第五章 結論與建議
第三節 未來研究方向
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
109
第三節 未來研究方向
一、將「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」結合閱讀認知策略鷹架從 應用於國中生英語閱讀學習，擴展到其他學習階段或是學科領 域。
本研究僅將「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」結合閱讀認知策略鷹架，應用於輔助 國中生進行英語閱讀學習上，建議未來可以將研究範圍擴展到其他階段的學習者，
延伸應用於小學、高中或大專院校學生的英語閱讀學習上。而除了英語閱讀領域之 外，也可進一步將結合有閱讀認知策略鷹架的「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」於中文、
科普等閱讀學習，並探討其學習成效與影響。
二、延長實驗時間，探討學習者在長期使用「合作式數位閱讀 標註系統」結合閱讀認知策略鷹架之後，對英語閱讀學習以及 後設認知閱讀策略習得之影響。
本研究因為學校正規課程時間的限制，僅能安排半天的實驗，無法進行更長時 間的教學實驗。但閱讀策略的習得以及英語閱讀能力的增進並非一蹴可幾，特別是 針對英語起始程度較差的低分組學習者。因此，建議未來可延長實驗的時間，讓學 習者能使用此平台進行更長時間的英語閱讀學習後，再探討其對於英語閱讀學習 的影響。此外，也可探討在撤除閱讀認知策略鷹架後，學習者是否還能自行運用策 略進行有效的數位閱讀。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
110
三、在「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」結合與本研究不同的閱讀 認知策略鷹架，探究其對於閱讀學習成效的與影響。
本研究僅採用「交互教學法」中的四大閱讀策略，預測、澄清、提問、摘要，
整合為「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」上的閱讀認知策略鷹架，藉此引導學習者進行 英語閱讀學習。建議未來的研究可以結合與本研究不同的閱讀策略，進而探討其對 於英語閱讀學習的影響。
四、針對學習者在「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」上的標註內容 進行資料探勘與分析。
本研究僅就實驗所蒐集到的各項數據結果進行統計分析，探討結合後設認知 閱讀策略的「合作式數位閱讀標註系統」對於學習者的英語閱讀理解成效、科技接 受度及學習滿意度的影響，雖有初步分析平台瀏覽次數與標註數量之差異，但並未 針對學習者在平台學習過程中所做的標註內容優劣進行詳細分析，也未能深入瞭 解平台上所結合的各項閱讀認知策略的使用狀況對於英語閱讀成效的影響，建議 未來的研究可以加入此面向的探討。
‧
王美珍（2014）。台灣數位閱讀趨勢。遠見雜誌，340，頁 203-207。
台灣數位出版聯盟（2012）。 台灣數位閱讀行為調查研究問卷結果報告。檢索自
‧
黃馨週 （2009）。 Reading on the Internet: A Case Study[網路閱讀之個案研究]。英 語教學期刊， 33（2），頁 45-93。
Adler, M. J., & Van Doren, C. (2014). How to read a book: the classic guide to intelligent reading: Simon and Schuster.
Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes.
American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 309-332.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, clicking, and reading English: Online reading strategies in a second/foreign language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3). 1-33.
Auerbach, E. R., & Paxton, D. (1997). “It's not the English thing”: Bringing reading research into the ESL classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 31(2), 237-261.
Birkerts, S. (2006). The Gutenberg elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age:
Macmillan.
Bounie, D., Eang, B., Sirbu, M., & Waelbroeck, P. (2012). Superstars and outsiders in online markets: An empirical analysis of electronic books. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(1), 52-59. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2012.11.004 Boyle, J. R. (1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and
inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(2), 86-98.
‧
Brown, G. J. (2001). Beyond print: reading digitally. Library Hi Tech, 19(4), 390-399.
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. NJ:Transaction.
Carr, N. (2011). The Shallows: How the Internet is changing the way we think, read and remember: Atlantic.
Carter, C. J. (1997). Why reciprocal teaching? Educational leadership, 54, 64-69.
Casanave, C. P. (1988). Comprehension monitoring in ESL reading: A neglected essential.
Tesol Quarterly, 22(2), 283-302.
Chen, C.-M., & Chen, F.-Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77, 67-81. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010
Chen, C.-M., Wang, J.-Y., & Chen, Y.-C. (2013). Facilitating English-language reading performance by a digital reading annotation system with self-regulated learning mechanisms. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 102-114.
Chen, C.-M., Wang, J.-Y., Chen, Y.-T., & Wu, J.-H. (2014). Forecasting reading anxiety for promoting English-language reading performance based on reading annotation behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-25.
Chen, C.-M., WANG, M., Tsay, M., Zhang, D., & Chen, Y. (2008). Developing a Taiwan library history digital library with reader knowledge archiving and sharing mechanisms based on the DSpace platform. Paper presented at the International Coference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries.
Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational leadership, 63(2), 30-35.
Davies, P., & Pearse, E. (2000). Success in English teaching: a complete introduction to teaching English at secondary school level and above. Oxford University Press.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Davis, J. R., & Huttenlocher, D. P. (1995). Shared annotation for cooperative learning.
Paper presented at the CSCL '95 The first international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning, Hillsdale, NJ, USA.
Dole, J. A., & et al. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd. ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practice for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Elshair, H. M. (2002). The strategies used by students to read educational websites and their relation to website usability and text design. Unpublished doctoral
‧
dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Estellés, E., Moral, E., & González, F. (2010). Social bookmarking tools as facilitators of learning and research collaborative processes: the Diigo case. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 6(2010), 175-191.
Evans, C., Waring, M., Zhang, L., Sternberg, R., & Rayner, S. (2011). Applications of styles in educational instruction and assessment. Handbook of Intellectual Styles:
preferences in Cognition, Learning and Thinking, 295-327.
Fatemi, A. H., Vahedi, V. S., & Seyyedrezaie, Z. S. (2014). The effects of top-down/bottom-up processing and field-dependent/field-independent cognitive style on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(4), 686-693.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading , Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–
developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.
Foltz, P. W. (1992). Readers' comprehension and strategies in linear text and hypertext.
Citeseer.
Fung, I. Y., Wilkinson, I. A., & Moore, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL students’ comprehension of English expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13(1), 1-31.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York: HarperCollins College Publisher.
Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction. New York, NY:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension: Ablex Publishing.
Ghonsooly, B., & Eghtesadee, A. R. (2006). Role of cognitive style of field-dependence/independence in using metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies by a group of skilled and novice Iranian students of English literature. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(4), 119-150.
Gomita. (2008). ScrapBook. Retrieved from https://addons.mozilla.org/zh-TW/firefox/
addon/scrapbook/
Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2004). On being dependent or independent in computer based learning environments. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 7(2), n2.
Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects for postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of educational psychology, 90(4), 670-681.
Healy, J. M. (1990). Endangered minds: Why children don't think. NY: Simon and
‧
artefact-based mobile learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 219-237. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00297.xHuang, W.-C. (2014). The effects of multimedia annotation and summary writing on Taiwanese EFL students' reading comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 14(1), 136-153.
Hwang, W.-Y., Wang, C.-Y., & Sharples, M. (2005). A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials. Computers & Education, 48(4), 680-699. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.020
Jan, J.-C., Chen, C.-M., & Huang, P.-H. (2015). Enhancement of digital reading performance by using a novel web-based collaborative reading annotation system with two quality annotation filtering mechanisms. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.09.006 Jeong, H. (2012). A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on
reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The Electronic Library, 30(3), 390-408.
Kelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 53-61.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 275-293.
Koivunen, M.-R. (2005). Annotea and semantic web supported collaboration. Paper presented at the Invited talk at Workshop on User Aspects of the Semantic Web (User-SWeb) at European Semantic Web Conference.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology?
A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 40(3), 191-204.
Leung, L. (2004). Net-generation attributes and seductive properties of the Internet as predictors of online activities and Internet addiction. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 7(3), 333-348.
Liaw, S.-S., & Huang, H.-M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 14-24.
Liu, M., & Reed, W. M. (1995). The relationship between the learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia environment. Computers in human behavior, 10(4), 419-434.
Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of documentation, 61(6), 700-712.
‧
Lu, J., & Deng, L. (2013). Examning students' use of online annotation tools in support of argumentative reading. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 161-171.
Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 469-484.
Marshall, C. C. (1997). Annotation: from paper books to the digital library. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on Digital libraries.
Marshall, C. C. (1998). Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ninth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia: links, objects, time and space-structure in hypermedia systems, New York.
Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S.
Messick(Ed.), Individuality in learning(pp.4-22). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32(3), 379-394.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of educational psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Nor, N. F. M., Azman, H., & Hamat, A. (2013). Investigating students' use of online annotation tool in an online reading environment. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(3), 87-101.
O'hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1997). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems.
Olsen, D. R. J., Taufer, T., & Fails, J. A. (2004). ScreenCrayons: annotating anything.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Newbury House Publishers.
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction,1, 117-175.
Padrón, Y. N. (1992). The effect of strategy instruction on bilingual students' cognitive strategy use in reading. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(3-4), 35-51.
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children's reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child development, 2083-2093.
Porter-O'Donnell, C. (2004). Beyong the yellow highlighter: Teaching annotation skills to improve reading comprehension. English Journal, 93(5), 82-89.
‧
constructively responsive reading: Routledge.Reinking, D., & Schreiner, R. (1985). The effects of computer-mediated text on measures of reading comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 536-552.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—an overview and integration.
Educational psychology, 11(3-4), 193-215.
Rittschof, K. (2010). Field dependence–independence as visuospatial and executive functioning in working memory: implications for instructional systems design and research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(1), 99-114. doi:
10.1007/s11423-008-9093-6
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research.
Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.
Rubin, J. (1975) What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.
Schilit, B. (1999). Why E-read? Finding opportunities in the merger of paper and computers. The Future of Print Media. Retrieved from http://www.futureprint.
kent.edu/articles/schilit01.htm
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
Slavin, R. E., & Davis, N. (2006). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Boston:
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Song, M.-j. (1998). Teaching reading strategies in an ongoing EFL university reading classroom. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8(1), 41-54.
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students' reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching.
Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272-286.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 32-71.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Thinking styles: Cambridge University Press.
Su, A. Y. S., Yang, S. J. H., Hwang, W.-Y., & Zhang, J. (2010). A Web 2.0-based collaborative annotation system for enhancing knowledge sharing in collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(2), 752-766. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.008
Swaffar, J. K., Arens, K., & Byrnes, H. (1991). Reading for meaning: An integrated approach to language learning: Pearson College Division.
Teufel, S., Carletta, J., & Moens, M. (1999). An annotation scheme for discourse-level
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
118
argumentation in research articles. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ninth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Vernon, R. F. (2006). Teaching notes: paper or pixels? An inquiry into how students adapt to online textbooks. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 417-427.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes: Harvard university press.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. doi: 10.2307/1169967
Wolfe, J. (2002). Annotation technologies: A software and research review. Computers &
Composition, 19(4), 471-497.
Yaghoubi, R. (1994). The relationship between field-independent/field-dependent cognitive style Persian students and their English language proficiency.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Allameh Tabatabaii University, Iran.
Yang, Y.-F. (2010). Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning system for college remedial reading instruction. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1193-1201.
Yee, K.-P. (2002). CritLink: Advanced hyperlinks enable public annotation on the web.
Demonstration abstract. In: ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
119
附錄
附錄一 英語閱讀文本
Feel the Burn
Why does your mouth feel like it is on fire when you eat peppers?
(A) Because peppers make small fires on your tongue.
(B) It’s your body’s way of rejecting dangerous foods.
(C) Because your brain thinks your mouth is burning.
(D) Because peppers leave a burn mark on your tongue.
People often describe spicy food as “hot”. That’s because eating spicy food makes your body feel the same way as overheating. When you eat peppers, the receptors on your tongue send a message to your brain. This message makes your brain think, “Your mouth is on fire! Your body is burning!” When this happens, you might sweat and your heart begins to beat faster. Some people don’t enjoy hot food because it’s painful. However, to
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
120
others, it’s exciting. Although they don’t feel less pain, their bodies are able to handle it better.
Not all peppers are the same. The Scoville scale measures how spicy something is. A bell pepper is about only 0-5 Scovile Heat Unites (SHU) on the scale. Because of its mild taste and bright color, a bell pepper is often served as the side dish. The Carolina Reaper, however, is 1,600,000~2,200,000 SHU. It has been rated as the world's hottest chili pepper by Guinness World Records since August 7, 2013. Very few people in the world dare to give it a try.
Researchers believe your personality is related to how much you like spicy food.
People who enjoy action and adventure are six times more likely to enjoy hot food. It is also said that they prefer a challenging and bold life style, such as listening to the music at full volume, gambling, seeing horror movies, and looking down from the edge.
People in warmer areas usually eat more spicy food, and there’s a scientific reason.
Germs grow faster on food in warm climates. Spices and peppers can kill germs and prevent them from growing. Therefore, people living in warmer areas are accustomed to cooking the dishes with peppers or other spicy flavors.
What about you? Do you have a pepper phobia or pepper mania? What if you want to add some pretty peppers in your dish but don’t want it too spicy at the same time? Here’s the tip- try to remove the seed pod for it has capsaicin, which hot peppers get their heat from!
‧
1. Which of the following do people often use to describe pepper?
(A) Dangerous. (B) Buring. (C) Painful. (D) Hot.
2. Which of the following will NOT happen when you eat peppers?
(A) You sweat. (B) You feel hot.
(C) You get mad. (D) Your heart beats faster.
3. What do we use Scoville Scale for?
(A) To know where the pepper is from. (B) To know when to eat pepper.
(C) To know if the pepper is spicy. (D) To know how spicy the pepper is.
4. According to the article, why do some people think it’s exciting to eat spicy food?
(A) They are crazy. (B) They take it as a challenge. challenge 挑戰 (C) Their bodies handle it better. (D) Spicy food makes them hot.
5. According to the article, what do people in warm areas do to keep food from spoiling? spoil 腐壞
(A) Eating it with fresh pepper. (B) Keeping it in the refrigerator.
(C) Putting medicine inside it. (D) Making it spicy.
6. According to the article, where does capsaicin come from?
(A) A (B) B (C) C (D) D 7. What happens when you eat peppers?
(A) You feel sleepy.
(B) You have a stomachache.
(C) You become allergic. allergic 過敏的 (D) Your body temperature may go up.
8. Which of the following helps people decide the taste of food?
(A) Its smell. (B) Its color. (C) Our brain. (D) The cook.
9. What happens when your body is overheating?
(A) You catch fire. (B) You sweat.
(C) You become spicy. (D) You pass out.
10. According to the article, which is NOT true about the bell pepper and the Carolina Reaper?
‧
(A) They are two different kinds of peppers.
(B) The Carolina Reaper is larger than the bell pepper.
(C) The bell pepper tastes less spicy than the Carolina Reaper.
(D) The Carolina Reaper is one of the world’s hottest peppers.
11. What does “pepper phobia” mean?
(A) A person who loves pepper. (B) A person who plants pepper.
(C) A person who can eat pepper. (D) A person who is afraid of pepper.
12. Which of the following is NOT the reason why people like spicy food?
(A) Their genes. (B) Their personalities
(B) Their preferences. (D) Their culture and geography
gene 基因 preference 偏好 geography 地理
13. Why does your mouth feel like it is on fire when you eat peppers?
13. Why does your mouth feel like it is on fire when you eat peppers?