以學習內容優先考量開發之一對一教室賓果遊戲

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：113

、訪客IP：3.139.81.58

姓名

張松濱(Sung-Pin Chang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊工程學系

論文名稱

以學習內容優先考量開發之一對一教室賓果遊戲
(Content-First Design Approach to Developing EduBingo for the One-to-One Classroom)

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)

在低價電腦的問世，資訊科技逐漸能夠被一般人負擔得起的情況下，一對一教室（意指一個教室環境下所有的學生都擁有一台具備無線連結且有計算功能的設備）逐漸展現其可行性，同時也將帶起進一步對教育的影響。同時，這也幫助數位科技促進學習的研究不再只是「夢想型研究」，進一步成為「採納型研究」，也就是探究在正規與非正規實際教學上所造成的影響。在這樣的前提下，思考要能成功的將數位科技促進學習設計真正的被採用在教室，不是強調科技的可行性或是理論與實驗研究，而是必須特別強調學習內容的設計。
在這個研究工作上，我們提出了一個以學習內容為優先考量的開發方式，而這裡的學習內容是指學習素材搭配預先設計好的教學活動。這個以學習內容為優先考量的開發方式，在一對一學習設計的過程中依序考量學習內容範例、學習評量目標、教學流程、老師的接受程度等四個項次，經過測試與實驗驗證後再回頭調整與修正各項次的內容，希望透過不斷的評量與修正，能讓學習內容範例成為一個成功的、被大家接受的範例。接著，再擴增此內容範例到不同的年級層級，以形成該科目的一個完整一對一學習課程，如此便更能被接受且真正的採納在實際教學上。本研究中，我們以算術運算做為一個學習內容範例來說明這個學習內容優先考量的開發方式，以流暢的運算（答題之高正確率以及高效率）做為學習評量目標。我們認為一對一教室環境下，透過遊戲式學習的方式來進行算術運算的練習，可以是一個有效且吸引學生投入的方式，而且賓果遊戲本身具備的特性也能夠幫助算術運算練習的實施，就利用該遊戲的概念來設計學習流程，並針對老師在教室內的角色開發輔助支援的功能。就算術練習來說，賓果遊戲必須從原先數字配對的遊戲模式，改變成算術答題的方式，例如老師提出問題2×7，學生就必須在遊戲畫面上正確地點選14，重複答題的動作直到正確的答案可以連線並達到”賓果”。
除了設計及開發學習內容外，我們也針對所開發出來的系統進行初步的實用測試，兩個測試分別探究學生與老師對於系統在教室內施行的觀點，以期獲得進一步修改的意見。第一個測試的結果顯示學生在學習表現上，在正確的答題上有較明顯的成長，同時學生們也表達很喜歡這樣的方式來做算術練習，也能維持高情意上的表現；第二個測試反應出老師認同系統對教學方面的協助，也提出一些能夠加強老師使用方面的設計方針。我們也針對測試的結果回頭來檢視這個以學習內容優先考量的開發方法，並有進一步的討論。最後，本研究提出可以進一步修改的建議，同時也提出可以接續本研究進行的其他方向。

摘要(英)

While the low-priced computers emerge, technology affordability will be not a problem, and one-to-one (1:1) classroom, classrooms with a wireless enabled computing device available for each student, will be achievable in the near future. The teaching and learning, therefore, will have a substantial change. However, technology affordability also gives rise to the adoption-based research, research that works towards the adoption of technology enhanced learning in real world educational settings, both formal and informal. To have a successful adoption of technologies in classrooms, technology enhanced learning design, we argue, should not concentrate on the feasibility of innovative technologies in education and the theories and experiments, but stress more on the content design, grounded in theories.
Here the content refers to pre-designed activities associated with materials, that is, content = material + pre-designed activity. In this study, we propose the content-first design approach to creating content sample in the one-to-one classroom. The approach should take into account four concerns—content sample identification, learning assessment goal, learning flow, and teacher adoption—in sequence and have repeated procedure of assessment and revision to get a compelling content sample for real practice adoption. And then, the content sample could be expanded to different grade levels and be completed as a whole 1:1 curriculum of a certain subject. To demonstrate this design approach, we identified arithmetic calculations (fractions, multiplications, divisions, etc.) in elementary schools as the subject domain to describe how this design framework works by illustrating how EduBingo, a Bingo game in 1:1 classrooms, was taken as the learning flow to achieve the assessment goal of fluency, which limited to accuracy and efficiency. In the EduBingo game session, the caller, who is usually a teacher, calls out a problem (e.g., 2 times 7) and the students must mark the answer (14) on their computers. We believe that the game-based learning design in 1:1 classrooms is beneficial for arithmetic calculations, and such design can engage the students in the learning tasks.
Two trial tests were described, one focusing on the students while the other on the teacher. The first test indicated that the students made progress on arithmetic fluency from one session to another and that the game promoted positive affect; the second illustrated how a teacher felt the game fit into her classroom practices. This paper emphasized those considerations that were most vital to the content-first design approach proposed herein. Finally, some suggestions of further revisions were provided, and some directions were proposed to continue this study for the future works.

關鍵字(中)

★ 運算流暢
★ 賓果遊戲
★ 以採納為本的研究
★ 學習內容優先考量開發方法
★ 科技增強學習
★ 一對一教室

關鍵字(英)

★ Procedural fluency
★ Adoption-based research
★ Content-first design approach
★ Technology enhanced learning
★ One-to-one classroom
★ Bingo game

論文目次

中文摘要 .................................................................................................................................... i
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iii
誌謝 ........................................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... x
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... xii
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 One-to-one technology enhanced learning ..................................................................... 2
1.2 Perspectives on technology enhanced learning .............................................................. 3
1.3 Motivation on adoption of technology enhanced learning ............................................. 5
1.4 Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Structure of this study ..................................................................................................... 7
2. Rationales for Emphasizing the Content Design ....................................................... 9
2.1 Analysis of the technology enhanced learning communities ......................................... 9
2.2 Crossing the chasm to adoption-based research ........................................................... 12
2.3 Content design as the first priority ................................................................................ 13
3. Content-First Design Approach ................................................................................ 16
3.1 Content definition ......................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Four concerns ................................................................................................................ 17
3.2.1 First concern: Content sample identification ................................................... 17
3.2.2 Second concern: Learning assessment goal ..................................................... 19
3.2.3 Third concern: Learning flow ........................................................................... 20
3.2.4 Fourth concern: Teacher adoption ................................................................... 24
3.3 Framework .................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Material adapter ............................................................................................... 26
3.3.2 Activities containers ......................................................................................... 27
3.3.3 One-to-one classroom platform ........................................................................ 28
4. Designing Bingo Game for Arithmetic Fluency ....................................................... 30
4.1 Content sample: arithmetic calculations ....................................................................... 30
4.1.1 Identifying fluency as the learning assessment goal ........................................ 30
4.1.2 Game-based learning for the content sample ................................................... 31
4.2 Rationales of adopting Bingo game .............................................................................. 33
4.3 One-to-one technology enhanced Bingo game ............................................................. 35
4.4 Bingo game for the content sample .............................................................................. 36
4.4.1 Design for content sample identification .......................................................... 36
4.4.2 Design for learning assessment goal ................................................................ 37
4.4.3 Design for learning flow ................................................................................... 38
4.4.4 Design for teacher adoption ............................................................................. 39
5. Implementation of EduBingo .................................................................................... 40
5.1 Game rule and activity flow ......................................................................................... 41
5.2 Abstract game rules ...................................................................................................... 43
5.3 Game interface for students .......................................................................................... 45
5.4 Coordinating center for teachers ................................................................................... 47
5.4.1 Problem composing center ............................................................................... 47
5.4.2 Real-time monitoring center ............................................................................. 51
5.4.3 Activity review center ....................................................................................... 53
5.5 System architecture ....................................................................................................... 53
6. Trial Tests .................................................................................................................... 56
6.1 Trial test 1: Student’s fluency in fraction ...................................................................... 56
6.1.1 Settings ............................................................................................................. 57
6.1.2 Accuracy and response times ............................................................................ 58
6.1.3 Students’ affect .................................................................................................. 63
6.2 Trial test 2: Teacher adoption........................................................................................ 65
6.2.1 Settings ............................................................................................................. 66
6.2.2 Results ............................................................................................................... 67
7. Discussions ................................................................................................................... 73
7.1 Usability of EduBingo .................................................................................................. 73
7.2 Fulfillment of the content-first design approach .......................................................... 74
7.2.1 Content sample identification ........................................................................... 75
7.2.2 Learning assessment goal ................................................................................. 76
7.2.3 Learning flow .................................................................................................... 77
7.2.4 Teacher adoption .............................................................................................. 78
7.3 Comparing to the ADDIE model .................................................................................. 79
8. Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................. 80
8.1 Summary of the study ................................................................................................... 80
8.2 Future directions ........................................................................................................... 82
References ............................................................................................................................... 85
Appendix A. Bingo History and Game Rules ....................................................................... 95
Appendix B. Peer Instruction (PI) ........................................................................................ 99

參考文獻

Abowd, G. D. (1999). Classroom 2000: an experiment with the instrumentation of a living educational environment. IBM Systems Journal, 38(4), 508-530.
Anderson, R. J., Anderson, R., VanDegrift, T., Wolfman, S. A., & Yasuhara, K. (2003). Promoting interaction in large classes with computer-mediated feedback. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2003 (CSCL 2003), B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen and U. Hoppe (Eds.), Bergen, Norway, 119-123.
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
Breen, M. P. (1986). The social context for language learning. A neglected situation? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 135-158.
Chan, T. W. (2007). Keynote speech. The 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Los Angeles.
Chan, T. W. & Baskin, A. B. (1988). “Studying with the prince" the computer as a learning companion. In Proceedings of 1988 international conference on intelligent tutoring system (pp. 194-200), Montreal, Canada.
Chan, T. W. & Baskin, A. B. (1990). Learning Companion Systems. In C. Frasson and G. Gauthier (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 6-33). New Jersey: Ablex.
Chan, T. W., Chen, F. C., & Chou, C. Y. (2006). Profile Enhanced Classroom Learning. In Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Workshop on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education, Greece, 3-6.
Chan, T. W., Roschelle, J., His, S., Kinshuk, Sharples, M., Brown, T., Patton, C., Cherniavsky, J., Pea, R., Norris, C., Soloway, E., Balacheff, N., Scardamalia, M., Dillenbourg, P., Looi, C. K., Milrad, M., Hoppe, U., & G1:1 Members (2006). One-to-one technology enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 3-29.
Clements, D. H. & Nastasi, B. K. (1993). Electronic Media and Early Childhood Education. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children, pp. 251-275. New York: Macmillan.
Cortez, C., Nussbaum, M., Santelices, R., Rodriguez, P., Zurita, G., Correa, M., & Cautivo, R. (2004) Teaching science with mobile computer supported collaborative learning (MCSCL). In Roschelle, J., Chan, T. W., Kinshuk, & Yang, S. J. H. (Eds.) the 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE2004), Taiwan, 67-74.
Cottrell, R. (2007). The Economist debates archive: Technology in Education, retrieved June 15, 2008 from http://www.economist.com/debate/index.cfm?action=summary&debate_id=1.
Crouch, C. H. & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970–977.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Dede, C. (1989). The evolution of distant learning: Technology-mediated interactive learning, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Delind, L. B. (1984). Bingo: Some Whys and Wherefores of a Popular Postime. Journal of Popular Culture, 18(2), 149-156.
Deng, Y. C., Chang, S. B., Chang, B., & Chan, T. W. (2005). DCE: A One-on-One Digital Classroom Environment. In Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED2005) (pp. 786-789), Amsterdam.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J.O. (2001). The Systematic Design of Instruction. HarperCollins, New York.
diSessa, A. (1999). Changing Minds: Computers, Learning and Literacy. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3-47.
Fagen, A. P., Yang, T. K., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2000). Factors That Make Peer Instruction Work: A 700-User Survey. Presented at AAPT Winter Meeting, Kissimmee, FL.
Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(4), 206-207.
Gagne, R.M. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Gagne, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1992) Principles of Instructional Design. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas.
Gay, G., Stefanone, M., Grace-Martin, M., & Hembrooke, H. (2001). The effects of wireless computing in collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13(2), 257-276.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What Video Games have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goldman, P. & Kaufman, B. (2001). How to push an elephant through a straw: Using wireless technology in a web-enhanced skills program. International Review of Law Computers and Technology, 15(3), 281–299.
Guribye, F., Andreassen, E. F., & Wasson, B. (2003). The organisation of interaction in distributed collaborative learning. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 385-394). Boston: Kluwer.
Haberman, M. (1995). Star teachers of children in poverty. West Lafayette, Ind.: Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education.
Halverson, R. & Collins, A. (2006). Information technologies and the future of schooling in the united states. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 145-156.
Hofer, M. & Swan, K. O. (2005). Digital moviemaking—the harmonization of technology, pedagogy and content. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 102-110.
Huang, C. W., Liang, J. K., & Wang, H. Y. (2001). EduClick: A computer-supported formative evaluation system with wireless devices in ordinary classroom. In proceedings of International Conference of Computers in Education (ICCE), C. H. Lee (Ed), Seoul, Korea, 1462-1469.
Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2002). The trouble with learning outcomes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(3), 220-233.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Klawe, M. M. (1998). Designing game-based interactive multimedia mathematics learning activities. Proceedings of the 4th UCSMP International Conference on Math and Education. Retrieved June 10, 2002, from: http://taz.cs.ubc.ca/egems/reports.html
Koper, R. (2006). Current Research in learning Design. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 13-22.
Koper, R. & Tattersall, C. (2005). Learning Design: A handbook on modeling and delivering networked education and training. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Kraus, W. H. (1981). Using a Computer Game to Reinforce Skills in Addition Basic Facts in Second Grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 152-155.
Latham, G. (1988). The birth and death cycles of educational innovations. Principal, 68(1), 41-43.
Liang, J. K., Liu, T. C., Wang, H. Y., Chang, B., Deng, Y. C., Yang, J. C., Chou, C. Y., Ko, H. W., Yang, S., & Chan, T. W. (2005). A few design perspectives on one-on-one digital classroom environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 181-189.
Liu, T. C., Liang, J. K., Wang, H. Y., & Chan, T. W. (2003a). The features and potential of interactive response system. In K. T. Lee & K. Mitchell (Eds.) International Conference on Computers in Education 2003 (ICCE2003): The “Second Wave” of ICE in Education (pp. 315-322), Hong Kong.
Liu, T. C., Liang, J. K., Wang, H. Y., Chan, T. W., & Wei, L. H. (2003b). Embedding Educlick in classroom to enhance interaction. In K. T. Lee & K. Mitchell (Eds.) International Conference on Computers in Education 2003 (ICCE2003): The “Second Wave” of ICE in Education (pp. 117-125), Hong Kong.
Liu, T. C., Wang, H.Y., Liang, J. K., Chan, T.W., Ko, H. W., & Yang, J. C. (2003c). Wireless and mobile technologies to enhance teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 371-382.
London Mathematical Society, Institute of Mathematics and its Applications and Royal Statistical Society (1995). Tackling the Mathematics Problem, London: The London Mathematical Society.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: a User’s Manual, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
McLeod, D. (1992). Research on affect in Mathematics Education: a reconceptualization. In Douglas. A. Grows (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company.
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
MIT (2005). Annan to present prototype $100 laptop at World Summit on Information Society. MIT Tech Talk. 50(9), 4.
Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34-36.
Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Morganett, L. (1991). Good teacher-student relationships: A key element in classroom motivation and management. Education, 112(21), 260-264.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, and B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Norris, C. & Soloway, E. (2002). Keynote speech. The First IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, Sweden.
Norris, C. & Soloway, E. (2004). Keynote speech. The Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Brazil.
Novak, G. M., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian W. (1999). Just-In-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology. Upper Saddle Reiver, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nunan, D. (1989). Toward a collaborative approach to curriculum development: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 9-25.
Nussbaum, M. (2004). The Mobile Computer Supported Collaborative Learning – Transforming the Classroom Experience, Keynote speech. The Second IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, WMTE2004, Taiwan.
Paley, A. R. (2007). Software's Benefits On Tests In Doubt - Study Says Tools Don't Raise Scores, retrieved November 14, 2007, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402715.html.
Papert, S. (1994). The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books.
Parsley, K. (2003). Classroom teacher's role in preventing school failure, retrieved April 9, 2008 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4009/is_200301/ai_n9179139.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pigford,T. (2001). Improving teacher-student relationships: What's up with that? Clearing House, 74, 337-339.
Prensky, M. (2000). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw Hill.
Pyle, C. R. & Dziuban, C. D. (2001). Technology: Servant or Master of the Online Teacher? Library Trends, 50(1), 130-144.
Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of the research. Simulation and Gaming, 25, 261-276.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Roschelle, J. (2003). Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260-272.
Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 50-54.
Rosenberg, J., Lorenzo, M., & Mazur, E. (2006). Peer Instruction: Making Science Engaging. In Mintzes, J. J. & Leonard, W. H. (Eds.), Handbook of College Science Teaching (pp. 77-85). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Sabelli, N. & Dede, C. (2001). Integrating educational research and practice: Reconceptualizing goals and policies: “How to make what works, work for us?”, retrieved April 9, 2008 from http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/ss_research/cdpapers/policy.pdf
Sedighian, K. (1997). Challenge-driven learning: A model for children's multimedia mathematics learning environments. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 97: World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. Retrieved June 10, 2002, from: http://taz.cs.ubc.ca/egems/reports.html
Self, J. A. (1974). Student models in computer-aided instruction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 6, 261-276.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Snowden, R. (1986). Gambling Times Guide to Bingo, Gambling Times.
Weiser, M. (1998). The future of ubiquitous computing on campus. Communications of the ACM, 41(1), 42–43.
Zurita, G. & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers. Computers & Education, 42, 289-314.

指導教授

陳德懷(Tak-Wai Chan)

審核日期

2008-7-22

推文