(3.239.192.241) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/02 12:52
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:徐鈺卿
研究生(外文):Yu-Ching Hsu
論文名稱:線上教學對於英語學習者自主學習文法之效益
論文名稱(外文):The Effects of Online Tutorial for EFL Learners’ Autonomous Learning on Grammar
指導教授:曹秀蓉曹秀蓉引用關係
指導教授(外文):Syou-Rung Tsau
口試委員:劉慧如莊琍玲
口試委員(外文):Hui-Ju LiuLi-Ling Chuang
口試日期:2011-01-14
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:大葉大學
系所名稱:應用外語研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2011
畢業學年度:99
語文別:英文
論文頁數:95
中文關鍵詞:線上教學自主學習文法學習
外文關鍵詞:Online tutorialAutonomous learningGrammar learning
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:474
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
這一類實驗探討線上教學對於英語學習者自主學習文法之效益。因此,本研究之目的在於發現線上教學是否有利於英語學習者自主學習文法,並從線上教學之直接效益、遷移效益、以及句子寫作加以分析。此外,本研究也想了解英語學習者是否對線上教學持有正面態度,哪些線上教學的功能對他們有所幫助,以及學習者對有效之線上文法教學之建議。參與者為九十九位台灣中部某所大學英語系學生。實驗採用線上學習和練習簿兩種自學模式,用到文法教材、測驗、問卷等三項工具。實驗共進行八週,參與者被安排在八週內自學假設語氣及關係代名詞兩個文法題,每一文法主題各進行四週,第一週為前測,第二和第三週為線上或練習簿之文法練習,第四週舉行後測,最後再進行問卷調查。混合設計二因子變異數單純主要效果分析以及獨立樣本t檢定顯示不論線上或是練習簿的自學模式皆有顯著之直接效益及遷移效益,並且幫助學習者在句子寫作上有所進步。此外,適合度考驗之分析結果顯示有些學生對線上教學持有正面態度,有些則否。而且大部分的學生認為立即訂正式回饋、立即評分、立即練習等線上教學功能有利於他們的自主文法學習。最後,內容分析法的結果顯示大學生認為有效之線上教學可以提供動畫教學、更多練習題、更清楚之訂正式回饋及老師教學影片。
A quasi-experimental study was conducted to investigate the effects of online tutorial for EFL learners’ autonomous learning on grammar. Hence, the purposes of the study aimed at finding out whether online tutorial benefit EFL learners for learning grammar autonomously in terms of direct effect, transfer effect, and sentence-writing. Besides, the study attempted to understand if EFL learners hold favorable attitude toward online tutorial, to know which features of online tutorial are more helpful to them, and to collect EFL learners’ suggestions for an efficient online grammar tutorial. Ninety-nine English-majored students in a university of Central Taiwan participated in the experiment. There were two self-learning modes, learning with the online tutorial and learning with the workbook. Instruments used in the study included learning materials of two grammar topics, pretests and posttests, and a questionnaire. The experiment lasted for 8 weeks, four weeks for each grammar topic. For each grammar topic, the pretest was conducted in the first week. During the two weeks of learning activities, students were required to learn through either the online tutorial or the workbook. The posttest was conducted in the fourth week. After the tests and learning activities, a questionnaire was given. Results of simple main effect under two-way ANOVA and independent-sample t-test revealed that students made progress no matter after learning with the online tutorial or with the workbook in terms of direct effect, transfer effect, and sentence-writing. Moreover, the findings from the Goodness of Fit Test indicated that some students held positive attitude toward the online tutorial, but some did not. Additionally, most students thought that immediate corrective feedback, immediate marking, and immediate exercise were more helpful for their autonomous grammar learning. Furthermore, the results from the content analysis showed that the online tutorial could provide animation, more exercise questions, clearer feedback, and teaching videos to be more effective.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT (English)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… iv
ABSTRACT (Chinese)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… vii
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… x
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… xi

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Background of the Study …………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
1.3 Motivation of the Study …………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
1.4 Purpose of the Study …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
1.5 Research Questions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
1.6 Definition of Terms …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
1.7 Significance of the Study …………………………………………………………………………………… 11
1.8 Organization of the Thesis ………………………………………………………………………………… 13
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
2.1 Grammar and Language Proficiency ………………………………………………………………… 14
2.1.1 Grammar and Writing ………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
2.1.2 Grammar and Reading ………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
2.1.3 Grammar, Listening and speaking ………………………………………………………… 16
2.2 Instruction of Grammar …………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
2.2.1 Deductive and Explicit Instruction ………………………………………………… 17
2.2.2 Inductive and Implicit Instruction ………………………………………………… 19
2.3 Online Instruction and Grammar Learning ……………………………………………… 20
2.3.1 Learning Grammar through Online Instruction ………………………… 21
2.3.2 Comparison between Online Instruction and Regular Instruction ……………………………… 22
2.4 Autonomous Learning and Online Resources ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23
2.4.1 Autonomous Learning ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23
2.4.2 Cultivating Autonomous Learning through Online Resources …………………………………………… 24
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
3.1 Design of the Study …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
3.2 Participants and sampling …………………………………………………………………………………… 27
3.3 Instruments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
3.3.1 Learning Materials …………………………………………………………………………………………… 28
3.3.2 Pretests and Posttests ………………………………………………………………………………… 30
3.3.3 Questionnaire ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32
3.4 Procedure of the Data Collection ………………………………………………………………… 33
3.5 Data Analysis Method ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
3.6 Pilot Study ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
3.6.1 Design …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 36
3.6.2 Participants …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
3.6.3 Instruments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
3.6.4 Procedure …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
3.6.5 Results ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 40
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ……………………………………………………………………………… 44
4.1 Direct Effect of the Online Tutorial ……………………………………………………… 44
4.2 Transfer Effect of the Online Tutorial ………………………………………………… 47
4.3 Effects of the Online Tutorial on Sentence-writing ………………… 50
4.4 Learners’ Attitudes toward the Online Tutorial …………………………… 52
4.5 Learners’ Favorable Functions in the Online Tutorial …………… 54
4.6 Learners’ Suggestions for an Efficient Online Tutorial ……… 57
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 59
5.1 Summary of the Research Findings ………………………………………………………………… 59
5.2 Pedagogical Implications ……………………………………………………………………………………… 62
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research ……………………… 63
References ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 66
Appendix A: Sample Screen of the Online Tutorial …………………………………………… 82
Appendix B: Sample Screen for the Answer and the Feedback of the Online Tutorial …… 83
Appendix C: Sample Page of the Workbook ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 84
Appendix D: Sample Exercise of the Workbook ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 86
Appendix E: Sample Answer Key of the Workbook ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 87
Appendix F: Test of “Mood”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 88
Appendix G: Test of “Relative Pronouns”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 90
Appendix H: Questionnaire ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 92
Appendix I: Questionnaire (English Version)………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 94

References:
Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The
Modern Language Journal, 87, 157-167.
AbuSeileek, A., & Rabab’ah, G.. (2007). The effect of computer-based grammar instruction on the
acquisition of verb tenses in an EFL context. Jalt CALL Journal, 3(12), 59-80.
Adams, M. (1980). Five co-occurring factors in speaking proficiency. In J. Firth (Ed.), Measuring
spoken proficiency (pp. 1-6). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Ahmad, K., Corbett, G., Roger, M., & Sussex, T. (1985). Computers, language learning and language
teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Al-Jarf, R. S. (2002). Effects of online learning on struggling ESL college writers. Paper presented
at: National Educational Computing Conference '02, San Antonio, USA.
Al-Jarf, R. S. (2005). The effects of online grammar instruction on low proficiency EFL college
students’ achievement. Asian EFL Journal, 7(4), 166-190.
Al-Jarf, R. S. (2005a). Teaching grammar to EFL college students online. Asian EFL Journal, 7, 4.
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/December_05_rsaj.php
Allum, P. (2004). Evaluation of CALL: Initial vocabulary learning. ReCALL, 16, 488-501.
Amer, Aly. (1992). ‘The effect of story grammar instruction on EFL students’ comprehension of narrative
text’. Reading in a Foreign Language, 8(2), 711-720.
Anderson, J. R. (1995) Cognitive psychology and its Implications, Freeman, New-York.
Andrews, K. L. Z. (2007). The effects of implicit and explicit instruction on simple and complex
grammatical structures for adult English language learners. TESL-EJ, 11(2).
Arvan, L., & Musumeci, D. (2000). Instructor attitudes within the SCALE efficiency projects. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Network, 4, 196-215.
Azar, B. (2007). Grammar-based teaching: A practitioner’s perspective. TESL-EJ, 11(2).
Barfield, A., & Brown, S. H. (2007). Reconstructing Autonomy in Language Education: Inquiry and
Innovation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Batstone, R. (1994). Language Teaching: A Scheme for Teacher Education. Grammar (pp. 3-5). Oxford
University Press.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Lonsdon: Longman.
Benson, P. (2004). Autonomy and information technology in the educational discourse of the information
age. In C. Davison (ed.), Information technology and innovation in language education. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press, 173–192.
Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. State of the Art Article. Language
Teaching, 40(1), 21-40.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language
Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136.
Blin, F. (1999). CALL and the development of learner autonomy. In Debski & Levy (eds.), 133–149.
Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for Learner-Centered, Constructivist, and
Sociocultural Components of Collaborative Educational Learning Tools. In Electronic Collaborators:
Learner-centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse. Edited by C. Bonk and K.
King. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bowen, C. P. (1999). Technology helps students learn grammar. Communication: Journalism Education
Today, 32(4), 17-18.
Brown, H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley
Longman, Inc.
Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Voices from networked classrooms. Educational Leadership, 54(3), 34-37.
Burkert, A., & Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Focus on the Student Teacher: The European Portfolio for
Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL) as a Tool to Develop Teacher Autonomy. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching. 2(3), 238- 252.
Camilleri, G. (1997). Learner autonomy: The teachers’ views. Retrieved November 24, 2004. From
http://www.ecml.at/documents/pubCamilleriG_E.pdf
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards, J.
C., & Schmidt, R. W. (eds.), Language and communication, Harlow: Longman, 29-59.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics,1, 1-47.
Carnine, D., & Kinder, D. (1985). Teaching low-performing students to apply generative and schema
strategies to narrative and expository material. Remedial and Sepcial Education, 6, 20-30.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Chan, V. (2001). Readiness for learner autonomy: What do our learners tell us? Teaching in Higher
Education, 6(4), 505-519.
Chan, V. (2003). Autonomous Language Learning: the teachers’ perspectives. Teaching In Higher
Education, 8(1), 33-54.
Chan, W. F. (2007). The Effects of Time Constraints and Proficiency on ESL Essay Writing Performance.
Doctoral Thesis, University Sains Malaysia.
Chen, L. (2005). Examining the role of computers in EFL instruction. Electronic Journal for the
Integration of Technology in Education, 4, 30-63.
Chenu, F., Gayraud, F., Martinie, B., & Wu, Tong. (2007). Is Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
Efficient for Grammar Learning? An Experimental Study in French as a Second Language. The JALT CALL
Journal, 3(3), 85-93.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1995). Language and Thought. London: Moyer Bell.
Chomsky, N. (2002). On Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Chun, D., & Wade, E. R. (2003). Collaborative cultural exchanges with asynchronous CMC. In L. Lomicka &
J. Cooke-Plagwitz (Eds.), Teaching with technology (pp.220-247). Boston: Thomson Heinle.
Collentine, J. (1995). The development of complex syntax and mood-selection abilities by intermediate-
level learners of Spanish. Hispania, 78, 122-135.
Collentine, J. (2000). Insights into the construction of grammatical knowledge provided by user-
behavior tracking technologies. Language Learning & Technology, 3(2), 44-57.
Corder, D., & G. Waller. (2006). Using a CALL package as a platform to develop effective language
learning strategies and facilitate autonomous learning. In Miller (ed.), 7–26.
Corder, S. (1988). Pedagogic grammar. In W. Rutherford & M. Sharwood-Smith (Eds.), Grammar and second
language teaching (pp. 123-145). New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: from theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the
intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19, 249-277.
De la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of
computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
16, 47-81.
Demirel, Ö. (1993).Yabancı dil öğretimi. (3rd. ed.). USEM Publishing, 6, Ankara.
Dias, J. (2000). Learner autonomy in Japan: Transforming ‘Help Yourself’ from threat to invitation.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 49–64.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doff, A. (2000). Teach English: A training course for teachers (14th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Donmall, G. (1996). Making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear: a ‘language awareness’ ap¬proach to
grammar. In G. Shaw & S. Myles (Eds.), German Grammar Teaching in Crisis? (pp. 46-60). London:
Association for Modern German Studies.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
Dwyer, D. (1996). A response to Douglas Noble: We’re in this together. Educational Leadership, 54(3),
24-27.
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL 29: 87-105.
Eisenstein, M. (1987). Grammatical explanations in ESL: Teach the student, not the method. In M. Long &
J. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL (pp. 282-292). New Jersey: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Ewing, M. (2000). Conversations of Indonesian language students on computer-mediated proj¬ects:
Linguistic responsibility and control. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4), 333–356.
Felix, U. (1997). Integrating multimedia into the curriculum: A case study evaluation. On-CALL, 11(1).
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar
consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323-325.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25,
605-628.
Frigaard, A. (2002). Does the computer lab improve student performance on Vocabulary, grammar, and
listening comprehension? ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED476749.
Frodesen, J. (2001). Grammar in writing. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or
foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 233–248). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Fukushima, T. (2006). A student designed grammar quiz on the web: a constructive mode of grammar
instruction. Educational Media International, 43(1), 75-85.
Garrett, N. (1986). “The Problem with Grammar: What Kind Can the Language Learner Use?”. Modern
Language Journal, 70, 133-148.
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language
Journal, 75, 74-101.
Gordon, C. J., & Braun, C. (1983). Using story schema as an aid to reading and writing. The Reading
Teacher. 34, 261-268.
Groot, P. J. M. (2000). Computer assisted second language vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning &
Technology, 4, pp. 60-81.
Gruba, P. (2006). Playing the videotext: A media literacy perspective on video-mediated L2 listening.
Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 77-92.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1998). Transcript Analysis of Computer-Mediated
Conferences as a Tool for Testing Constructivist and Social-Constructivist Learning Theories.
Proceedings: Distancelearning .98: The 14th Annual Conference on Teaching and Learning, 139-145.
Madison,WI:University of Wisconsin.
Hall, C. (1998). Overcoming the grammar deficit: The role of information technology in teaching German
grammar to undergraduates. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues
vivantes, 55(1), 41-60.
Harasim, L. (2000). Shift Happens Online Education as a New Paradigm in Learning. The Internet and
Higher Education, 3, 41-61.
Healy, D. (1999). Theory and research: Autonomy and language learning. In Egbert & Hanson-Smith (eds.),
391–402.
Hegelheimer, V., & Fisher, D. (2006). Grammar, Writing, and Technology: A Sample Technology-supported
Approach to Teaching Grammar and Improving Writing for ESL Learners. CALICO Journal, 23(2), 257-279.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL:
NCTE.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Teaching grammar in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos
(Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 181-198). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holec, H. (1980). Autonomous and Foreign Language Learning. Nancy: Centre de Recherches et d’
Applications Pedagogiques en Langues. Council of Europe. ICT4LT (Information and communications
technology for language teachers). (n.d.). Available: http://www.ict4lt.org/en/
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Holec, H. (1988). Autonomy and Self-Directed Learning: Present Fields of Application. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
Hoven, D. (1999). CALL–ing the learner into focus: Towards a learner-centred model. In Debski & Levy
(eds.), 149–168.
Huang, J. (1990). A video-computer aided English course. In ELT in China 1985: papers presented at the
international symposium on teaching English in the Chinese context Beijing: FLTRP.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second
language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge. Aila Review, 11, 97-113.
Jiamu, C. (2001). The great importance of the distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge.
Análise Psicológica, 4 (XIX), 559-566.
Jin, X., & Qiao, M. (2010). Interlingual Factors in Chinese College Students’ Acquisition of English
Relative Clauses. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 110-126.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with Technology: A Constructivist
Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ Merill: Prentice Hall.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and
quality of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Kim, Haeyoung. (2009). The role of grammar in speaking proficiency: Exploring the need for spoken
grammar. Modern English Education, 10(1), 46-65.
Kong, H. C. (孔慧珠). (1996). Teaching College English: From ESL to ESP. Studies in English Language and
Literature, 1, 40-45.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principle and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1987). Applications of psycholinguistic research to the classroom. In M. Long & J. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL (pp. 33-44). New Jersey: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Krashen, S. (2002). Second language acquisition and second language learning (1st Internet ed).
Lamb, T., & Reinders, H. (2006). Supporting independent learning: Issues and interventions. Frankfurt:
Peter Lang.
Lamb, T., & Reinders, H. (2007). Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts. Realities and responses.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lambek, J. (2004). A computational algebraic approach to English grammar. Syntax, 7(2).
Lavine, R. Z. (1992). Rediscovering the audio language laboratory: Learning through communicative
tasks. Hispania, 75, 1360-1367.
Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction
and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annuals, 35, 16-23.
Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of
Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 83-100.
Li, Duan. (2005). How to Foster Learner Autonomy in English Teaching and Learning, Sino-US English
Teaching, 2(7), 45-47.
Lin, Li-Li. (2008). The role of grammar teaching in writing in second language acquisition. 1-12.
Lindley, R. (1986). Autonomy. London: Macmillan.
Liou, Hsien-Chin., Wang, Samuel. H., & Hung-Yeh, Yuli. (1992). Can Grammatical CALL Help EFL writing
Instruction? CALICO Journal. 10(1), 23-44.
Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy 1: definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. (2003). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning. In The Guide to Good Practice
for Learning and Teaching in Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies.
Little, D. (2007). Reconstructing Learner and Teacher Autonomy in Language Education, in Barfield, A.
and S. Brown, S. (Eds.), Reconstructing Autonomy in Language Education: Inquiry and Innovation (pp.
1-13). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Little, D. (2009). Language learner autonomy and the European Language Portfolio: Two L2 English
examples. Language Teaching, 42, 222-233.
Littlejohn, A. (1985). Learner choice in language study. ELT Journal, 39(4), 253-261.
Littlemore, J. (2001). Learner autonomy, self-instruction and new technologies in language learning:
Current theory and practice in higher education in Europe. In Chambers & Davies (eds.), 39–52.
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asia contexts. Retrieved May 17, 2007
from http://www.ecml.at/Documents/projects/forums/Littlewoodart.pdf
Li, Zhiqiang. (2005). Computer-aided autonomous language learning. Nanchang: Jiangxi Normal University
Press.
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crokes & S.M. Grass
(Eds.), Task and language learning: Integrated theory and practice. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Magnan, S., Farrell, M., Jan, M.-f., Lee, J., Tsai, C.-P., & Worth, R. (2003). Wireless communication:
Bringing the digital world into the language classroom. In L. Lomicka & J. Cooke-Plagwitz (Eds.),
Teaching with technology (pp. 171-179). Boston: Thomson & Heinle.
Marzano, R.F. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with Dimensions of Learning. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McEnery, T., Baker, J. P., & Wilson, A. (1995). A statistical analysis of corpus based computer versus
traditional human teaching methods of part of speech analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
8, 259-274.
McEwen, T. (1997). Communication training in corporate settings: Lessons and opportunities for the
academe. Mid-American Journal of Business, 12(1), 49-58.
McNamara, T. (1990). Item response theory and the validation of an ESP test for health professionals.
Language Testing, 7(1), 52-75.
Morrow, L.M. (1985). Reading and telling stories: Strategies for emergent readers. The Reading Teacher.
38, 870-875.
Murphy, L. (2008). Supporting learner autonomy: Developing practice through the Spanish production of
courses for distance learners of French, German and Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 12 (1), 83-
102.
Murray, G. (1999). Autonomy and language learning in a simulated environment. System, 27(3), 295–308.
Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal,
14, 53-75.
Nagata, N. (1998a). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition.
Language Learning & Technology, 1, 23-40.
Nagata, N. (1998b). The relative effectiveness of production and comprehension practice in second
language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11, 153-177.
Nagata, N. (2002). BANZAI: An application of natural language processing to web based language
learning. CALICO Journal, 19, 583-599.
Nel de Jong. (2005). Learning second language grammar by listening. LOT.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative
meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Nutta, J. (1998). Is computer-based grammar instruction as effective as teacher-directed grammar
instruction for teaching L2 structures? CALICO Journal, 16(1), 49-61.
Odabaşı, F. (1994). Yabancı dilde dilbilgisi öğrenmede bilgisayar destekli öğrenme yönteminin öğrenci
başarısına etkisi. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Anadolu University, The Instutude of Social
Sciences, Eskisehir.
O’Rourke, B., & Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Talking text: Reflections on reflection in computer–mediated
communication. In Little et al. (eds.), 47–62.
Palfreyman, D., & Smith, R. C. (2003). Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education
perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output,
working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7-32.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of
grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching:
Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues interaction, presence, and performance in an
online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6, 20-41.
Pike, L. (1976). An evaluation of alternate item formats for testing English as a foreign language.
TOEFL Research Report No.2. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Quinn, R. A. (1990). Our progress in integrating modern methods and computercontrolled learning for
successful language study. Hispania, 73, 297-311.
Radwan, A. A. (2005). The effectiveness of explicit attention to form in language learning. System: An
International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 69- 87. Retrieved
December 7, 2008, from Eric database (EJ803865).
Redington, M., & Chater, N. (1996). Transfer in artificial grammar learning: A reevaluation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 125(2), 123-138.
Robertson, E. B., Ladewig, B. H., Strickland, M. P., & Boschung, M. D. (1987). Enhancement of self-
esteem through the use of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 80 (5),
314-316.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-
search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 27-67.
Roediger, L.H., III, Weldon, M.S., & Challis, B.H. (1989). Explaining dissociations between implicit
and explicit measures of retention: A processing account. In L.H. Roediger, III & F.I.M. Craik
(Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honor of Endel Tulving (pp. 3–41).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 5-27.
Sallas, B. (2006). Animation in artificial grammar learning: Can animation facilitate learning? Master
Thesis, University of Illinois.
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language
Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/sauro.pdf
Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Neither here nor there? Learner autonomy and intercultural factors in CALL
environments. In Palfreyman & Smith (eds.), 164–179.
Sengupta, S. (2001). Exchange ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain? Language
Learning & Technology, 5, 103-134.
Sever, S. (1995). Türkçe öğretiminde tam öğrenme. Ya-Pa yayınları. İstanbul.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal,
86, 3-57.
Smith, R. C. (2000). Starting with ourselves: Teacher-learner autonomy in language learning. In B.
Sinclair, et al. (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions. pp.89-99. London:
Longman.
Smith, R. C. (2008). Learner autonomy (Key concepts in ELT). ELT Journal, 62(4), 395-397.
Soo, K. S., & Ngeow, Y. H. (1996). The English teacher vs. the multimedia computer: The UNIMAS
experience. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous
communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4, 82-119.
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual Interaction: Design Factors Affecting Student Satisfaction and Perceived
Learning in Asynchronous Online Courses. Distance Education, 22, 306-331.
Szkolne, W. (2005). Approaches to Teaching Grammar. Retrieved June 10, 2006 from
http://www.wsipnet.pl/kluby/angielski.html?w=&kto=431&k1=431&id=4557
Takahashi, M. (2005). The efficacy of grammar instruction in Efl classes in Japan. Dissertation
Abstracts International. ksw.shoin.ac.jp/lib/thesis/takahashi/ta kahashi2005.pdf.
Taraban, R. (2004). Drawing learners’ attention to syntactic context aids gender-like category
induction. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 202–216.
Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade
students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134-146.
Teichert, Herman U. (1985). "Computer Assisted Instruction in Beginning College German: An Experiment."
CALICO Journal, 3(2), 18-24.
Tode, T. (2007). Durability problems with explicit instruction in an EFL context: the learning of the
English copula be before and after the instruction of the auxiliary be. Language Teaching Research,
11(1), 11- 30. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.
Torlakovic, E., & Deugo, D. (2004). Application of a CALL system in the acquisition of adverbs in
English. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 203-235.
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Tozcu, A., & Coady, J. (2004). Successful learning of frequent vocabulary through CALL also benefits
reading comprehension and speed. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 473-495.
Uemura, Tak. (2002). Computer Assisted Instruction in Teaching Grammar.
http://www.joho.nucba.ac.jp/NJLccarticles/vol1041/08UEMURA.PDF
Underwood, J. H. (1993). The lab of the future: Using technology to teach foreign language. American
Association of Community Colleges Journal, 33-39.
Wachman, R. (1999). Classroom practice: Autonomy through authoring software. In Egbert & Hanson-Smith (
eds.), 403–426.
Wang, Jihui. (2010). How to Develop College Students’ Autonomous English Learning Skills: Take Reading
Course in Joint-Program in HCFT as An Example. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 221-228.
Warschauer, M. (2000). On-line learning in second language classroom: An ethnographic study. In M.
Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 41-58).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Watkins, R. (2005). Developing interactive e-learning activities. Performance Improvement, 44, 5-7.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and
negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133-161.
Widodo, H. (2004). Kemampuan mahasiswa Bahasa Inggris dalam menganalisis kalimat bahasa Inggris.
Fenomena, 3(2), 27-38.
Widodo, H. (2006). Approaches and procedures for teaching grammar. English Teaching: Practice and
Critique, 5(1), 122-141.
Zhang, Xiao-rong., Virginia, Yip., & Li, Li-xia. (2008). Relative pronouns in the acquisition of
English relative clause by Chinese EFL learners. Sino-US English Teaching, 5(9), 1-4.
Zhong, Y. (2008). A Study of Autonomy English Learning on the Internet. English Language Teaching, 1
(2), 147-150.
Zhuo, F. (1999). The relationships among hypermedia-based instruction, cognitive styles and teaching
subject-verb agreement to adult ESL learners (adult learners). Ph.D. Dissertation. West Virginia
University. DAI-A 60/01, 106.06.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔