淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-0607200923492700
中文論文名稱 大學生後設認知能力學習網站之發展與評鑑
英文論文名稱 Development and Evaluation of the Website for Improving Metacognition for College Students
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 教育科技學系碩士在職專班
系所名稱(英) Department of Educational Technology
學年度 97
學期 2
出版年 98
研究生中文姓名 劉秀娟
研究生英文姓名 Hsiu-chuan Liu
電子信箱 s2200@scu.edu.tw
學號 796730116
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2009-06-15
論文頁數 139頁
口試委員 指導教授-沈俊毅
委員-吳純萍
委員-陳坤虎
中文關鍵字 大學生  後設認知能力  學習網站 
英文關鍵字 college student  metacognition skills  e-learning website 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學教育學
中文摘要 本研究依據網路化後設認知教學設計原則,設計並建置大學生適用之促進後設認知能力的學習網站,並以淡江大學97學年度第2學期某科系二、三年級學生為研究對象,旨在探討後設認知能力學習網站的設計與研發之歷程,分析大學生使用後設認知能力學習網站之後的成效,並瞭解學業表現與後設認知能力之關聯性,進而根據研究結果,提出相關建議,以供作教師提升學生學科學習成效的輔助教材或共同學科的補充教材以及未來研究者之參考。本研究採準實驗法的前後測控制組實驗設計,立意取樣為實驗組與控制組,實驗組接受每週一次,每次30分鐘,共計四週的線上學習課程,控制組則不予任何實驗處理。以自編之「後設認知能力評量表」進行評量,再以學習動機為控制變項,所得資料以t考驗及單因子共變數統計分析進行處理,研究結果發現:
1.在T檢定下,兩組在後設認知能力得分差異比較上,只有實驗組的後設認知能力的差異達顯著水準,控制組則未達顯著差異。在共變數分析中,受試者的學習動機與前測分數對後測分數之差異比較已達顯著水準,但為最小顯著差異,經成對比較及單變量檢定結果發現兩組在後設認知能力得分差異比較上未達顯著水準。
2.在T檢定下,實驗組在後設認知各分量表得分差異比較上,自我計劃及自我監控等成份能力之差異達顯著水準,自我調整成份能力之差異為邊緣顯著,自我評鑑成份能力則雖有提升但未達顯著。在共變數分析中,兩組在自我計劃成份能力差異達顯著,其他三項雖有提升但均未達顯著水準。
3.實驗組的學科分數與後設認知後測得分數之相關分析,結果顯示兩者無相關。
根據研發促進後設認知能力學習網站之歷程探討以及實驗考驗分析等發現,本研究獲致以下結論:
一、大學生使用後設認知學習網站可以提升後設認知能力
二、網路化後設認知教學設計原則對於網路教材的開發具有參考價值。
三、運用後設認知策略工具可以有效學習後設認知
四、大學生的後設認知能力可以透過融入後設認知策略的網路化訓練方式予以強化。
根據研究結論及實驗成果,對後設認知網路教材的設計與應用提出建議,以供參考。
英文摘要 The study is applying the instructional principles for metacognition to build a college students’ e-learning website in order to improving metacognition skills. The subjects of the study were the University students from second semester in 2009 in a private University. The purpose of this study is to review the design stages of the e-learning website and survey the effect of the e-learning website for college students’ learning, and understand the relationship between their performances on course and metacognition skills. Furthermore, according to the outcomes of the survey, this study submits some suggestions for reference in assistance material of teaching or in supplyment material of commom courses and in future’s researches. A “pretest-posttest control group design” was employed to assign university students intentionally into an experimental group. Then only the experimental group was exposed to the online learning website for thirty minutes per session, and there were one session per week for four weeks. This research employed an evaluation test of metacognition skills to evaluate college students in both groups. All data collected were analyzed by the method of T test, one-way ANOVA and Pearson product-moment correlation. The outcomes are as follow:
1.The result shows significant positive transformation in the metacognition skills of the experimental group, and inconclusive in the control group by T test. There is a significant positive transformation in the student’s motivation and metacognition skills by one-way ANOVA, but there is no modulation since the least significant positive difference. After pairs comparison test, it shows inconclusive transformation in the metacognition skills between the groups.
2.There are also significant differences in the self-planning and self-controlling components of metacognition skills from the groups by T test. There is a approximately significant difference in the self-regulating component,but no significant difference in the self-evaluating component between the groups. By one-way ANOVA, it shows a positive transformation in the self-planning, the others show no significance in progress.
3.There is no significant positive correlation between the students’study performances and metacognition skills from the experimental group.
Based on the findings from this experimental testing and analyzing, they were summarized as follows:
1.The e-learning website for improving metacognition has been proved to improve student’s metacognition skills.
2.The principles of instructional design for improving metacognition are valuable for developing e-learning web-based materials.
3.It is effective in improving metacognition skills by manipulating a few of metacognitive strategies and implements.
4.The metacongintion skills of college students can be strengthened and trained by the web-based instruction, which is integrated with the metacognitive learning strategies.
In accordance with the findings of this research and comprehension during the construction process of the website, this study provides suggestions as references for the design and applying of e-learning web-based materials.
論文目次 目 錄
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機......................................1
第二節 研究目的與問題......................................2
第三節 研究範圍與限制......................................3
第四節 名詞釋義............................................3

第二章 文獻探討
第一節 後設認知............................................5
一、後設認知的意涵..................................5
二、後設認知策略訓練理論............................9
三、後設認知教學設計要點與原則.....................11
四、融入後設認知學習與教學應用之相關研究...........14
第二節 網路學習之理論基礎及相關研究.......................21
一、網路學習內涵...................................21
二、網路學習的學習理論基礎.........................22
第三節 學習網站之教學設計及相關研究.......................25
一、訊息設計原則...................................26
二、網站評鑑指標...................................28
三、教學設計模式...................................33
第四節 融入後設認知策略之學習網站相關研究.................38

第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究架構...........................................50
第二節 研究對象...........................................52
第三節 研究方法...........................................52
第四節 研究工具 ..........................................54
一﹑後設認知能力評量表.............................54
二、學習動機量表...................................64
第五節 教材設計開發 ......................................64
一、 分析階段.......................................65
二、 設計階段.......................................69
三、 雛型製作.......................................74
四、 形成性評鑑階段.................................79
第六節 資料處理與分析.....................................82
一、資料蒐集方式 ..................................82
二、資料處理 .....................................83
三、資料分析 .....................................83
第七節 研究貢獻...........................................83

第四章 研究結果與討論
第一節 後設認知學習網站對學習者後設認知能力的影響.........85
第二節 學科表現與後設認知能力的相關情形...................97

第五章 研究結論與建議
第一節 討論...............................................99
第二節 研究結論..........................................104
第三節 研究建議..........................................106



參考文獻
中文部份..................................................109
英文部份..................................................112
附錄
附錄一 修改前之後設認知能力評量表............................121
附錄二 修改後之後設認知能力評量表............................124
附錄三 學習動機評量表........................................127
附錄四 網頁IE畫面...........................................128
附錄五 使用者訪談大綱........................................135
附錄六 專家檢核表............................................136
















表 次
表1 Fountain 和Fusco的九個問題...............................16
表2 訊息設計要點與原則........................................28
表3 優良教學網站之評鑑準則....................................30
表4 學習網站評鑑指標..........................................32
表5 融入後設認知策略相關網路教學研究成果一覽表................38
表6 後設認知策略、工具與能力對應表............................44
表7 創造性問題解決模式........................................47
表8 研究工作時程表............................................52
表9 研究設計模式 .............................................53
表10 後設認知能力量表修改之題目內容對照表.....................56
表11 量表中各成份構面之題數....................................58
表12 量表後測與效標之相關......................................59
表13 模式摘要..................................................59
表14 變異數分析................................................60
表15 係數 .....................................................60
表16 自我計劃分量表之alpha值..................................60
表17 自我計劃分量表內部一致性分析..............................61
表18 自我監控分量表之alpha值..................................61
表19 自我監控分量表內部一致性分析..............................62
表20 自我調整分量表之alpha值..................................62
表21 自我調整分量表內部一致性分析..............................63
表22 自我評鑑分量表之alpha值..................................63
表23 自我評鑑分量表內部一致性分析..............................63
表24 訪談大綱說明..............................................66
表25 各單元學習及練習案例設計說明..............................71
表26 介面與引導設計規劃表......................................73
表27 網頁內容畫面說明..........................................76
表28 使用者評鑑之綜合意見要點及回應之修改說明..................80
表29 回應專家評鑑之修正說明....................................81
表30 兩組學生在後設認知能力評量前後測得分統計量................86
表31 兩組學生在後設認知能力評量前後測得分之相關................86
表32 兩組學生在後設認知能力評量前後測得分T檢定摘要 ...........86
表33 兩組學生在後設認知能力評量後測成績之敘述統計..............87
表 34 兩組學生在後設認知能力評量前測成績之 Levene 同質性檢定....87
表 35 兩組學生在後設認知能力評量前測得分成績共變數分析表........88
表 36 兩組成對的比較............................................88
表 37 兩組後設認知後測單變量檢定................................88
表 38 實驗組學生在各分量表得分統計量............................90
表 39 實驗組學生在各分量表得分之相關檢定........................90
表 40 實驗組學生在各分量表得分T檢定摘要表......................90
表 41 自我計劃誤差變異量的 Levene 檢定等式......................91
表 42 自我計劃於受試者間效應項的檢定............................91
表 43 兩組自我計劃成對比較......................................91
表 44 兩組自我計劃單變量檢定....................................92
表 45 自我監控誤差變異量的 Levene 檢定等式......................92
表 46 自我監控於受試者間效應項的檢定............................92
表 47 自我調整誤差變異量的 Levene 檢定等式......................93
表 48 自我調整於受試者間效應項的檢定............................93
表 49 自我評鑑誤差變異量的 Levene 檢定等式......................93
表 50 自我評鑑於受試者間效應項的檢定............................94
表 51 因子......................................................94
表 52 組別與程度間效應項之檢定..................................95
表 53 組別*程度................................................95
表 54 不同程度之成對比較........................................95
表 55 不同程度之單變量檢定......................................96
表 56 後設認知能力差異統計分析彙整表............................96
表 57 學科成績與實驗組後設認知後測之 Pearson 相關...............97
表 58 程度與變項交叉表 .........................................97
表 59 卡方檢定..................................................98
表 60 對稱性量數................................................98
表 61 融入後設認知策略相關網路教學研究之研究結果與教學活動時期.101














圖 次
圖1 ADDIE系統化數位教材設計模式..............................35
圖2 SAVVY旋轉式教學設計流程..................................36
圖3 本網路教材教學設計模式....................................37
圖4 研究架構流程..............................................51
圖5 網站之學習內容架構........................................68
圖6 單元活動內容設計圖........................................70
圖7 網頁版面示意圖............................................74
圖8 網站學習路徑..............................................75
參考文獻 一、中文部分
于富雲(2007)。教育網站評鑑:學習輔助性與功能完備性之差異研究。教育資料與圖書館學。44(4),393-412。
王子華、王瑋龍、黃世傑(2002)。網路教學環境之後設認知策略-簽章回饋設計(FFS)對於大學生普通生物學網路學習之影響。視聽教育,43(6), 26-40。
王子華、王國華、王瑋龍、黃世傑(2002)。大學普通生物學後設認知量表的發展。
測驗統計年刊,10,75-100。
王子華、王瑋龍、王國華、黃世傑(2001)。網際網路教學環境後設認知策略設計對於大學學生學習之影響。TANET 2001台灣區網際網路研討會暨網路學習與繼續專業教育國際會議(ELCPE, Conference on E-Learning and Continuing Professional Education)論文集。嘉義市:中正大學。 53-58。
王仁宏(2004)。後設認知策略教學對國小補校成人學生閱讀理解成效影響之研究。中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,中壢。
王年燦、趙貞怡、鄭琨鴻(2003)。國中生活科技網路多媒體教材之設計與開發。藝術學報,73,37-51。
王金國(2001)。成功學習的關鍵—自我調整學習。課程與教學。5(1),145-164。
王鼎銘、游光昭、蕭顯勝、張玉山(2006)。網路情境與創造性思考教學課程設計。載於銘傳大學主編,創造力教育與創新教學學術研討會論文集(38~44頁)。台北:銘傳大學。
方心怡(2005)。認知解題策略對國小三年級數學學習障礙學生乘除法應用問題解題成效之研究。國立台中教育大學特殊教育與輔助科技研究所碩士論文,未出版,台中市。
朱則剛(1996)。建構主義對教學設計的意義。教學科技與媒體,26,3-12。
李明芬(1997)。從另類觀點詮釋後設認知。社會教育學刊,26,181-203。
江美娟(2002)。後設認知策略教學對國小數學學習障礙學生解題成效之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
林志忠(1999)。資優兒童從「學習策略」到獨立研究歷程之探討。台北:台北市立師範學院主編,教育部八十九學年度獎助特殊教育研究著作入選作品輯,81-130。
林余思(2002)。國中學生在資訊科技融入生物學習中後設認知的表現。台灣師範大學生物研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
林清山譯(1997)。教育心理學:認知取向。台北市:遠流出版社。
林建良、黃台妹(2004)。後設認知工具促進學生問題解決能力的行動研究。中華民國第二十屆科學教育學術研討會,11月26日,高雄:國立高雄師範大學。
吳鐵雄(1992)。 電腦輔助教學在我的實施與展望。教育資料集刊。17,1-10。
邱貴發(1996)。網路學習研究:教育研究的另類空間,第十二屆科學教育學術研究討會,12月28-29日。
岳修平(1999)。從教學設計觀點看美國國會圖書館數位學習網。資訊傳播與圖書館學,6(2),63-69。
胡永崇(1995)。後設認知策略教學對國小閱讀障礙學童閱讀理解成效之研究。彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文,未出版,彰化。
柯志恩(2004)。後設認知導向之創造思考模式在教學之應用。課程與教學季刊,7(1),15-30。
洪明洲(1999)。策略管理的變遷與未來:競爭、優勢條件和專長與成功的互動」,中衛簡訊,142。
洪昆裕、董興國(2006)。從學習理論探討影響網路學習績效因素之研究—以銘傳大學學生為例。電子商務學報,8(3),295-312。
郭美辰(2002)。問題解決教學策略應用於教學網路之研究—以大學「微處理機」課程為例。彰化師範大學碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
郭秀緞(2003)。後設認知的理論與其在教學上的應用。國立高雄師範大學教育學會:教育研究,11,149-158。
郭靜姿(1990)。學習動機、策略運用與後設認知能力之相關探討及其建構而成之後設理解模式在資優教學上的運用(上)。資優教育季刊,37,1-8。
郭靜姿(1993)。閱讀理解訓練方案對於增進閱讀策略運用與後設認知能力之成效研究。教育研究資訊,1(5),25-50。
計惠卿(2005)。台灣數位學習專案之教學設計實務模式研究。2005年教育資訊傳播與科技國際學術研討會,台灣教育傳播與科技學會舉辦。基隆:海洋大學。
時德平(2000)。概念圖教學策略與食譜式教學法對國小五年級學童「電與磁」的概念學習之比較研究。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
張淑萍(2003)。數位教材設計。In 資策會教育訓練處講師群(Eds.),數位學習最佳指引。台北:資策會教育處。
張奕華、許玉妹(2002)。設計網路化建構式學習環境:以「團隊建立者」為例。視聽教育,44(1),25-460。
張昇鵬(2005)。資賦優異學生與普通學生後設認知能力與批判思考能力之比較研究。特殊教育學報,20,57-102。
張春興(1989)。張氏心理學辭典。台北:東華。
張春興(1991)。現代心理學。台北:東華書局。
張春興(2006)。教育心理學:三化取向的理論與實踐,218-222。
張景媛(1990)。後設認知能力與資優教育。資優教育,34,6-9。
張景媛(1990)。不同後設認知能力的大學生在學業成績與認知適應上之差異。測驗年代,37,143-162。
張景媛(1991)。大學生認知風格、動機與自我調整因素、後設認知與學業成績關係之研究。教育心理學報,24,145-161。
張琬翔(2007)。教學網站評鑑指標之初探。生活科技教育月刊。40(5),104-118。
陳李綢(1991)。思考模式、學術經驗與認知策略訓練對大學統合認知與智力的影響。教育心理學報,24,60-90。
陳李綢(2000)。大學生生活適應量表。心理出版社。
陳明錚(2006)。以線上新聞閱讀教學提升國中生閱讀理解及後設認知能力之研究。國立東華大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
陳密桃(2003)。認知負荷理論及其對教學的啟示。教育學刊,21,29-51。
陳錦章、邱富宏(2001)。網路學習環境建構的新理念:融入後設認知策略與認知工具的網路學習環境建置的概念。教學科技與媒體,58,2-12。
陳銘村(2005)。成人網路學習者風格、自我調控與學習成效關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學成人教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
徐新逸、廖珮如(2004)。數位學習知識類型與訊息設計之探討。教育研究月刊,125,5-16。
高台茜(2002)。網路非同步遠距教學的教學設計,花蓮師範學院演講4月25日 。
高台茜(2004)。網路教學自我學習管理機制之實施與評量。東部教育論壇2004研討會論文集,216-254。
游敏玲(2003)。大學生後設認知閱讀策略之研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
曹汝民(2001)。非同步網路教學網站評鑑指標發展之研究。台灣科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
鄒景平(2003)。數位學習概論。資策會數位教育研究所講師群(編),數位學習最佳指引(頁1.2-1.23)。台北:資策會數位教育研究所。
楊家興(1998)。終身學習與教學科技的應用。教學科技與媒體,41,9-14。
楊家明(1997)。國小六年級不同解題能力學生在數學解題歷程後設認知行為之比較研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東市。
蔡秀勤(2004)。美國Allen Interactions之e-learning教材發展理念—從教學設計與學習動機激勵角度分析。經濟部工業局數位學習產業推動與發展計劃。2008年3月15日,取自:http://www.elearn.org.tw。
趙育玄(2003)。運用後設認知理論提昇國小學生統整學習能力。國教之友,54(3),78-82。
劉榮俊、劉秀丹(2007)。大學新生後設認知閱讀策略之研究。國立聯合大學人文與社會學院華語文學系主辦,第一屆「大學本國語文(大一國文)課程定位、定性」學術研討會,4月27日,國立聯合大學。
劉鼎昱(2007)。網路學習環境之互動性對大學課程學習成效之影響。嘉南學報, 33,429-446。
二、英文部份
Allington, R. L.(1983). Fluency: the neglected reading goal in reading instruction. The Reading Teacher,36,556-561.
Allen, M.(2007). Designing Successful e-learning, Michael Allen’s online learning library: Forget what you know about instructional design and do something interesting. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.alleni.com .
Azevedo, R.(2005). Computer Environments as Metacognitive Tools for Enhancing Learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193-197.
Armbruster, B. B.,& Brown, A. L.(1984). Instructing comprehension-fostering activities in interactive learning situations. In H. Mand, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso(eds.), Learning and Comprehension of text, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,255-286.
Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook on reading research. (pp. 353-394). New York; Longman.
Baron, J.(1981). Reflective thinking as a goal of education. Intelligence, 5, 291-309.
Borich, G. D., & Tombari, M. L.(1997). Education Psychology: A contemporary approach(2rd ed.). New York: Longman, 25-30.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, and Experience & School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Branch, R., Kim, D. & Koenecke, L. (2000). Online educational materials for use in instruction. Teacher Librarian, 28(1), 21.
Brophy, J.(1992).Probing the Subtleties of Subject-Matter Teaching. Educational Leadership (April 1992): 4-8.
Bruner, J.(1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R., J. Jarvelle, and W. J. M. Levelt(ed.). The Child’s Concept of Language. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Brunce, M. S. & Arlene, C. D. (1987)。 Metacognition, intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 37-38.
Campione, J. C. & Brown, A. L.(1978). Linking dynamic assessment. In C. S. Lidz(ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interaction approach to evaluation learning potential(pp. 82-115). New York: Guiford Press.
Caverly, D. C. & MacDonald, L.(2000). Techtalk: Teaching writing online. Journal of Developmental Education, 24, 42-43.
Carver, C. S.,& Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19-35.
Chiquito, A.(1995). Metacognitive learning techniques in the user interface: advance organizers and captioning. Computers and Humanities, 28, 211-223.
Chester, C. H. (2001).Teachers’ knowledge and ability to identity factors of self-regulated learning in elementary and middle school classrooms(Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia,2001).
Derry, S. J. & Murphy, D. A. (1986) . Designing system that train learning ability: from theory to practice, Review of Educational Research, 56, 1-39.
Dansereau, D. F.(1978). The development of a learning strategy curriculum. In H. F. O’Neill, Jr.(Eds.). Learning strategies.(pp.1-29). New York: Academic Press.
Dansereau, D. F.(1985). Learning Strategy research. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser(Eds.). Thinking and Learning skills(Vol.1,pp.209-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dick, W. & Carey, .L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction(4th ed.).New York: Harper Collins.
Doomekamp, B. G.(2001). Designing Teaching Materials for learning Problem Solving in Technology Education, Research in Science and Technological Education, 19(1), 25-38.
Edmondson, K. M. & Smith, D. F. (1996). Concept mapping to facilitate veterinary students’understanding of fluid and electrolyte disorders. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. New York, NY.
Eklund, M.(1995). Cadmium and lead deposition around a Swedish battery plant as recorded in oak tree rings. J. Environ, Qual. 24,126-131.
Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (1999). Metacognitive instructional knowledge: Cognitive mediation and instructional design. Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 13(3), 145-169.
Ellis, D. B.(1991). Becoming a Master Student. Rapid City, SD: College Survivial, Inc.
Flavell, J. H.(1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L.B. Resnick(Ed.). The nature of intelligence(pp.231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J.M. Scandura & C.J. Brainerd (Eds.), Structural process theories of complex human behavior (pp. 213-245). Ayphen & Rijn, The Netherlands: Sijtoff & Noordhoff.
Flavell, J. H.(1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Fountain, G. & Fusco, E. (1991). A strategy to support metacognitive processing. In A. L. Costa(Ed.), Develop minds: Programs for teaching thinking (Rev. Ed Vol.1)(pp.253-258). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gage, N. L. & Berliner, D. C.(1984). (3rd.ed.). Educational Psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gagn’e, E. D.(1985). Cognitive Psychology of School Learning. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Gagne’, R. M.(1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York:(BS) College Publishing.
Garrett, J., Alman, M., Gardner, S. & Born, C.(2007). Assessing students’ Metacognitive skills. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,71(1):14.
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M.(1997). Survey of instructional Development models: Fourth edition Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearing house of information & technology,10-45.
Governor, D. (1999). Cognitive Styles and Metacognition in Web-based Instruction. Retrieved April 20,2008,from the World Wide Web:http:// www.pcola.gulf.net/~dulci/thesis.html.
Gredler, M. E.(1997). Learning and instruction—theory into practice(3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Gunter, M. A., Estes, T. H., & Schwab, J.(2003). Instruction: A models approach(4th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gustafson, K. L.,& Branch R. M.(1997). Survey of instructional development models: Fourth edition Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearing house of Information & Technology.
Hertzog, C., & Hultsch, D. F. (2000). Metacognition in adulthood and old age (pp. 417-466). In T. Salthouse & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.) Handbook of Aging and Cognition II. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hollingworth, R. D.,& McLoughlin, C.(2001). Developing science students' metacognitive problem solving skills online. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 50-63.
Holt, D., & Scott, A. J.(1981). Regression Analysis of Data. The Statistician, 30, 169-178.
Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Teaching college students to be self-regulated learners. In. D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman(Eds.), Self-regulated Learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice(pp. 57-85). New York: The Guilford Press.
Hsiao, Y. (1997). The effects of cognitive styles and learning strategies in a hypermedia environment: A review of literature. Retrieved from April 20, 2008,from the World Wide Web: http:// www.edb.utexas.edu/mmresearch/Students97/Hsiao/.
Jacobs, J. E. & Paris, S. G.(1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3&4), 255-278.
Jonassen, D. H.(1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31(9), 28-33.
Jonassen, D. J.(1999). Designing constructivist learning environments,
In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models:
A new paradigm of instructional theory, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, pp. 215-239.
Keegan, D.(1986). The Foundations of Distance Education. London: Croon Helm.
Kirsh, D.(2005). Metacognition, Distributed cognition and visual design, in Cognition, education, and communication technology(eds.). Peter Gardenfors, Peter Johansson. Mahwal, NJ.: L. Erlbaum Associates, 2005, pp.147-180.
Kinchin, I. & Hay, D.(2005). Using concepts maps to optimize the compostion of collaborative students groups: A pilot study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51(2), 182-187.
Kramarski, B. & Mevarech, Z. R.(2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and matecognitive training. American Educational Research Journal.
Lawson, K.(1980). Political Parties and Linkage, in K. Lawson(ed.), Political Parties and Linkage: A Comparative Perceptive, London: Yale University Press, 1980.
Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer C., & Secules T.(1999). Designing Technology to Support Reflection. Educational Technology Research & Development. 47:3,43-62.
Maclure, S., & Davies, P. (1991). Learning to think: thinking to learn. (Eds.) Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Manning, B. H. & Payne, B. D. (1996). Self-Talk for Teachers and Students Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Mayer, R. E.(2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B.(2003). The effects of metacognitive training versus worked-out examples on students mathematical reasoning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 449-471.
Montague, M.(1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on mathematical problem sloving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 230-248.
Montague, M.(1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities, Journal of learning disabilities, 30(2), 164-177.
Muldner, K., & C. Conati (2007). Evaluating a Descision-Theoretic Approach to Tailored Example Selection. In Proc. Of IJCAI: 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, p.483-489.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Osman, M. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Metacognition Research and Theory: Analysis and Implications for Instructional Design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(2), 83-99.
Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R.(1999). Designing collaborative contexts: lessons from three research programs. Cognitive perspectives on peer learning(pp. 151-178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pan, H. M.(1993). A study of metacognitive behavior in mathematical problem solving of older elementary school students in Taiwan, the Republic of China(Doctoral dissertation, Nothern Colorado University,1993).
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083-2093.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K.(1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.
Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y., (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239-1252.
Pintrich, P. R.(1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459-470.
Pressce, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top 5 reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computer in Human Behavior, 20, 201-223.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. L. & Ghatala, E. S.(1984). Memory strategy monitoring in adults and children. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 23, 270-88.
Pressley, M.,Harris, K. R. & Marks, M. B.(1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists! Educational Psychology Review, 4,3-31.
Puntambekar, S. ,Stylianou, A.,& Hubscher, R.(2003). Improving navigation and learning in hypertext environments with navigable concept maps. Human-Computer Interaction, 18, 395-428.
Roberts, M. J., & Erdos, G.(1993). Strategy selection and metacognition. Educational Psychology, 13, 259-266.
Rosenberg, M. J.(2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in their digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ross, M. E., & Green, S. B.(2006). College students’ study strategies as a function of testing: An investigation into metacognitive self-regulation. Innovative Higher Education, 30(5).
Savery, J. R. & Duffy, T. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, Sept.-Oct., 1995, 31-38.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992).Learning to think mathematically:problem solving, metacognition,and sense making in mathematics. In .A.Grouws(Ed.).Handbook of Research on Mathe-matics Teaching and Learning. Macmillan Publishing Company, Maxwell Macmillan Canada.
Schunk, D. H. (1998). Teaching elementary students to self-regulate practice of mathematical skills with modeling. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman(eds.), Self-regulated learning: from teaching to self-reflective. New York: Guilford Press.
Simons, P. R. J.(1993). Constructive learning: The Role of the learner. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen(Eds.) Designing environments for constructive learning, 291-313. Berlin: springer-verlag.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, R. P., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, ‎constructivism, and hypertext: random access instruction for advanced knowledge ‎acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.). ‎Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation (pp. 57-76). Hillsdale, ‎NJ: Erlbaum.‎
Spear, L. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Teaching styles: staff development for teaching thinking. Journal of staff development, 8, 35-39.
Seels, B. B., & Richey, C. R.(1994). Instructional Technology: the definition and domains of the field. Association for Educational Communication and Technology.
Sternberg, R. J.(1979). The Nature of mental abilities. American Psychologist, 34, 214-230.
Sternberg, R. J.(1986). Intelligence Applied: Understanding and increasing your intellectual skills. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Joranovich.
Tan, J., Wagster, J., Wu, Y. & Biswas, G. (2007). Effect of Metacognitive Support on Student Behaviors in Learning by Teaching Environments [poster], The thirteenth International Conference on AI in Education, Marina del Rey, California.
Tan, J., Biswas, G. & Schwartz, D. (2006). Feedback for Metacognitive Support in Learning by Teaching Environments, The twenty-eigth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, Canada, (pp. 828-833).
Taraban, R., Rynerason, K., & Kerr, M. S. (2000). Metacognition and freshman academic performance. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(1), 12-24.
Treffinger, D. J.,Isaksen, S. G.,& Dorval, K. B.(2000). Creative Problem Solving: An Introduction (3rd.ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Turner, G. Y.(1989). Promoting learning autonomy: helping students become independent learners. Reading Horizons, 29(2), 110-116.
Valcke, M.(2002). Cognitive load: Updating the theory? Learning and Instruction, 12, 147-154.
Veenman, M., Elshout, J. & Busato, V.(1994). Metacognitive mediation in Learning with computer-based simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 93-106.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J.(1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84. 30-43.
Wagster, J., Tan, J., Wu, Y.,Biswas, G. & Schwartz, D. (2007). Do Learning by Teaching Environments with Metacognitive Support Help Students Develop Better Learning Behaviors?, The twenty-ninth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Nashville, Tennessee, 695.
Wenger, M. J., & Payne, D. G.(1996). Comprehension and retention of nonlinear text: considerations of working memory and material-appropriate processing. American Journal of Psychology,109(1):93-130.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E.(1986). The teaching of learning strategies. Handbook of Research on Teaching and Learning, M. Whitrock, ed., MacMillan, NY, pp.315-327.
Weinert, F. E.(1987). Introduction and overview: Metacognition and motivation as determinants of effective learning and understanding. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe(Eds.). Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, publishers.
Webb, N. M.(1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research, 52, 421-445.
White, B. Y., Shimoda, T. A.,& Frederiksen, J. R.(2000). Facilitating students’inquiry learning and metacognitive development through modifiable software advisers. In S. P. Lajoie(Ed.). Computers as cognitive tools, 2: pp.97-132. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Whipp, J. L. & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study. Educaitonal Technology Research & Development, 52(4), 5-22.
Wittrock, M. C.(1986). Research on teaching reading. Handbook of research on teaching(3rd). N.Y.:Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Wood, D., Brunner, J.,& Ross, G. (1976), The Role of tutoring in Problem-solving. Journal of Psychology and Psychaitry, 17, 89-100.
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K.(1993). Teachers’sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137-148.
Woolfolk, A.E.(1995). Educational Psychology(6th ed.). Boston: Allyn,& Bacon.
Zimmerman, B. J.,Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learner: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington:APA.
Zimmerman, B. J.(2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An Overview and analysis. In Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H.(2001), Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2010-07-14公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2010-07-14起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信