博碩士論文 103524003 詳細資訊




以作者查詢圖書館館藏 以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 以作者查詢全國書目 勘誤回報 、線上人數:80 、訪客IP:3.15.202.186
姓名 葉家齊(Chia-Chi Yeh)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 網路學習科技研究所
論文名稱 從認知風格的角度探討提示對學習英文片語與文法的影響
(The Effects of Hints on Learning of English Phrases and English Grammar: A Cognitive Style Approach)
相關論文
★ 將可用性整合融入遊戲式學習★ 探討認知風格對於行動學習與合作學習的影響
★ 學習型網站的可用性評估:從問題到解決方案★ 從人因的觀點評估遊戲式學習
★ 探討認知風格在遊戲式學習中對於客製化與個人化系統的影響★ 探討認知風格在行動學習中對於客製化與個人化系統的影響
★ 性別差異與認知風格對合作化遊戲式學習的影響★ 探討認知風格如何影響使用者在行動載具下使用電子期刊
★ 探討專家和新手對遊戲式學習進行可用性評估的觀感差異★ 毒品經驗與遊戲先備知識對客製化與個人化遊戲式反毒宣導系統的影響
★ 探討背景音樂和認知風格對遊戲式學習的影響★ 以多媒體科技和數位遊戲為小小人兒及患者家屬發展線上生活百科
★ 先備知識對註記式多媒體電子書的影響研究:從個別環境到分享環境★ 探討先備知識對學習者在使用鷹架英文學習系統的影響: 限制與扣分機制
★ 發展動畫電子書之研究:從性別差異到性別均等之歷程★ 探討認知風格於數位遊戲式英語學習環境對遊戲行為與學習成效之影響
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)
摘要(中) 線上測量(E-assessment)是讓學生能夠進行測驗與促進學習的電子平台。然而傳統的線上測量缺少了一些的輔助功能來幫助學生學習,故可能導致學生在學習過程時產生負面學習而降低學習成效。在另一方面,鷹架是能夠有效克服此問題的解決辦法,而在眾多的鷹架機制當中,提示(Hints)是允許學生根據所要完成的任務,主動地自由篩選自己想要的輔助資訊,故本研究將提示整合進入英語學習的線上測量。

在學習英文中,學術英文尤其重要,因為學術英文的用法比一般英文更為嚴謹,且學術英文所撰寫的類別、準確度、精確性以及文字清晰等要求度也較高。此外,在學術英文中有些字彙和一般英文的用法也較為不同,因此有必要提供學術英文的課程與教材讓學生更加瞭解。另一方面,在學術英文的學習項目當中,文法與片語為其中重要且提供不同的學習概念,例如:英文片語的用法關係較為固定,並不會因為前後文的差別而導致片語中的意義有所改變,因此學生只要利用記憶能力就能夠將片語學好,換言之,片語概念較為單一;然而英文文法主要是將英文字彙有規則的組合成句子,以表達出正確或複雜的意思,且文法的用法可能會因為句中前後文的差別而導致用法隨著改變,學生除了需要記憶能力以外還需要深入地了解其中的差別,亦即是文法概念較為複雜。

在提供提示輔助學生學習英文片語與文法時,個體差異仍存在於學生之間,而這些差異都可能影響學生在選擇不同的提示上產生差異,因此本研究進行了兩個實驗,受試者均為來自台灣北部某大學的工程科系研究生。實驗一主要探討學生在使用線上測量學習英語片語時,認知風格如何影響學生使用同義字提示與中文提示與使用這些提示如何影響他們的學習成效、學習觀感與學習行為?其結果指出,整體型學生使用提示次數上顯著高於序列型學生;反之序列型學生雖然使用提示次數低於整體型學生,但他們在使用提示的次數上卻與任務分數有顯著正相關,且他們在提供比較少以及沒有提示的環境下,作答時間也較長;此外,整體型學生在學習英文片語的環境下有重複使用提示的情況發生,換句話說,整體型學生會利用重複使用提示的方式,讓他們有更多的英文聯想以幫助作答,而序列型學生則是比較需要額外的輔助來幫助他們作答。

實驗二主要探討學生在使用線上測量學習英語文法時,認知風格如何影響學生使用簡單、適中與詳細提示作答與這些提示如何影響他們的學習成效、學習觀感與學習行為?其結果顯示出,整體型學生在使用所提供較為詳細資訊的提示之使用次數上與任務分數有顯著負相關的情況發生;此外,序列型學生在學習英文文法的環境下有重複使用提示的情況發生。此外,序列型學生在提供多重提示的環境下,完成任務的花費時間高於提供適中提示環境的測驗時間,但他們在提供多重提示的環境下,測驗分數也相對高於提供適中提示的測驗分數,換句話說,多重提示的環境雖然與序列型的學生的偏好不相符,但是他們卻得到比較高的成績,因此,不符合學生認知風格的環境不見得不利於序列型學生學習。

綜上所述,兩次的實驗結果有所差異,在實驗一學習英文片語時,學生使用的策略大部分是符合其認知風格的特質,但在實驗二學習英文文法時,學生使用的策略不完全符合其認知風格的特質,因此本研究的貢獻在於認知風格的影響可能會因學科內容而改變。
摘要(英) E-assessment, refers to the evaluation of the knowledge or skills of students in a computer-based environment. However, traditional E-assessment may lack guidance or support so students may have low learning motivation, which may negatively affect their learning performance. On the other hand, scaffolding is one of effective learning tools, which can address the aforementioned problem. Among various types of scaffolding, hint is a mechanism that can give support to students based on their needs so hints are applied to support English learning in this study.

English learning covers a wide range of issues, among which the usage of academic English would be stricter and more logical than general English. More specifically, accuracy, clarity and simplicity are key elements in academic English. Moreover, the usages of some vocabularies, e.g., “argue”, “suggest” and “approach” are different from those used in general English. Thus, there is a need to provide academic English courses. In general, academic English courses includes several subtopics, among which English phrases and English grammar are the most important because they make it possible to exchange information in English. The concepts of English phrases are simpler while those of English grammar are more complex during thinking process. This is due to the fact that the thinking process of English phrases is static while that of English gramma is dynamic. Thus, students can learn how to apply phrases by just memorizing their meaning and the usage. Conversely, students need to not only memorize various grammar rule, but also have to understand how to use these rules correctly

Due to such differences, this research attempted to identify how students learn English phrases and English grammar with hints. In addition to differences between English phrases and English grammar, individual differences also existed among students. In particular, cognitive styles greatly affect student learning. Hence, two empirical studies were conducted. The participants of these two studies were recruited from students who studied in the College of Engineering at the National Central University in Taiwan. Study One is to identify how cognitive styles affect students to learn English phrases via hints in the context of E-assessment? The results of Study One demonstrate that Holists more frequently used the hints than Serialists. Moreover, Serialists’ task scores were positively related to the frequencies of using Chinese hints as well as those of using synonym hints and they took more time to complete the task, in the conditions which provided fewer hints or no hints. Additionally, Holists demonstrated an iterative behavior when using hints. In other words, Holists takes an iterative approach to gain more thought while Serialists’ need additional support.

On the other hand, Study Two was to investigate how cognitive styles affect students to learn English grammar via hints in the context of E-assessment. The results of Study Two suggested that Holists’ task scores were negatively related to the frequencies of using intermediate hints and detailed hints in the IH condition Additionally, Serialists demonstrated an iterative behavior in using hints. Moreover, Serialists in the MH condition significantly spent more time completing the tasks than those in the IH condition but Serialists in the MH condition obtained higher task scores than those in the IH condition. More specifically, the design features of the MH condition mismatched with the characteristics of the Serialists but they obtained higher task scores in the MH condition. Therefore, the mismatching condition may be useful to improve Serialists learning performance.
In summary, the results from the aforementioned two studies demonstrated different outcome. More specifically, behavior that each cognitive style demonstrated in Study One (i.e, the context of English phrases) reflected their characteristics whereas behavior that each cognitive style group showed in Study Two (i.e., the context of English grammar) did not echo their characteristics. Thus, this research contributes a new understanding, which means that subject topics may change people’s cognitive styles. In other words, people’s cognitive styles may not be always consistent with all of subject topics.
關鍵字(中) ★ 認知風格
★ 提示
★ 英文學習
關鍵字(英) ★ Cognitive Styles
★ Hints
★ English Learning
論文目次 摘要 iv
ABSTRACT vi
Table of Contents ix
List of Figures xii
List of Tables xiv
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Research Objectives 6
1.3 Chapter Outline 7
1.4 Summary 8
Chapter 2 Literature Review 10
2.1 English Learning and E-assessment 10
2.2 Scaffolding and Hints 13
2.3 Individual Differences 16
2.4 Summary 21
Chapter 3 Research Design 22
3.1 Introduction 22
3.2 Methodological Approaches 23
3.3 Conceptual Framework 24
3.4 Research Instruments 26
3.4.1 Online Test 26
3.4.2 Study Preferences Questionnaire (SPQ) 27
3.4.3 Questionnaire 27
3.5 Summary 28
Chapter 4 Study One 29
Online Test— English Phrases 29
4.1 Participants 29
4.2 Research Instruments 29
4.3 Experimental Procedures 32
4.4 Data Analyses 33
4.5 Results 34
4.5.1 Quantitative Analyses 34
4.5.2 Qualitative Analyses 41
4.5.3 Lag Sequential Analysis 44
4.6 Discussion 50
Chapter 5 Study Two 52
Online Test— English Grammar 52
5.1 Participants 52
5.2 Research Instruments 52
5.3 Experimental Procedures 55
5.4 Data Analyses 56
5.5 Results 57
5.5.1 Quantitative Analyses 57
5.5.2 Qualitative Analyses 65
5.5.3 Lag Sequential Analysis 69
5.6 Discussion 77
Chapter 6 Conclusions 80
6.1 Main Conclusions 80
6.2 Development of A Framework 86
6.3 Limitations and Future Work 91
References 92
Appendix 102
參考文獻 [1] Abu-Mostafa, Y. S. (1995). Hints. Neural Computation, 7(4), 639-671.
[2] Arnold, N. (2009). Online extensive reading for advanced foreign language learners: an evaluation study. Foreign Language Annals, 42(2), 340-366.
[3] Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). UK: Cambridge University Press.
[4] Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2012). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instructional Science, 40, 193–211.
[5] Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2013). Scaffolding hypermedia learning through metacognitive prompts. In International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 171-186). Springer New York.
[6] Bannert, M., Sonnenberg, C., Mengelkamp, C., & Pieger, E. (2015). Short- and longterm effects of students′ self-directed metacognitive prompts on navigation behavior and learning performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 293-306.
[7] Belcadhi, L. C. (2016). Personalized feedback for self-assessment in lifelong learning environments based on semantic web. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 562-570.
[8] Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Springer.
[9] Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564-577.
[10] Bull, K. S., Shuler, P., Overton, R., Kimball, S., Boykin, C., & Griffin, J. (1999). Processes for Developing Scaffolding in a Computer Mediated Learning Environment.
[11] Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger III, H. L. (2007). The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(4), 273.
[12] Chan, C. H., Hsieh, C.W., Chen, S. Y. (2014). Cognitive styles and the use of electronic journals in a mobile context. Journal of Documentation. 70(6), 997-1014
[13] Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, S. F. (2001). Learning through computer‐based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of computer assisted learning, 17(1), 21-33.
[14] Chen, C. H., & Law, V. (2016). Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1201-1212.
[15] Chen, S.Y., & Ford, N.J. (1998). Modelling user navigation behaviours in a hypermedia-based learning system: An individual differences approach. International Journal of Knowledge Organization, 25(3), 67–78.
[16] Chen, C. M., Hsu, S. H., Li, Y. L., & Peng, C. J. (2006, October). Personalized intelligent m-learning system for supporting effective English learning. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2006. SMC′06. IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 6, pp. 4898-4903). IEEE.
[17] Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2010). Web-based Interaction: A Review of Three Important Human Factors. International Journal of Information Management, 30 (5), 379-387.
[18] Chou WZ (1998) Developing computerized assessment systems on the WWW. Proceedings of ICCAI’98, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan, pp 543–550
[19] Chuang, T. Y., Liu, E. Z. F., & Shiu, W. Y. (2015). Game-based creativity assessment system: the application of fuzzy theory. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 74(21), 9141-9155.
[20] Clewley, N., Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X. (2011). Mining Learning Preferences in Web-based Instruction: Holists vs. Serialists. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (4), 266-277.
[21] Day, R., & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(2), 136-141.
[22] Del Mar Sánchez-Vera, M., Fernández-Breis, J. T., Castellanos-Nieves, D., Frutos-Morales, F., & Prendes-Espinosa, M. P. (2012). Semantic Web technologies for generating feedback in online assessment environments. Knowledge-Based Systems, 33, 152-165.
[23] de Kock, W. D. (2016). Speech versus text supported hints in learning to solve word problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 300-311.
[24] DePasque, S., & Tricomi, E. (2015). Effects of intrinsic motivation on feedback processing during learning. NeuroImage, 119, 175-186.
[25] Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: Systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 557–573.
[26] Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language teaching, 31(03), 117-135.
[27] Ford, N. (1995). Levels and types of mediation in instructional systems: an individual differences approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(2), 241-259.
[28] Ford, N., & Chen, S.Y. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation and learning: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 281–312.
[29] Ford, N., & Ford, R. (1993). Towards a cognitive theory of information accessing: An empirical study. Information Processing & Management, 29 (5), 569-585.
[30] Ford, N., Wilson, T. D., Foster, A., Ellis, D., & Spink, A. (2002). Information seeking and mediated searching. Part 4. Cognitive styles in information seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(9), 728-735.
[31] Fox, J. P. (2013). Multivariate zero-inflated modeling with latent predictors: Modeling feedback behavior. Computational statistics & data analysis, 68, 361-374.
[32] Game, A., & Metcalfe, A. (2009). Dialogue and team teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 28, 45-57.
[33] Gey, F. C., & Chen, A. (1998). Phrase discovery for English and cross-language retrieval at TREC 6. NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION SP, 637-648.
[34] Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Holt, D. V., Goldhammer, F., & Funke, J. (2013). Computer-based assessment of Complex Problem Solving: concept, implementation, and application. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 407-421.
[35] Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Molnár, G., Fischer, A., Funke, J., & Csapó, B. (2013). Complex problem solving in educational contexts—something beyond g: Concept, assessment, measurement invariance, and construct validity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 364.
[36] Gutiérrez-Rojas, I., Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Leony, D., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Scaffolding self-learning in MOOCs. Proceedings of the Second MOOC European Stakeholders Summit, EMOOCs, 43-49.
[37] Howie, D. (1995). To the Beat of a Different Drummer: The Role of Individual Differences in Ecological Interface Design (CEL 95-09).
[38] Hsieh, C. W., Jhan, S. N., & Chen, S. Y. (2014, July). Individual differences and joyful assessment-based learning. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on (pp. 330-335). IEEE.
[39] Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2005). A student′s introduction to English grammar. Cambridge University Press.
[40] Hwang, G. J., & Chang, H. F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023-1031.
[41] Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Individual differences and instruction. New York: Allen & Bacon.
[42] Keppens, J., & Hay, D. (2008). Concept map assessment for teaching computer programming. Computer Science Education, 18(1), 31-42.
[43] Khaliliaqdam, S. (2014). ZPD, Scaffolding and Basic Speech Development in EFL Context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 891-897.
[44] Lan, Y. J., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2013). From particular to popular: Facilitating EFL mobile-supported cooperative reading. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 23-38.
[45] Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Allen, J. A. (2014). How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1278.
[46] Li LS (2000) Research on the development of an online assessment system of technologies in high school life. (Master thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan
[47] Liu, C. C., Fan Chiang, S. H., Chou, C. Y., & Chen, S. Y. (2010). Knowledge exploration with concept association techniques. Online Information Review, 34(5), 786-805.
[48] Mampadi, F., Chen, S. Y., Ghinea, G., & Chen, M. P. (2011). Design of adaptive hypermedia learning systems: A cognitive style approach. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1003-1011.
[49] Marti, U. V., Kaufmann, G., & Bunke, H. (1997, October). Cursive script recognition with time delay neural networks using learning hints. In International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks (pp. 973-978). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[50] Merriam,S. B.(1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. London: Jossey-Bass.
[51] Milkova, E. & Hercik, P. (2014). Possibilities Of Language Skills Development Within The Framework Of Communicative Competence Mastering In ELearning Language Courses. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 131(2014), pp. 182–186.
[52] Min, H.-T., & Hsu, W.-S. (2008). The impact of supplemental reading on vocabulary acquisition and retention with EFL learners in Taiwan. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University, 53(1), 83-115.
[53] Min, W., Mott, B., & Lester, J. (2014). Adaptive scaffolding in an intelligent game-based learning environment for computer science. In Proceedings of the Workshop on AI-supported Education for Computer Science (AIEDCS) at the 12th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 41-50).
[54] Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Koerndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1126–1144
[55] Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2016). The impact of paper-based, computer-based and mobile-based self-assessment on students′ science motivation and achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1241-1248.
[56] Ombati, J. M., Omari, L. N., Ogendo, G. N., Ondima, P. C., & Otieno, R. R. (2013). Evaluation of factors influencing the performance of Kenyan Secondary School Students in English Grammar: A Case of Nyamaiya Division, Nyamira County, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(9).
[57] Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.
[58] Pask, G. (1979). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128-148.
[59] Pask, G., & Scott, B. C. E. (1972). Learning strategies and individual competence. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 4(3), 217-253.
[60] Peat, M., & Franklin, S. (2002). Supporting student learning: the use of computer–based formative assessment modules. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 515-523.
[61] Riding, R., & Rayner, S.G. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton Publisher.
[62] Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological science, 17(3), 249-255.
[63] Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
[64] Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and quantity, 36(1), 43-53.
[65] Sharifian, F. (Ed.). (2009). English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (Vol. 11). Multilingual Matters.
[66] Shute, V.J., & Regian, J. (1993). Principles for evaluating intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.
[67] Sek, Y. W., Law, C. Y., Liew, T. H., Hisham, S. B., Lau, S. H., & Pee, A. N. B. C. (2012). E-assessment as a self-test quiz tool: The setting features and formative use. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 737-742.
[68] Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 31(4), 344-364.
[69] Sung, Y. T., Liao, C. N., Chang, T. H., Chen, C. L., & Chang, K. E. (2016). The effect of online summary assessment and feedback system on the summary writing on 6th graders: The LSA-based technique. Computers & Education, 95, 1-18.
[70] Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press.
[71] Terzis, V., Moridis, C. N., & Economides, A. A. (2012). The effect of emotional feedback on behavioral intention to use computer based assessment. Computers & Education, 59(2), 710-721.
[72] Trotman, A., & Handley, C. (2008). Programming contest strategy. Computers & Education, 50(3), 821-837.
[73] van der Kleij, F. M., Eggen, T. J., Timmers, C. F., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2012). Effects of feedback in a computer-based assessment for learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 263-272.
[74] Van der Linden, W. J. (2010). Elements of adaptive testing (pp. 31-56). New York, NY: Springer.
[75] Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5-13.
[76] Vygotsky L (1976) Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In: J Bruner, A Jolly, K Sylva, eds. Play, its role in development and evolution. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 537-54.
[77] Wang, T. H. (2014). Developing an assessment-centered e-Learning system for improving student learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 73, 189-203.
[78] Wang, X., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. S.(2015). Enhancing creativity in group collaboration: How performance targets and feedback shape perceptions and idea generation performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 187-195.
[79] Wang, Y., Li, H., Feng, Y., Jiang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2012). Assessment of programming language learning based on peer code review model: Implementation and experience report. Computers & Education, 59(2), 412-422.
[80] Wen, Q.F. (2012). Teaching English as an international language in mainland China. In English as an international language in Asia: Implications for language education (pp. 79-93). Springer Netherlands.
[81] Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321-331.
[82] Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Oltman, P. K., Goodenough, D. R., Friedman, F., Owen, D. R., & Raskin, E. (1977). Role of the field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles in academic evolution: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(3), 197.
[83] Wu, S.-Y., & Hou, H.-T. (2015). How cognitive styles affect the learning behaviors of online problem-solving based discussion activity a lag sequential analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(2), 277-298.
[84] Wu, T. T., Huang, Y. M., Chao, H. C., & Park, J. H. (2014). Personlized English reading sequencing based on learning portfolio analysis. Information Sciences, 257, 248-263.
[85] Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students′ performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 186-193.
[86] Yang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2015). China English in trouble: Evidence from dyadic teacher talk. System, 51(3), 9-50.
[87] Yang, S. H. (2016). Conceptualizing effective feedback practice through an online community of inquiry. Computers & Education, 94, 162-177.
[88] Zlatović, M., Balaban, I., & Kermek, D. (2015). Using online assessments to stimulate learning strategies and achievement of learning goals. Computers & Education, 91, 32-45.
指導教授 陳攸華(Sherry Chen) 審核日期 2016-7-25
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明