本研究的主要目的是在探討概念構圖策略對閱讀理解能力的促進是否具有立即效果與遷移效果，並提出概念構圖的學習步驟，以供未來學習概念構圖的參考。
本研究以台北市吳興國小五年級四個班級126名學生作為研究對象，隨機分派為四組，分別以概念圖的改錯、概念圖的鷹架學習、概念圖的自行建構及不使用概念圖輔助閱讀。其結果發現：(1)概念圖的使用方式對國小學童的閱讀理解能力的促進效果是 概念圖的改錯明顯優於概念圖的鷹架學習、概念圖的自行建構與不使用概念構圖，而後三者之間並沒有顯著的差異存在。(2) 概念圖的使用方式對國小學童的摘要能力的促進效果是 概念圖的改錯明顯優於概念圖的鷹架學習、概念圖的自行建構與不使用概念構圖以及概念圖的鷹架學習優於概念圖的自行構圖，而概念圖的自行構圖與不使用概念構圖之間沒有顯著差異存在。(3)不同的概念圖使用方式，對不同閱讀能力學習者在閱讀理解能力與摘要能力的促進上，並沒有造成不同的輔助效果。

The main purpose of this research is to investigate the immediate and transfer effects of concept mapping on reading comprehension.
The subjects were 126 fifth grade readers from an elementary school in Taipei city. Through random assignment, the readers were assigned to one of four treatment groups: "Concept Map Error Detecting", "Concept Map Scaffolded Learning", "Concept Map Self-Constructing" and "Control" groups.
Through this experiment, we find three results: (1) In the immediate effect of concept mapping on reading comprehension, the "Concept Map Error Detecting" group scores significantly higher than the other three groups, which score no significant differences among one another. (2) In the transfer effect of concept mapping on summarization , the "Concept Map Error Detecting" group scores significantly higher than the other groups. And "Concept Map Scaffolded Learning" group scores significantly higher than "Concept Map Self-Constructing" and "Control" groups which score no significant differences between each other.

目錄
附表目錄………………………………………………………………… vi
附圖目錄………………………………………………………………… vii
第一章 緒 論………………………………………………………………1
第二章 文獻探討………………………………………………………… 5
2-1閱讀理解的意義……………………………………………………… 5
2-2閱讀理解策略的相關研究…………………………………………… 6
2-2-1 促進閱讀理解能力的策略類型……………………………………6
2-2-2 圖解策略相關研究探討……………………………………………8
2-2-3 摘要策略相關研究探討……………………………………………12
2-3概念構圖理論及相關研究…………………………………………… 14
2-4 鷹架教學原理相關介紹………………………………………………18
2-5 研究設計………………………………………………………………20
第三章 研究方法………………………………………………………… 29
3-1 實驗對象………………………………………………………………29
3-2 實驗設計………………………………………………………………29
3-3 實驗教材………………………………………………………………30
3-4 實驗工具………………………………………………………………32
3-5 實施程序………………………………………………………………34
第四章 實驗結果與討論…………………………………………………35
4-1不同概念圖使用方式促進閱讀理解能力之成效分析……………… 35
4-2不同概念圖使用方式促進摘要能力之成效分析…………………… 39
4-3概念構圖問卷分析…………………………………………………… 42
4-4討論…………………………………………………………………… 44
第五章 結論與未來發展方向…………………………………………… 50
5-1結論…………………………………………………………………… 50
5-2未來發展方向………………………………………………………… 51
附錄一 前測試題………………………………………………………… 52
附錄二 後測試題………………………………………………………… 59
附錄三 訓練課程教材…………………………………………………… 66
附錄四 概念構圖問卷…………………………………………………… 83
附錄五 概念構圖閱讀輔助系統………………………………………… 84
參考著作……………………………………………………………………99

余民寧(1997），有意義的學習─概念構圖之研究。商鼎文化出版社。
宋德忠，林清山(1997)，分佈表徵記亦與語言間翻譯促發效果。中華心理學刊，39卷1期，1-19頁。
宋德忠，陳淑芬和張國恩(1998)，電腦化概念構圖系統在知識結構測量上的應用。測驗年看，45輯2期，37-56頁。
張國恩，陳世旺和宋德忠(1997)，電腦化概念構圖在科學教育的應用（1）。國科會研究報告：NSC87-2511-S-003-042。
張國恩，陳世旺和宋德忠(1998)，電腦化概念構圖在科學教育的應用（11）。國科會研究報告：NSC88-2520-S-003-003。
陳淑絹(1995），「指導─合作學習」教學策略增進國小學童閱讀理解能力之實徵研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
黃台珠(1994)，八十三年度<概念圖在國生物教學上的成效研究(I)行政院國家科學委員會科學教育專題研究成果報告。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所。
蘇宜芬（1991），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。
Alverman, D. E. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive text. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 44-48.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. London: Harvard College.
Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1984). Mapping : Representing informative text diagrammatically. In C.D. Holley & D.F. Dansereau (ED.), Spatial learning strategies: Techniques, applications, and related issues. New York : Academic Press.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (ED.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.
Barron, R. F., & Schwartz, R. M. (1984). Traditional post organizers: A spatial learning strategy. In C. D. Holley & D. F. Dansereau (Eds.), Spatial learning strategies: Techniques, applications, and related issues (pp. 275-289). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Barron, R. F., & Stone, V. F. (1974). Effect of student-constructed traditional post organizers upon learning vocabulary relationships. In P. L. Nacke (Ed.), Interaction: Research and practice for college-adult reading (pp. 172-175). Clemson, SC: Twenty-third Yearbook of the National Reading Conference.
Bean, T. W., Sorter, J., Singer, H., & Frazee, C. (1986). Teaching students how to make predictions about events in history with a graphic organizer plus options guide. Journal of Reading, 739-745.
Briscoe, C., & LaMaster, S. U. (1991). Meaningful learning in college biology through concept mapping. The American Biology Teacher, 53, 214-219.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of experties. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York: W.W. Norton.
Camperell, K., & Reeves, C. (1982) Effects of training junior college students to use networking techniques to understand and study technical texts. Presentation, 26th Annual Meeting of the College Reading Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Camperell, K., & Smith, L. L. (1982). Improving comprehension through the use of networking. Paper presented at the south-easten regional conference of the International Reading Association, Biloxi, MS.
Cazden, C. B., (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Protsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt(1993). Integrated media: Toward a theoretical framework for utilizing their potential. Journal of Special Education Technology. 12, 71-85.
Chmielewski, T. L., Dansereau, D. F., & Moreland, J. L. (1998). Using common region in node-link displays: The role of field dependence/independence. Journal of Experimental Education, 66, 197-207.
Cliburn, J. W., Jr.(1990). Concept maps to promote meaningful learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 19, 212-217.
Dansereau, D. F. & Newbern, D. (1997). Using knowledge maps to enhance teaching. In W. E Campbell & K. A. Smith (Eds.), New paradigms for college teaching (pp. 125-147). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Day, J. D., & Cordon, L.A. (1993). Static and dynamic measures of ability: An experimental comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 75-82.
Dowhower, S. L. (1999). Supporting a strategic stance in the classroom: A comprehension framework for helping teachers help students to be strategic. The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 672-688.
Durfee, M. (1988). Writing with students: Becoming a community of learners. College Teaching, 36, 12-15.
Dyson, A. H. (1990). Weaving possibilities: Rethinking metaphors for early literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 44(3), 202-213.
Evans, S. H., & Dansereau, D. F. (1991). Knowledge maps as tools for thinking and communication. In P. Mulcahy, R. Short, & J. Andrews (Eds.), Enhancing learning and thinking (pp. 97-120). New York: Praeger.
Gaffney, J. S., & Anderson, R. C. (1991). Two-tiered scaffolding: Congruent processes of teaching and learning. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literachy for a diverse society: Perspectives, programs and policies. NY: Teachers College Press.
Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarization: Cost and benefit. Journal of Educational Research, 75(5), 275-279.
Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition, Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.
Griffin, C. C., Malone, L. D., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995). Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 98-107.
Hidi, S., & Anderson V. (1986). Producting written summaries : Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 473-493.
Holley, C. D., & Dansereau, D. F.(1984). Spatial learning strategies: Techniques, applications, and related issues. New York: Academic Press.
Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., Soloway, E. (1995). Learner-centered software design to support students building models. Paper presented at the 1995 AERA Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
Kao, M. T. (1996). Scaffolding in hypermedia assisted instruction: An example of integration. Report.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Lerner, J. W. (1989). Learning disabilities. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Lloyd, C. V.(1990). The elaboration of concepts in three biology textbooks: Facilitating student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27,1019-1032.
Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A.(1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Expextional Children,58(3),270-279.
Mayer, R. E. (1987) Educational psychology : a cognitive approach. Boston : Little, Brown.
McCagg, E. C., & Dansereau, D. F. (1991). A convergent paradigm for examining knowledge mapping as a learning and recall strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 317-324.
Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1984) A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 11-17.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press.
Pass, F. G. W., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in educational research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419-430.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Posner, G. J., & Rudnitsky, A. (1986). Course design: A guide to curriculum development for teachers. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Reutzel, D. R. (1984). Story mapping: an alternative approach to comprehension. Reading World, 16-25.
Rewey, K. L., Dansereau, D. F., Skaggs, L. P., Hall, R. H., & Pitre, U. (1989). Effects of scripted cooperation and knowledge maps on the processing of technical information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 604-609.
Ringler, L. H., & Weber, C. (1984). A language-thinking approach to reading. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 99-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmid, R. F., & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept Mapping as an Instructional Strategy for High School Biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84(2), 78-85.
Sears, S., Carpenter, C., & Burstein, N. (1994). Meaningful reading instruction for learners with special needs. The Reading Teacher, 47(8), 632-638.
Snouffer, N. K. & Thistlethwaite, L. L. (1980). The effects of the structured overview and vocabulary pre-teaching upon comprehension levels of college freshmen reading physical science and history materials. Journal of the Association for the Study of Perception, 11-16.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
Taylor, B., & Beach, R. (1984) The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134-146.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Weisberg, R. (1988). A Change in Focus of Reading Comprehension Research: A Review of Reading/Learning Disabilities Research Based on an Interactive Model of Reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(2), 149-59.
Weisberg, R., & Balajthy, E. (1990). Development of disabled readers'''' meatcomprehension ability through summarization training using expository text: Results of three studies. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disibilities, 6, 117-136.
Wiograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(4), 404-425.
Wittrock, M. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95.