第五章 結論與建議
第二節 建議
二、 外文部分
Alexander, J. E., ＆ Heathington, B. S. (1988). Assessing and correcting
classroom reading problems. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company
Anderson, V. & Hidi, S.(1989). Teaching students to summaries：Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4).
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading (pp.
255-291). New York: Longman.
Armbruster, B. B.（1988）.Why some children have trouble content area texbooks.
Retrieved from ERIC database.(ED300782)
Bacon, E. H., & Carpenter, D. (1989). Learning disabled and nondisabled college
students’ use of structure in recall of stories and text. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(2), 108-118.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beck, I. L.(1989). Improving practice through understanding. In L. B. Resnick, & L. E.
Klopfer(Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp.
40-58). 1989 yearbook of the Association for Superision and Curriculum Development.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M.G.(1981). Developing questions that promote comprehension: The story map. Language Arts, 58, 913-918.
Berkowitz, S., & Taylor, B. M. (1981). The effects of text type and familiarity on the nature of information recalled by readers. In M. Kamil (Ed.), Directions in reading: Research and instruction (pp. 157-161). Washington, D.C.: National Reading Conference.
Boulineau, T., Fore, C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2004). Use of story-mapping to increase the story-grammar text comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(2), 105-121.
Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of requiring inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 329-345.
Bruner, J. S.(1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambrige, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Chan, L. K. S., & Cole, P. G. (1986). The effect of comprehension monitoring training on the reading competence of learning disabilities and regularclass students.
Remedial and Special Education, 7(4), 33-40.
Cox, B. E. , Shanahan, T., & Sulzby, E.(1990). Good and poor elementary readers’ use of cohesion in writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 47-65.
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instruction analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142.
Dawkins, K. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1999). Using historical cases to change teachers’
understandings and practices related to the nature of science. Paper presented to
the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Boston, MA: April.
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.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teacher College Press.
Ellis, B. F. (2001). The Cottonwood: How I learned the importance of storytelling in science education. Science and Children, 38(4), 43-46.
Faggella-Luby, M., Schumaker, J.S., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). Embedded learning strategy instruction: story-structure pedagogy in heterogeneous secondary literature classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 131-147.
Gagné, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Gambrell, L.B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation. The Reading Teacher, 50(1), 14-25.
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, 54-62.
Gardill, 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(1), 2-21.
Garrison, J. W., & Lawwill, R. S. (1993). Democratic science teaching: A role for the history of science. Interchange, 24(1), 29-39.
Gersten, R.(1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice,13(3),162-170.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading
comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: Areview of research.
Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. (1989). Teaching literature to at-risk students. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 53-57.
Gillet, J.W. & Temple, C.(1986). Understanding reading problems: Assessment and instruction(2nd ed.) Boston: Little, Brown and company.
Graves, M., Slater, W. H., Roen, D., Redd-Boyd, T., Duin, A. H., Furniss, D. W., &
Hazeltine, P. (1988). Some characteristics of memorable expository writing:
Effects of revisions by writers with different backgrounds. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(3), 242-265.
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(6), 335-342.
Hallahan, D.P., & Kauffman, J.M (2000). Exceptional Learners (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hardman, M. L., Drew, C. J., & Egan, M. W.(2005). Human Exceptionality : School, community, and family(8th ed). Bosten : Allyn & Bacon.
Hidi, S. & Anderson V.(1986). Producting written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 473-493.
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, 124-229.
Irwin, A. R. (1997). Theories of burning: a case study using a historical perspective.
School Science Review, 78(285), 31-38.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context.
Science Education, 84(1), 5-26.
Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1996). Changes in Students’ Understanding of Evolution
Resulting from Different Curricular and Instructional Strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 879-900.
Kafai, Y. B., & Gilliland-Swetland, A. J. (2001). The use of historical materials in Elementary science classrooms. Science Education, 85(4), 349-367.
Kaluger, G. & Kolson, C. J. (1978). Reading and learning disabilities (2nd ed.).
Columbus : Bell & Howell Company.
Kameenui ,E. J., & Simmons ,D.C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies. Ohio:
Merrill Pub.
Kamhi, A. G. & Catts, H. W.(1991). Reading disability: Terminology, definition, and subtyping issues. In A.G.Kamhi. & H. W. Catt(Eds.), Reading Disability: A developmental language perspective, 35-66. Needham Heughts, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Kintsch, W. (1993). Information accretion and reduction in text processes: inference.
Discourse Processes, 16, 193-202.
Kuldanek, K. (1998). The effect of using a combination of story frames and retelling strategies with learning disabled students to build their comprehension ability.
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED416469).
Lamberg, W. J., & Lamb, C. E. (1980). Reading instruction in the content areas.
Chicago , Rand McNally College Publishing company.
Lederman, N. G., Wade, P., & Bell, R. L. (2000). Assessing understanding of nature of science: A historical perspective. In W. F. Mc-Comas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 331-350). Boston: Kluwer.
Lerner, J. W.(2003). Learning disabilities : Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (9th ed.). Boston , MA:Houghton Mifflin .
Lerner, J. W., & Kline, F. (2006).Learning disabilities and related disorders.(10th
ed.).Boston : New York .
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (1989). The Qualitative Reading Inventory: Issues in the development of a diagnostic reading test. In S. McCormic and J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy: Research and instruction (pp.
413-419). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Leslie, L., & Cooper, J. (1993). Assessing the predictive validity of prior-knowledge assessment. In D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.) Examining central issues in literacy research, theory and practice (pp. 93-100). Chicago, IL: National
Reading Conference.
Lin, H. S., Hung, J. Y., & Hung, S. C. (2002). Using the history of science to promote students’ problem-solving ability. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 453–464.
MacInnis, C., & Hemming, H. (1995). Linking the needs of students with learning disabilities to a whole language curriculum. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 535-544.
Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1991). A three-pronged method for studying inference generation in literacy text. Poetics, 20, 193-232.
Mathes, P. G. (1997). Cooperative story mapping. Rase: Remedial & Special Education, 18(1), 20-27.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.
Mercer, C, D.（1997）Students with Learning Disabilities（5th ed.）. NY: Merrill.
Moes, M., Foertsch, D., Stewart, J., Dunning, D., Rogres, t., Seda-Santana, I.,
Benja-min, L., & Pearson, P. D. （1984）.Effects of text structure on children’s comprehension of expository material. In J. Niles & L. Harris（Eds.）,Changing
perspectives on research in reading/language processing and instruction.
Rocgester, NY: The National Reading Conference.
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.
Ouellette, G., Dagostino, L., & Carifo, 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.
Paris, S. G., & Myers, M, (1981). Comprehension mpnitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 5-22.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). The effects of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 16-20.
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 D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds. ), Representation and understanding. N.Y.: Academic Press.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp.3-26).Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Schecker, H. P. (1992). The paradigmatic change in mechanics: Implication of historical processes for physics education. Science and Education, 1(1), 71-76.
Simmons, D. C., Kameenui, E. J. & Darch, C. B. (1988）. The effect of textual proximity on fourth-and fifth-grade LD students’ metacognition awareness and strategic comprehension behavior. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 380-395.
Solomon, J., Duveen, I., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1994). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409-421.
Stein, N.L, & Glenn, C.R.(1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. New Directions in Discourse Processing, 2,53-120.
Swaby, B. E. R. (1989). Diagnosis and correction of reading difficulties. Boston :Allyn and Bacon.
Taylor, B., Harris, L. A., Pearson, P. D., & Garcia, G. (1995). Reading difficulties:
Instruction and assessment. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Thorndyke, P.V. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory for narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
Trabasso, T., & Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inference and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16, 3-24.
Vacca, J. L., Vacca, R. T., Gove, M. K., Burkey, L., Lenhart, L. A., & McKeon, C.(2003). Reading and learning to read (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
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.
van den Broek, P. (1989). The effects of causal structure on the comprehension of
narratives: Implications for education. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 10(1), 19-44.
van den Broek, P., Fletcher, C. T., & Risden, K. (1993). Investigations of inference processes in reading: A theoretical and methodological integration. Discourse Processes, 16, 169-180.
van den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. E.(2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. van den
Broek(Eds.) Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 1-31). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Williams, J. P.（2000）. Strategic processing of text：Improving reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. U.S.:Virginia.
Yore, L. D., et al. (1990) .An assessment of what grad 5 students know about science text and science raeding. A preliminary report. ERIC:ED319589.
Yuill, N. M., Oakhill, J. V., & Parkin, A. (1989). Working memory, comprehension ability and the resolution of text anomaly. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 351-361.
附錄 附錄一
家長同意書 親愛的家長您好：
我是國立臺東大學特殊教育學系碩士班學生蕭靜鈺，在劉明松、魏俊華教授 的指導下，進行故事結構教學運用在科學故事之實驗研究，希望透過本次的教學 實驗增進貴子弟的閱讀理解能力。本教學實驗將在不影響原班級課程的時間進 行，每週三次，每次教學四十分鐘，為期三個月（二月至四月），採小組教學，
教學實驗期間會對教學活動進行攝影，所取得的影像僅供研究之用，絕不外流、
公開，同時為了尊重隱私及保障個人權益，所有資料將以匿名的方式處理，敬請 放心。若您對此教學實驗有任何疑問，歡迎與我聯繫，我非常樂意為您說明，衷 心感謝謝您的協助並期待貴子弟的參與。
敬祝 順心如意
國立臺東大學特殊教育學系碩士班 指導教授 劉明松 博士
魏俊華 博士 研究生 蕭靜鈺 敬上 聯絡電話：2812-9586 轉847 ---
家長同意書回條
□ 本人同意我的孩子 參與故事結構教學運用在科學故事之實驗研究
□ 本人不同意我的孩子 參與故事結構教學運用在科學故事之實驗研究
家長簽章：
中 華 民 國 一０二 年 月 日
附錄二
「故事結構教學回饋問卷」
親愛的小朋友，下面這些問題是老師想要了解，你對這幾週課程的意見與想 法，以提供老師作為以後教學的參考，請在□中打勾，謝謝你的作答。
1. 我覺得上了這些課以後，能夠幫助我提昇整體閱讀理解的能力。
□非常同意 □同意 □普通 □不同意 □非常不同意 2. 上了這些課以後，我在「直接理解」的能力有進步。
□非常同意 □同意 □普通 □不同意 □非常不同意 3. 上了這些課以後，我在「間接理解」的能力有進步。
□非常同意 □同意 □普通 □不同意 □非常不同意 4. 上了這些課，我在「推論」的能力有進步。
□非常同意 □同意 □普通 □不同意 □非常不同意 5. 上了這些課以後，我在「分析比較」的能力有進步。
□非常同意 □同意 □普通 □不同意 □非常不同意 6. 上了這些課以後，我在「抽取文章重點大意」的能力有進步。
□非常同意 □同意 □普通 □不同意 □非常不同意 7. 我覺得上了這些課後，可以幫助我更容易學習閱讀理解
□非常同意 □同意 □普通 □不同意 □非常不同意 8. 我覺得上了這些課後，閱讀理解的學習比較有趣。
□非常同意 □同意 □普通 □不同意 □非常不同意 9. 我能接受老師再使用類似的方法教導我閱讀理解。
□非常同意 □同意 □普通 □不同意 □非常不同意 10.對這次的課程，我有其他的想法與建議：
附錄三
附錄四
科學故事範例（故事編號：科11）
口香糖的由來
口香糖是風靡全世界的小零食，是許多大人、小孩都喜歡的休閒食品，現 代人吃口香糖除了清潔牙齒、保持口腔味道清新，更靠它來紓解疲勞與無聊呢！
有一位名叫亞當斯的美國商人，他發現墨西哥有一種人心果樹，能分泌出一 種類似橡膠的樹膠，於是想用它來製成橡膠，希望能靠樹膠賺大錢，可是透過很 多次實驗，這種樹膠並不能製成橡膠，雖然亞當斯賠了一大筆錢，但他一直思索 著這批樹膠的用途。
有一天，亞當斯路過一個藥店，看到正在出售一種石蠟。那時候，人們喜歡 把石蠟放在嘴裡咀嚼。亞當斯靈機一動，心想：「如果用樹膠代替石蠟，不知道行 不行。」他急忙跑回家，和兒子把樹膠切割成圓球狀，再包上五顏六色的色紙，
試著拿到街上販售，結果居然大受歡迎，大家都稱它為「亞當斯口香糖」。 後來，有人在樹膠中加入糖、甘草、薄荷，使口香糖變得清涼爽口，到了第 二次世界大戰期間，口香糖還成為前線士兵們驅趕疲勞、解除寂寞的「良藥」呢！
附錄五
故事圖範例 故事圖
姓名： 編號： 圖11 日期： 年 月 日 背景：故事一開始對主題的敘述
口香糖是風靡全世界的小零食。
主角：主角的姓名與基本資料（職業或特色擇一敘述）
姓名：亞當斯 基本資料：美國商人
引發事件：引發主角想要解決的問題，或引發主角感到好奇的事件
亞當斯大量買進墨西哥的樹膠，以為能大賺一筆，沒想到卻賠上一大筆 錢，但他不甘心失敗，一直思索這批樹膠的用途。
主要事件：主角解決或是探究問題的過程
有一天，亞當斯路過藥店，看到石蠟，人們喜歡把石蠟放在嘴裡咀嚼。他 想：「如果用樹膠代替石蠟，不知道行不行。」於是他和兒子把樹膠切割成圓 球狀，再包上五顏六色的色紙，試著拿到街上去賣。
結局：主角發現研究後得到的結論或結果 結果大受歡迎，大家稱它為「亞當斯口香糖」。
影響：發明者或發明物對於歷史與生活帶來的影響
第二次世界大戰期間，口香糖幫助前線士兵們驅趕疲勞、解除寂寞。