中文部分 一、
王美芬、熊召弟（民 84）。國民小學自然科教材教法。台北：心理。
王靜儀（民 93）。交互教學法 能力及後設認知之效應。
國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文。
方麗芬（民 89）。國小學童與家長對科學類兒童讀物觀點之調查研究。國 立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
江淑卿（民 90）。概念構圖與圖示對兒童自然科學的知識結構、理解能力 與學習反應之影響。科學教育學刊，9(1)，35-54。
余民寧（民 86）。有意義的學習－概念構圖之研究。台北市：商鼎出版社。
吳姿蒨（民 97）。故事結構與理解能力對國小學童之閱讀理解的影響。國 立屏東教育大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
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。
汪榮
汪榮 通學生後設認知與自然科創造性問題
解決之比較。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所集刊，4，1-53。
汪榮才（民 88）。國民小學自然科後設認知閱讀策略教學成效之研究。國 立台南師範學院國民教育研究所集刊，5，59-62。
李勝富（民 89）。談閱讀教學。美國教育新知選輯，5，台灣。
李新鄉、黃秀文和黃瓊儀（民86）。相互教學法對國小六年級學童閱讀理 增進國中生英文閱讀
國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學報，16，65-99。
才（民 84）。國小學生之後設認知與科學文章理解。國立台南師範學 院國民教育研究所集刊，1，81-139。
才（民 87）。國小資優學生與普
解能力、後設認知能力與閱讀態度之影響。國立嘉義師範學院學報，
11，89-118。
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博士論文。
。培養閱讀能力，營造學習風氣。社教雙月刊，101，4-5。
林振春（民90b）。閱讀方法與閱讀能力的培養。社教雙月刊，101，40-43。
之
洪蘭（民 91）。活化大腦激發創造力。天下雜誌，263，92-94。
柯華葳（民 84）。語文科的閱讀教學。載於李永吟主編：學習輔導：學習 心理學的應用，307-350。台北：心理
崇（民 84）。
研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文。
教育部（民 97）。PISA 成績放異彩，台灣學生受肯定。教育部電子報，294。
民 97 年 2 月 14 日，取自 http://epaper.edu.tw/e9617_epaper/
period_num=294&topical_sn=157&page=2
究所碩士論文。
陳淑敏（民 83）。Vygotsky 的心理發展與教育。國立屏東師院學報，7，
119-144。
碩士論文。
ognition in gifted children:Directions for future research.
Alex
Alexander, J. E., & Heathington, B. S. (1988). Assessing and correcting classroom reading problems. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.
ander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metac
Developmental Review, 15, 1-37
ander, P. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1994). Learning from physics text: a
synthesis of recent research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
est. American
Allin
tion for content area teacher. Lexington, MA:Heath.
1), 47-52.
Bloo ). Human characteristics and school learning. New York:
Broo
organization on expository prose processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 811-820.
87). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe(Eds.),
nce
Brown, A. L., Campione, J., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: on training
Brow and
In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, 31(9), 895-911.
Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M. & Schulze, S. K. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and inter
Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 313-337
gton, R.L., ＆ Strange, M. (1980). Learning through reading: An introduc
Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1988). On selecting onsiderate ? content area texbooks. Remedial and Special Education, 9(
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills of reading. In P. D.
Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (353-394). New York:
Longman.
m, B.S. (1976 McGraw.
ks, L.W., & Dansereau, D.F. (1983). Effects of structural schema training and text
Brown, A. L. (19
Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawre Erlbaum.
students to learn from text. Educational Researcher, 10, 14-21.
n, A. L., & Palinscar, A. S. (1989). Guide, cooperative learning individual knowledge acquisition.
learning, and instruction(393-452). NJ: Lawence Erlbaum.
Bruc
ding difficulties. Remedial and Special hing and
(5), 44-54.
Carn nts to
ive and expository
Cham ncept in
. Washington,
Evan tion.
yn and Bacon.
evelopmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
ition, lsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Fran
Good . (1986). What's whole in whole language. Portsmouth, NH:
Heli of
Hein rm
, e, M. E., & Chan, L. K. S. (1991). Reciprocal teac comprehension of students with rea
transenvironmantal programming: a program to Education, 12 ine, D., & Kinder, B. D. (1985). Teaching low-performing stude apply generative and schema strategies to narrat
material. Remedial and Special Education, 6(1), 20-30.
pagne, A. B., & Lovitts, B. E. (1989). Scientific literacy: A co
search of definition. In A. B. Champagne, B. E. Lovitts, & B. J. Callinger (Eds.), This Year in School Science:Scientific Literacy ,(1-14)
DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
s, S. S., Evans, W. H., & Mercer, C. D. (1986). Assessment for instruc Boston: All
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new arer of cognitive-d
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacogn Motivation and understanding (21-29) Hil
Associates.
ces, S. M., & Eckart, J. A. (1992). The effects of Reciprocal teaching on comprehension. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED350572.)
man, K. S
Heinemann Educational Book, Inc.
man, A., Blair, T., & Ruply, W. (1990). Principles and Practices Teaching Reading. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
ze-Fry, J. A., & Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-te movement toward meaningful learning. Science Education, 74(4)
461-472.
wani, A., & Yasser, A.(1993). Implementing reciprocal teaching: W effective? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED363614.)
Hila as it
Kam r and Alone：
nd
Kell
ch, 88(1),
Klin 996). Reciprocal teaching of reading
Kush
e.
Research and Evaluation, 11(1), 29-44.
f high school students in Spanish: A of Johnson, D.D., & Pearson, P.D. (1978). Teaching reading vocabulary. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
eenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Learning Togethe
Cooperative,Competitive and Individualistic Learning. Boston：Allyn a Bacon.
y, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. Journal of Educational Reser 53-61.
gner, J. K., & Vaubhn, S. (1
comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 275-293.
, J. C., Watkins, M. W., & Brookhart, S. M. (2005). The
temporal-interactive influence of reading achievement and reading attitud Educational
Lerner, J. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (8th ed. ).Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin Co.
Lijeron, J. T. (1993). Reciprocal teaching of metacobnitive strategies to strengthen reading comprehension o
descriptive case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Akron.
Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardize reading-comprehension performance in poor
comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90(5), 469-484.
May on:
May anding. Review of Educational Research,
Merc
s. New York, NY: Mavmillan Publishing Company.
.
ge UK:
Palin
nsion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American C Document
Palin unities of first grade
Palin of
nition
Palin e
. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 211-229
ool Mallow, J. V. (1991). Reading Science. Journal of Reading, 34, 324-338.
er, R. E. (1987). Educational psychology: A cognitive approach. Bost Little, Brown and Company.
er, R. E. (1989). Model for underst 59(1), 43-64.
er, C. D., ＆ Mercer, A. R.(2005). Teaching students with learning problem
Miller, C. D., Miller, L. F., & Rosen, L. A. (1988). Modified reciprocal teaching in a regular classroom. Journal of Experimental Education, 56, 183-186
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambrid Cambridge University.
csar, A. S. (1987). Collaboration for Collaborative Learning of Text Comprehe
Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. (ERI Reproduction Service NO. ED 285123.)
csar, A. S. (1989). Structured dialogues among comm
learners. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED305168.) csar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching
comprehension-foster and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cog and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
csar, A. S., & Klenk, L. J. (1992). Fostring literacy learning in supportiv contexts
Palincsar, A. S., & Perry, N. E. (1995). Development, cognitive, and sociocultural perspectives on assessing and instructing reading. Sch
Psychology Review, 24(3), 331-344.
Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading
Pres in literacy learning: Then, now, and in the
sh (Eds.).Metacognition in literacy learning (391- 411).
Pres . M. Morrow,
York:
Richardson, J. S., & Morgan, R. F. (1990). Reading to learn in the content
Roth A. (1992). The social construction of scientific
Rum .
standing. N. Y.: Academic Press.
nsion. In R.
J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
ation
Shym rs’
ResearchQuarterly, 40(2), 184-202.
sley, M. (2005). Metacognition
future. InS. E. Israel, C. Collins Block, K. L. Bausermann, K.
Kinnucan-Wel
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
sley, M. (2006). Achieving best practices. In L. B. Gambrell, L
& M.Pressley. Best practices in literacy instruction (397-404). New GuilfordPress.
areas. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
, W., & Roychoudhury,
concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76(5), 531-557.
elhart, D. J. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories . In D. G. Bobrow & A Collins (Eds.), Representation and under
Samuels, S. J. (1983). A cognitive approach to factors influencing reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 261-266.
Schallert, D. L. (1980). The role of illustrations in reading comprehe
J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, N.
Shymansky, J. A. (1978). Assessing teacher performance in the classroom:
pattern analysis applied to interaction data. Studies in Educ Evaluation, 4(2), 99-106.
ansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Good, R. (1991). Elementary school teache
beliefs about and perception of elementary school science, science reading,
Spen explicit
ecific science text. Journal of Elementary Science
Stein
ol children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in
Stric rust,” Journal of Personality,26,
Swaf
Vygo
Wan
ucational Research,
Well
pen University.
science textbooks, and supportive instructional factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(5), 437-454.
Solso, R. L. (1988). Cognitive psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
ce, D. J., Yore, L. D., & Williams, R. L. (1999). The effects of
science reading instruction on selected grade 7 students’ metacognition and comprehension of sp
Education, 11(2), 15-30.
, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary scho
discourse processing. Norwood, N. J.: Ables.
kland, L. H.(1985), “Surveillance and T 200-215.
far, J. K. (1988). Readers, texts, and second languages: The interactive processes. The Modern Language Journal, 72(2), 123-149.
Valleley, R. J., & Shriver, M. D. (2003). An examination of the effects of repeated readings with secondary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(1), 55-76.
tsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
g, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J.(1990). What influences learning?
A content analysis of review literature. Journal of Ed 84(1), 30-43.
ington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: O
Williamon, R. A. (1989). The effect of reciprocal teaching on student
performance gains in third grade basel reading instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Texas A & M University.
g, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructiona
Won l research: A review.
Yore
science textbook. Journal of Research in
Yore 5
rnational Journal of
Yore aig, M. T., & Maguire, T. O. (1998). Index of Science Reading es 27-51.
hing, 41(4), 338-369.
ng and r Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 227-268.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring and problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,17, 89-100.
, L. D. (1991). Secondary science teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and
Science Teaching, 28(1), 55-72.
, L. D. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 2 years of language art and science research. Inte
Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.
, L. D., Cr
Awareness: an interactive-constructive model, test verification, and grad 4-8 result. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1),
Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science model of writing and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teac
Yore, L. D., & Shymansky, J. A. (1991). Reading in science: Developi aperational conception to guide instruction. Journal of Science Teache Education, 2(2), 29-36.