何種圖形策略可以提高論說文閱讀理解能力在目前的文獻中尚未解決，為了確定圖形策略是否能提升學生的閱讀理解能力，我們設計了一個建構圖形策略的電腦輔助論說文閱讀理解系統。系統中的三種方法，分別為沒有圖形策略的傳統教學、概念構圖和議論構圖方法，用來判斷圖形策略對於學生論說文理解能力的影響。此外，所提出的議論構圖系統可以幫助學生找出三個論說文關鍵要素，分別為論點、理由和證據，使學生在較少認知負荷的情況下建構議論圖。所設計的議論構圖系統可以幫助學生學會如何輕鬆地閱讀論說文並提高閱讀理解能力。
國小六年級373個學生的實驗結果表示，議論構圖、傳統教學和概念構圖的方法相比，議論構圖方法能夠提高學生的論說文閱讀理解能力。統計結果顯示組間差異有統計學顯著差異（議論構圖和傳統教學組p=0.001，而議論構圖和概念圖組p=0.013）。另外，將議論構圖組學生依照認知風格量表的得分，高於平均數者歸類為視覺傾向，反之則為語文傾向。比較兩個類型樣本的進步分數(後側-前側)，實施t檢定，t= -1.534，p=0.148，未達顯著差異。表示議論構圖方法對不同認知風格學生的論說文閱讀理解成效都有幫助，而不限於某一種類型認知風格的學生。

Numerous studies have proved that graphic strategies, such as graphic organization and concept mapping, can facilitate improving reading comprehension. However, the question as to what graphic strategies can improve argumentative essay reading comprehension ability is not yet resolved.
To determine whether graphic strategies can improve students’ reading, we designed a computer-aided argumentative essay reading system that can construct graphic strategies. In the designed system, three approaches, namely a traditional teaching approach without graphic strategies, concept mapping, and argument mapping, are created for determining the effects of graphic strategies on students’ argumentative essay reading comprehension ability. In addition, the proposed argument mapping system provides a function for helping students identify three key argumentative essay elements, namely claims, reasons, and evidence, to enable them to construct an argument map with no burden. The designed system can help students learn how to read argumentative essays easily, improving their reading comprehension ability.
The experimental results from 373 sixth graders showed that the argument mapping method enhanced students’ argumentative essay reading comprehension ability compared with traditional and concept mapping approaches. Statistical results revealed that between-group differences were statistically significant (p value between the experimental and Control Group 1 was 0.001 and that between the experimental and Control Group 2 was 0.013). In addition, we also conduct t test for deriving the gain scores for visual oriented and language oriented students according to the scale of cognitive styles. The results of t=-1.534 and p=.127 indicate no significant difference between them. As results, it indicates that the argument mapping method will not result in noticeable difference between students with different cognitive styles.

[1] 洪碧霞, 吳正新, & 劉妍希. (2010). 臺灣 PISA 2009 結果報告. 台灣 PISA 國家研究中心, 取自http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/download_tw.htm.
[2] Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 778-807.
[3] Chambliss, M. J., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument structure in written texts. Discourse Processes, 34(1), 91-115.
[4] Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273-304.
[5] Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
[6] Braund, M., Scholtz, Z., Sadeck, M., & Koopman, R. (2013). First steps in teaching argumentation: A South African study. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(2), 175-184.
[7] Lin, S. S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017.
[8] Griffin, C. C., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1991). Investigating the effectiveness of graphic organizer instruction on the comprehension and recall of science content by students with learning disabilities. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7(4), 355-376.
[9] Guri-Rozenblit, S. (1989). Effects of a tree diagram on students' comprehension of main ideas in an expository text with multiple themes. Reading Research Quarterly, 236-247.
[10] Merkley, D. M., & Jefferies, D. (2000). Guidelines for implementing a graphic organizer. The Reading Teacher, 350-357.
[11] Akhondi, M., Malayeri, F. A., & Samad, A. A. (2011). How to teach expository text structure to facilitate reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 368-372.
[12] DeLauder, H., & Muilenburg, L. (2012, March). Improving reading comprehension through the use of graphic organizing websites. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2012, No. 1, pp. 3589-3593).
[13] Gifford, M. (2014). The effects of technology-based graphic organizers to teach reading comprehension skills of students with learning disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, Rowan University).
[14] Hogan, M., Harney, O., & Broome, B. (2014). Integrating Argument Mapping with Systems Thinking Tools: Advancing Applied Systems Science. In Knowledge Cartography (pp. 401-421). Springer London.
[15] Kunsch, D. W., Schnarr, K., & van Tyle, R. (2014). The Use of Argument Mapping to Enhance Critical Thinking Skills in Business Education. Journal of Education for Business, 89(8), 403-410.
[16] van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human behavior, 21(4), 575-602.
[17] van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2008). How students structure and relate argumentative knowledge when learning together with diagrams. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1293-1313.
[18] Aidman, E. V., & Egan, G. (1998). Academic assessment through computerized concept mapping: validating a method of implicit map reconstruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(3), 277.
[19] Blunt, J. R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Learning with retrieval-based concept mapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 849.
[20] Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772-775.
[21] Li, L. Y. (2015). Development and evaluation of a Web-based e-book with a concept mapping system. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(2), 211-226.
[22] Redford, J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 262-270.
[23] Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality (pp. 173-181). New York: Holt.
[24] Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Individual differences and instruction. New York: Allen & Bacon.
[25] Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., & van den Broek, P. (Eds.). (1999). Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso. Routledge.
[26] Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 778-807.
[27] Chambliss, M. J., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument structure in written texts. Discourse Processes, 34(1), 91-115.
[28] Grogan, M. S. (2014). Reading, argumentation, and writing: Collaboration and development of a reading comprehension intervention for struggling adolescents. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK.
[29] Kiili, C. (2013). Argument graph as a tool for promoting collaborative online reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 248-259.
[30] Lorch Jr, R. F., & Lorch, E. P. (1996). Effects of organizational signals on free recall of expository text. Journal of educational psychology, 88(1), 38.
[31] Larson, M., Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25(3), 205-224.
[32] Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. A. (2003). Constructing representations of arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 794-810.
[33] Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading. Guilford Press.
[34] Guri-Rozenblit, S. (1989). Effects of a tree diagram on students' comprehension of main ideas in an expository text with multiple themes. Reading Research Quarterly, 236-247.
[35] Northup, S., & Wilson, D. (2013). Twelve years a slave (p. 188). S. L. Eakin, & J. Logsdon (Eds.). Penguin books.
[36] Zumbach, J. (2009). The role of graphical and text based argumentation tools in hypermedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 811-817.
[37] Felton, M. K., & Herko, S. (2004). From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents' persuasive writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 672-683.
[38] Gifford, M. (2014). The effects of technology-based graphic organizers to teach reading comprehension skills of students with learning disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, Rowan University).
[39] Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students' writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59-92.
[40] Munneke, L., van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1), 113-131.
[41] Liu, P. L., Chen, C. J., & Chang, Y. J. (2010). Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 54(2), 436-445.
[42] Ruddell, R. B., & Boyle, O. F. (1989). A study of cognitive mapping as a means to improve summarization and comprehension of expository text. Literacy Research and Instruction, 29(1), 12-22.
[43] Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85(5), 363.
[44] 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.
[45] Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2013). A personalized recommendation-based mobile learning approach to improving the reading performance of EFL students. Computers & Education, 63, 327-336.
[46] Soleimani, H., & Nabizadeh, F. (2012). The Effect of Learner Constructed, Fill in the Map Concept Map Technique, and Summarizing Strategy on Iranian Pre-university Students’ Reading Comprehension. English Language Teaching, 5(9), p78.
[47] Hwang, G. J., Kuo, F. R., Chen, N. S., & Ho, H. J. (2014). Effects of an integrated concept mapping and web-based problem-solving approach on students' learning achievements, perceptions and cognitive loads. Computers & Education, 71, 77-86.
[48] Kalhor, M., & Shakibaei, G. (2012). Teaching reading comprehension through concept map. Life Science Journal, 9(4), 725-731.
[49] Khajavi, Y., & Ketabi, S. (2012). Influencing EFL learners’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy beliefs: The effect of concept mapping strategy.
[50] Dyer, P. A. (1985). A study of computer assisted reading the effects of pre-reading mapping on comprehension and transfer of learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(9), 26-41.
[51] Liu, C. C., Chen, H. S., Shih, J. L., Huang, G. T., & Liu, B. J. (2011). An enhanced concept map approach to improving children’s storytelling ability. Computers & Education, 56(3), 873-884.
[52] Okada, A., & Shum, S. B. (2008). Evidence‐based Dialogue Maps as a research tool to investigate the quality of school pupils’ scientific argumentation. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 291-315.
[53] Okada, A., Shum, S. B., & Sherborne, T. (Eds.). (2014). Knowledge Cartography: software tools and mapping techniques. Springer.
[54] Van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with reason! able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85-90.
[55] Butchart, S., Forster, D., Gold, I., Bigelow, J., Korb, K., Oppy, G., & Serrenti, A. (2009). Improving critical thinking using web based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2).
[56] Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2010). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool: Comparing the effects of map reading versus text reading on comprehension and recall of arguments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1), 16-22.
[57] Reed, C., Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2007). Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 22(01), 87-109.
[58] Shum, S. B. (2003). The roots of computer supported argument visualization. In Visualizing argumentation (pp. 3-24). Springer London.
[59] Van Gelder, T. (2007). The rationale for Rationale™. Law, probability and risk, 6(1-4), 23-42.
[60] Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2000). The concept map book. London: BBC Worldwide Ltd.
[61] Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?. Higher education, 62(3), 279-301.
[62] Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—an overview and integration. Educational psychology, 11(3-4), 193-215.
[63] Triantafillou, E., Pomportsis, A., & Demetriadis, S. (2003). The design and the formative evaluation of an adaptive educational system based on cognitive styles. Computers & Education, 41(1), 87-103.
[64] Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of educational psychology, 95(4), 833.
[65] Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Individual differences and instruction. New York: Allen & Bacon.
[66] Richardson, A. (1977). Verbalizer-visualizer: A cognitive style dimension. Journal of mental imagery.
[67] Salminen, T., Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2010). Visualising knowledge from chat debates in argument diagrams. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 379-391.