東華大學圖書館 |

中學生閱讀科學圖文與不同語意透明度之學術詞彙的認知處理策略──眼動追蹤研究 = = The Processing Strategies for Illustrated Science Reading and Chinese Academic Words with Different Semantic Transparency among Seventh-Grade Students: An Eye-Tracking Study.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	中學生閱讀科學圖文與不同語意透明度之學術詞彙的認知處理策略──眼動追蹤研究 =/
其他題名:	The Processing Strategies for Illustrated Science Reading and Chinese Academic Words with Different Semantic Transparency among Seventh-Grade Students: An Eye-Tracking Study.
作者:	Kuo, Pin-Hsien.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2021,
面頁冊數:	103 p.
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 84-05.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International84-05.
標題:	Reading instruction. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30179614
ISBN:	9798352921906

中學生閱讀科學圖文與不同語意透明度之學術詞彙的認知處理策略──眼動追蹤研究 = = The Processing Strategies for Illustrated Science Reading and Chinese Academic Words with Different Semantic Transparency among Seventh-Grade Students: An Eye-Tracking Study.
Kuo, Pin-Hsien.

中學生閱讀科學圖文與不同語意透明度之學術詞彙的認知處理策略──眼動追蹤研究 =The Processing Strategies for Illustrated Science Reading and Chinese Academic Words with Different Semantic Transparency among Seventh-Grade Students: An Eye-Tracking Study. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2021 - 103 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 84-05.

Thesis (M.Ed.)--National Taiwan Normal University (Taiwan), 2021.

科學文章是典型的多元表徵文本（有文字與圖表），且具有概念密度高的學術詞彙，因此學生在閱讀文章時常有理解困難。本研究藉由眼動追蹤的方式探討不同閱讀能力的中學生閱讀科學圖文的認知歷程與處理策略，以及遇到語意透明度高（意譯）與低（音譯）之學術詞彙時，讀者如何處理。本研究有效樣本為 65 名七年級生，藉由前測進行閱讀能力分組，閱讀四篇科學圖文（含有意譯與音譯的科學學術詞彙各兩篇）後回答自由回憶和閱讀理解題，最後進行提示回溯性放聲思考（Cued Retrospective Think Aloud, CRTA）。研究結果發現，讀者閱讀含有意譯與音譯的文本整體的閱讀理解測驗差異並不大，不過閱讀能力與整體閱讀理解和自由回憶表現呈現顯著正相關。但從眼動指標來看，在學術詞彙的處理層次，各能力的中學生於閱讀音譯的科學詞彙時，第一次連續凝視時間（gaze duration）都較意譯學術詞彙長，反映中學生難以從詞素意義理解科學詞彙含意，因此需要比較長的時間解碼語意透明度低的科學詞彙，而後轉移眼動位置到科學詞彙附近的句子，藉由上下文推測詞義；而在文章處理的層次，不論閱讀能力高中低，中學生皆以文字為訊息理解之主要來源，讀文字的總凝視時間比例較讀圖片的比例高，但學生們清楚表格類插圖的資訊量高且為統整後的資訊，因此相較於於其他類型的圖片，學生會花較多時間讀統整比較表。提示回溯性放聲思考的資料則顯示高能力學生多運用推論與整合層次的閱讀策略（如運用插圖訊息、整合圖文訊息），得以正確辨識圖類型與其資訊量以隨時調整適當的閱讀策略；中能力學生常使用提取訊息的策略（如找重點、重讀）；低能力學生則常會用負向閱讀處理方式（如重點認知錯誤、不清楚閱讀目的），而難以在閱讀科普文章時進行有效的學習理解。建議於實務現場中，應考量學生之能力差異，並輔以教學協助學生找到最適合的閱讀策略。.

ISBN: 9798352921906Subjects--Topical Terms:

2122756
Reading instruction.
Subjects--Index Terms:

學術詞彙

中學生閱讀科學圖文與不同語意透明度之學術詞彙的認知處理策略──眼動追蹤研究 = = The Processing Strategies for Illustrated Science Reading and Chinese Academic Words with Different Semantic Transparency among Seventh-Grade Students: An Eye-Tracking Study.
LDR:06585nmm a2200457 4500 001 2365902
005 20240918072759.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 241017s2021 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798352921906
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30179614
035 $a AAI30179614
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Kuo, Pin-Hsien. $3 3707178
245 1 0 $a 中學生閱讀科學圖文與不同語意透明度之學術詞彙的認知處理策略──眼動追蹤研究 = $b The Processing Strategies for Illustrated Science Reading and Chinese Academic Words with Different Semantic Transparency among Seventh-Grade Students: An Eye-Tracking Study.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2021
300 $a 103 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 84-05.
500 $a Advisor: 簡郁芩 ;Jian, Yu-Cin.
502 $a Thesis (M.Ed.)--National Taiwan Normal University (Taiwan), 2021.
520 $a 科學文章是典型的多元表徵文本（有文字與圖表），且具有概念密度高的學術詞彙，因此學生在閱讀文章時常有理解困難。本研究藉由眼動追蹤的方式探討不同閱讀能力的中學生閱讀科學圖文的認知歷程與處理策略，以及遇到語意透明度高（意譯）與低（音譯）之學術詞彙時，讀者如何處理。本研究有效樣本為 65 名七年級生，藉由前測進行閱讀能力分組，閱讀四篇科學圖文（含有意譯與音譯的科學學術詞彙各兩篇）後回答自由回憶和閱讀理解題，最後進行提示回溯性放聲思考（Cued Retrospective Think Aloud, CRTA）。研究結果發現，讀者閱讀含有意譯與音譯的文本整體的閱讀理解測驗差異並不大，不過閱讀能力與整體閱讀理解和自由回憶表現呈現顯著正相關。但從眼動指標來看，在學術詞彙的處理層次，各能力的中學生於閱讀音譯的科學詞彙時，第一次連續凝視時間（gaze duration）都較意譯學術詞彙長，反映中學生難以從詞素意義理解科學詞彙含意，因此需要比較長的時間解碼語意透明度低的科學詞彙，而後轉移眼動位置到科學詞彙附近的句子，藉由上下文推測詞義；而在文章處理的層次，不論閱讀能力高中低，中學生皆以文字為訊息理解之主要來源，讀文字的總凝視時間比例較讀圖片的比例高，但學生們清楚表格類插圖的資訊量高且為統整後的資訊，因此相較於於其他類型的圖片，學生會花較多時間讀統整比較表。提示回溯性放聲思考的資料則顯示高能力學生多運用推論與整合層次的閱讀策略（如運用插圖訊息、整合圖文訊息），得以正確辨識圖類型與其資訊量以隨時調整適當的閱讀策略；中能力學生常使用提取訊息的策略（如找重點、重讀）；低能力學生則常會用負向閱讀處理方式（如重點認知錯誤、不清楚閱讀目的），而難以在閱讀科普文章時進行有效的學習理解。建議於實務現場中，應考量學生之能力差異，並輔以教學協助學生找到最適合的閱讀策略。.
520 $a Science texts are typical texts with multiple representations (with texts and diagrams), containing academic words with high conceptual density. Therefore, students often face difficulty understanding science texts. This study uses eye tracking to explore the cognitive process and strategies of seventh-grade students with different reading abilities in reading illustrated scientific texts, and how readers deal with academic words with high (paraphrase) and low (transliteration) semantic transparency. Seventh-grade students (N=65) were divided into groups of reading ability through a pre-test. After reading four science texts (two with academic words of paraphrase and two with academic words of transliteration), they answered free recall and reading comprehension questions, and finally participated in cued retrospective think aloud (CRTA). The results show that the reading-comprehension for texts containing academic words (paraphrase and transliteration) is not different. However, reading ability is significantly positively correlated with reading comprehension and free-recall performance. When reading transliterated words, students of all abilities have a longer gaze duration than when reading paraphrasing words, indicating the difficulty in understanding the meaning of academic words from morphemes. Therefore, it takes a relatively long time to decode academic words with low semantic transparency and subsequently use the reading strategy of inferring the meaning of the word from the context to understand the academic words. Furthermore, regardless of the reading ability, students use the text part as the main source of reading comprehension; the proportion of total fixation duration for reading text is higher than reading diagrams. However, the students realize that the form illustration has a high amount of integrated information. Therefore, compared with other types of diagrams, students spent more time reading the form illustration. The eye movement retrospective think aloud data shows that high-ability students often use inference and integrated reading strategies (such as use of illustrated information, integrated texts, and diagrams) to correctly identify the type of picture and the amount of information to adjust the appropriate reading strategy at any time. Middle-ability students often use information extraction strategies (such as finding key points, rereading); low-ability students often use negative reading processing methods (such as misunderstanding key points, unclear reading purpose), and it is difficult to learn and understand effectively when reading popular science texts. It is recommended that the differences in students' reading ability should be considered, and teaching should be supplemented to help students find the most suitable reading strategy.
590 $a School code: 1784.
650 4 $a Reading instruction. $3 2122756
650 4 $a Science education. $3 521340
650 4 $a Middle school education. $3 969762
650 4 $a Educational psychology. $3 517650
653 $a 學術詞彙
653 $a 科學圖文
653 $a 眼動追蹤
653 $a 閱讀策略
653 $a Academic words
653 $a Illustrated science text
653 $a Eye tracking
653 $a Reading strategy
653 $a Reading ability
690 $a 0535
690 $a 0714
690 $a 0450
690 $a 0525
710 2 $a National Taiwan Normal University (Taiwan). $b Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling. $3 3707179
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 84-05.
790 $a 1784
791 $a M.Ed.
792 $a 2021
793 $a Chinese
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30179614