Assessing metacognitive knowledge in web-based CALL: A neural network approach

Computers and Education

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 97-113

  Yeh, Shiou Wen ^a   Lo, Jia Jiunn ^b  

^a CHUNG YUAN CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b CHUNG HUA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Browsing behavior; Metacognitive knowledge; Neural network; Web page structure; Web based CALL

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; STRATEGIC PLANNING; STUDENTS; WEB BROWSERS; WORLD WIDE WEB;

BROWSING BEHAVIOR; METACOGNITIVE KNOWLEDGE; WEB PAGE STRUCTURE; WEB-BASED CALL;

NEURAL NETWORKS;

EID: 5144224352     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.019     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Anderson N.J. Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal. 75:1991;460-472.
2. Becker H.J. Teaching with and about computers in secondary schools. Communications of the ACM. 36(1):1993;69-73.
3. Bracewell R.J. Investigating the control of writing skills. Mosenthal P., Tamor L., Walmsley S.A. Research of writing: Principles and methods. 1983;Longman, New York.
4. Brooks L.W., Simutis Z.M., O'Neil H.F. The role of individual differences in learning strategies. Dillon R.F. Individual differences and cognition. Vol. 2:1985;Academic Press, USA.
5. Brown A.L. Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanism. Weinert F.E., Kluwe R.H. Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. 1987;Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, Lawrence.
6. Brown,I. (1998). The effect of WWW document structure on students' information. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 98(12), 1-18. Retrieved July 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/98/12.
7. BrunigI.L. An information processing approach to a theory of instruction. Educational Communications and Technology Journal. 31:1983;91-101.
8. CarrellP.L., GajdusekL., WiseT. Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading. Instructional Science. 26:1998;97-112.
9. Castellano,G., Fanelli,A.M., & Roselli,T. (2001). Mining categories of learners by a competitive neural network. In Proceedings of the INNS-IEEE international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN01) (pp. 945-950).
10. ChapelleC.A. Computer-applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. 2001;Cambridge University Press, New York.
11. ConklinJ. Hypertext: An introduction and survey. Computer. 20(9):1987;17-41.
12. CotterallS. Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe about them? SYSTEM. 27(1999):1999;493-513.
13. EllisR. Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. 1992;Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
14. FedericoP. Learning styles and student attitudes toward various aspects of network-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior. 16:2000;359-379.
15. FlavellJ.H. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychology. 34(10):1979;906-911.
16. GanzM.N., GanzB.C. Linking metacognition to classroom success. High School Journal. 73:1990;180-185.
17. GarnerR. Metacognition and reading comprehension. 1988;Ablex Publishing Corporation, New Jersey.
18. GarnerR., MacreadyG.B., WagonerS. Readers' acquisition of the components of the text-lookback strategy. Journal of Educational Psychology. 76:1984;300-309.
19. Governor,D. (1999). Cognitive style and metacognition in web based instruction. UnpublishedM.A. Thesis, University of West Florida.
20. GurneyK. An introduction to neural networks. 1997;UCL Press, London.
21. Holmes J., Ramos R. Talking about learning: Establishing a framework for discussing and changing learning processes. James C., Garrett P. Language awareness in the classroom. 1991;Longman Group UK Limited, Harlow.
22. Jacobs J.E., Paris S.G. Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist. 22:1987;255-278.
23. Joe, S. G., & You, Y. L. (2001). Investigating the metacognitive awareness and strategies of English-majored university student writers. In Selected papers from the tenth international symposium on English teaching, Taiwan, ROC (pp. 106-119).
24. Jonassen D.H. Hypertext/hypermedia. 1989;Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
25. Jonassen D.H. Computer in classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. 1996;Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
26. Jonassen D., Wang S. Acquiring structural knowledge from semantically structured hypertext. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction. 20(1):1993;1-8.
27. Kern R., Warschauer M. Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. Warschauer M., Kern R. Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. 2000;Cambridge University Press, New York.
28. Lanham R.G. The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts. 1993;University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
29. Larsen R. Relationship of learning styles to the effectiveness and acceptance of interactive video instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction. 19(1):1992;17-21.
30. Lee, Y. B. (1992). Effects of learning style in a hypermedia instructional system. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348 008).
31. Liu H.C. Assessing learner strategies using computers: New insights and limitations. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 13(1):2000;65-78.
32. Liu, H. C. (2001). Incorporating computers into English classrooms: Curriculum design issues. In Selected papers from the tenth international symposium on English teaching, Taiwan, ROC (pp. 120-131).
33. Marchionini G. Hypermedia and learning: Freedom and chaos. Educational Technology. (November):1988;8-12.
34. Masters T. Practical neural network recipes in C. 1993;Morgan Kaufmann Publishing, San Francisco, CA.
35. Mullier, D. (1999). The application of neural network and fuzzy logic techniques to educational hypermedia. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Retrieved July 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.mullier.co.uk/thesis/thesis. html.
36. Mullier, D. (2000). Examining how users interact with hypermedia using a neural network. In Proceedings of the international conference on artificial intelligence (ICAI'00), Las Vegas, USA, June 2000. Retrieved July 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.lmu.ac.uk/ies/comp/staff/dmullier/icai.pdf.
37. O'Malley J.M., Chamot A.U. Learning strategies in second language acquisition. 1990;Cambridge University Press, New York.
38. Oxford R. Language learning strategies, What every teacher should know. 1990;Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Boston, MA.
39. Paolucci, R. (1998). Hypermedia and learning: The relationship of cognitive style and knowledge structure. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 98. [CD-ROM].
40. Peterson P.L., Swing S.R. Problems in classroom implementation of cognitive strategy instruction. Pressley M., Levin J.R. Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications. 1983;Springer-Berlag, New York.
41. Rasmussen, K., & Davidson, G. V. (1996). Dimensions of learning styles and their influence on performance in hypermedia lessons. In Proceedings from the annual ED-MEDIA/ED-TELECOM conference. [CD-ROM].
42. Restless Earth (1992) [computer program]. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.
43. Rubin J. Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. Wenden A., Rubin J. Learner strategies in language learning. 1987;Prentice-Hall, London.
44. Schraw G., Dennison R.S. Assessing metacognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 19:1994;460-475.
45. Snider R.C. The machine in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan. 74(4):1992;316-323.
46. Tsai C. Hypertext: Technology, applications, and research issues. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 17(1):1989;3-15.
47. Victori, M. (1995). EFL writing knowledge and strategies: In integrative study. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
48. Wenden A.L. Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics. 19(4):1998;515-537.
49. Yang N.D. The relationship between EFL learners' beliefs and learning strategy use. SYSTEM. 27:1999;515-535.
50. Yo, C. N. (2001). The effects of learning styles and web page structure on learning period of pendulum. In Proceedings of the 2001 Taiwan academic network conference, Part I (pp. 51-56).