Here attached are are thesis abstracts on

[摘要]

本研究目的旨在了解故事結構教學對國小閱讀障礙學生閱讀理解能力之教學成效，研究對象為三名國小二年級閱讀障礙學生，以單一受試實驗研究法中的跨受試多探試設計進行研究。研究工具包括：「閱讀理解測驗」、「中文閱讀理解測驗」、學生及教師的意見訪談表。 經過研究資料之處理分析後，本研究之主要發現如下： 一、經過故事結構教學之介入後，對國小閱讀障礙學生之閱讀理解能力具有提升成效。 二、經過故事結構教學之介入後，對國小閱讀障礙學生之閱讀理解能力具有維持效果。 三、國小閱讀障礙學生對「文章中明示的問題」、「文章中隱含的問題及涉入個人經驗的問題」等題型，均呈現進步的狀況。 四、國小閱讀障礙學生接受故事結構教學後，在「中文閱讀理解測驗」上前、後測的表現情形，具有正向的改變。 五、故事結構教學的教學效果獲得閱讀障礙學生及班級教師的支持與肯定。 關鍵字詞：故事結構教學、閱讀障礙

The purpose in this study was to explore effects of using a story grammar instruction on the reading comprehension of elementary school students with reading comprehension difficulties. A multiple probe design across participants was employed.Three second grade students with reading comprehension difficulties were chosen as research subjects.Tools adopted by this study were “ Reading Comprehension Test”、”Chinese Reading Comprehension Test”、opinion interview list of the students and teachers. Result indicated that： 1、Story grammar instruction could improve subjects’reading comprehension ability. 2、Story grammar instruction could maintained subjects’reading comprehension ability. 3、Subjects had showen progress in types of”textually explicit questions”and “textually implicit questions and scriptually explicit questions”on Reading Comprehension Test. 4、There were improvements on subjects’reading comprehension ability showen in” Chinese Reading Comprehension Test”. 5、Subjects and teachers confirmed that story grammar instruction could improve reading comprehension ability. Key word: story grammar instruction, reading comprehension difficulties.

[ 論文目次 ]

中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………………Ⅰ 英文摘要……………………………………………………………………………………Ⅱ 目次…………………………………………………………………………………………Ⅲ 表次…………………………………………………………………………………………Ⅴ 圖次…………………………………………………………………………………………Ⅶ 附錄次………………………………………………………………………………………Ⅷ 第一章 緒論……………………………………………………………………1 第一節 研究動機…………………………………………………………………1 第二節 研究目的與待答問題……………………………………………………4 第三節 名詞解釋…………………………………………………………………5 第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………………8 第一節 閱讀理解歷程與成分……………………………………………………8 第二節 閱讀障礙學生的閱讀特質及相關閱讀理解策略………………………… 19 第三節 故事結構教學及其相關研究…………………………………………………28 第三章 研究方法…………………………………………………………45 第一節 研究架構…………………………………………………………………45 第二節 研究對象…………………………………………………………………47 第三節 研究設計…………………………………………………………………50 第四節 研究工具…………………………………………………………………56 第五節 實施步驟及程序…………………………………………………………64 第六節 資料處理…………………………………………………………………72 第四章 研究結果與討論……………………………………………………75 第一節 故事結構教學對提升受試者閱讀理解能力的教學成效及維持效果……75 第二節 受試者接受故事結構教學前、後在「中文閱讀理解測驗」上的表現情形……91 第三節 社會效度分析…………………………………………………………………95 第四節 綜合討論………………………………………………………………………102 第五章 結論與建議……………………………………………………………107 第一節 結論…………………………………………………………………………107 第二節 研究限制……………………………………………………………………109 第三節 建議…………………………………………………………………………111 參考文獻………………………………………………………………………………115 中文部份…………………………………………………………………………………115 英文部份…………………………………………………………………………………118 表 次 表2-1 閱讀理解成分分析表………………………………………………………15 表2-2 閱讀障礙者之特質研究……………………………………………………20 表2-3 Lerner所提閱讀過程中促進閱讀理解的策略………………………………23 表2-4 故事結構教學之相關研究摘要表………………………………………………33 表2-5 針對學習障礙學生施行故事結構教學研究摘要表……………………………36 表3-1 研究對象基本資料表……………………………………………………………49 表3-2 基線期及維持期階段評量材料摘要表…………………………………………51 表3-3 教學介入期B1（示範引導）之教學與評量材料摘要表………………………53 表3-4 教學介入期B2（獨立期）之教學與評量材料摘要表………… ………………53 表3-5 研究者自編閱讀理解測驗總題數、平均難度及各題項類型…………………62 表3-6 本研究之計畫進度………………………………………………………………67 表4-1 閱讀理解測驗階段內變化的資料分析表………………………………………78 表4-2 閱讀理解測驗階段間變化的資料分析表………………………………………79 表4-3 受試甲「閱讀理解測驗」整體答題表現………………………………………80 表4-4 受試甲自編閱讀理解測驗答對百分比之C統計摘要表…………………… 80 表4-5 受試乙「閱讀理解測驗」整體答題表現……………………………………82 表4-6 受試乙自編閱讀理解測驗答對百分比之C統計摘要表…………………83 表4-7 受試丙「閱讀理解測驗」整體答題表現……………………………………85 表4-8 受試丙自編閱讀理解測驗答對百分比之C統計摘要表……………………86 表4-9 受試者「自編閱讀理解測驗」各題型答題狀況分析………………88 表4-10 受試者「中文閱讀理解測驗」前、後測資料分析表…………………………92 表4-11 受試甲及其班級教師（T1）意見訪談表………………………………………97 表4-12 受試乙及其班級教師（T2）意見訪談表………………………………………99 表4-13 受試丙及其班級教師（T3）意見訪談表……………………………………101 表4-14 三名受試者及其班級教師意見訪談表平均數………………………………106 圖 次 圖2-1 循環模式的閱讀歷程……………………………………………………………10 圖2-2 Gagne’的閱讀歷程模式……………………………………………………13 圖2-3 影響閱讀理解成敗的因素……………………………………………………17 圖2-4 Rumelhart 的故事結構圖………………………………………………………28 圖2-5 Thorndyke的故事結構圖………………………………………………………29 圖2-6 我的故事地圖…………………………………………………………………30 圖2-7 黃瑞珍的故事結構圖…………………………………………………………31 圖3-1 本研究架構圖…………………………………………………………………46 圖3-2 本研究設計模式圖……………………………………………………………55 圖3-3 基線期實驗教學流程圖………………………………………………………68 圖3-4 B1處理期示範教學流程圖………………………………………………69 圖3-5 B2處理期指導教學流程圖………………………………………………70 圖3-6 維持期實驗教學流程圖……………………………………………………71 圖4-1 三名受試者「閱讀理解測驗」答對百分比曲線………………………………77 圖4-2 受試者在「自編閱讀理解測驗」各題型的表現曲線圖………………………89 圖4-3 三名受試者「中文閱讀理解測驗」前、後測資料長條圖…………… ……… …93 附 錄 次 附錄一 參加本實驗研究家長同意書…………………………………………124 附錄二 參加本實驗研究教師同意書……………………………………………125 附錄三 實施測驗順序……………………………………………………………126 附錄四 教學日期通知單……………………………………………………………127 附錄五 故事結構教學設計示例…………………………………………………130 附錄六 故事結構地圖單……………………………………………………………134 附錄七 故事結構摘要單……………………………………………………………135 附錄八 閱讀教學材料1～15篇…………………………………………………136 附錄九 研究者自編36篇閱讀測驗……………………………………………158 附錄十 學生意見訪談表…………………………………………………………187 附錄十一 班級教師意見訪談表………………………………………………………188

[參考文獻]

一、中文部分： 孔繁鐘、孔繁錦譯（民86）。DSM-Ⅳ精神疾病診斷準則手冊。台北：合記。 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之碩士論文，未出版，彰化市。 王瓊珠（民93）。故事結構教學與分享閱讀。台北：心理出版社。 何東墀、胡永崇（民85）。後設認知策略對國小閱讀障礙兒童閱讀理解成效之研究。特殊教育學報，11，頁173-210。 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。台南師範學院特殊教育學系碩士論文，已出版，台南。 杜正治譯（民83）。單一受試研究法。台北：心理。 沈茵編著（民90）。小學生每日10分鐘閱讀（中年級1）。台南：（真平企業）金安文教機構。 周台傑、吳金花（民89）。國民小學閱讀障礙學生閱讀錯誤類型分析。特殊教育研究學刊，19，頁37-58。 周台傑、詹文宏（民84）。後設認知策略對國小閱讀障礙兒童閱讀理解能力之研究。特殊教育復健學報，4，頁109-152。 岳修平譯（民87）。E.D. Gagne, C.W. Yekovich ＆ F.R. Yekovich 著。教育心理學—學習的認知基礎。台北：遠流。 林佩菁（民91）。故事架構教學對國中學習障礙學生閱讀理解表現之研究。彰化師範大學特殊教育學系在職進修專班碩士論文，未出版，彰化市。 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，未出版，台北市。 林秉武（民93）。交互教學策略對不同組型閱讀障礙兒童增進閱讀理解效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所之博士論文，未出版。 林建平（民86）。學習輔導—理論與實務。台北：五南。 林素貞（民87）。相似字與非相似字呈現方式對國小一年級國語科低成就學生生字學習效果之比較。特殊教育與復健學報，5，頁227-251。 林寶貴、錡寶香（民88）：中文閱讀理解測驗。教育部特殊教育工作小組。 邱上真、洪碧霞、葉千綺、林素微（民87）。中文閱讀能力評量模式的探討：理論與實務--國民小學國語文低成就學童篩選工具系列發展之研究（Ⅲ）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。 柯華葳（民82）。台灣地區閱讀研究文獻回顧（1991-1992）。載於曾志朗主編：中國語文心理學研究第一年度結案報告（頁31-76）。嘉義民雄：國立中正大學認知科學研究中心。 柯華葳（民86）。中文閱讀歷程成分研究：兒童在閱讀理解上的困難。輯於第五屆世界華語文教學研討會論文集，教學應用組（頁399-405）。 洪碧霞、邱上真（民86）。國民小學語文低成就學童篩選工具系列發展之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，15，頁83-107。 胡永崇（民84）。後設認知策略教學對國小閱讀障礙學童閱讀理解成效之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所之博士論文，未出版。 張玉成（民90）。思考啟發性閱讀指導技巧。載於新世紀兒童創意閱讀指導技巧，頁2-14。台北市：中華創造學會。 張莉珍（民92）。故事構圖策略與摘要策略對增進國小六年級低閱讀能力學生閱讀理解之比較研究。中原大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園。 張新仁（民81）。認知心理學對教學的影響。教育研究雙月刊,28,頁13-50。 張寶珠（民81）。後設認知訓練團體對國中英語低閱讀能力學生的閱讀理解能力與後設認知能力之影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。 教育部特殊教育工作小組（民91）。特殊教育法規選輯-「身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定基準」。台北：教育部。 許文章（民90）。故事圖教學對國小六年級學生記敘文寫作表現與組織能力之研究。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。 連啟舜（民91）。國內閱讀理解教學研究成效之分析。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，台北。 郭生玉（民87）。心理與教育測驗。台北中和：精華。 陳英豪、吳裕益（民84）。測驗與評量。高雄市：復文書局出版社。 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，台北市。 陳淑絹（民84）。「指導-合作學習」教學策略增進國小學童閱讀理解能力之實徵研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。 曾世杰（民85）。閱讀低成就學童及一般學童的閱讀歷程成分分析研究。載於八十五學年度師範學院教育學術論文發表會（頁.17-30）。教育部。 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，頁125-138。 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，頁4-10。 葉淑美（民91）。合作故事圖解教學法對國小低閱讀能力學生閱讀理解成效之研究。台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中市。 蔡美華等譯（民88）。單一受試設計與分析。台北：五南。 蔡銘津（民84）。文章結構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研究所博士論文，未出版，高雄市。 鄭涵元（民83）。詞的閱讀學習策略對國小兒童閱讀理解影響效果之實驗研究。台北師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。 藍慧君（民80）。學習障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀不同結構文章之閱讀理解與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，未出版，台北。 二、英文部分： Aaron,P.G.,＆ Joshi,R.M.（1992）.Reading problems：Consultation and remediation . New York：The Guilford Press. Araujo,L.（2000）.Traversing home/school,English/Portuguese：Young learners path to literacy learning.Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University Of Delaware, Delaware. Bender,W.N. （2001）Learning disabilities：characteristics,identification, and teaching strategies（4thed.）.Boston：Allyn and Bacon. Brown,M.I.（1990）.Improving reading comprehension of second grade students through the use of”Story Mapping”.ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO.ED,p.322-468. Bukowiecki,E.M.,＆McMackin,M.C.（1999）.Young children and narrative texts：a school-based ininquir project.Reading Improvement,36（4）,157-166. Calderon,Slavin＆Hert-Lazarowitz（1998）.Effects of bilingual cooperative integrated reading and composition on students making the transition from Spanish to English reading. The Elementary School Journal,99（2）,153-165. Chase,C.I.（1978）.Measurement for Educational Evaluation.（2nd ed.）.Reading,Massachusetts：Addison-Wesley. Clark,D.B.（1992）.Beginning reading instruction for reading disabled and at-risk students.In S. A. Vogel（Ed.）,Educational alternatives for students with learning disabilities （pp.67-90）.New York：Springer-Verlag. Cook,L.K.＆ Mayer,R.E.（1983）.Reading strategies training for meaningful learning for.Prose.Cognitive strategy research.New York：Spring-Verlag Inc. 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,91,19-32. Dole,J.A.（2000）.Explicit and implicit instruction in comprehension. In B.M.Taylar,M.F.Graves ＆P. van den Broek（Eds.）,Reading for Meaning：Fostering Comprehension in The Middle Grade（pp.1-31）.NY：Teachers College. Dole,J.A.,Duffy,G.G.,Roehler,L.R.,＆Pearson,P.D.（1991）.Moving from the old to the new：Research on reading comprehension instruction.Review of Education Research,61（2）,239-264. Ekwall,E.E. ＆ Shanker.J.L.（1989）.Teaching reading in the elementary school.（2nd ed.）.Columbus：Merrill. Forrest-Pressley,D.L.,＆Gillies,L.A.（1983）.Children’s flexible use of strategies during reading .In M.Pressley ＆J.R.Levin（Eds.）,Cognitive strategy research：Education applications（pp.133-156）.New York：Springer-Verlag. Gagne’,E.D.（1985）.The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston：Little,Brown. Gagne’,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.,＆ 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. Gardill,M.C.,＆ Jitendra,A.K.（1999）.Advanced story map instruction：Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities.Journal of Special Education,33,2-17. Gersten,R.（1998）.Rencent advances in instructional reaserch for students with learning disabilities：An overview.Learning Disabilities Reserch ＆ Practice,13（3）,162-170. Gersten,R.,Fuchs,L.,Williams,J.P., ＆Baker,S.（2001）.Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with disabilities：A review of research .Review of Educational Research,71（2）,279-320. Goodman,K.S.（1967）.Reading：A psycholinguistic guessing game.Journal of the Reading Specialist,4,126-135. Gurney,D.,Gersten,R.,Dimino,J.,＆Camine,D.（1990）.Story grammar：Effective literature instruction for high school students with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities,23（6）,335-342. Hallahan,D.P.,Kauffman,J.M.＆ Lloyd,J.W.（1999）.Introduction to learning disabilities（2nded.）.Boston：Allyn and Bacon. Hannon,B.＆ Daneman,M.（2001）.A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology,93（1）,103-128. Harris,T.L.,＆ Hodges（1995）.The literacy dictionary：The vocabulary of reading and writing.Newark,DE：International Reading Association. Harris.,J.H.＆ Sipay,E.R.（1990）.How to increase reading ability：A guide to developmental ＆ remedial methods. New York,Longman. http://www.interdys.org/servlet.htm. Idol, L.（1987）.Group story mapping：A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 196-205. Idol, L., ＆ Croll,V.J.（1987）.Story-Mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension.Learning Disability Quarterly, 10,214-229. International Dyslexia Association（1994）.The Definition of Dyslexia. Retreived April 3,2003 from IDA on the world wide web. Kolligian,J., ＆ Stermberg,R.J.（1987）.Intelligence,information processing, and specific learning disabilities：A triarchic synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities,20（1）,8-17. 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：416-469）. Laberge,D. ＆ Samuels,S.J.（1974）.Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading.Cognitive psychology,6,283-323. Lerner,J.W.（2000）.Learning Disabilities：Theories,diagnosis,and teaching strategies（8th ed.）.Boston,MA： Houghton Mifflin Co. Liposon,M.Y. ＆ Wixson,K.K.（1991）.Assessment and Instruction of Reading Disability：An Interactive Approach. New York：HarperCollins Publishers Inc. Lorch,E.P.,Sanchez,R.P.,Broek,P.v.d.,＆Milich,R.（1999）.The relation of story structure properties to recall of television stories in young children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and nonreferred peers.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,27（4）,293-309. Mandler,J.M.（1983）.Representation.In J.H. Flavell ＆ E.M.Markman（Eds.）,Carmichael’s manual of child psychology（vol.3）.（pp.420-494）.New York：Wiley. Mathes,P.G.,Fuchs,D.,＆ Fuchs,L.S.（1997）.Cooperation story mapping.Remedial and Special Educational,18（1）,20-27. McLaughlin,M.,＆Allen,M.B.（2002）.Guided comprehension：A teaching model for grades 3-8.Newark,DE：International Reading Association. Mercer,C.D.＆ Mercer,A.R.（2001）。Teaching students with learning problems（6th）.New York：Macmillan Publishing Company. Naremore,R.C.（1997）.Making it hang together：Children’s use of mental frameworks to structure.Topics in Language Disorders,18（1）,16-29. Newby,R.F.,Caldwell,J.,＆ Recht,D.R.（1989）.Improving the reading comprehension of children with dysphonetic and dyseidetic dyslexia using story grammar.Journal of Learning Disabilities,22,373-380. Newby,R.F.,Caldwell,J.,＆ Recht,D.R.（1989）.Improving the reading comprehension of children with dysphonetic and dyseidetic dyslexia using story grammar. Journal of Learning Disabilities,22（6）,373-380. Noll,V.H.,Scannell,D.P.,＆ Craig,R.C.（1979）.Introduction to Educational Measurement.（4th ed.）.Boston：Houghton Mifflin. Ouellette,G.,Dagostino,L.,＆Carifio,J.（1999）.The effects of exposure to children’s literature through read aloud and an inferencing strategy on low reading ability fifth graders’sense of story structure and reading comprehension .Reading Improvement,36,73-89. Palincsar,A.S., ＆ Brown,A.L.（1984）.Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction,2,117-175. Palincsar,A.S.,＆ Brown,D.A.（1984）.Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction,1（2）,117-175. Pearson,P.D., ＆Dole,J.A.（1987）.Explicit comprehension instruction：a review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction.The Elementary School Journel,88,151-165. Pearson,P.D.,＆ Johnson,D.D.,（1978）.Teaching reading comprehension.NY：Holt,Rinehart and Winston. Peterson.B.（1991）.Selecting books for beginning readers.In D.E.DeFord,C.A.Lyons,＆ G.S.Pinnell（Eds.）,Bridge to literacy：Learning from Reading Recovery（pp.119-147）.Portsmouth,NH：Heinemann. Polloway,E.A., Patton,J.R. ＆ Serna,L.（2001）. Strategies for teaching learners with special needs（7thed.）.N.j.：Merrill. Pressley ,M.,Johnson, C.J.,Symons,S.,McGoldrick,J.A.,Kurita,J.A.（1989）.Strategies that improve children’s memeory and comprehension of text.The Elementary School Journal,90（1）,3-32. Pressley,M.（2000）. What should comprehension instruction be the instruction？In M.L.Kamil,P.B.Mosenthal,P.D.Pearson,＆R.Barr,（Eds.）Handbook of Reading Research Volume Ⅲ（pp.545-561）.Mahwah,NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reutzel,D.R. ＆ Cooter,R.B.,Jr.（1996）.Teaching children to read. Boston：Allyn and Bacon. Rog,L.J.,＆ Burton,W.（2002）.Matching texts and readers：Leveling early reading materials for assessment and instruction.The Reading Teacher,55,348-356. Rogoff,B.,＆Gardner,W.（1984）.Guidance in cognitive development：An examination of mother-child instruction .In B.Rogoff＆J.Lave（Eds.）,Every day cognition：Its development in social context,95-116.Cambridge,MA：Harvard University Press. Ross,S.M.＆ Divesta,F.J.（1976）.Oral summary as a review strategy enhancing recall of textual material.Journal of Education Psychology,68,689-695. Roth,F.P.（2000）.Narrative writing：Development and teaching with children with writing difficulties. Topics in Language Disorders,20（4）,15-27. Rumelhart,D.E.（1975）.Notes on a schema for stories.In Bobrow,D.G.＆Collins,A.M.（Eds）.Representation and understanding：Studies in cognitive science.New York：Academic Press. Rumelhart,D.E.（1977）.Schemata：The building blocks of cognition. In R.J.Spiro,B.C.Bruce,＆ W.F.Brewer（eds.）,Theroretical issues in reading comprehension（pp.33-58）.Hillsdale,NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rumelhart,D.E.（1977）.Toward an interactive model of reading.In S.Dornic（Ed）.Attention and performance,6,573-603.Hillsdale,NJ：Erlbaum. 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. Slavin,R.E.（1996）.Research on cooperative learning and achievement：What we know,what we need to know.Contemporary Education Psychology,21,43-69. Stanovich,K.E.（1980）.Toward an interactive model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency.Reading Research Quarterly,16,32-71. Stanovich,K.E.（1986）.Matthew effects in reading：Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.Reading Research Quarterly,21,360-407. Stein,N.L., ＆ Glenn,C.G.（1979）.An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children.In Freedle,R.O.New directions in discourse processing.（Vol.2）,53-121.Norwood,N.J.：Ablex. Stein,N.L., ＆ Trabasso,T.（1982）.What’s in a story：Critical issues in comprehension and instruction.In R.Glaser（Ed.）,Advances in instructional psychology（Vol.2,pp.271-282）.Hillsdale ,NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tawney,J.W.,＆ Gast,D.L.,（1984）。Single subject research in special education. Columbus,OH：Charles E.Merrill Publishing Company. Taylor.R.（2000）.Assessment of exceptional students：Educational and psychological procedures（5th ed.）.Boston：Allyn ＆ Bacon.Theoretical issues in reading comprehension（pp.33-58）.Hillsdle,NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thorndyke,P.V.（1977）.Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse.Cognitive Psychology,9,77-110. Vallecorsa,A.L.,＆DeBettencourt,L.U.（1997）.Using a mapping procedure to teach reading and writing skills to middle grade students with learning disabilities.Education ＆ Treatment of Children,20,173-184. van den Broek,P.,＆ Kremer,K.E.（2000）.The Mind in Action：What It Means to Comprehension During Reading. In B.M.Taylor,M.F.Graves ＆ P.van den Broek（Eds.）.Reading for Meaning：Fostering Comprehension in The Middle Grade（pp.1-31）.NT：Teachers College. Vaughn,S., ＆ Schumm,J.S.（1995）.Responsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,28,264-270. Walker,B.J.（1992）.Diagnostic teaching of reading：Techniques for instruction and assessment.New York,NY：Macmillon Publishing Company. Williams,J.P.（1998）.Improving comprehension of disabled reader.Annals of Dyslexia,48,213-238. Wood,P.,Bruner,J.,＆Ross,G.（1976）.The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Children Psychology and Psychaitry,17,89-100. Wren,S.（2003）.The cognitive foundation of learning to read：A framework. Retrieved October 3,2003,from http://www.sed1.org/reading/ framework.

系統編號: 089NTNU0284003 出版年: 2001 研究生: 吳淑娟 學號: 688090017 論文名稱: 國小閱讀理解困難學童之詞彙能力分析研究 指導教授: 洪儷瑜 Li-Yu Hung 學位類別: 碩士 校院名稱: 國立臺灣師範大學 系所名稱: 特殊教育研究所 學年度: 89 語文別: 中文 論文頁數: - 開放範圍: 不開放 中文關鍵字: 閱讀理解困難 ，詞彙 ，閱讀障礙 ，國小學生 英文關鍵字: reading comprehension difficult ，vocabulary ，reading disabilities ，elementary students

[摘要]

本研究旨在分析閱讀理解困難學生之詞彙能力、識字能力與閱讀理解能力之間的關係，並探討其口語詞彙及書面詞彙能力上的表現。 本研究以閱讀理解困難篩選測驗得分在平均數負一個標準差以下及托尼非語文智商在90以上為標準，篩選出31位閱讀理解困難學生，而受試需再接受六項測驗以評估口語詞彙、書面詞彙及識字能力。 本研究結果顯示： 一、閱讀理解困難學生之口語詞彙能力皆未與書面詞彙、識字、閱讀理解能力達顯著相關；書面詞彙能力則皆與識字能力達顯著相關，且書面詞彙意義表達、書面詞彙意義理解亦皆與閱讀理解能力達顯著相關，其識字能力需要透過書面詞彙能力才和閱讀理解能力有顯著相關。 二、閱讀理解困難學生之每句口語詞彙數比一般學生短少，且看圖說故事之每句詞彙個數及每句不重覆詞彙個數皆顯著多於自發性說故事；而閱讀理解困難學生的口語詞類發展有落後的現象，在看圖及自發性說故事中，12種詞類詞彙出現百分比皆以動詞和名詞為最高，以嘆詞及擬聲詞為最低；副詞出現百分比僅在自發性說故事時顯著高於其他9種詞類的情形。 三、閱讀理解困難學生6種詞類之書面詞彙讀音的通過百分比為98.27%，且有自我修正讀音的現象；而代詞、名詞之書面詞彙意義表達最優（其通過百分比為89%及83%），而動詞及介詞最差（其通過百分比為71%及72%），且有反應速度較慢的情形。另外，同義詞、反義詞及多義詞各項得分之答對百分比在77%以上，和一般五年級學生之答對百分比沒有顯著差異，但閱讀障礙學生在同義詞及多義詞的理解能力上顯著低於一般學生。 本研究並針對研究結果及研究限制，提出對未來研究及教學的建議。

The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of vocabulary, word recognition, and reading comprehension of elementary students with reading comprehension difficulties (RCD in short). The spoken and the written vocabulary competence of RCD were also investigated. Thirty-one fifth graders with RCD were selected with one standard below average in Screening Test for Reading Comprehension Difficulties and normal score of nonverbal IQ. They were measured the Story-telling Test, Vocabulary Test, Synonyms Test, Antonym Test, Polysemy Test, and Chinese Graded Word Recognition Test. The three major findings were concluded as follows: 1.The spoken vocabulary was not related to the written vocabulary, word recognition, and reading comprehension, but the significant correlations were found between the written vocabulary and word recognition. Both expressive and comprehensive written vocabularies were significantly related to reading comprehension. However, the relation of word recognition and reading comprehension was found to be contributed by the written vocabulary. 2.The numbers of vocabulary per sentence of RCD were significantly smaller than the general students. They produced more words in the situation of telling story with pictures than telling story spontaneously. And RCD fell behind with eleven years old students in the development of verbal syntax. Noun and verb were found to be two most frequent used in spoken vocabularies of RCD. The two least frequent were interjection and onomatopoeia. 3.The pronunciation of vocabulary of RCD was found at 98% accuracy. However, they were frequently self-corrected during test. Pronoun and noun were the first two highest frequent used in expressively written vocabulary. The least frequent were verb and preposition. In the Synonyms, Antonym, and Polysemy Tests, no difference between RCD and the general students were found. Nevertheless, the scores of reading disabilities in the Synonyms Test and Polysemy Test were significantly lower the general students. According the aforementioned findings, the limitations of this study, and the recommendations to research and practical implementation were made.