進階搜尋


下載電子全文  
系統識別號 U0026-2507201717350400
論文名稱(中文) 在學術英語課程之學生口頭報告實施混合式教學情境:技巧、觀點及影響
論文名稱(英文) Implementing a Blended Language Learning Environment for oral presentations in an EAP course: skills, perspectives, and influences
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 外國語文學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Foreign Languages & Literature
學年度 105
學期 2
出版年 106
研究生(中文) 包尼爾
研究生(英文) Neil Edward Barrett
電子信箱 baoneer@gmail.com
學號 K28997018
學位類別 博士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 214頁
口試委員 指導教授-劉繼仁
口試委員-王昱鈞
口試委員-張智凱
口試委員-葉惠菁
口試委員-玫錥盧
中文關鍵字 口頭報告  混合式語言學習  雲端運算  合作  行動研究  學習科技 
英文關鍵字 oral presentations  blended language learning  cloud computing  collaboration  action research  learning technology 
學科別分類
中文摘要 為了因應越來越全球化的學術環境,大學學生常會被要求以英文發表報告,然而,這項作法卻會導致教師的工作負擔加重。本研究提出透過混合式學習法指導學生學習英語的技巧,並學習如何在學術英語課堂做出成功的口頭報告。筆者根據社會文化理論(Socio-Cultural-Theory)語言學習架構(Bax, 2011a)設計一門課程,以課堂報告、線上學習環境,以及利用雲端應用程式(Google Suite)進行線上合作等方式,讓學生習得口頭報告技巧。
本研究採行動研究法,展現二組學生如何在一學期的學術英語課程中有效增進小組報告技巧,並學習到寶貴的合作模式,其成果可為未來之用。每學期針對三組學生之口頭報告進行錄音,再以評分量表及頻率分佈情形分析學生口頭報告的技巧與語言運用。透過問卷、焦點集體訪談以及追蹤訪談分析學生觀點以及學習主題。除此之外,研究教師也會分別在課堂上以及線上觀察學生學習狀況,並詳細記錄。問卷調查結果顯示學生對於學習科技(Learning Technology)感到滿意,未來亦將持續使用。但學生在建構有效結論以及結合報告主旨與講述內容時會產生障礙,這表示應修改授課教材,才能協助學生學習。問卷結果也發現學生較喜歡線上學習與面對面合作並行,因為他們在合作過程中看到線上討論的侷限性。最後,學生對於Line的喜好遠遠超過利用Google Hangouts或Google Slides討論,顯示在設計混合式語言學習情境(Blended Language Learning Environment)時,學生本身的特性與學習成敗息息相關。針對進行類似研究計畫或在課堂上納入口頭報告的教師,目前已發展出一套指引。其施行結果所產生的寶貴想法,有助於評估專為語言學習者所設計的雲端運算之效度。
英文摘要 Students are being asked to present their work in English as the academic world becomes increasingly globalized yet at the same time instructors are faced with increasing workloads. This study offers a way of instructing students in the language and skills of successful English for Academic Purposes (EAP) oral presentations via blended language learning. Students learned presentation skills through classroom presentations, in an online learning environment, and through online collaboration with cloud computing applications (Google Suite) in a course designed according to a neo-Vygotskian language-learning framework.
By using an action research approach, this study shows how EAP students improved the quality of their group presentation skills over a semester and learned valuable collaboration skills for future projects. Data was collected from the recordings of three group oral presentations per semester and analyzed by a rubric and frequency counts of presentation skills and presentation-specific language. Questionnaires, focus group, and follow-up interviews were analyzed for student perspectives, and the interviews were analyzed for themes. In addition, the instructor-researcher observed the students in class and online and made detailed notes. Questionnaire results indicated the students were satisfied with the Learning Technology (LT) and would continue to use it in the future. Several problems were encountered as students had problems constructing effective conclusions, and problems linking the main ideas to the content of the presentation indicated revised instructional material is needed to assist students. The students also preferred to mix online and face-to-face collaboration, as they discovered the limits of online chat through collaboration. Finally, students had a strong preference to use Line over Google Slides comments or Google Hangouts, demonstrating that students are stakeholders that need to be involved in the design of a Blended Language Learning Environment (BLLE) for successful learning to take place. Guidelines have been developed for instructors undertaking similar research projects or introducing oral presentation instruction into the classroom. The results also provide valuable insights on the efficacy of cloud computing for language learners in higher education.
論文目次 Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.2 Purposes and Objectives of the Study 3
1.3 Research Questions 4
1.4 Significance of the Study 4
1.5 Key Terms 5
Chapter 2: Literature Review 7
2.1 Sociocultural Theory and Language Learning. History and Development. 7
2.1.1 Sociocultural theory and LT. 9
2.2 Blended Language Learning 12
2.3 Web 2.0 and Language Learning 15
2.4 Mobile Learning and Collaboration 16
2.5 Cloud Computing and Learning 17
2.6 Academic Oral Presentations 19
2.7 Linguistic Differences: Native Speaker and Non-Native Speaker Presentations 20
2.8 Courseware for Oral Presentations 21
2.9 Oral Presentations, Socialization, and Language Learners 22
2.10 Classroom-Based Studies 24
2.11 Multimodal Competence in Oral Presentations 24
2.12 Steps in Designing Oral Presentations 25
2.13 Design Principals for Oral Presentation Competence 27
2.15 The Unified Theory of Acceptance and the Use of Technology (UTAUT) 31
2.15.1 Performance expectancy. 32
2.15.2 Effort expectancy. 34
2.15.3 Social influences. 34
2.15.4 Facilitating conditions. 36
2.15.5 UTAUT in use. 37
2.16 Action Research as a Methodology 40
2.16.1 Background to action research. 40
2.16.2 Action research as a dissertation. 42
2.16.3 Reason for action research. 44
2.16.4 Type of action research. 44
2.16.5 Action research and typical research design. 45
2.16.6 A practical and pluralistic approach to research. 45
2.16.7 Action research validity. 46
2.16.8 Action research bias. 47
2.17 Summary 48
Chapter 3: Methodology 50
3.1 Overview of Methodology 50
3.2 Research background 50
3.3 Background and Location 51
3.3.1 Background of the researcher. 51
3.3.2 The pilot study. 52
3.3.3 Background of the participants. 55
3.3.4 Setting. 56
3.4 Theoretical Framework. 57
3.5 Oral Presentation Instruction and Material 58
3.6 Google Slides 59
3.7 Design of the Study 60
3.7.1 Blended language learning framework. 61
3.7.2 Outline of the instruction. 62
3.7.3 Academic oral presentation rubric design for assessment. 64
3.8 Data Sources and analysis procedure 65
3.8.1 Analysis procedure of presentations 65
3.8.2 Procedure for final survey. 67
3.8.3 Interview procedure. 67
3.8.4 Observations and field notes procedure. 68
3.8.5 Interview analysis procedure. 69
3.9 Research validity 71
3.10 Summary of Methodology 72
Chapter 4: Results 75
4.1 Introduction to Results 75
4.2 Research Question 1: How and in what ways do academic oral presentations skills develop and improve in a Blended Language Learning Environment? 76
4.2.1 Scores per group. 76
4.2.2 Observations from the videos 84
4.3 Research Question 2: What are students' perspectives on the BLLE for oral presentations in terms of performance, effort, social influence, and facilitating conditions? How can these students’ perspectives inform design and instruction in the BLLE? 85
4.3.1 Questionnaire results. 85
4.3.2 Interview results. 89
4.4 Reflection Cycle 1 92
4.5 Cycle 2 94
4.6 Results Cycle 2 94
4.6.1 Research question 1: How and in what ways do academic oral presentations skills develop and improve in a Blended Language Learning Environment? 94
4.6.2 Research question 2: What are students' perspectives on the BLLE for oral presentations in terms of performance, effort, social influence, and facilitating conditions? How can these students’ perspectives inform design and instruction in the BLLE? 104
4.6.3 Interview results cycle 2. 107
4.6.4 Interview Extracts. 108
4.6.5 Factors which influence how students develop and perform an academic oral presentation in the BLLE. 127
4.6.6 Analysis of Online and Classroom Observations cycle 2. 128
4.7 Summary of Results 130
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 135
5.1 Research Question 1: How and in what ways do academic oral presentations skills develop and improve in a Blended Language Learning Environment? 135
5.1.1 Presentation rubric. 135
5.1.2 Introduction section. 138
5.1.3 Organization of the presentation body. 143
5.1.4 Use of visuals. 145
5.1.5 Conclusion. 146
5.1.6 Non-verbal behavior. 147
5.1.7 Summary of question 1. 149
5.2 Research Question 2: What are students' perspectives on the BLLE for oral presentations in terms of performance, effort, social influence, and facilitating conditions? How can these students’ perspectives inform design and instruction in the BLLE? 151
5.2.1 Performance expectancy. 151
5.2.2 Effort expectancy. 154
5.2.3 Facilitating conditions. 158
5.2.4 Social influence. 161
5.2.5 Intention to use. 163
5.2.6 How Can These Students’ Perspectives Inform Design and Instruction in the BLLE? 163
5.2.5 Summary of research question 2. 167
5.3 Research Question 3. What are the factors that influence how students develop and perform an academic oral presentation in the BLLE? 170
5.3.1 Factor 1 Collaboration. 170
5.3.2 Factor 2. Instruction and performance. 172
5.3.3 Factor 3. Learning technology. 175
5.3.4 Factor 4 convenience. 178
5.3.5 Summary research question 3. 178
5.5 Limitations 179
5.6. Implications for instructors, students, instructional designers, and researchers 181
5.6.1 Instructors. 181
5.6.2 Students. 183
5.6.3 Instructional designers. 183
5.6.4 Researchers. 184
5.8 Contributions 185
5.9 Conclusion 186
References 190
Appendix A 203
Appendix B 205
Appendix C 207
Appendix D 208
Appendix E 209
Appendix F 211
Appendix G 212
Appendix H 214

參考文獻 About ALT. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.alt.ac.uk/about-alt
Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: appropriating, lurking, modeling, and community building. Internet and Higher Education, 13,188–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.002
Asoodar, M., Atai, M. R., Vaezi, S., & Marandi, S. S. (2014). Examining effectiveness of communities of practice in online English for academic purposes (EAP) assessment in virtual classes. Computers & Education, 70, 291–300. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.016
About ALT. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.alt.ac.uk/about-alt
Bankowski, E. (2010). Developing skills for effective academic presentations in EAP. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 22, 187–196. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ930152.pdf
Barrett, N. E., & Liu, G. Z. (2016). Global trends and research aims for English academic oral presentations: changes, challenges, and opportunities for learning technology. Review of Educational Research, 86(4) 1227–1271, doi: 10.3102/0034654316628296
Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The Structuring of the Structures: Development and Function of Mathematizing as a Social Practice. In L. P. Steffe., & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bax, S. (2011a). Normalization revisited the effective use of technology in language education. International Journal of Computer–Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 1(2), 1–15. doi:10.4018/ijcallt.2011040101
Bax, S. (2011b) Digital education: beyond the 'wow' factor. in Thomas, M (Ed.), Digital Education Opportunities for Social Collaboration (pp. 239–256). New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
Benedict, L., Champlin, D., & Pence, H. (2013). Exploring transmedia: the rip–mix–learn classroom. Journal of Chemical Education,90(9), 1172–1176. doi:10.1021/ed300853g
Bijker, W. (1997). Of bicycles, Bakelite’s, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bloch, J. (2007). Abdullah’s blogging: A generation 1.5 student enters the blogosphere. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 128–141.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bradley, L., Lindström, B., & Rystedt, H. (2010). Rationalities of collaboration for language learning in a wiki. ReCALL, 22, 247–265 doi: 10.1017/S0958344010000108
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English language Teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Burston, J. (2014) MALL: the pedagogical challenges. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27 (4), 344–357. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2014.914539
Byrnes, H. (2006). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum.
Cajor-Bravo, A. (2012). Expanding learning and teaching processes in an ESL/civics ABE classroom using an interactive video lesson plan in the U.S. southwest: an action research study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.com. (3424310)
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: testing English as an international language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(3), 229–242. doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0303_1
Carter–Thomas, S., & Rowley–Jolivet, E. (2001). Syntactic differences in oral and written scientific discourse : The role of information structure, ASp, La Revue du GERAS, 31/33, 19–37. Retrieved from http://asp.revues.org/1752
Casey, T., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2012). Predicting uptake of technology innovations in online family dispute resolution services: An application and extension of the UTAUT. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2034–2045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.022
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book. An ESL/EFL Teachers Course. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Chang, C. K., Chen, G. D., & Li, L. Y. (2008). Constructing a community of practice to improve
coursework activity. Computers & Education 50, 235–247. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.05.003
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations
for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer–assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 731–753.doi:10.1111/j.1540–4781.2009. 00970. X
Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2006). Can’t we pick our own groups? The
Influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of
Management Education, 30(4), 557-569. doi: 10.1177/1052562905284872
Chen, C. W. Y. (2011). Evaluating one’s own oral academic presentation. The Asian ESP Journal, 7(3), 5–28. Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March06_ymc.pdf
Chen, L. L. S., Kuan, C. J., Lee, Y. H., & Huang, L. H. (2011). Applicability of the UTAUT model in playing online game through mobile phones: Moderating effects of user experience. IEEE Int'l Technology Management Conference, 625-670.
Chinnery, G. (2006). Going to the MALL: mobile assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 9–16.
Chiu, C. M., & Wang, E. T. G. (2008). Understanding web-based learning continuance intention:
The role of subjective task value. Information & Management 45, 194–201. doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.02.003
Chou, M. H. (2011). The influence of learner strategies on oral presentations: A comparison between group and individual performance. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 272–285. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2011.04.003
Cloud computing (n.d.). In Oxford Living Dictionaries Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cloud_computing
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Sein, M. K. (2005). Being proactive: Where action research meets design research. Proceedings of the Twenty Sixth International Conference on Information systems. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39, 1–14. doi:10.1017/S026144480600320X
Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23 (2), 145-158.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cuban, L. (2003). Why is it so hard to get good schools? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Daniels, P. (2008) Designing CMS modules to support language learning. The JALT CALL
Journal, 4(1), 93–104. Retrieved from http://journal.jaltcall.org/articles/4_1_Daniels.Pdf
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1002. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Decˇman, M. (2015). Modelling the acceptance of e-learning in mandatory environments
of higher education: The influence of previous education and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 272–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.022
De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2009a). The impact of an innovative instructional intervention on the acquisition of oral presentation skills in higher education. Computers & Education, 53(1), 112–120. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.005
De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2009b). The impact of goal orientation, self–reflection and personal character. European Journal of Psychology of Education 2009, 24(3), 293–306. doi:10.1007/BF03174762
De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self-and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments? Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(2), 129–142. doi:10.1177/1469787412441284
De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2014). The differential impact of observational learning and practice–based learning on the development of oral presentation skills in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(2), 256–271.doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.832155
De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2015). The impact of goal orientation, self-reflection, and personal character. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(3), 293–306. doi:10.1007/BF03174762
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for
promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6-18.
Donato, R. (2004) Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24: 284–302.
Dörnyei, Z. (2011). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Drost, B. (2012). An action research study: Engaging in authentic formative assessment. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kent State University College and Graduate School of Education, Health, and Human Services, Ohio.
Dubois, B. L. (1985). Popularization at the highest level: Poster sessions at biomedical meetings. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 56, 67–84. doi:10.1515/ijsl.1985.56.67
Dubois, B. L. (1987). Something on the order of around forty to forty–four: Imprecise numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language in Society, 16, 527–41. doi:10.1017/S0047404500000361
Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: insights and issues. Language Teaching, 40(4), 309–319. doi:10.1017/S0261444807004508
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71.
Ernest, P., Catasús, M. G., Hampel, R., Heiser, S., Hopkins, J., Murphy, L., & Stickler, U. (2013). Online teacher development: collaborating in a virtual learning environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(4), 311–333, doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.667814
Feak, C. B. (2013). ESP and speaking. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp.35–53). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gebhard, M., Shin, D. S., & Seger, W. (2011). Blogging and emergent l2 literacy development in an urban elementary school: a functional perspective. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 278–307.
George, D. R., Dreibelbis, T. D., & Aumiller, B. (2013), Google Docs, and SurveyMonkey™: lecture–based active learning tools. Medical Education, 47. doi:10.1111/medu.12172
Gonzalez-Martínez, J. A., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Gomez-Sanchez, E., & Cano-Panna, R. (2015). Cloud computing and education: A state-of-the-art survey. Computers & Education, 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.017
Grabois, H. (2004). What does SCT research reveal about second language learning? In O. S. J. Kees van Esch (Ed.), New insights into foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 35–49). Frankfurt am Main; New York: P. Lang.
Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2340–2350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.004
Gwet, K. L. (2014) Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability. Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Harrington, D., & LeBeau, C. (2009). Speaking of Speech. New Edition. Tokyo: Macmillan Education.
Hasan, R. (1992). Speech genre, semiotic mediation, and the development of higher mental functions. Language Sciences, 14(4), 489–528.
Helms, S. A. (2014). Blended/hybrid courses: a review of the literature and recommendations for instructional designers and educators. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(6), 804–810. doi:10.1080/10494820.2012.745420
Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 57-76). Oxford: Blackwell.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation. A guide for students and faculty. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Hill, M., & Storey, A. (2003). SpeakEasy: online support for oral presentation skills. ELT Journal, 57(4), 370–376. doi:10.1093/let/57.4.370
Holly, M. L., Arhar, J. M., & Kasten, W. C. (2009). Action research for teachers: Traveling the Yellow Brick Road (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Honga, L. C., & Fong, N. S. (2012). Presenting a research proposal: The examiners’ expectations. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 537–543. doi:10.1016/j. sbspro.2012.11.298
Hood, S., & Foley, G. (2005). Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 291–306. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.003
Hou, H. T., Wang, S. M., Lin, P. C., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Exploring the learner’s knowledge construction and cognitive patterns of different asynchronous platforms: comparison of an online discussion forum and Facebook, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52 (6), 610-620, doi:10.1080/14703297.2013.847381
Hsu, H. Y., Wang, S. K., & Comac, L. (2008). Using audioblogs to assist English–language learning: an investigation into student perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 181–198. doi:10.1080/09588220801943775
Huang, Y. M. (2015). Exploring the factors that affect the intention to use collaborative technologies: The differing perspectives of sequential/global learners. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 278-292. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494. 1949. Tb01237.x
Hubackova, S., Semradova, I., & Klimova, B. F. (2011). Blended Learning in A Foreign Language Teaching. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 281–285. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.054.
Hubbard, P. (2006). Evaluating CALL software. In L. Ducate and N. Arnold (Eds.) 2006. (pp. 2–26). Calling on CALL: From Theory and Research to New Directions in Foreign Language Teaching. San Marcos: CALICO. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/~efs/calleval.pdf
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28 (1), 81–96. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.967701
Hung, H. T., Chiu, C. J., & Yeh, H. C. (2013). Multimodal assessment of and for learning: A theory–driven design rubric. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 400–409. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8535.2012. 01337. X
Hwang, A., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2006). Virtual and traditional feedback–seeking behaviors: Underlying competitive attitudes and consequent grade performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(1), 1–28. doi:10.1111/j.1540–4609.2006. 00099. X
Joe, J., Kitchen, C., Chen, L., & Feng, G. (2015). A prototype public speaking skills assessment: An evaluation of human-scoring quality. (Research Report No. RR-15-36). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12083
Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, E. K. (2011). Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: examining perceived level of presence, usefulness, and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1654–1664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.008.
Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004
Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Zainol Abidin, M. J. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education, 13, 179–187.
Kao, S. M., & Wang, D. P. (2013). The impacts of globalization on assessing oral presentation. In W. L. Tsou., & S. M. Kao (Eds.), Towards a New Paradigm for English Language Teaching and Learning in Higher Education in Taiwan (pp. 85–108). Taipei: Bookman Books Ltd.
Kao, S. M., & Wang, W. C. (2014). Lexical and organizational features in novice and experienced ELF presentations. JELF, 3, 49–79. doi:10.1515/jell–2014–0003
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner. Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer.
Kenning, M. M. (2010). Collaborative scaffolding in online task–based voice interactions
between advanced learners. ReCALL, 22, 135–151 doi: 10.1017/S0958344010000042
Kerby, D., & Romine, J. (2010). Develop oral presentation skills through accounting curriculum design and course–embedded assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 85(3), 172–179.doi.org/10.1080/08832320903252389
Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23 (1), 41–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.108
Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web–based projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91–109.Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/kesslerbikowskiboggs.
Kim, J., Mohan, K., & Ramesh, B. (2014). Functional and non–functional quality in cloud–based collaborative writing: an empirical investigation. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(3), 182–203. doi:10.1109/TPC.2014.2344331
Kim, S. (2006). Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international graduate students in non–science and non–engineering fields. English for Specific Purposes, 25(4), 479–489. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2005.10.001
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, England: Routledge.
Kuzmina, T., & Golechkova, T. (2012). A Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Blended Learning Models Used for Teaching Academic English (EAP/ESAP) to Students of Computer Sciences. Education, 2(7), 311–317. doi: 10.5923/j.edu.20120207.14
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). Second language theory building: Letting all the flowers bloom! Language Learning 46, 713–749.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory in second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2008). Introduction to sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 1–32). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Knouzi, I. (2008). French as a second language university students learn the grammatical concept of voice: a study design, materials development, and pilot data. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. (pp. 228–255). UK: Equinox Pub.
Levy, M., Hubbard, P., & Stockwell, G., & Colpaert, J. (2014). Research challenges in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.987035
Liang, M. Y., & Bonk, C. J. (2009). Interaction in blended EFL learning: Principles and practice. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(1), 3–16.
Lim, C. J., & Lee, S. (2007). Pedagogical usability checklist for ESL/EFL E–learning websites. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 2(3), 67–76.
Lin, P. C., Hou, H. T., Wang, S. M., & Chang, K. E. (2013a). Analyzing knowledge dimensions and cognitive process of a project-based online discussion instructional activity using Facebook in an adult and continuing education course. Computers & Education, 60, 110–121. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.017
Lin, P. C., Lu, H. K., & Liu, S. C. (2013b). Towards an education behavioral intention model for e-learning systems: An extension of UTAUT. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 47(3), 1120-1127. Retrieved from http://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol47No3/37Vol47No3.pdf
Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C. (2013). Exploring the roles of Google.doc and peer e–Tutors in English writing. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 12(1), 79–90. Retrieved from https://edlinked.soe.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2013v12n1dial1.pdf
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Liu, G. Z. (2011). The blended language course in Taiwan. Issues and challenges of Instructional design. In J. Mcalister., & I. S. P. Nation (Eds.), Case Studies in Language Curriculum Design: Concepts and Approaches in Action around the World. (pp. 82–100). New York: Routledge.
Liu, G. Z., & Chen, S. W. (2007). A taxonomy of Internet–based technologies integrated in language curricula. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 934–938. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–8535.2007. 00728.x
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
Liu, G. Z., Lu, H. C., & Lai, T. L. (2016). Towards the construction of a field: The developments and implications of mobile assisted language learning (MALL). Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 31(1), 164 – 180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu070
Liu, S. H. J., Lan, Y. J., & Ho, C. Y. Y. (2014). Exploring the Relationship between Self-Regulated Vocabulary Learning and Web-Based Collaboration. Educational Technology & Society, 17 (4), 404–419.
Lloyd, R. A. M. (2009). Questioning the Tensions: Action Research within a Teacher Collaboration (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.com. (3373409).
Lockyer, L., & Patterson, J. (2008). Integrating social networking technologies in education: a case study of a formal learning environment. Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 1, 529–523. doi:10.1109/ICALT.2008.67
Markos, A. M. (2011). Guiding Preservice Teachers to Critically Reflect: Toward a Renewed Sense about English Learners (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.com. (3453477).
Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2008). E–Learning and Social Networking Handbook: Resources for Higher Education. New York: Routledge.
Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers and Education, 55: 444–453
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2010). Personalized and self–regulated learning in the web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 28–43. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/mcloughlin.html
McCutcheon, G., & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory
Into Practice, 29(3), 144–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405849009543447
McKernan, J. (1988). The countenance of curriculum action research: Traditional,
collaborative, and emancipatory-critical conceptions. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 3(3), 173–200.
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 61–65. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/jaln_article/face-to-face-versus-threaded-discussions-the-role-of-time-and-higher-order-thinking-2/
Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2008). Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration: Its impact on the patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and behavior over time. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1540–1557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.03.002
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London: Hodder Arnold.
Mohd–Radzuan, N. R., & Kaur, S. (2011). Technical oral presentations in English: Qualitative analysis of Malaysian engineering undergraduates’ sources of anxiety. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 29, 1436–1445. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.383
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1996). Integrating Diffusion of Innovations and Theory of Reasoned
Action models to predict utilization of information Technology by end-users. In K. Kautz and J. Pries-Hege (Eds.), Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology, (pp. 132-146). London: Chapman and Hall.
Morell, T. (2015). International conference paper presentations: A multimodal analysis to determine effectiveness. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 137–150. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2014.10.002
Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL graduate program. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 279–310. doi:10.2307/3587953
Morton, J. (2009). Genre and disciplinary competence: A case study of contextualization in an academic speech genre. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 217–229.
doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2009.04.005

Motteram, G., & Sharma, P. (2009). Blending learning in a web 2.0 world. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 7(2), 83–96. Retrieved from http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/85781/20110620-0724/www.swinburne.edu.au/hosting/ijets/journal/V7N2/vol7num2-article2.html
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf.
Nickerson, C. (2013). English for specific purposes and English as a lingua franca. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes
(pp. 446–460). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

Negueruela, E. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second language development. In J. P. Lantolf., & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 189–227). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Nielsen, J., & Loranger, H. (2006). Prioritizing web usability. Berkeley: New Riders.
Norman, D. A. (1999): Affordances, Conventions, and Design. In Interactions, 6(3), 38-41. Retrieved from http://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/may-june-1999/affordance-conventions-and-design1
Noroozi, O., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Geelen, A., . . . Chizari, M. (2012). Online discussion compensates for suboptimal timing of supportive information presentation in a digitally supported learning environment. Education Tech Research Dev, 60, 193–221 doi: 10.1007/s11423-011-9217-2
Norton, L. (2010). Action Research in Teaching and Learning: A Practical Guide to Conducting Pedagogical Research in Universities. New York: Routledge.
O’Bannon, B. W., Lubke, J. K., & Britt, V. G. (2013). ‘You still need that face-to-face communication’: drawing implications from preservice teachers’ perceptions of wikis as a collaborative tool. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 22 (2), 135-152, doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2012.755470
Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity. A language socialization perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 287–306. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi2603_3
Oja, S. N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. London: Falmer Press.
Oliveiraa, I., & Tinocaa, L., & Pereirab, A. (2011). Online group work patterns: how to promote a successful collaboration. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1348–1357. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.017
Ortega, L. (2007). Second language acquisition explained? SLA across nine contemporary theories. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.) Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 225–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Palacios-Marqués, D., Cortés-Grao, R., & Carral, C. L. (2012). Outstanding knowledge competences and web 2.0 practices for developing successful e-learning project management. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 14–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.08.002.
Paulus, T. M. (2005). Collaborative and cooperative approaches to online group work: The impact of task type. Distance Education, 26, (1), 111–125. doi:10.1080/01587910500081343
Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral proficiency development. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 35–54. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/pdf/payne.pdf
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2015). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7–32.
Perrin, A. (2015). Pew Research Center Social Networking Usage: 2005-2015.
Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/2015/Social-Networking-Usage-2005-2015/
Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e–learning use. Computers & Education, 47(1), 222–244.
Querol–Julián, M., & Fortanet–Gómez, I. (2012). Multimodal evaluation in academic discussion sessions: How do presenters act and react? English for Specific Purposes 31, 271–283. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2012.06.001
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2002). Visual discourse in scientific conferences. A genre based study. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 19–40. doi:10.1016/S0889–4906(00)00024–7
Rowley–Jolivet, E., & Carter–Thomas, S. (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: context, argument, and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 45–70. doi:10.1111/j.1473–4192.2005. 00080. X
Rutledge, P. A., & Kinkoph Gunter, S. (2014). My Google Apps. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=qbykAwAAQBAJ&dq=%22google+slides%22&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Sá, J. (2002) Diary Writing: An Interpretative Research Method of Teaching and Learning. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8(2), 149-168. doi:10.1076/edre.8.2.149.3858
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3
Schreiber, L. M., Paul, G. D., & Shibley, L. R. (2012). The development and test of the Public Speaking Competence Rubric. Communication Education, 61(3), 205-233, doi: 10.1080/03634523.2012.670709
Sharma, P., & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended Learning. Oxford: Macmillan.
Siampou, F., Komis, V., & Tselios, N. (2014). Online versus face-to-face collaboration in the context of a computer-supported modeling task. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 369–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.032
Shield, L., & Kukulska–Hulme, A. (2006). Are Language learning websites special? Towards a research agenda for discipline–specific usability. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(3), 349–369. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/6110/
Silius, K., Kailanto, M., & Tervakari, A. M. (2011). Evaluating the quality of social media in an educational context. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 6(3) 505–510. Retrieved from http://online-journals.org/i-jet/article/view/1732
Smith, G. G., Sorensen, C., Gump, A., Heindel, A. J., Caris, M., & Martinez, C. D. (2011). Overcoming student resistance to group work: Online versus face-to-face. Internet and Higher Education 14, 121–128. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.005
Stapa, M., Asniza Murad, N., & Ahmad, N. (2014). Engineering technical oral presentation: Voices of the stakeholder. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 463–467. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.063
Steel, C. H., & Levy, M. (2011). Language students and their technologies: Charting the evolution 2006–2011. ReCALL, 25(3), 306–320. doi:10.1017/S0958344013000128

Stockwell, G., & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobile-assisted language
learning. Monterey, CA: The International Research Foundation for English Language Education, 1–15. Retrieved from http://www.tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobile-assisted-language-learning
Storch, N. (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1):
119–158. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00179
Šumak, B., Hericˇko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2067–2077. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.005
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. doi: 10.1016/computed.
Sun, Y. C. (2009). Voice blog: An exploratory study of language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 88–103. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/voll3num2
Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Yang, J. M. (2015). How effective are mobile devices for language learning? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 16, 68–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.09.001
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tardy, C. M. (2005). Expressions of disciplinarily and individuality in a multimodal genre. Computers and Composition, 22, 319–336. doi: 10.1016/j.comp- com.2005.05.004
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 144-176. Retrieved from http://home.business.utah.edu/actme/7410/TaylorTodd.pdf
Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) – A
literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, A60–A68.doi: 10.106/j.chb.2012.12.03
Thomas, P. Y. (2011). Cloud computing: a potential paradigm for practicing the scholarship of teaching and learning. Electronic Library, 29(2), 214–224. doi: 10.1108/02640471
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: toward a conceptual
model of utilization, M IS Quarterly, 15(1), 124-143.
Thorne, S. L., Reinhardt, J., & Golombek, P. (2008). Mediation as objectification in the development of professional academic discourse: A corpus informed curricular innovation. In J. P. Lantolf., & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. London: equinox publishing Ltd.
Thorne, S. L., & Smith, B. (2011). Second language development theories and technology–mediated language learning. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 268–277.
Toetenel, S. (2014). Social networking: a collaborative open educational resource. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(2), 149–162. doi: 10. 1080/09588221.2013.818561
Trinder, R. (2015). Blending technology and face-to-face: Advanced students’ choices. ReCALL, 28(1): 83–102. doi:10.1017/S0958344015000166

Tsai, S. C. (2010). Developing and integrating courseware for oral presentations into ESP learning contexts. Computers & Education, 55, 1245–1258. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2010.05.021

Tsai, S. C. (2011). Courseware integration into task–based learning: A case study of multimedia courseware–supported oral presentations for non–English major students. ReCALL, 23, 117–134. doi: 10.1017/S0958344011000048
Tutty, J., & Klein, J. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 56(2), 101–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9092-7
United States Office of Educational Technology Report (2016). Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
Uzunboylu, H., Bicen, H., & Cavus, N. (2011). The efficient virtual learning environment: a case study of web 2.0 tools and Windows Live Spaces. Computers & Education, 56(3), 720-726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.014
Van De Bogart, W., & Wichadee, S. (2015). Exploring Students’ Intention to Use LINE for Academic Purposes Based on Technology Acceptance Model. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 65-85. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1894
Van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., & Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2015). Towards a set of design principles for developing oral presentation competence: A synthesis of research in higher education. Educational Research Review, 14, 62–80. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.002
Van 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46,
186–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27, (3), 425-478. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540
Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding Interobserver Agreement: The Kappa Statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360-363.
Volle, L. M. (2005). Analyzing oral skills in voice e–mail and online interviews. Language learning and Technology, 9, 146–163. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. E. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Wallwork, A. (2010). English for Presentations at International Conferences. New York: Springer.
Wang, C. S., & Huang, Y. M. (2016). Acceptance of cloud services in face-to-face computer-supported collaborative learning: a comparison between single-user mode and multi-user mode. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(6), 637-648, doi:10.1080/14703297.2015.1060134
Wang, M. J. (2010). Online collaboration and offline interaction between students using asynchronous tools in blended learning. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 26(6), 830–846. Retrieved from http://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/1045/306
Wang, Y. C. (2015). Promoting collaborative writing through wikis: a new approach for advancing innovative and active learning in an ESP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(6), 499-512, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2014.881386
Wang, Q. Y., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y.Q., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 428–438.doi: 10.1111/j.1467–8535.2011. 01195. X
Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2009). Criteria for evaluating synchronous learning management systems: arguments from the distance language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1080/09588220802613773
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer assisted language learning: an introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp 3–20). Tokyo, Japan: Logos International.
Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. Egbert and G. M. Petrie (Eds.) CALL Research Perspectives (pp. 41–51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Web 2.0 (n.d.). In Oxford Living Dictionaries Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Web_2.0
Wessels, B. (2009). Understanding the Internet: A Socio–Cultural Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2 socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 473–503. doi: 10.2307/3588072
Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85–102. Retrieved from http://www.lib.yuntech.edu.tw/~exam/exam_new/100/dmi.pdf
Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal. 37, 308–328. doi: 10.1177/0033688206071315
Woods, R. H., & Baker, J. D. (2004). Interaction and Immediacy in Online Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/186/268
Wu, T. T., Wang, C. S., Huang, S. H., & Chung, M. Y. (2012). Using Google plus to conduct high interaction and interdependence learning environments based on group investigation strategy. Journal of Internet Technology, 13(6), 997–1004. Retrieved from http://jit.ndhu.edu.tw/ojs/index.php/jit/article/view/845
Wulff, S., Swales, J. M., & Keller, K. (2009). ‘‘We have about seven minutes for questions”: The discussion sessions from a specialized conference. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 79–92. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2008.11.002
Yang, L. X. (2010). Doing a group presentation: Negotiations and challenges experienced by five Chinese ESL students of commerce at a Canadian university. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), 141–160. doi: 10.1177/1362168809353872
Yeh, H. C. (2014). Exploring how collaborative dialogues facilitate synchronous collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology 18(1), 23–37. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2014/action2.pdf
Zareva, A. (2009). Informational packaging, level of formality, and the use of circumstance adverbials in L1 and L2 student academic presentations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 55–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.002
Zareva, A. (2011) 'And so that was it': Linking adverbials in student academic presentations. RELC Journal, 42, 5–15. doi: 10.1177/003368821039066
Zhang, W. W. (2012). Technology in College Classrooms: An Action Research Examining the Use of PowerPoint in ELL Classrooms (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.com. (3528633)

論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2020-08-16起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2020-08-16起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw