1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. 文學院
  4. 學位論文
  5. Item

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

題名 閱讀認知策略鷹架對於國中生英語閱讀理解成效之影響研究
The effects of the cognitive reading strategy scaffold on junior high school students’ reading comprehension
作者 林美秀
Lin, Mei Hsiu
貢獻者 陳志銘
Chen, Chih Ming
林美秀
Lin, Mei Hsiu
關鍵詞 英語閱讀理解成效
閱讀認知策略
交互教學法
合作式數位閱讀標註系統
English reading comprehension
cognitive reading strategies
reciprocal teaching
Collaborative Digital Reading Annotation System
日期 2016
上傳時間 1-七月-2016 15:09:51 (UTC+8)
摘要 隨著資訊社會的來臨，數位文本逐漸普及，數位閱讀已成為閱讀的主要發展趨勢。相較於傳統偏向於線性閱讀的紙本閱讀模式，在閱讀過程中常以非線性進行閱讀的數位閱讀必須要有適當的輔助閱讀策略或機制，方能改善淺層閱讀，以及無法長期持續閱讀的問題。換言之，為提昇讀者在數位閱讀環境中的閱讀理解和成效，數位文本需要設計更有效的輔助閱讀機制來引導讀者進行更有效的閱讀學習，而發展高層次的閱讀認知策略鷹架輔以閱讀，為一可行的發展方向。
基於上述原因，本研究在「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」輔以數位閱讀的環境中發展閱讀認知策略鷹架，並與沒有結合此鷹架的「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」進行比較，以驗證有採用閱讀認知策略鷹架的實驗組學習者，是否在英語閱讀理解成效、科技接受度及學習滿意度上優於沒有採用閱讀認知策略鷹架的控制組學習者。也進一步探討「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」輔以所結合的閱讀認知策略鷹架對於場地獨立與場地依賴不同認知風格、以及高低不同英語起始能力者在英語閱讀理解成效、科技接受度及學習滿意度的影響。
實驗結果發現，在使用「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」之學習情境下，採用閱讀認知策略鷹架之實驗組學習者的閱讀理解成效、平台瀏覽次數以及各類型策略標註數量皆優於控制組學習者；並且場地相依型學習者的閱讀理解進步分數優於場地獨立型學習者。也就是本研究在「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」所發展的閱讀認知策略鷹架能有效協助學習者提升其閱讀理解成效，特別是場地相依型認知風格的學習者。另外，無論是對高分、中間、或低分組的學習者而言，採用閱讀認知策略鷹架之英語閱讀理解成效皆優於沒有採用閱讀認知策略鷹架；最後也發現認知有用性、認知易用性及學習滿意度三者之間具有顯著關連性。
With the coming of the Information Age, digital texts are getting more and more popular. Compared to the traditional paper-based reading, nonlinear digital reading requires proper strategies or mechanism to help improve the shallow reading and short-term retention, which have been reported as the main disadvantages of digital reading. In other words, readers need inferential reasoning and comprehension monitoring strategies in order to keep concentration while reading digital texts.
A scaffold of cognitive reading strategies, therefore, was developed and combined into Collaborative Digital Reading Annotation System (CDRS) in this study. It aimed to confirm whether the learners in the experimental group with the scaffold of cognitive reading strategies support outperformed the learners in the control group without the scaffold of cognitive reading strategies support on English reading comprehension, technology acceptance degree, and learning satisfaction. Furthermore, this study also examined the effects of distinct cognitive styles of field independence and field dependence and learning capability between both groups on English reading comprehension, technology acceptance degree, and learning satisfaction.
The experimental results present the following findings. First, the learners in the experimental group applying CDRS with the scaffold of cognitive reading strategies outperformed the learners in the control group using CDRS without the scaffold of cognitive reading strategies on English reading comprehension, platform views and annotation numbers of four different cognitive strategies. Besides, while reading by CDRS combined with the scaffold of cognitive reading strategies, the field-dependent learners significantly outperformed the field-independent ones on reading comprehension gain. Moreover, the learners in the experimental group, either with high, medium or low learning capability, remarkably outperformed the ones in the control group on English reading comprehension. Finally, significant correlations among perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and learning satisfaction in both groups were found.
參考文獻 中文文獻
王美珍（2014）。台灣數位閱讀趨勢。遠見雜誌，340，頁 203-207。
台灣數位出版聯盟（2012）。 台灣數位閱讀行為調查研究問卷結果報告。檢索自 http://www.dpublishing.org.tw/2012/07/2012.html
沈翠蓮（2015）。教學原理與設計。台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
吳裕益 （1987）。 認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。
林巧敏 （2009）。 推動國中小學童數位閱讀計畫之探討。台灣圖書館管理季刊， 5（2），頁 49-67。
林宓（2014）。基於腦波注意力發展數位筆結合紙本學習情境之英語診斷複習系統。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系，台北市。
林思燕（2007）。交互教學法對台灣國中生英文閱讀能力與後設認知之效益。國立政治大學英語教學碩士在職專班，台北市。
林珊如 （2010）。 數位時代的閱讀: 青少年網路閱讀的爭議與未來。圖書資訊學刊， 8。
林淑惠（2006）。國小學習障礙學生在網路閱讀與紙本閱讀之閱讀理解、行為、介面、策略偏好之研究。國立新竹教育大學特殊教育學系碩士班，新竹市。
林雅婷（2012）。標註系統輔助提昇文言文閱讀學習成效之研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班，台北。
柯華葳、幸曼玲、陸怡琮、辜玉旻（2010）。閱讀理解策略教學手冊。臺北市：教育部。
紀淑雲 (2011)。 問題答案關係策略對國小三年級學生在社會學習領域閱讀理解之行動研究。中原大學教育研究所，桃園。.
國中教育會考推動工作委員會（2015）。 104年國中教育會考試題說明。檢索自 http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/exam/104/104P_Description.pdf
國家發展委員會（2014）。 103年個人/家戶數位機會調查報告。檢索自 http://ws.ndc.gov.tw/001/administrator/10/relfile/0/1000/1-1.103個人家戶數位機會調查報告.pdf
張佑昆（2015）。國民小學影響數位閱讀學習品質相關因素之探討研究。國立屏東大學教育行政研究所，屏東縣。
張怡婷（2005）。個人認知風格、班級閱讀環境與國小高年級學童閱讀行為之相關研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所。
教育部國民及學前教育署（2008）。 97年國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。檢索自 http://www.k12ea.gov.tw/ap/sid17_law.aspx
郭生玉（1998）。心理與教育測驗。台北：精華書局。
陳芳雅（2012）。不同合作模式對國小學童閱讀學習影響之研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班，台北市。
陳勇汀（2011）。合作式閱讀標註之知識萃取機制研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所，台北。
黃馨週 （2009）。 Reading on the Internet: A Case Study[網路閱讀之個案研究]。英語教學期刊， 33（2），頁 45-93。
廖晉斌（2004）。國文閱讀理解策略教學對增進國中生閱讀理解能力、閱讀策略運用及學業成就效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系，彰化縣。
趙崇凱（2009）。提升閱讀理解能力之線上互惠式教學。國立雲林科技大學資訊工程研究所，雲林縣。

英文文獻
Adler, M. J., & Van Doren, C. (2014). How to read a book: the classic guide to intelligent reading: Simon and Schuster.
Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 309-332.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, clicking, and reading English: Online reading strategies in a second/foreign language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3). 1-33.
Auerbach, E. R., & Paxton, D. (1997). “It`s not the English thing”: Bringing reading research into the ESL classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 31(2), 237-261.
Birkerts, S. (2006). The Gutenberg elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age: Macmillan.
Bounie, D., Eang, B., Sirbu, M., & Waelbroeck, P. (2012). Superstars and outsiders in online markets: An empirical analysis of electronic books. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(1), 52-59. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2012.11.004
Boyle, J. R. (1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(2), 86-98.
Brown, G. J. (2001). Beyond print: reading digitally. Library Hi Tech, 19(4), 390-399.
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. NJ:Transaction.
Carr, N. (2011). The Shallows: How the Internet is changing the way we think, read and remember: Atlantic.
Carter, C. J. (1997). Why reciprocal teaching? Educational leadership, 54, 64-69.
Casanave, C. P. (1988). Comprehension monitoring in ESL reading: A neglected essential. Tesol Quarterly, 22(2), 283-302.
Chen, C.-M., & Chen, F.-Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77, 67-81. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010
Chen, C.-M., Wang, J.-Y., & Chen, Y.-C. (2013). Facilitating English-language reading performance by a digital reading annotation system with self-regulated learning mechanisms. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 102-114.
Chen, C.-M., Wang, J.-Y., Chen, Y.-T., & Wu, J.-H. (2014). Forecasting reading anxiety for promoting English-language reading performance based on reading annotation behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-25.
Chen, C.-M., WANG, M., Tsay, M., Zhang, D., & Chen, Y. (2008). Developing a Taiwan library history digital library with reader knowledge archiving and sharing mechanisms based on the DSpace platform. Paper presented at the International Coference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries.
Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational leadership, 63(2), 30-35.
Davies, P., & Pearse, E. (2000). Success in English teaching: a complete introduction to teaching English at secondary school level and above. Oxford University Press.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Davis, J. R., & Huttenlocher, D. P. (1995). Shared annotation for cooperative learning. Paper presented at the CSCL `95 The first international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning, Hillsdale, NJ, USA.
Dole, J. A., & et al. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd. ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practice for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Elshair, H. M. (2002). The strategies used by students to read educational websites and their relation to website usability and text design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Estellés, E., Moral, E., & González, F. (2010). Social bookmarking tools as facilitators of learning and research collaborative processes: the Diigo case. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 6(2010), 175-191.
Evans, C., Waring, M., Zhang, L., Sternberg, R., & Rayner, S. (2011). Applications of styles in educational instruction and assessment. Handbook of Intellectual Styles: preferences in Cognition, Learning and Thinking, 295-327.
Fatemi, A. H., Vahedi, V. S., & Seyyedrezaie, Z. S. (2014). The effects of top-down/bottom-up processing and field-dependent/field-independent cognitive style on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(4), 686-693.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading , Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.
Foltz, P. W. (1992). Readers` comprehension and strategies in linear text and hypertext. Citeseer.
Fung, I. Y., Wilkinson, I. A., & Moore, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL students’ comprehension of English expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13(1), 1-31.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York: HarperCollins College Publisher.
Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension: Ablex Publishing.
Ghonsooly, B., & Eghtesadee, A. R. (2006). Role of cognitive style of field-dependence/independence in using metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies by a group of skilled and novice Iranian students of English literature. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(4), 119-150.
Gomita. (2008). ScrapBook. Retrieved from https://addons.mozilla.org/zh-TW/firefox/ addon/scrapbook/
Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2004). On being dependent or independent in computer based learning environments. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 7(2), n2.
Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects for postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of educational psychology, 90(4), 670-681.
Healy, J. M. (1990). Endangered minds: Why children don`t think. NY: Simon and Schuster.
Hoff, C., Wehling, U., & Rothkugel, S. (2009). From paper-and-pen annotations to artefact-based mobile learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 219-237. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00297.x
Huang, W.-C. (2014). The effects of multimedia annotation and summary writing on Taiwanese EFL students` reading comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 14(1), 136-153.
Hwang, W.-Y., Wang, C.-Y., & Sharples, M. (2005). A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials. Computers & Education, 48(4), 680-699. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.020
Jan, J.-C., Chen, C.-M., & Huang, P.-H. (2015). Enhancement of digital reading performance by using a novel web-based collaborative reading annotation system with two quality annotation filtering mechanisms. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.09.006
Jeong, H. (2012). A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The Electronic Library, 30(3), 390-408.
Kelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 53-61.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 275-293.
Koivunen, M.-R. (2005). Annotea and semantic web supported collaboration. Paper presented at the Invited talk at Workshop on User Aspects of the Semantic Web (User-SWeb) at European Semantic Web Conference.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 40(3), 191-204.
Leung, L. (2004). Net-generation attributes and seductive properties of the Internet as predictors of online activities and Internet addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 333-348.
Liaw, S.-S., & Huang, H.-M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 14-24.
Liu, M., & Reed, W. M. (1995). The relationship between the learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia environment. Computers in human behavior, 10(4), 419-434.
Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of documentation, 61(6), 700-712.
Lu, J., & Deng, L. (2013). Examning students` use of online annotation tools in support of argumentative reading. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 161-171.
Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 469-484.
Marshall, C. C. (1997). Annotation: from paper books to the digital library. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on Digital libraries.
Marshall, C. C. (1998). Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ninth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia: links, objects, time and space-structure in hypermedia systems, New York.
Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S. Messick(Ed.), Individuality in learning(pp.4-22). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32(3), 379-394.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students` metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of educational psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Nor, N. F. M., Azman, H., & Hamat, A. (2013). Investigating students` use of online annotation tool in an online reading environment. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(3), 87-101.
O`hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1997). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems.
Olsen, D. R. J., Taufer, T., & Fails, J. A. (2004). ScreenCrayons: annotating anything. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House Publishers.
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction,1, 117-175.
Padrón, Y. N. (1992). The effect of strategy instruction on bilingual students` cognitive strategy use in reading. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(3-4), 35-51.
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children`s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child development, 2083-2093.
Porter-O`Donnell, C. (2004). Beyong the yellow highlighter: Teaching annotation skills to improve reading comprehension. English Journal, 93(5), 82-89.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading: Routledge.
Reinking, D., & Schreiner, R. (1985). The effects of computer-mediated text on measures of reading comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 536-552.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—an overview and integration. Educational psychology, 11(3-4), 193-215.
Rittschof, K. (2010). Field dependence–independence as visuospatial and executive functioning in working memory: implications for instructional systems design and research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(1), 99-114. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9093-6
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.
Rubin, J. (1975) What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.
Schilit, B. (1999). Why E-read? Finding opportunities in the merger of paper and computers. The Future of Print Media. Retrieved from http://www.futureprint. kent.edu/articles/schilit01.htm
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
Slavin, R. E., & Davis, N. (2006). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Song, M.-j. (1998). Teaching reading strategies in an ongoing EFL university reading classroom. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8(1), 41-54.
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students` reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272-286.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 32-71.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Thinking styles: Cambridge University Press.
Su, A. Y. S., Yang, S. J. H., Hwang, W.-Y., & Zhang, J. (2010). A Web 2.0-based collaborative annotation system for enhancing knowledge sharing in collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(2), 752-766. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.008
Swaffar, J. K., Arens, K., & Byrnes, H. (1991). Reading for meaning: An integrated approach to language learning: Pearson College Division.
Teufel, S., Carletta, J., & Moens, M. (1999). An annotation scheme for discourse-level argumentation in research articles. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ninth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Vernon, R. F. (2006). Teaching notes: paper or pixels? An inquiry into how students adapt to online textbooks. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 417-427.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes: Harvard university press.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. doi: 10.2307/1169967
Wolfe, J. (2002). Annotation technologies: A software and research review. Computers & Composition, 19(4), 471-497.
Yaghoubi, R. (1994). The relationship between field-independent/field-dependent cognitive style Persian students and their English language proficiency. Unpublished master’s thesis, Allameh Tabatabaii University, Iran.
Yang, Y.-F. (2010). Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning system for college remedial reading instruction. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1193-1201.
Yee, K.-P. (2002). CritLink: Advanced hyperlinks enable public annotation on the web. Demonstration abstract. In: ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW). 
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班
103913007
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103913007
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 陳志銘zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chen, Chih Mingen_US
dc.contributor.author (作者) 林美秀zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Lin, Mei Hsiuen_US
dc.creator (作者) 林美秀zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Lin, Mei Hsiuen_US
dc.date (日期) 2016en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-七月-2016 15:09:51 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-七月-2016 15:09:51 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-七月-2016 15:09:51 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0103913007en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/98610-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 103913007zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著資訊社會的來臨，數位文本逐漸普及，數位閱讀已成為閱讀的主要發展趨勢。相較於傳統偏向於線性閱讀的紙本閱讀模式，在閱讀過程中常以非線性進行閱讀的數位閱讀必須要有適當的輔助閱讀策略或機制，方能改善淺層閱讀，以及無法長期持續閱讀的問題。換言之，為提昇讀者在數位閱讀環境中的閱讀理解和成效，數位文本需要設計更有效的輔助閱讀機制來引導讀者進行更有效的閱讀學習，而發展高層次的閱讀認知策略鷹架輔以閱讀，為一可行的發展方向。
基於上述原因，本研究在「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」輔以數位閱讀的環境中發展閱讀認知策略鷹架，並與沒有結合此鷹架的「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」進行比較，以驗證有採用閱讀認知策略鷹架的實驗組學習者，是否在英語閱讀理解成效、科技接受度及學習滿意度上優於沒有採用閱讀認知策略鷹架的控制組學習者。也進一步探討「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」輔以所結合的閱讀認知策略鷹架對於場地獨立與場地依賴不同認知風格、以及高低不同英語起始能力者在英語閱讀理解成效、科技接受度及學習滿意度的影響。
實驗結果發現，在使用「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」之學習情境下，採用閱讀認知策略鷹架之實驗組學習者的閱讀理解成效、平台瀏覽次數以及各類型策略標註數量皆優於控制組學習者；並且場地相依型學習者的閱讀理解進步分數優於場地獨立型學習者。也就是本研究在「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」所發展的閱讀認知策略鷹架能有效協助學習者提升其閱讀理解成效，特別是場地相依型認知風格的學習者。另外，無論是對高分、中間、或低分組的學習者而言，採用閱讀認知策略鷹架之英語閱讀理解成效皆優於沒有採用閱讀認知策略鷹架；最後也發現認知有用性、認知易用性及學習滿意度三者之間具有顯著關連性。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) With the coming of the Information Age, digital texts are getting more and more popular. Compared to the traditional paper-based reading, nonlinear digital reading requires proper strategies or mechanism to help improve the shallow reading and short-term retention, which have been reported as the main disadvantages of digital reading. In other words, readers need inferential reasoning and comprehension monitoring strategies in order to keep concentration while reading digital texts.
A scaffold of cognitive reading strategies, therefore, was developed and combined into Collaborative Digital Reading Annotation System (CDRS) in this study. It aimed to confirm whether the learners in the experimental group with the scaffold of cognitive reading strategies support outperformed the learners in the control group without the scaffold of cognitive reading strategies support on English reading comprehension, technology acceptance degree, and learning satisfaction. Furthermore, this study also examined the effects of distinct cognitive styles of field independence and field dependence and learning capability between both groups on English reading comprehension, technology acceptance degree, and learning satisfaction.
The experimental results present the following findings. First, the learners in the experimental group applying CDRS with the scaffold of cognitive reading strategies outperformed the learners in the control group using CDRS without the scaffold of cognitive reading strategies on English reading comprehension, platform views and annotation numbers of four different cognitive strategies. Besides, while reading by CDRS combined with the scaffold of cognitive reading strategies, the field-dependent learners significantly outperformed the field-independent ones on reading comprehension gain. Moreover, the learners in the experimental group, either with high, medium or low learning capability, remarkably outperformed the ones in the control group on English reading comprehension. Finally, significant correlations among perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and learning satisfaction in both groups were found.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究問題 5
第四節 研究範圍與限制7
第五節 名詞解釋 8
第二章 文獻探討 10
第一節 數位閱讀與標註學習 10
第二節 認知策略與第二語言閱讀 18
第三節 認知風格與閱讀行為 30
第四節 科技接受模式與資訊融入教學 34
第三章 研究方法 37
第一節 研究架構 37
第二節 實驗對象 40
第三節 研究工具 41
第四節 實驗流程 54
第五節 資料分析方法 57
第四章 實驗結果分析 60
第一節 研究對象基本資料分析 60
第二節 兩組學習者之英語閱讀理解成效、科技接受度與學習滿意度差異分析63
第三節 兩組不同認知風格學習者之英語閱讀理解成效、科技接受度、與學習滿意度差異分析 66
第四節 兩組不同英語起始能力學習者之英語閱讀理解成效、科技接受度與學習滿意度差異分析73
第五節 兩組學習者之英語閱讀理解成效、科技接受度與學習滿意度相關分析85
第六節 兩組學習者平台瀏覽次數與各類型策略標註數量之差異分析 87
第七節 討論 94
第五章 結論與建議 102
第一節 結論 102
第二節 教學實施建議 108
第三節 未來研究方向 109
參考文獻 111
附錄 119
附錄一 英語閱讀文本 119
附錄二 英語閱讀理解測驗 121
附錄三 科技接受度及學習滿意度綜合問卷 124
附錄四 團體嵌圖測驗使用同意書 126
附錄五 團體嵌圖測驗 127		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 11294873 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103913007en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 英語閱讀理解成效zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 閱讀認知策略zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 交互教學法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合作式數位閱讀標註系統zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) English reading comprehensionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) cognitive reading strategiesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) reciprocal teachingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Collaborative Digital Reading Annotation Systemen_US
dc.title (題名) 閱讀認知策略鷹架對於國中生英語閱讀理解成效之影響研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The effects of the cognitive reading strategy scaffold on junior high school students’ reading comprehensionen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻
王美珍（2014）。台灣數位閱讀趨勢。遠見雜誌，340，頁 203-207。
台灣數位出版聯盟（2012）。 台灣數位閱讀行為調查研究問卷結果報告。檢索自 http://www.dpublishing.org.tw/2012/07/2012.html
沈翠蓮（2015）。教學原理與設計。台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
吳裕益 （1987）。 認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。
林巧敏 （2009）。 推動國中小學童數位閱讀計畫之探討。台灣圖書館管理季刊， 5（2），頁 49-67。
林宓（2014）。基於腦波注意力發展數位筆結合紙本學習情境之英語診斷複習系統。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系，台北市。
林思燕（2007）。交互教學法對台灣國中生英文閱讀能力與後設認知之效益。國立政治大學英語教學碩士在職專班，台北市。
林珊如 （2010）。 數位時代的閱讀: 青少年網路閱讀的爭議與未來。圖書資訊學刊， 8。
林淑惠（2006）。國小學習障礙學生在網路閱讀與紙本閱讀之閱讀理解、行為、介面、策略偏好之研究。國立新竹教育大學特殊教育學系碩士班，新竹市。
林雅婷（2012）。標註系統輔助提昇文言文閱讀學習成效之研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班，台北。
柯華葳、幸曼玲、陸怡琮、辜玉旻（2010）。閱讀理解策略教學手冊。臺北市：教育部。
紀淑雲 (2011)。 問題答案關係策略對國小三年級學生在社會學習領域閱讀理解之行動研究。中原大學教育研究所，桃園。.
國中教育會考推動工作委員會（2015）。 104年國中教育會考試題說明。檢索自 http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/exam/104/104P_Description.pdf
國家發展委員會（2014）。 103年個人/家戶數位機會調查報告。檢索自 http://ws.ndc.gov.tw/001/administrator/10/relfile/0/1000/1-1.103個人家戶數位機會調查報告.pdf
張佑昆（2015）。國民小學影響數位閱讀學習品質相關因素之探討研究。國立屏東大學教育行政研究所，屏東縣。
張怡婷（2005）。個人認知風格、班級閱讀環境與國小高年級學童閱讀行為之相關研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所。
教育部國民及學前教育署（2008）。 97年國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。檢索自 http://www.k12ea.gov.tw/ap/sid17_law.aspx
郭生玉（1998）。心理與教育測驗。台北：精華書局。
陳芳雅（2012）。不同合作模式對國小學童閱讀學習影響之研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班，台北市。
陳勇汀（2011）。合作式閱讀標註之知識萃取機制研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所，台北。
黃馨週 （2009）。 Reading on the Internet: A Case Study[網路閱讀之個案研究]。英語教學期刊， 33（2），頁 45-93。
廖晉斌（2004）。國文閱讀理解策略教學對增進國中生閱讀理解能力、閱讀策略運用及學業成就效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系，彰化縣。
趙崇凱（2009）。提升閱讀理解能力之線上互惠式教學。國立雲林科技大學資訊工程研究所，雲林縣。

英文文獻
Adler, M. J., & Van Doren, C. (2014). How to read a book: the classic guide to intelligent reading: Simon and Schuster.
Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 309-332.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, clicking, and reading English: Online reading strategies in a second/foreign language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3). 1-33.
Auerbach, E. R., & Paxton, D. (1997). “It`s not the English thing”: Bringing reading research into the ESL classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 31(2), 237-261.
Birkerts, S. (2006). The Gutenberg elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age: Macmillan.
Bounie, D., Eang, B., Sirbu, M., & Waelbroeck, P. (2012). Superstars and outsiders in online markets: An empirical analysis of electronic books. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(1), 52-59. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2012.11.004
Boyle, J. R. (1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(2), 86-98.
Brown, G. J. (2001). Beyond print: reading digitally. Library Hi Tech, 19(4), 390-399.
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. NJ:Transaction.
Carr, N. (2011). The Shallows: How the Internet is changing the way we think, read and remember: Atlantic.
Carter, C. J. (1997). Why reciprocal teaching? Educational leadership, 54, 64-69.
Casanave, C. P. (1988). Comprehension monitoring in ESL reading: A neglected essential. Tesol Quarterly, 22(2), 283-302.
Chen, C.-M., & Chen, F.-Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77, 67-81. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010
Chen, C.-M., Wang, J.-Y., & Chen, Y.-C. (2013). Facilitating English-language reading performance by a digital reading annotation system with self-regulated learning mechanisms. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 102-114.
Chen, C.-M., Wang, J.-Y., Chen, Y.-T., & Wu, J.-H. (2014). Forecasting reading anxiety for promoting English-language reading performance based on reading annotation behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-25.
Chen, C.-M., WANG, M., Tsay, M., Zhang, D., & Chen, Y. (2008). Developing a Taiwan library history digital library with reader knowledge archiving and sharing mechanisms based on the DSpace platform. Paper presented at the International Coference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries.
Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational leadership, 63(2), 30-35.
Davies, P., & Pearse, E. (2000). Success in English teaching: a complete introduction to teaching English at secondary school level and above. Oxford University Press.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Davis, J. R., & Huttenlocher, D. P. (1995). Shared annotation for cooperative learning. Paper presented at the CSCL `95 The first international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning, Hillsdale, NJ, USA.
Dole, J. A., & et al. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd. ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practice for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Elshair, H. M. (2002). The strategies used by students to read educational websites and their relation to website usability and text design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Estellés, E., Moral, E., & González, F. (2010). Social bookmarking tools as facilitators of learning and research collaborative processes: the Diigo case. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 6(2010), 175-191.
Evans, C., Waring, M., Zhang, L., Sternberg, R., & Rayner, S. (2011). Applications of styles in educational instruction and assessment. Handbook of Intellectual Styles: preferences in Cognition, Learning and Thinking, 295-327.
Fatemi, A. H., Vahedi, V. S., & Seyyedrezaie, Z. S. (2014). The effects of top-down/bottom-up processing and field-dependent/field-independent cognitive style on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(4), 686-693.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading , Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.
Foltz, P. W. (1992). Readers` comprehension and strategies in linear text and hypertext. Citeseer.
Fung, I. Y., Wilkinson, I. A., & Moore, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL students’ comprehension of English expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13(1), 1-31.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York: HarperCollins College Publisher.
Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension: Ablex Publishing.
Ghonsooly, B., & Eghtesadee, A. R. (2006). Role of cognitive style of field-dependence/independence in using metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies by a group of skilled and novice Iranian students of English literature. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(4), 119-150.
Gomita. (2008). ScrapBook. Retrieved from https://addons.mozilla.org/zh-TW/firefox/ addon/scrapbook/
Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2004). On being dependent or independent in computer based learning environments. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 7(2), n2.
Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects for postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of educational psychology, 90(4), 670-681.
Healy, J. M. (1990). Endangered minds: Why children don`t think. NY: Simon and Schuster.
Hoff, C., Wehling, U., & Rothkugel, S. (2009). From paper-and-pen annotations to artefact-based mobile learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 219-237. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00297.x
Huang, W.-C. (2014). The effects of multimedia annotation and summary writing on Taiwanese EFL students` reading comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 14(1), 136-153.
Hwang, W.-Y., Wang, C.-Y., & Sharples, M. (2005). A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials. Computers & Education, 48(4), 680-699. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.020
Jan, J.-C., Chen, C.-M., & Huang, P.-H. (2015). Enhancement of digital reading performance by using a novel web-based collaborative reading annotation system with two quality annotation filtering mechanisms. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.09.006
Jeong, H. (2012). A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The Electronic Library, 30(3), 390-408.
Kelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 53-61.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 275-293.
Koivunen, M.-R. (2005). Annotea and semantic web supported collaboration. Paper presented at the Invited talk at Workshop on User Aspects of the Semantic Web (User-SWeb) at European Semantic Web Conference.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 40(3), 191-204.
Leung, L. (2004). Net-generation attributes and seductive properties of the Internet as predictors of online activities and Internet addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 333-348.
Liaw, S.-S., & Huang, H.-M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 14-24.
Liu, M., & Reed, W. M. (1995). The relationship between the learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia environment. Computers in human behavior, 10(4), 419-434.
Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of documentation, 61(6), 700-712.
Lu, J., & Deng, L. (2013). Examning students` use of online annotation tools in support of argumentative reading. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 161-171.
Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 469-484.
Marshall, C. C. (1997). Annotation: from paper books to the digital library. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on Digital libraries.
Marshall, C. C. (1998). Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ninth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia: links, objects, time and space-structure in hypermedia systems, New York.
Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S. Messick(Ed.), Individuality in learning(pp.4-22). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32(3), 379-394.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students` metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of educational psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Nor, N. F. M., Azman, H., & Hamat, A. (2013). Investigating students` use of online annotation tool in an online reading environment. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(3), 87-101.
O`hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1997). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems.
Olsen, D. R. J., Taufer, T., & Fails, J. A. (2004). ScreenCrayons: annotating anything. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House Publishers.
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction,1, 117-175.
Padrón, Y. N. (1992). The effect of strategy instruction on bilingual students` cognitive strategy use in reading. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(3-4), 35-51.
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children`s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child development, 2083-2093.
Porter-O`Donnell, C. (2004). Beyong the yellow highlighter: Teaching annotation skills to improve reading comprehension. English Journal, 93(5), 82-89.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading: Routledge.
Reinking, D., & Schreiner, R. (1985). The effects of computer-mediated text on measures of reading comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 536-552.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—an overview and integration. Educational psychology, 11(3-4), 193-215.
Rittschof, K. (2010). Field dependence–independence as visuospatial and executive functioning in working memory: implications for instructional systems design and research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(1), 99-114. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9093-6
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.
Rubin, J. (1975) What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.
Schilit, B. (1999). Why E-read? Finding opportunities in the merger of paper and computers. The Future of Print Media. Retrieved from http://www.futureprint. kent.edu/articles/schilit01.htm
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
Slavin, R. E., & Davis, N. (2006). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Song, M.-j. (1998). Teaching reading strategies in an ongoing EFL university reading classroom. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8(1), 41-54.
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students` reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272-286.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 32-71.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Thinking styles: Cambridge University Press.
Su, A. Y. S., Yang, S. J. H., Hwang, W.-Y., & Zhang, J. (2010). A Web 2.0-based collaborative annotation system for enhancing knowledge sharing in collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(2), 752-766. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.008
Swaffar, J. K., Arens, K., & Byrnes, H. (1991). Reading for meaning: An integrated approach to language learning: Pearson College Division.
Teufel, S., Carletta, J., & Moens, M. (1999). An annotation scheme for discourse-level argumentation in research articles. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ninth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Vernon, R. F. (2006). Teaching notes: paper or pixels? An inquiry into how students adapt to online textbooks. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 417-427.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes: Harvard university press.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. doi: 10.2307/1169967
Wolfe, J. (2002). Annotation technologies: A software and research review. Computers & Composition, 19(4), 471-497.
Yaghoubi, R. (1994). The relationship between field-independent/field-dependent cognitive style Persian students and their English language proficiency. Unpublished master’s thesis, Allameh Tabatabaii University, Iran.
Yang, Y.-F. (2010). Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning system for college remedial reading instruction. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1193-1201.
Yee, K.-P. (2002). CritLink: Advanced hyperlinks enable public annotation on the web. Demonstration abstract. In: ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW). 		zh_TW