請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/41624
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 藍文欽 | |
dc.contributor.author | Hsuan-Jung Mao | en |
dc.contributor.author | 毛宣蓉 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T00:25:11Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-04-01 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2009-02-03 | |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2009-01-22 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 王省吾(民69)。圖書分類法導論。臺北市:中國文化學院出版部。
王梅玲(1995)。分類。在胡述兆總編,圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典(頁348-349)。臺北市:漢美。 交通部(民96)。民眾使用網際網路調查狀況。網址:http://www.motc.gov.tw/mocwebGIP/wSite/statFile.jsp?stFile=public/Attachment/f1199697757833.doc&iCuItem=5080&fileType=doc 上網日期:2008年12月29日。 何光國(民79)。圖書資訊組織原理。台北市:三民書局。 呂明珠(民85)。圖書館學資訊處理理念初探。國立中央圖書館臺灣分館館刊,3(2),頁10-32。 李惠加(民86)。青少年晚期生理與智力發展。在青少年發展(第七章,頁213-248)。臺北市:心理。 邱子恆(民91)。圖書資訊分類架構在組織與呈現知識上之應用。圖書資訊學刊,17,頁123-137。 林金定、嚴嘉楓與陳美花(2005)。質性研究方法:訪談模式與實施步驟分析。身心障礙研究,3(2),頁122-136。 洪成完(2000)。概念、範疇與遵循規則。東吳哲學學報,5,頁85-141。 徐蘇蘭(2003)。問題表徵與聯想之關係研究─以「何謂美?」「何謂遊戲?」為例。世新大學資訊傳播學研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。 萊科夫 (Lakoff, George)(1994)。女人,火與危險事物 : 範疇所揭示之心智的奧祕(Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind)(梁玉玲等譯)。臺北市:桂冠。(原作1987年出版) 陳向明(民91)。社會科學質的研究。臺北市:五南。 陳瑞麟(民93)。認知模式及其分類。在科學理論版本的結構與發展(第三章,頁65-96)。臺北市:臺大出版中心。 陳忠(2006)。認知語言學研究。濟南市:山東教育。 農資中心(1995)。普通邏輯學。在主題分析基礎課程(第二章,頁1-9)。台北市:農業科學資料服務中心。 楊敦淇(2002)。應用相關資訊回饋於貝氏混合式機率檢索模型。成功大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文。未出版,台南市。 趙豔芳(2006)。認知語言學概論。上海:上海外語教育。 鄭和鈞、鄧京華(民84)。高中生的認知發展。在高中生心理學(第四章,頁87-121)。臺北市:五南。 鄭昭明(2006)。概念與歸類。在認知心理學 : 理論與實踐(第九章,頁231-259)。臺北縣:桂冠。 鄭麗玉(2006)。緒論。在認知心理學:理論與應用(第一章,頁1-20)。台北市 : 五南。 劉麗虹、王才康、莫雷(1998)。認知心理學歸類理論述評。心理科學, 21(6),頁540-543。 藍純(2006)。原型論:認知語言學的範疇理論。在認知語言學與隱喻研究(第二章,頁13-43)。北京:外語教學與研究出版社。 Neuman, W. L. (2000)。方法論的意義。在社會硏究方法 : 質化與量化取向(Social research methods : qualitative and uantitative approaches)(朱柔若譯)(第四章,頁119-169)。臺北市:揚智文化。(原著1997年出版) Abrams, D., Baecker, R., & Chignell, M. (1998). Information archiving with bookmarks: personal web space construction and organization. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 41-48). New York: ACM Press. Retrieved 2008/12/29, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=274651&dl=ACM&coll=portal&CFID=11111111&CFTOKEN=2222222 Albrechtsen, H. & Jacob, E. K. (1997). The dynamics of classification systems as boundary objects for cooperation in the electronic library. Library Trends, 47(2), 293-312. Barreau, D. K. (1995). Context as a factor in personal information management systems. Journal of the American Society For Information Science, 46(5), 327-339. Barsalou, L. W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorisation. (pp. 101-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barsalou, L. W. (1989). Intra-concept similarity and its implications for inter-concept similarity. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. (pp. 76-121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beghtol, C. (1992). Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval. In N. J. Williamson and M. Hudon (Eds.), Classification Research for Knowledge Representation and Organization. (pp. 39-48). Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier. Beghtol, C. (1994). Theoretical and methodological basis for an experimental classification system for fiction. In The classification of fiction : the development of a system based on theoretical principles. (Chap. 5, pp. 117-156). Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press. Beghtol, C. (1998). Knowledge domainl Multidisciplinary and bibliographic classification system. Knowledge Organization, 25(1/2), 1-12. Berlin, B. (1978). Ethnobiological classification. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd(Eds.). Cognition and Categorization (pp. 9-26). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Berlin, B. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bergman, O., Beyth-Marom, R. & Nachmias, R. (2003). The user-subjective approach to personal information management systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 872-878. Bliss, H. E. (1929). The organization of knowledge and the system of the sciences. New York: Holt. Boardman, R. & Sasse, M. A. (2004). “Stuff goes into the computer and doesn’t come out” a cross-tool study of personal information management. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(pp. 583-590). New York: ACM Press. Retrieved 2008/12/29, from http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=985766&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=1307107&CFTOKEN=86781657 Brown, R. (1965). Social Psychology. New York, Free Press. Bryant. R. (2000). Discovery and decision : exploring the metaphysics and epistemology of scientific classification. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Case, D. O. (1991). Conceptual organization and retrieval of text by historians: the role of memory and metaphor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(9). 657–668. Chiu, T. H. (2005). Attributes and factors affecting the organization of knowledge resources. Knowledge Organization, 32(3), 128-133. Dahlberg, I. (1989). Concept and definition. In Classification Theory in the Computer Age: Conversations Across Disciplines, Proceedings from the Conference, November 18-19, Albany, New York (p. 14). Albany, New York: Rockefeller College Press. Diaz-Kommonen, L. (2001). Of dragons and classifications. Retrieved 2008/12/29, from http://mlab.uiah.fi/systems_of_representation/final_dragon_essay.pdf Edenius, M. & Styhre, A. (2006). Knowledge management in the making: using the balanced scorecard and e-mail systems. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 86-102. Ermarth, E. D. (1998). Postmodern. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Flexner, S. B. (1987). The Random House dictionary of the English language. New York : Random House. Givon, T. (1986). Prototypes: Between Plato and Wittgenstein. In C. Craig(Ed.). Typological Studies in Language (pp. 77-102). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Golder, S. A. & Huberman, B. A. (2005). The structure of collaborative tagging systems. Retrieved 2008/12/29, from http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0508082 Golder, S. A. & Huberman, B. A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198-208. Gottlieb, L. & Dilevko, J. (2001). User preferences in the classification of electronic bookmarks: implications for a shared system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 517-535. Henderson, S. (2005). Genre, Task, Topic and Time: Facets of Personal Digital Document Management. In CHINZ 2005 New Zealand Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 75-82.). New York: ACM Press. Retrieved 2008/12/29, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1073943.1073957 Hjorland, B & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Towards a new horizon in information science: domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400-25. Hjorland, B. (1997). Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Hjorland, B. (1998). The classification of psychology: A case study in the classification of a knowledge field. Knowledge Organization, 25(4), 162-201. Hjorland, B. & Albrechtsen, H. (1999). An analysis of some trends in classification research. Knowledge Organization, 26(3), 131-139. Hjorland, B. & Pedersen, K. N. (2005). A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 61(5), 582-597. Iyer, H. (1995). Cognition and categories. In Calssificatory Structures: Concepts, Relations and Representaion, (pp. 40-59). Frankfurt/Main : Indeks Verlag. Jacob, E. K. (1992). Classification and categorization: Drawing the line. In B. H. Kwasnik and R. Fidel (Eds.), Advances in Classification Research, Vol. 2 (pp. 67-83). Washington, DC: ASIS Monograph Series, Learned Information. Jacob, E. K. (2004). Classification and categorization: A difference that makes a difference. Library Trends, 52(3), 515-540. Khoo, C., Luyt, B., Ee, C., Osman, J., Lim, H.H. & Yong, S. (2007). How users organize electronic files on their workstations in the office environment: a preliminary study of personal information organization behavior. Information Research, 12(2), paper 293 Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/12-2/paper293.html Kwasnik B. H. (1989a). How a personal document’s intended use or purpose affects its classification in an office. In N.J. Belkin and C.J. van Rijsbergen (Eds.). Proceedings of the 12th Annual International ACMSIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 207 - 210). New York: ACM Press. Retrieved 2008/12/29, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=75335.75356 Kwasnik B. H. (1989b). The Influence of Context on Classificatory Behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey. Kwasnik, B. H. (1991) The importance of factors that are not document attributes in the organization of personal documents. Journal of Documentation, 47(4), 389-98. Kwasnik, B. H. (1999). The role of classification in knowledge representation and discovery. Library Trends, 48 (1), 22-47. Labov, W. (1973). The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C.-J. N. Bailey & R. W. Shuy (Eds.), New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English (pp. 340-373). Washington : Georgetown University Press. Lantz, A. (1998).Heavy users of electronic mail. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 10(4), 361-379. Mackenzie, M. L. (2000). The personal organization of electronic mail messages in a business environment: an exploratory study. Library & Information Science Research, 22(4), 405-426. Mai, J-E. (1999). A postmodern theory of knowledge organization. Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 36: 547-556. Mai, J-E. (2000). Likeness: A Pragmatic Approach. In Dynamism and Stability in Knowledge Organization. Proceedings of the Sixth International ISKO Conference. Advances in Knowledge Organization, 7: 23-27. Mai, J-E. (2004). Classification in Context: Relativity, Reality, and Representation. Knowledge Organization, 31(1), 39-48. Malone, T. W. (1983, Jan). How do people organize their desks? Implications for the design of office information systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 1(1), 99–112. Retrieved 2008/12/29, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=357423.357430 Malt, B. C., & Smith, E. E. (1983). Correlated properties in natural categories. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23, 250-269. Maltby, A. & Gill, L. (1979). The case for Bliss: modern classification practice and principles in the context of the bibliographic classification. London : C. Bingley. Matusiak, K. K. (2006). Towards user-centered indexing in digital image collection. OCLC Systems & Services, 22(4), 283-298. Mazlack, L. J. (1986). Taxonomic ambiguities in category variations needed to support machine conceptualization. In W. R. Zbigniew M. Zemankova (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM SIGART international symposium on Methodologies. (pp. 325 - 332). Knoxville, Tennessee, United State: ACM Press. Retrieved 2008/12/29, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=12808.12845&dl=portal&dl=ACM&type=series&idx=12808&part=Proceedings&WantType=Proceedings&title=International%20Symposium%20on%20Methodologies%20for%20Intelligent%20Systems Merrell, F. (1995). Semiosis in the postmodern age. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press. Mervis, C. B. & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. In Annual Review of Psychology (pp. 89-115). Retrieved 2008/12/29, from http://arjournals.annualreviews.org Miksa, F. L. (1992). The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification. In N. J. Williamson & M. Hudon(Eds.), International Study Conference on Classification Research (pp. 101-126). Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier. Miksa, F. L. (1998). The DDC, the Universe of Knowledge, and the Post-Modern Library. Albany, N.Y.: Forest Press. Miller, W. L. & Crabtree, B. F. (1992). Primary care research: A multimethod typology and qualitative road map. In W. L. Miller & B. F. Crabtree(Eds.). Doing Qualitative Research (pp.3-28). Newbury Park: Sage. Munk, T. B. & Mork, K. (2007). Folksonomy, the power law & the significance of the least effort. Knowledge Organization, 34(1), 16-31. Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Neill, S. D. (1983). The dilemma of the subjective in information organization and retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 43, 191-211. Noruzi, A. (2006). Folksonomies: (un)controlled vocabulary? Knowledge Organization, 33(4), 199-203. OED. (2007). Class. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press. OED. (2007). Classify. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press. Parsons, J. (1996). On the relevance of classification theory to database design. In R. Fidel et al. (Eds.). Advances in Classification Research: Proceedings of the 5th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, (pp. 131-140) Medford, New Jersey: Information Today. Ranganathan, S. R. (1967). Prolegomena to library classification. Bombay: Asia Publishing House. Rashmi, S. (2005). A cognitive analysis of tagging. Retrieved 2008/12/29, from http://rashmisinha.com/2005/09/27/a-cognitive-analysis-of-tagging/ Ravasio, P., Schar, S. G. & Krueger, H. (2004). In pursuit of desktop evolution: User problems and practices with modern desktop systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 11(2), 156-180. Retrieved 2008/12/29, from http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1005361.1005363 Richardson, E. C. (1964). Classification, Theoretical and Practical. In A. F. Painter(Ed.), Reader in classification and descriptive cataloging, (pp. 35-47). Hamden, CT: Shoe String Press. Richardson, E. C. (1972). Classification, theoretical and practical. In A. F. Painter(Ed.), Reader in classification and descriptive cataloging, (pp. 35-47) Hamden, CT: Shoe String Press. Rosch, E. (1973a). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350. Rosch, E. (1973b). On the Internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore(Ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language (pp. 111-144). New York: Acdemic Press. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532-547. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In. Eleanor Rosch, Barbara B. Lloyd(Eds.). Cognition and Categorization (pp.27-48). New York: Halsted Press Rosch, E. (1979). Attributes. Presented at Conf. Word & Object, Stanford, Calif. Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605. Rosch, E., Simpson, C. & Miller, S. R. (1976). Structural bases of typicality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(4), 491-502. Rorissa, A. & Iyer, H. (2008). Theories of cognition and image categorization: what category labels reveal about basic level theory. JASIST, 59(9), 1382-1392. Sayers, W. C. B. (1975). The task of subject analysis-I: facets of a single subject field. In W. C. B. Sayers & A. Maltby(Eds.), Sayers' Manual of classification for librarians, (pp. 29-43). London : Deutsch. Shera, J. H. (1951/1965). Classification as the basis of bibliographic organization. In Libraries and the organization of knowledge (pp. 11-96). Hamden, CT: Archon. (Reprint from Bibliographic organization, pp. 72-93,1951, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) Smith, E. E. & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and Concepts. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press. Taylor, A. G. (2004). Systems for categorization. In The organization of information. (chap. 11, pp. 297-329). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited. Tennis, J. T. (2005). Experientialist epistemology and classification theory: embodied and dimensional classification. Knowledge Organization, 32(2), 79-92. Ungerer, F., and Schmid, H-J. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman. Whittaker, S. & Sidner, S. (1996, April 13-18). Email overload: exploring personal information management of email. In Proceedings of CHI'96 Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 276- 283). ACM Press, New York Retrieved 2008/12/29, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=238530&dl=ACM&coll=portal&CFID=11111111&CFTOKEN=2222222 Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigation. B. Blackwell, Oxford. Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338-383. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/41624 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 圖書資訊學的分類觀點朝使用者導向發展,許多研究認為需要多瞭解人們對於分類的認知。本研究試圖從原型理論的觀點,探討人們在分類過程中對類別認知的意象希冀有助圖書資訊分類者瞭解使用者對類別名稱、類別之間、類別與類別成員,以及類別成員之間關係的認知。
本研究以高中生為對象,探討其網站分類的歷程。以方便取樣與滾雪球取樣法,共訪談了16位高中生。研究者先篩選出22筆網站,請受訪者對這些網站進行關鍵字命名與分類,同時觀察受訪者實作的行為與反應。最後,以半結構性訪談法蒐集受訪者對網站分類的認知。 研究結果發現,16位受訪者所標示的網站關鍵字有分歧的現象。文獻中曾指出首位關鍵字有基本層次範疇的功能,但在本研究中,無法推論首位關鍵字具有基本層次範疇的功能。進一步觀察關鍵字類型,可歸納為主題型、網站特色、機構型與地區型。而受訪者給予網站關鍵字的目的有四,包括:檢索、對網站作專指性描述、概括性描述,以及作為網站與類別之間連結管道的特性。 受訪者對類別的認知,多以透過腦海中對類別的認識,直覺地分類網站。受訪者不會給予類別字典型的定義,同類別內的網站不是依據定義來聚集,而是彼此之間藉著相同部分,互相串連聚集。其中,網站內容具有「學」的意象,或是主題單一、內容的深入的網站,是受訪者覺得比較接近類別意涵的核心,能成為類別的代表實例。但網站即便是單一主題,若內容淺薄,也不會被認為是類別中可參照的對象。 對於「其他」一類,受訪者有不同的認知,歸納而言有三種類型:(1)認為「其他」是不屬於有名稱的類別;(2)「其他」是當網站與上述各類有關,但內容偏向生活、休閒性質,所歸的類別;(3)「其他」是聚集了相似網站,卻無法立即命名的類別。 類別與類別之間關係的類型,可歸納為類別的層級關係、互斥關係以及交叉關係。但是,人們對於類別與類別之間關係的認知,是較為模糊且相對的關係,與圖書分類的固定結構取向不同。 對於受訪者給予相同關鍵字的網站,可以歸納為網站之間有相同主題且面向相同,以及網站之間主題相同但不同面向的兩種關係。屬於前者的網站,它們之間的關係被認為比較相近,比較容易彼此聯想。少數受訪者會將相同主題不同面向的網站分在不同類,強調網站內容的不同。 在分類時,主題單一的網站,受訪者可以立即對應到網站所屬的類別,在分類上較為容易。對主題涉及層面比較廣的網站,受訪者會考量較多,有分類比較困難的現象發生。有些受訪者認為,如果網站涉及到多個類別的內容,就應該分到那些相關的類別中;但也有部分受訪者認為多元主題的網站仍應萃取出網站的中心主旨而分類,不會分到多個類別,以免無法表達網站的中心思想。 最後,提出對原型理論應用在圖書館分類與檢索取向的反思,對於未來類別認知的取向,也提出一些建議。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In recent years, the user-oriented approach has gradually become the norm of classification research. Following the line, this Master’s thesis aims to explore how people classify Websites. From the perspective of Rosch’s Prototype Theory, this research attempts to conduct a cognitive analysis of categorization to seek a better understanding of the process and structure of categorization. It is hoped that the findings of this study will help the LIS field to device a more suitable classification scheme that meets users’ cognition.
The interviewees of this study were 16 high school students who were recruited to do a classifying task. Twenty-two Websites were selected in advance and the interviewees were asked to classify these Websites into five predefined categories. After the classifying task, a semi-structured interview was conducted with each interviewee to further investigate the thoughts underlining his/her classifying behavior. It was found that the keywords used by these interviewees were dispersed. For most Websites, there was no consensus of the interviewees in choosing the keywords. In addition, these keywords could be grouped into the following four groups: Subject, Characteristics of Websites, Institutional factor, and Geographic area. The reasons why they chose these keywords could be grouped into four types as well: for retrieving, for generally describing a Website, for specifying the feature(s) of a Website, and to link a Website and its related category. When classifying Websites into categories, most interviewees did not seem to have a clear definition of each category. They classified Websites based on their intuitions or an obscured image of each category. The Websites grouped in the same category were not assembled based on the definition of a category. Instead, there were brought together according to the likeness of each other and family resemblance. Even though a Website is related to a certain topic, if it is too general or too superficial, the interviewees will not treat this Website as a representative or prototype of the category. They prefer to have a Website that provides more detailed or scholarly information of a topic. They would consider this kind of Website as a prototype of a category. It is also interesting to note that these interviewees would use ‘Other’ category to denote the following situations: Websites not belonging to the five predefined categories, Websites that have similar topic/subject but different facet, and Websites with similar topic but the interviewees could not find an appropriate name to label it at the moment. The relation between categories basically can be classified into two types: mutually exclusive and interrelated. However, for most categories, the line between two adjacent categories is not clear cut. The vagueness was mainly caused by the Websites containing multiple subjects. Some interviewees would classify this kind of Websites into multiple categories, therefore blurred the border line between or among categories. In an interactive retrieval process, can we let people indicate a document or Website as a prototype of the information that he/she is looking for, and then retrieve more similar documents or Websites? Based on the findings, the investigator proposes that prototype can be considered as a factor for relevance feedback retrieval. The investigator also re-examines the appropriateness of applying Rosch’s Prototype Theory in LIS field and suggests some new directions for further studies. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T00:25:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-R93126008-1.pdf: 1323136 bytes, checksum: 43615eb4767856c60cb4e0ddc94ec243 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目次
口試委員會審定書i 誌謝ii 中文摘要i Abstractiii 目次v 圖目次vii 表目次ix 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 問題陳述 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 5 第三節 研究範圍與限制 6 第四節 解釋名詞 7 第二章 文獻回顧 9 第一節 分類理論之研究取向 9 第二節 原型理論的相關觀點與研究 24 第三節 分類行為相關研究 40 第三章 研究設計與實施 51 第一節 研究設計 51 第二節 研究對象 52 第三節 研究實施 53 第四節 研究步驟 57 第五節 資料處理與分析 58 第六節 前置研究 60 第四章 研究結果與分析 61 第一節 受訪者基本資料分析 61 第二節 關鍵字統計 62 第三節 關鍵字分析 69 第四節 受訪者對類別之認知 80 第五節 受訪者對網站與類別之間關係的認知 104 第六節 綜合討論 113 第五章 結論與建議 123 第一節 結論 123 第二節 反思 135 第三節 建議 137 參考文獻 141 附錄一:研究說明與受訪者同意書 149 附錄二:觀察記錄表與謄錄實例 151 附錄三:訪談大綱 153 附錄四:簡易問卷 155 附錄五:編碼表 157 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 從原型理論探討使用者的類別認知-以高中生網站分類歷程為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A Cognitive Analysis of Categorization from the Perspective of Prototype Theory: Using High School Students Classifying Websites as An Example | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 97-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 阮明淑,唐牧群 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 原型理論,分類,類別認知, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | prototype theory,classification,categorization, | en |
dc.relation.page | 159 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2009-01-23 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 圖書資訊學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 圖書資訊學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-98-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.29 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。