本研究目的在於探討相互教學法對國中九年級學生閱讀科學文章的影響。
　　相互教學法是結合預測、摘要、發問、澄清四個過程去進行文章閱讀。學生透過對話及同儕互動，從中學習建構文章的意義，進而促進閱讀理解。希望幫助學生提昇閱讀效能，讓學生成為優秀的閱讀者。
　　本研究採用準實驗研究法進行，研究者於台北市區一所中型國中任教，從任教班級中選取兩班九年級學生共63名為研究對象，分為實驗組及對照組。實驗組在實際教學課程中結合相互教學法進行科學文章閱讀，對照組則自行閱讀相同的科學文章教材。經由十週，每週一節，共500分鐘的教學之後，比較兩組的差異。研究的結果發現：
壹、實驗組在「科學文章閱讀表現量表」總分優於對照組，兩組並達＜.05　　顯著差異水準。
貳、實驗組在「科學文章閱讀態度」及「科學文章閱讀行為」的分量表中表　　現優於對照組並達＜.05顯著差異水準。而在「科學文章閱讀價值」的　　分量表中兩組未達顯著差異之水準。
參、在科學文章閱讀測驗（1）及科學文章閱讀測驗（2）表現有顯著的進步　　，實驗組在t檢定中達顯著差異。數據顯示本研究對實驗組女生有顯著　　的提升，並在前後達顯著差異，實驗組男生在後測分數有進步，但與前　　測間未達顯著差異之水準。
肆、實驗組在自然科成就測驗表現優於對照組，並達顯著差異之水準。
伍、實驗組在預測策略及摘要策略運用，人數比例明顯增加。發問策略使用　　人數增加較不明顯。

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects on the ninth-grade students in junior high school by using the reciprocal teaching method on reading science text.
Reciprocal teaching method is a combination of predicting, summarizing, questioning and clarifying in the reading process. Through the dialogues and interaction with peers, students can learn the meaning of constructing texts to promote reading comprehension. Hope the study can improve the reading efficiency of students and help them to become a good reader.
The quasi-experimental method was used. The researcher teaches in a medium-sized junior high school. The research subjects were 6-3 ninth-grade students, divided into the experimental group and control group, picked up from two classes. The researcher chose a science text relating to the curriculum. The experimental group combined the reciprocal teaching method to the science text during the practical teaching process, whereas the control group read the same materials without the method. Comparing the differences in ten-week sessions, one time a week, with totally 500 minutes of reciprocal teaching instruction.
The major findings of this study were as follows:
1.The experimental group had a higher score on “ reading performance scale in science text” than that of the control group, both up to <.05 significant difference.
2.The experimental group had a higher score on “ reading attitude in science text” and “reading behavior in science text” than that of the control group and up to <.05 significant difference. However, both on “ reading value in science text” had no significant difference.
3.The experimental group had a higher score on the reading tests (1) and (2) in science text, up to significant difference on t test. The data show that the girls in the experimental group had significant difference before and after experiment, but the boys in the experimental group had no significant difference before experiment, but had significant difference after experiment.
4.The experimental group, up to significant difference, had a higher score on achievement test in Science than that of the control group.
5.The numbers in the experimental group had a positive increase with the strategies of predicting and summarizing. The numbers with the strategy of questioning had a negatively increase.

一、中文部分
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）。交互教學法增進國中生英文閱讀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。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學報，16，65-99。
汪榮才（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。
汪榮才（民87）。國小資優學生與普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。
林振春（民90a）。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。
林容妃（民94）。兒童科普讀物的閱讀理解教學對國小學童自然科學習之相關研究。國立台北師範學院自然科學教育研究所碩士論文。
林素雯（民92）。指導讀寫策略以提升學生科學寫作能力之行動研究。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
林清山（民79）。教育心理學－認知取向。台北：遠流。
林淑美（民92）。交互教學法對國小五年級學生在科學性文章閱讀理解之研究。國立台中師範學院語文科學教育學系碩士論文。
林福來(民97)。精進教師課堂教學能力。高雄市教育局97學年度教學行政領導專業研習。
林毓珊（民93）。國小學童面對科學性文章之科學知識建構歷程及概念動態歷程之研究。國立臺南大學自然科學教育研究所碩士論文。
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。
邱月玲（民91）。不同的科學圖文配置對學生閱讀學習的影響-以「月相概念」為例。國立台中師範學院自然科學教育學系碩士論文。
洪文東（民85）。典範式思考與敘述式思考在科學文章閱讀中之關連性。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文。
洪文東（民86）。科學文章的閱讀理解。屏師科學教育，5，14-25。
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
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敗之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文。
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。
桂慶中、施頂清（民89）。從合作學習（小組討論）談閱讀理解能力之提升。中等教育，51（5），65-73。
張玉梅（民92）。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。國立屏東師範學院教育科技研究所碩士論文。
張春興（民82）。現代心理學。台北：東華書局。
張春興（民83）。教育心理學。台北：東華書局。
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/topical.aspx? period_num=294&topical_sn=157&page=2
許良榮（民86a）。科學課文的特性與學習。科學教育，170，23-36。
許良榮（民86b）。科學課文結構對於科學學習的影響。國立台灣師範大學博士論文。
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。
許淑玫、游自達（民89）。交互教學歷程中學生發問類型及教師鷹架之探討。課程與教學，3（4），1-30。
郭靜姿（民81）。閱讀理解訓練方案對增進高中學生閱讀策略運用與後設認知能力成效之研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文。
陳李綢（民88）。認知發展與輔導。台北：心理出版社。
陳美鳳（民93）。閱讀科學普及讀物教學對閱讀理解能力與自然科學習成就之影響。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
陳美靜（民95）。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。
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。
曾玉村（民95）。文章中的因果架構對中文兒童閱讀理解表徵層次的影響。中華心理學刊，48（2），115-138。
曾志朗（民90）。閱讀政策。高教簡訊，124，1。
曾陳密桃（民81）。從認知心理學的觀點談閱讀理解。教育文粹，21，10-19。
黃台珠（民91）。促進理解之科學教育－人本建構取向觀點。台北：心理出版社。
黃瓊儀（民85a）。國小學童閱讀理解策略、閱讀理解歸因與閱讀理解能力相關之研究。國民教育研究學報，2，107-149。
黃瓊儀（民85b）。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。
詹詩韻（民93）。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。
廖凰伶（民89）。直接教學與全語教學對國中低閱讀能力學生閱讀理解表現之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。
趙尹薇（民95）。故事結構教學對提升國小學習障礙學生閱讀理解成效之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
齊若蘭（民91a）。哪個國家學生閱讀能力最強？。天下雜誌，263，52-60。
齊若蘭（民91b）。心靈的遊樂場－一生的領航員。天下雜誌，263，84-91。
劉麗琴（民91）。在國小融合式班級中實施概念構圖教學以植入人工電子耳的聽障生為個案之研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
鄭宇樑（民86）。後設認知閱讀教學對國小學生科學文章閱讀理解、閱讀態度及後設認知能力影響之研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
鄭麗玉（民82）。認知心理學－理論與運用。台北：五南。
錡寶香（民93）。國小低閱讀能力學童與一般學童的敘事能力：故事結構之分析。特殊教育研究學刊，26，247-269。
謝添裕（民91）。國小學童對不同形式以及不同圖文配置之科學文章其閱讀理解與閱讀觀點之研究。國立台中師範學院自然科學教育學系碩士論文。
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。
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。
羅彥文（民84）。國中學生閱讀學習之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文。
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。
二、英文部分
Alexander, J. E., & Heathington, B. S. (1988). Assessing and correcting classroom reading problems. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted children:Directions for future research. Developmental Review, 15, 1-37
Alexander, P. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1994). Learning from physics text: a synthesis of recent research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 895-911.
Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M. & Schulze, S. K. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 313-337
Allington, R.L., ＆ Strange, M. (1980). Learning through reading: An introduction for content area teacher. Lexington, MA:Heath.
Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1988). On selecting onsiderate ? content area texbooks. Remedial and Special Education, 9(1), 47-52.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills of reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (353-394). New York: Longman.
Bloom, B.S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw.
Brooks, L.W., & Dansereau, D.F. (1983). Effects of structural schema training and text organization on expository prose processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 811-820.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe(Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: on training students to learn from text. Educational Researcher, 10, 14-21.
Brown, A. L., & Palinscar, A. S. (1989). Guide, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction(393-452). NJ: Lawence Erlbaum.
Bruce, M. E., & Chan, L. K. S. (1991). Reciprocal teac comprehension of students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special hing and transenvironmantal programming: a program to Education, 12(5), 44-54.
Carnine, D., & Kinder, B. D. (1985). Teaching low-performing students to apply generative and schema strategies to narrative and expository material. Remedial and Special Education, 6(1), 20-30.
Champagne, A. B., & Lovitts, B. E. (1989). Scientific literacy: A concept in search of definition. In A. B. Champagne, B. E. Lovitts, & B. J. Callinger (Eds.), This Year in School Science:Scientific Literacy ,(1-14). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Evans, S. S., Evans, W. H., & Mercer, C. D. (1986). Assessment for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new arer of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation and understanding (21-29) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Frances, S. M., & Eckart, J. A. (1992). The effects of Reciprocal teaching on comprehension. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED350572.)
Goodman, K. S. (1986). What's whole in whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Book, Inc.
Heliman, A., Blair, T., & Ruply, W. (1990). Principles and Practices of Teaching Reading. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Heinze-Fry, J. A., & Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward meaningful learning. Science Education, 74(4), 461-472.
Hilawani, A., & Yasser, A.(1993). Implementing reciprocal teaching: Was it effective? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED363614.)
Johnson, D.D., & Pearson, P.D. (1978). Teaching reading vocabulary. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Learning Together and Alone：Cooperative,Competitive and Individualistic Learning. Boston：Allyn and Bacon.
Kelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. Journal of Educational Reserch, 88(1), 53-61.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaubhn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 275-293.
Kush, J. C., Watkins, M. W., & Brookhart, S. M. (2005). The temporal-interactive influence of reading achievement and reading attitude. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(1), 29-44.
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 of high school students in Spanish: A descriptive case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of 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.
Mallow, J. V. (1991). Reading Science. Journal of Reading, 34, 324-338.
Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational psychology: A cognitive approach. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Model for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43-64.
Mercer, C. D., ＆ Mercer, A. R.(2005). Teaching students with learning problems. New York, NY: Mavmillan Publishing Company.
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. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University.
Palincsar, A. S. (1987). Collaboration for Collaborative Learning of Text Comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 285123.)
Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Structured dialogues among communities of first grade learners. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED305168.)
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-foster and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. J. (1992). Fostring literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 211-229
Palincsar, A. S., & Perry, N. E. (1995). Development, cognitive, and sociocultural perspectives on assessing and instructing reading. School Psychology Review, 24(3), 331-344.
Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 40(2), 184-202.
Pressley, M. (2005). Metacognition in literacy learning: Then, now, and in the future. InS. E. Israel, C. Collins Block, K. L. Bausermann, K. Kinnucan-Welsh (Eds.).Metacognition in literacy learning (391- 411). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2006). Achieving best practices. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M.Pressley. Best practices in literacy instruction (397-404). New York: GuilfordPress.
Richardson, J. S., & Morgan, R. F. (1990). Reading to learn in the content areas. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76(5), 531-557.
Rumelhart, D. J. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories . In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding. N. Y.: Academic Press.
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 comprehension. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shymansky, J. A. (1978). Assessing teacher performance in the classroom: pattern analysis applied to interaction data. Studies in Education Evaluation, 4(2), 99-106.
Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Good, R. (1991). Elementary school teachers’ beliefs about and perception of elementary school science, science reading, 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.
Spence, D. J., Yore, L. D., & Williams, R. L. (1999). The effects of explicit science reading instruction on selected grade 7 students’ metacognition and comprehension of specific science text. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 15-30.
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing. Norwood, N. J.: Ables.
Strickland, L. H.(1985), “Surveillance and Trust,” Journal of Personality,26, 200-215.
Swaffar, 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.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J.(1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 30-43.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University.
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.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. 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.
Yore, L. D. (1991). Secondary science teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbook. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 55-72.
Yore, L. D. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language art and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.
Yore, L. D., Craig, M. T., & Maguire, T. O. (1998). Index of Science Reading Awareness: an interactive-constructive model, test verification, and grades 4-8 result. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 27-51.
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 Teaching, 41(4), 338-369.
Yore, L. D., & Shymansky, J. A. (1991). Reading in science: Developing and aperational conception to guide instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2(2), 29-36.