本研究主要目的在探討概念構圖與摘要策略對不同性別學生在「複誦、精緻化與組織策略」、「後設認知策略」與「學習成就」等學習成效上之影響。研究對象乃是以一國小五年級學生三班（共111人），經由隨機分派成為概念構圖、摘要與控制組後，由研究者根據學科主題，進行三節課的策略訓練及實施連續六週之實驗處理，研究工具包括「學習策略量表」及「自然科學習成就測驗」。回收有效量表107份，以單因子共變數分析、以2（概念構圖、摘要）×2（圖形題、語意題）二因子混合設計變異數分析，與2（概念構圖、摘要）×2（性別）二因子共變數分析考驗各項假設，主要研究發現：一、概念構圖、摘要與控制組之學習者，在複誦、精緻化與組織策略上之調整後平均數並無顯著差異。二、在後設認知策略上，摘要與控制組之學習者顯著高於概念構圖組。三、就學習成就而言，三組之間並無顯著差異。四、概念構圖、摘要與測驗呈現方式（圖形題、語意題）之間在學習成就上無顯著交互作用存在。五、概念構圖、摘要與性別之間在複誦、精緻化、組織策略、後設認知策略、學習成就上亦無顯著交互作用存在。最後，根據研究結果進行討論並提出教師教學及未來研究之建議。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of concept mapping and summarization and gender differences on students’ cognitive ability, metacognitive ability and academic achievement. 111 fifth-grade students from six classes from an elementary school in Tainan participated in the study for three instructional sessions for six consecutive weeks. The instruments used in this study included: learning strategies inventory, and academic achievement test. The statistical methods used to analyze the 107 valid questionnaire included one-way ANCOVA, 2（concept mapping and summarization）×2（different text type） mixed design ANOVA and 2（concept mapping and summarization）×2（gender） ANCOVA.
The findings of the study were summarized as follows:
1. There was no statistically significant difference among the three treatment conditions in posttests of rehearsal strategies, elaboration strategies, and organization strategies.
2. Students participated in the control group and summarization group performed significantly better than those in the concept mapping group on posttest of metacognitive strategies.
3. There was no statistically significant difference among the three treatment conditions in academic achievement.
4. No interaction effect was found on different treatments and different text type on academic achievement.
5. No interaction effect was found on different treatments and gender on rehearsal strategies, elaboration strategies, and organization strategies.
6. No interaction effect was found on different treatments and gender on posttests of metacognitive strategies.
7. No interaction effect was found on different treatments and gender on academic achievement.
Finally, plausible explanations for findings and implications for teacher instruction and future research are offered.

一、中文部分
王薌茹（民83）。概念圖教學在國中生物學習之成效。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
朱則剛（民85）。建構主義對教學設計的意義。教學科技與媒體，26，3-12。
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與心理輔導研究所博士論文。
朱敬先（民86）。教育心理學—教學取向。台北：五南。
李心瑩譯（民89）。再建多元智慧。台北：遠流。。
李平譯（民86）。經營多元智慧。台北：遠流。
余民寧（民86）。有意義的學習—概念構圖之研究。台北：商鼎文化。
吳宗立（民87）。訊息處理的認知歷程與教學策略。人文及社會學科教學通訊，9（2），156-164。
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。
林玉惠（民84）。學習策略訓練對國中英語科低成就學生學習效果之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文。
邱上真（民78）。知識結構的評量：概念構圖技巧的發展與試用。國立台灣教育學院特殊教育學系暨研究所特殊教育學報，4，215-244。
邱上真（民80）。學習策略教學的理論與實際。特殊教育與復健學報，1，1-50。
林生傳（民87）。建構主義的教學評析。課程與教學季刊，1（3），1-14。
林生傳主編（民88）。教育心理學。台北：五南。
林建昇（民90）。以知識構圖呈現知識之實證研究。國立中正大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
林純年（民86）。概念圖對國小學童自我學習科學說明資料之影響。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
林清山譯（民86）。教育心理學—認知取向。台北：遠流。
林寶貴、郭靜姿（民89）。綜合學業性向測驗編製報告。台北：國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
周崇儒（民89）。談建構主義的教學。研習資訊，17（3），43-49。
侯玫如（民91）。多重目標導向對國中生認知、動機、情感與學習行為之影響。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文。
洪琮琪（民91）。網路出題與合作學習對學習成效之影響。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文。
涂金堂（民90）。不同數學能力學生的知識結構之比較研究。初等教育學刊，10，129-156。
耿筱曾（民86）。為什麼概念構圖是一種有效的策略。科學教育研究發展，9，76-79。
郭金美（民88）。建構主義教學方法—影響學童光學概念學習教學模式的研究。嘉義師院學報，13，157-201。
陳李綢（民77）。學習策略的研究與教學。資優教育季刊，29，15-24。
陳李綢（民85）。認知發展與輔導。台北：心理。
郭俊賢，陳淑惠譯，Campbell, L., Campbell, B & Dickinson, D.原著 (民88)。多元智慧的教與學。台北：遠流。
張奕華、許正妹（民90）。以Inspiration軟體建立概念構圖及其在教學上之應用。教學科技與媒體，58，67-79。
張春興（民85）。教育心理學。台北：東華書局。
陳義勳（民89）。探討使用建構主義教學在教學成效上之研究。台北市立師範學院學報，31，347-356。
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。
陳嘉成、余民寧（民87）。以概念構圖為學習策略之教學對自然科學習的促進效果之研究。國立政治大學學報，77，201-235。
陳濱興（民90）。國小數學解題實作評量與後設認知之相關研究。國立台中師範學院教育測驗統計研究所碩士論文。
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。
張雅萍（民89）。摘要策略對網路化學習成效之研究。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
項必蒂（民80）。師院生學習教育心理學之動機與策略及其相關因素研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
程炳林、林清山（民89）。中學生自我調整學習之研究（1/2）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。NSC89-2413-H-035-001。
游淑燕（民79）。專家知識結構對教學的啟示。國教之聲，24（1），39-45。
黃堅厚（民88）。人格心理學。台北：心理。
黃萬居（民82）。國小學生的概念構圖和自然科學學習成就之研究。台北市立師範學院學報，24，47-66。
蔡明雄（民88）。合作-建構整合教學模式對國小學童學習簡單幾何問題效果之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
蔡銘津（民86）。學童閱讀能力測驗與評量。特殊教育季刊，65，23-28。
歐慧敏（民91）。運用多元智慧理論在國小一年級生活課程之教學實驗研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
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研究所碩士論文。
蘇秋紅（民91）。知識構圖應用於教育之實證研究—以數位電子學為例。國立中正大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
蘇昭博（民88）。利用概念圖及V圖進行國中理化教學之研究。國立台灣師範大學物理研究所碩士論文。
二、西文部分
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Asha, K. J., Mary K. H., & Yan, P. X. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems:The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 127-139.
Ashcraft, M. H. (1989). Human memory and cognition. Harper Collins publishers.
Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1995). Using concept mapping for assessment in physics. Physics Education, 30(1), 41-45.
Beyerbach, B. A., (1986). Concept mapping in assessing prospective teachers’concept development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 291 800).
Bolte, L. A. (1999). Using concept maps and interpretive essays for assessment in mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 99(1), 19-30.
Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts:The development of expertise. 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.
Butler, D. L. (1997). The roles of goal setting and self-monitoring in students’ self-regulated engagement in tasks. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association : Chicago.
Cathleen, D. & Linda, K. (1993). Concept mapping: A viable alternative to objective and essay exams. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(3), 25-34.
Clarke, J. H. (1991). Using visual organizers to focus on thinking. Journal of Reading, 34(7), 526-534.
Coco, C. (1999). Instructional scaffolding intervention and concept mapping outcomes among diverse learners in a pre-service educational psychology course: A model for developing expertise in writing expressions of conceptual understanding. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429 943).
Collins, A. M., & Quilian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240-247.
Cordero-Ponce, W. L. (2000). Summarization instruction: Effects on foreign language comprehension and summarization of expository texts. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(4) , 329-350.
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142.
Czerniak, C. M., & Haney, J. J.(1998). The effect of collaborative concept mapping on elementary preservice teachers’ anxiety, efficacy, and achievement in physical science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(4), 303-320.
Elhelou, Mohamed-Wafaie A. (1997). The Use of Concept Mapping in Learning Science Subjects by Arab Students. Educational Research, 39(3), 311-317.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding (pp.21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Foos, P. W. (1995). The effect of variations in text summarization opportunities on test performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 63(2), 89-95.
Gajria, M., & Salvia, J. (1992). The effect of summarization instruction on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(6), 508-516.
Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarization: Costs and benefits. Journal of Educational Research, 75(5), 275-279.
Glynn, S. M., & Muth, D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057-1073.
Gravett, S. J., & Swart, E. (1997). Concept mapping: A tool for promoting and assessing conceptual change. South African Journal of Higher Education, 11(2), 122-126.
Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 356-365.
Hare, V. C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 62-78.
Hasemann, K., & Mansfield, H. (1995). Concept mapping in research on mathematical knowledge development: Background, methods, findings and conclusions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(1), 45-72.
Head, M. H., Readence, J. E., & Buss, R. R. (1989). An examination of summary writing as a measure of reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 28(4), 1-11.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing writing summarizes: task demands, cognitive operations and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 473-493.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1988/1989). Teaching students to summarize. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 26-28.
Holmes, G. A., & Leitzel, T. C. (1993). Evaluating learning through a constructivist paradigm. Performance and Instruction, 32(8), 28-30.
Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77(1), 95-111.
Jegede, O. J., Alaiyemola, F. F., & Okebukola, P. A. O. (1990). The effect of concept mapping on students’ anxiety and achievement in biology. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 27(10), 951-960.
Jitendra, A. K., Cole, C. L., Hoppes, M. K., & Wilson, B. (1998). Effects of a direct instruction main idea summarization program and self-monitoring on reading comprehension of middle school students with learning disabilities. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulities, 14(4), 379-396.
Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 127-139.
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J. & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to Solve Problems with Technology. New Jersey: Columbus.
Kelly, G. A. (1995). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Education Research Journal, 29(2), 303-323.
Kintsch, E. (1990). Macroprocess and microprocess in the development of summarization skill. Cognition and Instruction, 7(3), 161-195.
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479-1498.
Liu, X., & Hinchey, M. (1996). The internal consistency of a concept mapping scoring scheme and its effect on prediction validity. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 921-937.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N., (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction：summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Child, 58(3), 270-279.
Markham, K M., & Others. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 91-101.
Markow, P G., & Lonning, R A. (1998). Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: student’ perceptions and effects on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1015-1029.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B., & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge Vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625-645.
Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153.
Okebukola, P. A., & Jegede, O. J. (1989). Students' anxiety towards and perception of difficulty of some biological concepts under the concept-mapping heuristic. Research in Science and Technological Education, 7(1), 85-92.
Osman-Jouchoux, R. (1997). Linking reading and writing: Concept mapping as an organizing tactic（ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408 955）.
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS surviral manual: A step by guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows(Version 10). Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Rafferty, C. D., & Fleschner, L. K. (1993).Concept mapping: A viable altetnative to objective and essay exams. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(3), 25-34.
Raths, J. (1987). Enhancing Understanding Through Debriefing. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 24-27.
Regis, A., & Albertazzi, P. G. (1996). Concept maps in chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(11), 1084-1088.
Rice, D., Ryan, J., & Samson, S. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1103-1127.
Ruiz- Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 569-600.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260-278.
Seaman, T. (1990). On the high road to achievement: Cooperative concept mapping. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 335 140).
Skaggs, L. P. (1988). The effects of knowledge maps and pictures on the acquisition of scientific information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX.
Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Spontaneous concept maps aiding the understanding of scientific concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 515-531.
Smith, K. M., & Dwyer, F. M. (1995). The effect of concept mapping strategies in facilitating student achievement. International Journal of Instructional Media, 22, 1-5.
Spaulding, D. T. (1989). Concept mapping and achievement in high school biology and chemistry . Doctoral Dissertation, Florida Institute of Technology. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 1619A.
Stice, C. F., & Alvarez, M. C. (1987). Hierarchical concept mapping in the early grades. Childhood Education, 64(2), 86-96.
Stow, W. (1997). Concept mapping: A tool for self-assessment. Primary Science Review, 49, 12-15.
Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, O. (2001). The contribution of conceptual change texts accompanied by concept mapping to students' understanding of the human circulatory system. School Science and Mathematics, 101(2), 91-101.
Trent, S. C., Pernell, E. Jr. Mungai, A., & Chimedza, R. (1998). Using concept maps to measure conceptual change in preservice teachers enrolled in a multicultural education/special education course. Remedial and Special Education, 19(1) 16-31.
Von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. (pp.315-327). New York: MacMillan.
Wiegmann, D. A., Dansereau, D. F., McCagg, E. C., Rewey, K. L., & Pitre, U. (1992). Effects of knowledge map characteristics on information processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 136-155.
Winograd, P. N. (1983). Strategic difficulties in summarizing text. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 228 616).
Williams, J. P. (1988). Identifying main ideas: A basic aspect of reading comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 8(3), 1-13.