參考書目
一、中文部分
王佳玲（民90）。國小不同閱讀理解能力學生在不同難度、文體文章閱讀理解表現及方式之比較研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化市。
王開寧、趙琴編著（民86）。精妙閱讀技巧。台北：漢欣文化。
王瓊珠（民81）。國小六年級閱讀障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀認知能力之比較研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
吳宗立（民87）。訊息處理的認知歷程與教學策略。人文及社會學科教學通訊，9（2），156-164頁。
吳訓生（民91）。國小高低閱讀理解能力學生閱讀理解策略之比較研究。特殊教育學報，16，65-104頁。
何素玲（民90）。國小資源班教師實施交互教學法之實務知識探究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
林清山（民79）。教育心理學－認知取向。台北：東華。
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。
林建平（民83）。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碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
林建平（民90）。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。初等教育學刊，10，177-198。
林蕙蓉（民84）。國小學童後設認知策略教學對國語科閱讀理解效能之研
究。台南師院學報，28，271-312。
林國花（民79）。國小閱讀障礙兒童成就與能力差距鑑定方式之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化市。
林生傳（民92）。教育研究法：全方位的統整與分析。台北：心理。
林寶貴、楊惠敏、許秀英（民85）。中華國語文能力測驗。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
邱上真（民80）。學習策略教學的理論與實際。特殊教育與復健學報，1，1-49頁。
周台傑（民81）。國民小學國語文成就測驗。彰化市：精華。
施頂清（民88）。自我發問策略與合作學習（小組討論）對國中生國文閱讀理解的效果比較考驗。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
胥彥華（民78）。學習策略對國小六年級學生閱讀效果之研究。國立台灣教育學院特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化市。
洪儷瑜（民88）。漢字視知覺測驗。行政院國家科學委員會特殊教育工作小組。
洪蘭、曾志朗和張稚美（民82）。閱讀障礙兒童的認知心理學基礎。輯於台北市教師研習中心編，學習障礙與教學資源，74-86。台北：台北市教師研習中心。
柯華葳（民88）。閱讀理解困難篩選測驗。行政院國家科學委員會特殊教育工作小組。
柯華威、邱上真（民89）。學習障礙學生鑑定與診斷指導手冊。教育部特殊教育工作小組。
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博士論文，未出版，彰化市。
涂志賢（民87）。相互教學法對國小六年級學童國語科閱讀理解、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，花蓮縣。
高玉蓉（民82）。由視知覺歷程探討閱讀障礙學生的學習困難。特殊教育季刊，47，21-24。
許淑玫（民89）。國小六年級閱讀小組實施交互教學之個案研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中市。
郭靜姿（民82）。閱讀理解訓練方案對於增進閱讀策略運用與後設認知能力之成效研究。教育研究資訊，1(5)，26-50。
郭為藩（民67）。我國學童閱讀缺陷問題的初步調查及探討。師大教育研究所集刊，20，57-78。
張春興（民80）。現代心理學。台北：東華。
教育部（民91）：身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定標準。
張瑛玿（民83）。自我發問策略對國小學生的閱讀理解與自我發問能力之影響。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，台北市。
曾世杰（民88）。聲韻覺識的測量。行政院國家科學委員會特殊教育工作小組。
曾陳蜜桃（民79）。國民中小學後設認知及其閱讀理解相關研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
黃秀霜（民86）。中文年級認字量表：指導手冊。台北：心理。
黃瑞珍（民88）。故事結構分析法在語言學習障礙兒童教學之應用。國小特殊教育，27，4-10。
黃瓊儀（民84）。相互教學法對國小高年級學童閱讀理解能力、後設認知能力與閱讀態度之影響。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
楊韻平（民82）。兒童摘取文章大意的能力。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
詹文宏（民84）。後設認知閱讀策略對國小閱讀障礙兒童閱讀理解能力之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化市。
連啟舜（民91）。國內閱讀理解教學研究成效之統合分析。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，台北市。
劉兆文、陳怡欣（民88）。從閱讀的認知歷程談有效教學策略。教師天地，102，78-85。
劉玲吟（民83）。後設認知閱讀策略的教學對國中低閱讀能力學生閱讀效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化市。
葉淑美（民90）。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。臺中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中市。
陳李稠（民77）。學習策略的研究與教學。資優教育季刊，29，15-24。
陳李稠（民84）。學習策略訓練方案對國中生閱讀理解學習之影響。教育心理學報，28，77-98。
陳美芳（民86）。語文理解能力測驗。行政院國家科學委員會特殊教育工作小組。
陳建明（民86）。閱讀理解策略教學效果之個案研究─以花蓮縣安通部落阿美族國民小學生為例。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育學研究所碩士論文，未出版，花蓮縣。
陳淑如（民85）。重述故事對幼兒故事回憶和故事理解之影響研究。國立台灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
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，未出版，台北市。
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學系博士論文，未出版，高雄市。
鍾雅婷（民89）。學習策略教學對國小六年級學童閱讀理解成效之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東縣。
顏若映（民82）。先前知識在閱讀理解上之研究。教育與心理研究，16，
385-412。
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，台北市。
蘇宜芬（民80）。後設認知訓練課程對國小低閱讀能力學生的閱讀理解能力與後設認知能力之影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
蘇育塯（民79）。幼兒故事回憶與理解之研究。國立台灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
二、英文部分
Applegate, M. D., Quinn, K. B., ＆ Applegate, A. J. (1994). Using metacognit- ive strategies to enhance achievement for at-risk liberal arts college studen- ts. Journal of Reading, 38, 32-41.
Bender, W. N. (1999). Professional issues in learning disabilities. Austin,TX：
PRO-ED.
Benito, Y. M., Foley, C. L., Lewis, C. D., ＆ Prescott , P. (1993). The effects of
instruction in question-answer relationships and metacognition on social st-
udies comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 16(1), 20-29.
Bereiter, C., ＆ Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and te-
aching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2(2), 131-156.
Brown, A. L., ＆ Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts：The
development of experties. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
Brown, M. I. (1990). Improving reading comprehension of second grade stude-
nts through the use of “Story Mapping”.（ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO.ED 322 468）
Cambrell, 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.
Cardill, M. C., ＆ Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction：
Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 2-17, 28.
Catts , H. W., ＆ Kamhi, A. G. (1999). Language and reading disabilities.
Needham Heights, MA：Allyn and Bacon.
Clark, F. L., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Alley, G. R., ＆ Warner, M. M.
(1984). Visual imagery and self-questioning：Strategies to improve comprehension of written material. Journal of Leraning Disabilities, 17(3), 145-149.
Davey, B., ＆ McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on
reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 256-262.
Davey, B., ＆ McBride, S. (2001). Generating self-questions after reading：A
comprehension assist for elementary students. Journal of Educational Research, 80(1), 43-46.
Davis, Z. T., ＆ McPerson, M. D. (1989). Story map instruction：A road map
for reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher,43(3), 232-240.
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 Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.
Foos, P. W., ＆ Fisher, R. P. (1988). Using tests as learning opportunities. Jour-
nal of Education Psychology, 80, 179-183.
Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., ＆ Yekovich, F. R. (1998).教學心理學：學習
的認知基礎。（岳修平譯）。台北：遠流。(原著出版於1985年)
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.
Glaubman, R., Glaubman, H., ＆ Ofir, L. (1997). Effects of self-directed
learning, story comprehension, and self-question in kindergarten. Journal of Educational Research, 90(6), 361-374.
Graham, S., ＆ Harris, K. R. (1997). It can be taught, but it does not develop
naturally: Myths and realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26(3) , 414-424.
Grasser, A. C., ＆ Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring.
American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104-137.
Gredler, M. E. (1994).學習理論與教學應用。（吳幸宜譯）。台北：心理。
(原著出版於1991年)
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.
Hidi, S., ＆ Anderson, V. (1986). Producting written summaries：Task
demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 473-542.
Heilman, A., Blair, T., ＆ Rupley, W.(1990). Principles and practices of
teaching reading. Columbus, Ohio：Merrill.
Idol , L. (1987). Group story mapping：A comprehension strategy for both skill-
ed and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 196-205.
Idol , L., ＆ Croll, V. J. (1985). The effects of training in story mapping proce-
dures on the reading comprehension of poor readers. ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO.ED 265 524)
Jitendra, A. K., Cole, C. L., Hoppes, M. K., ＆ Wilson, B. (1998). Effects of
a direct instruction main idea summarization program and self-monitoring on reading comprehension of middle school students with learning disabilities. Reading and Writing Quarterly,14(4), 379-96.
Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., ＆ Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea co-
mprehension for students with learning problems：The role of a summari- zation strategy and self-monitoring instruction. Journal of Special Educa- tion, 34(3), 127-139.
Johnson, N. S. (1983). What do you do if you can’t tell the whole story ? The
development of summarization skills. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.). Children’s
Language, 4, 315-381.
Kintsch, W., ＆ Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension
on and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Krishef, C. H. (1999).單一受試者設計與分析。（蔡美華等譯）。台北：五南。
(原著出版於1991年)
Lerner, J. W. (1989). Learning Disabilities：Theories,diagnosis,and teaching
strategies (5th ed.). Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company.
Malone, L. D., ＆ Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruc-
tion：summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Expectional Children, 58(3), 270-279.
Mandler, J. M., ＆ Johnson, N.S. (1977). Remember of things parsed：Story
structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151.
Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., ＆ Fuchs, L. S. (1997). Cooperative story mapping.
Remedail and Special Education, 18, 20-27.
Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational psychology：A cognitive approach.Boston：
Little, Brown and Company.
Mealey, D. L., ＆ Nist, S. L. (1989). Postsecondary teacher directed compre-
hension strategies. Journal of Reading, 32(6), 484-493.
Mercer, C. D. (1992). Students with learning disabilities. Columbus：Merrill
Publishing Company.
Morrow, L. M. (1985). Retelling stories：A strategy for improving young
children’s comprehension, concept of story structure, and oral language completely. The Elementary School Journal, 85(5), 647-661.
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.
Nolan, J. E. (1991). Self-questioning and prediction：Combing metacognitive
strategies. Journal of Reading, 35(2), 132-138.
Oja, L. A. (1996). Using story frames to develop reading comprehension. Jou-
rnal of Adolescent ＆ Adult Literacy, 40(2).
Palincsar, A. S., ＆ Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of compre hens-
ion-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction,1(2), 117-175.
Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., ＆ Lipson, M. Y.(1984). Informed strategies for lear-
ning awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,1239-1252.
Pearson, P. D., ＆ Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension.
New York：Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Rosenshine, B. (1980). Skill hierarchies in reading compreh- ension. In Spiro, R.
J., Bruce, B. C., ＆ Brewer, W. F. (eds.). Theoretical issues in reading co- mprehension（pp.33-58）. Hillsdale, N J：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Schmelzer, R., ＆ Henson, K. (1989). Episodic mapping：A technique to help
students understand stories. ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 306 539)
Short, E. J., ＆ Ryan, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive difference between skilled
and less skilled readers. Remediating deficits through story grammer and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 225-235.
Singer, H., ＆ Donlan, D. (1982). Active comprehension：Problem-solving
schema with question generation for comprehension of completely short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 166-184.
Staal, L. A. (2000). The story face：An adaptation of story mapping that incor-
porates visualization and discovery learning to enhance reading and writing. The Reading Teacher, 54, 26-31.
Stahl, N. A. (1985). Developing independent learners: Strategies and tactics for
mastery of text. College Reading and Learning Assistance Technical Report ,85-10.
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.
Swanson, P. N., ＆ De La Paz, S. (1998). Teaching effective comprehension
strategies with learning and reading disabilities. Intervention in School ＆ Clinic, 33(4), 209-219.
Tawney, J. W., ＆ Gast, D. L. (1994).單一受試研究法。（杜正治譯）。台北：
心理。(原著出版於1984年)
Taylor, B. M., ＆ Frye, B. J. (1992). Comprehension strategies instruction in
the intermediate grades. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(1), 39-48.
Taylor, B. M., Graves, M. F., van den Broek, P. (2000). Reading for Meaning：
Fostering Comprehension in the Middle Grades. Language and Literacy Series.
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 (2), 173-184.
Williams, J. P. (1998). Strategic processing of text：Improving reading compre-
hension of students with learning disabilities.(ERIC-RIEO, 20001101).
Wong, B. Y. L. (1979). Increasing retention of main ideas through questioning
strategies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2(2), 42-47.
Wong, B. Y. L., ＆ Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in
learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-question training. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 5, 228-239.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research：A review. Review of Educational Research, 55(2) , 227-68.
系統編號:
093NTPTC284007
出版年:
-
研究生:
薛永華
學號:
9139014
論文名稱:
語言經驗法對提升閱讀理解與口語表達能力之成效研究
指導教授:
呂金燮
學位類別:
碩士
校院名稱:
國立台北師範學院
系所名稱:
特殊教育學系碩士班
學年度:
93
語文別:
中文
論文頁數:
178
開放範圍:
不開放
中文關鍵字:
閱讀障礙 ，語言經驗法 ，口語表達能力 ，閱讀理解能力
英文關鍵字:
Reading disabilities ，Language-experience approach ，Expressive Language Ability ，Reading comprehension ability
The Study on the Effect of language-experience approach for improving reading comprehension abilities and expressive language abilities- two reading disable children as the example.
Shiue, Yung-hua
Abstracts
The purpose of this study is to investigate how language-experience approach promotes the reading comprehension abilities and expressive language abilities for the reading disable children. The subjects for this study were two third-graders in the elementary school. According to the reading difficulties of the subjects, the external and internal factors, the reading comprehension ability after intervention is observed from the point of knowledge base by using language-experience approach. In addition, children’s improvements in usage of vocabulary and sentence structure organization are analyzed in relation to the improvement of oral ability.
The findings of this research are as follows:
1、The effects of language-experience methods on reading comprehension are positive but insignificant.
（1）Subject A and B on phonological recording ability is positive significant.
（2） Subject A and B on syntactic parsing、semantics、comprehending facts explicitly stated in the text、comparing/analyzing the facts stated in the text are insignificant.
2、The effects of language-experience methods on expressive language abilities are positive significant.
（1）Subject A performs better than Subject B on the total number of words, expressions, opposite expressions, total sentences.
（2）Subject A and B do not perform significantly better on the average number of words, expressions.
（3）As to the usage of sentence patterns, sentence one is used most often while sentence four (compound sentences) and sentence five are not used significantly, which means the complexity of the sentence structure is not improved better.
Finally, parents will be given advice according to the findings of the research.
___________________________________________________________
Key words: Reading disabilities、Language-experience approach、Expressive Language Ability、Reading comprehension ability
