本研究透過兩個實驗探討閱讀策略融入數學教學後，高中學生在數學學習、閱讀理解狀況以及策略使用情形的表現。實驗一為閱讀策略融入數學課本教學實驗，共歷時六週，前四週分別以預測、提問、澄清、摘要策略為主，後二週為整合策略教學；在實驗一結束後進行實驗二，在實作活動、合作討論學習的環境中，使用實驗一所學習的閱讀策略，來討論探究取向的學習單內容。研究採前後測準實驗設計，教學實驗共歷時約二個月，以北區高中第二志願男校二年級其中一班為實驗組，實施閱讀策略教學，另一班對照組則未實施閱讀策略教學，研究對象共計90人。在實驗一及實驗二實施教學前後，共有四份測驗卷作為主要量化之研究工具，分別為前測、進行實驗一後之後測一、進行實驗二後之後測二以及延後測，測驗內容包含數學成就測驗、數學閱讀理解以及閱讀策略使用情形自我評估，以描述性統計、單因子變異數分析、廣義估計方程式等統計方法分析資料。
研究發現：(1)閱讀策略融入課程教學有利於提升學生的數學成就，但隨著離教學時間越久，其效果逐漸消失。(2)閱讀策略融入課程教學有利於提升學生的數學閱讀理解，但隨著離教學時間越久，其效果逐漸消失。(3)閱讀策略融入課本教學有利於學生使用「提問策略」以理解數學文本。

The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of reading strategies integrated with mathematics instruction for senior high school students. Two classes of 45 11th graders participated in this study, one experimental class and the other control class.
Experiment one(E1) was designed to investigate cognitive reading strategies instruction with direct teaching and reciprocal teaching using a math textbook to improve learning content area. The cognitive reading strategies including predicting, questioning, clarifying and summarizing. Each week we focus on one strategy respectively(4 weeks) , and in the next 2 weeks, strategies were systematically integrated with each other. Experiment two(E2) was designed to investigate the use of reading strategies integrated with an inquiry-oriented mathematics classroom.
The quantitative tools in this study included the math achievement test, the reading comprehension test, and the self-assessment of using reading strategies. The data obtained were analyzed by ANCOVA ,GEE and trend analysis. The results revealed that firstly students in the experimental class learned better in mathematical knowledge. Secondly they perform better in reading comprehension. Thirdly, a better learning effect was found for experimental class in the use of questioning strategy.

一、英文部分
Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., Woods, B. S., & Duhon, K. E. (1997). College instruction and concomitant changes in students' knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology.
Alvermann, D. E. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive text. The Journal of Educational Research, 44-48.
Anderson, R. (2000). Intuitive inquiry: Interpreting objective and subjective data. REVISION-CAMBRIDGE MA THEN WASHINGTON-, 22(4), 31-39.
Bianchini, J. A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 177-209.
Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematical Enculturation: A cultural perspective on Mathematics Education.
Borasi, R., Siegel, M., Fonzi, J., & Smith, C. F. (1998). Using transactional reading strategies to support sense-making and discussion in mathematics classrooms: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 275-305.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press (Cambridge)
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction (Vol. 59): Belknap Press.
Carin, A. A., & Sund, R. B. (1985). Teaching modern science: CE Merrill.
Carter, T., & Dean, E. (2006). Mathematics Intervention for Grades 5–11: Teaching Mathematics, Reading, or Both? [Article]. Reading Psychology, 27(2/3), 127-146. doi: 10.1080/02702710600640248
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
Dymock, S. (2005). Teaching expository text structure awareness. The Reading Teacher, 59(2), 177-181.
Englert, C. S., & Raphael, T. E. (1989). Developing successful writers through cognitive strategy instruction. Advances in research on teaching, 1, 105-151.
Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational studies in mathematics, 24(2), 139-162.
Forrest-Pressley, D., & Gillies, L. A. (1983). Children’s flexible use of strategies during reading Cognitive Strategy Research (pp. 133-156): Springer.
Fuentes, P. (1998). Reading comprehension in mathematics. The Clearing House, 72(2), 81-88.
Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction(3rd.ed.): CBS College Publishing.
Goetz, E. T., & Palmer, D. J. (1991). THE ROLE OF STUDENTS’PERCEPTIONS OF STUDY STRATEGY AND PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES IN STRATEGY USE. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 12(3), 199-217.
Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. The psychology of science text comprehension, 19-50.
Guay, R. B., & McDaniel, E. D. (1977). The relationship between mathematics achievement and spatial abilities among elementary school children. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 211-215.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. Handbook of reading research, 3, 403-422.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., . . . Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing Reading Comprehension and Engagement Through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403.
Kane, R. B. (1970). The readability of mathematics textbooks revisited. The Mathematics Teacher, 63(7), 579-581.
Larkin, J. H., & Reif, F. (1976). Analysis and teaching of a general skill for studying scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 431-440.
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(4), 357-371.
McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological bulletin, 86(5), 889.
McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639-646.
OECD(2012).Reading Framework. PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework, 59-95.
Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning: National Academies Press.
Ostler, E. (1997). The Effect of Learning Mathematical Reading Strategies on Secondary Students' Homework Grades. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 71(1), 37-40. doi: 10.1080/00098659709599320
Palinscar, 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. (1984). Informed Strategies for Learning: A program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239-1252.
Pearson, P. D., Dole, J., Duffy, G., & Roehler, L. (1991). Developing Expertise in Reading Comprehension: What Should be Taught?: how Should it be Taught? : University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading: Routledge.
Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students’ awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 217-235.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of educational research, 64(4), 479.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children's knowledge processing. Thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions, 2, 563-577.
Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving.
Schumm, J. S., & Mangrum, C. T. (1991). FLIP: A framework for content area reading. Journal of Reading, 35(2), 120-124.
Schwab, J. J. (1963). Biology teachers’ handbook: Biological sciences curriculum study: New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Siegel, M., & Fonzi, J. M. (1995). The practice of reading in an inquiry-oriented mathematics class. Reading Research Quarterly, 632-673.
Smith, F. (1969). The readability of junior high school mathematics textbooks. The Mathematics Teacher, 62(4), 289-291.
Staer, H., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (1998). High school laboratory work in Western Australia: Openness to inquiry. Research in science education, 28(2), 219-228.
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Psychometric monographs.
van den Broek, P., Virtue, S., Everson, M. G., Tzeng, Y., & Sung, Y. (2002). Comprehension and memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental representation. The psychology of science text comprehension, 131-154.
Wechsler, D., & Kodama, H. (1949). Wechsler intelligence scale for children: Psychological Corporation New York.
Weinstein, C. E., & Underwood, V. L. (1985). Learning strategies: The how of learning. Thinking and learning skills, 1, 241-258.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science education, 87(1), 112-143.
Yang, K.-L., Lin, F.-L., & Wang, Y.-T. (2008). The Effects of Proof Features and Question Probing on Understanding Geometry Proof. Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly, 16(2), 77-100.
Yang, K. L. L., F. L. (2009). Designing innovative worksheets for improving reading comprehension of geometry proof. In Tzekaki, M., Kaldrimidou, M. & Sakonidis, C. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education., vol. 4 pp. 377-384.

二、中文部分
王繹婷. (2008). 中學生閱讀幾何證明的理解策略. 國立彰化師範大學數學系碩士論文, 未出版 , 彰化縣.
林寶山. (1988). 教學原理: 五南圖書出版公司.
秦麗花. (2007). 數學閱讀指導的理論與實務. 台北市: 紅葉文化.

三、網路資源
大學入學考試中心：http://www.ceec.edu.tw/99課綱考試說明/1000930/99課綱考試說明.htm