聊天機器人扮演協調者角色對學生英語閱讀興趣影響

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：14

、訪客IP：13.59.169.37

姓名

邱貞瑋(Chen-Wei Chiu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊工程學系

論文名稱

聊天機器人扮演協調者角色對學生英語閱讀興趣影響
(The Influence of Chatbots Playing the Role of Facilitator on Students′ Interest in English Reading)

相關論文

★ 以視覺為主的遊戲空間輔助全身性學習	★ 以數位教室環境增進同步遠距教學之臨場感
★ 以行動載具支援並分析合作式的探索活動	★ 以混合實境支援工作臺協同探究學習
★ 使用資料探勘輔助學習者探索大型資料庫—學習者經驗之研究	★ 以貢獻與聯結為基礎之社會知識創造模型—一個資源與概念合作聯結工具
★ 互動式計算桌面環境對於合作學習的優缺點	★ 以共享螢幕及群組軟體支援一對一環境下面對面的合作網路探索
★ 合作學習使用網際網路: 學習腳本在面對面網路合作探索的影響	★ 兒童使用超媒體的Web2.0創作故事平台之探究--衍生與重組
★ 以創用為基礎之合作說故事平台 - 衍生、重組、擁有感	★ 透過網路實施模擬實務社群並利用即興創作激發創意
★ 使用群組軟體與共同螢幕進行一對一合作網路探索活動	★ 以Cyber-Physical環境支援程式設計學習之探究
★ 跨領域合作設計活動之互動分析：群組軟體的支援與設計	★ 不同成就學生於模擬遊戲環境中程式學習效果之探究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

現今人們處於國際化的地球村裡，英語成為彼此溝通的一種方式，而英語閱讀能力也是不可或缺的能力。過去研究提到有學習同伴的學習小組中，教師以對話式教學方法引導與提供自由討論的空間，學生可以互相討論故事情節，發表自己的觀點外，還能與同伴產生對話連結，使得學生對文本更加認識，對於英語閱讀產生積極影響。因此在教育資源缺乏下，於有限的時間提供對每位學生照顧，本研究開發一個聊天機器人，在雙人聊書小組中扮演協調者角色，邀請學生分享故事及促進學生彼此互動；並與引導機器人比較，研究不同角色機器人對學生聊書投入狀況、機器人感受與英語閱讀興的影響。
本研究實驗對象為臺灣某國民小學55名四年級學生，實驗組（n=30）使用協調機器人，控制組（n=25）使用引導機器人。研究期間全體學生每週進行一次英語閱讀活動，學生自由選書安靜於座位閱讀，並於上、下學期各進行一次機器人聊書活動：實驗組學生兩人一組搭配協調機器人討論同一本故事書內容，控制組學生與引導機器人一對一聊故事。透過活動分析學生對話狀況、心流、機器人感受及英語閱讀興趣。
研究結果顯示，實驗組學生多回應開放式問題，以認知參與為主，學生對話中經常隱藏對同儕深入話題、模仿與附和，從學習小組類型來看以單向式回應型最多。學生聊書整體投入高，而新奇效應影響，學生與機器人聊書一次後好奇心下降，也導致對英語閱讀興趣短暫上升又下降，從先備知識來看，低成就學生使用協調機器人後對英語閱讀興趣提升。實驗組與控制組比較來看，學生在聊書投入狀況與機器人感受沒有太大不同；英語閱讀情境興趣中，實驗組比控制組在中期引起英語閱讀之「價值」，後期則無明顯差異；對話內容中觀察到實驗組學生更多主動提問、要求回應與糾正互動行為發生，並存在對話中深入話題、模仿與附和隱藏關係，控制組則較少互動行為發生。

摘要(英)

Nowadays, people live in an international global village. English becomes a way to communicate with each other, and English reading ability is also a necessary ability. Past research has mentioned that in a study group with study peers, teachers guide and provide a space for a free discussion with a dialogic reading method. Students can discuss storylines with each other and express their own opinions. Students better understand the story content, which has a positive impact on English reading. Therefore, despite the lack of educational resources, we provide care for each student in a limited time. This study develops a chatbot that acts as a facilitator in a two-person book chat group, invites students to share stories, and facilitates students to interact with each other. Compared with the guider chatbot, this study discusses the influence of different chatbots on chatting engagement, chatbot feelings, and English reading interests.
The subjects of this study were 55 fourth grades students from an elementary school in Taiwan. The experimental group（n=30）used a facilitator chatbot, and the control group（n=25）used a guider chatbot. All students participated in an English reading activity once a week. Students freely selected books to read quietly in their seats. Students conducted a book talk activity with chatbots in the previous semester and the next semester. The students in the experimental group worked in pairs to coordinate a chatbot to discuss the content of the same storybook. The students in the control group chatted with the guider chatbot one-on-one. This study analyzes student dialogue, flow experience, chatbot perception, and situational interest in English reading.
The results indicated the students in the experimental group mostly responded to open-ended questions and focused on cognitive participation. In dialogues, students went deep into topics and imitated and agreed with their peers. From the perspective of the study group, the one-way response type was the most common. Students are highly engaged in chatbot chatting activities. Due to the novelty effect, students′ curiosity dropped after chatting with the chatbot for the first time. It also causes student interest in English reading to rise and fall for a short time. From the perspective of prior knowledge, low-achievers interest in English reading increased after using the facilitator chatbot. Compared with the control group, there is no significant difference between the chatting engagement and the chatbot feelings. In the English reading situational interest, the experimental group arouses the Maintained-SI-Value of English reading in the middle stage compared with the control group. There is no significant difference in the later stage. In the dialogue content, we observed that the students in the experimental group more actively greeted, asked questions, asked to respond, and corrected interactive behaviors. In addition, students had hidden relationships with others who went deep into topics, imitated, and agreed with others. Nevertheless, the control group interacted less with others.

關鍵字(中)

★ 英語閱讀
★ 聊天機器人
★ 心流
★ 情境興趣
★ Godspeed
★ 協調者

關鍵字(英)

★ English reading
★ chatbot
★ flow
★ situational interest
★ godspeed
★ facilitator

論文目次

摘要 I
Abstract II
致謝 IV
目錄 VI
圖目錄 IX
表目錄 XI
第一章緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的與問題 3
1.3 名詞解釋 4
1.3.1 心流（Flow） 4
1.3.2 Godspeed 4
1.3.3 情境興趣 4
1.4 研究範圍與限制 5
1.5 論文架構 5
第二章文獻探討 6
2.1 心流（Flow） 6
2.2 協調者（Facilitator） 9
2.3 聊天機器人（Chatbot） 11
2.4 對話式閱讀（Dialogic Reading） 14
第三章系統設計 16
3.1 系統特色 16
3.2 系統架構 17
3.3 程式模組運作 18
3.4 對話策略 21
3.4.1 引導機器人 21
3.4.2 協調機器人 25
3.5 系統介面 30
第四章研究方法 33
4.1 研究對象 33
4.2 研究流程 34
4.3 學習活動設計 35
4.3.1 英語書籍 35
4.3.2 英語閱讀活動 37
4.3.3 機器人聊書活動 40
4.4 實驗設計 43
4.5 研究工具 45
4.5.1 心流量表 45
4.5.2 Godspeed量表 46
4.5.3 情境興趣量表 48
4.6 研究資料收集與分析 50
4.6.1 學生對話資料 51
4.6.2 心流量表數據收集與分析 57
4.6.3 Godspeed量表數據收集與分析 57
4.6.4 情境興趣量表數據 58
4.6.5 事後訪談 59
第五章研究結果與討論 60
5.1 學生與協調機器人對話狀況分析 60
5.2 學生與協調機器人聊書活動投入狀況分析 93
5.3 學生對協調機器人感受分析 96
5.4 學生英語閱讀活動搭配協調機器人之情境興趣分析 104
5.5 不同先備知識學生在使用協調機器人之投入狀況、機器人感受及英語閱讀情境興趣分析 118
5.6 學生使用不同機器人之對話狀況、投入狀況、機器人感受及英語閱讀情境興趣分析 122
第六章結論與建議 141
6.1 結論 141
6.1.1 學生與「協調機器人」對話狀況為何？ 141
6.1.2 學生與「協調機器人」聊書投入狀況為何？ 141
6.1.3 學生對「協調機器人」感受為何？ 142
6.1.4 英語閱讀活動搭配「協調機器人」影響之學生英語閱讀情境興趣為何？ 143
6.1.5 不同先備知識學生使用「協調機器人」投入狀況、機器人感受及英語閱讀情境興趣比較為何？ 143
6.1.6學生使用「協調機器人」與「引導機器人」對話狀況、投入狀況、機器人感受及英語閱讀情境興趣比較為何？ 144
6.2 未來發展 145
參考文獻 146
中文文獻 146
英文文獻 147
附錄 A 書籍列表 155
附錄 B 心流量表問卷 157
附錄 C Godspeed量表問卷 158
附錄 D 情境興趣量表問卷 160

附錄 E 機器人聊書活動對話關係圖 161
附錄 F 英語閱讀活動後訪談 176

參考文獻

中文文獻
王品卿（2014）。Web 2.0 英語學習活動之學生心流與學習動機歷程研究。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所碩士論文，桃園縣。
張文聰（2017）。網路學習社群中社會網路、知識分享與投入之關聯。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所碩士論文，桃園縣。
廖墨剛（2021）。聊天機器人對國小學生英語閱讀興趣的影響。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所碩士論文，桃園市。
馮永婷（2021）。聊天機器人使用故事接龍及故事引導對話策略對學生英語閱讀經驗的影響。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所碩士論文，桃園市。

英文文獻
Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., & Haeri, N. S. (2017, November). Young EFL learners’ attitude towards RALL: An observational study focusing on motivation, anxiety, and interaction. In International conference on social robotics (pp. 252-261). Springer, Cham.
Bagmar, A., Hogan, K., Shalaby, D., & Purtilo, J. (2022). Analyzing the effectiveness of an Extensible Virtual Moderator. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(GROUP), 1-16.
Bailey, D., Southam, A., & Costley, J. (2021). Digital storytelling with chatbots: Mapping L2 participation and perception patterns. Interactive Technology and Smart Education.
Baker, L. (2003). The role of parents in motivating struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 87-106.
Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International journal of social robotics, 1(1), 71-81.
Battineni, G., Chintalapudi, N., & Amenta, F. (2020, June). AI chatbot design during an epidemic like the novel coronavirus. In Healthcare (Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 154). MDPI.
Blewitt, P., Rump, K. M., Shealy, S. E., & Cook, S. A. (2009). Shared book reading: When and how questions affect young children′s word learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 294.
Bus, A. G., Leseman, P. P., & Keultjes, P. (2000). Joint book reading across cultures: A comparison of Surinamese-Dutch, Turkish-Dutch, and Dutch parent-child dyads. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(1), 53-76.
Bus, A. G., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of educational research, 65(1), 1-21.
Chow, B. W. Y., McBride‐Chang, C., & Cheung, H. (2010). Parent–child reading in English as a second language: Effects on language and literacy development of Chinese kindergarteners. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(3), 284-301.
Colby, K. M., Hilf, F. D., Weber, S., & Kraemer, H. C. (1972). Turing-like indistinguishability tests for the validation of a computer simulation of paranoid processes. Artificial Intelligence, 3, 199-221.
Craig, S., Graesser, A., Sullins, J., & Gholson, B. (2004). Affect and learning: An exploratory look into the role of affect in learning with AutoTutor. Journal of educational media, 29(3), 241-250.
Croes, E. A., & Antheunis, M. L. (2021). Can we be friends with Mitsuku? A longitudinal study on the process of relationship formation between humans and a social chatbot. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(1), 279-300.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. J Nerv Ment Dis, 175, 526-536.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass. (Original work published 1975)
Dao, P. (2020). Effect of interaction strategy instruction on learner engagement in peer interaction. System, 91, 102244.
D′Mello, S., Picard, R. W., & Graesser, A. (2007). Toward an affect-sensitive AutoTutor. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(4), 53-61.
Eldredge, J. L., Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1996). Comparing the effectiveness of two oral reading practices: Round-robin reading and the shared book experience. Journal of Literacy research, 28(2), 201-225.
Ezell, H. K., & Justice, L. M. (2000). Increasing the print focus of adult-child shared book reading through observational learning. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9(1), 36-47.
Fryer, L. K., Ainley, M., Thompson, A., Gibson, A., & Sherlock, Z. (2017). Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of Chatbot and Human task partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 461-468.
Fryer, L. K., Nakao, K., & Thompson, A. (2019). Chatbot learning partners: Connecting learning experiences, interest and competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 279-289.
Giasiranis, S., & Sofos, L. (2017). Flow experience and educational effectiveness of teaching informatics using AR. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 78-88.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory and applying grounded theory. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The American tradition in qualitative research (Vol. 2.). Sage publications.
Hashemifardnia, A., Namaziandost, E., & Rahimi Esfahani, F. (2018). The effect of teaching picture-books on elementary EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. JELTL (Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics), 3(3), 247-258.
Hew, K. F. (2015). Student perceptions of peer versus instructor facilitation of asynchronous online discussions: Further findings from three cases. Instructional Science, 43(1), 19-38.
High, R. (2012). The era of cognitive systems: An inside look at IBM Watson and how it works. IBM Corporation, Redbooks, 1, 16.
Hill, J., Ford, W. R., & Farreras, I. G. (2015). Real conversations with artificial intelligence: A comparison between human–human online conversations and human–chatbot conversations. Computers in human behavior, 49, 245-250.
Huang, W., Hew, K. F., & Fryer, L. K. (2022). Chatbots for language learning—Are they really useful? A systematic review of chatbot‐supported language learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 237-257.
Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. Y. (2021). A review of opportunities and challenges of chatbots in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-14.
Kasim, U., & Raisha, S. (2017). EFL students’ reading comprehension problems: Linguistic and non-linguistic complexities. English Education Journal, 8(3), 308-321.
Kim, S., Eun, J., Oh, C., Suh, B., & Lee, J. (2020, April). Bot in the bunch: Facilitating group chat discussion by improving efficiency and participation with a chatbot. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-13).
Kim, S., Eun, J., Seering, J., & Lee, J. (2021). Moderator chatbot for deliberative discussion: Effects of discussion structure and discussant facilitation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1-26.
Kirchhoff, C. (2013). L2 extensive reading and flow: Clarifying the relationship. Reading in a foreign language, 25(2), 192-212.
Kotaman, H. (2020). Impacts of dialogical storybook reading on young children’s reading attitudes and vocabulary development. Reading Improvement, 57(1), 40-45.
Lee, Y. C., Yamashita, N., Huang, Y., & Fu, W. (2020, April). " I Hear You, I Feel You": Encouraging Deep Self-disclosure through a Chatbot. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-12).
Li, R. (2021). Foreign language reading anxiety and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 1-24.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Durik, A. M., Conley, A. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Karabenick, S. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and psychological measurement, 70(4), 647-671.
Liu, H., & Song, X. (2021). Exploring “Flow” in young Chinese EFL learners’ online English learning activities. System, 96, 102425.
Mahbuba, R. (2022). The role of student-student interaction in EFL classrooms. Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, Philosophy and Culture, 2(2), 63-66.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children′s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., De Jong, M. T., & Smeets, D. J. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent–child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early education and development, 19(1), 7-26.
Munajap, M. (2017). The effect of collaborative dialogue building on the students’lexical and grammatical mastery. The Indonesian Journal of Language and Language Teaching, 2(1), 26-33.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The concept of flow. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 239-263). Springer, Dordrecht.
Neumann, M. M. (2020). Social robots and young children’s early language and literacy learning. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(2), 157-170.
Noble, C. H., Cameron-Faulkner, T., & Lieven, E. (2018). Keeping it simple: The grammatical properties of shared book reading. Journal of child language, 45(3), 753-766.
Ogle, D., & Correa‐Kovtun, A. (2010). Supporting English‐Language Learners and Struggling Readers in Content Literacy With the “Partner Reading and Content, Too” Routine. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 532-542.
Oktarina, P. S., Hari, N. P. L. S., & Ambarwati, N. M. W. (2020). The Effectiveness of Using Picture Book to Motivate Students Especially Young Learners in Reading. Yavana Bhasha: Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 72-79.
Okuda, T., & Shoda, S. (2018). AI-based chatbot service for financial industry. Fujitsu Scientific and Technical Journal, 54(2), 4-8.
Pérez, J. Q., Daradoumis, T., & Puig, J. M. M. (2020). Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: A systematic literature review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(6), 1549-1565.
Qrqez, M., & Ab Rashid, R. (2017). Reading comprehension difficulties among EFL learners: The case of first and second year students at Yarmouk University in Jordan. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume, 8.
Renninger, K. A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theory and practice. The role of interest in learning and development, 26(3-4), 361-395.
Rong, W. J., & Min, Y. S. (2005, July). The effects of learning style and flow experience on the effectiveness of e-learning. In Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT′05) (pp. 802-805). IEEE.
Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational dynamics, 22(2), 40-52.
Schuetzler, R. M., Grimes, G. M., & Scott Giboney, J. (2020). The impact of chatbot conversational skill on engagement and perceived humanness. Journal of Management Information Systems, 37(3), 875-900.
Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 395-442.
Seo, K. K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: Addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and nonmoderation. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 21-36.
Shahian, L., Pishghadam, R., & Khajavy, G. H. (2017). Flow and reading comprehension: Testing the mediating role of emotioncy. Issues in Educational Research, 27(3), 427-549.
Shawar, B. A. (2017). Integrating CALL systems with chatbots as conversational partners. Computación y Sistemas, 21(4), 615-626.
Skidmore, D. (2000). From pedagogical dialogue to dialogical pedagogy. Language and Education, 14(4), 283-296.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.
Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S., & Tsiatsos, T. (2014). A configurable conversational agent to trigger students’ productive dialogue: a pilot study in the CALL domain. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(1), 62-91.
Trevino, L. K., & Webster, J. (1992). Flow in computer-mediated communication: Electronic mail and voice mail evaluation and impacts. Communication research, 19(5), 539-573.
Vogt, P., De Haas, M., De Jong, C., Baxter, P., & Krahmer, E. (2017). Child-robot interactions for second language tutoring to preschool children. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 11, 73.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
Wallace, R. S. (2009). The anatomy of ALICE. In Parsing the turing test (pp. 181-210). Springer, Dordrecht.
Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36-45.
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental psychology, 24(4),
Whitehurst, G. J. (1992). Dialogic reading: An effective way to read to preschoolers.
Winkler, R., & Söllner, M. (2018). Unleashing the potential of chatbots in education: A state-of-the-art analysis. In Academy of Management Annual Meeting (AOM).
Xu, Y., Wang, D., Collins, P., Lee, H., & Warschauer, M. (2021). Same benefits, different communication patterns: Comparing Children′s reading with a conversational agent vs. a human partner. Computers & Education, 161, 104059.
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the learning sciences, 18(1), 7-44.
Zubiri-Esnaola, H., Vidu, A., Rios-Gonzalez, O., & Morla-Folch, T. (2020). Inclusivity, participation and collaboration: Learning in interactive groups. Educational Research, 62(2), 162-180.

指導教授

劉晨鐘(Chen-Chung Liu)

審核日期

2022-8-16

推文