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：38

、訪客IP：3.138.105.31

姓名	曾毓棻(Yu-Fen Tseng)  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數位工具對學術 英語學習之影響 (The Effects of Digital Tools on Learning Academic English: A Cognitive Style Perspective)
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 ★ 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 ★ 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
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)	學術英語(Academic English)對於研究者很重要，因為它是學術界的主流語言，與一般英語不同的是，學術英語被定義為一正式的語言。然而，學術英語涉及很多面向，其中，最重要的是學術寫作，因為學生需要將研究成果以論文的方式呈現，但是有些學生需要花費較多的時間和精力來撰寫，因為他們沒有足夠的課程來引導他們撰寫論文，所以近幾年提高學術寫作的課程越來越受到重視。 在學習學術寫作中，英文文法與英文邏輯是為基礎的能力，因為前者學生需要了解語言，如句子類型和結構，而後者則是學生必須具備語言組織的能力，傳達有意義的訊息，因此有必要提高學生的英語語法和英語邏輯的寫作能力。如何增強這些能力則是一重要的議題，為了解決此問題，本研究應用數位學習工具來幫助學生學習，其中一種數位工具為電子評量系統(E-assessment)，因為此數位工具可以提供交互的學習環境，並且讓學生了解如何改進。但是，電子評量系統也存在幾個缺點，例如，缺乏立即的引導，這可能會增加學生的認知負荷，使學生降低學習表現。因此，鷹架輔助將用於電子評量系統中，讓學生獲得立即的反饋。此外，這些鷹架輔助不僅可以提高學生的學習表現，還可以讓學生解決超出其能力的問題。因此，鷹架輔助可能是有效的工具，幫助學生深入學習的方式。 另一方面，儘管有鷹架輔助的電子評量系統可以為學生提供豐富的學習環境，但仍需要考慮個體差異，因為每個學生都有不同的特質，這可能會影響他們的學習。其中，認知風格對學習有重要的影響，這是由於認知風格被定義為學生如何處理信息或如何使用信息的方式，因此認知風格是影響學生學習的人因之一。其中一種認知風格為整體型(Holism)與序列型(Serialism)，兩者在資訊處理上有所不同。因此在本研究進行了實證研究，受試者皆為北部某大專院校之學生，並探討學生使用數位工具學習英語文法和英語邏輯時，不同認知風格如何影響學生的學習策略，並分析其學習成效、學習觀感與學習行為之差異。 實驗一為探討學生使用數位工具學習英語文法，其結果顯示，整體型與序列型之學習者有不同的學習行為，如整體型學習者偏好蒐集不同性質的資訊來了解任務的概念，且也會使用不同類型的提示來幫助自己完成任務，此顯示整體型學習者傾向蒐集大量資訊，並且會同時處理這些資訊。而序列型學習者則是採取線性的學習模式，他們偏好按照步驟完成任務，因此在獲得新信息或得到錯誤答案時，會偏好從頭開始，這也顯示序列型學習者傾向專注在一特定事物。此外在學習成效上發現，兩者間沒有顯著差異，其可能為不同認知風格之學習者會選擇自己適合的問題解決方式，因此在學習成效上沒有差異。另外，關於學習觀感，兩者皆認為位置提示是最可以幫助他們解決問題，其原因為可以提供最直接的訊息，使學生快速知道錯誤的訊息。 實驗二為探討學生使用數位工具學習英語邏輯，其實驗結果顯示，整體型學習者擅長自己的學習方式，因此當他們解決問題時，他們有不同的問題解決模式，所以他們傾向於使用不同的提示來蒐集各種資訊，這些資訊可以幫助他們建構學習的概觀圖，這也可以說明整體型學習者會表現非線性的學習行為。而序列型學習者則是偏好逐步的解決問題，因此，他們在進行學習任務時無法處理過多的資訊。此外，關於學習成效上兩者間有顯著差異，整體型學習者的後測成績高於序列型學習者，其可能原因為後測沒有的鷹架輔助，因此可以說明序列型學習者在學習英與邏輯上需要更多額外的輔助。然而，在學習觀感中，多數整體型學習者認為答案提示可以幫助他們完成任務，而序列型學習者則認為位置提示可幫助他們解決問題。 綜上所述，兩個的實驗結果顯示不同認知風格在不同學習項目中，有相似的問題解決方式。整體型學習者在學習英文文法與英語邏輯，皆會表現非線性的學習方式，並傾向從蒐集大量且不同性質的資訊來建立任務的概觀圖，且他們也擅長調整自己解決問題的方式，因此可以說明整體型學習者會展現跳躍性的學習模式。然而，序列型的學習者則是偏好按部就班的完成任務，且同時只能專注於一件事情，因此在獲得新資訊時，會偏好從頭開始，而非立即的調整解決方式。因此，根據本研究之結果，未來可針對不同認知風格之偏好，開發個人化的數位學習系統。
摘要(英)	Academic English is important for researchers because it is a main language in academic area. Unlike general English, academic English is defined as a formal language. However, academic English involves many aspects. Among them, academic writing is the most important because students need to present their empirical results as academic papers. However, several students need to spend more time writing papers because there are no enough courses to guide them on the academic writing. Thus, the courses for academic writing have been paid more attention for recent years. However, they would meet some problems in academic writing. One is the English grammar while the other is English logic. It might be because the former is related to the syntax of the language while the latter is related to information organization. Such abilities could make readers easily understand the content of the paper easily. Thus, how to improve students’ English grammar and English logic is important. In order to address this issue, digital learning tools are applied to facilitate students to learn English grammar and English logic. One of the digital tools is E-assessment because such digital tool can provide interactive learning environments for students so that can control their learning paths by themselves. However, there are still several disadvantages in the E-assessment. For instance, insufficient guidance would make students feel frustrated and increase their cognitive loading. Due to such disadvantages, scaffoldings are required in the E-assessment. On the other hand, e-assessment systems with scaffoldings provide students with a rich learning environment but individual differences need to be considered. This is due to the fact that each student has different characteristics that may affect their learning. Among them, cognitive style is one of key human factors which had great effects on students’ learning. This is because cognitive style affects students how to handle information or how to use information. One of these cognitive styles is Holism and Serialism, which demonstrate different information processing patterns. Due to such differences, this research attempt to measure how students learn English grammar and English logic from a cognitive style perspective. To this end, two experiments were conducted The participants of these two experiments are the graduated institute students who come from the north university in Taiwan. Study One is to explore how students with different cognitive styles use digital tools to learn English grammar. The results indicated that several differences exist between Holists and Serialists. Holists prefer to collect different types of information to build the global picture of the tasks. Moreover, they would use various types of scaffoldings to support themselves to complete the tasks. In other word, they could process the large information at a time. On the contrary, Serialists showed the linear learning pattern when they solved the problems. In other word, they prefer to complete the tasks step by step. In addition, there is no significant differences between these two cognitive style groups on the learning performance. It may be because learners with different cognitive styles will select their own solutions to the problems. Therefore, they got the similar scores on the learning tasks. Regarding the learning perception, both of Holists and Serialists consider the location hint is the best way to help them solve problems. The reason is that it can provide the most direct information, from which students could know the mistakes quickly. Study Two is to investigate how students with different cognitive styles use digital tools to learn English logic. The results showed that Holists were good at adjusting their solutions when they solved the problems. In other word, they tended to use different approaches. That is the reason why the non-linear learning pattern was presented by Holists. On the contrary, Serialists would follow a sequential learning pattern when undertaking the learning tasks. Moreover, they cannot handle much information when they are completing the learning tasks. In other word, Serialists could only focus on one thing at a time. On the other hand, significant differences exist between these two cognitive style groups on the learning performance. Holists obtain higher scores than Serialists on the posttest. It might be because there is no additional support on the posttest so they could not obtain the information that they required. Regarding the learning perception, they showed the differences. Most of Holists considered that the answer hint could help them solve the problem while Serialists thought that the location hint could provide useful information for them. Although the differences existed between Holists and Serialists on the learning perception, such findings showed that both of them relied on scaffoldings. In summary, the two empirical experiments showed that students with different cognitive styles had similar problem solving patterns in different learning contexts, including English grammar and English. Holists showed an iterative learning approach on both learning contexts. Moreover, they preferred to collect large information in order to build the global picture of subject contents and they are also good at using such information to adjust the solutions by themselves. Conversely, Serialists showed the linear learning pattern in both English contexts. In other word, they would solve the problem step by step. In other word, they could only focus on one thing at a time. More specifically, when acquiring new information, they would prefer to start from the beginning of the tasks, instead of adjusting the solution immediately. The results from the two experiments can be applied to develop a personalized digital learning system that can accommodate the preferences of different cognitive style groups in the future.
關鍵字(中)	★ 認知風格 ★ 提示 ★ 學術英語	關鍵字(英)	★ Cognitive Styles ★ Hints ★ Academic English
論文目次	摘要 i ABSTRACT iv Table of Contents viii List of Figures xi List of Table xii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Aims and Research Objectives 4 1.3 Chapter Outline 7 1.4 Summary 8 Chapter 2 Literature Review 10 2.1 Academic English 10 2.1.1 English Grammar 11 2.1.2 English Logic 12 2.2 E-assessment 14 2.3 Scaffolding Instruction 16 2.4 Individual Differences 18 2.5 Summary 23 Chapter 3 Research Design 24 3.1 Introduction 24 3.2 Conceptual Framework 25 3.3 Research Instruments 27 3.3.1 E-assessment System 27 3.3.2 Study Preferences Questionnaire (SPQ) 29 3.3.3 Questionnaire 29 3.4 Summary 30 Chapter 4 Study One — English Grammar 31 4.1 Participants 31 4.2 Research Instruments 31 4.2.1 English Grammar E-assessment System 31 4.2.2 Pretest and Posttest 34 4.2.3 Perception Questionnaire 35 4.3 Experimental Procedures 35 4.4 Data Analyses 36 4.5 Results 37 4.5.1 Learning performance 37 4.5.2 Learning perception 39 4.5.3 Learning behavior 46 4.6 Discussion 55 Chapter 5 Study Two— English Logic 56 5.1 Participants 56 5.2 Research Instruments 56 5.2.1 English Logic E-assessment System 56 5.2.2 Posttest and perception questionnaire 60 5.3 Experimental Procedures 61 5.4 Data Analyses 62 5.5 Results 63 5.5.1 Learning performance 63 5.5.2 Learning perception 65 5.5.3 Learning behavior 72 5.6 Discussion 82 Chapter 6 Conclusions 83 6.1 Main Conclusions 83 6.1.1 English Grammar vs. English Logic 88 6.2 Development of a Framework 90 6.3 Limitations and Future Works 94 References 95
參考文獻	[1] Adesemowo, A. K., Johannes, H., Goldstone, S., & Terblanche, K. (2016). The experience of introducing secure e-assessment in a South African university first-year foundational ICT networking course. Africa Education Review, 13(1), 67-86. [2] Ahmad, A. (2017). Developing Cooperative Learning Based E-Module to Teach Basic English Grammar of the First Semester of English Study Program Students at FKIP–UIR. Journal of English for Academic, 4(2), 1-11. [3] Alameddine, M. M., & Mirza, H. S. (2016). Teaching Academic Writing for Advanced Level Grade 10 English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 209-216. [4] Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge university press. [5] Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2012). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instructional Science, 40(1), 193-211. [6] Barrett, N. E., & Liu, G. Z. (2016). Global trends and research aims for English academic oral presentations: Changes, challenges, and opportunities for learning technology. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1227-1271. [7] Biesta, G. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75-87. [8] Bouckenooghe, D., Cools, E., De Clercq, D., Vanderheyden, K., & Fatima, T. (2016). Exploring the impact of cognitive style profiles on different learning approaches: Empirical evidence for adopting a person-centered perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 299-306. [9] Cam, L., & Tran, T. T. M. (2017). An Evaluation of using Games in Teaching English Grammar for First Year English-Majored Students at Dong Nai Technology University. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16(7), 55-71. [10] Chan, C. H., Hsieh, C. W., & Y. Chen, S. (2014). Cognitive styles and the use of electronic journals in a mobile context. Journal of Documentation, 70(6), 997-1014. [11] 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. [12] Chen, S. Y., & Chang, L. P. (2016). The influences of cognitive styles on individual learning and collaborative learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(4), 458-471. [13] Chen, S. Y., & Yeh, C. C. (2017). The effects of cognitive styles on the use of hints in academic English: A learning analytics approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 251-264. [14] Chen, Z. H., Chen, S. Y., & Chien, C. H. (2017). Students’ Reactions to Different Levels of Game Scenarios: A Cognitive Style Approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 69-77. [15] Choi, E. T., Kim, Y. N., Cho, W. S., & Lee, D. K. (2016). The effects of visual control whole body vibration exercise on balance and gait function of stroke patients. Journal of physical therapy science, 28(11), 3149-3152. [16] 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. [17] 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. [18] Cumming, A., Yang, L., Qiu, C., Zhang, L., Ji, X., Wang, J., ... & Cao, R. (2018). Students’ practices and abilities for writing from sources in English at universities in China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 1-15. [19] DePasque, S., & Tricomi, E. (2015). Effects of intrinsic motivation on feedback processing during learning. NeuroImage, 119, 175-186. [20] 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. [21] Fang, L., Tuan, L. A., Hui, S. C., & Wu, L. (2018). Syntactic based approach for grammar question retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 54(2), 184-202. [22] Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243-264. [23] Forbes, K. (2018). The role of individual differences in the development and transfer of writing strategies between foreign and first language classrooms. Research Papers in Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1452963. [24] Ford, N. (1985). Learning styles and strategies of postgraduate students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 65-77. [25] 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. [26] Galloway, E. P., & Uccelli, P. (2015). Modeling the relationship between lexico-grammatical and discourse organization skills in middle grade writers: insights into later productive language skills that support academic writing. Reading and Writing, 28(6), 797-828. [27] Greiff, S., Wustenberg, 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. [28] Guerrero-Roldan, A. E., & Noguera, I. (2018). A model for aligning assessment with competences and learning activities in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 38, 36-46. [29] Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding and Cooperative Learning. Human Learning and Instruction. New York: City College of City University of New York [30] Holmes, N. (2015). Student perceptions of their learning and engagement in response to the use of a continuous e-assessment in an undergraduate module. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 1-14. [31] Howie, D. (1995). To the Beat of a Different Drummer: The Role of Individual Differences in Ecological Interface Design. [Technical Report]. Cognitive Engineering Laboratory. University of Tornado, Canada. [32] Hsieh, C. W., & Chen, S. Y. (2016). A cognitive style perspective to handheld devices: customization vs. personalization. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(1). [33] Hsieh, Y. H., Lin, Y. C., & Hou, H. T. (2016). Exploring the role of flow experience, learning performance and potential behavior clusters in elementary students′ game-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 178-193. [34] Hu, K. (2016). Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies. In Introducing Corpus-based Translation Studies (pp. 193-221). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. [35] Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2005). A student′s introduction to English grammar. Cambridge University Press. [36] Ivanova, M., Rozeva, A., & Durcheva, M. (2016). Towards e-Assessment Models in Engineering Education: Problems and Solutions. In International Conference on Web-Based Learning (pp. 178-181). Springer, Cham. [37] Jeong, J. S., Ramirez-Gomez, A., & Gonzalez-Gomez, D. (2017). A web-based scaffolding-learning tool for design students’ sustainable spatial planning. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 13(4), 262-277. [38] Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Individual differences and instruction. New York: Allen & Bacon. [39] Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (2012). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Routledge. New York, NY. [40] Jones, S., Myhill, D., & Bailey, T. (2013). Grammar for writing? An investigation of the effects of contextualised grammar teaching on students’ writing. Reading and Writing, 26(8), 1241-1263. [41] Khaliliaqdam, S. (2014). ZPD, scaffolding and basic speech development in EFL context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 891-897. [42] Koro?lu, Z. C., & Cak?r, A. (2017). Implementation of flipped instruction in language classrooms: An alternative way to develop speaking skills of pre-service English language teachers. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 13(2), 42-55. [43] Ku, O., Hou, C. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2016). Incorporating customization and personalization into game-based learning: A cognitive style perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 359-368. [44] Kunasaraphan, K. (2015). English learning strategy and proficiency level of the first year students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 1853-1858. [45] Kwan, B. S. C. (2013). Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond: A Hong Kong-based study. Studies in Higher Education, 38(2), 207-225. [46] 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. [47] Langum, V., & Sullivan, K. P. (2017). Writing academic English as a doctoral student in Sweden: narrative perspectives. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 20-25. [48] Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of second language writing, 33, 21-34. [49] Leedham, M., & Cai, G. (2013). Besides… on the other hand: Using a corpus approach to explore the influence of teaching materials on Chinese students’ use of linking adverbials. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4), 374-389. [50] 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. [51] Lindemann?Matthies, P., & Kamer, T. (2006). The influence of an interactive educational approach on visitors′ learning in a Swiss zoo. Science Education, 90(2), 296-315. [52] Ma, L. P. F. (2017). Academic writing support through individual consultations: EAL doctoral student experiences and evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing. [53] 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. [54] McCredden, J. E., O′Shea, P., Terrill, P., & Reidsema, C. (2016). Don′t blame the student, it′s in their mind: Helping engineering students to grasp complex concepts. In 27th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education: AAEE 2016 (p. 565). Southern Cross University. [55] McDaniel, M. A., Cahill, M. J., Frey, R. F., Rauch, M., Doele, J., Ruvolo, D., & Daschbach, M. M. (2018). Individual Differences in Learning Exemplars versus Abstracting Rules: Associations with Exam Performance in College Science. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. [56] McDaniel, M. A., Cahill, M. J., Frey, R. F., Rauch, M., Doele, J., Ruvolo, D., & Daschbach, M. M. (2018). Individual Differences in Learning Exemplars versus Abstracting Rules: Associations with Exam Performance in College Science. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. [57] McNamara, T., Morton, J., Storch, N., & Thompson, C. (2018). Students’ Accounts of Their First-Year Undergraduate Academic Writing Experience: Implications for the Use of the CEFR. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(1), 16-28. [58] Min, W., Mott, B., & Lester, J. (2014). Adaptive scaffolding in an intelligent game-based learning environment for computer science. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on AI-supported Education for Computer Science (AIEDCS 2014) (pp. 41-50). [59] Morton, J., & Storch, N. (2018). Developing an authorial voice in PhD multilingual student writing: The reader’s perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing. [60] Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128-148. [61] Pinto-Llorente, A. M., Sanchez-Gomez, M. C., Garcia-Penalvo, F. J., & Casillas-Martin, S. (2017). Students’ perceptions and attitudes towards asynchronous technological tools in blended-learning training to improve grammatical competence in English as a second language. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 632-643. [62] Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2017). Exploring the relationship of organization and connection with scores in integrated writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 31, 98-112. [63] Poehner, M. E. (2018). Scaffolding and the Development of L2 Grammar. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-6. [64] Rakedzon, T., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). To make a long story short: A rubric for assessing graduate students’ academic and popular science writing skills. Assessing Writing, 32, 28-42. [65] Sajid, M., & Siddiqui, J. A. (2015). Lack of Academic Writing skills in English language at Higher Education level in Pakistan: Causes, Effects and Remedies. International journal of language and lingusitics, 2(4), 174. [66] 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. [67] Sarmany-Schuller, I. (1999). Kognitivne ?tyly a ?tyly u?enia - mo?nosti aplikacie v edukacii (Cognitive and learning styles – possible applications in education), In: SCHOLA 99. Vzdelavanie vysoko?kolskych u?ite?ov. Bratislava. [68] 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. [69] Sibahi, R. (2015). English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility. Browser Download This Paper. [70] Simuth, J., & Sarmany-Schuller, I. (2014). Cognitive style variable in e-learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1464-1467. [71] Solikhah, I. (2013). English for Academic Purpose Voices: A Survey on Practices and Challenge in the State Universities of Central Java, Indonesia. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(4), 121-124. [72] Somasundaran, S., Burstein, J., & Chodorow, M. (2014). Lexical chaining for measuring discourse coherence quality in test-taker essays. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers (pp. 950-961). [73] Steinlen, A. K. (2018). The development of German and English writing skills in a bilingual primary school in Germany. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 42-52. [74] Sukasame, N., Kantho, S., & Narrot, P. (2014). A Study of Errors in Learning English Grammatical Structures on Tenses of MatthayomSuksa 4 Students of the Demonstration School, KhonKaen University. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1934-1939. [75] Sukumar, P., & Gayathri, K. S. (2014). Semantic based Sentence Ordering Approach for Multi-Document Summarization. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), 3(2), 71-76 [76] 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. [77] 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. [78] Trisna, B. N., Budayasa, I. K., & Siswono, T. Y. E. (2018, January). Students’ metacognitive activities in solving the combinatorics problem: the experience of students with holist-serialist cognitive style. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 947, No. 1, p. 012072). IOP Publishing. [79] Van Merrienboer, 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. [80] Velliaris, D. M. (2015). What is academic English ?: Receiving a good grade at the end of the day. Editorial Board, 73. [81] Wang, W. (2017). Analysis of Writing Errors in Graduation Thesis of English Majors. [82] 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. [83] Wildemuth, B. M., Friedman, C. P., & Downs, S. M. (1998). Hypertext versus Boolean access to biomedical information: a comparison of effectiveness, efficiency, and user preferences. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 5(2), 156-183. [84] Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. [85] 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. [86] Yang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2015). China English in trouble: Evidence from dyadic teacher talk. System, 51(3), 9-50. [87] Yang, L. I. U., Xue, B. A. I., Lei, H. A. N., & Zihan, G. A. O. (2016). A Study of English Listening Barrier and Effective Solutions. DEStech Transactions on Social Science, Education and Human Science, (emass). [88] Yang, T. C., Chen, S. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2015). The influences of a two-tier test strategy on student learning: A lag sequential analysis approach. Computers & Education, 82, 366-377. [89] Young, S. S. C., & Wang, Y. H. (2014). The Game Embedded CALL System to Facilitate English Vocabulary Acquisition and Pronunciation. Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 239-251. [90] Zare, J., & Keivanloo-Shahrestanaki, Z. (2017). Genre awareness and academic lecture comprehension: The impact of teaching importance markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 27, 31-41. [91] Zhang, Y., & Chu, S. (2016). New Ideas on the Design of the Web-Based Learning System Oriented to Problem Solving from the Perspective of Question Chain and Learning Community. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 178-188.
指導教授	陳攸華(Sherry Y. Chen)	審核日期	2018-7-26
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