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：32

、訪客IP：3.139.69.55

姓名	真鍋均之介(Kinnosuke Manabe)  查詢紙本館藏	畢業系所	網路學習科技研究所
論文名稱	(The Effect of Collaborative Kinesthetic Mechanisms to Enhance English Learning of Vocational High School Students in Taiwan)
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)	以學生為中心的教學法已於各種教學情境中加以實施，新興科技的發展則為現今人類社會與教學方法增添變化。許多研究者運用最新科技提出學習者協作的想法，以提升學習成果。事實上，過去有非常多研究比較運用科技與不使用科技在學習上的差異。在第二外語習得與學習領域，過去研究已融入諸如虛擬實境、擴增實境、翻轉教學等創新教學方式。James Asher於1966年提出的肢體反應教學法（Total Physical Response, TPR）則為一經典且值得一試的教學法，此認知語言教學/學習法涉及學習者的肢體動作，簡言之，學習者透過肢體動作以強化知識吸收。然而，若沒有扎實的理論基礎，一切將流於空談。因此，本研究結合Richard Mayer於2005年提出的多媒體學習認知理論（Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning, CTML），並以Microsoft Kinect作為動作感應辨識裝置。 本研究整合上述概念與工具，包含合作學習、TPR、CTML、與Microsoft Kinect，以促進臺灣高職學生英語學習。遵循上述概念的原則，研究者開發實用且簡單好用的學習系統，並於中壢區一所高職進行三項體感式英語學習實驗。在第一個實驗（E1）中，研究者開發合作式體感英語學習系統（collaborative kinesthetic English learning, CKEL-R），第二個實驗則使用更新後的系統（CKEL-T），最後，第三個實驗則使用合作式體感猜測遊戲（collaborative kinesthetic guessing game, CKGG）。實驗結果令人非常滿意，在E1中，TPR的應用有助於單字學習，具體而言，方向介系詞（directional preposition, DP）在學習中扮演重要角色。在E2中，CKEL-T在單字理解、造句、與手勢記憶等方面發揮重要作用，顯示合作式TPR有助於體感式英語學習。最後，在E3中，CKGG有助於英語單字與片語學習，而且在第二階段讓學習者使用自己設計的學習教材被視為有意義的學習活動，在互動式學習環境中使用此類教材大大提升學習者參與度以及學習動機。整體而言，三個實驗的結果顯示合作式體感英語學習在英語學習上扮演重要角色。研究者相信本研究設計與結果有助於第二語言學習領域探究。
摘要(英)	A variety of student-centered pedagogies have been considered and implemented in a wide range of educational contexts. Development of emerging technology has brought dizzying changes to today’s human society as well as teaching methods / learning instructions. Many researchers took advantage of cutting-edge technology and came up with an idea of learner collaboration that maximizes learner outputs. In fact, a tremendous number of past studies has compared one group learned with technological support in a collaborative manner and another group learned without technological support in an individual manner. In the field of second language (L2) learning and acquisition, innovative ideas and approach, such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), flip teaching / flipped classroom have been introduced to the field. As one of the approaches, there is a classic but worth-trying language learning method advocated by James Asher in 1966, which is widely acknowledged as total physical response (TPR). As its name suggests, this is a cognitive language teaching / learning approach that refers to physical movements of learners. In short, it can be expected that learners absorb knowledge by moving their bodies and pronouncing words. However, without a firm theoretical background, it is nothing. Therefore, the researcher came to consider combing cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) that was first proposed by an American psychologist, Richard Mayer in 2005. Moreover, Microsoft Kinect was employed as a motion-sensing recognition device. In this research, the researcher combined aforementioned concepts and tool: (1) collaborative learning, (2) TPR, (3) CTML, and (4) Microsoft Kinect to facilitate English learning of Taiwanese vocational high school students. Following principles of those concepts, the researcher developed learning systems with useful and user-friendly functions. This research consists of the three experimental studies on kinesthetic English learning conducted at the same high school in Zhongli, Taiwan. The three proposed systems were designed according to the purpose(s) of the experiments. In the first experiment (E1), the researcher developed a system, collaborative kinesthetic English learning (CKEL-R), in the second experiment (E2), an updated version of CKEL-R, collaborative kinesthetic English learning (CKEL-T) was developed, and finally, collaborative kinesthetic guessing games (CKGG) was newly developed in the third experiment (E3). The experimental results of those were more than satisfying. To briefly summarize important findings of each study: in E1, it can be understood that the application of TPR to language learning is certainly effective to enhance their vocabulary learning. More specifically, among many kinds of speeches (verbs, nouns, adjectives, and etc), it was revealed that directional prepositions (DPs) played a significant role in learning. In E2, what can be learnt from the experimental result is that CKEL-T played an important role in vocabulary understanding, sentence making, and gesture memorization. This study proved that collaborative TPR has potential to support kinesthetic English learning. To be more specific, learner game scores and speaking accuracy. Finally, in E3, the guessing games with kinesthetic system introduced to this study facilitated English vocabulary / phrase learning in efficiently. Moreover, learner-centered pedagogy, that allowed learners to use their own-designed learning materials implemented in Stage 2 (one of the two provided learning stages) was considered a meaningful learning instruction. Using and taking advantage of such materials in a stimulus and interactive learning environment certainly enhance learner participation and motivation. Overall, the statistical results of each experimental study revealed that collaborative kinesthetic English learning played a significant role in English learning of participants. The researcher is confident that this research that casts a stone to the field of L2 learning.
關鍵字(中)	★ 多媒體認知理論 ★ 合作式學習 ★ EFL學習 ★ 體感學習 ★ Microsoft Kinect ★ 全肢體反應教學法	關鍵字(英)	★ Cognitive theory of multimedia learning ★ Collaborative learning ★ EFL learning ★ Kinesthetic learning ★ Microsoft Kinect ★ Total Physical Response
論文目次	CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study 1 1.2 Purpose of the study 2 1.3 Research rationale 3 1.4 Theoretical Framework 4 1.4.1 Cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) 4 1.4.2 Cognitive science and embodiment theory 8 CHAPTER TWO. REVIEW OF THE LITERTURE 2.1 Learning style 10 2.1.1 Perceptual learning style preference questionnaire (PLSPQ) 10 2.1.2 The VARK model 10 2.2 Embodied learning 11 2.3 Embodied cognition and education 12 2.4 Cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) 13 2.5 Total physical response (TPR) 15 2.6 Kinesthetic language learning strategies 16 2.7 Effectiveness of gestures and pedagogical agents 17 CHAPTER THREE. METHODOLOGY 3.1 The first experiment (E1) 20 3.1.1 Research questions 20 3.1.2 Participants of the study 20 3.1.3 Research tools and instruments 20 3.1.4 Experimental procedure 21 3.1.5 Learning activities 23 3.1.6 Research variables 28 3.2 The second experiment (E2) 29 3.2.1 Research questions 29 3.2.2 Participants of the study 30 3.2.3 Research tools and instruments 30 3.2.4 Experimental procedure 32 3.2.5 Learning activities 34 3.2.6 Research variables 37 3.3 The third experiment (E3) 39 3.3.1 Research question 39 3.3.2 Participants of the study 40 3.3.3 Research tools and instruments 40 3.3.4 Experimental procedure 41 3.3.5 Learning activity design 43 3.3.6 Research variables 47 CHAPTER FOUR. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 The experimental results of E1 50 4.1.1 Learning achievement analysis 50 4.1.2 Vocabulary analysis 51 4.1.3 Relationship of post-test and system usage 52 4.1.4 Learning achievement prediction 53 4.1.5 Summary of the experimental results and research questions 54 4.2 The experimental results of E2 54 4.2.1 Learning achievement analysis 54 4.2.2 Game performance and speaking accuracy comparison of each activity between the groups 57 4.2.3 Relationship of learning behavior and activity performance with learning achievement 59 4.2.4 Vocabulary type analysis 62 4.2.5 Learner perception towards the proposed system and learning activities 63 4.2.6 Summary of the experimental results and research questions 68 4.3 The experimental results of E3 69 4.3.1 Learning achievement analysis 69 4.3.2 Guessing game score between the groups 70 4.3.3 Stage effect and guessing game score between the groups 72 4.3.4 Relationship between learning behavior and learning achievement 74 4.3.5 Dependent variable and learning achievement prediction 76 4.3.6 Learner perception towards the proposed system and learning activities 76 4.3.7 Summary of the experimental results and research questions 82 CHAPTER FIVE. CONCLUSION, FINAL THOUGHTS AND FUTURE STUDIES 5.1 Conclusion of E1 83 5.2 Conclusion of E2 83 5.3 Conclusion of E3 85 5.4 Final thoughts and future studies 86 REFERENCES Reference list 87 APPENDICES Appendix A. Vocabulary used in kinesthetic English learning of E1 (motion mimic) 99 Appendix B. Vocabulary used in kinesthetic English learning of E1 (object recognition) 99 Appendix C. Vocabulary used in kinesthetic English learning of E2 (motion mimic) 100 Appendix D. Vocabulary used in kinesthetic English learning of E2 (object recognition) 101 Appendix E. Vocabulary used in kinesthetic English learning of E3 (Stage 1) 101 Appendix F. The five-point evaluation rubric 102 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. VARK modalities 11 Table 2. Recent studies on gestures (Schneider et al., 2022) 18 [E1] Table 3. Pre-test and post-test result analysis 50 Table 4. Correlation analysis between the number of correct answers and post-test results 51 Table 5. Independent sample t-test for different types of vocabulary 52 Table 6. Correlation analysis between post-test and system usage 52 Table 7. Stepwise regression analysis to predict post-test results 53 [E2] Table 8. Pre-test and post-test result analysis 55 Table 9. Comparison of scores of post-test sections between the groups 57 Table 10. Game performance and speaking accuracy comparison of each activity between the groups 58 Table 11. Performance comparison of each activity between the groups 59 Table 12. Correlation analysis of learning behavior and learning achievement 60 Table 13. Correlation analysis of activity performance and learning achievement 61 Table 14. The statistic result of vocabulary use and types 62 Table 15. Technology acceptance model (TAM) 63 Table 16. Motivational questionnaire (ARCS) 67 [E3] Table 17. Pre-test and post-test result analysis 69 Table 18. Oral-test section analysis 70 Table 19. Guessing game performance and game category 71 Table 20. Guessing game performance and game category in each stage 72 Table 21. Comparison of game performance in each game 73 Table 22. Correlation analysis of learning behavior and learning achievement 75 Table 23. Dependent variable and learning achievement prediction 76 Table 24. Technology acceptance model (TAM) 77 Table 25. Motivational questionnaire (ARCS) 79 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The original model of CTML 5 Figure 2. The extended model of CTML (E1) 5 Figure 3. The extended model of CTML (E2) 6 Figure 4. The extended individual model of CTML 6 Figure 5. The extended collaborative model of CTML 8 Figure 6. System diagram of CKEL-R (E1) 21 Figure 7. Experimental procedure of E1 23 Figure 8. Learner screen of peers vocabulary learning (1/3) 24 Figure 9. Learner screen of peers vocabulary learning (2/3) 24 Figure 10. Learner screen of peers vocabulary learning (3/3) 24 Figure 11. Provided learner screen of peers vocabulary practice (1/2) 25 Figure 12. Provided learner screen of peers vocabulary practice (2/2) 25 Figure 13. Learner screen of peers vocabulary game (1/3) 26 Figure 14. Learner screen of peers vocabulary game (2/3) 26 Figure 15. Learner screen of peers vocabulary game (3/3) 27 Figure 16. Learner screen of peers sentence game (1/3) 27 Figure 17. Learner screen of peers sentence game (2/3) 28 Figure 18. Learner screen of peers sentence game (3/3) 28 Figure 19. Research variables of E1 29 Figure 20. System diagram of CKEL-T (E2) 31 Figure 21. Experimental procedure of E2 34 Figure 22. Object recognition screen 36 Figure 23. Emotion recognition screen 36 Figure 24. Speech recognition screen 37 Figure 25. Research variables of E2 39 Figure 26. System diagram of CKGG (E3) 40 Figure 27. Experimental procedure of E3 43 Figure 28. Player screen 44 Figure 29. Helper screen 45 Figure 30. Player roles and types of hints 46 Figure 31. Vocabulary / Phrase / Sentence activity 47 Figure 32. Research variables of E3 49
參考文獻	Abrahamson, D. (2014). Building educational activities for understanding: An elaboration on the embodied-design framework and its epistemic grounds. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(1), 1–16. Abrahamson, D., & Bakker, A. (2016). Making sense of movement in embodied design for mathematics learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1(33), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235- 016-0034-3. Alemdag, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2018). A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 125, 413-428. Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 247–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.611446 Alibali, M. W., Nathan, M. J., Wolfgram, M. S., Church, R. B., Jacobs, S. A., Johnson Martinez, C., et al. (2014). How teachers link ideas in mathematics instruction using speech and gesture: A corpus analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 32(1), 65–100. Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied Cognition: A Field Guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149(1): 91–130. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702 (03)00054-7. Asher, J. J. (1968). The total physical response method for second language learning. San Jose State College, department of psychology. Asher, J. J. (1969). The total physical response to second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 53(1), 3-17. Asher, J. J. (1977). Children learning another language: A developmental hypothesis. Child Development, 1040-1048. Asher, J. J. (1979). Motivating Children and Adults to Acquire a Second Language. Speaq Journal, 3, 87-99. Ayala, N. A. R., Mendívil, E. G., Salinas. P., & Rios, H. (2013). Kinesthetic Learning Applied to Mathematics Using Kinect. Procedia Computer Science, 25: 131–135. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.016. Baddeley, A. (1998). Recent developments in working memory. Current opinion in neurobiology, 8(2), 234-238. Bahtiar, Y. (2017). Using the total physical response to improve students’ vocabulary mastery. SELL Journal: Scope of English Language Teaching, Linguistics, and Literature, 2(1), 9-23. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review Psychology, 59, 617–645. doi:10.1146/annurev. psych.59.103006.093639 Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 716–724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010. 01115.x Beege, M., Ninaus, M., Schneider, S., Nebel, S., Schlemmel, J., Weidenmüller, J., Moeller, K., & Rey, G. D. (2020). Investigating the effects of beat and deictic gestures of a lecturer in educational videos. Computers & Education, 156, 103955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103955 Cantoni, G. (1999). Using TPR-Storytelling to develop fluency and literacy in Native American languages. In Reyhner, Jon (ed.), Revitalizing Indigenous Languages, 53-58. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. Chandler, P., & Tricot, A. (2015). Mind your body: the essential role of body movements in children′s learning. Educatioal Psychology Reveiw 27(3), 365–370. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9333-3 Chao, K. J., Huang, H. W., Fang, W. C., & Chen, N. S. (2013). Embodied play to learn: Exploring K inect‐facilitated memory performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 151-155. Chettaoui, N., Atia, A., & Bouhlel, M. S. (2021). Exploring the Impact of Interaction Modality on Students’ Learning Performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 07356331211027297. Chomsky, N. (1959). On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and control, 2(2), 137-167. Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition, 106(2), 1047–1058. Culp, B., Oberlton, M., & Porter, K. (2020). Developing Kinesthetic Classrooms to Promote Active Learning. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 91(6), 10-15. Dargue, N., Sweller, N., & Jones, M. P. (2019). When our hands help us understand: A meta-analysis into the effects of gesture on comprehension. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 765–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000202 Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. Davis, R. O. (2018). The impact of pedagogical agent gesturing in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 24, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.05.002 De Nooijer, J. A., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Zwann, R. A. (2013). Effects of imitating gestures during encoding or during retrieval of novel verbs on children’s test performance. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 173–179 Duijzer, C., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Veldhuis, M., Doorman, M., & Leseman, P. (2019). Embodied learning environments for graphing motion: A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 597-629. Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management science, 47(1), 117-132. Fugate, J. M., Macrine, S. L., & Cipriano, C. (2019). The role of embodied cognition for transforming learning. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 7(4), 274-288. Gelsomini, M., Leonardi, G., & Garzotto, F. (2020, April). Embodied learning in immersive smart spaces. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-14). Gibbs, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Glenberg, A. M. (2008). Embodiment for education. In Handbook of cognitive science (pp. 355-372). Elsevier. Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a Unifying Perspective for Psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(4): 586–596. Golonka, S., & Wilson, A. D. (2012). Gibson’s ecological approach. Avant: Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies, 3(2), 40–53. Hostetter, A. B., Bieda, K., Alibali, M. W., Nathan, M. J., & Knuth, E. J. (2006). Don’t just tell them, show them! Teachers can intentionally alter their instructional gestures. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1523-1528). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hounhanou, A. J. V. (2020). Promoting TPR (Total Physical Response) Method in Teaching Vocabulary for EFL Beginners in Secondary Schools. International Journal of Applied Lingusitics and English Literature, 9(6), 23-31. Hsu, H. M. J. (2011). The potential of kinect in education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 1(5), 365. Hsu, L. (2016). An empirical examination of EFL learners′ perceptual learning styles and acceptance of ASR-based computer-assisted pronunciation training. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 881-900. Hung, I. C., & Chen, N. S. (2018). Embodied interactive video lectures for improving learning comprehension and retention. Computers & Education, 117, 116-131. Hwang, W. Y., Manabe, K., Cai, D. J., & Ma, Z. H. (2020). Collaborative kinesthetic English learning with recognition technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(5), 946–977. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119893117 Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D. A., Tolentino, L., & Koziupa, T. (2014). Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments: Two science studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034008. Hostetter, A. B. (2011). When do gestures communicate? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022128 Kuczala, M., & Lengel, T. (2018). Ready, set, go!: The kinesthetic classroom 2.0. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Kosmas, P., & Zaphiris, P. (2020). Words in action: investigating students’ language acquisition and emotional performance through embodied learning. Innovation in language learning and teaching, 14(4), 317-332. Kuo, F. R., Hsu, C. C., Fang, W. C., & Chen, N. S. (2014). The effects of Embodiment-based TPR approach on student English vocabulary learning achievement, retention and acceptance. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 26(1), 63-70. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Review of Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Computational Linguistics, 25(4), 631-634. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University. Leasa, M., & Corebima, A. D. (2017). Emotional Intelligence among Auditory, Reading, and Kinesthetic Learning Styles of Elementary School Students in Ambon-Indonesia. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(1), 83-91. Lee, C., Yeung, A. S., & Ip, T. (2016). Use of computer technology for English language learning: do learning styles, gender, and age matter?. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 1035-1051. Leitan, N. D., & Chaffey, L. (2014). Embodied cognition and its applications: A brief review. Sensoria: A Journal of Mind, Brain & Culture, 10(1), 3–10. doi:10.7790/sa.v10i1.384 Lengel, T., & Kuczala, M. (2010). The kinesthetic classroom: Teaching and learning through movement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Leung, A. K. Y., Qiu, L., Ong, L., & Tam, K. P. (2011). Embodied cultural cognition: Situating the study of embodied cognition in socio‐cultural contexts. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(9), 591-608. Levy, E. T., & McNeill, D. (1992). Speech, gesture, and discourse. Discourse processes, 15(3), 277-301. Liew, T. W., Pang, W. M., Leow, M. C., & Tan, S. M. (2022). Anthropomophizing malware, bots, and servers with human-like images and dialogues: the emotional design effects in a multimedia learning environment. Smart Learning Environments, 9(1), 1-27. Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 445–452. Liu, X. (2021). A Study of English Phonetic Teaching Strategies From the Perspective of Embodied Cognition. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 11(5), 556-560. Macedonia, M. (2019) Embodied Learning: Why at school the mind needs the body. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(2098), 1-8. Macedonia, M., & von Kriegstein, K. (2012). Gestures enhance foreign language learning. Biolinguistics, 6(3), 393–416. Malinverni, L., & Pares, N. (2014). Learning of abstract concepts through full-body interaction: A systematic review. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 100–116. Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology: Vol. 1, Learning in the content areas. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(02)80005-6 Mayer, R. E. (Eds.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819 Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American psychologist, 63(8), 760-769. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the science of learning to medical education. Medical education, 44(6), 543-549. Mayer, R. E. (2014a). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 171-173. Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028616 Melcer, E. F., & Isbister, K. (2016). Bridging the physical divide: A design framework for embodied learning games and simulations. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference (pp. 2225–2233). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892455. Milne, A. (2016, August 21). The kinesthetic movement [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://slowchathealth.com/2016/08/21/the-kinestheticmovement/ Montessori, M. (1988). The absorbent mind. Oxford, UK: Clio Press. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2 Naeini, N. N., & Shahrokhi, M. (2016). Relationship between gender and vocabulary teaching methodology among Iranian EFL children: A comparison of TPR and direct method. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(1), 60-74. Nathan, M. J. (2008). An embodied cognition perspective on symbols, gesture, and grounding instruction. Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition, 18, 375-396. Nguyen, D. J., & Larson, J. B. (2015). Don’t forget about the body: Exploring the curricular possibilities of embodied pedagogy. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9319-6. Norman, D. A. (1980). Twelve issues for cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 1–32. Nugrahaningsih, N., 2007. The use of TPR method in English preposition teaching. Semarang State University, Semarang Othman, N., & Amiruddin, M. H. (2010). The readiness of the Orang Asli youths in venturing into entrepreneurship. In 9th WSEAS International Conference on Education And Educational Technology (EDU ‘10). Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Radford, L., Bardini, C., Sabena, C., Diallo, P., & Simbagoye, A. (2005). On embodiment, artifacts, and signs: A semiotic-cultural perspective on mathematical thinking. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 113–120). Melbourne: PME. Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 87-98. Reed, S. K. (2018). Combining physical, virtual, and mental actions and objects. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 1091–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9441-y Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL quarterly, 21(1), 87-111. Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, International Thomson Publishing Book Distribution Center, 7625 Empire Drive, Florence, KY. Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail efect. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 216–237. Robinson, T. (2019). The consistency of learning styles of selected undergraduate sport management majors using two different instruments. Athens Journal of Sports, 6(4), 215-242. Rudolph, M. (2017). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Online Higher Education, 1(2). Rutten, N. P. G., van Joolingen, W., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153. Sakreida, K., Scorolli, C., Menz, M. M., Heim, S., Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2013). Are abstract action words embodied? An fMRI investigation at the interface between language and motor cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00125 Schneider, S., Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2022). The impact of video lecturers’ nonverbal communication on learning – An experiement on gestures and facial expressions of pedagogical agents. Computers & Education, 176, 104350. Shakroum, M., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2018). The influence of gesture-based learning system (GBLS) on learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 117, 75-101. Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied Cognition. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D. (2018). Embodied learning: Introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186 /s41235-018-0092-9. Sorden, S. (2012). The cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Handbook of educational theories. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Retrieved from http://sorden.com/portfolio/sorden_draft_multimedia2012.pdf Sullivan, J. V. (2018). Learning and embodied cognition: A review and proposal. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17(2), 128-143. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press. Syofyan, R., & Siwi, M. K. (2018, July). The impact of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles on economics education teaching. In First Padang International Conference On Economics Education, Economics, Business and Management, Accounting and Entrepreneurship (PICEEBA 2018) (pp. 114-121). Atlantis Press. Tellier, M. (2008). The effect of gestures on second language memorisation by young children. Gesture, 8(2), 219-235. Thelen, E., Schoner, G., Scheier, C., & Smith, L. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 1–86. Todd, S., Hoveid, M. H., & Langmann, E. (2021). Educating the Senses: Explorations in Aesthetics, Embodiment and Sensory Pedagogy. Studies in Philosphy and Education, 40(3). 243-258. Twyford, J., & Craig, S. (2013). Virtual humans and gesturing during multimedia learning: An investigation of predictions from the temporal contiguity effect. In T. Bastiaens, & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-learn 2013–world conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 2145–2149). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Vuletic, T., Duffy, A., Hay, L., McTeague, C., Campbell, G., & Grealy, M. (2019). Systematic literature review of hand gestures used in human computer interaction interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 129, 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.03.011 Wang, F., Hwang, W. Y., Li, Y. H., Chen, P. T., & Manabe, K. (2019). Collaborative kinesthetic EFL learning with collaborative total physical response. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(7), 745-783. Widodo, H.P., 2005. Teaching children using a Total Physical Response (TPR) method: Rethinking. Bahasa Dan Seni, Tahum, 33(2). Retrieved from: http://sastra.um.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Teaching-Children-Using-a-Total-Physical-Response-TPR-Method-Rethinking-Handoyo-Puji-Widodo.pdf. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322 Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376. Ye, H. (2010). Embodied Cognition:A New Approach in Cognitive Psychology. Advances in Psychological Science, 18(05), 705-710. Zhong, B., Su, S., Liu, X., & Zhan, Z. (2021). A literature review on the empirical studies of technology-based embodied learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-20. Zimmer, H. D. (2008). Visual and spatial working memory: from boxes to networks. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(8), 1373-1395.
指導教授	黄武元(Wu-Yuin Hwang)	審核日期	2022-2-21
推文	facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu
網路書籤	Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare