本研究主要有兩個目的：1）探究加入語音唸題對國小四年級自然科紙筆測驗結果的影響及對哪一類型的學童影響較大；2）比較自然科學月考查成績、學月總成績、學期成績與國語科學期成績的相關性，檢視自然科學期成績能否反應學童的自然科學習成就。實驗對象為台北市某國民小學全體四年級學生，有效樣本為306人。以自然科、國語科上學期學期成績，將學童均分為高、中、低分群。另以柯華葳、陳美芳（2000）所發展之閱讀理解評量測驗，測量全部四年級學生，依其結果將學童分為優聽型、中間型與優讀型三種聽讀理解優勢類型。本研究採準實驗研究設計，以班級為單位，將三位教師任課班級隨機分為實驗組、對照組，總計實驗組4班、對照組5班。自然科測驗工具有學校的學月考查試題，與難易度較高之自編試題。本實驗使用複測除去具猜題行為的樣本。每次測驗包含二個測驗方式，實驗組先舉行有語音唸題之紙筆測驗，然後再用相同的試題以無語音唸題測驗方式再測一次，對照組次序則相反。研究結果顯示對整體學生而言語音唸題答題穩定度較高，實驗組變化較對照組少，但都沒有顯著差異。因語音唸題而改寫答案的次數與總分改變量絕對值之表現為：國語低分群顯著高於國語中分群，國語低分群顯著高於國語高分群，國語中分群高於國語高分群但不顯著；自然低分群顯著高於自然中分群，自然低分群顯著高於自然高分群，自然中分群高於自然高分群但不顯著；優聽型顯著高於中間型。研究結果同時顯示研究學校自然科學期成績未能真實反應學童的自然科學習成就。

There were two major purposes for this research: 1) to investigate the impact of oral-reading for fourth graders’ on Natural Science written exam and to identify which types of learner were affected the most; 2) to compare the correlations between Natural Science and Chinese final scores and to identify if the semester final scores could represent the students’ achievement on Natural Science. There were 306 fourth graders involved. They were divided into high-rated, med-rated, and low-rated groups based on the last semester final scores on Natural Science and Chinese respectively in one of the Taipei Municipal elementary schools. According to Reading Comprehension Assessment Test ( Hwa-Hwei Ko & Mei-Fang Chen, 2000), the students were classified into listening oriented, neutral, and reading oriented categories. The research adopted quasi-experimental design; nine classes were randomly assigned into 4 classes as experimental groups and 5 classes as controlled groups. Two Natural Science Test were exammed, one was the school regular monthly Natural Science examination and another was self-designated examination with higher difficulty. The experimental group conducted the oral-reading written test first, and then repeated the same test but without the oral reading while the controlled group via versa. The experiment conducted the test again to eliminate the samples’ guessing. Major findings of this study were as follows: 1) a higher stability with oral-reading for all the students, although the change for experimental group was less than controlled one but not significant; 2) there were significantly different among the high-, med- and low-rated groups and so for listening oriented learners. For both Natural Science and Chinese it showed that the impact for low-rated group was significantly greater than med-rated group, and the impact for low-rated group was significantly greater than higher-rated while the med-rated was greater than the high-rated, but not significantly. And more difference was shown in the listening oriented learners than the neutrals ones; 3) the school semester final scores for Natural Science could not represent the students’ learning achievements.

李田英(1989)。國小學童自然科學習成就與其國語、數學成就，教學及家庭背景之相關性研究。臺北師院學報，第二期，191 – 232。
林世華(2000)。由多元評量的觀念看傳統評量的角色與功能。科學教育月刊，第231期，67 – 71。
邱上真、洪碧霞（1997）。國語文低成就學生閱讀表現之追蹤研究﹝Ⅱ﹞─國民小學國語文低成就學童篩選工具系列發展之研究﹝Ⅱ﹞。國科會專案研究報告（編號：NSC86-2413-H-017-002-F5）。
柯華葳、李俊仁(1997)。國小低年級語音覺識能力與認字能力的發展；一個縱貫的研究。國立中正大學學報，7卷，1期：49 - 66。嘉義，國立中正大學。
柯華葳(1997)。國語文低成就學生閱讀理解能力研究Ⅱ。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告。
柯華葳，李俊仁(1999)。閱讀困難理論架構及驗證。發表在國立台灣師範大學：學童閱讀困難的鑑定與診斷研討會。
柯華葳(1999)。閱讀能力的發展。蒐入曾進興 編，語言病理學基礎〈第三卷〉 （81-120頁）。台北：心理出版社。
郭生玉﹝1985﹞。心理與教育測驗。台北：精華書局
陳美芳(1999)。國語文低成就學童口說理解能力的研究。發表於國立台灣師範大學：學童閱讀困難的鑑定與診斷研討會。
黃瑞琴（1993）。幼兒的語文經驗。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
程小危（1986）。習國語幼兒最初期語法規則之本質及其可能的學習歷程。中華心理期刊，28卷，93 – 122。
程小危（1989）。「不」跟「沒有」─習國語幼兒初期否定句發展歷程。中華心理期刊，30卷，47 – 63。
簡茂發（民73）。教學評量原理與方法。蒐入台灣省教育廳 主編，教學評量手冊（13-23頁）。
張惠博、黃文吟(民99)。科學學習的評量理念。科學教育月刊，第231期，49 – 57。
張顯達 （1999）。 國語語法的習得歷程。蒐入曾進興 編，語言病理學基礎〈第三卷〉（51-80頁）。台北：心理出版社。
鄭昭明（1993）。認知心理學。台北：桂冠圖書股份有限公司。
Goodman, K. 著（1996） On reading。洪月女 譯（1998），談閱讀。台北：心理出版社。
Mayer, R. K. 著（1987） Educational Psychology。林清山 譯（1997），教育心理學─認知取向。台北：遠流出版事業股份有限公司。
Adams, M. J. (1994). Modeling the connection between word recognition and reading. In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
Birenbaum, M. (1996). Assessment 2000: Towards a Pluralistic approach to assessment. In M. Birenbaum, & Filip J. R. C. Dochy (Eds), Alternatives in assessment of achievement, learning processes, and prior knowledge, pp. 3-29. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding : the Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.
Gitomer, D. H., (1993). Performance assessment and educational measurement. In: R. E. Bennet & W. C. Ward (Eds.) Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement. Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Glaser, R. (1962). Psychology and Instructional Technology. In R. Glaser (ed.), Training, Research and Education. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Pinker, S. (1984). Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
Slobin, D. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the Language-Making Capacity. In D. Slobin (Ed), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquistion Vol. 2: Theoretical Issues. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Szagun, G. (1996). Sprachentwicklung beim Kind. München: Beltz Taschenbuch.
Tamir, P. (1997). Justifying the selection of answers in multiple-choice items. International Journal of Science Education, 12(5), 563-573
Webb, N. M. (1990). Indicators of science achievement: Options for a powerful policy instrument. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 692-697.
Webb, N. M. (1992). Assessment of Student’s knowledge of Mathematics: steps toward a Theory. In D. A. Grouws (Eds.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.