本研究的主要目的在探討「摘要教學」、「摘要加心智繪圖教學」與「自由閱讀」對不同閱讀能力學生在社會科文章的心智繪圖表現、摘要能力、閱讀理解表現與閱讀策略使用上的影響，以建構一套適用於國小摘要教學的方案。
研究中的摘要教學主要依據Brown與Day(1983)所提六項摘要策略，輔以Hare 與Borchardt（1984）的潤飾策略，再加上Cook與Mayer（1988）的文章結構策略為「摘要組」教學的主要內容。「摘要加心智繪圖教學」則除了摘要教學外，另加上心智繪圖（Buzan,1989）的教學。
本研究以台北縣集美國小五年級三個班級學童為對象，採準實驗研究設計中的不等組前後測設計，將參與研究的三個班級分派為「摘要組」、「摘要加心智繪圖組」與「控制組」。資料處理以共變數排除無法隨機分派受試者所造成的影響。實驗課程為期十週、每週兩節課。
研究結果顯示：
一、就心智繪圖表現而言，教學法與閱讀能力間並無交互作用。「摘要加心智繪圖組」的學童表現顯著優於「摘要組」與「控制組」的學童，「摘要組」的學童表現又顯著優於「控制組」。而高閱讀能力組的表現顯著優於低閱讀能力組，中、高閱讀能力組之間無顯著差異，中、低閱讀能力組之間也無顯著差異。
二、就摘要能力而言，教學法與閱讀能力間並無交互作用。「摘要加心智繪圖組」與「摘要組」的學童表現顯著優於「控制組」的學童，「摘要加心智繪圖組」與「摘要組」的學童表現則無顯著差異。而高閱讀能力組的表現顯著優於低閱讀能力組，中、高閱讀能力組之間無顯著差異，中、低閱讀能力組之間也無顯著差異。
三、就閱讀理解能力而言，教學法與閱讀能力間並無交互作用。「摘要加心智繪圖組」的學童表現顯著優於「控制組」的學童，「摘要加心智繪圖組」與「摘要組」的學童表現則無顯著差異，「摘要組」與「控制組」之間亦無顯著差異。高閱讀能力組與中閱讀能力組的閱讀理解分數顯著優於低閱讀能力組，而高閱讀能力組與中閱讀能力組之間則無顯著差異。
四、在閱讀策略之運用而言，教學法與閱讀能力間並無交互作用。在主要效果上，教學法的效果未達顯著水準，兩實驗組與控制組的學童表現無顯著差異。但閱讀能力的主要效果則達顯著水準，高閱讀能力組的閱讀策略使用情形顯著優於中閱讀能力組與低閱讀能力組，而中閱讀能力組與低閱讀能力組之間則無顯著差異。
最後，研究者針對研究結果加以討論，並提出幾點建議作為「摘要教學」與「摘要加心智繪圖教學」在國小課程應用及未來研究上的參考。

The main purpose of this research was to explore the effects of “summary instruction”,“summary and mind mapping instruction”and “free reading” on mind mapping performance, summary ability, reading comprehension and the utilization of reading strategies of fifth graders with different reading abilities.
The subjects were 104 fifth graders from the Jeemei elementary school in Taipei County. A quasi-experimental design was adopted. There were two experimental groups and one control group. The experimental group one received the“summary instruction”, and the experimental group two received the“summary and mind mapping instruction”, while the control group received free reading.
The findings were as follows:
1.With regard to the performance of mind mapping, there was no interaction effect between instructional groups and reading abilities. However the main effects of instructional groups and reading abilities were significant.
2.In regard to the performance of summary ability, there was no interaction effect between instructional groups and reading abilities. However the main effects of instructional groups and reading abilities were significant.
3.With regard to the performance of reading comprehension, there was no interaction effect between instructional groups and reading abilities. However the main effects of instructional groups and reading abilities were significant.
4.In regard to the performance of the use of reading strategies, there was no interaction effect between instructional groups and reading abilities. However the main effect of instructional groups was nonsignificant while the main effect of reading abilities was significant.
The results were discussed and some recommendations were made for elementary school curriculum practice and future research.

一、中文部分
小光（民64）。國語課文段落大意的探討。中國語文，37卷，6期，17-21頁。
王仁宏（民92）。後設認知策略教學對國小補校成人學生閱讀理解成效影響之研究。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所碩士論文。
王瑞芸（民84）。國小六年級國語科習作引導與學習之評估研究：以花蓮縣為例。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
王瓊珠（民80）國小六年級閱讀障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀認知能力之比較研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。
方金雅、鍾易達、邱上真（民87）。國小學童閱讀摘要能力評定規範之發展。載於台南師範學院測驗發展中心主編，國小教學評量的反省與前瞻（123-137頁）。台南：台南師範學院。
朱錦鳳（民89）。正反向題目敘述的探討及對測驗信度及效標關聯效度的衝擊。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，47卷，2期，139－149頁。
李詠吟、張德榮、陳慶福、林本喬、韓楷聖（民82）。國中生學習與讀書策略量表之修訂報告。測驗年刊，40期，91-116頁。
吳英長 （民87）國民小學國語故事體課文摘寫大意的教學過程之分析。臺東師院學報，9期，178-181頁。
吳訓生（民89）。國小低閱讀能力學生閱讀理解策略教學效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文。
官美媛（民88）。國小學生摘取文章大意策略之教學研究－以五年級說明文為例。國立東華大學教育研究所碩士論文。
吳裕聖（民90）。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。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文。
林秀貞（民86）。國小六年級學童社會科閱讀理解研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學類研究所碩士論文。
林姿君（民89）。同儕互動中閱讀策略使用歷程之探究－以國小四年級國語科小組討論為例。臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
林建平（民82）。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。
林清山（民80）。心理與教育統計學。台北：東華書局。
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。臺中師範學院語文教育學研究所碩士論文。
林嘉玲（民92）。七年級學生健康與體育相關概念之行動研究。國立體育學院運動科學研究所碩士論文。
柯華葳（民88）。閱讀理解困難篩選測驗。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，46輯，2期，1-11頁。
洪秋蘭（民89）。國中語文學習困難學生閱讀理解與先前知識之評量與診斷。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。
洪麗卿（民91）。社會科概念構圖教學策略之建構。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
翁錦瑛（民91）。數學概念構圖教學與診斷效益。臺南師範學院教師在職進修數學碩士學位班碩士論文。
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。
孫易新譯（民87）。North,V & Buzan, T著。成功之路：心智繪圖讓你領先群倫。臺北市：一智。
孫易新（民90）。心智圖基礎篇Mind Mapping：多元知識管理系統。臺北：耶魯。
郭生玉（民83）：教育心理與測驗（八版）。台北縣：精華。
陳立行（2001）。中學生心像圖筆記法－經驗修正版。陳立行資訊網。民92年2月28日，取自：http://asia-learning.com/action/article/36207261/
陳建明（民86）。閱讀理解策略教學效果之個案研究—以花蓮縣安通部落阿美族國民小學生為例。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育學研究所碩士論文。
陳淑絹(民84）。「指導─合作學習」教學策略增進國小學童閱讀理解能力之實徵研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
陳櫻代（民88）：概念圖策略促進閱讀理解能力之研究。國立師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
連啟舜（民91）。國內閱讀理解教學研究成效之分析。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
張春興（民85）。教育心理學：三化取像的理論與實踐。台北東華。
張莉珍（民91）。故事構圖策略與摘要策略對增進國小六年級低閱讀能力學生閱讀理解之比較研究。中原大學教育研究所碩士論文。
張雅萍（民89）。摘要策略對網路化學習成效之研究。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系碩士論文。
張翠倫（民92）。國小學生社會領域學習策略與學業成就關係之研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
梁財妹(民84)。培養兒童摘取大意的能力。八十四學年度教材教法研習資料(國語科)。台灣省政府教育廳國民教育巡迴輔導團編印。
黃文聖（民92）。概念構圖應用在網路專題製作之成效研究。國立高雄師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
黃玉佳（民92）。概念構圖與摘要策略對不同性別學生學習成效之影響。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文。
黃嶸生（民91）。整合式閱讀理解策略輔助系統對國小學童閱讀能力和策略運用的效果。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系碩士論文。
黃瓊儀（民85）。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。
董宜俐（民92）。國小六年級學童中文閱讀理解測驗編製研究。臺中師範學院教育測驗統計研究所碩士論文。
楊世麒（民91）。以概念構圖作為國小高年級學童水循環概念的概念改變研究。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
楊芷芳（民83）。國小不同後設認知能力兒童的閱讀理解能力與閱讀理解策略之研究。國立台中師範學院初等教育學系碩士碩士論文。
楊韻平（民82）。兒童摘取文章大意的能力。國立政治大學教育學系碩士論文。
劉吟玲（民83）。後設認知越讀策略的教學對國中低閱讀能力學生閱讀效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
劉蘊芳譯(民88)。7 Brains: 怎樣擁有達文西的七種天才。台北市：大塊文化。
鄭紹薰（民71）。怎樣指導學生摘取課文大意。中國語文，50卷，5期，45-47頁。
蔡天民（民91）。概念構圖對國小學童自然科學習成就、學習態度及概念改變之研究。臺北市立師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文。。
賴明貞（民92）。國小社會科教科書可閱讀性分析與高年級學童閱讀理解情形之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
錢秀梅（民90）。心智圖教學方案對身心障礙資源班學生創造力影響。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
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。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士碩士論文。
謝真華（民88）。概念構圖教學對國小四年級學童在自然科學習成效之研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育所碩士論文。
羅玲妃譯（Tony Buzan原著）（民86）。心智繪圖－思想整合利器。台北：一智。
羅秋昭（民90）。創思的閱讀教學。全國兒童閱讀種子教師研習會研習資料。國立台北師院初等教育系網站，取自：http://s4.ntptc.edu.tw/edu4/1-3.htm。
二、西文部分
Alexander,P. A., & Jeffon, J. L. (2000).Learning from text:A Mnltidimentional and developmental perspective. In Pearson P. D., Barr R., Kamil M. L., & Mosenthal, P. (Eds.),Handbook of reading research(pp.295). New York; N.J.: Longman.
Alexander, P.A., & Judy, J.E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58, 375-404.
Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readena, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58, 375-404.
Amold, M. T.(1981).Teaching theme, thesis, topic senaences and clinchers as related concepts. Journal of Reading , 24(5), 373-76.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In D. Pearson (Eds.). Handbook of research on reading(pp. 55-291). New York : Longman.
Armbruster, B. B. (1986). Schema theory and the design of content-area textbook. Educational Psychologist, 21, 253-267.
Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1984). Mapping : Representing informative text diagrammatically. In C.D. Holley & D.F. Dansereau (Eds.), Spatial learning strategies: Techniques, applications, and related issues. New York : Academic Press.
Armbruster, B.B., Anderson, T.H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/ summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 331-346.
Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984b). Metacognitive skills in reading. In P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp353-394). New York: Longman.
Bean, T. W., Sorter, J., Singer, H., & Frazee, C. (1986). Teaching students how to make predictions about events in history with a graphic organizer plus options guide. Journal of Reading, 739-745.
Bean, T.W., & Steenwyk, F.L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders' summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 297-306.
Borkowski , J. G., Estrada , M. T., Milstead , M., & Hale , C. A .(1989)General problem-solving skill : Relation between metacognition and strategic processing . Learning Disability Quarterly ,12, 57-70 .
Bornstrin, M. H. & Lamb, M. E.(1999).Developmental psychology：An advanced textbook(4th ed.).Mahwah, NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1–8.
Brown, A. L, Smiley, S. S. & Lawton, S. C.（1978）. The effects of experience on the selection of suitable retrieval cues for studying text. Child Development, 49, 829-835.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts:The development of exerperties. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,22,1-14.
Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, 968-979.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and instruction( 2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.
Buzan, T. (1989). Speed reading. England: Penguin Books Ltd.
Buzan, T.& Buzan, B.(1996).The Mind Map Book: How to Use Radiant Thinking to Maximize Your Brain's Untapped Potentialby. Retrieved February 28, 2003 from the World Wide Web http://www.peterussell.com/Mindmaps/HowTo.html
Buzan, T. (2003).Buzan center. Retrieved February 28, 2003 from the World Wide Web http://mind-map.com.
Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, S. F. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 5-24.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Collins & Loftus(1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic memory. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.
Cook, L.,K., & Mayer,R. E.(1988)Teaching readers about the structure of scientific Text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 488-456.
Crocker, L & Algina, J. (1986).Introduction to classical and modem test theory. New York :Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Cunningham, J. W.（1982）Generating interactions between schema and text. In J.A. Niles & L.A. Harris (Eds.), New inquires in reading research and instruction,(pp.42-47).Rochester, NY : National Reading Conference.
Dansereau, D. F. & Newbern, D. (1997). Using knowledge maps to enhance teaching. In W. E Campbell & K. A. Smith (Eds.), New paradigms for college teaching (pp. 125-147). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G, Roehler, L.R., & Pearson, P. D.(1991). Moving from the old to the new : Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239-264.
Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practice for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.) What research has to say about reading instruction (pp.205-242).Newark, DE : International Reading Association.
Ehri, L. C. (1982). Learning to read and spell. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association annual meeting, Washington, D. C.
Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children's developing awareness of text structures in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 65-74.
Englert, C. S., Stewart, S. R., & Hiebert, E. H.(1988) Young writers' use of text structure in expository text generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 143-151.
Entrekin V. S.(1992).Mathematical mind mapping.The Mathematics Teacher, 85 (6), 444-445.
Flavell, J. H.(1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906 - 911.
Flavell, J. H., Friedrichs, A. G., & Hoyt, J. D.(1970) Development changes in memorization processes. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 324-340.
Frances, S. M., & Eckart, J. A. (1992). The effects of reciprocal teaching on comprehension. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 350572).
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). Cognitive psychology of school learning. Harper Collins College Publishers.
Gajria, M., & Salvia, J.(1992).The effect of summarization instruction on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Expcetional Children, 58(6), 508-516.
Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarization: Costs and benefits. Journal of Educational Research, 75(5), 275-279.
Garné, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Goodnough, K. & Long, R.(2002).A graphic organizer for the pedagogical. Science Scope, 20-24.
Griffin, C. C., Malone, L. D., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995). Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 98-107.
Gunning, T. G. (1996). Creating Reading Instruction for All Children, 2nd ed. Boston Allyn & Bacon.
Hare, V. C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of snmmarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 62-78.
Hare, V. C., Rabinowitz, M., Schieble, K. M. (1989). Text effects on main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 72-88.
Head, M. H., Readence, J. E., & Buss, R. R.(1989). An examination of summary writing as a measure of reading comprehension. Reading instruction and instruction, 28(4), 1-11.
Heilman, A.W., Blair, T.R., & Rupley, W.H.(1998). Principles and practices of teaching reading. (9th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Heimlich, J. E., & Pittelman,S. D.(1986). Semantic Mapping : Classroom Applications. Newark, DE : International Reading Association.
Hidi, S., & Anderson V. (1986). Producting written summaries : Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 473-493.
Higgins, J. M., (1994) 101 Creative Problem Solving Techniques: The Handbook of New Ideas for Business. Winter Park, FL: New Management Publishing
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G.(1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278.
Johnson, D. D., & P. D. Pearson. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary (2nd ed.). New York, Holt : Rinehart and Winston.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329-354.
Karlin, R. (1971) Teaching Elementary Reading:Principles and Strategies ( p.213 ) New York : Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich.
Kameenui, E. J., & Simmon, D.C. (1990). Designing instruction strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Keenan, J. M., & Brown, P. （1984）.Children’s reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions. Child Development , 55 , 1556-1569.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394.
Kintsch, W. (1998).Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kletzien, S. B. (1992). Proficient and less proficient comprehenders’ strategy use for different top-level structures. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 191-215.
Learning skill program-concept mapping.（2003）Counselling Services - University of Victoria. Retrieved May 29, 2004, from the World Wide Web : http://www.coun.uvic.ca/learn/program/hndouts/map_ho.html
Lehr, S.(1988). The child’s developing sense of theme as a response to literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 337-357.
Leslie, J. L., & Caldwell, J. (1995).Qualitative reading inventory-II(pp. 293~319). NY : Harper Colins College Publishers.
Levie, W.H.; Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 30(4), 195-232.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. R. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration: Vol. I. Basic research (pp. 51-85). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lukens, R. J.(1999). A Critical Handbook of Children's Literature (5th ed) . Chicago, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co..
Mason, J., & Au, K. (1986). Reading Instruction for Today. Urbana, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Mayer , R. E. (1987). Educational Psychology : A Cognitive Approach. New York: Harper Collins.
Mayer, R.E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357-371.
Mento, A. J., & Jones, R. M.（1999）.Mind mapping in executive education: applications and outcomes. Journal of Management Development, 18(4), 390-408.
Meyer, B. J. F.(1975). The organization of prose and its effect on memory. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Meyer,B.J.F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J.（1980）.Use of top level structure in the text：Key for reading comprehension of ninth grade students.Reading Rearch Quarterly, 16, 72-103.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21,121-143.
Meyer, B.F., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 141-159.
Malone, L. D. & Mastropieri, M. A.(1992). Reading comprehension instruction :Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Expectional Children, 58(3), 270-279.
McCormick, S.(1995). Instructing students who have literacy problems (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C.A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). The effect of level of information as presented by different technologies on students' understanding of acid, base and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1077-1096.
Nist, S.L., & Simpson, M. (2002, April). College studying. Reading Online, 5(8). Retrieved May 29, 2004, from the World Wide Web : http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=handbook/nist/index.html.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.
Paris, S.G. (1988). Models and metaphors of learning strategies. In C.E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz, & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in ssessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 299-321). San Diego, CA : Academic.
Pressley-Forrest,D.L.,& Gillies, L. A.(1985). Children’s flexible use of strategies during reading. In M. Pressley & J.R.Levin (Eds.).Cognitive strategy research educational applications. N.Y. : Springer-Verlag.
Resnick, L. B.(1984). Comprehension and learning : Implications for a cognitive theory of instruction. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp.431-443). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reutzel, D. R., & Fawson, P. (1991). Literature webbing predictable books: A prediction strategy that helps below-average, first-grade readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 30(4), 20-30.
Rieber, L. P. (1994). Computers, graphics and learning. Madison. WI : WCB Brown & Benchmark.
Rinehart, S. D., Stahl, S. A., & Erickson, L. G.(1986). Some effects of summarization training on reading and studying. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 422-438.
Roller, C. M. (1990). The interaction between knowledge and structure variables in the processing of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(2),79-89.
Rosenshine, B. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43, 60-69.
Roth, W.M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 503-534.
Rubin,D. (1980) The Teacher Handbook of Reading/Thinking Exercises. Hott, NY : Rinehart and Winston.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognition psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence and education (pp.33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Ruiz-Primo,M.A., & Shavelson, R.J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept in science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 569-600.
Ruiz-Primo,M.A. , Shavelson,R.J. , Li,M. & Schultz,S. E. (2001). On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educational Assessment, 7(2), 99-141.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, J. R. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp.99-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1984). Development of strategies in text processing. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 379–406). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Silven, M., & Vauras, M (1992) .Improving reading through thinking aloud. Learning and Instruction , 2, 69-88.
Siu, P. K. (1988). Processing of thematic information in Chinese texts. In I.M. Liu, H. C. Chen, & M. J. Chen (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of the Chinese language (pp.163-170). Hong Kong : Asian Research Service.
Solso, R. L. (1995). Cognitive psychology (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Steyn, T.& Boer, A-L de（1998）.Mind mapping as a study tool for underprepared 3tudents in mathematics and science. South African Journal of Ethnology, 21(3), 125-132.
Stice, C. F., & Alvarez, M. C. (1986). Hierarchical concept mapping: Young children learning how to learn (A viable heuristic for the primary grades) (Report No. 5). Nashville: Tennessee State University, Center of Excellence, Basic Skills for the Disadvantaged, Reading/Writing Component. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 274 946)
Suzuki. K. (1987). Schema Theory: A Basis for Domain Information Design. In W.Wager (Chair), Application of the Schema theory to instructional design. A symposium conducted at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Atlanta, GA, U.S.A. Retrieved May 29, 2004, from the World Wide Web : http://www.anna.iwate-pu.ac.jp/~ksuzuki/resume/papers/1987a.html
Taylor, B. M. (1980). Children's memory for expository text after reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 399–411.
Taylor, B.M. (1982). Text structure and children’s comprehension and memory for expository material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 323-340.
Taylor, B., & Beach, R. (1984) The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134-146.
Taylor, B., & Samuels, S. J. (1983). Children's use of text structure in the recall of expository material. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 517–528.
Tobias, S (1982) When do instructional methods make a difference? Educational Researcher, 11, 4-9.
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：Forstering comprehension in the middle grades, (pp.1-31) .DE, Newark :International Reading Association.
van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Semantic discourse analysis. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis : Disciplines of discourse (vol.2, pp.103-136). London: Academic Press.
Wade, S. & Trathen, W. (1989). Effect of self-selected study methods on learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 40-47.
Wellman, H. M. (1985). The origins of metacognition. In Forrest- Pressley, D. L., Mackinnon, G. E. & Waller, T. G. (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance. N.Y.: Academic Press.
Weinstein, C., & Underwood, V. (1985). Learning strategies. In J. Segal & S. Chipman (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Weisberg, R. (1988). A Change in Focus of Reading Comprehension Research: A Review of Reading/Learning disabilities research based on an interactive model of reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(2), 149-59.
Weisberg, R., & Balajthy, E. (1990). Development of disabled readers' meatcomprehension ability through summarization training using expository text: Results of three studies. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disibilities, 6, 117-136.
Wilder, A, A & William, J. P. (2001). Students with severe learing disabilities can learn higher order comprehension skills.Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 268-278.
Williams, J. P., Taylor, M. B., & Ganger, S. (1981). Text variations at the level of the individual sentence and the comprehension of simple expository paragraphs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 851–865.
William, J. P., Taylor, M. B., & DeCani, J. S. (1984).Constructing macro structure for expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 ,1065-1075.
Wiograd, P N. & Hare, V.C. (1988).Direct instruction and reading comprehension strategies : The nature of teacher explanation. In C.E.Weinstein, & E.T. Goetz (Ed.) Learning and Study Stratrgies. N.Y.: Acamatic.
Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(4), 404-425.
Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones , W.(1982). Increasing meta comprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228-240.
Wycoff, J.(1991). Mindmapping: Your Personal Guide to Exploring Creativity and Problem-Solving. New York: Berkley Books.
Yussen, S. (1985). The role of metacognition in contemporary theories of cognitive development. En D. L. Forrest-Presley, G.E Mackinson, y T. G. Waller. (Eds). Metacognition, Cognition and Human Performance: Theoretical Perspectives (253-283). New York : Academic Press.