臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在發展有效的圖像組織架構教學策略，以幫助學生釐清神經系統概念之間的關係，並探討圖像組織架構教學策略對國中學生學習相關概念的影響。本研究以臺北市某公立國中七年級六個班級154位學生為對象，採準實驗研究法，隨機將三個班級（N=85）做為實驗組，實施圖像組織架構教學策略（graphic organizer teaching strategy，簡稱GO教學策略）；另三個班級（N=69）做為對照組，進行傳統教學策略（traditional teaching strategy，簡稱TD教學策略）。研究流程包括前測、教學處置、後測、結構式晤談及延後測四個部分，所使用的研究工具包括神經系統單元自編教材、教學媒體教材、學習活動單及評量測驗試題。主要研究結果如下：
1.「教學策略」與「生物科學業成就」兩種因素在學生選擇題平均分數及各類型試題平均成績的表現沒有顯著交互作用。進一步分析「生物科學業成就」對學生學習的影響，結果顯示無論是GO教學策略或TD教學策略，兩組學生在神經系統單元選擇題測驗平均成績的表現與其生物科學習能力一致；分析「教學策略」的影響發現，GO組學生在選擇題後測總平均成績及知識類型試題平均成績皆顯著優於TD組學生，顯示GO教學策略對於學生知識層次的學習表現能夠產生立即的影響效果。
2.人體圖測驗結果發現，GO組學生在名詞回憶正確性的表現顯著優於TD組學生，且在「中樞神經、周圍神經、腦、脊髓、腦神經、脊神經」這六個名詞的正確作答平均數也顯著優於TD組，顯示GO教學策略有助於學生對構造名稱進行正確記憶，並能幫助學生回憶抽象性較高的名詞。
3.樹狀圖測驗結果發現，GO組學生在「腦神經與脊神經的定義」、「脊神經、腦神經與中樞的關係」、「感覺神經與運動神經的定義」、「運動神經、感覺神經與腦神經、脊神經的關係」概念的理解都顯著優於TD組學生的表現。
4.情境推論題測驗結果發現，GO組學生應用相關概念進行積極性正確推論的平均人數顯著優於TD組學生，而TD組學生在進行問題推論時，較GO組學生容易產生錯誤的判斷。此外，GO組學生在進行問題推論題時能精確地表達概念之間的關係，顯示接受GO教學策略的學生能夠產生較為精緻的概念架構，且在概念的理解與應用的品質上有較佳的表現。

The main purpose of this study is to develop a feasible teaching strategy of graphic organizer helping students to make sense of the relationships between concepts of nervous system, and to explore the effects of this strategy on learning for junior high school students. 154 of 7th grade students from a public junior high school of Taipei City were selected as target subjects and divided randomly into two groups, one as experimental group (N=85) treated with the graphic organizer teaching strategy (abbreviated as GO group), and the other as controlled group (N=69) treated with the traditional teaching strategy (abbreviated as TD group). The investigation procedure included the pretest, instruction treatments, the posttest, structured interviews and the delayed test. The instruments of this study involved adapted reading materials, instructional medium and assessment tests. The major results of the study were as follows:
1.There’s no interaction between the variables of “the teaching strategy” and “the academic achievement in the biology subject” on the influences of multiple choice test scores. Further analysis of “the academic achievement in the biology subject” effects showed that whatever the teaching strategy was, students’ performances on the multiple choice test scores were according with their academic achievement in the biology subject. With regard to “the teaching strategy” effects, not only the average scores of the multiple choice posttest but also the average scores of knowledge aspect items of GO group students were significantly higher than those of TD group students. These findings indicated that the graphic organizer teaching strategy could make immediate influences on students’ learning of the concepts on knowledge level.
2.With regard to the recall test of nervous system illustration, it showed that the GO group students performed significantly better than TD group students on the average scores of correct recall of the terms. Besides, GO group students got significant higher scores on certain terms such as “central nervous system, peripheral nervous system, brain, spinal cord, cranial nerve and spinal nerve”. These results indicated that the graphic organizer teaching strategy could help students to memorize the terms with more correctness and to recall those terms that were on much abstract level.
3.The findings of the tree map test revealed that the GO group students performed significantly better on the realization of “the definitions of cranial nerve and spinal nerve”, “the relationships between cranial nerve, spinal nerve and brain, spinal cord”, “the definitions of sensory neuron and motor neuron”, and “the relationships between sensory neuron, motor neuron and cranial nerve, spinal nerve”.
4.The results of the context inference test showed that with regard to the application of specific concepts in making active inferences, the students of GO group got significant higher scores than those of TD group. Furthermore, some of the GO group students could express exactly the relationships of concepts when answering the questions. These findings indicated that those students accepting the graphic organizer teaching strategy might establish more elaborative frameworks of concepts and could have better performances on the quality of concepts realization and application.

目 錄

第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 4
第三節 名詞釋義 5
第四節 研究限制 6
第貳章 文獻探討 7
第一節 結構性知識 7
第二節 圖像組織架構 12
第三節 神經系統單元相關研究 21
第四節 各版本教科書「神經系統單元」內容分析 32
第參章 研究方法 49
第一節 研究對象 49
第二節 研究流程 51
第三節 研究設計 52
第四節 研究工具 56
第五節 資料蒐集與分析 70
第肆章 研究結果與討論 73
第一節 選擇題測驗總得分分析 73
第二節 不同知識類型試題得分分析 81
第三節 晤談結果分析 98
第四節 學生另有概念分析 124
第伍章 結論與建議 135
第一節 研究結果摘要 135
第二節 研究建議 141
參考文獻 145
附 錄 153

表目錄

表2.2.1 圖像組織架構模式 13
表2.3.1 蘇格蘭大學生知覺學習困難的生物學單元 22
表2.3.2 生物概念診斷測驗—神經系統單元概念類型、生物概念與另有概念對照表 27
表2.4.1 A版本教科書在神經系統單元的章節安排與主要內容 34
表2.4.2 B版本教科書在神經系統單元的章節安排與主要內容 34
表2.4.3 C版本教科書在神經系統單元的章節安排與主要內容 35
表2.4.4 各版本教科書神經系統單元主要名詞比較表 36
表2.4.5 A版本神經系統單元概念分析 40
表2.4.6 B版本神經系統單元概念分析 41
表2.4.7 C版本神經系統單元概念分析 42
表3.1.1 兩種教學策略學生的前測成績比較 49
表3.1.2 兩種教學策略學生生物科學業平均成績的比較 50
表3.1.3 晤談對象學業成就分組人數表 50
表3.1.4 GO教學策略組與TD教學策略組 晤談學生選擇題後測成績的比較 50
表3.3.1 實驗設計與流程表 52
表3.3.2 【神經系統單元】GO教學策略組教學流程設計 54
表3.3.3 【神經系統單元】TD教學策略組教學流程設計 55
表3.4.1 研究工具一覽表 56
表3.4.2 神經系統選擇題測驗雙向細目表 59
表3.4.3 「神經系統選擇題測驗」各試題得分的平均數、標準差、鑑別指數、修正之試題-相關總分（rit），以及剔除該試題之後整體測驗的Cronbachα值（N=137） 60
表3.4.4 選擇題測驗難度分配表 60
表3.4.5 選擇題測驗鑑別度分配表 60
表3.4.6 人體神經系統樹狀圖概念關係編碼表 63
表3.4.7 樹狀圖概念理解測驗編碼及評分表 65
表3.4.8 人體圖測驗評分表 66
表3.4.9 情境推論題編碼及評分表 69
表3.5.1 研究資料蒐集彙整表 70
表4.1.1 兩種教學策略學生在前測、後測、延後測選擇題平均分數及標準差 73
表4.1.2 GO教學策略組 前測-後測、前測-延後測及後測-延後測相依樣本t考驗 74
表4.1.3 TD教學策略組 前測-後測、前測-延後測及後測-延後測相依樣本t考驗 74
表4.1.4 各學業成就分組學生的前測、後測及延後測平均成績及標準差 75
表4.1.5 兩種教學策略各學業成就分組學生的後測平均成績及標準差 76
表4.1.6 教學策略與學業成就分組在後測成績之共變數分析 76
表4.1.7 兩種教學策略學生在後測成績的主要效果事後比較 77
表4.1.8 三種學業成就分組學生在後測成績的主要效果事後比較 77
表4.1.9 兩種教學策略各學業成就分組學生的延後測平均成績及標準差 78
表4.1.10 教學策略與學業成就分組在延後測成績之共變數分析 79
表4.1.11 兩種教學策略學生在延後測成績的主要效果事後比較 79
表4.1.12 三種學業成就分組學生在延後測成績的主要效果事後比較 79
表4.2.1 兩種教學策略各學業成就分組學生後測知識類型試題平均成績及標準差 82
表4.2.2 教學策略與學業成就分組在後測知識類型試題成績之共變數分析 82
表4.2.3 兩種教學策略學生在後測知識類型試題成績的主要效果事後比較 82
表4.2.4 三種學業成就分組學生在後測知識類型試題成績的主要效果事後比較 83
表4.2.5 兩種教學策略各學業成就分組學生延後測知識類型試題平均成績及標準差 84
表4.2.6 教學策略與學業成就分組在延後測知識類型試題成績之共變數分析 84
表4.2.7 兩種教學策略學生在延後測知識類型試題成績的主要效果事後比較 84
表4.2.8 各學業成就分組學生在延後測知識類型試題成績的主要效果事後比較 85
表4.2.9 兩種教學策略各學業成就組學生後測理解類型試題平均成績及標準差 86
表4.2.10 教學策略與學業成就分組在後測理解類型試題成績之共變數分析 86
表4.2.11 兩種教學策略學生在後測理解類型試題成績的主要效果事後比較 86
表4.2.12 三種學業成就分組學生在後測理解類型試題成績的主要效果事後比較 87
表4.2.13 兩種教學策略各學業成就組學生延後測理解類型試題平均成績及標準差 88
表4.2.14 教學策略與學業成就分組在延後測理解類型試題成績之共變數分析 88
表4.2.15 兩種教學策略學生在延後測理解類型試題成績的主要效果事後比較 89
表4.2.16 三種學業成就分組學生延後測理解類型試題成績的主要效果事後比較 89
表4.2.17 兩種教學策略各學業成就組學生後測應用類型試題平均成績及標準差 90
表4.2.18 教學策略與學業成就分組在後測應用類型試題成績之共變數分析 90
表4.2.19 兩種教學策略學生在後測應用類型試題成績的主要效果事後比較 91
表4.2.20 三種學業成就分組學生在後測應用類型試題成績的主要效果事後比較 91
表4.2.21 兩種教學策略各學業成就組學生延後測應用類型試題平均成績及標準差 92
表4.2.22 教學策略與學業成就分組在延後測應用類型試題成績之共變數分析 92
表4.2.23 兩種教學策略學生在延後測應用類型試題成績的主要效果事後比較 93
表4.2.24 三種學業成就分組學生延後測應用類型試題成績的主要效果事後比較 93
表4.2.25 兩種教學策略學生後測及延後測各類型試題平均成績及標準差 96
表4.2.26 GO教學策略組後測不同類型試題成績相依樣本t考驗 96
表4.2.27 TD教學策略組後測不同類型試題成績相依樣本t考驗 96
表4.2.28 GO教學策略組各類型試題後測與延後測成績相依樣本t考驗 97
表4.2.29 TD教學策略組各類型試題後測與延後測成績相依樣本t考驗 97
表4.3.1 兩種教學策略學生在人體圖名稱的正確和錯誤作答人數及其百分比 98
表4.3.2 兩種教學策略學生在人體示意圖名詞的平均回憶量比較 99
表4.3.3 兩種教學策略學生在人體示意圖名詞的正確回憶量比較 99
表4.3.4 兩種教學策略學生在人體示意圖各名詞正確作答平均數比較 100
表4.3.5 神經系統樹狀圖排列正確人數及百分比 103
表4.3.6 神經系統樹狀圖排列正確平均人數的比較 103
表4.3.7 樹狀圖概念理解晤談問題答案編碼表 104
表4.3.8 兩種教學策略學生樹狀圖概念理解問題的平均得分 105
表4.3.9 兩種教學策略學生在樹狀圖個別概念的作答正確平均數比較 106
表4.3.10 樹狀圖作答不正確的學生群在每一個命題答對的人數百分比 107
表4.3.11 TD組5位學生樹狀圖概念理解得分表 114
表4.3.12 兩種教學策略學生情境推論題運用的線索量比較 115
表4.3.13 兩種教學策略學生在情境推論題各線索運用平均數的比較 115
表4.3.14 兩種教學策略學生情境推題合理答案判斷平均分數的比較 116
表4.3.15 兩種教學策略學生在情境推論題各項合理答案判斷平均數的比較 117
表4.3.16 兩種教學策略學生在情境推論題錯誤答案判斷平均數的比較 118
表4.3.17 兩種教學策略學生在情境推論題各項錯誤答案判斷平均數的比較 118
表5.1.1 「教學策略」與「生物科學業成就」對學生選擇題測驗成績的影響 136
表5.1.2 「教學策略」與「生物科學業成就」對各類型試題成績的影響 136
表5.1.3 人體圖測驗結果 137
表5.1.4 樹狀圖測驗結果 138
表5.1.5 情境推論題測驗結果 138

圖目錄

圖2.2.1 圖像組織架構與線性陳列格式的比較 13
圖2.3.1 沈鴻明（1994）神經傳導試題 24
圖2.4.1 哺乳動物神經系統組成圖 39
圖3.4.1 人體神經系統樹狀圖 57
圖3.4.2 晤談學生樹狀圖測驗作答示例 62
圖3.4.3 人體神經系統樹狀圖命題編碼 63
圖4.3.1 GO組學生的人體圖作答示例 102

附錄目錄

附錄3.3.1 GO組教學媒體教材 155
附錄3.3.2 TD組教學媒體教材 161
附錄3.3.3 GO組研究自編教材 167
附錄3.3.4 TD組研究自編教材 172
附錄3.3.5 GO組學習活動單 177
附錄3.3.6 教學觀察檢核表 178
附錄3.4.1 神經系統概念分析 180
附錄3.4.2 神經系統單元選擇題測驗 182
附錄3.4.3「細胞的構造」樹狀圖 184
附錄3.4.4「人體血液的組成」樹狀圖 185
附錄4.3.1 樹狀圖作答完全正確學生紀錄 186

一、中文部分
王貞惠（2001）：改善學生遺傳概念學習之研究─用「巨觀」「微觀」「符號表徵」導向之概念改變教學模式。高雄市：國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
王韶霙（2002）：國中生物科資深教師教學策略之個案研究。高雄市：國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
余民寧（民）有意義的學習─概念構圖之研究
李秀娟（1998）：不同教學策略對國中生學習生物的影響。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
李秀娟、張永達和黃達三（1998）：概念圖應用於國中生物教材之分析與評論—以神經系統為例。科學教育月刊, 213, 14-26。
沈鴻明（1994）：國中學生神經系統之概念發展。彰化市：國立彰化師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文。
沈鴻明和蔡長添（1996）：國中學生神經系統之概念發展。科學教育, 7, 1-20。
徐毓慧（2002）：利用前置組織因子增進恆定概念學習之研究。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學生物研究所碩士論文。
涂志銘、張賴妙理和鄭湧涇（2001）：運用診斷測驗探究國一學生對神經系統之另有概念。中華民國第十七屆科教年會論文彙編。
張賴妙理、涂志銘和鄭湧涇（2001）：符合建構論者理念的教學策略對生殖與遺傳學概念學習成效之影響。中華民國第十七屆科教年會論文彙編。
黃台珠（1990）：中學生遺傳相關概念錯誤類型的探討。科學教育月刊, 133,34-53。
黃台珠（1993）：中學生遺傳學習的現況及問題。高雄師大學報, 4, 269-300。
黃秀英（1998）：國中生物科文本調整與學生閱讀理解之研究。高雄市：國立高雄師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
黃雅彬（2004）：學生對國中自然科教科書不同知識表徵理解之研究。臺北市：國立台灣師範大學生命科學研究所碩士論文。
楊坤原（1996）：高一學生認知風格、認知策略、遺傳學知識與遺傳學解題之研究。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
楊坤原和陳進利 （1990）： 中學生認知能力與遺傳學概念學習之相關研究。科學教育, 1, 61-75。
蔡惠萍（2001）：建構式教學策略應用於遺傳概念改變教學之研究。花蓮市：國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文。
鄭昭明（1996）：認知心理學。臺北市：桂冠。
國中生物教師手冊上冊（2001）。臺北市：國立編譯館。
國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要（2003）。臺北市：教育部。
國民中學自然與生活科技一上（2004）。臺南市：南一書局。
國民中學自然與生活科技一上（2004）。臺北市：康軒文教。
國民中學自然與生活科技一上（2004）。臺南市：翰林出版。

二、英文部分
Alvermann, D. (1986). Graphic organizers: Cueing devices for comprehending and remembering main ideas. In J. F. Baumann (Ed.), Teaching main idea comprehension (pp. 210-226). New-ark, DE: International Reading Association.
Alvermann, D. E., & Boothby, P. R. (1986). Children’s transfer of graphic organizer instruction. Reading Psychology, 7, 87-100.
Armbruster, B. B., & Ostertag, J. (1993). Questions in the elementary science and social studies textbooks. In B. K. Britton, A. Woodward, & M. R. Binkley (Eds), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice (pp.69-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erllbaum. 引自Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455-467.
Anderson, J. R.（1983）.The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Anderson, J. R.（1995）.Cognitive psychology and its implication. NY: W. H. Freeman.
Anderson, J. R. & Bower, G. H. (1973). Human associative memory. Washington, DC:Winston.
Anderson, J. R., & Schooler, L. J. (1990). Reflections of the environment in memory. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Psychology.
Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1985). Frames: Structures for informative texts. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), The technology of text, Vol. 2 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84-86.
Barak, J. (1999). As ‘process’ as it can get: Students’ understanding of biological processes. International Journal of Science Education, 21(12),1281-1292.
Baroon, 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.引自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.
Barron, R. F. (1969). The use of vocabulary as an advance organizer. In H. L. Herber & P. L. Sanders (Eds.), Research on reading in the content areas: First-year report (pp.29-39). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Barron, R. F., & Cooper, R. (1973). Effects of advance organizers and grade level upon information acquisition from an instructional lever general science passage. In P. L. Nacke (Ed.), Diversity in mature reading: Theory and research (pp. 78-82). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference. 引自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.
Barron, R. F., & Schwartz, R. M. (1984). Traditional postorganizers: 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.
Berkowitz, S. J. (1986). Effects of instruction in text organization on sixth-grade students’ memory for expository reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 161-178.
Bernard, R. M. (1990). Effects of processing instructions on the usefulness of a graphic organizer and structural cueing in text. Instructional Science, 19, 207-217.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York.
Bruner, J. S.（1960）. The process of education. Cambridge, NY: Harvard University Press.
Buckley, B. C., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Investigating the role of representations and expressed models in building mental models. In J. K. Gilbert and C. J. Boulter(Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp.119-135). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1985). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
Clark, H. H. (1974). Semantics and comprehension. In R. A. Sebeok(Ed.), Current trends in linguistics, (vol.12). The Hague:Mouton. 引自Anderson, J. R.（1995）.Cognitive psychology and its implication. NY: W. H. Freeman.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.
Diekhoff, G. M. (1983). Relationship judgments in the evaluation of structural understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 227-233.
Diekhoff, G. M., & Diekhoff, K. B. (1982). Cognitive maps as a tool in communicating structural knowledge. Educational Technology, 22(4), 28-30.
Diekhoff, G. M., Brown, P., & Dansereau, D. F. (1983). A prose learning strategy based on network and depth of processing models. Journal of Experimental Education, 50(4), 180-184.
Doran,R.L.(1980). Basic measurement and evaluation of science instruction. Washington, D.C.:NSTA.
Ebel, R. L. &Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of Educational Measurement(5th ed.). Englewood, NJ:Prentice Hall. 引自王保進（2003）視窗版SPSS與行為科學研究。臺北：心理出版社。
Estes, T. H. (1971, December). The effect of advance organizers upon meaningful learning and retention of social studies content. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Tampa, FL. 引自Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455-467.
Estes, T. H. (1972). Effects of advanced organizers upon meaningful reception learning and retention of social studies content, In F. P. Green (Ed.), Investigations relating to mature reading (pp. 15-22). Milwaukee, WI: National Reading Conference.引自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.
Estes, T. H., Mills, D. C., & Barron, R. F. (1969). Three methods of introducing student reading-learning tasks in two content subjects. In H. L. Herber & P. L. Sanders (Eds.), Research in reading in the content areas: First-year report (pp. 40-48). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Finley, F. N., Stewart, J., & Yarroch, W. L. (1982). Teachers’ perceptions of important and difficult science content. Science Education, 66(4), 531-538.
Frederiksen, C. H. (1975). Representing logical and semantic structure of knowledge acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 371-458. 引自Anderson, J. R.（1995）.Cognitive psychology and its implication. NY: W. H. Freeman.
Gordon, S. E., & Gill, R. T. (1989). The formation and use of knowledge structures in problem solving domains. Tech. Report AFOSR-88-00063. Washington, DC: Bolling AFB.
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.
Hirumi, A., & Bowers, D. R. (1991). Enhancing motivation and acquisition of coordinate concepts by using concept trees. Journal of Educational Research, 84(5), 273-279.
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (Eds.) (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jonassen, D.H., Beissner, K. & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. New Jersey: Hillsdale.
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342.
Leach, J. (1999). Students’ understanding of the co-ordination of theory and evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 789-806.
Mandler, J. (1983). Stories: The function of structure. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA, August 26-30, 1983 (ED 238 247). 引自Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (Eds.) (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum..
Mayer, R. E. (1979). Can advance organizer influence meaningful learning? Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 371-383.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Signaling the structure of text. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), The technology of text, Vol. 2, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Mitchell, A. A., & Chi, M. T. (1984). Measuring knowledge within a domain. In P. Nagy (Ed.), The representation of cognitive structure (p. 85-109). Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1980). A meta-analysis of the effect of graphic organizers on learning from text. In M. L. Kamil & A. J. Moe (Eds.), Perspectives in reading research and instruction. Twenty-ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. 引自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.
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.
Murrell, P. C. (1987, April). Content maps and memory retrieval for main ideas from expository text. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. 引自Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455-467.
Norman, D. A. & Rnmelhart, D. E. (1975). Explorations in cognition. NY: W. H. Freeman.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Quillian, M. R. (1968). Semantic memory. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Readance, J. E., Bean, T. W., and Baldwin, R. S. (1985). Content area reading: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455-467.
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. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 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: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ryle, G. (1949). Collected papers, Vol II. Critical essays. London: Hutchinson.
Shavelson, R. J., (1972). Some aspects of the correspondence between content structure and cognitive structure in physics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 225-234.

Simmons, D. C., Griffin, C. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1988). Effects of teacher-constructed pre- and post-graphic organizer instruction on sixth-grade science students’ comprehension and recall. Journal of Educational Research, 82(1), 15-21.
Tessmer, M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1986). Effects of a diagrammatic display of coordinate concept definitions on concept classification performance. ECTJ, 34(4), 195-205.
Thro, M. P. (1978). Individual differences among college students in cognitive structure and physics performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada. 引自Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (Eds.) (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Throwbridge, J. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1998). Theory-driven graphic organizer. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak(Eds), Teaching science for understanding : a human constructivist view(pp95-131). San Diego, CA : Academic Press.
Turkey, J. W. (1990). Data-based graphics: Visual display in the decades to come. In Proceedings of the meeting of the American Statistical Association: Sequicentennial Invited Paper Sessions (pp. 366-381). Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.
Tversky, B. (1989). Parts, partonomies, and taxonomies. Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 983-995.
Wandersee, J. H., Fisher, K. M., & Moody, D. E. (2000). The nature of biology knowledge. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge (pp.25-37). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.