隨著十二年國教的實施，以素養為導向的新課綱，閱讀能力成為了所有學科的核心基礎，其中「閱讀理解」更是其中的關鍵。研究者在教學現場觀察到，升上高年級後，文章篇幅增長，內容涵蓋更為豐富，尤其在現今資訊速食的時代，學生在面對文章時很難專注地去閱讀文章，並理解其中的意義。所以如何從讀到讀懂，將所閱讀到的訊息變得有意義，成為現場教師的一大課題。故本研究運用概念構圖融入國小五年級國語文閱讀理解，試圖去解決此問題。
　　本研究之研究目的為：一、瞭解運用概念構圖教學於國小五年級學生國語文閱讀理解之歷程。二、探究運用概念構圖於國小五年級學生國語文閱讀理解之成效。三、瞭解教師運用概念構圖教學於國小五年級學生國語文閱讀理解所面臨的問題和因應之道。四、探討教師運用概念構圖教學課程於國小五年級學生國語文閱讀理解的省思與成長。本研究採行動研究，以中部某國小五年級的25位學生為研究對象，由研究者實施為期八週共16堂的概念構圖課程。本研究工具採用學生概念構圖作品、焦點團體訪談及教師教學省思札記等三種不同類型的研究資料。本研究結果經主題分析法及相依樣本ｔ考驗後，研究結果顯示，學生在運用概念構圖於國語文閱讀理解的歷程時，學生繪製概念構圖的步驟包含「閱讀-建構-修正」；學生在繪製概念構圖的思維方式包含了「演繹法」與「歸納法」。而學生在概念構圖教學課程前後所繪製的作品進行比較後，發現學童的整體閱讀理解能力有提升。研究者亦從三大面向「教師教學」、「學生學習」、「師生互動」來呈現教師在運用概念構圖教學所會面臨到的問題和應對方式。經歷這次研究過程後也讓教師產生了省思並有所成長。
　　最後，研究者依據研究發現提出四點討論：一、概念構圖能協助學生呈現其思維方式及歷程，打破標準答案框架；二、概念構圖增加學生低層次閱讀理解，而高層次閱讀理解仍有待提升；三、學生對於使用概念構圖看法不一致，需要更多時間練習，使用概念構圖才會更得心應手；四、從理論和實務之反思，建構出適合本研究場域的教學方案。在未來研究建議上，可考慮增加此課程的實施時間、選取不同規模學校及樣本數、將概念構圖擴及至多文體、多文本、多領域等，作為未來研究之參考。

With the implementation of the 12-Year Basic Education and the new literacy-oriented curriculum, reading has become a foundational skill for every subject, and reading comprehension is particularly critical. The researcher has observed in the classroom that reading materials become longer and richer in content for fifth and sixth graders; however, in this era of fast-food consumption of information, it is difficult for students to maintain focus while reading and to understand the meaning of the text. Teaching them how to focus on reading and make sense of texts is therefore one of the most important task for working teachers. The present study attempts to address the issue by integrating concept mapping in fifth grade Mandarin lessons to enhance reading comprehension.
　　The purposes of this research are (1) to understand the students’ learning process of, (2) to evaluate the effectiveness of, (3) to identify the problems and solutions of, and (4) to investigate the teacher’s reflections on and growth after using concept mapping in reading comprehension in fifth grade Mandarin. The study follows an action research design. The researcher planned and conducted an eight-week, 16-period course to 25 fifth graders of an elementary school in central Taiwan, kept a reflective journal of the teaching, and carried out a focus group interview with the students. The concept maps created by the students were collected as the research data along with the journal and the interview. After a thematic analysis and a dependent sample t-test, the results showed that the students followed three steps, “reading-construction-correction,” and applied deductive and inductive reasoning when they drew a concept map. The comparison of the students’concept mapping works before and after the concept mapping course indicated an improvement in reading comprehension skills. The problems the researcher faced as the teacher and the corresponding responses were presented in this research from three aspects: the teacher’s teaching, the students’ learning, and the teacher-student interaction. The teacher had reflected and learned from the experience.
According to the research findings, the researcher concludes that (1) concept mapping enables students to visualize their train of thoughts and to think outside the box, (2) concept mapping facilitates low-order comprehension but not so much high-order comprehension, and (3) concept mapping has received mixed reviews from the students and they need more practice to familiarize themselves with the technique. (4) A lesson plan for concept mapping is devised based on theoretical and practical considerations. Future research is recommended to extend course duration, select schools of different sizes, vary the sample size, or expand the use of concept mapping to multiple texts, various text genres, and other subjects.

王聖仁（2005）。整合概念構圖與註記分享之線上摘要寫作學習環境。國立臺北教育大學。
王開府（2008）。心智圖與概念模組在語文閱讀與寫作思考教學之運用。國文學報，43，263-296。
王佩蘭（2012）。「four levels」閱讀理解層次與提問。取自：https://jweb.kl.edu.tw/Homepage.php?teacher_id=812&inpage=cwebpage&cate_id=2473
王禎慧、孟瑛如（2014）。概念構圖與自我調整策略發展模式對國小高功能自閉症兒童記敘文寫作表現之成效。特教論壇，17，94-109。
仇小屏（2005）。篇章結構類型論（增修版）。萬卷樓。
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。商鼎。
向陽天（2009）。7招趕超優等生。金城。
李秀娟（1998）。不同教學策略對國中生學習生物的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
李雅惠（2006）。概念構圖教學對八年級學生閱讀理解能力與國文學習態度之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學。
吳裕聖（2000）。概念構圖教學策略對國小五年級學生科學文章閱讀理解及概念構圖能力之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中正大學。
吳秀芬（2014）。圖像組織應用在六年級社會領域教學之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立屏東教育大學。
吳聲毅（2014）。「個人-小組」導向合作式概念構圖系統融入小學學習之初探。康大學報，4，33-42。
吳啟誠、張瓊云（2020）。主題分析在教育研究上的應用。特殊教育發展期刊，69，29-42。
周一貴（1989）。淺談語文教學的課堂藝術：小學語文教案。北京師範大學。
周建智、涂馨友（2009）。以合作式概念構圖發展學童運動學習。中華體育季刊，23（4），117-127。
林達森（2003）。概念圖的理論基礎與運用實務。花蓮師院學報，17，107-132。
林達森（2005）。不同導入訓練歷程之「概念構圖教學法」對國小階段生物能量概念學習與態度影響之實徵研究。高雄師大學報，19，105-122。
林錚、廖桂君、徐岳聖、陳毓卿（2007）。國小教師運用概念構圖從事體育教學情形之個案研究。大專體育學術專刊，96，105-110。
林璟芳（2012）。運用概念構圖於國小讀報教育對閱讀理解效應之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北教育大學。
林湘芸（2014）。概念構圖策略在國小學童英語閱讀理解表現之效益（未出版之碩士論文）。國立屏東商業技術學院。
林姵妤（2019）。以文章結構摘大意之分析研究-以國中國文為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立東華大學。
胡幼慧（1996）。質性研究－理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。巨流。
胡融昀（2020）。概念構圖運用在做筆記教學對國小六年級學生說明文閱讀理解的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺南大學。
洪蘭（2004）。讓孩子的大腦動起來：最科學的聰明育兒法。信誼基金。
洪榮照、賴芹如（2010）。概念構圖多媒體教學對國中低閱讀理解能力學生社會領域教學成效之研究。特殊教育與輔助科技學報，2，71-99。
柯華葳（1999）。閱讀能力的發展。載於曾進興（主編）語言病理學基礎第三卷。心理。
柯華葳（2006）。教出閱讀力。天下雜誌。
柯華葳、張郁雯、丘嘉慧、詹益綾、游婷雅（2012）。PIRLS 2011 報告：臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養。取自國立中央大學學習與教學研究所閱讀與學習研究室網站：https://sites.google.com/site/reading8learning 01/pirls/pirls-2011
柯華葳、詹益綾、丘嘉慧（2013）。PIRLS 2011 報告：臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養。取自國立中央大學學習與教學研究所閱讀與學習研究室網站：https://sites.google.com/site/reading8learning 01/pirls/pirls-2011
高宜敏（2001）。合作競爭式的網路分享建構學習環境（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學。
陳櫻代（1999）。概念構圖策略促進閱讀理解能力之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
陳惠娟、洪久賢（2005）。九年一貫綜合活動領域實施概念構圖教學之成效研究。家政教育學報，7，1-29。
陳添球、廖慧卿（2009）。臺灣三種版本國小三年級語文教科書課文篇章結構的批判與重建。論文發表於香港教育學院舉辦之「小學教育國際研討會」，香港。
陳志文、朱蕙君（2015）。以流程概念構圖為鷹架之學習策略建立技職院校旅運管理資訊系統之專業技能學習模式。數位學習科技期刊，7（1），59-72。
陳明蕾（2019）。臺灣十年來教師閱讀教學與學生閱讀表現關係之探討：來自PIRLS 2006、2011 與2016的證據。教育心理學報，51（1），51-82。
陳信豪、黃瓊儀（2020）。淺談課文本位閱讀理解策略教學提升國小學生閱讀理解能力。臺灣教育評論月刊，9（5），98-103。
康軒文教（2021）。國民小學國語備課用書第九冊。康軒文教。
孫瑞雯（2013）。晨讀十分鐘與概念構圖對閱讀理解力之影響－以國小三年級為例（未出版之碩士論文）。私立玄奘大學。
凌秀英（2011）。運用概念構圖策略對國小三年級學童閱讀說明文體理解能力之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺南大學。
徐慧芳（2013）。國中國文教科書篇章結構之研究-以南一版為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立東華大學。
曹茜茹（2016）。概念構圖融入國小國語文教學對四年級學童閱讀理解能力之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學。
教育部（2010）。閱讀理解策略手冊。教育部。
教育部（2011）。在職進修閱讀教學增能手冊。教育部。
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要語文領域-國語文。教育部。
國家教育研究院（2019）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要議題融入說明手冊。國家教育研究院。
郭重吉、江武雄（1995）。中學數理教師在職進修課程設計之行動研究（I）（NSC84-2513-S-018-004）。國科會專題研究成果報告。彰化師範大學。
梁淑芳（2006）。概念構圖教學對國小三年級學生閱讀理解表現之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學。
張淑伶（2016）。運用概念構圖於說明文提升國小六年級學童閱讀理解能力之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學。
黃萬居（1993）。國小學生的概念構圖和自然科學學習成就之研究。臺北市立師範學院學報，24，47-66。
黃國珍（2019）。黃國珍的閱讀理解課，從訊息到意義，帶你讀出深度思考力。親子天下。
游雅婷、賴筱婷（2015）。應用 SQ4R 學習策略與合作學習於網路教學系統對學生閱讀理解能力與閱讀動機之影響。教育科技與學習，3（1），25-44。
楊如雪（2016）。國文語法教學的理論與實務。萬卷樓。
楊芬香（2008）。國小高年級國語課程實施聆聽策略教學之行動研究-以概念構圖做筆記為教學主要模式（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學。
楊肅健、薛為蓮（2019）。以概念構圖軟體輔助寫作認知策略教學之探究。教育傳播與科技研究，120，17-33。
楊佳蓉（2019）。應用KWL策略、相互教學法及概念構圖在國小四年級科學閱讀理解能力之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立清華大學。
齊若蘭、游常山、李雪莉（2003）。閱讀：新一代知識革命。天下雜誌。
蔡清田（2000）。教育行動研究。五南。
蔡雅泰（2006）。概念構圖融入國語教學對國小五年級學童閱讀理解、大意摘要能力與語文學習態度影響之研究 （未出版之博士論文）。國立高雄師範大學。
廖珊如（2015）。概念構圖教學策略對閱讀理解與口語表達影響之研究-以國小三年級學生語文領域教學為例（未出版之碩士論文）。私立大葉大學。
臺灣PISA國家研究中心（2015）。臺灣PISA 2012結果報告。心理。
鄭秀梅（2015）。應用概念構圖教學策略於國小三年級學生閱讀理解之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中正大學。
蔣宗益（2005）。以概念構圖策略輔助EFL閱讀理解及文意回顧之個案研究（未出版之碩士論文）。私立南台科技大學。
賴芹如（2005）。概念構圖多媒體教學對國中低閱讀理解能力學生社會領域學習成就之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學。
劉遠楨、黃思華、王聖仁（2008）。結合概念構圖與註記分享線上摘要之寫作學習環境之研究。課程與教學，11（3），155-180。
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（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺南大學。
課文本位閱讀理解教學研發團隊（2012）。閱讀理解策略成分與年級對照表。取自：http://pair.nknu.edu.tw/pair_system/Search_index.aspx?PN=Reader。
蕭立人、高巧汶（2008）。概念圖式學習評量系統之設計建置。取自: http://eportfolio.mcu.edu.tw/ePortfolio/Teacher/Html/Common/epdf/9600846/ICDC%20%E6%8A%95%E7%A8%BF1109.pdf
韓順進（2006）。概念構圖對國小六年級學童閱讀理解之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學。
簡秀娟（2009）。運用概念構圖教學輔導低成就學生閱讀理解學習之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學。
謝孟芳（2016）。概念構圖教學對七年級新生閱讀理解能力培養之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。私立逢甲大學。
謝明奇（2017）。概念構圖教學策略對國中八年級學生英語閱讀態度及閱讀理解成效影響之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺南大學。
蘇宜芬（2004）。閱讀理解的影響因素及其在教育上的意義。教師天地，129，21-28。
蘇郁棠（2014）。概念構圖教學對提升國小學生國語科閱讀成效之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。私立大葉大學。

貳、英文部份
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York.
Ault, C. R. (1985). Concept mapping as a study strategy in earth science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 15(1), 38–43.
Alexander, J. E., & Heathington, B. S. (1988). Assessing and correcting classroom reading problem. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Alexander, P. A. & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L.Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. E. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 163–180). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1 : The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
Berkowitz, S. J. (1986). Effects of instruction in text organization on sixth-grade students’ memory for expository reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 161-178.
Beyerbach, B. A., & Smith, J. M. (1990). Using a computerized concept mapping program to assess preservice teachers’ thinking about effective teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 961-971.
Bromley, K., Irwin-DeVitis, L., & Modlo, M. (1995). Graphic organizers: Visual strategies for active learning. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2006). The Mind Map Book. BBC Active.
Blunt, J. R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Learning with retrieval-based concept mapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 849–858.
Cliburn, J.W. (1990). Concept maps to promote meaningful learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 19(4), 212-217.
Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, S. F. (2001a). 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 Experiment Education, 71, 5-23.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325.
Cheung, W. M., Tse, S. K., Lam, J. W. I., & Ka Yee Loh, E. (2009). Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 2006 (PIRLS): Pedagogical correlates of fourth-grade students in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(3), 293-308.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
De Simone, C., Schmid, R. F., & McEwen, L. A. (2001). Supporting the learning process with collaborative concept mapping using computer-based communication toolsand processes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7 , 263-283.
Davies, M. (2011). Concept Mapping, Mind Mapping, Argument Mapping: What are the Differences and Do They Matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279-301.
Demirci, T., & Kabataş Memiş, E. (2021). Examining the Views of Preservice Science Teachers on Creating Concept Maps. Science Education International, 32(3), 264-272.
Evans, S. S., Evans, W. H., & Mercer, C. D.（1986）. Assessment for instruction. Allyn & Bacon.
Fukuoka, W., & Spyridakis, J. H. (2000). Japanese readers’ comprehension of and preferences for inductively versus deductively organized text. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(4), 355-367.
Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson. P. J. & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 88-96.
Hudgins, B. B., Phye, G. D., Schau, C. G., Theisen, G. L., Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1983). Educational psychology. Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers.
Heimlich, J. E., & Pittelman, S. D. (1986). Semantic mapping: Classroom applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Heinze-Fry, J. A., & Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping brings longterm movement towards meaningful learning. Science Education, 74, 461-472.
Hibbard, K. M., & Wagner, E. A. (2003). Assessing & Teaching-Reading Comprehension & Pre-Writing. New York: Eye on Education.
Huang, H. C., Chern, C. l. & Lin, C. C. (2009). EFL learners’ use of online reading strategies and comprehension of texts: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 52(1), 13-26.
Hartsell, T. (2021). Visualization of Knowledge with Concept Maps in a Teacher Education Course. TechTrends, 65, 847–859.
Jones, B. F., Palicsar, A. S., Ogle, D. S., & Carr, E. G. (1987). Strategic teaching and learning: Cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, VA: Association for Suervision and Curriculum Development.
Jonassen, D. H., Reeves, T., & Hong, N. (1998b). Concept mapping as cognitive learning and assessment tools. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8, 289-308.
Jacobs-Lawson, J. M., & Hershey, D. (2002). Concept maps as an assessment tool in psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 29(1), 25-29.
Johnstone, A. H., & Otis, K. H. (2006). Concept mapping in problem based learning: a cautionary tale. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7 (2), 84-95.
Jackson, E. M., y Hanline, M. F. (2020). Using a concept map with RECALL to increase the comprehension of science texts for children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 35(2), 90–100.
Khan, A. S. (2011). Role of Concept Formation Teaching Model on Conceptual Change. Language in India：Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow, 11, 470-480.
Leauby, B. A., Brazina, P. (1998). Concept Mapping: Potential Uses in Accounting Education. Journal of Accounting Education, 16 (1) , 123-138.
Lerner, J. W. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis and teaching strategies (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Miffl in Co.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., Bluth G. J. (1980). Use of Top-Level Structure in Text: Key for Reading Comprehension of Ninth-Grade Students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 72-103.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1984). Text dimensions and cognitive processing. In H. Mandl, N. Stein & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. Black (Eds.), Analyzing and understanding expository text (pp. 11-64, 269-304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McCagg, E. C., & Dansereau, D. F. (1991). A convergent paradigm for examining knowledge mapping as a learning strategy. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(6), 317–324.
Meyer, B. J. F. (2003). Text coherence and readability. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 204-224.
MacKinnon, G. (2006). Contentious issues in science education: Building critical thinking patterns through two-dimensional concept mapping. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(4), 433-445.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Retrieved from : https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2011/downloads/P11_IR_FullBook.pdf.
Matusiak, K., Heinbach, C., Harper, A., & Bovee, M. (2019). Visual literacy in practice: Use of images in students’ academic work. College & Research Libraries, 80(1), 123.
Maker, C. J., & Zimmerman, R. H. (2020). Concept Maps as Assessments of Expertise: Understanding of the Complexity and Interrelationships of Concepts in Science. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 254–297.
Novak, J. D. (1979a). Applying psychology and philosophy to the improvement of laboratory teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 41(8), 466-474.
Novak, J. D. (1980b). Learning theory applied to the biology classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 42, 280-285.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept Mapping A Useful Tool for Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937-949.
Naidu, S. (1990). Concept Mapping: Student Workbook. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED329247)
Novak, J. D. (1991). Clarify with concept maps: A tool for students and teachers alike. The Science Teacher, 58, 45-49.
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful Learning: The Essential Factor for Conceptual Change in Limited or Inappropriate Propositional Hierarchies Leading to Empowerment of Learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548-571.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Science framework for the 2009 national assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
O`Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71-86.
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.
Ormrod, J. E. (2012). Essentials of educational psychology: Big ideas to guide effective teaching (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Plotnick, E. (1997). Concept mapping: A graphical system for understanding the relationship between concepts. (ERIC Digest ED407938). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.
Polat, Ö., Yavuz, E. A. (2022). The Mind Map: A Tool for Exploring Children's and Teacher Trainees' Conceptions of School, Friendship, and Play. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(2), 34-48.
Quinn, H. J., Mintzes J. L., & Laws, R. A. (2004). Successive Concept-mapping. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(3), 12-16.
Rivard, L., & Yore, L. D. (1992). Review of reading comprehension instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of New York, 1985-1991.
Rubman, C. N., & Salatas Waters, H. (2000). A, B seeing: The role of constructive processes in children's comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 503–514.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Li, M., & Schultz, S. E. (2001a). On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educational Assessment, 7(2), 99-141.
Stice, C. F., & Alvarez, M. C. (1987). Hierarchical concept mapping in the early grades. Childhood Education, 64(2), 86-96.
Swaby, B. E. (1989). Diagnosis and Correction of Reading Diffi culties. Boston：Allyn and Bacon.
Schuman, L. (1996). Perspectives on instruction. Retrieved from: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec540/Perspectives/Perspectives.html.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for Understanding Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA RAND Corporation.
Sloat, E. A., Beswick, J. F., & Willms, D. J. (2007). Using early literacy monitoring to prevent reading failure. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(7), 523-529.
Tennyson, R. D., & Park, O. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of instructional design research literature. Review of Educational Research, 50, 55-70.
Trowbridge, J. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1996). How do graphics presented during college biology lessons affect students’ learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26, 54-57.
Tuan, L. T., & Thuan, L. Bich. (2011). The linkages between concept maps and language learning. Studies in Literature and Language, 2(1), 128-147.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and Teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.
Van Gigch, J. P. (1991). System Design Modeling and Metamodeling. New York: Plenum.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1986). Metacognition and special education : A review of a view. The Journal of Special Education, 20(1), 9-29.