本研究旨在探究附加問題結合圖形組織對提升四年級學童在故事體文章閱讀理解層次的成效，並了解閱讀理解策略教學對不同閱讀理解能力學生的影響，以供教師在閱讀活動教學之參考。
本研究對象為研究者所任教的新竹縣某國小四年級學童，採準實驗研究，包含「實驗組一」25人，分四週依序進行「AQ」、「AQ+教師建立GO」、「AQ」以及「逆向AQ+學生建立GO」閱讀理解鷹架教學活動；「實驗組二」26人，分四週依序進行「AQ+教師建立GO」、「AQ」、「AQ+學生建立GO」以及「順向AQ+學生建立GO」閱讀理解鷹架教學活動。教學實驗前兩組皆以「閱讀理解困難篩選測驗」區分高、低閱讀理解能力學生，並施以「PIRLS閱讀理解測驗」前測，再以此分數為共變數，進行「2（不同閱讀理解鷹架）×2（閱讀理解能力）二因子共變數分析」，在每一次教學實驗處理後，分析兩組學生在「PIRLS閱讀理解測驗」後測表現的差異情形，全部教學實驗結束後，以「閱讀理解鷹架教學意見自評量表」，探討兩組學生對附加問題結合圖形組織教學的學習成效與接受度之想法。
依據資料分析與研究結果,本研究的主要發現如下:
1.「AQ」與「AQ+教師建立GO」兩種教學對學生在「PIRLS閱讀理解測驗」表現無顯著差異。
2.接受「AQ+學生建立GO」教學學生在「PIRLS閱讀理解測驗」表現顯著高於接受「AQ」教學學生。「AQ+學生建立GO」組低閱讀理解能力學生在直接理解歷程表現顯著高於「AQ」組。
3.接受「逆向AQ+學生建立GO」教學學生在「PIRLS閱讀理解測驗」表現顯著高於接受「順向AQ+學生建立GO」教學學生。「逆向AQ+學生建立GO」組高閱讀理解能力學生在直接與詮釋理解歷程表現顯著高於「順向AQ+學生建立GO」組。
4.不同閱讀理解鷹架教學對高低閱讀理解能力學生「PIRLS閱讀理解測驗」表現無顯著差異。
5.學生對附加問題結合圖形組織教學持正向反應，認為對閱讀理解能力有助益。

The purpose of this study is to discuss the effects of adjunctive questions combined with graphic organizers to enhance the fourth grade students’ reading comprehension level on narrative texts, and to examine the influence on students with different reading comprehension ability, then to give suggestions for future instruction and future research.
The sample consisted of 51 fourth-graders that the researcher teaches in Hsinchu County. The experimental group 1 was 25 students, who received「AQ」,「AQ+ Teacher-constructed GO」,「AQ」and「AQ+Backward- constructed GO」reading-comprehension-scaffold instruction in order. The experimental group 2 was 26 students, who received「AQ+ Teacher-constructed GO」, 「AQ」,「AQ+Matching GO」and「AQ+Forward- constructed GO」reading-comprehension-scaffold instruction in order. All the subjects took the pretest of “PIRLS Reading Comprehension Test＂and the posttest of “PIRLS Reading Comprehension Test＂after every experiment. Before the experiment, both groups had carried out “Reading Comprehension Difficulties in Screening Tests” to distinguish the levels of text comprehension. Two-way ANCOVA by “PIRLS Reading Comprehension Test” pretest scores as the covariates were conducted for data analysis. After the experiment, all the subjects took a questionnaire on their learning feedback following the end of the experiment.
The findings were as follows:
1.「AQ」and「AQ+ Teacher-constructed GO」instruction didn’t show any significant difference on the posttest scores of “PIRLS Reading Comprehension Test＂.
2.The students who received 「AQ+Matching GO」instruction demonstrated a higher scores than 「AQ」, and they had significant differences, especially for the students with low reading comprehension performed in the direct comprehension processes.
3.The students who received「AQ+Backward- constructed GO」instruction demonstrated a higher scores than「AQ+Forward- constructed GO」instruction , and they had significant differences, especially for the students with high reading comprehension.
4.Students at various levels of reading comprehension ability didn’t demonstrated significant differences on the posttest scores of “PIRLS Reading Comprehension Test＂.
5. Most students thought that the adjunctive questions combined with graphic organizers instruction was helpful to their reading comprehension.

中文部分
王文科 (2006)。《課程與教學論》。台北：五南出版社。
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。
王瓊珠（2004）。〈故事結構教學加分享閱讀對增進國小閱讀障礙學童讀寫能力與故事結構概念之研究〉。《臺北市立師範學院學報》，35（2），1-22。
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。
李欣蓉（譯）（2005）。《圖像化學習：在不同課程領域使用圖像組織》(Bromley, K., DeViris, L. I. & Modlo, M.著,1995)。台北：遠流出版社。
李咏吟（1998）。《認知教學：理論與策略》。台北：心理出版社。
李正聖（2006）。〈不同型式的前導組體對國小六年級學童在科學性文章閱讀理解之比較研究〉。國立台中教育大學語文教育所，碩士論文。
李家同（2010）。《大量閱讀的重要性》。台北：博雅書屋。
林清山（譯）（1997）。《教育心理學－認知取向》(R. E. Mayer著,1987)。台北：遠流。
林盈秀(2010)。〈概念構圖應用於國小閱讀指導之行動研究〉。臺北市立教育大學課程與教學研究所，碩士論文。
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。
吳靜吉、程炳林(1992)。〈激勵的學習策略量表之修訂〉。《中國測驗學會測驗年刊》，39，59-78。
吳姿蒨（2008）。〈故事結構與理解能力對國小學童之閱讀理解的影響〉。國立屏東教育大學教育心理與輔導學系，碩士班論文。
吳裕聖（2001）。〈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。
吳裕聖、曾玉村（2011）。〈鷹架式概念構圖教學策略對學童生物文章的閱讀表徵與情意之影響〉。《國立臺灣師範大學教育心理學報》，43 (1)，1-24。
邱上真（1991）。〈學習策略教學的理論與實際〉。《特殊教育與復健學報》，1，1-49。
促進國際閱讀素養研究網站。〈2006 PIRLS閱讀理解測驗中譯版範文〉。檢索日期：100.10.25。取自http://140.115.78.41/PIRLS_Home.htm
柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅（2008）。〈台灣四年級學生閱讀素養-PIRLS2006 報告〉。檢索日期：101.1.15。取自http://lrn.ncu.edu.tw/PIRLS/PIRLS%202006%20Report.html
柯華葳(1999) 。《閱讀理解困難篩選測驗》。台北：行政院國家科學委員會特殊教育工作小組。
柯姿伶(2010)。〈圖形組織運用於國小二年級國語課文大意教學之行動研究〉。國立臺北教育大學教育學院教育學系，碩士論文。
陳密桃（1990）。〈國民中小學生的後設認知及其閱讀理解之相關研究〉。政治大學教育研究所，博士論文。
陳姝蓉（2002）。〈故事結構教學對增進國小閱讀障礙學生閱讀理解能力之研究〉。臺北市立師範學院身心障礙教育研究所，碩士論文。
陳櫻代（1999）。〈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。
陳欣希、柯雅卿、周育如、陳明蕾、游婷雅（2011）。《問好問題》。台北：天衛文化。
教育部（2011）。《閱讀理解-文章與試題範例》。台北：教育部。
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〉。國立臺北教育大學課程與教學研究所，碩士論文。
張玉成(1999)。《教師發問技巧》。台北：心理出版社。
張莉珍（2003）。〈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
張新仁（2009）。〈台灣閱讀摘要研究回顧與前瞻〉。載於國科會人文處舉辦之「台灣閱讀研究回顧與展望」座談會手冊，（84-94），台北市。
葉瓊華、詹文宏（2000）。〈概念構圖、自問自答及畫重點策略對國小閱讀障礙兒童閱讀理解能力及設認知能力教學成效之探討〉。《特殊教育學報》，14，194。
黃福興（2003）。〈概念構圖應用於科學文章閱讀教學之研究〉。台中師範學院教育測驗統計研究所，碩士論文。
黃瓅慶（2006）。〈概念構圖運用於閱讀教學之行動研究-以晨間閱讀班的學生為例〉。國立花蓮教育大學語文科教學所，碩士論文。
黃瓊儀（1996）。〈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。
詹士宜（2009）。〈自我提問策略與概念構圖策略對國小學生閱讀理解教學之分享〉。見《教育部閱讀教學策略開發與推廣計畫成果發表會教學示例彙編》， (165-186 ) 。台北：教育部。
楊芷芳（1994）。〈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〉。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所，碩士論文。
潘世尊（2002）。〈教學上的鷹架要怎麼搭〉。《屏東師院學報》，16，263-294。
趙尹薇（2005）。〈故事結構教學對提昇國小學習障礙學生閱讀理解成效之研究〉。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系，碩士論文。
鄭美良（2006）。〈運用故事結構教學提升國小三年級學生閱讀理解能力之行動研究〉。國立臺中教育大學國民教育研究所，碩士論文。
韓順進(2006)。〈概念構圖對國小六年級學童閱讀理解之研究〉。國立台中教育大學社會科教育學系，碩士論文。

英文部分
Adler C. R. (2004). Seven strategies to teach students text comprehension. Retrieved January, 6, 2012, from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/3479/?theme=print
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology : A cognitive view. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Inc.
Beck, I. L., & Mckoewn, M. G. (1981). Developing questions to promote comprehension:the story map. Language Arts, 58(8), 913-918.
Bonnie, G., & Doug, C. (1992). Translating research on text structure into classroom practice. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(4),48-53.
Boulineau, T., Fore ,C., III, Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2004). Use of story-mapping to increase the story-grammar text comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning disability Quarterly, 27(2) , 105-121.
Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. (1997). The effects of expert-generated versus students-generated cognitive organizers on the reading comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Research & Practice. 12(4), 228-235.
Bruner, J. (1989). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J.V. Wertsch(Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition (pp.21-34). Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan Publishers.
Dyson. A. H. (1990). Weaving possibities rethinking metaphors for early literacy development. The Reading Teacher,44, 202-213.
Egan, M. (1999). Reflections on effective use of graphic organizers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42(8), 641-645.
Foley, M. M. (2000). The (un)making of a reader. Language Arts, 77(6), 506-511.
Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C.W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Goodman, K. S. (1986). What’s whole in the whole language: A parent-teacher guide. Portsmouth. New Hampshire: Heinemann.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavanagh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and eye: The relationship between speech and reading(pp. 331-358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Griffin, C. C., Simmons, D.C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1991). Investigating the efectiveness of graphic rganizer instruction on the comprehension and recall of science content by students with learning isabilities. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7, 355-376.
Griffin, C. C., Malone, L. D., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995). Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 98-107.
Hall ,T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2001). Graphic organizers and implications for universal design for learning: curriculum enhancement report. Retrieved January, 12, 2012, from http://cast.org/ncac/NCAC362.cfm.
Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: a comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(4), 196-205.
Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214-229.
Jonassen, D. H., & Cole, P., & Bamford, C. (1992). Learner-generated vs instructor-provided analysis of semantic relationships. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N0. ED347999)
Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4), 294-303.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kirylo, J. D., & Millet, C. P. (2000). Graphic organizers: an integral component to facilitate comprehension during basal reading instruction. Reading Improvement, 37(4), 179-86.
Mullis, I. V. S., Kennedy, A. M., Martin, M. O., ＆ Sainsbury, M. (2006). PIRLS 2006 assessment framework and specifications(2nd ed.). Chestunt Hill, MA: Boston College.
Murray, S., ＆Fernanda, F. (1983). Inferring consequences in story comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(4), 437-448
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2000). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,76(3) , 413-448.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Perfetti, C. A. (1978). Reading ability. NY : Oxford University Press.
Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-ofthe- century status report. In Block, C. C. & Pressley, M. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research–based best practices (pp.11–27). New York: Guilford.
Raphael, T. E. (1984).Teaching learners about sources of information for answering comprehension questions. Journal of Reading, 27, 303-311.
Rumelhart, D. E.(1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dorni(Ed.),Attention and performance(pp.573-603), Hollsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmelzer, R., & Henson, K. (1989). Episodic mapping: A technique to help students understand story.( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED306539.)
Schmelzer, R., & Dickey, J. P. (1990). Using story grammar to teach literature: Episodic mapping. ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED322482.)
Stagliano, C., & Boon, R. T. (2009). The effects of a story-mapping procedure to improve the comprehension skills of expository text passages for elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 7(2), 35-58.
Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (1999). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum. New York: Longman.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, H. F. (1995). Effects of format and student completion of concept maps on college students’ learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,IL.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Review of Educational Research,2(55), 227-268.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.