線上小組推進探究的關鍵時刻

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：38

、訪客IP：18.226.226.186

姓名

張秀美(Hsiu-Mei Chang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

線上小組推進探究的關鍵時刻
(Critical Moments towards the Productive Discussion in Online Group Learning)

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
★ 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	★ 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	★ 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)

數位合作學習領域長期以來的一個核心議題是：學習在哪裡發生？(Where does learning take place? )。本文聚焦於指認線上對話共構過程的關鍵時刻(critical moments)。為了深度剖析這個議題，進行個案研究，分析一個成功完成六週科學探究任務的線上小組，以發現科學探索和參與者互動兩造的交互關係與發展軌跡，從而捕捉共構發生的學習圖像，特別聚焦在推動探究進展的關鍵時刻。

本文使用一套研究方法來指認關鍵時刻。本文定義的關鍵時刻，參與者集體的探究具有漸入佳境的有效活動，能夠幫助達成小組最終探究目標。社會互動分析有四個要點：整體過程、情境脈絡、時間和相關。具體分析作法如下：首先以整體合作過程中的情境脈絡為基底，揀選集體推動探究進展的重要對話片段；接著，在這些重要對話片段中，分析具有緊密對話接應關係的「聚焦事件」；繼之，以回溯時間的方向，指認過去、現在和未來三個階段的「發展演變」；最後，並找出參與者互為主體性的七個基本「互動組件」、及積極有效的互動「轉折」等。這四個分析要項是由一系列連續相關的對話文章中進行指認關鍵時刻。

由上述定義與分析作法獲得三個研究結果：一、因應情境當下的在地需求，發展出推進小組科學探究的關鍵時刻：包含小組行動秩序的建立、共同創造的成就、集體對話的開展、團隊分工的湧現，讓參與者相互串聯與施展不同能力而投身於組內探究；二、角色扮演與參與：隨著過程情節的發展，參與者投身於組內探究有不同的參與姿態，如積極活躍的學習者(促進者)化為帶領者、低知識能力的學習者(定期發言者)化為具有影響貢獻的參與者、和潛水的學習者化為深化思維者、學輔鷹架的淡入與淡出等；三、描繪出實踐中的集體性互動：接力對話、集體洗版面、探路與補給等相互支援的互動，以共同完成組內探究。

最後，本文有一些具體貢獻：首先指認動態性過程的關鍵時刻，並擴充關鍵時刻的傳統認定；本文將整體過程的情境脈絡(situated-context)納入分析作法，在實踐(practice)與學習的不可切割現象中，勾勒出小組對話的在地學習面貌；也細膩的審視參與者的動態性角色扮演與參與貢獻，並精緻化參與貢獻的判定準則；同時帶出學輔鷹架和同儕協力的不同互動現象；最後，由關鍵時刻的指認經驗及研究結果中，提供一些教學啟發給予現場教學實務。

摘要(英)

A core issue in Computer-supported collaborative learning is “Where does learning take place?” Along with the current trend in CSCL, this study focused on the learning process of an online scientific inquiry-based group to identify the “critical moments” of promoting the group inquiry progress among the group members. By analyzing the case study from an online community (LAIN) is to explore the picture of a small group knowledge construction. We analyzed the log data of the group discussion to understand the relationship between the development of scientific concept and the group members’ dynamic interaction in order to identify the critical moments.

This study tries to develop an analytic approach to re-identify the critical moments. The definition of the “critical moments” in our study is getting better condition to advance the group progress for achieving the final group inquiry goal. By comparing with the traditional approach, our approach focuses on the “whole” situated-context and dynamics process of the group discussion rather than a single “part” during the group discussion, and shows the unit of analysis in “a larger context” or “a series of the related events” rather than in some “small pieces” or “isolated incidents”. The main points in this analysis are including the “from beginning to end” process, situated-context, time dimension, and relevance. The analytic steps in this study are as the followings: first, to pick the sequential episodes of promoting the inquiry progress is under the situated-context perspective; then, to capture the subject matter, to track the evolution of the group discussion, to recognize a set of intersubjective-interactive components and the positive turns in the group members’ close discussion. It is worth noting that we analyzed the above-mentioned-analytic steps in the cumulative composition of interpretative acts.

Identified the critical moments by the above definition and analysis approach has the following findings. The results identify four critical moments, including to establish the group norms, to create the mutual accomplishment, to make the art of collective dialogue, and to develop the division of labors in a group. At the same time, we could reconsider the dynamic changes of the role play (for example, positive learner, lurker, or mentor), rejudge individual’s contribution among the group members, refresh the definition of the “collective interaction”, and show the interaction between the mentor’s scaffolding and the peer’s collaboration. Finally, the collective interaction among participants: the group members developed the partial and complementary activity to advance the group progress.

Based on the situated-context perspective, we could describe and interpret each posting of the group discussion in the local practice meaning and reconsider the contribution of postings in the online knowledge co-construction. Our study also found that the group members discussed with each other in the intersubjective interaction is the key to promote the inquiry-based learning quality. In contrast to tradition approaches, this study expanded the picture of an online group knowledge co-construction. So some methodological considerations about online-group knowledge co-construction were discussed.

關鍵字(中)

★ 角色參與
★ 知識共構
★ 研究方法
★ 情境脈絡
★ 線上小組學習
★ 關鍵時刻

關鍵字(英)

★ role participation
★ knowledge co-construction
★ research methodology
★ situated-context
★ online group learning
★ critical moments

論文目次

第一章緒論………………………………………………………………………1
第一節研究源起………………………………………………………………1
第二節線上環境的小組科學探究…………………………………2
第三節田野啟發………………………………………………………………4
第四節切入觀點………………………………………………………………6
第五節研究問題………………………………………………………………8
第六節名詞定義………………………………………………………………8

第二章文獻探討……………………………………………………………11
第一節對話中的互動……………………………………………………11
第二節參與者角色…………………………………………………………15
一、教師角色………………………………………………15
二、同儕角色………………………………………………17
第三節關鍵時刻…………………………………………………………………19
一、跨越不同的屬性……………………………………20
二、頻率的分水嶺…………………………………………21
三、論點的分合……………………………………………21
四、論點的改變……………………………………………22
五、共有資源的建立……………………………………22
六、再現…………………………………………………………23
七、異常…………………………………………………………24
第四節分析作法…………………………………………………………………25
一、對話中的互動分析………………………………26
二、「關鍵時刻」的分析作法…………………29
第五節分析的理論框架……………………………………………………34
一、實踐社群的內涵……………………………………34
二、實踐的湧現面貌……………………………………36
三、對話實踐…………………………………………………39
四、身分角色…………………………………………………41
五、關鍵時刻…………………………………………………42

第三章研究方法…………………………………………………………………45
第一節研究情境…………………………………………………………………46
一、活動場域…………………………………………………46
二、活動招募…………………………………………………48
三、活動內容與流程……………………………………50
第二節研究對象…………………………………………………………………54
第三節資料蒐集…………………………………………………………………60
一、線上田野的紀錄資料…………………………60
二、田野筆記………………………………………………64
第四節資料分析…………………………………………………………………65
一、關鍵時刻的分析組成…………………………65
二、關鍵時刻的具體操作分析……………………71
三、關鍵時刻的實例……………………………………100
第五節研究信效度……………………………………………………………102
一、科學認知發展的編碼分析……………………102
二、參與者互動的編碼分析………………………103
三、關鍵時刻的指認分析…………………………103

第四章研究結果………………………………………………………………105
第一節小組行動秩序的建立…………………………………………107
一、同步對話的建立…………………………………107
二、對話空間的劃分…………………………………115
三、一致性行動的聯合……………………………117
四、小結………………………………………………………124
第二節共同創造的成就…………………………………………………124
一、主流價值的採用…………………………………125
二、共同資源的匯集與運用………………………130
三、「共同做決定」的聚集………………………137
四、小結………………………………………………………142
第三節集體對話的開展…………………………………………………143
一、帶路與跟隨的合夥……………………………143
二、混沌與停滯的等待……………………………149
三、從打轉到推進的發展…………………………155
四、不同觀點的查核考驗…………………………160
五、小結………………………………………………………165
第四節團隊分工的湧現…………………………………………………165
一、分工負責與互惠………………………………165
二、問題的回饋與調整……………………………170
三、探路與補給的並行……………………………176
四、小結………………………………………………………180

第五章討論與結論……………………………………………………………181
第一節理論啟發與延伸……………………………………………………182
一、實踐中的關鍵時刻………………………………182
二、描繪實踐的集體性………………………………184
第二節研究方法的新切入………………………………………………185
第三節共構面貌的新理解………………………………………………187
一、積極應變而成的關鍵時刻…………………188
二、互為主體性對話接應…………………………190
三、同儕角色貢獻與流轉…………………………192
四、學輔鷹架和同儕協力的力道不一……194
第四節研究反思………………………………………………………………198
第五節教學意涵………………………………………………………………200
第六節總結………………………………………………………………………202

參考文獻………………………………………………………………………………205

參考文獻

中文參考文獻
1. 王文靜(譯)(民96)。情境學習：合法的邊緣性參與(原作者：J., Lave, & E. Wenger)。上海：華東師範大學出版社。(原著出版年：1998)
2. 李暉、郭重吉(民88)。科學話語與科學概念之學習：以國中生理化課學習為例。科學教育學刊，10，3-30。
3. 李郁薇(民94)。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。
4. 江火明、陳斐卿、李郁薇(民93)。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。
5. 林雅慧、張文華、林陳涌(民92)。國小低年級學生參與科學對談的類型之研究，科學教育學刊，11(1)，51-74。
6. 林燕文、洪振方(民96)。對話論證的探究中學童論述策略對促進科學概念理解之研究。屏東教育大學學報，26，285-324。
7. 吳心楷、辛靜婷(民101)。數位學習研究中質性資料的管理與分析：以NVivo軟體的使用為例。載於宋曜廷(主編)，數位學習研究方法(163-208頁)。台北市：高等教育。
8. 吳百興、張耀云、吳心楷(民99)。科學探究過程中的科學推理。科學教育研究與發展季刊，56，53-74。
9. 邱美虹、林秀蓁(民93)。以CHILDES分析一對一科學教學活動中師生互動共建科學知識的行為表現。科學教育學刊，12(2)，133-158。
10. 洪莉(譯)(民91)。哈拉與抓虱的語言(原作者：R. Dunbar)。台北：遠流。
11. 洪煌堯(民101)。扎根理論研究法在數位學習研究上的應用。載於宋曜廷(主編)，數位學習研究方法(137-162頁)。台北市：高等教育。
12. 祝惠珍(民95)。網路學習社群中的共構面貌──以迷思概念為探針。未出版之碩士論文，國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文，中壢市。
13. 郭佩宜、王宏仁(主編)(民95)。田野的技藝：自我、研究與知識建構。台北：巨流。
14. 柯靜宜、張文華、郭重吉(民93)。統整教學模組實施下之小組互動及知識共同建構。科學教育學刊，12(1)， 1-26。
15. 教育部(民102)。十二年國民基本教育。台北市：作者。
16. 教育部(民92)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北市：作者。
17. 張秀美、曾仁佑、陳斐卿、鄭凱天(民103)。線上小組學習的發生處──以迷思概念為探針。科學教育學刊，22(2)，77-102。
18. 張秀美、陳斐卿、曾仁佑(民101)。小組建立假設的合作探究策略--以網路環境為例。科學教育學刊，20(4)，295-317。
19. 張秀美(民96)。情意鷹架者的實踐知識－以Lain網路社群為例。未出版之碩士論文，國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士班，中壢市。
20. 張君玫、劉鈴佑(譯)(民94)。社會學的想像(The Sociological Imagination)(原作者：C. W. Mills)。台北：巨流。(原著出版年：1959)
21. 陳文德(民96)。黑盒子被打開了嗎？──談「田野工作」與學術知識建構的關係。台灣社會學，13，243-264。
22. 陳均伊、張惠博、郭重吉(民93)。光反射與折射的另有概念診斷工具之發展與研究。科學教育學刊，12(3)，311-340。
23. 陳斐卿、王慶中(民100)。社交網絡的學習：實踐星群觀點。資訊社會研究期刊，19，1-31。
24. 辜玉旻、張菀真、陳以欣(民98)。中文篇章朗讀之錯誤類型分析。教育心理學報，41(1)，29-44。
25. 劉康(民94)。對話的喧聲 : 巴赫汀文化理論述評。台北：麥田出版。
26. 廖筱毓(民101)。線上科學對話與知識建構對大學生語言學習的影響。未出版之碩士論文，國立政治大學華語文教學碩士學位學程，台北。
27. 蔡敏玲(民91)。教育質性研究歷程的展現：尋找教室團體互動的節奏與變奏。台北：心理。
28. 樊琳、李賢哲(民91)。以「專題研究」培養國小職前教師科學探究過程與教材開發能力之研究。師大學報：科學教育類，47(2)，105-126。
29. 蕭瑞麟(民95)。不用數字的研究：鍛鍊深度思考力的質性研究。台北：培生國際。
30. 謝國雄、高穎超、李慈穎、吳偉立、劉怡昀、劉惠純、鄭玉菁、葉虹靈、林文蘭等(民96)。以身為度、如是我做：田野工作的教與學。台北：群學出版有線公司。
31. 齊若蘭(譯)(民90)。複雜：走在秩序與混沌的邊緣(原作者：M. M. Waldrop)。台北：天下。(原著出版年：1993)
32. 藍偉瑩(民91)。小組互動與概念改變機制之探討─以物質狀態與氣體性質概念為例。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所，台北。

英文參考文獻
1. Aalst, J. V. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4 (3), 259-287.
2. Abawajy, J., & Kim, T. H. (2011). Engaging and effective asynchronous online discussion forums. FGIT-ASEA/DRBC/EL 2011, 695-705.
3. Alozie, N. M., Moje, E. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94(3), 395-427.
4. Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology and Society, 12(1), 249–257.
5. Anderson, K. T., & Weninger, C. (2012). Tracing ideologies of learning in group talk and their impediments to collaboration. Linguistics and Education, 23, 350-360.
6. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for Learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom′s taxonomy of educational objectives. NY: Longman.
7. Arvaja, M. (2007). Contextual perspective in analysing collaborative knowledge construction of two small groups in web based discussion. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2/3), 133-158.
8. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. The International Journal of Computers Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 247-272.
9. Bakhtin, M. M. (2002). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson, & M. Holoquist, Trans). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
10. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M. G., & Squire, K. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds: Tracing the historical development of learner practices/understandings. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 47-94.
11. Chang, H. M., Chen, F. C., Tzeng, R. Y., & Chen, Y. J. (2012). Reconsidering Meaning-making of Lurkers in Online Small Group Knowledge Co-construction. Paper presented at GCCCE (The 14th Global Chinese Conference on Computing in Education), Kenting, Taiwan.
12. Chang, H. M., Chen, F. C., Zhang, K. T., & Tzeng, R. Y. (2011). The Critical Moments of Knowledge Co-construction: Reconsidering Meaning-making of Postings in Online Group Discussion. Paper presented at the CSCL2011 (The 9th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning), Hong Kong, China.
13. Chang, H. M., Zhang, K. T., Tzeng, R. Y., & Chen, F. C. (2010). The Critical Moments of Knowledge Co-construction in Heterogeneous Group Discussion Online. Paper presented at TWELF2010 (The 6th Taiwan E-Learning Forum), Taichung, Taiwan.
14. Chen, F. C., & Chang, H. M. (2013). Engaged lurking – the less visible form of participation in online small group learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(1), 171－199.
15. Chen, F. C., Jiang, H. M., Lin, H. L., & Wang, H. R. (2001). High school students’ attempts at primary data in PBL via network: Lain experience. Paper presented at GCCCE2001 (The 5th Global Chinese Conference on Computing in Education), Taiwan.
16. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students′ questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908.
17. Chiru, C. G., & Trausan-Matu, S. (2012). Identification and Classification of the Most Important Moments from Students′ Collaborative Discourses. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 330-339.
18. Chiu, M. M. (2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during group problem solving: A statistical discourse analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 415–463.
19. Clancey, W. J. (1995). A tutorial on situated learning. In J. Self, (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers and Education. Charlottesville (pp. 49-70), VA: AACE.
20. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.
21. Conradd, D. (2002). Deep in the Hearts of Learners: insights into the nature of online community. Journal of Distance Education, 7(1). Retrieved July 28, 2004 from: http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol17.1/conrad.html
22. Dennen, V. P. (2008). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1624-1633.
23. Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281-297.
24. Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fisher, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: from design to orchestration. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes, (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 3-19). Springer, Netherlands.
25. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. F. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84 (3), 287–312.
26. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria, In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
27. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (2003). Common Knowledge: The Development of Understanding in the Classroom. London: Routledge.
28. Engeström, Y. (1999). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63-93.
29. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin′s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
30. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32, 135-153.
31. Furberg, A. (2009). Socio-cultural aspects of prompting student reflection in Web-based inquiry learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 397-409.
32. Gan, Y., & Zhu, Z. (2007). A Learning Framework for Knowledge Building and Collective Wisdom Advancement in Virtual Learning Communities. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 206-226.
33. Gasson, S., & Waters, J. (2011). Using A Grounded Theory Approach To Study Online Collaboration Behaviors. European Journal of Information Systems, 1-24.
34. Gee, J. P. (2011). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. New York, NY: Routledge.
35. Gijlers, H., Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). Interaction between tool and talk: How instruction and tools support consensus building in collaborative inquiry-learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 252-267.
36. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 395–429.
37. Hammer, D., & Berland, L. K. (2014). Confusing Claims for Data: A Critique of Common Practices for Presenting Qualitative Research on Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 37-46.
38. Hershkowitz, R., Hodas, N., Dreyfus, T., & Schwartz, B. (2007). Abstracting Processes, from individuals constructing of knowledge to a group’s “shared knowledge”. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19(2), 41-68.
39. Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: a review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), 571—606.
40. Hong, H. Y., Chen, F. C., Chang, H. M., Liao, C. Y., & Chan, W. C. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an idea-centered design to foster a computer-supported knowledge building environment. Paper presented CSCL (The 8th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning), Athens, Greece.
41. Hong, H. Y., & Teplovs, C. (2007). Using key terms to measure and visually represent community knowledge. Paper presented at the 11th Knowledge Building Summer Institute., Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology.
42. Hsu, P. L. (2013). The role of discursive resources in science talk. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8, 285–294.
43. Hsu, Y. S. (2004). Using the internet to develop students’ capacity for scientific inquiry. Journal of Educational Computing Research﹐31(2), 137-161.
44. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MA: MIT Press.
45. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1105-1125.
46. Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Knowledge convergence during collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 35, 287-315.
47. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.
48. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2005). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students′ scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233.
49. Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey′s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community: Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 17-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 313-350.
51. Kucuk, M. (2010). Lurking in online asynchronous discussion. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2260–2263.
52. Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1(1), 113-119.
53. Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 228-245.
54. Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff, & J. Lave (Eds.). Everyday cognition: its development in social context (pp. 67-94). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
56. Law, N., Yuen, J., Leng, J., & Wong, W. O. W. (2010). Community knowledge advancement and individual learning. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 326-327). Chicago: IL.
57. Lee, J. (2012). Patterns of Interaction and Participation in a Large Online Course: Strategies for Fostering Sustainable Discussion. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 260–272.
58. Lee, Y. W., Chen, F. C., & Jiang H. M. (2006). Lurking as Participation: A Community Perspective on Lurkers′ Identity and Negotiability. Paper presented at ICLS (the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Making a Difference). Bloomington, IN: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
59. Lin, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Applying social bookmarking to collective information searching (CIS): An analysis of behavioral pattern and peer interaction for co-exploring quality online resources. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1249-1257.
60. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.
61. Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627-639.
62. Looi, C. K., Song, Y., Wen, Y., & Chen, W. (2013). Identifying Pivotal Contributions for Group Progressive Inquiry in a Multimodal Interaction Environment. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rose, C. Teplovs, & N. Law (eds.), Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series 15) (pp. 265-289). New York: Springer.
63. Lu, J., Chiu, M., & Law, N. W. Y. (2011). Effects of collaborative argumentation processes on justifications: A statistical analysis of online discussion. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 946-955.
64. Lund, K. (2010). Pinpointing pivotal moments in collaboration. Paper presented at the STELLAR 2009 Alpine Rendez-Vous. Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
65. Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 25-45.
66. Moss, J., & Beatty, R. (2006). Knowledge building in mathematics: supporting collaborative learning in pattern problems. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 441–465.
67. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
68. Neelen, M., & Fetter, S. (2010). Lurking: a challenge or a fruitful strategy? A comparison between lurkers and active participants in an online corporate community of practice. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 6(4), 269-284.
69. Ng, K. C., & Murphy, D (2005). Evaluating interactivity and learning in computer conferencing using content analysis techniques. Distance Education, 26(1), 89-109.
70. Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96, 428–456.
71. Oh, P. S. (2010). How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some strategies found in abductive inquiry activities of earth science. Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 541-560.
72. Oliveira, I., Tinoca, L., & Pereira, A. (2011). Online group work patterns: how to promote a successful collaboration. Computers and Education, 57(1), 1348-1357.
73. Oliveira, A. W. (2009). Developing Elementary Teachers Understanding of the Discourse Structure of Inquiry-Based Science Classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(2), 247-269.
74. Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Interactive patterns and convergence of meaning during student collaborations in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634-658.
75. O′Neill, D. K. (2004). Building social capital in a knowledge-building community: Telementoring as a catalyst. Interactive Learning Environments, 12(3), 179-208.
76. Orton-Johnson, K. (2007). The online student: Lurking, chatting, flaming, and joking. Sociological Research Online, 12(6), 223-245.
77. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
78. Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning: A Comparison of the Two Concepts Which Will Help Us Understand the Underlying Nature of Interactive Learning. Cape Cod Community College, peninsula, Massachusetts; USA. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2013, from: http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm.
79. Pathak, S. A., Kim, B., Jacobson, M. J., & Zhang, B. (2011). Learning the physics of electricity: A qualitative analysis of collaborative processes involved in productive failure. The International Journal of Computers Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 57-73.
80. Piezon, S. L. (2011). Social Loafing and Free Riding in Online Learning Groups. Unpublish doctoral Dissertations. The Florida State University, USA.
81. Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The Top 5 Reasons for Lurking: Improving Community Experiences for Everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201-223.
82. Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable- and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. The International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 239-257.
83. Rojas-Drummond, S. M., Albarran, C., & Littleton, K. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 177-191.
84. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating. Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235-276.
85. Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
86. Rozenszayn, R., & Assaraf, O. B. Z. (2011). When Collaborative Learning meets Nature: Collaborative learning as a meaningful Learning tool in the Ecology inquiry Based Project. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 123–146.
87. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplistic systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
88. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
89. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
90. Schmidt, H. J. (1997). Students′ misconceptions: looking for a pattern. Science Education, 81(2), 123-135.
91. Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49–70.
92. Seidenberg, B., & Snadowsky, A. (1976). Social psychology. NY: Free Press.
93. Shirouzu, H. (2009). Submission for Basic Participation. Paper presented at the ALpineRDV2009-Pinpointing pivotal moments in collaboration Workshop, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
94. Shirouzu, H., Miyake, N., & Masukawa, H., (2002). Cognitively active externalization for situated reflection. Cognitive Science, 27, 469-501.
95. Smardon, R. (2004). Streetwise science: Toward a theory of the code of the classroom. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(3), 201-223.
96. Stahl, G. (2013). Learning across levels. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8 (1), 1-12.
97. Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer.
98. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). CSCL: An Historical Perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), (2006). Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
99. Stoney, S., & Oliver, R. (1999). Can Higher Order Thinking and Cognitive Engagement Be Enhanced with Multimedia?, Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning. Retrieved June 20, 2006 from http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/1999/2/07/printver.asp
100. Strijbos, J. W., & De Laat, M. F. (2010). Developing the role concept for computer-supported collaborative learning: An explorative synthesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 495-505.
101. Suthers, D., Lund, K., Rosé, C., Law, N., & Teplovs, C. (2013). Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions. New York: Springer.
102. Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Vatrapu, R., & Medina, R. (2007). An abstract transcript notation for analyzing interactional construction of meaning in online learning. Paper presented at the 40th Hawai`i International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-34), Waikoloa, Hawai`i.
103. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. The International Journal of Computers Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315-337.
104. Suthers, D. D. (2005). Technology Affordances for Intersubjective Learning: A Thematic Agenda for CSCL. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (pp. 662-671). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
105. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.
106. Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: a comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(2), 101-124.
107. Wang, C. T., Chen, F. C., & Chang, H. M. (2008). Collective brokering practices in a virtual learning community. Paper presented at ICCE (International Conference on Computers in Education). Taipei, Taiwan
108. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71-95.
109. Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428.
110. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
111. Wise, A. F., & Chiu, M. M. (2012). Statistical Discourse Analysis of a Role-Based Online Discussion Forum: Patterns of Knowledge Construction. Paper presented at the HICSS 2012 (The 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences), New York: IEEE.
112. Wise, A. F., Hsiao, Y. T., Marbouti, F., & Zhao, Y. (2012). Tracing Ideas and Participation in anAsynchronous Online Discussion across Individual and Group Levels over Time. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Riemann (Eds.), The Future of Learning: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2012). Sydney, Australia: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
113. Wise, A., Saghafian, M., & Padmanabhan, P. (2009). Comparing the Functions of Different Assigned Student Roles in Online Conversations. In T. Bastiaens et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education2009 (pp. 2034-2042). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
114. Zhang, M., Passalacqua, S., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M.J., Eberhardt, J., Parker, J., Urban Lurain, M., Zhang, T., & Paik, S. (2010). “Science talks” in kindergarten classrooms: Improving classroom practice through collaborative action research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 161-179.
115. Zhang, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2008). Examining the growth of community knowledge in an online space. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE), Taipei, Taiwan.
116. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.
117. Zhang, J., & Sun, Y. (2011). Reading for idea advancement in a grade 4 knowledge building community. Instructional Science, 39(4), 429-452.
118. Zhou, N. (2009). Question co-construction in VMT chats. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying Virtual Math Teams. New York, NY: Springer Press.
119. Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34, 451-480.

指導教授

陳斐卿(Fei-Ching Chen)

審核日期

2014-7-21

推文