Download Complete Issue in PDF - Educational Technology & Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

was less than three months which might not be long enough to adequately investigate the development of language awareness. Comparisons between students’ language awareness before and after participating in different contexts could be further analyzed to investigate the development of language awareness in the long-term. Second, students’ pragmatic awareness was excluded in this study because the study focused mainly on the levels of lexical, syntactic, and textual organization. Third, not all of the students and universities were analyzed in terms of their intercultural communication and language awareness. Examples of some cases were presented within the limitation of length. Finally, students’ majors, language proficiency levels and career plan in relation to selecting an ESP context were not investigated in this study. Students might participate in as many discussions as possible without clearly understanding their learning needs and goals. Further research is suggested in terms of understanding the relationship between students’ resumes and learning portfolios so as to raise their language awareness in learning ESP through intercultural communication. Conclusion The results of this study indicate that college students’ language awareness was stimulated during intercultural communication in different ESP contexts in on-site group discussions and online CSCL community based on activity theory. The multi-discipline CSCL showed that students expressed their perspectives in on-site group discussion to figure out solutions toward the problems in different social and cultural contexts. Based on their different perspectives, cultural backgrounds, and majors, students engaged in intercultural communication and raised their language awareness in the learning community. In the CSCL community, the students discussed various topics in the contexts of Vocational, Business, Technical, Travel and Medical English. They were also engaged in knowledge sharing since the learning resources such as learning materials, photos, discussions, and assessments were shared online among the eight universities. Moreover, in the on-site discussion groups, students were provided with opportunities to meet with peers from different colleges such as the College of Engineering, Management, Humanities and Applied Sciences, and Design. Through discussions of a common issue, students from diverse backgrounds developed shared language knowledge and meanings in a specific context. Students were able to increase their language awareness through on-site group discussion and the online CSCL community on the levels of lexical, syntactic, and textual organization with the support of peers from different majors and universities in a multicultural context. References Ayala, G., & Yano, Y. (1998). A collaborative learning environment based on intelligent agents. Expert Systems with Applications, 14(1-2), 129-137. Baran, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). The dynamics of online communities in the activity theory framework. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 155-166. Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82-103. Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60-81. 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. Bull, S., & Ma, Y. (2001). Raising learner awareness of language learning strategies in situations of limited resources. Interactive Learning Environments, 9(2), 171-200. Callies, N., & Keller, W. R. (2008). The teaching and acquisition of focus constructions: An integrated approach to language awareness across the curriculum. Language Awareness, 17(3), 249-266. Cekaite, A. (2009). Collaborative corrections with spelling control: Digital resources and peer assistance. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 319-341. Chen, W., Looi, C. K., & Tan, S. (2010). What do students do in a F2F CSCL classroom? The optimization of multiple communications modes. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1159-1170. Chun Shin Limited. (2009). Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) from http://www.toeic.com.tw/ 339
Crooks, B. (2003). The combined use of personal construct psychology and activity theory as a framework for interpreting the process of independent learning. In Chiari, G., & Nuzzo, M. L. (Eds.), Psychological Constructivism and the Social World (pp. 142-161). Milano, Italy: F. Angel. Colomar, M. P. A., & Guzmán, E. G. (2009). ICT-SUSTOUR and MARKETOUR: Two second language acquisition projects through a virtual learning environment. Computers & Education, 52(3), 581-587. de Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, R. J. (2007). Investigating patterns of interaction in networked learning and computer-supported collaborative learning: A role for Social Network Analysis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 87-103. Deutschmann, M., & L. Panichi (2009). Talking into empty space? Signaling involvement in a virtual language classroom in Second Life. Language Awareness, 18(3-4), 310-328. Dlaska, A. (2002). Sites of construction: Language learning, multimedia, and the international engineer. Computers & Education, 39(2), 129-143. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Greenhow, C., & Belbas, B. (2007). Using activity-oriented design methods to study collaborative knowledge-building in elearning courses within higher education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 363-391. Hamilton, J., & Woodward-Kron, R. (2010). Developing cultural awareness and intercultural communication through multimedia: A case study from medicine and the health sciences. System, 38(4), 560-568. Hartley, K., (2001). Learning strategies and hypermedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(3), 285-305. Ho, C. M. L., Nelson, M. E., & Müeller-Wittig, W. (2010). Design and implementation of a student-generated virtual museum in a language curriculum to enhance collaborative multimodal meaning-making. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1083-1097. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (1992). Go for gold: Integrating process and product in ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 11(3), 225- 242. Jackson, J. (2005). An inter-university, cross-disciplinary analysis of business education: Perceptions of business faculty in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 293-306. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Special Education. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kiely, R. (2009). Observing, noticing, and understanding: Two case studies in language awareness in the development of academic literacy. Language Awareness, 18(3), 329-344. Liaw, M. L. (2006). E-learning and the development of intercultural competence. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 49-64. Littlewood, W. (2001). Cultural awareness and the negotiation of meaning in intercultural communication. Language Awareness, 10(2), 189-199. Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227. Lucas, T. (2005). Language awareness and comprehension through Puns among ESL Learners. Language Awareness, 14(4), 221- 238. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32(3), 379-394. Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1256-1265. Osman, G., & Herring, S. C. (2007). Interaction, facilitation, and deep learning in cross-cultural chat: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(2), 125-141. Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Awareness of group performance in a CSCL-environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflection. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 151–161. Pifarre, M., & Cobos, R. (2010). Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 237-253. 340
Page 1 and 2:
http://www.ifets.info ISSN: 1436-45
Page 3 and 4:
Supporting Organizations Centre for
Page 5 and 6:
Timely Diagnostic Feedback for Data
Page 7 and 8:
Lim et al. addressed two gaps, a us
Page 9 and 10:
The new found benefits of technolog
Page 11 and 12:
analysis of all articles submitted
Page 13 and 14:
Since some articles could not meet
Page 15 and 16:
Table 2. Distribution of research t
Page 17 and 18:
Research method Table 8 shows diffe
Page 19 and 20:
authors concluded that mixed-method
Page 21 and 22:
trends. Library and Information Sci
Page 23 and 24:
Taylor, E. W. (2001). Adult Educati
Page 25 and 26:
Zealand 10 paper 15 19 Using mutual
Page 27 and 28:
impact on a variety of sectors arou
Page 29 and 30:
Grand challenges These grand challe
Page 31 and 32:
eport for details of competencies c
Page 33 and 34:
learning repositories to use in con
Page 35 and 36:
Acknowledgements This paper is base
Page 37 and 38:
eliminating duplicates, a total of
Page 39 and 40:
Findings of this review In the foll
Page 41 and 42:
Table 2. Summary of empirical resea
Page 43 and 44:
students’ conception of learning
Page 45 and 46:
their creative capacity in designin
Page 47 and 48:
which make it impossible to see how
Page 49 and 50:
The content knowledge Table 3 depic
Page 51 and 52:
The first revision we have made to
Page 53 and 54:
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005).
Page 55 and 56:
Lee, H., & Hollebrands, K. (2008).
Page 57 and 58:
Rushby, N. (2013). The Future of Le
Page 59 and 60:
The top ten in the 2011 survey were
Page 61 and 62:
My first vision of the future is on
Page 63 and 64:
References Dienstag, J. (2006). Pes
Page 65 and 66:
industries, new laws, and new areas
Page 67 and 68:
or distractive effects of technolog
Page 69 and 70:
This may be further complicated by
Page 71 and 72:
espect, the literature about school
Page 73 and 74:
Tondeur, J., Van Keer, H., van Braa
Page 75 and 76:
Disruptive technology When mainfram
Page 77 and 78:
with the physical environment, such
Page 79 and 80:
mockups, and then embedded in compu
Page 81 and 82:
the global marketplace. Students in
Page 83 and 84:
games, and virtual worlds are domin
Page 85 and 86:
Malone, T. W. & Lepper, M. R. (1987
Page 87 and 88:
education reform. In the following
Page 89 and 90:
error elimination and/or refutation
Page 91 and 92:
In essence, as depicted in figure 1
Page 93 and 94:
of our students, who are the future
Page 95 and 96:
Simon, H. (1996). The Sciences of t
Page 97 and 98:
2010). Similar patterns can be obse
Page 99 and 100:
To complement the literature search
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 1. Domains of sustainable e-
Page 103 and 104:
Discussion and conclusions This sco
Page 105 and 106:
Baty, P. (2010, July 1). Global rep
Page 107 and 108:
Loewenberger, P., & Bull, J. (2003)
Page 109 and 110:
applied query expansion techniques
Page 111 and 112:
di, 1 ≤ i ≤ n , 0 < d i ≤ 1,
Page 113 and 114:
Procedure Figure 2 schematically de
Page 115 and 116:
Phase 3. Wiki-based revision Throug
Page 117 and 118:
Table 4. Comparison of the performa
Page 119 and 120:
materials manually by working alone
Page 121 and 122:
# Question 1 2 3 4 5 Table 7. Users
Page 123 and 124:
Kuo, Y. H., & Huang, Y. M. (2009).
Page 125 and 126:
Nevertheless, one of the major prob
Page 127 and 128:
Rlj indicates the answer of the l t
Page 129 and 130:
Relative weight Very low 5 ww , ∈
Page 131 and 132:
Experiment and evaluation Figure 7.
Page 133 and 134:
and CG (59.06 and 13.52). The resul
Page 135 and 136:
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Correctn
Page 137 and 138:
The EFWA algorithm Appendix Defini
Page 139 and 140:
y the fourth student correctly is:
Page 141 and 142:
drA = − + − + − = 2 2 2 ( , M
Page 143 and 144:
students have achieved what they wa
Page 145 and 146:
environments. This gap can be bridg
Page 147 and 148:
can understand, as well as a vehicl
Page 149 and 150:
5. “Then move on to Loop 2.” Ea
Page 151 and 152:
fact that the students could not ge
Page 153 and 154:
conceptualization, and testing in n
Page 155 and 156:
Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumenfeld
Page 157 and 158:
all image search queries result in
Page 159 and 160:
instance, not knowing how to naviga
Page 161 and 162:
displays in real time. The authors
Page 163 and 164:
Significance was not found for main
Page 165 and 166:
manifestation of visual literacy; a
Page 167 and 168:
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia lea
Page 169 and 170:
McMillen (1996) considered virtual
Page 171 and 172:
Learning of area concepts in elemen
Page 173 and 174:
shrink. changed. Hints and Show but
Page 175 and 176:
Based on teacher observations and c
Page 177 and 178:
Appendix 1. Sample items of BACT *I
Page 179 and 180:
Wong, L.-H., Hsu, C.-K., Sun, J., &
Page 181 and 182:
Johnson and Johnson (1994) identifi
Page 183 and 184:
Design of game-based learning activ
Page 185 and 186:
Findings The students exhibited hig
Page 187 and 188:
We take two instances of character
Page 189 and 190:
In designing Chinese-PP, we instead
Page 191 and 192:
Boticki, I., Looi, C.-K., & Wong, L
Page 193 and 194:
Hwang, G.-J., Sung, H.-Y., Hung, C.
Page 195 and 196:
2000). For example, Filippidis and
Page 197 and 198:
amount of information about the lea
Page 199 and 200:
The factors that affected the stude
Page 201 and 202:
Burguillo, J. C. (2010). Using game
Page 203 and 204:
Wong, L.-H. (2013). Analysis of Stu
Page 205 and 206:
Recognizing both the importance and
Page 207 and 208:
Student responses were coded based
Page 209 and 210:
English with the translations of th
Page 211 and 212:
With her mother’s support, Jane w
Page 213 and 214:
LGC that could occur in any physica
Page 215 and 216:
The significance of the reported st
Page 217 and 218:
Chen, Y.-L., Pan, P.-R., Sung, Y.-T
Page 219 and 220:
them develop new concepts to facili
Page 221 and 222:
Figure 1. Visualization of how mino
Page 223 and 224:
experimental group all the other le
Page 225 and 226:
Procedures All subjects in both gro
Page 227 and 228:
misconceptions corrected by a learn
Page 229 and 230:
exploration environment constructed
Page 231 and 232:
Küçüközer, H., & Kocakülah, S.
Page 233 and 234:
Lin, J.-W., Lai, Y.-C., & Chuang, Y
Page 235 and 236:
The related works Feedback should b
Page 237 and 238:
E 2 1 R 23 N E 5 R 15 E 1 R 13 E 3
Page 239 and 240:
Once the frequent itemsets have bee
Page 241 and 242:
The first phase generates a diagnos
Page 243 and 244:
To assure pretest validity and reli
Page 245 and 246:
Questionnaire and interviews To und
Page 247 and 248:
Maughan, S., Peet, D., & Willmott,
Page 249 and 250:
According to Angeli and Valanides (
Page 251 and 252:
description, objectives, and entry
Page 253 and 254:
TCK: For the fourth activity, the g
Page 255 and 256:
A questionnaire focusing on Instruc
Page 257 and 258:
eing aware of the importance of sel
Page 259 and 260:
References Airasian, P. W., & Walsh
Page 261 and 262:
Instructional Technology Instructio
Page 263 and 264:
and He (2006) revealed that technol
Page 265 and 266:
Model and hypothesis development Sa
Page 267 and 268:
Table 1. Student profile Gender: Ma
Page 269 and 270:
H3 Student satisfaction has positiv
Page 271 and 272:
Conclusions Addressing four PRS iss
Page 273 and 274:
Tao, Y.-H., & Yeh, R. C. (2009, Jul
Page 275 and 276:
My overall experience of PRS is abs
Page 277 and 278:
skills can move to the next learnin
Page 279 and 280:
were divided into an experimental g
Page 281 and 282:
illustrates the Monopoly gameplay m
Page 283 and 284:
Comparison of monopoly and instruct
Page 285 and 286:
Guskey, T. R., & Gates, S. L. (1986
Page 287 and 288:
Yang, C.-C., Tseng, S.-S., Liao, A.
Page 289 and 290:
text only because learners are able
Page 291 and 292:
Figure 2. Structure of poetry multi
Page 293 and 294: time period. Bandwidth is measured
Page 295 and 296: Participants and experimental proce
Page 297 and 298: owses multimedia resources. Fewer p
Page 299 and 300: the other approach. Meanwhile, the
Page 301 and 302: Wang, Y.-H., Young, S. S.-C., & Jan
Page 303 and 304: mistakes in front of the teacher an
Page 305 and 306: Basic English learning materials we
Page 307 and 308: The instructor also showed positive
Page 309 and 310: H.L, M = 38.11) which occurred in b
Page 311 and 312: Discussions Tangible learning compa
Page 313 and 314: We can conclude from the current st
Page 315 and 316: Joo, Y. J., Joung, S., & Kim, E. K.
Page 317 and 318: on 506 students registered for cybe
Page 319 and 320: and management systems, learning se
Page 321 and 322: multivariate normal distribution as
Page 323 and 324: Structural model examination Table
Page 325 and 326: Direct effect Flow ← Satisfaction
Page 327 and 328: Second, the results of this study c
Page 329 and 330: Kim, H. S. (2008). The effects of t
Page 331 and 332: language accurately, or product-ori
Page 333 and 334: Thailand 5 Vietnam 25 Total 208 Res
Page 335 and 336: Procedures of data collection Figur
Page 337 and 338: discussions. From Brian’s log fil
Page 339 and 340: universities. There were 259 studen
Page 341 and 342: and he provided his arguments and r
Page 343: Within groups Total Test 4 Between
Page 347 and 348: Appendix A 342
Page 349: teenager. Chapter four, “Identity
show all

Download Complete Issue in PDF - Educational Technology & Society

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?