本研究旨在比較國小六年級低閱讀能力學生在接受故事構圖策略與摘要策略的教學後,何項策略對於受試者閱讀理解的學習效果較佳。本研究之閱讀理解定義為推論理解,並將閱讀測驗分為統整摘要分測驗與精緻化分測驗。本研究採單一受試交替處理實驗設計,分交替處理階段(十次)、最後階段(十次)及撤除階段(四次),研究對象為桃園縣某國小三位六年級普通班低閱讀能力學生,在交替處理階段以故事構圖策略與摘要策略快速輪流交替進行閱讀理解教學,以找出對於本研究受試者較佳之閱讀理解策略,並在最後階段則繼續以較佳之閱讀理解策略進行教學,在撤除階段則要求受試者獨立運用較佳策略進行閱讀理解評量。本研究運用單一受試研究法之點繪將受試者各階段接受評量後的資料點繪成曲線圖,利用視覺分析法將受試者階段內及階段間的資料製表,並對受試者閱讀測驗錯誤題型進行錯誤類型分析,來解釋受試者閱讀理解的學習效果並找出對本研究受試者而言較佳的閱讀理解策略。本研究的研究結果如下: 1、在閱讀測驗的整體表現上,三位受試者運用故事構圖策略的學習效果 均優於摘要策略。 2、在統整摘要分測驗上,受試甲兩項策略的學習效果相同,受試乙與受試丙在故事構圖策略的學習效果優於摘要策略。 3、在精緻化分測驗上,三位受試者運用故事構圖策略的學習效果均優於摘要策略。 4、在錯誤類型方面,在統整摘要分測驗上,受試甲無特別易出錯題型,受試乙則是僅在運用摘要策略在「什麼」類型題目上較易出錯,受試丙亦是在「什麼」類型題目上較易出錯。在精緻化分測驗中,受試甲在「態度」類型題目上較易出錯,受試乙與受試丙在「用形容詞或成語形容」、「下列敘述何者正確或錯誤」的題型較易出錯。
The purpose of the study was to compare the effects on strategies of story-mapping and summarization on the reading comprehension of 6-grades with low reading skills. In this study, the reading comprehension represented inferential comprehension, and on the whole, the research included two parts: integrated-summarized and elaborated subtests. The methodology adopted alternating treatment design of single subject research treatment, using A-B-C experimental procedures, and the subjects of this experiment were 3 6-graders who had low reading skills. The alternating treatment phrase (A) alternated teaching both strategies, story-mapping and summarization, for 10 lessons, and evaluated the effectiveness continuously, thence found out which strategy worked better for the subjects. The phrase (B) was 10 lessons by using the better strategy chosen from phrase (A). Finally, the phrase (C) was 4-times evaluation of the maintenance. The data analysis adopted the visual inspection. The researcher also analyzed types of incorrect questions based on the results. The findings included: 1.In general, all subjects performed better on their reading comprehension when using the strategy of story-mapping. 2.To integrated-summarized subtest, subject A had same results on both strategies, and subject B and C performed better when using the strategy of story-mapping than summarization. 3.To elaborated subtest, all 3 subjects performed better when using the strategy of story-mapping than summarization. 4.Analysis on types of incorrect questions: (a)To integrated-summarized subtest, subject A did not make any specific type of mistakes, and both subjects B and C made mistakes on the type of 「what」 questions. (b)To elaborated subtest, subject A made mistakes on the questions of「attitude」, and subjects B and C made mistakes on both types of 「correction」and 「description」questions.