本研究探討科學說明文內不同形式提示物（文字、插圖形式）對於國小學童記憶力與理解力之影響。研究對象包括72名國小六年級學生，研究設計採3（提示形式：無卅摘要卅插圖）×2（閱讀能力：高卅低）受試者間設計。並分別以不同變異數分析考驗各實驗處理間的參與者於自由回憶及閱讀理解兩方面表現之差異。研究結果為：（一）高閱讀能力組於兩測驗整體表現顯著優於低閱讀能力組（二）插圖提示對於學生的理解力有明顯提升，然記憶力則僅對於高閱讀能力者有助益。（三）對國小學童而言，摘要的提示效果對高閱讀能力者無明顯提升作用，然而，對低閱讀能力者卻可能有導致認知負荷加重的潛在危機。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of graphic and textual signaling on elementary school students’ recall and comprehension of scientific text. The participants included 72 sixth grade students, and they were grouped into high- and low- ability subgroups, based on their performance on a reading comprehension test. The experiment was a 3 (signaling: none, summary, and picture) × 2 (ability: high and low) between subject design.
From the analysis of student’s recall and comprehension performance, we found out that (1) High ability students outperformed low ability students in both recall and comprehension tasks. (2) Graphic signaling could promote students’ comprehension for both groups of students, but only enhance high ability students’ memory. (3) The effect of textual signaling for high ability students was not significant; moreover, it might be a potential risk factor for an increase in the cognitive load of low ability students.

參考書目
方金雅、鍾易達、邱上真（1998）。國小學童閱讀摘要能力評定規範之發展。國小教學評量的反省與前瞻，臺南師範學院測驗發展中心主編，（頁123-137）。臺南市：臺南師範學院。
世一編輯部（2000）。大氣科學百科。臺南市 : 世一。
林淑媛（2004）。臺灣小學低年級國語教科書插畫風格演變之探討。國立雲林科技大學視覺傳達設計研究所碩士論文，未出版，雲林縣。
林寶貴、錡寶香（1999）。中文閱讀理解測驗。臺北市：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
東方出版社編輯委員會（1978）。科學新知知道嗎？臺北市：東方出版社編輯委員會。
東方編輯小組（1994）。千變萬化的氣象。臺北市：臺灣東方。
洪蘭（2004）閱讀決定思想。教師天地，129，4-7。
洪蘭、曾志朗（2001）。兒童閱讀的理念-認知神經學的觀點，教育資料與研究，38，1-4。
陳美智（1995）。臺灣地區科學類兒童讀物調查硏究（1985-1994）。臺北市：漢美。
陳若漪（2001）。天空變！變！變！臺北縣新店市：泛亞國際文化。
黃福興（2002）。概念構圖應用於科學文章閱讀教學之研究。臺中師範學院教育測驗統計研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。
陶雲、劉艷（2003）。不同年級學生閱讀示意圖課文的眼動實驗研究。孝感學院學報，23(2)，45-49。
張菀真（2007）。國小學童圖文閱讀的理解策略。國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文，桃園縣，未出版。
詹楊彬（1994）。插畫新技。臺北市：藝術圖書公司。
劉信雄（1992）。國小認知風格、學習策略、自我效能與學業成就關係之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，臺北市，未出版。
劉春玲（1990）。插圖對兒童的閱讀理解和記憶的影響。華東師範大學學報（教育科學版），1，81-88。
劉寶霞、張厚粲、舒華（1996）。插圖在說明文閱讀理解中的作用。心理學報，28(2)，154-159。
蔡銘津（1997）。學童閱讀能力的測驗與評量。特殊教育季刊，65，23-28。
鄭宇樑（1997）。後設認知閱讀教學對國小學生科學文章閱讀理解閱讀態度及後設認知能力影響之研究。國立臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。
鄭明進（1985）。兒童圖畫書中的插畫。國教之友，37(3)，62-64。
謝孟璋（2007）。運用摘要教學策略改善國小學童網路搜尋過程之關鍵詞使用與資訊選取能力。國立臺南大學數位學習科技學系教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。
蘇振明（1997）。認識兒童讀物插畫及其教育性。美育，91，2。
魏靜雯（2003）。心智繪圖與摘要教學對國小五年級學生閱讀理解與摘要能力之影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
龔顯男、龔顯甫（民79）。我愛作文。臺北：新學友書局。
Arnold, D. J., & Brooks, P. H. (1976). Influence of contextual organizing material on children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(6), 711-716.
Balluerka, N. (1995). The influence of instructions, outlines, and illustrations on the comprehension and recall of scientific texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(3), 369-375.
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.
Brody, P. J., & Legenza, A. (1980). Can pictorial attributes serve mathemagenic functions? Educational Technology Research and Development, 28(1), 25-29.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing text: The developments of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.
Carlisle, J., & Rice, M. (2002). Improving reading comprehension: Research-based. principles and practices. Baltimore, MD: York Press.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239.
Filippatou, D., & Pumfrey, P. D. (1996). Pictures, titles, reading accuracy and reading comprehension: A research review (1973-95). Educational Research, 38(3), 259-291.
Gagné, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 92-102.
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414-434.
Head, M. H., Readence, J. E., & Buss, R. R. (1989). An examination of summary as a measure of reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 28(4), 1-11.
Herber, H. L., & Nelson-Herber, J. (1993). Teaching in content areas with reading, writing, and reasoning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 473.
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,14(4), 379-96.
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.
Kardash, C. A. M., & Noel, L. K. (2000). How organizational signals, need for cognition, and verbal ability affect text recall and recognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(3), 317-331.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394.
Kulhavy, R. W., & Swenson, I. (1975). Imagery instructions and the comprehension of text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45, 47-51.
Lagerspetz, K. M .J., & Engblom, P. (1979). Immediate reactions to TV-violence by finnish pre-school children of different personality types. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 20(1), 43-53.
LEÓN, J. A. (1997). The effects of headlines and summaries on news comprehension and recall. Reading and Writing, 9(2), 85-106.
Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 30(4), 195-232.
Levin, J. R. (1981). On functions of pictures in prose. In F. J. Pirozzolo & M. C. Wittrock (Eds.), Neuropsychological and Cognitive Processes in Reading (pp. 203–228). NY: Academic Press.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows, & H. A. Houghton(Eds.), The psychology of Illustration: volume I: Basic Research (chap. 2, pp.51-85). NY: Springer Verlag.
Levin, J. R., & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In B. K. Britton , A. Woodward, & M. Brinkley (Eds.), Learning form textbooks (pp. 95-113). Lawrence: Erlbaum Associates.
Loman, N. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 402-412.
Lorch, R. F. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1(3), 209-234.
Lorch, Jr. R. F., & Lorch E. P. (1995). Effects of organizational signals on text-processing strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 537-544.
Lorch, R. F., & Lorch, E. P. (1996). Effects of organizational signals on free recall of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 38-48.
Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1991). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(3), 270-279.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge New York : Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In. B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp.11-87). Hillsdale, NF: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Ollerenshaw, A., Aidman, E., & Kidd, G. (1997). Is an illustration always worth ten thousand words? Effects of prior knowledge, learning style, and multimedia illustrations on text comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24, 227–238.
Padrón, Y. N., Knight, S. L. & Waxman, H. C. (1986). Analyzing bilingual and monolingual students’ perceptions of their reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 39, 430-433.
Peeck, J. (1987). The role of illustration in processing and remembering illustrated text. In H. Houghton & D. Willows (Eds.), The psychology of illustration, volume I: Basic research (chap. 7, pp.115-151). NY: Springer Verlag.
Riding, R. J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). Cognitive style and learning strategies: Some implications for training design. International Journal of Training and Development, 1(3), 199-208.
Rummel, N., Levin, J. R., & Woodward, M. M. (2003). Do pictorial mnemonic text-learning aids give students something worth writing about? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 327-334.
Rogers, R. W., & Mewborn, C. R (1976). Fear appeals and attitude change: Effects of a threat''s noxiousness, probability of occurrence, and the efficacy of coping responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(1), 54-61.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steingart, S. K., & Glock, M. D. (1979). Imagery and the recall of connected discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 66-82.
Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review, 89(2), 155-181.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
Yore, L. D., & Denning, D (1989, April). Implementing change in secondary science reading and textbook useage: A desired image, a current profile, and a plan for change. Paper presented at the meeting of national association for research in science teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Yuill, N., & Joscelyne, T. (1988). Effect of organizational cues and strategies on good and poor comprehenders'' story understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 152-158.