Hanrahan, M. (2009). Bridging the literacy gap: Teaching the skills of reading and writing as they apply in school science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 289-304.
Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: what characterizes good and poor mappers? Instructional Science, 36(1), 53-73.
Hogan, K., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cognitive comparisons of students' systems modeling in ecology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 319-345.
Huang, L. (2005). Using concept mapping as a strategy to improve the English reading comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tzu Chi University, Hualian City, Taiwan.
Hyönä, J., Lorch, R., & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye movement measures to study global text processing. The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research, 313-334.
Jo, I. (2002). The effects of concept mapping on college students' comprehension of expository text.
Kinchin, I. M. (2000). cocept mapping in biology. Journal of biological Education, 34(2)
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4), 294.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, Y., & Nelson, D. W. (2005). Viewing or visualising—which concept map strategy works best on problem‐solving performance? British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 193-203.
Lim, K. Y., Lee, H. W., & Grabowski, B. (2009). Does concept-mapping strategy work for everyone? The levels of generativity and learners' self-regulated learning skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 606-618.
Liu, P.-L. (2014). Using eye tracking to understand learners' reading process through the concept-mapping learning strategy. Computers & Education, 78, 237-249.
Lorch Jr, R. F., & Lorch, E. P. (1996). Effects of headings on text recall and summarization. Contemporary educational psychology, 21(3), 261-278.
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(4), 357-371.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247-288.
Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of educational psychology, 94(2), 249.
Moorf, D. W., & Readence, J. F. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 11-17.
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008a). Monitoring, planning, and self-efficacy during learning with hypermedia: The impact of conceptual scaffolds. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1686-1706.
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008b). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary educational psychology,33(2), 270-298.
Novak, J. D. (1984). Learning how to learn: Cambridge.New York: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and veep diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29–52.
Novak, J. D. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools, 2006-01 Rev 01-2008.
O'donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71-86.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning: In handbook of self-regulation. (pp. 451-502).Academic Press.
Pomson, A. D. M., & Hoz, R. (1998). Sought and found: Adolescents' 'ideal' historical conceptions as unveiled by concept mapping. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(3), 319-337.
Rubman, C. N., & Salatas Waters, H. (2000). A, B seeing: The role of constructive processes in children's comprehension monitoring. Journal of educational psychology, 92(3), 503.
Ruddell, R. B., & Boyle, O. F. (1989). A study of cognitive mapping as a means to improve summarization and comprehension of expository text. Literacy Research and Instruction, 29(1), 12-22.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141-156.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.
Smith, K., & Dwyer, F. (1995). The effect of concept mapping strategies in facilitating student achievement. International Journal of Instructional Media, 22(1), 25-31.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension: Rand Corporation.
Stein, N. L., & Trabasso, T. (1981). What's in a story: An approach to comprehension and instruction. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report; no. 200.
Van den Broek, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39(2-3), 299-316.
Vanides, J., Yin, Y., Tomita, M., & Ridz-Primo, M. A. (2005). Using concept maps in the Science classroom. Science Scope , 28(8), 27-31
Wang, J. R., & Chen, S. F. (2014). Exploring mediating effect of metacognitive awareness on comprehension of science texts through structural equation modeling analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(2), 175-191.
Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol.2, pp. 230-245).New York: Longman.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies in M, wittrock (ED) hand book of research on teaching (pp. 315-327). New Yourk, Macillan.
Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (2010). Self-regulated learning and socio-cognitive theory. International encyclopedia of education, 5, 503-508.
Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational psychologist, 30(4), 173-187.
Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives, 2, 153-189.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531-566). Academic Press.
Yang, C.-C., Hwang, G.-J., Hung, C.-M., & Tseng, S.-S. (2013). An evaluation of the learning effectiveness of concept map-based science book reading via mobile devices. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 167-178.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Routledge.