本研究是為了探討透過心智圖進行推測對聽力理解的成效。研究對象來自台灣北部一所大學，有119人在2005年參與第一次的研究；另105人在2006年參與第二次相同步驟且同教材的研究。所有的參與者皆平均分配為三個組別：事先教關鍵字組、透過關鍵字進行推測組及透過心智圖進行推測組。在事先教關鍵字組中，參與者每個人都發給一張講義，上面有關鍵字及中英文解說的例句，老師會講解不會的單字，並帶全班唸講義中的關鍵字跟例句。在透過關鍵字進行推測組中，參與者先分成幾個小組，每個小組都給予一張有關鍵字的講義，而這些關鍵字僅以條列式方式呈現，各組的參與者透過關鍵字對即將要聽的內容進行推測，並將所推測的可能性跟小組員討論。在透過心智圖進行推測組中，參與者先分成幾個小組，每個小組都給予一張有關鍵字的心智圖，也就是關鍵字以心智圖的方式呈現，各組的參與者透過心智圖對即將要聽的內容進行推測，並將所推測的可能性跟小組員討論 。研究者挑選兩篇獨白性的文章做為測試成效的聽力文章，而實驗中使用於三組的關鍵字則是分別從這兩篇文章中選取。兩篇單選題的聽力測驗分別在兩次實驗完後進行施測。結果顯示，透過心智圖進行推測組的學習者可能比透過關鍵字進行推測組或事先教關鍵字組的學習者在聽力理解上效果較為顯著；由其是像第二篇文章裡有較多訊息、較多令人困惑的指涉性詞語(referring expression)，而一方面卻較少能使文章結構更明顯的言談標記(discourse marker)的文章，效果更為顯著。然而本研究的發現僅限於本研究所使用的兩篇文章，為了能確定心智圖的成效，後續的研究應控制好變數，以探討是否使用其他文章也會有其成效。 The study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of making inferences about what to be heard through mind maps on listening comprehension. One hundred and nineteen freshmen at a university in northern Taiwan participated in the first study in 2005; one hundred and five students from the same school were recruited for the replicated study in 2006. Participants either in the first or the replicated study were divided into the three groups: the pre-teaching keyword group, the keyword inference group, and the mind map group. In the pre-teaching keyword group, the subjects were given a handout with the keywords with the explanations as well as the sample sentences both in Chinese and English. The instructor explained the unknown words and led the whole class to read all of the keywords and the sample sentences. In the keyword inference group, subjects were divided into several teams, and they were asked to make inferences about what to be heard through a list of keywords given, and shared their inferences with other teammates. In the mind map group, subjects were divided into several teams, they were asked to make inferences about what to be heard through the teacher-constructed mind maps, and shared their inferences with other teammates. Two monologues were chosen, based on explicitness and directness of the information, for the listening passages to be tested, and the keywords used among the three groups were selected respectively from the two passages. Two multiple-choice comprehension tests were conducted respectively right after the treatments. Results showed that the subjects who made inferences about what to be heard through the mind map may comprehend more than those who received the pre-teaching instruction and those who made inferences through a list of keywords, especially in the second text which contain more messages and confusing referring expressions but less necessary discourse markers to make the text more salient. However, these findings are only limited to these two particular texts used in this research. For confirmation, a bigger study that uses different texts but contains similar elements is needed.