本研究主要目的為探討台灣地區高中學生的個人閱讀信念與其科學文本閱讀理解與建構過程的關係。 本研究利用Schraw (2000)所發展的閱讀信念量表測量學生的個人閱讀信念，此量表分為兩個因素，分別為作者傳達信念（transmission belief）以及意義建構信念（transaction belief）。閱讀理解與意義建構過程之偵測擇採用Kinsch (1988)所提出之建構- 整合理論（construction-integration model ）來進行分析。藉由此兩類資料來進行討論分析。 研究對象為261位高中一年級學生，受試者先進行個人閱讀信念量表的填寫，再由其中選取40位學生進行科學文章之閱讀，藉由閱讀一段文章，輔以半結構晤談的方式去分析學生對科學文本閱讀理解與建構的過程，進而探討個人閱讀信念與知識建構的關係。
主要研究結果如下：（一） 高一學生的意義建構信念強於作者傳達信念。（二）意義建構信念與作者傳達信念有統計上的相關；（三）受試者於閱讀禮節過程中所提取的字彙量與文本主題命題量兩者有統計相關，但字彙正確率與文本主題命題無顯著相關，此結果表示閱讀者對文章意義的記憶並不是記住他的每一個單字，而是記住他的意義。（四）當意義建構信念越高，讀者的整體文本理解以及在個人想法命題量就越高。
最後針對研究結果以及研究過程中所發現的情況與問題，提出討論及檢討，並給予教學上或未來研究上一些建議。

The main purpose of this study is to explore the associations, if any, between Taiwanese high-school students’ reader beliefs and different stages of reading comprehensions when they are exposed to the scientific texts. To detect students’ reader beliefs, this study used Schraw’s (2000) Reader Belief Inventory (RBI) whose scales include the transmission belief and the transaction belief aspects. Meanwhile, the reading comprehensions were analyzed by semi-structured interviews and the content analysis in accordance with the construction-integration model developed by Kinsch (1988). Two hundred and sixty one students in grade 10 were involved in the study. Participants were asked to take the reader belief inventory first, and then 40 of them were selected to receive text reading and interviews. The relationships between reader beliefs and the results of knowledge construction were than discussed via statistical methods.

The major findings are as the following: (1) High school students’ transaction beliefs were stronger than transmission beliefs. (2) Transaction beliefs were significantly correlated with transmission beliefs. (3) The quantity of the retrieved lexicons was significantly correlated with that of thematic propositions constructed by the readers, but no significant correlation was found between the accuracy ratios of lexicons and thematic responses. Such as result indicated that readers in the study did not comprehend the text by memorizing words but meanings. (4) It seemed that high transaction beliefs contributed to the comprehension of whole text and the construction of personal responses propositions.

In the end of the thesis, discussions about the research findings and recommendations for instructional designs and future research are made. The procedures and problems of the study design are also reviewed.

中文
王子彰(2010)。國一學生持有之閱讀信念與科學閱讀態度調查研究。臺灣師範大學碩士論文。未出版。
李麗貞、王淑惠（2008）。交互教學法對國小學習障礙學生閱讀理解成效之研究。東台灣特殊教育學報，10 ，71-92。
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。國立台南師範學院特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
吳統雄(1985)。態度與行為研究的信度與效度：理論、應用、反省。民意學術專刊。
吳麗寬、周台傑（2000）合作學習對國小學習障礙學生閱讀理解效果與同儕社會關係之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系特殊教育學報，15，217-271。
汪榮才（1995）。國小學生之後設認知與科學文章閱讀理解。國民教育研究集刊，1，81-139。
林佩欣、周台傑（2004）。交互教學法對國中學習障礙學生閱讀理解學習效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系特殊教育學報，19，87-122。
林慧芳（2008）。以「建構論」與「最小量論」試探不同工作記憶廣度學生閱讀推論歷程之表現。新竹教育大學教育學報，25(2)，95-128。
鄭宇樑（1998）。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。國民教育研究集刊，4，223-259。
柴秀苗（2008）。閱讀信念對記敘文意義建構的影響。華東師範大學心理系碩士論文，未出版，上海市。
陳世文、楊文金（2006）。以系統功能語言學探討學生對不同科學文本的閱讀理解。師大學報：科學教育類，51（1,2），107-124。
陳綱佩、張寶方、洪端雲(2007)。科學報導的閱讀理解與隱喻的角色。中華傳播學刊‧11，71-109。
陳海泓（2008）。紙本閱讀和電腦閱讀文章對國小五、六年級學生閱讀理解之影響。教育學誌，20，121~168。
魯忠義、張亞靜、邵一傑（2006）。學校不同群體的閱讀信念對記敘文意義建構的影響。心理科學，29(1)，84-86。
盧宇香、洪清一（2008）。合作學習與自我教導對聽覺障礙兒童閱讀理解成效之研究。東台灣特殊教育學報，10 ，93-119 。
謝瑜苓（2003）。外籍兒童中文閱讀理解策略之行動研究－以韓裔兒童為例。國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。

英文
Alexander, P. A., & Dochy, E J. R. C. (1994). Adults' views about knowing and believing. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.). Beliefs about text and instruction with text , 223-244.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K.（1994）. How subject matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 313-337.
Bogdan, D., & Straw, S. (Eds.) (1990). Beyond communication: Reading comprehension and criticism. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemanu.
Bracewell, R. J., Frederiksen, C. H., & Frederiksen, J. D. (1982). Cognitive processes in composing and comprehendingdiscourse. Educational psychologist, 17, 146-164.
Chambliss, M. (1994). Why do readers fail to change their beliefs after reading persuasive text? In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text,75-89. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conover, W. J., Johnson, M. E., and Johnson, M. M. (1981). A comparative study of tests for homogeneity of variances, with applications to the outer continental shelf bidding data. Technometrics, 23, 351--361.
David Yun Dai , & Xiaolei Wang (2007) .The role of need for cognition and reader beliefs in text comprehension and interest development . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 32(3) , 332-347.
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. A. (1994). Social psychology research on beliefs and attitudes: Implications for research on learning from text. In R. Garner & E A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text ,pp. 245-265. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologists, 34(10), 906-911.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W. & Yekovich, K. R.（1993）. The cognitive psychology of schooll earning（2nded.）. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Mason, F. Scirica and L. Salvi(2006). Effects of beliefs about meaning construction and task instructions on interpretation of narrative text, Contemporary Educational Psychology ,31 , 411–437.
Mayer, R. E.(1980). Elaboration techniques that increase the meaningfulness of technical text: An experimental test of the learning strategy hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(6), 770-784.
Rumelhart, D.E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and Performance , 6, 575-603. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stanovich, K. E.（1980）. Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71..
Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N.(1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing its is simple does not make it so, Journal of Educational Psychology ,84, 432–435.
Schraw, G., & Bruning, R. (1996). Readers’ implicit models of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 290–305.
Schraw, G., & Bruning, R. (1999). How implicit models of reading affect motivation to read and reading engagement, Scientific Studies of Research, 3 (3) , 281–302.
Schraw, G. (2000). Reader beliefs and meaning construction in narrative text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 96–106
Shell, D. E, Murphy, C., & Brnning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and chievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386-398.
Straw, S. (1990). Challenging communication. In D. Bogdan & S. Straw (Eds.), Beyond communication: Reading comprehension and criticism, pp.67-90. Portsmouth, NH: I-Ieinemarm.
Straw, S., & Sadowy, P. (1990). Dynamics of communication. In D. Bogdan & S. Straw (Eds.), Beyond communication: Reading comprehension and criticism , pp.21-48. Portsmouth, NI-I: Heinemann.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension.New York: Academic Press.
Zwann, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 920-933.