臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究採取行動研究的方法，旨在運用故事結構教學提升其閱讀理解能力。以大山國小三年乙班計二十八個學生作為研究對象，在研究過程中，研究者以錄影觀察、收集學生文件等方式蒐集資料，再進行資料整理、歸納與分析後。本研究的主要發現摘述如下：

一、運用故事結構教學有助於學生掌握故事全貌，提升閱讀理解的能力
經過一段時間的教學後，大部份學生可以描述主角的特性、覺察多步驟事件的事情經過、歸納與推論暗示性的結局，是學生最明顯的閱讀能力提升表現。

二、以圖像式故事結構藏寶圖，建立學生故事結構元素的概念，需要較多的中介鷹架與協助
研究者在建立學生故事結構元素的概念時運用的鷹架，包括故事結構問題單、提問教學、文字提示、答案排序、重述故事等鷹架，慢慢建立故事結構元素和故事內容情境的關係。並透過教學討論與填答學習單中，學生口說表達與書寫故事結構問題單、藏寶圖來回反覆檢驗學生的故事結構概念。

三、重述故事以圖像式藏寶圖為線索，學生多能書寫出完整結構的故事
以藏寶圖為圖像式線索、按圖索驥將故事再次重整與組織。學生的改變從開始時，「請你再把故事說一遍」隨便抄一段或一句故事文本的文句，到最後在重述故事中敘寫出結構完整的故事。經過一段時間教學後，大部分的學生多能寫出完整結構的故事。

四、學生故事結構概念穩固後，摘要寫作是理解表現的產物
故事結構教學之初，大部份學生對故事理解的情形為口說式理解，經過一段時間教學後，逐步可以脫離口說式理解進入書寫表達的境界。

五、將故事結構內化為理解工具後，有助於提升閱讀能力與寫作技巧
學生尚無故事結構之時，對於故事的概念是片段、拼湊式並無法出現全面的故事架構，經過建立、掌握、穩固故事結構的歷程後，學生慢慢將故事結構內化為其故事基模，作為理解的工具。從學生閱讀故事後，可以自己描述而不照抄文本，具結構性將故事再寫一遍，可以看出故事結構已成為學生理解故事的工具。

This study was to explore the effect of story grammar instruction on 28 students from Class yi in the third grade of Da Shan elementary school in Yunlin County . The purpose was to enhance students’ reading comprehension ability by using the story grammar instruction. During a semester reading program, the students’ documents, the data of student responses in clsaa were collected, and analyzed by qualitatively. Based on the qualitative data analyses, the findings of the study were summarized as follows:

1. Adopting the story grammar instruction is beneficial to students because they can get the whole picture of the story which elevates the reading comprehension ability.
After a semester reading program, most students can describe a leading character’s characteristics , know the process of multi-steps events and have the ability to induce or infer the suggestive conclusion. These evidence are showing students’ reading comprehension ability are better than before.

2. It takes more medium scafflod assistance to build up students’ story grammar element ideas by using graphic story map.
The scaffold that study uses to build up students’ story grammar element includes the sheet of story grammar, leading question, answers arrangement , reword story and so on. Through these process, it establishes the relationship between the story grammar elements and the characters in the context. In addition, it evaluates repeatedly the students story grammar concepts by class discussing, filling out the sheet, express what they thought and write down the answers about the story map.

3.Students can write the complete-structured story if they reword the story according to the graphic story map.
Students rearrange and organise the story by searching the clues of the graphic map. We can gradually be aware of the differences in students. In the beginning, the students would copy a paragraph or a sentencce from the text when they were requested to reword the story. After the program, they can write down the complete-structured story.

4.Summary writing is the product of reading comprehension when students’ story grammar concepts are stable.
After a semester reading program, most students can write expression well instead of an oral understanding

5.When story grammar that becomes an inner comprehension tool, it will helps to elevate the good reading comprehension and writing skill.
Instead of the intact concepts, the students have the fragamented story grammar at the beginning. After the process of building, grasping and making stable of the story grammar, students could make the story garmmar as the story schema that it’s a tool for reading comprehension . After reading the story , students can describe the story by their own without copying the text. In addition, they are capable of reword the story in a very constitutive way . We can see the story grammar has already become their reading comprehension tool .

第一章 緒論 ………………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究動機……………………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的……………………………………………………………7
第三節 名詞釋義……………………………………………………………8
第二章 文獻探討 ……………………………………………………………9
第一節 閱讀理解的基礎建立在先備知識上………………………………9
第二節 豐富的內容知識提升閱讀理解能力………………………………15
第三節 故事結構之探究……………………………………………………21
第四節 故事結構教學策略探究……………………………………………29
第三章 研究設計與實施……………………………………………………39
第一節 研究者的背景………………………………………………………39
第二節 研究現場的情境……………………………………………………40
第三節 研究規劃歷程………………………………………………………46
第四節 資料的收集、整理與分析…………………………………………55
第五節 研究效度、信度與倫理問題處理…………………………………58
第六節 研究限制……………………………………………………………60
第四章 行動歷程的結果分析………………………………………………63
第一節 閱讀教學行動之初…………………………………………………63
第二節 故事結構元素教學篇………………………………………………86
第三節 協助獨立閱讀篇……………………………………………………115
第四節 獨立閱讀篇…………………………………………………………148
第五章 結論與建議…………………………………………………………159
第一節 結論…………………………………………………………………159
第二節 建議…………………………………………………………………161
第六章 研究者的體悟與省思………………………………………………165
第一節 研究歷程的體悟……………………………………………………165
第二節 研究者的省思………………………………………………………167
參考文獻………………………………………………………………………169
附錄……………………………………………………………………………179
附錄3-1 《娜娜的花襯衫》故事文本………………………………………179
附錄3-2 節錄《統統是我的》故事文本……………………………………181
附錄3-3 《國王萬萬歲》故事文本…………………………………………183
附錄3-4 《雞蛋踢石頭》故事文本…………………………………………185
附錄3-5 《伊索寓言-披了羊皮的狼》故事文本……………………………187
附錄3-6 《快樂小鎮》故事文本……………………………………………188
附錄3-7 《福雙的冰糖》故事文本……………………………………………189
附錄3-8 《小男孩和小麻雀》故事文本………………………………………190
附錄3-9 《小麻雀回來了》故事文本…………………………………………191
附錄3-10 《農場的故事》故事文本…………………………………………192
附錄3-11 《神筆馬良》故事文本……………………………………………193
附錄4-1 寒假作業學習單……………………………………………………194
附錄4-2 暖身活動學習單……………………………………………………196
附錄4-3 故事結構藏寶圖說明………………………………………………197
附錄4-4 空白故事結構藏寶圖………………………………………………199
附錄4-5 《快樂小鎮》故事結構問題單………………………………………200
附錄4-6 《快樂小鎮》故事結構藏寶圖……………………………………201
附錄4-7 《福雙的冰糖》故事結構問題單……………………………………202
附錄4-8 《福雙的冰糖》答案彙整單…………………………………………203
附錄4-9 空白故事結構藏寶圖………………………………………………204
附錄4-10 《小麻雀與小男孩》提示問題的故事結構藏寶圖………………205
附錄4-11 《小麻雀回來了》示範教學的故事結構藏寶圖…………………206
附錄4-12 空白重述故事單…………………………………………………207
附錄4-13 故事填空單………………………………………………………208

壹、中文部分
王家玲（民91）。國中不同閱讀能力學生先前知識與文章理解之研究。國立彰化師範大學 特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
王瓊珠（民89）。編選課外閱讀材料指南。學習障礙資訊站，10，29-32。
王瓊珠（民93）。故事結構教學與分享閱讀。台北：心理出版社。
李連珠譯（民87）。全語文的全在哪裡？台北：信誼。
吳裕益、林月仙、劉秀丹(民89) 「閱讀理解策略教學成效」之整合分析。第五屆特殊教育課程與教學研討會論文集，1-21。
吳慧珠，李長燦（民91）。維高斯基的認知發展理論及其在教學上的應用。載於張新仁主編：教學理論新趨勢，105-158。台北：心理出版社。
邱上真(民82) 。學習輔導-認知學派的學習理論。台北：心理出版社，51-114。
洪秋蘭（民89）。國中語文學習困難學生閱讀理解與先前知識之評量與診斷。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版。
宋曜廷（民89）。先前知識文章結構和多媒體呈現對文章學習的影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文，未出版。
柯華葳、范信賢（民79）。增進國小社會科課文理解度之研究。國教學報，3，33-60。
張蘇美（民84）。因果類型之激發方式與文章結構對學童閱讀理解的影響。國立新竹師範學院初等教育學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版。
張春興（民80）。現代心理學。台北：東華書局。
連啟舜（民91）。國內閱讀理解教學研究成效之統合分析研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版。
許淑玫（民89）。國小六年級閱讀小組實施交互教學之個案研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陳秋芬（民92）。科學性文章中的時間序列對國小五年級學生閱讀理解的影響。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陳李綢（民81）。認知發展與輔導。台北：心理。
陳姝蓉（民91）。故事結構教學對增進國小閱讀障礙學生閱讀理解能力之研究。台北市立師範學院身心障礙教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
黃瑞珍（民88）。故事結構分析法在語言學習障礙兒童教學之應用。國小特殊教育，27，4-10。
黃瓊儀（民84）。相互教學法對國小高年級學童閱讀理解能力、後設認知能力與閱讀態度之影響。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
蔡銘津（民85）。增進學童閱讀理解的認知結構模式。資優教育季刊，61，19-24。
葉淑美（民91）。合作故事圖解教學對國小低閱讀能力學生閱讀理解成效之研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
鄭妃玲（民91）。說明文結構對國小六年級學童閱讀理解的影響。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
鄭美良，李麗娜（民93）。結合國小低年級學生生活經驗提升閱讀理解能力之行動研究。教育部九十三年度鼓勵中小學教師從事行動研究報告書。
鄭昭明（民76）。認知心理學與教學研究---一般介紹。現代教育，2(2)，86-114。
錡寶香（民88）。國小學童閱讀理解能力之分析。國教學報，11，100-133。
錡寶香（民92）。國小低能力閱讀學童與一般能力閱讀學童的敘事能力：篇章凝聚之分析。特殊教育研究學刊，24，63-48。
錡寶香（民93）。國小低能力閱讀學童與一般能力閱讀學童的敘事能力：故事結構之分析。特殊教育研究學刊，26，247-269。
簡楚瑛（民77）幼兒說故事能力之發展過程及其教學上之應用。台灣教育，448，19~21。
顏若映（民82）。先前知識在閱讀理解上之認知研究。教育與心理研究，16，385-412。
蘇宜芬（民80）。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與心理研究所碩士論文，未出版。
鍾聖校（民79）。認知心理學。台北：心理。
Altrichter H., Posch P., & Somekh B.（民86）。行動研究方法導論（夏林清譯）。台北：遠流。（原著為1993年版）
Berk, L. E. & Winsler, A.（民88）。鷹架兒童的學習-維高斯基與幼兒教育（谷瑞勉譯）。台北：心理出版社。（原著為1995年版）
Goodman, K. S.（民87）。談閱讀（洪月女譯）。台北：心理。（原著為1996年版）
Mills, G. E.（民92）。行動研究法（蔡美華譯）。台北：學富文化。（原著為2003年版）
貳、西文部分
Afflerbach, P. P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers’ main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), 31-46.
Anderson, R. C. (1983). Role of the reader's schema during comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers and content texts(pp. 243-258). Hillsdable, NJ: Lawrenece Erlbaum Association.
Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in time. Journal of Educational Research Journal, 14, 367-381.
Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W., Shirey, L. L. (1983). Effect of the reader's schema at different points in time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 271-279.
Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Anderson, M. C. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding for the representation of information in connected discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 433-450.
Anderson, R. C. & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavioral, 17, 1-12.
Araujo, L. (2000). Traversing home/school, English/ Portuguese: Young learners path to literacy learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware Press.
Armbruster, B. B. (1998). Why some children have trouble content area textbooks. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 300782.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G.. (1981). Developing questions that promote comprehension: The story map. Language Arts, 58(8), 913-918.
Bransford, J. D. & Franks, J. J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Science, 2, 331-350.
Bransford, J. D. & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual constraints and discourse processes: A replication study. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 201-212.
Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1-8.
Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1998). Effects of bilingual cooperative integrated reading and composition on students marking the transition from Spanish to English reading. The Elementary School Journal, 99(2), 153-165.
Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed ). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
Chiesi, H. L., Spilich, G, J., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domain related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 257-273
Cox, B. E., Shanahan, T., & Sulzby, E. (1990). Good and poor elementary readers’ use of cohesion in writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 47-65.
Dimino, J. A., Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Blake, G. (1990). Story grammar : An approach for promoting at-risk secondary students’ comprehension of literature. Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 19-32.
Fitzgerald, J. & Spiegel, D. L. (1985). Development of children’s knowledge of story structure and content. Journal of Education Research, 79(2), 101-108.
Fitzgerald, J. & Teasley, A. B. (1986). Effects of instruction in narrative structure on children’s writing. Journal of Education Psychology, 78(6), 424-432.
Foley, M. M. (2000). The (un)making of a reader. Language Arts, 77(6), 506-511.
Gambrell, L. B., & Chasen, S. P. (1991). Explicit story structure instruction and the narrative writing of fourth- and fifth-grade below-average readers. Reading Research & Instruction, 31(1), 54-62.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23, 265-304.
Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(3), 162-170.
Gunning, T. G. (1996). Creating reading instruction for all children(2nd ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Guthrie, J. H. (1977). Story comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 2, 574-577.
Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(4), 196-205.
Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 124-229.
Kintsch, W. A. (1977). Reading comprehension as a function of text structure. In A. S. Reber & D. L. Scarborough (Eds.), In Toward a Psychology of Reading(pp. 227-256). Hillsdable, NJ: Lawrenece Erlbaum Association.
Kuldanek, K. (1998). The effects of using a combination of story frames and retelling strategies with learning disabled students to build their comprehension ability. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416469.
Lehr, S. (1988). The child’s developing sense of theme. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 3, 337-357.
Mandler, J. M. & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things passed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151.
Mathes, P. G. (1997). Cooperative story structure in the classroom. Language Arts, 57(2), 157-165.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities 1976 to 1996. Remedial and Special Education, 18(4), 197-220.
McConaughy, S. H. (1980). Using story structure in the classroom. Language Arts, 59(6), 580-589.
Mealey, D. L. & Nist, S. L. (1989). Postsecondary teacher directed comprehension strategies. Journal of Reading, 32(6), 484-493.
Naremore, R. C. (1997). Making it hang together: Children’s use of mental frameworks to structure. Topics in Language Disorders, 18(1), 16-29.
Pahl, M. M. (1987). The role of story schema in comprehension: A teacher’s perspective of the research and education implications. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 288178.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Page, J. L. & Stewart, S. R. (1985). Story grammar skills in school-age children. Topics in Language Disorders, 5(2), 16-30.
Pearson. P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-209.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson,D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Rivard, L., & Yore, L. D. (1992). Review of reading comprehension instruction: 1985-1991. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354144.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Note on a schema for stories. In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins(Eds.), Representation and Understanding. (pp. 211-236). New York: Academic Press.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce, ＆ W. F. Brewer(Eds.). Theoretical issues in reading and comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdable, NJ: Lawrenece Erlbaum Association.
Saltz, E. & Johnson, J. (1974). Training for thematic-fantasy play in culturally disadvantage children: preliminary results. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(4), 623~630.
Schirmer, B. R., & Bond, W. L. (1990). Enhancing the hearing impaired child’s knowledge of story structure to improve comprehension of narrative text. Reading Improvement, 27, 242-254.
Short, E. J. & Ryan, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive difference between skilled and less skilled readers: remediating deficits through story grammar and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 225-235.
Singer, H., ＆ Donlan, D. (1982). Active comprehension: Problem-solving schema with question generation for comprehension of completely short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 166-184.
Simmons, D. C. (1993). Integrating narrative reading comprehension and writing instruction for all learners. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 365943.
Stein, N. L. & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (vol. 2, pp. 53-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Stein, N. L. & Glenn, C. G.. (1982). Children’s concept of time: The development of a story schema. In William, J. F. (Ed.), The Developmental Psychology of Time(pp. 255-281), New York: Academic Press.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory for narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
Wilson, P. T., & Anderson, R. C. (1986). What they don’t know will hurt them: The role of prior knowledge in comprehension. In J. Orasano(Ed.), Reading Comprehension From Research to Practice（pp. 31-48）. Hillsdable, NJ: Lawrenece Erlbaum Association.
Weaver, P. A. & Dickinson, D. K. (1982). Scratching below the surface structure: Exploring the usefulness of story grammars. Discourse Processes, 5, 225-243.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Review of Educational Research, 55 (22), 227-268.