為了解不同年齡兒童對於幻想性圖畫書的反應，本研究選取兩本幻想性圖畫書作為研究工具，對幼稚園中班到國小三年級，五個年齡層的兒童進行研究，研究過程中先請兒童閱讀圖畫書並說故事，而後再由研究者對兒童進行晤談。結果如下：
壹、 兒童對於幻想性圖畫書的反應
中、大班的兒童會逐一指出故事中不合理的地方，並不時大笑或微笑，小一以上的兒童則較少面部表情及肢體上的反應；由兒童的反應中可以看出兒童對於異於現實的情節多半會感到疑惑，在閱讀過程中也會說明他們的疑惑並提問；在閱讀過程中有些兒童樂於尋找故事中不合現實的部份，但有些對於不合理的事物情節卻不願意接受。
貳、 兒童對於圖畫書中幻想情節的解釋理由及類型
一、兒童對幻想情節解釋之理由
綜合兒童的各種回答方式，研究者將兒童對於圖畫書中幻想成分的解釋理由歸納為五種。
一、 給予故事情節合理化的理由
二、 以魔法為理由來解釋
三、 以故事表面所呈現的事實來解釋
四、 以故事情節是作者想的來解釋
五、 以故事主角作夢或想像的理由來解釋
二、兒童對幻想情節解釋之類型
而依據兒童觀看文本的角度又可將兒童的解釋理由分為三種類型
1.第一種類型：採用相信文本之解釋類型
當兒童解釋故事中的幻想情節時，多半相信圖畫書中表面所呈現的事實（如：阿奇房間是真的長樹），未能顧及是否會在現實中發生，便出現第一種解釋類型，此類型的兒童是包括給予故事情節合理化理由、以魔法為理由及故事表面所呈現的事實來解釋故事中的幻想情節。
2.第二種類型：採用跳脫文本之解釋類型（考慮故事與現實間的關係）
第二種解釋類型是當兒童解釋故事的幻想情節時，能夠考慮現實與故事間的關係來解釋故事中的幻想情節，此類兒童多半宣稱故事中的情節只是虛構或是想像（如：阿奇房間長樹只是阿奇在作夢）。，兒童使用跳脫文本之解釋類型所含形式有兩種，一種是以故事情節是作者想像來解釋，另一種是以故事主角作夢來解釋。
3.第三種類型：交錯採用相信文本及跳脫文本兩種解釋方式
兒童有時能以客觀的角度來看故事，但有時卻又十分主觀，因此常在同一故事中採用兩種不同的觀點，於是兒童對於同一個故事的解釋中便出現極端的差異。
研究結果顯示年齡越大的兒童越可以跳出文本以客觀的角度來解釋故事中幻想的情節。
參、 兒童判斷故事情節與角色能否在現實中出現的情況
兒童判斷故事情節與角色能否在現實中出現的情況有下列幾種：
一、 在某些條件下認為可能進到奇幻世界。
二、 認為故事是在遙遠的地方發生我們並不能夠去。
三、 否認故事情節的存在或是說明這只是一本書。
四、 說明主角跟他不一樣，要去書中才可以進去幻想國度。
五、 以物理經驗說明故事情節在現實發生的不可行性。
六、 以客觀角度說明故事中幻想情節是主角作夢或想像的，並了解自己也許也能作夢或想像類似事件，但與主角所見的未必相同。
肆、兒童雖採用不合於現實的理由來解釋幻想情節，但他們仍然能判斷在一般情況下幻想的情節並不會在現實中發生。

To understand the response of children of diverse ages on fantastic picture books, two books of this kind have been chosen as our target of research. The subjects under investigation range over five different age groups, from the second grade in the kindergarten to the third grade in the primary school. During the investigation, children were asked to read the books and tell a story, followed by a one-to-one talk between the investigator and the children. The results and findings are as following.
Children’s reaction toward fantastic picture books
Children in the second and third grade in the kindergarten will point out every single plot in the story that they thought to be unreasonable or contradictory to real life. Once in a while they laugh or smile. Children above first grade in primary school have less facial expression and less physical response. From their response, it is clear that when children encounter the part in the story that is contradictory to real life they feel puzzled. They will reveal their doubt and raise questions during the process of reading. Some children feel interested in finding the part in the story that is contradictory to real life, but others find those parts less easy to be accepted.
Children’s explanation of the fantastic plot in the picture books
Based on various answers from the children, the researcher has divided their explanations into five types.
In the first type, children themselves will find an explanation to make the story reasonable. In the second type, children will say that magic plays a role and thus the plot in the story can possibly happen. Sometimes children will simply accept the story and does not feel anything strange. This is what happens in the third type. Or, as in the fourth type, children will say that the whole story is merely the author’s imagination, and it will not happen in the real world. In the fifth situation, children believe that the subjects in the story is dreaming or imagining and in fact such things did not happen at all.
And we may further group children’s ways of explanation into three types based on their perspectives of the text.
I. To believe the explanation in the text
Sometimes children try to explain the fantastic plot in the story, but somehow they ignore the real situation in our life, and this is what happens in this first way of explanation. In this type, children will find various reasons to make the story make sense, sometimes through magical reasons and sometimes they just explain the story as what is shown in the picture books.
II. To just out of the text （consider the relation between the story and reality）
Some children, when they are trying to explain the fantastic plot in the story, will consider the relation between reality and story. This is what happens in the second type. Their explanations will be further grouped into two types. One is to say that the story is the author’s imagination, and the other is to say that the subject in the story is dreaming.
III. The combination of I and II
Sometimes the children’s perspective on the story is quite objective, and sometimes still subjective. That’s why there may be two different views in one story. And their explanation will vary even in the same story.
The result of our research indicates that the older the children, the more likely they will be able to jump out of the text and to hold an objective view on the fantastic plot in the story.
Children judge whether the story and the subject could possibly occur in real life
There may be several bases that children use to determine whether a story or a story subject could occur in our real life. First, the children think that under certain circumstances it is possible for us to enter into the fantastic world. Second, the children think that the story happens in somewhere very far away, and it is impossible for us to get there. Third, children would deny such possibility and explain that it is simply a picture book. Fourth, children would say that they, as real people, are different from the subject in the story. Only when they become the subject can they possibly enter the world in the book. Fifth, they will use their knowledge in physics to explain the impossibility of the occurrence of the fantastic plot. Last, but not least, they will hold an objective view and say that the story is imaginary or is in the dream of the subject. They also know that even if they have a dream or some imaginary thinking, they may not see or experience the same thing as the subject in the book did.

參考文獻
中文部分
王文科（民71）。 兒童的認知發展導論。 台北：文景。
吳春田（民90）。低年級學童在故事教學中的讀者回應。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。
李利安.H.史密斯（傅林統編譯）（民88）。歡欣歲月--李利安.H.史密斯的兒童文學觀。台北縣：富春文化。
林柳君譯（民75）。你的六歲孩子。台北：信誼。
林敏宜（民89）。圖畫書的欣賞與應用。台北：心理。
松居直（民84）。幸福的種子。台北：台灣英文雜誌社有限公司。
金瑞芝（民89）。親子共讀圖畫書之歷程：三歲與五歲組的比較。台北市立師範學院學報，31期，193-208。
胡幼慧主編（民85）。質性研究理論方法及本土女性研究實例。台北：巨流。
韋葦（民84）。世界童話史。台北：天衛文化。
徐守濤等著（民90）。第五屆「兒童文學與兒童語言」學術研討會論文集。 台北縣：富春文化。
翁儷綺（民87）。幼兒建構故事之研究。國立台灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
國立師範大學家庭教育中心（民90）。閱讀四季—親子共讀指導手冊。教育部。
張子芬（民79）。兒童故事概念發展之研究。國立台灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
張珮歆（民88）。安東尼布朗圖畫書中的諷刺性遊戲。國立台東師院兒童文學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台東市。
張湘君（民82）。讀者反應理論及其對兒童文學教育的啟示。東師語文學刊，6，285-307。
梁秋月（民90）。國小教師、家長與兒童對薛佛西斯坦愛心樹之詮釋，國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。
郭恩惠(民88)。兒童與成人對兒童圖畫故事書的反應探究。國立台灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳海泓（民86）。讓兒童的想像力展翅飛翔：以瘋狂星期二導讀為例。語文通訊，18，43-53。
陳淑敏（民84）。 Vygotsky「最近發展區」概念內涵的探討。屏東師院學報，第八期，503-526。
傅林統（民79）。兒童文學的思想與技巧。台北：富春。
彭懿（民87）。世界幻想兒童文學導論。台北：小魯出版社。
黃孟嬌（民87）。莫里斯桑達克自寫自畫作品研究，國立台東師範學院兒童文學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台東市。
黃美雯(民88)。不同年齡層學生對童話繪本中友誼概念之詮釋研究。國立彰化師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化。
黃迺毓、李坤珊、王碧華（民83）。童書非童書。台北：宇宙光出版社。
黃瑞琴（民80）。質的教育研究方法。台北：心理。
黃瑞琴（民82）。幼兒的語文經驗。台北：五南。
楊茂秀譯（民88）。手拿褐色蠟筆的女孩。台北：成長文教基金會。
廖麗慧（民89）。約翰伯寧罕圖畫書研究。國立台東師範學院兒童文學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台東市。
漢菊德、陳正乾譯（民85）。 兒童心智。 台北：遠流。
劉苓莉（民87）。 兒童對童話中「友誼概念」之詮釋：以《青蛙和蟾蜍》為例。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。
劉鳳芯(民89)譯。閱讀兒童文學的樂趣。台北︰天衛文化。
劉瑩（民81）。親職教育從親子共讀起步—共讀『雪人』圖畫故事書。國立台中師範學院幼兒教育年刊，5，93-108。
蔡宜容譯（民90）。說來聽聽兒童、閱讀與討論。台北：天衛文化。
質性教育研究理論與方法（黃光雄主譯）（民91）。台北：濤石文化。（原著出版年：1998）
鄭明進（民88）。傑出圖畫書插畫家---歐美篇。台北：雄獅。
鄭瑞菁（民88）。幼兒文學。台北：心理。
墨高君譯（民85）。幼兒文學。台北︰楊智。
龍協濤(民86)。讀者反應理論。台北︰楊智。
外文部分
Applebee, A. N. (1978). The Child’s Concept of Story: Ages Two to Seventeen. The University of Chicago Press, London.
Bjorklund, D. F. (1995). Children’s Thinking: Developmental Function and Individual Differences. CA, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Boyer, P. (1997). Further distinction between magic, reality, religion, and function. Child Development, 68 (6), 1012-1014.
Doonan, J. (1993). Looking at pictures in picture books. Stroud,Gloucester shire, U.K.: The Thimble Press.
Glazer, J. I. (1991). Literature for Young Children. New York, Macnillan Publishing Company.
Harris, P. L., Brown, E., Marriott, C., Whittall, S., & Harmer, S. (1991). Monsters, ghosts and witches: testing the limits of the fantasy-reality distinction in young children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 105-123.
Huck, C. S., Hepler, S., & Hickman, J. (1993). Children’s Literature in the Elementary School. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., America.
Kuethe, J. L. （1966）. Perpetuation of specific schemata in literature for children. Psychol. Rep. 18, 433-434.
Leman, S. (1993). Children and adult reading children’s literature: a comparison of responses. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of National Reading Conference, America.
Lottan, S. （1967）. The ability of children to distinguish between the “make believe” and “real” in children’s literature. Journal of Education Thought, 1, 25-33.
Morison, P., & Gardner H. (1978). Dragons and dinosaurs: the child’s capacity to differentiate fantasy from reality. Child Development, 49, 642-648.
Norton, D. E. (1995). Through the Eyes of a Child: An Introduction to Children’s Literature. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Rosengren, K. S., Kalish, C. W., Hickling, A. K., & Gelman, S. A. (1994). Exploring the relation between preschool children’s magical beliefs and causal thinking. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 69-82.
Samuels, A., & Taylor, M. (1994). Children’s ability to distinguish fantasy events from real-life events. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 417-427.
Subbotsky, E. (1994). Early rationality and magical thinking in preschoolers: space and time. British journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 97-108.
Taylor, B. J., & Howell, Robert J. (1973). The ability of three-, four-, and five-year-old children to distinguish fantasy from reality. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 122, 315-318.
Taylor, M., Cartwright, Bridget S., & Carlson, S. M. (1993). A developmental investigation of children’s imaginary companions. Developmental Psychology, 29 (2), 176-185.
Tomlison, B. (1994). Openings: Language Through Literature: An Activities Book. London: Penguin.
Wellman, H. M. (1990). The Child’s Theory of Mind. MA, MIT Press.
Woolley, J. D. (1997). Thinking about fantasy: are children fundamentally different thinkers and believers from adults? Child Development, 68 (6), 991-1011.
Woolley, J. D., & Wellman H. M. (1990). Young children’s understanding of realities, nonrealities, and appearances. Child Development, 61, 946-961.