一、 中文資料
王宣惠、洪儷瑜與辜玉旻（2012）。小學中年級學童詞素覺識與閱讀
理解之相關研究。當代教育研究季刊，20(1)，123-164。
王瓊珠（2010）。故事結構教學與分享閱讀(第二版)。臺北市：心理。
孔淑萱、吳昭容、蘇宜芬與洪儷瑜（2013）。偏遠地區漢族與泰雅族
國中生識讀能力及相關因素的探討。教育心理學報，44(S)，
561-578。
宋曜廷、陳茹玲、李宜憲、查日龢、曾厚強、李維駿、張道行與張國
恩（2012）。中文文本可讀性探討：指標選取、模型建立與效度
驗證。中華心理學刊，55(1)，75-106。
沈欣怡與蘇宜芬（2011）。推論性問題引導課程對國小四年級學童推
論理解與閱讀理解能力之影響。教育心理學報，43，337-356。
林怡君、張麗麗與陸怡琮（2013）。Rasch模式建置國小高年級閱讀
理解測驗。教育心理學報，45(1)，39-61。
林寶貴與錡寶香（2000）。中文閱讀理解測驗之編製。特殊教育研究
學刊，19，79－104。
柯華葳與陳冠銘（2004）。文章結構標示與閱讀理解-以低年級為例。
教育心理學報，36(2)，185-200。
柯華葳、陳明蕾與廖家寧（2005）。詞頻、詞彙類型與眼球運動型態：
來自篇章閱讀的證據。中華心理學刊，47(4)，381-398。
郭生玉（2004）。教育測驗與評量。臺北市：精華。
連啟舜（2013）。文章連貫性、閱讀能力與兒童科學理解表徵之研究。
教育心理學報，44(4)，875-904。
葉玉珠（2003a）。批判思考測驗－第一級指導手冊。臺北市：心理。
葉玉珠（2003b）。智能與批判思考。載於葉玉珠、高源令、修蕙蘭、曾惠敏、王佩玲、陳惠萍（合著），教育心理學（頁345-388）。臺北
市：心理。
張玉燕（2004）。批判思考與語文教學。課程與教學季刊，7(2)，41-
55。
陳偉民（譯）（2011）。Nick Arnold原著。神奇酷科學4：動物的狩
獵絕招。臺北市：小天下。
陳綱佩、張寶芳與洪瑞雲（2007）。科學報導的閱讀理解與隱喻的角色。中華傳播學刊，11，71-109。
黃友亭與辜玉旻（2013）。結合自我解釋的閱讀策略教學對國小學童閱
讀理解之影響。課程與教學，16(2)，135-159。
劉嘉茹與侯依伶（2011）。以眼動追蹤技術探討先備知識對科學圖形理
解的影響。教育心理學報，43，227-250。
二、英文資料
Baker, L., & Anderson, R. J. (1982). Effects of
inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence
for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research
Quarterly, 17, 281-294.
Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J-F., Nicolas, V. M., & Britt,
M. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in
text comprehension. Memory Cognition, 40,450-465.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. (1999). The relation
between assessment practices and outcome of studies:
The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of
Educational of Research, 69(2), 145-186.
Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (1991). The
representation of fictional information.
Psychological Science, 2(5), 336-340.
Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990).
Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the
rejection of false information.Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology, 59(4), 601-613.
Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993).
You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 65(2), 221-233.
Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997).
Discourse comprehension. Annual Reviews in
Psychology, 48, 163–189.
Gunning, T. G. (1996). Creating reading instruction for
all children. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kendeou, P., Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2003). The
influence of reader’s prior knowledge on text
comprehension and learning from text. In R. Nata
(Ed.), Progress in education (Vol. 13, pp. 189–
209). New York: Nova Science.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and
learning. American Psychology, 49, 294-303.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for
cognition. Cambrige, UK: Cambrige University Press.
Ku, K. Y. L. & Ho, I. T. (2014). Metacognitive strategies
that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition
Learning, 5, 251–267.
Lin, S. S. (2014). Science and non-science undergraduate
students’ critical thinking and argumentation
performance in reading a science news report.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 12, 1023-1046.
Long, D. L., & Lea, R. B. (2005). Have we been searching
for meaning in all the wrong places? Defining the
“search after meaning” principle in comprehension.
Discourse Processes, 39(2 & 3), 279–298.
Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in
developing critical thinking. Metacognition Learning,
5, 137–156.Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2006).
Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in
reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory &
Cognition, 34(5), 1140-1149.
Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L., III
(2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of
Memory & Language, 49, 519-536.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch,
W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interaction
of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels
of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and
Instruction, 14(1), 1-43.
O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the
reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for
strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse
Processes, 43(2), 121-152.
Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect
contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus
what they read. Psycholigical Science, 3(4), 229-235.
Rapp, D. N. (2008). How do readers handle incorrect
information during comprehension? Memory & Cognition,
36(3), 688-701.
Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic text
comprehension: An integrative view of reading.
Current Direction in Psychological Science, 14(5),
276-279.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing
metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 19, 460–475.
Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a
subject variable may change outcomes of learning
research. American Educational Research Journal, 46,
107-117.
Sparks, J. R. (2012). Language/discourse comprehension
and understanding. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of the learning sciences (pp. 1713-1717). New York:
Springer.
Sparks, J. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2010). Discourse
processing- examining our everyday language
experiences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Cognitive Science, 1(3), 371-381.
Sparks, J. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Readers’ reliance on
source credibility in the service of comprehension.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 37(1), 230-247.
Tarchi, C. (2010). Reading comprehension of informative
texts in secondary school: A focus on direct and
indirect effects of reader’s prior knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 415-420.
Tsai, P. Y., Chen, S., Chang, H. P., & Chang, W. H.
(2013). Effects of prompting critical reading of
science news on seventh graders’ cognitive
achievement. International Journal of Environmental &
Science Education, 8(1), 85-107.
van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005).
Integrating memory-based and constructionist
processes in accounts of reading comprehension.
Discourse Processes, 39(2 & 3), 299–316.
van den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R., &
Thurlow, R. (1996). A “Lanscape” view of reading:
Fluctuating patterns of activation and the
construction of a stable memory representation. In B.
K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of
understanding texts (pp. 165-187). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T.
(1999). The landscape model of reading. In H. van
Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction
of mental representations during reading (pp. 71-98).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of
discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Weaver, III, C. A., Bryant, D. S., & Burns, K. D. (1995).
Comprehension monitoring: Extensions of the Kintsch
and van Dijk model. In C. A. Weaver III, S. Mannes, &
C. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension:
Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 177-193).
Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
Wolf, W., King, M. L., & Huck, C. S.(1968). Teaching
critical reading to elementary school children.
Reading Research Quarterly, 3(4), 435-498.
Zwaan, R. A., & Singer, M. (2003). Text comprehension. In
A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher & S. R. Goldman
(Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 83-121).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.