研究目的為使用三種眼動閱讀策略探討在台灣民眾最能接受的數位閱讀媒介（電腦、平板）與紙本在閱讀過程中是否具有差異，並比較電腦、平板、紙本在閱讀成效上（閱讀理解程度、閱讀時間）的差異性。
本研究從163份線上閱讀理解策略運用問卷中邀請得分位於平均數正負一標準差的受試者前來參與實驗。30位受試者隨機分配至電腦、平板或紙本組進行閱讀。每位受試者在實驗開始後首先填寫閱讀習慣問卷，配戴眼動儀閱讀文章，填寫閱讀理解測驗與閱讀感受問卷。
結果發現，閱讀媒介對快速閱讀策略有顯著影響，電腦組比起平板與紙本使用快速閱讀策略的時間最多；電腦與平板的段落整合策略使用並無不同，然而兩者皆顯著高於紙本；三種閱讀媒介在整體整合策略的使用上並無顯著差異。在閱讀時間上，三者並未達顯著差異，但電腦與平板的閱讀時間比紙本多20%以上。電腦、平板與紙本在閱讀理解度並無差異。紙本為最受喜愛的閱讀媒介，且受試者使用紙本閱讀時對於自己的理解程度評價較高，平板電腦則為最不受喜愛的閱讀媒介，使用平板或電腦的受試者對自己的理解程度評價相似。
透過眼動儀研究結果發現，電腦與平板相較之下，平板較為接近紙本閱讀，然而受試者在喜好程度上最不喜歡使用平板進行閱讀，推論原因有可能為受試者平常多使用電腦進行閱讀，因此對不習慣的閱讀媒介較為排斥，閱讀材料與閱讀媒介之間的交互作用則有待進一步的研究。

The objective of this study is to use eye-tracking reading strategies to know if there’s difference while reading through different media (computer, tablet, and paper). Furthermore, the reading performance (comprehension, reading time) is also considered.
Researcher collected 163 questionnaires from online reading comprehension performance questionnaires. Participants were invited from those people scored between mean plus and minus one standard. Thirty participants randomly assigned to three groups using different media to read. Each of them filled the reading habit questionnaire, read the article with eye-tracking device, filled comprehension test and questionnaire of reading feeling.
Results reveal that, reading media influence fast reading strategy significantly and computer group used the most time on first reading than tablet and paper group. There’s no difference between computer group and tablet group in paragraph-integrating strategy, but both groups use more paragraph-integrating strategy than paper group. There’s no difference among three groups in global integrating strategy. Although there’s no significant difference among three groups in reading time, it takes 20% less in paper group than tablet and computer groups. There’s no difference in comprehension level among three groups. Paper is the favorite reading medium and participants think they comprehend better while using paper instead of other media. On the other hand, tablet is the least favored reading media. Subjective comprehension level shows no difference between tablet group and computer group.

Eye-tracking results found tablet is more close to paper reading than computer. However, participants scored least on tablet of preference. It might because participants more often use computers to read instead of tablets that makes them dislike tablets more. Future studies can work on interaction of reading material and reading media.

1. 皮托科技. (2014). ASL Mobile Eye-XG. In 皮托科技產品訊息 (Ed.). http://www.pitotech.com.tw/product.php?btype=155.
2. 行政院新聞局. (2010). 電子書閱讀行為研究. 99年圖書出版產業調查報告.
3. 吳明隆. (2003). SPSS統計應用與學習實務. 台北: 知城數位科技股份有限公司.
4. 慈濟綜合醫院. (2014). 慈濟健康管理互動資訊網.
5. 資策會. (2014). 台灣家戶電腦普及率. In 臺灣家庭寬頻應用現況與需求調查 (Ed.). http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=many&id=376.
6. 資策會FIND/經濟部技術處. (2011a). 平板電腦使用者常用的功能. In 科技化服務價值鏈研究與推動計畫 (Ed.). http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=many&id=315.
7. 資策會FIND/經濟部技術處. (2011b). 持有智慧型手機消費者常用的功能. In 科技化服務價值鏈研究與推動計畫 (Ed.). http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=many&id=312.
8. 廖晉斌. (2004). 國文閱讀理解策略教學對增進國中生閱讀理解能力、閱讀策略運用及學業成就效果之研究. (碩士), 國立彰化師範大學.
9. 蔡介立. (2000). 從眼動控制探討中文閱讀的訊息處理歷程：應用眼動誘發呈現技術之系列研究. (博士), 國立政治大學.
10. 蔡介立, 顏妙璇, & 汪勁安. (2005). 眼球移動測量及在中文閱讀研究之應用. 應用心理研究, 28, 94-104.
11. Alexander, P. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129-154.
12. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460-472.
13. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British journal of educational technology, 39(5), 775-786.
14. Blanco, M. J., & Leiros, L. I. (2010). Temporal variation in the luminance level of stimuli displayed on a cathode-ray tube monitor: effects on performance on a visual vigilance task. Ergonomics, 43(2), 239-251.
15. Bossert, T. S., & Scwantes, F. M. (1995). Children's comprehension monitoring: Training children to use rereading to aid comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 35, 109-121.
16. Carlson, S. (2002). Students complain about devices for reading e-book, study finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
17. Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130.
18. Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. D. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & Education, 62, 18-23.
19. Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297-1326.
20. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2008). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. The Journal of Education, 189(1/2), 107-122.
21. Dundar, H., & Akcayir, M. (2012). Tablet vs. paper: The effect on learners' reading performance. International Journal of Elementary Education, 4(3), 441-450.
22. Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (2012). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
23. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Vol. 2). London: McGraw-Hill.
24. Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and nonsuccessful second language learners. System, 5, 110-123.
25. Hyönä, J. (1995). An eye movement analysis of topic-shift effect during repeated reading. journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory, and cognition, 21, 1365-1373.
26. Hyönä, J., & Nurminen, A. M. (2006). Do adult readers know how they read? Evidence from eye movement patterns and verbal reports. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 31-50.
27. Hyönä, J., R. F. Lorch, J., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual Differences in Reading to Summarize Expository Text: Evidence From Eye Fixation Patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 44-55.
28. 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, England: Elsevier.
29. Jeong, H. (2012). A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The Electronic Library, 30, 390-408.
30. Jones, T., & Brown, C. (2011). Reading Engagement: A Comparison between E-Books and Traditional Print Books in an Elementary Classroom. International Journal of Instruction, 4(2), 5-22.
31. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
32. Kammer, T. (1999). Phosphenes and transient scotomas induced by magnetic stimulation of the occipital lobe: their topographic relationship. Neuropsychologia, 37, 191-198.
33. 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.
34. Khalil, M. K., Johnson, T. E., & Lamar, C. H. (2005). Comparison of computer-based and paper-based imagery strategies in learning anatomy. Clinical Anatomy, 18, 457-464.
35. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394.
37. Kirmizi, F. S. (2010). Relationship between reading comprehension strategy use and daily free reading time. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 4752-4756.
38. Leij, A. v. d. (1990). Comprehension failures. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment. Journal of documentation, 61(6), 700-712.
40. Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013). E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512-519.
41. Mayes, D. K., Sims, V. K., & Koonce, J. M. (2001). Comprehension and workload differences VDT and paperbased reading. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28(6), 367-378.
42. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1-30.
43. Moore, D., & Zabrucky, K. (1995). Adult age differences in comprehension and memory for computer‐displayed and printed text. Educational Gerontology,, 21(2), 139-150.
44. Muter, P., Latrémouille, S. A., Treurniet, W. C., & Beam, P. (1982). Extended reading continuous text on television screens. Human Factors, 24(5), 501-508.
45. Noyes, J., & Garland, K. (2006). Explaining students’ attitudes toward books and computers. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 351-363.
46. Oborne, D. J., & Holton, D. (1988). Reading from screen versus paper: There is no difference. Man-Machine Studies, 28, 1-9.
47. Pearson, P. D. (1993). Focus on research: Teaching and learning reading: A research perspective. Language Arts, 70(6), 502-511.
48. Raissi, R., & Roustaei, M. (2013). On the relationship of reading strategies, extensive reading and self-ff efficacy. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 634-640.
49. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
50. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191-201.
51. Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., & Jr, C. C. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognition Processes, 4, 21-49.
52. Reina Leal, M. (2013). Impact of the application of reading strategies on the development of intensive reading comprehension in a content-based science class. (Master), Universidad de La Sabana.
53. Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Cañas, J. J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1157-1171.
54. Shepperd, J. A., Grace, J. L., & Koch, E. J. (2008). Evaluating the Electronic Textbook: Is It Time to Dispense With the Paper Text? Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 2-5.
55. Spencer, C. (2006). Research on learners’ preferences for reading from a printed text or from a computer screen. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 21(1), 33-50.
56. Woo, H. (2005). The 2004 user survey at the university of Hong Kong libraries. College & Research Libraries, 66(2), 115-135.
57. Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945-948.
58. Wright, P., & Lickorish, A. (1983). Proof-reading texts on screen and paper. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2(3), 227-235.
59. Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012). Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics, 32, 390-396.
60. Zhou, X., & Zhao, Y. (2014). A comparative study of reading strategies used by Chinese English Majors. English Language Teaching, 7(3), 13-18.