Thesis--PlanB (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M. Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 187-212).

Thesis (M.S.W.)--University of Hong Kong, 1983.

Thesis (M. Ed.)--University of Hong Kong, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 106-120).

This study investigated the experiences of university-level ESL students engaged in classroom group projects. Using the lens of Activity Theory (Engeström, 1987, 2001; Leont’ev, 1976) I attempted to discover how students’ expectations and goals concerning small group work were enacted in their group interaction and participation. I conducted a qualitative case study of one class of nine students in a university-level English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Advanced Listening and Speaking class. I observed all classes during a 3-month instructional term, recording students’ small group work. In addition, I conducted interviews with 4 focal student participants and their instructor. I investigated students’ goals and expectations for group work, as well as the dynamic interplay between these factors and the local context as it unfolded in the work and interaction of each group. I also investigated the sources, effects, and interconnections of contradictions that emerged within and between activity systems in which the students engaged. An analysis of students’ interaction and self reports indicated that students’ expectations about the objectives, partners, distribution of tasks, and suitability of artifacts for each group task influenced their task-related and social goals for group activity. As the groups worked, contradictions within current activity systems and between current and past activity systems emerged. These contradictions necessitated the formation of new goals and activities, thereby promoting or limiting opportunities for interaction. Creative forms of L2 interaction, including negotiation, joking, teasing, and discussions of language form, emerged in response to contradictions. However, other contradictions involving the division of labor within the group promoted conflict or constrained interaction. / text

Research has shown that worked examples are superior to problem solving in many domains, particularly for novices. However, most research has only been conducted in individualised learning environments, despite a large body of literature indicating that learning can be effective in groups. This experiment aimed to engage students in a group work activity using worked examples or problems in geometry learning and compared the effect of the two approaches on numeric and reasoning abilities using both near and far transfer tests. Whether learning in a group work setting is beneficial compared with individual setting was also examined. One hundred and one Year 7 students were randomly allocated into four experimental groups: (I) problem solving in an individual setting; (2) worked examples in an individual setting; (3) problem solving during group work; (4) worked examples during group work. Each group received three consecutive instructional learning phases: worked example study, group work skill induction and an acquisition stage. Numeric and reasoning abilities of all groups using both near and far transfer tests were measured and analysed by 2 x 2 MANOVAs. A questionnaire was distributed to obtain information on students' interaction intensity and their impression of the learning activities. The results indicated a significant superiority of the worked example approach in both the individual and group work setting for numeric and reasoning abilities and most students stated that they preferred this study approach. The questionnaire data on interaction intensity revealed that the worked example condition fostered interaction between participants as much as the problem solving condition, nevertheless, a possible interaction effect was found favouring the group work condition under worked example conditions. This experiment adds evidence on the benefits of a worked example approach but does not suggest group work is advantageous. The group work effects are discussed using a cognitive load theory perspective.

Thesis (D. Min.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1988. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 303-307).

Treatise (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2007. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Project (M.A.R.)--Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 18-19).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Melbourne, Dept. of linguistics and Applied Linguistics, 2001. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references.