本研究探討第二語英語學習者在不同電子書的閱讀線索情境(不同組合之宏觀與微觀閱讀線索)及不同數位閱讀內容呈現模式(同步或逐步內容呈現)下的閱讀理解表現。八十一位中高級英語程度的大學生隨機被分派到四個不同的閱讀線索情境：(1) 影片；(2) 影片+第二語文字註釋;(3) 影片+第二語圖像註釋；(4) 影片+第二語語音註釋。這四組學生分別在兩個不同的數位內容呈現模式下完成一個電子書閱讀任務。為了評量閱讀成效，所有受試者在電子書閱讀任務結束後填寫一份閱讀理解測驗。測驗結束後，研究者對每位受試者進行簡短的訪談。研究者針對受試者閱讀測驗的回答進行二因子變異數的量化分析，並將訪談所獲取之受試者閱讀經驗和過程整理成質化資料，用於交叉比較量化資料分析的結果。

量化研究結果顯示，閱讀線索和數位閱讀內容呈現模式並無顯著交互作用，表示這兩個因素對於受試者的閱讀理解有著「獨立」且顯著的影響。首先，就數位閱讀內容呈現模式的獨立影響來說，本研究證明不論任何的閱讀線索情境，同步呈現模式比逐步呈現模式更有助於第二語英語閱讀理解。也就是說，數位閱讀內容呈現模式對受試者閱讀理解的影響，並不因為不同的閱讀線索情境而有太大 差異。第二，就閱讀線索的獨立影響來說，本研究顯示不論在哪一種數位內容呈現模式下，閱讀線索對於閱讀理解過程皆有顯著影響。在同步和逐步呈現模式下，被分派到「影片」情境的受試者的閱讀理解表現和被分派到其他三個閱讀線索情境的受試者的表現不相上下。此外，若是單就三種宏觀與微觀閱讀線索的組別來分析，被分派到「影片+第二語圖像註釋」和「影片+第二語文字註釋」情境的兩組受試者閱讀理解表現皆是最好，而且這兩種閱讀線索對閱讀表現的助益不相上下。值得注意的是，統計分析顯示被分派到「影片+第二語語音註釋」情境的受試者閱讀表現相較被分派到「影片+第二語文字註釋」及「影片+第二語圖像註釋」情境的兩組受試者還要差。質化分析訪談內容大致上驗證量化分析的結果。訪談結果指出，被分派到「影片+第二語圖像註釋」及「影片+第二語文字註釋」的受試者中，高達九成認為閱讀線索有助於理解電子書的內容。有八成被分派到「影片」情境的受試者認為閱讀線索有助於閱讀理解。然而，只有三成被分派到「影片+第二語語音註釋」情境的受試者表示該閱讀線索的組合有助於理解電子書中的內容。綜合量化和質化資料分析的結果，受試者的閱讀理解表現由好到壞依序為：「影片+第二語圖像註釋」=「影片+第二語文字註釋」＞「影片」＞「影片+第二語語音註釋」。本研究最後提出影片為主之動態電子書設計對第二語理論和教學上的啟示，以及未來進行相關研究的建議。

This study investigates L2 English readers’ comprehension outcomes after they read a video-based e-book with different design and presentation. 81 L2 high-intermediate English learners were subjected to a self-paced reading task in which they read a video-based e-book with one of the four reading cues conditions: (1) video only; (2) video + L2 gloss; (3) video + L2 pictographic gloss; and (4) video + auditory gloss under either simultaneous (SM) or sequential (SQ) digital input presentation mode. A reading comprehension posttest was administered to measure the participants’ L2 reading comprehension, followed by a post-study interview with each participant. The comprehension test scores were analyzed quantitatively using two-way ANOVA (2×4). And the interview data were analyzed qualitatively.

Quantitative results revealed that there was no significant interaction effect for reading cues and digital input presentation modes, suggesting that these two factors had a separate and significant effect on the participants’ reading comprehension. Regarding the separate effect of digital input presentation mode for L2 video-based e-books, the results showed that irrespective of the four types of reading cues conditions, the participants under the simultaneous digital input presentation mode significantly outperformed those assigned to read the e-book under the sequential digital input presentation mode. With respect to the effects of the reading cues, relative efficacy of the four types of reading cues on L2 reading comprehension were similar under the two digital input presentation modes. Specifically, under both the SM and SQ modes, the participants who read the video-based e-book with the “video only” design had comparable reading comprehension performance with those who read the e-book with the other three types of reading cues design. In addition, when compared the three macro- and micro-level reading cues combinations, it was found that the participants exhibited the best reading performance under the “video + L2 pictographic gloss” and the “videos + L2 gloss” conditions. And the participants’ performance under these two conditions was comparable. On the other hand, those assigned to read the e-book with the “video + L2 auditory gloss” design had the worst reading comprehension performance; their performance was significantly lower than those assigned to read under the “video + L2 pictographic gloss” and the “video + L2 gloss” conditions.

Qualitative analysis of the post-study interview data generally confirmed the quantitative analysis of the reading comprehension test scores. The qualitative analysis revealed that 90 % of those who received the “video + L2 pictographic gloss” and “video + L2 gloss” treatments expressed positive views on the reading cues. And 80 % of the participants under the “video only” condition considered the reading cue to be beneficial to their comprehension. Nevertheless, only 30 % of those assigned to the “video + L2 auditory gloss” condition agreed that the reading cues were conducive to their reading comprehension. Based on both the quantitative and qualitative analyses, the relative efficacy of the four reading cues from the highest to the lowest was: “video + L2 pictographic gloss” = “video + L2 gloss” > “video only” > “video + L2 auditory gloss.” Finally, theoretical and pedagogical implications, along with directions for future research, are discussed.

REFERENCES

Abdullah, N., & Gibb, F. (2008). Students’ attitudes towards e-books in a Scottish higher education institute: Analysis of e-book usage. Library Review, 57(9), 676-689.
Abraham, L. B. (2008). Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 199-226.
AbuSeileek, A. F. M. (2008). Hypermedia annotation presentation: Learners' preferences and effect on EFL reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 260-275.
AbuSeileek, A. F. (2011). Hypermedia annotation presentation: The effect of location and type on the EFL learners’ achievement in reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1281-1291.
Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative study. Language, Learning & Technology, 5(1), 202-232.
Antes, T. A. (2014). Audio glossing during information-gap activities: The effect on learner output. System, 45, 163-174.
Ben Salam, E., & Aust, R. (2007). The influence of feature-rich computerized glosses on reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. In Proceeding of the Sixth IASTED International Conference on Web-Based Education (pp. 978-984). Chamonix, France.
Berg, B. L. (2008). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon, Pearson Education.
Bergman, M. M. (2008). The straw men of the qualitative-quantitative divide and their influence on mixed methods research. In Bergman, A.A. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp.1-7). London: Sage Publications.
Brantmeier, C. (2005). Effects of reader's knowledge, text type, and test type on L1 and L2 reading comprehension in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 37-53.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? In Bryman. A. (Ed.), Mixed methods: Volume III (pp. 93-111). London: Sage Publications.
Bus, Verhallen, and de Jong (2009). How onscreen storybooks contribute to early literacy. In Bus. A. G., & Neuman, S.B. (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 153-167). New York: Routledge.
Carrell, P. L. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning, 33(2), 183–203.
Cerezo, L., Baralt, M., Suh, B. R., & Leow, R. P. (2014). Does the medium really matter in L2 development? The validity of CALL research designs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(4), 294-310.
Chen, I. J., & Yen, J. C. (2013). Hypertext annotation: Effects of presentation formats and learner proficiency on reading comprehension and vocabulary learning in foreign languages. Computers & Education, 63, 416-423.
Chun, D. M. (2001). L2 reading on the web: Strategies for accessing information in hypermedia. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5), 367-403.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1997). Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments. Language learning & technology, 1(1), 60-81.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Facilitating reading comprehension with multimedia. System, 24(4), 503-519.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educationalpsychology review, 3(3), 149-210.
Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of experimental Psychology:General,104(3), 268-294.
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.
Ertem, I. S. (2010). The effect of electronic storybooks on struggling fourth-graders' reading comprehension. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4), 140-155.
Garrett-Rucks, P., Howles, L., & Lake, W. M. (2015). Enhancing L2 reading comprehension with hypermedia texts: student perceptions. CALICO Journal,32(1), 26-52.
Grimshaw, S., Dungworth, N., McKnight, C., & Morris, A. (2007). Electronic books: Children’s reading and comprehension. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 583-599.
Gueval, J., Tarnow, K., & Kumm, S. (2015). Implementing e-books: Faculty and student experiences. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 10(4), 181-185.
Huang, Y. M., Liang, T. H., Su, Y. N., & Chen, N. S. (2012). Empowering personalized learning with an interactive e-book learning system for elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 703-722.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Second language acquisition research in the laboratory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 131-143.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ihmeideh, F. M. (2014). The effect of electronic books on enhancing emergent literacy skills of pre-school children. Computers & Education, 79, 40-48.
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(3), 390-408.
Johnston, P. H. (1983). Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ko, M. H. (2005). Glosses, comprehension, and strategy use. Reading in a foreign language, 17(2), 125-143.
Korat, O., Levin, I. Ben-Shabat, A., Shneor, D., & Bokovza, L. (2014). Dynamic compared to static dictionary with and without printed focal words in e-book reading as facilitator for word learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 49 (4), 371- 386.
Korat, O., & Levin, I., Atishkin, S., & Turgeman, M. (2014). E-book as facilitator of vocabulary acquisition: Support of adults, dynamic dictionary and static dictionary. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27 (4), 613-629.
Korat, O. (2010). Reading electronic books as a support for vocabulary, story comprehension and word reading in kindergarten and first grade. Computers & Education, 55(1), 24-31.
Leow, R. P. (2009). Modifying the L2 reading text for improved comprehension and acquisition: Does it work? In Han, Z., & Anderson, N. J. (Eds.), Second language reading research and instruction: Crossing the boundaries (pp.83-100). Ann Arbor: the University of Michigan Press.
Leow, R. P., & Suh, B.-R. (2016). Technology and SLA research: validity issues. In Leow. R. P., Cerezo. L., & Baralt. M. (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp.69-83). New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Li, L. Y., Chen, G. D., & Yang, S. J. (2013). Construction of cognitive maps to improve e-book reading and navigation. Computers & Education, 60(1), 32-39.
Lin, C. C. (2014). Learning English reading in a mobile-assisted extensive reading program. Computers & Education, 78, 48-59.
Lin, Y. J., & Lin, C. C. (2012). E-book features that adolescent English learners in Taiwan favored. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 9(1), 53-88.
Lin, C. C., & Wu, Y. C. (2013). The effects of different presentation modes of multimedia annotations on sentential listening comprehension. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computers in Education. doi:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286860622_The_effects_of_different_presentation_modes_of_multimedia_annotations_on_sentential_listening_comprehension.
Lin, C. C., & Yu, Y. C. (2016). Effects of presentation modes on mobile-assisted vocabulary learning and cognitive load. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-15. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1155160
Liu, J. (2004). Effects of comic strips on L2 learners' reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 225-243.
Liu, Y. T. (2015). Enhancing L2 digital reading for EFL learners. English Teaching & Learning, 39 (2), 33-64.
Liu, Y. T., & Leveridge, A.N. (2015). Enhancing L2 vocabulary acquisition through implicit reading support cues in e-books. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12329
Lo, J.-J., Yeh, S.-W., & Sung, C.-S. (2013). Learning paragraph structure with online annotations: An interactive approach to enhancing EFL reading comprehension. System, 41(2), 413-427.
Lomicka, L. L. (1998). “To Gloss or not to gloss”: An investigation of reading comprehension online. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 41-50.
Luik, P., & Mikk, J. (2008). What is important in electronic textbooks for students of different achievement levels? Computers & Education, 50(4), 1483-1494.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61-68.
Marzban, A. (2011). Improvement of reading comprehension through computer-assisted language learning in Iranian intermediate EFL students. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 3-10.
Matthew, K. (1997). A comparison of the influence of interactive CD-ROM storybooks and traditional print storybooks on reading comprehension. Journal of Research on computing in Education, 29(3), 263-275.
Mavrommati, T. D., & Miles, T. R. (2002). A pictographic method for teaching spelling to Greek dyslexic children. Dyslexia, 8(2), 86-101.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
Maynard, S., & Cheyne, E. (2005). Can electronic textbooks help children to learn? The Electronic Library, 23(1), 103-115.
McGowan, M. K., Stephens, P. R., & West, C. (2009). Student perceptions of electronic textbooks. Issues in Information Systems, 10(2), 459-465.
Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Moody, A., Justice, L.M., & Cabell, S. Q. (2010). Electronic versus traditional storybooks: Relative influence on preschool children’s engagement and communication. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10, 294-313.
Neuman, S. B. (1995). Literacy in the television age: The myth of the TV effect (2 nd ed.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Neuman, S. B. (2009). The case for multimedia presentations in learning: A theory of synergy. In A. G. Bus, & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development (pp.44-56). New York, NY: Routledge.
Nortier, J. (2008). Types and sources of bilingual data. In Wei. L. & Moyer. M. G. (Eds.), The blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp.35-52). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional
design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
Pearman, C. J. (2008). Independent reading of CD‐ROM storybooks: Measuring comprehension with oral retellings. The Reading Teacher, 61(8), 594-602.
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655-687.
Plonsky, L. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990-2010): A Methodological synthesis and call for reform. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 450-470.
Plonsky, L. (2015). Quantitative considerations for improving replicability in CALL and applied linguistics. CALICO Journal, 32(2), 232- 244.
Plonsky, L., & Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL–SLA interface: insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 17-37.
Rassaei, E. (2017). Computer-mediated textual and audio glosses, perceptual style and L2 vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research. online first. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817690183.
Roby, W. B. (1999). What's in a gloss. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 94-101.
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students' learning. Computers & Education, 63, 259-266.
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.769-802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Salem, E., & Aust, R. (2007, March). The Influence of feature-rich computerized glosses on reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. In Proceedings of the Sixth IASTED International Conference Web-based Education. Chamonix, France.
Shamir, A., Korat, O., & Phella, R. (2012). Promoting vocabulary, phonological awareness and concept about print among children at risk for learning disability: Can e-books help? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 45- 69.
Shamir, A., & Shlafer, I. (2011). E-books effectiveness in promoting phonological awareness and concept about print: A comparison between children at risk for learning disabilities and typically developing kindergarteners. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1989-1997.
Sharp, D. L., Bransford, J. D., Goldman, S. R., Risko, V. J., Kinzer, C. K., & Vye, N. J. (1995). Dynamic visual support for story comprehension and mental model building by young, at-risk children. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(4), 25-42.
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.
Silverman, R., & Hines, S. (2009). The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the vocabulary of English-language learners and non-English-language learners in pre-kindergarten through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 305-314.
Smeets, D. J., & Bus, A. G. (2012). Interactive electronic storybooks for kindergartners to promote vocabulary growth. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112(1), 36-55.
Strother, E. A., Brunet, D. P., Bates, M. L., & Gallo, J. R. (2009). Dental students’ attitudes towards digital textbooks. Journal of Dental Education,73(12), 1361-1365.
Sun, J., Flores, J., & Tanguma, J. (2012). E‐textbooks and students’ learning experiences. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(1), 63-77.
Taylor, A. (2006). The effects of CALL versus traditional L1 glosses on L2 reading comprehension. CALICO journal, 309-318.
Taylor, A. M. (2009). CALL-based versus paper-based glosses: Is there a difference in reading comprehension. CALICO Journal, 27(1), 147-160.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Trushell, J., & Maitland, A. (2005). Primary pupils’ recall of interactive storybooks on CD‐ROM: inconsiderate interactive features and forgetting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 57-66.
Trushell, J., Maitland, A., & Burrell, C. (2003). Pupils' recall of an interactive storybook on CD‐ROM. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 80-89.
Underwood, G., & Underwood, J. D. (1998). Children’s interactions and learning outcomes with interactive talking books. Computers & Education, 30(1), 95-102.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Verhallen, M. J., & Bus, A. G. (2010). Low-income immigrant pupils learning vocabulary through digital picture storybooks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 54-61.
Verhallen, M. J., & Bus, A. G. (2009). Video storybook reading as a remedy for vocabulary deficits: outcomes and processes. Journal for Educational Research Online, 1(1), 172-196.
Verhallen, M. J., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M. T. (2006). The promise of multimedia stories for kindergarten children at risk. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 410-419.
Vernon, R. F. (2006). Teaching notes: paper or pixels? An inquiry into how students adapt to online textbooks. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 417-427.
Wang, P. Y., & Yang, H. C. (2014). The impact of e-book interactivity design on children's Chinese character acquisition. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-15.
Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945-948.
Yanguas, I. (2009). Multimedia glosses and their effect on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 48-67.
Ye, J.-J. (2011). The dragon princess: The princess returns. United Kingdom: Snowflake Books.
Yoon, T. (2013). Exploring a literacy development in young Korean ELLs with online E-books. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(2), 253-259.Yun, J. (2011). The effects of hypertext glosses on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 39-58.
Ziegler, N., Meurers, D., Rebuschat, P., Ruiz, S., Moreno‐Vega, J. L., Chinkina, M., Li, W., & Grey, S. (2017). Interdisciplinary research at the intersection of CALL, NLP, and SLA: Methodological implications from an input enhancement project. Language Learning, 67(S1), 209-231.