本研究主要探討，「團體心智圖摘要組」、「團體文字摘要組」、「個人心智圖摘要組」三組學習者透過施予不同的閱讀摘要策略後，在閱讀理解能力：「擷取訊息」、「解釋文本」、「省思與評鑑」三個構面，能夠提昇閱讀理解能力。並進一步探究「團體心智圖摘要組」與「團體文字摘要組」兩組社會互動行為之差異，以及對閱讀理解能力構面得分情形。本研究採實驗研究法之準實驗設計。研究對象為高職三年級，參與「公民與社會」課程的學生，共十個班級272位學生，其中隨機抽取四個班級為「團體心智圖摘要組」、三個班級為「團體文字摘要組」、三個班級為「個人心智圖摘要組」。三組學生皆實施兩個單元的閱讀摘要學習任務而「團體心智圖摘要組」與「團體文字摘要組」並以班級為單位，採異質性分組，分別利用網路通訊軟體進行小組討論，以電腦儲存對話記錄加以分析互動行為及互動組型，分析方法以IBIS((Issue-based informationsystem)之九個指標作為歸納小組討論對話語意，進而歸類本研究之小組討論組型。
本研究結果顯示：
一、 實驗前、後，「團體心智圖摘要組」、「團體文字摘要組」、「個人心智圖摘要組」三組經過不同的閱讀摘要策略後，整體閱讀理解能力皆有提升。
二、 團體討論有助於建構知識經驗並提升閱讀理解能力，尤其在於「省思與評鑑」之閱讀理解構面，「團體心智圖摘要組」優於「團體文字摘要組」。
三、 「Issue」、「Position」、「Argument」之社會互動行為有助於團體討論，並能提升學生閱讀理解能力
四、 社會互動過程中，可歸納合作討論組型為「知識交換分散型」、「知識交換集中型」、「少一或少二」、「團體發展與能力的阻礙」、「部分討論」等五組。
五、 討論組型對閱讀理解能力得分由高到低依序是「知識交換分散型」、「知識交換集中型」、「知識交換部分型」

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate “the cooperative mind mapping summary group " , " co-text summary group " , " personal mind map summary group” of the three groups of learners through different reading summary strategy in reading comprehension: "Retrieve messages"、"Reflection and evaluation"、"retrieve messages"three dimensions of the interpretation of the text which can improve reading comprehension. And further step is to explore the differences of the two groups of social interaction behavior of “cooperative mind mapping the summary of group "and" co-text summary group”, as well as dimensions of reading comprehension score situation.
We used a quasi-experimental design of the experimental method in this study. The objects of study are 272 third grade students attended the "civil society" course involving ten classes in a vocational high school, it is randomly selected four classes for the "group mind maps summary group”, three classes for group text summary group, and the other three classes for "personal mind map summary group.
The three groups of students had read the summary learning tasks which are the implementation of the two units, the "group mind maps summary group" and "group text summary group" are different class as a group, those are adopted heterogeneity in grouping. The Two groups use Internet communications software for group discussion respectively, the dialogue are recorded to store in a computer, and we analyze the interactive behavior and interactive group-type by the nine indicators of IBIS (Issue-based information system), as summarizing group discussion dialogue semantic, and then classified the type of group discussion groups in this study.
The results of this study show:
1.Before and after the experiment, after the "cooperative mind mapping summary group "," cooperation text summary group "," personal mind map summary group "three groups go through reading summary strategy, the overall reading comprehension of all group increased.
2.The panel discussion of social interaction behavior could help construct knowledge experience and improve reading comprehension.
3.In the dimensions of "Reflections evaluation" of reading comprehension, "cooperation Mind Mapping summary group" is better than "the cooperative text summary group" , "cooperative mind mapping the Abstract group" has more text-style of form and more Reflection .
4.Mind Mapping structure chart tool could help communication and discussion in a group, and to enhance the students' interesting as well as higher-level thinking.
5. In social interaction process, the cooperation discussion can be classified into into several different types: "cooperation", "one to many", "less a less" , "zero interaction" , "in three person group, only two to discuss" the five groups .

中文文獻
Buzan, T.（2007）。心智魔法師－大腦使用手冊（陳素宜、孫易新譯）。台北：耶魯國際文化事業公司。（原著出版於2003）
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2007)。心智圖聖經（孫易新譯）。台北：耶魯國際文化事業公司。（原著出版於2004）
Buzan, T(2007)。（孫易新審。補述）全腦式速讀─「心智圖法速讀術」(The Speed Reading Book)。（原著出版於2003）
中山大學網路學習概論（2004）。網路學習概論。2011年10月3日，取自http://cu.nsysu.edu.tw/10001door/book/a04.htm
林淑滿（2009）。以心智圖法融入商職會計教學以提升學習成效之行動研究，國立東華大學教育研究所教育學碩士在職專班碩士論文，花蓮縣。
陳素宜、孫易新(譯)(2007)。(英)Tony Buzan著。心智魔法師。台北:耶魯國際文化事業有限公司。
周倩，孫春在（1996）。遠距合作學習環境之設計與建立：CORAL 經驗。教學科技與媒體，第二十六期，4月號，頁13-21。
孫春在，林珊如（2007）。網路合作學習。台北:心理。
孫易新（2002）。心智圖法基礎篇－多元知識管理系統1。台北：耶魯國際文化事業公司。
孫易新譯（2003）。Vanda North, Tony Buzan著。成功之路心智圖讓你領先群倫(Mind Map Your Way to Success.)。台北，一智。
宋曜廷、黃嶸生、張國恩（2002）。具多重策略的閱讀理解輔助系統之設計與應用。第四屆華人心理學家學術研討會暨第六屆華人心理與行為科際學術研討會。11月9-12。台北。
何琦瑜(2008)。15歲的讀寫能力影響一生發展。親子天下。第1期。臺北:天下雜誌股份有限公司。
柯華葳（2007a）。促進國際閱讀素養研究（PIRLS），行政院國科會專題研究計畫成果報告， NSC 96-2522-S-008-001、-NSC 96-MOE-S-008-002。
柯華葳（2007b）。教出閱讀力。臺北：天下雜誌。
洪碧霞（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。
洪儷瑜（2010）。序：有困難，怎麼辦？。載於王瓊珠、陳淑麗（主編），突破閱讀困難：理念與實務（頁 vii-ix）。臺北市：心理。
連啟舜（2002）。國內閱讀理解教學研究成效之統合分析（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
張新仁（2009）。台灣閱讀摘要研究回顧與前瞻。國科會人文處主辦之「台灣閱讀研究回顧與展望」座談會手冊。
許瑛玿、廖桂菁（2003）。情境式網路學習環境互動行為分析: 以高中地球科學線上學習為例。師大學報。科學教育類， 48(1)， 91-116. （NSC 89-2511-S-003-133）
許瑛玿、廖桂菁（2002）。情境式網路輔助學習環境之研發與實踐。科學教育學刊，10(2)，157-178。（NSC 89-2511-S-003-133）
黃政傑，林佩璇（1996）。合作學習。台北市：五南圖書出版公司。
陳盈濂（2011）鷹架式心智圖教學模式輔助國小學生海洋議題課程學習效益之研究-以港口教學為例，國立臺中教育大學，數位內容科技學系碩士班。
蘇倩慧（2007）。心智繪圖教學融入國小五年級國語文閱讀理解之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。
羅玲妃譯（1997）。心智繪圖思想整合利器，一智出版社，台北市。譯自Tony Buzan,Barry Buzan.（1993），The mind map Book.
羅玲妃譯（1998）。全腦式速讀，一智出版社，台北市。
吳裕聖、曾玉村(通訊作者)（2003）。概念構圖教學策略對小五學生科學文章理解及概念構圖能力之影響，教育研究集刊， 49(1)，頁135-169。（TSSCI）
謝錫金、林偉業、林裕康、羅嘉怡（2005）。《兒童閱讀能力進展》。香港大學出版社，香港。
楊芷芳（1994）。國小不同後設認知能力兒童的閱讀理解能力與閱讀理解策略之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
蔡清田（2010）。課程改革中的「素養」(competence)與「能力」(ability)。教育研究月刊，200，93-104。
臺灣PISA國家研究中心（2006）。〈臺灣參加PISA 2006 成果報告〉。《基隆市閱讀教育電子報》，2011 年 11 月 9 日取自：http://210.240.1.43/~readpaper/index.php?id=241
齊若蘭（2002）。那個國家學生閱讀能力最強？天下雜誌，263，頁52-60。
童志榮（2009）。運用ㄧ對ㄧ數位學習於小組合作概念構圖之研究--以國小六年級社會科單元為例。國立新竹教育大學數位學習科技研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。

英文文獻
Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Bandura, A. (1977).Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). A social cognitive theory of action. In J. P. Forgas & M. J. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: An international perspective (pp. 127-138). North Holland: Elsevier.
Brown , J .S.,Collins ,A.& Duguid , P.(1989) .Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher,18, 32-41.
Buzan. (1991). The Mind Map Book: Mind Mapping Guidelines, Penguin, New York.
Tony Buzan & Barry Buzan, The Mindmap Book, BBC Worldwide Limited,1993.
Buzan, T. (2000). The mind map book. London : BBC.
Conner,J.(2006).Instructional Reading Strategy DR-TA(Directed Reading Thinking Activity).Retrieved December 4, 2008 from http://www.indiana.edu/~l517/DRTA.htm
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston: D.C. Heath.
Dewey, John. (1959). School and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.E., & Pearson, P.D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd. ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading.
Douma, M., & J. Romano. (2009) . Creating online mind maps and concept maps .25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning. August 4-7, 2009. Madison, Wisconsin. http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/09_20011.pdf
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-For-Use: A Framework for the Design of Technology-Supported Inquiry Activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (3), 355-385.
Fosnot, C.T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New York :Teacher college Press.
Fersun paykoc. (2004). The Use of MindMapping as a Brainstorming Exercise.
Forrest-Pressley, D. and Gillies L. (1983) Children's Flexible Use of Strategies During Reading. in Pressley M. and Levin J. (eds) Cognitive Strategy Research: Educational Applications, New York, Springer-Verlag.
Gergen , K.J.(1984) Theory of Self : Inpass and Evohition. In. BerKonitz. L.(Edu) Advances of Experimental Social Psychology (17) . Academic Press , Inc.
Gergen, K. J. (1982). Toward transformation in social knowledge. New York: Spring-Verlag.
Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.
Henri, F. (1991). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najadeen papers (pp. 117-136). London: Springer-Verlag.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Eds.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117-135). Berlin, Springer-Verlag.
Hoadley, C. M. & M. C. Linn (2000) Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the Knowledge Integration Environment." International Journal of Science Education 22(8), 839-857.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T (1988). Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Stanne, M. B., & Garibaldi, A. (1990). Impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative group. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4), 507-516.
John W. Budd., (2004). Mind Maps as Classroom Exercise, Journal of Economic Education.
Kao, G. Y. M.,& Lin, S. S. J., & Sun, C. T. (2008). Beyond sharing: Engaging students in cooperative and competitive active learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 82-96. (SSCI)
Karasavvidis, I., Pieters, J. & Plomp, T. (2000). Investigating how secondary school students learn to solve correlational problems: Quantitative and qualitative discourse approaches to the development of self-regulation. Learning and Instruction 10, 267-292.
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664–687.
King, A. (1994). Guided knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338–368.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Kintsch, W. (2005). An overview of Top-Down and Bottom-Up effects in Comprehension: The CI Perspective. Discourses Processes, 39(2/3), 125-128.
Kaye, A. R. (1992). Collaborative Learning through Computer conferencing. NY: Springer Verlag
Kreijns, Karel, Paul. A. Kirschner, and Wim Jochems (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research, Computers in Human Behavior 19: 335-353.
Lepper, M. R., & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (3), 73-105. San Diego: Academic Press.
Liu, C.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627–639.
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, 18(4), 357-371.
Mercer, N (1994) Neo-Vygotskyan theory and classroom education. In B. Steirer and J. Maybin (eds.), Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 99-110.
Mercer,C.D.＆ Mercer,A.R.（2001）. Teaching students with learning problems（6th）.New York：Macmillan Publishing Company.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three type of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
Novak, J. D. (1990), Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 000(019), 0029-0052.
National Assessment of Educational Progress - NAEP. The Nation's Report Card. Retrieved January 19, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
OECD. (2003). Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow- Further results from PISA 2000. Retrieved May 25, 2011, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/9/33690591.pdf
OECD. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework-Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving knowledge and skills. Retrieved Dec, 12, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/14/33694881.pdf
OECD. (2006). Assessing science, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Retrieved May 25, 2011, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/35/37464175.pdf
Oliver, R., & Omari, A., & Herrington, H. (1998). Exploring student interaction in collaborative WWW computer-based learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(2/3), 263-287.
Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W. & Gay, G. (2001). An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computer-mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 41-68.
Pearson,P.D.,＆ Johnson,D.D.,(1978). Teaching reading comprehension.NY：Holt,Rinehart and Winston.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. (E. Duckworth, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pressley, M. ,Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldric, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989). Strategies that improve children’s memory and comprehension of text. Elementary School Journal, 90, 3-32.
Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 301-342.
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76, 531-557.
Serce, F.C., Swigger, K., Alpaslan, F.N., Brazile, R., Dafoulas, G. And Lopez, V.(2011) Online collaboration: Collaborative behavior patterns and factors affecting globally distributed team performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1),490-503.
Serce, F. C. & Yildirim. S. (2006). A Web-Based Synchronous Collaborative Review Tool: A Case Study of an On-line Graduate Course,Educational Technology & Society, 9 (2), 166-177.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.).Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
Simsek, A. (1993). The effects of learner control and group composition in computer-based cooperative learning. In M.R. Simonson, (ed).Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communication and Technology, 953-90.
Staarman, J. K., Krol, K., & van der Meijden, H. (2005). Peer interaction in three collaborative learning environments. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(1), 29-39.
Stauffer, R. G. (1969).Directing reading maturity as a cognitive process. New York: Harper & Row.
Stauffer, R. G. (1975).Directing the reading-thinking process. New York: Harper & Row.
Van den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. E. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.) Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 1-31). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Van Boxtel, C., Van der Linden, J., and Kanselaar, G. (2000), "Collaborative Learning Tasks and the Elaboration of Conceptual Knowledge," Learning and Instruction, 10, 311-330.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society:The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71,19-32.
Wang, S. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2012). The role of collective efficacy, cognitive quality, and task cohesion in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL).Computers & Education, 58(2), 679-687. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.003
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-Related Verbal Interaction and Mathematics Learning in Small Groups. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22, (5),366-389.