AI同伴支持聊書與反思

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：51

、訪客IP：3.129.253.148

姓名

楊筱彤(Hsiao-Tung Yang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

AI同伴支持聊書與反思
(AI Companion Supporting Book Discussions and Reflection)

相關論文

★ 探索電玩遊戲頻率對於視覺注意力表現能力的效應	★ 代理表現學習模式—以動物同伴為例
★ 常用邏輯句型重組之學習	★ 電腦支援國小數學文字題擬題活動初探
★ 解釋數學：透過科技支援創作與討論以增強小學生的數學溝通能力	★ 提問式鷹架教學結合數位閱讀寫作系統對國小低年級學生語文能力的影響
★ 數學島：興趣驅動之國小數學線上平台設計與初步評估	★ 以「猜擬題」活動增進學生數學文字題解題能力
★ 基於學生練習使用回饋之學習成效預測模型與動態題數練習機制	★ 透過主題地圖與寵物同伴促進閱讀更深更廣的書籍
★ 具推薦書籍功能之閱讀島系統架構設計	★ 透過學生影片創作進行國小數學學習:趣創者理論之應用
★ 英文單字樂園：學生自創字卡搭配複習機制強化英文字彙學習之系統設計及學習成效初探	★ 設計與實作明日寫作系統增進國小學生寫作表現
★ 設計與實踐「提升式寫作」活動以提升國小學生寫作品質與寫作興趣	★ TTPR：設計科技強化型全肢體反應為了小學生和國中生在印尼學習英語詞彙

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]

至系統瀏覽論文 (2026-8-1以後開放)

摘要(中)

閱讀在兒童教育中扮演著至關重要的角色，不僅是知識的來源，更是語言能力和邏輯思維發展的重要基礎。臺灣致力於推動閱讀活動多年，「明日閱讀」計畫自2009年起，於全臺多所學校開展，推動「身教式持續安靜閱讀」(Modeled Sustained Silent Reading, MSSR)活動。經多年研究成果發現，「明日閱讀」計畫雖然成功培養了學生的閱讀興趣和習慣，但忽視了閱讀內容的多樣性和挑戰性，且學生缺乏反思和輸出閱讀知識的機會。為了解決這些問題，明日閱讀2.0應運而生。明日閱讀2.0主張閱讀除了建立於在原先1.0的「身教、習慣、興趣」之基礎，應進一步達到「廣博閱讀」、「大量閱讀」、「登台」目標，促使學生閱讀更廣泛和大量的書籍，並鼓勵學生透過登台進行演說或其他形式的口頭發表，將他們閱讀後的想法分享給他人，讓學生有機會展示他們的閱讀成果，並與同儕和教師進行互動和交流。
本研究主要專注於設計AI聊書同伴，作為學生在正式「登台」前的練習工具。相比真人聊書，AI聊書同伴不受時間和地點的限制，並且不會感到疲憊或厭煩，能無限次重複解釋和引導。AI聊書同伴亦促進學生進行自主學習，鼓勵他們主動探索和練習，並且能更加放鬆和自信地表達想法。
本研究採用了設計研究方法，對象是桃園某實驗小學的四到六年級學生，共37人。研究者使用了半結構式訪談以及系統使用資料分析，來全面了解學生與AI聊書同伴聊書的互動情況及其影響。研究結果顯示，AI聊書同伴的輕鬆互動環境提升了學生的口頭表達信心，並促進了他們在聊書與閱讀反思活動中的表現。隨著多次互動，學生逐漸增加了對AI聊書同伴的喜好度，顯示出該工具在提升學習參與度與學習體驗中的潛力。學生普遍對AI聊書同伴持正面觀感，並表示其在練習表達與反思上有所助益。

摘要(英)

Reading plays a crucial role in children′s education, serving not only as a source of knowledge but also as an essential foundation for the development of language skills and logical thinking. Taiwan has been promoting reading activities for many years. Since 2009, the "Reading for Tomorrow" project has been implemented in many schools across Taiwan, advocating for "Modeled Sustained Silent Reading" (MSSR). Years of research have shown that although the Reading for Tomorrow project successfully cultivated students′ interest and habits in reading, it overlooked the diversity and challenge of reading content, and students lacked opportunities to reflect on and express the knowledge they gained from reading. To address these issues, "Reading for Tomorrow 2.0" was introduced.
Reading for Tomorrow 2.0, building on the original 1.0 goals of "modeled reading, cultivating reading habits, and interest in reading," aims to further achieve the objectives of "Breadth Reading," "Quantity Reading," and "Staging." It encourages students to read a wider range and a larger quantity of books, and it motivates students to share their thoughts through presentations or other forms of oral expression, giving them opportunities to showcase their reading achievements and interact with peers and teachers.
This study primarily focuses on designing an AI book discussion companion as a practice tool for students before their formal "Staging" . Compared to discussing books with real people, an AI companion is not limited by time or location, and it does not get tired or bored, capable of repeating explanations and guidance indefinitely. The AI companion also promotes autonomous learning, encouraging students to explore and practice actively, allowing them to express their ideas more confidently and comfortably.
This study employed a design-based research method, focusing on 37 students from grades 4 to 6 at an experimental elementary school in Taoyuan. Researchers used semi-structured interviews and system usage data analysis to comprehensively understand students′ interactions with an AI book discussion companion and its effects. The results showed that the relaxed interaction environment provided by the AI book discussion companion enhanced students′ confidence in oral expression and improved their performance in book discussions and reading reflection activities. With repeated interactions, students gradually increased their preference for the AI book discussion companion, demonstrating its potential to enhance learning engagement and experience. Overall, students held a positive view of the AI book discussion companion and reported that it was beneficial in practicing expression and reflection.

關鍵字(中)

★ 聊書
★ 閱讀反思
★ 學習同伴
★ 聊天機器人

關鍵字(英)

★ book discussion
★ reading reflection
★ learning companion
★ chatbots

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
致謝 iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 vii
表目錄 viii
一、緒論 1
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究目的 3
1-3 研究問題 3
1-4 名詞解釋 3
1-4-1 願望書單 3
1-4-2 聊書 4
二、文獻探討 5
2-1 閱讀相關研究 5
2-1-1 閱讀的重要性 5
2-1-2 身教式持續安靜閱讀(Modeled Sustained Silent Reading) 6
2-1-3 明日閱讀相關研究 7
2-2 聊書(Book Talk)相關研究 8
2-2-1 聊書重要性與好處 8
2-2-2 聊書提問策略 9
2-2-3 閱讀後的對話與反思 11
2-3 學習同伴(Learning Companion) 12
2-3-1 學習同伴用途 12
2-3-2 聊書機器人 13
三、系統設計與實作 14
3-1 系統設計背景 14
3-2 系統開發架構與流程 15
3-3 系統設計階段與目的 16
3-4 系統介面與功能說明 18
四、前導性研究 27
4-1 目的 27
4-2 方法與參與者 27
4-3 結果 27
4-3-1 學生訪談結果 27
4-3-2 教師訪談結果 31
4-4 結論與討論 34
五、研究方法 36
5-1 研究參與者 36
5-2 研究設計與流程 36
5-3 研究工具 38
5-3-1 聊書與閱讀歷程資料 39
5-3-2 半結構式訪談 46
5-4 資料蒐集與分析 48
5-4-1 聊書與閱讀歷程資料 48
5-4-2 半結構式訪談 49
六、研究結果 51
6-1聊書與閱讀歷程資料分析 51
6-1-1 聊書時長 51
6-1-2 聊書書籍選擇 52
6-1-3 聊書內容量分布 53
6-1-4 聊書提問策略使用分布 55
6-1-5 互動模式 58
6-1-6 投入程度與喜好程度 58
6-2 訪談結果統整 61
6-2-1 第一題 61
6-2-2 第二題 62
6-2-3 第三題 63
6-2-4 第四題 64
6-2-5 第五題 66
七、討論與未來展望 68
7-1 討論與結論 68
7-1-1 學生在「AI聊書同伴」聊書活動中的信心有何影響？ 68
7-1-2 學生在「AI聊書同伴」聊書活動中的聊書與閱讀反思表現有何影響？ 69
7-1-3 學生對「AI聊書同伴」的觀感為何？ 71
7-2 研究限制 72
7-2-1 學校課程規劃與時間安排 72
7-2-2 實驗時間過短與系統使用頻率不高 73
7-2-3 書籍背景資訊不足 73
7-3 未來展望 73
7-3-1 學習活動設計 73
7-3-2 研究方向拓展 74
7-3-3 系統設計 74
參考文獻 76
中文文獻 76
英文文獻 78
附錄一 AI聊書同伴提示詞(prompt)之設計 83
一、各領域書籍聊書規則設計提示詞 83
二、聊書建議與摘要提示詞 92

參考文獻

中文文獻
丁延欣（2022）。促進教師成為閱讀個人教練之初步模式設計與系統開發〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。
王姿文（2016）。桃園市國小典範教師實施 MSSR (身教式持續安靜閱讀) 之研究〔碩士論文〕。中原大學教育研究所。
吳訂宜、王就貞（2017）。身教式持續安靜晨讀對國小四年級學童閱讀理解能力與閱讀態度影響之研究。科學與人文研究，4(2)，86-102
沙永玲、麥奇美、麥倩宜（譯）（2002）。朗讀手冊，大聲為孩子讀書吧！（原作者：Jim Trelease）。臺北市：天衛文化。
李棋芳（2015）線上文字聊書：以書本為基礎建立閱讀社群〔碩士論文〕。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。
林政緯（2014）支援「文字聊書」活動之系統設計與實作──透過「文字聊書」建立閱讀社群〔碩士論文〕。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。
柯華葳（2013）。閱讀是新世紀必要的學習管道。人文與社會科學簡訊，14（4），4-11。
唐寓琳（2021）。身教式持續安靜閱讀對於國小五年級學童閱讀動機與閱讀習慣影響之研究〔碩士論文〕。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班。
張玫芳（2018）。學齡前親子共讀—愛的傳承。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(4)，100-103。
徐詩惠（2020）。運用身教式持續安靜閱讀及其延伸方案對國中生閱讀興趣及閱讀理解影響之研究〔碩士論文〕。慈濟大學教育研究所。
徐銘駿（2020）。具推薦書籍功能之閱讀島系統架構設計〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。
許喬珉（2023）。明日閱讀2.0：發展成就目標系統並初步評估對學生閱讀廣度與數量之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。
郭雨鑫（2019）。透過主題地圖與寵物同伴促進閱讀更深更廣的書籍〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。
陳欣琳（2020）。身教式持續安靜閱讀對於臺灣孩童之英語閱讀動機及閱讀理解之影響〔碩士論文〕。國立臺中科技大學英語學系。
陳德懷、柯華葳、辜玉旻、何淑華、余佩芳、官佳瑩、陳雅惠（2013）。興趣，我們教育詞典裡有這個名詞嗎？明日閱讀研習手冊，19–30。
黃國華（2019）。「4F引導法」提問技巧，讓聽眾自己想出辦法。https://2blog.ilc.edu.tw/2341/2020/05/03/4f-%E5%BC%95%E5%B0%8E%E6%80%9D%E8%80%83%E6%B3%95/
褚煜凱（2017）。4F 引導思考法。https://2blog.ilc.edu.tw/2341/2020/05/03/4f-%E5%BC%95%E5%B0%8E%E6%80%9D%E8%80%83%E6%B3%95/
賴瑞霖（2021）。閱讀島：應用數位閱讀歷程擴大學生閱讀舒適圈及提升閱讀動機之系統設計〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。

英文文獻
Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders′ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 314-351.
Amaliani, P. (2020). K-W-L: A STRATEGY ON IMPROVING STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION. ANGLO-SAXON: Jurnal Ilmiah Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris.
Baker, L., Scher, D., & Mackler, K. (1997). Home and family influences on motivations for reading. Educational psychologist, 32(2), 69-82.
Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of texas Press.
Bengel, J. (2014). Speaking and Listening Skills With a Book Talk. https://www.outofthisworldliteracy.com/speaking-listening-skills-with-book-talk/
Berry, R. A. W., & Englert, C. S. (2005). Designing Conversation: Book Discussions in a Primary Inclusion Classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(1), 35-58.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (2013). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Routledge.
Chan, T.W., & Baskin, A. B. (1988). "Studying With the Prince" the Computer as A Learning Companion. Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring, ITS88, Montreal, Canada, 194-200.
Chan, T. W., & Baskin, A. B. (1990). Learning Companion Systems. In C. Frasson & G. Gauthier(Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems(pp.6-33). New Jersey:Ablex.
Corbett, P. (2008). Book-Talk. The National Strategies.
Clark, C., & Rumbold, K. (2006). Reading for Pleasure: A Research Overview. National Literacy Trust.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental psychology, 33(6), 934.
D′mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2013). AutoTutor and affective AutoTutor: Learning by talking with cognitively and emotionally intelligent computers that talk back. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 2(4), 1-39.
Eynon, R., & Davies, C. (2010). A Companion for learning in everyday life. In Close Engagements with Artificial Companions (pp. 211-220). John Benjamins.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity. Cambridge university press.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit.
Goodman, B., Linton, F., & Gaimari, R. (2016). Encouraging Student Reflection and Articulation Using a Learning Companion: A Commentary. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 474-488.
Greenaway, R. (1992). Reviewing by doing. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 9(1), 21-25.
Hajhosseini, M., Zandi, S., Hosseini Shabanan, S., & Madani, Y. (2016). Critical thinking and social interaction in active learning: A conceptual analysis of class discussion from Iranian students’ perspective. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1175051.
Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience-a research agenda. Behaviour & information technology, 25(2), 91-97.
Huffman, L. (1998). Spotlighting Specifics by Combining Focus Questions with K-W-L.. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41.
Jensen, T. L., & Jensen, V. S. (2002). Sustained silent reading and young adult short stories for high school classes. ALAN Review, 30(1), 58-60.
Khairunnisa, K. (2017). K-W-L: A TEACHING STRATEGY TO DEVELOP STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION IN THE SEVENTH GRADER OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. Journal of English and Education, 5, 36-43.
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342(6156), 377-380.
Kim, Y. (2007). Desirable Characteristics of Learning Companions. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ., 17, 371-388.
Kim, N. Y. (2016). Effects of Voice Chat on EFL Learners′ Speaking Ability according to Proficiency Levels. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 19(4).
Koedinger, K. R., Carvalho, P. F., Liu, R., & McLaughlin, E. A. (2023). An astonishing regularity in student learning rate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(13), e2221311120.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
Kozak, S., & Recchia, H. (2018). Reading and the Development of Social Understanding: Implications for the Literacy Classroom. The Reading Teacher.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22 140, 55.
Liu, C. C., Liao, M. G., Chang, C. H., & Lin, H. M. (2022). An analysis of children’interaction with an AI chatbot and its impact on their interest in reading. Computers & Education, 189, 104576.
Liu, C.-C., Chiu, C. W., Chang, C.-H., & Lo, F.-Y. (2024). Analysis of a chatbot as a dialogic reading facilitator: its influence on learning interest and learner interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development.
McCracken, R. A., & McCracken, M. J. (1978). Modeling is the Key to Sustained Silent Reading, The Reading Teacher, 31(4), 406-408.
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, culture and social interaction, 1(1), 12-21.
Merga, M. K. (2017). Interactive reading opportunities beyond the early years: What educators need to consider. Australian Journal of Education, 61(3), 328-343.
Merga, M. (2018). Silent reading and discussion of self-selected books in the contemporary classroom. English in Australia, 53(1), 70-82.
Merga, M., & Roni, S. (2018). Children’s perceptions of the importance and value of reading. Australian Journal of Education, 62, 135 - 153.
Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: a meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological bulletin, 137(2), 267.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of educational psychology, 101(3), 740.
Nair, M. (2019). Why Is Reading Important for Your Growth? https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/why-its-important-to-read/
Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Harvard University Press.
Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue (pp. 30-61). New York: Teachers College Press.
Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570.
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Pie Corbett. (2008). Book-Talk. The National Strategies.
Pilgreen, J. L. (2000). The SSR handbook: How to organize and manage a sustained silent reading program. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2020). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Sage publications.
Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science education, 84(5), 566-593.
Schroeder, N. L., Adesope, O. O., & Gilbert, R. B. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 1-39.
Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of educational psychology, 85(2), 211.
Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International journal of educational research, 47(6), 372-391.
Tai, T. Y., & Chen, H. H. J. (2024). The impact of intelligent personal assistants on adolescent EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(3), 433-460.
Uresti, J., & Boulay, J. (2004). Expertise, Motivation and Teaching in Learning Companion Systems. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ., 14, 193-231.
Wang, Y., Young, S., & Jang, J. (2013). Using Tangible Companions for Enhancing Learning English Conversation. J. Educ. Technol. Soc., 16, 296-309.
Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(2), 228-230.
Worthy, J., Chamberlain, K., Peterson, K., Sharp, C., & Shih, P. Y. (2012). The Importance of Read-Aloud and Dialogue in an Era of Narrowed Curriculum: An Examination of Literature Discussions in a Second-Grade Classroom. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(4), 308–322.
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.

指導教授

陳德懷

審核日期

2024-8-22

推文