本研究目的旨在瞭解特定型語言障礙學生在接受交互教學法後對其在閱讀理解以及口語朗讀流暢度的表現，研究對象為三位國小三年級特定型語言障礙學生，以單一受試法之跨受試多基線設計來進行研究，研究工具包括「改編閱讀理解測驗」、「中文閱讀理解測驗」、口語朗讀流暢度計分、錄影記錄策略使用次數、社會效度訪談表四項，經研究資料收集並分析後，本研究之主要結果如下：
一、 交互教學法對於國小特定型語言障礙學生的閱讀理解能力具有教學成效以及保留成效
二、 交互教學法對於國小特定型語言障礙學生在「中文閱讀理解測驗」上前、後測的表現有所進步
三、 國小特定型語言障礙學生在交互教學法策略運用上主要採用澄清、提問和預測三個策略，最少使用摘要策略
四、 交互教學法對於國小特定型語言障礙學生在口語朗讀流暢度具有教學成效及保留
五、 國小特定型語言障礙學生其口語朗讀流暢度與閱讀理解能力呈現顯著相關。
六、 交互教學法其教學成果獲得國小特定型語言障礙學生及該班級導師的支持與認同

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching on students with specific language impairment in reading comprehension and oral reading fluency. The multiple baseline across-groups design of single-subject research was used in this study. Three third grade students with specific language impairment were chosen as research subjects. Tool adopted by this study were “Adaptation Reading Comprehension Test ”、“Chinese Reading Comprehension Test ”、Oral Reading Fluency Score Rule、opinion interview list and four strategies were also recorded by video during the proceeding of reciprocal teaching and analyzed. Result indicated that：
1. Reciprocal teaching could improve and maintained subjects reading comprehension ability.
2. There were improvements on subjects reading comprehension ability showen in Chinese Reading Comprehension Teas.
3. Among the four reading comprehension strategies, subjects tended to use clarifying 、questioning and predicting more often than summarizing.
4. Reciprocal teaching could improve and maintained subjects oral reading fluency ability.
5. Students with specific language impairment in Reading comprehension and oral reading fluency was significantly correlated.
6. Subjects and teachers confirmed that reciprocal teaching could improve reading comprehension and oral reading fluency ability.

第一章 緒論…………………………………………………1
第一節 研究動機…………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題……………………………………6
第三節 名詞界定…………………………………………………8
第四節 研究限制…………………………………………………12
第二章 文獻探討……………………………………………14
第一節 閱讀理解及口語朗讀相關理論…………………………14
壹、 閱讀理解理論……………………………………………14
貳、 影響閱讀理解因素與閱讀理解策略……………………25
參、 口語流暢度與相關研究理論……………………………30
第二節 特定型語言障礙兒童與鑑定標準……………………………36
壹、 特定型語言障礙兒童特徵………………………………36
貳、 特定型語言障礙兒童鑑定原則…………………………39
參、 特定型語言障礙兒童語言學習所產生的問題…………43
第三節 交互教學法……………………………………………………46
壹、 交互教學的理論基礎………………………………………47
貳、 交互教學的模式……………………………………………50
參、 交互教學過程的重點………………………………………53
肆、 交互教學法與特定型語言障礙學生……………………61
第三章 研究方法……………………………………………64
第一節 研究設計與架構…………………………………………64
第二節 研究對象…………………………………………………71
第三節 研究工具…………………………………………………75
第四節 教學程序…………………………………………………88
第五節 研究流程…………………………………………………93
第六節 資料分析…………………………………………………98
第四章 結果與討論 ……………………………………………100
第一節 交互教學法對受試者閱讀理解能力教學成效及保留狀況………………………………………………………101
第二節 接受交互教學法前後在中文閱讀理解測驗表現……114
第三節 接受交互教學法過程所使用的四項策略情形………118
第四節 交互教學法對受試者口語朗讀流暢度表現成效……125
第五節 社會效度與綜合討論分析……………………………137
第五章 結論與建議………………………………………………147
第一節 結論……………………………………………………147
第二節 建議……………………………………………………150
參考文獻……………………………………………………………155

一、中文部分
王英君（民89）。國小閱讀障礙學生閱讀理解策略之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
王梅軒、黃瑞珍（民91）。國小課程本位閱讀測量方法之信度與效度研究。台北市立師範學院特殊教育學系碩士論文。
李俊仁（民88）， 聲韻處理能力和閱讀能力的關係。國立中正大學
心理學研究所未出版之博士論文。
何嘉雯（民92）。交互教學法對國小閱讀理解困難學生教學成效之研究。國立台南師範學院特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
林玟慧（民84）。閱讀理解策略教學對國中閱讀障礙學生閱讀效果之研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
林宜真（民87）。閱讀障礙學生與普通學生閱讀理解方式之比較研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
林寶貴、錡寶香（民89）。語言障礙學生輔導手冊。教育部特殊教育工作小組。線上檢索日期：民國94年11月3日。取自：
http://163.21.111.5/book_ul/1/15/語障輔導手冊.pdf
林寶貴、錡寶香（民91）。中文閱讀理解測驗。教育部出版。
林寶貴、錡寶香（民91）。兒童口語理解測驗。教育部出版。
吳訓生（民89）。國小低閱讀能力學生閱讀理解策略教學效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文。
周台傑（民89）。學習障礙兒童鑑定原則鑑定基準說明。載於柯華葳、邱上真主編， 學習障礙學生鑑定與診斷指導手冊，41-62。台北：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
柯華葳（民82）。語文科的閱讀教學。輯於李永吟主編學習輔導（pp07-349）。台北：心理。
陳東陞（民83）。兒童口語表達測驗。中國行為學社。
陳榮華（民86）：魏氏兒童智力量表第三版（中文版）指導手冊。台北：中國行為科學社。
陳惠邦（民87）。教育行動研究。台北：師大書苑。
許天威、蕭金土（民88）。綜合性非語言智力測驗。心裡出版社
許月琴（民89）。台北市五歲孩童特定型語言障礙之調查研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
教育部（民91）。身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定標準。台北：教育部。
曾尚民（民91）。學習障礙學生的問題行為與輔導。特殊教育季刊，第82期，34-40 頁。
張顯達（民91）。評估兒童語言能力發展的三個工具。2002年語言與聽力障礙評量研討會，高雄。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育中心。
黃國彥、鍾思嘉、林珊如、李良哲(民72)。羅桑二氏語文智力測驗。正昇教育科學社
黃瓊儀（民85a）。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。國立嘉義師範院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
黃秀霜、詹欣蓉（民86）。閱讀障礙兒童之音韻覺識、字覺識及聲調覺識之分析。特殊教育與復健學報，5 期，125-138。
黃秀霜（民87）。中文識字量表之編製及國語文低成就學童認字困難之診斷（Ⅱ）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。台北：行政院國家科學委員會。
葉靖雲（民84）。課程本位閱讀理解測驗的效度研究。國科會專
案報告。NSC 84-2421-H-018-002-4401。
葉靖雲（民85）。三種課程本位數學評量模式的效度研究。特殊
教育學報，11 期，35-77 頁。
葉靖雲（民87）。課程本位閱讀測驗的效度研究。特殊教育與復
健學報，6 期，239-260 頁。
葉瓊華、詹文宏（民89）。概念構圖、自問自答及畫重點策略對國小閱讀障礙兒童閱讀理解能力及後設認知能力教學成效之研究。特
殊教育學報，14 期，189-231。
葉麗莉（民93）。3歲半至4歲半特定型語言障礙孩童在親子對話中語用能力之初探。國立台灣大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
詹詩韻（民93）。相互教學法對增進國小資源班學生閱讀理解能力成效之研究。國立台東大學教育研究所碩士論文。
鄭昭明（民83）。認知心理學。台北：桂冠圖書公司。
錡寶香（民90）。國小低閱讀成就學生的口語述說能力：語言層面的分析。特殊教育學報，15 期，129-175 頁。
錡寶香（民91a）。特定型語言障礙兒童鑑定方式之探討。特殊教育季刊，84，1-8。
錡寶香（民91b）。特定型語言障礙兒童之介紹。特教園丁，18 (2)，51-60。
錡寶香（民91c）。嬰幼兒溝通能力之發展：家長的長期追蹤記錄。特殊教育學報,16,23-64。
藍慧君（民80）。學習障礙與普通兒童閱讀不同結構文章之閱讀理解與閱讀理解策略的比較研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所
碩士論文。



二、英文部分
Alverman, D. E., Young, J. P., Weaver, D., Hinchman, K. A., Moore, D. W.,Phelps, S. F., Thrash, E. C., & Zalewski, P. (1996). Middle and high school students’ perceptions of how they experience text-based discussion: A multicase study. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 244-267.
Beck, I. L, McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996).Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. Elementary School Journal, 96, 385-414.
Bender(2001). Learning disabilities: Characteristics, identification, and teaching strategies (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bos, C. S., & Reyes, E. I. (1996). Conversations with a Latina teacher about education for language-minority students with special needs. Elementary School Journal, 96, 343-352.
Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, 968-979.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1986). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 270738)
Bryan, R. (1997). Assessing the personal and social status of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 13(1),63-76.
Coley, J. D., DePinto, T., Craig, S., & Gardner, R. (1993). From college to classroom: Three teachers’ adaptation of reciprocal teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 255-266.
Fox, A. (1998). Clumsiness in children: Developmental coordination disorders.Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 57-63.
Fujiki, M.., Brinton.,B., Spencer, J., & Robinson, L.A.(1997). The ability of children with specific language impairment to access and participate in an ongoing interaction. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40,1011-1025.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W, & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Gambrell, L. B. (1996). What research reveals about discussion. In L. B.Gambrell & J. F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussion!: Fostering engaged reading (pp. 25-38). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Garner, R. (1992). Self-regulated learning, strategy shifts, and shared expertise:Reactions to Palincsar and Klenk. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 226-229.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.
Goldenberg, C. (1993). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. The Reading Teacher, 46(4), p.316-326.
Graham, L., & Wong, B. Y. L. (1993). Comparing two models of teaching a question-answering strategy for enhancing reading comprehension: Didactic and self-instruction training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26,270-279..
Gunning,T. G.(2006). Assessment and correcting reading and writing difficulties. Boston, MA: Pearson Education,
Hacker, D. J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 699-718.
Hart, E. R. & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college:Effects for postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational Psychology; 90(4), 670-681.
Hintze, J.M., Owen, S.V., Shapiro, E.J.＆DalyIII, E.J.(2000).
Generalizability of oral reading fluency measures: Application of G theory to curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology
Quarterly, 15(1), 52-63.
Hintze, J. M. ,Daly III,E. J. , Shapiro, E. S.(1998). An investigation of the effects of passage difficulty level on outcomes of oral reading fluency progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 27(3),433-448.
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., ＆ Pullen, P. C.(2005). Reading fluency assessment and intervention: What, why, and how? The Reader Teacher, 58, 702-714.
Kelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. Journal of Educational Research,88(1), 53-61.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96 (3),275-293.
Lederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1), 91-107.
Lenz, B. K., Ellis, E. S., & Scanlon, D. (1996). Teaching learning strategies to adolescents and adults with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Lerner, J. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Loxterman, J. A., Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1994). The effects of thinking aloud during reading on students’ comprehension of more or less coherent text. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(4), 353-368.
Lyon, R. & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(6), 578-588.
MacInnis, C., & Hemming, H. (1995). Linking the needs of students of students with learning disabilities to a whole language curriculum. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 534-544.
McCormick, S. (1992). Disabled readers’ erroneous responses to inferential comprehension questions: Description and analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 55-77.

Miranda, A., & Villaescusa, M. I. (1997). Is arrtibution retraining necessary? Use of self-regulation procedures for enhancing reading comprehension strategies of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(5), 503-512.
Neuman, S. B., & McCormick, S. (2000). A case for single-subject
experiments in literacy research. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research Volume III (pp.181-194), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Improving the reading comprehension of junior high students through the reciprocal teaching of comprehension-monitoring strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign.
Palincsar, A. S. (1988). Reciprocal teaching instructional materials packet. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117—175.contexts. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 26-32.

Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 211-225.
Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39, 516-522.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., & Serna, L. (2001). Strategies for teaching learners with special needs (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of the Research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.
Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L.,
Almasi,J., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 513-555.
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, & Echevarria, M.(1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159-194.
Savage, J. F. (1998). Teaching reading and writing: Combining skills, strategies, and literature (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Slater, W. H., & Horstman, F. R. (2002). Teaching reading and writing to struggling middle school and high school students: The case forreciprocal teaching. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 163-167.
Smith, C. R. (1998). Learning disabilities: The interaction of learner, task, and setting (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Speece, D. L., MacDonald, V., Kilsheimer, L., & Krist, J.(1997). Research to practice: Preservice teachers reflect on reciprocal teaching. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(3) , 177-187.
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities,32(6), 504-532.
Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes.Review of Educational Research, 68, 277-321.
Vaughn, S. Moody, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64, 211-226.

Vygotsky, K. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development higher
psychological process. Edited and translated by M. Cole, V. John
Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wilson, V. L., & Rupley, W. H. (1997). A structural equation model for reading comprehension based on background, phonemic, and strategy knowledge.Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 45-63.
Wong, B. Y. L., & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigating awareness of and teaching passage organization in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 477-482.