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：98

、訪客IP：3.141.12.254

姓名	吳聲毅(Sheng-Yi Wu)  查詢紙本館藏	畢業系所	網路學習科技研究所
論文名稱	無縫隙線上討論環境之建構與評估-序列行為分析與其對學習之影響 (Construction and Evaluation of Seamless Online Learning Integrated Discussion (SOLID): Sequential Behavior Analysis and the Impact on Learning)
相關論文	★ 同步表演機器人之建構與成效評估 ★ 探討國小學童使用電子書多媒體註記系統結合註記分享機制對其學習行為與時間之影響 ★ 先備知識對註記式多媒體電子書的影響研究：從個別環境到分享環境 ★ Facilitating EFL speaking and writing with peer-tutoring and storytelling strategies in authentic learning context ★ An investigation into CKEL-supported EFL learning with TPR to reveal the importance of pronunciation and interactive sentence making ★ Investigation of Facilitating Physics Learning using Ubiquitous-Physics APP with Learning Map and Discussion Board in Authentic Contexts ★ 智慧互動SmartVpen在真實情境對於英文學習之影響 ★ 利用合作虛擬化的網絡設計輔助計算機網路學習 ★ 探討擴展合作式多媒體認知理論和其對EFL聽力與口語能力之影響 - 結合動覺辨識和學習者設計內容之猜謎遊戲 ★ 在真實情境中利用智慧機制提升國小學生之外語口說及對話能力之評估 ★ 探討在真實情境下教師回饋對學習認知與學習持續性之影響 ★ 註釋、對話代理和協作概念圖支持大學生議論文寫作和後設認知的培養 ★ Developing and Validating the Questionnaire and Its Model for Sustainable and Scalable Authentic Contextual Learning Supported by Mobile Apps ★ 探討個人化、情境化及社會化的智慧機制 輔助真實情境國小幾何學習與其對學習成效之影響 ★ Investigation of smart mechanisms for authentic contextual learning with sensor and recognition technologies ★ 探討智慧回饋如何影響學習時眼動和觸控 操作的表現-以 Covid-19 快篩模擬為例
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)	由於數位學習科技的發展與Web 2.0概念的流行，電腦輔助協作學習(Computer-supported collaborative learning, CSCL)的策略與教學活動經常被用在許多線上學習社群的教學與學習活動。經由同儕對話與互動，可以促進學生檢視自身認知策略的使用、增進人際社會技巧，並有助於知識建構。 在線上學習環境中，討論式教學法是一項常被教學者採用的教學策略。線上討論包含同步討論與非同步討論。經由相關文獻探究可知，同步討論與非同步討論都各自有其優點與限制，但卻較少文獻討論整合兩種討論機制的環境架構以及學習歷程的研究議題。其次，將線上學習社群架構在其本身日常生活中的網路社群中，可以促進學習動機與成效。因此，本研究首先將開發結合常用之同步討論工具(MSN Messenger)與非同步討論環境(Facebook Group)的”Seamless Online Learning Integrated Discussion (SOLID)”無接縫系統。 本研究分為兩個子研究，個案一將首先探究運用SOLID系統於問題解決討論活動和專題製作討論活動的學習歷程。由於問題解決與專題製作的教學策略均係廣泛被討論與運用的教學策略，因此本研究擬針對此兩種策略於無接縫討論環境下的教學活動的學習歷程進行比較，以了解其特色與限制。此外，由於相關文獻指出，專題製作的活動是一個更接近真實情境的問題解決活動，並需要更多的同儕協調，且較單純之問題解決策略為複雜，因此本研究之個案二即參考個案一相關於專題製作的行為歷程所發現之限制，進行專題教學活動的修正與精致化，並將進行更長時間與更多面向的分析，以更深入了解無接縫環境下進階專題討論教學活動的成效與限制。 為了瞭解在SOLID系統中，學生們在兩個個案中的工具使用與學習行為，因此本研究就透過序列分析與統計分析了解小組合作討論品質、作品品質、認知處理階段、知識建構與工具選擇的差異與相關。 透過相關分析與討論，本研究提出以下結論。首先，透過SOLID系統進行討論活動，在認知處理階段與知識建構上，可以引發更多元的認知處理階段與知識建構的行為模式。其次，在各個活動中，離題討論的比例皆很高，這和之前的相關研究結果一致。本研究也發現，這些討論與學習活動雖然沒有直接關係，卻可能有正向的影響。第三，整體來說，專題製作討論活動與進階專題製作討論活動較能讓小組合作討論品質與作品品質產生關係。第四，小組合作討論品質、作品品質、認知處理階段和知識建構相關之探討部分。在專題製作討論活動中，產生了對多的顯著相關。而進階專題製作討論活動卻沒有此現象，此現象有待未來深入探究。最後，關於同步與非同步運用比例部分，三個活動大多數的組別使用非同步討論與混合討論的模式進行討論。不管進行何種討論活動，採用混合討論模式的組別雖然並非最多，但卻可以得到較佳的作品品質與小組合作討論品質。
摘要(英)	Due to the development of e-learning technology and the popularity of Web 2.0 concepts, computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) strategies and teaching activities have been widely applied in many online learning communities. In CSCL environments, peer dialogue and interaction can encourage students to review their use of cognitive strategies, enhance interpersonal social skills, and help to construct knowledge. In online learning environments, discussion teaching methods, which are often used as an interactive teaching strategy by instructors, include synchronous and asynchronous discussions. Related literature shows that synchronous and asynchronous discussion methods have different advantages and disadvantage, but very little literature focuses on the environmental framework of integrating the two discussion devices, as well as the research topics of the learning process. Secondly, the online learning community structure in the everyday Internet community can enhance motivation and effectiveness in learning. Therefore, this study will attempt to develop the ‘Seamless Online Learning the Integrated Discussion (SOLID)’ system that integrates the commonly-used synchronous discussion device (i.e., MSN Messenger) and the asynchronous discussion environment (i.e., Facebook Group). This study is divided into two sub-studies: Study 1 explores the use of the SOLID in the learning process of problem solving-based discussion activity and project-based discussion activity. Since the problem solving-based and project-based teaching strategies are widely applied for teaching and learning, this study compares these two teaching strategies applied to the learning processes of the teaching activities based on the seamless discussion environment in order to understand their characteristics and limitations. In addition, related literature states that the project-based activity is a more realistic and situational problem-solving activity, which demands more peer coordination and is more complex than the simple problem solving-based strategies. Therefore, Study 2 addresses the limitations found in the behavioral process of project making elicited in Study 1, as well as modify and refine the project-based teaching activity. Study 2 also conducts a lengthier and multidimensional analysis to acquire a deeper understanding of the effectiveness and the limitations of the advanced SOLID project-based teaching and learning activities. In order to understand students’ device usage and learning behavior in the two studies based on SOLID environment, both sequential and statistical analyses are applied to understand the differences and correlations between group collaboration discussion quality, project quality, cognitive processing phases, knowledge construction and tools selected. Through pertinent analysis and discussion, this study proposed the following conclusions. At first, cognitive processing phases and knowledge construction in the discussion activities based on SOLID system could indeed stimulate greater diversified behavioral patterns in cognitive processing phases and knowledge construction. Secondly, the proportion of off-topic behavior was high in various activities, which is consistent with the results of previously mentioned studies. The study also found that while these discussions and learning activities had no direct correlations, they may have a positive impact on one another. Thirdly, the advanced project-based discussion activity on the whole better elicited correlations between the group collaboration discussion quality and project quality. Fourthly, this study discussed the correlations between group collaboration discussion quality, project quality, cognitive processing phases and knowledge construction. This study found that the project-based discussion activity pointed out multiple significant correlations; however, the advanced project-based discussion activity had no this phenomenon. It encourages more in-depth exploration. Finally, regarding the proportional distribution of synchronous and asynchronous strategies, most of the groups used the asynchronous discussion and mixed discussion in the three discussion activities. Regardless of the types of discussion and activity, although not all groups used the mixed discussion model, those who did nevertheless had better project quality and group collaboration discussion quality.
關鍵字(中)	★ 臉書 ★ 討論品質 ★ 序列分析 ★ 線上討論	關鍵字(英)	★ Facebook ★ discussion quality ★ sequential analysis ★ Online discussion
論文目次	中文摘要 i Abstract ii Acknowledgment iv Table of Contents v List of Figures viii List of Tables I 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Research Background 1 1.2 Research Motivation 7 1.3 Research Purposes 9 2 Literature Review 13 2.1 Learning Community and Social Network Sites 13 2.1.1 Online Learning Community 13 2.1.2 Learning via Online Learning Community 15 2.1.3 MSN Messenger and Facebook 18 2.2 Asynchronous and Synchronous Discussion 23 2.2.1 Learning and Interaction 23 2.2.2 Online Discussion 26 2.2.3 Asynchronous Discussion 29 2.2.4 Synchronous Discussion 31 2.3 Problem-solving-based Discussion Activity and Project-based Discussion Activity 33 2.3.1 Problem-solving-based Discussion Activity 33 2.3.2 Project-based Discussion Activity 37 2.4 Summary 42 3 The SOLID System 45 3.1 System architecture 45 3.2 Signing In the SOLID System 46 3.3 MSN Messenger Functions: Discussion and Information Access 48 3.4 Facebook Functions: Discussion and Information Access 51 3.5 System Management Terminal 52 4 Research Design 55 4.1 Research Scope 55 4.2 Participants 56 4.3 Instruments 57 4.3.1 Bloom’s Taxonomy 57 4.3.2 Interaction analysis model (IAM) 58 4.4 Data Collection and Discussion Requirements 59 4.5 Data Processing 62 5 Data Analysis and Result 65 5.1 The differences of sequential behavioral patterns 65 5.1.1 The cognitive processing phases between AT1 and AT2 65 5.1.2 The knowledge construction between AT1 and AT2 69 5.1.3 The cognitive processing phases in AT3 72 5.1.4 The knowledge construction in AT3 74 5.1.5 Summary 76 5.2 The differences and correlation in group collaboration discussion quality, project quality, cognitive processing phases and knowledge construction 78 5.2.1 The differences in group collaboration discussion quality between AT1 and AT2 78 5.2.2 The differences in project quality between AT1 and AT2 79 5.2.3 The correlation between the group collaboration discussion quality, project quality, cognitive processing phases and knowledge construction in AT1 80 5.2.4 The correlation between the group collaboration discussion quality, project quality, cognitive processing phases and knowledge construction in AT2 83 5.2.5 The correlation between the group collaboration discussion quality, project quality, cognitive processing phases and knowledge construction in AT3 86 5.2.6 Summary 88 5.3 Exploring the discussion modes 90 5.3.1 Proportion of the discussion modes 90 5.3.2 The group collaboration discussion quality and project quality in AT1 94 5.3.3 The group collaboration discussion quality and project quality in AT2 97 5.3.4 The group collaboration discussion quality and project quality in AT3 99 5.3.5 Summary 102 6 Discussions and Conclusions 105 6.1 Discussions 105 6.1.1 The discussions of cognitive and knowledge construction 105 6.1.2 The discussions of group collaboration discussion quality, project quality, cognitive processing phases and knowledge construction 110 6.1.3 The discussions of discussion model 113 6.2 Conclusions 115 6.3 Suggestions 118 6.4 Future studies 120 Reference 123
參考文獻	[1] Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (2), 157–167. [2] Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. [3] Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conference context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. [4] Anderson, L. (2006). Revised Bloom’’s Taxonomy. Paper presented at North Carolina Career and Technical Education Curriculum Development Training, Raleigh, NC. [5] Asterhan, C.S.C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e–argumentation. International Journal of Computer–Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 259–282. [6] Asterhan, S. S. C. (2008). Direct Tutor Moderation of Synchronous Discussions:The Importance of Involvement and Personalizatio. Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructional technologies research 2008. Eshet–Alkalai, A. Caspi, N. Geri (Eds.), Raanana: The Open University of Israel, 13–17 [7] Baym, N. K. (1998). The emergence of on–line community. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer–mediated communication and community (pp.35–68). London, Sage Publications. [8] Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). UK: Cambridge University Press. [9] Barbera, E. (2009). Mutual feedback in e–portfolio assessment: An approach to the netfolio system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 342–357. [10] Bench–Capon, T.J.M. & Leng, P.H. (2000). Computer–mediated collaborative learning of legal argumentation. Information & Communications Technology Law, 9(2) , 129–138. [11] Brown, J.S., Collins, A.& Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 322–342. [12] Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understandingL: essons from researcho n problema nd projectbased learning. Journal of Learning Sciences, 7, 271–312. [13] Brook, C. & Oliver, R. (2003). Online learning communities: Investigating a design framework. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2), 139–160. [14] Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare to classroom instruction? A meta–analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439. [15] Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. M. & Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. [16] Burden, P. R., & Byrd, D. M. (1994). Methods for effective teaching. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. [17] Cheung, C. M. Y., Shek, S. P. W., & Sia, C. L. (2004). Virtual community of consumers:Why people are willing to contribute. Paper presented at the meeting of the 8thPacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Shanghai. [18] Casarotti, M., Filipponi, L., Pieti, L. & Sartori, R. (2002). Educational Interaction in Distance Learning: Analysis of a One–Way Video and Two–Way Audio System. PsychNology Journal, Summer, 1(1), 28–38. [19] Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel. (1991). Assessment of a problem–centered second–grade mathematics project. Journal for researcher in mathematics Education, 22(1), 3–29. [20] Cross, K. P. (1998). Why learning communities? Why now? About Campus, 3(3), 4–11. [21] Card, K. A. & Horton, L. (2000). Providing access to graduate education using computer–mediated communication. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(3), 235–245. [22] Cekaite, A. (2009). Collaborative corrections with spelling control: Digital resources and peer assistance. International Journal of Computer–Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 319–341. [23] Chan, T. W., Hue, C. W., Chou, C. Y., & Tzeng, O. J. L. (2001). Four spaces of network learning models. Computer & Education, 37, 141–161. [24] Chen, Y. H., Chen, N. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). The use of online synchronous discussion for web–based professional development for teachers. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1155–1166. [25] Chen, G., & Chiu, M. M. (2008). Online discussion processes: Effects of earlier messages’ evaluations, knowledge content, social cues and personal information on later messages. Computers & Education, 50(3), 678–692. [26] Cheung, W. S. & Hew, K. F. (2010). Using asynchronous online discussion in education: Lessons learned over the last ten years. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 279–282). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. [27] Checkfacebook(2012). http://www.checkfacebook.com/. Retrieved February 1, 2012. [28] Chou, C. C. (2002). A comparative content analysis of student interaction in synchronous and asynchronous learning networks. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. [29] Chen, F.C., Lee, Y.W., Chu, H.J., Wang, H.R., & Jiang, H.M. （2005）. How Do Social Talks Interweave with Effective Discussions and Learning？ The Official Journal of Global Chinese Society for Computer in Education. 3(1). [30] Cobb, A. (2010). To differentiate or not to differentiate? Using Internet–Based Technology in the Classroom. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(1), 37–45, 59. Retrieved from Education Full Text database. [31] Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath. [32] Debowski, S. (2001). Wrong way: Go back! An exploration of novice search behaviours while conducting an information search. The Electronic Library, 19, 371–382. [33] Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2009). High school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445. [34] De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Blending asynchronous discussion groups and peer tutoring in higher education: An exploratory study of online peer tutoring behaviour. Computers & Education, 50(1), 207–223. [35] Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado. [36] Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What Do You Mean by “Collaborative Learning” ?, Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approach, P. Dillenbourg(ed.), Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp. 1–19. [37] De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2005). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28. [38] De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups by introducing roles: Do students act in line with assigned roles? Small Group Research, 39(6), 770–794. [39] Eldin, Y. (1996). The Interactivity Component of Distance Learning Implemented in an Art Studio Course. Education, Winter, 117(2), 180–184. [40] Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social capital and college students’’ use of online social network sites. Computer–Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. [41] Foreman, J. (2005). Distance Learning and Synchronous Interaction. Retrieved October 6, 2010, from http://technologysource.org/article/ distance_learning_and_synchronous_interaction/ [42] Fisher, M., Thompson, G. S., & Silverberg, D. A. (2005). Effective group dynamics in e-learning: Case study. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33(3), 205-–222. [43] Facebook(2012). http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics. Retrieved February 1, 2012. [44] Graham, C. R. (2002). Factors for Effective Learning Groups in Face–to–Face and Virtual Environments. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(3), 307–319. [45] Gage, B. A. (1986). An analysis of problem solving processes used in college chemistry quantitative equilibrium problems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: The University of Maryland. [46] Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). Facebook me: Collective self–esteem, need to belong, and Internet self–efficacy as predictors of the iGeneration’s attitudes towards social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 5–15. [47] Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of 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), 397 – 431. [48] Hwang, W. Y., Huang, Y. M., & Wu, S. Y. (2008).The Effect of an MSN Agent on Learning Community and Achievement. Interactive Learning Environment. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820903356809 (SSCI) [49] Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers and Education, 51(3), 1111–1124. [50] Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2002). What makes learning networks effective? Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 56–59. [51] Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2007). An analysis of peer assessment online discussions within a course that uses project–based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(3), 237–251. [52] Hou, H. T., Sung, Y. T. & Chang, K. E. (2008). Exploring the behavioral patterns of an online knowledge sharing discussion activity among teachers with problem–solving strategy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 101–108. [53] Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2007). An analysis of peer assessment online discussions within a course that uses project–based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(3), 237–251. [54] Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Analysis of problem–solving based online asynchronous discussion pattern. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 17–28. [55] Hou, H. T., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2009). Exploring the behavioral patterns of an online knowledge sharing discussion activity among teachers with problem–solving strategy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 101–108. [56] Hou, H. T. (2010). Exploring the behavioural patterns in project–based learning with online discussion: quantitative content analysis and progressive sequential analysis. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 52–60. [57] Hou, H. T. & Wu, S. Y. (2011). Analyzing the social knowledge construction behavioral patterns of an online synchronous collaborative discussion instructional activity using an instant messaging tool: A case study. Computers & Education ,57, 1459–1468. [58] Howes, E. V., & Cruz, B. C. (2009). Role–playing in science education: An effective strategy for developing multiple perspectives. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 33–46. [59] Hardaker, G., & Smith, D. (2002). E–learning communities, virtual markets and knowledge creation. European Business Review, 14(5), 342–350. [60] Hendriks, P. (1999), Why Share Knowledge? The Influence of ICT on Motivation for Knowledge Sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91–100. [61] Hall, H., & Graham, D. (2004). Creation and recreation: motivating collaboration to generate knowledge capital in online communities. International Journal of Information Management, 24, 235–266. [62] Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing. Education Tech Research Dev, Organization Science, 55, 573–595. [63] Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner–centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. [64] Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing, and sequencing planned elearning interactions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141–160. [65] Henna, L. A., & Potter, G.L., & Hagaman, N.(1995). Unit teaching in the elementary school. New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc. [66] Hart, J., Ridley, C., Taher, F., Sas, C., & Dix, A. (2008). Exploring the facebook experience: a new approach to usability. Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human–computer interaction: building bridges, October 20–22, 2008, Lund, Sweden [67] Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006). Crossing Boundaries: Identity Management and Student/Faculty Relationships on the Facebook. Paper presented at the CSCW, Canada. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.94.8152&rep=rep1&type=pdf. [68] Huang, A.H., & Yen, D.C. (2003). Usefulness of Instant Messaging Among Young Users: Social vs. Work Perspective. Human Systems Management, 22, 63–72. [69] Hwang, W. Y., Wu, S. Y., & Chen, H. C. (2008). The effect of MSN Robot on learning community and achievement. The 2nd IEEE International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (Digitel 2008), Banff, Canada. [70] Harasim, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [71] Hara, N., Bonk, C.J. & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science , 28, 115–152. [72] Hagel, J. & Armstrong A.G. (1997). Net Gain. Harvard Business School Press. [73] Hossmann, T., Legendre, F., Nomikos, G., & Spy–ropoulos, T. S. (2011). Using facebook to collect rich datasets for opportunisticnetworking research. In The Fifth IEEE WoWMoM Workshop on Auto–nomic and Opportunistic Communications (AOC 11), Lucca, Italy. [74] Isaacs, E., Walendowski, A., & Ranganthan, D. (2002). Hubbub: A sound–enhanced mobile instant messenger that supports awareness and opportunistic interactions. Proceedings of CHI 2002 (pp. 179 –186). Minneapolis, MN: ACM Press. [75] Johnson, G. (2008). The relative learning benefits of synchronous and asynchronous text–based discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 166–169. [76] Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. [77] Jones, H., & Soltren, J. H. (2005). Facebook: Threats to privacy. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/ student–papers/fall05–papers/facebook.pdf [78] Joinson, A. N. (2008).‘Looking at’,‘Looking up’or‘Keeping up with’ People? Motives and Uses of Facebook. Proceeding of the 26th annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 05–10, 2008, Florence, Italy. [79] Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. American journal of distance education, 17(1), 25–43. [80] Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 45–60. [81] Koong, C. S., & Wu, C. Y. (2011). The applicability of interactive item templates in varied knowledge types Original Research Article. Computers & Education, 56(3), 781–801. [82] Kang, M., & Kim, Y. (1999). Development of knowledge flow diagram for intraorganizational knowledge–sharing enhancement. In S. C. Ryu (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference of Korea Society of Management Information System (pp. 141−152). Seoul, South Korea: Korea Society of Management Information System. [83] Krolikowska, K., Kronenberg, J., Maliszewska, K., Sendzimir, J., Magnuszewski, P., Dunajski A., & Slodka, A. (2007). Role–playing simulation as a communication tool in community dialogue: Karkonosze Mountains case study. Simulation & Gaming, 38(2), 195–210. [84] King, L. J. (2000). Gender issues in online communities, The CPSR Newsletter,18(1), Retrieved Apr. 1, 2010, from http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/publications/ newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/king.html . [85] Kochtanek, T. R., & Hein, K. K. (2000). Creating and nurturing distributed asynchronous learning environments. Online Information Review, 24(4), 280–293. [86] King, F., Nelson, J.G. & Restauri, S. (2002). Reaching the Distant Learner: The Evolutionary Process. Education, Summer, 122(4), 667–370. [87] Krajcik, J. S. , Blumenfeld , P. C., Marx , R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A　collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn　project–based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483–497. [88] Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. F. (2003). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project–based approach. New York: McGraw–Hill. [89] Koh, J. H. L., Herring, S. C., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Project–based learning and student knowledge construction during asynchronous online discussion. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 284–291. [90] Kim, H. M. & Kim, Y. S. (2001). Application of Internet Services to Promote Interactions between the Instructor and the Students in the Course of an Introduction to Biology Education. from web : http://bioedu.snu.ac.kr/dept/labs/bioedu_lab/students/1998_kimhyunmyoung/project/KR108–Kim.doc [91] Koh, J., & Kim, Y. G. (2004). Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An e–business perspective. Expert Systems with Applications, 26, 155–166. [92] Kim, S., & Ju, B. (2008). An analysis of faculty perceptions: Attitudes toward knowledge sharing and collaboration in an academic institution. Library & Information Science Research, 30(4), 282–290. [93] Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield (2006). A face(book) in the crowd: social Searching vs. social browsing. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 167– 170. New York: ACM Press. [94] Lampe, C., Ellison, N. B., & Steinfield, C. (2008). Changes in use and perception of facebook. Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, November 08–12, 2008, San Diego, CA, USA. [95] Lim, C. P. (2002). Trends in online learning and their implications for Schools. Educational Technology, 42(6) , 43 – 48 . [96] Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470–501. [97] Ljungstrand, P., Segerstad, Y. H. af. (2000). Awareness of presence, instant messaging and WebWho. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 21(3), 21–27. [98] Luppicini, R. (2007). Online Learning Communities (Ed.). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing. [99] Landers, A. K., & Landers, R. N. (2008). Synchronous vs. asynchronous discussion in a hybrid undergraduate course. In C. Bonk et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E–Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (pp. 2866–2869). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. [100] Marchionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in electronic environments. New York: Cambridge University Press. [101] Ma, L., & Whittier, D. (2010). How faculty’s satisfaction with teaching online relates to synchronous/asynchronous communication. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 683–687). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. [102] Marra, R. M., Moore, J. L. & Klimczak, A. K. (2004). Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52 (2), 23–40. [103] Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003).Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40(3), 237–253. [104] Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project–based science. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358. [105] Muller–Prothmann, T. & Siedentorf, C. (2003). Designing Online Knowledge Communities:Developing a Usability Evaluation Criteria Catalogue. 3rd European Knowledge Management Summer School 2003 San Sebastian, 7–12. [106] Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. [107] Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: it is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155. [108] Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444–453. [109] Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action. Proceedings of CSCW 2000 (pp. 79–88). Philadelphia, PA: ACM Press. [110] Nonaka, I., R. Toyama, et al. (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5–34. [111] O’Reilly, T. (2006).Web 2.0: Stuck on a name or hooked on value? Dr. Dobbs Journal , 31(7), 10. [112] Preece, J. (2000). Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. [113] Pifarre, M., & Cobos, R. (2010). Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer–Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 237–253. [114] Rafaeli, S. & Sudweeks, F. (1998). Interactivity on the Nets, Network and Netplay: Virtual Groups on the Internet, F. Sudweeks, M. McLaughlin & S. Rafaeli (ed.), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 173–189. [115] Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46 (4), 349–370. [116] Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Yu, W. C. (2011). Evaluating the reliability and impact of a quality–assurance system for E–learning courseware. Computers and Education, 57, 1615–1627. [117] Sharon, A., Perelman V., and Dori, D. A. (2008). Project–Product Lifecycle Management Approach for ImprovedSystems Engineering Practices. Proceedings of Eighteenth Annual International Symposium of the InternationalCouncil on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), Utrecht, the Netherlands. [118] Sauve, L., Villardier, L., & Probst, W. (2009). Designing a mixed training model (synchronous and asynchronous) to be offered online for the development of skills for teachers in training. Proceedings of International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On–line Learning,73–76. [119] Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web–based and classroom instruction: A meta–analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 623–664. [120] Senge, P. (1998). Sharing knowledge. Executive Excellence, 15(6), 11–12. [121] Schulz–Schaeffer, I .(2000). Online Communities, social networks, public spheres of social spheres of social exchange. How theInternet Mediates Social Reality. Paper presented at the annual meeting of social and network. Hsinchu. [122] Snodgrass, D. M. (2000). Collaborative Learning in Middle and Secondary Schools: Applications and Assessments, pp.1–6, Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education. [123] Sternberg, R. (2003). Cognitive psychology. (Ed 3rd). Thomson Learning, Inc. U.S.A. [124] Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project–based science lassrooms on a national measure of achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 410–422. [125] Singhal, M. (1997). The Internet and foreign language education: benefits and challenges. The Internet TESL Journal, 3(6). http://iteslj.org/Articles/ Singhal–Internet.html [126] Schrage, M. (1990). Shared Minds: The Technologies of Collaboration. New York: Random House. [127] Şendag, S., & Odabaşi, H. F. (2009). Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Computers & Education, 53, 132–141. [128] Shana, Z. (2009). Learning with Technology: Using Discussion Forums to Augment a Traditional–Style Class. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (3), 214–228. [129] Sung, Y. T., Hou, H. T., & Liu, C. K., Chang K. E., (2010). Mobile Guide System using Problem–solving Strategy for Museum Learning: A Sequential Learning Behavioral Pattern Analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2), 106–115. [130] Tan, C., Tan S. C. & Hung D. (2003). Building a Learning Community with Technology. Teaching and Learning with Technology, Prentice–Hall:Singapore. [131] Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276. [132] Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645. [133] Topping, K. J. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 339–343. [134] Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., & Michaelson, A. (1999). Project–based learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers. CA: The Buck Institute for Education. [135] Tu, C., & Corry, M. (2001). A paradigm shift for online community research. Distance Education, 22(2), 245–263. [136] Teo, H. H., Chan, H. C., Wei, K. K., & Zhang, Z. (2003). Evaluating information accessibility and community adaptively features for sustaining virtual learning communities. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 59(5), 671–697. [137] Tu, C. H., & Corry, M. (2003). Designs, management tactics, and strategies in asynchronous learning discussions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4, 303–315. [138] Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K.B. (1994). Creative Problem Solving: An Overview. In Runco, M. A. ED.. Problem Finding, Problem Solving, and Creativity. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. [139] Van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge–sharing, knowledge–construction, and knowledge–creation discourses. International Journal of Computer–Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259–287. [140] Van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 280–290. [141] Van Joolingen W.R., De Jong T. & Dimitrakopoulou A. (2007) Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer–Assisted Learning 23, 111–119. [142] Vighnarajah, Wong, S. L., & Abu Bakar, K. (2009). Qualitative findings of students’ perception on practice of self–regulated strategies in online community discussion. Computers & Education, 53(1), 94–103. [143] Wang, Q. Y., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face–to–face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286. [144] Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57. [145] Warin, B., Kolski, C., & Sagar, M. (2011). Framework for the evolution of acquiring knowledge modules to integrate the acquisition of high–level cognitive skills and professional competencies: Principles and case studies. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1595–1614. [146] Yoo, W. S., Suh, K. S., & Lee, M. B. (2002). Exploring factors enhancing member participation in virtual communities. Journal of Global Information Management, 10(3), 55–71. [147] Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1996 national convention of the association for educational communications and technology. Indeanapolis: Available from ERIC documents: ED 397–849.
指導教授	黃武元、侯惠澤、劉旨峰 (Wu-Yuin Hwang、Huei-Tse Hou、Eric Zhi-Feng Liu)	審核日期	2012-3-20
推文	facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu
網路書籤	Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare