(3.236.228.250) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/13 12:42
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:陳貞君
研究生(外文):Jen-jun Chen
論文名稱:常態性E化國中英語教學發展之行動研究
論文名稱(外文):An Action Research of Developing a Normalized E-learning Instructional Design in a Junior High School English Class
指導教授:楊淑晴楊淑晴引用關係
指導教授(外文):Shu Ching Yang
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立中山大學
系所名稱:教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2016
畢業學年度:104
語文別:中文
論文頁數:239
中文關鍵詞:e化英語教學行動研究翻轉模式跨文化專案混成學習科技輔助語言學習
外文關鍵詞:e-learningtechnology-enhanced language learningblended learningaction researchflipped classroomintercultural project
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:239
  • 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:1
為改善國中英語教學品質,創造真實的語言學習經驗,本研究於教學現場進行常態性e化國中英語課程發展與實踐之行動研究。首先針對e化語言教學的相關理論與後設分析進行文獻探討,進而由研究者即教學者發展e化語言課程,實施為期一學年的常態性e化英語教學。研究參與者為30位高雄市環球國中國三學生,分為兩組上課,A組14人,B組16人,課程內容相同。整體e化語言課程共計46週,包含15個單元教學及2項跨文化專案。單元教學採「課前預習—課堂活動—課後線上練習」模式進行e化教學;跨文化專案進行與烏克蘭和美國交流之維基頻道專案,以及與日本合作之泰迪熊專案。
課程實施期間以「單元反思與意見表」、「循環課程學習經驗問卷」、「e化課程學習經驗問卷」、「國中學生英語學習信念量表」、全民英檢試題、課室錄影、教學研究札記、訪談,以及平台紀錄等多種工具蒐集資料。兼採描述性統計和質性資料處理分析學生對e化語言課程的評估,呈現課程發展過程,以及教師e化教學反思,並探討當前教育環境對e化教學行動的可能影響。此外,以前後測平均數t考驗,輔以效果量,檢驗常態性e化語言課程對兩組學生的英文閱讀、聽力、寫作能力和英語學習信念之影響。
研究結果顯示,兼容不同混成途徑及語言學習典範的常態性e化語言課程,運用多元數位資源,結合面對面教學及線上學習的優點,能夠發展具彈性及真實溝通的語言教學。研究參與者對課程模式、教學設計、跨文化專案交流、資訊工具選用、語言學習效益等皆有肯定評估;e化教學亦有助英文起始能力較弱的組別在閱讀、聽力、寫作方面獲得進步。e化語言課程具有可行性,教師能改變現有的語言教學現場。然而,e化教學發展遠比傳統教學複雜、費時,今日教育環境的科技教學支援尚不充足,加上標準化測驗的箝制,實施過程無法掌控的干擾因素多,教學常受影響而產生變化,挑戰仍多。教師是e化課程實踐的關鍵人物,為發展成功的e化語言教學,教師須增長科技技能、學科專門知識及教育專業知能,方能具備學科科技教學能力,以創造具支持性的常態性e化學習環境。
This action research developed a normalized e-learning curriculum in a junior high school English class, aiming to improve English teaching and provide authentic language learning. The subjects consisted of 30 grade 9 students, divided into two groups (14 in group A, 16 in group B). Both of the groups took the same curriculum, including. 15 learning units in daily lessons and 2 intercultural exchange projects. The e-learning teaching model of each unit is “online preview--face-to-face class activities --online review and exercises.” The students joined in two intercultural projects: (1) Wiki TV Channels Project working with classes in Ukraine and the USA; (2) the Teddy Bear Project with Japan.
At the research period of 46 weeks, the data were collected through students’ learning reflections, learning experience questionnaires, Beliefs about English Learning Inventory, the General English Proficiency Test, class recording, teaching journals, interviews, online learning records, etc. Quantitative and qualitative methods were conducted to analyze the participants’ evaluation of the e-learning curriculum, also reveal the process of curriculum development and the teacher’s reflections, and then explore the influence of the environment on technology-enhanced language teaching. In addition, the paired t-test was used to determine the effects of e-learning curriculum on English reading, listening, writing and language learning beliefs.
The research results indicated the participants had positive attitudes toward the curriculum model, the teaching activities, the intercultural exchange projects, the technology tools, and the learning achievement. E-teaching also enabled the group with weaker language skills to improve its English reading, listening, and writing abilities. The adoption of e-teaching was feasible, but there were still a lot of barriers for the successful overall integration of technology into language teaching. Instructors were the key to success in e-learning language curriculum. Teachers should develop the subject-matter competence, pedagogical competence, and technological competence to create a supportive technology-enhanced learning environment.
誌 謝 i
中文摘要 ii
ABSTRACT iii
第 一 章 緒論 1
第 一 節 研究背景與動機 1
第 二 節 研究目的與問題 5
第 三 節 重要名詞釋意 7
第 四 節 研究範圍與限制 8
第 二 章 文獻探討 9
第 一 節 E化教學模式 9
第 二 節 E化英語教學 13
第 三 節 科技輔助語言教學之研究分析 26
第 三 章 研究方法 29
第 一 節 研究方法與模式 29
第 二 節 研究歷程 31
第 三 節 研究情境 33
第 四 節 研究工具與資料蒐集 36
第 五 節 資料處理與分析 43
第 六 節 研究效度 46
第 七 節 研究倫理 47
第 四 章 E化英語課程之設計 49
第 一 節 課程設計的基礎理念 49
第 二 節 單元教學實施模式 50
第 三 節 跨文化專案融入課程 52
第 四 節 教學設計的相關元素 55
第 五 節 課程內容架構 68
第 五 章 研究結果與討論 80
第 一 節 單元E化學習活動評估及參與分析 80
第 二 節 跨文化專案活動評估分析 91
第 三 節 資訊工具運用分析 98
第 四 節 E化英語課程與教學之效能評價 105
第 五 節 E化英語教學對英語學習之影響 110
第 六 節 E化教學與環境的交互關聯 126
第 七 節 E化教學經歷與反思 133
第 八 節 研究討論 152
第 六 章 研究結論與建議 161
第 一 節 研究結論 161
第 二 節 研究建議 163
參考文獻 168
附錄A 國中學生英語學習信念量表之編製 183
附錄B 單元學習反思與意見 194
附錄C循環課程學習經驗問卷 206
附錄D E化課程學習經驗問卷 217
附錄E E化英語課程實施說明 223
附錄F泰迪熊專案SKYPE視訊交流問題 225
附錄G MOODLE平台「國三英語課程」內容示例擷取畫面 226
附錄H IEARN泰迪熊專案論壇日語漢字用法貼文 229
一、中文部分
丁雪茵、鄭伯壎、任金剛(1996)。質性研究中研究者的角色與主觀性。本土心理學研究,6,354-376。
尹慧中(2015)。宏碁舞雙劍 衝商用業績。2016年2月23日,取自http://udn.com/ news/story/7253/1409158
江明修(1992)。社會科學多重典範的爭辯:試論質與量研究方法的整合。國立政治大學學報,64,315-344。
周中天(1985)。編序式電腦輔助教學課程軟體設計之商榷。教學與研究,7,213-225。
林佩璇(2002)。行動研究的知識宣稱—教師實踐知識。國立臺北師範學院學報,15,189-210。
林佩璇(2009)。課程行動研究的實踐論述-從自我到社會文化。教育實踐與研究, 22(2),95-122。
林佩璇(2012)。課程行動研究—實踐取向的研究論述。台北市:洪葉。
孫志麟(2003)。教師專業成長的另類途徑:知識管理的觀點。國立臺北師範學院學報,16(1),229-252。
財團法人語言訓練測驗中心(無日期)。全民英檢、企業英檢教學資源手冊。2014年3月30日,取自https://www.gept.org.tw/WebFile/DOC/%E5%85%A8%E6% B0%91%E8%8B%B1%E6%AA%A2%E6%95%99%E5%AD%B8%E8%B3%87%E6%BA%90%E6%89%8B%E5%86%8A.pdf
高雄市政府教育局(2013)。103年資訊教育推動細部計畫-高雄市政府教育局國中小行動學習試辦計畫。取自2013年11月13日高雄市政府教育局函。
高雄市政府教育局(2014)。103-104學年推動『行動學習教師專業社群』實施計畫」。取自2014年10月28日高雄市政府教育局函。
國立台灣師範大學心理與教育測驗研究發展中心(2014)。國中教育會考問與答。2014年12月30日,取自http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/documents/104cap Q&A.pdf
國家科學委員會(無日期)。一個想法改變世界──網際網路的誕生與發展。2014年3月2日,取自http://web1.nsc.gov.tw/ct.aspx?xItem=7971&ctNode=286
張武昌(2006)。台灣的英語教育:現況與省思。教育資料與研究雙月刊,69, 129-144。
張武昌、葉錫南、鄭錦桂、黃宗嫻、張麗滎、張立之、林國華、何奕慧、陳雅君(2007)。九年一貫課程之教科書總評鑑:設計理念、能力指標與連貫性:語文領域(英語)教科書評鑑報告。台北市:中華民國課程與教學學會。
張春興(2013)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。台北市:東華。
教育部(2014)。104年資訊教育推動細部計畫-國中小行動學習推動計畫實施方案。2014年10月2日,取自http://mlearning.ntue.edu.tw/
符碧真(2012)。如何讓傳統講述教學法更有效率。2015年12月11日,取自http://ctld.ntu.edu.tw/_epaper/news_detail.php?nid=285
許育齡、梁朝雲、林志成(2013)。教師發揮教學設計想像力的心理與環境因素探究。當代教育研究季刊,21(2),113-148。
陳向明(2011)。社會科學質的研究。台北市:五南書局。
陳美如(2007)。課程理解--教師取向之研究。台北市:五南書局。
陳貞君 (2011)。應用部落格輔助分散式班級經營之行動研究。論文發表於2011台灣教育研究學會國際學術研討會(TICE 2011),高雄市。
陳貞君(2013)。來聽一首跨國交響曲:一位國中英語教師在國際專案教學的實踐與轉化歷程。教育實踐與研究,26(2),67-102。
陳麗珍(2007)。教科書中文化內容之探討:以國中英語課本為例。碩士論文,國立中正大學外國語文學系。
陶蕃瀛(2004)。行動研究:一種增強權能的助人工作方法。應用心理研究,23,33-48。
黃志順(2004)。行動研究與課程教學革新之間?一個行動研究者的反省。應用心理研究,21,91-111。
黃孟婷(2011)。國中英語教科書之用後評估。碩士論文,國立台灣師範大學英語學系在職進修碩士班。
黃春木(2008)。台灣社會升學主義的發展與解決對策(1945-2007)。博士論文,師大教育系。
黃國禎、蘇俊銘、陳年興(2012)。數位學習導論與實務。新北市:博碩。
廖柏森 (2004)。英語全球化脈絡裡的臺灣英語教育。英語教學,29(1),107-121。
劉顯親(2013)。台灣應用電腦及網路科技於英文教學之發展。載於柯華葳(主編),語文數位學習(頁1-22)。台北市:高等教育。
蕭昭君(2004)。國內教育行動研究解放了什麼?-一個師資培育者的閱讀與困惑。載於潘慧玲(主編),教育研究方法論(頁457-494)。台北市:心理。
簡良平(2004)。教師即課程決定者—課程實踐的議題。課程與教學季刊,7(2),95-114。
簡梅瑩(2008)。促進反思教學發展與實施之行動研究。中等教育,59(1),22-35。
簡瑋成(2013)。從自我導向學習觀點探討大學生如何網路學習。教育人力與專業發展,30(5),41-51。
二、英文部分
Aimin, L. (2013). The study of second language acquisition under socio-cultural theory. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(5), 162-167
Andrews, R., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2009). Introduction to e-learning research. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 1-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168.
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656-1662.
Battro, A. M. (2004). Digital skills, globalization, and education. In M. Suarez-Orozco & D. B. Qin-Hilliard (Eds.), Globalization: Culture and education in the new millennium (pp. 78-96). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Bauer, B., de Benedette, L., Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., & Waryn, S. (2006). Internetmediated intercultural foreign language education: The Cultura project. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 31-62). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Bax, S. (2003). CALL— past, present and future. System, 31, 13-28.
Bax, S. (2011). Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in language education. IJCALLT, 1(2), 1-15.
Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers’ integration of interactive whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 289-300.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. Paper presented at the ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA.
Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 41-71.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY : Longman.
Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (2012). Language awareness and (critical) cultural awareness-relationships, comparisons and contrasts. Language Awareness, 21(1-2), 5-13.
Byram, M., Gribkova, B. & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in language teaching. A practical introduction for teachers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, Language Policy Division. Also available at http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Guide_dimintercult _EN.pdf (last accessed April 15, 2013)
Carlorosi, S., Helm, F., Marini-maio, N., & Kmcmahon, K. (2008). Confronting new technologies: A cross-cultural telecollaborative project across the ocean. In E. Occhipinti (Ed.), New approaches to teaching Italian language and culture: Case studies from an international perspective (pp. 173-209). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Cavanaugh, C. S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73-88.
Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalisation. System, 31, 465-479.
Chen, J. J., & Yang, S. C. (2014). Fostering foreign language learning through technology-enhanced intercultural projects. Language Learning & Technology 18(1), 57–75.
Chen, J. J., & Yang, S. C. (2016). Promoting cross-cultural understanding and language use in research-oriented Internet-mediated intercultural exchange. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 262–288.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactics structures. The Hague, the Netherlands : Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of BF Skinner''s verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), 26-58.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conole, G., Oliver, M., Falconer, I., Littlejohn, A., & Harvey, J. (2007). Designing for learning. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: Themes, methods and impact on practice (pp. 101-120). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cooper, H. M. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. Los Angeles, CA : Sage.
Cox, S. M. (2008). A conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge. (Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University). Retrieved from http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti cle=2481&context=etd
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, the UK: Cambridge University Press.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266.
Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Protection of human subjects. Retrived from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/ohrpregulations.pdf
Dewey, M. (2007). English as a lingua franca and globalization: An interconnected perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 332-354.
Dewey, M., & Leung, C. (2010). English in English language teaching: Shifting values and assumptions in changing circumstances. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 25(1), 1-15.
differently? Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20 -%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf
Donato, R., & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (4), 453-464.
Dooly, M. (2008). Telecollaborative language learning: A guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Retrieved from http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=113236
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.
Felix, U. (2005). What do meta-analyses tell us about CALL effectiveness? ReCALL, 17(2), 269-288.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fleming, N., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1245&context=podimproveacad
Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Gonzalez, A. (2013). Teaching with Tablets: How do I integrate tablets with effective instruction? Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fuchs, C., Hauck, M., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2012). Promoting learner autonomy through multiliteracy skills development in cross-institutional exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 82102.
Furstenberg, G., & Levet, S. (2010). Integrating telecollaboration into the language classroom: Some insights. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 305-336). Bern, Switaerland : Peter Lang.
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The CULTURA project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55-102.
García, J. S., & Crapotta, J. (2007). Models of telecollaboration (2): Cultura. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers (pp. 62-84). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Emerging technologies autonomous language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 4-11.
Goodlad, J. I., & Associates. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Graddol, D. (2000). The future of English? [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/ learning-elt-future.pdf
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London, UK: British Council.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions.In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953-1960.
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In C. R. Graham(Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 333-350). New York, NY: 333-350.
Graham, C. R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2005). Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology I-V (pp. 253-259). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
Gredler, M. E. (2009). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NY: Merrill Pearson.
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25(2), 165-198.
Grossman, L. (2006). You -- yes, you --are TIME''s person of the year. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570810,00.html
Guth, S., & Helm, F. (2010). Introduction. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 13-35). Bern, Switaerland : Peter Lang.
Guth, S., & Helm, F. (2012). Developing multiliteracies in ELT through telecollaboration. ELT Journal, 66(1), 42-51.
Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers'' development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25-45.
Harris, J. B, & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229.
Harshbarger, B. (2007). Chaos, complexity and language learning. Language Research Bulletin, 22. Retrieved from http://pdf.aminer.org/000/313/307 /a_logic_analysis_model_about_complex_systems_stability_enlightenment_from.pdf
Harskamp, E., Mayer, R. E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms? Learning and Instruction, 17, 465–477.
Hart, R. S. (1995). The Illinois PLATO foreign languages project. CALICO Journal, 12(4), 15-37.
Hauck, M. (2007). Critical success factors in a tridem exchange. ReCALL, 19(2), 202-223.
Hauck, M., & Lewis, T. (2007). The tridem project. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers (pp. 250-258). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hinkelman, D. (2005). Blended learning: Issues driving an end to laboratory-based CALL. JALT Hokkaido Journal, 9, 17–31.
Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in action: A case study of a middle school digital documentary project. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 179-200.
Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://www.leadcommission.org/sites/ default/files/The%20Rise%20of%20K-12%20Blended%20Learning_0.pdf
International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2011). National standards for quality online courses. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/resource/inacol -national-standards-for-quality-online-courses-v2/
Jenkins, J. (1998). Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an International Language? ELT journal, 52(2), 119-126.
Jenkins, J. (2006a). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157-181.
Jenkins, J. (2006b). Global intelligibility and local diversity: Possibility or paradox. In R. Rubby & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp. 32-39). New York, NY: Continuum.
Jones, R. L. (1995). TICCIT and CLIPS: The early years. CALICO Journal, 12(4), 84-96.
Kachru, B. B. (1998). English as an Asian language. Links & Letters, 5, 89-108.
Kao, P. L. (2010). Examining second language learning: Taking a sociocultural stance. ARECLS, 7, 113-131.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University
Kennedy, C., & Levy, M. (2009). Sustainability and computer-assisted language learning: Factors for success in a context of change. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(5), 445-463.
Kern, R. G., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Introduction: Theory and practice of networked-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. G. Kern (Eds.) Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre‐service teachers with a large‐scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 563-573.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C., Morgenstern, D., & Murray, J. H. (1985). An overview of the MIT Athena language learning project. CALICO Journal, 2(4), 31-34.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, NY: Pergamon.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice. 41(4), 212-219.
Lam, W. S. E., & Kramsch, C. (2003). The ecology of an SLA community in a computer-mediated environment. In J. Leather & J. V. Dam (Eds.), Ecology of language acquisition (pp.141-158). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Punlishers.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). On the complementarily of chaos/complexity theory and dynamic systems theory in understanding the second language acquisition process. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 35-37.
Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257-278.
Leather, J., & Van Dam, J. (2003). Ecology of language acquisition. Norwrll, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lee, L. (2009). Promoting intercultural exchanges with blogs and podcasting: A study of Spanish–American telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(5), 425-443.
Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1-21.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 769-782.
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1(2), 143-153.
Lewis, T., Chanier, T., & Youngs, B. (2011). Special issue commentary multilateral online exchanges for language and culture learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 39.
MacDonald, M. N., Badger, R., & Dasli, M. (2006). Authenticity, culture and language learning. Language and Intercultural Communication, 6(3-4), 250-261.
Mahmoodzadeh, M. (2012). Towards an understanding of ecological challenges of second language teaching: A critical review. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 3(6), 1157-1164.
Mahn, H. (2013). Vygotsky and second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1-7). Chicester, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Manny-Ikan, E., Dagan, O., Berger-Tikochinski, T., & Zorman, R. (2011). Using the Interactive white board in teaching and learning–An evaluation of the SMART CLASSROOM pilot project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7(1), 249-273.
Marsh, D. (2012). Blended learning creating learning opportunities for language learners. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating world Englishes in teaching English as an international language. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719-729.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design : An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). Santa Barbara, CA: Cambridge University Press.
Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2004) Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. London: Joint Information Systems Committee. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningpedagogy/outcomes.aspx
McKay, S. L. (2000). Teaching English as an international language: Implications for cultural materials in the classroom. TESOL journal, 9(4), 7-11.
Mckay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
McKernan, J. (2013). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London, UK: Routledge.
Miguela, A. D. (2007). Models of telecollaboration (3): eTwinning. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers (pp. 85-106). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qalitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108, 1017–1054.
Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levačić, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard. London, UK: Institute of Education.
Motteram, G, & Stanley, G. (2011). Special Issue on Web 2.0 and the Normalisation of Call. IJCALLT, 1(2): i–vi.
Motteram, G. (2006). ‘Blended’education and the transformation of teachers: A long‐term case study in postgraduate UK Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 17-30.
Mutlu, A., & Eröz-Tuğa, B. (2013). The role of computer-assited language learning (CALL) in promoting learner autonomy. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 51, 107-122.
Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning--parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 163-178.
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On the Horizon, 19(3), 207-216.
O’Dowd, R. (2007a). Evaluating the outcomes of online intercultural exchange. ELT Journal, 61(2), 144-152.
O''Dowd, R. (Ed.). (2007b). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers.Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
O''Rourke, B. (2007). Models of telecollaboration (1): eTandem. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers (pp. 41-61). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity- One''s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17-21.
Peters, L. (2009). Global education: Using technology to bring the world to your students. Washington, DC: ISTE.
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009). K-12 online learning: A 2008 follow up of the survey of U.S. school district administrators. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class connections: High school reform and the role of online learning. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J. Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of online learning in American K-12 education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 127-135.
Piggot-Irvine, E. (2006). Sustaining excellence in experienced principals? Critique of a professional learning community approach. International Electronic Journal for Leadership Learning, 10(16). Retrived from http://iejll.journalhosting. ucalgary.ca/index.php/ijll/article/viewFile/616/278
Plass, J., & Jones, L. (2005). Multimedia learning in second language acquisition. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 467-488). Santa Barbara, CA: Cambridge University Press.
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method--why? Tesol Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.
Prenksy, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II. Do they really think
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Retrieved from http://www. marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Reinders, H., & White, C. (2010). The theory and practice of technology in materials development and task design. In N. Harwood (Ed.), Materials in ELT: Theory and practice (p. 58-80). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2002). 30 years of TEFL/TESL: A personal reflection. RELC Journal, 33(2), 1-35.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905-947).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (2000). Definition and selection of key competencies. Retrieved from http://www.deseco.admin.ch/bfs/deseco/en/ index/02.parsys.69356. download List.26477.DownloadFile.tmp/
Salmon, G. (2002). E-Tivities: The key to active online learning. London, UK: Kogan Page Limited.
Sanders, R. H. (1995). Thirty years of computer assisted language instruction: Introduction. CALICO Journal, 12(4), 6-14.
Seery, M. K., & Donnelly, R. (2012) The mplementation of pre-lecture resources to reduce n-class cognitive load: A case study for higher ducation chemistry. British Journal of Educational echnology 43 (4), 667–677.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.
Seidlhofer, B. (2006). English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: What it isn''t. In R. Rubby & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp. 40-50). New York, NY: Continuum.
Sharwood S., M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics,Ⅱ(2), 159-168.
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web‐based and classroom instruction: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 623-664.
Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24(2), 86-97.
Skinner, B. F. (1961). Why we need teaching machines Harvard Educational Review, 31(4), 377-398.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1997). A model of intercultural communication competence. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 379- 391). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2–52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535180.pdf
Stanley, G. (2013). Integrating technology into secondary English language teaching. In G. Motteram (Ed.), Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching (pp. 45-66). London, UK: Britich Council.
Stickler, U., & Emke, M. (2011). LITERALIA: Towards developing intercultural maturity online. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 147-168.
Stier, J. (2006). Internationalisation, intercultural communication and intercultural competence. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 11(1), 1–12.
Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCall, 19(2), 105-120.
Stockwell, G. (2012). Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stracke, E. (2007a). A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop out of a blended language learning (BLL) environment. ReCALL, 19(1), 57-78.
Stracke, E. (2007b). Spotlight on blended language learning: A frontier beyond learner autonomy and computer assisted language learning. Retrieved from http://www.independentlearning.org/uploads/100836/ILA2007_036.pdf
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Su, Y. C. (2008). Promoting cross-cultural awareness and understanding: Incorporating ethnographic interviews in college EFL classes in Taiwan. Educational Studies, 34(4), 377-398.
Tafazoli, D., & Golshan, N. (2014). Review of computer-assisted language learning: History, merits & barriers. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(5-1), 32-38.
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning a second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28.
Thorne, S. L. (2005). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education: Approaches, pedagogy, and research. CALPER Working Paper Series No. 6. The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research.
Tripp, T., & Rich, P. (2012). Using video to analyze one''s own teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 678-704.
Tudor, I. (2003). Learning to live with complexity: Towards an ecological perspective on language teaching. System, 31(1), 1-12.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.
Valdes, J. M. (1986). Culture bound: Bridging the cultural gap in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2009). (Re)situating the role(s) of new technologies in world-language teaching and learning. In R. Oxford & J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the net generation (pp. 9–22). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
van Meer, J. P., & Theunissen, N. C. M. (2009). Prospective educational applications of mental simulation: A meta-review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2) 93-112.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge – A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109-121.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.
Ware, P. D., & O''Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language teaching, 31(2), 57-71.
Waxman, H. C., Lin, M., & Michko, G. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes: Learning Point Associates.
Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept. In C. Blackmore (Ed.). Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179-198). London, UK: Springer-Verlag.
Wesely, P. M. (2012). Learner attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs in language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 45(S1), S98-S117.
Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945-948
Yang, S. C., & Chen, J. J. (2003). Integrating Internet-based materials into L2 grammar teaching: A case study in Kaohsiung. Paper presented at the 2003 International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2003), Hong Kong.
Yang, Y. C., Gamble, J., & Tang, S. S. (2012). Voice over instant messaging as a tool for enhancing the oral proficiency and motivation of English‐as‐a‐foreign‐language learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 448-464.
Yun, J. (2011). The effects of hypertext glosses on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), 39-58.
Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Learning environments in information and communications technology classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(1), 97-123.
Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7-27.
電子全文 電子全文(網際網路公開日期:20210530)
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 丁雪茵、鄭伯壎、任金剛(1996)。質性研究中研究者的角色與主觀性。本土心理學研究,6,354-376。
2. 江明修(1992)。社會科學多重典範的爭辯:試論質與量研究方法的整合。國立政治大學學報,64,315-344。
3. 周中天(1985)。編序式電腦輔助教學課程軟體設計之商榷。教學與研究,7,213-225。
4. 林佩璇(2009)。課程行動研究的實踐論述-從自我到社會文化。教育實踐與研究, 22(2),95-122。
5. 張武昌(2006)。台灣的英語教育:現況與省思。教育資料與研究雙月刊,69, 129-144。
6. 許育齡、梁朝雲、林志成(2013)。教師發揮教學設計想像力的心理與環境因素探究。當代教育研究季刊,21(2),113-148。
7. 陳貞君(2013)。來聽一首跨國交響曲:一位國中英語教師在國際專案教學的實踐與轉化歷程。教育實踐與研究,26(2),67-102。
8. 陶蕃瀛(2004)。行動研究:一種增強權能的助人工作方法。應用心理研究,23,33-48。
9. 黃志順(2004)。行動研究與課程教學革新之間?一個行動研究者的反省。應用心理研究,21,91-111。
10. 廖柏森 (2004)。英語全球化脈絡裡的臺灣英語教育。英語教學,29(1),107-121。
11. 簡良平(2004)。教師即課程決定者—課程實踐的議題。課程與教學季刊,7(2),95-114。
12. 簡瑋成(2013)。從自我導向學習觀點探討大學生如何網路學習。教育人力與專業發展,30(5),41-51。
 
無相關點閱論文
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔