兒童摘要的推論歷程

The inference processes of summarization

10.6251/BEP.201806_49(4).0002

連啓舜(Chi-Shun Lien)；曾玉村(Yuh-tsuen Tzeng)

推論 ； 概括化推論 ； 鉅觀結構 ； 摘要 ； Generalization inference ； Inference ； Macrostructure ； Summarization

教育心理學報

49卷4期（2018 / 06 / 01）

537 - 556

繁體中文

摘要是形成文本表徵的重要基礎（Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978）。讀者若能形成理想的文章摘要，亦即將文章的內容形成「鉅觀結構」（Kintsch, 1998）。讀者依照三個「鉅觀規則」：刪除（deletion）、概括（generalization）和建構（construction）來形成文章的鉅觀結構（van Dijk,1980）。讀者在摘要的歷程中，必須進行文本局部及整體連貫性的推論，「刪除」規則需要讀者將文本與其背景知識整合，以推論文章訊息或概念的重要性，決定這些訊息是否應該保留在摘要中。「概括化」和「建構」兩個規則，需要將相似或相同位階的概念加以整合，以提取上位概念，進而建構出能涵蓋下位概念的「主題句」。本研究將探討摘要的推論歷程進行分析，深入探討讀者在形成摘要時，「刪除」、「概括」和「建構」推論所扮演的角色。研究一的目的是比較國小學童摘要「刪除」、「概括化」和「建構」三種推論能力的發展。我們將四至六年級國小學童依其識字、閱讀能力進行配對，並透過實驗材料的操弄，比較國小學童在摘要歷程中刪除、概括化和建構三種推論發展差異。結果發現「概括化」和「建構」能力是影響摘要表現的重要因素。研究二的目的是探討概括化能力的發展差異以及對學童摘要表現上的影響。分別測量四年級和六年級學童的概括化能力，進而分析概括化能力與閱讀理解對說明文摘要表現之影響。結果發現概括化推論能力有發展上的差異，概括化能力可以有效地預測四年級學童之摘要表現。

The ability of summarization is an important indicator of textbase understanding. Readers who are able to write an ideal summary of text can build up the macrostructure of text and extract the literal meaning from the text (Kintsch, 1998). A lot of local and global inferences were needed for macrostructure. Readers employ the three macro-rules during reading: First, readers delete both redundant and trivial information from the text. In order to do so, readers read text elements sequentially and decide the importance for each element on inclusion or deletion by their background knowledge. After deletion procedure, readers generalize related or similar concepts/sentences and construct superoridinate terms as substitutes. In this paper, two studies were presented to show how these inferences affected the construction of summary. In the first study, the purpose was to investigate the development of there types of inferences during summarization (i.e., deletion, generalization and construction). Fifty-three fourth graders, 55 fifth graders and 56 sixth graders were recruited from an elementary school in Chia-Yi City. Three versions of experimental texts, which were created to examine deletion, generalization, and construction inference-making abilities respectively, were given to participants for writing 60-words summaries. There was a significant developmental difference between fourth and sixth graders on the performance of generalization. Then, we selected low-ability participants from the 6th grade level and matched their word-recognition and reading-comprehension scores with participants on 4th grade. The result showed that there was a reliable difference between the low-ability group and the comprehension-match group. In the second study, the purpose was to examine how generalization inference affected children's summarization. Sixty-five fourth graders and 53 sixth graders were recruited from an elementary school in Yunlin County. All participants were administered the Reading Comprehension growth Test, the generalization test, and the expository summarization assessment. The results showed that there was significant developmental difference on the performance of generalization inference. In addition, the generalization inference reliably predicted the performance of summarization for the fourth graders.

1. 陳明蕾、王學誠、柯華葳(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)，415-435。
   連結：
2. (1993)。國民小學國語科教材教法研究。台灣省國民學校教師研究會=National Academy for Educational Research。
3. Alterman, R.,Bookman, L. A.(1990).Some computational experiments in summarization.Discourse Processes,13,143-174.
4. Anderson, R. C.(Ed.),Spiro, R.(Ed.),Montague, W.(Ed.)(1977).Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
5. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6. Brown, A. L.,Day, J. D.(1983).Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,22,1-14.
7. Brown, A. L.,Day, J. D.,Jones, R. S.(1983).The development of plans for summarizing texts.Child Development,54,968-979.
8. Gernsbacher, M. A.(Ed.)(1994).Handbook of psycholinguistics.San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
9. Graesser, A. C.,Millis, K. K.,Zwaan, R. A.(1997).Discourse comprehension.Annual Review of Psychology,48,163-189.
10. Graesser, A. C.,Singer, M.,Trabasso, T.(1994).Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension.Psychological Review,101,371-395.
11. Hulme, C.(Ed.),Joshi, R. M.(Ed.)(1998).Reading and spelling: Development and disorders.New Jersey, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Kintsch, E.(1990).Macroprocesses and microprocesses in the development of summarization skill.Cognition and Instruction,7,161-195.
13. Kintsch, W.(1988).The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehension: A Construction-Integration Model.Psychological Review,95,163-182.
14. Kintsch, W.(1994).Text comprehension, memory, and learning.American Psychologist,49,294-303.
15. Kintsch, W.(1998).Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.
16. Kintsch, W.(1993).Information accretion and reduction in text processing: inferences.Discourse Processes,16,193-202.
17. Kintsch, W.,Van Dijk, T. A.(1978).Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review,85(5),363-394.
18. Landauer, T. K.,Foltz, P. W.,Laham, D.(1998).An introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis.Discourse Processes,25,259-284.
19. Leslie, L.,Caldwell, J.(1995).Qualitative Reading Inventory.New York:Harper Collins College Publishers.
20. Lien, C. S.,Chen, H. H.(2012).Assessment of children's summarization ability: An alternative measure of reading comprehension.Cognitive Science Society 2012 Annual Meeting,Sapporo, Japan:
21. Lien, C. S.,Tseng, Y. C.,Tzeng, Y. T.(2015).Prediction of children's summarization abilities: Relative contribution of inference, generalization, working memory and other cognitive skills.Society for the Scientific Study of Reading 2015 Annual Meeting,Hawaii, USA.:
22. Lorch, R. F., Jr.,Lorch, E.,Ritchey, K.,McGovern, L.,Coleman, D.(2001).Effects of headings on text summarization.Contemporary Educational Psychology,26(2),171-191.
23. Lorch, R. F.,van den Broek, P. W.(1997).Understanding reading comprehension: Current and future contributions of cognitive science.Contemporary Educational Psychology,22,213-246.
24. Magliano, J. P.,Trabasso, T.,Graesser, A. C.(1999).Strategic processing during comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology,91,615-629.
25. McKoon, G.,Ratcliff, R.(1992).In ference during reading.Psychological Review,99,440-466.
26. Morrison, F. J.(Ed.),Lord, C.(Ed.),Keating, D.(Ed.)(1985).Applied developmental psychology.San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
27. Radev, D. R.,Hovy, E.,McKeown, K.(2002).Introduction to the special issue on summarization.Computational Linguistics,28(4),399-408.
28. Ritchey, K. A.(2011).How generalization inferences are constructed in expository text comprehension.Contemporary Educational Psychology,36,280-288.
29. Snow, C. E.(2002).Reading for Understanding: Toward a Research and Development Program in Reading Comprehension.Santa Monica, CA:RAND.
30. van Dijk T. A.(1980).Macrostructures: an interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. van Dijk, T. A.,Kintsch, W.(1983).Strategies of Discourse Comprehension.New York:Academic Press.
32. 林幸台、吳武典、王振德、蔡崇迷、郭靜姿、胡心慈(2000)。綜合心理能力測驗。台北=Taipei, Taiwan:心理出版社=Psychology Press。
33. 柯華葳(1999)。閱讀理解困難篩選測驗。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:行政院國家科學委員會特殊教育工作小組=Special Education Unit, National Science Council。
34. 連啟舜、林小慧、林心韻、曾玉村、簡馨瑩(2014)。摘要歷程中概念歸納能力測驗之編製。第十一屆海峽兩岸心理與教育測驗學術研討會，台中=Taichung, Taiwan:
35. 連啟舜、陳弘輝、曾玉村(2016)。閱讀摘要歷程探究及閱讀理解歷程評量。教育心理學報，48(2)，133-158。
36. 陳榮華、陳心怡(2007)。魏氏兒童智力量表。臺北=Taipei:中國行為科學社=Chinese Behavioral Science Corporation。
37. 黃秀霜(1996)。中文年級認字量表。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychology Press。
38. 蘇宜芬、洪儷瑜、陳心怡、陳伯熹(2015)。閱讀理解成長測驗。臺北=Taipei:中國行為科學社=Chinese Behavioral Science Corporation。

1. 蔡玲婉(Ling-Wan Tsai)(2021)。國語科改編課文的使用與理解－以〈憨孫耶，好去睏啊！〉的教學為例。教科書研究。14(3)。1-42。