網路科學探究的合作學習：小組認同與共同作者的決定歷程

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：31

、訪客IP：3.133.86.172

姓名

楊馥祤(Fu-yu Yang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

網路科學探究的合作學習：小組認同與共同作者的決定歷程
(A web-based Collaborative science inquiry: group identity reflected in the decision-making process of co-authorship)

相關論文

★ 網路學習社群中的潛水現象：一種被忽略的充分參與	★ 網路學習社群中的共構面貌：以迷思概念為探針
★ 敘說一位研究型大學教師之自我座落	★ 敘說實習教師之教師認同
★ 情意鷹架者的實踐知識－以 LAIN 網路學習社群為例	★ 全控機構的學習－從實踐社群的觀點看海軍義務役男
★ 工科研究生的學習樣貌—一個情境學習的觀點	★ 從學習者成為鷹架者──社群觀點探看身分轉變的學習
★ 應用搭配字學習工具於網路瀏覽以提升英語學習者對搭配字之察覺能力	★ 節能減碳實踐中教師和行政的矛盾－活動理論觀點
★ 線上小組推進探究的關鍵時刻	★ 以行動者網絡理論探討國小教師在數位閱讀寫作推動初期的困境
★ 數學擬題活動的合作效果─五年級學童之經驗	★ 看見機動教師-國小校園內的新角色
★ 一對一數位教室的另類學習:設計與湧現的觀點	★ 我的師傅們不教英文：一位國中英語教師在跨領域社群中的學習

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

本研究源自一個匯聚各地中學生參與的網路科學探究的合作學習，在每週與組員討論任務的互動過程中，從彼此完全陌生，到逐漸關切組員是否重視小組而展現行動力的歷程。利用訪談稿和討論區資料做言談分析，同時採用實踐社群和社型理論為探照鏡，揭露參與心和實踐力落差下的兩類組員，守家者和斷續參與者，如何各取所需的結合，使雙方願意持續上線學習；又怎麼透過對話協商，取得合作時的共識和默契；最後一週共同作者敲定前的喊價拉鋸，組員們對彼此的向心力和貢獻度下註解的歷程，反映了什麼樣的權力議題和價值觀？組員在具化小組認同感時，如何對共同作者資格進行意義賦予，例如學習到作為一名關切小組的組員，究竟該在意什麼，做到什麼，才夠資格成為共同作者？從中捕捉湧現的小組認同樣貌。

摘要(英)

This study is a web-based collaborative science inquiry which clustered with the high school students to participate in. In their interactive process of every week which discussed their task, group members from completely unfamiliar with each other, to gradually concern about if their members respect their group and show their actions. Using of the data from interview and discussion forum to do discourse analysis, and also the theories of community of practice and sociation as the searchlight, to explores how the two kinds of members, proactive and ins and outs who have different contributions takes what he needs to enable both sides to continue online learning, and how, through dialogue and negotiation to collaborate and achieve their common consensus; before the decision-making process of co-authorship in the end of the activity, the bids between the two kinds of person reflected what kinds of power issues and values? How the group members given meaning for the qualification of co-authorship. For instance, being a member who attach importance to his group, what he should concern of in order to qualified as the co-author. Thus enable the researcher to capture of the group identity from inside.

關鍵字(中)

★ 協商
★ 共同作者
★ 合作學習小組認同
★ 網路科學探究

關鍵字(英)

★ Collaborative learni
★ A web-based science inquiry

論文目次

中文提要………………………………………………………………………………………i
英文提要…………………………………………………………………………………………ii
誌謝………………………………………………………………………………………iii
目錄………………………………………………………………………………………iv
圖目錄……………………………………………………………………………………vii
表目錄……………………………………………………………………………………viii
一、緒論 1
1-1 楔子—去、留抉擇間的學習 1
1-2 研究動機 2
二、文獻探究 3
2-1 小組認同的重要文獻 3
2-1-1 正向的小組認同意義 4
2-1-2 網路中小組認同的發展條件 5
2-1-3 衝突協商後的小組認同 7
2-2 實踐社群（COP）觀點探看學習脈絡下的小組認同 8
2-2-1 參與與具化形塑小組認同 9
2-2-2 小組認同反映學員學習航道的調節 10
2-2-3 身分認定與協商能力 11
2-2-4 權力 13
2-2-5 小結--概念應用之視野框架 13
2-3 小組認同研究方法的比較 14
2-3-1 對話情境的捕捉 14
2-3-2 差異下的分類 16
2-4 方法的定錨—言談分析 18
2-5 研究關切與研究問題 23
三、研究方法 25
3-1 研究架構 25
3-2 研究田野初觀 28
3-2-1 學習活動介紹 28
3-2-2 活動參與者 29
3-2-3 活動內容與流程 29
3-2-4 LAIN網路學習社群配置 30
3-3 研究者的位置 34
3-4 研究對象 35
3-4-1 參與者 35
3-4-2 學輔 36
3-5 資料收集 37
3-5-1 網路田野資料記錄 37
3-5-2 訪談稿 38
3-5-3 田野觀察筆記 40
3-5-4 與學員的網路通訊 40
3-6 資料分析 41
3-6-1 分析程序 41
3-6-2 分析方法 41
四、結果 55
4-1 小組參與的基本特徵 55
4-1-1 學員六週的參與形態 55
4-1-2 組間與組內的文章發表落差 57
4-2 參與心和實踐力的鴻溝 59
4-2-1 參與心不足以成就實踐力 59
4-2-2 從發表數量與文章類別看組員參與 61
4-2-3 參與者的三種展演樣貌 62
4-2-4 組員間的相互瞧看 70
4-3 組員間的結合形式 71
4-3-1 組員的相互牽引 71
4-3-2 靜默協商的參與模式 77
4-3-3 網路環境下的相互期待 79
4-3-4 參與凝結的具化物 85
4-4 共同作者的形成機制 86
4-4-1 共同作者的協商樣貌 87
4-4-2 閃躲與面對的兩難 89
4-4-3 發言權要透過「說」來掌握 93
4-5 小組認同下的權力掌控 96
4-5-1 能者多勞，勞者多權？ 96
4-5-2 決定權的移轉 100
4-5-3 組員推崇下的地位抬升 101
4-5-4 最後的裁奪權 103
4-5-5 學輔在共同作者決定時的參與模式 105
4-5-6 意義協商下的產物 109
4-5-7 展現在乎小組的行為 111
4-5-8 意義的擁有感 112
五、討論 115
5-1 學習本分下的自願性學習 115
5-1-1 主動建構的規範性 116
5-1-2 組員間的相互責任制 117
5-1-3 真正的學習 118
5-2 高中生的公平概念 119
5-2-1 學校中的公平性 120
5-2-2 從分配公平到協商公平 121
5-3 與WENGER實踐社群觀點的對話 126
六、結論 128
6-1 研究中的有趣發現 128
6-2 未來研究與建議 129
6-3 自我盤點與領悟 130
6-3-1 在質與量的迷思中游走 130
6-3-2 跨越有無二元論的小組認同 131
6-3-3 覺察學輔角色的意義性 131
6-3-4 從符合理論，到概念使用 132
參考文獻 133

參考文獻

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership. Free Press, New York.
Balmer, J., & Wilson, A. (1998). Corporate identity. International Studies of Management & Organization,28(3), 12-31.
Balthazard, P., D.Waldman, J. Howell, and L. Atwater. (2004). Shared Leadership and Group Interaction Styles in Problem-Solving Virtual Teams. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Bouas, K. S., & Arrow, H. (1996). The development of group identity in computer and face-to-face groups with membership change. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4,153–178.
Brush, T.A. (1998). Embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: Rationale and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development,46(3), 5-18.
Buchberger, F., Hudson, B., Gamal, A.E., & Laanpere, M. (2005). ERNIST Networking Study. Analysis of Success Factors in Network Building (Phase 1). European Educational Research Journal, 4(3), 256-312.Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3ndd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
Chen,XP, Wasti, S. Arzu, & Triandis, H. C. (2007). When does group norm or group identity predict cooperation in a public goods dilemma? The moderating effects of idiocentrism and allocentrism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 259–276.
Chen, X-P., Au, W. T., & Komorita, S. S. (1996). Sequential choice in a step-level public goods dilemma: The effects of cricticality and uncertainty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 37–47.
Chernobilsky, E., Nagarajan, A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2005). Problem-based learning online: Multiple perspectives on collaborative knowledge construction. In D. Suthers & T; Koschmann (Eds.). Proceedings of CSCL 2005. Mahwah, NJ. Erlbaum.
Clarke, P. (2000, September 6,7,8). The Internet as a medium for qualitative research. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Conference on World-Wide Web Applications. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http://generalupdate.rau.ac.za/infosci/conf/Wednesday/Clarke.htm.
Crichton, S., & Kinash, S. (2003). Virtual ethnography: Interactive interviewing online as method. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(2) 101-115.
Dawes, Robyn M., Van de Kragt, Alphons J., & Orbell, John M. (1988). Not me or thee but we: The importance of group identity in eliciting cooperation in dilemma situations: Experimental manipulations. Acta Psychologica, 68(1-3),83-97.
Dawes, Robyn M., McTavish, J., & Shaldee, H. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people's behavior in a commons dilemma situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 1-11.
Deaux, K. R., Anne, M., K., & Ethier, K. A. (1995). Parameters of social identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 280-291.
Del-Castillo, H., García-Varela, A. B., & Lacasa P.(2003). Literacies through media: identity and discourse in the process of constructing a web site. International Journal of Educational Research,39(8), 885-891.
Dennen, V. P. (2008). Looking for evidence of learning: Assessment and analysis methods for online discourse. Computers in Human Bahavior, 24, 205-219.
DeSanctis, G., Wright, M. & Jiang, L. (2001). Building a Global Learning Community. Communications of ACM, 44(12),80–82.
Druckman, D. (2006). Explaining group identity: From group attachments to collective action. The Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies Occasional Papers Series, 2, 1-37.
Ellemers, N., D. de Gilder, & S. A. Haslam. (2004). Motivating Individuals and Groups at Work: A Social Identity Perspective on Leadership and Group Performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459–478.
Erez, A., J. Lepine, & H. Elms. (2002). Effects of Rotated Leadership and Peer Evaluation on the Functioning and Effectiveness of Self-Managed Teams: A Quasi-Experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 932–947.
Ferreda, D., Hodgson, V., & Jones. C.( 2006). Dialogue, language and identity：critical issues for networked management learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(3), 223-239.
Garrison, D.R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Gee, J.P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge Press.
Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge Press.
Gee, J.P., & Green J.L.(1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119-169.
Gee, J.P., Allen, Anna-Ruth, & Clinton, K.(2001). Language, Class, and Identity: Teenagers Fashioning Themselves Through Language. Linguistics and Education,12(2), 175-194.
Goldman, C.V. & Zilberstein, S.（2004）. Decentralized Control of Cooperative Systems: Categorization and Complexity Analysis. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 22, 143-174.
Graham, S. L.(2007). Disagreeing to agree: conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 742-759.
Graves, N.B., & Graves, T.D. (1985). Creating a cooperative learning environment: An ecological approach. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. H. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating.
Guan, Y., Tsai, C., & Hwang F.(2006). Content analysis of online discussion on a senior-high-school discussion forum of a virtual physics laboratory. Instructional Science,34,279–311.
Guldberg, K., & Pilkington, R.(2006). A community of practice approach to the development of non-traditional learner through networked learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 159-171.
Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill, & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Hine, C. M. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.
Hinkle, S., Taylor, L. A., Fox-Cardamone, D. L. & Crook, K. (1989). Intragrouidentification and intergroup differentiation: A multicomponent approach. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 305-317.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers and Education, 41(4), 397–420.
Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich. J. (2003). Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Virtual and Physical Environments. Small Group Research, 34(6), 678–715.
Jefferies, P.,& Grodzinsky, F.(2007). Developing On-line Collaborative Research Across International Boundaries:Exploring the Potential of New Technologies. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,1(2). From website: http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v1n2/articles/jefferies/
Job-Sluder, K., & Barab, S. A. (2004). Shared “we” and shared “they” indicators of group identity in online teacher professional development. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1991). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.to learn (pp. 403-436). New York: Plenum.
Jurasaite-Harbison, E.,& Rex,L. A.(2005）.Taking on a researcher’s identity: Teacher learning in and through research participation. Linguistics and Education, 16, 425-454.
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Effects of Participative and Directive Leadership in Electronic Groups. Group & Organization Management, 29(1), 67–105.
Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B.(1986). Social group identity and the emergence of cooperation in resource conservation dilemmas. In H.Wilke, C. Rutte,&D. M. Messick (Eds.), Experimental studies of social dilemmas,205–234. Franfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource utilization in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.
Lapadat, Judith C.(2002). Written Interaction: A Key Component in Online Learning. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4 ), 1-20.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences,16(1), 81-130.
Sade‐Beck, L. (2004). Internet ethnography: Online and offline. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2). Article 4. Retrieved Maarch 23, 2006,from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_2/pdf/sadebeck.pdf
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, 114–139. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lobel, M., Neubauer, M., & Swedburg, R. (2005). Comparing how students collaborate to learn about the self and relationships in a real-time non-turn-taking online and turn-taking face-to-face environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4), article 18. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/lobel.html
Lord, R. G., & Alliger, G. M. (1985). A comparison of four information processing models of leadership and social perceptions. Human Relations, 38(1), 47–65.
Markham, A. (1998). Life online. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
McConell, D. (2002, April). Negotiation, identity and knowledge in elearning communities. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 247-255), Sheffield, UK.
Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. J. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 212–238.
Nova, N. (2003). Socio-cognitive functions of space in collaborative settings: A literature review about space, cognition and collaboration (E′ cole Polytechnique Fe′de′rale de Lausanne: CRAFT Research Report 1).
Park, R. E.（1928）. Human Migration and the Marginal Man. Amer.Sociol, 37, 881-893.
Paulsen, N. (2003). Who are we now? Group, Identity, Boundaries, and the (Re)Organizing Process, in: N. Paulsen & T. Hernes (Eds) Managing Boundaries in Organizations. Multiple Perspectives, pp. 14–34 (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan)
Pescosolido, A. T.(2001). Informal leaders and the development of group efficacy. Small Group Research, 32, 74–93.
Peteraf, M., & Shanley, M. (1997). Getting to know you: A theory of strategic group identity. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 165–186.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-70.
Saarenkunnas, M., Kuure L., & Taalas, P. (2003). The polycontextual nature of computer-supported learning – theoretical and methodological perspectives. ReCALL,15(2),202-216.
Schmitt, M., Spears, R., Branscombe, Nyla R.(2003). Constructing a minority group identity out of shared rejection: the case of international students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1-12.
Staarman,J.K., Aarnoutse,C., & Verhoeven,L. (2003）. Connecting discourses: intertextuality in a primary school CSCL practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 807-816.
Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: a survey of theory and research. New York: The Free Press.
Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams: antecedents and 709 outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52, 899–926.
Tajfel, H.(1978). Differentiation Between Social Groups. Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H.(1982). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C.(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations(pp. 7-24). Chincago: Nelson-Hall.
Wenger, E.(1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge. MA: Cambridge University Press.
Whitworth, B., Gallupe, B., McQueen, R. (2000). A cognitive three-process model of computer-mediated group interaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 431-456.
Wittel, A. (2002). Ethnography on the move: From field to net to internet. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1). Retrieved September 25, 2007 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-00/1-00witzel-e.htm.
Woodward, K. (Ed.). (1997). Identity and difference. London: Sage.
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in Organizations. NJ: Englewood Cliffs.
王一多（2005）。論公平的可操作性定義。西南民族大學學報人文社科版，26（10），192-196。
王宏仁、陳斐卿、江火明（2003, 4）。網路學習社群學員之認同歷程。劉明洲（主持人），程式語言學習探討。國際電腦輔助教學研討會（ICCAI 2003），國立臺灣師範大學。
江火明、陳斐卿、李郁薇(2004)。從Wenger的社會學習理論談網路學習社群討論區的設計考量，125，93-105。
李郁薇(2005)。網路學習社群中的潛水現象---一種被忽略的充分參與。國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文，中壢市。
游佳萍（2005）。虛擬群組學習行爲之群組認同感探討。資訊社會研究，8，243-270。
莫蒂默，阿德勒（1999）。六大觀念。（蔡坤鴻譯）。台灣：聯經出版公司。(原著出版年﹕1997 年)
楊美蓮（2006）。虛擬群組認同性的發展過程─以虛擬教育社群為例。資訊管理展望，8（1），91-106。
鄒川雄（2003）。生活世界與默會知識：詮釋學觀點的質性研究。載於林本炫、何明修主編之質性研究方法與資料分析，頁23-52，嘉義：南華大學教育社會學所。
陳斐卿、江火明、林惠倫與王宏仁（2001）。網路學習歷程科展的環境設計。論文發表於中國視聽教育學會「知識經濟與教育發展」國際學術研討會，國立台灣師範大學，台北。
陳斐卿、楊馥祤、江火明(2007, 5)。學輔的後設鷹架思考－從社群鷹架者討論區初探。發表於全球華人計算機教育應用大會(The 11th Global Chinese Conference on Computing in Education)，廣州，中國
蓋奧爾格‧齊美爾（2002）。社會是如何可能的。（林榮遠譯）。中國：廣西師範大學出版社。（原著出版年：2001年）

指導教授

陳斐卿(Fei-Ching Chen)

審核日期

2008-7-25

推文