跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(35.172.136.29) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/02 18:25
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:陳姿君
研究生(外文):Chen, Tze Chun
論文名稱:合作閱讀標註系統之遊戲化激勵機制對於提升同儕互動與閱讀理解成效的影響研究
論文名稱(外文):Enhancing peer interactions and reading comprehension performance by using a collaborative annotation system with gamification motivate mechanisms
指導教授:陳志銘陳志銘引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chen, Chih Ming
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立政治大學
系所名稱:圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班
學門:傳播學門
學類:圖書資訊檔案學類
論文種類:學術論文
畢業學年度:103
語文別:中文
論文頁數:141
中文關鍵詞:遊戲化激勵機制合作閱讀標註社會網絡互動沉浸經驗閱讀理解成效
外文關鍵詞:gamificationmotivate mechanismcooperative reading annotationsocial network interactionimmersion experiencereading comprehension achievement
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:350
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
近年來數位閱讀逐漸受到重視,許多閱讀標註系統被發展出來輔助提升數位閱讀成效,然而至今卻尚未出現具遊戲化激勵機制的閱讀標註系統。過去許多研究指出,遊戲化學習不但有助於提升學生的學習動機,並且透過遊戲競爭有助於激勵學習。因此本研究在「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」上發展遊戲化激勵機制,以探討採用有無遊戲化激勵機制之「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」輔以合作閱讀學習下,對於標註行為、閱讀理解成效、社會網絡互動及沉浸經驗的影響差異。此外,也探討不同性別與學習風格的學習者在有無遊戲化激勵機制的「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」輔以合作閱讀學習下,其標註行為、閱讀理解成效、社會網絡互動及沉浸經驗彼此之間是否具有顯著差異。

研究結果發現:(1)採用具遊戲化激勵機制之「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」輔以合作閱讀的學習者,在標註總次數、基本標註次數、進階標註次數與標註能力上均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化激勵機制的學習者;(2)男性與女性學習者以及主動型、反思型與感覺型學習者採用具遊戲化激勵機制之「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」輔以合作閱讀,在標註總次數、基本標註次數、進階標註次數與標註能力上均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化激勵機制的系統;(3)直覺型學習者採用具遊戲化激勵機制的「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」輔以合作閱讀,在標註總次數、基本標註次數與標註能力上均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化激勵機制的系統;(4)感覺型學習者採用具遊戲化激勵機制的「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」輔以合作閱讀,在詮釋理解的表現上顯著優於採用不具遊戲化激勵機制的系統;(5)採用具遊戲化激勵機制的「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」輔以合作閱讀的學習者,在程度中心度、接近中心度與中介中心度上均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化激勵機制的學習者;(6)男性與女性以及主動型、反思型、感覺型與直覺型的學習者採用具遊戲化激勵機制的「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」輔以合作閱讀,在程度中心度與接近中心度上均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化激勵機制的系統;(7)採用具有遊戲化激勵機制的「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」輔以合作閱讀的學習者,在第一階段(投入)與整體沉浸經驗上均顯著優於採用不具有遊戲化激勵機制的學習者;(8)感覺型的學習者採用具有遊戲化激勵機制的「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」輔以合作閱讀,在第一階段(投入)的沉浸經驗上顯著優於採用不具有遊戲化激勵機制的系統;(9)學習者透過具遊戲化激勵機制的「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」輔以合作閱讀學習後,對於系統的滿意度極高。

最後,基於研究結果,本研究亦提出對教師、閱讀推廣單位的建議,也提出幾個未來的研究方向。

The emphasis on digital reading has various reading annotation systems being developed for enhancing digital reading achievement. However, there has not been a reading annotation system with gamification motivate mechanism. Past research indicated that gamification learning could enhance students’ learning motivation and motivate learning willingness through game-based competition. Accordingly, the Cloud-based High-Interaction Cooperative Reading Annotation System with gamification motivate mechanism is developed in this study to compare its effects on annotation behavior, reading comprehension achievement, social network interaction, and immersion experience with those without gamification motivate mechanism. Under the Cloud-based High-Interaction Cooperative Reading Annotation System with/ without gamification motivate mechanism, the differences among learners with distinct gender and learning styles in the annotation behavior, reading comprehension achievement, social network interaction, and immersion experience are also investigated.

The research findings are summarized as following. (1) Learners applying Cloud-based High-Interaction Cooperative Reading Annotation System with gamification motivate mechanism to assist cooperative reading significantly outperform those without gamification motivate mechanism on total number of annotation, number of basic annotation, number of advance annotation, and annotation ability. (2) Male, female, active, reflective, and sensing learners applying Cloud-based High-Interaction Cooperative Reading Annotation System with gamification motivate mechanism to assist cooperative reading remarkably outperform those without gamification motivate mechanism on total number of annotation, number of basic annotation, number of advance annotation, and annotation ability. (3) Intuitive learners applying Cloud-based High-Interaction Cooperative Reading Annotation System with gamification motivate mechanism to assist cooperative reading notably outperform those without gamification motivate mechanism on total number of annotation, number of basic annotation, and annotation ability. (4) Sensing learners applying Cloud-based High-Interaction Cooperative Reading Annotation System with gamification motivate mechanism to assist cooperative reading significantly outperform those without gamification motivate mechanism on reading achievement for interpreting, integrating, and evaluating processes.(5) Learners applying Cloud-based High-Interaction Cooperative Reading Annotation System with gamification motivate mechanism to assist cooperative reading remarkably outperform those without gamification motivate mechanism on degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality. (6) Male, female, active, reflective, sensing, and intuitive learners applying Cloud-based High-Interaction Cooperative Reading Annotation System with gamification motivate mechanism to assist cooperative reading outperform those without gamification motivate mechanism on degree centrality and closeness centrality. (7) Learners applying Cloud-based High-Interaction Cooperative Reading Annotation System with gamification motivate mechanism to assist cooperative reading notably outperform those without gamification motivate mechanism on the first stage (engagement) and overall immersion experience. (8) Sensing learners applying Cloud-based High-Interaction Cooperative Reading Annotation System with gamification motivate mechanism to assist cooperative reading significantly outperform those without gamification motivate mechanism on immersion experience at the first stage (engagement). (9) Learners applying Cloud-based High-Interaction Cooperative Reading Annotation System with gamification motivate mechanism to assist cooperative reading present extremely high system satisfaction.

Based on the research results, suggestions for teachers and reading promotion units as well as for future research are proposed.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 研究問題 4
第四節 研究範圍與研究限制 5
第五節 名詞解釋 6
第二章 文獻探討 8
第一節 合作式閱讀標註學習 8
第二節 閱讀學習的激勵機制 12
第三節 社會網絡分析 17
第四節 學習風格與性別差異對於閱讀理解成效的影響 20
第三章 研究方法 24
第一節 研究架構 24
第二節 研究方法 26
第三節 研究對象 28
第四節 研究工具 28
第五節 實驗設計 46
第六節 研究流程 51
第七節 資料分析 53
第四章 先導性研究 57
第五章 實驗結果分析 62
第一節 有無遊戲化激勵機制對於學習者的標註行為、閱讀理解成效、沉浸經驗影響差異分析 62
第二節 有無遊戲化激勵機制對於學習者的社會網絡互動影響差異分析 65
第三節 有無遊戲化激勵機制對於不同性別學習者標註行為、閱讀理解成效、社會網絡互動、沉浸經驗差異分析 70
第四節 有無遊戲化激勵機制對於不同學習風格學習者標註行為、閱讀理解成效、社會網絡互動、沉浸經驗差異分析 77
第五節 雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統學習滿意度問卷調查分析 88
第六節 訪談資料分析 91
第七節 綜合討論 99
第六章 結論與建議 104
第一節 結論 104
第二節 教學實施建議 107
第三節 未來研究方向 108
參考文獻 110
附錄一、學習風格量表 124
附錄二、閱讀文本與閱讀理解測驗 130
附錄三、一個不可思議的夜晚計分指引 134
附錄四、「雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統」沉浸經驗感受問卷 136
附錄五、雲端高互動合作式閱讀標註系統學習滿意度問卷(實驗組施測) 138
附錄六、訪談大綱 141
一、中文文獻
丁千珊(2011)。紙本童書與觸控式電子童書對兒童的閱讀成效與態度之影響。
臺灣師範大學設計研究所在職進修碩士班學位論文,未出版,台北市。
王梅玲(2013)。從電子書數位閱讀探討圖書館推廣策略。臺北市立圖書館館訊,
30(4),9-24。
呂佳勳(2007)。小學圖書館以Moodle平台實施主題式數位閱讀之研究---以台中
縣吉峰國小為例。 中興大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台中市。
李正翰(2010)。紙本與數位教材無縫整合學習環境中提問式鷹架對英文閱讀成效
之影響。中山大學資訊管理學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
周暐達(2008)。數位閱讀及其版權管理之探討。研考雙月刊,32(3),44-
52。
林巧敏(2010)。國小學童數位閱讀興趣與數位閱讀行為之研究研究成果報告(精
簡版)
林巧敏(2011)。臺灣國小學童數位閱讀興趣與行為之調查分析。國家圖書館館
刊,100(2), 30-59。
林巧敏(2011)。學童數位閱讀資源與學習興趣之探討。圖書與資訊學刊,77,
13-32。
林育如(2011)。行動閱讀之資訊呈現方式對於學習者專注力、閱讀理解與認知負
荷之影響研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所碩士論文,未出版,
台北市。
林書毅(2009)。虛擬社群激勵機制與會員忠誠度之研究-以線上遊戲社群為例。
未出版之碩士論文,中山大學,嘉義市。
林凱胤、楊子瑩、王國華(2010)。實習教師在部落格中的社會網絡與互動行為,
屏東教育大學學報-教育類,32,67-90。
林聚任(2009)。社會網絡分析:理論、分析與應用。北京:北京師範大學出版
社。
柯華葳、幸曼玲、陸怡琮、辜玉旻(2010)。閱讀理解策略教學手冊。臺北市:教
育部。
柯華葳、詹益綾、丘嘉慧(2013)。PIRLS2011報告(臺灣四年級學生閱讀素
養),取自
https://sites.google.com/site/reading8learning01/pirls/pirls-2011。搜尋日期:20140112。
柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅(2009)。臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養
(PIRLS2006報告)第二版。取自https://sites.google.com/site/reading8learning01/pirls/pirls-2006。搜尋日期:20150210。
柯華葳策劃(2011)。在職教師閱讀教學增能研習手冊。國立台灣師範大學教育研
究與評鑑中心閱讀研究團隊。網址:http://beworkshop.cere.ntnu.edu.tw/RTE/file/20110731.pdf
洪菁筠(2012)。節奏遊戲化教學之研究—以國小三年級為例.。國立臺北教育大
學音樂學系學位論文,未出版,臺北市。
夏蓉(2010)。數位閱讀服務體驗-以電子書閱讀器, 智慧型手機, 平板電腦三
種裝置探討使用者採用之意願與偏好。臺灣大學資訊管理學研究所學位論文,
未出版,台北市。
孫春在、林珊如(2007)。網路合作學習:數位時代的互動學習環境、教學與評
量。台北市:心理。
徐慧成(2003)。利用網頁資訊建構多階層指導教授與研究生之網絡關係。未出版
碩士論文,國立中山大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文,高雄市。
徐慧芸(2012)。社會互動排名與學習夥伴推薦機制對於激發潛水者之成效評估研
究。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班論文,未出版,台北市。
張文華(2004)。同步網路合作學習中學習風格對國小學童學習之影響。國立台南
師範學院碩士論文,未出版,台南市。
張明華(2014)。學習如「打 Game」葉丙成翻轉大學教育。評鑑雙月刊,52,
34-36。
張家豪(2008)。不同測驗類型融入超媒體學習環境對國小學童自我調整學習和閱
讀成效之影響。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
許詒婷(2009)。遊戲化音樂教學對於幼兒創造力影響之個案研究。國立臺北教育
大學音樂學系碩士班學位論文,未出版,臺北市。
許瑞敏(2010)。網路學習社群經營機制對於提昇教師 教學關注之研究 -以桃園
縣e化學習平台閱讀策略課程為例。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專
班論文,未出版,台北市。
許慧珍(2011) 以代幣機制探討網路學習成效。中華管理評論國際學報。1,1-
15。
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,76,1-25。
陳芳雅(2012)。不同合作模式對國小學童閱讀學習影響之研究。國立政治大學
圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班論文,未出版,台北市。
陳勇汀(2011)。合作式閱讀標註之知識萃取機制研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊與
檔案學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
陳珍妮(2014)。以人機互動觀點建構與評估遊戲化傳統中國醫藥數位學習系統。
國立高雄第一科技大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
陳軒德、黃子芸(2010)。註記分享平台實施網路合作學習應用研究-以Diigo為
例。論文發表於第十四屆全球華人計算機教育應用大會(GCCCE 2010)。新
加坡南洋理工大學,2012年6月1日至6月4日,2012。
陳靜儀、賴盈雯、彭慶東(2012)。以互動科技結合遊戲化學習應用於右腦潛能開
發。數位內容與多媒體應用研討會論文集,447-458頁。
程毓明、蘇怡仁、王俞揮(2010)。遊戲式學習虛擬貨幣對小學生數學學習
成效之研究。論文發表於樹德科技大學資訊學院舉辦之第九屆離島
資訊技術與應用研討會,屏東縣。
黃柏翰(2012)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。國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
褚麗絹、李承霖、郭靜蘭(2011)。沉浸經驗於互動式多媒體教材學習效果之影
響,文化事業與管理研究,6,1-24。
劉瑞啟(2011)。繼續還是不繼續?網路文學作品持續閱讀與沉迷程度之影響。國
立中央大學資訊管理學系碩士論文,未出版,桃園市。
潘率均(2013)。莫札特音樂融入電子書閱讀任務對小學生閱讀理解表現與緩解學
習焦慮之研究。成功大學工程科學系碩士論文。未出版,台南市。
蔡昌智(2005)。不同激勵機制對網路學習活動參與程度之影響。國立臺南大學資
訊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺南市。
蔡懷恩(2014)。閱讀具標註數位文本之體感互動閱讀模式及其學習成效評估研
究。國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
鄧凱元(2014)。台灣閱讀分數進步全球第一。天下雜誌。上網日期:2014年4
月21日。網址:http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?
id=5055174
賴苑玲(2008)。數位學習平臺推動國小學童閱讀之可行性研究。第七屆海峽兩
岸兒童及中小學圖書館學術研討會,吉林:長春少兒圖書館。
戴伯芬(2011)。亞洲四小龍公民社會組織的國際化網絡初探。城市學學刊, 2
(1), 1-29。
謝文全(2012)。教育行政學(四版)。台北市:高等教育。
顏百鴻 (2009)。不同激勵機制對國小六年級學童網路學習意願、參與程度及滿
意度之影響。國立臺南大學教育學系科技發展與傳播碩士班論文,未出版,臺
南市。
顏百鴻、歐陽誾(2012)。不同激勵機制對國小六年級學童網路學習活動影響之研
究。教育學誌,27,221-262。

二、英文文獻
Amin, T. S. (2014). The effect of teaching strategies and
learning styles on the students achievement in reading
comprehension. Retrieved from Feb. 21, 2015
http://digilib.unimed.ac.id/the-effect-of-teaching-
strategies-and-learning-styles-on-the-students-
achievement-in-reading-comprehension-30998.html
Arifah, K. F., &; Kuswardani, R., Pd, S., Appl, M. (2013).
Optimizing reading comprehension through learning style
based on building learning power. Retan, 1(3).
Baker, L., Scher, D., &; Mackler, K. (1997). Home and family
influences on motivations for reading. Educational
Psychologist, 32, 69-82.
Ballera, M., Lukandu, I. A., &; Radwan, A. (2013).
Collaborative problem solving using public social
network media: Analyzing student interaction and its
impact to learning process. International Journal of
Digital Information and Wireless Communications
(IJDIWC), 3(1), 25-42.
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., &; Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: an
open source software for exploring and manipulating
networks. ICWSM, 8, 361-362.
Beach, R. (2012). Constructing digital learning commons in
the literacy classroom. Journal of Adolescent &; Adult
Literacy, 55(5), 448-451.
Betts, B. W., Bal, J., &; Betts, A. W. (2013). Gamification
as a tool for increasing the depth of student
understanding using a collaborative e-learning
environment. International Journal of Continuing
Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 23(3), 213-
228.
Borgatti, S.P. (1998). What Is Social Network Analysis?
http://www.analytictech.com/networks/whatis.htm.
Brantmeier, C. (2003). Does gender make a difference?
Passage content and comprehension in second language
reading. Reading in a foreign language,15(1), 1-27.
Brown, E., &; Cairns, P. (2004). A grounded investigation of
game immersion. In CHI'04 extended abstracts on Human
factors in computing systems (pp. 1297-1300). ACM.
Brozo, W. G., Sulkunen, S., Shiel, G., Garbe, C., Pandian,
A., &; Valtin, R. (2014). Reading, Gender, and
Engagement. Journal of Adolescent &; Adult Literacy, 57
(7), 584-593.
Brühlmann, F., Mekler, E., &; Opwis, K. (2013). Gamification
From the Perspective of Self-Determination Theory and
Flow.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure
of competition. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Cardoso, G., &; Carla Ganito, C. F. (2012). Digital Reading:
The transformation of reading practices. In Proceedings
of the 16th International Conference on Electronic
Publishing. Guimaraes, Portugal.
Chamberlain, J., Poesio, M., &; Kruschwitz, U. (2008,
September). Phrase detectives: A web-based collaborative
annotation game. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Semantic Systems (I-Semantics’ 08) , 42-
49.
Chapman, J., &; Tunmer, W. (1995).Development of young
children’s reading self concepts: an examination of
emerging subcomponents and their relationship with
reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
87(1), 154.
Chen, C. M., &; Chang, C. C. (2014). Mining learning social
networks for cooperative learning with appropriate
learning partners in a problem-based learning
environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(1),
97-124.
Chen, C. M., &; Chen, F. Y. (2014). Enhancing digital
reading performance with a collaborative reading
annotation system. Computers &; Education, 77, 67-81.
Chen, Y. C., Hwang, R. H., &; Wang, C. Y. (2011).
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.
Cheng, M‐T., H‐C. She, and L. A. Annetta. (2014).Game
immersion experience: its hierarchical structure and
impact on game‐based science learning. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning .
Cheng, R., &; Vassileva, J. (2006). Design and evaluation of
an adaptive incentive mechanism for sustained
educational online communities. User Modeling and User-
Adapted Interaction, 16(3-4), 321-348.
Cheong,C, Cheong, F.C., &; Filippou, J.(2013). Quick Quiz: A
Gamified Approach for Enhancing Learning. In Proceedings
of Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, June
18-22, 2013, Jeju Island, Korea.
Chiu, Ming Ming. &; McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender,
context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43
countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 331–
362. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1004_1.
Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B., &; Ingraffea, A. (2007).
Social networks, communication styles, and learning
performance in a CSCL community. Computers &; Education,
49, 309– 329.
Coles, M. &; Hall, C. (2002). Gendered readings: Learning
from children’s reading choices. Journal of Research in
Reading, 25(1), 96–108. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00161.
Cull, B. W. (2011). Reading revolutions: Online digital
text and implications for reading in academe. First
Monday, 16(6).
Davis, J. R., &; Huttenlocher, D. P. (1995). Shared
annotation for cooperative learning. In The first
international conference on Computer support for
collaborative learning (pp. 84-88). L. Erlbaum
Associates Inc..
De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., &; Simons, R. J.
(2007). Investigating patterns of interaction in
networked learning and computer-supported collaborative
learning: A role for Social Network Analysis.
International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 87-103.
De-Marcos, L., Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., &;
Pagés, C. (2014). An empirical study comparing
gamification and social networking on e-
learning.Computers &; Education, 75, 82-91.
De Meo, P., Ferrara, E., Fiumara, G., &; Provetti, A.
(2014). On Facebook, most ties are weak. Communications
of the ACM, 57(11), 78-84.
De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., &; Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory
social network analysis with Pajek (Vol. 27). Cambridge
University Press.
Denton, C. A., Wolters, C. A., York, M. J., Swanson, E.,
Kulesz, P. A., &; Francis, D. J. (2015). Adolescents' use
of reading comprehension strategies: Differences related
to reading proficiency, grade level, and gender.
Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 81-95.
Deterding, S., Björk, S. L., Nacke, L. E., Dixon, D., &;
Lawley, E. (2013). Designing gamification: creating
gameful and playful experiences. In CHI'13 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.
3263-3266). ACM.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., &; Nacke, L. (2011).
From game design elements to gamefulness: defining
gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International
Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media
Environments (pp. 9-15). ACM.
Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L.,
Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., &; Martínez-Herráiz, J. J.
(2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical
implications and outcomes. Computers &; Education, 63,
380-392.
Erginer, E. (2014). A study of the Correlation between
Primary School Students’ Reading Comprehension
Performance and the Learning Styles Based on Memory
Modeling. Egitim ve Bilim-Education and Science,39(173),
66-81.
Faust, K. (2006). Comparing social networks: size, density,
and local structure. Metodološki zvezki, 3(2), 185-216.
Felder, R. M., &; Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning styles
and teaching styles in engineering education.
Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681
Fernández-Luna, J. M., Huete, J. F., Rodríguez-Avila, H., &;
Rodríguez-Cano, J. C. (2014). Enhancing collaborative
search systems engagement through gamification. In
Proceedings of the First International Workshop on
Gamification for Information Retrieval (pp. 42-45). ACM.
Fms Inc. (2007). Sentinel Visualizer: The Next Generation
of Big Data Visualization Retrieved on May 8, 2015, from
http://www.fmsasg.com/fmsasg/Products/SentinelVisualizer/.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks
conceptual clarification. Social networks, 1(3), 215-239.
Gartner Inc. (2013). Survey analysis: Consumer digital
reading preferences reveal the exaggerated death of
paper. Retrieved on February 25, 2015, from
http://www.gartner.com/resId=1651116.
Gil-Flores, J., Torres-Gordillo, J. J., &; Perera-Rodríguez,
V. H. (2012). The role of online reader experience in
explaining students’ performance in digital reading.
Computers &; Education, 59(2), 653-660.
Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., &; Korhonen, A.(2013). Empirical
Study on the Effect of Achievement Badges in TRAKLA2
Online Learning Environment. In Proceedings of Learning
and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE)
conference, Macau, pp. 47-54
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., &; Sarsa, H. (2014). Does
Gamification Work? – A Literature Review of Empirical
Studies on Gamification. In proceedings of the 47th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Hawaii, USA, January 6-9, 2014.
Hanneman, R., and Riddle, M. (2005).Introduction to social
network methods. Chapter 10: Centrality and power.
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/∼hanneman/nettext/C10
Centrality.html.
Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., &; Smith, M. A. (2010).
Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights
from a connected world. Morgan Kaufmann.
Hanus, M. D., &; Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of
gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on
intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction,
effort, and academic performance. Computers &; Education,
80, 152-161.
Hawk, T. F., &; Shah, A. J. (2007). Using learning style
instruments to enhance student learning. Decision
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 1-19.
Hsieh, Y. H., Lin, Y. C., &; Hou, H. T. (2013). Exploring
the role of flow experience, learning performance and
potential behavior clusters in elementary students' game-
based learning. Interactive Learning Environments,
(ahead-of-print), 1-16.
Huhtala, J., Isokoski, P., &; Ovaska, S. (2012). The
usefulness of an immersion questionnaire in game
development. In CHI'12 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1859-1864). ACM.
Hummel, H. G., Burgos, D., Tattersall, C., Brouns, F.,
Kurvers, H., &; Koper, R. (2005). Encouraging
contributions in learning networks using incentive
mechanisms. Journal of computer assisted learning, 21
(5), 355-365.
Inaba, A., &; Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Learners’ roles and
predictable educational benefits in cooperative
learning: An ontological approach to support design and
analysis of CSCL. In J. Lester, R.M. Vicari &; F.
Paraguacu (Eds.), ITS 2004 (pp. 285–294). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps,
A., Tijs, T., &; Walton, A. (2008).Measuring and defining
the experience of immersion in games.International
journal of human-computer studies, 66(9), 641-661.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., &; Stanne, M.B. (2000).
Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved
from Feb. 23, 2015,
http://www.ccsstl.com/sites/default/files/Cooperative%
20Learning%20Research%20.pdf
Johnson, T. E., Archibald, T. N., &; Tenenbaum, G. (2010).
Individual and team annotation effects on students’
reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta-
cognitive skills. Computers in human behavior, 26(6),
1496-1507.
Khademi, M., Motallebzadeh, K., &; Ashraf, H. (2013). The
relationship between Iranian EFL instructors’
understanding of learning styles and their students’
success in reading comprehension. English Language
Teaching, 6(4), p134.
Knaving, K., &; Björk, S. (2013). Designing for Fun and
Play: Exploring possibilities in design for
gamification. In Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications
(pp. 131-134). ACM.
Knoke, D., &; Yang, S. (Eds.). (2008). Social network
analysis (Vol. 154). Sage.
Koivisto, J., &; Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences
in perceived benefits from gamification. Computers in
Human Behavior, 35, 179-188.
Kristina Knaving and Staffan Björk. 2013. Designing for fun
and play: exploring possibilities in design for
gamification. In Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications
(Gamification '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 131-134
Lewis, T. (2013). The impact of learning-style based
instruction on student engagement and reading
comprehension in a third grade classroom (Doctoral
dissertation, Wichita State University).
Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzalez, M., Wimmer, A., &;
Christakis, N. (2008). Tastes, ties, and time: A new
social network dataset using Facebook. com. Social
networks, 30(4), 330-342.
Li, W., Grossman, T., &; Fitzmaurice, G. (2012). Gamicad: a
gamified tutorial system for first time autocad users.
In Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User
interface software and technology (pp. 103-112). ACM.
Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., &; Hakkarainen,
K. (2001). Analyzing patterns of participation and
discourse in elementary students’ online science
discussion. In European perspectives on computer-
supported collaborative learning (pp. 421-428).
Liu, Z.(2012). Digital reading: An overview. Chinese
Journal of Library and Information Science, 5(1).
Logan, S. &; Johnston, R.S. (2009). Gender differences in
reading: Examining where these differences lie. Journal
of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199–214.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01389.x.
Lu, J., &; Deng, L. (2013). Examining students' use of
online annotation tools in support
of argumentative reading. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 29(2).
Lynn, R., &; Mikk, J. (2009). Sex differences in reading
achievement. Trames, 13(63/58), 3-13.
Mangen, A. (2008). Hypertext fiction reading: haptics and
immersion. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(4), 404-
419.
Marin, A., &; Wellman, B. (2011). Social network analysis:
An introduction. The SAGE handbook of social network
analysis, 11-25.
Marinak, B.A. &; Gambrell, L.B. (2010). Reading motivation:
Exploring the elementary gender gap. Literacy Research
and Instruction, 49, 129–141.
doi:10.1080/19388070902803795.
Marzban, A., &; Akbarnejad, A. A. (2013). The Effect of
Cooperative Reading Strategies on Improving Reading
Comprehension of Iranian University Students. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 936-942.
McGeown, S., Goodwin, H., Henderson, N., &; Wright, P.
(2012). Gender differences in reading motivation: does
sex or gender identity provide a better account? Journal
of Research in Reading, 35(3), 328-336.
McIntosh, K., Reinke, W. M., Kelm, J. L., &; Sadler, C. A.
(2012). Gender Differences in Reading Skill and Problem
Behavior in Elementary School. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 1098300712459080.
Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K., &; Tuch, A. N.
(2013). Disassembling gamification: the effects of
points and meaning on user motivation and performance.
In CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 1137-1142). ACM.
Merisuo-Storm, T. (2006). Girls and boys like to read and
write different texts. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 50(2), 111–125.
doi:10.1080/00313830600576039.
Miqowati, A. H., &; Sulistyo, G. H. (2014). The PQRST
strategy, reading comprehension, and learning styles.
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 123-139.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, A.M. &; Foy, P.
(2007). PIRLS 2006 international report: IEA’s progress
in international reading literacy study in primary
schools in 40 countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston
College. Retrieved from
http://timss.bc.edu/pirls2006/index.html
Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning
through gamification. In Proc. 6th International
Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL(pp. 323-329).
Newman, M. E. (2003). The structure and function of complex
networks. SIAM review, 45(2), 167-256.
Nganwa-Bagumah, M. &; Mwamwenda, T.S. (l991). Effects on
reading comprehension tests of matching and mismatching
students' design preferences. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 72(3), 947-951.
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.
Norvell, GW(1958). What boys and girls like to read.
Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett.
O'hara, K., &; Sellen, A. (1997, March). A comparison of
reading paper and on-line documents. In Proceedings of
the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing
systems (pp. 335-342). ACM.
Oshima, J., Oshima, R., &; Matsuzawa, Y. (2012). Knowledge
Building Discourse Explorer: a social network analysis
application for knowledge building discourse.
Educational technology research and development, 60(5),
903-921.
Palonen, T., &; Hakkarainen, K. (2000, April). Patterns of
interaction in computer supported learning: A social
network analysis. In Fourth International Conference of
the Learning Sciences (pp. 334-339).
Pedro, L. Z., Lopes, A. M., Prates, B. G., Vassileva, J., &;
Isotani, S. (2015). Does Gamification Work for Boys and
Girls? An Exploratory Study with a Virtual Learning
Environment. Retrieved from June. 11, 2015,
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Seiji_Isotani/publication/271643441_Does_Gamification_Work_for_Boys_and_Girls_An_Exploratory_Study_with_a_Virtual_Learning_Environment/links/54ce3eee0cf24601c090028b.pdf
Pfister, A. (2000). The effect of personality type of
bilingual students on English reading performance in a
computer driven developmental reading laboratory:
Implications for educational leaders. Boston: The
University of Boston.
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., &; Leutner, D.
(1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning
preferences in a second-language multimedia learning
environment. Journal of educational psychology, 90(1),
25.
Quan-Haase, Anabel and Wellman, Barry (2006).
Hyperconnected network, in CharlesHeckscher and Paul
Adler (eds.). The Firm as a Collaborative Community.
Rabbany, R., Elatia, S., Takaffoli, M., &; Zaïane, O. R.
(2014). Collaborative learning of students in online
discussion forums: A social network analysis
perspective. In Educational Data Mining (pp. 441-466).
Springer International Publishing.
Rabbany, R., Takaffoli, M., &; Zaïane, O. R. (2011).
Analyzing participation of students in online courses
using social network analysis techniques. In Proceedings
of educational data mining.
Rainie, L., Zickuhr, K., Purcell, K., Madden, M., &;
Brenner, J. (2012). The rise of e-reading. Pew Research
Center’s Internet &; American Life Project: Washington,
DC.
http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of-
e-reading/
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.
Reffay, C., &; Chanier, T(2002). Social Network Analysis
used for modelling collaboration in distance learning
groups. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 31-40).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Ribière, M., Picault, J., &; Squedin, S. (2010). The sBook:
towards social and personalized learning experiences. In
Proceedings of the third workshop on Research advances
in large digital book repositories and complementary
media (pp. 3-8). ACM.
Richardson, J., Smith, R., Lenarcic, J., McCrohan, R., &;
O’Hare, R. (2010). The emergence of social networking
through the communal annotations of an e-book system.
Curriculum, technology &; transformation for an unknown
future. Proceedings ASCILITE Sydney, 803-807.
Rickman, J. T., Von Holzen, R., Klute, P. G., &; Tobin, T.
(2009). A Campus-Wide E-Textbook Initiative. Educause
Quarterly, 32(2), n2.
Roscheisen M, Mogensen C and Winograd T (1994) Shared Web
annotations as a platform for third-party valueadded
information providers: Architecture protocols and usage
examples. Technical Report CSDTR/DLTR
http://www-
digilib.stanford.edu/digilib/pub/reports/commentor.ps.
Saadi, I. A., Alharbi, M. A., &; Watt, A. P. (2013). Assess
learning styles profile of High and Low Arabic reading
achievement in preparatory schools students in Saudi
Arabia. Life Science Journal, 10(2), 2230-2238.
Sabater, J., &; Sierra, C. (2002, July). Reputation and
social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In
Proceedings of the first international joint conference
on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1 (pp.
475-482). ACM.
Sadeghi, N., Kasim, Z. M., Tan, B. H., &; Abdullah, F. S.
(2012). Learning styles, personality types and reading
comprehension performance. English Language Teaching, 5
(4), p116.
Sawyer, S., Eschenfelder, K., &; Hexkman, R. (2000).
Knowledge markets: cooperation among distributed
technical specialists. Knowledge management for the
information professional, 181-204.
Schickler, M., Mazer, M., &; Brooks, C. (1996) Pan-Browser
Support for Annotations and Other Meta-Information. on
the WWW Special Issue of Computer Networks and ISDN
Systems, 28 (7-11), 1063-1074.
Schwabe, F., McElvany, N., &; Trendtel, M. (2015). The
School Age Gender Gap in Reading Achievement: Examining
the Influences of Item Format and Intrinsic Reading
Motivation. Reading Research Quarterly.
Scott, J. (2000). Social Network Analysis. SAGE
Publications.
Scott, J. (2011). Social network analysis: developments,
advances, and prospects. Social network analysis and
mining, 1(1), 21-26.
Shea, T.C. (1983). An investigation of the relationship
among preferences for the learning style element of
design, selected instructional environments, and reading
achievement with ninth-grade students to improve
administrative determinations concerning effective
educational facilities, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, New York City: St. John's University.
Shirky, C.: Fame vs. fortune: micro-payments and free
content. First published Sept. 5,
2003 on the “Network, Economics and Culture” mailing
list, available on line at:
http://shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html (last
accessed on March 1, 2015)
Slavin, R. E. (2010). Co-operative learning: what makes
group-work work? The nature
of learning: Using research to inspire practice, 161-178.
Sousa, R. M., Moreira, F., &; Alves, A. C. (2013). Active
learning using physical
prototypes and serious games. In 5th International
Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education
(PAEE’2013) (pp. 27-1). CiED.
Stepanyan, K., Mather, R., &; Dalrymple, R. (2014). Culture,
role and group work: A social network analysis
perspective on an online collaborative course. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 676-693.
Streeter, C. L., &; Gillespie, D. F. (1993). Social network
analysis. Journal of Social Service Research, 16(1-2),
201-222.
Su, A., Yang, S. J., 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.
Thorndike, RL (1941). Children's reading interests. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Tse, S. K., Lam, R. Y. J., Lam, J. W. I., Chan, Y. M., &;
Loh, E. K. Y.(2006). Attitudes and attainment:A
comparison of Hong Kong, Singaporean and English
students’ reading. Research in Education, 76, 74-87.
Wasserman, Stanley and Faust, Katherine (1994). Social
Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wasserman, S., &; Faust, K. (1997). Social network analysis:
Methods and applications. Cambridge:Cambridge University
Press.
Waters, N. (2014). Social network analysis. In Handbook of
regional science (pp. 725-740). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Watts, Duncan (1999) Small Worlds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press
White, H. D., Wellman, B., &; Nazer, N. (2004). Does
citation reflect social structure? Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology,
55(2): 111-126.
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.
Yang, S. J., &; Chen, I. Y. (2008). A social network-based
system for supporting interactive collaboration in
knowledge sharing over peer-to-peer network.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(1),
36-50.
Yang, S. J., Chen, I. Y. L., &; Shao, N. W. (2004). Ontology
Enabled Annotation and Knowledge Management for
Collaborative Learning in Virtual Learning Community.
Educational Technology &; Society, 7(4), 70-81.
Yang, S. J., Zhang, J., Su, A. Y., &; Tsai, J. J. (2011). A
collaborative multimedia annotation tool for enhancing
knowledge sharing in CSCL. Interactive Learning
Environments, 19(1), 45-62.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top