成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	黃彥樺 Huang, Yan-Hua
論文名稱：	在一所國中以Twitter為基礎的英文協作句型練習之效用 Effects of Twitter-based Collaborative English Sentence Practice in a Junior High School
指導教授：	劉繼仁 Liu, Gi-Zen
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	文學院 - 外國語文學系碩士在職專班 Department of Foreign Languages and Literature (on the job class)
論文出版年：	2012
畢業學年度：	100
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	159
中文關鍵詞：	微網誌、推特、英文造句能力、協作學習
外文關鍵詞：	microblogging, Twitter, English sentence-making competence, collaborative learning
相關次數：	點閱：105 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

摘要

新的Web 2.0工具已經創造了新的典範轉移，使得線上寫作趨勢從部落格寫作轉移到微網誌協作寫作。在這些微網誌服務中，Twitter是全世界最被廣泛使用的應用。此研究主要調查透過Twitter的英文句型協作練習，是否會對南台灣一所國中七年級學生的英文造句能力和英文學習態度有所影響。
這篇研究採取了質性和量化分析研究方法，且遵從行動研究的原則。兩班的七年級學生會參加這場實驗，並分別列為控制和實驗組。兩班各有34位學生。研究者結合了傳統的合作學習方法，帶領學生透過Twitter分組練習英文句型，也創造了優異的電腦輔助合作學習環境。當控制組參加者接受以教室為主的書寫練習時，實驗組參加者則參加以Twitter為主的協作和溝通練習。實驗組參加者被分別指派到一個4人的小組。全班共有8組。教學材料包括了佳音翰林版iEnglish第二冊。其他工具包含了一個英文造句能力測驗(ESCT)、一個英文學習態度量表(ELPS)、數位相機、MP3錄音機、實驗後回饋問卷和訪談問題列表等。在實驗前後舉行了英文造句能力測驗和英文學習態度量表的前測和後測。實驗持續了16週，從2011年的3月中到6月底。結束後，參加者填寫實驗後回饋問卷，共有20人會接受訪談。
以下列出主要的研究發現。研究者使用了成對樣本t檢定和獨立樣本t檢定。此外，訪談和其他質性資料也會被討論。

1. 實驗組參加者在英文造句能力測驗後測的表現，比對照組參加者良好，但是對照組參加者卻相對地進步比較多。實驗組參加者在英文學習態度量表後測有了很多進步，相反地對照組參加者毫無進步。
2. 實驗組參加者在英文學習態度量表的合作和數位學習態度兩個分類進步很多。對照組參加者在英文造句能力測驗的其中三項進步更多，分別是改錯、重組和回答問題。
3. 實驗組的低學習成就者進步許多，特別是在英文學習態度量表的合作和數位學習態度兩個分類。對照組的中學習成就者，和低學習成就者與高學習成就者比較起來，在英文造句能力測驗進步最多。

這個研究的發現可成為EFL教師應用Twitter的重要參考。透過Twitter的英文句型練習對於七年級學生的英文造句能力影響程度有限，且Twitter的確提昇了他們的英文學習態度，特別是協作和數位學習態度。低學習成就者對於此經驗印象深刻且在活動中享受樂趣。

Abstract

The new Web 2.0 tools have been creating a new paradigm shift, causing the online writing trend to move from blog-based writing to microblogging-based collaborative writing. Among these microblogging services, Twitter is the most widely-used one around the world. This study aimed to investigate the effect of collaborative sentence practice via Twitter on the English sentence-making competence and English learning perception of the seventh graders in a junior high school in southern Taiwan.
This study adopted quantitative and qualitative research and followed the principles of the action research. Two classes of the seventh graders joined the experiment as the control and experimental group. Each class was composed of 34 students. Combined with the classroom-based cooperative learning technique, the researcher/teacher led the participants to practice English sentence via Twitter, which also created an excellent environment of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). While the control group participants undertook classroom-based written practice, those in the experimental group did Twitter-based collaborative and communicative practice. The experimental group participants were divided into groups of four people. There were 8 groups in total. The teaching materials included the textbook and workbooks of Joy-Hanlin iEnglish Book 2. Other instruments covered an English Sentence-making Competence Test (ESCT), an English Learning Perception Scale (ELPS), digital cameras, an MP3 recorder, post-experiment feedback questionnaires, learning sheets, and an interview question list. Pre-study and post-study tests about English sentence-making competence and pre-study and post-study scale about English learning perception were conducted before and after the experiment. The experiment lasted for 16 weeks, from mid-March to the end of June in 2011. In the end, the participants completed a questionnaire about their feedback and experiences. 20 of them were interviewed for more detailed data.
Some of the main research findings were listed as follows. Independent samples t-test and paired samples t-test were conducted for the quantitative results. In addition, interviews and other qualitative data were also discussed.

1. Experimental group participants performed better than control group participants in the post-study ESCT, but control group participants made more improvements. Experimental group participants made great promotion in the post-study ELPS, while control group participants didn’t.
2. Experimental group participants made greater promotion in the second and third categories – Collaborative and Digital Learning Perception. Control group participants made more improvements in three of the four parts of the ESCT as follows: circle & revise the sentences, unscramble the sentences, and answer the questions.
3. Low-achievers in the experimental group made the most promotion, especially in the second and third categories – Collaborative and Digital Learning Perception compared with other participants. Mid-achievers in the control group made the most improvements compared with high and low achievers and experimental group participants in the ESCT.

The findings of the study could serve as the essential references of using Twitter for EFL high school teachers. The impact of sentence practice via Twitter on the English sentence-making competence of the seventh graders was not obvious, and it indeed enhanced their learning perception, especially collaborative and digital learning perception. Low-achievers got impressed with the experience and had fun in the activities.

Table of Contents

Abstract (Chinese)	i
Abstract (English)	ii
Acknowledgements	iv
Table of Contents	vi
List of Tables	xiii
List of Figures	xvi
	
CHAPTER ONE	INTRODUCTION	1
1.1.	Background and Motivation	1
1.2.	Purpose of the study	2
1.3.	Definitions of Terms	3
		
CHAPTER TWO	LITERATURE REVIEW	6
2.1.	Web 2.0 and Microblogging – a Paradigm Shift	6
2.1.1.	Blogs and Instant Messaging	6
2.1.2.	The Birth of the Microblogging Platforms	8
2.1.3.	Twitter – Basic Usage and Beyond	9
2.2.	More Advanced Applications of Microblogging	10
2.2.1.	Professional Usage at the Workplace and in Education	10
2.2.2.	Another Microblogging Platform – Cirip.ro	11
2.2.3.	Twitter as a Collaborative Language Learning Tool	12
2.2.4.	Advantages, Disadvantages, and Limitations of using Twitter	14
2.3.    Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) and its Application	16
2.3.1.	Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and CSCL	16
2.3.2.	The Power of Feedback – From Teacher and Peers	19
2.4.   The Development and Assessment of English Sentence-making Competence	21
2.4.1.	Implications of Writing Process Theories for Sentence-making	21
2.4.2.	Implications of Writing Assessment for Sentence-making	24
2.4.3.	English Sentence-making Related Research in Taiwan	27
2.5.	Summary	29
2.6.	Research Questions	30
		
CHAPTER THREE	METHODOLOGY	31
3.1.	Research Design	31
3.2.	Research Site	35
3.3.	The Researcher as the Teacher in the Study	35
3.4.	Participants	36
3.4.1.	Participants’ Role	36
3.4.2.	Participants’ Background	37
3.5.	Instruments	42
3.5.1.	Textbook and Workbooks	43
3.5.2.	A Video Camera, A Camera, and An MP3 Player	43
3.5.3.  Teaching Journals, Post-experiment Feedback Questionnaires, and Learning sheets	44
3.5.4.	A Pre-study and Post-study ELPS	45
3.5.5.	A Pre-study and Post-study ESCT	47
3.5.6.	A List of Questions for the Interview	53
3.6.	Research Procedure	54
3.7.	Data Collection and Analyses	61
3.7.1.	Quantitative Evaluation	61
3.7.2.	Qualitative Evaluation	62
		
CHAPTER FOUR		RESEARCH RESULTS	64
4.1.RQ1: What are the learning effects on the seventh graders in a junior high school in a rural area of Tainan City after practicing English sentence patterns via Twitter?	66
4.1.1. Independent Samples T-test Results of the ESCT	66
4.1.2. Paired Samples T-test Results of the ESCT	69
4.1.3. Interview Results	72
4.1.4. Results from Teaching Journals, Photos, Videos, and Learning Sheets	75
4.1.5. Post-experiment Feedback Questionnaire Results	81
4.2.RQ2: What impact would the English sentence pattern practice via Twitter have on the English learning perception and English sentence-making competence of the high-achievers, mid-achievers, and low-achievers?	82
4.2.1.	Detailed Results of the ESCT for Three English Competence Levels	82
4.2.2.	Detailed Results of the ELPS for Three English Competence Levels	88
4.2.3.	Interview Results	90
4.3.RQ3: What influence would the English sentence pattern practice via Twitter have on students’ perception of English learning?	92
4.3.1.	Independent Samples T-test Results of the ELPS	92
4.3.2.	Paired Samples T-test Results of the ELPS	94
4.3.3.	Interview Results	102
4.3.4.	Results from Teaching Journals, Photos, Videos, and Learning Sheets	103
4.3.5.	Post-experiment Feedback Questionnaire Results	107
4.4.	Summary	108
		
CHAPTER FIVE	DISCUSSIONS, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS	110
5.1.	Discussion of Research Questions	111
5.1.1.	Discussion of Research Question 1	111
5.1.2.	Discussion of Research Question 2	115
5.1.3.	Discussion of Research Question 3	118
5.2	Limitations	121
A	Participants’ Preliminary English Levels	121
B	Duration and Time Distribution of the Experiment	122
C	Types of Sentence Patterns Used in the Activity	123
5.3	Implications for Future Research	124
5.4	Conclusions	125
A	The Influence on the English Sentence-making Competence in general	125
B       The Influence on the English Sentence-making Competence for Various Types of Questions	125
C       The Influence on the English Sentence-making Competence of High-, mid-, and low-achievers	126
D	The Influence on the English Learning Perception in General	 127
E       The Influence on the English Learning Perception for Various Types of Categories	  127
F       The Influence on the English Learning Perception of High-, mid-, and low-achievers	128
		
REFERENCES	130

APPENDIXES	
A1	English Learning Perception Scale (Pre-study)	138
A2	English Learning Perception Scale (Post-study)	142
B1	English Sentence-making Competence Test (Pre-study)	146
B2	English Sentence-making Competence Test (Post-study)	148
C	Interview Questions	150
D	Consent Form	151
E1	Agreement of using the textbooks and workbooks from Joy Enterprise (1)	152
E2	Agreement of using the textbooks and workbooks from Joy Enterprise (2)	153
F	English Learning Background Questionnaire	154
G1	Sample - circle and revise the sentences questions	155
G2	Sample - unscramble the sentences	156
G3	Sample - answer the questions	157
H	Post-experiment feedback questionnaire	158
I	Sample - learning sheet	159



List of Tables

Table 2.1.	Comparisons among blogs, instant messaging, and microblogs	8
Table 2.2. 	The assessment and scoring method type of each part in the ESCT	26
Table 2.3. 	Recent English writing or sentence-making related research papers in Taiwan	27
Table 3.1.	The evaluation criteria for web usability of English learning websites	34
Table 3.2.	The evaluation criteria for technology integration of English learning websites	34
Table 3.3. 	Backgrounds of the participants	37
Table 3.4. 	English learning background of the participants	38
Table 3.5.      The descriptive statistics and results of the independent samples t-test of the pre-study ESCT	40
Table 3.6.      Writing competence indicators for elementary and junior high school students	49
Table 3.7.      Synthesized general competence indicators for elementary and junior high school students	49
Table 3.8. 	Sample - cloze questions	50
Table 3.9. 	Planned unit schedule for the experiment	55
Table 3.10.     Planned experiment procedure in one unit of Joy-Hanlin iEnglish Book 2 (two weeks)	56
Table 3.11. 	Planned sentence practice activities via Twitter	58
Table 4.1.	The descriptive statistics and results of the independent samples t-test of the pre-study ESCT	66
Table 4.2.	The descriptive statistics and results of the independent samples t-test of the post-study ESCT	67
Table 4.3.	The descriptive statistics and results of the independent samples t-test of each part of the post-study ESCT	  68
Table 4.4.	The descriptive statistics and results of the paired samples t-test of the ESCT for control group	 69
Table 4.5.	The descriptive statistics and results of the paired samples t-test of each part of the ESCT for control group	70
Table 4.6.	The descriptive statistics and results of the paired samples t-test of the ESCT for experimental group	71
Table 4.7.	The descriptive statistics and results of the paired samples t-test of each part of the ESCT for experimental group	71
Table 4.8.	Interview question 2 and its answers	73
Table 4.9.	Interview question 3 and its answers	73
Table 4.10.	Interview question 4 and its answers	74
Table 4.11.	Post-experiment Feedback Question 1 and its responses	81
Table 4.12.	Post-experiment Feedback Question 13 and its responses	81
Table 4.13.	Post-experiment Feedback Question 6 and its responses	82
Table 4.14.	Interview question 5 and its answers	90
Table 4.15.	The descriptive statistics and results of the independent samples t-test of the pre-study ELPS	92
Table 4.16.	The descriptive statistics and results of the independent samples t-test of the post-study ELPS	93
Table 4.17.	The descriptive statistics and results of the paired samples t-test of the ELPS for control group	94
Table 4.18.	The descriptive statistics and results of the paired samples t-test of the ELPS for experimental group	94
Table 4.19.	The descriptive statistics and results of the paired samples t-test of each part of the ELPS for control group	95
Table 4.20.	The descriptive statistics and results of the paired samples t-test of each part of the ELPS for experimental group	96
Table 4.21.	Answers s to interview question 6	102
Table 4.22.	Post-experiment Feedback Question 2 and its responses	107
Table 4.23.	Post-experiment Feedback Question 3 and its responses	107
Table 4.24.	Post-experiment Feedback Question 13 and its responses	108


List of Figures
Figure 2.1.	Five steps of the STAD	18
Figure 3.1. 	Research design of this study	33
Figure 3.2.	Four modified steps of the STAD	42
Figure 4.1.     English sentence practice via Twitter during the experiment on April 22, 2011	      78
Figure 4.2.	Question 5 during the practice on April 22, 2011	79
Figure 4.3.	Question 7 during the practice on April 22, 2011	80
Figure 4.4.     English sentence practice via Twitter during the experiment on March 25, 2011	       104
Figure 4.5.  	Question 3 during the practice on March 25, 2011	105
Figure 4.6.  	Question 5 during the practice on March 25, 2011	106
 

                                    

References

Antenos-Conforti, E. (2009). Microblogging on twitter: Social networking in intermediate Italian classes. In L. Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning (Vol. 9, pp. 59-90). San Marcos,TX: CALICO.
Aski, J. M. (2003). Foreign language textbook activities: Keeping pace with second language acquisition research. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 57-65. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb01932.x
Berger, E. (2009). This sentence easily would fit on twitter: emergency physicians are learning to "tweet". Annals of Emergency Medicine, 42(2), 23A-25A. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.06.002
Bonetta, L. (2009). Should you be tweeting? Cell, 139(3), 452-453. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.10.017
Borau, K., Ullrich, C., Feng, J., & Shen, R. (2009, August). Microblogging for language learning: Using twitter to train communicative and cultural competence. Paper presented at the ICWL 2009, Aachen, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.hkws.org/conference/icwl2009/index.html
Breland, H. M., & Gaynor, J. L. (1979). A comparison of direct and indirect assessments of writing skill. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16(2), 119-128. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1979.tb00093.x
Bridge, C. A., & Hiebert, E. H. (1985). A comparison of classroom writing practices, teachers' perceptions of their writing instruction, and textbook recommendations on writing practices. The Elementary School Journal, 82(2), 154-172. doi: 10.1086/461440
Campbell, A. P. (2003). Weblogs for use with ESL classes. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(2). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/
Chastain, K. (1971). The development of modern language skills: theory to practice. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
Chen, G.-T. (陳冠廷), & Chuang, S.-P. (莊尚平) (2010, April). 微型部落格介面使用性之研究。 2010電腦與網路科技在教育上的應用研討會發表之論文，新竹教育大學。取自 http://cnte2010.cs.nhcue.edu.tw/
Chiang, H.-Y. (江慧英) (2003). 國小級任老師以歌謠韻文將英語融入各科教學之模式研究 --以一個四年級的班級為例 (未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北教育學院兒童英語教育所碩士論文，台北市。
Chiu, H. C. (邱皓政) (2006). 量化研究與統計分析：SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。臺北：五南。
Chuang, C.-C. (莊智超) (2006). 英語童書構圖策略教學對國小學生寫作前期英語造句能力影響之研究 (未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北教育大學兒童英語教育所碩士論文，台北市。
Clarke, A. (2008). E-learning skills (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cooper, P. L. (1984). The assessment of writing ability: a review of research. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Costa, C., Beham, G., Reinhardt, W., & Sillaots, M. (2008, September). Microblogging in technology enhanced learning: A use-case inspection of PPE Summer School 2008. Paper presented at the 2nd SIRTEL'08 Workshop on Social Information Retrieval for Technology Enhanced Learning, Maastricht, Netherlands. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-382/
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Cureton, E. E. (1957). The upper and lower twenty-seven per cent rule. Psychometrika, 22(3), 293-297. doi: 10.1007/BF02289130
Dervin, F. (2010). The living web (2.0) & intercultural education in language learning and teaching (LLT). Retrieved from http://users.utu.fi/freder/sukol_2010.pdf
Dodge, Y. (2006). The Oxford dictionary of statistical terms. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dunlap, J., & Lowenthal, P. (2009). Tweeting the night away: using twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 129-136. Retrieved from http://jise.org/
Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education – A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers & Education, 55(1), 92-100. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.006
Ebner, M., & Schiefner, M. (2008, April). Microblogging - more than fun? Paper presented at the IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning 2008, Algarve, Portugal. Retrieved from http://www.mlearning-conf.org/2008/
Elavsky, C. M., Mislan, C., & Elavsky, S. (2011). When talking less is more: exploring outcomes of Twitter usage in the large‐lecture hall. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(3), 215-233. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2010.549828
Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 17-34). Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fan, C.-M. (樊其珉) (2006). 國小高年級學童英語寫作能力相關因素之探討 (未出版之碩士論文)。國立台南大學測驗統計研究所碩士論文，台南市。
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. doi: 10.2307/356600
Fowler, R. L. (1992). Using the extreme groups strategy when measures are not normally distributed. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16(3), 249-259. doi: 10.1177/014662169201600305
Freedman, T. (2007). Twittering in the classroom: some issues. Retrieved from http://terry-freedman.org.uk/artman/publish/printer_1122.php
Furneaux, C. (1999). Reviews: recent materials on teaching writing. ELT Journal, 53(1), 56-61. doi: 10.1093/elt/53.1.56
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step-by-step: a simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging technologies - blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 12-16. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/emerging/default.html
Greene, D. (2000). A design model for beginner-level computer-mediated EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(3), 239-252. doi: 10.1076/0958-8221(200007)13:3;1-3;FT239
Harris, J. (1985). The cloze procedure: writing applications. Journal of Teaching Writing, 4(1), 105-111. Retrieved from http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/teachingwriting/issue/view/84
Hattie, J. (1999). Influences on student learning. Retrieved from http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/education/shared/hattie/docs/influences-on-student-learning.pdf
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 206-219). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holotescu, C., & Grosseck, G. (2008, April). Can we use twitter for educational activities? Paper presented at the 4th International Scientific Conference eLSE "eLearning and Software for Education", Bucharest, Romania. Retrieved from http://adlunap.ro/else/
Holotescu, C., & Grosseck, G. (2009). Using microblogging to deliver online courses. case-study: Cirip.ro. Procedia, 1(1), 495-501. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.090
Holotescu, C., & Grosseck, G. (2010). Microblogging multimedia-based teaching methods best practices with Cirip.eu. Procedia, 2(2), 2151-2155. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.297
Hsu, H.-M. (許惠敏) (2006). 探討網路檔案評量對國小英文寫作能力與寫作態度之影響 (未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北教育大學兒童英語教育所碩士論文，台北市。
Hsu, Y.-C. (許永洲), & Chen, C.-W. (陳縉緯) (2010, April). 微網誌輔助日語學習－以Plurk機器人為例。 2010電腦與網路科技在教育上的應用研討會發表之論文，新竹教育大學。取自 http://cnte2010.cs.nhcue.edu.tw/
Hsu, Y.-L. (徐毓苓) (2008). 多元智能寫作教學方案對國小六年級學童英文寫作能力、寫作態度、創造力與創造性傾向之影響 (未出版之碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學創造力發展碩士在職專班碩士論文，台北市。
Hunter, D. M., Jones, R. M., & Randhawa, B. S. (1996). The use of holistic versus analytic scoring for large-scale assessment of writing. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 11(2), 61-85. Retrieved from http://evaluationcanada.ca/site.cgi?s=4&ss=21&_lang=en&article=11-2-061
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. (2001). On communicative competence. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 53-73). Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell.
Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007, August). Why we twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. Paper presented at the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2007, San Jose, California. Retrieved from http://www.kdd.org/kdd2007/
Johnson, S. (2009, June). How twitter will change the way we live. Time Magazine, 173, 23-32. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/
Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Introduction: Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In R. Kern & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: concepts and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, E.-Y., Park, S.-M., & Baek, S.-H. (2011). Twitter and implications for its use in EFL education. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 14(2), 113-137. Retrieved from http://210.101.116.28/W_kiss5/2q600292_pv.pdf
Kim, H.-Y. (2010). Three teachers’ initial efforts to use Twitter for teaching English in public schools. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 129-154. Retrieved from http://210.101.116.28/W_kiss5/2q600261_pv.pdf
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 8-22. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/5_1/kreijns.html
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Liang, Y.-M. (梁雅美) (2003). 語音多媒體工具對國小學童英語口語表達能力之影響─以Talkworks軟體為例 (未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北教育大學兒童英語教育所碩士論文，台北市。
Liu, C. K. (劉慶剛) (1995). 「中譯英」在大學生的英文寫作過程中可能發生的五種現象。人文社會學科教學通訊，第6卷第4期，頁28-39。取自 http://dafl.ntpu.edu.tw/people/bio.php?PID=3#personal_writing
Liu, G.-Z., Liu, Z.-H., & Hwang, G.-J. (2011). Developing multi-dimensional evaluation criteria for English learning websites with university students and professors. Computers & Education, 56(1), 65-79. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.019
Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (in press). A tale of tweets: Analyzing microblogging among language learners. System. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2011.11.001
LTTC. (財團法人語言訓練測驗中心) (2005). 全民英檢初級。取自http://www.gept.org.tw/Exam_Intro/t01_introduction.asp
Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 93-107. doi: 10.1207/s15389286ajde2002_4
Matsuda, P. K., Canagarajah, A. S., Harklau, L., Hyland, K., & Warschauer, M. (2003). Changing currents in second language writing research: A colloquium. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 151-179. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00016-X
Mertler, C. A. (2008). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Miller, G., & Dingwall, R. (1997). Context and method in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Mischaud, E. (2007). Twitter: Expressions of the whole self - An investigation into user appropriation of a web-based communications platform (Unpublished master's thesis). London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
MOE. (教育部) (2008). 97年國民中小學九年一貫英語科課程綱要。取自http://www.edu.tw/eje/content.aspx?site_content_sn=15326
Mork, C.-M. (2009). Using twitter in EFL education. JALTCALL Journal, 5(3), 41-56. Retrieved from http://www.jaltcall.org/journal/contents_5_3.html
Murphy, E., & Manzanares, M. (2008). Instant messaging in a context of virtual schooling: Balancing the affordances and challenges. Educational Media International, 45(1), 47-58. doi: 10.1080/09523980701847180
Murray, L., Hourigan, T., & Jeanneau, C. (2007). Blog writing integration for academic language learning purposes:Towards an assessment framework. IBÉRICA 14, 9-32. Retrieved from http://www.aelfe.org/?s=revista&veure=14
Naaman, M., Becker, H., & Gravano, L. (2011). Hip and trendy: Characterizing emerging trends on Twitter. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(5), 902-918. doi: 10.1002/asi.21489
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. (1981). Mechanism of skills acquisition and the law of practice. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Northrup, P. (2001). A framework for designing interactivity into web-based instruction. In A. Rossett (Ed.), The ASTD e-learning handbook (1st ed., pp. 127-138). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? Retrieved from www.oreilly.com
Passant, A., Hastrup, T., Bojars, U., & Breslin, J. (2008, June). Microblogging: A semantic and distributed approach. Paper presented at the 4th Workshop on Scripting for the Semantic Web, Tenerife, Spain. Retrieved from http://www.semanticscripting.org/SFSW2008/
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Paulston, C. B. (1972). Teaching writing in the ESOL classroom: Techniques of controlled composition. TESOL Quarterly, 6(1), 33-59. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
Paulston, C. B., & Bruder, M. N. (1976). Teaching English as a second language: Techniques and procedures. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop.
Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students' perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System, 30(1), 85-105. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00050-1
Reinhardt, W., Ebner, M., Beham, G., & Costa, C. (2009, May). How people are using twitter during conferences. Paper presented at the 5th EduMedia Conference 2009, St. Virgil Salzburg, Austria. Retrieved from http://edumedia.salzburgresearch.at/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=194&Itemid=172&lang=en
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Richtel, M. (2011, November 8). Computers ok? not in Silicon Valley, The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/
Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Robinett, W. B. (1978). Teaching English to speakers of other language. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Ross, C., Terras, M., Warwick, C., & Welsh, A. (2010, July). Pointless babble or enabled backchannel: conference use of twitter by digital humanists. Paper presented at the Digital Humanities 2010, London. Retrieved from http://dh2010.cch.kcl.ac.uk/
Serrano, R. (2011). The time factor in EFL classroom practice. Language Learning, 61(1), 117-145. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00591.x
Shi, Y.-H. (施玉惠) (1999). 國民中小學英語教學及評量模式研究。教育部委託之專題研究成果報告。台北市：教育部。
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Skiba, D. (2008). Emerging technologies center: Nursing education 2.0: Twitter & tweets - Can you post a nugget of knowledge in 140 characters or less? Nursing Education Perspectives, 29(2), 110-112. doi: 10.1043/1094-2831(2008)29[110:ETCNET]2.0.CO%3B2
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative Learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315-342. doi: 10.3102/00346543050002315
Soares, D. d. A. (2008). Understanding class blogs as a tool for language development. Language Teaching Research, 12(4), 517-533. doi: 10.1177/1362168808097165
Sotillo, S. M. (2006). Using instant messaging for collaborative learning: A case study. Innovate, 2(3). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=170
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: an historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stiggins, R. J. (1981). A comparison of direct and indirect writing assessment methods. Portland, Oregon: Clearinghouse for Applied Performance Testing.
Sun, Y.-C., & Chang, Y.-J. (2012). Blogging to learn: Becoming EFL academic writers through collaborative dialogues. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 43-61. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/
Tapscott, D. (2009). Growing up digital: How the Net generation is changing your world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International Enterprises.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9
Warschauer, M. (2010). Invited commentary: new tools for teaching writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 3-8. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/
Wu, M.-R. (吳明隆), & Tu, C.-T. (涂金堂) (2005). SPSS與統計應用分析。臺北：五南。
Zhao, D., & Rosson, M. B. (2009). How and why people twitter: The role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work. In S. Teasley & E. Havn (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on supporting group work (pp. 243-252). Sanibel Island, Florida: ACM.
Zimmerman, D. W. (1997). Teacher's corner: A note on interpretation of the paired-samples t-test. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 349-360. doi: 10.3102/10769986022003349

校內：2015-02-13公開
校外：不公開電子論文尚未授權公開，紙本請查館藏目錄

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文