探討概念構圖策略對大學生英文閱讀理解及後設認知之影響

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：29

、訪客IP：3.149.231.122

姓名

林弘君(Hung-chun Lin) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

探討概念構圖策略對大學生英文閱讀理解及後設認知之影響
(The Effects of adopting Concept Mapping Strategies on College Students’ English Reading Comprehension and Metacognitive Awareness)

相關論文

★ Using Digital Board Game to Enhance Student Engagementin Learning	★ 從人因與互動行為模式的觀點探討數位遊戲式學習輔助能源知識
★ 探討認知風格於數位遊戲式英語學習環境對遊戲行為與學習成效之影響	★ 由空間能力探討遊戲式英語學習如何影響學習者之遊戲行為和遊戲表現
★ 探討先備知識及學習風格在角色扮演遊戲中對英語字彙習得成效與行為模式之影響	★ 從全面性的角度探討先備知識對同儕互評中受評與評分之影響
★ 從認知風格的角度探討同儕互評分組對遊戲製作與評量之影響	★ 探討創作媒介、個別差異、範例式教學及創作模式對九年級學生音樂創作的學習動機及成效之影響
★ 探討個別差異與回饋形式在數位遊戲式學習系統中對學習動機、學習成效與遊戲表現之影響：以九年級國文學習為例	★ 探討趨向表現目標與逃避表現目標對於學習成效與表現目標採取之影響－以數位遊戲式英語字彙為例
★ 探討英語焦慮與先備知識對英語發音學習成效、獎章成效、遊戲成效、學習動機及遊戲心流之影響──以大型多人線上角色扮演遊戲為例	★ 探討認知風格及遊戲心流對英語字彙學習成效、遊戲成效與自我效能之影響—以多人線上角色扮演遊戲為例
★ 從認知風格的角度探討同儕互評對遊戲式學習系統製作與評量之影響	★ 電腦輔助教師回饋於外語寫作情境之研究：成果與觀感
★ 探討英語閱讀遊戲對印尼高中英語學習者的影響	★ 製作者與評量者之認知風格匹配與不匹配對遊戲人機介面與教學影片製作與評量的影響

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

過去已有研究證實概念構圖策略可以增進學習者的閱讀理解並提升學習者的後設認知覺察，然而大多數都是應用於社會科學或自然學科上，較少著墨於英語閱讀理解的研究上。為了增進學習者的閱讀理解及後設認知能力，本研究將概念構圖策略應用在英語文章閱讀過程中，目的旨在探討運用不同概念構圖策略，對不同閱讀程度學生在閱讀理解及後設認知成效的影響。
本研究以39位大學生為研究樣本，依其在TOEIC測驗得分，區分為高、低兩種閱讀能力學習者，並隨機分派至「繪製鷹架法概念構圖組」、「閱讀概念構圖組」，兩組實驗教學皆為兩週半，並將資料以二因子變異數分析，得到結果茲敘述如下:
(1) 低能力學習者在繪製鷹架法概念構圖組，其閱讀理解成效顯著優於閱讀概念構圖組；高能力學習者，接受兩種不同形式的概念構圖策略，其英語閱讀理解成效上雖有提升但並無顯著差異。
(2) 在繪製鷹架法概念構圖組，對低能力與高能力的學習者其後設認知能力皆有提升並無顯著差異，接受閱讀概念構圖的學習者中，其後設認知能力皆有提升，進一步發現，高能力學習者的後設認知能力顯著優於低能力的學習者。
(3) 學習者對於科技接受度，包含系統有用性、系統易用性以及行為意圖表現上，皆給予正面的評價。整體而言，根據問卷調查結果，學習者認為此系統在操作上是容易使用的，且認為概念構圖策略對學習閱讀理解是有幫助的。

摘要(英)

Many empirical studies have proven that concept mapping strategies can enhance students’reading comprehension and metacognitive awareness, and are applied mostly in social science or science subject; yet merely little researches on English reading comprehension. The purpose of this study aims to use concept mapping strategy on students’
English reading process, and to see the effects between adopting different concept mapping strategies and different English reading ability on students’reading comprehension and metacognitive awareness.
Thirty-nine college students enrolled in the experiment were divided into high-level and low-level groups according to the TOEIC test, and assigned randomly to “construct scaffold concept map group”and“read concept map group”respectly. The experimental duration was two and a half weeks experimental program and a two-way ANOVA analysis was implemented. The findings of the study are as follows:
(1) The result from the construct scaffold concept map group showed a better reading comprehension to the low-level students than from the read concept map group; the high-level students had no significant differences when received different concept mapping strategies.
(2) Both of high-level and low-level students had improvement in metacognitive awareness ability when received construct scaffold concept map strategy; however, the result showed no significant difference. On the other hand, students who received read concept map strategy had improvement in metacognitive awareness ability; even more, high-level students showed better metacognitive awareness ability than the low-level students.
(3) Generally, most students gave positive viewpoints toward perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and behavioral intention of different concept mapping strategies. As a whole, students thought the system was easy to operate, and considered the concept map strategy was beneficial to reading comprehension.

關鍵字(中)

★ 後設認知
★ 概念構圖
★ 閱讀理解
★ 以英語為外語

關鍵字(英)

★ metacognitive awareness
★ reading comprehension
★ concept mapping
★ EFL

論文目次

摘要 ....................................................................................................................................... I
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... II
致謝 .................................................................................................................................... IV
目錄 ..................................................................................................................................... V
圖目錄 ............................................................................................................................... VII
表目錄 .............................................................................................................................. VIII
第一章緒論 ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 研究背景 ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 研究動機 ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 研究目的 ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 研究問題 ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 研究限制 ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 名詞解釋 ...................................................................................................................... 4
第二章文獻探討 ................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 閱讀理解 ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 由上而下模式(top-down model) ............................................................................ 6
2.1.2 由下而上模式(bottom-up model) .......................................................................... 6
2.1.3 交互模式(interactive model) .................................................................................. 7
2.2 概念構圖 ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 概念構圖閱讀理解策略 .............................................................................................. 8
2.4 閱讀專家概念構圖相關研究 ....................................................................................... 9
2.5 鷹架法概念構圖相關研究 ......................................................................................... 10
2.5.1 鷹架的意義 ......................................................................................................... 10
2.5.2 鷹架輔助概念構圖教學 ...................................................................................... 11
2.5.3 鷹架輔助概念構圖相關研究 .............................................................................. 12
2.6 後設認知 .................................................................................................................... 13
2.6.1 後設認知的意義 .................................................................................................. 13
2.6.2 後設認知與閱讀理解的關係 .............................................................................. 18
2.6.3 後設認知的評量方法 .......................................................................................... 19
第三章研究方法 ............................................................................................................... 21
3.1 研究架構 .................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 研究對象與實驗環境 ................................................................................................ 22
3.3 研究設計 .................................................................................................................... 23
3.4 研究工具 .................................................................................................................... 24
3.5 實驗實施程序 ............................................................................................................ 29
第四章結果與討論............................................................................................................ 31
4.1 英語閱讀測驗結果分析 ............................................................................................ 31
4.2 後設認知能力分析 .................................................................................................... 37
4.3 問卷調查結果分析 .................................................................................................... 48
4.3.1 科技接受度問卷 .................................................................................................. 48
4.4 討論 ........................................................................................................................... 49
4.4.1 不同概念構圖策略對不同閱讀程度學生在英語閱讀理解的成效 ..................... 49
4.4.2 不同概念構圖策略對不同閱讀程度學生在後設認知能力的影響 ..................... 50
4.4.3 學生在科技接受度問卷的表現情形 ................................................................... 51
第五章結論與未來工作 .................................................................................................... 53
5.1 研究結論 .................................................................................................................... 53
5.2 未來工作 .................................................................................................................... 54
參考文獻 ............................................................................................................................. 56
附錄一英語閱讀理解測驗(Ⅰ)............................................................................................ 63
附錄二英語閱讀理解測驗(Ⅱ)............................................................................................ 67
附錄三後設認知問卷量表 .................................................................................................. 71
附錄四科技接受度問卷 ...................................................................................................... 73
附錄五學生英語背景問卷 .................................................................................................. 75

參考文獻

尤琬綺（2010）。概念構圖對國中生英語閱讀理解的效益研究。國立高雄師範大學英語學系碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
江淑卿、郭生玉（1997）。不同學習過程的概念構圖策略對促進知識結構專家化與理解能力之效果研究。師大學報，42，1-16。
余民寧（1997）。有意義的學習－概念構圖之研究。臺北市：商鼎。
李咏吟（1998）。認知教學-理論與策略。臺北市：心理。
何東墀與胡永崇（1996）。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。特殊教育學報，11，173-210。
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。
林清山（譯）（1990）。教育心理學－認知取向（原作者：R. E. Mayer）。臺北市：遠流出版公司。
林寶貴、錡寶香（1999）。中文閱讀理解測驗。臺中縣：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
陳育琳（2007）。數學同儕鷹架理論之發展與驗證。國立臺中教育大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，臺中。
陳密桃（1990）。兒童和青少年後設認知的發展及其教學效果之分析。教育學刊，9，107-148。
陳嘉成（1998）。合作學習式概念構圖對國小自然科教學之成效研究。教育與心理研究，21，107-128。
陳嘉成、余民寧（1998）。以概念構圖為學習策略之教學對自然科學習的促進效果之研究。政大學報，75，201-235。
郭靜芳（2008）。概念構圖教學對國小學生在社會學習領域文化知識學習成效之研究。高雄師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，高雄。
曹逢甫（2004）。利用閱讀教育突破在台灣教授英語的困境語言規劃的觀點。英語教學，28(3)，1-16。
張春興（1988）。知之歷程與教之歷程：認知心理學的發展及其在教育上的運用。教育心理學報，21, 17-38。
張家盛（2005）。考量鷹架撤除於概念構圖輔助網路學習活動對學習成效影響之研究。國立臺南大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南。
單文經（2001）。由若干亞太國家的教育發展談起。教育資料與研究，43，39-44。
黃台珠（1995）。概念圖在國中生物教學上的成效研究(Ⅱ)。行政院國家科學委員會專案研究報告(編號：NSC84-25511-S-017-003)，國立高雄師範大學，高雄。
程炳林、林清山（2001）。中學生自我調整學習量表之建構及其信效度研究。測驗年刊，48(1)，1-41。
黃俊傑（2000）。概念構圖訓練在閱讀教學上的應用。教師之友，42，29-36。
曾陳密桃（1990）。國民中小學生的後設認知及其閱讀理解知相關研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北。
黃藍億（2004）。概念構圖教學策略對大一學生英文閱讀理解能力之影響。慈濟大學教育研究所，未出版，花蓮。
蔡宜芳（2009）。質問作者策略教學對國小高年級學童提問表現、閱讀理解、後設認知與閱讀動機之影響。國立屏東教育大學教育心理與輔導學系碩士論文，未出版，屏東。
蔡新德（2008）。不同的概念圖策略與線上搜尋能力關係探討-以國小高年級學童為例。國立臺南大學數位學習科技學系碩士論文，未出版，臺南。
劉懿德（2009）。專家概念構圖對不同學習風格國小四年級學生的閱讀理解能力之影響。國立臺南大學教育學系科技發展與傳播碩士論文，未出版，臺南。
蘇鈺凰（2004）。高中生英文閱讀理解之後設認知策略使用量表之編製。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南。
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York:Grune & Stratton.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-473.
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. Advances Instructional Psychology, 1, 77-165.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert.﹐& R. H. Kluwe (Ed.), Meta-cognition, motivation, and understanding. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bayman, P., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Using conception models to teach BASIC computer programming. Journal of Education Psychology, 80(3), 291-298.
Bean, T. W., Singer, H., Sorter, J., & Frazee, C. (1986). The effect of metacognitive instruction in outlining and graphic organizer construction on students' comprehension in a tenth-grade world history class. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 153-169.
Boyle, J. R. & Weishaar, M. (1997). The effects of expert-generated versus students-generated cognitive organizers on the reading comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Research & Practice. 12(4), 228-235.
Boothe, K., Walter, L. B. & Stringer, M. D. (1999). Glossary of literacy terms. Retrieved July 28, 2006, from
http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/ReferenceMaterials/GlossaryOfLiteracyTerms/contents.htm
Cliburn, J. W. (1987). How to do it. Helping students understand physiological interactions: A concept mapping activity. The American Biology Teacher, 49(7), 426-427.
Chmielewski, T. L., & Dansereau, F. D. (1998). Enhacing the recall of text: Knowledge mapping training promotes implicit transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (3), 407-413.
Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, S. F. (2001). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 21-33.
Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, I. D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(1), 5-23.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer chnology: A comparison of two theoretical model. Management Science. 35(8), 982-1003.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & De Ven, V. (2001). Improving text comprehension strategies in upper primary school children: A design experiment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 531-559.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-Developmental inquiry. American Psychology, 34(10), 906-911.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fisher, C., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. R. (1991). On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 331-392.
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.
Holley, C. D., & Dansereau, D. F. (1984). Networking: The technique and the empirical evidence. In C. D. Holley, D. F. & Dansereau (Eds.), Spatial learning strategies: Techniques, applications, and related issues. New York: Academic Press.
Heinze-Fry, J. A. & Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward meaningful learning. Science Education, 74(4), 461-472.
Judith Ann, W. W. (1993). Weekend Report : A qualitative study of the scaffolding strategies used by a teacher of children with handicaps during a “sharing time”discourse event. Dissertation : University of Cincinnati.
Liu, P. L., Chen, C. J., & Chang, Y. J. (2010). Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’English reading comprehension. Computers and Education, 54, 436-445.
McCagg, E. C., & Dansereau, D. F. (1991). A convergent paradigm for examining knowledge mapping as a learning strategy. Journal of Education Research, 84 (6), 317-324.
Marzano, R. J., Paynter, D. E. (1994). New approaches to literacy: Helping students develop reading and writing skills. USA: American Psychological Association.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing Students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2-10.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
Novak, J. D. (1991). Clarify with concept maps. The Science Teacher, 58, 45-49.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, K. (2009). An investigation of concept mapping to improve the reading comprehension of science texts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 402-414.
Okebukola, P. K. (1990). Attaining meaningful learning, of concepts in genetics and ecology. An examination of potency of the concept mapping technique. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 493-504.
Paris, S. G., & Cross, D. R. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children's metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,131-142.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26-56.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 771-777.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance: VI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ruddell, R. B., & Boyle, O. F. (1989). A study of cognitive mapping as a means to improve comprehension of expository text. Reading Research and Instruction, 29(1), 12–22.
Rewey, K. L., Dansereau, D. F., Hall, R. H., & Pitre, U. (1989). Effects of knowledge maps and scripted cooperation on the recall of technical material. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81, 604-609.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260-278.
Subramanian, G. H. (1994). A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement. Decision Sciences, 25, 863-874.
Siedow, M. D., & Fox, B.T. (1984). Effects of training on good and poor readers’ use top-level structure. Reading Worlds, 23, 340-347.
Sindelar, P. T., Monda, L. E., O’Shea, L. J. (1990). Effects of repeated readings on instructional- and mastery-level readers. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 220-226.
Schau, C., Mattern, N., Zeilik, M., Teague, W., & Weber, R. J. (2001). Select-and fill-in concept maps scores as a measure of students’ connected understanding of science.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61,136-154.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school:Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 6, 265-287.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Wang, C. X. (2003). The instructional effects of prior knowledge and three concept mapping strategies in facilitating achievement of different educational objectives. Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.

指導教授

楊接期(Jie-chi Yang)

審核日期

2011-7-22

推文