Developing and Validating the Questionnaire and Its Model for Sustainable and Scalable Authentic Contextual Learning Supported by Mobile Apps

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：26

、訪客IP：3.137.166.156

姓名

嚴烏納(UUN HARIYANTI) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

(Developing and Validating the Questionnaire and Its Model for Sustainable and Scalable Authentic Contextual Learning Supported by Mobile Apps)

相關論文

★ 同步表演機器人之建構與成效評估	★ 探討國小學童使用電子書多媒體註記系統結合註記分享機制對其學習行為與時間之影響
★ 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	★ Facilitating EFL speaking and writing with peer-tutoring and storytelling strategies in authentic learning context
★ An investigation into CKEL-supported EFL learning with TPR to reveal the importance of pronunciation and interactive sentence making	★ Investigation of Facilitating Physics Learning using Ubiquitous-Physics APP with Learning Map and Discussion Board in Authentic Contexts
★ 智慧互動SmartVpen在真實情境對於英文學習之影響	★ 利用合作虛擬化的網絡設計輔助計算機網路學習
★ 探討擴展合作式多媒體認知理論和其對EFL聽力與口語能力之影響 - 結合動覺辨識和學習者設計內容之猜謎遊戲	★ 在真實情境中利用智慧機制提升國小學生之外語口說及對話能力之評估
★ 探討在真實情境下教師回饋對學習認知與學習持續性之影響	★ 註釋、對話代理和協作概念圖支持大學生議論文寫作和後設認知的培養
★ 探討個人化、情境化及社會化的智慧機制輔助真實情境國小幾何學習與其對學習成效之影響	★ Investigation of smart mechanisms for authentic contextual learning with sensor and recognition technologies
★ 探討智慧回饋如何影響學習時眼動和觸控操作的表現-以 Covid-19 快篩模擬為例	★ 在真實情境下結合圖像與位置辨識促進英文寫作

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)

如今，由於 COVID-19 大流行的影響，世界各地的教學和學習方法都發生了變化。在一些病毒高傳播率的地區，學校已經關閉，使得學習者必須在家學習。因此，需要行動技術，像是行動應用程式來促進學習者的學習。使用行動應用程式進行Authentic contextual learning (ACL)是一種可以期待的學習設計，它可以比傳統的課堂學習更快地提高學習者的學習效果。使用行動應用程式參與 ACL 的學習者可以隨時隨地透過探索自己周遭熟悉的環境進行學習。然而，行動應用程式的使用以及學習者學習的方式可能會導致學習者或他們的父母感到焦慮或是接受度問題。此外，儘管許多研究已經在教育實踐中透過行動應用程式實測了 ACL，但沒有實證研究基於特定的 ACL 模型來解決行動應用程式對 ACL 的評估，因為相關文獻中不存在這樣的模型。本研究的目的是實測由行動應用程式輔助的 ACL，以促進學習者在 COVID-19 影響下的學習，並調查學習者和家長的焦慮和接受度相關的問題。此外，開發並驗證了一種模型，即sustainable and scalable authentic contextual learning (SSACL)模型，一個能取得特定模型並用於未來相關研究中評估 ACL的特定模型。因此，研究人員進行了三項研究來達成這些研究目標。
第一項研究的統計結果表明，父母對行動應用程式 U-Geometry 的真實情境學習的接受程度影響了學習者在技術和教學方面的接受程度。家長的感知易用性和感知有用性影響了學習者的感知易用性和技術方面的積極態度，且將U-Geometry 視為促進學習者 ACL 的學習工具。在教學方面，家長感知易用性正向的調和了學習者感知易用性與積極態度之間的關係；此外，父母的使用意向在學習者的積極態度和使用意向之間起了正向調和作用。這意味著家長對在家中使用行動應用程式實施 ACL 的接受程度與學習者的接受程度密切相關；因此，是值得讓家長在真實的環境中參與學習活動的。第二項研究調查了與焦慮、接受度以及學習者與家長的人口統計因素相關的問題。結果表明，父母在家中使用U-Geometry進行ACL後，其焦慮程度明顯低於學習者的焦慮程度。第三項研究顯示了這項長期研究的最重要結果，該研究採用行動應用程式的特定 SSACL 模型。根據結果，透過應用學習、健康學習、協作學習、認知、可持續性和可擴展性等六個基本因素來評估行動應用程式輔助的 ACL 中學習活動的成功與否。研究人員建議應用學習是ACL活動的基礎點，讓學習者在真實情境中學習的同時發展認知。除了通過應用、健康學習、協作學習和認知來滿足學習條件外，我們還可以實現可持續和可擴展學習的理想，以促進在真實環境中的學習。可持續學習確保學習者不斷學習；可擴展學習是指學習環境和地點規模的增加。

摘要(英)

These days, teaching and learning methods around the world have been changed due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In some areas with the high spread of the virus, schools have been closed so that learners should learn at home. As a result, mobile technology, e.g., mobile apps, is needed to facilitate learners’ learning. Authentic contextual learning (ACL) with mobile apps is one promised learning design, which can enhance learners’ learning faster than traditional classroom learning. Learners who engage in ACL with mobile apps could learn anytime and anywhere by exploring familiar contexts in their surroundings. However, it is possible for the use of mobile apps and the way learners learn to cause anxiety or issues with acceptance, either for the learners or their parents. Moreover, even though many studies had implemented ACL with mobile apps in educational practices, no empirical study had addressed the evaluation of ACL with mobile apps based on a specific model of ACL because no such model had existed in the literature. The aims of this research were to implement ACL supported by mobile apps to facilitate learners’ learning under the COVID-19 situation and investigate the issues related to the anxiety and acceptance of learners and parents. Additionally, one model, namely the sustainable and scalable authentic contextual learning (SSACL) model, was developed and validated to get a good specific model that can be used to evaluate ACL in future related studies. As a result, three studies were conducted by researchers to fulfill these research aims.
Statistical results of the first study showed parents’ acceptance of authentic contextual learning with a mobile app, U-Geometry, influenced learners’ acceptance of that in the technological and pedagogical aspects. Parents’ perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness influenced learners’ perceived ease of use and positive attitude in relation to the technological aspect seeing U-Geometry as a learning tool to facilitate learners’ ACL. In the matter of the pedagogical aspect, parents’ perceived ease of use positively mediated the relationship between learners’ perceived ease of use and positive attitude; additionally, parents’ intentions to use mediated the relationship between learners’ positive attitudes and intentions to use. It means that parents’ acceptance toward the implementation of ACL with a mobile app at home was strongly related to the acceptance of learners; thereby, involving parents in learners learning activities in an authentic context is worth to be done. The second study examined the issue related to anxiety, acceptance, and demographic factors of learners and parents. Based on the results, it showed that parents’ anxiety was significantly lower than learners’ anxiety after they engaged in ACL with U-Geometry near home. The third study showed the most important results of this long research that was taken up a specific model of SSACL with mobile apps. According to the results, six essential factors, i.e., learning by applying, healthy learning, collaborative learning, cognition, sustainability, and scalability, were addressed to evaluate the success of learning activities in ACL supported by mobile apps. Researchers recommend that learning by applying is the based point of ACL activities, letting learners develop cognition while learning in authentic contexts. Aside from fulfilling the conditions in learning by applying, healthy learning, collaborative learning, and cognition, we can also fulfill the ideals of sustainable and scalable learning to facilitate learning in authentic environments. Sustainable learning ensures that learners keep learning; scalable learning is denoted by an increase in the scale of learning contexts and places.

關鍵字(中)

★ Authentic contextual learning
★ 應用學習
★ 合作學習
★ 健康學習
★ 認知
★ 可持續性
★ 可擴展性
★ 行動應用程式
★ 焦慮

關鍵字(英)

★ Authentic contextual learning
★ learning by applying
★ collaborative learning
★ healthy learning
★ cognition
★ sustainability
★ scalability
★ mobile apps
★ anxiety

論文目次

CONTENTS
摘要 .................................................................................................................................................. i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................... v
CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Theoretical Supports .............................................................................................................. 5
1.2.1 Constructivism and Enactivism ...................................................................................... 5
1.2.2 Cognitive Anxiety .......................................................................................................... 6
1.2.3 Big Education with Cognition, Sustainability, and Scalability in Authentic Contexts .. 6
1.3 Objectives and Research Questions ....................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 13
2.1 Educational Theories and Authentic Contextual Learning.................................................. 13
2.2 Cognitive Anxiety and Authentic Contextual Learning Supported by Mobile Apps.......... 15
2.3 Learners’ and Parents’ Perception of Technological and Pedagogical Aspects in Authentic
Contextual Learning Supported by Mobile Apps ...................................................................... 16
2.4 Learners’ and Parents’ Anxiety toward The Authentic Contextual Learning Supported by
Mobile Apps .............................................................................................................................. 18
2.5 Authentic Contextual Learning for Big Education .............................................................. 19
2.6 Research Gap Based on Literatures ..................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 29
3.1 Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................................... 29
3.2 First Study ........................................................................................................................... 33
3.2.1 Participants ................................................................................................................... 33
3.2.2 Experimental Procedure ............................................................................................... 33
3.2.3 Research Instrument ..................................................................................................... 34
3.2.4 Research Variables ....................................................................................................... 37
3.2.5 Analysis Methods ......................................................................................................... 38
vii
3.3 Second Study ....................................................................................................................... 38
3.3.1 Participants ................................................................................................................... 38
3.3.2 Experimental Procedure ............................................................................................... 40
3.3.3 Research Instruments .................................................................................................... 41
3.3.4 Research Variables ....................................................................................................... 44
3.3.5 Analysis Methods ......................................................................................................... 45
3.4 Third Study .......................................................................................................................... 46
3.4.1 Participants ................................................................................................................... 46
3.4.2 Experimental Procedure ............................................................................................... 47
3.4.3 Research Instruments .................................................................................................... 51
3.4.4 Research Variables ....................................................................................................... 54
3.4.5 Analysis Methods ......................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .......................................................................... 57
4.1 The First Study .................................................................................................................... 57
4.1.1 Analysis of the relations between learners’ and parents’ perceptions in the technological aspect 57
4.1.2 Analysis of the relations between learners’ and parents’ perceptions in the pedagogical aspect 60
4.2 The Second Study ................................................................................................................ 66
4.2.1 Analysis of learning achievement................................................................................. 66
4.2.2 Analysis of differences in terms of learners’ and parents’ anxiety .............................. 67
4.2.3 Analysis of learners’ and parents’ acceptance of authentic contextual learning with UGeometry
............................................................................................................................... 69
4.2.4 The relationship between learning achievements, demographic factors, anxiety, and
acceptance .............................................................................................................................. 71
4.3 The Third Study: Preliminary Study ................................................................................... 73
4.3.1 The development of sustainable and scalable authentic contextual learning questionnaire
and model .............................................................................................................................. 73
4.3.2 Recommendations to improve sustainable and scalable authentic contextual learning
questionnaire and model for experimental study ................................................................... 80
4.4 The Third Study: Experimental Study ................................................................................. 80
4.4.1 Analysis of learning achievement................................................................................. 80
4.4.2 Analysis of sustainable and scalable authentic contextual learning questionnaire and model 80
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE STUDY ........................................................... 91
5.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 91
5.2 Future study ......................................................................................................................... 92
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 94
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 103
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ......................................................................................................... 114

參考文獻

Aharony, N., & Zion, A. (2019). Effects of whatsapp′s use on working memory performance among youth. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 226-245. doi:10.1177/0735633117749431
Ahmed, M. U., & Hasan, B. (2010). A path analysis of the impact of application-specific perceptions of computer self-efficacy and anxiety on technology acceptance. J. Organ. End User Comput., 22(3), 82–95. doi:10.4018/joeuc.2010070105
Ahn, T. Y., & Lee, S. M. (2015). User experience of a mobile speaking application with automatic speech recognition for EFL learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 778–786. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12354
Amory, A. (2018). Use of the collaboration-authentic learning-technology/tool mediation framework to address the theory–praxis gap. In T.-W. Chang, R. Huang, & Kinshuk (Eds.), Authentic Learning Through Advances in Technologies (pp. 61-73). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Anderson, L. W., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom′s taxonomy of educational objectives: Longman.
Baerveldt, C., & Verheggen, T. (1999). Enactivism and the experiential reality of culture: Rethinking the epistemological basis of cultural psychology. Culture & Psychology, 5(2), 183-206. doi:10.1177/1354067x9952006
Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2014). Factors influencing digital technology use in early childhood education. Computers & Education, 77, 82-90. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.013
Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2016). The influence of TPACK contextual factors on early childhood educators’ tablet computer use. Computers & Education, 98, 57-69. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.010
Brundiers, K., Wiek, A., & Redman, C. L. (2010). Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: from classroom into the real world. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(4), 308-324.
Callum, K. M., Jeffrey, L., & Kinshuk. (2014). Comparing the role of ICT literacy and anxiety in the adoption of mobile learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 8-19. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.024
Chang, C. S., Chen, T. S., & Hsu, W. H. (2011). The study on integrating WebQuest with mobile learning for environmental education. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1228-1239. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.005
Chen, T.-S., Chang, C.-S., Lin, J.-S., & Yu, H.-L. (2009). Context-aware writing in ubiquitous learning environments. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(01), 61-82.
Cheng, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Children and parents′ reading of an augmented reality picture book: Analyses of behavioral patterns and cognitive attainment. Computers & Education, 72, 302-312. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.003
Cheng, S. C., Hwang, G. J., & Chen, C. H. (2019). From reflective observation to active learning: A mobile experiential learning approach for environmental science education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2251-2270. doi:10.1111/bjet.12845
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP Framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Chin, K.-Y., & Wang, C.-S. (2021). Effects of augmented reality technology in a mobile touring system on university students’ learning performance and interest. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 27-42. doi: 10.14742/ajet.5841
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2017). Readiness for integrating mobile learning in the classroom: Challenges, preferences and possibilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 112-121. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.014
Clarke, J., Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. (2006). A design-based research strategy to promote scalability for educational innovations. Educational Technology, 46(3), 27-36. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44429300
Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(1), 19-45. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1996.0040
DeGood, D. E., & Tait, R. C. (1987). The cognitive-somatic anxiety questionnaire: Psychometric and validity data. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 9(1), 75-87. doi:10.1007/BF00961633
Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and education. The Educational Forum, 50(3), 241-252. doi:10.1080/00131728609335764
de Winter, J. C. F., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(2), 147-181. doi:10.1080/00273170902794206
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388. doi:10.1177/002224378101800313
Gao, Q., Yan, Z., Wei, C., Liang, Y., & Mo, L. (2017). Three different roles, five different aspects: Differences and similarities in viewing school mobile phone policies among teachers, parents, and students. Computer & Education, 106, 13–25. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.007
Gonida, E. N., & Cortina, K. S. (2014). Parental involvement in homework: Relations with parent and student achievement-related motivational beliefs and achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 376-396. doi:10.1111/bjep.12039
Hadad, S., Meishar-Tal, H., & Blau, I. (2020). The parents′ tale: Why parents resist the educational use of smartphones at schools?. Computers & Education, 157, 103984. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103984
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares. European Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 566-584. doi:10.1108/ejm-10-2018-0665
Hariyanti, U., & Hwang, W.-Y. (2020). Design and implementation of ubiquitous fraction app for fraction learning in authentic contexts. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 6th International Conference on Education.
Harvey, S. P., Lambourne, K., Greene, J. L., Gibson, C. A., Lee, J., & Donnelly, J. E. (2018). The effects of physical activity on learning behaviors in elementary school children: A randomized controlled trial. Contemporary school psychology, 22(3), 303-312.
Hayes, A.F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications: New York, USA.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182-209. doi:10.1177/1094428114526928
Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3), 219-236.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational technology research and development, 48(3), 23-48.
Hill, A. M. (2005). Research in purpose and value for the study of technology in secondary schools: A theory of authentic learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 19-32. doi:10.1007/s10798-004-6195-2
Ho, R. (2013). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis with IBM SPSS. CRC press.
Hong, J.-C., Hwang, M.-Y., Tai, K.-H., & Lin, P.-H. (2019). Improving cognitive certitude with calibration mediated by cognitive anxiety, online learning self-efficacy and interest in learning Chinese pronunciation. Educational technology research and development, 67(3), 597-615. doi:10.1007/s11423-018-9628-4
Hong, J.-C., Hwang, M.-Y., Tai, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-R. (2017). An exploration of students’ science learning interest related to their cognitive anxiety, cognitive load, self-confidence and learning progress using inquiry-based learning with an iPad. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1193-1212. doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9541-y
Hong, J.-C., Tai, K.-H., Hwang, M.-Y., & Kuo, Y.-C. (2016). Internet cognitive failure affects learning progress as mediated by cognitive anxiety and flow while playing a Chinese antonym synonym game with interacting verbal–analytical and motor-control. Computers & Education, 100, 32-44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.009
Hou, H.-T., Yu, T.-F., Chiang, F.-D., Lin, Y.-H., Chang, K.-E., & Kuo, C.-C. (2020). Development and evaluation of mindtool-based blogs to promote learners’ higher order cognitive thinking in online discussions: An analysis of learning effects and cognitive process. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(2), 343-363. doi:10.1177/0735633119830735
Huang, R.-T., Jabor, M. K., Tang, T.-W., & Chang, S.-C. (2021). Examine the moderating role of mobile technology anxiety in mobile learning: a modified model of goal-directed behavior. Asia Pacific Education Review, 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s12564-021-09703-y
Huang, Y.-M., Shadiev, R., Sun, A., Hwang, W.-Y., & Liu, T.-Y. (2017). A study of the cognitive diffusion model: facilitating students’ high level cognitive processes with authentic support. Educational technology research and development, 65(3), 505-531. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9475-0
Hung, D. W. L., & Chen, D.-T. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of web-based e-learning. Educational Media International, 38(1), 3-12. doi:10.1080/09523980121818
Hwang, W.-Y., & Hariyanti, U. (2020). Investigation of students’ and parents’ perceptions of authentic contextual learning at home and their mutual influence on technological and pedagogical aspects of learning under COVID-19. Sustainability, 12(23), 10074. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/10074
Hwang, W.-Y., Hariyanti, U., Abdillah, Y. A., & Chen, H. S. L. (2021a). Exploring effects of geometry learning in authentic contexts using ubiquitous geometry app. Educational Technology & Society, 24 (3), 13–28.
Hwang, W.-Y., Hariyanti, U., Chen, N.-S., & Purba, S. W. D. (2021b). Developing and validating an authentic contextual learning framework: promoting healthy learning through learning by applying. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-13. doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.1876737
Hwang, W.-Y., Hoang, A., & Lin, Y.-H. (2021c). Smart mechanisms and their influence on geometry learning of elementary school students in authentic contexts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1441-1454. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12584
Hwang, W.-Y., Hoang, A., & Tu, Y.-H. (2020). Exploring authentic contexts with ubiquitous geometry to facilitate elementary school students′ geometry learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(3), 269-283. doi:10.1007/s40299-019-00476-y
Hwang, W.-Y., Liu, Y.-F., Chen, H.-R., Huang, J.-W., & Li, J.-Y. (2015). Role of parents and annotation sharing in children′s learning behavior and achievement using E-readers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 292-307.
Hwang, W., Purba, S. W. D., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., & Chen, N. (2019a). An investigation of the effects of measuring authentic contexts on geometry learning achievement. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(3), 291-302. doi:10.1109/TLT.2018.2853750
Hwang, W., Utami, I. Q., Purba, S. W. D., & Chen, H. S. L. (2019b). Effect of ubiquitous fraction app on mathematics learning achievements and learning behaviors of Taiwanese students in authentic contexts. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1-1. doi:10.1109/TLT.2019.2930045
Hwang, W. Y., Chen, N. S., Shadiev, R., & Li, J. S. (2011). Effects of reviewing annotations and homework solutions on math learning achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 1016-1028.
Islam, M. S., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). An international literature review of 1:1 computing in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 191-222. doi:10.1007/s10833-016-9271-y
Jung, I., & Lee, J. (2020). A cross-cultural approach to the adoption of open educational resources in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 263-280. doi:10.1111/bjet.12820
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: potential and limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.8.1.17
Keane, T., & Keane, W. F. (2018). Parents’ expectations, perceptions and concerns when schools implement a 1:1 program. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1447-1464. doi:10.1007/s10639-017-9671-5
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom′s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477405
Lai, C.-H., Yang, J.-C., Chen, F.-C., Ho, C.-W., & Chan, T.-W. (2007). Affordances of mobile technologies for experiential learning: the interplay of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 326-337. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00237.x
Li, Q. (2018). Enactivism and teacher instructional game building: an inquiry of theory adoption and design consideration. Educational technology research and development, 66(6), 1339-1358. doi:10.1007/s11423-018-9584-z
Li, Q., Clark, B., & Winchester, I. (2010). Instructional design and technology grounded in enactivism: A paradigm shift?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 403-419. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00954.x
Lian, L., You, X., Huang, J., Yang, R., 2016. Who overuses smartphones? Roles of virtues and parenting style in smartphone addiction among Chinese college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.027
Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20(3), 975-978. doi:10.2466/pr0.1967.20.3.975
Liu, P.-L., & Chen, C.-J. (2015). Learning English through actions: A study of mobile-assisted language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 158–171. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2014.959976
Lucas, B., Claxton, G., Spencer, E. (2013). Expansive education: Teaching learners for the real world. New York, NY: Open University Press.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A., & Smith, D. E. (1990). Development and validation of the competitive state anxiety inventory-2. Competitive anxiety in sport, 117-190.
Martin, A. J., Durksen, T. L., Williamson, D., Kiss, J., & Ginns, P. (2016). The role of a museum-based science education program in promoting content knowledge and science motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(9), 1364-1384. doi:10.1002/tea.21332
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston, MA : Shambhala.
Ng, W., & Nicholas, H. (2013). A framework for sustainable mobile learning in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 695-715. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01359.x
Nguyen, T., Hwang, W., Pham, X., & Ma, Z. (2018). User-oriented EFL speaking through application and exercise: Instant speech translation and shadowing in authentic context. Educational Technology & Society, 21, 129-142.
Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Valle, A., & Epstein, J. L. (2015). Relationships between perceived parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students. Metacognition and Learning, 10(3), 375-406. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9135-5
Nurtantyana, R., Suprapto, Hwang, W.-Y., Hariyanti, U. (2020). Developing a Learning Monitoring System Dashboard for Augmented Reality in Ubiquitous Geometry (Authentic-UG). Proceeding of the International Conference on Online and Blended Learning 2019 (ICOBL 2019). doi: 10.2991/assehr.k.200521.002
O′Dwyer, L. M., & Bernauer, J. A. (2013). Quantitative research for the qualitative researcher. SAGE publications.
Poeck, K. V., & Östman, L. (2018). Creating space for ‘the political’in environmental and sustainability education practice: A political move analysis of educators’ actions. Environmental Education Research, 24(9), 1406-1423.
Purba, S. W. D., Hwang, W.-Y., Pao, S.-C., & Ma, Z.-H. (2019). Investigation of inquiry behaviors and learning achievement in authentic contexts with the ubiquitous-physics app. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(4), 59-76. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26910185
Rieger, J., & Rolfe, A. (2021). Breaking barriers: Educating design students about inclusive design through an authentic learning framework. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 40(2), 359–373. doi: 10.1111/jade.12348
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Smith, D., Reams, R., & Hair, J. F. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 105-115. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002
Schmidt, M., Benzing, V., & Kamer, M. (2016). Classroom-based physical activity breaks and children′s attention: cognitive engagement works!. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01474
Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32(6), 475-502. doi:10.1007/s11251-004-2518-7
Schwartz, G. E., Davidson, R. J., & Goleman, D. J. (1978). Patterning of cognitive and somatic processes in the self-regulation of anxiety: effects of meditation versus exercise. Psychosom Med, 40(4), 321-328. doi:10.1097/00006842-197806000-00004
Shadiev, R., Hwang, W.-Y., Huang, Y.-M., & Liu, T.-Y. (2018). Facilitating application of language skills in authentic environments with a mobile learning system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 42-52. doi:10.1111/jcal.12212
Shadiev, R., Hwang, W.-Y., & Liu, T.-Y. (2021a). Facilitating cognitive processes during EFL smartwatch-supported learning activities in authentic contexts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 00, 1-14. doi:10.1111/bjet.13069
Shadiev, R., Yang, M.-K., Reynolds, B.L., & Hwang, W.-Y., (2021b). Improving English as a foreign language–learning performance using mobile devices in unfamiliar environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 00, 1-30. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1868533
Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., Huang, Y. M., & Liu, T. Y. (2017a). Cognitive diffusion model: Facilitating EFL learning in an authentic environment. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(2), 168-181. doi:10.1109/tlt.2016.2574356
Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2017b). Review of research on mobile language learning in authentic environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3-4), 284-303. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2017.1308383
Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers & Education, 34(3), 177-193. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00044-5
Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Estrada, J. M. V., & Chatla, S. B. (2016). The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4552-4564. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.049
So, H.-J., Tan, E., & Tay, J. (2012). Collaborative mobile learning in situ from knowledge building perspectives. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 51-62.
Sriraman, B., & English, L. (2009). Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers. Springer Science & Business Media.
Stolk, J., & Harari, J. (2014). Student motivations as predictors of high-level cognitions in project-based classrooms. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(3), 231-247. doi:10.1177/1469787414554873
Straker, L., Maslen, B., Burgess-Limerick, R., Johnson, P., & Dennerlein, J. (2010). Evidence-based guidelines for the wise use of computers by children: physical development guidelines. Ergonomics, 53(4), 458-477. doi:10.1080/00140130903556344
Tallvid, M., Lundin, J., Svensson, L., & Lindström, B. (2015). Exploring the relationship between sanctioned and unsanctioned laptop use in a 1: 1 classroom. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 237-249.
Tella, A., & Olasina, G. (2014). Predicting users′ continuance intention toward e-payment system: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Soc. Chang., 5(1), 47–67. doi:10.4018/ijissc.2014010104
Tirado-Morueta, R., Berlanga-Fernández, I., Vales-Villamarín, H., Guzmán-Franco, M.D., Duarte-Hueros, A., Aguaded-Gómez, J.I. (2020). Understanding the engagement of elementary school students in one-to-one iPad programs using an adaptation of self-system model of motivational development. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106224. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106224
Van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Brekelmans, M. (2015). Teacher regulation of cognitive activities during student collaboration: Effects of learning analytics. Computers & Education, 90, 80–94. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.006
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
Wingkvist, A. (2009). Understanding scalability and sustainability in mobile learning: A systems development framework. Växjö University Press.
Wong, C., Fang, T., & Miao, R. 2018. Learning performance and cognitive load in mobile learning: Impact of interaction complexity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning ,34, 917–927. doi:10.1111/jcal.12300
Wong, L. H., Chen, W., & Jan, M. (2012). How artefacts mediate small-group co-creation activities in a mobile-assisted seamless language learning environment?. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 411-424. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00445.x
Wong, L. H., Chin, C. K., Tan, C. L., & Liu, M. (2010). Students’ personal and social meaning making in a Chinese idiom mobile learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 15-26.
Zheng, J., & Li, S. (2020). What drives students’ intention to use tablet computers: An extended technology acceptance model. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101612. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101612

指導教授

黃武元(WU-YUIN HWANG)

審核日期

2022-1-25

推文