簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 司徒彤恩
Sytwu, Tong-Ann
論文名稱： 個人差異對擴增實境應用於英語單字學習之影響
An Investigation of the Effects of Individual Differences on Mobile-Based Augmented Reality English Vocabulary Instruction
指導教授： 王健華
Wang, Chien-Hwa
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 圖文傳播學系
Department of Graphic Arts and Communications
論文出版年： 2015
畢業學年度： 103
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 72
中文關鍵詞： 英文單字學習 、行動學習 、擴增實境 、情境學習 、學習風格
英文關鍵詞： English vocabulary learning, mobile learning, augmented reality, situated learning, learning styles
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：187  下載：0 
分享至:
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

    • 英語單字學習在第二外語學習上扮演著重要的角色。然而，傳統學校教學下建構的知識與資訊是去情境化、間接及抽象的，並且侷限在教室的情境之中。為了解決傳統教室情境內的問題，教學方式逐漸從行為主義轉變為情境式的教學法。隨著科技的發展，擴增實境 (augmented reality, AR) 因為擁有在真實世界中提供額外、情境式的資訊來輔助學習的作用與特色，成為實現情境學習的方式之一。本研究目的在於探討學習者的個人差異──不同的學習風格（場依賴∕獨立）與不同英文程度（高∕低）的學習者，在使用英語單字的行動擴增實境學習系統後，在學習成效及學習動機上是否有差異。本研究採用實驗法及訪談法。研究結果顯示：場依賴學習者使用行動擴增實際學習單字時有顯著的效益；學生本身英文程度高低在使用此方法學習時，並不顯著影響成效；另外學習風格以及英文高低程度之不同皆不影響學習動機。根據研究結果，學生之個人差異應被考量，並輔以情境式的教學來有效提昇學習成效與動機。

    Mobile devices are now widely owned and available to the majority of people. While the affordances of mobile learning include supporting a more personalized, authentic, situated learning based on the findings of many studies, it’s crucial and urgent to start rethink pedagogy and learning using mobile devices. Additionally, as the concept of augmented reality (AR) enables learners to receive additional, valuable information in a real setting, this study, thus, aims to investigate the effect of a mobile-based augmented reality simulation learning system for English vocabulary acquisition on learners of different learning styles (field independence/dependence, FI/FD) and English proficiency (high/low) in terms of learning outcome and motivation. An experimental research design was used in this study to identify any differences between FI, FD students, and high/low English proficiency learners. The results showed that FD learners benefitted significantly from the mobile AR instruction on learning outcome; there was a borderline significant difference between high and low English proficiency learners on learning outcome; and neither learning styles nor English proficiency affected learning motivation after the mobile AR instruction was applied. From the findings of the present study, individual difference should be considered when a new instructional approach is applied in order to make learning more effective and motivating.

    Table of Contents Acknowledgements iii Chinese Abstract iv Abstract v Table of Contents vi List of Tables x List of Figures xii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Motivation and Background 1 1.1.1 The importance of vocabulary learning 1 1.1.2 Current situation and problems in English vocabulary learning 1 1.1.3 AR as a solution to support situated learning 3 1.2 Research Objectives and Questions 4 1.3 Limitations 5 1.4 Definition of Terms 5 1.4.1 Field independent/dependent (FI/D) 5 1.4.2 Augmented Reality 6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 7 2.1 English vocabulary learning 7 2.1.1 English vocabulary learning methods and strategies 7 2.1.2 Challenges learners encounter in English vocabulary learning 10 2.1.3 English vocabulary learning and learning styles, FI/D 11 2.1.4 English Vocabulary Learning and Learners’ English Proficiency 13 2.2 Situated learning 14 2.2.1 Critical characteristics of situated learning for instructional design 14 2.2.2 Augmented reality to support situated learning 15 2.2.2.1 Features and affordances of AR 16 2.2.2.2 Instructional and learning approaches of AR 17 2.2.3 Technology-supported situated learning in language acquisition 18 2.3 Brief Summary 19 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 21 3.1 Method 21 3.2 Participants 23 3.3 Mobile-based AR Simulations Learning System Overview 25 3.3.1 Preparation 26 3.4 Procedure 27 3.5 Variables and Instruments 32 3.5.1 Group Embedded Figures Test 32 3.5.2 The motivation survey 34 3.5.3 English vocabulary test 36 3.5.4 Interview 37 3.6 Data Analysis 37 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 39 4.1 Research Question 1: Is there a significant difference between FD and FI learners in the mobile augmented-reality-supported English vocabulary instruction? 39 4.1.1 And which group of learners, FI or FD, benefits more from such instruction? 41 4.2 Research Question 2: Is there a significant difference between FD and FI learners in learning motivation while the mobile augmented-reality instruction was applied? 42 4.3 Research Question 3: Is there a significant difference between learners of high and low English proficiency levels in the mobile augmented-reality-supported English vocabulary instruction? 43 4.3.1 And which group of learners, high or low English proficiency learners, benefits more from such instruction? 45 4.4 Research Question 4: Is there a significant difference between learners of high and low English proficiency levels in learning motivation while the mobile augmented-reality instruction was applied? 46 4.5 Findings from the Interviews 48 4.5.1 Fun 48 4.5.2 Effectiveness 49 4.5.3 Satisfaction 50 4.5.4 Confidence 51 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 52 5.1 Summary and Discussion of Major Findings 52 5.1.1 The Effects of Learning Style, FI/FD on Learning Outcome 52 5.1.2 The Effects of Learning Style, FI/FD on Learning Motivation 53 5.1.3 The Effects of English Proficiency, High/Low on Learning Outcome 53 5.1.4 The Effects of English Proficiency, High/Low on Learning Motivation 54 5.2 Pedagogical Implications 55 5.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research 56 REFERENCES 59 APPENDICES 66 Appendix A: Target Words 66 Appendix B: Motivation Questionnaire 67 Appendix C: English Vocabulary Test 69

    Alptekin, C., & Atakan, S. (1990). Field dependence-independence and hemisphericity as variables in L2 achievement. Second Language Research, 6(2), 135-149.
    Anaraki, F. B. (2009, January). A flash-based mobile learning system for learning English as second language. In Computer Engineering and Technology, 2009. ICCET'09. International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 400-404). IEEE.
    August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 50-57.
    Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385.
    Barab, S. (2002). Human-field interaction as mediated by mobile computers. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 533–537). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G. & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
    Bormuth, J. R. (1966). Readability: A new approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 1(3), 79–132.
    Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-41.
    Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., Lively, T. J., & White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English‐language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188-215.
    Chang, V. W. (2011). English education in Taiwan: Current situation and examination. Journal of Educational Resources and Research, 69, 129-144.
    Chapelle, C., & Green, P. (1992), Field Independence/Dependence in second-language acquisition research. Language Learning, 42, 47–83.
    Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36, 27-45.
    Chen, C. M., & Li, Y. L. (2010). Personalised context-aware ubiquitous learning system for supporting effective English vocabulary learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(4), 341-364.
    Chen, C. M., & Tsai, Y. N. (2012). Interactive augmented reality system for enhancing library instruction in elementary schools. Computers & Education, 59(2), 638-652.
    Chuo T. -W. I. (2004). The application of computer technology in foreign language instruction. Languages, Literacy Studies and International Studies, 1, 15–33.
    Cullen R. (1994). Incorporating a language improvement component in teacher training programmes. English Language Teachers, 48, 162–172.
    Davis, F. (1944). Fundamental factors in comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 9, 185–190.
    Davis, F. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 499–545.
    Day, R. (1984). Student participation in the ESL classroom or some imperfections in practice. Language Learning, 34(3), 69-102.
    Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. L. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). Oxford: Blackwell.
    Dugard, P., & Todman, J. (1995). Analysis of pre-test-post-test control group designs in educational research. Educational Psychology, 15(2), 181-198.
    Elliot R. T., & Zhang Q. (1998) Inference in learning context-dependent words. Educational Psychology, 18, 5–25.
    Goodenough, D. R. (1986). History of the field dependence construct. In M. Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio, & S. Wapner (Eds.), Field dependence in psychological theory, research, and application-two symposia in memory of Herman A. Witkin (pp. 5-13). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Gu, Y. (2003). Fine brush and freehand: The vocabulary-learning art of two successful Chinese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 73-104.
    Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language learning, 46(4), 643-679.
    Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1995). Critical characteristics of situated learning: Implications for the instructional design of multimedia.
    Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System, 34(3), 399-415.
    Huang, S. C., & Tsai, R. R. (2003). A Comparison between High and Low English Proficiency Learners' Beliefs.
    Huang, H. T. (2007). Vocabulary learning in an automated graded reading program. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 64-82.
    Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (2002). Current research and practice in teaching vocabulary. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 258-266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style overview. In Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-18). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
    Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.
    Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004, October). Learner motivation and E-learning design: A multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 229-239.
    Khatib, M., & Hosseinpur, R. (2011). On the Validity of the Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT). Journal Of Language Teaching And Research, 2(3), 640-648.
    Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 445-464.
    Kraus, L. A., Reed, W. M., & Fitzgerald, G. E. (2001). The effects of learning style and hypermedia prior experience on behavioral disorders knowledge and time on task: A case-based hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(1), 125-140.
    Lai, Y. C. (2009). Language learning strategy use and English proficiency of university freshmen in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 255-280.
    Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    Liu, T. Y., & Chu, Y. L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers & Education, 55, 630-643.
    Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53(S1), 167-210.
    Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner (Research in Education Series No. 7). Toronto, ON: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
    Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner‐Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language learning, 35(1), 21-46.
    Ogata, H., & Yano, Y. (2004). Context-aware support for computer-supported ubiquitous learning. Paper presented at the 2nd IEEE international workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education, JhongLi, Taiwan, March.
    Oxford, R., & Anderson N., (1995). A crosscultural view of learning styles. Language Teaching, 28, 201-21.
    Park, C. C., Endo, R., & Goodwin, A. L. (Eds.). (2006). Asian and Pacific American education: Learning, socialization and identity. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
    Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329-363.
    Seliger, H. W. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A study of' interaction patterns and L2 competence. Language Learning, 27, 263-278.
    Shahrokni, S. A. (2009). Second language incidental vocabulary learning: The effect of online textual, pictorial, and textual pictorial glosses. TESL-EJ, 13(3). Retrieved Jan. 1, 2015, from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume13/ej51/ej51a3/
    Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 275-298.
    Squire, K. & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413.
    Su, M. H. M. (2005). A study of EFL technological and vocational college students' language learning strategies and their self-perceived English proficiency. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(1), 44-56.
    Wade, V. P., & Ashman, H. (2007). Guest editors' introduction: Evolving the infrastructure for technology-enhanced distance learning. IEEE Internet Computing, (3), 16-18.
    Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching, London: Edward Arnold.
    Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins- Field dependence and field independence. Psychological Issues Monograph, 51.
    Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A Manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
    Wong, L. H., & Looi, C. K. (2010). Vocabulary learning by mobile‐assisted authentic content creation and social meaning‐making: two case studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 421-433.
    Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41-49.
    Wyss, R. (2002). Field independent/dependent learning styles and L2 acquisition. Computer data on-line. The weekly column article 102. Retrieved June 21, 2015, from http://www.eltnewsletter.com/back/June2002/art1022002.htm
    Yoshii, M., & Flaitz, J. (2002). Second language incidental vocabulary retention: The effect of picture and annotation types. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 33-58.

    無法下載圖示 本全文未授權公開
    QR CODE