政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/125113

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/125113

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文笔数/总笔数 : 113648/144635 (79%)
造访人次 : 51590422 在线人数 : 771

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

搜寻范围

查询小技巧：

您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果

若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据

进阶搜寻

主页 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上传 ‧ 说明 ‧ 关于政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手机版

政大機構典藏 > 文學院 > 圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/125113

请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125113

题名:	遊戲化機制之合作閱讀標註系統對於閱讀理解成效之影響研究 The effects of collaborative reading annotation with gamification approach on reading comprehension performance
作者:	高苡晴 Kao, Yi-Ching
贡献者:	陳志銘 Chen, Chih-Ming 高苡晴 Kao, Yi-Ching
关键词:	遊戲化機制合作閱讀標註閱讀理解成效沉浸體驗閱讀動機 gamification mechanism cooperative reading annotation reading comprehension effectiveness immersive experience reading motivation
日期:	2019
上传时间:	2019-08-07 17:22:03 (UTC+8)
摘要:	由於資訊科技的快速發展，數位閱讀已蔚為潮流，過去已有許多研究證實學習者透過線上閱讀標註進行觀點分享與互動討論來澄清文本意涵，可有效促進閱讀理解成效。此外，過去許多研究指出，透過遊戲化機制輔以學習具有提高沉浸度與激勵學習動機，進而提升學習成效之效，然而若未將學習活動目標與遊戲化機制相對應，則會造成學習者過於沉迷遊戲機制而無法達成學習成效的負面影響。因此，本研究基於「合作閱讀標註系統」設計一套遊戲化機制，將閱讀理解能力及其對應指標納入遊戲化機制的設計之中，以探討學習者採用有無遊戲化機制之「合作閱讀標註系統」輔以閱讀學習，對於閱讀理解成效、標註行為、沉浸體驗與閱讀動機的影響差異。此外，也探討不同性別與國語文能力的學習者採用有無遊戲化機制之「合作閱讀標註系統」輔以閱讀，其閱讀理解成效、標註行為、沉浸體驗與閱讀動機是否具有顯著差異。研究結果發現：(1)採用具遊戲化機制之「合作閱讀標註系統」輔以閱讀的學習者，在閱讀理解成效及其閱讀理解能力指標表現均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化機制的學習者；(2)男性與女性學習者以及高與低國語文能力學習者採用具遊戲化機制之「合作閱讀標註系統」輔以閱讀，在閱讀理解成效及其閱讀理解能力指標表現均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化機制的系統；(3)採用具遊戲化機制之「合作閱讀標註系統」輔以閱讀的學習者，在主題標註總次數、回應標註總次數上均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化機制的學習者；(4)男性與女性學習者以及高與低國語文能力學習者採用具遊戲化機制之「合作閱讀標註系統」輔以閱讀，在主題標註總次數上均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化機制的系統；(5)女性及低國語文能力學習者採採用具遊戲化機制之「合作閱讀標註系統」輔以閱讀的學習者，在回應標註總次數上顯著優於採用不具遊戲化激勵機制的系統；(6)採用具遊戲化機制之「合作閱讀標註系統」輔以閱讀的學習者，在全神貫注階段及整體沉浸體驗上均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化機制的學習者；(7)男性及高國語文能力學習者採採用具遊戲化機制之「合作閱讀標註系統」輔以閱讀的學習者，在全神貫注階段的沉浸體驗上顯著優於採用不具遊戲化激勵機制的系統；(8)採用具遊戲化機制之「合作閱讀標註系統」輔以閱讀的學習者，在內在閱讀動機及其挑戰、好奇面向與外在閱讀動機的社交面向表現上均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化機制的學習者；(9)男性學習者採用具遊戲化機制之「合作閱讀標註系統」輔以閱讀，在內在閱讀動機的挑戰、投入面向表現上均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化機制的系統；(10)低國語文能力學習者採用具遊戲化機制之「合作閱讀標註系統」輔以閱讀，在內在閱讀動機的挑戰面向均顯著優於採用不具遊戲化機制的系統。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。 With the rapid development of information technology, digital reading has become a trend. Past research proved that learners preceding prospective sharing and interactive discussion to clarify text meaning through online reading annotation could effectively facilitate the reading comprehension effectiveness. Lots of past studies also indicated that gamification mechanism assisted learning could enhance immersion and encourage learning motivation to further promote learning effectiveness. Nevertheless, learning activity goals not corresponding to gamification mechanisms would result in negative effects of learners indulging in gaming mechanisms and not achieving learning effectiveness. For this reason, a gamification mechanism, based on “cooperative reading annotation system, is designed in this study. By including reading comprehension ability and the correspondent indicators in the gamification mechanism design, it intends to discuss the effect of learners adopting the “cooperative reading annotation system” in gamification mechanism to reading learning on reading comprehension effectiveness, annotation behavior, immersive experience, and reading motivation. Moreover, learners with different gender and Chinese language ability are also discussed the effects of adopting the “cooperative reading annotation system” in gamification mechanism to reading on reading comprehension effectiveness, annotation behavior, immersive experience, and reading motivation. The research results are summarized as followings. (1) Learners applying the “cooperative reading annotation system” in gamification mechanism to reading significantly outperform those without gamification mechanism on reading comprehension effectiveness and the reading comprehension ability indicators. (2) Both male and female learners with high and low Chinese language ability adopting the “cooperative reading annotation system” in gamification mechanism to reading remarkably outperform those without gamification mechanism on reading comprehension effectiveness and the reading comprehension ability indicators. (3) Learners utilizing the “cooperative reading annotation system” in gamification mechanism for reading notably outperform those without gamification mechanism on total subject annotation times and total response annotation times. (4) Both male and female learners with high and low Chinese language ability applying the “cooperative reading annotation system” in gamification mechanism significantly outperform those without gamification mechanism on total subject annotation times. (5) Female learners with low Chinese language ability adopting the “cooperative reading annotation system” in gamification mechanism to reading remarkably outperform those without gamification mechanism on total response annotation times. (6) Learners using the “cooperative reading annotation system” in gamification mechanism for reading notably outperform those without gamification mechanism on concentration stage and overall immersive experience. (7) Male learners with high Chinese language ability applying the “cooperative reading annotation system” in gamification mechanism to reading significantly outperform those without gamification mechanism on immersive experience at concentration stage. (8) Learners utilizing the “cooperative reading annotation system” in gamification mechanism for reading remarkably outperform those without gamification mechanism on inner reading motivation, and the challenge and curiosity as well as the social dimensions of outer reading motivation. (9) Male learners adopting the “cooperative reading annotation system” in gamification mechanism to reading notably outperform those without gamification mechanism on inner reading motivation of challenge and involvement performance. (10) Learners with low Chinese language ability using the “cooperative reading annotation system” in gamification mechanism for reading significantly outperform those without gamification mechanism on inner reading motivation of challenge. Based on the research results, suggestions for teachers and reading promotion units as well as several directions for future research are eventually proposed in this study.
參考文獻:	一、中文文獻何克抗，李文光(2002)。教育技術學。北京：北京師範大學出版社。吳岱芸(2015)。從遊戲到遊戲化：行銷溝通遊戲化理論初探。新聞學研究，124，215-251。吳武典、張正芬(1984)。國語文能力測驗之編製及相關研究。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，31，37-52。宋曜廷、劉佩雲、簡馨瑩(2003)。閱讀動機量表的修訂及相關因素研究。中國測驗學會測驗學刊，50(1)，47-72。李美麗(2016)。日語閱讀課程導入合作學習之試案。東吳日語教育學報，46，155-177。李素足(1998)。台中縣市國小、高年級學童閱讀動機的探討(未出版碩士論文)。國立台中師範學院，臺中市。林見瑩(2002)。高雄縣國民小學六年級學童課外讀物閱讀情況之調查研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立屏東師範學院，屏東市。林武憲(2000)。怎樣推行兒童閱讀運動—從美、英、日的經驗談起。全國新書資訊月刊，22，15-18 林建平(1995)。國小學童的閱讀動機、理解策略與閱讀成就之相關研究。臺北市立師範學院學報，26，267-294。林珊如(2003)。大學教師網路閱讀行為之初探。圖書資訊學刊，1(1)，75-92。林風南(1988)。幼兒體能與遊戲。臺北市：五南。林惠愛(2011)。使用平板電腦閱讀電子書對國小學童閱讀能力與態度影響之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。柯華葳、張郁雯、詹益綾、丘嘉慧(2017)。PIRLS 2016 臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養國家報告。桃園市：國立中央大學。袁愛玲(2013)。數位閱讀教學對國小高年級學童閱讀理解影響之研究。教育研究論壇，4(2)，207-223。許佩琦(2001)。爭議性文章的閱讀理解研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立中正大學，嘉義縣。陳志銘、韋祿恩、吳志豪(2011)。認知型態與標註品質對閱讀成效之影響與關聯研究：以數位閱讀標註系統為例。圖書與資訊學刊，3(1)，1-25。陳勇汀(2011)。合作式閱讀標註之知識萃取機制研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。陳奕璇(2017)。檢視悅趣化學習的實踐：以遊戲式電子繪本為例。臺灣教育評論月刊，6(9)，311-313。陳姿君(2015)。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(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。陳薇如(2018)。探討遊戲化融入英語教學之成效以及對於學生學習焦慮與學習態度之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺南大學，台南市。黃政傑、林佩璇(1996)。合作學習。臺北市：五南。黃偉正(2009)。從消費者數位閱聽習慣，看電子書閱讀器優劣勢。臺北市：財團法人資訊工業策進會情報顧問產業焦點評論。黃馨儀(2002)。國小學童閱讀動機量表之編製與相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺南師範學院，臺南市。楊惠菁(2005)。國小學童對於不同媒體形式文本的閱讀理解比較-以紙本童書和電子童書為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台東大學，臺東市。楊朝祥(2011)。知識經濟時代教育新主張。教育資料與研究，41，1-9。楊麗秋、黃秀霜、陳惠萍(2009)。書談閱讀教學對國小國語科低成就學童閱讀動機影響之研究。課程與教學，12(3)，153-186。臺灣數位出版聯盟(2012)。2012 臺灣數位閱讀行為調查研究第三季問卷結果報告。電子書團體銷售模式研討暨 2012 年第三季臺灣數位閱讀行為調查發表會，臺北市。劉旨峰、林俊閎、葉慈瑜、蔡元隆、黃國禎。(2017)。 Effects of Digital Game-based Learning on Students` Motor Skills and Flow Experience。市北教育學刊，56，67-89。劉瑞圓(2012)。全球教育中之性別差異。教育科學期刊，11(1)，79-104。劉詩瑜(2019)。遊戲化元素激勵青少年閱讀行為、動機與滿意度之研究—以閱讀平台為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣科技大學，臺北市。劉遠楨、黃思華、王聖仁(2008)。結合概念構圖與註記分享線上摘要之寫作學習環境之研究。課程與教學，11(3)，155-180。蔡銘津(1995)。文章結構分析策略教學對增進學童閱讀理解與寫作成效之影響(未出版之博士論文)。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。蕭秀琴(2015)。協同學習對於國中生國語文學習動機及成效影響之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。淡江大學，新北市。蕭顯勝、伍建學(2003)。創造思考教學策略融入網路遊戲教學模式之建立。生活科技教育，36(2)，38-52。賴苑玲(2006)。國小六年級學童之家庭、班級及學校圖書館閱讀環境與其閱讀態度之研究。社會科教育研究，11，47- 86 錡寶香(1999)。國小學童閱讀理解能力之分析。國教學報，5(2)，52-69。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。顏若映(1994)。先前知識與文章連貫性對國小學童閱讀理解之影響(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。羅家駿、曹忠學、葉修文(2005)。電子文件之線上註記系統發展與閱讀教學應用。中原學報，33(2)，193-214。籃玉如、陳之權、黃黛菁、簡鳳兒、洪瑞春、陳佩雯、賴健二、楊雪燕、鄭玫莉、劉香君、薑以琳、李志賢(2011)。華文愛閱網：數位環境中合作華文閱讀之理論與實踐。第二屆華文作為第二語言之教與學國際研討會，新加坡。二、英文文獻 Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time Flies When You`re Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs about Information Technology Usage. MIS Quarterly,24(4), 665-694. Attali, & Arieli-Attali. (2015). Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test performance? Computers & Education, 83, 57-63. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. Oxford, England: Grune & Stratton. Baker, Linda, & Wigfield, Allan. (1999). Dimensions of Children`s Motivation for Reading and Their Relations to Reading Activity and Reading Achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452-477. Balkcom, S. (1992). Cooperative Learning. Education Research. Consumer Guide, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) of the U.S. Department of Education. Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2014). Identifying student types in a gamified learning experience. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 4(4), 19–36. Bargeron, Gupta, Grudin, & Sanocki. (1999). Annotations for streaming video on the Web: System design and usage studies. Computer Networks, 31(11), 1139-1153. Berglund, R. L.(1991). Developing a love of reading:What help, what hurts. Literacy Research Report No.7. Bonde, M. T., Makransky, G., Wandall, J., Larsen, M. V., Morsing, M., Jarmer, H., & Sommer, M. O. (2014). Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations. Nature Biotechnology, 32(7), 694–697 Brown, E., & Cairns, P. (2004). A grounded investigation of game immersion. CHI`04 Extended Abstracts on Human factors in computing systems,1297-1300 Brush, A. J. B.(2002). Annotating Digital Documents for Asynchronous Collaboration. Technical Report, 02-09-02. Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2016). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1162-1175. Burguillo, J. C. (2010). Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student motivation and performance. Computers & Education, 55(2), 566-575. Chen J. (2007). Flow in games (and everything else). Communications of the ACM, 50(4),31-34. Chen, C. M., & Chen, F. Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77, 67-81. Cheng, M.-T., She, H.-C., & Annetta, L. A. (2014). Game Immersion Experience: Its Hierarchical Structure and Impact on Game-Based Science Learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 232-253. Chi, M.T.H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self- Explanations - How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182. Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1996). Effects of Multimedia Annotations on Vocabulary Acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 80(2), 183-198. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 15-35). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 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. Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: Designing for motivation. Interactions, 19(4),14-17. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9-15). ACM. Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1-36 Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping Study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88. Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernán-dez-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., and Martínez-Herráiz, J. (2013). Gamifying Learning Experiences: Practical Implications and Outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392. Doty, D. E., Popplewell, S. R., & Byers, G. O. (2001). Interactive CD-ROM Storybooks and Young Readers’ Reading Comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 374-384. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and Gender Differences in Children`s Self- and Task Perceptions during Elementary School. Child Development, 64(3), 830. Eden,S.,&Eshet-Alkalai,Y. The effect of format on performance: Editing text in print versus digital formats. British Journal of Educational Technology,44(5),846-856. Elbro,C. & Buch-Iversen,I.(2013).Activation of background knowledge for inference making :Effects on reading comprehension. Scientifics Studies of Reading,17(6),435-452 Gabriel Barata, Sandra Gama, Joaquim Jorge, & Daniel Gonçalves (2013). Engaging Engineering Students with Gamification. 2013 5th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-GAMES), 1-8 Gambrell, L. B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation. The Reading Teacher, 50(1), 14-25. Gehringer, E., Deibel, K., Hamer, J., & Whittington, K. (2006). Cooperative learning: Beyond pair programming and team projects. Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 458-459. Ghani, J., & Deshpande, S. (1994). Task Characteristics and the Experience of Optimal Flow in Human—Computer Interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 381-391. Glover, I., Hardaker, G., & Xu, Z. (2004) Collaborative annotation system environment (CASE) for online learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 21(2), 72-80. Guthrie, J., & Klauda, S. (2014). Effects of Classroom Practices on Reading Comprehension, Engagement, and Motivations for Adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(4), 387-416. Haake, Axelsson, Clausen-Bruun, & Gulz. (2015). Scaffolding mentalizing via a play-&-learn game for preschoolers. Computers & Education, 90, 13-23. Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. (2015). The effect of achievement badges on students’ behavior: an empirical study in a university-level computer science course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10(1), 18–29. Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming Homo Economicus into Homo Ludens: A Field Experiment on Gamification in a Utilitarian Peer-to-peer Trading Service. Electronic Commerce Research and Application, 21, 236-245. Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013). Social motivations to use gamification: an empirical study of gamifying exercise. Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems (pp.5-8). .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. Hatt, F. (1976). The Reading Process : a Framework for Analysis and Description. London : Clive Bingley. Hew, J. J., Lee, V. H., Ooi, K. B., & Wei, J. (2015). What catalyses mobile apps usage intention: an empirical analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(7), 1269-1291. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of educational research, 56(4), 473-493. Hsieh, Y. H., Lin, Y. C., & Hou, H. T. (2016). Exploring the role of flow experience, learning performance and potential behavior clusters in elementary students` game-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 178-193. 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. 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). Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., & Chen, C. C. (2012). An online game approach for improving students` learning performance in web-based problem-solving activities. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1246-1256. Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 104(1), 53 Inal, Y., & Cagiltay, K. (2007). Flow experiences of children in an interactive social game environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 455-464. Iosup, A., & Epema, D. (2014). An experience report on using gamification in technical higher education. Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 27-32). ACM. Jackson, S. A., & Roberts, G.C. (1992). Positive performance states of athletes: Toward a conceptual understanding of peak performance. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 156-171. Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a readers’ workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1(2), 147-172. Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Promoting reading comprehension, content learning, and English acquisition though Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR). The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 738-747. Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined Effects of Note‐Taking/‐Reviewing on Learning and the Enhancement through Interventions: A meta‐analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 459-477. Landers, R. N., & Landers, A. K. (2015). An empirical test of the theory of gamified learning: The effect of leaderboards on time-on-task and academic performance. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 769-785. Lebow, D., Lick, D. & Hartman, H. (2004). Interactive Annotation for Teaching and Learning. In R. Ferdig, C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2004 (pp.1781-1786). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Lee, E. (2005). The relationship of motivation and flow experience to academic procrastination in university students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(1), 5-15. Liaw, S. S., Chen, G. D., & Huang, H. M. (2008). Users’ attitudes toward Web-based collaborative learning systems for knowledge management. Computers & Education, 50(3), 950-961. Liu, T. Y., & Chu, Y. L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 630-643. 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. Lunsford, A.A., & Ruszkiewicz, J.J. (1999). The Presence of Others. New York: St. Martin’s. Lynn, R., & Mikk, J. (2009). Sex differences in reading achievement. TRAMES: A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences, 13(1), 3-13 Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Maican, C., Lixandroiu, R., & Constantin, C. (2016). Interactivia. ro–A study of a gamification framework using zero-cost tools. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 186-197. Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2010). Reading motivation: Exploring the elementary gender gap. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 129-141. Marr, M. B., & Gormley, K. (1982). Children`s recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 89-104. Marshall, C. C., & Brush, A. J. (2004). Exploring the relationship between personal and public annotations. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 349-357). ACM. 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. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. London: Penguin Books McKenna, E.(1997). Gender differences in reading attitudes. Unpublished Master Thesis, Kean Colleges of New Jersey, New Jersey. McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children`s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading research quarterly, 30(4),934-956. Mendenhall, A., & Johnson, T. E. (2010). Fostering the development of critical thinking skills, and reading comprehension of undergraduates using a Web 2.0 tool coupled with a learning system. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 263-276. Metsala, J. L., Sweet, A. P., & Guthrie, J. T. (1996). How children’s motivation related to literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 49(8), 660-663. Moser, G. P., & Morrison, T. G. (1998). Increasing students’ achievement and interest in reading. Reading Horizon, 38(4), 233-245. Mullen, J. (1995). The Relationship of Self- Concept and Classroom Behavior to Students’ Attitudes toward Reading. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55 (10), 31-48 Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. Proc. 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL(pp. 323-329). Nevin, C. R., Westfall, A. O., Rodriguez, J. M., Dempsey, D. M., Cherrington, A., Roy, B., Patel, M., & Willig, J. H. (2014). Gamification as a tool for enhancing graduate medical education. Postgrad Medical Journal, 90(1070), 685–693. O`Donovan, S., Gain, J., & Marais, P. (2013). A case study in the gamification of a university-level games development course. Proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference, 242-251. OECD. (2000). Literacy in the information age : final report of the international adult literacy survey. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/21/39437980.pdf Ovsiannikov, I.A., Arbib, M.A., & McNeill, T.H. (1999). Annotation technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50(4), 327-362. Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children`s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of reading behavior, 11(3), 201-209. 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. In Proceedings of the 30th annual ACM symposium on applied computing(SAC’15),214-219. Porter-O’Dnnell, C. (2004). Beyond the yellow highlighter: Teaching annotation skills to improve reading comprehension. English Journal, 93(5), 82-89 Prensky, M. (2011). In the 21st-century university, let’s ban (paper) books. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(3), 1-3. Prince, J. D. (2013). Gamification. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 10(3), 162-169. Ramli, F., Shafie, N., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2013). Exploring student`s in-depth learning difficulties in mathematics through teachers’ perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 339-345. Reinking, D. , & Rickman, S. S. (1990). The effects of computer-mediated texts on the vocabulary learning and comprehension of intermediate-grade readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22(4), 395-411. Rich, M. (2008). Literacy Debate: Online, R U really reading? The New York Times. Salvatori, M. (1996). The “argument of reading” in the teaching of composition. In B. Emmel, P. Resch, & D. Tenney (Eds.), Argument revisited; argument redefined: Nego-tiating meaning in the composition classroom (pp. 181-197). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seifert, T., & Hedderson, C. (2010). Intrinsic motivation and flow in skateboarding: An ethnographic study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(3), 277-292. Singer, M., & O`Connell, G. (2003). Robust inference processes in expository text comprehension. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 607-631. Spilich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F. (1979) Spires, H.A., Donley, J., & Penrose, A.M. (1990). Prior knowledge activation:Inducing text engagement in reading to learn. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Su, A. Y., 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. Sweeney, W. J., Ehrhardt, A. M., Gardner III, R., Jones, L., Greenfield, R., & Fribley, S. (1999). Using guided notes with academically at‐risk high school students during a remedial summer social studies class. Psychology in the Schools, 36(4), 305-318. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285. Tittle, C. K. (1986). Gender research and education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1161-1168. Wang, J. H. Y., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between US and Chinese students. Reading research quarterly, 39(2), 162-186. Watkins, M. W., & Coffey, D. Y. (2004). Reading motivation: Multidimensional and indeterminate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 110-118. Weber, R., Tamborini, R., Westcott-Baker, A., & Kantor, B. (2009). Theorizing flow and media enjoyment as cognitive synchronization of attentional and reward networks. Communication Theory, 19(4), 397-422. Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1992). Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS quarterly, 16(2), 201-226. Webster, J., Trevino, L. K., & Ryan, L. (1993). The dimensionality and correlates of flow in human-computer interactions. Computers in human behavior, 9(4), 411-426. Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children`s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of educational psychology, 89(3), 420-432 Wolfe, J. (2002). Annotation technologies: A software and research review. Computers and Composition, 19(4), 471-497. Wolters, C. A., Denton, C. A., York, M. J., & Francis, D. J. (2014). Adolescents’ motivation for reading: Group differences and relation to standardized achievement. Reading and Writing, 27(3), 503-533. 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. Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2013). The Gamification Revolution: How Leaders Leverage Game Mechanics to Crush the Competition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. Sebastopol, CA: O`Reilly Media.
描述:	碩士國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班 106913013
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106913013
数据类型:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/NCCU201900544
显示于类别:	[圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班] 學位論文

文件中的档案:

档案	大小	格式	浏览次数
301301.pdf	6760Kb	Adobe PDF2	1	检视/开启

在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - 回馈