英語電子郵件交換對高中生寫作之影響｜國立清華大學博碩士論文庫

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	呂冠瑩 Kuan-Ying Lu
論文名稱：	英語電子郵件交換對高中生寫作之影響 Effect of E-mail Exchanges on EFL Senior High School Students' Writing
指導教授：	劉顯親 Hsien-Chin Liou
口試委員:
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 外國語文學系 Foreign Languages and Literature
論文出版年：	2003
畢業學年度：	91
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	105
中文關鍵詞：	電子郵件、第二外語寫作、高中生
外文關鍵詞：	Electronic mail, EFL Writing, Senior high school students, ESL Composition Profile, T-unit analyses
相關次數：	點閱：3 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

隨著網路科技的進步，電子郵件已成為語言教學界新寵，並被視為一有效的溝通媒介，因此廣泛地為教師及研究者所採用。過去的研究中指出，交換電子郵件對學生的英語寫作能力有所裨益，但極少數提出事實佐證；此外，過去實驗對象多為大學生，其結果難以推及其他年齡層次的語言學習者。因此，本研究旨在探索電子郵件對高中學生英語寫作能力之影響，並援以實例加以佐證。
在本實驗中，28位北市某高中學生隨機與大學外語系所學生配對，自2002年9月至12月，每對於14週中各交換8次英語電子郵件，郵件依據每週研究者所提供的題目撰寫。除電子郵件外，本研究資料來源亦含期初與期末的課堂寫作各一，及期初與期末的問卷調查。為研究電子郵件對學生寫作的影響，高中學生的第二及第八封電子郵件和兩篇期初與期末課堂寫作，皆以ESL Composition Profile及T-unit analyses加以評分與分析，並以t-檢定檢驗是否達顯著差異。

結果顯示，以電子郵件作為寫作訓練之主要途徑，可以促進高中學生的寫作能力，尤其當寫作情境於課堂中時，學生的寫作在內容、組織、文法、句型複雜度及總分皆有顯著進步，唯一退步之處在於總長度。而其電子郵件寫作則在內容、組織、文法及拼字、大小寫等方面有小幅度的成長。此外，由問卷結果得知，高中學生對電郵交換活動及其影響持正面看法，在活動過後，學生對英語寫作的信心稍增、焦慮稍減；與高中生相較，大學生則顯示出較低的活動參與興趣，不過，同時也表示電郵交換增進了其部分寫作能力。

以上研究結果證明電子郵件可促進高中學生寫作能力，但為使電郵交換活動的進行更加順利，建議教師可於活動前與進行中採取數點措施，如：為不熟悉電腦與電郵的學生進行活動前教學、為學生選擇適合的筆友、及早列出活動時間表、留下教師聯絡方式、與對方教師保持良好聯繫、提醒學生使用E-mail politeness rules等，此外，雖然學者們對於是否應為每週電郵寫作設定題目意見不一，依本實驗結果看來，題目設定仍有其必要性，但可配合以彈性條件，如每週給予一個以上的題目，或活動中空出幾週不設題目，讓學生有更多空間。

對於未來相關研究，本實驗提供五項建議：一、除對寫作的影響外，電子郵件對其他語言學習面向的影響應再加以探討；二、筆友間的鷹架式學習支援(scaffolding)應可加以深究；三、可將交換電子郵件與其他活動融合，以增進雙方溝通的動機；四、應將學習者個人因素，如：不同學習策略納入考量，探討何類型的學習者較適合施以電郵交換活動；五、為更全面了解電郵或其他活動對學習者的影響，未來研究應同時於問卷及學生實際表現中收集資料，以免產生誤差。

Abstract
With the rise of Internet technology, e-mail exchange has become a popular pedagogical task and is regarded as one of the efficient communicative means, and thus adopted by lots of language instructors and researchers. Many studies mentioned the possible effect of e-mail exchanges on students’ writing skills, but rare support was provided by empirical investigation. Further, the findings from most previous studies could only be generalized in the college context. Therefore, this study was conducted to provide evidence for the effectiveness of e-mail exchanges on writing of EFL senior high school students through empirical textual analyses.

In the present study, 28 senior high school students were paired randomly with a group of college English majors. From September to December 2002, the 14 dyads exchanged weekly e-mail based on assigned topics for 8 times in a 14-week period. Besides e-mail writing, pre- and post-project in-class compositions were collected. To investigate the writing development in senior high school students’ e-mail and in-class writing, two types of measurements were used to analyze students’ 2nd and 8th e-mail entries, and the two in-class compositions. The revised ESL Composition Profile (Jacobs, et al, 1981) analyzed students’ writing in content (30%), organization (20%), vocabulary (20%), language use (20%), and mechanics (10%). The t-unit analyses (Hunt, 1965) analyzed the writing data in terms of length, accuracy, and syntactic complexity. T-tests were used to compare the mean scores in each subcategory. In addition, to investigate the background information of the subjects, and whether both of the less capable learners, the senior high school students, and the more capable learner, the college English majors, felt positive about the e-mail exchanges project, a Background and an Evaluation Questionnaires were used on both groups before and after the project.

The results showed that e-mail exchanges as a main component of writing training facilitated senior high school students’ overall writing ability, especially in the in-class writing context. Students’ in-class writing progressed obviously in total grades, content, organization, language use, and syntactic complexity, while the decrease only occurred in the total length by words. And their e-mail writing performance was also slightly enhanced in content, organization, language use, and mechanics. Furthermore, the senior high school students felt positively toward the project and the effects on their in-class writing ability. They also showed slightly more self-confidence in their own writing ability and less writing apprehension after the project. As for the college key pals, although they were less interested in the e-mail project than the senior high school students did, they perceived some positive effects of the e-mail exchanges project.

According to our study, the instructors are recommended to take some steps in advance to make an e-mail project more efficiently. For example, holding a training session for students who are not familiar with computer and e-mail, selecting appropriate key pals for students, manifesting the schedule in advance, leaving the e-mail address of the instructor/researcher for the students, and keeping connection with the instructor of the key pals. Besides, to prevent writing block, it was suggested to survey students’ favorite topics, and then provide more than one topic for e-mail writing every week, or the instructor could leave some weeks for students to select their topics freely.

For future studies, four suggestions are provided. First, effects of e-mail beyond the writing skill should be investigated. Second, the effect of scaffolding can be analyzed further. Third, an e-mail project can be incorporated with some other tasks to increase subjects’ motivation. Fourth, the connection between individual learner variables like learning strategies and the preference of e-mail exchanges should be emphasized. At last, to link students’ actual performance and their perceived improvement, future studies were suggested to collect data from both the self-report questionnaires and students’ actual performance.

Table Of Contents
PAGE

摘要…………………………………………………………………………………….i

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………..iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………..…vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS……….….…………………………………………...……vii

LIST OF TABLES……………………..……………………………………………..ix

CHAPTER Ⅰ  INTRODUCTION………………………………………………….1

CHAPTER Ⅱ  LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………...3

2.1 Theoretical Background of Using E-mail in FL Writing Courses……………...3

2.1.1 Collaborative learning…………………………………………………….3

2.1.2 Scaffolding………………………………………………………………..4

2.1.3 Lessening writing apprehension…………………………………………..5

2.2 Empirical studies conducted in Taiwan…………………………………………6

2.3 Empirical studies conducted abroad…………………………………………...16

2.4 Summary of pitfalls of e-mail projects from previous studies………………...28

2.5 Research questions…………………………………………………………….29

CHAPTER Ⅲ  RESEARCH METHOD………………………………………..…31

3.1 Subjects………………………………………………………………………..31

3.2 Instruments…………………………………………………………………….32

3.3 Procedures……………………………………………………………………..34

3.4 Data analysis…………………………………………………………………..36

CHAPTER Ⅳ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………….39

4.1 Methods of text analysis……………………………………………………….40

4.2 E-mail entries from the HS………………………………………………….…43

4.2.1 Grades of the Revised ESL Composition Profile…………………….…...43

4.2.2 Results of T-unit Analyses…………………………………………….….44

4.2.3 Discussion on the findings in the e-mail entries…………………………..46

4.3 In-class compositions from the HS……………………………………………49

4.3.1 Grades of the Revised ESL Composition Profile……………………....…49

4.3.2 Results of T-unit Analyses……………………………………………..…50

4.3.3 Discussion on the findings in the pre- and post-project in-class compositions…………………………………………………………….…51

4.4 Students’ attitudes toward e-mail exchanges and the effects……………….…53

4.4.1 The responses of the HS………………………………………………..…53

a. Background information of the HS……………………………………....53

b. Attitudes toward the e-mail exchanges project………………………..…55

c. Perceived effects on in-class writing……………………………………..57

d. Perceived effects on general English writing apprehension….…………..58

e. Perceived effects on computer use……………………………………….59

4.4.2 The responses of the CS……………………………………………….….60

a. Background information of the CS………………………………………60

b. Attitudes toward the e-mail exchanges project………………………..…60

c. Perceived effects on writing in the Composition Class……………..…...62

4.4.3 Comparison between two groups’ results………………………………...63

4.5 General Discussion………………………………………………………….....65

CHAPTER Ⅴ CONCLUSION……………………………………………………..68

5.1 Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………………...68

5.2 Limitations…………………………………………………………………….71

5.3 Suggestions for Future Studies………………………………………………..72

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………….74

APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………….…79

Appendix A  Background Questionnaire for HS……………..…………………..80

Appendix B  Background Questionnaire for CS………………………………....82

Appendix C  Evaluation Questionnaire for HS…………………………………..83

Appendix D  Evaluation Questionnaire for CS…………………………………..86

Appendix E  Introductory Handout for HS………………………..……………..88

Appendix F  Prompts for E-mail Writing……………………………………...…90

Appendix G  Revised ESL Composition Profile……………………………...….92

Appendix H  Guidelines for T-units, Clauses, Word Counts and Errors..…….…94

Appendix I  A Sample of E-mail Entries of HS……………………………….…96

Appendix J  A Sample of In-class Compositions of HS…………………………97

Appendix K  Results of the Background Questionnaire for HS………………….98

Appendix L  Results of the Background Questionnaire for CS……………..….100

Appendix M  Results of the Evaluation Questionnaire for HS………………....101

Appendix N  Results of the Evaluation Questionnaire for CS……………….....104

List of Tables

PAGE

Table 2.1  Empirical studies conducted in Taiwan…………………………………...8

Table 2.2  Empirical studies conducted abroad……………………………………..26

Table 3.1  Schedule of The Research Project……………………………………….36

Table 4.1  Scheme of Data Collection………………………………………………40

Table 4.2  Error Categorization……………………………………………………..42

Table 4.3  Comparison of The 2nd and 8th Weekly E-mail Entries (Revised ESL Composition Profile)…………………………………………………...44

Table 4.4  Comparison of The 2nd and 8th E-mail Entries (T-unit Analyses)……….45

Table 4.5  Scheme of Discussion……………………………………………………46

Table 4.6  Comparison of Pre- and Post-project Compositions (Revised ESL Composition Profile)……………..………………………………….…49

Table 4.7  Comparison of Pre- and Post-project Compositions (T-unit Analyses)…50

Table 4.8  The Initial Time of Learning English (HS)……………………………...53

Table 4.9  The Most Frequent Tasks Done in Previous English Learning Experiences (HS)………………………………………………………………….…54

Table 4.10  Attitudes Toward The E-mail Exchanges Project (HS)…...……………56

Table 4.11  Perceived Effects of E-mail Exchanges on In-class Writing (HS)……..57

Table 4.12  Attitudes Toward General Writing Apprehension (HS)………………..59

Table 4.13  Attitudes Toward Computer Usage (HS)……………………………….59

Table 4.14  Background Information of The CS……………………………………60

Table 4.15  Attitudes Toward The E-mail Exchanges Project (CS)……………...…62

Table 4.16  Perceived Effects of E-mail Exchanges on Writing (CS)………………63

References
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 290-395.
Barson, J., Frommer, J., Schwartz, M. (1993). Foreign language learning using e-mail in a task-oriented perspective: Interuniversity experiments in communication and collaboration. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(4), 565-584.
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. & Weasenforth, D. (2001). E-mail and word processing in the ESL classroom: How the medium affects the message. Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 135-165. Retrieved April, 6, 2002, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/weasenforth/default.html
Biesenbach-Lucas, S., Meloni, C., and Weasenforth, D. (2000). Use of cohesive features in ESL students’ e-mail and word-processed texts: A comparative study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(3), 1-17.
Bloch, J. (2002). Student/teacher interaction via email: the social context of Internet discourse. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 117-134.
Casanave, C. P. (1994). Language development in students’ journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 179-201.
Chang, Y. L. (1988). Pen pal letter activity in writing instruction for college students and high school students. Papers from the Fifth Conference on English Language Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, p. 193-209. Taipei: Crane.
Chang, Y. L. (1992). Contact of the three dimensions of language and culture: Methods and perspectives of an e-mail writing program. Papers from the Eighth Conference on English Language Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, p. 541-562. Taipei: Crane.
Chapelle, C., Jamieson, J., and Park, Y. (1996). Second language classroom research traditions: How does CALL fit? In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 33-52). TX: Athelstan.
Chen, B. C., Kao, S. C., Shih, K. L., & Li, Y. T. (1997). The application of Internet on English writing. The Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on English Teaching, p.80-105. Taipei: Crane.
Cheng, L. J. & Tsai, M. T. (2002). The use of cross-curricula e-mail exchanges to promote English writing in a technology college context. The Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Multimedia Language Education, p.137-150. Taipei: Crane.
Chiu, M. H. (1998). Increasing interactions via electronic mail. The Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching, p.339-348. Taipei: Crane.
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 17-31.
Daiker, D. A., Kerek, A., & Morenberg, M. (1994). The writer’s options. NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 242-249.
Daly, J. A. (1985). Writing apprehension. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can’t write. New York.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative Learning (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). (1999). Collaborative Learning. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
De Guerrero, M. C. M. and Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, p. 51-68.
Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 55-85.
Fedderholdt, K. (2001). An email exchange project between non-native speakers of English. ELT Journal, 55, 273-280.
Fowler, B., & Ross, D. (1982). The comparative validities of differential placement measures for college composing courses. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 1107-1115.
Fuchs, M., & Bonner, M. (2001). Grammar express. NY: White Plains.
Gaies, S. J. (1980). T-unit analysis in second language research: Application, problems and limitations. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 53-59.
Gains, J. (1999). Electronic mail-a new style of communication or just a new medium? An investigation into the text features of e-mail. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 81-101.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational Research. NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Gonzalez-Bueno, M. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse. Language Learning and Technology, 1(2), 55-70. Retrieved March, 15, 2002, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/article3/default.html
Gonzalez-Bueno, M. & Perez, L. C. (2000). Electronic mail in foreign language writing: A study of grammatical and lexical accuracy, and quality of language. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 189-198.
Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative e-mail exchange for teaching secondary ESL: A case study in Hong Kong. Language Learning and Technology, 7(1), 46-70. Retrieved March, 10, 2003, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/greenfield/default.html
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transivity and theme in English, part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199-244.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. NY: Longman.
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The Research Manual. NY: Newbury House Publishers.
Ho, C. M. L. (2000). Developing intercultural awareness and writing skills through email exchange. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(12). Retrieved April, 6, 2002, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ho-Email.html
Howard, J. (1991). Grammar and meaning: A semantic approach to English grammar. London: Longman.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (Research report No. 3). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Jogan, M. K., Heredia, H. A., & Aguilera, M. G. (2001). Cross-cultural e-mail: providing cultural input for the advanced foreign language student. Foreign Language Annual, 34, 341-346.
Kern, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchanges to explore personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in Foreign Language Learning: Proceedings of the Hawaii symposium. (Technical Report #12), 105-119. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Kroonenberg, N. (1994/1995). Developing communicative and thinking skills via electronic mail. TESOL Journal, 24-27.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
Lee-Chen, H. P. (2001). Enhancing English communicative and writing ability via international e-mail interaction. Unpublished MATESL thesis, Providence University, Taichung.
Li, Y. L. (2000), Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail activities. System, 28, 229-245.
Liang, T. L. (1996). Cooperative learning on the Internet: The intercultural e-mail classroom connection. The Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on English Teaching, p.233-242. Taipei: Crane.
Liao, C. C. (1998). Writing for intercultural understanding emailing between Ireland and Taiwan. The Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Multimedia Language Education, p.183-195. Taipei: Crane.
Liao, C. C. (1999). Theory and practice of interactive emailing politeness: Teaching non-English majors to write English email to EFL international key pals. The Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multimedia Language Education, p.162-173. Taipei: Crane.
Liao, C. C. (2000). Intercultural emailing. Taipei: Crane.
Liao, C. C. (2001). English email discourse analysis: Taiwan versus Czech students. The Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Multimedia Language Education, p.290-298. Taipei: Crane.
Liaw, M. L. (1996). Communication strategies used by freshman English students in e-mail writing. The Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on English Teaching, p.211-221. Taipei: Crane.
Liaw, M. L (1998). Using electronic mail for English as a foreign language instruction. System, 26, 335-351.
Liaw, M. L., & Johnson, R. J. (2001). E-mail writing as a cross-cultural learning experience. System, 29, 235-251.
Liaw, M. L. (2002). The effectiveness of using cross-cultural Internet activities to enhance EFL learning at the elementary school level. Taipei: Crane.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. NY: Guilford Press.
Lin, S. E., Huang, T. S., Lin, C. Y., & Chen, K. T. (1994). Prompting and grading of the English composition in JCEE. Papers from the Tenth Conference on English Language Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, p. 577-609. Taipei: Crane.
Nunan, D. (Ed.). (1992). Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge.
Ohta, A. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 93-121.
Olsher, D. (1996). Words in motion. NY: Oxford University Press.
Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 101-143.
Reeves, L. (1997). Minimizing writing apprehension in the learner-centered classroom. English Journal, 86, p38-45.
Sakar, A. (2001). The cross-cultural effects of electronic mail exchange on the Turkish university students of English as a foreign language. CALL-EJ Online, 3(1). Retrieved March, 15, 2002, from http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callejonline/6-1/sakar.html
Shuy, W. R. (1988). Sentence level language functions. In J. Staton, R. W. Shuy, J. K. Peyton, & L. Reed (Eds.), Dialogue journal communication: Classroom, linguistic, social and cognitive views (pp. 33-55). Norwood: Ablex.
Soh, B. L., and Soon, Y. P. (1991). English by e-mail: creating a global classroom via the medium of computer technology. ELT Journal, 45, 287-292.
Stockwell, G., and Harrington, M. (2003). The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-NNS email interaction. CALICO Journal, 20, 337-359.
Stockwell, G, and Levy, M. (2001). Sustainability of e-mail interactions between native speakers and nonnative speakers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14, 419-442.
Sun, Y. C. (1998). Selected teacher variables and student choice of e-mail writing strategies. The Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching, p.779-790. Taipei: Crane.
Sun, Y. C. (1999). Writing proficiency and e-mail writing strategies. The Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multimedia Language Education, p.204-215. Taipei: Crane.
The Internet TESL Journal, Conversation Questions for The ESL/EFL Classroom. (1997-2002). Retrieved May 10, 2002, from http://iteslj.org/questions/
Tseng, J. J. (1999). Cross-cultural exchange for junior high students in Taiwan: A case study. The Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching, p.539-548. Taipei: Crane.
Ushioda, E. (2000), Tandem language learning via e-mail: from motivation to autonomy. ReCALL, 12(2), 121-128.
Van Handle, D. C., and Corl, K. A. (1998). Extending the dialogue: Using electronic mail and the Internet to promote conversation and writing in intermediate level German language courses. CALICO Journal, 15, 129-143.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1996a). Telecollaboration in Foreign Language Learning: Proceedings of the Hawaii symposium. (Technical Report #12). Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Warschauer, M. (1996b). The Internet for English teaching: What, why, and how. The Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching, p.223-231. Taipei: Crane.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 470-481.
Warschauer, M. (1998). Research technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumental, and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 757-762.
Weil, B. H. & Lane, J. C. (1956). Psychological barrier to writing. Chemical and Engineering News, p. 6244-6248.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Technical Report 17). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (國家圖書館：臺灣博碩士論文系統)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文