學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 優質標註萃取機制提昇閱讀成效之研究：以合作式閱讀標註系統為例
Mining Quality Reading Annotations for Promoting Reading Performance: A Study on the Collaborative Reading Annotation System作者 黃柏翰
Huang, Po Han貢獻者 陳志銘
黃柏翰
Huang, Po Han關鍵詞 合作式閱讀標註
優質標註萃取
模糊推論
閱讀學習
Collaborative Reading Annotation
Quality Annotation Extraction
Fuzzy Inference
Reading Learning日期 2012 上傳時間 1-三月-2013 09:25:25 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究發展可以在任意網頁上進行閱讀標註之合作式閱讀標註系統，並透過探勘集體智慧方式，在合作式閱讀標註系統上發展「優質標註萃取」及「達人標註萃取」機制，來輔助學習者進行數位文本閱讀學習，以達到提昇閱讀理解成效的目的。此外，本研究也進一步探討透過「優質標註萃取」及「達人標註萃取」機制過濾掉一部份品質較差的標註，是否可有效降低閱讀標註文本時產生的認知負荷。本研究將學習者分成實驗組1（達人標註）、實驗組2（優質標註）與控制組（所有標註）三組，並分別進行約80分鐘的合作式閱讀標註學習活動。其中控制組的成員採用「呈現所有標註之合作式閱讀標系統」支援閱讀學習；而實驗組1的成員則透過「呈現達人標註之合作式閱讀標註系統」來進行閱讀學習；實驗組2則透過「呈現優質標註之合作式閱讀標註系統」來進行閱讀學習。合作式閱讀標註活動要求學習者在指定時間內閱讀本研究指定的文本（化學科普之文章），同時利用「合作式閱讀標註系統」進行閱讀標註撰寫與分享。閱讀標註活動結束後，學習者將進行所閱讀文本之閱讀理解評量以及認知負荷量表填寫，據此瞭解學習者的閱讀理解成效及認知負荷程度。研究結果顯示，採用具有「優質標註萃取」機制所得標註支援閱讀學習，有助於過濾品質不佳的閱讀標註，並提供更簡潔易找尋之優質標註支援閱讀學習，進而提昇閱讀理解成效，由於閱讀時更容易找到所需的優質資訊，因此亦較有助於提昇學習者不同面向概念的閱讀理解成效；此外，本研究基於每位學習者的有效標註，在考量標註層次及標註數量下，評估每位學習者的“標註能力”，採用優質標註支援閱讀學習的實驗組2（優質標註）學習者中，標註能力越高的學習者，其閱讀理解成效也較佳；而本研究將學習者依照閱讀理解後測成績高低，分成高分組及低分組後顯示，控制組（所有標註）與實驗組2（優質標註）的組別中，均呈現出低分組學習者的認知負荷顯著高於高分組學習者的現象；除此之外，本研究比較三組採用不同標註呈現方式之合作式閱讀標註系統進行閱讀學習之學習者時，結果發現，採用三種不同閱讀標註呈現方式組別學習者之認知負荷無顯著差異。最後，本研究歸納研究者在研究過程及結果中之發現，提出發展結合合作式閱讀標註的有效閱讀學習策略、探討各類型標註眼動行為對於閱讀理解成效影響與擴展合作式閱讀標註系統支援行動閱讀學習等未來研究議題之初步架構，供後續研究參考以進行更深入之探究。
A Collaborative Reading Annotation System, which can be randomly proceeded reading annotations on any web pages, is developed in this study. Furthermore, Quality Annotation Extraction and Master Annotation Extraction are developed on the Collaborative Reading Annotation System by mining collective intelligence for assisting learners in proceeding reading digital texts and promoting the reading comprehension performance. The effect of removing some bad-quality annotations through Quality Annotation Extraction and Master Annotation Extraction on reducing the cognitive load when reading annotation texts is further discussed in this study.The learners are divided into Experiment Group 1 (Master Annotation), Experiment Group 2 (Quality Annotation), and Control Group (All Annotation) for 80-minute collaborative reading annotation learning. Control Group uses Collaborative Reading Annotation System with all annotations for promoting reading; Experiment Group 1 proceeds reading through Collaborative Reading Annotation System with master annotations; and, Experiment Group 2 applies Collaborative Reading Annotation System with quality annotations to reading. The learners are requested to read the assigned texts (articles of popular science in chemistry) in the assigned period and write and share the reading annotations with the Collaborative Reading Annotation System. Afterwards, the learners are evaluated the reading comprehension of the texts and fill in the cognitive load scale for understanding the reading comprehension performance and the cognitive load.The research results show that utilizing the annotations acquired by Quality Annotation Extraction for promoting reading could filter out unfavorable reading annotations and provide quality annotations, which are more easily searched for promoting reading, to further enhance the reading comprehension performance. Since the quality information can be more easily searched, it could better assist learners in promoting reading comprehension performance in various aspects. Moreover, based on the valid annotations of each learner, the annotation ability is evaluated the annotation level and quantity. Learners with higher annotation ability in Experiment Group 2 (Quality Annotation) present better reading comprehension performance. Based on the reading comprehension post-test results, the learners are divided into high-score and low-score groups. The cognitive load of low-score learners in both Control Group (All Annotation) and Experiment Group 2 (Quality Annotation) is higher than it of high-score learners. Besides, the cognitive load among the three groups applying the Collaborative Reading Annotation System with different annotations to reading does not appear significant differences.Finally, developing effective reading strategies with Collaborative Reading Annotation, discussing the effects of various annotations on reading comprehension performance, and expanding Collaborative Reading Annotation System for promoting mobile reading are proposed as the preliminary framework for future research, with which in-depth exploration could be preceded in successive research.參考文獻 王瓊珠（1992）。國小六年級閱讀障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀認知能力之比較研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。吳漢障（2009）。數位遊戲設計教學平臺之建構-註記系統輔助之實踐（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。宋曜廷（2000）。先前知識、文章結構和多媒體呈現對文章學習的影響（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。李中莉（2002）。以合作閱讀策略教學促進學童閱讀理解與字彙學習能力（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北師範學院，臺北市。洪月女（譯）（1998）。談閱讀（原作者：Ken Goodman）。臺北市：心理。（原著出版年：1968）張玉成（2001）。思考啟發性閱讀指導技巧。全國兒童閱讀種子教師研習手冊。臺北市：教育部。張春興（1996）。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北市：東華。郭秀緞（2005）。以認知負荷的觀點探討數學問題設計的適切性。教育研究集刊，13，169-182。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。陳勇汀（2011）。合作式閱讀標註之知識萃取機制研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。陳密桃（2003）。認知負荷理論及其對教學的啟示。教育學刊，21，29-51。陳淑娟（1997）。「指導-合作」策略應用於國小閱讀教學之理論探討。臺中師院學報，11，66-110。陳彙芳（1999）。多媒體電腦輔助學習之實驗室研究─探討認知負荷對學習成效的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園縣。黃柏勳（2003）。認知上的瓶頸-認知負荷理論。教育資料與研究，55，71-78。黃秋燕（2004）。思者為王：運用小組策略閱讀之探究式教學法對臺灣高中生進行英語閱讀教學的成效（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。葉宛婷（2005）。互動式繪本教學提昇國小學童科學閱讀理解能力之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北師範學院，臺北市。鄭博真（1996）。閱讀歷程理論及其對教學的啟示。教育資料與研究，8，81-84。賴日生、曾曉青、陳美榮（2005）。從認知負荷理論看教學設計。江西教育學院學報，26（1），52-55。魏裕昌（2006）。誰在閱讀電子書？電子書的閱讀行為探討。行政院新聞局2006年出版年鑑，10，390-399。藍慧君（1991）。學習障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀不同結構文章之閱讀理解與閱讀策略的比較研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。Addison, Y.S. Su, Stephen, J.H., Yang, Wu-Yuin Hwang, & Jia Zhang. (2010). A Web 2.0-based collaborative annotation system for enhancing knowledge sharing in collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(2), 752-766.Agosti, M., Ferro, N., Frommholz, I., & Thiel, U. (2004). Annotations in Digital Libraries and Collaboratories: Facets, Models and Usage. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3232, 244-255.Armbruster, B. B. (1986). Schema theory and the design of content-area textbook. Educational Psychologist, 21(2), 253-267.Ausubel. (1968). Symbolization and symbolic thought: response to forth. Child Development, 39(3), 997-1001.Balkcom, Stephen. (1992). Cooperative Learning. Education Research Consumer Guide, n1.Bateman, S., Farzan, R., Brusilovsky, P., & McCalla, G. (2006). OATS: The Open Annotation and Tagging System. In Proceedings of 12LOR`06, 12. Montreal. Retrieved from http://fox.usask.ca/files/oats-lornet.pdfBogucka, R., & Wood, E. (2009). How to Read Scientific Research Articles: A Hands - On Classroom Exercise. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 59, 4.Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct Measurement of Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychology, 38(1), 53-61.Carlson, R., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 629-640.Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233-246.Chen, C., Chen, Y. (2010). Developing a Taiwan Library History Digital Library with Reader Knowledge Archiving and Sharing Mechanisms Based on the DSpace Platform. The Electronic Library, 30(3), 426-442.CritLink, Advanced Hyperlinks Enable Public Annotation on the Web. (n.d.). doi: 10.1.1.5.5050Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading Comprehension of Scientific Text: A Domain-Specific Test of the Direct and Inferential Mediation Model of Reading Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 687-700.Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Flood, S. (1984). Types of writings found in the early levels of basal reading programs: Preprimers through second grade readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 34, 241-255.Gagn’e, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning（2nd ed）. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal Configurations and Processing Strategies as Moderators Between Instructional Design and Cognitive Load: Evidence From Hypertext-Based Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 33-41.Hilke, E.V. (1990). Cooperative learning. Bloomington, Indiana: The Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.Hittleman, D. R. (1978). Development Reading: A Psycholinguistic Perspective. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Learning together and alone : Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Keshav, S. (2007). How to read a paper. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 37(3), 83-84.Klingner, J.K., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using collaborative strategic reading. Exceptional Children, 30, 32-37.Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. (2004). Collaborative Strategic Reading: “Real-world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 291-302.Lercer, J. W. (1989). Learning disabilities. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Marshall, C. C. (1998). Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia: links, objects, time and space - structure in hypermedia systems(pp. 40-49). ACM New York, NY, USA.Marshall, C. C., & Brush, A. J. B. (2002). From personal to shared annotations. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(pp. 812-813). ACM New York, NY, USA.McNeil, J. D. (1984), Reading comprehension: New directions for classroom practice, Gleriview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319-334.Nichols, D. M., Pemberton, D., Dalhoumi, S., Larouk, O., Belisle, C., & Twidale, M. B. (2000). DEBORA: Developing an Interface to Support Collaboration in a Digital Library. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 239-248.O`Hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1997). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems(pp. 335-342). ACM New York, NY, USA.Pass, F. & Van Merrienboer,J.J.G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351-371.Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J.W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Samuels, S. J. (2002). Reading fluency:its development and assessment. In Farstrup, A.E., & Samule, S. J.（Eds）. What research has to say about reading instruction(pp.166-183). Netwark, DE: International Reading Association.Shevade, B., & Sundaram, H. (2005). A Collaborative Annotation Framework. In 2005 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo(pp. 1346-1349). Presented at the ICME. doi: 10.1109/ICME.2005.1521679Stahl, S., & Hayes, D. A. (1997). Instructional models in reading. Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Pub.Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17), Retrieved January 20, 2012, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17Steimle, J., Brdiczka, O., & Muhlhauser, M. (2009). Collaborative Paper-based Annotation of Lecture Slides. Educatigonal Technology & Society, 12(4), 125-137.Su, A.Y.S., Yang, S.J.H., Hwang, W.Y., & Zhang, J. (2010). A Web 2.0-based ollaborative Annotation System for Enhancing Knowledge Sharing in Collaborative Learning Environments. Computer & Education, 55, 752-766.Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(2）, 176-192.Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. & Pass, F. G. W.C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review. 10(3), 251-297.Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. & Paas, F.G.W.C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-285.Swigger, K. M., Brazile, R., Lopez, V., & Livingston, A. (1997). The virtual collaborative university. Computers Education, 29(2/3), 55-61.Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 424-436.Vacca, J. L., Vacca, R.T., & Gove, M. k. (2000). Reading and Learning to read (4th ed.). New York: Longman.Vannevar, B. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101-108.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wolfe, J. (2002). Annotation technologies: A software and research review. Computers and Composition, 19(4), 471-497.Wulf, G., & Shea, C. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic. Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 185-211. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊與檔案學研究所
99155012
101資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099155012 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 陳志銘 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 黃柏翰 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Huang, Po Han en_US dc.creator (作者) 黃柏翰 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Huang, Po Han en_US dc.date (日期) 2012 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-三月-2013 09:25:25 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-三月-2013 09:25:25 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-三月-2013 09:25:25 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0099155012 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/57056 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 圖書資訊與檔案學研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 99155012 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 101 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究發展可以在任意網頁上進行閱讀標註之合作式閱讀標註系統，並透過探勘集體智慧方式，在合作式閱讀標註系統上發展「優質標註萃取」及「達人標註萃取」機制，來輔助學習者進行數位文本閱讀學習，以達到提昇閱讀理解成效的目的。此外，本研究也進一步探討透過「優質標註萃取」及「達人標註萃取」機制過濾掉一部份品質較差的標註，是否可有效降低閱讀標註文本時產生的認知負荷。本研究將學習者分成實驗組1（達人標註）、實驗組2（優質標註）與控制組（所有標註）三組，並分別進行約80分鐘的合作式閱讀標註學習活動。其中控制組的成員採用「呈現所有標註之合作式閱讀標系統」支援閱讀學習；而實驗組1的成員則透過「呈現達人標註之合作式閱讀標註系統」來進行閱讀學習；實驗組2則透過「呈現優質標註之合作式閱讀標註系統」來進行閱讀學習。合作式閱讀標註活動要求學習者在指定時間內閱讀本研究指定的文本（化學科普之文章），同時利用「合作式閱讀標註系統」進行閱讀標註撰寫與分享。閱讀標註活動結束後，學習者將進行所閱讀文本之閱讀理解評量以及認知負荷量表填寫，據此瞭解學習者的閱讀理解成效及認知負荷程度。研究結果顯示，採用具有「優質標註萃取」機制所得標註支援閱讀學習，有助於過濾品質不佳的閱讀標註，並提供更簡潔易找尋之優質標註支援閱讀學習，進而提昇閱讀理解成效，由於閱讀時更容易找到所需的優質資訊，因此亦較有助於提昇學習者不同面向概念的閱讀理解成效；此外，本研究基於每位學習者的有效標註，在考量標註層次及標註數量下，評估每位學習者的“標註能力”，採用優質標註支援閱讀學習的實驗組2（優質標註）學習者中，標註能力越高的學習者，其閱讀理解成效也較佳；而本研究將學習者依照閱讀理解後測成績高低，分成高分組及低分組後顯示，控制組（所有標註）與實驗組2（優質標註）的組別中，均呈現出低分組學習者的認知負荷顯著高於高分組學習者的現象；除此之外，本研究比較三組採用不同標註呈現方式之合作式閱讀標註系統進行閱讀學習之學習者時，結果發現，採用三種不同閱讀標註呈現方式組別學習者之認知負荷無顯著差異。最後，本研究歸納研究者在研究過程及結果中之發現，提出發展結合合作式閱讀標註的有效閱讀學習策略、探討各類型標註眼動行為對於閱讀理解成效影響與擴展合作式閱讀標註系統支援行動閱讀學習等未來研究議題之初步架構，供後續研究參考以進行更深入之探究。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) A Collaborative Reading Annotation System, which can be randomly proceeded reading annotations on any web pages, is developed in this study. Furthermore, Quality Annotation Extraction and Master Annotation Extraction are developed on the Collaborative Reading Annotation System by mining collective intelligence for assisting learners in proceeding reading digital texts and promoting the reading comprehension performance. The effect of removing some bad-quality annotations through Quality Annotation Extraction and Master Annotation Extraction on reducing the cognitive load when reading annotation texts is further discussed in this study.The learners are divided into Experiment Group 1 (Master Annotation), Experiment Group 2 (Quality Annotation), and Control Group (All Annotation) for 80-minute collaborative reading annotation learning. Control Group uses Collaborative Reading Annotation System with all annotations for promoting reading; Experiment Group 1 proceeds reading through Collaborative Reading Annotation System with master annotations; and, Experiment Group 2 applies Collaborative Reading Annotation System with quality annotations to reading. The learners are requested to read the assigned texts (articles of popular science in chemistry) in the assigned period and write and share the reading annotations with the Collaborative Reading Annotation System. Afterwards, the learners are evaluated the reading comprehension of the texts and fill in the cognitive load scale for understanding the reading comprehension performance and the cognitive load.The research results show that utilizing the annotations acquired by Quality Annotation Extraction for promoting reading could filter out unfavorable reading annotations and provide quality annotations, which are more easily searched for promoting reading, to further enhance the reading comprehension performance. Since the quality information can be more easily searched, it could better assist learners in promoting reading comprehension performance in various aspects. Moreover, based on the valid annotations of each learner, the annotation ability is evaluated the annotation level and quantity. Learners with higher annotation ability in Experiment Group 2 (Quality Annotation) present better reading comprehension performance. Based on the reading comprehension post-test results, the learners are divided into high-score and low-score groups. The cognitive load of low-score learners in both Control Group (All Annotation) and Experiment Group 2 (Quality Annotation) is higher than it of high-score learners. Besides, the cognitive load among the three groups applying the Collaborative Reading Annotation System with different annotations to reading does not appear significant differences.Finally, developing effective reading strategies with Collaborative Reading Annotation, discussing the effects of various annotations on reading comprehension performance, and expanding Collaborative Reading Annotation System for promoting mobile reading are proposed as the preliminary framework for future research, with which in-depth exploration could be preceded in successive research. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 摘要 iAbstract iii目次 v表目次 vii圖目次 x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 3第四節 研究範圍與限制 4第五節 名詞解釋 5第二章 文獻探討 7第一節 合作式數位閱讀標註系統 7第二節 閱讀理解 12第三節 認知負荷 18第三章 優質標註及達人標註萃取機制設計 28第一節 改良式標註評比機制 28第二節 標註熱門程度決定機制 36第四章 研究方法與步驟 42第一節 研究架構 42第二節 研究方法 45第三節 研究對象 47第四節 研究工具 47第五節 實驗設計 53第六節 研究流程 56第五章 實驗結果分析 57第一節 實驗背景說明 57第二節 不同閱讀標註萃取機制對於閱讀理解成效及認知負荷影響分析 58第三節 在不同閱讀標註萃取機制支援閱讀學習下閱讀理解成效、標註能力及認知負荷之間的相關分析 72第四節 針對實驗組2（優質標註）學習者之閱讀理解成效及標註能力迴歸分析 76第五節 訪談資料整理 77第六節 討論 88第六章 結論與未來研究方向 94第一節 結論 94第二節 未來研究方向 97參考文獻 100中文文獻 100英文文獻 102附錄一 認知負荷量表 107附錄二 閱讀理解測驗試卷 108附錄三 訪談大鋼及問卷 112 zh_TW dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099155012 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合作式閱讀標註 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 優質標註萃取 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 模糊推論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 閱讀學習 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Collaborative Reading Annotation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Quality Annotation Extraction en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Fuzzy Inference en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Reading Learning en_US dc.title (題名) 優質標註萃取機制提昇閱讀成效之研究：以合作式閱讀標註系統為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Mining Quality Reading Annotations for Promoting Reading Performance: A Study on the Collaborative Reading Annotation System en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王瓊珠（1992）。國小六年級閱讀障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀認知能力之比較研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。吳漢障（2009）。數位遊戲設計教學平臺之建構-註記系統輔助之實踐（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。宋曜廷（2000）。先前知識、文章結構和多媒體呈現對文章學習的影響（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。李中莉（2002）。以合作閱讀策略教學促進學童閱讀理解與字彙學習能力（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北師範學院，臺北市。洪月女（譯）（1998）。談閱讀（原作者：Ken Goodman）。臺北市：心理。（原著出版年：1968）張玉成（2001）。思考啟發性閱讀指導技巧。全國兒童閱讀種子教師研習手冊。臺北市：教育部。張春興（1996）。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北市：東華。郭秀緞（2005）。以認知負荷的觀點探討數學問題設計的適切性。教育研究集刊，13，169-182。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。陳勇汀（2011）。合作式閱讀標註之知識萃取機制研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。陳密桃（2003）。認知負荷理論及其對教學的啟示。教育學刊，21，29-51。陳淑娟（1997）。「指導-合作」策略應用於國小閱讀教學之理論探討。臺中師院學報，11，66-110。陳彙芳（1999）。多媒體電腦輔助學習之實驗室研究─探討認知負荷對學習成效的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園縣。黃柏勳（2003）。認知上的瓶頸-認知負荷理論。教育資料與研究，55，71-78。黃秋燕（2004）。思者為王：運用小組策略閱讀之探究式教學法對臺灣高中生進行英語閱讀教學的成效（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。葉宛婷（2005）。互動式繪本教學提昇國小學童科學閱讀理解能力之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北師範學院，臺北市。鄭博真（1996）。閱讀歷程理論及其對教學的啟示。教育資料與研究，8，81-84。賴日生、曾曉青、陳美榮（2005）。從認知負荷理論看教學設計。江西教育學院學報，26（1），52-55。魏裕昌（2006）。誰在閱讀電子書？電子書的閱讀行為探討。行政院新聞局2006年出版年鑑，10，390-399。藍慧君（1991）。學習障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀不同結構文章之閱讀理解與閱讀策略的比較研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。Addison, Y.S. Su, Stephen, J.H., Yang, Wu-Yuin Hwang, & Jia Zhang. (2010). A Web 2.0-based collaborative annotation system for enhancing knowledge sharing in collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(2), 752-766.Agosti, M., Ferro, N., Frommholz, I., & Thiel, U. (2004). Annotations in Digital Libraries and Collaboratories: Facets, Models and Usage. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3232, 244-255.Armbruster, B. B. (1986). Schema theory and the design of content-area textbook. Educational Psychologist, 21(2), 253-267.Ausubel. (1968). Symbolization and symbolic thought: response to forth. Child Development, 39(3), 997-1001.Balkcom, Stephen. (1992). Cooperative Learning. Education Research Consumer Guide, n1.Bateman, S., Farzan, R., Brusilovsky, P., & McCalla, G. (2006). OATS: The Open Annotation and Tagging System. In Proceedings of 12LOR`06, 12. Montreal. Retrieved from http://fox.usask.ca/files/oats-lornet.pdfBogucka, R., & Wood, E. (2009). How to Read Scientific Research Articles: A Hands - On Classroom Exercise. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 59, 4.Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct Measurement of Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychology, 38(1), 53-61.Carlson, R., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 629-640.Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233-246.Chen, C., Chen, Y. (2010). Developing a Taiwan Library History Digital Library with Reader Knowledge Archiving and Sharing Mechanisms Based on the DSpace Platform. The Electronic Library, 30(3), 426-442.CritLink, Advanced Hyperlinks Enable Public Annotation on the Web. (n.d.). doi: 10.1.1.5.5050Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading Comprehension of Scientific Text: A Domain-Specific Test of the Direct and Inferential Mediation Model of Reading Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 687-700.Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Flood, S. (1984). Types of writings found in the early levels of basal reading programs: Preprimers through second grade readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 34, 241-255.Gagn’e, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning（2nd ed）. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal Configurations and Processing Strategies as Moderators Between Instructional Design and Cognitive Load: Evidence From Hypertext-Based Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 33-41.Hilke, E.V. (1990). Cooperative learning. Bloomington, Indiana: The Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.Hittleman, D. R. (1978). Development Reading: A Psycholinguistic Perspective. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Learning together and alone : Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Keshav, S. (2007). How to read a paper. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 37(3), 83-84.Klingner, J.K., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using collaborative strategic reading. Exceptional Children, 30, 32-37.Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. (2004). Collaborative Strategic Reading: “Real-world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 291-302.Lercer, J. W. (1989). Learning disabilities. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Marshall, C. C. (1998). Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia: links, objects, time and space - structure in hypermedia systems(pp. 40-49). ACM New York, NY, USA.Marshall, C. C., & Brush, A. J. B. (2002). From personal to shared annotations. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(pp. 812-813). ACM New York, NY, USA.McNeil, J. D. (1984), Reading comprehension: New directions for classroom practice, Gleriview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319-334.Nichols, D. M., Pemberton, D., Dalhoumi, S., Larouk, O., Belisle, C., & Twidale, M. B. (2000). DEBORA: Developing an Interface to Support Collaboration in a Digital Library. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 239-248.O`Hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1997). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems(pp. 335-342). ACM New York, NY, USA.Pass, F. & Van Merrienboer,J.J.G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351-371.Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J.W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Samuels, S. J. (2002). Reading fluency:its development and assessment. In Farstrup, A.E., & Samule, S. J.（Eds）. What research has to say about reading instruction(pp.166-183). Netwark, DE: International Reading Association.Shevade, B., & Sundaram, H. (2005). A Collaborative Annotation Framework. In 2005 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo(pp. 1346-1349). Presented at the ICME. doi: 10.1109/ICME.2005.1521679Stahl, S., & Hayes, D. A. (1997). Instructional models in reading. Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Pub.Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17), Retrieved January 20, 2012, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17Steimle, J., Brdiczka, O., & Muhlhauser, M. (2009). Collaborative Paper-based Annotation of Lecture Slides. Educatigonal Technology & Society, 12(4), 125-137.Su, A.Y.S., Yang, S.J.H., Hwang, W.Y., & Zhang, J. (2010). A Web 2.0-based ollaborative Annotation System for Enhancing Knowledge Sharing in Collaborative Learning Environments. Computer & Education, 55, 752-766.Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(2）, 176-192.Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. & Pass, F. G. W.C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review. 10(3), 251-297.Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. & Paas, F.G.W.C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-285.Swigger, K. M., Brazile, R., Lopez, V., & Livingston, A. (1997). The virtual collaborative university. Computers Education, 29(2/3), 55-61.Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 424-436.Vacca, J. L., Vacca, R.T., & Gove, M. k. (2000). Reading and Learning to read (4th ed.). New York: Longman.Vannevar, B. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101-108.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wolfe, J. (2002). Annotation technologies: A software and research review. Computers and Composition, 19(4), 471-497.Wulf, G., & Shea, C. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic. Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 185-211. zh_TW
