第五章 結論與未來研究方向
5.2 未來研究方向
合作式閱讀標註系統，並搭配二階段個人閱讀及合作閱讀輔以學習者進行線上閱 讀學習，對於場地相依學習者掌握文章結構理解的成效較具助益。
3. 採用具閱讀導覽地圖功能之合作式閱讀標註系統，並搭配全段合作閱讀輔以 學習者進行線上閱讀學習，對於降低男性學習者認知負荷的效益顯著高於女 性學習者。
本實驗針對三組不同性別學習者進行單因子變異數分析，發現三組女性學習 者的認知負荷不具顯著差異水準。但是實驗組一男性學習者在認知負荷上顯著低 於實驗組二與控制組的男性學習者。顯示採用具閱讀導覽地圖功能之合作式閱讀 標註系統，並搭配全段合作閱讀輔以學習者進行線上閱讀學習，對於降低男性學 習者認知負荷的效益顯著高於女性學習者。
4. 採用具閱讀導覽地圖功能之合作式閱讀標註系統，並搭配用二階段個人閱讀
及合作閱讀輔以學習者進行線上閱讀學習，對於提升女性學習者掌握文章結 構理解的效益，顯著高於男性學習者。
本實驗針對三組不同性別學習者進行單因子變異數分析，結果顯示三組男性 學習者之文章結構理解成效未達到顯著差異水準。但是實驗組二的女性學習者在 文章結構理解部分的表現顯著優於控制組與實驗組一的女性學習者。此一結果顯 示採用具閱讀導覽地圖功能之合作式閱讀標註系統，並搭配二階段個人閱讀及合 作閱讀輔以學習者進行線上閱讀學習，對於提升女性學習者掌握文章結構理解的 效益，顯著高於男性學習者。
5.2 未來研究方向
1. 延長教學實驗時間，進行更深入的研究。
53
本研究之教學實驗係利用課堂時間進行，受限於研究對象班級之課程安排，
三組學習者利用合作式閱讀標註系統進行線上閱讀學習的時間僅四十五分鐘時 間。未來實驗設計可以延長閱讀活動的時間，或者進行更長期的實驗觀察研究，
以深入探討學習者使用具閱讀導覽地圖功能之合作式閱讀標註系統的使用行為，
以及在實際應用於課堂中輔以閱讀的成效。
2. 擴大研究對象範圍，並採用長篇且章節結構更複雜的閱讀文本進行研究。
本研究之研究對象為國小五年級的學童，受限於研究對象的閱讀能力與教學 實驗時間限制，本研究所採用閱讀文本的章節架構、內容及篇幅都受到限制。未 來可以擴大探討諸如國中、高中或大學生等研究對象，並採用篇幅較長且章節結 構更複雜的閱讀文本，探討閱讀導覽地圖功能對於閱讀長篇且章節結構更複雜的 數位文本影響。
3. 設計教師輔助教學策略，搭配具閱讀導覽地圖功能之合作式閱讀標註系統輔 以線上閱讀學習。
本研究之教學實驗設計讓學習者自行運用合作式閱讀標註系統上的功能，自 主的進行合作閱讀活動，除了系統使用教學外，學習者並未得到教學者的輔助。
未來可設計搭配使用具閱讀導覽地圖功能之合作式閱讀標註系統進行線上閱讀 學習的教師輔助教學策略，讓學習者在使用系統進行閱讀學習時，亦可以適時獲 得教師的協助與引導，進而能更有效地使用合作式閱讀標註系統進行線上閱讀學 習。並探討在搭配教師的輔助教學策略下，利用合作式閱讀標註系統輔以線上閱 讀學習對於閱讀學習成效的影響。
4. 針對系統資料庫中學習者之標註行為、標註類型與內容進行深入分析 學習者在利用合作式閱讀標註系統進行線上閱讀學習時，系統資料庫會記錄
54
每個學習者的使用歷程、標註類型與標註內容。未來可利用系統資料庫中的紀錄 進行分析，深入了解學習者的閱讀歷程、標註類型及標註內容與學習者的學習成 效及認知負荷是否具有顯著關聯，以及不同性別、不同認知風格學習者之閱讀歷 程、標註類型與標註內容是否具有顯著差異之分析，據此作更深入的閱讀標註歷 程分析與探討。
5. 建置適性化系統介面，針對不同性別、認知風格學習者調整介面功能 本研究發現，採用具閱讀導覽地圖功能之合作式閱讀標註系統進行線上閱讀 學習，對於不同性別與不同認知風格學習者的閱讀學習成效與認知負荷影響具有 差異。未來可設計適性化系統介面，針對不同性別與不同認知風格學習者調整介 面功能，以達到輔助學習者進行個人化閱讀學習的最大效益。
55
參考文獻
中文部分
吳裕益。(1987)。認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。
林怡君、張麗麗、陸怡琮。(2013)。Rasch 模式建置國小高年級閱讀理解測驗。
教育心理學報， 45(1)。
周暐達。(2008) 。数位閱讀及其版權管理之探討。研考雙月刊，32(3)，44-52。
柯華葳、陳冠銘。(2004) 。文章結構標示與閱讀理解-以低年級學生為例。教育 心理學報，36(2)，185-200。
柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅。（2008）。PIRLS2006 報告：臺灣四年級學生 閱 讀 素 養 。 行 政 院 國 家 科 學 委 員 專 題 研 究 成 果 報 告 ( 編 號 NSC96-MOE-S-008-002)。桃園：國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。
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 立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所，台北市。
陳麗華。（1988）。基模理論與教科書內容的設計。現代教育，4(10)，128-139。
英文部分
Abanomey, A. A. (2013). Do EFL Saudi learners perform differently with online reading? An exploratory study. Journal of King Saud University-Languages and Translation, 25(1), 1-11.
Amadieu, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Prior knowledge in learning from a non-linear electronic document: Disorientation and coherence of the reading sequences. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 381-388.
Chen, C. M., & Chen, F. Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a
56
collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77, 67-81.
Chen, N. S., Teng, D. C. E., & Lee, C. H. (2011). Augmenting paper-based reading activity with direct access to digital materials and scaffolded questioning. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1705-1715.
Chen, Y. C., Hwang, R. H., & Wang, C. Y. (2012). Development and evaluation of a Web 2.0 annotation system as a learning tool in an e-learning environment.
Computers & Education, 58(4), 1094-1105.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth‐grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading research quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.
Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. IEEE computers, 20(9),17–
41.
Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. A report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy.
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 448.
Dwyer, C. A. (1973). Sex differences in reading: An evaluation and a critique of current theories. Review of Educational Research, 455-467.
Davis, J., & Huttenlocher, D. (1995). Shared annotation for cooperative learning proceedings of CSCL95: First international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 84–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Davis, J. K., & Frank, B. M. (1979). Learning and memory of field
independent-dependent individuals. Journal of Research in Personality, 13(4), 469-479.
57
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616-1641.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching Styles in engineering education. Journal of 1.Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
Finn, J. D. (1980). Sex differences in educational outcomes: A cross-national study.
Sex Roles, 6(1), 9-26.
Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation, and learning: an empirical study. Journal of educational multimedia and hypermedia, 9(4), 281-311.
Ford, N., & Miller, D. (1996). Gender differences in Internet perceptions and use. In Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 48, No. 7-8, pp. 183-192). Aslib.
Gao, F. (2013). A case study of using a social annotation tool to support collaboratively learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 76-83.
Geiger, J. F., & Millis, K. K. (2004). Assessing the impact of reading goals and text structures on comprehension. Reading Psychology, 25(2), 93-110.
Glover, I., Xu, Z., & Hardaker, G. (2007). Online annotation–Research and practices.
Computers & Education, 49(4), 1308-1320.
Goodenough, D. R. (1976). The role of individual differences in field dependence as a factor in learning and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 675.
Hwang, W. Y., Wang, C. Y., & Sharples, M. (2007). A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials. Computers & Education, 48(4), 680-699.
Huang, Y. -M., Huang, T. -C., & Hsieh, M. -Y. (2008). Using annotation services in a ubiquitous Jigsaw cooperative learning environment. Educational Technology &
Society, 11(2), 3–15.
Hyönä, J., & Lorch, R. F. (2004). Effects of topic headings on text processing:
Evidence from adult readers’ eye fixation patterns. Learning and instruction,
58
14(2), 131-152.
Ignacio Madrid, R., Van Oostendorp, H., & Puerta Melguizo, M. C. (2009). The effects of the number of links and navigation support on cognitive load and learning with hypertext: The mediating role of reading order. Computers in Human
Behavior, 25(1), 66-75.
Jin, S. H. (2013). Visual design guidelines for improving learning from dynamic and interactive digital text. Computers & Education, 63, 248-258.
Kawase, R., Herder, E., & Nejdl, W. (2009). A comparison of paper-based and online annotations in the workplace. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning: Learning in the Synergy of Multiple Disciplines, Nice, France.
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and instruction, 12(1), 1-10.
Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. The modern American college, 232-255.
Kools, M., Ruiter, R. A., Van De Wiel, M. W., & Kok, G. (2008). The effects of
headings in information mapping on search speed and evaluation of a brief health education text. Journal of Information Science.
Large, A., Beheshti, J., & Rahman, T. (2002). Gender differences in collaborative web searching behavior: an elementary school study. Information Processing &
Management, 38(3), 427-443.
Liew, C. L., Foo, S., & Chennupati, K. R. (2000). A study of graduate student end-users’ use and perception of electronic journals. Online Information Review, 24(4), 302-315.
Liu, W. (2003). Field dependence-independence and sports with a preponderance of
59
closed or open skill. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 26(3), 285-297.
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.
Liu, Z. (2012). Digital reading: An overview. Chinese Journal of Library and Information Science Vol, 5(1).
Liu, Z., & Huang, X. (2008). Gender differences in the online reading environment.
Journal of Documentation, 64(4), 616-626.
Lemarié, J., Lorch, J. R. F., & Péry-Woodley, M. P. (2012). Understanding how headings influence text processing. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique, (10).
Lorch Jr, R. F. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational psychology review, 1(3), 209-234.
Lorch Jr, R. F., & Lorch, E. P. (1995). Effects of organizational signals on text-processing strategies. Journal of educational psychology, 87(4), 537.
Lorch Jr, R. F., & Lorch, E. P. (1996). Effects of headings on text recall and summarization. Contemporary educational psychology, 21(3), 261-278.
Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of educational psychology, 88(1), 49.
Marshall, C. C. (1997, July). Annotation: from paper books to the digital library.
In Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on Digital libraries (pp. 131-140). ACM.
Marshall, C. C. (1998, May). 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: links, objects, time and space---structure in hypermedia systems (pp. 40-49). ACM.
60
Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19(1), 30-42.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
McKenna, F. P. (1990). Learning implications of field dependence‐independence:
Cognitive style versus cognitive ability. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4(6), 425-437.
Mercieca, P. (2004, February). E-book acceptance: What will make users read on screen. In VALA 12th Biennial Conference and Exhibition (pp. 3-5).
Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational psychologist, 19(2), 59-74.
Nielsen, J. (2002, April 14). Kid’s corner: Website usability for children. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from http://www.useit.com/
alertbox/20020414.html
Nokelainen, P., Miettinen, M., Kurhila, J., Floréen, P., & Tirri, H. (2005). A shared document‐based annotation tool to support learner‐centred collaborative learning.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 757-770.
Novak, E., Razzouk, R., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). The educational use of social
annotation tools in higher education: A literature review. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 39-49.
Oh, E., & Lim, D. (2005). Cross relationships between cognitive styles and learner variables in online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 4(1), 53-66.
Owings, R. A., Petersen, G. A., Bransford, J. D., Morris, C. D., & Stein, B. S. (1980).
Spontaneous monitoring and regulation of learning: A comparison of successful
61
and less successful fifth graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 250.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.
Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351-371.
Qayyum, M. A. (2008). Capturing the online academic reading process. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 581-595.
Rau, P. L. P., Chen, S. H., & Chin, Y. T. (2004). Developing web annotation tools for learners and instructors. Interacting with Computers, 16(2), 163-181.
Riding, R. J., & Sadler‐Smith, E. (1997). Cognitive style and learning strategies: Some implications for training design. International Journal of Training and
Development, 1(3), 199-208.
Ritchey, K., Schuster, J., & Allen, J. (2008). How the relationship between text and headings influences readers’ memory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 859-874.
Robinson, D. H. (1993). The effects of multiple graphic organizers on students' comprehension of a chapter-length text.
Shuell, T. J.（1981）. Dimensions of individual differences, Berkeley, CA：McCutchan.
Todd, R. J., & Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). Student learning through Ohio school libraries: Background, methodology and report of findings. Retrieved Apr. 8, 2007, from http://www.oelma.org/StudentLearning/documents/OELMAReportof
62
Findings
Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology,24(1), 1-20.
Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1618-1625.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students' comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 134-146.
Witkin,H.A.& Goodenough,D.R.(1977).Field -dependence andinterpersonal behavior.
Psychological Bulletin ,84,661-689
Wolfe, J. L. (2000, June). Effects of annotations on student readers and writers.
In Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Digital libraries (pp. 19-26).
ACM.
Wright, P. (1991). Cognitive overheads and prostheses: Some issues in evaluating hypertexts. In Paper presented at the Proceedings of the third ACM conference on hypertext. USA: San Antonio.
Yang, X., Yu, S., & Sun, Z. (2013). The effect of collaborative annotation on Chinese reading level in primary schools in China. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 44(1), 95-111.
63
附錄一：黑夜的獵殺高手──貓頭鷹
可怕的獵人
貓頭鷹是鳥類家族的成員，與眾不同的是，牠專門獵殺小動物，就連其他鳥類也不 放過，而且擅長在夜間出擊，從頭到腳都是致命的武器，可以說是「黑暗界」頂尖的捕
貓頭鷹是鳥類家族的成員，與眾不同的是，牠專門獵殺小動物，就連其他鳥類也不 放過，而且擅長在夜間出擊，從頭到腳都是致命的武器，可以說是「黑暗界」頂尖的捕