本研究的主要目的在探討「整合繪本與概念構圖之寫作教學方案」應用在國小三年級記敘文寫作教學的效果。並根據研究結果，希望提供教師實際寫作教學上之參考。
研究中的「整合繪本與概念構圖之寫作教學方案」主要係以Hayes(1996) 提出的「個體-環境寫作模式(individual-environmental model)」理念為基礎，採整合性過程導向寫作教學方式，整合林敏宜（民89）所提出的繪本教學原則，和Novak和Gowin(1984)、余民寧（民86）所提出的概念構圖教學策略和步驟為架構設計主要教學內容，並搭配檢視修改教學，以先自我檢視，後同儕檢視的順序加入課程，主要將以上多種策略適時介入學童的寫作歷程中，編擬出本寫作教學方案的教學單元課程。
本研究以台北市福星國小三年級兩個班級為對象。採準實驗研究設計中的不等組前後測設計，將參與研究的兩個班級，區分成控制組和實驗組，並以前測做共變數，將因無法隨機分派所可能造成的影響予以排除。在實驗的過程中，僅有實驗組接受每次兩節課，80分鐘，共八週的「整合繪本與概念構圖之寫作教學方案」，控制組只施以一般寫作教學。本研究也進一步採用Trabasso等人(1989)提出的因果網路分析，從實驗組及控制組挑最高分與最低分各兩位學生（以前測平均總分排序結果作配對）的作品加以比較。
本研究以「記敘文評定量表」進行八次命題作文的寫作表現測量，並計算前後測文章的寫作長度，另以「寫作興趣問卷」進行三階段的寫作興趣測量，以了解「整合繪本與概念構圖之寫作教學方案」對寫作表現、寫作興趣的增進效果；以及在實驗期間寫作表現是否有隨單元的增加，而具有漸進效果。所得資料在寫作表現的增進效果研究方面，以單因子多變項共變數分析和單因子單變項共變數分析驗證假設一；在寫作表現的漸進效果方面，以二因子混合設計趨向分析驗證假設二，並對照檢視修改教學的發掘錯誤和實際修正之比較結果和各單元教學後問卷的回饋反應結果；另外為兼顧寫作歷程，在文章分析方面，以Trabasso等人(1989)提出的因果網路分析驗證假設三；在寫作興趣的增進效果方面，以單因子單變項共變數分析驗證假設四。
研究結果顯示：
（一） 國小三年級學童接受「整合繪本與概念構圖之寫作教學方案」後，其記敘文寫作表現優於一般寫作教學，具有增進效果。無論整體、內容思想、組織結構、修辭美化、機械式技能的表現和寫作長度，實驗組皆優於控制組。
（二） 「組別」（實驗組和控制組）與「寫作單元」（八篇命題作文）在記敘文評定量表的得分上，具有交互作用效果。即隨著寫作單元的增加，實驗組學童的寫作表現進步情形優於控制組。
（三） 國小三年級學童接受「整合繪本與概念構圖之寫作教學方案」後，其後測文章之因果網路分析結果優於控制組。
（四） 國小三年級學童接受「整合繪本與概念構圖之寫作教學方案」後，其記敘文寫作興趣和一般寫作教學沒有差異，不具有增進效果。
最後，研究者並針對研究結果加以討論，且提出幾點建議作為「整合繪本與概念構圖之寫作教學方案」在國小寫作教學的應用及未來研究上的參考。

The main purpose of this research was to explore the effect of “Composition Program of integrating Picture Book and Concept Mapping” on writing performance of narrative articles. According to the results, the research provided some suggestions
for writing instruction.
The subjects were 58 third grade students from the Fu-Shing elementary school in Taipei City. The research was pretest-posttest design with two nonequivalent groups of quasi-experimental design. The subjects were divided into two groups. The experimental group（N=29）received the “Composition Program of integrating Picture Book and Concept Mapping”, while the control group（N=29）received general writing instruction.
The instruments employed in this research included scale of writing performance for narrative articles and writing interest questionnaire. These two instruments were used to measure writing performance and writing interest of different groups during pretesting , expereimental period, and posttesting.
The obtained data were analyzed by three statistical procedure. The first is one-way MANCOVA statistics to test the writing performance progress effects of the program. The second is two-way mixed design trend analysis to test the writing performance interaction effects between ”group” and “writing units”. The third is one-way ANCOVA statistics to test the writing interest progress effects of the program . In addition, the narrative articles were analyzed by causal network analysis to assess the causal relation.
The findings were as follows:
1. The “Composition Program of integrating Picture Book and Concept Mapping” did show significant progress effects on the writing performance for third grade children.
2. The program did show significant interaction effects between ”group” and “writing units” on the writing performance.
3. The experimental groups were better than the control group on the results of causal network analysis.
4. The program showed no significant progress effects on the writing interest
for third grade children.
The researcher also provided a discussion on the results of this research. Some recommendations have made regarding instructional assistance and future research.

一、中文部分
王家珍（民88）：讀寫結合的修辭教學對國小兒童寫作修辭能力之影響。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
王萬清（民80）：教師引導討論與小組討論對兒童寫作能力之影響研究。台南師院學報，24期，161- 169頁。
王萬清（民83）：認知觀點之寫作歷程與寫作教學。台南師院初等教育學報，7期，171- 212頁。
江淑卿（民86）：知識結構的重要特性之分析暨促進知識結構教學策略之實驗研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
江福祐（民92）：國民小學高年級生死教育之研究─以應用繪本為例。國立臺東師範學院兒童文學研究所碩士論文。
杜淑貞（民91）：低年級「提早寫作」的理論與實務。中國語文，90卷，1期，63- 70頁。
李茂能（民83）：共變數分析的基本假設與應用。嘉義師院學報，8期，145-170頁。
李冠瑢（民87）：兒童插畫於平面設計之創作研究-以圖畫書為例-。國立師範大學美術研究所碩士論文。
李嘉齡（民84）：修改歷程教學對國小學童寫作成效之影響。國立嘉義師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文。
李曉蓉（民86）：由認知取向談如何激勵學生寫作。教育資料文摘，39卷，5期，148-159頁。
吳裕聖、曾玉村（民92）：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。教育研究集刊，49卷，1期，135-169頁。
余民寧（民86）：有意義的學習—概念構圖之研究。台北市：商鼎。
林清山（民77）：多變項分析統計法（五版）。台北：東華。
林清山（民81）：心理與教育統計學。台北：東華。
林清山譯（民86）：教育心理學：認知取向（三版）。台北：遠流。Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational psychology: A cognitive approach.
林敏宜（民89）：圖畫書的欣賞與應用。台北：心理。
林禎川（民91）：國小四年級學童對 Leo Lionni 故事繪本主題詮釋之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所。
林煥彰（民87）：尋找夢想、歡樂和美麗---圖畫書的閱讀隨想。美育月刊，91期，49-56頁。
周文欽、歐滄和、許擇基、盧欽銘、金樹人、范德鑫（民84）：心理與教育測驗。台北：心理。
邱上真、洪碧霞（民85）：國語文低成就學生閱讀表現之追蹤研究（I）---國民小學國語文低成就學童篩選工具系列發展之研究（I）。國科會專案研究報告（編號：NSC 84-2421-1-1-017-00-F5）。
岳修平譯（民87）：教學心理學：學習的認知基礎。台北：遠流。Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd ed.).
洪金英（民82）：文章結構的提示與主題知識對說明文寫作表現的影響。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
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。
柯志忠（民89）：社會互動寫作教學方法對國小高年級學童寫作品質及寫作態度影響之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
范德鑫 (民81）：共變數分析功能、假設及使用之限制。師大學報，37期，133-163頁。
紀李美瑛（民81）：繪畫也是一種寫作語言。國立政治大學教育心理與研究，15期，241-258頁。
紀淑琴（民87a）：『思考性寫作教學方案』對國中生寫作能力、後設認知、批判思考及創造思考影響之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
紀淑琴（民87b）：方格裡的春天---談寫作教學策略。教師天地，96期，70-73頁。
郝廣才（民86）：圖畫書的語言與藝術。載於林淑英（主編），兒童文學研究（十）--鄉土文學專集（5）（59-63頁）。台北：台北市國語實驗國民小學。
郝廣才（民87）：油炸冰淇淋---繪本在台灣的觀察。美育月刊，91期，11-18頁。
孫光天（民86）：智慧型寫作教導系統「R-WISE」之介紹。國教之友，49卷，1期，13-16頁。
孫易新（民91）：心智圖法Mind Mapping基礎篇-多元知識管理系統1。台北縣：耶魯。
徐守濤（民85）：創造思考的作文教學。載於黃政傑（主編），國語科教學法（77-95頁）。台北：師大書苑。
徐綺穗（民84）：概念教學模式之探討。台南師院初等教育學報，8期，199-21頁。
許文章（民90）：故事圖教學對國小六年級學生記敘文寫作表現與組織能力之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
郭生玉（民83）：心理與教育測驗（八版）。台北縣：精華。
郭麗華（民86）：關於記敘文的寫作。國立編譯館通訊，10卷，1期，42-46頁。
教育部（民82）：國民小學課程標準。台北：台捷。
張子芬（民79）：幼兒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。
張春興（民80）：現代心理學。台北市：東華書局。
張春興（民85）：教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華。
張新仁（民78）：不同學科的認知歷程分析。教學研究，3期，43-59期。
張新仁（民81）：寫作教學研究。高雄：復文。
張新仁（民82）：奧斯貝的學習理論與教學應用。教育研究雙月刊，32期，31-51頁。
張新仁（民83）：著重過程的寫作教學策略。特教園丁，9卷，3期，1-9頁。
張寶月（民84）：兒童故事基模的的發展---以因果關係網路分析為例。國立台灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文。
陳沛嵐（民90）：文章中的因果架構對國小四、六年級學生閱讀表徵之影響。國立中正大學教育學研究所碩士論文。
陳怡靜（民91）：國小低年級實施視覺空間智慧取向寫作教學之行動研究。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文。
陳美姿（民89）：以兒童繪本進行幼兒情感教育之行動研究。國立東華大學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳品卿（民78）：中學作文教學指導。台北：國立台灣師範大學中等教育輔導委員會。
陳滿銘（民83）：作文教學指導。台北：萬卷樓。
陳嘉成（民85）：以概念構圖為學習策略之教學對小學生自然科學習之成效結果。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳鳳如（民82）：活動式寫作教學法對國小兒童寫作表現與寫作歷程之實驗效果研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
陳鳳如（民88）：閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程模式驗證及其教學效果之研究。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）：概念構圖策略促進閱讀理解能力之研究。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
游進昌（民89）：國小兒童圖畫書原住民內容之分析及國小非原住民學生的原住民知識與原住民印象之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所。
曾忠華（民77）：作文津梁。台北 : 學人。
黃武雄（民83）：童年與解放。台北：人本教育基金會。
黃美雯（民87）：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。
黃淑娟（民89）：國小學童圖畫書導賞教學及其插畫反應探討。國立臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
黃瑞枝（民84）：開放式作文教學活動設計探討--以國小三年級臨床實驗為例。高市鐸聲，6卷，1期，48-51頁。
黃瑞枝（民85）：漫談國小中年級作文教學重點。高市鐸聲，6卷，2期，60-62頁。
黃春貴（民90）：寫作教學與思考訓練。人文及社會學科教學通訊，12卷，4期，51-59頁。
黃萬居（民81）：師範學院學生的概念構圖和化學成就、科學過程技能邏輯思考能力和性別相關之研究。台北市立師範學院學報，23期，345-356頁。
黃萬居（民82）：概念構圖與國小自然科學教學。國小數理科教育學術研討會。台東縣：國立台東師範學院。
楊叔卿（民82）：兒童圖畫書之探討。教育研究雙月刊，33期，65-71。
楊怡婷（民84）：幼兒閱讀行為發展之研究。國立台灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文。
葉雪枝（民88）：後設認知寫作策略對國小四年級記敘文寫作能力提昇之影響研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
趙金婷（民81）：國小學童寫作過程之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
趙金婷（民82）：寫作過程研究之探討。教育研究雙月刊，30期，52-63頁。
鄭文星（民83）：兒童提早寫作之探討。國教園地，50期，73-77頁。
鄭玫芳（民85）：國小六年級兒童寫作回顧歷程之研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
鄭雪玫（民74）：孩子與閱讀。書府，六期，60-63頁。
鄭博真（民85）：寫作修改教學策略對國小學生寫作修改表現、寫作修改能力、寫作品質和寫作態度之影響研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
蔡銘津（民84）：文章結構分析策略教學對增進學童閱讀理解與寫作成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文。
蔡銘津（民90）：寫作修訂歷程的認知及其在寫作學習上的涵意。國教天地，145期，102-110頁。
劉惕君（民90）：國小單親學童對父母離異經驗之敘說-現實與繪本之間。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所。
劉鳳芯譯（民89）：閱讀兒童文學的樂趣（二版）。台北：天衛文化。Nodelman, P. (1996). The pleasures of children’s literature.
賴銳霞（民91）：寫作過程及「過程導向」寫作教學之探討。教師之友，42卷，1期，37-47頁。
蘇振明（民76）：認識兒童圖書及教育價值。幼教天地，五期，37-50頁。
蘇振明（民87）：認識兒童讀物插畫及其教育性。美育月刊，91期，1-10頁。
二、英文部分
Allan, A. G. (1981). Writing in the school: Improvement through effective leadership. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Applebee, A. N. (2000). Alternative models of writing development. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 90-110). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winton.
Ausubel, D. P., & Robinson, F. G. (1969). School learning: An introduction to educational psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bartlett, E. J. (1981). Learning to write：Some cognitive and linguistic components . Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Beal, C. R., Bonitatibus, G. J., & Garrod, A. C. (1990). Fostering children’s revision skills through training in comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 275-280.
Beaty, J. J. (1994). Picture book storytelling: Literature activities for young children. Fort Worth : Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Beaver, J. M. (1982). Say It！Over and Over. Language Arts, 59, 143-148.
Berninger, V. W., Fuller, F., & Whitaker, D. (1996). A process model of writing development across the life span. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 193-218.
Berninger, V., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., & Abbott, R. (1992). Lower-level developmental skill in beginning writing. Reading and Writing, 4, 257-280.
Bracewell, R. J., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1978). The development of audience awareness in writing. Resources in Education, 13(10), 154-433.
Bromley, K. D. (1991). Webbing with literature: Creating story maps with children's books. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 239-297.
Chmielewski, T. L., & Dansereau, D. F. (1998). Enhancing the recall of text: Knowledge mapping training promotes implicit transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 407-413.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed. ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly seaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 687-698.
Diane, M. (1999). Ten tips on writing picture books. Children’s Literature, 112(6), 14-16.
Dyson, A. H. (2000). Writing and the sea of voices: oral language in, around, and about writing. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 45-65). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M., & Anzul, M. (1997). On writing qualitative research: Living by words. London．Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 337-372.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing：Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flower,L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W. & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York: College Publishers.
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students’ compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781-791.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 353-361.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwartz, S. S. (1991). Writing and writing instruction with students with learning disabilities: A review of a program of research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89-114.
Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving learning disabled students’ skill at revising essays produced on a word processor: Self- instructional strategy training. Journal of Special Education, 22, 133-152.
Guastello, E. F. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial & Special Education, 21(6), 356-364.
Haberlandt, K. (1997). Cognitive psychology (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (2000, Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 6-44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp.1- 30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1106-1113.
Hayes, J. R., Flower, L. S., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, writing, and language processing (pp. 176-240). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heimlich, J.E., & Pittelman, S. D. (1986). Semantic mapping: Classroom application. Delaware: International Reading Service.
Hiebert, E. H., & Raphael, T. E. (1996). Psychological perspectives on literacy and extensions to educational practice. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 550-602). New York: MacMillan.
Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 93, 133-170.
Huck, C. S. (1987). Children’s literature in the elementary school (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kendall, S. (1999). The role of picture books in children’s spiritual development and meaning making. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 4(1), 61-76.
Langer, J. A., & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and reading relationships: Constructive tasks. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 112-139). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Leahy, R. (1989). Concept mapping: Developing guides to literature. College Teaching, 37(2), 62-69.
Lehr, F. (1995). Revision in the writing process. Indiana: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading English and Communication Bloomington. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED379664)
Lipson, M. Y., & Mosenthal, J. (2000). Process writing in the classrooms of eleven fifth-grade. Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 209-231.
Margulies, N. (1991). Mapping inner space: learning and teaching mind mapping. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.
McCutchen, D. (1996a). Introduction: From product to process: Legagy of the problem- solving approach to writing. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 187-191.
McCutchen, D. (1996b). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299-325.
Naremore, R. C. (1997). Making it hang together: Children’s use of mental frameworks to structure. Topics in Language Disorders, 18(1),16-29.
Novak, J. D. (1988). Learning science and the science of learning. Studies in Science Education, 15, 77-101.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1),117-153.
Osman, J. R. (1997). Linking reading and writing: Concept mapping as an organizing tactic. Virginia: The Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED408955)
Perfetti, C. A., & McCutchen, D. (1987). Schooled language competence: Linguistic abilities in reading and writing. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, writing, and language processing (pp. 105-141). New York: Cambridge University Press.
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), 20-29.
Rohman, G. (1965). Pre-writing: The stage of discovery in the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 16, 106-112.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1999). Concept mapping as a tool for learning: Broadening the framework for student-centered Instruction. College Teaching, 47(2), 74-79.
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.
Santhanam, E., Leach, C., & Dawson, C. (1998). Concept mapping: How should it be introduced, and is there evidence for long term benefit? Higher Education, 35, 317-328.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, writing, and language processing (pp. 142-175). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schickedanz, J. A. (2000). Emergent writing: A discussion of the sources of our knoeledge. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 66-89). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Schmid, R. F., & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 78-85.
Scott, B. J., & Vitale, M. R. (2003). Teaching the writing process to student with LD. Intervention in School & Clinic, 38(4), 220-224.
Simone, C. D., Schmid, R. F., & McEwen, L. A. (2001). Supporting the learning process with collaborative concept mapping using computer-based communication tools and processes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2), 263-283.
Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Teaching learners to think, read, and write more effectively in content subjects. Clearing House, 73(5), 266-273.
Solso, R. L. (1995). Cognitive psychology (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Stahl, S. A., & Pagnucco, J. R. (1996). First graders' reading and writing instruction in traditional and process-oriented classes. Journal of Educational Research, 89(3), 131-144.
Stevenson, R. J., & Palmer, J. A. (1994). Learning principles,processes and practices: Children, teachers & learning series. New York: Cassell.
Stice, C. F., & Alvarez, M. C. (1986). Hierarchical concept mapping: Young children learning how to learn (Report No. 5). Tennessee: Tennessee State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274946)
Stringer, S. J., & Morton, R. C. (1999). Learning disabled students: Using process writing to build autonomy and self esteem. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(3), 196-200.
Suen, H. K., Sonak, B., Zimmaro, D., & Roberts, D. M. (1997). Concept map as scaffolding for authentic assessment. Psychological Reports, 81, 734.
Tepper, C. A., & Cassidy, K. W. (1999). Gender differences in emotional language in children’s picture books. Sex Roles, 40, 265-280.
Tompkins, G. E. (1990). Teaching writing: balancing process and product. Columbus: Merrill Pub. Co.
Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612-630.
Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P., & Suh, S. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1-25.
Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher- directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 290-305.
Truscott, D., Paulson, B. L., & Everall, R. D. (1999). Studying participants’ experiences using concept mapping. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45(3), 320-323.
van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 40-46.
van den Broek, P. (1988). The effects of causal relations and hierarchical position on the importance of story statements. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 1-22.
Voth, V. P., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 230-240.
Winn, L. L. (2002). Strategies used by head start mothers while engaging their child in a picture book: Is one strategy more related to child vocabulary scores? Journal of Family Communication, 2(4), 185-213.
Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., Kuperis, S., & Cosden, M. (1994). Teaching problem learners revision skills and sensitivity to audience through two instructional modes: Student-teacher versus student interactive dialogues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9(2), 78-90.
Yoshino, R. (1991). A note on cognitive maps: An optimal spatial knowledge representation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 35, 371-393.
Young, S. L., & Cole, K. N. (2002). Facilitating first language development in young Korean children through parent training in picture book interactions. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 367-381.