本論文提出一個『電腦閱讀註記輔助摘要學習系統』，方便教師從成品導向的指導轉換為時效較佳的過程導向摘要教學，協助老師彙整觀看全班學生的閱讀疑難與重點註記，讓學生提早得到教學回饋；也建立一個scaffolding程序與工具，協助學生從重點寫出有精簡整理過的大意。
本系統實驗對象為國小六年級學童，實驗組兩班共64位，對照組兩班共63位，在國語科大意教學時使用，另額外使用說明文體的短文教材共3篇，七週後經使用結果證實，本系統確實能有效收集全班的閱讀疑難，能在5分鐘的有限時間下，排除系統所彙整統計的閱讀疑難，可有效提升學生對閱讀文章的閱讀理解，使用系統的平均答對題數6.9題(共10題)，比沒有使用系統的純閱讀組5.9題，多對了一題，對中、低國語文程度的學童效果較佳。以說明文體短文為前後測文章，系統可有效提升學生辨認出文章的主題句，測驗分數從原來的1.28分提昇至2.95分，總分為5分；對寫出大意的整體成績也有顯著提昇，寫作分數從原來的11.89分提昇至16.35分，測驗總分20，但對低國文程度學童則沒有顯著的進步。
由問卷結果顯示，有8成左右的學童認為此系統對「提升重點掌握能力」及「寫大意」有幫助，喜歡使用此學習系統進行大意學習活動。

[1]鄭勝仁，“具學習支援及診斷之線上電子書學習系統”，國立中央大學資訊工程研究所，碩士論文，2003。
[2]秦韻婷(民91)，"開發線上註記分享平台輔助鷹架教學之研究"，中原大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
[3]馮樹仁(民91)，"以潛在語意分析法發展摘要寫作評量系統"，國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
[4]黃嶸生(民91），"整合式閱讀理解策略輔助系統對國小學童閱讀能力和策略運用的效果"，國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
[5]魏靜雯(民92)，"心智繪圖與摘要教學對國小五年級學生閱讀理解與摘要能力之影響"，國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系研究所碩士論文。台北市：國立台灣師範大學。
[6]官美媛(民87)，”國小學生摘取文章大意策略之教學研究－以五年級說明文為例 ”，國立東華教研所碩士論文。
[7]楊韻平(民82)，”兒童摘取文章大意的能力”，政大教研所碩士論文。
[8]羅秋昭(民90)，“創思的閱讀教學”，全國兒童閱讀種子教師研習會研習資料。
[9]林蕙君(民83)，” 閱讀能力、說明文結構對國小高年級學生的閱讀理解及閱讀策略使用之影響研究”，國立新竹師範學院初等教育學系碩士論文。
[10]林秀貞（民86）。國小六年級學童社會科閱讀理解研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學類研究所碩士論文。
[11]方金雅、鍾易達、邱上真（民87）。國小學童閱讀摘要能力評定規範之發展。載於台南師範學院測驗發展中心主編，國小教學評量的反省與前瞻（123-137頁）。台南：台南師範學院。
[12]AMBIA. Re:markTM. (1996). Markup and review for Adobe Acrobat Software. User’s Guide. http://www.ambia.com/remark.htm.
[13]Bargeron, D. and Gupta, A. A Common Annotation Framework, Microsoft Tech. Report MSR-TR-2001-108.
[14]Brush, A.J., Bargeron, D., Grudin, J., Borning, A., and Gupta, A., "Supporting Interaction Outside of Class: Anchored Discussions vs. Discussion Boards." To Appear in Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2002, Boulder, CO, January 7-11,2002.
[15]Brush, A.J., and Bargeron, D., "Robustly Anchoring Annotations using Keywords." Microsoft Technical Report MSR-TR-2001-107, November 2001.
[16]Brush, A., Bargeron, D., Gupta, A., and Cadiz, J. Robust Annotation Positioning in Digital Documents. Proc. CHI 2001, 285-292.
[17]J. Kurhila, M. Miettinen, P. Nokelainen, H. Tirri and P.Floréen, ”Peer-to-Peer Learning with Open-Ended Writable Web”, To appear in Proc. ITiCSE 2003, ACM Press.
[18]Shipman, F.M., Price, M.N., Marshall, C.C., Golovchinsky, G., and Schilit, B.N. “Identifying Useful Passages in Documents Based on Annotation Patterns”. In Proceedings of ECDL’03 (Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003). Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 2003, 101-112.
[19]Landauer, T. k., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D., (1998). Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
[20]G Marshall, C.C. and Brush A.J. “Exploring the Relationship between Personal and Public Annotations”. ACM Press, New York, NY, 2004, 349-357.
[21]Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394.
[22]Kintsch, “Summary Street: An Intelligent Tutoring System for Improving Student Writing through the use of Latent Semantic Analysis”, 2001.
[23]Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing writing summaries: task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of educational research, 56(4), 473-493.
[24]Kahan, J., Koivunen, M.R., Prud’Hommeaux, E., and Swick, R.R. “Annotea: An Open RDF Infrastructure for Shared Web Annotations.” Proceedings of the 10th International World Wide Web Conference, Hong Kong, May 1-5, 2001. http://www.iw3con.org/cdrom/papers/pdf/p488.pdf
[25]Gagné et al, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). Cognitive psychology of school learning. Harper Collins College Publishers.
[26]Mayer, R.E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357-371.
[27]Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394.
[28]Ovsiannikov, I. A., Arbib, M. A., Mcneill, T. H. (1999). Annotation Technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 329-362.
[29]Quade. A. M. (1996). An assessment of retention and depth of processing associated with notetaking using traditional paper and pencil and on-line notepad during computer-delivered instruction. (Eric Document Reproduction Service, No.ED383 330)
[30]Roscheisen, M., Mogensen, C., Winograd, T. (1995). Shared web annotations as a platform for third-party value-added information providers: architecture, protocols, and usage examples. Technical Report CSDTR/DLTR.
[31]Wolfe, J.,"Effects of Annotations on Student Readers and Writers." DL ’00: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM conference on Digital Libraries. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 19-26 (2000). Recipient of the Vannevar Bush Best Paper Award.
[32]Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practice for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.) What research has to say about reading instruction (pp.205-242).Newark, DE : International Reading Association.
[33]Shaughnessy, M. F., & Baker, B.（1988）. Learning strategies：Teaching 　students how to learn.（ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 300 357）.
[34]Berk, L. & Winsler, A.(1995).Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education.
[35]Microsoft Agent. http://www.microsoft.com/msagent/
[36]Ehri, L. C. (1982). Learning to read and spell. Paper presented at the 　American Psychological Association annual meeting, Washington, D. C.
[37]Pressley-Forrest,D.L.,& Gillies, L. A.(1985). Children’s flexible use of 　strategies during reading. In M. Pressley & J.R.Levin (Eds.).Cognitive 　strategy research educational applications. N.Y. : Springer-Verlag.
[38]Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts:The 　development of exerperties. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,22, 1-14.
[39]Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, 968-979.
[40]Hare, V. C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of snmmarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 62-78.
[41]Rinehart, S. D., Stahl, S. A., & Erickson, L. G.(1986). Some effects of 　summarization training on reading and studying. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 422-438.
[42]Cunningham, J. W.（1982）Generating interactions between schema and text. In J. A. Niles & L.A. Harris (Eds.), New inquires in reading research and instruction,(pp.42-47).Rochester, NY : National Reading Conference.
[43]Wade, S. & Trathen, W. (1989). Effect of self-selected study methods on 　learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 40-47.
[44]Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G, Roehler, L.R., & Pearson, P. D.(1991). Moving from the old to the new : Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239-264.
[45]Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones , W.(1982). Increasing meta comprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228-240.