電腦輔助知識翻新活動對於 大學生英文議論文寫作表現之影響

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：44

、訪客IP：3.149.25.200

姓名

王立仁(Li-Jen Wang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

電腦輔助知識翻新活動對於大學生英文議論文寫作表現之影響
(Promoting University Students′ English Argumentative Essay Writing Performance through Computer-Supported Collaborative Knowledge Building)

相關論文

★ 支援國小科展探究教與學之網路科展探究系統的開發與評估	★ 教師科展專業知識分享社群平台系統開發與評估
★ 科學小論文寫作平台的建置與評估	★ 「探究教學線上教師社群平台」之建置與評估:以知識管理理論為基礎
★ 科學閱讀平台之發展與評估	★ 以鷹架為基礎之科展探究系統平台之開發與評估
★ Improving Novice Teachers’ Instructional Practice Through Online Multilevel Reflection: The Role of Novice Teachers’ Beliefs	★ The Effect s of Video-based Reflection on Preservice Teachers′ Micro Teaching Focusing on Meaningful Learning with ICT
★ Examining Teachers’ Online Video-Based Reflective Practice for Professional Development Regarding Guided-Discovery Learning Instruction	★ 數位教育遊戲之開發與評估：以「Mr.道耳頓的奇幻歷險」為例
★ 應用自然語言處理技術開發基於知識翻新理論之線上非同步合作論證平台與平台初步評估	★ 同步討論與反思系統（SDRS）對小學生知識建構學習環境感知和學習成果的影響
★ 具有集成設計框架的同步在線論證系統用戶界面：重新設計和評估	★ 科學探究學習系統之開發與評估
★ 支援科學專題學習之線上學習平台開發與評估	★ 線上合作共同備課平台：開發與評估

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)

撰寫英文議論文的能力普遍受到大學英文教學者的重視，因為大學生必須具備這個未來在學術領域或是職場所需要的重要能力。研究指出學生在學習撰寫英文議論文時會面臨諸多困難，這些困難根源於對議論本質的理解。因為議論是以合作、整合及產出含有論點、證據及論證的有系統之論述。過往的議論文教學著重在個人的教學，因此學生少有機會以合作的方式學習。近年來，英文教學及研究者也不斷在尋找能協助學生增加議論文品質的教學法。而以合作方式來精進想法的知識翻新理論及以電腦輔助的知識翻新活動，由於與議論的本質不謀而合，或許是一個可行的方式。因此本研究旨在探討透過電腦輔助知識翻新的活動對於大學生英文議論文寫作表現之影響。活動的設計採用並結合Zhang, et al., (2009)提出的二種知識翻新合作環境：小組式合作(Fixed small-groups)及機遇式合作(Opportunistic collaboration)。前者符合大多數課堂的學習情境及台灣的學習文化脈絡，每個小組由3-5人組成，屬於小型社群，後者則是最接近知識翻新理論的大型社群。由於考量學生並沒有相關的知識翻新學習經驗，所以本研究結合上述兩種合作環境結合成二種新的知識翻新合作方式：漸進式知識翻新合作方式(Progressive knowledge building setting)及傳統式知識翻新合作方式(Conventional setting)。漸進式先讓學生進行小組式合作後，再進行機遇式合作，傳統式則均以小組式合作方式進行。
研究對象為台灣北部某國立大學修習通識英文閱讀及寫作課程的66位大學生，採用準實驗研究法。整個研究設計是在現有的課程架構下結合知識翻新的活動，在知識翻新的環境中依據不同的知識翻新合作方式分為實驗組(32位)及對照組(34位)，實驗組採用漸進式合作方式，對照組採用傳統式合作方式。本研究用「知識論壇」平台作為支持學生以精進想法、知識自主學習、及形成社群的電腦輔助知識翻新的環境。學生在知識翻新的原則引導下，在知識論壇進行二次社會性議題的討論，並將討論後的想法實踐於所需寫出的二篇英文議論文。本研究資料來源包含：(1)知識翻新環境的感知(包含想法、自主學習、社群的形成等三面向)在二次知識翻新活動前中後的評分；(2)學生所寫的二篇英文議論文(包含架構及品質二面向)前後的評分；(3)學生在知識論壇的想法發展歷程、序列分析結果及自我反思的意見；(4)議論文寫作自我效能前後測。
資料分析方式是將量化資料分析，質性資料內容則先進行編碼後進行量化分析。研究結果摘要如下：(1)知識翻新環境：本研究所營造的知識翻新環境有助於支持兩組學生精進想法、知識自主學習和形成社群。實驗組在第二次知識翻新活動後的感知在精進想法及形成社群的二個面向明顯優於對照組；(2)議論文的架構及品質：二組學生在進行知識翻新活動後所寫的英文議論文經過編碼及分析後，在整體架構及立場、提出的主觀客觀的證據及反駁等論點的議論品質均有明顯提升。特別是採用漸進式合作方式的實驗組在第二次以機遇式合作方式進行的知識翻新活動後相較於對照組有顯著進步；(3)知識論壇想法發展歷程、序列分析及自我反思：從量化的分析結果得知，兩組在知識論壇發表想法、閱讀他人想法並給予回應，顯示學生在平台上會主動進行想法的討論與翻新。然而，在第二次知識翻新活動中，不同的合作方式對於學生的發展歷程和第一次的活動在發表想法、閱讀他人想法及給予回應的數量則產生明顯的差異。從序列分析的結果發現實驗組與對照組在知識翻新活動中的鷹架使用策略有所不同。從自我反思的結果也發現採用漸進式知識翻新合作方式的實驗組更能體會知識翻新的含意；(4)議論文寫作自我效能：整體而言，兩組學生在進行完二次知識翻新活動後，對於英文議論文的寫作更有信心，值得注意的是實驗組學生在進行完知識翻新活動後，對於想法、議論文想法及寫議論文時的自我規律等三個面向更有顯著差異。
綜上所述，電腦輔助知識翻新活動對於大學生英文議論文寫作表現有顯著的幫助，學生透過不同的合作方式在知識論壇進行討論時，能共同將想法翻新、自主學習、並形成社群，將精進後的想法實踐在英文譯論文的寫作上，使議論文的架構及品質均獲得明顯進步。本研究結果亦可提供給未來想要在現有的課程進度中結合知識翻新活動的教師一個重要參考。然而，在想法的精進過程、各個想法之間的關聯性、及使用不同知識翻新合作方式與在知識翻新活動中的鷹架使用策略及學生議論文寫作自我效能之間的相互關係尚未能完全釐清，值得未來作進一步之研究。

摘要(英)

In English education, argumentative essay writing ability that can help university students succeed in both their future academic contexts or workplaces has been recognized as an important goal. Previous research found out that argumentative essay writing is difficult for university students to learn. In order to help students to overcome the difficulties, some studies have been conducted to use different teaching approaches or computer-assisted language learning tools. However, these studies showed that students might increase their content knowledge but they might not efficiently attain higher levels of argumentation in their writings. In addition, students did not necessarily have the intentions to collaborate with others, which is the key to successful argumentation, and their discussion were sometimes out of focus. Thus, there is still scope for improvement.
Recently, the computer-supported collaborative knowledge building pedagogy focusing on ideas improvement, active agents, and collective community knowledge advancement has been proposed and may be a possible solution. In this study, two knowledge building environment settings were adopted: progressive knowledge building setting and conventional setting. The main purposes of this study were to see if the two groups of students with different knowledge building environment settings differ in their perceptions of the knowledge building learning environment, argumentative essay writing performance, KB process and reflections, and the relationship between students’ argumentation writing self-efficacy and their argumentative essay performance. Moreover, how teachers in practice implement the KB activities in the existing curriculum.
This study adopted quasi-experimental method. The participants (n=66) were divided into the experimental group (n=32) with progressive knowledge building setting and the control group (n=34) with conventional setting. The conduct of this study was divided into two phases. In each phase, both groups of students used the Knowledge Forum to discuss one topic for finishing an argumentative essay after class and provided reflections in class. According to the students’ responses, they perceived the knowledge building learning environments in both phases compared to their previous learning environments. From the analysis of students’ argumentative essays in this study, the results showed that both groups of students have improved the structure and quality of their argumentative essays. It is noted that the experimental group that used progressive knowledge building setting in the second phase outperformed the control group in this study. The two groups of students in both knowledge building environment settings increased their ideas diversity, became more active agents, and tended to form a collaborative community especially the experimental group. Finally, the results of the argumentation self-efficacy writing scale showed that the experimental group had higher confidence on the dimensions related to argumentation and they seemed to perform better on their argumentative essays.
In sum, this study was one of the initial attempts to explore the possibility of the implementation of computer-supported collaborative knowledge building to promote university students’ English argumentative essay writing performance. The results in this study may not only validate the effects of computer-supported collaborative knowledge building on the argumentative essay writing, but also offer some suggestions to the English educators who are interested in helping students improve their argumentative essay writing performance. Especially for those who want to combine the KB activities with their existing curriculums. However, the correlations between the students’ KB process and their argumentative essay performance need more clarifications in the future research.

關鍵字(中)

★ 知識翻新
★ 英文議論文
★ 寫作自我效能
★ 寫作表現
★ 大學生

關鍵字(英)

★ knowledge building
★ argumentative essay
★ writing self-efficacy
★ writing performance
★ university students

論文目次

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the study 1
1.2 Overview of the study 4
1.3 Research questions 5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Argumentative essay writing 7
2.1.1 University students’ argumentative essay writing 7
2.1.2 Students’ difficulties of argumentative essay writing 8
2.1.3 Assessment of argumentative essay 9
2.1.4 Self-efficacy of English writing and instruments 10
2.2 Knowledge Building 13
2.2.1 What is knowledge building? 13
2.2.2 The implementation of knowledge building and its outcomes 17
2.2.3 Knowledge building environment settings 19
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 23
3.1 Participants and research context 23
3.2 General research design 24
3.2.1 Knowledge building environment settings 26
3.2.2 Knowledge building activities 27
3.3 Online learning platform (Knowledge Forum) 30
3.4 Topics of argumentative essay writing 32
3.5 Instruments 33
3.5.1 Knowledge building Environment Scale (KBES) 33
3.5.2 Argumentation coding schemes (Argumentation structure and quality) 35
3.5.3 Automated assessment method 38
3.5.4 The Lag Sequential Analysis (LSA) 39
3.5.5 Reflection questions 39
3.5.6 Argumentation Self-Efficacy Writing Scale (ASEWS) 41
3.6 Data collection and data analyses 42
3.6.1 Assessing students’ perceptions of knowledge building environment 43
3.6.2 Reporting students’ performance of argumentative essay writing. 43
3.6.3 Exploring students’ online KB learning process and reflections. 44
3.6.4 Exploring the changes of students’ self-efficacy of English argumentative essay writing 44
3.6.5 Exploring the correlation between the students’ writing self-efficacy and their performance of argumentative essay writing 44
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 47
4.1 Students’ perceptions of the KB learning environment designed in this study 47
4.1.1 Students’ perceptions of the environment between previous learning and after KBA1 48
4.1.2 Students’ perceptions of the environment between previous learning and after KBA2 50
4.1.3 Students’ perceptions of the environment before and after KBA2 52
4.2. The results of argumentative essay writing 54
4.2.1 Argumentative essay structure 54
4.2.2 Argumentative essay quality 58
4.3 KB process and students’ reflections 62
4.3.1 KB process 63
4.3.2 Students’ reflections 66
4.4 The results of argumentation self-efficacy writing scale (ASEWS) 71
4.4.1 Students’ overall results 72
4.4.2 The effects of KB activities on the two groups of students’ self-efficacy of English argumentative essay writing 73
4.5 The correlations between students’ writing self-efficacy and their performance of argumentative essays 78
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 81
5.1 Students’ perceptions of the KB learning environment designed in this study 82
5.1.1 Students’ perceptions of the KB learning environment between their previous learning environment and after KBA1 and KBA2 82
5.1.2 The effects of different knowledge building environment settings on the students’ perceptions of KB learning environments 83
5.2 Argumentative essay writing performance 83
5.2.1 Argumentation structure (level) 83
5.2.2 Argumentation quality (claims, grounds, rebuttals) 84
5.3 Knowledge Building learning process and reflections 85
5.3.1 KB learning process 85
5.3.2 Knowledge building reflections 88
5.4 Students’ argumentation writing self-efficacy 90
5.4.1 Students’ overall changes of argumentation self-efficacy writing 90
5.4.2 The effects of KB activities on the two groups of students’ argumentation writing self-efficacy 91
5.5 The correlation between students’ argumentation writing self-efficacy and students’ argumentative essay performance 92
5.6 Conclusions 93
REFERENCES 96
APPENDIXES 109
Appendix 1: knowledge building activities in this study 109
Appendix 2: knowledge building environment(KBES) in the pretest 113
Appendix 3: knowledge building environment(KBES) in middle and post test 115
Appendix 4: Individual reflection questions 117
Appendix 5: Group reflection questions 118
Appendix 6: Argumentative Self-Efficacy Writing Scale (ASEWS) 119

參考文獻

Aalst, J. V. & Chan, Carol, K. K. (2007). Students-directed assessment of knowledge building using electronic portfolios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 175-220.
Abdollahzadeh, E., Farsani, M. A., & Beikmohammadi, M. (2017) Argumentative
Writing Behavior of Graduate EFL Learners. Argumentation (2017) 31, 641-661.
Amar, A. D. (2002). Managing knowledge workers: Unleashing innovation and productivity., Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Arsyad, S. (1999). The Indonesian and English argument structure: A cross-cultural rhetoric of argumentative texts. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 85-102.
Bacha, N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,93, 229-241.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1992). Self-efficacy mechanism in socio cognitive functioning. Paper presented at The American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco, CA. (67-90)
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-Efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide to constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
Bentler, P. M. & Wu, E. J. C. (1993). EQS/Windows user’s guide. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software Incorporated.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 25-37.
Brunning, R., Dempsey, M. S., Kauffman, D., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 25-38.
Bryant, T. (2006). Social software in academia. Educause Quarterly, 29(2), 61-64.
Butler, J.A., & M.A. Britt. (2011). Investigating instruction for improving revision of argumentative essays. Written Communication 28(1), 70-96.
Canagarajah, S. (2014). In search of a new paradigm for teaching English as an international language. TESOL Journal, 5(4), 767-785.
Chan, T. W. (2010). How East Asian classrooms may change over the next 20 years. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 28-52.
Chan, C. K. K. (2012). Co-regulation of learning in computer-supported collaborative learning environment” A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 63-73.
Chan, C. K. K. & Chan, Y. Y. (2011). Student views of collaboration and online participation in Knowledge Forum. Computers & Education 57(1), 1445-1457.
Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
Cook, V. (1999) Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2), 185-209.
Cress, U., Kimmerle, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Information exchange with shared databases as a social dilemma: The effect of meta-knowledge, bonus systems, and costs. Communication Research, 33(5), 370-390.
Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/argumentative discourse. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(4), 348-359.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cusumano, M. A. (2001). Focusing creativity. In I. Nonaka & T. Nishiguchi (Eds.), knowledge emergence (pp. 111-123). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco.
Deane, P. & Song, Y. (2014). A case study in principled assessment design: Designing assessments to measure and support the development of argumentative reading and writing skills. Psicologia Educative, 20 (2014), 99-108.
Du, H. S., & Wagner, C. (2006). Weblog success: exploring the role of technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 789-798.
EI-Henawy, W. M., Dadour, E.-S. M., Salem, M. M., & EI-Bassuony, J. M. (2012). The effectiveness of using self-regulation strategies on developing argumentative writing of EFL prospective teachers. Journal of the Egyptian Association for Reading and Knowledge, 27(1), 1-28.
Ellis, G. W., Rudnitsky, A. N., & Morisrty, M. A (2010). Theoretic stories: Creating deeper learning in introductory engineering courses. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(5), 1072-1082.
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-483.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osbrne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
Fayol, M., Alamargot, D., & Berniner, V. W. (Eds). (2012). Translation of thought to written text while composing. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1984). The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1, 120-160.
Gloor, P. A. (2006). Swarm creativity: Competitive advantage through collaborative innovation networks., Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Gut, D. M. (2011). Integrating 21st century skills into the curriculum. In G. Wan, & D. M. Gut (Eds.), Bringing schools into the 21st Century (pp. 137-157). Dordrecht, New York: Springer.
Hall, H., & Davison, B. (2007). Social software as support in hybrid learning environments: the value of the blog as a tool for reflective learning and peer
support. Library and Information Science Research, 29(2), 163-187.
Hashemnejad, F., Zoghi, M., & Amini, D. (2014). The relationship between self-efficacy and writing performance across genders. Theory and practice in language studies, 4(5), 1045-1052.
Helms-Park, R. & Stapleton, P. (2003). Questioning the importance of individualized voice in undergraduate L2 argumentative writing: An empirical study with pedagogical implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 245-265.
Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2006). Motivation and writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 144-157). New York: The Guilford Press.
Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 181-209.
Hong, H. -Y. (2011). Beyond group collaboration: Facilitating an idea-centered view of collaboration through knowledge building in a science class of fifth-graders. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(2), 246-260.
Hong, H.-Y., Chen, B., & Chai, C.S. (2016). Exploring the development of college students’ epistemic views during their knowledge building activities. Computers & Education, 98(2016), 1-13.
Hong, H. -Y. & Lin, S. P. (2010). Teacher-Education Students’ Epistemological Belief Change through Collaborative Knowledge Building. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 99-110.
Hong, H.-Y. & Scardamalia, M. (2015). Community knowledge assessment in a knowledge building environment. Computer & Education, 71 (2014), 279-288.
Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., & Zhang, J. (2010). Knowledge society network: Toward a dynamic, sustained network for building knowledge. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 36(1).
Hong, H.-Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational -Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613-627.
Hughes, W., & J. Lavery. (2008). Critical thinking: An introduction to the basic skills, 5th ed. Ontario: Broadview Press.
Jenkins, J. (2000) The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439-457.
Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7 Users’ reference guide. Chicago: SPSS Publications.
Kachru, B. B. (1986) The alchemy of English. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kathpalia, S. S & See, E. K. (2016). Improving argumentation through blog. System, 58(2016), 25-36.
Kim, M. & Tan, H. T. (2013). A collaborative problem-solving process through environmental field studies. International Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 357-387.
Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., & Hesse, F. W. (2007). An interactional perspective on group awareness: Alleviating the information exchange dilemma (for everybody?). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(11), 899-910.
Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy.
Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 69-100.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lam, Y. W., Hew, K. F., & Chiu, K. F. (2018). Improving argumentative writing: Effects of a blended learning approach and gamification. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 97-118.
Lephalala, M. & Pienaar, C. (2008). An evaluation of markers’ commentary on ESL students’ argumentative essays in an ODL context. Language Matters, 39(1), 66-87.
Lin. K. Y., Hong, H.-Y., & Chai, C. S. (2014). Development and validation of the knowledge-building environment scale. Learning and Individual Differences, 30(2014), 124-132.
Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2014). Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System, 45, 117-128.
Luehmann, A. L. & Tinelli, I. (2008). Teacher professional identity development with social networking technologies: Learning reform through blogging. Educational Media International, 45(4), 323-333.
Ma, L., Matsuzawa, Y., Kici, D., & Scardamalia, M. (2015). An exploration of rotating leadership in knowledge building community. Paper presented at the Creative Networks: The Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINS) Conference, 2015.
McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing: A different view of self-evaluation. College Composition and Communication, 36(4), 465-471.
Means, M. L. & J. F. Voss. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-178.
Moss, J. & Beatty, R. (2006). Knowledge building in mathematics: Supporting collaborative learning in pattern problems. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 441-465.
Muller Mirza, N., & A. Perret-Clermont (eds.) (2009). Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. New York: Springer.
Ne´meth, N., & J. Kormos. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task-performance: the case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5, 213-240.
Newell, G.E., R. Beach, J. Smith, & J. VanderHeide. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273-304.
Nussbaum, E. M. & C. M. Kardash. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and texts on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157-169.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., & Howell-Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: a study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315-347
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor-An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14, 535-557.
Parajres, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in the writing of high school students: A path analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 163-175.
Pajares, F., Johnson, M. J., & Usher, E. L. (2007). Sources of writing self-efficacy beliefs of elementary, middle, and high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 104-120.
Partnership for 21st skills (2009). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved June 22, 2018 from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. London: Oxford University Press
Qin, K., & E., Karabacak. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38(3), 444-456.
Rapanta, C., M. Garcia-Mila, & S. Gilabert. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Education research 83(4), 483-520.
Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (1995). Knowing and interacting: A study of culture, practices, and resources in a Grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 73-128.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138.
Sasaki, M. (2011). Effects of varying lengths of study-abroad experiences on Japanese EFL students′ L2 writing ability and motivation: A longitudinal study. TESOL quarterly, 45(1), 81-105.
Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Emergence in creativity and development. In K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, S. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Wakamura, et al. (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 12-60). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
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.
Scardamalia, M. (2003). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B.Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In Education and technology: An encyclopedia, 183-192. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building
communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265-283.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Adaptation and understanding: A case for new cultures of schooling. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp.149-163). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge Building. In: J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education. 2nd edition. New York: Macmillan.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In Sawyer (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-118).
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2007). Fostering communities of learners and knowledge building: An interrupted dialogue. In J. C. Campione, K. E. Metz, & A. S. Palincsar (Eds.), Children’s learning in the laboratory and in the classroom: Essays in honor of Ann Brown. Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2010). A brief history of knowledge building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 36(1). Retrieve July, 12, 2018, from https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26367/19549
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd Edition) (pp. 397-417). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
Schunk, D. H. (2003) Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159-172.
Sharifian, F., & Marlina, R. (2012). English as an international language: An innovative academic program. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language (pp. 140-153). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 386-398
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 91-100.
Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289.
Sun, Y., Zhang, J., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Knowledge building and vocabulary growth over two years, grade 3 and 4. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 38(2), 147-171.
Toplak, M.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (2003). Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post-secondary education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 851-860.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument, vol. 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tsai, P. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). College students’ skills of online argumentation: the role of scaffolding and their conceptions. Internet and Higher Education, 21, 1-8.
Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post-secondary education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 85-860.
Tuckman, B. W. (1999). Conducting educational research (5th ed.): Wadsworth Group.
Uysal, H. (2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 183-207.
Varghese, S. A. & Abraham, S. A. (1998). Undergraduates arguing a case. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 287-306.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development (M. Lopez-Morillas, Trans.). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp.79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, K. A. & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31(2), 57-71.
Wells, G. (2002). Learning and teaching for understanding: The key role of collaborative knowledge building. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints (pp. 1–41). Oxford, England: Elsevier/JAI Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28(2), 377-89.
Wingate, U. (2012). Argument! Helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 145-154.
Wolfe, C. R. (2011). Argumentation across the. Written Communication, 28(2), 193-219.
Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14, 1-27.
Wu, Y.-T. & Wang, L.-J., (2016). Research trends in technology-enhanced knowledge building pedagogies: A review of selected empirical research from 2006 to 2015. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(3), 353-375.
Xie, Y., Ke, F., & Sharma, P. (2008). The effect of peer feedback for blogging on college students′ reflective learning processes. Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 18-25.
Zhang, J. (2013). Second language writing as and for second language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 446-447.
Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262-307.
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R. & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The journal of the learning sciences, 18(1), 7-44.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-862.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). A writer’s discipline: The development of self-regulatory skill. In S. Hidi & P. Boscolo (Eds.), Motivation and writing: Research and school practice (pp. 51-69). New York, NY: Kluwer.

指導教授

吳穎沺

審核日期

2018-11-5

推文