臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討學生的口語能力表現與第二語言學習學生使用結合網路同儕及老師評量的學習方式於課堂中。本研究之使用網路多媒體VoiceThread，以供學生評量及評語同儕的表現。進而探討英語口語課程結合網路多媒體VoiceThread，網路線上同儕與老師評量的有效性，是否有助於學生增進其學習表現。
為完成其研究目的，本研究之研究對象為六十四位來自中台灣一所一般大學兩班中級英語會話班三年級的學生。實驗組的受試者總共三十八位並分配成八小組別，對照組的受試者共二十六位且分配成六小組別。實驗組學生各小組分別自行挑選主題為課程主題報告，學生呈現主題報告時以錄影記錄方式記錄並上傳影片至網路多媒體VoiceThread以供學生網路平台給予同儕評量。對照組學生則以紙本方式給予同儕評量及評語，但實驗組及對照組兩組採用相同的教學策略。此實驗程序在一學期間一共為兩輪方式進行主題報告與同儕評量及評語。個人及整組評量表提供學生方向給予同儕評語和表現成績。
量化分析透過以下問卷分析，第一、透過同儕與老師評量觀感問卷調查(The Perception of Peer and Expert Evaluation Questionnaire)探討實驗組學生對於使用網路多媒體VoiceThread結合課程的課程設計及使用想法以及對照組學生對於紙本評量方式的觀感與看法。第二、此實驗期間兩次探究團體學習問卷(Community of Inquiry Questionnaire) 來蒐集量化分析資料。而質化分析是透過深度訪談受試者來瞭解學生的看法與觀點。主要研究結果發現學生偏愛同儕與老師在網路上提供的評量及評語。學生在第二次的主題報告的表現有大幅度的進步是由於社會臨場感及教學臨場感之重要性幫助學生學習。透過網路學習不僅提供了實質上的學習環境，也進而促進學生的口語能力表現。此外，結合網路科技的教學方式是有效性的促使學生的學習能力。此研究結論，透過網路學習環境，結合與使用同儕與老師之評量於以英語為外語學習之學習者課程中可以幫助學生達到有效的學習以及達成學習目標。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the speaking performance and perceptions of students after conducting web-based peer and expert evaluation in an EFL conversation course. The platform used in this study for the students to comment on and grade the other groups’ presentations was VoiceThread (http://www.voicethread.com), a Web 2.0 multimedia tool. The study explored the effectiveness of peer and expert evaluations on VoiceThread; also whether VoiceThread helped students enhance their learning performance. Participants were in two intact Advanced Conversation classes of 64 English-majored juniors at a four-year academic university in central Taiwan. Thirty-eight students were in the experimental group, divided into eight subgroups; whereas 26 students participated in the control group, divided into six subgroups. In the experimental group, each subgroup self-selected a topic for each of their in-class presentations, and the presentations were video recorded and uploaded to the VoiceThread website for the peers in other groups, as well as a native English speaking expert, to give evaluations. In the control group, paper-based evaluations from peers and the teacher were employed, but instructional strategies and student assignments were the same as in the experimental group. Two rounds of presentations and peer evaluation were scheduled by the end of the semester. Two rubrics for assessing individual and group presentations were distributed to the students as guidance for giving peer evaluation. A survey about student perceptions of using VoiceThread was administered to the experimental group and that about perceptions of using paper-based evaluation was administered to the control group. Two rounds of a survey using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Questionnaire were administered to collect quantitative data. Interviews were performed to collect qualitative data. The findings showed that students appreciated the peer and expert audio/video evaluations and preferred them to paper-based evaluations. The students improved on their second presentation as a result of the feedback after the first presentation and both the Social Presence and the Teaching Presence were important to student learning. The online asynchronous communication also provided a virtual place, beyond the four-walls of the classroom, to facilitate the students’ speaking performance; moreover, the technology-based instruction was effective in fostering student learning. The findings showed that conducting and integrating peer and expert evaluations via an online learning environment into the instructional design of EFL curricula can help students excel in learning and achieve their goals.

Acknowledgements iii
Chinese Abstract iv
English Abstract vi
Table of Contents viii
List of Tables xii
List of Figures xiv

Chapter One Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction of the Study 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 3
1.3 Research Questions 3
1.4 Delimitations of the Study 4
1.5 Significance of the Study 5
1.6 Definition of Terms 5
1.7 Organization of the Study 7

Chapter Two Literature Review 9
2.1 Constructivist Learning Theory 10
2.2. Motivation in EFL Learning 12
2.3 Learning Communities in Online Learning 13
2.4 Community of Inquiry 14
2.4.1 Cognitive presence 15
2.4.2 Social presence 16
2.4.3 Teaching presence 17
2.5 Web 2.0 and VoiceThread 17
2.6 Peer Evaluation 20
2.7 Expert Evaluation 21
2.8 Online Evaluation 22
2.9 Literature Review Summary 23

Chapter Three Methodology 24
3.1 Instructional Design 26
3.2 Instruments 26
3.2.1 Quantitative Instruments 28
3.2.1.1 Perception of Peer and Expert Evaluation Questionnaire 28
3.2.1.2 Community of Inquiry (CoI) Questionnaire 29
3.2.1.3 Peer and Expert Review Rubrics 29
3.2.2 Qualitative Interview Protocol 31
3.3 Participants 32
3.4 Data Collection 33
3.5 Data Analysis 35
3.5.1 Quantitative Analysis 35
3.5.2 Qualitative Analysis 36

Chapter Four Results 37
4.1 Questionnaires 38
4.1.1 Perception of Peer and Expert Evaluation Questionnaire 38
4.1.2 Community of Inquiry (CoI) Questionnaire 39
4.2 Reliability 39
4.3 Descriptive Statistics 41
4.4 Inferential Statistics 56
4.4.1 Giving Audio-recorded/Paper-based Evaluations to Peers 56
4.4.2 Receiving Audio-recorded/Paper-based Evaluations from Peers 58
4.4.3 Receiving Audio-recorded/Paper-based Evaluations from Expert 59
4.4.4 Difference between Receiving Peer and Expert Evaluations 61
4.4.5 Expert Scores on Student Presentation Performances 63
4.4.6 Peer Scores on Peer Presentation Performances 65
4.4.7 Social Presence on Student Presentation Performances 67
4.4.8 Teaching Presence on Student Presentation Performances 68
4.5 Interview Findings 69
4.5.1 The Best Characteristics of VoiceThread 71
4.5.2 The Worst Characteristics of VoiceThread 73
4.5.3 The Importance of the Evaluations from Peers 74
4.5.4 The Importance of the Evaluations from Experts 77
4.5.5 The VoiceThread Evaluation versus Paper-based Evaluation 78

Chapter Five Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations 81
5.1 Summary of the Study 81
5.1.1 Purpose of the Study 81
5.1.2 Review of the Study 83
5.1.3 Survey Findings 84
5.1.4 Interview Findings 87
5.2 Discussion of the Findings 88
5.2.1 Students’ Perceptions about Peer Evaluation 89
5.2.2 Students’ Perceptions about Expert Evaluation 91
5.2.3 Peer Evaluations versus Expert Evaluations 92
5.2.4 Social Presence and Teaching Presence 94
5.3 Conclusion 95
5.4 Limitations of this Study 96
5.5 Recommendations for Future Research 97

References 98

Appendix A The Perception of Peer/Expert Evaluation Questionnaire(Experimental group) 109
Appendix B The Perception of Peer/Expert Evaluation Questionnaire(Control group) 112
Appendix C The Pre-test Instructional Questionnaire 115
Appendix D The Post-test Instructional Questionnaire 118
Appendix E The Rubric for Assessing Group Presentations 121
Appendix F The Rubric for Assessing Individual Presentations 123
Appendix G Interview Protocol (Experimental Group) 125
Appendix H Interview Protocol (Control Group) 126
Appendix I Experimental Group Interview Transcript 127
Appendix J Control Group Interview Transcript 139

Akyol, Z., & Garrison D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 14, 183-190.
Amrhein, H. R. & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.
Aqda, M. F., Hamidi, F., & Ghorbandordinejad, F. (2011). The impact of constructivist and cognitive distance instructional design on the learner’s creativity. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 260-265.
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R. Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson, J.C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136.
Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0, pedagogical support for reflexive and emotional social interaction among Swedish students. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 197-205.
Bangert, A. W. (2009). Building a validity argument for the community of inquiry survey instrument. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 104-111.
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.
Bi, N. Z. (2011). An investigation into English mixing in Chinese internet language. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 60-64.
Bonney, C. R., Cortina, K. S., Smith-Darden, J. P., & Fiori, K. L. (2008). Understanding strategies in foreign language learning: Are integrative and intrinsic motives distinct predictors? Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 1-10.
Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195-203.
Bouzidi, L., & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can online peer assessment be trusted? Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 257–268.
Bran, R. (2009). Do the math: ESP + Web 2.0 = ESP 2.0! Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2219-2523.
Burgess, M., Slate, J. R., Rojas-LeBouef, A., & LaPrairie, K. (2010). Teaching and learning in Second Life: Using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model to support online instruction with graduate students in instructional technology. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 84-88.
Chan, S. (2010). Designing an online class using a constructivist Approach. Journal of Adult Education, 39(1), 26-39.
Chang, C. C., Tseng, K. H., & Lou, S. J. (2012). A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among teacher-assessment, student self-assessment and peer-assessment in a Web-based portfolio assessment environment for high school students. Computer & Education, 58, 303-320.
Chen, C. H. (2010). The implementation and evaluation of a mobile self- and peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 55(1), 229-236.
Chen, Y. C., Hwang, R. H., & Wang, C. Y. (2012). Development and evaluation of a Web 2.0 annotation system as a learning tool in an e-learning environment. Computer & Education, 58, 1094-1105.
Coe, M., Hanita, M., Nishoka, V., & Smiley, R. (2011). An investigation of the impact of the 6+1 Trait writing model on grade 5 student writing achievement final report. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/1218.
Cross, K. P. (1998). Why learning communities? Why now? About Campus, 3(3), 4-11.
Davies, P. (2006). Peer Assessment: Judging the quality of students’ work by comments rather ant marks. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43, 69-82.
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2011). Assessing collaboration in a wiki: the reliability of university students' peer assessment. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 201-206.
Diaz, S. R., Swan, K., Ice, P., & Kupczynknski, L. (2010). Student ratings of the importance of survey items, multiplicative factor analysis, and the validity of the community of inquiry survey. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 22-30.
Dijkstra, S. (1997). The integration of instructional systems design models and constructivistic design principles. Instructional Science, 25(1), 1-13.
Dilans, G. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in the adult ESL classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 787-816. doi:10.3138/cmlr.66.6.787
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Longman, Harlow.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Dörnyei, Z., & Otto, I. (1998). Motivation in action: a process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43-69.
El Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2010). The impact of computer-based feedback on students' written work. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 121-142.
Elliot, N., & Higgins, A. (2005). Self and peer assessment – Does it make a difference to students group work? Nurse Education in Practice, 5, 40-48.
Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-35.
Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F. Bound and R. Meade (Eds.), Cultural factors in learning and education, (pp. 184-203). Bellingham: Fifth Western Washington Symposium on Learning.
Gardner, R., Tremblay, P.F., & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 344-362.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 31-36.
Gazi, Z. A. (2009). Implementing Constructivist approach into online course designs in distance education institute at Eastern Mediterranean University. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 68-81.
Ghazvini, S. D., & Khajehpour, M. (2011). Attitudes and motivation in learning English as Second Language in high school student. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 15, 1209-1213.
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2012). Peer assessment in a wiki: Product improvement, students’ learning and perception regarding peer feedback. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 69, 585-594.
Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computer & Education, 57, 2333-2351.
Halic, O., Lee, D., Paulus, T., & Spence, M. (2010). To blog or not to blog: Student perceptions of blog effectiveness for learning in college-level course. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 206-213.
Harris, K. (2011). Multifarious instructional design: a design grounded in evidence-based practice. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 6, 22-26.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-113.
Henry, M. (2002). Constructivism in the community college classroom. The History Teacher, 36(1), 65-74.
Houston, L., Stoddard, T., Coleman, A. (2008). Voice tools and virtual classrooms. Reflections on the journey taken when researching and implementing various technology and pedagogy into TESOL online courses. Australian Flexible Learning Framework, 7, 1-15.
Huang, H. W. (2011). Assessing student perceptions of the Community of Inquiry model through group collaboration via online and face-to-face instruction. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Idaho, U.S.A..
Huang, H. W., & Taylor, L. (2011). Using VoiceThead and Wordle in course curriculum. Proceedings of 2011 International Conference on Computer and Network Technologies in Education (CNTE 2011). (pp. 291-294). Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Huang, S. C. (2006). Reading English for academic purpose – What situational factors may motivate learners to read? System, 34, 371-383.
Humphreys, G., & Spratt, M. (2008). Many languages, many motivations: A study of Hong Kong students’ motivation to learn different target languages. System, 36, 313-335.
Hus, I. C. (2007). A Study of the Mixing of English in Chinese Mandarin Advertising. Unpublished master thesis, Providence University, Taiwan.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255-286.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jonassen, D., Cernusca, D., & Ionas, G. (2007). Constructivism and instructional design: The emergence of the learning sciences and design research. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 45-52). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 17-25.
Kala, S., Isaramalai, S., & Pohthong, A. (2010). Electronic learning and constructivism: A model for nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 30, 61-66.
Ke, F., & Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating online learning communities. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 57(4), 487-510.
Kellog, K. (1999) Learning communities. ERIC Digest. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ED430512). Retrieved on September 21, 2009 from ERIC http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED430512
Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250-266.
Kocadere, S., & Ozgen, D. (2012). Assessment of basic design course in terms of constructivist learning theory. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 115-119.
Lamb, M. (2004). Integrative motivation in a globalizing world. System, 32, 3-19.
Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assesses: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525-536.
Li, L., Liu, X., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Give and take: A re-analysis of assessor and assessee’s roles in technology-facilitated peer assessment. British Journal of Education Technology, 43(3), 376-384.
Ling Koh, J. H., Herring, S. C., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Project-based learning and student knowledge construction during asynchronous online discussion. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 284-291.
Liou, H. C., & Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediate peer review. System, 37, 514-525.
Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. D. (2010). From pixel on screen to real person in your students’ lives: Establishing social presence using digital storytelling. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 70-72.
Maloney, E. J. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(18), 26.
Marek, M. W., & Wu, P-h. N. (2012). Selecting CMC systems for EFL instruction: Can standard social media platforms succeed? In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2012 (pp. 967-972). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Mcleaod, S. G., Brown, G. C., McDaniels, P. W., & Sledge, L. (2009). Improving writing with a PAL: Harnessing the power of peer assisted learning with the reader’s assessment rubrics. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 488-502.
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 82-99.
Murdock, J. L., & Williams, A. M. (2011). Creating an online learning community: Is it possible?. Innovative Higher Education, 36(5), 305-315.
Nagel, L., & Kotzé, T. G. (2010). Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals about teaching presence in a large online class. Internet and Higher Education,13, 45-51.
Nechita, E., & Timofti, I. (2011). Increasing independence versus increasing collaboration with ICT support. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1508-1517.
Ozuturk, G. (2012). “To what extent are postgraduate international students at Sunderland University intrinsically motivated in learning English” and “Is there a difference between male and female students in terms of their intrinsic motivation?” Proceida Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 424-430.
Park, S. (2013). The potential of Web 2.0 tools to promote reading engagement in a general education course. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning 57(2), 46-53.
Pop, A., Tomuletiu, E. A., & David, D. (2011). EFL speaking communication with asynchronous voice tools for adult students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 15, 1199-1203.
Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2013). Urkish EFL university instructors’ practices in providing written feedback. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 70, 95-100.
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. (1988). TESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.
Raes, A., Schellens, T., & Vanderhoven, E. (2011). Increasing anonymity in peer assessment using classroom response technology. International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Hong Kong.
Reiser, R. A. (2007). A history of instructional design and technology. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 17-34). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Richardson, J., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 52-59.
Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2013). The effects of technology on the Community of Inquiry and satisfaction with online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 17, 48-57.
Scherer Bassani, P. B. (2011). Interpersonal exchanges in discussion forums: A study of learning communities in distance learning settings. Computers & Education, 56, 931-938.
Séror, J. (2011). Alternative sources of feedback and second language writing development in university content courses. Canadian Journal Of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 118-143.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of c communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(1), 1721-1731.
Sorensen, E. K., & Takle, E. S. (2005). Investigating knowledge building dialogues in networked communities of practice. A collaborative learning endeavor across cultures. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 10, 50–60.
Strait, W., & Wilke, R. (2007). How Constructivist are we? Representations of transmission and participatory models of instruction in the journal of college science teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching. 36(7), 58-61.
Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: the Community of Inquiry framework. In Payne, C. R. (Ed.) Information Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive Learning Frameworks. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 43-57.
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in college and university. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-169.
Tsai, C. C. (2001). The interpretation construction design model for teaching science and its applications to internet-based instruction in Taiwan. International Journal of Education Development, 21, 401-415.
Tseng, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computer & Education, 49, 1161-1174.
Tseng, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Taiwan college students’ self-efficacy and motivation of learning in online peer assessment environments. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 164-169.
Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Schellens, T., & Montrieux, H. (2012). Face-to-face peer assessment in secondary education: does anonymity matter? Social and Behavioral Science, 69, 1340-1347.
Venables, A., & Summit, R. (2003). Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(3), 281-290.
Wasson, B., & Vold, V. (2012). Leveraging new media skills in a peer feedback tool. Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 255-264.
Wen, L. M. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51, 27-44.
Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students’ performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 186-193.
Yu, C. Y. (2011). A study on teacher misbehaviors as learning demotivation among EFL student in Taiwan. Unpublished master thesis, Providence University, Taiwan.
Zhang, Q., & Kou, Q. (2012). The course research for the software program based on the Constructivism teaching theories. Physics Procedia, 25, 2294-2297.