本研究旨在探討Web2.0知識共構社群模式與學習風格，對大學生藝術通識課程的「自我調整學習」、「學習表現」、「學習滿意度」、「知識建構」面向之影響，並探討大學生對Web2.0知識共構社群之學習反應。研究對象為98學年度上學期台灣師範大學一門藝術鑑賞通識課程學生，共計86人。Web2.0知識共構社群為以「知識共構社群」等建構主義教學理論為核心概念，結合Web2.0知識分享與共構模式，及應用Blog平台之課程網路社群，目的在藉由社群交流互動，以輔助學生進行藝術通識課程學習。本研究依據不同的Web2.0知識共構社群模式，將學生分為「專家參與」及「同儕互動」兩個實驗組，在學習風格方面，依據Kolb學習風格理論模式，以「資訊接收方式」作為學習風格分類面向，分為「具體經驗型」與「抽象概念型」兩種學習風格類型，以探討學習風格的個別差異對大學生藝術通識課程學習之影響。
本研究結論歸納Web2.0知識共構社群模式與學習風格，對大學生藝術通識課程學習之影響如下：
1.在大學生藝術通識課程自我調整學習之影響方面，獲致兩項結論：（1）「專家參與」模式有助於自我調整學習表現；（2）混成式課程設計有助於具體經驗型學生的自我效能及同儕學習表現。
2.在大學生藝術通識課程學習表現之影響方面，獲致兩項結論：（1）「專家參與」模式對學生反思深度及合作學習有正向影響；（2）學習風格對大學生藝術通識課程學習表現無顯著影響。
3.在大學生藝術通識課程學習滿意度之影響方面，獲致兩項結論：（1）「專家參與」模式對大學生之藝術通識課程學習滿意度有正向影響；（2）學習風格對大學生藝術通識課程滿意度無顯著影響。
4.在大學生知識建構之影響方面，獲致五項結論：（1）學生知識建構為Web2.0社群分享、共構之漸進式歷程；（2）「專家參與」模式有助於學生知識建構發展；（3）學習風格對學生知識建構程度無顯著影響；（4）Blog互動平台有利於網路社群知識分享與建構；（5）TA為引導網路社群知識共構之核心角色。
5.在Web2.0知識共構社群模式之學習反應影響方面，獲致三項結論：（1）「專家參與」模式能提升學生之網站使用率；（2）Web2.0社群知識分享有助於多元與批判思考之發展；（3）TA教學有助於提升混成式課程之教學效能。
最後，本研究依據研究結果，提出包含大學通識課程及藝術領域之網路學習、TA教學及未來研究等建議。

The purposes of this study were to investigate the influence of models of Web2.0 knowledge co-construction community and learning styles on aspects of “self-regulated learning”, “learning performance”, “learning satisfaction” and “knowledge construction” in arts general education for undergraduates as well as their learning responses to Web2.0 knowledge co-construction communities. The research included 86 students participating in an art appreciation curriculum during the first semester of 2009 at National Taiwan Normal University. A Web2.0 knowledge co-construction community is the web-based learning community which applies theory such as a “knowledge co-construction” as its core concept, integrates a model of Web2.0 knowledge-sharing and building as well as applying a blog platform with the aim of assisting the students in an art general curriculum to learning through interactive exchanges in the community. This study categorized the students into two experimental groups, “expert participating” and “peer interacting”, based on different models of Web2.0 knowledge co-construction communities. Two learning style groups, “concrete experience” and “abstract conceptualization”, were categorized according to the perspective of “information perception” based on Kolb’s model.
Results of this study regarding the influences of models of a Web2.0 knowledge co-construction community and learning styles in a general arts curriculum by undergraduates are as follows:
1. Two conclusions are drawn regarding the influence on self-regulated learning in a general arts curriculum for undergraduates: (1) the “expert participating” model facilitates self-regulated learning performance; and (2) the blended curriculum design facilitates the performance in self-efficacy and peer tutoring for students engaged in concrete experiences.
2. Two conclusions are drawn regarding the influence on learning performance in a general arts curriculum for undergraduates: (1) the “expert participating” model presents a positive influence on reflection depth and collaborative learning by students; and (2) the learning style exhibits no significant influence on learning performance in a general arts curriculum for undergraduates.
3. Two conclusions are drawn regarding the influence on learning satisfaction in a general arts curriculum for undergraduates: (1) the “expert participating” model has a positive influence on learning satisfaction in a general arts curriculum for undergraduates; and (2) the learning style exhibits no significant influence on satisfaction in a general arts curriculum for undergraduates.
4. Five conclusions are drawn regarding the influence on knowledge construction on the part of the undergraduates: (1) knowledge construction by the students is a progressive course which involves Web2.0 community-sharing and building; (2) the “expert participating” model facilitates the development of knowledge construction on the part of the students; (3) learning style exhibits no significant influence on the extent of knowledge construction by the students; (4) the interactive blog platform facilitates knowledge-sharing and co-construction in web-based communities; and (5) TA plays a central role in guiding knowledge construction in web-based communities.
5. Three conclusions are drawn regarding the influence on the learning response of the model of Web2.0 knowledge co-construction community: (1)the “expert participating” model increases the web site use rate by the students; (2) Web2.0 community knowledge-sharing facilitates the development of diversified and critical thinking; and (3) TA teaching is beneficial in enhancing the teaching efficiency of a blended curriculum.
Finally, based on the results of the study, suggestions are proposed regarding web-based learning of university general curriculum and arts, TA teaching, future studies, etc.

中文部分：
王尹伶、徐新逸（2003）。線上教學助教專業工作職能內涵初探。教育資料與圖書館學，41（1），109-118。
王秀雄（1998）。觀賞、認知、解釋與評價：美術鑑賞教育的學理與實務。台北市：國立歷史博物館。
王明傑（2002）。國小學生自我調整學習模式之驗證暨應用性向與事件評量融入社會領域之自我調整閱讀理解教學效果之研究。未出版博士論文。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系。
石守謙（1996）。國內藝術通識課程實施的現狀與通病。通識教育季刊，3（4），1-11。
吳方正（1996）。對大學藝術通識教育方向的一些思考。通識教育季刊，3（4），13-26。
吳百薰（1998）。國小學生學習風格相關因素之研究。未出版碩士論文。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所。
吳京玲、李信（2009）。大學專業與通識課程運用教學助理之成效與影響因素分析。通識教育學刊，3，67-96。
吳慎慎（2006）。藝術人的終身學習：生命故事敘說的教學實踐。藝術教育研究，12，1-38。
吳慎慎（2009）。藝術介入的學習與全人開展的通識教育。載於臺北藝術大學通識教育委員會共同學科主辦之2009藝術通識教育課程與教學研討會會議手冊（頁24-46），台北。
宋修德、陳妍竹、黃議正（2007）。部落格在問題導向式教學應用之初探：以電腦繪圖課程為例。中等教育，58（2），24-51。
李招瑩（2007）。跨越傳統認知的介面：從藝術史的整體性探究其教育的新面向。止善，2，157-175。
李金泉（2001）。非同步式網路輔助教學之研究：以技職校院工業安全課程為例。未出版博士論文。國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系。
李美蓉（1996）。大學通識課程與視覺藝術審美教育。通識教育季刊，3（4），43-59。
周凡淇、賴阿福（2006）。不同學習風格學童在學習歷程檔案系統之網路行為探討：以國小藝術與人文領域主題學習為例。科學教育研究與發展季刊，44，78-114。
周淑卿（2009）。藝術與通識的共通：回歸藝術教育本質的藝術通識課程。載於臺北藝術大學通識教育委員會共同學科主辦之2009藝術通識教育課程與教學研討會會議手冊（頁9-22），台北。
易國良（2005）。「網路合作學習」對「問題導向學習」成效的影響：以國中自然科學為例。未出版碩士論文。國立交通大學理學院網路學習學程。
林建平（2005）。自律學習的理論與研究趨勢。國教新知，52（2），8-25。
林凱胤、王國華、蔡維真（2006）。以Blog 作為互動式學習歷程檔案平台之應用。視聽教育雙月刊，47（4），26-40。
侯惠澤（2008，10月）。線上合作解題討論教學之知識建構行為模式探究。2008電腦與網路科技在教育上的應用研討會（CNTE2008）。新竹教育大學，新竹。
施賀建（2003）。學習風格與方式對學習成效之影響：以互動式與否為基礎。未出版碩士論文。中原大學資訊管理學系。
洪麗珠（1996）。通識教育藝術課程之理念與規劃：為理工大學而設計。通識教育季刊，3（4），27-41。
孫春在、林珊如（2007）。網路合作學習：數位時代的互動學習環境、教學與評量。台北市：心理出版社。
徐秀菊、黃秀雯（2004a）。通識教育藝術課程的理念與實踐。載於徐秀菊（主編），師範學院通識教育革新研究叢書之三：藝術領域的課程設計與實踐（頁1-55）。花蓮市：國立花蓮師範學院。
徐秀菊、黃秀雯（2004b）。理想與現實：通識教育理念與學生在認知上的差異。通識教育年刊，2，1-43。花蓮市：國立花蓮師範學院通識教育中心。
徐秀菊、黃秀雯（2005）。通識教育藝術領域教師教學信念研究。載於中華民國師範教育學會（主編），教師的教育信念與專業標準（頁21-52）。台北市：心理出版社。
袁汝儀（1996）。生活藝術教育雛論。通識教育季刊，3（4），61-79。
國立中山大學通識教育中心（2009）。通識教育架構。取自http://www.general.nsysu.edu.tw/html/courses/title.html
國立中央大學通識教育中心（2008）。通識核心課程。取自http://140.115.103.89/plan/index.html
國立台北藝術大學共同學科（2007）。通識學分科目表（96學年度入學適用）。取自http://ge-announce.blogspot.com/2005/06/blog-post_8720.html
國立台灣科技大學人文社會學院通識學科（2009）。課程簡介。取自http://140.118.36.144/common/study/study.htm
國立交通大學通識教育中心（2005）。課程規劃。取自http://cge.nctu.edu.tw/plan.php
國立成功大學通識教育中心（2009）。國立成功大學通識課程選修要點（97學年入學生適用）。取自http://www.ncku.edu.tw/~general/center_law5.htm
國立虎尾科技大學通識教育中心（2009）。通識教育課程。取自http://sparc.nfu.edu.tw/~cge/
國立清華大學通識教育中心（2009）。七大向度核心課程（藝術與美感）。取自http://www.gec.nthu.edu.tw/gecourse/first_3.php
國立臺南藝術大學通識教育中心（2008）。分類通識：藝術。取自http://common.tnnua.edu.tw/releaseRedirect.do?unitID=208&pageID=8789
國立臺灣大學共同教育中心（2007）。通識教育改革計畫。取自http://cge.ntu.edu.tw/project/individual.html。
國立臺灣師範大學通識教育中心（2009）。核心課程內涵與架構（藝術與美感）。取自http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/aa/aa5/sb2/sb2_f_1.htm
國立臺灣藝術大學通識教育中心（2009）。通識課程。取自http://www.ntua.edu.tw/~comm/course.html
張浣芸（2001）。大學藝術通識教育：從通識教育的發展談藝術通識課程。藝術學報，67，109-121。
教育部（2004）。「大學通識教育評鑑先導計畫」評鑑報告。教育部顧問室人文社會科學入口網站。取自http://hss.edu.tw/
教育部（2008）。大學通識教育評鑑先導計畫第三期Ｂ類計畫評鑑報告。教育部顧問室人文社會科學入口網站。取自http://hss.edu.tw/
莊雅如（2005）。以weblog為基礎的合作學習之研究。未出版碩士論文。國立中興大學資訊科學研究所。
郭重吉（1987）。英美等國晚近對學生學習風格之研究。資優教育季刊，22，2-8。
郭禎祥（1996）。藝術在通識教育中的角色。美育，73，1-10。
陳育淳（2005）。青少年性別概念與藝術表現關係之研究：性別圖像之建構與解構。未出版博士論文。國立臺灣師範大學美術研究所。
陳玲萱（2003）。批判思考教學法應用於國小藝術鑑賞教學之實驗研究。未出版碩士論文。國立臺灣師範大學美術研究所。
陳婉怡（2008）。資訊科技融入教學模式對學習者自我調整和動機傾向影響之探究：以自然科學課程為例。未出版碩士論文。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所。
陳曉慧（2002）。國中學生美術課「自我調整學習」模式應用之多重個案研究。未出版碩士論文。國立臺灣師範大學美術研究所。
陳瓊花（2002）。大學通識教育之藝術鑑賞課程設計。視覺藝術，5，27-70。
游光昭、林坤誼（2007）。數學、科學、科技統整課程對不同學習風格學習者在學習成效上之影響。教育研究學報，41（1），1-16。
程炳林（1995）。自我調整學習的模式驗證及其教學效果之研究。未出版博士論文。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所。
程炳林、林清山（2001）。中學生自我調整學習量表之建構及其信效度研究。測驗年刊，48（1），1-41。
黃秀雯（2005）。通識教育藝術領域教師之教學信念研究：以花蓮師範學院為例。未出版碩士論文。花蓮師範學院視覺藝術教育研究所。
黃俊傑（2003）。大學通識教育的理念與實踐。修訂三版。中壢：中華民國通識教育學會。
黃俊傑（2006）。轉型中的大學通識教育：理念、現況與展望。高雄市：中華民國通識教育學會。
黃俊傑等（1995）。美國大學通識教育考察報告。載於黃俊傑（2003）。大學通識教育的理念與實踐（頁251-298）。修訂三版。中壢：中華民國通識教育學會。
葛之鈞（2009）。以Blog為基礎之線上知識分享程度：與部落格認知可用性、多元智能以及學習風格關係之研究。未出版碩士論文。國立中央大學資訊工程研究所。
廖敦如（2007）。應用問題導向學習策略於建立大專學生公民美學觀之藝術行動課程研究。國際藝術教育學刊，5（2），79-96。
廖敦如（2008）。文化與藝術：創意產業課程網站。取自http://artcenter.nfu.edu.tw/~artist/xoops/team.php
甄曉蘭、曾志華（1997）。建構教學理念的興起與應用。載於詹志禹（主編）。建構論：理論基礎與教育應用（頁116-146）。臺北縣：正中書局。
趙惠玲（2005）。視覺文化與藝術教育。台北市：師大書苑。
趙惠玲、盧姵綺（2009）。Web2.0學習社群對大學生藝術通識課程學習反應影響之研究：以「台灣．當代藝術．視覺文化」通識課程為例。關渡通識學刊，5，1-16。
蔡淑薇（2004）。高中職學生學習風格、自我調整學習與學業成就之關係。未出版碩士論文。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商系。
鄭晉昌（1993）。電腦輔助教學的新教學設計觀：認知學徒制。教育資料與圖書館學，31（1），55-66。
鄭晉昌（2002）。建構主義與電腦支援合作學習環境的設計與發展。載於詹志禹（主編）。建構論：理論基礎與教育應用（頁168-184）。台北縣：正中書局。
盧姵綺（2007）。部落格數位學習歷程檔案平台融入藝術評量之研究。國際藝術教育學刊，5（2），186-208。
蕭貴徽（2009）。資訊科技融入教學模式與學習風格對國小藝術鑑賞學習之探究。未出版碩士論文。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所。
蕭寶玲（1996）。大學通識教育藝術課程對台灣非藝術系學生的意義。臺灣美術，31，28-36。
蕭顯勝、洪琬諦、蔡忠潔（2008，10月）。具自律學習輔助機制的網路探究學習系統之研究。2008電腦與網路科技在教育上的應用研討會（CNTE2008）。新竹教育大學，新竹。
羅美蘭（2006）。研創以審美關懷為概念的大學通識藝術課程之行動研究。花蓮教育大學學報，23，49-80。
關秉寅（2006）。問題導向與行動導向的通識教育。取自http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~cyberlin/download/GEcore/PBLAL_report.doc

西文部分：
Alexander, B. (2006). A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSEriview, 33-44.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bryant, T. (2006). Social software in academia. EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY, 2, 61-64.
Buffington, M. L. (2008). What is web2.0 and how can it further art education? Art Education, 61(3), 36-41.
Cheng, Y. C., & Ku, H. Y. (2009). An investigation of the effects of reciprocal peer tutoring. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 40-49.
Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffold explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 33-49.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.)., Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Columbia College. (2008). Art humanities. Retrieved from http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/classes/arthum.php
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Blending asynchronous discussion groups and peer tutoring in higher education: An exploratory study of online peer tutoring behaviour. Computers & Education, 50(1), 207-223.
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2010). Cross-age peer tutors in asynchronous discussion groups: Exploring the impact of three types of tutor training on patterns in tutor support and on tutor characteristics. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1167–1181.
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: Comparing scripting by assigning roles with regulation by cross-age peer tutors. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 1-12.
Dotger, S. (2010). Offering more than “here is the textbook”: Teaching assistants’ perspectives on introductory science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(3), 71-76.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 7-12. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. E. (2005). Applications, reliability, and validity of the index of learning styles. Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.
Feldman, E. B. (1967). Art as image and ideas. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Fox, J. D. (1999). Student-perceived enrollment motivation and valuing of three types of visual arts courses selected to fulfill university general education requirements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Texas.
Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(6), 495-522.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431.
Harvard Committee. (1945). General education in a free society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Hsiao, B. L. (1995). An art course curriculum for non-art majors to meet college general curriculum requirements in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Texas.
Hull, D. M., & Saxon, T. F. (2009). Negotiation of meaning and co-construction of knowledge: An experimental analysis of asynchronous online instruction. Computers & Education, 52(3), 624-639.
Jonassen, D., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kelley, S. L. (2002). Constructing portraits: An examination of students and teaching assistants within a university level art appreciation course. Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Arizona, Arizona.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 193-212.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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.
Manochehri, N., & Young, J. I. (2006). The impact of student learning styles with web-based learning or instructor-based learning on student knowledge and satisfaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(3), 313-316.
Mayville, K. L. (2007). Knowledge construction, self-regulation, and technology strategies used by experienced online nursing students to actively engage in online learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Capella, Australia.
Miller, L. M. (2005). Using learning styles to evaluate computer-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(2), 287-306.
Murawski, M. G. (2006). Interdisciplinary arts in the general education curriculum: An assessment of the arts and ideas program at the University of North Carolina, Asheville. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The American University, Washington, DC.
Oravec, J. A. (2002). Booking the world: Weblog applications in education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(7), 616-621.
Philips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology (3th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal oriention in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). CA: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 358-407.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
President & Fellows Harvard University. (2008). Program in general education. Retrieved from http://www.generaleducation.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.doc
Pungthong, V. (2004). Drawing for communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Ohio.
Resnick, M. (1996). Distributed constructionism. Proceeding of the international conference on the learning science, Northwestern University. Retrieved from http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/Distrib-Construc.html
Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning theory and cognition. New York: Academic.
Rowlands, J. G. (1997). A modified delphi study: Survey of the fine and erforming arts programs at the New Jersey community colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Widener University, Pennsylvania.
Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (2th ed.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Salmon, G. (2006). 80:20 for e-moderators. Retrieved from http://www.ecompetence.info/uploads/media/ch16.pdf
Sandell, R. (2006). Form + Theme + Context: Balancing Consideration for meaning art learning. Art Education, 59(1), 33-37.
Sandell, R. (2009). Using Form + Theme + Context (FTC) for rebalancing 21st-century art education. Studies in Art Education, 50(3), 287-299.
Saritas, M. T. (2006). Computer-mediated communication in higher education: An exploration of knowledge construction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2th ed., pp. 125-151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Shepherd, C. (2003). In search of the perfect e-tutor. Retrieved from http://www.fastrak-consulting.co.uk/tactix/Features/perfect_etutor.htm.
Southern Illinois University School of Medicine PBL Program. (1999). problem-Based learning (PBL). Retrieved from http://www.pbli.org/pbl/pbl.htm
Stanford University. (2009). General education requirements. Retrieved from http://stanford.edu/dept/registrar/students/courses/GER.htm?id=1#areas
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and success. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1030-1037.
Sun, K. T., Lin Y. C., & Yu, C. J. (2008). A study on learning effect among different learning styles in a Web-based lab of science for elementary school students. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1411-1422.
Sweeney, J., O’Donoghue, T., & Whitehead, C. (2004). Traditional face-to-face and web-based tutorials: A study of university students’ perspectives on the roles of tutorial participants. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 311-323.
Sweeny, R. W. (2004). Net_work_ed: Simulated bodies and objects intertwined in cyberplaces and art educational spaces. Threads of a critical digital pedagogy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2009). The HASS requirement. Retrieved from http://shass.mit.edu/undergraduate/hass
The Ohio State University. (2009). General education curriculum. Retrieved from http://gec.osu.edu/index.cfm
The Pennsylvania State University. (2008). What is general education? Retrieved from http://bulletins.psu.edu/bulletins/bluebook/general_education.cfm
The Task Force on General Education of Harvard University. (2007). Report of the task force on general education. Retrieved from http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~secfas/General_Education_Final_Report.pdf
The Trustees of Princeton University. (2008). General education requirements. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/pr/catalog/ua/08/general/
The University of Chicago. (2009). Liberal education at Chicago. Retrieved from http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/liberal/index.shtml.
Thurston, A., Duran, D., Cunningham, E., Blanch, S., & Topping, K. (2009). International on-line reciprocal peer tutoring to promote modern language development in primary schools. Computers & Education, 53(2), 462-472.
Topping, K. J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32, 321-345.
Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645.
University of Illinois Board of Trustees. (2008). General education requirements. Retrieved from http://courses.illinois.edu/cis/gened/
Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & Van Merriёnboer, J. J. G. (2007). Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 532-548.
Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., Van Merriёnboer, J. J. G., & Van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on students’ self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(4), 551–567.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, X. C., Hinn, D. M., & Kanfer, A. G. (2001). Potential of computer-supported collaborative learning for learners with different learning styles. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 75-85.
Wauhkonen, R. W. (2008). How general education changes students: Understanding of the attainment of general education learning goals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston.
Xie, Y., Ke, F., & Sharma, P. (2008). The effect of feedback for blogging on college students' reflective learning processes. Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 18-25.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Tsikalas, K. E. (2005). Can computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) be used as self-regulation tools to enhance learning? EDUCATION PSYCHOLOGIST, 40(4), 267-271.
Zimmerman, J. E. (1992). An analysis of university-level general education courses in the visual arts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, Illinois.