整合式同儕回應對學生寫作之影響：遊戲情境與非遊戲情境

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：31

、訪客IP：3.15.138.98

姓名

王振漢(Jen-Hang Wang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊工程學系

論文名稱

整合式同儕回應對學生寫作之影響：遊戲情境與非遊戲情境
(The Influences of Integrative Peer Response on Student Writing: Game Context vs. Non-Game Context)

相關論文

★ 一個適用於解題領域的模擬多重學習同伴之方法	★ 亞卓市全民學校系統設計與初步使用成果
★ 網路學習資訊護照系統	★ 全民學校之團隊教學與團隊學習設計
★ 電腦支援問答競爭學習遊戲設計之探索	★ 亞卓期刊系統之設計與實作
★ 網路上目標設定環境的建置網路上目標設定環境的建置以閱讀網站為例	★ 亞卓合作觀察實驗站之研究
★ 使用 EduClick 當作遠端遙控互動評量系統	★ 出題與同儕評題支援系統之設計及評估
★ 支援不同解題練習遊戲活動之雙人學習系統	★ 亞卓市多重學習系統之黏合機制
★ 激發使用動機之網路個人學習平台	★ 一個設計結構化網路學習社群之方法
★ 線上社群系統上可客製化機制之設計與實作	★ 無線環境下支援高互動學習之通訊伺服器設計

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]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

同儕回應，也被稱為同儕互評，它是一種透過同儕之間彼此提供建議，以改善寫作表現的有效方法。一般而言，同儕回應可以透過面對面模式或電腦中介傳播模式來傳遞。然而，每一個模式皆有其問題存在。因此，本研究提出「整合式同儕回應」，來克服每一種模式的問題。此外，本研究也將遊戲式學習加入「整合式同儕回應」，成為「遊戲化的整合式同儕回應」，以增強學生的學習動機。然後進行實證研究以檢視此二種同儕回應方式與傳統以老師為中心的方式對學生的寫作有何不同的影響。在探究這些不同的影響時，也將學生所擁有的能力因素，納入考慮。其探討的影響層面包括寫作表現、回饋表現和對同儕回應的觀感。寫作表現是採用作文的方式，分別對受測學生施以前測與後測；回饋表現則是依據受測學生所給予的回饋意見類型與其數量來評估；而對同儕回應之觀感，則是依據受測學生對觀感問卷上的回答來評估。關於寫作表現的結果，整體而言，不論是使用「整合式同儕回應」的學生，還是使用「遊戲化的整合式同儕回應」的學生，皆比那些未使用同儕回應的學生，有較佳的寫作表現。此外，「遊戲化的整合式同儕回應」較有利於寫作品質的培養；而「整合式同儕回應」則對書寫表達的培育較有利。另一方面，「整合式同儕回應」和「遊戲化的整合式同儕回應」對於高能力和低能力學生的影響是相似的；但「整合式同儕回應」則較能增強高能力學生的書寫表達。關於回饋表現的結果，「遊戲化的整合式同儕回應」比較能幫助低能力學生提供讚美、批判性意見或在表面特徵上給予建議；而「整合式同儕回應」則較能幫助高能力學生給予內容特徵上的建議或是關於意義的釐清與討論的意見。至於學生對於同儕回應的觀感，高、低能力學生皆對「整合式同儕回應」和「遊戲化的整合式同儕回應」表達正向的觀感。根據以上之結果，本研究提出一個設計框架，以做為未來開發同儕回應的指導綱要，使得同儕回應在不同情境實踐時，都能兼顧不同能力學生之需求。

摘要(英)

Peer response, also known as peer review, is useful to improve students’ works by providing comments for each other. In general, peer response can be delivered via a face-to-face mode or computer-mediated communication mode. However, each mode has different problems. To this end, this study proposed an integrative peer response approach to overcome the problem of each mode. On the other hand, a game-based integrative peer response approach was also proposed to enhance students’ motivation. Thereafter, an empirical study was conducted to examine whether students with these two peer response approaches and those with a non-peer response approach reacted differently and the effects of the levels of abilities that students possessed on students’ reactions were also investigated. Students’ reactions included writing performance, feedback performance and perceptions for the peer response approaches. Writing performance was assessed by a pre-test and post-test, where students needed to make a composition. Feedback performance was measured based on the types and amount of feedback delivered to peers. Perceptions for the peer response approaches were identified by students’ responses to a perception questionnaire. Regarding the results of writing performance, students with either the integrative peer response or game-based integrative peer response generally showed better writing performance than those without the peer response. Additionally, the game-based integrative peer response could benefit students’ writing quality while the integrative peer response could profit their written expression. On the other hand, it was found that the impacts
of the integrative peer response and game-based integrative peer response on high- and low-ability students’ writing quality were similar but the integrative peer response was more useful to enhance the high-ability students’ written expression. Regarding the results of feedback performance, the game-based integrative peer response was more helpful for the low-ability students to conduct feedback in praise feedback, critical feedback, and directive feedback on surface features while the integrative peer response was more useful for the high-ability students to carry out feedback in directive feedback on content features and comments for clarification and discussion. As for the results of students’ perceptions for the peer response approaches, both of the high- and low-ability students showed positive perceptions for the integrative peer response and game-based integrative peer response. According to these results, a design framework was proposed, which could be applied to provide guidance for the development of peer response that can accommodate the needs of students with different levels of abilities at different contexts.

關鍵字(中)

★ 遊戲式學習
★ 個別差異性
★ 同儕回應

關鍵字(英)

★ Game-based learning
★ Individual differences
★ Peer response

論文目次

摘要.............................................................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................v
List of Figures...........................................................................................................................vii
List of Tables ...........................................................................................................................viii
Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background...................................................................................................................1
1.2 Organization of the Thesis............................................................................................3
1.3 Summary.......................................................................................................................4
Chapter 2 Literature Review.......................................................................................................5
2.1 Writing and Peer Response...........................................................................................5
2.1.1 Benefits and Drawbacks....................................................................................6
2.1.2 FTF Mode vs. CMC Mode.................................................................................9
2.2 Game-based Learning.................................................................................................10
2.3 Ability Differences .....................................................................................................13
2.4 Summary.....................................................................................................................15
Chapter 3 Methodology Design................................................................................................17
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................17
3.2 Preliminary Training...................................................................................................17
3.3 The Implementation of IPR and G-IPR......................................................................18
3.3.1 IPR...................................................................................................................18
3.3.2 G-IPR...............................................................................................................20
3.4 Participants.................................................................................................................26
3.5 Perception Questionnaire for Peer Response .............................................................26
3.6 Pre- and Post-Tests .....................................................................................................26
3.7 Experimental Procedures............................................................................................27
3.7.1 Pilot Study .......................................................................................................27
3.7.2 Main Study.......................................................................................................28
3.8 Performance Measurement.........................................................................................31
3.8.1 Writing Performance .......................................................................................31
3.8.2 Feedback Performance....................................................................................32
3.9 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................34
3.10 Summary...................................................................................................................35
Chapter 4 Result I: The Impacts on Writing Performance - NPR vs. IPR vs. G-IPR...............37
4.1 Macro View: NPR vs. IPR vs. G-IPR.........................................................................37
4.2 Micro View: High-Ability vs. Low-Ability................................................................41
4.3 Summary.....................................................................................................................45
Chapter 5 Result II: The Impacts on Feedback Performance & Perceptions - IPR vs. G-IPR.49
5.1 Feedback Performance ...............................................................................................50
5.1.1 Macro View: IPR vs. G-IPR.............................................................................50
5.1.2 Micro View: High-Ability vs. Low-Ability .......................................................52
5.2 Students’ Perceptions for Peer Response....................................................................54
5.2.1 Macro View......................................................................................................55
5.2.2 Micro View.......................................................................................................56
5.3 Summary.....................................................................................................................58
Chapter 6 Development of a Framework .................................................................................61
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................61
6.2 Summary of the Findings ...........................................................................................62
6.3 Generation of a Framework........................................................................................64
6.3.1 High-Ability vs. Low-Ability............................................................................64
6.3.2 Game Context vs. Non-Game Context.............................................................65
6.3.3 Implications for System Design .......................................................................66
6.4 Summary.....................................................................................................................68
Chapter 7 Conclusions..............................................................................................................69
7.1 Main Conclusions.......................................................................................................69
7.2 Contributions..............................................................................................................70
7.3 Limitations and Future Work......................................................................................71
References ................................................................................................................................73

參考文獻

Abramovich, S., Schunn, C., & Higashi, R. M. (2013). Are badges useful in education?: It depends upon the type of badge and expertise of learner. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 61, 217-232.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361-391.
Alloway, T. P., & Elsworth, M. (2012). An investigation of cognitive skills and behavior in high ability students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 891-895.
Anderson, J. L., & Barnett, M. (2013). Learning physics with digital game simulations in middle school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 914-926.
Ang, C., Zaphiris, P., & Mahmood, S. (2007). A model of cognitive loads in massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Interacting with Computers, 19, 167-179.
Artemeva, N., & Logie, S. (2002). Introducing engineering students to intellectual teamwork: The teaching and practice of peer feedback in the professional communication classroom.
Language and Learning across the Disciplines, 6(1), 62-85.
Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue
Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 54(2), 198-217.
Boscolo, P., & Ascorti, K. (2004). Effects of collaborative revision on children’s ability to write understandable narrative texts. In G. Rijlaarsdam, L. Allal, L. Chanqouy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. Studies in writing, (Vol. 13; pp. 157-170).
Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students′ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.
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.
Chang, K., Wu, L. Weng, S., & Sung, Y. (2012). Embedding game-based problem-solving phase into problem-posing system for mathematics learning. Computers & Education, 58(2), 775-786.
Chanquoy, L. (2001). How to make it easier for children to revise their writing: A study of text revision from 3rd to 5th grades. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 15-41.
Chen, Z. H. (2014). Learning preferences and motivation of different ability students for social competition or self-competition. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 283-293.
Chen, S. Y., & Huang, P. R. (2013). The comparisons of the influences of prior knowledge on two game-based learning systems. Computers & Education, 68, 177-186.
Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X. (2011). Mining students′ learning patterns and performance in Web-based instruction: A cognitive style approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(2),
179-192.
Chen, M., Wang, H., & Ko, H. W. (2009). Using latent semantic analysis to create a Chinese semantic space and the validation of psychological reality. Chinese Journal of Psychology,
51(4), 397-417.
Cheng, W., Lam, S., & Chan, C. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project‐based learning.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 205-221.
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A Web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409-426.
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260-294.
Ciftci, H., & Kocoglu, Z. (2012). Effects of peer e-feedback on Turkish EFL students′ writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 61-84.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(5), 678-707.
de Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in immersive worlds: A review of game-based learning. London: Joint Information Systems Committee.
de-Marcos, L., Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., & Pagés, C. (2014). An empirical study comparing gamification and social networking on e-learning. Computers & Education, 75,
82-91.
DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58(2), 119-149.
Domínguez, A., Saenz-De-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Evans, M. A. (2011). Mobility, games, and education. Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400-414.
Flaherty, J., & Choi, H.-S. C. (2013). Is writing important for graduate success? A preliminary investigation into the communication skills required of Hospitality and Tourism graduates. Teaching and Learning Innovations, 16.
Flynn, E. (1982). Effects of peer critiquing and model analysis on the quality of biology student laboratory reports. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English. Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 234 403).
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational
Research Journal, 34(1), 174-206.
Gedera, D. (2012). The dynamics of blog peer feedback in ESL classroom. Teaching English with Technology 12(4), 16-30.
Ghaith, G. M. (2001). Learners’ perceptions of their STAD cooperative experience. System, 29(2), 289–301.
Graham, S., Gillespie, A., & McKeown, D. (2013). Writing: Importance, development, and instruction. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 1-15.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445.
Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443-461.
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31-38.
Ho, M., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269-290.
Howell, D.C. (2007). Statistical methods for psychology (6th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, Wadsworth Publishing.
Hung, C. Y., Kuo, F. O., Sun, J. C. Y., & Yu, P. T. (2014). An interactive game approach for improving students′ learning performance in multi-touch game-based learning. IEEE
Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(1), 31-37.
Hung, H. C., Young, S. S. C., & Lin, C. P. (2013). No student left behind: A collaborative and competitive game-based learning environment to reduce the achievement gap of EFL
students in Taiwan. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 1-15.
Hwang, G. J., Yang, L. H., & Wang, S. Y. (2013). A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students′ learning performance in natural science courses. Computers & Education, 69, 121-130.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S.-Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307-317.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. MN: Interaction Book Company.
Kellogg, R. T. (1999). The psychology of writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kiili, K. (2005). Participatory multimedia learning: Engaging learners. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 303–322.
Ku, O., Chen, S. Y., Wu, D. H., Lao, A. C. C., & Chan, T. W. (2014). The effects of game-based learning on mathematical confidence and performance: High ability vs. low ability.
Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 65-78.
Lee, C. S., Goh, D. H.-L., Chua, A. Y. K., & Luyt, B. (2009). Choosing communication portfolios to accomplish tasks: The effects of individual differences. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1167-1176.
Leki, I. (1990a). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57-68). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1990b). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3(1), 5-19.
Liang, M. Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 45-64.
Liao, C. C. Y., Chen, Z. H., Cheng, H. N. H., Chen, F. C., & Chan, T. W. (2011). My-Mini-Pet: A handheld pet-nurturing game to engage students in arithmetic practices. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 76-89.
Lin, S. S., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web‐based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking‐styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420-432.
Liu, T. Y., & Chu, Y. L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 630-643.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1993). How useful is peer response. Perspectives, 5(1), 17-29.
MacCann, C., Fogarty, G. J., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2011). Coping mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 60-70.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284.
Maratou, V., Chatzidaki, E., & Xenos, M. (2014). Enhance learning on software project management through a role-play game in a virtual world. Interactive Learning Environments (in press).
Marsh, T. (2011). Serious games continuum: Between games for purpose and experiential environments for purpose. Entertainment Computing, 2(2), 61-68.
Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769.
Miller, L. M., Chang, C.-I., Wang, S., Beier, M. E., & Klisch, Y. (2011). Learning and motivational impacts of a multimedia science game. Computers & Education, 57, 1425–1433.
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118-141.
Nagin, C. (2006). Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Commission on Writing. (2003, April). The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution. Available www.collegeboard.com
National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work…or a ticket out. New York, NY: The College Entrance Examination Board.
Nelson, G. L. (1997). How cultural differences affect written and oral communication: The case of peer response groups. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1997(70), 77-84.
Nelson, B., & Erlandson, B. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multiuser virtual environments: Reflection on design practice. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 56, 619-641.
Nelson, M., & Schunn, C. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375-401.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
Peckham, I. (1996). If it ain′t broke, why fix it?: Disruptive and constructive computer-mediated response group practices. Computers and Composition, 13(3), 327-339.
Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002. (NCES 2003–529). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National
Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Phillipson, S. (2010). Modeling parental role in academic achievement: Comparing high-ability to low- and average-ability students. Talent Development and Excellence, 2(1), 83-103.
Pivec, M. (2007). Editorial: play and learn: potentials of game-based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 387–393.
Puranik, C., Al Otaiba, S., Sidler, J., & Greulich, L. (2014). Exploring the amount and type of writing instruction during language arts instruction in kindergarten classrooms. Reading
and Writing, 27(2), 213-236.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
Sabitzer, B. (2013). Games for learning: A neurodidactical approach to computer science. International Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Learning, 19(3), 45-55.
Salbani, A. M., Ruzzaman, M. S. K., & Umar, I. N. (2013). The effects of static and animated visuals on students’ achievement in applied art studies. Global Journal of Arts Education, 3(1).
Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2014). The role of dynamic spatial ability in geoscience text
comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 31, 33-45.
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14-31.
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305.
Sims, D. (2001). Improving elementary school students′ writing using reading and writing integration strategies. Illinois. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED454502).
Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 76-103.
Sung, H. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students′ learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education, 63, 43-51.
Thang, S., Hanneghan, M., & Rhalibi, A. E. (2009). Introduction to game-based learning. In T. Connoly (Eds), Game-based learning advancements for multi-sensory human computer interfaces: Techniques and effective practices (pp. 1-17), New York, NW: Information Science Reference.
Tiene, C. D. (2000). Online discussions: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 9(4), 371-384.
Trevino, A. & Redfield, C. (2009). Unpredicted educational uses of video games. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference 2009 (pp. 1582-1586). Chesapeake, VA: AACE
Tsai, M. H., Wen, M. C., Chang, Y. L., & Kang, S. C. (2014). Game-based education for disaster prevention. AI & Society (in press).
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235.
Tüzün, H., Yılmaz-Soylu, M., Karakuş, T., İnal, Y., & Kızılkaya, G. (2009). The effects of computer games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in geography
learning. Computers & Education, 52(1), 68-77.
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321-331.
Yang, Y. F. (2011). A reciprocal peer review system to support college students′ writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 687-700.
Yang, Y. T. C., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers &
Education, 68, 334-344.
Yang, J. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2010). Effects of gender differences and spatial abilities within a digital pentominoes game. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1220-1233.
Yang, J. C., Ko, H. W., & Chung, I. L. (2005). Web-based interactive writing environment: Development and evaluation. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 214-229.

指導教授

陳德懷(Tak-Wai Chan)

審核日期

2015-1-25

推文