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：	林智忠 Lin, Chih-Chung
論文名稱：	發展及評估工程類英文期刊論文撰寫引導系統 Developing and Evaluating Engineering English Journal Paper Writing (EEJP-Write) Online Writing Tutorial System
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 Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
論文出版年：	2015
畢業學年度：	103
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	126
中文關鍵詞：	英文寫作、學術寫作、線上寫作系統、學系系統設計、文步分析
外文關鍵詞：	English for Specific Purposes (ESP), engineering English, academic writing, learning system design, online writing tutorial system
相關次數：	點閱：130 下載：12
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

在全球高等教育中，越來越多英文為非母語人士使用英文發表國際期刊論文的熱門議題，而國際期刊發表變成了臺灣研究生，特別是博士生畢業門檻之一。而透過科技的使用來輔助教學已經不是一個全新的概念，而如何設計出富有創新、突破且讓學習更有效率成了現今科技輔助工具設計者努力的方向。然而，在臺灣之工程類研究生在英文學術論文寫作上面臨了許多瓶頸。而在英文寫作學習系統的發展中，也沒有一個特別設計給中文為母語者的學習者。本研究的目的為設計且評估工程類期刊論文撰寫引導系統的知覺易用性、知覺有用性、知覺愉悅感及後續使用意願的調查。

本系統是從需求分析的角度出發，調查工程類目標使用者在撰寫英文期刊論文時對於寫作輔助系統的預期需求，而根據需求分析的結果作為系統設計的主要依據。系統教材的撰寫是依據Swalian的寫作教學法，透過分析目標期刊論文的文步(move)結果統整出期刊論文引導的寫作教材。系統例句則是邀請十位工程類系所的教授所撰寫，再經由母語人士的潤飾及修改編定而成。

而在系統建置完成後，共有三十二位受試者參加系統測試。受試者完整試用過系統後填寫問卷；其中有十位受試者另接受半結構式訪談。盼透過此研究了解本計畫所研發的工程類期刊論文是否符合目標使用者之預期。而問卷的項目也是根據科技接受模組（Technology Acceptance Model, TAM）為基礎來了解是否本研究所開發之工程類期刊論文撰寫引導系統符合目標使用者之期待。

本研究採用量化及質性的混合式研究，量化資料主要來自受試者在試用過後所填之問卷，質性資料則是在三十二位受試者中自願參加訪談，提供更多使用系統後的經驗分享及對未來相關系統設計提出寶貴的建議。

研究結果也顯示出受試者對於本計畫所研發之系統抱持正面的態度，認為此系統有效引導他們撰寫工程類英文期刊論文、掌握期刊論文各章節應寫作之內容及架構。透過此系統之引導，受試者普遍也認為系統所提供之例句在撰寫工程類期刊論文之同時最為受用。而透過科技接受模組的檢測分析結果也顯示，系統內容的有用性將會大幅影響使用者的後續使用意願。而在受試者對於本系統的知覺愉悅感部分，受試者都抱持著肯定的態度。針對系統功能易用性的部分，使用者認為系統功能操作上仍有許多需要時間熟悉的地方。因此，建議未來如有相關系統研發時，應特別注意系統功能易用性及各項功能操作是否超出使用者之認知負荷。

The growth of the issue of international publishing in English has currently caught the attention of many researchers and professors at institutions of higher education, and more and more non-native English speakers are engaged in writing journal papers in English due to globalization, and academic competition. For graduate students especially doctoral students, indexed publishing has become one of the graduation criteria. Incorporating Information Technology (IT) into writing curriculum design is not a novice idea, and how to design a learning system with better innovation to help users develop academic writing skills has become a major focus for learning system designers. However, graduate students in engineering-based disciplines encounter certain difficulties related to writing academic English, and few learning systems are found to specifically designed for users whose native language is Mandarin Chinese. Thus, the present study was conducted in order to develop an Engineering English Journal Paper Writing (EEJP-Write) tutorial system.
EEJP-Write was based on the results of Needs Analysis (NA) to understand the expectations and suggestions toward the design and development of the present system. Genre-based writing instruction (GBWI) was applied in the preparation of the learning materials, and 10 professors who have the experience of writing international journal papers in English and of guiding graduate students to develop academic writing in English were incorporated to write sentence examples as learning materials.
After EEJP-Write was created, 32 graduate students in engineering- based departments were involved in an investigation of the system’s usefulness and usability, and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was applied to assess their follow-up intention of using EEJP-Write.
Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used and further analyzed along with descriptive statistics in the present study. The results of the questionnaire was analyzed quantitatively and the interviews with 10 volunteers out of the 32 participants were decoded qualitatively as supplementary information to help the present research better understand whether EEJP-Write meet the expectations of target users, and to provide more suggestions toward the design and development of future online writing tutorial systems.
The results showed that users had a positive attitude toward the design and development of the learning materials, the assisted writing tools, and the system functions, such as writing templates, example sentences, introductions to the sections for academic words, and the instructional guides. Participants reported that the sentence examples are the most beneficial part of EEJP-Write, and the usefulness, the content effectiveness, was found to influence users’ follow-up intention of using. For the usability of EEJP-Write, participants presented that s they needed to spend much more time familiarizing some functions provided by EEJP-Write. Thus, it was suggested that the issue of cognitive load is needed to be considered for the design of online tutorial learning systems in the future.

Table of Contents
摘要………………………………………………………………………..………….II
Abstract...…………………………………………………………………………….IV
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………..VI
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………....VII
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………….X
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………XIII
CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION…………………………………..…..1
1.1	Background and Motivation of The Present Study………………………………..1
1.2	Purpose of the Preset Study………………………………………………………..2
1.3 Research Questions………………………………………………………………..3
1.4 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………….4
1.5 Overview of the Paper………………………………………………………….….4
1.6	Definitions of Key Concepts and Terms Used in The Present Study……………...4
CHAPTER TWO  LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………...10
2.1 Electronic Learning (E-learning) Theories and Frameworks Related to the Present Study………………………………………………………………………………….10
    2.1.1 The Background of E-learning…………………………………………....10
    2.1.2 Advantages of E-learning……………………………………..…………..12
    2.1.3 Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL)………………………… 12
    2.1.4Activity Theory……………………………………………………………14
2.2 Elements of Developing a Successful Writing System…………………………..16
    2.2.1 Needs Analysis(NA)………………………………………………………16
2.2.2 Components of NA………………………………………………………..18
2.2.3 Ways of conducting NA…………………………………………………..19
    2.2.4 Implications for EEJP system design and development…………………..20
2.3 Pedagogical Approaches to English Journal Paper Writing Instructions………...21
    2.3.1 Move Structures and Instructional Strategies……………………………..22
2.4 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)…………………………………………..23
    2.4.1 Analyzing the axes to evaluation criteria under TAM ................................23
    2.4.2 Recent Development of TAM......................................................................26
    2.4.3 The Proposed TAM Framework Used to Examine Users’ Acceptance of
EEJP System in the Study.............................................................................31
2.5 Summary…………………………………………………………………………32
CHAPTER THREE  METHODOLOGY……………..…………………33
3.1 The Research Procedure of the Present Study………………………….………..33
3.2 Phase I: Design and Development of EEJP-Write……………………………….34
    3.2.1 From the Results of NA to the Design and Development of EEJP-Write...35
3.2.2 Learning Materials Design………………………………………………..38
3.2.2.1 The Selection of Target Journals for the Ten Disciplines………….39
3.2.2.2 Move Analysis and the Sequences of Moves……………………...39
3.2.2.3 Example Sentences……………………………………………...…41
3.2.2.4 IEEE Citation Style Guide………...………………………………41
    3.2.3 Learning Activity Design………………………………………………....42
    3.2.4 Learning System Design………………………………………………….42
3.3 Phase II: EEJP-Write System Development……………………………………...43
    3.3.1 The Overall Picture of EEJP-Write……………………………...………..43
    3.3.2 “My Paper”…………………………………………………………..........45
    3.3.3 “References and Notes”………………………………………...………....54
    3.3.4 “English Academic Writing Introduction and IEEE Citation Style Guide”58
3.4 Phase III: Evaluating EEJP-Write System………………………………...……...61
    3.4.1 Experiment Design………………………………………….…………….61
    3.4.2 Participants………………………………………………………………..62
    3.4.3 The Writing Task in the Trial……………………………………………...63
    3.4.4 Research Site…………………………………………………………...…64
    3.4.5 Experimental Procedure…………………………………………………..65
    3.4.6 Evaluation Procedure…………………………………………………..…65
         3.4.6.1 The Questionnaire………………………………………………..66
         3.4.6.2 Semi-structured Interviews………………………………………67
         3.4.6.3 Data Collection…………………………………………………...67
         3.4.6.4 Data Analysis……………………………………………………..68
CHAPTER FOUR  RESULTS……………………………………………………73
4.1 Overview…………………………………………………………………………73
4.2 Results of the Quantities Data (The Questionnaire)……………………………..73
    4.2.1 Usefulness, Content Effectiveness………………………………………..73
         4.2.1.1 Perceived Effectiveness of the Learning Content in “Academic 
Organization and Formats”……………………………………..74
         4.2.1.2 Perceived Effectiveness of the Learning Content in “Tools”…….75
         4.2.1.3 Perceived Effectiveness of Learning Content toward Academic 
Writing in English...........................................................................76
         4.2.1.4 Overall Perceptions on Learning Content Provided in 
EEJP-Write…………………………………………….……...…77
     4.2.2 Usability, the Functionality of EEJP-Write…………..……………….…77
          4.2.2.1 Perceived Usability of System Functions in “Tools”…………...78
          4.2.2.2 Perceived Usability of System Functions in “References and 
notes”…………………………………………………………….78
          4.2.2.3 Overall Perceptions toward EEJP-Write………………………..79
     4.2.3 Perceived Personalization of EEJP-Write……………………………….80
     4.2.4 Users’ Attitude Toward EEJP-Write……………………………………..81
     4.2.5 Pearson Correlation Among Variables in the Questionnaire…………….82
     4.2.6 Factors Influencing the Follow-up Intention of Using EEJP-Write……..84
4.3 Results of the Qualitative Analysis (The Semi-structured Interviews)…………..85
4.3.1 Usefulness, the Content Effectiveness……………..……………………..85
4.3.1.1 The Advantages of Learning Materials in EEJP-Write…………....86
4.3.1.2 The Unsatisfactory Items of Learning Materials in EEJP-Write…..87
4.3.1.3 The Suggestions for Learning Materials for Future Online Learning System ……………………………………………….……………87
4.3.2 Usability, the System Functionality……………………………………….88
        4.3.2.1 The Advantages of System Functions in EEJP-Write……………..88
        4.3.2.2 The Unsatisfactory Items of System Functions in EEJP-Write……89
        4.3.2.3 The Suggestions for System Functions for Future Online Learning 
System……………………………………………………………..90
4.4 Summary…………………………………………………………………………91
CHAPTER FIVE  DISCUSSIONS, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, SUGGESTIONS & CONCLUSIONS………...……95
5.1 Discussions…………………………………………………………………….…95
5.2 Pedagogical Implications of the Present Study…………………………………..99
5.3 Limitations…………………………………………………………….………...100
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research………………………….……………………..101
5.5 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..102
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………...104
APPENDIX’S………………………………………………………………………..118
Appendix A: The consent form for professors……………………………………...118
Appendix B: The questionnaire……………………………………………………..119
Appendix C: The semi-structure interview questions………………………………125
Curriculum Vitae……………………………………………………………………126
 

                                    

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social.Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alegria, Dylan Archbold Hufty, Christy Boscardin, Ann Poncelet, Chandler Mayfield, & Maria Wamsley (2014). Using Tablets to Support Self-Regulated Learning in a Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship. Med Educ Online, 19: 23638.
Alenezi, A. R., Karim, A., Malek, A., & Veloo, A. (2010). An Empirical Investigation into the Role of Enjoyment, Computer Anxiety, Computer Self-Efficacy and Internet Experience in Influencing the Students' Intention to Use E-Learning: A Case Study from Saudi Arabian Governmental Universities.Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 9(4), 22-34.
Amaral, L. A., & Meurers, D. (2011). On using intelligent computer-assisted language learning in real-life foreign language teaching and learning. ReCALL,23(01), 4-24.
Aparicio, M., & Bacao, F. (2013). E-learning concept trends. InProceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Information Systems and Design of Communication (pp. 81-86). ACM.
Barnard, Y., Bradley, M. D., Hodgson, F., & Lloyd, A. D. (2013). Learning to use new technologies by older adults: Perceived difficulties, experimentation behaviour and usability. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1715-1724.
Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Belski, Regina & Belski, Iouri (2014). Cultivating Student Skills in Self-regulated Learning through Evaluation of Task Complexity. Teaching in Higher Education, 19 (5), p. 459-469.
Blomberg, J., & Burrell, M. (2009). An ethnographic approach to design.Human-computer interaction: Development process, 71-94.
Bosher, S., & Smalkoski, K. (2002). From needs analysis to curriculum development: Designing a course in health-care communication for immigrant students in the USA. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 59-79.
Calisir, F., Altin Gumussoy, C., Bayraktaroglu, A. E., & Karaali, D. (2014). Predicting the Intention to Use a Web‐Based Learning System: Perceived Content Quality, Anxiety, Perceived System Quality, Image, and the Technology Acceptance Model. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 24(5), 515-531.
Chapman, R., and P. Hyland. 2004. Complexity and learning behaviors in product innovation. Technovation 24, no. 7: 553–561.
Chang, C. F., & Kuo, C. H. (2011). A corpus-based approach to online materials development for writing research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 222-234.
Chen, Chih-Ming, Jung.-Ying Wang, & Yen-Chang Chen (2014). Facilitating English-Language Reading Performance by a Digital Reding Annotation System with Self-regulated Learning Mechanisms. Educational Technology & Society, 17 (1), p. 102-114.
Chen Y-T (2014). A Study to Explore the Effects of Self-regulated Learning Environment for Hearing-impaired Students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, p. 97-109.
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., Sun, S. Y., Lin, T. C., & Sun, P. C. (2005). Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions. Computers & Education,45(4), 399-416.
Chiu, C. M., & Wang, E. T. G. (2008). Understanding web-based learning continuance intention: The role of subjective task value. Information and Management, 45(3), 194–201.
Cho, Kwangsu & Cho, Moon-Heum (2013). Training of Self-regulated Learning Skills on a Social Networking System. Soc Psychol Educ, 16, p. 617-634.
Chostelidou, D. (2010). A needs analysis approach to ESP syllabus design in Greek tertiary education: A descriptive account of students’ needs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4507-4512.
Chostelidou, D. (2011). Needs-based course design: The impact of general English knowledge on the effectiveness of an ESP teaching intervention.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 403-409.
Cohen, E. L. (2014). What makes good games go viral? The role of technology use, efficacy, emotion and enjoyment in players’ decision to share a prosocial digital game. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 321-329.
Cowling, J. D. (2007). Needs analysis: Planning a syllabus for a series of intensive workplace courses at a leading Japanese company. English for Specific Purposes, 26(4), 426-442.
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. M. (2010). Academic research networks: Accessing resources for English-medium publishing. English for Specific Purposes, 29(4), 281-295.
Dabbagh, N. (2005). Pedagogical models for E-Learning: Atheory-based design framework. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 25-44.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Dehnad, A., Bagherzadeh, R., Bigdeli, S., Hatami, K., & Hosseini, F. (2010). Syllabus revision: a needs analysis Study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1307-1312.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. (1998). Developments in ESP: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Effency, Gerard, Annemaree Carroll, & Nan Bahr (2013). Self-regulated Learning and Executive Function: Exploring the Relationships in a Sample of Adolescent Males. Educational Psychology, 33 (7), p. 773-796.
Endedijk, Maaike D., Mieke Brekelmans, Nico Verloop, Peter J.C.nSleegers, Jan D. Vermunt (2014). Individual Differences in Student Teachers’ Self-regulated Learning: an Examination of Regulation Configurations in Relation to Conceptions of Learning to Teach. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, p. 155-162.
Englander, K. (2014). Variations in Different Languages and Cultures. In Writing and Publishing Science Research Papers in English (pp. 57-65). Springer Netherlands.
Ferguson, G., PÉREZ‐LLANTADA, C. A. R. M. E. N., & Plo, R. (2011). English as an international language of scientific publication: a study of attitudes. World Englishes, 30(1), 41-59.
Fidel, R., & Green, M. (2004). The many faces of accessibility: engineers' perception of information sources. Information Processing & Management, 40(3), 563-581.
Flowerdew, L. (2005). An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text analysis in EAP/ESP: countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 321-332.
Gelbrich, K., & Sattler, B. (2014). Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure in public self-service technology acceptance. Journal of Services Marketing,28(1), 82-94.
Geraldi, J. G. (2009). What complexity assessments can tell us about projects: dialogue between conception and perception. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 21(5), 665-678.
Glasman, H. (2010). Science research writing: For non-native speakers of English (pp. 41-194). Imperial College Press, London.
Gorjian, B., Moosavinia, S. R., Ebrahimi Kavari, K., Asgari, P., & Hydarei, A. (2011). The impact of asynchronous computer-assisted language learning approaches on English as a foreign language high and low achievers' vocabulary retention and recall. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 383-391.
Hanrahan, Karen (2005). More Homework Please! Investigating the Use of ICT as an Effective, Motivation and Stimulating Homework Tool in Modern Foreign Languages. Reflecting Education, 1 (2), p. 41-58.
Hasan, B. (2007). Examining the effects of computer self-efficacy and system complexity on technology acceptance. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 20(3), 76-88.
Hassanzadeh, A., Kanaani, F., & Elahi, S. (2012). A model for measuring e-learning systems success in universities. Expert Systems with Applications,39(12), 10959-10966.
Heller, Isabel (2005). Learner Experiences and CALL-Tool Usability— Evaluating the Chemnitz Internet Grammar. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18 (1-2), p. 119 – 142.
Hirschel, Rob & Fritz, Erik (2013). Learning vocabulary: CALL Program versus Vocabulary Notebook. System, 41 (3), p. 639–653.
Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343-367.
Huang, J. C. (2010). Publishing and learning writing for publication in English: Perspectives of NNES PhD students in science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 33-44.
Hurtienne, J., Horn, A. M., Langdon, P. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2013). Facets of prior experience and the effectiveness of inclusive design. Universal access in the information society, 12(3), 297-308.
Hyland, K. (2009). Writing in the disciplines: Research evidence for specificity.Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1(1), 5-22.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. Tesol Quarterly, 30(4), 693-722.
Illes, Eva (2012). Learner Autonomy Revisited. ELT Journal, 66 (4).
Johns, A. M. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing quest. Language Teaching, 41(02), 237-252.
Johnson, R. D., Hornik, S., & Salas, E. (2008). An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(5), 356-369.
Jose, P. T., Miglani, S., & Yadav, S. (2014). Human Computer Interaction: Analysis and Journey through Eras.
Kachru, B., ed. 1982. The Other Tongue -- English Across Cultures. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.
Khodabandeh, F. , D., Jafarigohar, M., Soleimani, H., & Hemmati, F. (2013). The impact of explicit, implicit, and no-formal genre-based instruction on argumentative essay writing. Editors: Paul Robertson and John Adamson,7(1), 134.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740-755.
Kim, J., and Wilemon. D. (2003). Sources and assessment of complexity in NPD projects. R&D Management 33, no. 1: 15–30.
Kim, J., & Wilemon, D. (2009). An empirical investigation of complexity and its management in new product development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(4), 547-564.
Kuteeva, M. (2013). Graduate learners’ approaches to genre-analysis tasks: Variations across and within four disciplines. English for Specific Purposes,32(2), 84-96.
Lee, H., & Lee, K. (2013). Publish (in international indexed journals) or perish: Neoliberal ideology in a Korean university. Language Policy, 12(3), 215-230.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Communications of the Association of Information Systems, 12, 752–780.
Lehmann, Thomas, Inka Hahnlein, Dirk Ifenthaler (2014). Cognitive, Metacognitoive and Motivational Perspectives on Preflection in Self-regulated Online Learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, p. 313-323.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 40(3), 191-204.
Lehmann, Thomas, Inka Hahnlein, Dirk Ifenthaler (2014). Cognitive, Metacognitoive and Motivational Perspectives on Preflection in Self-regulated Online Learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, p. 313-323.
Liao, C., Chen, J. L., & Yen, D. C. (2007). Theory of planning behavior (TPB) and customer satisfaction in the continued use of e-service: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 2804-2822.
Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2009). Understanding the determinants of EKR usage from social, technological and personal perspectives. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 165–179.
Lindgaard, G., Dillon, R., Trbovich, P., White, R., Fernandes, G., Lundahl, S., & Pinnamaneni, A. (2006). User Needs Analysis and requirements engineering: Theory and practice. Interacting with computers, 18(1), 47-70.
Liu, G. Z., Hwang, G. J., Kuo, Y. L., & Lee, C. Y. (2014). Designing dynamic English: a creative reading system in a context-aware fitness centre using a smart phone and QR codes. Digital Creativity, 25(2), 169-186.
Liou, H. C. (2012). The roles of Second Life in a college computer-assisted language learning (CALL) course in Taiwan, ROC. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(4), 365-382.
Lo, H. Y., Liu, G. Z., & Wang, T. I. (2014). Learning how to write effectively for academic journals: A case study investigating the design and development of a genre-based writing tutorial system. Computers & Education, 78, 250-267.
Lowenberg, P. H. (2002). Assessing English pro"ciency in the expanding circle. World Englishes, 21, 431–435.
Martín, P., & León Pérez, I. K. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1-13.
Mitzner, T. L., Boron, J. B., Fausset, C. B., Adams, A. E., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., ... & Sharit, J. (2010). Older adults talk technology: Technology usage and attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1710-1721.
Min, H. T. (2014). Participating in International Academic Publishing: A Taiwan Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 188-200.
Mun, Y. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of Web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and TAM. Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 431-449.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ndubisi, N. O. 2004, 'Factors influencing E-learning adoption intention: examining the determinant structure of the decomposed theory of planned behaviour constructs.' aper presented at the HERDSA International Conference, pp. 252-62.
Ong, C. S., Lai, J. Y., & Wang, Y. S. (2004). Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous one e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information & Management, 41(6), 795–804.
Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computer & Education, 47, 222-244.
Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838–852.
Ren, Z., Meng, J., & Yuan, J. (2011, December). Depth camera based hand gesture recognition and its applications in human-computer-interaction. InInformation, Communications and Signal Processing (ICICS) 2011 8th International Conference on (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Sanmugam, S. T., Shah, P. S. A., & Behrang, P. (2013). Target situation Needs Analysis: Exploring the linguistic needs of Polytechnic engineering students across three majors. English for Specific Purposes World, 14(39), 1-9.
Spence, P., & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Engineering English and the high-tech industry: A case study of an English needs analysis of process integration engineers at a semiconductor manufacturing company in Taiwan. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 97-109.
Salado, A., & Nilchiani, R. (2014). The Concept of Problem Complexity.Procedia Computer Science, 28, 539-546.
Samraj, B., & Monk, L. (2008). The statement of purpose in graduate program applications: Genre structure and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 193-211.
Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects.Information & Management, 44(1), 90-103.
Shu, Q., Tu, Q., & Wang, K. (2011). The impact of computer self-efficacy and technology dependence on computer-related technostress: A social cognitive theory perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,27(10), 923-939.
Stoller, F. L., & Robinson, M. S. (2013). Chemistry journal articles: An interdisciplinary approach to move analysis with pedagogical aims. English for Specific Purposes, 32(1), 45-57.
Song, Y., Demirdjian, D., & Davis, R. (2012). Continuous body and hand gesture recognition for natural human-computer interaction. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 2(1), 5.
Songhori, M. H. (2008). Introduction to needs analysis. English for Specific Purposes World, 4, 1-25.
Suki, N. M., & Suki, N. M. (2011). Exploring the relationship between perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived enjoyment, attitude and subscribers’ intention towards using 3G mobile services. Journal of Information Technology Management, 22(1), 1-7.
Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183-1202.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Tajino, A., James, R., & Kijima, K. (2005). Beyond needs analysis: soft systems methodology for meaningful collaboration in EAP course design.Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(1), 27-42.
Ten Hacken, P. (2013). Computer-assisted language learning and the revolution in computational linguistics. Linguistik online, 17(5).
Teo, T. (2010). A path analysis of pre-service teachers' attitudes to computer use: applying and extending the technology acceptance model in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65-79.
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432-2440.
Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education,57(2), 1645-1653.
Tsai, M. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2003). Information searching strategies in web-based science learning: The role of internet self-efficacy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(1), 43–50.
Tsakonas, G., & Papatheodorou, C. (2006). Analysing and evaluating usefulness and usability in electronic information services. Journal of information science, 32(5), 400-419.
Varma, S., & Marler, J. H. (2013). The dual nature of prior computer experience: More is not necessarily better for technology acceptance.Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1475-1482.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision sciences, 27(3), 451-481.
Venkatesh, V. (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating perceived behavioral control, computer anxiety and enjoyment into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11, 342–365.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2010). Computer use by older adults: A multi-disciplinary review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 870-882.
Walton, M. (2014). Applying complexity theory: A review to inform evaluation design. Evaluation and program planning, 45, 119-126.
Wang, Y. S., Lin, H. H., & Liao, Y. W. (2012). Investigating the individual difference antecedents of perceived enjoyment in students' use of blogging.British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 139-152.
Waschle, Kristin, Anne Allgaier, Andreas Lachner, Siegfried Fink, Matthias Nuckles (2014). Procrastination and Self-efficacy: Tracing Vicious and Virtuous Circles in Self-regulated Learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, p. 103-114.
West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language teaching,27(01), 1-19.
Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 457-469.
Wingate, U. (2012). Using academic literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction: A ‘literacy’journey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 26-37.
Wu, I. L., & Wu, K. W. (2005). A hybrid technology acceptance approach for exploring e-CRM adoption in organizations. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(4), 303-316.
Wu, J.-H., Chen, Y.-C. & Lin, L.-M., (2007). Empirical evaluation of the revised end user computing acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (1), 162-174
Yang, Y. F. (2011). Engaging students in an online situated language learning environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(2), 181-198.
Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International journal of human-computer studies, 59(4), 431-449.
Zander, T. O., Kothe, C., Jatzev, S., & Gaertner, M. (2010). Enhancing human-computer interaction with input from active and passive brain-computer interfaces. In Brain-computer interfaces (pp. 181-199). Springer London.

校內：2020-08-31公開
校外：2020-08-31公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文