學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

題名 THE ACCULTURATION PROCESS OF TAIWANESE EXCHANGE STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES
作者 李亞屏
Lee,Annie
貢獻者 別蓮蒂
李亞屏
Lee,Annie
關鍵詞 文化衝擊
赴美交換求學
台灣學生
日期 2005
上傳時間 14-九月-2009 09:52:01 (UTC+8)
摘要 新文化衝擊下的成長--台灣學生赴美交換求學經驗
The Acculturation Process and Influence of Taiwanese Exchange Students in the United States. Major Professor: Dr. Lienti Bei & Dr. Sharon A. DeVaney.
     
     With the increasing globalization of university education, the exchange programs among universities have become a hot topic that many students would be interested in. Every year thousands of exchange students from Taiwan select schools in the foreign countries, especial universities in the United States, as their exchange destination in order to learn foreign languages and to experience different cultures. Although the number of exchange students from Taiwan has been increasing annually, little research has investigated the acculturation process and reflections of exchange students in the host countries.
     The objectives of this research was to take a first step in exploring the impacts on Taiwan exchange students’ learning attitudes and socialization to the new culture that encountered during their study in the US. In addition, to understand the transition of students’ learning attitude and cross-culture adjustment that took place from their arrival in the United States to returning to their home countries. Therefore, three central questions was first generated to form the core of this study :1) What are the differences in class between the participants’ home universities and host universities? 2) What are the culture differences between the participants’ home country and host country? 3) How did the participants adjust themselves to fit into the different situations and how do they feel about the adjustment?
      The acculturation process and transition of exchange students’ learning attitude was examined here with a phenomengical and experimental research design. In order to understand thoroughly the exchange students’ learning and acculturation experiences in the US, this study arranged in-depth interviews with eight exchange student who had their exchange experiences in the US. Based on Hofestede’s four dimensions of culture and the differences between Socratic learning and Confucian learning, the study structured the research questions for the in-depth interviews. In addition, a questionnaire amended according to Hofestede’s four dimensions of culture was distributed to 26 former or prospective exchange students who selected for study at the universities in the US as a support data.
      Through the in-depth interviews and the analysis of questionnaire, the study found that interactions between professors and students in American classes are much higher than those in Taiwanese classes. This came from not only the differences of culture but also instructional arrangements of classes in American universities. The lower distance of American culture and the encouragement to the in class interaction did promote the exchange students’ participation in the US. In addition, given that the exchange students’ higher inclination and preferences to American or western culture and learning methods, they are more likely to have integrative or bicultural strategies to proceed their studies in the US.
     In sum, the study showed that exchange students rarely encounter problems of cultural adjustments, learning barriers or lack interpersonal communication that took place among students who pursue degrees in the US. Many of the exchange students maintained their original cultural identities and characteristics for expression in appropriate contests, such as collectivist relationship with classmates; however, they could also add a new behavioral repertoire to participate in American culture. Therefore, the study anticipates that exchange students integrated both the Confucian and the Socratic learning approaches and performed even better by American academic standards.
LIST OF FIGURES iv
     LIST OF TABLES v
     INTRODUCTION 1
     Statement of Purpose 3
     REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5
     Conceptual Development 5
     Culture Differences 7
     Power Distance 8
     Uncertainty Avoidance 9
     Individualism and Collectivism 10
     Masculinity and Femininity 11
     Learning Differences 11
     Summary 12
     METHODS AND PROCEDURES 13
     Characteristics of Qualitative Research 13
     Socially Constructed Knowledge Claims 14
     The Researcher’s Role 15
     The Research Setting 16
     Selection of Site 16
     Participants Recruiting Process 16
     Interview Process 17
     Ethical Considerations 18
     Data Collection Procedures 18
     Primary Data 18
     Secondary Data 19
     Qualitative Analysis 20
     Phenomenological Approach Design 20
     Constant Comparative Analysis 21
     FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 22
     An Overview of Participant’s Background 22
     Purpose of Exchange Study 25
     In Class and Living Experiences 30
     Power Distance 30
     In Class Interaction 30
     Uncertainty Avoidance 36
     In Class Interaction 36
     Trust in American Society 38
     Individualism and Collectivism 42
     In Class Interaction 42
     Friendship in the United States 45
     In Class Exercise & Developing the Team Project 47
     Masculinity and Femininity 51
     In Class Competition 53
     Sports is Important to Americans’ Life 56
     Adjustment to Fit in the Learning/ Culture Difference57
     
     SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 62
     Summary of Finding and Conclusions 62
     Implications 67
     Instructional Implications 68
     Academic Implications 69
     Limitations and Future Research 70
     
     LIST OF REFERENCES 74
     APPENDICES 79
     Appendix A: Consent Form for Exchange Students 79
     Appendix B: Structured Interview Questions 82
     Appendix C: In-Depth Interview Participant’s Data 84
     Appendix D: Exchange Report on the website 88
     Appendix E: Questionnaire Analysis 91
參考文獻 Atkins, A. (2000). The effects of uncertainty avoidance on interaction in the classroom. Retrieved Dec., 2005 from http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/Atkins%201.pdf
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology:Vol.3. Social behavior and applications (2nd ed., pp. 291-326). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Biggs, J. (1996). Western misperceptions of the Confucian heritage learning culture. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences (pp.45-67). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center/ Melbourne: Australian Council for Education Research.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brislin, R.W., Bochner, S., & Lonner, W.J. (1975). Cross-culture perspectives on learning. Beverley Hills, CA: Sagte Publications.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dahl, S. (2004). An overview of intercultural research. Retrived Nov. 15, 2004 from http://stephan.dahl.at/intercultural/Hofstede_dimensions.html.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research (p.2). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Review of literature. Research Design (p.31). CA: Sage.
Fetterman, D. M. (Ed.). (1988). Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: The silent scientific revolution (p.179). NY: Praeger.
Gao, G., & Toomey, S. (1998). Communicating effectively with the Chinese. CA: Sage.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Greenholz, J. (2003). Socratic teachers and Confucian learners: Examining the benefits and pitfalls of a year abroad. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3(2), 122-130.
Gallois, C., Barker, M., Jones, E., & Callan, V. J. (1992). Intercultural communication: Evaluations of lecturers and Australian and Chinese students. In S. Iwawaki, Y. Kashima & K. Leung (Eds.), Innovations in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 86-102). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press.
Hammond, S., & Gao, H. (2002). Pan Gu’s paradigm: Chinese education’s return to holistic communication in learning. In X. Lu, W. Jai & R. Heisey (Eds.), Chinese communication studies: Contests and comparisons (pp. 227-244). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Holmes, P. (2004). Negotiating differences in learning an intercultural communication: Ethnic Chinese students in a New Zealand university. Business Communication Quarterly, 67(3), 294-307.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Stage.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320.
Hofstede, G. (1990). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. Landon: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. Management Science, (pp.82-83)
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. CA: Stage.
Johansson, B., Marton, F., & Svensson, L. (1985). An approach to describing learning as change between qualitatively different conceptions. In A. L. Pines & L. H. T. West (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change. New York: Academic Press.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research (1st print). CA: Stage.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. SF: Jossey-Bass.
Pratt, D. (1992). Chinese conceptions of learning and teaching: A westerner’s attempt at understanding. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 11(4), 301-319.
Pratt, D. D., & Wong, K. M. (1999). Chinese conceptions of “ effective teaching” in Hong Kong: Toward culturally sensitive evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(4),241-258.
Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story. Higher Education Research and Development, 6, 121-143.
Sternberg, R. (1997). Thinking styles. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 100-101
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder. CO: Westview.
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (5), 1006-1020.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57, 89-99.
Watkins, D., & Bigg, J. (2001). Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/ Melbourne: Australian Council for Education Research.
REFERENCE IN CHINESE
劉鳳珍 (2004). 校園國際風,學位更加值 Cheers專刊, Nov.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
國際經營管理碩士班(IMBA)
90933013
94
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0909330132
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 別蓮蒂zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) 李亞屏zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Lee,Annieen_US
dc.creator (作者) 李亞屏zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Lee,Annieen_US
dc.date (日期) 2005en_US
dc.date.accessioned 14-九月-2009 09:52:01 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 14-九月-2009 09:52:01 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 14-九月-2009 09:52:01 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0909330132en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/31364-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國際經營管理碩士班(IMBA)zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 90933013zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 94zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 新文化衝擊下的成長--台灣學生赴美交換求學經驗zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The Acculturation Process and Influence of Taiwanese Exchange Students in the United States. Major Professor: Dr. Lienti Bei & Dr. Sharon A. DeVaney.
     
     With the increasing globalization of university education, the exchange programs among universities have become a hot topic that many students would be interested in. Every year thousands of exchange students from Taiwan select schools in the foreign countries, especial universities in the United States, as their exchange destination in order to learn foreign languages and to experience different cultures. Although the number of exchange students from Taiwan has been increasing annually, little research has investigated the acculturation process and reflections of exchange students in the host countries.
     The objectives of this research was to take a first step in exploring the impacts on Taiwan exchange students’ learning attitudes and socialization to the new culture that encountered during their study in the US. In addition, to understand the transition of students’ learning attitude and cross-culture adjustment that took place from their arrival in the United States to returning to their home countries. Therefore, three central questions was first generated to form the core of this study :1) What are the differences in class between the participants’ home universities and host universities? 2) What are the culture differences between the participants’ home country and host country? 3) How did the participants adjust themselves to fit into the different situations and how do they feel about the adjustment?
      The acculturation process and transition of exchange students’ learning attitude was examined here with a phenomengical and experimental research design. In order to understand thoroughly the exchange students’ learning and acculturation experiences in the US, this study arranged in-depth interviews with eight exchange student who had their exchange experiences in the US. Based on Hofestede’s four dimensions of culture and the differences between Socratic learning and Confucian learning, the study structured the research questions for the in-depth interviews. In addition, a questionnaire amended according to Hofestede’s four dimensions of culture was distributed to 26 former or prospective exchange students who selected for study at the universities in the US as a support data.
      Through the in-depth interviews and the analysis of questionnaire, the study found that interactions between professors and students in American classes are much higher than those in Taiwanese classes. This came from not only the differences of culture but also instructional arrangements of classes in American universities. The lower distance of American culture and the encouragement to the in class interaction did promote the exchange students’ participation in the US. In addition, given that the exchange students’ higher inclination and preferences to American or western culture and learning methods, they are more likely to have integrative or bicultural strategies to proceed their studies in the US.
     In sum, the study showed that exchange students rarely encounter problems of cultural adjustments, learning barriers or lack interpersonal communication that took place among students who pursue degrees in the US. Many of the exchange students maintained their original cultural identities and characteristics for expression in appropriate contests, such as collectivist relationship with classmates; however, they could also add a new behavioral repertoire to participate in American culture. Therefore, the study anticipates that exchange students integrated both the Confucian and the Socratic learning approaches and performed even better by American academic standards.
en_US
dc.description.abstract (摘要) LIST OF FIGURES iv
     LIST OF TABLES v
     INTRODUCTION 1
     Statement of Purpose 3
     REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5
     Conceptual Development 5
     Culture Differences 7
     Power Distance 8
     Uncertainty Avoidance 9
     Individualism and Collectivism 10
     Masculinity and Femininity 11
     Learning Differences 11
     Summary 12
     METHODS AND PROCEDURES 13
     Characteristics of Qualitative Research 13
     Socially Constructed Knowledge Claims 14
     The Researcher’s Role 15
     The Research Setting 16
     Selection of Site 16
     Participants Recruiting Process 16
     Interview Process 17
     Ethical Considerations 18
     Data Collection Procedures 18
     Primary Data 18
     Secondary Data 19
     Qualitative Analysis 20
     Phenomenological Approach Design 20
     Constant Comparative Analysis 21
     FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 22
     An Overview of Participant’s Background 22
     Purpose of Exchange Study 25
     In Class and Living Experiences 30
     Power Distance 30
     In Class Interaction 30
     Uncertainty Avoidance 36
     In Class Interaction 36
     Trust in American Society 38
     Individualism and Collectivism 42
     In Class Interaction 42
     Friendship in the United States 45
     In Class Exercise & Developing the Team Project 47
     Masculinity and Femininity 51
     In Class Competition 53
     Sports is Important to Americans’ Life 56
     Adjustment to Fit in the Learning/ Culture Difference57
     
     SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 62
     Summary of Finding and Conclusions 62
     Implications 67
     Instructional Implications 68
     Academic Implications 69
     Limitations and Future Research 70
     
     LIST OF REFERENCES 74
     APPENDICES 79
     Appendix A: Consent Form for Exchange Students 79
     Appendix B: Structured Interview Questions 82
     Appendix C: In-Depth Interview Participant’s Data 84
     Appendix D: Exchange Report on the website 88
     Appendix E: Questionnaire Analysis 91
-
dc.description.tableofcontents LIST OF FIGURES iv
     LIST OF TABLES v
     INTRODUCTION 1
      Statement of Purpose 3
     REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5
      Conceptual Development 5
      Culture Differences 7
      Power Distance 8
      Uncertainty Avoidance 9
      Individualism and Collectivism 10
      Masculinity and Femininity 11
      Learning Differences 11
      Summary 12
     METHODS AND PROCEDURES 13
      Characteristics of Qualitative Research 13
      Socially Constructed Knowledge Claims 14
      The Researcher’s Role 15
      The Research Setting 16
      Selection of Site 16
      Participants Recruiting Process 16
      Interview Process 17
      Ethical Considerations 18
      Data Collection Procedures 18
      Primary Data 18
      Secondary Data 19
      Qualitative Analysis 20
      Phenomenological Approach Design 20
      Constant Comparative Analysis 21
     FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 22
     An Overview of Participant’s Background 22
      Purpose of Exchange Study 25
      In Class and Living Experiences 30
      Power Distance 30
      In Class Interaction 30
      Uncertainty Avoidance 36
      In Class Interaction 36
      Trust in American Society 38
      Individualism and Collectivism 42
      In Class Interaction 42
      Friendship in the United States 45
      In Class Exercise & Developing the Team Project 47
      Masculinity and Femininity 51
      In Class Competition 53
      Sports is Important to Americans’ Life 56
     Adjustment to Fit in the Learning/ Culture Difference57
     
     SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 62
      Summary of Finding and Conclusions 62
      Implications 67
      Instructional Implications 68
      Academic Implications 69
      Limitations and Future Research 70
     
     LIST OF REFERENCES 74
     APPENDICES 79
     Appendix A: Consent Form for Exchange Students 79
     Appendix B: Structured Interview Questions 82
     Appendix C: In-Depth Interview Participant’s Data 84
     Appendix D: Exchange Report on the website 88
     Appendix E: Questionnaire Analysis 91
zh_TW
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0909330132en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 文化衝擊zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 赴美交換求學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 台灣學生zh_TW
dc.title (題名) THE ACCULTURATION PROCESS OF TAIWANESE EXCHANGE STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATESzh_TW
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Atkins, A. (2000). The effects of uncertainty avoidance on interaction in the classroom. Retrieved Dec., 2005 from http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/Atkins%201.pdfzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology:Vol.3. Social behavior and applications (2nd ed., pp. 291-326). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Biggs, J. (1996). Western misperceptions of the Confucian heritage learning culture. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences (pp.45-67). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center/ Melbourne: Australian Council for Education Research.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brislin, R.W., Bochner, S., & Lonner, W.J. (1975). Cross-culture perspectives on learning. Beverley Hills, CA: Sagte Publications.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dahl, S. (2004). An overview of intercultural research. Retrived Nov. 15, 2004 from http://stephan.dahl.at/intercultural/Hofstede_dimensions.html.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research (p.2). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Creswell, J. W. (2003). Review of literature. Research Design (p.31). CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fetterman, D. M. (Ed.). (1988). Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: The silent scientific revolution (p.179). NY: Praeger.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gao, G., & Toomey, S. (1998). Communicating effectively with the Chinese. CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Greenholz, J. (2003). Socratic teachers and Confucian learners: Examining the benefits and pitfalls of a year abroad. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3(2), 122-130.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gallois, C., Barker, M., Jones, E., & Callan, V. J. (1992). Intercultural communication: Evaluations of lecturers and Australian and Chinese students. In S. Iwawaki, Y. Kashima & K. Leung (Eds.), Innovations in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 86-102). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hammond, S., & Gao, H. (2002). Pan Gu’s paradigm: Chinese education’s return to holistic communication in learning. In X. Lu, W. Jai & R. Heisey (Eds.), Chinese communication studies: Contests and comparisons (pp. 227-244). Westport, CT: Ablex.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Holmes, P. (2004). Negotiating differences in learning an intercultural communication: Ethnic Chinese students in a New Zealand university. Business Communication Quarterly, 67(3), 294-307.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Stage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hofstede, G. (1990). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. Landon: McGraw-Hill.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. Management Science, (pp.82-83)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. CA: Stage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Johansson, B., Marton, F., & Svensson, L. (1985). An approach to describing learning as change between qualitatively different conceptions. In A. L. Pines & L. H. T. West (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change. New York: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research (1st print). CA: Stage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. SF: Jossey-Bass.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pratt, D. (1992). Chinese conceptions of learning and teaching: A westerner’s attempt at understanding. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 11(4), 301-319.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pratt, D. D., & Wong, K. M. (1999). Chinese conceptions of “ effective teaching” in Hong Kong: Toward culturally sensitive evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(4),241-258.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story. Higher Education Research and Development, 6, 121-143.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Sternberg, R. (1997). Thinking styles. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 100-101zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder. CO: Westview.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (5), 1006-1020.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57, 89-99.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Watkins, D., & Bigg, J. (2001). Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/ Melbourne: Australian Council for Education Research.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) REFERENCE IN CHINESEzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉鳳珍 (2004). 校園國際風,學位更加值 Cheers專刊, Nov.zh_TW