本篇碩士論文詳細闡明了在台灣一所重點科技大學應用外語系，所進行持續一年的無紙化教學實驗的結果。系上的一位美籍老師，透過高度融合Blackboard數位學習系統及傳統面對面教學方式，在他所教授的十個英語寫作相關的課堂中進行此項研究。具體來說，此研究以受Vygotsky的社會文化理論所影響的集體建構論者觀點，來評估師生之間及學生之間對電腦媒介溝通的互動情況，而此認識論觀點則視人類的學習為參與學習社群與否的差別。
研究資料按照描述性人類學的方式記錄，並透過結構性及半結構性訪談、參與觀察法、研究者及參與研究學生的反思日誌、Blackboard數位學習系統同步及非同步的電腦媒介溝通記錄、選擇性的課堂錄音、Blackboard數位學習系統的統計資料、及學生的課程評鑑，並採用Strauss和Corbin (1998)的紮根理論的編碼程序進行資料分析。
研究結果顯示，Blackboard數位學習系統雖然常常讓主要參與的老師及學生們不滿意，但是不可否認的，它的確有很大潛力，不僅只是方便的線上檔案儲藏室、一種時髦環保的方法來節省天然資源、或是傳統教學方式的替代方案，相反的，它還可以促進師生間及學生之間深度且大量的互動，它提供了一個平台或是一個溝通的橋樑，給參與對話者一個真實的英語學習情境來互相學習。此外參與的老師還發現到Blackboard數位學習系統，不但可以提供他一扇窗來觀察學生長時間的中介語言發展，還可以給予學生同步及非同步的機會來評論彼此英文寫作的文章。
然而，客觀地來看，這種突然增加的電腦媒介溝通及互動，帶來了一些預期及非預期的挑戰。可預見的是，線上互動的增加，讓每個參與的人必須投入大量的時間。更出人意外的是，參與的老師發現到，要放棄他受學生崇敬的聖人形象，並採用更具彈性的教學方式，來適應數位學習的需求，是相當困難的一件事。本研究報告雖然有其限制，對於在台灣或其它地方，想要提升並投入高度融合的數位學習環境的人來說，還是有所幫助。

This master’s report delineates the comprehensive findings of a one-year paperless semester experiment conducted in an applied foreign languages program at a major technological university in Taiwan via the “hyper-hybridization” of the Blackboard Learning Management System and face-to-face instruction in ten of the foreign instructor’s English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing-related courses. More specifically, the study was conducted with the goal of assessing the instructor-student and student-students’ observed and reported assessments of their computer-mediated communication (CMC) interactions from a Vygotskian sociocultural communal constructivist epistemological perspective that viewed human learning as variations of participation and non-participation in learning communities.
Data were gathered ethnographically via structured and semi-structured interviews, participant observations, the researchers’ and student-participants’ reflective journals, Bb LMS synchronous and asynchronous CMC, audio-recordings of selected courses, Bb LMS statistics, and students’ course evaluations, and were analyzed according to Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) grounded theory data codification procedures.
Results indicate that the Bb LMS, admittedly often a source of dissatisfaction among both the focal participant instructor and the student participants, has tremendous potential in serving as more than merely a convenient online filing repository, a trendy “green” way of saving natural resources, or an alternative to “traditional” teaching methods. On the contrary, the Bb LMS fostered deep student-instructor and student-student interactions and acted as a platform or bridge upon which interlocutors could scaffold each others’ learning’ in authentic target-language (English) learning contexts. Moreover, the instructor reported that the Bb LMS proffered the instructor a window through which to view students’ protracted interlanguage development and “afforded” students the chance to comment on each others’ written texts both synchronously and asynchronously.
Viewed objectively, however, this flurry of increased CMC interactions ushered in a number of expected and unexpected challenges. Predictably, heightened online interactions required a substantial time commitment on everyone’s part. The instructor found it difficult to surrender his revered “sage-on-the-stage” persona in favor of a more flexible teaching style that better accommodated e-learning demands. This report, albeit fraught with its own limitations, might be of interest to those who wish to upgrade their commitment to the creation of “hyper-hybridized” e-learning contexts in Taiwan and beyond.

Abdalla, I. (2007). Evaluating effectiveness of e-blackboard system using TAM framework: A structural analysis approach. Association for the Advancement of Computing In Education Journal. 15 (3), 279-287.
Aggarwal, A. (Ed.). (2000). Web-based learning and teaching technologies: Opportunities and challenges . Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
Amores, M. J. (1997). A new perspective on peer-editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 513–522.
Arbaugh, J.B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with Web-based courses: An exploratory study of two on-line MBA programs. Management Learning, 33, 331-347.
Avermaet, P. V. & Gysen, S. (2006). From needs to tasks: Language learning needs in a task-based approach. In K. V. den Branden, In M. H. Long & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 175-196). Cambridge: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
Aydin, S. (2007). Attitudes of EFL Learners towards the Internet. Online Submission, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED500059) Retrieved June 14, 2009, from ERIC database.
Barnard, R. & Campbell, L. (2005). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of process writing: The scaffolding of learning in a university context. The Tesolanz Journal, 13, 76-88.
Belz, J. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68-117.
Berg, Z., & Collins, M. (1995). Computer-Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom: Overview and Perspectives. Computer-Mediated Communications Magazine, 2(2). Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1995/feb/berge.html
Berge, Z. L., & Collins, M. P. (1995). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom. Vol. 1: Overview and perspectives. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc.
Blackwell, P. B., Roach, C. M., & Baker, B. M. (2002). Satisfaction of graduate students involved in a web-based learning experience in speech-language pathology. Contemporary issues in communication science and disorders, 29,125-131.
Byrd, D. R. (1994). Peer editing: common concerns and applications in the foreign language classroom. Teaching German, 27(1), 119-123.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chastain, K. (1975). Affective and ability factors in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 25(1), 153-161.
Chen, C. F. (2005). Experience-based language learning through asynchronous discussion. Paper presented at the meeting of the 22nd International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chun, D. M. (1998). Using computer-assisted class discussion to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. In J. Swaffar, S. Romano, P. Markley, & K. Arens (Eds.), Language Learning Online (pp57-80). Austin, Texas: Labyrinth Publications.
Cummings, M. (2004). Because we are shy and fear mistaking:
Computer mediated communication with EFL writers. Journal of Basic
Writing, 23(2), 23-48.
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 249-277.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of Information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319-339.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51–68.
Dekhinet, R. (2008). Online enhanced corrective feedback for ESL learners in higher education. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(5), 409-425.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. London: Erlbaum.
Egbert, J. (2005). Conducting research on CALL. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 3-8). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ehrich, J. F. (2009). Vygotsky and linguistic relativity: The case of Chinese and English reading. In P. Robertson & J. Adamson (Eds.). The Linguistics Journal, 4(1), 91-111.
Fotos, S. (2004) Writing as talking: E-mail exchange for promoting proficiency and motivation in the foreign language classroom. In S. Fotos & C. M. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 109-140). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Frazee, R. V. (2003). Using relevance to facilitate online participation in a hybrid course. Educause Quarterly, 26(4), 67-71.
Freiermuth, M., & Jarrell, D. (2006). Willingness to communicate: Can online chat help? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 189-212.
Fung, Y. Y. H. (2004). Collaborative Online Learning: Interaction Patterns and Limiting Factors. Open Learning. 19(2). 135-149.
Gardner, R. C. (2007). Motivation and second language acquisition. Porta Linguarum 8, 9-20.
Gillani, B. B. (2003). Learning theories and the design of e-learning environment. New York: University Press of America, Inc.
Grainger, R., & Tolhurst, D. (2005). Organisational factors affecting teachers’ use and perception of information & communications technology. In G. Low (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2005 South East Asia Regional Computer Science Confederation Conference 2005: ICT Building Bridges (pp. 13-22). Sydney: ACS.
Graser, B.G., & Strass, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Graves, W. H. (2001). The new challenges of E-learning. Ubiquity, 1 (43).
Gupta, A., Sharda, R., Ducheneaut, N., Zhao, J. L., & Weber, R. (2006). E-mail management: A techno-managerial research perspective. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17, 941-961.
Halloran, M. E. (1999). Evaluation of web-based course management software
from faculty and student user -centered perspectives. Institute for Information
Technology Applications United States Air Force Academy. Retrieved June 10, 2009 from
http://www.usafa.af.mil/iita/Publications/CourseManagementSoftware/cmseval.htm
Halloran, M. E. (2002). Selecting course management software to meet the
requirement of faculty and students. Institute for Information Technology
Applications United States Air Force Academy. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0208.pdf
Hertz-Lazarowitz R. H. & Bar-Natan I. (2002). Writing development of Arab and Jewish students using cooperative learning (CL) and computer-mediated-communication (CMC). Computer & Education, 39(2), 19-36.
Holmes, B., Tangney, B., FitzGibbon, A., Savage, T., & Mehan, S. (2001). Communal constructivism: Students constructing learning for as well as with others. In J. Price, D. Willis, N. E. Davis, & J. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, 3114-3119.
Holmes, B., & Gardner, J. (2006). E-learning: Concepts & practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Horwitz, E. K. (1995). Student affective reactions and the teaching and learning of foreign languages. Journal of Educational Research, 23, 569-652.
Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavaye, A. L. M. (1997). Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model. MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 279-305.
Johanson, R., Lin, Y. J., Chen, Z. Y., & Zhang, T. G. (2009, May). Enhancing
Taiwanese high school students’ global perspectives via a tri-national learning management system & exchange program. In R. H. Huang (Chair), Forum for teachers of elementary and secondary schools. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the13th Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
Johnson, K. (2008). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Knipper, K.J., & Duggan, T.J. (2006). Writing to learn across the curriculum: Tools for comprehension in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 462–470.
Kramer, P. et al. (2007). Achieving curricular themes through learner-centered teaching. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 21(1), 185 – 198.
Krashen, S. D. (1988). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Prentice-Hall International.
Lardner, T. (1989). Teaching writing, learning writing: Teacher-research in an English class. English Journal 78, 93-94.
Leask, M. & Younie, S. (2001). Communal Constructivist Theory: Information and communications technology pedagogy and internationalisation of the curriculum. Journal of information technology for teacher education, 10(1&2), 117-134.
Levine, A., Ferenz, O., & Reves, T. (2000). EFL academic reading and modern technology: How can we turn our students into independent critical readers? TESL-EJ, 4(4), 1-9. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej16/a1.html
Liou, H. (1997). The impact of www texts on EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10(5), 455-478.
Lloyd B. W. (2001). Learner-centered instruction: Inquiry-based technology-enriched integrating workplace reality. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University.
Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society.
Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 103-109.
Luppicini, R. (2007). Online learning communities. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second language learning: Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39(2), 251-275.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3-26.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. In A. Valdman & S. Gass (Eds.), Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, (pp. 369-388). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacIntyre, P. D., &. Clément, R. & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning 52(3), 537-564.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Donovan L. A. (2004). Desire for control and communication-related personality variables. Psychological Reports, 94, 581-582.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564-276.
Malcolm, P. (2003). Factors which influence staff in providing web-enhanced
course delivery at a tertiary institute. Unpublished M Comp thesis, Unitec New Zealand, Auckland
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal 46(3), 274-284.
McCrindle, M. (2006), Bridging the Gap: Generational Diversity at Work, Baulkham Hills: McCrindle Research Pty Ltd.
McKimm, J., Jollie, C., & Cantillon, P. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching: Web based learning. British Medical Journal, 326, 870 - 873.
Meehan, S., Holmes, B., & Tangney, B. (2001). Who wants to be a teacher? An
exploration of the theory of communal constructivism and the chalk face.
Teacher Development, 5(2), 177-190.
Merron, J. L. (1999). Managing a web-based literature course for undergraduates. Retrieved August 25, 2009, from State University of West Georgia, Department of Mass Communication Web site: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter14/merron14.html
Murphey, T. (2000). Encouraging critical collaborative autonomy. JALT Journal, 22(2). 228-244.
Nam, C. S., & Smith-Jackson, T. L. (2007). Web-based learning environment: A theory-based design process for development and evaluation. Journal of
Information Technology Education, 6, 35-45.
Nguyen, L. V. (2010). Computer mediated collaborative learning within a communicative language teaching approach: A sociocultural perspective. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 12(1), 202-233.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. B., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50(1), 57-85.
Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. J. (1999). Asynchronous computer-mediated communication versus face-to-face collaboration: Results on student learning, quality and satisfaction. Group decision and negotiation, 8(5), 427-440.
Quarless, D. A. (2007) Redundant features of design in blackboard (LMS) and user error. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(2), 177-179.
Renaud, K., Ramsay, J., & Hair, M. (2006). “You've got e-mail!" ... Shall I deal with it now? Electronic mail from the recipient's perspective. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 21(3), 313-332.
Richard, G. (2005). E-learning in tertiary education: Where do we stand? Paris:
Centre for Education Research and Innovation.
Salaberry, R. (1997). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 14 (1), 15-33.
Satar, H. M., & Ozdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 595-613.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
Schrooten, W. (2006). Task-based language teaching and ICT: Developing and assessing interactive multimedia for task-based language teaching. In K. V. D. Branden, M. H. Long & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 175-196). Cambridge: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
Segars, A. H. and Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and
usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17, 517-525.
Seok, S. (2008). Teaching aspects of e-learning. International Journal on E-learning, 7(4), 726-741.
Shang, H. F. (2005). Email dialogue journaling: Attitudes and impact on L2 reading performance. Educational Studies, 31(2), 197-212.
Shang, H. F. (2007). An exploratory study of e-mail application on FL writing performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 79-96.
Shimabukuro, J. N. (1995). CMC and writing instruction: A future scenario. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the online classroom: Vol. 1. Overview and perspectives (pp. 37-52). Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc.
Simon, A. F. (2006). Computer-mediated communication: Task performance and
satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(3), 349-379.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38-57.
Soloway, E. et al. (1996). Learning theory in practice: Case studies of learner-centered design. CHI 96, 198 – 196.
Stewart, T.C., Scappaticci, L. (2005). Making the connection: A hybrid distance learning program for underprepared college students. US-China Education Review. 2 (3), 30-37.
Swets, P. (1983). The art of talking so that people will listen. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Teo, A. K. (2006). Social-interactive writing for English language learners. The CATESOL Journal, 18, 160–178.
Thorne, L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 38-67.
Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 23, 239-260.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. London: Longman.
Walker, G. & Johnson, N. (2008). Faculty intention to use components for Web-Enhanced Instruction. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 133-152.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital devide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Warwick, P., & Maloch, B. (2003). Scaffolding speech and writing in the primary classroom: A consideration of work with literature and science pupil groups in the USA and UK. Reading Literacy and Language, 37, 54–63.
Wen, W. P., & Clément, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to communicate in ESL. Language, culture and curriculum, 16(1), 18-38.
Wheeler, B. & Jarboe, G. (2001). New poll shows faculty prefers web-enhanced courses to either classroom-only or distance-only courses: Student learning maximized with web-enhanced classroom instruction; online-only rivals classroom-only instruction. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from http://www.webct.com/service/ViewContent?contentID=3522772
Whittaker, S. (2005). Supporting collaborative task management in e-mail. Human-Computer Interaction 20, 49-88.
Wingard, R. G. (2004). Classroom teaching changes in web-enhanced courses: A multi-institutional study. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 27(1), 26-35.
Wise, L., & Quealy, J. (2006). LMS governance project. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from University of Melbourne, Information Services Web site: http://wisebytes.net/presentations/LMS_Governance_Report.pdf
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Wulf, T. (2004). Using learning management systems to teach paperless courses: Best practices for creating accreditation review record archives. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20, 1, 19-25.
Yamada, M., & Akahori, K. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC-based language learning: How does it affect the productive performance and consciousness of learning objectives? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 37-65.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54-66.
Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety research suggest. Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 426-439.
Zeng, Z., & Murphy E. (2007). Tensions in the language learning experiences and beliefs of Chinese teachers of English as a foreign language. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 10(4), 1-19.