Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Scaffolding learning motivation through a virtual peer. 指導教授： Chen, Ming-puu 報 告 者： Chen, Hsin-Ju 報告日期： 2007. 03. 03.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
報 告 者：Chen, Hsin-Ju
報告日期：2007. 03. 03
Kim, Y., Hamilton, R. E., Zheng, J., & Baylor, L. A. (2006). Scaffolding learning motivation through a virtual peer. International conference on learning sciences. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences, Bloomington, Indiana.
(1) The competency and interaction type of a VP
(2) The gender and emotional expression of a VP
(3) The gender and emotional response of a VP
Competency (high vs. low)
– high: the VP simulated an advanced peer and provided accurate information about instructional planning.
– low: the VP simulated a regular peer and suggested his own ideas, not necessarily accurate.
Interaction (proactive vs. responsive)
–proactive: provide information or ideas without the learner’s request.
–responsive: provide information or ideas only in response to the learner’s request.
– The guideline emphasizes that self-efficacy is the degree to which one feels capable of performing a particular task at certain designated levels.
– Before and after the intervention, participants answered the question "How sure are you that you can write a lesson plan?" on a scale ranging from 1 (Not at all sure) to 5 (Extremely sure)
VP emotional expression was one of three conditions: positive, negative, and neutral.
-The direction of self-efficacy is best captured by “I can vs. I can’t” (Weiner, 1992) or “How sure are you ?”(Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Pajares, 1996). The five items, scaled from 1 (Strongly disagree) through 5 (Strongly agree), Ask:
-Anderson and Bourke (2000) suggested that the range of interest is best expressed on the scale of “interested/disinterested.” In response to the suggestion, a questionnaire consisting of five items was developed, with a scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree
-The same self-efficacy and interest measures in Study II were used consistently.