本研究主要探討大學部學生的批判性思考及創造力，及與主修科系，性別，文化背景和學習態度的關聯性。本研究方法是質量合併，利用質性分析學生在討論區的意見，在使用敘述統計探討研究結果。
  本研究共有一百四十六位大學生參與，其中包含五十七位國際企業學系主修學生，四十六位財務金融學系主修學生及四十三位大眾傳播學系主修學生。本研究者在討論區開設三個不同的討論主題，其討論主題分別與日常生活，學生目前生活及未來生活相關。在研究期間，本研究者與英語教學領域人員們依照學生上課情形與討論區的意見，分析並分類參與學生的上課態度及討論區意見的批判性思考與創造力的等級。
  本研究結果顯示大學部學生的主修科系，性別，文化背景和學習態度會影響學生展現不同程度的的批判性思考及創造力。換言之，不同主修科系，不同性別，不同文化背景及不同上課態度的學生會導致學生有不同程度及面向的批判性思考及創造力。本研究的研究結果與先前的研究結果一致。
  有鑑於本研究的研究結果與討論，若有意於在課堂中使用小組或大班性討論的老師，必須先考慮學生的科系，性別，文化背景或上課態度。若能依照學生的不同的特性來設計教材與內容，老師就可以更有效設計適合的討論主題並有效的培養學生的批判性思考與創意。

This study is aimed to investigate college student’s critical thinking and creativity and the relation between academic background, gender, cultural background, learning attitude and information process in terms of critical thinking and creativity. The research is a mix of qualitative and quantitative research methods with grounded-theory research methods for investigating patterns of postings and the relation between participants’ characteristics and written discourse. 
  One hundred and forty-six college students who consist of 57 participants in International Business, 46 participants in Banking and Finance and 43 participants in Mass Communication. The researcher supplemented three discussion sessions in Moodle discussion board and the topics are related to life reflection, an issue related to student life and an issue related to their near future. During the discussion session, the researcher and other TESOL members evaluated the participants’ learning attitude according to the Habits and Attitudes to learning Rubric. After the three sessions of discussion, the researcher and other TESOL member analyzed the participants’ postings and categorized them based on the rubric of critical thinking and creativity. 
  The results show that students’ academic background, gender, cultural background and learning attitude differentiate their information process in terms of critical thinking and creativity in the three sessions of discussion. In other words, the findings of the research show that students with different majors, different genders, different cultural background and different levels of learning attitude revealed different level of critical thinking and creativity in detail aspects on the rubric. The results were in consistency with previous studies in the field. 
  In light of the result and discussion of the research, it was implied that teachers should take students’ academic background, cultural background and learning attitude into account when they are going to apply discussion sessions in online discussion broad. In order to cultivate students’ critical thinking and creativity more efficiently, teachers should adapt teaching materials and methods according to students with different characteristics.

Table of Contents 
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………………i
Chinese Abstract……………………………………………………………………………ii
English Abstract……………………………………………………………………………iv
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………vi
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………ix
List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………x                                                         
Chapter One Introduction                                                      
   1.1 Background and Motivation of the Study……………………4
   1.2 Statement of the Problems………………………………………………………5
   1.3 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………..6
   1.4. Research Questions………………………………………………………………...7
   1.5 Organization of the Study………………………………………………………7
Chapter Two Literature Review                                                
   2.1 Sociocultural Theory and Constructivist Theory………8                           
   2.2 Learners’ Interaction in Online Discussion Board……9                                         
   2.3 Critical Thinking and Creativity………………………………………………10  
   2.4 Academic Background in Relation to Critical Thinking    
       and Creativity....................................12
   2.5 Genders in Relation to Critical Thinking and  
       Creativity……………...................................13
   2.6. Learners’ Cultural Background and Learning Contexts 
        in Relation to Critical Thinking and    
        Creativity.......................................14
   2.7 In-class Learning Attitude in Relation to Critical   
       Thinking and Creativity………........................15                         
Chapter Three Methodology 
   3.1 Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………...17 
   3.2 Participants and Setting……………………………………………………………18
   3.3 Instruments……………………………………………………………………….........22
     3.3.1 Moodle Discussion Board……………………………………………………23
     3.3.2 Personal Information  
           Questionnaire…………………………………………..............25
     3.3.3 Rubrics for Critical Thinking and
           Creativity…………………………………....................25
     3.3.4 Habits and Attitudes to Learning (HAL)   
           Rubric……………………………..........................26
     3.3.5 Interviews…………………………………………………………………….......27
   3.4 Research Procedure……………………………………………………………….....27 
Chapter Four Results and Discussion
   4.1 The Relation between Academic Background Differentiate Critical Thinking and 
Creativity in Asynchronous Online Discussion............................................35
   4.2 The Relation between Participants’ Genders Differentiate Level of Critical Thinking 
and Creativity in Asynchronous Online Discussion............................................39
  4.3 The Relation between Participants’ Cultural Background Differentiate Level of Critical Thinking and Creativity in Asynchronous Online Discussion........................42
    4.3.1 Culture Diversity and Learning Context as Factors which Differentiate Students’ Critical Thinking and Creativity…………………………………...............................46
   4.4 The Relation between Participants’ In-class Learning Attitude Differentiate Level of Critical Thinking and Creativity in Asynchronous Online Discussion…………......50
   4.5 Different Academic Background of Learners’ Performance in Terms of Critical Thinking And Creativity in Different Discussion Topics………………………….................54
     4.5.1 Participants with different academic background and their performance in terms of critical thinking and creativity in the three discussion topics……...........55
     4.5.2 Individual groups’ performance in terms of critical thinking and creativity in general and in each topic…………………………………………………..............................76
Chapter Five Research Limitation…………………………………………………………88
Chapter Six Conclusion and Pedagogical Implication………………………………………............................90
References………………………………………………………………………………….............94                                                                  
Appendices
   Appendix A. Wiederhold’s Question Matrix……………………………102 
   Appendix B. Personal Information Questionnaire……………103
   Appendix C. Rubric for Evaluating Critical Thinking and Creativity………………......................................104
   Appendix D. Habits and Attitudes to Learning (HAL) Rubric……………………….......................................105
   Appendix E. Interview Questions………………………………………………….107
                                                   

List of Figures 
Figure 1. A Screenplay of the Structure of Moodle…………………………………………..
Figure 2. A Screenplay of Discussion Board on Moodle
Figure 3. A Screenplay of Participants’ Written Discussion on Moodle
Figure 4. Research Procedure
Figure 5. Framework for Evaluating Critical Thinking and Creativity
Figure 6. The Three Academic Groups’ Critical Thinking and Creativity in General Aspects
Figure 7. The Three Academic Groups’ Critical Thinking and Creativity in Detail Aspects
Figure 8. Students with Different Genders and Their Critical Thinking and Creativity in Detail Aspects
Figure 9. International Students’ and Taiwanese Students’ Critical Thinking and Creativity in General Aspects
Figure 10. International and Taiwanese Groups’ Critical Thinking and Creativity in Detail Aspects
Figure 11. Two Integrated Groups’ Level of Critical Thinking and Creativity in Detail Aspects
Figure 12. Individual Groups' Critical Thinking and Creativity in the First Discussion Topic
Figure 13. The Three Groups’ Critical Thinking and Creativity in the Second Discussion Topic
Figure 14. Individual Groups' Detail Aspects of Critical Thinking and Creativity in the Second Discussion Topic
Figure 15. The Three Groups' Critical Thinking and Creativity in the Third Discussion Topic
Figure 16. The Three Groups' Detail Aspects of Critical Thinking and Creativity in the Third Discussion Topic


List of Abbreviations                                                         
IIB…… An International Student in International Business Class
TIB…… A Taiwanese Student in International Business Class
IBF…… An International Student in Banking and Finance Class
TBF…… A Taiwanese Student in Banking and Finance Class
IMC…… An International Student in Mass Communication Class
TMC……A Taiwanese Student in Mass Communication Class

AbuSeileek, A. F. (2007). Cooperative vs. individual         learning of oral skills in a CALL environment. Computer  Assisted Language Learning, 493-514.
Bloom, S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New    York: David McKay.
British Council. (2004). The thinking approach project. Retrieved from website: http://www.britishcouncil.org/it/russia-stpetersburg-thinking-approach-flyer.pdf
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Brown, H. D. (2006). Principles of language learning and    teaching. New York: Pearson Education.
Carson, J. G. (1992). Becoming biliterate: First language influences. Journal of Second Language writing, 1, 37-60.
Chamot, A. (1995). Creating a community of thinkers in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESOL Matters, 5(5), 1-16.
Chapple, L. & Curtis, A. (2000). Content-based instruction in Hong Kong: Student responses to film. System, 419-433.
Cheong, C. M. & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Online discussion and critical thinking skills: A case study in Singapore secondary school. Australasian Journal of Educational technology, 24(5), 556-573.
Cheung, W. S. (2005). How can we facilitate students’ in-depth thinking and interaction in an asynchronous online discussion environment? A case study. Proceedings of The AECT International Convention, 114-121.
Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 483-511.
Chong, S. M. (1998). Models of asynchronous computer conferencing for collaborative learning in large college classes. In E. C.J. Bonk and K.S. King, Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 157-182). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chou, M. H. (2011). The influence of learner strategies on oral presentations: A comparison between group and individual performance. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 282-285.
Corbin, J., & Strauss , A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Davidson, B. (1994). Critical thinking: A perspective and prescriptions for language teachers. The Language Teacher, 18(4), 20-26.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. UK: Oxford University Press.
Erik, L (2001). Staging for creative collaboration in design teams: Models, tools and method (Norwegian University of Science and Technology Doctoral dissertation).Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:125899/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Facione, P. A. (1990). Using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test in Research, Evaluation, and Assessment. CA: California Academic Press.
Facione, P. A., Giancarlo, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking. Journal of General Education, 44(1), 1-17.
Gallini, J. & Daniel B. (2002). Participaants' perceptions of web-infused environments: A survey of teaching beliefs, learning approaches, and communication. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 139-156.
Habits & Attitudes to Learning (HAL) Rubric. (2011, July). Retrieved from International School Bangkok: http://www.isb.ac.th/uploads/contents/5/attachs/ISB%20HAL%20Rubric.pdf
Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: perspectives on a new environment (pp. 39-64). New York : Praeger.
Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241-272.
Hew, K. F. & Cheung, W. S. (2003). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part II. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(4), 355-366.
Hew, K. F. & Knapczyk, D. (2007). Analysis of ill-structured problem solving, mentoring functions, and perceptions of practicum teachers and mentors toward online mentoring in a field-based practicum. Instructional Science, 35, 1-40.
Jack, R. C., & Theodore, R. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge university.
Jo, M., Beatrice , M., Samantha, H., & Joanna , M. L. (2005, June). Researching the performance of international students in the UK. Studies in Higher Education, 30(3), 327-337.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Roy, P., & Zaidman, B. (1985). Oral interaction in cooperative learning groups: Speaking, listening, and the nature of statements made by high-, medium-, and low-achieving students. Journal of Psychology, 119(4), 303-322.
Johnson, S. &. Steven R. A., (2003). An intructional strategy framework for online learning environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 31-43.
Jones, A. (2005). Culture and context: critical thinking and student learning in introductory macroeconomics. Studies in Higher Education, 30(3), 339-354.
Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 
Korkmaz, O., & Karakuş, U. (2009). The Impact of Blended learning Model onStudent Attitudes towards Geography Course and Their Critical Thinking Dispositions and Levels. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(4), 51-63.
Lerdahl, E. (2001). Staging for creative collaboration in design teams: models, tools and methods. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller e.K. NBN:no-2324
Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40(4), 635-649.
Lim, S. C., Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2011). Critical thinking in asynchronous online discussion: An investigation of student facilitation techniques. New Horizons in Education, 59(1), 52-65.
Liu, G. (2005). The trend and challenge for teaching EFL at Taiwanese universities. RELC Journal, 36(2), 211-221.
Mostafa, M. (2005). Factors affecting organisational creativity and innovativeness in Egyptian business organisations: an empirical investigation. Journal of Management Development, 24(1), 7-33.
Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227-242.
Pattanpichet, F. (2011). The effects of using collaborative learning to enhance students' English speaking achievement. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(11), 1-10.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M. & Carl B. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building Communities . In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm (pp. 249-268). New Jersey.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah.
Shakirova, D. M. (2007). Technology for the shaping of college students' and upper-grade students' critical thinking. Russian Education and society, 162-177.
Swartz, R. & Sandra P. (1994). Infusing the teaching of critical and creative thinking into content instruction. A Lesson Design Handbook for The Elementary Grades. Critical Thinking Press and Software .
Tallent-Runnels, M. T. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Tarvin, W. & Ali, A. (1991). Rethinking communicative language teaching: Reflection and the EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 9-27.
Thomas, J. (2002). Smart e-classrooms, traditional classrooms and critical thinking. In G. R. (Ed.), Proceedings of world conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 2288-2291). Chesapeake: VA: AACE.
Volet, S. (1999). Learning Across Cultures: Appropriateness of Knowledge Transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 625-643.
Walsh, C. M., & Hardy, R. C. (1999). Dispositional Differences in Critical Thinking Related to Gender and Academci Majors. Journal of Nursing Education, 38(4), 149-155.
Wang, A.L. (2013a). Engaging students in language learning via successful cross-cultural video conferencing. In H. Mohamed (Eds.), E-learning: New technology, Applications and future trends (pp. 243-258). New York: Nova.
Wang, A.L. (2013b). Exploring the roles of cultural exchanges and its future trends: application of grounded theory and data mining. Taipei: Crane.
Wang, S. C., Peck , K. L., & Chern, J. Y. (2010). Difference in time influencing creativity performance. Int J Technol Des Educ, 77-93.
Wiederhold, C. (1995). The question matrix. San Juan Capistrano, Calif: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
Williams, S. D. (2004). Personality, Attitude, and Leader Influences on Divergent Thinking and Creativity in Organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3), 187-204.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1930. Fantasy and creativity in childhood. Bokforlaget Daidalos AB, Goteborg.
Zane, B. L. (1997). Characteristics of online teaching in post-secondary, formal education. Educational Technology, 37(3), 35-47.
Zane, B. L. (2000). Designing discussion questions for online, adult learning. Educational Technology, 40(5), 53-56.