學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 合作式標註工具輔助網路探究式學習在資訊素養教育之成效評估研究
The Effects of Web-based Inquiry-based Learning with Collaborative Reading Annotation Support on Information Literacy Instruction作者 陳毓婷
Chen, Yu-Ting貢獻者 陳志銘
Chen, Chih-Ming
陳毓婷
Chen, Yu-Ting關鍵詞 資訊素養教育
合作標註工具
先備知識
認知風格
科技接受模式
Information literacy instruction
Collaborative annotation tool
Prior knowledge
Cognitive style
Technology acceptance model日期 2018 上傳時間 2-五月-2018 15:48:05 (UTC+8) 摘要 過去研究指出因為欠缺基礎數位素養，敏銳度不足造成國內學生面對大量網路訊息時，降低了過濾資訊的能力，因此建立起資訊篩選與評估的機制，培養數位閱讀能力與資訊素養，成為近幾年來熱門的議題。本研究以「閱讀知識合作標註學習系統」結合網路探究式學習，發展「合作式標註工具輔助網路探究式學習模式」，期望能創新資訊素養教學，為學生找到有效提升資訊尋求能力的新方法。研究採用準實驗研究法，以新北市某國小五年級兩班共50名學生為研究對象，進行「網路資訊評估與判斷」的主題合作探究學習，其中一班25名學生被隨機分派到採用「合作式標註工具輔助網路探究式學習模式」為實驗組，另一班25名學生被隨機分派到採用「討論版工具輔助網路探究式學習模式」為控制組，以先備知識及認知風格作為背景變項，探討兩種不同學習模式的學生在學習成效、認知負荷、科技接受度與學習滿意度的影響與差異。研究結果發現，相較於「討論版工具輔助網路探究式學習模式」，採用「合作式標註工具輔助網路探究式學習模式」對於中、低先備知識者以及場地獨立型風格學生的學習成效有很大助益；不論是採用哪一種學習模式的學習者在學習中，並不會產生過大的認知負荷；而在評估科技接受度以及學習滿意度上，低先備知識的學生認為採用「合作式標註工具」比採用「討論版工具」輔助網路探究式學習的幫助更大，同時在學習滿意度也更為顯著。最後基於研究結果，提出發揮工具的優勢發展系列推廣課程，以及延伸應用批判性思考學習對教師進行教學的建議，以及未來可深入長時間發展、探究式學習的互動歷程行為、學習遷移等相關探討與研究，希望能作為資訊素養教育推廣下，研究領域探討議題的新方向。
The past studies have suggested that the lack of basic digital literacy and acuteness has reduced Taiwanese students’ ability to filter information when facing a vast amount of Internet information. As a result, establishing a mechanism for selecting and assessing information, as well as cultivating digital reading ability and information literacy have been the hot topics in recent years. By combing the Reading Knowledge Collaborative Annotation Tool (CAT) with the Web-based inquiry-based learning, this study has developed the “Web-based Inquiry-based Learning Model with the Collaborative Annotation Tool,” hoping to innovate the information literacy instruction and find new ways to effectively improve students’ information search capabilities.In this study, a quasi-experimental study method was adopted, and 50 fifth-graders from two classes in a certain elementary school in New Taipei City were selected as the research subjects to conduct the collaborative inquiry-based learning on the theme of “Internet Information Assessment and Judgment.” Among them, 25 students from one class were randomly assigned to the experimental group of adopting the “Web-based Inquiry-based Learning Model with the Collaborative Annotation Tool,” while 25 students from another class were randomly assigned to the control group of adopting the “Web-based Inquiry-based Learning Model with the Discussion Board Tool.” With prior knowledge and cognitive style as background variables, the influences and differences in students’ learning effectiveness, cognitive load, technology acceptance, and learning satisfaction in two different learning models were thoroughly explored.The research results found that compared to the “Web-based Inquiry-based Learning Model with the Discussion Board Tool,” the “Web-based Inquiry-based Learning Model with the Collaborative Annotation Tool” showed much higher benefits in the learning effectiveness for students with middle and low prior knowledge and with field independence. Both of these two models produce would not produce excessive cognitive load on students during the learning process. As for the assessments on technology acceptance and learning satisfaction, students with low prior knowledge considered that the Web-based Inquiry-based Learning Model with the Collaborative Annotation Tool was more helpful for them than the one with the Discussion Board Tool, and they also showed a higher significant level of learning satisfaction.Lastly, based on the research results, this study suggests that the advantages of the tool can be used to further develop a series of promotion courses, and the use of critical thinking learning can be extended to the teaching for teachers. Also, this study suggests that the long-term in-depth explorations of the interactive course behavior of inquiry-based learning, transfer of learning, and other relevant studies can be conducted in the future, hoping to provide as new directions of topics for the research field when promoting information literacy instruction.參考文獻 中文文獻朱碧靜（2012）。科技接受模型 / 圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。檢自 https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678678/。朱碧靜（2009）。學習歷程檔案在圖書資訊利用教育之應用：通識課程之實作與省思。圖書與資訊學刊，68，66-79。何景行（2017）。高中生資訊素養課程教學及其習成效之研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，台北市。何琦瑜（2016）。背誦分類號，不該是圖書館教育的核心。檢自 https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/2860。何縕琪、黃世傑（2000）。先前知識 / 教育大辭書。檢自 http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1304372/。吳百興、張耀云、吳心楷（2010）。科學探究活動中的科學推理。科學教育研究與發展季刊，56，53-74。 吳欣純、周倩（2013）。社群網站使用者使用動機、資訊驗證態度、資訊可信度感知與資訊分享行為之研究－以Facebook網站為例。論文發表於第十七屆全球華人計算機教育應用大會（GCCCE2013）。北京：北京大學。 5月27日至5月31日，2013。吳美美（2004）。資訊素養與媒體素養-數位時代的素養與素養教育。檢自 http://mwu. glis. ntnu. edu. tw/blog/archives/publicatioins/連結。 吳裕益（1987）。 認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。教育學刊，7， 300-253。 李美慧（2014）。PISA閱讀素養國際評比之探討—PRIDE資料庫應用。專題分析報導/政策研究指標資料庫。檢自 https://pride.stpi.narl.org.tw/topic2/。辛瓊瑤（2016）。合作式網路探究課程發展與學習成效評估研究：以圖書館利用教育為例。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。林美秀（2015）。合作式數位閱讀標註系統結合後設認知閱讀策略架構對於國中生英語閱讀理解成效之影響研究。圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，台北市。林菁、陳耀輝（2015）。應用爭議導向之探究式學習於資訊素養課程：培養國小五年級學生議論能力。圖書資訊學研究，9（2），67-109。 林菁、謝欣穎（2013）。資訊素養與閱讀策略融入國小四年級「我們的水族箱」主題探究：以Big6模式為例。圖書資訊學刊， 11（1），95-130。 林菁、謝欣穎、謝文峰（2014）。資訊素養融入國小三年級自然學習領域 [樹朋友] 主題探究。圖書資訊學研究， 8（2），頁 57-99。 林菁、顏仁德、黃財尉（2014）。 探索式資訊素養融入課程成效之四年長期研究。教育資料與圖書館學，51（4），頁 561-595。 康力文（2011）。認知負荷理論在生物醫學教學上之應用。中小學教師專業發展學術研討會，高雄市：國立高雄師範大學。莊道明（2012）。資訊素養Information Literacy / 圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。檢自 http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1679154/。張秀美、陳斐卿、曾仁佑（2012）。小組建立假設的合作探究策略─以網路環境為例。科學教育學刊，20(4)，295-317。張春興（1994）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實際。台北: 台灣東華。 張瀚中（2011）。在探究教學情境探討新移民子女科學文本閱讀理解與策略之個案研究。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。教育部（2011）。圖書教師手冊─縣市國民小學圖書館推動教師計畫。台北市: 教育部。教育部（2012）。97年國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要重大議題-資訊教育。檢自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_97.php 許佩琦（2001）。爭議性文章的閱讀理解研究。國立中正大學心理研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。 郭芙秀（2017）。合作式數位閱讀標註系統對於數學應用問題學習成效的影響研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，台北市。陳宏漳（2007）。國小六年級學童認知風格、學習動機、學業成就與科學創造力之關係。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。陳志銘、韋祿恩、吳志豪（2010）。認知型態與標註品質對閱讀成效之影響與關聯研究：以數位閱讀標註系統為例。圖書與資訊學刊，3（1），1-25。陳啟英（2011）。網站可信度評鑑：概念,論證暨運作模式初探。新聞學研究，(106)，249-283。程遠茜（2017）。2015PISA結果篇─科學素養強閱讀能力倒退。親子天下雜誌，86，58-59。葉嘉雯（2015）。Co-POE 教學模式應用於國小「空氣與燃燒」單元實驗教學之研究－探討不同認知風格學童的學習。臺北教育大學自然科學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台北市。劉宜芳（2015）。線上閱讀測驗之發展與學生能力表現之探究。國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園市。鄭旭成（2012）。數位註記策略對學習者閱讀影片教材的學習成效與認知負荷影響。國立交通大學碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。賴苑玲（1998）。資訊網路時代國小圖書館利用教育發展的新方向。社會科教育研究，3，121-140。doi: 10.6556/tjsser.1998.3.4。謝淑熙 （2016）。學校圖書館與探究式教學。澳門圖書館暨資訊管理協會學刊，16，31-38。 蘇國章. (2011)。應用認知負荷理論於資訊融入教學多媒體設計之分析－以自然與生活科技領域”電子教科書”為例。生活科技教育，44(2)，44-61. doi: 10.6232/lte.2011.44(2).5。蘇諼（2004）。大學圖書館與大學生的資訊素養問題再思。圖書與資訊學刊， 51，1-15。 英文文獻American Association of School Librarians (AASL). (2018). AASL Standards Framework for Learners. American Association of School Librarians. http://standards.aasl.org/Afflerbach, P. P. (1990). The Influence of Prior Knowledge on Expert Readers` Main Idea Construction Strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), 31-46. doi: 10.2307/747986Ahmad, R., Wang, J., Hercegfi, K., & Komlodi, A. (2011). Different people different styles: impact of personality style in web sites credibility judgement. In Symposium on Human Interface (pp. 521-527). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Alberta Learning, E. (2004). Focus on Inquiry: A Teacher`s Guide to Implementing Inquiry-Based Learning: Edmonton: Learning and Teaching Resources Branch. from https://open.alberta.ca/publications/0778526666Alexander, J. E., & Tate, M. A. (1999). Web Wisdom; How to Evaluate and Create Information Quality on the Webb: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=553758Ariew, R., & Ercetin, G. (2004). Exploring the potential of Hypermedia annotations for second language reading. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 237-259Association of College and Research Libraries(ACRL).(2000).Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.American Library Association. from https://alair.ala.org/handle/11213/7668Azouaou, F., Chen, W., & Desmoulins, C. (2004). Semantic annotation tools for learning material. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Applications of Semantic Web Technologies for E-Learning (SW-EL.Brandt, D. S. (1996). Evaluating information on the Internet. Computers in Libraries, 16(5), 44-46.Bryant, A. (2016). Annotating the Inquiry Process. from http://www.kognity.com/annotating-the-inquiry-based-process/Carnesi, S., & DiGiorgio, K. (2009). Teaching the Inquiry Process to 21st Century Learners. Library Media Connection, 27(5), 32-36. Chen, C. M., & Chen, F. Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77(Supplement C), 67-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-Explanations - How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182. doi: 10.1016/0364-0213(89)90002-5Chiou, C. C. (2012). Investigating the Learning Effectiveness of Digital Video with Annotations. National Cheng Kung University. Available from AiritiLibrary database. Chiu-Jung, Chen, and Pei-Lin, Liu (2012). Comparisons of learner- generated versus instructor-provided multimedia annotations. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(4). 72-83Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Tseng, J. C. R. (2010). A two-tier test approach to developing location-aware mobile learning systems for natural science courses. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1618-1627. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.004Chu, S., Tse, S. K., Loh, E. K. Y., Chow, K., Fung, H. F., & Ng, H. W. R. (2008). Primary four students` development of reading ability through inquiry-based learning projects. International Association of School Librarianship. Selected Papers from the Annual Conference, 1-15,17-18. Chu, S., Chow, K., Tse, S.-k., & Kuhlthau, C. C. (2008). Grade 4 Students` Development of Research Skills Through Inquiry-Based Learning Projects. School Libraries Worldwide, 14(1), 10-37.Coatney, S. (2005). Ask a teacher-librarian. Teacher Librarian, 33(2), 59. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional method. New York: Irvington.Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. doi: 10.2307/249008Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616-1641. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.012Eisenberg, M., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1999). Teaching Information & Technology Skills: The Big6 in Elementary Schools: Linworth Pub.Fitgerald, M. A. (1999). Evaluating Information: An Information Literacy Challenge. School library media research, 2. Gao, F. (2013). A case study of using a social annotation tool to support collaboratively learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 76-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.002Harrison, A. W., & Rainer, R. K. (1992). The Influence of Individual Differences on Skill in End-User Computing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(1), 93-111. doi: 10.1080/07421222.1992.11517949Haven, S. (2014). Technology for Notetaking: Tools to Help Students Capture and Organize What They Learn. from http://aztap.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AzTAP14-Tech-for-Notes-Shelley-Haven-final-PDF-copy.pdfHmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263368Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Tai, K. H., & Tsai, C. R. (2017). An exploration of students’ science learning interest related to their cognitive anxiety, cognitive load, self-confidence and learning progress using inquiry-based learning with an iPad. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1193-1212. doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9541-yHsiao, H. S., Chen, J. C., Hong, J. C., Chen, P. H., Lu, C. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2017). A five-stage prediction-observation-explanation inquiry-based learning model to improve students’ learning performance in science courses. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3393-3416. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2017.00735aHuang, T. C., Huang, Y. M., & Yu, F. Y. (2011). Cooperative weblog learning in higher education: Its facilitating effects on social interaction, time lag, and cognitive load. Journal of educational technology & society, 14(1).Hunt, D. E., Greenwood, J., Noy, J., & Watson, N. (1973). Assessment of conceptual level: Paragraph completion test method. Toronto: Institute for Studies in Education.Hwang, G. J., Yang, L.H., & Wang, S.Y. (2013). A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students` learning performance in natural science courses. Computers & Education, 69(Supplement C), 121-130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.008Hwang, W. Y., Wang, C. Y., & Sharples, M. (2007). A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials. Computers & Education, 48(4), 680-699. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.020Jan, J. C., Chen, C. M., & Huang, P. H. (2016). 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, 86(Supplement C), 81-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.09.006Kapoun, J. (1998). Teaching undergrads WEB evaluation: A guide for library instruction. from http://archive.ala.org/acrl/undwebev.htmKeene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader`s workshop: ERIC.Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1Kuhn, A., McNally, B., Schmoll, S., Cahill, C., Lo, W. T., Quintana, C., & Delen, I. (2012). How students find, evaluate and utilize peer-collected annotated multimedia data in science inquiry with zydeco. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3061-3070.Austin, Texas, USA. Lee, J. K., & Calandra, B. (2004). Can Embedded Annotations Help High School Students Perform Problem Solving Tasks Using A Web-Based Historical Document? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 65-84. LeeTiernan, S., & Grudin, J. (2001). Fostering Engagement in Asynchronous Learning through Collaborative Multimedia Annotation. Paper presented at the INTERACT.Li, S. C., Pow, J. W. C., & Cheung, W. C. (2015). A delineation of the cognitive processes manifested in a social annotation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12073Linksman, R. (1996). How to learn anything quickly: An accelerated program for rapid learning: Carol Publishing Group.Lo, W. T., & Quintana, C. (2013). Students` use of mobile technology to collect data in guided inquiry on field trips. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, New York, New York, USA. Lotts, M. (2016). Playing with LEGO®, Learning about the Library, and “Making” Campus Connections: The Rutgers University Art Library Lego Playing Station, Part One. Journal of Library Administration, 56(4), 359-380. doi: 10.1080/01930826.2016.1168252Louisiana Department of Education. (2016). Guidelines for Library Media Programs In Louisiana Schools. From https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/libraryLu, J., & Deng, L. (2012). Reading actively online: An Exploratory investigation of online annotation tools for inquiry learning. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(3). Lucassen, T., Muilwijk, R., Noordzij, M. L., & Schraagen, J. M. (2013). Topic familiarity and information skills in online credibility evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 254-264. doi: 10.1002/asi.22743Magee, D., & Meier, A. (2011). Science education and culture: Inquiry-based learning. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 27. Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49-63. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.49Marie, J. A. (2001). Library instruction and information literacy – 2000. Reference Services Review, 29(4), 338-362. doi: doi:10.1108/00907320110408465Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14McClure, E. L., & Fullerton, S. K. (2017). Instructional Interactions: Supporting Students’ Reading Development Through Interactive Read-Alouds of Informational Texts. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 51-59. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1576Metzger, M. J., and Flanagin, A. J. 2013. Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 59: 210-220.Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091. doi:10.1002/asi.20672 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.20672/fullMohammadi, F., Abrizah, A., & Nazari, M. (2017). Is the information fit for use? Exploring teachers perceived information quality indicators for Farsi web-based learning resources. Malaysian Journal Of Library & Information Science, 20(1). from https://jice.um.edu.my/index.php/MJLIS/article/view/1762Montiel-Overall, P., & Grimes, K. (2013). Teachers and librarians collaborating on inquiry-based science instruction: A longitudinal study. Library & Information Science Research, 35(1), 41-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2012.08.002Nokelainen, P., Kurhila, J., Miettinen, M., Floreen, P., & Tirri, H. (2003, 9-11 July 2003). Evaluating the role of a shared document-based annotation tool in learner-centered collaborative learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Technologies.Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429Pask, G., & Scott, B. C. E. (1973). Caste: A system for exhibiting learning strategies and regulating uncertainties. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 5(1), 17-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(73)80008-2Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2), 221-243. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00015-8Pollman, T. (2014). The sincerest form of flattery: examples and model-based learning in the classroom. Journal of Legal Education, 64(2), 298-333. Quigley, C., Marshall, J., Deaton, C. C. M., Cook, M. P., & J. Padilla, M. (2011). Challenges to inquiry teaching and suggestions for how to meet them. Science Educator, 20, 55-61. Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 82-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010Ramli, F., Shafie, N., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2013). Exploring Student`s in-depth Learning Difficulties in Mathematics through Teachers’ Perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97(Supplement C), 339-345. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.243Rose, C. P. (1998). Accelerated learning for the 21st century : the six-step plan to unlock your master-mind. New York, N.Y.: New York, N.Y. : Dell Publishing.Schmid, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2017). How an inquiry-based classroom lesson intervenes in science efficacy, career-orientation and self-determination. International Journal of Science Education, 39(17), 2342-2360. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2017.1380332Shih, J. L., Chuang, C. W., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). An Inquiry-based Mobile Learning Approach to Enhancing Social Science Learning Effectiveness (Vol. 13).Scholz-Crane, A. (1998). Evaluating the future: A preliminary study of the process of how undergraduate students evaluate Web sources. Reference Services Review, 26(3/4), 53–60.Schünemann, N., Spörer, N., Völlinger, V. A., & Brunstein, J. C. (2017). Peer feedback mediates the impact of self-regulation procedures on strategy use and reading comprehension in reciprocal teaching groups. Instructional Science, 45(4), 395-415. doi: 10.1007/s11251-017-9409-1Smith, J. K. (2013). Secondary teachers and information literacy (IL): Teacher understanding and perceptions of IL in the classroom. Library & Information Science Research, 35(3), 216-222. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.03.003Soloway, E., & Wallace, R. (1997). Does the Internet Support Student Inquiry? Don`t ask. Communications of the ACM, 40(5), 11-16. 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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.008Suhkyung, S., Brush, T. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2017). Designing and Implementing Web-based Scaffolding Tools for Technology-Enhanced Socioscientific Inquiry. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 1-12. Summey, T. P., & Valenti, S. (2013). But We Don`t Have an Instructional Designer: Designing Online Library Instruction Using ISD Techniques. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 7(1-2), 169-182. doi: 10.1080/1533290X.2012.705630Sun, Y., & Gao, F. (2017). Comparing the use of a social annotation tool and a threaded discussion forum to support online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 32(Supplement C), 72-79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.10.001Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205Trautmann, N., MaKinster, J., & Avery, L. (2004). What makes inquiry so hard?(and why is it worth it?). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Tseng, S. S., Yeh, H. C., & Yang, S. h. (2015). Promoting different reading comprehension levels through online annotations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 41-57. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2014.927366Wallen, E., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2005). The function of annotations in the comprehension of scientific texts: Cognitive load effects and the impact of verbal ability. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 59-71. doi: 10.1007/BF02504798Wilhelm, J. D. (2004). Inquiring minds use technology! Voices From the Middle, 11((3)), 45-46. Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning: Stanford Digital Repository.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. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures test. Palo Alto. Palo Alto: CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Yao, Y. (2006). The effect of different presentation formats of hypertext annotations on cognitive load, learning and learner control. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 929. from http://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/929YouthLearn Initiative. (2016). Inquiry-Based Learning Guide. Education Development Center Inc., from http://youthlearn.org/resources/inquiry-based-learning/ 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班
104913014資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104913014 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 陳志銘 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Chen, Chih-Ming en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 陳毓婷 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Chen, Yu-Ting en_US dc.creator (作者) 陳毓婷 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chen, Yu-Ting en_US dc.date (日期) 2018 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-五月-2018 15:48:05 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-五月-2018 15:48:05 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-五月-2018 15:48:05 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0104913014 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/117024 - 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) 104913014 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 過去研究指出因為欠缺基礎數位素養，敏銳度不足造成國內學生面對大量網路訊息時，降低了過濾資訊的能力，因此建立起資訊篩選與評估的機制，培養數位閱讀能力與資訊素養，成為近幾年來熱門的議題。本研究以「閱讀知識合作標註學習系統」結合網路探究式學習，發展「合作式標註工具輔助網路探究式學習模式」，期望能創新資訊素養教學，為學生找到有效提升資訊尋求能力的新方法。研究採用準實驗研究法，以新北市某國小五年級兩班共50名學生為研究對象，進行「網路資訊評估與判斷」的主題合作探究學習，其中一班25名學生被隨機分派到採用「合作式標註工具輔助網路探究式學習模式」為實驗組，另一班25名學生被隨機分派到採用「討論版工具輔助網路探究式學習模式」為控制組，以先備知識及認知風格作為背景變項，探討兩種不同學習模式的學生在學習成效、認知負荷、科技接受度與學習滿意度的影響與差異。研究結果發現，相較於「討論版工具輔助網路探究式學習模式」，採用「合作式標註工具輔助網路探究式學習模式」對於中、低先備知識者以及場地獨立型風格學生的學習成效有很大助益；不論是採用哪一種學習模式的學習者在學習中，並不會產生過大的認知負荷；而在評估科技接受度以及學習滿意度上，低先備知識的學生認為採用「合作式標註工具」比採用「討論版工具」輔助網路探究式學習的幫助更大，同時在學習滿意度也更為顯著。最後基於研究結果，提出發揮工具的優勢發展系列推廣課程，以及延伸應用批判性思考學習對教師進行教學的建議，以及未來可深入長時間發展、探究式學習的互動歷程行為、學習遷移等相關探討與研究，希望能作為資訊素養教育推廣下，研究領域探討議題的新方向。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The past studies have suggested that the lack of basic digital literacy and acuteness has reduced Taiwanese students’ ability to filter information when facing a vast amount of Internet information. As a result, establishing a mechanism for selecting and assessing information, as well as cultivating digital reading ability and information literacy have been the hot topics in recent years. By combing the Reading Knowledge Collaborative Annotation Tool (CAT) with the Web-based inquiry-based learning, this study has developed the “Web-based Inquiry-based Learning Model with the Collaborative Annotation Tool,” hoping to innovate the information literacy instruction and find new ways to effectively improve students’ information search capabilities.In this study, a quasi-experimental study method was adopted, and 50 fifth-graders from two classes in a certain elementary school in New Taipei City were selected as the research subjects to conduct the collaborative inquiry-based learning on the theme of “Internet Information Assessment and Judgment.” Among them, 25 students from one class were randomly assigned to the experimental group of adopting the “Web-based Inquiry-based Learning Model with the Collaborative Annotation Tool,” while 25 students from another class were randomly assigned to the control group of adopting the “Web-based Inquiry-based Learning Model with the Discussion Board Tool.” With prior knowledge and cognitive style as background variables, the influences and differences in students’ learning effectiveness, cognitive load, technology acceptance, and learning satisfaction in two different learning models were thoroughly explored.The research results found that compared to the “Web-based Inquiry-based Learning Model with the Discussion Board Tool,” the “Web-based Inquiry-based Learning Model with the Collaborative Annotation Tool” showed much higher benefits in the learning effectiveness for students with middle and low prior knowledge and with field independence. Both of these two models produce would not produce excessive cognitive load on students during the learning process. As for the assessments on technology acceptance and learning satisfaction, students with low prior knowledge considered that the Web-based Inquiry-based Learning Model with the Collaborative Annotation Tool was more helpful for them than the one with the Discussion Board Tool, and they also showed a higher significant level of learning satisfaction.Lastly, based on the research results, this study suggests that the advantages of the tool can be used to further develop a series of promotion courses, and the use of critical thinking learning can be extended to the teaching for teachers. Also, this study suggests that the long-term in-depth explorations of the interactive course behavior of inquiry-based learning, transfer of learning, and other relevant studies can be conducted in the future, hoping to provide as new directions of topics for the research field when promoting information literacy instruction. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 目次摘要 iAbstract ii目次 iii表次 v圖次 vii第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與動機 1第二節 研究目的 3第三節 研究問題 4第四節 研究範圍與限制 5第五節 重要名詞界定 6第二章 文獻探討 10第一節 資訊素養教育之現況與資訊評估教學 10第二節 資訊素養教育與探究式學習 15第三節 線上閱讀標註工具輔助探究式學習 19第四節 先備知識、認知風格、科技接受度 25第五節 研究結果分析 29第三章 研究方法 32第一節 研究架構 32第二節 研究設計 35第三節 研究流程 36第四節 研究對象 41第五節 研究工具 42第六節 資料蒐集與分析 54第四章 實驗結果與分析 57第一節 採用不同工具之學生在學習成效、認知負荷、科技接受度及學習滿意度分析 57第二節 採用不同工具對於不同先備知識能力的學生在學習成效、認知負荷、科技接受度及學習滿意度分析 61第三節 採用不同工具對於不同認知風格學生在學習成效、認知負荷、科技接受度以及學習滿意度分析 69第四節 綜合討論 75第五章 結論 83第一節 研究結論 83第二節 教學實施建議 86第三節 未來研究方向 87參考文獻 89附錄 A 學習成效測驗試題 99附錄 B團體嵌圖測驗 102附錄 C認知負荷量表 110附錄 D科技接受量表 111附錄 E學習滿意度問卷 112附錄 F實驗組教材標註範例 113 zh_TW dc.format.extent 4551177 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104913014 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資訊素養教育 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合作標註工具 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 先備知識 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 認知風格 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 科技接受模式 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Information literacy instruction en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Collaborative annotation tool en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Prior knowledge en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cognitive style en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Technology acceptance model en_US dc.title (題名) 合作式標註工具輔助網路探究式學習在資訊素養教育之成效評估研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Effects of Web-based Inquiry-based Learning with Collaborative Reading Annotation Support on Information Literacy Instruction en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻朱碧靜（2012）。科技接受模型 / 圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。檢自 https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678678/。朱碧靜（2009）。學習歷程檔案在圖書資訊利用教育之應用：通識課程之實作與省思。圖書與資訊學刊，68，66-79。何景行（2017）。高中生資訊素養課程教學及其習成效之研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，台北市。何琦瑜（2016）。背誦分類號，不該是圖書館教育的核心。檢自 https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/2860。何縕琪、黃世傑（2000）。先前知識 / 教育大辭書。檢自 http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1304372/。吳百興、張耀云、吳心楷（2010）。科學探究活動中的科學推理。科學教育研究與發展季刊，56，53-74。 吳欣純、周倩（2013）。社群網站使用者使用動機、資訊驗證態度、資訊可信度感知與資訊分享行為之研究－以Facebook網站為例。論文發表於第十七屆全球華人計算機教育應用大會（GCCCE2013）。北京：北京大學。 5月27日至5月31日，2013。吳美美（2004）。資訊素養與媒體素養-數位時代的素養與素養教育。檢自 http://mwu. glis. ntnu. edu. tw/blog/archives/publicatioins/連結。 吳裕益（1987）。 認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。教育學刊，7， 300-253。 李美慧（2014）。PISA閱讀素養國際評比之探討—PRIDE資料庫應用。專題分析報導/政策研究指標資料庫。檢自 https://pride.stpi.narl.org.tw/topic2/。辛瓊瑤（2016）。合作式網路探究課程發展與學習成效評估研究：以圖書館利用教育為例。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。林美秀（2015）。合作式數位閱讀標註系統結合後設認知閱讀策略架構對於國中生英語閱讀理解成效之影響研究。圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，台北市。林菁、陳耀輝（2015）。應用爭議導向之探究式學習於資訊素養課程：培養國小五年級學生議論能力。圖書資訊學研究，9（2），67-109。 林菁、謝欣穎（2013）。資訊素養與閱讀策略融入國小四年級「我們的水族箱」主題探究：以Big6模式為例。圖書資訊學刊， 11（1），95-130。 林菁、謝欣穎、謝文峰（2014）。資訊素養融入國小三年級自然學習領域 [樹朋友] 主題探究。圖書資訊學研究， 8（2），頁 57-99。 林菁、顏仁德、黃財尉（2014）。 探索式資訊素養融入課程成效之四年長期研究。教育資料與圖書館學，51（4），頁 561-595。 康力文（2011）。認知負荷理論在生物醫學教學上之應用。中小學教師專業發展學術研討會，高雄市：國立高雄師範大學。莊道明（2012）。資訊素養Information Literacy / 圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。檢自 http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1679154/。張秀美、陳斐卿、曾仁佑（2012）。小組建立假設的合作探究策略─以網路環境為例。科學教育學刊，20(4)，295-317。張春興（1994）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實際。台北: 台灣東華。 張瀚中（2011）。在探究教學情境探討新移民子女科學文本閱讀理解與策略之個案研究。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。教育部（2011）。圖書教師手冊─縣市國民小學圖書館推動教師計畫。台北市: 教育部。教育部（2012）。97年國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要重大議題-資訊教育。檢自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_97.php 許佩琦（2001）。爭議性文章的閱讀理解研究。國立中正大學心理研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。 郭芙秀（2017）。合作式數位閱讀標註系統對於數學應用問題學習成效的影響研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，台北市。陳宏漳（2007）。國小六年級學童認知風格、學習動機、學業成就與科學創造力之關係。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。陳志銘、韋祿恩、吳志豪（2010）。認知型態與標註品質對閱讀成效之影響與關聯研究：以數位閱讀標註系統為例。圖書與資訊學刊，3（1），1-25。陳啟英（2011）。網站可信度評鑑：概念,論證暨運作模式初探。新聞學研究，(106)，249-283。程遠茜（2017）。2015PISA結果篇─科學素養強閱讀能力倒退。親子天下雜誌，86，58-59。葉嘉雯（2015）。Co-POE 教學模式應用於國小「空氣與燃燒」單元實驗教學之研究－探討不同認知風格學童的學習。臺北教育大學自然科學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台北市。劉宜芳（2015）。線上閱讀測驗之發展與學生能力表現之探究。國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園市。鄭旭成（2012）。數位註記策略對學習者閱讀影片教材的學習成效與認知負荷影響。國立交通大學碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。賴苑玲（1998）。資訊網路時代國小圖書館利用教育發展的新方向。社會科教育研究，3，121-140。doi: 10.6556/tjsser.1998.3.4。謝淑熙 （2016）。學校圖書館與探究式教學。澳門圖書館暨資訊管理協會學刊，16，31-38。 蘇國章. (2011)。應用認知負荷理論於資訊融入教學多媒體設計之分析－以自然與生活科技領域”電子教科書”為例。生活科技教育，44(2)，44-61. doi: 10.6232/lte.2011.44(2).5。蘇諼（2004）。大學圖書館與大學生的資訊素養問題再思。圖書與資訊學刊， 51，1-15。 英文文獻American Association of School Librarians (AASL). (2018). AASL Standards Framework for Learners. American Association of School Librarians. http://standards.aasl.org/Afflerbach, P. P. (1990). The Influence of Prior Knowledge on Expert Readers` Main Idea Construction Strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), 31-46. doi: 10.2307/747986Ahmad, R., Wang, J., Hercegfi, K., & Komlodi, A. (2011). Different people different styles: impact of personality style in web sites credibility judgement. In Symposium on Human Interface (pp. 521-527). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Alberta Learning, E. (2004). Focus on Inquiry: A Teacher`s Guide to Implementing Inquiry-Based Learning: Edmonton: Learning and Teaching Resources Branch. from https://open.alberta.ca/publications/0778526666Alexander, J. E., & Tate, M. A. (1999). Web Wisdom; How to Evaluate and Create Information Quality on the Webb: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=553758Ariew, R., & Ercetin, G. (2004). Exploring the potential of Hypermedia annotations for second language reading. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 237-259Association of College and Research Libraries(ACRL).(2000).Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.American Library Association. from https://alair.ala.org/handle/11213/7668Azouaou, F., Chen, W., & Desmoulins, C. (2004). Semantic annotation tools for learning material. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Applications of Semantic Web Technologies for E-Learning (SW-EL.Brandt, D. S. (1996). Evaluating information on the Internet. Computers in Libraries, 16(5), 44-46.Bryant, A. (2016). Annotating the Inquiry Process. from http://www.kognity.com/annotating-the-inquiry-based-process/Carnesi, S., & DiGiorgio, K. (2009). Teaching the Inquiry Process to 21st Century Learners. Library Media Connection, 27(5), 32-36. Chen, C. M., & Chen, F. Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77(Supplement C), 67-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-Explanations - How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182. doi: 10.1016/0364-0213(89)90002-5Chiou, C. C. (2012). Investigating the Learning Effectiveness of Digital Video with Annotations. National Cheng Kung University. Available from AiritiLibrary database. Chiu-Jung, Chen, and Pei-Lin, Liu (2012). Comparisons of learner- generated versus instructor-provided multimedia annotations. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(4). 72-83Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Tseng, J. C. R. (2010). A two-tier test approach to developing location-aware mobile learning systems for natural science courses. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1618-1627. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.004Chu, S., Tse, S. K., Loh, E. K. Y., Chow, K., Fung, H. F., & Ng, H. W. R. (2008). Primary four students` development of reading ability through inquiry-based learning projects. International Association of School Librarianship. Selected Papers from the Annual Conference, 1-15,17-18. Chu, S., Chow, K., Tse, S.-k., & Kuhlthau, C. C. (2008). Grade 4 Students` Development of Research Skills Through Inquiry-Based Learning Projects. School Libraries Worldwide, 14(1), 10-37.Coatney, S. (2005). Ask a teacher-librarian. Teacher Librarian, 33(2), 59. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional method. New York: Irvington.Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. doi: 10.2307/249008Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616-1641. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.012Eisenberg, M., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1999). Teaching Information & Technology Skills: The Big6 in Elementary Schools: Linworth Pub.Fitgerald, M. A. (1999). Evaluating Information: An Information Literacy Challenge. School library media research, 2. Gao, F. (2013). A case study of using a social annotation tool to support collaboratively learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 76-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.002Harrison, A. W., & Rainer, R. K. (1992). The Influence of Individual Differences on Skill in End-User Computing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(1), 93-111. doi: 10.1080/07421222.1992.11517949Haven, S. (2014). Technology for Notetaking: Tools to Help Students Capture and Organize What They Learn. from http://aztap.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AzTAP14-Tech-for-Notes-Shelley-Haven-final-PDF-copy.pdfHmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263368Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Tai, K. H., & Tsai, C. R. (2017). An exploration of students’ science learning interest related to their cognitive anxiety, cognitive load, self-confidence and learning progress using inquiry-based learning with an iPad. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1193-1212. doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9541-yHsiao, H. S., Chen, J. C., Hong, J. C., Chen, P. H., Lu, C. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2017). A five-stage prediction-observation-explanation inquiry-based learning model to improve students’ learning performance in science courses. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3393-3416. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2017.00735aHuang, T. C., Huang, Y. M., & Yu, F. Y. (2011). Cooperative weblog learning in higher education: Its facilitating effects on social interaction, time lag, and cognitive load. Journal of educational technology & society, 14(1).Hunt, D. E., Greenwood, J., Noy, J., & Watson, N. (1973). Assessment of conceptual level: Paragraph completion test method. Toronto: Institute for Studies in Education.Hwang, G. J., Yang, L.H., & Wang, S.Y. (2013). A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students` learning performance in natural science courses. Computers & Education, 69(Supplement C), 121-130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.008Hwang, W. Y., Wang, C. Y., & Sharples, M. (2007). A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials. Computers & Education, 48(4), 680-699. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.020Jan, J. C., Chen, C. M., & Huang, P. H. (2016). 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, 86(Supplement C), 81-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.09.006Kapoun, J. (1998). Teaching undergrads WEB evaluation: A guide for library instruction. from http://archive.ala.org/acrl/undwebev.htmKeene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader`s workshop: ERIC.Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1Kuhn, A., McNally, B., Schmoll, S., Cahill, C., Lo, W. T., Quintana, C., & Delen, I. (2012). How students find, evaluate and utilize peer-collected annotated multimedia data in science inquiry with zydeco. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3061-3070.Austin, Texas, USA. Lee, J. K., & Calandra, B. (2004). Can Embedded Annotations Help High School Students Perform Problem Solving Tasks Using A Web-Based Historical Document? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 65-84. LeeTiernan, S., & Grudin, J. (2001). Fostering Engagement in Asynchronous Learning through Collaborative Multimedia Annotation. Paper presented at the INTERACT.Li, S. C., Pow, J. W. C., & Cheung, W. C. (2015). A delineation of the cognitive processes manifested in a social annotation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12073Linksman, R. (1996). How to learn anything quickly: An accelerated program for rapid learning: Carol Publishing Group.Lo, W. T., & Quintana, C. (2013). Students` use of mobile technology to collect data in guided inquiry on field trips. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, New York, New York, USA. Lotts, M. (2016). Playing with LEGO®, Learning about the Library, and “Making” Campus Connections: The Rutgers University Art Library Lego Playing Station, Part One. Journal of Library Administration, 56(4), 359-380. doi: 10.1080/01930826.2016.1168252Louisiana Department of Education. (2016). Guidelines for Library Media Programs In Louisiana Schools. From https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/libraryLu, J., & Deng, L. (2012). Reading actively online: An Exploratory investigation of online annotation tools for inquiry learning. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(3). Lucassen, T., Muilwijk, R., Noordzij, M. L., & Schraagen, J. M. (2013). Topic familiarity and information skills in online credibility evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 254-264. doi: 10.1002/asi.22743Magee, D., & Meier, A. (2011). Science education and culture: Inquiry-based learning. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 27. Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49-63. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.49Marie, J. A. (2001). Library instruction and information literacy – 2000. Reference Services Review, 29(4), 338-362. doi: doi:10.1108/00907320110408465Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14McClure, E. L., & Fullerton, S. K. (2017). Instructional Interactions: Supporting Students’ Reading Development Through Interactive Read-Alouds of Informational Texts. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 51-59. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1576Metzger, M. J., and Flanagin, A. J. 2013. Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 59: 210-220.Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091. doi:10.1002/asi.20672 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.20672/fullMohammadi, F., Abrizah, A., & Nazari, M. (2017). Is the information fit for use? Exploring teachers perceived information quality indicators for Farsi web-based learning resources. Malaysian Journal Of Library & Information Science, 20(1). from https://jice.um.edu.my/index.php/MJLIS/article/view/1762Montiel-Overall, P., & Grimes, K. (2013). Teachers and librarians collaborating on inquiry-based science instruction: A longitudinal study. Library & Information Science Research, 35(1), 41-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2012.08.002Nokelainen, P., Kurhila, J., Miettinen, M., Floreen, P., & Tirri, H. (2003, 9-11 July 2003). Evaluating the role of a shared document-based annotation tool in learner-centered collaborative learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Technologies.Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429Pask, G., & Scott, B. C. E. (1973). Caste: A system for exhibiting learning strategies and regulating uncertainties. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 5(1), 17-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(73)80008-2Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2), 221-243. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00015-8Pollman, T. (2014). The sincerest form of flattery: examples and model-based learning in the classroom. Journal of Legal Education, 64(2), 298-333. Quigley, C., Marshall, J., Deaton, C. C. M., Cook, M. P., & J. Padilla, M. (2011). Challenges to inquiry teaching and suggestions for how to meet them. Science Educator, 20, 55-61. Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 82-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010Ramli, F., Shafie, N., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2013). Exploring Student`s in-depth Learning Difficulties in Mathematics through Teachers’ Perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97(Supplement C), 339-345. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.243Rose, C. P. (1998). Accelerated learning for the 21st century : the six-step plan to unlock your master-mind. New York, N.Y.: New York, N.Y. : Dell Publishing.Schmid, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2017). How an inquiry-based classroom lesson intervenes in science efficacy, career-orientation and self-determination. International Journal of Science Education, 39(17), 2342-2360. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2017.1380332Shih, J. L., Chuang, C. W., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). An Inquiry-based Mobile Learning Approach to Enhancing Social Science Learning Effectiveness (Vol. 13).Scholz-Crane, A. (1998). Evaluating the future: A preliminary study of the process of how undergraduate students evaluate Web sources. Reference Services Review, 26(3/4), 53–60.Schünemann, N., Spörer, N., Völlinger, V. A., & Brunstein, J. C. (2017). Peer feedback mediates the impact of self-regulation procedures on strategy use and reading comprehension in reciprocal teaching groups. Instructional Science, 45(4), 395-415. doi: 10.1007/s11251-017-9409-1Smith, J. K. (2013). Secondary teachers and information literacy (IL): Teacher understanding and perceptions of IL in the classroom. Library & Information Science Research, 35(3), 216-222. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.03.003Soloway, E., & Wallace, R. (1997). Does the Internet Support Student Inquiry? Don`t ask. Communications of the ACM, 40(5), 11-16. 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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.008Suhkyung, S., Brush, T. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2017). Designing and Implementing Web-based Scaffolding Tools for Technology-Enhanced Socioscientific Inquiry. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 1-12. Summey, T. P., & Valenti, S. (2013). But We Don`t Have an Instructional Designer: Designing Online Library Instruction Using ISD Techniques. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 7(1-2), 169-182. doi: 10.1080/1533290X.2012.705630Sun, Y., & Gao, F. (2017). Comparing the use of a social annotation tool and a threaded discussion forum to support online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 32(Supplement C), 72-79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.10.001Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205Trautmann, N., MaKinster, J., & Avery, L. (2004). What makes inquiry so hard?(and why is it worth it?). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Tseng, S. S., Yeh, H. C., & Yang, S. h. (2015). Promoting different reading comprehension levels through online annotations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 41-57. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2014.927366Wallen, E., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2005). The function of annotations in the comprehension of scientific texts: Cognitive load effects and the impact of verbal ability. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 59-71. doi: 10.1007/BF02504798Wilhelm, J. D. (2004). Inquiring minds use technology! Voices From the Middle, 11((3)), 45-46. Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning: Stanford Digital Repository.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. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures test. Palo Alto. Palo Alto: CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Yao, Y. (2006). The effect of different presentation formats of hypertext annotations on cognitive load, learning and learner control. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 929. from http://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/929YouthLearn Initiative. (2016). Inquiry-Based Learning Guide. Education Development Center Inc., from http://youthlearn.org/resources/inquiry-based-learning/ zh_TW
