本研究目的在以潛在語意分析 (Latent Semantic Analysis) 技術為學習者摘要評量與回饋的基礎，亦透過專家概念圖以及概念詞的回饋機制，發展一套線上摘要評量與回饋系統，並探討不同回饋模式對國小學生摘要進步分數的影響。
本研究之研究對象為120位新北市某國小六年級學生，以隨機分派的方式將學生分成四組實驗組，各組樣本人數為30人。實驗組依照語意回饋以及概念詞回饋的有無分成四組為:「分數回饋組」、「分數+語意回饋組」、「分數+概念詞回饋組」以及「分數+語意+概念詞回饋組」。本研究採等組前後測2x2二因子受試者間實驗設計，自變項為語意回饋以及概念詞回饋的有無，依變項則為摘要進步分數。摘要訓練課程為七節課，每節課40分鐘，每週兩節課。
研究結果顯示:
一、就有概念詞回饋的狀態下而言，不論是有語意回饋與無語意回饋的狀態下並無顯著差異存在。
二、就無概念詞回饋的狀態下而言，有語意回饋的組別(分數+語意回饋組)，其摘要進步分數顯著高於無語意回饋的組別(分數回饋組)的摘要進步分數。
三、就有語意回饋的狀態下而言，不論是有概念詞回饋與無概念詞回饋的狀態下並無顯著差異存在。
四、就無語意回饋的狀態下而言，有概念詞回饋的組別(分數+概念詞回饋組)其摘要進步分數顯著高於無概念詞回饋的組別(分數回饋組)的摘要進步分數。

最後，研究者針對研究結果進行討論，並提出幾點建議與未來研究方向以供日後研究的發展與參考。

The purpose of this study is todevelop the online summary assessment and feedback system. The system isbased on Latent Semantic Analysis andexpert concept mapping to give students their summary assessment and feedback. This study compares the effects of different feedback methods on students' summary performance.

The subjects were 120 sixthgraders elementary students.The ‘pretest-posttest equivalent groups of the quasi-experimental designs’ is employed in the study. There were fourexperimental groups. The experimental group one received summary grade, the experimental group two received summary grade and the feedback of semantic, the experimental group three received summary grade and the feedback of concept term, and the experimental group four received summary grade, the feedback of semantic and concept term. The independent variable is the feedbackofsemantic and concept term；thedependent variables isstudents' summary performance.

The findings were as follows:
1. With regard to the feedback of concept term, whether have the feedback of semantic or non-semantic,students' summary performance were non-significant.
2. With regard to the feedback of non-concept term, the feedback of semantic(group 2)its summary performance was higher than the feedback of non-semantic (group1).
3. With regard to the feedback of semantic, whether have the feedback of concept term or non-concept term, students' summary performance were non-significant.
4. With regard to the feedback of semantic, the feedback of concept term (group 3) its summary performance was higher than the feedback of non-concept term (group1).
Theresults were discussed and some recommendations were made for elementary school curriculum practice and future research.

一、 中文部分
丁偉民（2004）。文章摘要寫作評量系統。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
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。載於國立臺南大學教育學院舉辦之「國小教學評量的反量與前瞻」研討會論文集（頁123-137），台南。
江淑卿和郭生玉（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。
李淑華（2009）。電腦化課文摘要動態評量效益之探討（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台南大學，台南市。 丁偉民（2004）。文章摘要寫作評量系統。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
邱上真、洪碧霞(1999)。中文閱讀成分與歷程模式之建立及其在實務上的應用：評量與診斷、課程與教材、學習與教學－國語基本能力檢定診斷與協助系統之發展。(國科會專案報告，計劃編NSC88-2614-H-017-004-F18)。
幸曼玲（2010）。摘大意找主旨策略。載於教育部（主編），閱讀理解策略教學手冊，97-135。台北市：教育部。
吳英長（1998）。國民小學國語故事體課文摘寫大意的教學過程之分析。臺東師院學報，9，150-183。
林璟芳(2011)。運用概念構圖於國小讀報教育對閱讀理解效應之研究。國立臺北教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文。
官美媛(1999)。國小學生摘取文章大意策略之教學研究－以五年級說明文為例。國立東華大學教育研究所碩士論文。
高巧汶（2008）。概念圖式學習評量系統之設計建置。銘傳大學資訊傳播工程學系碩士班碩士學位論文，未出版，臺北。
柯華葳、詹益綾、游婷雅 (2008)。台灣四年級學生閱讀素養（PIRLS 2006 報告）。國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。
柯華葳、陳明蕾(2009)。中文語意空間建置及心理效度驗證：以潛在語意分析技 術為基礎。中華心理學刊，51(4)，397-407。
涂志賢(1998)。相互教學法對國小六年級學童國語科閱讀理解、後設認知、自我效能影響之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
張國恩、宋曜廷(2005)。潛在語意分析及概念構圖在文章摘要和理解評量的應用(3/3)。國家科學委員會專題計畫成果報告(編號：NSC93-2520-S-003-011)。 台北市：行政院國家科學委員會。
黃彥博(2007)。科學文章摘要自動化計分方式的比較研究。國立臺南大學測驗統計研究所碩士論文。
游媛淇(2011)。線上摘要寫作軟體對於增進大一新生閱讀理解、字彙知識及摘要寫作表現之效能。東海大學外國語文學研究所碩士論文。
郭佩慧(2006)。中文閱讀摘要學習系統的發展與應用。台南大學測驗與統計研究所碩士論文。
陸怡琮、李燕芳、馮心怡（2010）。摘要策略。載於教育部（主編），閱讀理解策略教學手冊，41-95。台北市：教育部。
陳伯璋、張新仁、潘慧玲、蔡清田 (2007)。全方位的國民核心素養之教育研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告 (NSC 94-2511-S-032-001)。
陳櫻代(1999)。概念構圖策略促進閱讀理解能力之研究。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
陳嘉成 ,1998,合作學習式概念構圖在自然科教學之實証研究,教育與心理研究(上冊),21,pp105-128 (其他)
謝富榮(2003)。概念構圖策略與認知型能對國小自然科網路化教學影響之研究。東海大學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
謝富榮(2006)。概念構圖策略與認知型能對國小自然科網路化學習影響之研究。國民教育研究學報，17，83-110。
劉懿德(2008)。專家概念構圖對不同學習風格國小四年級學生的閱讀理解能力之影響。國立臺南大學教育學系科技發展與傳播所碩士論文。
蘇嘉穎（2006）。文章摘要策略教學系統的設計與應用－以自然類說明文為例。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
魏靜雯（2004）。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研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。

二、 英文部分
Amold, M. T. (1981). Teaching theme, thesis, topic senaences and clinchers as related concepts. Journal of Reading, 24(5), pp. 73-76.
Bandura, J. A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action : A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.
Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, pp. 968-979.
Chang, K. E. Sung, Y. T., ＆ Chen, I. D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. Journal of Experimental Education, 71(1), pp. 5-23.
Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, S. F. (2001). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), pp. 21-33.
Clariana, R. B., & Smith, L. J. (1989). The effects of AUC and KCR feedback on learners of different ability.
Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), pp. 391–407.
Dick, W., & Latta, R. (1970). Comparative effects of ability and presentation mode in computer-assisted instruction and programmed instruction. Audio-visual Communication Review, 18(3),pp. 34-45.

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), pp. 239-264.
Elhelou, M. (1997). The use of concept mapping in learning science subjects by Arab students. Educational Research, 39(3), pp. 311-317.
Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. K. (1998). Analysis of text coherence using latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, pp. 285–307.
Franzke, M., Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., Johnson, N., & Dooley. S. (2005). Summary Street ® : Computer support for comprehension and writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, pp. 53-80.
Franzke, M., Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., Johnson, N., & Dooley. S. (2009). A new formative assessment technology for reading and writing. Theory Into Practice, 48, pp. 44- 52.
Friend, R. (2000). Teaching summarization as a content area reading strategy. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 320-329.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th Ed.).
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarization: costs and benefits. Journal of Educational Research, 75(5), pp. 275-279.
Garner, R. (1984). Rules for summarizing texts: Is classroom instruction being provided? Journal of Educational Research, 77(5), pp. 304-308.
Hare, V. C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), pp. 62-78.
Head, M. H., Readence, J. E., & Buss, R. R. (1989). An examination of summary writing as a measure of reading comprehension. Reading instruction and instruction, 28(4), pp. 1-11.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), pp. 473-493.
Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998), Teaching college students to be self-regulated learners, In In. D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice, pp. 57-85, New York: The Guilford Press.
Hularut, P., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, pp. 248-263.
Kintsch, E. (1990). Macroprocess and microprocess in the development of. Cognition and Instruction, 7(3), pp. 161-195.
Kintsch, E., Steinhart, D., Stahl, G., LSA Research Group, Matthews, C., & Lamb, R. (2000). Developing summarization skills through the use of LSA-based feedback. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, pp. 87-109.
Landauer, T. K, Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2&3), pp. 259-284.
Landauer, T. K., Lochbaum, K. E., & Dooley, S. (2009). A new formative assessment technology for reading and writing. Theory Into Practice, 48, pp. 44- 52.
Magill, R. A., & Schoenfelder-Zohdi, S. B. (1996). A visual model and knowledge of performance as sources of learning a rhythmic gymnastics skill. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, pp. 7-22.
Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction:Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Expextional Children, 58(3), pp. 270-279.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Paper presented at the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Alexandria.
Nist, S. L., & Simpson, M. (2002). College studying. Retrieved Feb 1, 2008, from Reading Online: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=handbook/nist/index.html
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19, pp. 29-52.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Reader, W., & Hammond, N. (1994). Computer-based tools to support learning from hypertext: Concept mapping tools and beyond. Computers & Education, 22, pp. 99-106.
Reway, K. L., Dansereau, D. F., Hall, R. H., & Pitre, U. (1989). Effects of knowledge maps and scripted cooperation on recall of technical material. Journal of Educational Psychology, (81), pp. 604-609.
Spock, P. A. (1987). Feedback and confidence of response for a rule-learning task using computer-assisted instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(5), p. 1109.
Takeya, M., Sasaki, H., Nagaoka, K., & Yonezawa, N. (2004). A performance scoring method based on quantitative comparison of concept maps by a teacher and students. Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Concept Mapping, 2, pp. 343-346.
Van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. . (1983). Strategies of discourse omprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Wade-Stein, D., & Kintsch, E. (2004). Summary Street: Interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction, 22, pp. 333-362.
Weisberg, R., & Balajthy, E. (1990). Development of disabled readers' meatcomprehension ability through summarization training using expository text: Results of three studies. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disibilities, 6, pp. 117-136.
Williams, J. P., Taylor, M. B., & Ganger, S. (1981). Text variations at the level of the individual sentence and the comprehension of simple expository paragraphs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, pp. 851-865.
Wolfgang, L., Herbert, B., Darius, E., Wolfgang, S., & Joachim, H. (2011). Rethinking strategy instruction: direct reading strategy instruction versus computer-based guided practice. Journal of research in reading, pp. 1-18.
Wormeli, R. (2005). Summarization in any subject: 50 techniques to improve student learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Alexandria.
Zimmerman, B. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Educ. Psychol, 33, pp. 73–86.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk, Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 1-39). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), pp. 64-70.