閱讀理解是資訊解讀的過程，除了讀者如何識辨資訊間的關聯，讀者的前備經驗、知識與價值觀亦會影響閱讀結果。因此，為能在有限的課堂提供學生相等的機會，以瞭解他們對文本的多元想法，本研究發展對話機器人引導學生進行課文問答，搜集學生對文本的想法。
本研究以高中經典文學為範疇，並根據建構-整合模型之文本模式與情境模式設計6道開放式問題，並邀請品學堂之專家編輯進行核心命題與語句標注。本研究實驗邀請71名北部某知名大學學生進行實驗，並被分為三組：紙本組、對話機器人I(II)組。實驗過程中，受試者皆需回答高層次的問題(Q1)，並根據答題狀況提供引導問題，接著再重新審視Q1決定是否要修正。紙本實驗是由研究者監督該流程，當實驗結束時會訪談受試者對題幹與資訊處理的想法。對話機器人組別則是由機器人監督流程，其中因為對話機器人II是改良過後的版本，會以SUS問卷評估並比較兩對話機器人的易用性狀況。最後，為瞭解紙本實驗與對話機器人II的閱讀行為差異，量話與質化分析並比較兩者的修改次數、字數、及回答內容。
本研究紙本實驗結果顯示，文本資訊的解讀具有複雜性與多元性，前者係指資訊間關聯的程度有多個層次，後者係指單一資訊有多元的解讀方式。針對「未提及的核心概念」進行問答，並無法有效協助受試者修改答案，訪談指出可能原因為檢查策略、論述困難、個人情意因素所致。在前述紙本與對話機器人I實驗基礎上發展之對話機器人II，使用性從高可接受邊際的60分提升至可接受的70分，且從回答資料發現紙本實驗中未出現的閱讀行為，受試者願意與機器人分享個人生活經驗、啟示或進行批判思考。
本研究貢獻在於發展對話機器人，能有效率地搜集讀者對文本的多元理解與想法。過去以標準答案來分析學生的閱讀理解雖有效率，但卻忽略閱讀理解的個體詮釋差異，及應用於閱讀輔導或課程規劃上的潛力。本研究目前僅以大學生為受試者，並以敘述短文作測試，期許未來能以國、高中生為受試者，並嘗試不同的文體與文長，以探索其應用於課堂的可能性。

Reading comprehension is the process of interpreting information which is not only affected by the way readers deal with information but also by the prior related experiences, knowledge, and personal values. In order to collect students' perspectives about the texts within the time limits in a reading class, we develop a Line chatbot system guiding students to express their perspectives and collecting them automatically and efficiently.

This research focuses on the classic literature and uses it to design six open questions based on the textual and situational mode in the construction and integration model (CI model). To ensure the quality of the experimental materials, the experts of the Wisdomhall, a well-known publisher which develops reading materials in Taiwan, are invited to annotate the core propositions and sentences. 71 college students are invited to take the experiments and divided into three groups: the technology-free group, and the groups that used the chatbot (I) and chatbot (II) systems. In the experiments, first, subjects have to answer the main question (Q1) that requires the highest reading comprehension. Afterward, they need to answer the guiding question. After answering, they have to review the Q1 answer and decide whether to revise it or not. In the technology-free group, this process is supervised by the researcher. When the experiment is completed, all the subjects are interviewed to understand their thoughts about the question and the reasons for dealing with information in the text. In the groups that used the chatbot systems, the system can supervise the process automatically. Since the chatbot (II) is the improved version based on the experiment results of the other groups, their usability is evaluated by the SUS questionnaire and compared with each other. To understand the difference in answering behaviors of the technology-free group and the chatbot (II) group, they are compared with the number of modifications, typing words, and answering contents in the qualitative and quantitative ways.

The result of the technology-free group reveals that the subjects' interpretation of the information is complicated and diverse. Complication means there are many levels of relationships among information, and diversity means one piece of information can be interpreted in different ways. Providing the guiding questions based on the information that subjects neglect cannot efficiently assist them to modify the previous answer, and it might come from the review strategies and personal affective factors. In the usability of the chatbot systems, the chatbot (II) is improved from 60 to an acceptable 70 grade, and from the replying contents, subjects are willing to express their personal life experiences, life revelations, and critical perspectives, which are never shown in the technology-free group.

The contribution of this research is using the chatbot to collect students' complicated and diverse perspectives on reading. In the past, though using standard answers to assess students' reading comprehension is efficient, it ignores the differences in personal interpretation and their potential in designing student-based instructions. Since this research only discusses the situations of college students and of the short narrative text, in the future, the situations of K-12 students and other text types should be further discussed.

第一節 中文文獻
黃齡儀 (2009)：數位時代之空間-時間敘事結構初探: 以 Façade 網站例。資訊社會研究，16，135-160。
第二節 英文文獻
Albrecht, J. E., & Myers, J. L. (1995). The role of context in the accessibility of goals during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1459-1468.
Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(5), 1061–1071.
Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 201–252.
Alqahtani, S. S. (2020). Technology-based interventions for children with reading difficulties: a literature review from 2010 to 2020. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3495-3525.
Amadieu, F., Salmerón, L., Cegarra, J., Paubel, P. V., Lemarié, J., & Chevalier, A. (2015). Learning from concept mapping and hypertext: An eye tracking study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 100-112.
Amadieu, F., van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 376–386.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Anderson, J. R., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1–12.
Arrington, C. N., Kulesz, P. A., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., & Barnes, M. A. (2014). The contribution of attentional control and working memory to reading comprehension and decoding. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(5), 325-346.
Ayedoun, E., Hayashi, Y., & Seta, K. (2015). A conversational agent to encourage willingness to communicate in the context of English as a foreign language. Procedia Computer Science, 60, 1433-1442.
Ayedoun, E., Hayashi, Y., & Seta, K. (2020). Toward Personalized Scaffolding and Fading of Motivational Support in L2 Learner–Dialogue Agent Interactions: An Exploratory Study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(3), 604-616.
Bader, M., & Meng, M. (2018). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(8), 1286–1311.
Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 114–123.
Bao, M. (2019). Can Home Use of Speech-Enabled Artificial Intelligence Mitigate Foreign Language Anxiety–Investigation of a Concept. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL, (5), 28-40.
Bartlett, F. C. (1995). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. London, UK: Cambridge university press.
Bower, G. H., & Morrow, D. G. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension. Science, 247, 44–48.
Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Følstad, A. (2017, November). Why people use chatbots? Proceedings of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10673, 377-392.
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.
Britton, B. K., & Graesser, A. C. (1996). Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1-13.
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. Jordan, B. Thomas, & B. Weerdmeester (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2018). The role of executive functions in reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 1–26.
Butterfuss, R., Kim, J., & Kendeou, P. (2020). Reading Comprehension. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Assessment matters: Issues in the measurement of reading comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 697–708.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–681.
Cao, Y., & Kim, Y. S. G. (2021). Is retell a valid measure of reading comprehension?. Educational research review, 32, 100375.
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5-51.
Chan S. C. H., Wan C. L. J., Ko S. (2019). Interactivity, active collaborative learning, and learning performance: The moderating role of perceived fun by using personal response systems. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(1), 94–102.
Chartrand, R. (2016). Advantages and disadvantages of using mobile devices in a university language classroom. Bulletin of the Institute of Foreign Language Education Kurume University, 23(1), 1-13.
Chen, H. L., Vicki Widarso, G., & Sutrisno, H. (2020). A chatbot for learning Chinese: Learning achievement and technology acceptance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(6), 1161-1189.
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407.
Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(2), 240–247.
Conole, G. (2012). Designing for learning in an open world. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
Conradi, K., Jang, B. G., & McKenna, M. C. (2014). Motivation terminology in reading research: A conceptual review. Educational psychology review, 26(1), 127-164.
Davenport, G., & Bradley, B. (1997). The care and feeding of users. IEEE multimedia, 4(1), 8-11.
Davis, F. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems (Unpublished master’s thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23-38.
Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 515–528.
Ferreira, F., & Yang, Z. (2019). The problem of comprehension in psycholinguistics. Discourse Processes, 56(7), 485-495.
Fisher C. W., Filby N. N., Marliave R., Cahen L. S., Dishaw M. M., Moore J., Berliner D. C. (1978). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: Final report of phase III-B, beginning teacher evaluation study. San Francisco, CA: Far West Lab. for Educational Research and Development.
Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., Förster, J., & Werth, L. (2003). Attentional priming effects on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2&3), 277-286.
Fryer L. K., Nakao K., Thompson A. (2019). Chatbot learning partners: Connecting learning experiences, interest and competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 279–289.
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., Coniam, D., Carpenter, R., & Lăpușneanu, D. (2020). Bots for language learning now: Current and future directions. Language Learning & Technology, 24(2), 8-22.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20–28.
Gasparinatou, A., & Grigoriadou, M. (2013). Exploring the effect of background knowledge and text cohesion on learning from texts in computer science. Educational Psychology, 33(6), 645-670.
Gayathri, A. N., & Viji Rajendran, V. (2022). English Master AMMU: Advanced Spoken English Chatbot. Proceedings of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 244, 415-424.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23, 265-304.
Gettinger M. (1983). Effects of learner ability and instructional modifications on time needed for learning and retention. The Journal of Educational Research, 76(6), 362–369.
Gharaie, E. (2016). Sequential Exercises and Personal Response System in Project Management Courses. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228, 106–111.
Gibson, E., Bergen, L., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2013). Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(20), 8051–8056.
Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18-26.
Goda, Y., Yamada, M., Matsukawa, H., Hata, K., & Yasunami, S. (2014). Conversation with a chatbot before an online EFL group discussion and the effects on critical thinking. The Journal of Information and Systems in Education, 13(1), 1-7.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological review, 101(3), 371-395.
Grier, R. A., Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Peres, S. C. (2013). The System Usability Scale: Beyond standard usability testing. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting (pp. 187–191). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Guha, A., & Rossi, J. P. (2001). Convergence of the Integration Dynamics of the Construction–Integration Model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45(2), 355-369.
Gulz, A., Haake, M., Silvervarg, A., Sjödén, B., & Veletsianos, G. (2011). Building a social conversational pedagogical agent: Design challenges and methodological approaches. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Haristiani, N. (2019, November). Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot as language learning medium: An inquiry. Proceedings of Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1387(1), 1-6.
Holmes, S., Moorhead, A., Bond, R., Zheng, H., Coates, V., & McTear, M. (2019, September). Usability testing of a healthcare chatbot: Can we use conventional methods to assess conversational user interfaces? Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, 207-214.
Howell, K. W., Fox, S. L., & Morehead, M. K. (1993). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
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.
Inhoff, A. W. (1984). Two stages of word processing during eye fixations in the reading of prose. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(5), 612–624
Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive processes. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 29–54). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Jia, J., & Ruan, M. (2008). Use chatbot Csiec to facilitate the individual learning in English instruction: A case study. Proceedings of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5091, 706-708.
Jia, J., Chen, Y., Ding, Z., & Ruan, M. (2012). Effects of a vocabulary acquisition and assessment system on students’ performance in a blended learning class for English subject. Computers & education, 58(1), 63-76.
Jonassen, D. H. (1988). Designing structured hypertext and structuring access to hypertext. Educational Technology, 28(11), 13–16.
Jonassen, D. H., & Wang, S. (1993). Acquiring structural knowledge from semantically structured hypertext. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(1), 1–8.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354.
Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281-300.
Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). The knowledge revision components (KReC) framework: processes and mechanisms. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 353–377). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2018). Theories of text processing: A view from the top-down. Handbook of discourse processes, 7-21.
Kendeou, P., McMaster, K. L., & Christ, T. J. (2016). Reading comprehension: Core components and processes. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 62–69.
Kim, N. Y., Cha, Y., & Kim, H. S. (2019). Future English learning: Chatbots and artificial intelligence. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 22(3), 32-53.
Kim, Y. S. (2015). Language and cognitive predictors of text comprehension: Evidence from multivariate analysis. Child Development, 86(1), 128–144.
Kintsch, W., & Walter Kintsch, C. B. E. M. A. F. R. S. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. London, United Kingdom: Cambridge university press.
Koper, R. (2006). Current research in learning design. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 13-22.
Kortum, P., & Bangor, A. (2013). Usability ratings for everyday products measured with the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 29, 67–76.
Kowler, E., & Martins, A. J. (1985). Eye movements of preschool children. Science, 215(4535), 997-999.
LaFrance, M. (1989). The quality of expertise: implications of expert-novice differences for knowledge acquisition. ACM SIGART Bulletin, (108), 6–14.
Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 455-463.
Lin, M. P. C., & Chang, D. (2020). Enhancing post-secondary writers’ writing skills with a chatbot. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(1), 78-92.
Lipson, M. Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of reading behavior, 14(3), 243-261.
Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Some unexpected issues in prior knowledge and comprehension. The reading teacher, 37(8), 760-764.
Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E., & Dawson, S. (2013). Informing pedagogical action: Aligning learning analytics with learning design. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1439-1459.
Lu C. H., Chiou G. F., Day M. Y., Ong C. S., Hsu W. L. (2006). Using instant messaging to provide an intelligent learning environment. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 4053, 575–583.
Magliano, J. P., Zwaan, R. A., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). The role of situational continuity in narrative understanding. In S. R. Goldman & H. van Oostendorp (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 219-245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mangaroska, K., & Giannakos, M. (2018). Learning analytics for learning design: A systematic literature review of analytics-driven design to enhance learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(4), 516-534.
Masche, J., & Le, N. T. (2017, June). A review of technologies for conversational systems. Proceedings of Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 629, 212-225.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of learning and motivation, 51, 297-384.
McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 465-482.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.
Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131-157.
Nelson, T. H. (1965). Complex information processing: a file structure for the complex, the changing and the indeterminate. Proceedings of the 1965 20th national conference, 84-100.
Niederhauser, D. S., Reynolds, R. E., Salmen, D. J., & Skolmoski, P. (2000). The influence of cognitive load on learning from hypertext. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(3), 237–255.
Nikou S. A., Economides A. A. (2017). Mobile-based assessment: Integrating acceptance and motivational factors into a combined model of Self-Determination Theory and Technology Acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 83–95.
O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(5), 1200–1210.
Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(4), 443–468.
Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Kurby, C. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Comparing comprehension measured by multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 67(3), 215.
Patterson, N. (2000). Hypertext and the changing roles of readers. English Journal, 90(2), 74–80.
Perfetti, C. A., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22–37.
Pimmer, C., Brühlmann, F., Odetola, T. D., Oluwasola, D. O., Dipeolu, O., & Ajuwon, A. J. (2019). Facilitating professional mobile learning communities with instant messaging. Computers & Education, 128, 102-112.
Rastogi, A., Zang, X., Sunkara, S., Gupta, R., & Khaitan, P. (2020, April). Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(5), 8689-8696.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1987). Eye movements in reading: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. 12, pp. 327–362). London, UK: Erlbaum.
Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (1998). Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ren, R., Castro, J. W., Acuña, S. T., & de Lara, J. (2019). Evaluation techniques for chatbot usability: A systematic mapping study. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 29, 1673-1702.
Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. The Internet and higher education, 13(3), 134-140.
Ruan, S., Willis, A., Xu, Q., Davis, G. M., Jiang, L., Brunskill, E., & Landay, J. A. (2019). Bookbuddy: Turning digital materials into interactive foreign language lessons through a voice chatbot. Proceedings of the Sixth (2019) ACM Conference on Learning Scale, 1–4.
Ryan, M-L (2001). Narrative as virtual reality: immersion and interactivity in literature and electronic media. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sanjose, V., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Padilla, O. M. (2006). A connectionist extension to Kintsch's construction–integration model. Discourse Processes, 42(1), 1-35.
Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from Hypertext: Research Issues and Findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 605–620). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Sharma, A., Undheim, P. E., & Nazir, S. (2022). Design and implementation of AI chatbot for COLREGs training. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 1-17.
Sharma, M., Yadav, S., Kaushik, A., & Sharma, S. (2021). Examining Usability on Atreya Bot: A Chatbot Designed for Chemical Scientists. Proceedings of 2021 International Conference on Computational Performance Evaluation, 729-733.
Shiffler, R. E. (1988). Maximum Z scores and outliers. The American Statistician, 42(1), 79-80.
Sidi, Y., Shpigelman, M., Zalmanov, H., & Ackerman, R. (2017). Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing. Learning and Instruction, 51, 61-73.
Smutny, P., & Schreiberova, P. (2020). Chatbots for learning: A review of educational chatbots for the Facebook Messenger. Computers & Education, 151, 103862.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
So, S. (2016). Mobile instant messaging support for teaching and learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 32-42.
Stein, N., & Glenn, C. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. D. Freedle (Ed.), Advances in discourse processes: New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53-119). Norwood, NJ: Albex.
Suh, S., & Trabasso, T. (1993). Inferences during reading: Converging evidence from discourse analysis, talk-aloud protocols and recognition priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 279-300.
Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students' learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252-275.
Swaffar, J., Arens, K., & Byrnes, H. (1991). Reading for meaning: An integrated approach to language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tatai G., Csordas A., Kiss A., Szalo A., Laufer L. (2003). Happy chatbot, happy user. Intelligent Virtual Agents, 2792, 5–12.
Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S., & Karakostas, A. (2015). Promoting academically productive talk with conversational agent interventions in collaborative learning settings. Computers & Education, 87, 309–325.
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.
Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 951–970.
Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P., & Suh, S. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1-25.
Trumbull, D., Gay, G., & Mazur, J. (1992). Students’ actual and perceived use of navigational and guidance tools in a hypermedia program. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(3), 315–328.
Tullis, T. S., & Stetson, J. N. (2004). A comparison of questionnaires for assessing website usability. Paper presented at the Usability Professionals Association Annual Conference. UPA, Minneapolis, MN.
Van Dam, A., & Rice, D. E. (1971). On-line text editing: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 3(3), 93-114.
van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of readers’ standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in text comprehension (pp. 353–373). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Van Oostendorp, H., & Goldman, S. R. (1999). The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Viberg, O., Hatakka, M., Bälter, O., & Mavroudi, A. (2018). The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education. Computers in human behavior, 89, 98-110.
Visser, P. S., & Holbrook, A. L. (2012). Metacognitive determinants of attitude strength. Social Metacognition, 21-41.
Wang, Y. F., Petrina, S., & Feng, F. (2017). VILLAGE—Virtual immersive language learning and gaming environment: Immersion and presence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 431–450.
Wilcox, R. R. (2003). Applying contemporary statistical techniques. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Academic Press.
Wolf, M., & Barzillai, M. (2009). The importance of deep reading. Educational Leadership, 6, 32–37.
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 415.
Xiong, Z. (2018). Personalized exercise training chatbot based on wearable fitness devices (Unpublished master's thesis). Kansas State University. Retrieved from https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/handle/2097/38900.
Xu, B., Chen, G., Sun, Y., & Huang, R. (2017). The effectiveness of media platforms on reading comprehension: a meta-analysis. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computers in Education, 638-643. Retrieved from https://www.apsce.net/icce/icce2017/140.115.135.84/icce/icce2017/sites/default/files/proceedings/main/C4/The%20Effectiveness%20of%20Media%20Platforms%20on%20Reading%20Comprehension%20A%20Meta-analysis.pdf.
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.
Zaromb, F. M., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger III, H. L. (2010). Comprehension as a basis for metacognitive judgments: Effects of effort after meaning on recall and metacognition. Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory, and cognition, 36(2), 552.
Zhi, Q., & Metoyer, R. (2020, April). Gamebot: a visualization-augmented chatbot for sports game. Paper presented at the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Hawaii, HI. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3334480.3382794.
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.
 
第三節 網路文獻
2018 iT 邦幫忙鐵人賽。(2018)。Day22[Line ChatBot]ChatBot x Google試算。 引用自https://ithelp.ithome.com.tw/articles/10196704。
Wu, K。(2020)。 聊天機器人 Chatbot 如何應用在電商？看樂高、H&M 應用案例精準導購！電商教室。引用自https://blog.shopline.tw/chatbot-use-3-case/。
唐子晴。(2018)。 LINE台灣月活躍用戶破2,100萬，特愛三大功能、使用率名列全球第一。引用自https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/51783/line-linetoday-linestore-sticker。
中央研究院人社中心GIS專題中心。(2022)。春秋時期地圖。引用自https://gis.sinica.edu.tw/showwmts/index.php?s=ccts&l=spring_autumn.
Berners-Lee, T. J., & Cailliau, R. (1990). WorldWideWeb: Proposal for a HyperText project. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/Proposal.html.
Bernstein, M. (2002). Proceedings of the thirteenth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/513338.
COST. (2018). COST E-READ Stavanger Declaration: Concerning the Future of Reading. Retrieved from https://ereadcost.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/StavangerDeclaration.pdf.
European Commission. (2021). European Education Area. Quality education and training for all. Retrieved from https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/about-digital-education.
Google. (2022a). Apps Script. Retrieved from https://workspace.google.com/products/apps-script/
Google. (2022b). Extending Google Sheets. Retrieved from
https://developers.google.com/apps-script/guides/sheets
IBM(2020). Build an educational self-service chatbot. Retrieved from https://developer.ibm.com/technologies/artificial-intelligence/patterns/chatbot-for-student-self-service-in-education/.
Joyce, M. (1997). Twelve blue. Postmodern Culture, 7(3). Retrieved from http://www.eastgate.com/TwelveBlue.
Line. (2022a). What is the Messaging API? Retrieved from https://developers.line.biz/en/services/messaging-api/
Line. (2022b). Receiving messages (webhooks). Retrieved from https://developers.line.biz/en/docs/messaging-api/receiving-messages/#verifying-signatures
Line. (2022c). Message types. Retrieved from https://developers.line.biz/en/docs/messaging-api/message-types/
Line. (2022d). Using Flex Message Simulator to create a digital business card. Retrieved from https://developers.line.biz/en/docs/messaging-api/using-flex-message-simulator/#before-starting
Line. (2022e). Using rich menus. Retrieved from https://developers.line.biz/en/docs/messaging-api/using-rich-menus/
Line. (2022f). LINE Front-end Framework (LIFF). Retrieved from https://developers.line.biz/en/docs/liff/overview/
Line. (2022g). LINE Login overview. Retrieved from https://developers.line.biz/en/docs/line-login/overview/#identifying-users
Mazany, T., Pimentel, S., Orr, C. S., & Crovo, M. (2015). Reading framework for the 2015 national assessment of educational progress national assessment governing board. Retrieved from https://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/reading/2015-reading-framework.pdf.
Perry, A.(2018). Students make new friend in Lucy the chatbot. Retrieved from https://www.canberra.edu.au/about-uc/media/newsroom/2018/february/students-make-new-friend-in-lucy-the-chatbot.