本研究目的在探究不同的閱讀理解策略教學對於不同語文程度的國小五年級學生的閱\讀理解能力與後設認知能力之效益，本研究為不等控制組設計，以高雄市某國民小學三個班級共68名學生為研究對象，其中兩班學生為實驗組、一班學生為控制組。實驗組一，以直接教學法進行閱讀理解策略教學；實驗組二，以交互教學法進行閱\讀理解策略教學；而控制組學生則自行閱讀相同文章並未進行其他教學。研究者使用「中華國語文能力測驗」做為語文能力分組之依據，使用「閱\讀理解測驗」、「閱讀理解後設認知量表」以及研究者自編閱\讀理解測驗等研究工具，分別收集實驗組學生在12週共24節課的閱讀理解策略實驗教學及控制組自行閱\讀前後，其閱讀理解和後設認知的改變情形，經由多變量分析及共變數分析後，其主要發現如下：
（1）閱讀理解策略教學的實驗組學生在閱\讀理解能力上，顯著高於控制組學生，而直接教學法組和交互教學法組兩組學生的閱讀理解分數並未達顯著差異。
（2）交互教學法的閱讀理解策略教學之學生，在後設認知能力上有顯著的提昇，直接教學法學生的後設認知能力與控制組學生成績未達顯著差異。
（3）不同教學策略與不同語文能力對學生的閱讀理解能力有交互作用：交互教學法組的中語文能力學生進步分數顯著多於直接教學法組和控制組學生，顯示交互教學法對於中能力學生成效最為顯著。
（4）在四種閱讀理解策略中，學生經常使用「提問」的策略。
本研究提出證據說明不同教學法對於提昇國小學生的閱讀理解與後設認知的效益，將可作為未來相關研究之參考。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of using different teaching strategies to promote elementary students’ reading comprehension and metacognition. A nonequivalent pretest-posttest design was conducted in this study. Three fifth grade classes from Kaohsiung City were assigned to two experimental groups and one comparison group. The first experimental group students were taught by Direct Instruction; the second experimental group were taught by Reciprocal Teaching; and the comparison group students studied the same topic and content without any other extra teaching strategy.
The extra teaching strategies were contiguously conducted for 12 weeks for a total of 24 classes on both experimental group student classes; furthermore, 2 sessions of teaching instruction were added. The investigator first conducted the Chinese Llanguage bility Test to determinine the experimental group students’ reading ability. In addition, two reading comprehension instruments were used to assess the students’ progress during pre-and-post teaching span. The researcher conducted multiple variance of analysis (MANOVA) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for statiscal analyses. Finally, the main findings are as follows:
(1) The experimental group students’ reading comprehension ability was significantly different from the comparison group students’; whereas there was non-significant difference between two experimental group students.
(2) The experimental group students who were introduced to Reciprocal Teaching significsantly improved on their metacognition.
(3) There were significantly interactions between different teaching strategies and students’ reading abilities, it was found that students with moderate reading comprehension ability made significant improvement under the Reciprocal Teaching Strategy.
(4) Among the 4 different reading comprehension methods taught, students use questionaiere methods the most.
This research focuses on the effects of different teaching methods on the performance of the reading ability among elementary students and can provide as a reference for future studies.

目次……………………….……………………………….. …………………........I
表次……………………….……………………………….. ………………………III
圖次……………………….……………………………….. ………………………V
第一章　緒論
　第一節　研究動機與目的……………………….………………………………..1
　第二節　研究問題與假設……………………….………….………….…………4
　第三節　名詞釋義……………………….……..………………...……………….5
　第四節　研究範圍與限制……………………….……..………………...……….7
第二章　文獻探討
　第一節　閱讀理解的理論、策略與教學….……..………….……………….......8
　第二節　後設認知的理論與相關因素…………………………………………..20
第三節　直接教學法與其教學相關研究……………….……………….……....25
第四節　交互教學法與其教學相關研究……..………….……………….……..34
第五節　統整教學取向之相關研究………………………………………..........41
第三章　研究方法
　第一節　研究架構……………………….……..………….……………………..44
　第二節　研究設計……………………….……..………….……………………..45
　第三節　研究對象……………………….……..………….……………………..46
　第四節　研究工具……………………….……..………….……………………..47
　第五節　研究程序……………………….……..………….……………………..52
　第六節　資料收集與分析……….…..……….……..…….. …….……..………..62
第四章　研究結果與討論
第一節　實驗組與控制組閱讀理解與後設認知之差異分析…….…….……....64
第二節　不同教學取向與不同語文能力教學成效分析..…. ….…….……….69
第三節　自編閱讀理解測驗分析…….………. …….…....….……….……….82
第四節　質性資料分析…….………….…. …….……...…..…….……………87
第五章　結論與建議
第一節　結論…….………….…. …….……….……….…………….……...…95
第二節　建議…….………….…. …….……….……….…………….………...97

參考文獻
　　一、中文……………………….…………………….……………………..…99
　　二、西文……………………….……..………….…………………….…….102

附錄
　　附錄一　第二階段自編閱讀測驗試題分析資料………………….………108
　　附錄二　第三階段自編閱讀測驗試題分析資料………………….………109
　　附錄三　直接教學法教案………….……..………….…………………….110
　　附錄四　交互教學法教案………….……..………….………………….…219

一、中文部分
王俐玲（2007）。交互教學法對提昇國中資源班學生閱讀理解成效之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系所碩士論文（未出版），彰化市。
王瓊珠（1992）。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。
何嘉雯、李芃娟（2003）。交互教學法對國小閱讀理解困難學生教學成效之研究。國立臺南師範學院特殊教育學系，特殊教育與復健學報，11，101-125。
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博士論文（未出版），彰化市。
吳訓生（2002）。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。
沈翠蓮（2001）。教學原理與設計。台北：五南。
汪榮才（1992）。學習障礙兒童之後設認知歷程與教學。臺北師院學報，11，55-64。
林男勝（2007）。相互教學法對不同理解能力之國小六年級學童在閱讀策略運用與閱\讀理解之影響。屏東師範學院教育心理與輔導學系碩士班碩士論文（未出版），屏東市。
林清山（1988）。多變項分析統計法，五版。台北市：臺灣東華。
林淑珍（2005）。交互教學法對閱讀障礙學生閱\讀能力提升之研究--以五年級學生為例。國立新竹教育大學語文教學研究所碩士論文（未出版），新竹市。
林寶貴、楊惠敏、許秀英（1996）。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（1989）。後設認知研究在輕度障礙者教學上的應用，特殊教育季刊，30，12-16。
胡永崇（1995）。後設認知策略對國小閱讀障礙學童閱\讀理解成效之研究。國立屏東師範學院特殊教育中心印行。
范德鑫（1992）。共變數分析功能、假設及使用限制。師大學報，37，133-163。
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、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。
張玉梅（2003）。相互教學法對原住民國小六年級學生閱讀理解之教學成效研究。屏東師範學院教育科技研究所碩士論文（未出版），屏東市。
張春興（1989）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華。
連啟舜（2002）。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。
陳文鏗（民93）。閱讀不只是閱\讀。教師天地，129，40-41。
陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐和劉子鍵（2003）。多變量分析方法-統計軟體應用，三版。台北市：五南。
陳李稠（1988）。學習策略的研究與教學。資優教育季刊，29，15-24。
陳秋燕（2003）。國民中學國語文直接教學課程之發展。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文（未出版），高雄市。
陳美靜（2006）。以教科書課文內容為主之相互教學法對輕度智能障礙學生之閱讀理解成效之研究。國立台中教育大學特殊教育與輔助科技研究所碩士論文（未出版），台中市。
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），台北市。
黃智淵（2004）。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\讀理解之影響，屏東師範學院教育心理與輔導學系碩士班碩士論文（未出版），屏東市。
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。
楊欣宜（2007）。國民中學國語文直接教學基礎課程之發展。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文（未出版），高雄市。
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。屏東師範學院教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文（未出版），屏東市。
詹詩韻（2004）。相互教學法對國小資源班學生閱讀理解能力成效之研究。國立臺東大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版），臺東市。
廖凰伶（2000）。直接教學法與全語教學對國中低閱讀能力學生閱\讀理解表現之研究。國立彰化大學特殊教育學系碩士論文（未出版），彰化市。
蔡佩芳（2005）。相互教學法對國小國語文閱讀教學成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版），高雄市。
盧雅琪（2005）。交互教學法運用於現代文學閱讀教學之研究。屏東科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文（未出版），屏東市。
鍾聖校（1990）。認知心理學。台北：心理。
藍慧君（1991）。學習障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀不同結構文章之閱\讀理解與閱讀策略之比較研究。國立台灣師範特殊教育研究所碩士論文（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。
蘇宜芬、林清山（1992）。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。教育心理學報，25，245-267。




二、英文部分
Aarnoutse, C. (1997). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to very poor decoders in a listening situation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 406658).
Alexander, J. E., &Heathington, B. S. (1988). Assessing and correcting classroom reading problems. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school student in remedial reading classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 309-322.
Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: the efficay of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35 (2), 309-332.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L.(1984). Metacognitive skills of reading. In D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp.353-394). New York: Longman.
Bergman. J. L., & Schuder, T.(1993).Teaching at-risk students to read strategically. Educational Leadership, 50 (4):19-23.
Brown, A. L.(1980).Metacognitive development and reading. In R. S. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp.453-482). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L.(1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In Franz E. Weinert & Rainer H. Kulwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
Brown, E. W.(1990).Children with spelling and writing difficulties: An alternative approach. In P. D. Pumfrey and C. D. Elliott(Eds.).Children’s reading, spelling and writing difficulties: Challenges and responses. Lewos: Falmer Press.
Bruce, M. E., & Chan, L. K. S. (1991). Reciprocal teaching and transenvironmental programming: a program to facilitate the reading comprehension of students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 12 (5), 44-54.
Carr, T. H. & Pollatsek, A.(1985). Recognizing printed words: A look at current models. In D. Benser, T. G. Waller, & G. E. MacKinnon(Eds.).Reading research: advances in theory and practices(5，pp 1-82).New York: Academic.
Cross, D. R. &Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and Instructional Analyses of Children’s Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (2),131-142.
Dole, J. A. (2000). Explicit and implicit instruction in comprehension. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grade (pp.1-31). 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 Educational Research, 61, 239-264.
Dowell, T.(1996).The effectiveness of direct instruction on the reading achievement of sixth grader.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service. No.ED 396268)
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence. N. J. : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 231-235.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10),906-911.
Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development. (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Gagné, E. D.(1985)The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Litle, Brown and Company.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R.(1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning(2th ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Glover, J. A., Ronning, R. R.m & Bruning, R. H.(1990). Cognitive psychology for teacher. NY: Macmillan pub.
Goodman, K. S.(1967).Reading: A psycholinguistic guess game. Journal of the reading specialist, 6, 126-136.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavanaugh & I. G. Mattingly(Eds.), Language by ear and eye: The relationship between speech and reading (pp.331-358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grossen, B.(2004). Success of a direct instruction model at a secondary level school with high-risk students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 161-178.
Haring, N.G., & Bateman, B.(1997).Teaching the learning disabled children. Engldwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hayes, B. L.(1991). The effective teaching reading. In B. L. Hayes(Ed.), Effective strategies for teaching reading. Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hochberg, J.(1970).Components of literacy: Speculation and explanatory research. In J. Levin & J. Williams(Eds.), Basic studies in reading (pp 80-123).New York: Basic Books.
Jacobs, J. E. & Paris, S. G.(1987). Children's metacognition about reading: issues in edfinition, measurement, and instruction. Educational psychologist, 22(3 & 4), 255-278
Kelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 88 (1), 53-61.
Kolers, P.(1972).Experiments in reading. Scientific American, 227, 84-90.
Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., Borden, S. L., Frijter, T. C., Steinbach, K. A., & Depalma, M.(2000). Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of educational psychology, 92(2), 263-283.
Lyon, G. R.(1998).Why Reading Is Not a Natural Process. Educational Leadership, 55 (6),14-18.
Lysynchuk , L., Pressley , M.M., & Vye , N.J.(1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 469-484.
Mayer, R. E.(1987). Educational psychology: A cognition approach. Boston Company.
McCormick, C.(1995). Instructing students who have literacy problem. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., &Smith, D. (1987). Teaching and learning in the college classroom . A review of the research literature 1986 and November 1987 supplements. The Regents of University Michigan.
Myers, M. & Pairs, S. G. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680-690.
O’connor, R. E.(1992). The two approaches to reading instruction with disabilities: Does program design make a difference? Exceptional children, 59(4), 312-323.
Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L.(1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension -fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Palincsar, A. S. (1984). Collaborating for collaborative learning of text comprehension. Paper presented an the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.285123).
Pearson, P. D. & Johnson, D. D.(1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A.(1987). Explicit comprehension instruction：a review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The elementary school Journal, 88, 151-165.
Robinson, F. P. & McCollum, F. H.(1933). A critical analysis of reading test scores. Proceedings. Louisiana Academy of Sciences, 40, p. 199.
Roseshine, B. & Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp.745-798). New York: Longman.
Roseshine, B. (1978). Instruction Principles in direct Instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 155152).
Roseshine, B.(1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43 (7), 60-69.
Rumelhart, D.(1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Doric(Ed), Attention and performance VI (pp 573- 603).New York: Academic Press.
Stallings, J.(1987). Longitudinal findings for early childhood programs: Focus on direct instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 297874).
Steven, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnis, A. M.(1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8-16.
Swaby, B. E. R.(1989). Diagnosis and correction of reading difficulties. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.


Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development higher psychological process. Edited and translated by M. Cole, V. John Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wrobel, S.(1996). The effectiveness of direct instruction on the various reading achievement categories.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 395292).