Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chang, C. Y. & Tsai, C. C. (2005). The interplay between different forms of CAI and students’ preferences of learning environment in the secondary science class. Science Education, 89(5), 707–724. Chen, R. T-H. (2010). Knowledge and knowers in online learning: Investigating the effects of online flexible learning on student sojourners. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved September 2, 2010, from http://www.karlmaton.com/pdf/2010Rainbow.Chen.Thesis.pdf Comeaux, P., & McKenna-Byington, E. (2003). Computer-mediated communication in online and conventional classroom: Some implications for instructional design and professional development programmes. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 348–355. Cortazzi, M. (1990). Cultural and educational expectations in the language classroom. In B. Harrison (Ed.), Culture and the language classroom (pp. 54–65). Hong Kong: Modern English Publications and the British Council. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling on content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of the impact of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction, 17, 436–447. Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. J. (2007). Students’ experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 496–514. Eichler, G. (2003). E-learning and communities, supporting the circulation of knowledge pieces. Innovative Internet Community Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2877, 48–64. Fallshaw, E., & McNaught, C. (2005). Quality assurance issues and processes relating to ICT-based learning. In S. Fallows & R. Bhanot (Eds.), Quality issues in ICT-based higher education (pp. 23–36). Oxon, UK: RoutledgeFalmer. Friesner, T., & Hart, M. (2004). A cultural analysis of e-learning for China. Electronic Journal of eLearning, 2(1), 81–88. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. Guuawardena, N. C., Nola, A. C., Wilson, P. L., Lopez-Islas, J. R., Ramirez-Angel, N., & Megchun-Alpizar, R. M. (2001). A cross cultural study of group process and development in online conferences. Distance Education, 22, 85–121. Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301–320. Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated and face-to-face group problem solving. <strong>Educational</strong> <strong>Technology</strong> Research & Development, 49, 35–51. Jung I, Choi S., Lim C., & Leem J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction, and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 39(2), pp. <strong>15</strong>3–162. Kim, K. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 8(1). Retrieved May 20, 2008, from: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1083- 6101.2002.tb00163.x Law, N., & Wong, E. (2003). Developmental trajectory in knowledge building: An investigation. In Wasson B., Ludvigsen, S., & Hoppe U. (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 57–66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Mayes, T. (2001). Learning technology and learning relationships. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching & learning online pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 16–25). London: Kogan Page. McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level. Australian Journal of <strong>Educational</strong> <strong>Technology</strong> 16(1), 58–72. McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2002). A learner-centred approach to developing team skills through web-based learning and assessment. British Journal of <strong>Educational</strong> <strong>Technology</strong> 33(5), 571–582. Nurmela, K., Palonen, T., Lehtinen, E., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Developing tools for analyzing CSCL process. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 333–342). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: Divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 47, 332–351. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. 135
Santhanam, R., Sasidharan, S., Webster, J. (2008). Using self-regulatory learning to enhance e-learning-based information technology training. Information Systems Research, 19(1), 26–47. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46, 349–370. Smith, P. J., Coldwell, J., Smith, S. N., & Murphy, K. L. (2005). Learning through computer-mediated communication: A comparison of Australian and Chinese heritage students. Innovation in Education and training International, 42(2), 123–134. So, H-J., & Brush, T. A. (2008) Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336. Stansfield, M., McLellan, E., & Connolly, T. (2004). Enhancing student performance in online learning and traditional face-toface class delivery. Journal of Information <strong>Technology</strong> Education, 3, 173–188. Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2003). Powerful learning and the many faces of instructional design: Towards a framework for the design of powerful learning environments. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Enstwistle, & J. J. G. Van Merrienboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Veerman A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Proceedings of the First European Conference on CSCL. Maastricht, The Netherlands: McLuhan Institute, University of Maastricht. Walker, G. (2005). Critical thinking in asynchronous discussions. International Journal of Instructional <strong>Technology</strong> and Distance Learning, 6(2). Retrieved Jan 5, 2010, from http://itdl.org/Journal/Jun_05/article02.htm Wang, M. J. (2004). Correlational analysis of student visibility and learning outcomes in an online setting. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 71–82. Warden, C. A., Chen, J. F. & Caskey, D. (2005). Cultural values and communication online: Chinese and southeast-Asian students in a Taiwan international MBA class. Business Communication Quarterly, 68, 222–232. Wu, J-H., Tennyson, R.D., & Hsia, T-L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), <strong>15</strong>5–164. Young, A. (2008). Structuring asynchronous discussions to incorporate learning principles in an online class: One professor’s course analysis, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 218–224. Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2008a). The Relationship between epistemological beliefs, learning conceptions, and approaches to study: A cross-cultural structural model? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(4), 411–423. Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens T. (2008b). Collaborative learning in a social constructivist e-learning environment: A crosscultural study. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the European Learning Styles Information Network, 617–630. 136
- Page 1 and 2:
January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1
- Page 3 and 4:
Supporting Organizations Centre for
- Page 5 and 6:
Analyzing the Learning Process of a
- Page 7 and 8:
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2012).
- Page 9 and 10:
ased on an integration and evaluati
- Page 11 and 12:
ased on the assumption that no sing
- Page 13 and 14:
Diagram type D thinking (shown in F
- Page 15 and 16:
collaborative task in terms of inte
- Page 17 and 18:
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for
- Page 19 and 20:
Hong, N. S., Jonassen, D. H., & McG
- Page 21 and 22:
commercial off-the-shelf digital ga
- Page 23 and 24:
The post-questionnaire was used aft
- Page 25 and 26:
Phase Table 1. Phases and activitie
- Page 27 and 28:
Research results Describing student
- Page 29 and 30:
Assessment results for each one of
- Page 31 and 32:
References Annetta, L.A., Minogue,
- Page 33 and 34:
Huang, T.-W. (2012). Aberrance Dete
- Page 35 and 36:
Detection power Typically, the rela
- Page 37 and 38:
Results Detection rates As seen in
- Page 39 and 40:
2 .00 .05 3 .02 .10 1 .60 .40 ECI 4
- Page 41 and 42:
their easily understandable devices
- Page 43 and 44:
Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining
- Page 45 and 46:
activities is assumed to be reflect
- Page 47 and 48:
that the problem representations (i
- Page 49 and 50:
deductive reasoning inventory (33 m
- Page 51 and 52:
HIMATT structural measures The part
- Page 53 and 54:
outcomes, r = .297, p < .01. Accord
- Page 55 and 56:
Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, co
- Page 57 and 58:
Seel, N. M. (1999b). Educational se
- Page 59 and 60:
Initially this paper explores defin
- Page 61 and 62:
gamers were boys, and 35% were girl
- Page 63 and 64:
Teachers underwent eight hours of p
- Page 65 and 66:
A correlation analysis was used to
- Page 67 and 68:
playing the game. This would mean P
- Page 69 and 70:
Yu, F. Y. (2012). Any Effects of Di
- Page 71 and 72:
Considering that identity concealme
- Page 73 and 74:
In the nickname group, the student
- Page 75 and 76:
Attitudes toward assessors Percepti
- Page 77 and 78:
Liu, Z. F., Chiu, C. H., Lin, S. S.
- Page 79 and 80:
Appendix A: Attitudes toward Peer-A
- Page 81 and 82:
Appendix C: Perception toward the I
- Page 83 and 84:
Han, H., & Johnson, S. D. (2012). R
- Page 85 and 86:
Research participants The target po
- Page 87 and 88:
that its value of cross-loading is
- Page 89 and 90: The canonical variable for the emot
- Page 91 and 92: Literature in the field of online l
- Page 93 and 94: Cornelius, R. R. (1996). The scienc
- Page 95 and 96: Shih, W.-C., Tseng, S.-S., Yang, C.
- Page 97 and 98: To provide personalized (e-)learnin
- Page 99 and 100: Figure 3. An illustrative example o
- Page 101 and 102: elementary schools. Thus they are b
- Page 103 and 104: Table 5. Descriptive statistics for
- Page 105 and 106: References Abowd, G. D., & Atkeson,
- Page 107 and 108: Tseng, K.-H., Chang, C.-C., Lou, S.
- Page 109 and 110: Figure 1. The five stages of KT (Gi
- Page 111 and 112: The use of learning strategies, mon
- Page 113 and 114: Additionally, the above two scales
- Page 115 and 116: Figure 3. Canonical structure betwe
- Page 117 and 118: highly positive perception of CM an
- Page 119 and 120: Langan-Fox, J., Platania-Phung, C.,
- Page 121 and 122: Gömleksiz, M. N. (2012). Elementar
- Page 123 and 124: any statistically significant diffe
- Page 125 and 126: consideration in an educational set
- Page 127 and 128: conditions of a learning environmen
- Page 129 and 130: Kahle, J. B. (1983). The disadvanta
- Page 131 and 132: Appendix A Science and Technology S
- Page 133 and 134: (Guuawardena, Nola, Wilson, Lopez-I
- Page 135 and 136: Questionnaire on student satisfacti
- Page 137 and 138: G4 53 (12.5) 48.9 (13.4) 0.39 G5 51
- Page 139: across the five levels of knowledge
- Page 143 and 144: This paper reports only the early e
- Page 145 and 146: Figure 1 illustrates how the abovem
- Page 147 and 148: teacher/instructor continues to dom
- Page 149 and 150: The instructor plays a significant
- Page 151 and 152: Data collection and data sources Fi
- Page 153 and 154: y turning over the responsibility t
- Page 155 and 156: Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model o
- Page 157 and 158: Lawanto, O., Santoso, H. B., & Liu,
- Page 159 and 160: such as grades and evaluation by ot
- Page 161 and 162: students’ interest, expectancy fo
- Page 163 and 164: constructs that measure students’
- Page 165 and 166: Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on
- Page 167 and 168: Lin, J. M.-C., & Liu, S.-F. (2012).
- Page 169 and 170: Table 1. The MSWLogo commands learn
- Page 171 and 172: other words, we had prepared a set
- Page 173 and 174: lab. When she returned and found th
- Page 175 and 176: Attitudes toward Programming and Co
- Page 177 and 178: Table 5 successfully, it took four
- Page 179 and 180: Kuter, S., Altinay Gazi, Z., & Alti
- Page 181 and 182: not only the means for trainees’
- Page 183 and 184: Data Collection Techniques and Anal
- Page 185 and 186: organizations was highlighted by on
- Page 187 and 188: provides the means for professional
- Page 189 and 190: Kohonen, V. (2001). Towards experie
- Page 191 and 192:
As Rogers (1995) postulates in his
- Page 193 and 194:
Instrument and data collection Afte
- Page 195 and 196:
“Raising our computer skills in C
- Page 197 and 198:
teachers deploy ICT tools in langua
- Page 199 and 200:
Ma, W., Anderson, R., & Streith, K.
- Page 201 and 202:
APPENDIX A. Questionnaire for Dista
- Page 203 and 204:
consistency with other ideas, and a
- Page 205 and 206:
conceptions, justifying their belie
- Page 207 and 208:
each group. The experimental group
- Page 209 and 210:
specifically, instructional approac
- Page 211 and 212:
Table 3 shows that the mean frequen
- Page 213 and 214:
previous Web-based instructional le
- Page 215 and 216:
Millar, R., & Osborne, J.F. (1998).
- Page 217 and 218:
Several studies explore the roles t
- Page 219 and 220:
understand the content structures o
- Page 221 and 222:
teacher was not allowed to provide
- Page 223 and 224:
two coding schemes, as illustrated
- Page 225 and 226:
also very limited. Teachers and sof
- Page 227 and 228:
learning activities. British Journa
- Page 229 and 230:
2009; Bernard & Cathryn, 2006) or p
- Page 231 and 232:
In this study, the focus of the ins
- Page 233 and 234:
The student’s degree of mastery i
- Page 235 and 236:
The questionnaire for the acceptanc
- Page 237 and 238:
the t-test result, it is found that
- Page 239 and 240:
Scale Questionnaire item Mean S.D.
- Page 241 and 242:
Hwang, G. J. (2003). A conceptual m
- Page 243 and 244:
sharing, problem solving, and achie
- Page 245 and 246:
Virtual learning environment In the
- Page 247 and 248:
Class Table 1. The survey questions
- Page 249 and 250:
“…the distance and the lack of
- Page 251 and 252:
collaboration within EVS, thus prev
- Page 253 and 254:
Huang, T.-H., Liu, Y.-C., & Chang,
- Page 255 and 256:
y personalised context examples in
- Page 257 and 258:
Students’ Problem-Solving Guidanc
- Page 259 and 260:
Research Method Figure 8. The scree
- Page 261 and 262:
Table 4. Abstract of Pairwise Compa
- Page 263 and 264:
questions designed for the system h
- Page 265 and 266:
Lee, J. (2012). Patterns of Interac
- Page 267 and 268:
This study focused on online fora i
- Page 269 and 270:
Results and Discussion Due date-cen
- Page 271 and 272:
In addition, all groups developed 8
- Page 273 and 274:
future. Therefore, they had an oppo
- Page 275 and 276:
surprising that most interaction wa
- Page 277 and 278:
Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S
- Page 279 and 280:
systems by using 18 personalization
- Page 281 and 282:
Short-Term Sensory Memory is a temp
- Page 283 and 284:
with respect to articles by using a
- Page 285 and 286:
system also computes a review value
- Page 287 and 288:
DFL. d ( yi ) is the degree of mem
- Page 289 and 290:
the experimental group can understa
- Page 291 and 292:
Finally, Figure 10(A) and Figure 10
- Page 293 and 294:
Appendix # Question Description Par
- Page 295 and 296:
mental models, are cognitive struct
- Page 297 and 298:
Based on the theoretical implicatio
- Page 299 and 300:
Data analysis To test the model fit
- Page 301 and 302:
may be considered an effective inte
- Page 303 and 304:
Hsu, I.-C. (2012). Intelligent Disc
- Page 305 and 306:
(Gradinarova, Zhelezov et al. 2006)
- Page 307 and 308:
RLO denotes a remote learning objec
- Page 309 and 310:
Figure 2. The flow-oriented LOFinde
- Page 311 and 312:
if x include with y, and y include
- Page 313 and 314:
Similarly, the relation metadata of
- Page 315 and 316:
(defrule student-advisor (triple (p
- Page 317 and 318:
References ADL. (2006). Sharable Co
- Page 319 and 320:
determinants of how people think, b
- Page 321 and 322:
Mediating effect of learning flow A
- Page 323 and 324:
The instrument used to measure lear
- Page 325 and 326:
addition, the cross-loadings of the
- Page 327 and 328:
and ease of use had significant eff
- Page 329 and 330:
Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & A
- Page 331 and 332:
Despotović-Zrakić, M., Marković,
- Page 333 and 334:
Learning is a cognitive activity th
- Page 335 and 336:
The survey consisted of 30 question
- Page 337 and 338:
Created data mining model needs to
- Page 339 and 340:
dealt with the matter taught at the
- Page 341 and 342:
Conclusion Conducted research showe
- Page 343 and 344:
Romero, C., Ventura S., García E.,
- Page 345 and 346:
prompts as scaffolding strategy to
- Page 347 and 348:
Reflection Types This study attempt
- Page 349 and 350:
All the three groups completed the
- Page 351 and 352:
Results Learning Outcomes Pre- and
- Page 353 and 354:
Map Analysis in Transfer Test Figur
- Page 355 and 356:
Generic Prompts and Specific Prompt
- Page 357 and 358:
Biswas, G., Schwartz, D., Bransford
- Page 359 and 360:
Chen, Y.-H., Looi, C.-K., Lin, C.-P
- Page 361 and 362:
of correct response, answer until c
- Page 363 and 364:
Figure 7 shows a screenshot of one
- Page 365 and 366:
Collaboration Questionnaire results
- Page 367 and 368:
following diagrams. The double-arro
- Page 369 and 370:
“Most students were encouraged to
- Page 371 and 372:
Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulick, C. C.
- Page 373 and 374:
primary research questions. First,
- Page 375 and 376:
Individual learning Figure 2. Scree
- Page 377 and 378:
Experimental Tools This study emplo
- Page 379 and 380:
Table 3 shows that almost all items
- Page 381 and 382:
I usually engaged myself in listeni
- Page 383 and 384:
References Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (195
- Page 385 and 386:
APPENDIX 2. Taxonomy for Informatio
- Page 387 and 388:
understand how we can effectively u
- Page 389 and 390:
5. Is there a relationship between
- Page 391 and 392:
correlation between teachers’ IWB
- Page 393 and 394:
Q7. IWB provides advantages to me t
- Page 395 and 396:
training regarding this topic. This
- Page 397 and 398:
Conclusion This study provides a so
- Page 399:
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K.