(18.206.177.17) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/23 05:41
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:沈羿成
研究生(外文):Yi-Cheng Shen
論文名稱:融合式閱讀教學提昇五年級學生閱讀後設認知能力與故事結構摘要能力之研究
論文名稱(外文):Research on Reading Instruction For Enhanceing The Fifth Graders’ Meta-cognition in Reading and Story Structure Summarizing Ability Skills
指導教授:劉佩雲劉佩雲引用關係
指導教授(外文):Pei-Yun Liu
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立東華大學
系所名稱:教育與潛能開發學系
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2016
畢業學年度:104
論文頁數:183
中文關鍵詞:融合式閱讀教學閱讀後設認知故事結構摘要能力
外文關鍵詞:Integrated Teaching MethodMeta-cognition in readingAbility to Summarize the Story Structure
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:4
  • 點閱點閱:611
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:212
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
本研究的目的以苗栗縣仙境國小的五年級學生為研究對象,希望運用融合式閱讀教學模式,增進學生閱讀後設認知的能力與故事結構摘要能力。
本研究以準實驗研究法「單因子前後測不等組」設計,對五年級兩個班學生進行實驗教學研究15週後,所蒐集資料以獨立樣本單因子共變數分析、Pearson積差相關進行分析。輔以質性資料收集方式,質性資料以內容分析法將文本資料概念化,配合量化資料反應的狀況加以說明。本研究所獲得的結論如下:

一、融合式閱讀教學有助於建構學生從閱讀生手到閱讀專家

研究結果發現,使用前導組織概念,有助於降低後半段學生學習難度,以及延長記憶的效果。教學時故事文章架構概念越清楚,有助於學生學習新的學習概念。
閱讀後設認知教學流程結合四種教學法,培養學生從生手到專家。閱讀後設認知教學分為內容階段與策略階段:在內容階段,直接教學法有助於降低學生學習認知負荷以及學習壓力。在策略階段,閱讀後設認知策略階段教學的步驟明確,所以放聲思考教學的步驟也有所依循,有助於提升學生閱讀後設認知能力。接著,相互教學法強調師生互動,檢視學生學習內容與策略的理解狀況,有助於檢視學生的理解程度,以及學習責任的轉移。在合作教學時,由小組長扮演老師的任務,在小組內進行提問,一樣分為內容層次和策略層次討論,有助於提升學生閱讀閱讀後設認知能力。
教學後,保留遷移策略有助於學習概念遷移,提升學生概念保留時間,且降低學生學習的知識負擔。

二、融合式閱讀教學可以增進學生閱讀後設認知能力

閱讀後設認知學習階段分為內容教學階段與策略教學階段,研究結論如下:
在內容教學階段,閱讀後設認知效果方面,從統計效果分析資料顯示,融合式閱讀教學在「計畫能力」、「監測能力」有實驗效果,支持假設1-1、1-2。在質性資料方面,實驗組學生在計畫與監測能力方面,教學前、中、後具有差異。在策略教學階段,閱讀後設認知效果方面,從統計效果分析資料顯示,融合式閱讀教學在「評估能力」有實驗效果,支持假設1-3。質性資料在評估能力方面顯示,實驗組學生在評估能力方面,教學前、中、後具有差異。從統計分析與質性資料都可以證實,學生經過融合式閱讀教學後具有提升閱讀後設認知的內容教學階段的計畫、監測能力與策略教學階段的評估的能力。

三、融合式閱讀教學可以增進學生故事結構摘要能力

在故事結構摘要效果方面,融合式閱讀教學在「判斷重要概念」、「重要語詞歸納能力」、「字句串聯流暢度」、「故事結構摘要能力」實驗效果達到顯著水準,支持假設2-1、2-2、2-3、2-4。在質性資料方面顯示,實驗組在「判斷重要概念」、「重要語詞歸納能力」、「字句串聯流暢度」、「故事結構摘要能力」方面,教學前、中、後實驗效果達到差異。研究結果顯示,融合式閱讀教學有助於學生提升故事結構摘要能力。

四、閱讀後設認知能力與故事結構摘要能力具有高相關

閱讀後設認知與故事結構摘要能力的相關分析,相關係數達到顯著差異,屬於高程度相關。從質性資料顯示,計畫時,要先以故事的結構規劃閱讀內容的流程,再以摘要的步驟掌握摘取故事重點。接著,監測依據故事結構順序,與摘要的流程進行,不斷確定計畫的步驟確實完成。一開始先熟練計畫與監測流程,降低繁複程序干擾後。面對不同文章時,以故事架構概念和摘要流程不斷的評估,當新的文章重點有差異時,即進行文字調整,符合原故事架構概念。從學生的上課狀況,以及學生訪談紀錄發現,閱讀後設認知能力與故事結構摘要能力兩者的關係是緊密的關聯。

關鍵字:融合式閱讀教學、閱讀後設認知、故事結構摘要能力

The purpose of the study was how to enhance students’ meta-cognition in reading and story structure summarizing ability using an Integrated Teaching Method.
Researchers examined reading strategies, then explored various reading pedagogies to learn the advantages and drawbacks of each. They then designed an Integrated Teaching Method that combined all dimensions.
In this study, a quasi-experimental design was chosen using a nonequivalent pretest-posttest control group. The data collected from qualitative research was also considered. The experimental group and control group were two classes of fifth-graders, and the study was conducted over 15 weeks. The collected data was analyzed by means of one-way ANOVA and Pearson product-moment correlation tests. The qualitative data was conceptualized by content analysis. At the end of the study, the qualitative and quantitative data were combined to interpret the results and the students’ performance. The conclusions were as follows:

I. An Integrated Teaching Method helped beginner readers become expert.

1. Advance organizers helped students learn new concepts.

The results showed that advance organizers not only helped students who have difficulty in learning, the organizers also helped students remember what they learned. In other words, the better the story structure, the easier students would acquire new concepts.

2. Meta-cognitive reading instruction contained four teaching methods
that helped beginner readers become expert.

Meta-cognitive reading instruction was divided into content phases and strategical phases:
a. The first step of meta-cognitive reading instruction contained a direct teaching method. This method reduced both the students' cognitive workload, and their pressure while learning. Logical and organized content analysis enhanced learning efficiency.
b. The first step of meta-cognitive strategy instruction adopted a think-aloud teaching method. Students' meta-cognitive reading ability was enhanced if given proper guidance of think-aloud procedure.
c. Teaching procedure for post-reading activities
(i) Interactive Teaching Method-Focused on teacher-student interaction to make sure students' learning was on the right track; it also helped students take responsibility for their learning.
(ii) Cooperative Teaching Method-Team leader played a teacher's role, raising questions to group members. The questions can be divided into content and strategy aspects, which can enhance students' meta-cognitive reading ability.

3. Learning retention strategy helped migration of concepts.

Post-teaching activities were divided into content and strategy phases, which can help students’ long-term memory of concepts. Also, it reduced students’ cognitive workload.

II. An Integrated Teaching Method improved students’ meta-cognition in
Reading

An Integrated Teaching Method played a significant role in students’ “planning ability,” “monitoring ability,” and “adjusting and modifying ability” for their meta-cognition in reading. Generally speaking, the Integrated Teaching Method was significant in students’ “total score of meta-cognition in reading.” As for Think-aloud Protocols (TAP), a T-test was applied to both the experimental group and the control group, including planning, monitoring, and adjusting/modifying thoughts. The results were all significant. Lastly, TAP also showed a significant effect on the total score of meta-cognition in reading. After using two types of verification, the results from the experimental group and the control group were both significant. In other words, the Integrated Teaching Method benefited students’ meta-cognition in reading.
After analyzing the qualitative data on meta-cognition in reading, it showed that the Integrated Teaching Method had significant effects on planning, monitoring, and adjusting/modifying thoughts. Planning ability contained the following elements: 1. interpreting the story structure and 2. applying strategies to summarize the story. For the former ability, the research showed that students were able to grasp the main idea of the story; in addition, students learned how to summarize the story. That is, students were able to find the main point, to clarify the story, to rephrase ideas, and to use conjunctions and emphasize key words. Monitoring ability included the organization of content and application of strategy. To organize content, students were required to obtain the main idea of the story; to organize strategies, students needed to understand the story structure, next, confirm key points, then clarify the meaning of vocabulary or paragraphs, and finally they learned how to use conjunctions. By using these steps, students were able to find the key points of a story. In order to adjust and modify thoughts, students had to acquire the ability to assess, to adjust, to question, and to clarify the plot of stories. Firstly, students needed to assess the main idea of a story according to the structure. Secondly, students adjusted their concepts and then came up with key points. Lastly, they raised questions to clarify their thoughts. For example, students in the experimental group raised questions regarding different story structures, and then made clarifications of the main idea. After applying a multivariate test on meta-cognition in reading, there was a significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. That is, using an Integrated Teaching Method improved students’ meta-cognition in reading.

III. Integrated Teaching Method improved students’ story structure
summarizing ability.

An Integrated Teaching Method improved students’ ability to “justify important concepts”, “deduce important vocabulary”, and “connect sentences fluently”. Overall, an Integrated Teaching Method showed a significant influence on many variables, and such findings were consistent with the results after analyzing the qualitative data.
Analysis of the qualitative data showed that an Integrated Teaching Method influenced students' ability to summarize story structure. When it came to justifying important concepts, classroom observation showed that students were able to clarify between important concepts and the stories’ main idea. As for the ability to grasp important vocabulary, though students produced redundant sentences in the beginning of the study, they gradually became accurate when describing the story. In terms of students' fluency in connecting sentences, the results showed that students began to use accurate conjunctions to make sentences, and were able to understand key points with ease after the experiment. In general, an Integrated Teaching Method made a significant difference when it came to the ability to summarize a story, and proved that this teaching method was helpful.

IV. There exists high correlation between meta-cognition in reading and
the ability to summarize the story structure.

The findings of this study can be divided into two categories: the content aspect and the strategical one. The former aspect focused mainly on the context, and the latter focused on meta-cognition. That is, students had to understand the procedure to be capable of summarizing the story.
Qualitative data showed that the reading process must be organized according to the story structure, so that students can grasp the key points. Also, the introduction of the story structure had to be thorough, and teachers were required to assure the completion of all steps. The recommendation from this study was to practice planning and monitoring strategies, and then students will be able to complete more complex tasks. When reading stories, it was necessary to make continuous adjustments and modifications according to the story structure. Students had to adjust their ideas, then come up with main points, and in this way, students' ideas would be consistent with the author's concepts. Lastly, the results showed that there existed high correlation between meta-cognition ability and the ability to summarize a story.

Keywords: Integrated Teaching Method, Meta-cognition in reading,
Ability to Summarize the Story Structure

目 次

第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機……………………………………………….……………….1
第二節 研究問題……………………………………………….……………….6
第三節 名詞解釋……………………………………………….……………….6
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 閱讀後設認知能力…………………………………….……………….9
第二節 故事結構摘要能力………………………………….………………….18
第三節 融合式閱讀教學………………………………….………………….....37
第四節 閱讀後設認知能力、故事結構摘要能力與融合式閱讀教學
之關係…………………………………………………………………..66
第五節 研究假設…………………………………………………….……….....72
第三章 教學方法與設計
第一節 研究架構………………………………………………….…………….75
第二節 研究對象………………………………………………….…………….76
第三節 研究設計……………………………………………………………......78
第四節 研究工具…………………………………………………………….….82
第五節 研究程序............…………………………………………………….….91
第六節 資料處理與分析.....................................................................................104
第四章 研究結果與討論
第一節 融合式閱讀教學流程分析與討論.......................................................109
第二節 閱讀後設認知能力的教學效果分析與討論.......................................121
第三節 故事結構摘要能力效果分析與討論...................................................147
第四節 閱讀後設認知能力與故事結構摘要能力相關分析...........................163
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 結論.......................................................................................................173
第二節 建議.......................................................................................................179

參考書目
中文書目…………………………………………………………………………..185
英文書目…………………………………………………………………………..191
附錄
附錄一 萊特兄弟教學設計……………………………………………………………210
附錄二 愛國弦高教學設計……………………………………………………………216
附錄三 蔡倫造紙教學設計……………………………………………………………222
附錄四 公雞生蛋教學設計……………………………………………………………228
附錄五 晏子使楚教學設計……………………………………………………………234
附錄六 開拓宜蘭的吳沙教學設計……………………………………………………240
附錄七 古代信用的故事教學設計……………………………………………………245
附錄八 季札掛劍教學設計……………………………………………………………259
附錄九 築夢踏實的李安教學設計……………………………………………………264
附錄十 築夢踏實的葉李華教學設計……………………………………………...….270
附錄十一 名人記趣教學設計………………………………………………...……….276
附錄十二 孫悟空三借芭蕉扇教學設計…………………………………...………….282
附錄十三 老鼠變老虎教學設計………………………………………...…………….287
附錄十四 小鯉魚猜謎語教學設計………………………………………………........292
附錄十五 智救養馬人教學設計……………………………………………………....297
附錄十六 天地一沙鷗故事結構摘要作業…………………………………………....302
附錄十七 模仿貓故事結構摘要作業…………………………………………............304
附錄十八 教室觀察表 ..................... ……………………………………………........306
附錄十九 閱讀後設認知問卷………………………………………............................307
附件二十 學生參與研究之家長同意書........................................................................309

圖目次

圖2-2-1 故事內在結構圖………………………………………………………………24
圖2-3-1 生物生殖認知結構圖…………………………………………………………60
圖3-1-1 研究架構………………………………………………………………………75
圖3-4-1 閱讀後設認知量表的驗證性因素分析之路徑關係圖………………………85
圖3-6-1 資料概念化過程……………………………………………………………..108



















































表目次

表2-2-1 故事結構說明……………………………………………………..…………27
表2-2-2 文章大意摘寫評分表………………………………………………………..32
表2-2-3 故事大意摘寫評量表………………………………………………………..33
表2-2-4 故事結構摘要評量表………………………………………………………..35
表2-3-1 融合式閱讀教學法閱讀教學步驟…………………………………………..65
表3-2-1 研究對象……………………………………………………………………..76
表3-3-1 融合式閱讀教學之準實驗研究……………………………………………..78
表3-4-1 專家學者名單………………………………………………………………..82
表3-4-2 閱讀後設認知量表驗證性因素分析的是配度指標評鑑摘要…………......84
表3-4-3 故事結構摘要能力文章難辭數、單句數比率、實詞頻對數平均、人稱代
名詞數之說……………………………………………………………….….88
表3-4-4 故事結構摘要能力評分者信度相關分析表…………………………….….88
表3-4-5 閱讀後設認知行為編碼架構一覽表……….…………………………….…90
表3-4-6 故事結構摘要能力編碼架構一覽表…………………………………….….90
表3-5-1 教學安排表…………………………………………………………………..91
表3-5-2 實驗組與對照組在教學期間各階段教學流程之比較………………….….93
表3-5-3 實驗教學課文與大意………………………………………………………..94
表3-5-4 文章架構分析………………………………………………………………100
表3-5-5 融合式閱讀教學……………………………………………………………..101
表3-6-1 逐字稿代碼表………………………………………………………………..101
表4-1-1 前導組織與學習概念對照表……………………………………………..…110
表4-2-1 「計畫能力」組內迴歸係數同質性檢定摘要表.............................................122
表4-2-2 不同教學組別在計畫後測成績之描述性分析摘要表.................................122
表4-2-3 不同教學組別在故事體文意理解之共變數分析摘要表.............................122
表4-2-4 監測能力組內迴歸係數同質性檢定摘要表.................................................131
表4-2-5 不同教學組別在監測能力後測成績之描述性分析摘要表..........................132
表4-2-6 不同教學組別在監測能力之共變數分析摘要表..........................................132
表4-2-7 評估能力組內迴歸係數同質性檢定摘要表..................................................138
表4-2-8 不同教學組別在評估能力後測成績之描述性分析摘要表..........................138
表4-2-9 不同教學組別在評估之共變數分析摘要表..................................................138
表4-2-10 「閱讀後設認知能力」組內迴歸係數同質性檢定摘要表..........................145
表4-2-11 不同教學組別在閱讀後設認知能力後測成績之描述性分析摘要表.........145
表4-2-12 不同教學組別在閱讀後設認知能力之共變數分析摘要表........................145
表4-3-1 判斷重要概念組內迴歸係數性檢定摘要表..................................................148
表4-3-2 不同教學組別在判斷重要概念後測成績之描述性分析摘要表...................148
表4-3-3 不同教學組別在判斷重要概念之共變數分析摘要表..................................148
表4-3-4 重要語詞歸納組內迴歸係數同質性檢定摘要表..........................................152
表4-3-5 不同教學組別在重要語詞歸納後測成績之描述性分析摘要表...................153
表4-3-6 不同教學組別在重要語詞歸納之共變數分析摘要表..................................153
表4-3-7 字句串聯流暢度組內迴歸係數同質性檢定摘要表......................................158
表4-3-8 不同教學組別在字句串聯流暢度後測成績之描述性統計分析摘要表.......158
表4-3-9 不同教學組別在字句流暢度之共變數分析摘要表.......................................158
表4-3-10 故事結構摘要能力組內迴歸係數同質性檢定摘要表.................................161
表4-3-11 不同教學組別在故事結構摘譯能力後測成績之描述性分析摘要表..........161
表4-3-12 不同教學組別在故事結構摘要能力之共變數分析摘要表..........................161
表4-4-1 閱讀後設認知能力與故事結構摘要能力相關分析表..................................164


方金雅、鍾易達,邱上真(1998)。國小學童閱讀摘要能力評定規範之發展。載於國
立臺南師範學院測驗發展中心(主編),國小教學評量的反省與前膽(123-137
頁)。臺南市:國立臺南師範學院測驗發展中心。
王瑞芸(1996)。國小六年級國語科習作引導與學習之評估研究:以花蓮 縣為例。國
立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮市。
王瓊珠(2004)。故事結構教學加分享閱讀對增進國小閱讀障礙學童讀寫能力與故事結構概念之研究。台北市立師院學報,35(2),1-22。
王瓊珠(2010)。故事結構教學與分享閱讀。臺北市:心理。
王秀卿(2012)。故事結構問題提問教學對國小低年級學童閱讀理解之行動研究。
國立屏東教育大學數位學習教學碩士學位學程碩士論文,未出版,屏東市。
王瓊滿(2011)。故事結構教學對國小二年級低閱讀能力學生閱讀理解與閱讀動機之
影響。國立臺中教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺中市。
王彩樺(2008)。合作閱讀學習策略對於學童閱讀理解效用之探討。國立彰化師範大
學兒童英文教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化縣。
林俊賢(2004)。小學國語文摘寫大意的教學過程分析-以議論文為例。台東大學教育
學報,15(2),123-162。
林俊賢(2009)。華語文教學之師生提問策略研究-以故事體的提問為例。教育資料與
研究雙月刊,90,25-52。
林俊賢(2013)。大意策略教學對國小五年級學生閱讀理解與問題解決能力影響之研
究。國立台東大學教育系博士論文,未出版,臺東市。
林建平(1994)。整合學習策略與動機的訓練方案對國小閱讀理解困難兒童的輔導效
果。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,臺北市。
林秋美(2011)。提問策略教學對不同批判思考能力之國小六年級學童在閱讀理解與閱讀提問表現之影響。國立屏東教育大學教學視導碩士論文,未出版,屏東市。
林葦玲(2013)。運用交互教學法提升國中學生閱讀理解能力之研究。國立臺灣師範大學在職進修專班碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
林淑瑛(2012)。交互教學法對國小三年級學童語文閱讀理解的影響─以國語日報為例。國立臺中教育大學區域與社區發展學系碩士論文,未出版,臺中市。
林清山、程炳林(1995)。國中生自我調整學習因素與學習表現知關係既自我調整的閱讀理解教學策略效果知研究。教育心理學報,28,15-58。
林清山(譯) (1997)。教育心理學-----認知取向。台北:遠流。
江佳倫(2010)。應用六何法與文句解析於軟體需求蒐集之研究。亞洲大學資訊多媒
體應用學系碩士論文,未出版,台中市。
李博文(2002)。國小高年級學生議論文寫作教學之實驗研究。國立屏東師範學院國
民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東市。
官美媛(1999)。國小學生摘取大意策略之教學研究—以五年級說明文為例。國立東
華大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮市。
邱美秀審訂,陳奎伯、顏思瑜譯(2009)。A. M. O’Donnell, J. Reeve, & J. K. Smith著。
教育心理學為行動而反思。臺北:雙葉書廊。
余民寧、陳嘉成(1996)。概念構圖:另一種評量方法。政大學報,73,161-200。
. 宋曜廷、陳茹玲、李宜憲、查日龢、曾厚強、林維駿、張道行、張國恩(2013)。
中文文本可讀性探討:指標選取、模型建立與效度驗證。中華心理學刊,
55(1),75-106。取自:http://www.chinesereadability.net/CRIE/。

吳英長(1993a)。萊特兄弟。吳英長老師上課資料。
吳英長(1993b)。愛國的弦高。吳英長老師上課資料。
吳英長(1993c)。蔡倫造紙。吳英長老師上課資料。
吳英長(1993d)。樹的醫生。吳英長老師上課資料。
吳英長(1993e)。公雞生蛋。吳英長老師上課資料。
吳英長(1993f)。晏子使處。吳英長老師上課資料。
吳英長(1993g)。故事三則。吳英長老師上課資料。
吳英長(1993h)。孫悟空三借芭蕉扇。吳英長老師上課資料。
吳英長(1993i)。老鼠變老虎。吳英長老師上課資料。
吳英長(1993j)。小鯉魚猜謎語。吳英長老師上課資料。
吳英長(1997)。老鼠變老虎-誤解變無解。國教之聲,31(2),22-27。
吳英長(1998)。國民小學國語故事體課文摘寫大意的教學過程之分析。台東師院學報,9,149-184。
吳英長(2007)。深入教學現場。台東:全民。
吳青蓉、張景媛(1997)。英語科專家/生手教師課堂教學之研究。師大學報:教育類,42,17-33。
吳佳玲(2011)。以故事結構教學提升國小一年級學生閱讀理解能力之研究。國立中
正大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
吳訓生(2000)。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,未出版,彰化縣。
吳敏而、江慧珠、許淑芳(1990)。國語科大意教學怎能大意。載於台灣省國民學校
教師研習中心(主編)省立國教師研習會78年度國小課程研究學術研討會專輯。
板橋市:台灣省國民學校教師研習中心。
吳裕聖、曾玉村(2003)。概念構圖教學策略對小五學生科學文章理解及概念構圖能
力之影響。教育研究集刊,49(1),135-169。
吳靜吉、丁興祥、朱進財、王敬仁、張守泰(1988)。教導心理學研究。臺北:遠流。周麗珠(2013)。運用故事結構教學法提升小四學生閱讀理解能力之行動研究。國立
中正大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
柯志恩(2002)。課程統整情境中國小教師後設認知之分析與訓練-以低年級協同教學為例(Π)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(編號:NSC91-2413-H-032-003)。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
柯華葳(2011)。語文課與閱讀能力的培養。教育研究月刊,210,5-14。
柯華葳(2013)。閱讀是新世紀必要的學習管道。人文與社會科學簡訊,14(4),4-11。
柯華葳、詹益綾、邱嘉慧(2013)。臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養報告(PIRLS 2011報告)。國家科學委員為科學教育處(編號:NSC100-MOE-S-008-001)。國立中央大學學習與教育研究所,桃園。
高敏麗(2008)。國小閱讀教學中摘要能力的解析及其教學策略。教師天地,154,48-52。
涂志賢(1998)。相互教學法對國小六年級學童國語科閱讀理解後設認知、後設認知、自我效能影響之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮市。
許瑋珊(2012)。家庭資源、課後學習對閱讀素養知研究-以台灣、韓國、加拿大、
芬蘭為例。國立政治大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
教育部(1997)。國民小學課程標準。臺北:教育部。
教育部(2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要語文學習領域。檢索日期:2013年12月2日。取自:http://140.111.34.54/EJE/content.aspx?site_content_sn=15326
教育部(2012)。閱讀理解策略教學手冊。臺北:教育部。
教育部(2014)。提升國民中小學學生閱讀教育中程計畫。臺北:教育部。
胡永崇(1995)。後設認知策略教學對國小閱讀障礙學童閱讀理解成敗之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文,未出版,彰化市。
孫曉雯(2010)。題幹式與 6W 提問策略對不同閱讀理解能力之六年級學生在閱讀理解歷程與布題能力之影響。國立新竹教育大學人力資源處語文教育碩士論文,未出版,新竹市。
黃于玲(2013)。故事結構教學提升國小二年級低成就學生閱讀理解力之研究。國立台北教育大學特殊教育學系碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
黃郁婷(2010)。運用互動電子白板與小組合作學習策略輔助國小四年級摘寫國語課文大意之成效研究。彰化師大教育學報,17,93-119。
黃智淵、陸怡琮(2005)。閱讀自我調整策略教學對不同閱讀能力的國小學童之影響。屏東教育大學學報,24,81-106。
黃智淵(2010)。相互教學法對國小五年級學童閱讀歷程中自我調整學習與閱讀理解知影響。屏東教育大學教育心理暨輔導系碩士論文,未出版,屏東縣。
黃瓊儀(1996)。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。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
葉春杏(2010)。文章摘要教學策略對國小五年級學生閱讀理解成就之研究。國立彰化師範大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化市。
陸怡琮(2011)。摘要策略教學對提升國小五年級學童摘要能力與閱讀理解的成效。教育科學研究期刊,56(3),91-118。
陳文安(2006)。國小學生摘要策略之教學研究---以六年級為例。國立屏東教育大學心理與輔導學系碩士論文,未出版,屏東市。
陳木金、許瑋珊(2012)。從PISA閱讀評量國際比較探討閱讀素養的教育方向。教師天地,180,4-15。
陳欣希、張鑑如、陳秀芬(2011)。學齡前幼兒的故事結構發展:故事文法之分析,教育心理學報,42(3),359-378。
陳玫芳(2007)。國文教學優異之國中教師知識管理與創意教學後設認知之個案研究。國立政治大學行政碩士在職專班碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
陳茹玲(2010)。三種閱讀策略教學課程對低閱讀能立大學生閱讀策略運用與摘要表
現影響之研究。國立師範大學教育心理與輔導學系博士論文,未出版,臺北市。
陳姝蓉、王瓊珠(2003)。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。特殊教育研究期刊,25,221-242。
陳淑英(1998)。兒童作文指導。臺北:將門出版社。
陳添球、廖慧卿(2009)。台灣三種版本國小三年級語文教科書課文篇章結構的判斷與重建。小學教育國際研討會,香港。
陳靜如(2011)。摘要策略教學對國小三年級學生閱讀理解能力之影響-以國語日報為教材。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義市。
曾彥翰、蔡昆瀛(2007)。文章結構教學對增進國小聽覺障礙學生說明文閱讀理解成效之研究。特殊教育研究學刊,32,67-91。
曾陳密桃(1990)。國民中小學生的後設認知及其與閱讀理解之相關研究。國立政治
大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,臺北市。
張玉梅(2003)。相互教學法對原住民國小六年級學生閱讀理解成效之研究。國立屏東教育大學教育科技研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東市。
張冬梅 、黃秀霜、陳惠萍(2014)。實施故事結構創作教學之成效。課程與教學季刊,13(2)77-98。
張如莉 (2012)。教互教學法教學設計的應用-以國小高年級閱讀教學為例。教師天地。176,62-67。
張佳琳(2012)。有效促進理解的閱讀教學方法。課程與教學季刊,2(3)83-90。
張春興(1997)。教育心理學。臺北市:東華。
張祖忻、朱純、胡頌華(2006)。教學設計:基本原理與方法。臺北市:五南。
張雅婷(2011)。交互教學法對增進學習障礙學生閱讀理解能力之探究。台東特教,34,24-29。
張新仁(2009)。台灣閱讀摘要研究與回顧。「台灣閱讀研究與回顧」座談會手冊,台北市國科會人文處。
張新仁、邱上真、張酒雄、方吉正、莊麗娟、簡妙娟等(2003)。學習與教學新趨勢(張新仁編)。台北:心理出版社股份有限公司。
張瑞純(2014)。故事結構教學對國小六年級低成就學童閱讀理解及閱讀動機之影響。國立台南教育大學教育學系課程與教學研究所博士論文,未出版,台南市。
張碧容、鄒慧英(2005)。國小四年級學童閱讀摘要實作表現及自我評之研究。南大學報,39(1)149-174。
梁明進(2003)。議論文三要素。(2004年7月14日) 取自:
http://www.geocities.com/leolmc/w_3elements.html
梁財妹(1994)。培養兒童摘取大意的能力。1994年5月5日。國語日報。
楊孝爃(1989)。內容分析。載於楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢與李亦園(主編),社會及行為科學研究法(下冊)(頁809-831)。臺北市:東華。
楊榮昌(2002)。相互教學法對國小五年級學童閱讀理解、後設認知及閱讀動機之影響。國立屏東師範學院教育與心理輔導學系碩士論文,未出版,屏東市。
楊韻平(1993)。兒童摘取文章大意的能力。國立政治大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
蔡銘津(1995)。文章架構與分析策略教學對增進學童閱讀理解與寫作成效之研究。
國立高雄師範大學教育系博士論文,未出版,高雄市。
鄭竹涵(2010)。六何法對五年級學童閱讀理解研究—以讀報教學為例。臺北市立教育大學國語文學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
鄭雅靜(2004)。國小國語教科書文體研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文,
未出版,嘉義市。
親子天下(2010)。國際教育論壇-PISA對台灣教育的影響。臺北市:遠見天下雜誌。
潘慶輝、戴慧茹、黃荻(2011)。閱讀理解-文章試題範例。臺北市:教育部。
黎玨岑、洪佳玫(2013)。關鍵學習力-培養學生具備自我調整學習能力。台灣教育評
論月刊。2(5),27-29。
劉佩雲(2000)。自我調整學習模式之驗證。教育與心理研究,23,173-206。
劉佩雲、沈羿成(2013)。案例討論與教學實作促進教學後設認知改變之研究。師資培
育與教師專業發展期刊,6(2),21-44。
劉佩雲、簡馨瑩、宋曜廷(2003)。國小學童閱讀動機與閱讀行為之相關研究。教育研
究資訊,11(6),135-158。
劉惠卿(2006)。概念構圖教學對國小六年級學童國語文「摘取大意」學習成效之研
究。國立花蓮教育大學國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮縣。
劉素真、田耐青(2010)。指導三年級學童運用概念構圖摘寫文章大意。國民教育,51(1),84-91。
薛鬱琪(2006)。音樂概念學習策略方案實施音樂教師後設認知教學歷程分析研究 -
以「UbD課程設計」模式為內涵。國立臺南大學音樂教育學系碩士論文,未出
版,臺南市。
魏靜雯(2004)。心智繪圖與摘要教學對五年級學生閱讀理解與摘要能力之影響。國
立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
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能力與後設認知能
力之影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
Armbruster, B. B., Echole, C. H., & Brown, A. L. (1983). The role of metacognition in reading to learn: A developmental perspective.(Reading Education Report no. 40). Urbana-champaign: University of Illinois.
Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1984). Mapping: Representing informative text diagrammatically. In C. D. Holly, & D. F. Dansereau (Eds.), Spatial learning strategies: Techniques, applications, and related issues. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies.The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York, NY:
Grune and Stratton.
Anderson, R. C. (2004). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning, and
memory. In R. B. Ruddell, &N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and process of
reading(5th ed.), (pp. 594-606). Newark, DE: Interational Reading Association.
Ae-Hwa, K., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of Students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of learning disabilities, 37(2), 105-118.
Alhaqbani, A., & Riazi, M. (2012). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use inArabic as a second language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24(2), 231-255.
Ahmadi, M. R., Ismail, H. N., & Abdullah, M. K. (2013). The importance of metacognitive reading strategy awareness in reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6 (10), 235-244.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Babapour, M.(2011). The effect of summary writing on reading
comprehension and recall of EFL students. The NERA Journal, 47, 44-48.
Balcikanli, C. (2011). Metacognitive awareness inventory for teachers. Electronic Journal of research in educational Psychology, 9(3), 1309-1332.
Bulut, O., Delen, E., & Kaya, F. (2012). An SEM model based o PISA 2009 in Turkey: How does the use of technology and self-regulation activities Predict reading scores? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 564-573.
Burris, S. E., & Brown, D. D. (2014). When All Children Comprehend: Increasing the External Validity of Narrative Comprehension Development Research. Frontiers in Psychology. 5: 168. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00168
Ben-David, A., & Orion, N. (2012). Teacher’s voice on integrating metacognition into science education. International Journal of Science Education, 1-33.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe(Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding(pp.65-116). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, R., & Pressley, M. (1994). Self-regulated reading and getting meaning from text: The Transactional Strategies Instruction model and its ongoing validation. In D.H. Schunk &B.J. Zimmerman, (Eds.), Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Applications (pp. 155-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macro rules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
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., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Instructing comprehension fostering activities in interactive learning situations. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein,& T.Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and Comprehension of Text. Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA.
Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structure units of prose passage: A problem of metacognitive development.Child Development, 48(1), 1-8.
Bower, G. H. (1976). Experiment On Story Understanding and RecallQuarterly. Journal of Experiment Psychology, 28, 511-534.
Baker, L. (1984). Children's effective use of multiple standards for evaluating their comprehension. Journal of educational psychology, 76(4), 588.
Baumann, F. J., & Serra, K. J. (1984). The frequency and placement of main ideas in children’s social studies Textbook: A Modified Replication of Braddock’sresearch on topic. Journal of Reading Behavior, 8(1), 27-40.
Baumann, J. F., Jones, L. A., & Seifert-Kessell, N. (1993). Using think alouds to enhance children's comprehension monitoring abilities. The Reading Teacher, 47,184-193.
Braddock, R. (1974). The frequency and placement of topic sentences in expository prose. Research in the teaching of English, 8, 287-302.
Baker, L., & Stein N. (1981). The development of prose comprehension skills. In Santa C.,Hayes B. (Eds.), Children's prose comprehension: Research and practice (pp. 7–43). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Bransford, J. D. (2004). Schema activation and Schema acquisition: Comments on Richard C. Anderson’s remarks. In R. B. Ruddell,&N. J. Unrau(Eds.), theoretical models and process of reading(5 th ed.) (pp.607-619). Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc.
Block, C. C., Whiteley, C. S., Parris, S. R., Reed, K. L., & Cleveland, M. D. (2009).Instructional approaches that significantly increase reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 262-281.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.Cambridge University Press.
Baumann, J. F., & Bergeron, B. S. (1993). Story map Instruction Using children’s Literature: Effects on First Grader’Comprehension Of Central Narrative Elements. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(4), 407-437.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Babapour, M. (2011). The effect of summary writing on reading comprehension and recall of EFL students. The NERA Journal, 47(1), 44-48.
Curwen, M.S., Miller, R.G., White-Smith, K.A., & Calfee, R.C. (2010). Increasing teachers’ metacognition develops students’ higher learning during content area literacy instruction: findings from the Read-Write Cycle Project. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(2), 127-51.
Carder, L., Willingham,P., & Bibb, D. (2001). Case-based, problem-based learning Information Literacy for the real world. Research Strategies, 18, 181-190.
Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Coffey, H. (2009). The relationship between metacognition and writing in sixth grademathematics. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Walden University, Walden.
Cunningham, P. M., Moore, S. A., Cunningham, J.W., & Moore, D. W. (1983). Reading in elementary classrooms. New York: Longman.
Caverly, D. (1997). Teaching reading in a learning center. In I. S.Mioduski&G.enright(Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th and 18th annual institutes for learning assistance professional.
Chali, Y. (2008). Text Summarization Using Lexical Cohesion: Approachs and Evaluations. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tool, 17(2), 259-278.
Chaiklin, S. (2012). A conceptual perspective for investigating motive in cultural-historical theory. In M. Hedegaard, A. Edwards, and M. Fleer, (eds.) , Motives in Children's Development: Cultural-Historical Approaches.( pp. 209-224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cote, N., & Goldman, S. (2004). Building representation of informational text:evidence from children's think-aloud protocols.In R. B. Ruddell, & N. J. Unrau,(Eds). Theorectical Models and Process of Reading 5th Edition(pp. 660-683). Newark: International Reading Association.
Choo, T. O. L., Eng, T. K., & Ahmad, N. (2011). Effects of reciprocal teaching strategies on reading comprehension. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 11(2), 140-149.
Davis, C. K. (2007). Two information technology classroom minicase: Benefit assessments and implementation issues. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(1), 15-20.
Duke, N. K., & Martin, N. (2008). Comprehension instruction in action. In C. Block & S. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research based best practices (pp. 241-257). New York: The Guilford Press..
Dymock, S., & Nicholson, T. (2010). “High 5!” Strategies to EnhanceComprehension of Expository Text. The Reading Teacher, 64(3), 166-178.
Durkin, D. (1981). Reading comprehension instruction in five basal reading series. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.
Durkin, D. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension.
Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 518-544.
Dymock, S. (2007). Comprehension strategy instruction:teaching narrative text structure.The reading Teacher, 61(2), 161-167.
Duke, N. K., &Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds). what research has tosay about reading instruction(pp.205-241). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Dole, J. A. (2002). Comprehension strategies. In B. Guzzetti (Ed.), Literacy in America: An encyclopedia of history, theory and practice, 1, 85-88. New York: ABC-CLIO. Retrieved from http://califtreasures.com/monographs/Dole.pdf.
Duffy, G. (1993). Rethinking strategy instruction: four teacher’ development and their loe
achiever’ understandings. The Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 232-247.
Duffy, G. (1993). Teacher’s progress toward becoming expert strategy teacher. TheElementary School Journal, 94(2), 110-120.
Duffy, G. (1983). From turn taking to sense making: broadening the concept of reading
teacher effectiveness. Journal of Educational Research, 76(3), 134-139.
Dooley, C. M. (2011). The emergence of comprehension:a decade of research 2000-2010.
International Electronic of Elementary Education, 4(1), 169-184.
Eker, C. (2014). The Effect of Teaching Practice Conducted by Using Metacognition Strategies on Students' Reading Comprehension Skills. International Online Journal Sciences, 6(2), 269-280.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis:Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Ellis, E., Deshler, D., Lenz, B., Schumaker, J., & Clark, F. (1991). An instructional model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(6), 1-24.
Emily, R. l. (2011). Critical Thinking:A literature Review. Retrieved
from: http://www.pearsonassessment.com/.
Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader-text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 515-528.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp.21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect, 5, 7-16.
Fenty, N. S., McDuffie-Landrum, K., & Fisher, G. (2012). Using collaboration, co-teaching, and question answer relationships to enhance content area literacy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44 (6), 28-37.
Garner, R. (1982). Efficient Text Summarization: Cost and Benefit. Journal of educational Research, 75(5), 275-279.
Garner, R. (1982). Strategic processing of text: an investingation of the effects on adult’s question-answering performance. Journal of educational Research, 75(3), 144-148.
Garner, R. & Hare, V. (1984). Efficacy of text lookback training for poor comprehenders at two age levels. Journal of educational Research, 77(6), 376-381.
Garner, R. (1984). Rules for Summarizing Text: Is Classroom Instruction Being Provided. Journal of educational Research, 77(5), 304-308.
Garner, R. (1987). Strategies for reading and studying expository text. Educational Psychologist, 22(3), 299-312.
Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. G.(1987). Students’s Knowledge of text structure. Educational reading Behavior, 19(3), 247-259.
Glazer, S. M. (1999). Using KWL Folder. Teaching PreK-8, 29(4), 106-107. Gagne, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Graesser, A. C., Bertus, E. L., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Inference generation during the comprehension of narrative text. In R. Lorch, & E. OOBrien, (Eds.), Sources of coherence in text comprehension(pp.295-320). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to stragegic reading comprehension(pp.3-26). In D. S., Mcnamara(ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, intervention, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gersten, R., Fuch, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Backer, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disability: A review of research. Review of educational research, 71(2), 279-320.
Gurney, D., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Carnine, D. (1990). Story grammar: Effective literature instruction for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 335-342.
Greene, R.W.(2011). Collaborative Problem Solving can transform school discipline. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 25-28.
Hare, V. C. (1984). Teaching High School Students to Identify Main Ideas in Expository text. Journal of educational Research, 78(2), 114-118.
Hare, V. C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 62-78.
Hahn, A. L., & Garner, R. (1985). Synthesis of research on students' ability to summarize text, Educational Leadership, 42(5), 52-55.
Harpaz(2007). Approaches to teaching thinking: toward a conceptual mapping of the field. Teachers College Record, 109(8), 1845-1874.
Hwang, G. J., &Kuo, F. R. (2011). An information-summarising instruction strategy for impoving the web-based problem solving abilities of students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 290-306.
Head, M. H., Readence, J. E., & Buss, R. R. (1989). An examination of summary as a measure of reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 28(4), 1-11.
Hawkins, J. M., Hawkins, J. M., Thompson, J. R., Wittmann, M. C., & Weymss, T. M.(2012). Probing student understanding with alternative questioning strategies. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1413 (1), 207-210.
Hilden, K., & Jones, J. (2013). Effective Interactive Read-Alouds Build Stronger Comprehension. Reading Today, 30, 17-19.
Hagaman, J. L., Luschen, K, & Reid.(2010). The "RAP" on reading comprehension. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(1), 22-29.
Iwai, Y. (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies:Pedagogical Implications for EFL/ESL teacher.The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150-159.
Ilgaz, H., & Aksu-Koc, A. (2005). Episodic development in preschool children’s play-prompted and direct-elicited narratives. Cognitive Development, 20, 526-544.
Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of learning Disabilities, 20(4), 196-204.
Jones, D. (2007). Speaking, listening, planning and assessing: the teacher′s in developing metacognitive awareness. Early Child Development and Care, 6(6), 569-579.
Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Grounded design and Web-enhanced, case-based reasoning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 161-179.
Kendeou, P., & Van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific text. Memory and Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577.
Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B., & Streatfield, D. (2010). Using concept mapping to enhance the research interview. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9 (1), 52-68.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., Patel, V. l., & Ericsson, K. A.(1999). The role of long-term working memory in text comprehension. Psychologia, 42, 186-198.
Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior Knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory and cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394.
Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (2010).Tracking on-linemetacognition: Monitoring and regulating comprehension in reading.In A.Efklides & P. Misailidi(Eds.), Trends and prospects in Metacognition Research(pp.209-229). New York: Springer.
Kinniburgh, L. H., & Shaw, E. L. (2009). Using question-answer relationships to build: Reading comprehension in science. Science Activities, 45 (4), 19-28.
Killen, P. O. (2010). Building questioning strategies: or, why am I asking these questions and where are they taking us? Teaching Theology & Religion, 13(3) , 251-253.
Lee, S. (2009). Examining the relationships between metacognition, self- regulation and critical thinking in online socratic seminars for high school social studies students. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, University of Texas, Texas.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, J., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Understanding the glue of narrative structure: Children's on- and off-line inferences about characters' goals. CognitiveDevelopment, 22(3), 323-340..
Leena, F., & Lisa, J. (2010). Enhancing Summarization Skills Using Twin Texts: Instruction in Narrative and Expository Text Structures. An International Online Journal, 10(2), 271-281.
Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Review. Retrieved from: http://www.pearsonassessments.com/research.
Lynch, J. S., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Understanding the glue of narrative structure: Children’s on- and off-line inferences about characters’ goals. Cognitive Development, 22, 323–340.
Lynch, J. S., van den Broek, P., Kremer, K. E., Kendeou, P., White, M., & Lorch, E. P. (2008). The development of narrative comprehension and its relation to other early reading skills. Reading Psychology, 29(4), 327-365.
Livingston, J. (1997). Metacognition: an Overview. Review. Retrieved from:
http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/metacog.htm.
McLellan, H. (1996). Situated learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.
Mandler, J., & Jhonson, N. (1977). Remembrance of thing passed: story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9,111-151.
Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1997). Cooperative story mapping. Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), 20-27.
Michael, W. (2011). Writing-Skills instruction: Teacher’perspectives about effective practices. Journal of Reading Education.
Mctavish, M. (2008). ”What were you thinking”: the use of metacognitive strategy during engagement with reading narrative and informational genres. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(2), 405-430.
Mohammad, R. A., Hairul N. I., & Muhammad, K. A. (2013). The importance of metacognitive Reading Strategy Awareness in Reading Comprehension. Emglish language Teaching , 6(10), 235-244.
McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T., Best, R., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147–171.
McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: theory, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McNamara, D. S. (2009). The importance of teaching reading strategies. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35, 34-40.
Memis, A., & Bozkurt, M. (2013). The relationship of reading comprehension success with metacognitive awareness, motivation, and reading levels of fifth grade students. Global Journal of Educational Foundation, 1(1), 034-038.
Merchie, E., & Keer, H. (2012). Spontaneous mind map use and learning from text: the role of instruction and student characteristics. Procedia Social Behavioral Sciences. 69, 1387-1394.
Merseth, K. K. (1996). Case method in teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyston (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education(pp. 722-744). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Murza, K. A., montemurro, A., Schwartz, J. B., Nye, C., & BoroKhovski, E. (2010). Story Grammar Instruction to Improve Narrative Comprehension and production in preschool through Secondary Students. Retrieved from: http://www. Campbell Collboration.org/.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing student’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Nicole, R. (2010). Guided Reading Strategies For Reading Comprehension. Retrieved from: http://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/education-ETD-masters.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching childrento read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientificresearch literature on reading and its implications for readinginstruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Novak, J. D. (1980). Learning theory applied to the biology classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 42(5), 280-285.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 Result: what students know and can do(volumeI).Paris: Author.
Oloyede, O. I. (2011). A Meta-analysis of Effects of the Advance Organizers on Acknowledgment and Retention of Senior Secondary School (SSS). Chemistry. International Journal Education Science, 3(2), 129-135.
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1983). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-monitoring activities.(Technical Report no.269). Champaign, Illionis: university of Illionis.
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 211-25.
Paris, S.,& Jacobs, J. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for Children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083- 2093.
Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Jouenal of Literacy Research, 13(1), 5-22.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychologist, 8, 293–316.
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom Applications of Research on Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101.
Paris, S. G. (2002). Center for the improvement of early reading achievement. International Reading Association, 56(2), 168-170.
Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skill. International Reading Association, 40(2), 184–202.
Paris, A. H. & Paris, S. G. (2007). Teaching Narrative Comprehension Strategies to First Graders. Congnition And Instruction, 25(1), 1-44.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching & assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 220-227.
Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. B. (1995). Advanced educational psychology: for educators,researchers, and policymakers. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M.(2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-of-the-century status report. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based practices(pp. 11–27). New York: Guilford.
Pace, L.(2012). Teaching Literacy through Social Studies under No child left Behind. The Journal of Social studiesResearch, 36(4), 329-358.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, E. (1983). Developmental psycholinguistics: Three ways of looking at a child’s narrative. New York, NY: Plenum.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1992). Parental styles of narrative elicitation: Effect on children's narrative structure and content. First Language, 12, 299-321.
Paris, S., Cross, D.,&Lipson, M. (1984). Informed strategies for learning:A Program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychological, 76(6), 1239-1252.
Rosenshine, B., Meister C.,&chapman S. (1996). Teaching Students to Generate Questions: A Review of the Intervention Studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181-221.
Richert, A. E. (1991). Case methods and teacher education: Using case to teach teacher education. In ,B. R. Tabachnick & K. Zeichner(Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education . New York: The Falmer Press.
Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2012). Teaching Children to Read: The Teacher Makes the Difference. Sixth Edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon/Pearson. ISBN-10: 0-13-256606-0 and ISBN-13: 978-0-13-256606-3.
Rice, M. (2009). Making connections: Reading comprehension skills and strategies. Educators Publishing Service. Retrieved from http:// eps.schoolspecialty.com/downloads/research_papers/mc_research.p df
Rich, S., & Pressley, M. (1990). Teacher acceptance of reading comprehension strategy instruction.The Elementary School journal, 91(1), 44-64.
Rippin, A., Booth, C., Bowie S., & Jordan, J. (2002). A complex case: Using the case study method to explore uncertainty and ambiguity in undergraduate business education. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(4), 429-441.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Note on schema for stories. In D. G Bobrow & A. Collins(Eds.), Representation and understanding(pp.211-236). New York: Academic Press.
Rumelhart, D. E.(1997). Schemata: The blocks of cognition. In R. J.Spiro,B. C. Bruce, & W.F.Brewer(Eds.), Theroretical issures in reading Comprehension(pp.33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rumelhart, D. E. (2002). Toward an interactive model of reading .In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell(Eds.),Theoretical models and processes of reading.(pp.722-750). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
Richardson, N. (2010). Guided Reading Strategies For Reading Comprehension. Education Master. http://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/education-ETD-masters.
Rogevich, M. H., & Perin, D.(2008). Effect on Science Summarization of a reading Comprehension Intervention For Adolesceents With Behavior and Attention Disorders. Council for Exceptional Children, 74(2), 135-154.
Rinehart, S. D., Stahl, S. A., & Erickson, L. G. (1986). Some effects of summarization training on reading and studying. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 422-438.
Rosenshine, B. V. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In P. L. Peterson, & H. J.Walberg(Eds.), Research on Teaching. McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate question: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181-221.
Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W. P. (1984). Adult guidance of cognitive development. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Ronald, S., & Kenneth, H. (1989). Episodic Mapping: A technique to help students understand storys. Richmond, Kentucky: Eastern Kentucky university.
Raphael, T. E., Au, K. H., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. Reading Teacher, 59 (3), 206-221.
Stetter, M. E., & Hughes, M. T. (2010). Using story grammar to assist students with learning disabilities and reading difficulties improve their comprehension. Education & Treatment of Children, 33, 115-151.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S.(1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.
Schraw, G., & Monshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351-373. doi:10.1007/BF02212307
Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness, H. J. Hartman(Ed.), Metacognition learning and instruction(pp.3-16). USA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning.Research in Science Education, 36(1-2), 111-139.
Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and Language-specific knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension. An empirical study among Dutch students in grades6, 8, and10. langeage Learning, 48(1), 71-106.
Stevens, K.W. (2009). Metacognition: Developing self-knowledge through guided reflection.(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts.
Shihusa, S. R., & Keraro, V. (2009). Using Advance Organizers to Enhance Students’ Motivation in Learning Biology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 413-420.
Smith, R. A. (2010). Professor use of case discussion leadership at Harvard and daraen mba programs: characteristics of a successful case discussion. Academy of Educational leadership Journal, 14(2), 13-31.
Smith, M. J. (2011). Storytelling and QAR strategies. School Library Journal, 57 (4), 196-196.
Stevenson, H. J. (2008). To adapt or subscribe:teacher’ informal collaboration and view of mandated curricula. Issues in Teacher Education,Spring.17(1), 75-95.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Short, E. J., & Ryan, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive Differences Between Skilled reading and less Skilled reading: Remediating Deficits through story grammar and attribution training. Journal of education Psychology, 76, 225-235.
Sinclair, B. (1999). Wrestling with a jelly: The evaluation of learner autonomy. In B.Morrison (Ed.), Experiments and evaluation in self-access language learning (pp. 95-109). Hong Kong: Hasald.
Stafford, T., Wilson, N. S., Sanabria, I. (2010). The role of questioning as thinking on reader’ability to interact with text. American Reading Forum Annual Yearbook.
Shannon, S. V. (2008). Using metacognitive strategies and learning styles to create self-directed learners. Institute for learning Styles Journal.1,14-28.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Vera, A.H., & Simon, H.A.(1993). Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. CognitiveScience, 17, 7-48.
Snyder, P., & William, M. (2003). Using case method of instruction effectively in early intervention personnel preparation. Infants and Young Children, 16(4), 284-295.
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse processing: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tonjes, M. J., & Zintz, M. V. (1987). Teaching reading, thinking, study skills in Content classroom. America: C. Brown Publishers Press.
Tierney, R. J., & Cunningham, J. W. (1984). Researchon teaching reading comprehension.In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.
Temur, T., & Bahar, K. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies of Turkish learners who learn English as a foreign labguage. European Journal of Educational Studies, 3(2), 421-427.
Trinkle, C. (2009). Reading for meaning:making connections and searching for answers. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 15(6), 48-50.
Tompkin, V., Guo. Y., & Justic, L. M. (2013). Iference generation, story comprehension, and language skill in the preschool year. Springer, 26, 403-429.
Thorndyke, P. V. (1977). Cognitive structure in comprehension and menory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO and education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002127/212715e.pdf
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006).
Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3-14.
Vaughn, S., Klinger, J. K., & Bryant, D. P. (2001). Collaborative strategic reading as a means to enhance peer-mediated instruction for reading comprehension and content-area learning. Remedial & Special Education, 22(2), 66-74.
Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2011). A Research-Based Model for Integrating Elementary Science and Reading Comprehension: Implications for Research and Practice. In N. stein & S. Raudenbush(Eds.), Developmental cognitive science goes to school (pp.127-148). NY: Routledge.
Winograd, P., & Hare, V. C. (1988). Direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies: The nature of teacher explanation. In C. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. Alexander, (Eds.), Learning and Study Strategies: ssessment, Instruction, and Evaluation (pp. 121-139). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Wilson, N. S., & Bai, H. (2010) The relationships and impact of teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Springer Science Business Media, 5, 269-288.
Wood, K. D., & Endres, C. (2004).Motivating student interest with the Imagine, Elaborate, Predict, and Confirm(IEPC)strategy.international Reading Association, 58(4), 346–357.
Williams, J.P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 6–18.
Wang, D. (2009). Factors affecting the comprehension of global and local main idea. Journal of college Reading and learning, 39(2), 34-52.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89-100.
Woolfolk, A. E. (2004). Educational psychology(9th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Weinert, F. E., & Kluwe, R. H. (1987). Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding. Hillsdale, N. J.: L. Erlbaum Association.
Wilson, N. S., & Smetana, L. (2011). Questioning as thinking: a metacognitive framework to improve comprehension of expository text. Literacy, 45 (2) ,84-90.
Wu, L., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2012). Validation of a Chinese Version of Metacognition Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory. Egitim Arastirmalari-urasian Journal of Educational Research,48,117-134.
Young, A., & Fry, J. D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-10.
Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teacher’ metastrategic knowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. The Journal of Learning Scuence, 15(3), 331-377.
Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive strategy use and academic reading achievement:insights from a chinese context. Electronic Journal of Foreign langusge Teaching, 10(2), 54-69.
Zahoor, M., & Janjua, F. (2013). Narrative comprehension and story grammar. International journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(9), 604-618.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 林清山、程炳林(1995)。國中生自我調整學習因素與學習表現知關係既自我調整的閱讀理解教學策略效果知研究。教育心理學報,28,15-58。
2. 吳英長(1997)。老鼠變老虎-誤解變無解。國教之聲,31(2),22-27。
3. 柯華葳(2011)。語文課與閱讀能力的培養。教育研究月刊,210,5-14。
4. 柯華葳(2013)。閱讀是新世紀必要的學習管道。人文與社會科學簡訊,14(4),4-11。
5. 高敏麗(2008)。國小閱讀教學中摘要能力的解析及其教學策略。教師天地,154,48-52。
6. 黃智淵、陸怡琮(2005)。閱讀自我調整策略教學對不同閱讀能力的國小學童之影響。屏東教育大學學報,24,81-106。
7. 陸怡琮(2011)。摘要策略教學對提升國小五年級學童摘要能力與閱讀理解的成效。教育科學研究期刊,56(3),91-118。
8. 陳木金、許瑋珊(2012)。從PISA閱讀評量國際比較探討閱讀素養的教育方向。教師天地,180,4-15。
9. 陳欣希、張鑑如、陳秀芬(2011)。學齡前幼兒的故事結構發展:故事文法之分析,教育心理學報,42(3),359-378。
10. 曾彥翰、蔡昆瀛(2007)。文章結構教學對增進國小聽覺障礙學生說明文閱讀理解成效之研究。特殊教育研究學刊,32,67-91。
11. 張冬梅 、黃秀霜、陳惠萍(2014)。實施故事結構創作教學之成效。課程與教學季刊,13(2)77-98。
12. 張如莉 (2012)。教互教學法教學設計的應用-以國小高年級閱讀教學為例。教師天地。176,62-67。
13. 劉佩雲(2000)。自我調整學習模式之驗證。教育與心理研究,23,173-206。
14. 劉素真、田耐青(2010)。指導三年級學童運用概念構圖摘寫文章大意。國民教育,51(1),84-91。
 
無相關點閱論文
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔