臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來電腦和網路已廣為運用於教育層面，而在語言學習方面，以電腦為中介之溝通(CMC, Computer-Mediated Communication)也扮演著比以往更為重要的角色。MOO是CMC中的一種，在國外，MOO儼然已為網路教學的方式之一；在台灣，無論是老師亦或學生，卻鮮少人知曉。唯一曾在台灣進行之相關研究, 為觀察大學生在傳統文字介面MOO中的學習情形。因此，本研究旨在探索台灣高中生在此一虛擬環境中之學習情況，他們如何用英文完成溝通、建構物件與合作學習，並冀望能從學生、學校老師和教學研究者三方面的觀點，探討MOO作為英文學習環境的可能性與發展。
參與本研究的對象為22名台北市的高中學生，自2001年10月起，於週五下午上100分鐘課程，共計九次，並以台灣本土的　MOO－ForMOOsa作為線上課程學習的環境。學生們需學習MOO的基本指令、做英文自我描述、與其他MOOer通信、與班上同學進行線上溝通、建構MOO物件並合作完成指定之英文學習任務。
本研究的資料來源包括學生期初和期末問卷調查、三位學校英文老師於課堂觀摩後所填寫之意見調查、學生之作品和線上對話記錄、和22名學生與3位老師之訪談以及教學研究者之隨堂觀察和心得記錄。
研究結果發現：若無網路連線的問題，多數高中生樂於使用MOO從事學習；但受限於英文打字速度，高中生仍需更長的時間方能適應MOO環境。而在過程中，學生們在英文以及電腦方面，也的確能相互學習及彼此幫助。學生們雖喜歡線上聊天，但多數高中生在聊天室中仍處於吸收階段（input），並不擅用英文表達（output）。個別差異則是造就課堂表現不同以及對各類MOO活動態度迥異的主因。
學校英文老師認同學生們在MOO環境中學習英文之潛力，尤其是在英文閱讀、寫作和思考方面。但就執行層面而言，則提出本身在電腦及網路操作技術方面，是否以準備充分之疑慮。
就教學研究者而言，達成成功的溝通與有效的合作，仍須投注更多努力於課程設計。此外，於目前ForMOOsa之介面，線上進行互評或批注仍相當困難，因此課程安排上，以能線上及離線課程能密切搭配進行為佳。而在課程進行中，仍欣見學生們主動、互助且樂於學習之表現，學生們也多給予此課程正面評價。
本研究並非為比較MOO與傳統課堂教學而設計，但仍建議爾後之研究，可進一步比較二者、納入更多的研究對象並做更長時間的觀察。而在將來MOO與多媒體更進一步結合後，期能探索MOO對於提昇英文聽說能力方面的潛力。此外，在MOO環境中，更值得深入探討各種評量之設計、方式、效果及其可行性。

Recently computer and Internet technology has been widely applied to enhance educational effectiveness. In language learning, CMC (Computer-Mediated Communication) now plays a more important role than before. As a medium of CMC, MOO (Multiple-user domain Object Oriented) has been applied in classroom practice in various countries. Yet most teachers or students in Taiwan hardly know about MOOs. The only related study conducted in Taiwan was an observation of college EFL students’ English learning experience in the text-based SchoMOOze. Thus, this study aimed to probe how senior high school students communicate in English, construct objects, and collaborate in this virtual environment as well as to investigate MOO as an English learning environment from the viewpoints of students, school English teachers and a teacher-researcher.
The participants in this study were 22 students from a senior high school in Taipei City. They had a 100-minute course every Friday afternoon during the fall semester of 2001. ForMOOsa, a local MOO in Taiwan, was used as the MOOing environment with nine on-line sessions observed closely for this study. The participants learned basic MOO commands, worked on self-description, corresponded with their key pals, communicated with their classmates in the chatroom, constructed MOO objects, and collaborated to accomplish the assigned tasks.
The data sources included students’ responses from a background questionnaire and an evaluation questionnaire, responses of a classroom observation questionnaire from three school English teachers, transcripts of participants’ communication, participants’ writing products, interviews with the participants and the school teachers, and the teacher-researcher’s journals.
Through the analyses of the results, the following findings could be drawn. First, the students learned from each other and helped each other in terms of both English and computer skills. Second, most of the senior high school students were still in the stage of absorbing English input and they had difficulties in expressing themselves in English within a short response time of the on-line chat. Third, senior high school students needed longer hours to adapt themselves to the environment due to their English level and typing speed. Fourth, most students enjoyed learning in MOOs if there were no network connection problems. Fifth, individual difference accounted for the different classroom performance and the diversified attitudes towards MOOing activities.
The school English teachers considered MOO having the potentials for student’s English learning, especially in reading, writing and thinking in English. Nevertheless, they indicated that technical support from a computer teacher is a must in the computer room.
As far as the teacher-researcher was concerned, successful communication and collaboration required more efforts devoted to the design of the lesson plan for each session. It was also found difficult to conduct a self-sufficient peer review on-line with the current interface of ForMOOsa. It would be better to have both on-line and off-line sessions as complimentary pairs.　It was indeed rewarding to see that most feedback from the participants was positive ones and that the participants did take the initial to learn and enjoy learning English during the process. They not only helped each other but also learned from each other.
This study was not designed to compare learning in the MOO environment with learning in the traditional classroom. It is therefore suggested that further research can be conducted to compare the two environments over a longer period of time. In addition, future studies can probe the potentials to improve English speaking and listening when more multimedia resources can be integrated into MOOs. 　Moreover, it is worthwhile to further investigate various ways of evaluation in terms of the design, method, effectiveness, and practicability.

ABSTRACT
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
A.Existing Educational MOOs
1.Diversity University (DU)
2.LinguaMOO
3.Achieve MOO
4.SchMOOze
5.ForMOOsa
B.Theoretic Underpinnings for Teaching English in MOOs
1.Communicative CALL and Community Language Learning
2.Social Conversation and Reflective Dialogue
3.Scaffolding Lessons
4.Constructivist Use of Technology
5.Cooperative and Collaborative Learning
6.Learning Community
C.Empirical Studies
D.Research Questions
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
A.The Pilot Study
B.Research Design
1.Participants
2.Materials
3.Instruments
C.Research Procedures
D.Data Analysis
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A.Results
1.Background Information
2.Students’ Writing Products
3.Students’ Feedback
4.Teachers’ Feedback
B.Discussion
1.Students’ Activities in ForMOOsa
2.Students’ Perceptions about MOOing and English learning
3.Potentials of ForMOOsa as an English Learning Environment
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION
A.Conclusion
B.Pedagogical Implications
C.Limitations
D.Future Directions
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A Handouts
B Background Questionnaire
C Evaluation Questionnaire
D Classroom Observation Questionnaire
E Results of Background Questionnaire
F Results of Evaluation Questionnaire
G Interview Questions

Acovelli, M. & Gamble, M. (1997). A coaching for learners using multimedia simulations. Educational Technology, 34, (5), 44-48.
Backer, J. (2001). Using a Modular Approach to schMOOze with ESL/EFL Students. The Internet TESL Journal, 7 (5). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Lessons/Backer-SchMOOze.html 2001/9/1
Backer, J. (2001). Using a Modular Approach to schMOOze with ESL/EFL Students. The Internet TESL Journal, 7 (5). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Lessons/Backer-SchMOOze.html 2001/9/1
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curran, C.A. (1976). Counseling-Learning in Second Languages. Illinois: Apple River Press.
Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L & Wilson, B.G. (1999). Learning with Technology: a constructivist perspective. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchrounous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: a sociaocultural case study. CALICO Journal,19 (2), 249-277.
Davies, L., Shield, L., & Weininger, M. J. (1998). Godzilla can MOO, can you? MOOs for construction, collaboration & community and research. The Language Teacher 22(3). Retrieved from http://langue.hy[er.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/98/feb/davies.html. 2001/08/04
Dias, J. (1998). The Teacher as Chameleon: computer-mediated communication & role transformation. In Lewi, P (Ed.), Teachers, Learners, and Computers: exploring relationship in CALL, (pp.17-26). Nagoya: The Japan Association for Language Teaching CALL National Special Interest Group.
Donaldson, R. and M. Kötter (1999). Language Learning in Cyberspace: teleporting the classroom into the target culture. CALICO Journal, 16 (4), 531-557.
Elkabas, C., Trott, D. & Wooldridge R. (1999). Contribution of the Cybernautical Approach to the Teaching and Learning of Second Languages. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12 (3), 241-254.
Haynes, C. & Holmevik, J.R. (1998). High Wired: on the design, use, and theory of educational MOOs. University of Michigan Press.
Hewitt, J. (2001). Beyond Threaded Discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 7 (3), 207-221.
Holmevik, J.R. & Haynes, C. (2000). MOOniversity: a student’s guide to online learning environment. A Pearson Education Company.
Huang, S.Y. (1998). Computer-mediated vs. face-to-face discussions: a comparison of their nature and effects on writing. NSC Report, #86-2411-H-029-003, Taipei.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Stanne, M.B. (2000). Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html. 2001/08/19
Kelm, O. (1992). The use of sycronous computer networks in second language instruction: a preliminary report. Foreign Language Annuals25, 5.
Kang, Y.L. (1999). EFL learning in SchMOOze: Research findings and pedagogical implications. Proceedings of the 17th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the ROC (pp. 228-242), May 27, Soochow University. Taipei: Crane.
Kenzo, S. (1992). Readiness for language learning: theoretical discussion and application in community language learning. Nishougakusha University. Retrieved from http://kenzosaka.50megs.com/ronbun/cllindex.html. 2001/9/1
Lamy, M. & Goodfellow, R. (1999). "Reflective conversation" in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2 (2), 43-61. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/article2/index.html. 2001/08/15
Langham, D. (1994). The common place MOO: Orality and literacy in virtual reality. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, 1 (3). Retrieved from http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1994/jul/moo.html. 2001/4/23
Liou, H.C. (2000). Conceptualization and implementation of an English learning Web site that bridges theories and practices. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Multimedia Language Education, 40-52. Taipei: The Crane.
Liou, H.C. (2001). MOOing for college English teaching and learning. NSC#90-2411-H-007-023 National Science Council Research Project, Taipei.
McKenzie, J. (1999) Scaffolding for success. An excerpt from Beyond Technology: Questioning, Research and the Information Literate School Community. From Now OnThe Educational Technology Journal, 9(4). Retrieved from http://www.fno.org/dec99/scaffold.html. 2001/08/19
Palloff, R.M.& Pratt, K. (1999). Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pinto, David (1996). What does “SchMOOze” mean?: non-native speaker interaction on the internet. In Mark Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawai’i Symposium (Technical Report #12), 165-184. Honolulu, Hawai’i: University o Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Raschio, R. (1986). Communicative uses of the computer: ideas and directions. Foreign Language Annals, 19, 507-513.
Salaberry, M. R. (2000). Pedagogical design of computer mediated communication tasks: learning objectives and technological capabilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 28-37.
Schwienhorst, K. (1998). Co-constructing learning environments and learner identities- language learning in virtual reality. Proceedings of the ED-Media/ ED-Telecom. Freiburg.
Schwienhorst, K. (1999). Teacher autonomy in multiple-user domains: supporting language teaching in collaborative virtual environments. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 8 (2), 199-214. Retrieved from http://www.triangle.co.uk/jjit/index.htm. 2001/7/12
Shield, L. & Weininger, M. J. & Davies, L.B. (1999). MOOs and language learning. Retrieve from http://www.enabling.org/grassroots/language-learning.htm. 2001/07/18
Shield, L & Weininger, M.J. (1999). Collaboration in a virtual world: groupwork and the distance language learner. In Debski &
Levy (Ed.), World Call: global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning. Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publisher.
Turbee, L. (1996). MOOin in a Foreign Language: how why and who? Paper presented at Information technology Education Connection's International Virtual Conference/Exhibition on Schooling and the information Super high way. Retrieved from: http://web.syr.edu/~lmturbee/itechtm.html 2001/08/09
Turbee, L. (1997). Educational MOO: Text-based virtual reality for learning in community. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed404987.html. 2001/8/25
Turbee, L. (1998). MOO, WOO and more: language learning in virtual environments. In Egbert, J. and Hanson-Smith, E., (Eds.), Computer-Enhanced Language Learning: Theory into
Practice. TESOL Publications, Alexandria, VA. (in press)
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (1998). Interaction, negotiation and computer-mediated learning. In V.Darleguy, A. Ding, & M. Svensson (Ed.), Educational technology in language learning: Theoretical considerations and practical applications. Retrieved from http://www.insa-lyonfr/Departements/CDRL/interaction.html. 2001/8/25
Weininger, M.J., Shield, L. & Davies, L.B. (1998). A MOOing experience. In Lewi, P (Ed.), Teachers, Learners, and Computers: Exploring Relationship in CALL, (pp.87-102). Nagoya: The Japan Association for Language Teaching CALL National Special Interest Group.
Wertheim, M. (1999). The pearly gates of cyberspace: a history of space form Dante to the Internet. W.W.Norton Publisher.
Yankelevsky, O. (1999) The MOO environment in general and the educational MOO in particular: A user profile. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University. Retrieved from http://www.geocities.com/orlyana/moouser.htm#abstract. 2001/7/10