臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究採用量化及質化研究方法，評估淡江大學外語學院所設計之線上教學網站（多語莫敵教學網站www.multi.tku.edu.tw）的成效，此教學網站的設計旨在使科技能夠輔助教學法和人類的學習機制，而非相反。此網站應用了以下理論基礎：認知理論的工作記憶模式（Working Memory Model）、多元智慧（Multiple Intelligences）、以及暗示法（Suggestopedia）。此網站以一個由五位主角建構出與學習者相關的生活故事，佐以動畫、音樂、文化、互動設計等等方式呈現教材，提供學習者一個愉快的學習平台。此外，本研究亦探討學生的學習風格是否對其學習成效有所影響。
　　兩組共一百二十五個學生為本研究實驗對象，分為對照組和實驗組，分別以紙本和網站為教材進行實驗。研究者給予兩組盡量相同的教學活動，並在兩組都運用多種教學法以引發學生學習興趣。實驗結果顯示兩組在後測的成績並沒有顯著差異，然而進一步探究發現，實驗組在延遲測驗中表現的比控制組好。此外，問卷的分析結果顯示，實驗組的在後測的學習成效和學習者是否喜歡使用電腦有顯著相關；控制組則跟學習者對課程與教材的感想有顯著相關。訪談的部份，兩組學生都認為課程很實用，且學習過程愉快。但是實驗組的所有受訪者表示教材「很有趣」，而在控制組只有一位受訪者表示覺得教材有趣。最後，在控制組中，「場地依賴型」學習者表現比場地獨立型學習者好；而在實驗組中，「場地獨立型」學習者表現的比場地依賴型學習者好。
　　研究結果建議，不論教材是以線上或紙本的方法呈現，只要教師能夠事前以堅實的教學理論融入實務的教學並嚴謹規劃其課程，以多元的教學方法呈現教材，學生都能夠從課程中受益。然而比較起紙本教材，線上教材豐富的視覺和聽覺輔助，似乎更能引發學生上網複習的動機，進而幫助實驗組的學生在長期記憶方面表現的比控制組好。

This experiment employed both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to explore the effectiveness of a particular E-learning web-based multi-language program (www.multi.tku.edu.tw) developed by the College of Foreign Languages and Literatures of Tamkang University in Taiwan. This program was designed to ensure that technology should serve teaching pedagogy and human learning mechanism rather than vice versa. Thus, it is different in several ways: first of all, it is based on cognitive theories that support a Working Memory Model (WMM) that regard memory as a result of a dynamic process of multiple inputs; secondly, it draws inspiration from Multiple Intelligences Theory (MI), first proposed by Gardner (1983). Finally, elements of Suggestopedia, developed by Lozanov (1978), were also incorporated in the design. As a result, this program allows students to read interesting and meaningful stories that follow five main characters whose lives are related to them. Further, the study also employed the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEPT) to investigate how students’ learning styles will influence their learning outcome.
Two groups of first year college students (125 students in total) were recruited and divided into a control group and an experimental. The former group was taught without the computer, while the latter with the website. The researcher employed various methodologies during the class and provided equal quality of inputs in both groups. Results of the post-test indicate that there is no significant difference between these two groups in terms of learning effect. Further investigations find that students in the experimental group outperformed the control group in the delayed post-test. In addition, analyses of the questionnaire suggest that students’ learning outcome in the experimental group correlates most significantly with whether they like to use computer or not, and learning outcome of those in the control group correlates with their feelings toward the learning process and the teaching contents. As for the interview, students in both groups stated that the course is practical and useful, and the learning process is pleasant, yet all interviewees (N=6) in the experimental group reported that the materials (online) are interesting and attractive to them, while only one interviewee in the control group stated that the materials (textbook) is interesting to him. Finally, results of GEPT showed that FD learners performed significantly better than FI learners in the control group, and in the experimental group, FI learners performed significantly better than FD learners in their post-test.
These findings may suggest that whether the teaching materials are presented in a computer or non-computer format, students could progress in their learning if the teacher carries out the lesson with planned and solid theoretical methodologies. Nevertheless, compare to the context presented on textbooks, the vivid presentation of the teaching materials on the screen provide abundant visual and auditory supplements so it might interest subjects to visit the website after the class and help to retain students’ memory in their delayed post-test.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …….i
CHINESE ABSTRACT …….ii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT …….iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS …….vi
LIST OF TABLES …….viii
LIST OF FIGURES ….x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study .1
1.2 Purpose of the Study .2
1.3 Research Questions .4
1.4 Corpus and Methodology of the Study .5
1.5 Organization of the Study .6

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 History and Development of Computer-Assisted Language Learning .8
2.2 Current Practices and Research on CALL .11
2.3 Effectiveness of CALL .16
2.4 Cognition and Second Language Learning .20
2.5 Multiple Intelligences .24
2.6 Suggestopedia .29
2.7 Learning Styles of Learners .32
2.8 Summary .35

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Participants .37
3.2 Materials .38
3.3 Instruments .44
3.3.1 Achievement Test .44
3.3.2 Group Embedded Figures Test .44
3.3.3 Questionnaire .45
3.3.4 Interview Questions .47
3.4 Procedure and Treatment .48
3.4.1 Pilot Study .48
3.4.2 Main Study .49
3.5 Data Analysis .52
3.6 Summary .53

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Subjects’ Computer Literacy .54
4.2 Results and Discussion of Research Question 1 .58
4.3 Results and Discussion of Research Question 2 .62
4.4 Homework Review, Journals and Interview .71
4.4.1 Homework Review and Journals .71
4.4.2 Interview .74
4.4.3 Conclusion of Homework Review, Journals and Interview .84
4.5 Results and Discussion of Research Question 3 .85
4.6 Results and Discussion of Research Question 4 .89
4.7 Summary .94

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary of the Study . 97
5.2 Pedagogical Implications .100
5.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research .103

REFERENCES .106

APPENDIX .112

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4.1 The Percentage of Subjects’ Computer/Internet Preference in Control Group and Experimental Group...........................................................................................56
4.2 The Percentage of Subjects’ Habits of Using Computers and Internet in Control Group and Experimental Group..................................................................57
4.3 Independent Samples T-Test of the Mean Scores of the Computer Literacy between the Control Group and Experimental Group..............................................58
4.4 Paired Samples Test of the Mean Scores of Control Group Before and After the Teaching..............................................................................................................59
4.5 Paired Samples Test of the Mean Scores of Experimental Group Before and After the Teaching.....................................................................................................59
4.6 Independent Samples T-Test of the Mean Scores of the Improvements between the Control Group and Experimental Group............................................................60
4.7 Paired Samples Test of the Mean Scores of the Delayed Post-test and the Post-test of Control Group and Experimental Group...............................................61
4.8 Independent Samples T-Test of the Mean Scores of the Degeneracy between Control Group and Experimental Group.............................................................….62
4.9 The Mean Scores of 12 Questions in the Questionnaire of Control Group and Experimental Group..................................................................................................64
4.10 Independent Samples T-Test of the Mean Scores of Motivation between the Control Group and Experimental Group..................................................................67
4.11 Regression Analysis of Subjects’ Improvements and Motivation in the Control Group ......................................................................................................................68
4.12 Regression Analysis of Subjects’ Improvements and Motivation in the Experimental Group..................................................................................................69
4.13 Regression Analysis of Subjects’ Improvements and Technology Familiarity in the Experimental Group............................................................................................71
4.14 The Return Rates of Homework Review and Positive Feedback from Subjects in the Control and the Experimental Group.............................................................72
4.15 Basic Information of the Interviewees......................................................................75
4.16 Subjects’ Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Group Embedded Figure Test in Both Groups......................................................................................86
4.17 The Distribution of FD/FI learners in the Control Group and the Experimental Group..................................................................................................86
4.18 Independent Samples T-Test of the Mean Scores of Improvement between FD and FI Learners in the Control Group.....................................................................87
4.19 Independent Samples T-Test of the Mean Scores of Improvement between FD and FI Learners in the Experimental Group............................................................87
4.20 The Percentage of Learning Materials Preference in the Control Group and Experimental Group..................................................................................................89

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 Working Memory System.........................................................................................23
2.2 Description s of style dimensions.............................................................................33
3.1 Example of Virtual Conversation.............................................................................39
3.2 Example of Reading Section.....................................................................................40
3.3 Example of Grammar Section...................................................................................41
3.4 Example of Vocabulary Section...............................................................................41
3.5 Example of Cultural Section (Cultural do’s and don’ts)..........................................42
3.6 Example of Character Introduction...........................................................................43

Ahmad, K., Corbett, G., Rogers, M., & Sussex, R. (1985). Computers, language learning and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ashcraft, M. H. (1994). Human memory and cognition (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 47–90). New York: Academic Press.

Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Buzan, T. (1991). The Mind Map Book. New York: Penguin

Campbell, L., & Campbell, B. (1999) MI and Student Achievement: Success Stories from Six Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (1996). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Campbell, C., & Jamieson, J. (1986). Computer-assisted learning as a predictor of success in acquiring English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 27–46.

Chen, C. L. (2005). Integrating English learning websites into listening comprehension instruction at college level: An evaluative study. Master Thesis: Tamkang University.

Chun, D., & Plass, J. (2000). Networked Multimedia Environments for Second Language Acquisition. In M. Warschauer and Kern, R. (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Kowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. NY: Praeger.

Chuang, Y. J. (2002). Integrating Internet resources into English lessons: A case study of high school English Teaches. Master Thesis: Tamkang University.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.

Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Dunkel, P. (1991). The effectiveness of research on computer-assisted instruction and computer-assisted language learning. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing (pp. 5–36). New York: Newbury House.

Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson, (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68).

Fausett, L. (1994). Fundamentals of neural networks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Felix, U. (2005). Analysing recent CALL effectiveness research—Towards a common agenda. CALL, 18(1/2), 1–32.

Floyd, A. (1976). Cognitive styles: Personality and learning (Block. 5). Walton Hall Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Garrett, N. (1991). Foreword. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing (pp. xii–xvi). New York: Newbury House.

Hémard D., & Cushion S. (2006). Software design and development: improving CALL design by establishing an informed dialogue between designers and learners.　Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(2), 105–107.

Hubbard, P. (2003). A survey of unanswered questions in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(2/3), 141–155.

Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences—Learning and Instruction. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kataoka, K. (2000). Computers for English language learning in Japanese schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED439600)

Keefe, J. W., & Ferrell, B. G.. (1990). Developing a defensible learning style paradigm. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 57–61.

Kern, R. & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1–19). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.

LeMon, R. (1988). Computers and ESL. CALL Digest, 4, 4–5.

Levy M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ma, Q. & Kelly, P. (2006). Computer-assisted vocabulary learning: Design and evaluation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 15–45

MacWhinney, B. (2001). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.69–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ó Dónail, C. & M Coinnigh M. (2006). The use of CALL in Irish language Teaching: The way forward? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(4/5), 287–300.

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Riding, R. & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behavior. London: David Fulto Publishers.

Scovel, T. (1979). Review of Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy, by Georgi Lozanov. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 255–266.

Shiu, J. D. (2002). The effects of Internet-assisted instruction and the cognitive styles of sixth graders on English achievement and motivation for learning English. Master’s thesis: National Pingtung University of Education.

Warschauer, M. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57–71.

Warschauer, M. & Whittaker, F. (1997). The Internet for English teaching: Guidelines for teachers. TESL Reporter, 30(1), 27–33.

Zähner, C., Fauverge, A., & Wong, J. (2000). Task-based language learning via audiovisual networks. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp.186–203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

吳裕益 (1987)。認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。國立高學師範學院教育學系及教育研究所。「教育學刊」第七期：51–98。