1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Liberal Arts
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 合作式閱讀標註之知識萃取機制研究
A study on developing knowledge extraction mechanisms from cooperative reading annotation
作者 陳勇汀
Chen, YungTing
貢獻者 陳志銘
Chen, Chih Ming
陳勇汀
Chen, YungTing
關鍵詞 合作式閱讀標註
知識標註學習系統
知識萃取機制
模糊綜合評判
閱讀學習
Cooperative reading annotation
Knowledge-based annotation learning system (KALS)
Knowledge extraction mechanism
Fuzzy synthetic decision
Reading learning
日期 2011
上傳時間 4-Sep-2013 16:40:03 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究在合作式數位閱讀環境中發展了一套「知識標註學習系統」，可以支援多人同時針對一篇數位文本進行閱讀標註與互動討論，以提升讀者閱讀的深度與廣度。此外，本研究更進一步地以專家評估法設計「知識萃取機制」，用於判斷讀者閱讀標註的重要度。
「知識萃取機制」是基於讀者閱讀標註中所蘊含的閱讀理解策略與閱讀技巧，以及合作式閱讀社群中產生的標註共識，考量了「標註範圍長度」、「標註範圍詞性」、「標註範圍位置」、「標註策略類型」、「標註範圍共識」與「標註喜愛共識」等六項因素，以專家評估法制定的標註重要度模糊隸屬函數來評定各因素的重要度並量化為「標註因素分數」指標，最後將六項因素以模糊綜合評判進行推論，再將推論結果解模糊化而成為代表標註重要度的量化指標「標註分數」。基於「知識萃取機制」所計算代表標註重要度的「標註分數」，可作為讀者進行閱讀標註是否不佳的判斷，並據此提供標註技巧建議與優質標註內容推薦的「標註建議」，以幫助讀者提昇閱讀理解能力。
為了驗證「知識萃取機制」計算「標註分數」的有效性，以及探討未來改善「知識萃取機制」和可加入的考量因素與適性化設計的可能方向，本研究以單組後測設計規劃實驗，並以國立政治大學圖書資訊數位碩士在職專班19位學生作為實驗對象，進行一份數位學習論文的合作式閱讀標註學習，並於實驗後評估實驗對象閱讀文章之後的閱讀理解能力，作為評鑑「知識萃取機制」計算方式是否有效的指標。最後再以問卷蒐集實驗對象對於「知識萃取機制」的意見，歸納成為未來研究改善的參考依據。
研究結果發現，本研究所提出「知識萃取機制」中計算標註重要度的「標註分數」與實驗對象的閱讀理解能力呈現低度正相關，一定程度地證實了「知識萃取機制」計算方式的有效性。而「知識萃取機制」六項考量因素中，「標註範圍長度」與「標註喜愛共識」為分辨實驗對象閱讀理解能力的關鍵因素；「標註策略類型」與「標註範圍詞性」的標註重要度模糊隸屬函數有待修正；「標註範圍共識」與「標註範圍位置」為無效因素，但這可能是受到計算方式錯誤與閱讀文章類型的影響，未來仍有待進一步評估。在未來發展方面，系統操作標註行為頻率越高，實驗對象的閱讀理解能力也有較高的跡象，未來可以將其納入「知識萃取機制」作為考量因素之一；而閱讀理解能力較差的實驗對象，呈現出比較不願意回應「標註建議」與較常使用社群互動的現象。本研究歸納可能原因為實驗對象自身的閱讀素養不成熟，以至於無法判斷「標註建議」的正確性，而需要參考他人閱讀標註。
未來研究可針對本研究的實驗對象與閱讀標註資料進行更深入的分析，並且將改良後的「知識萃取機制」擴大至探討其他類型的數位文本閱讀標註與實驗對象。也可以搭配認知策略教學法建構閱讀教學鷹架，或是將「知識標註學習系統」用於支援數位典藏與數位圖書館閱讀學習，以激發更多不同領域的應用研究。
Based on the concept of cooperative reading learning, the study presented a cooperative reading annotation system termed as "Knowledge-based Annotation Learning System (KALS)", which can support cooperative reading annotation while reading a common text-based digital material, to accumulate reading knowledge and to promote readers’ reading comprehension abilities. Through KALS, readers could freely increase annotation for any text words on a text-based digital material with HTML format. Readers can also share and discuss the contributed annotation with other readers via interaction interface in KALS.
Furthermore, this study also developed an intelligent Knowledge Extraction Mechanism (KEM), which can mine the quality annotation knowledge and annotation skills based on a large amount of readers’ annotation archived on KALS, to further promote reading comprehension of readers via on-line recommending high quality annotation knowledge and good annotation skills to readers. KEM employed fuzzy synthetic decision approach to quantify each reader’s annotation as a numeric index termed as "Annotation Score" under simultaneously considering two annotation consensuses including anchor consensus and favorite consensus, and four annotation features including anchor length, part of speech of anchor word, anchor location and annotation strategy. In a manner, "Annotation Score" can represent the importance of reader`s annotation. Thus, KEN uses "Annotation Score" to determine which annotation needs the suggestion of annotation skill tips, and which high-quality annotation can be recommended to readers. At the same time, readers are encouraged to reflect their annotation behavior based on the suggestion of annotation skill tips and high-quality annotation recommended by KEN, and are asked to respond the feedback from KEM.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed KALS with KEM, the study designed an experiment to collect readers` annotation behavior after readers read an assigned text-based digital material, and then assessed readers’ reading comprehension ability. Reading comprehension ability was used to verify the effectiveness of "Annotation Score" inferred by KEM and to explore the potential factors that can improve KEM. In the designed experiment, participants were 19 graduate students of E-learning Master Program of Library and Information Studies of National Chengchi University who took the course of Integrating Information Technology into Teaching. All participants were asked to read an academic paper related E-Learning issue based on the support of KALS with KEM during two weeks. Moreover, they had to finish a reading report and accept a test of reading comprehension after finishing reading learning activity. The report and test were served as the measurement of participants` reading comprehension.
The experimental results show that there is a low positive correlation between "Annotation Score" and participants` reading comprehension score, thus confirming the effectiveness of the proposed KEM. Furthermore, KEM could be improved by adjusting the annotation importance calculation approach of part of speech anchor word and annotation strategy. This study also confirmed that the considered factors of KEM should eliminate two factors including anchor consensus and anchor location. Additionally, future study should consider adopting frequency of annotation behavior as considered factors of KEM. Moreover, the experimental results also show that participants with low level of reading comprehension ability have higher need of community interaction than participants with high level of reading comprehension ability while using KALS for reading learning, and they are difficult to confirm whether the recommending tips of annotation from KEM is correct or not. Obviously, exploring the difference of participants’ annotation behavior between different levels of reading comprehension abilities provides benefits to develop adaptive functionalities of KEM in the future.
參考文獻 中文文獻
Apple Inc.（2010）。iPad：以前所未有的方式瀏覽網頁、電子郵件及照片。Apple。上網日期：2011年2月5日，檢自：http://www.apple.com/tw/ipad/
ASUSTeK Computer Inc.（2010）。ASUS Eee Note EA800。ASUS。上網日期：2011年2月5日，檢自：http://tw.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=IrZFXz2AcdRvL7L6
EllisLab, Inc.（2011）。CodeIgniter 繁體中文：中小企業的救星，開發人員的福音。CodeIgniter。上網日期：2011年2月14日，檢自：http://www.codeigniter.org.tw/
Freeman E.、Freeman E.（2005）。深入淺出設計模式（蘇秉豐編，蔡學鏞譯）。臺北市：歐萊禮。
Lecky-Thompson E.、Eide-Goodman H.、Nowicki S.D.、Cove A.（2005）。專業PHP5程式設計（林學文譯）。臺北市：碁峰資訊。
Mayer R.（1997）。敎育心理學：認知取向（林淸山譯）（三版）。臺北市：遠流出版公司。
Microsoft（1999）。Word 2000 說明及使用方法。Microsoft Office Online。上網日期：2008年12月18日，檢自：http://office.microsoft.com/zh-tw/word/FX100649281028.aspx?CTT=96&Origin=CL100636481028
PISA學生能力國際評量計畫（2010）。臺灣PISA2009精簡報告。臺灣 PISA國家研究中心。
丁嘉琳（2007，December）。借鏡國際 台灣閱讀出了什麼問題？。天下雜誌：超越貧窮線，387。
方隆彰（1999）。思考的引擎──讀書會的善問工夫。社教資料雜誌，251，3-6。
王化龍（1991）。高動力強化讀書法。臺北市：旭昇。
王梅玲（2005）。電子期刊對學術圖書館技術服務的影響。中華民國圖書館學會會報，75，161-172。
王瓊珠、洪儷瑜、陳秀芬（2007）。低識字能力學生識字量發展之研究：馬太效應之可能表現。特殊教育研究學刊，32（3），1–16。
王瓊珠、陳淑麗（2010）。突破閱讀困難：理念與實務。特殊教育系列。臺北市：心理。
旭聯科技（2002）。Wisdom Master Pro 智慧大師。Wisdom Master Pro 智慧大師。上網日期：2011年2月7日，檢自：http://demo.learn.com.tw/1000410147/index.html
米山 公.（2007）。筆記成功術。全腦學習系列。商周出版。
余敏賢（2003）。教育測驗與統計：重點整理（五版）。高點致勝叢書系列。臺北市：高點文化。
吳明隆（2009）。SPSS操作與應用：問卷統計分析實務（二版）。臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
吳柏林（2005）。模糊統計導論：方法與應用。臺北市：五南。
李素貞（2011）。Guided Reading on the Web。英文導讀。上網日期：2011年2月18日，檢自：http://www.etweb.fju.edu.tw/reading/
周慶華（2003）。閱讀社會學。臺北市：揚智文化事業股份有限公司。
林乾義、關爾嘉（2002）。東方人學習革命。新加坡：關爾嘉大腦潛能出版。
林朝順、鄒國英、劉正耀、胡彼得、楊育純（2005）。醫學系筆試多項選擇題品質分析。輔仁醫學期刊，3（4），213–220。
柯華葳（2009）。培養super小讀者。教出閱讀力。臺北市：天下雜誌股份有限公司。
洪儷瑜、陳淑麗、王瓊珠、方金雅、陳美芳、張郁雯等（2007）。中文閱讀診斷工具臨床驗證性研究。教育部委託專案報告。
馬沙諾（2003）。讀寫新法。課程與教學系列：高等教育。
常唯（2008）。論網絡環境下用戶標注的價值與應用。圖書情報工作，1。doi: CNKI:SUN:TSQB.0.2008-01-005
異塵行者（2009，September 24）。Google Sidewiki 動員網友寫下網頁註解評論，用人力讓人更了解網路。電腦玩物。上網日期：2009年10月1日，檢自：http://playpcesor.blogspot.com/2009/09/google-sidewiki.html
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。
陳來紅（1997）。袋鼠媽媽讀書會（二版）。臺北市：毛毛蟲兒童哲學基金會。
陳聯（2006）。Web頁面標注模型及其實現。計算機工程與設計，（11）。doi: cnki:ISSN:1000-7024.0.2006-11-045
曾陳密桃（1990）。國民中小學生的後設認知及其與閱讀理解之相關研究。臺北市：國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
馮國臣（2007）。模糊理論：基礎與應用（趙忠賢、張宏志、溫坤禮編）。臺北縣中和市：新文京開發。
黃桂芝、曾憲雄、翁瑞鋒、何筱婷（2008）。採遊戲式學習教育平台之科學教育活動設計。數位學習科技期刊，1（1）。
黃國豪、李玲梅、王皓瑀、洪珮菁、吳佳茹、賴煖菱（2010）。無所不在學習之系統建置與成效分析─以小學生認識校園植物為例。數位學習科技期刊，2（3）。
廖仁武（1998）。高材生秘笈：如何成為頂尖的讀書高手。臺北縣中和市：漢宇。
劉明兆、余德慧（1982）。讀書與考試。臺北市：張老師文化。
鄭湧涇（1998，September 18）。科學學習成就評量：II.評量結果的統計分析。國立臺灣師範大學生命科學系。上網日期：2010年12月27日，檢自：http://140.122.143.143/doc/evaluate3.htm

英文文獻
Adler, M., & Doren, C. L. V. (1972). How to read a book (Rev. and updated ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster.
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.
Amazon.com. (2009). Kindle: Amazon`s Wireless Reading Device. Amazon.com.
Amazon.com. (2011). Amazon.com. Amazon.com. Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://www.amazon.com/
Aptana, Inc. (2010). Aptana. Aptana. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://www.aptana.com/
Arms, W. (2000). Digital libraries. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Barlow, J. (2010). The Magic of Reading: iPad, Book, and Kindle. Interface on the Internet, 10(8). Retrieved from http://bcis.pacificu.edu/journal/article.php?id=730
Bateman, S., Farzan, R., Brusilovsky, P., & McCalla, G. (2006). OATS: The Open Annotation and Tagging System. In Proceedings of 12LOR`06, (Vol. 12). Montreal. Retrieved from http://fox.usask.ca/files/oats-lornet.pdf
Bishop, D. V., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 858.
Bogucka, R., & Wood, E. (2009). How to Read Scientific Research Articles: A Hands - On Classroom Exercise. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, (59), 4.
Bradshaw, S., & Light, M. (2007). Annotation consensus: implications for passage recommendation in scientific literature. In Proceedings of the eighteenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia (pp. 209-216). Manchester, UK: ACM. doi:10.1145/1286240.1286300
Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1999). Language and reading disabilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Chen, C., Wang, M., Tsay, M., Zhang, D., & Chen, Y. (2008). Developing a Taiwan Libraries` History Digital Library with Reader Knowledge Archiving and Sharing Services Based on DSpace Platform. In LNCS conference proceeding. Presented at the International Conference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries.
Chen, K. J., & Hsieh, Y. M. (2005). Chinese Treebanks and Grammar Extraction. Natural Language Processing - IJCNLP 2004, 655–663.
Chen, M. C., Chiang, C. H., & Ko, C. C. (2007). Exploring the Effectiveness of TriAccess System on Reading Comprehension for Students with Disabilities. In Oral presented at 18th Asian Conference on Mental Retardation. Taipei, Taiwan.
CKSource. (2011). CKEditor: WYSIWYG Text and HTML Editor for the Web. CKEditor. Retrieved February 14, 2011, from http://ckeditor.com/
Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Courcy, M. D., & Birch, G. (1993). Reading and Writing Strategies Used in a Japanese Immersion Program.. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED388097
CritLink: Advanced Hyperlinks Enable Public Annotation on the Web. (n.d.). . doi:10.1.1.5.5050
Cromley, 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.
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management.
Dieberger, A., Dourish, P., Hoeoek, K., Resnick, P., & Wexelblat, A. (2000). Social navigation: techniques for building more usable systems. interactions, 7(6), 36-45.
Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology: enhanced learning environment. System, 31(3), 349–365.
Ebel, R. L. (1972). Essentials of educational measurement. Prentice-Hall education series (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Edwards, D. (2010). packer. dean.edwards.name. Retrieved February 14, 2011, from http://dean.edwards.name/packer/
Eichorn, J. (2007). phpDocumentor: The complete documentation solution for PHP. phpDocumentor. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://www.phpdoc.org/
Eliot, T. (1922). The Waste Land. Bartleby.com. Retrieved December 18, 2008, from http://www.bartleby.com/201/1.html
Eschen, R. (2008). JSDoc Homepage: JavaScript Documentation Tool. JSDoc Homepage. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://jsdoc.sourceforge.net/
Fagan, B. (2003). Scaffolds To Help ELL Readers. Voices from the Middle, 11(1), 38–42.
Farzan, R., & Brusilovsky, P. (2005). Social Navigation Support Through Annotation: Based Group Modeling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3538, 463.
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software (Vol. 206). Addison-wesley Reading, MA.
Google. (2011). Google Sidewiki. Google. Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://www.google.com/sidewiki/intl/en/index.html
Grønbæk, K., Sloth, L., & Ørbæk, P. (1999). Webvise: browser and proxy support for open hypermedia structuring mechanisms on the WWW. Computer Networks: The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking, 31(11-16), 1331-1345.
Gruber, T. (2008). Collective knowledge systems: Where the social web meets the semantic web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 6(1), 4–13.
Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). A New Tool for Measuring and Understanding Individual Differences in the Component Processes of Reading Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 103–128.
Harper, R. (2002). Information that counts: A sociological view of information navigation. Designing Information Spaces: The Social Navigation Approach, 343–353.
Hsieh, P., & Dwyer, F. (2009). The Instructional Effect of Online Reading Strategies and Learning Styles on Student Academic Achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 36-50.
Keshav, S. (2007). How to read a paper. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 37(3), 83–84.
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151–160.
Levy, D. M. (1994). Fixed or fluid?: document stability and new media. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM European conference on Hypermedia technology (pp. 24–31). ACM New York, NY, USA.
Little, J. W., & Parker, R. (2010). How to Read a Scientific Paper. BIOC/MCB 568. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from http://www.biochem.arizona.edu/classes/bioc568/papers.htm#evaluate
Lunsford, A. (2000). The Presence of Others: Voices and Images That Call for Response (3rd ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin`s.
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). Defining dyslexia, comorbidity, teacher`s knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 1–14.
Ma, W. Y., & Chen, K. J. (2003). Introduction to CKIP Chinese word segmentation system for the first international Chinese Word Segmentation Bakeoff. In Proceedings of the second SIGHAN workshop on Chinese language processing (Vol. 17, pp. 168–171).
Marshall, C. C. (1997). Annotation: from paper books to the digital library. In Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on Digital libraries (pp. 131-140). ACM New York, NY, USA.
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.
Medium project. (2011). Markup: Draw on any webpage. Share thoughts. Move ideas. Markup. Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://markup.io/
Merriam-Webster. (2008). annotation. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved December 13, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annotation
Mullis, I., Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, & International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2007). PIRLS 2006 international report: IEA`s progress in International Reading Literacy Study in primary schools in 40 countries. Chestnut Hill MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center Lynch School of Education Boston College.
Nation, K., & Norbury, C. F. (2005). Why reading comprehension fails: Insights from developmental disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 21.
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.
Oracle Corporation. (2011). Welcome to NetBeans. NetBeans. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://netbeans.org/
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 39(8), 771–777.
pgAdmin Development Team. (2010). pgAdmin: PostgreSQL administration and management tools. pgAdmin. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://www.pgadmin.org/
PostgreSQL Global Development Group. (2011). PostgreSQL: The world`s most advanced open source database. PostgreSQL. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from http://www.postgresql.org/
Real Travel, Inc. (2011). Real Travel: Hotel reviews & deals for vacations, hotels, resorts. Real Travel. Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://realtravel.com/
Reenskaug, T., Wold, P., & Lehne, O. A. (1996). Working with objects. Manning.
Robinson, F. P. (1970). Effective study (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the Digital Age: universal design for learning. Alexandria Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Salvatori, M. (1996). The "Argument of Reading" in the Teaching of Composition. Argument Revisited, Argument Redefined: Negotiating Meaning in the Composition Classroom.
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.2005.1521679
Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (1990). Textbook Annotation: An Effective and Efficient Study Strategy for College Students. Journal of Reading, 34(2), 122-129.
So, H. J. (2009). When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structure. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 143–160.
Stahl, S., & Hayes, D. A. (1997). Instructional models in reading. Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Pub.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.
StarUML Project. (2005). StarUML: The Open Source UML/MDA Platform. StarUML. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://staruml.sourceforge.net/en/
The jQuery Project. (2010). jQuery: The Write Less, Do More, JavaScript Library. jQuery. Retrieved February 14, 2011, from http://jquery.com/
The PHP Group. (2011). PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor. PHP. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from http://www.php.net/
Thomas, E., & Robinson, H. A. (1977). Improving reading in every class (Abridged 2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Vannevar, B. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, July.
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 45(1), 2–40.
Vygotskiĭ, L., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wolfe, J. (2002). Annotation technologies: A software and research review. Computers and Composition, 19(4), 471-497.
Wolfe, J. (2008). Annotations and the collaborative digital library: Effects of an aligned annotation interface on student argumentation and reading strategies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 141-164.
Wolfe, J. L., & Neuwirth, C. M. (2001). From the Margins to the Center: The Future of Annotation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(3), 333.
ZURB. (2011). Bounce: A fun and easy way to share ideas on a website. Bounce. Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://www.bounceapp.com/
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊與檔案學研究所
96155001
100
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096155001
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 陳志銘zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chen, Chih Mingen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳勇汀zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, YungTingen_US
dc.creator (作者) 陳勇汀zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chen, YungTingen_US
dc.date (日期) 2011en_US
dc.date.accessioned 4-Sep-2013 16:40:03 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 4-Sep-2013 16:40:03 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-Sep-2013 16:40:03 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0096155001en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60171-
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) 96155001zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究在合作式數位閱讀環境中發展了一套「知識標註學習系統」，可以支援多人同時針對一篇數位文本進行閱讀標註與互動討論，以提升讀者閱讀的深度與廣度。此外，本研究更進一步地以專家評估法設計「知識萃取機制」，用於判斷讀者閱讀標註的重要度。
「知識萃取機制」是基於讀者閱讀標註中所蘊含的閱讀理解策略與閱讀技巧，以及合作式閱讀社群中產生的標註共識，考量了「標註範圍長度」、「標註範圍詞性」、「標註範圍位置」、「標註策略類型」、「標註範圍共識」與「標註喜愛共識」等六項因素，以專家評估法制定的標註重要度模糊隸屬函數來評定各因素的重要度並量化為「標註因素分數」指標，最後將六項因素以模糊綜合評判進行推論，再將推論結果解模糊化而成為代表標註重要度的量化指標「標註分數」。基於「知識萃取機制」所計算代表標註重要度的「標註分數」，可作為讀者進行閱讀標註是否不佳的判斷，並據此提供標註技巧建議與優質標註內容推薦的「標註建議」，以幫助讀者提昇閱讀理解能力。
為了驗證「知識萃取機制」計算「標註分數」的有效性，以及探討未來改善「知識萃取機制」和可加入的考量因素與適性化設計的可能方向，本研究以單組後測設計規劃實驗，並以國立政治大學圖書資訊數位碩士在職專班19位學生作為實驗對象，進行一份數位學習論文的合作式閱讀標註學習，並於實驗後評估實驗對象閱讀文章之後的閱讀理解能力，作為評鑑「知識萃取機制」計算方式是否有效的指標。最後再以問卷蒐集實驗對象對於「知識萃取機制」的意見，歸納成為未來研究改善的參考依據。
研究結果發現，本研究所提出「知識萃取機制」中計算標註重要度的「標註分數」與實驗對象的閱讀理解能力呈現低度正相關，一定程度地證實了「知識萃取機制」計算方式的有效性。而「知識萃取機制」六項考量因素中，「標註範圍長度」與「標註喜愛共識」為分辨實驗對象閱讀理解能力的關鍵因素；「標註策略類型」與「標註範圍詞性」的標註重要度模糊隸屬函數有待修正；「標註範圍共識」與「標註範圍位置」為無效因素，但這可能是受到計算方式錯誤與閱讀文章類型的影響，未來仍有待進一步評估。在未來發展方面，系統操作標註行為頻率越高，實驗對象的閱讀理解能力也有較高的跡象，未來可以將其納入「知識萃取機制」作為考量因素之一；而閱讀理解能力較差的實驗對象，呈現出比較不願意回應「標註建議」與較常使用社群互動的現象。本研究歸納可能原因為實驗對象自身的閱讀素養不成熟，以至於無法判斷「標註建議」的正確性，而需要參考他人閱讀標註。
未來研究可針對本研究的實驗對象與閱讀標註資料進行更深入的分析，並且將改良後的「知識萃取機制」擴大至探討其他類型的數位文本閱讀標註與實驗對象。也可以搭配認知策略教學法建構閱讀教學鷹架，或是將「知識標註學習系統」用於支援數位典藏與數位圖書館閱讀學習，以激發更多不同領域的應用研究。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Based on the concept of cooperative reading learning, the study presented a cooperative reading annotation system termed as "Knowledge-based Annotation Learning System (KALS)", which can support cooperative reading annotation while reading a common text-based digital material, to accumulate reading knowledge and to promote readers’ reading comprehension abilities. Through KALS, readers could freely increase annotation for any text words on a text-based digital material with HTML format. Readers can also share and discuss the contributed annotation with other readers via interaction interface in KALS.
Furthermore, this study also developed an intelligent Knowledge Extraction Mechanism (KEM), which can mine the quality annotation knowledge and annotation skills based on a large amount of readers’ annotation archived on KALS, to further promote reading comprehension of readers via on-line recommending high quality annotation knowledge and good annotation skills to readers. KEM employed fuzzy synthetic decision approach to quantify each reader’s annotation as a numeric index termed as "Annotation Score" under simultaneously considering two annotation consensuses including anchor consensus and favorite consensus, and four annotation features including anchor length, part of speech of anchor word, anchor location and annotation strategy. In a manner, "Annotation Score" can represent the importance of reader`s annotation. Thus, KEN uses "Annotation Score" to determine which annotation needs the suggestion of annotation skill tips, and which high-quality annotation can be recommended to readers. At the same time, readers are encouraged to reflect their annotation behavior based on the suggestion of annotation skill tips and high-quality annotation recommended by KEN, and are asked to respond the feedback from KEM.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed KALS with KEM, the study designed an experiment to collect readers` annotation behavior after readers read an assigned text-based digital material, and then assessed readers’ reading comprehension ability. Reading comprehension ability was used to verify the effectiveness of "Annotation Score" inferred by KEM and to explore the potential factors that can improve KEM. In the designed experiment, participants were 19 graduate students of E-learning Master Program of Library and Information Studies of National Chengchi University who took the course of Integrating Information Technology into Teaching. All participants were asked to read an academic paper related E-Learning issue based on the support of KALS with KEM during two weeks. Moreover, they had to finish a reading report and accept a test of reading comprehension after finishing reading learning activity. The report and test were served as the measurement of participants` reading comprehension.
The experimental results show that there is a low positive correlation between "Annotation Score" and participants` reading comprehension score, thus confirming the effectiveness of the proposed KEM. Furthermore, KEM could be improved by adjusting the annotation importance calculation approach of part of speech anchor word and annotation strategy. This study also confirmed that the considered factors of KEM should eliminate two factors including anchor consensus and anchor location. Additionally, future study should consider adopting frequency of annotation behavior as considered factors of KEM. Moreover, the experimental results also show that participants with low level of reading comprehension ability have higher need of community interaction than participants with high level of reading comprehension ability while using KALS for reading learning, and they are difficult to confirm whether the recommending tips of annotation from KEM is correct or not. Obviously, exploring the difference of participants’ annotation behavior between different levels of reading comprehension abilities provides benefits to develop adaptive functionalities of KEM in the future.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 摘要 i
Abstract iii
目次 v
表次 ix
圖次 xiii
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 研究貢獻 8
第六節 名詞定義 9
第二章 文獻探討 13
第一節 閱讀理解教學 13
第二節 標註學習 19
第三節 標註共識 24
第四節 閱讀標註系統 30
第三章 研究方法 37
第一節 研究架構 37
第二節 實驗場域 41
第三節 實驗對象 43
第四節 研究工具 44
第五節 實驗流程 50
第四章 知識標註學習系統 55
第一節 系統介紹 55
第二節 系統開發環境 56
第三節 系統架構 60
第四節 系統運作流程 65
第五節 系統操作畫面 66
第五章 知識萃取機制設計 73
第一節 模糊綜合評判 73
第二節 知識萃取機制考量的因素集 77
第三節 知識萃取機制考量之各因素的標註重要度模糊隸屬函數制定 80
第四節 因素權重集制定 86
第五節 標註建議設計 86
第六節 標註指引設計 90
第六章 實驗結果與分析 91
第一節 實驗對象分析 91
第二節 「標註分數」與閱讀理解分數相關度分析 100
第三節 知識萃取機制考量因素分析 102
第四節 標註因素分數與閱讀理解分數相關度分析 114
第五節 系統操作標註行為高低分組與閱讀理解分數差異分析 118
第六節 閱讀理解分數高低分組之閱讀標註行為差異分析 121
第七章 結論 127
第一節 研究結論 127
第二節 討論 130
第三節 未來發展 134
參考文獻 143
附錄 A 知識萃取專家評估問卷 155
附錄 B 閱讀理解測驗 167
附錄 C 使用意見調查問卷 173
附錄 D 標註重要度模糊隸屬函數 177
附錄 E 標註建議意見調查結果 179
附錄 F 標註範圍詞性類型LSD法多重比較結果 183
作者簡介 187		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 5139717 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096155001en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合作式閱讀標註zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識標註學習系統zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識萃取機制zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 模糊綜合評判zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 閱讀學習zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cooperative reading annotationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Knowledge-based annotation learning system (KALS)en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Knowledge extraction mechanismen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Fuzzy synthetic decisionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Reading learningen_US
dc.title (題名) 合作式閱讀標註之知識萃取機制研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A study on developing knowledge extraction mechanisms from cooperative reading annotationen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻
Apple Inc.（2010）。iPad：以前所未有的方式瀏覽網頁、電子郵件及照片。Apple。上網日期：2011年2月5日，檢自：http://www.apple.com/tw/ipad/
ASUSTeK Computer Inc.（2010）。ASUS Eee Note EA800。ASUS。上網日期：2011年2月5日，檢自：http://tw.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=IrZFXz2AcdRvL7L6
EllisLab, Inc.（2011）。CodeIgniter 繁體中文：中小企業的救星，開發人員的福音。CodeIgniter。上網日期：2011年2月14日，檢自：http://www.codeigniter.org.tw/
Freeman E.、Freeman E.（2005）。深入淺出設計模式（蘇秉豐編，蔡學鏞譯）。臺北市：歐萊禮。
Lecky-Thompson E.、Eide-Goodman H.、Nowicki S.D.、Cove A.（2005）。專業PHP5程式設計（林學文譯）。臺北市：碁峰資訊。
Mayer R.（1997）。敎育心理學：認知取向（林淸山譯）（三版）。臺北市：遠流出版公司。
Microsoft（1999）。Word 2000 說明及使用方法。Microsoft Office Online。上網日期：2008年12月18日，檢自：http://office.microsoft.com/zh-tw/word/FX100649281028.aspx?CTT=96&Origin=CL100636481028
PISA學生能力國際評量計畫（2010）。臺灣PISA2009精簡報告。臺灣 PISA國家研究中心。
丁嘉琳（2007，December）。借鏡國際 台灣閱讀出了什麼問題？。天下雜誌：超越貧窮線，387。
方隆彰（1999）。思考的引擎──讀書會的善問工夫。社教資料雜誌，251，3-6。
王化龍（1991）。高動力強化讀書法。臺北市：旭昇。
王梅玲（2005）。電子期刊對學術圖書館技術服務的影響。中華民國圖書館學會會報，75，161-172。
王瓊珠、洪儷瑜、陳秀芬（2007）。低識字能力學生識字量發展之研究：馬太效應之可能表現。特殊教育研究學刊，32（3），1–16。
王瓊珠、陳淑麗（2010）。突破閱讀困難：理念與實務。特殊教育系列。臺北市：心理。
旭聯科技（2002）。Wisdom Master Pro 智慧大師。Wisdom Master Pro 智慧大師。上網日期：2011年2月7日，檢自：http://demo.learn.com.tw/1000410147/index.html
米山 公.（2007）。筆記成功術。全腦學習系列。商周出版。
余敏賢（2003）。教育測驗與統計：重點整理（五版）。高點致勝叢書系列。臺北市：高點文化。
吳明隆（2009）。SPSS操作與應用：問卷統計分析實務（二版）。臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
吳柏林（2005）。模糊統計導論：方法與應用。臺北市：五南。
李素貞（2011）。Guided Reading on the Web。英文導讀。上網日期：2011年2月18日，檢自：http://www.etweb.fju.edu.tw/reading/
周慶華（2003）。閱讀社會學。臺北市：揚智文化事業股份有限公司。
林乾義、關爾嘉（2002）。東方人學習革命。新加坡：關爾嘉大腦潛能出版。
林朝順、鄒國英、劉正耀、胡彼得、楊育純（2005）。醫學系筆試多項選擇題品質分析。輔仁醫學期刊，3（4），213–220。
柯華葳（2009）。培養super小讀者。教出閱讀力。臺北市：天下雜誌股份有限公司。
洪儷瑜、陳淑麗、王瓊珠、方金雅、陳美芳、張郁雯等（2007）。中文閱讀診斷工具臨床驗證性研究。教育部委託專案報告。
馬沙諾（2003）。讀寫新法。課程與教學系列：高等教育。
常唯（2008）。論網絡環境下用戶標注的價值與應用。圖書情報工作，1。doi: CNKI:SUN:TSQB.0.2008-01-005
異塵行者（2009，September 24）。Google Sidewiki 動員網友寫下網頁註解評論，用人力讓人更了解網路。電腦玩物。上網日期：2009年10月1日，檢自：http://playpcesor.blogspot.com/2009/09/google-sidewiki.html
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。
陳來紅（1997）。袋鼠媽媽讀書會（二版）。臺北市：毛毛蟲兒童哲學基金會。
陳聯（2006）。Web頁面標注模型及其實現。計算機工程與設計，（11）。doi: cnki:ISSN:1000-7024.0.2006-11-045
曾陳密桃（1990）。國民中小學生的後設認知及其與閱讀理解之相關研究。臺北市：國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
馮國臣（2007）。模糊理論：基礎與應用（趙忠賢、張宏志、溫坤禮編）。臺北縣中和市：新文京開發。
黃桂芝、曾憲雄、翁瑞鋒、何筱婷（2008）。採遊戲式學習教育平台之科學教育活動設計。數位學習科技期刊，1（1）。
黃國豪、李玲梅、王皓瑀、洪珮菁、吳佳茹、賴煖菱（2010）。無所不在學習之系統建置與成效分析─以小學生認識校園植物為例。數位學習科技期刊，2（3）。
廖仁武（1998）。高材生秘笈：如何成為頂尖的讀書高手。臺北縣中和市：漢宇。
劉明兆、余德慧（1982）。讀書與考試。臺北市：張老師文化。
鄭湧涇（1998，September 18）。科學學習成就評量：II.評量結果的統計分析。國立臺灣師範大學生命科學系。上網日期：2010年12月27日，檢自：http://140.122.143.143/doc/evaluate3.htm

英文文獻
Adler, M., & Doren, C. L. V. (1972). How to read a book (Rev. and updated ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster.
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.
Amazon.com. (2009). Kindle: Amazon`s Wireless Reading Device. Amazon.com.
Amazon.com. (2011). Amazon.com. Amazon.com. Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://www.amazon.com/
Aptana, Inc. (2010). Aptana. Aptana. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://www.aptana.com/
Arms, W. (2000). Digital libraries. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Barlow, J. (2010). The Magic of Reading: iPad, Book, and Kindle. Interface on the Internet, 10(8). Retrieved from http://bcis.pacificu.edu/journal/article.php?id=730
Bateman, S., Farzan, R., Brusilovsky, P., & McCalla, G. (2006). OATS: The Open Annotation and Tagging System. In Proceedings of 12LOR`06, (Vol. 12). Montreal. Retrieved from http://fox.usask.ca/files/oats-lornet.pdf
Bishop, D. V., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 858.
Bogucka, R., & Wood, E. (2009). How to Read Scientific Research Articles: A Hands - On Classroom Exercise. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, (59), 4.
Bradshaw, S., & Light, M. (2007). Annotation consensus: implications for passage recommendation in scientific literature. In Proceedings of the eighteenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia (pp. 209-216). Manchester, UK: ACM. doi:10.1145/1286240.1286300
Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1999). Language and reading disabilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Chen, C., Wang, M., Tsay, M., Zhang, D., & Chen, Y. (2008). Developing a Taiwan Libraries` History Digital Library with Reader Knowledge Archiving and Sharing Services Based on DSpace Platform. In LNCS conference proceeding. Presented at the International Conference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries.
Chen, K. J., & Hsieh, Y. M. (2005). Chinese Treebanks and Grammar Extraction. Natural Language Processing - IJCNLP 2004, 655–663.
Chen, M. C., Chiang, C. H., & Ko, C. C. (2007). Exploring the Effectiveness of TriAccess System on Reading Comprehension for Students with Disabilities. In Oral presented at 18th Asian Conference on Mental Retardation. Taipei, Taiwan.
CKSource. (2011). CKEditor: WYSIWYG Text and HTML Editor for the Web. CKEditor. Retrieved February 14, 2011, from http://ckeditor.com/
Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Courcy, M. D., & Birch, G. (1993). Reading and Writing Strategies Used in a Japanese Immersion Program.. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED388097
CritLink: Advanced Hyperlinks Enable Public Annotation on the Web. (n.d.). . doi:10.1.1.5.5050
Cromley, 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.
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management.
Dieberger, A., Dourish, P., Hoeoek, K., Resnick, P., & Wexelblat, A. (2000). Social navigation: techniques for building more usable systems. interactions, 7(6), 36-45.
Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology: enhanced learning environment. System, 31(3), 349–365.
Ebel, R. L. (1972). Essentials of educational measurement. Prentice-Hall education series (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Edwards, D. (2010). packer. dean.edwards.name. Retrieved February 14, 2011, from http://dean.edwards.name/packer/
Eichorn, J. (2007). phpDocumentor: The complete documentation solution for PHP. phpDocumentor. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://www.phpdoc.org/
Eliot, T. (1922). The Waste Land. Bartleby.com. Retrieved December 18, 2008, from http://www.bartleby.com/201/1.html
Eschen, R. (2008). JSDoc Homepage: JavaScript Documentation Tool. JSDoc Homepage. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://jsdoc.sourceforge.net/
Fagan, B. (2003). Scaffolds To Help ELL Readers. Voices from the Middle, 11(1), 38–42.
Farzan, R., & Brusilovsky, P. (2005). Social Navigation Support Through Annotation: Based Group Modeling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3538, 463.
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software (Vol. 206). Addison-wesley Reading, MA.
Google. (2011). Google Sidewiki. Google. Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://www.google.com/sidewiki/intl/en/index.html
Grønbæk, K., Sloth, L., & Ørbæk, P. (1999). Webvise: browser and proxy support for open hypermedia structuring mechanisms on the WWW. Computer Networks: The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking, 31(11-16), 1331-1345.
Gruber, T. (2008). Collective knowledge systems: Where the social web meets the semantic web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 6(1), 4–13.
Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). A New Tool for Measuring and Understanding Individual Differences in the Component Processes of Reading Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 103–128.
Harper, R. (2002). Information that counts: A sociological view of information navigation. Designing Information Spaces: The Social Navigation Approach, 343–353.
Hsieh, P., & Dwyer, F. (2009). The Instructional Effect of Online Reading Strategies and Learning Styles on Student Academic Achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 36-50.
Keshav, S. (2007). How to read a paper. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 37(3), 83–84.
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151–160.
Levy, D. M. (1994). Fixed or fluid?: document stability and new media. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM European conference on Hypermedia technology (pp. 24–31). ACM New York, NY, USA.
Little, J. W., & Parker, R. (2010). How to Read a Scientific Paper. BIOC/MCB 568. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from http://www.biochem.arizona.edu/classes/bioc568/papers.htm#evaluate
Lunsford, A. (2000). The Presence of Others: Voices and Images That Call for Response (3rd ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin`s.
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). Defining dyslexia, comorbidity, teacher`s knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 1–14.
Ma, W. Y., & Chen, K. J. (2003). Introduction to CKIP Chinese word segmentation system for the first international Chinese Word Segmentation Bakeoff. In Proceedings of the second SIGHAN workshop on Chinese language processing (Vol. 17, pp. 168–171).
Marshall, C. C. (1997). Annotation: from paper books to the digital library. In Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on Digital libraries (pp. 131-140). ACM New York, NY, USA.
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.
Medium project. (2011). Markup: Draw on any webpage. Share thoughts. Move ideas. Markup. Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://markup.io/
Merriam-Webster. (2008). annotation. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved December 13, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annotation
Mullis, I., Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, & International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2007). PIRLS 2006 international report: IEA`s progress in International Reading Literacy Study in primary schools in 40 countries. Chestnut Hill MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center Lynch School of Education Boston College.
Nation, K., & Norbury, C. F. (2005). Why reading comprehension fails: Insights from developmental disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 21.
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.
Oracle Corporation. (2011). Welcome to NetBeans. NetBeans. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://netbeans.org/
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 39(8), 771–777.
pgAdmin Development Team. (2010). pgAdmin: PostgreSQL administration and management tools. pgAdmin. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://www.pgadmin.org/
PostgreSQL Global Development Group. (2011). PostgreSQL: The world`s most advanced open source database. PostgreSQL. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from http://www.postgresql.org/
Real Travel, Inc. (2011). Real Travel: Hotel reviews & deals for vacations, hotels, resorts. Real Travel. Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://realtravel.com/
Reenskaug, T., Wold, P., & Lehne, O. A. (1996). Working with objects. Manning.
Robinson, F. P. (1970). Effective study (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the Digital Age: universal design for learning. Alexandria Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Salvatori, M. (1996). The "Argument of Reading" in the Teaching of Composition. Argument Revisited, Argument Redefined: Negotiating Meaning in the Composition Classroom.
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.2005.1521679
Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (1990). Textbook Annotation: An Effective and Efficient Study Strategy for College Students. Journal of Reading, 34(2), 122-129.
So, H. J. (2009). When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structure. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 143–160.
Stahl, S., & Hayes, D. A. (1997). Instructional models in reading. Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Pub.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.
StarUML Project. (2005). StarUML: The Open Source UML/MDA Platform. StarUML. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://staruml.sourceforge.net/en/
The jQuery Project. (2010). jQuery: The Write Less, Do More, JavaScript Library. jQuery. Retrieved February 14, 2011, from http://jquery.com/
The PHP Group. (2011). PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor. PHP. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from http://www.php.net/
Thomas, E., & Robinson, H. A. (1977). Improving reading in every class (Abridged 2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Vannevar, B. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, July.
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 45(1), 2–40.
Vygotskiĭ, L., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wolfe, J. (2002). Annotation technologies: A software and research review. Computers and Composition, 19(4), 471-497.
Wolfe, J. (2008). Annotations and the collaborative digital library: Effects of an aligned annotation interface on student argumentation and reading strategies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 141-164.
Wolfe, J. L., & Neuwirth, C. M. (2001). From the Margins to the Center: The Future of Annotation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(3), 333.
ZURB. (2011). Bounce: A fun and easy way to share ideas on a website. Bounce. Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://www.bounceapp.com/		zh_TW