網路討論區評鑑指標發展及應用

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：12

、訪客IP：3.133.79.31

姓名

鄭姍姍(Shan Shan) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

網路討論區評鑑指標發展及應用
(The development and applications of evaluative criteria for online discussion forums)

相關論文

★ 自我效能與STEM樂高機器人課程對國民小學六年級學生學習成效與學習態度之影響	★ 偏鄉小學學伴在英語線上課業輔導的學習滿意度、學習態度和學習成果
★ 網路同儕評量回饋功能及自我調制歷程之研究	★ 數位遊戲設計之教學模式建構
★ 樂高機器人多媒體教材設計、發展與可用性評估	★ 桃園縣青少年網路閱讀動機與網路閱讀行為之相關研究
★ 專題式合作學習在教育桌上遊戲設計課程之應用-以師資培育學生為例	★ 國小學生對桌上遊戲接受度之相關分析—以大富翁遊戲為例
★ 台灣青少年學習者於機器人學習活動的動機策略探究-以WRO機器人競賽為例	★ 資訊科技融入教學實踐歷程之行動敘說-－以國小低年級閱讀與寫作為例
★ 創意思考螺旋教學策略對國小學童學習效果之研究	★ 一位數學家教老師如何資訊融入專業知能發展
★ 成語教學導入桌遊對國中八年級學生之影響	★ 遊戲化華語教學之研究—以創意思考螺旋融入教育桌遊為例
★ 機器人學習活動的協作歷程、情境知識之探究：以樂高機器人之分組學習課程為例	★ 歌曲教學法、傳統教學法對EFL學習者英語聽力成效差異

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)

隨著網路科技及線上溝通平台的進步，網路討論區不僅是師生之間的溝通平台；它也被學生視為是另一種學習資源。而學習資源的優劣可能影響學生的學習。回顧文獻，目前尚未有一個完整的網路討論區的評鑑指標存在。因此，本研究旨在開發出一個可以用來評鑑網路討論區的指標。並探討其應用及其對學習的影響。本研究以三個階段進行：
第一階段：依據社會建構理論(Social cognitive theory)、參與設計(Participatory design)與德懷術(Delphi techniques)，透過訪談與個人評鑑討論區方式獲得41位資管系學生的意見；再經由專家的分類產生了一組包含個人的(Personal)、行為的(Behavioral)與環境的(Environmental)三種分類的指標。
第二階段：依據文獻建議，由教師使用教學策略使該課程的網路討論區符合第一階段所獲得的指標要求。透過內容分析法觀察105位資管系學生在課程討論區中的討論行為及品質。研究發現，當教師以教學策略使課堂討論區符合評鑑指標要求時，學生產生較多高層次的提問，也較常上網閱讀他人的發文。
第三階段：使用評鑑指標進行篩選後，將這兩個不同品質的討論區(sophisticated and less sophisticated)提供給學生當作學習資源。透過準實驗法進行比較兩組學生在使用不同的學習資源後，於學習成果、線上討論品質及行為的差異。研究結果顯示，接受較精緻品質(sophisticated)的學習資源，該組學生於學習成效上優於另一組的學習者。另外，在線上討論行為及品質上，精緻組的學習者有較多的線上討論行為；且在品質上也有較多高層次的提問。
本研究經由專家及使用者的意見開發出一個包含PBE三元素的評鑑指標。並進行二個教學實驗，實驗結果顯示，此評鑑指標不僅可以用來篩選出品質不同的網路討論區，也提供有效的指引給那些將應用網路討論區於教學與學習的使用者。

摘要(英)

With the development of online communication technologies, people’s life has been altered. The change took place not only on the way people communicate with others but also on the ways educators teach and students learn.
According to the previous studies, students used online discussion forums as alternative learning resources. It is believed that the qualities of learning resources will influence students’ learning, and the need of a set of indicators for evaluating online discussion forums was proposed. Hence, the primary aim of this study is to develop a set of evaluative criteria for online discussion forums, and then to investigate its implications and influences on students’ learning. The researcher proceeded with this study through three phases.
First phase: based on social cognitive theory, participatory design, and Delphi techniques, the researcher interviewed 41 students, asked the students to evaluate online discussion forum and three experts to classify the data came from students’ opinions, and finally developed a set of evaluative criteria for online discussion forums.
After the completion of development of the evaluative criteria, besides of being used for evaluating online discussion forums, the criteria should be a reference which could help teachers to develop effective instructional strategies. Therefore, in phase two and phase three, the researcher conducted two case studies to discuss how to apply the developed evaluative criteria in instruction.
Second phase: based on the developed evaluative criteria and the suggestions from literature review, the teacher applied instructional strategies to make the class-based online discussion forum meet the requirement of the criteria. Via using content analysis to investigate 105 students’ online discussion quality and behaviors, the results revealed that students had more higher-level questions and logged in online discussion forum more frequently to read others’ posting when teacher used instructional strategies to make the online discussion forum meet the requirement of the developed criteria.
Third phase: using the developed evaluative criteria to filter out one sophisticated and one less-sophisticated online discussion forum. Giving these two online discussion forums to the students as alternative learning resource, the researcher investigated the differences of students’ learning performance, discussion behaviors, and discussion quality between two groups in order to explore the influences of online discussion forums with different qualities. The results indicated that students with sophisticated learning resource had better learning performance, more discussion behaviors, and more high level questions.
This study, based on experts and participants’ opinions, developed a set of evaluative criteria comprising of personal, behavioral, and environmental influences. In order to know how the criteria could be used in education, two experiments were conducted. The results disclosed that the developed criteria could be used to filter out online discussion forums with different qualities and offer effective guidelines for the teachers who want to integrate online discussion forums into their instruction.

關鍵字(中)

★ 網路討論區
★ 評鑑指標

關鍵字(英)

★ online discussion forum
★ evaluative criteria

論文目次

Table of Contents
Chinese abstract i
English abstract ii
Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents vi
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1-1 The importance of online discussion forums in education 1
1-2 Existent shortage in previous studies related to the use of online discussion forums in education
3
1-3 Purpose of this dissertation 4
1-4 Dissertation organization 5
1-5 Summary 6
Chapter 2 Review of pertinent literature 7
2-1 Influential elements of online discussion forums discussed in previous studies 7
2-2 Theoretical Framework: Social cognitive Theory 8
2-3 Review of related works based on social cognitive theory 11
2-3-1 Personal influence 12
2-3-2 Behavioral influence 13
2-3-3 Environmental influence 14
2-3-4 A previous study adopting the perspective of social cognitive theory 16
2-4 Introduction and review of coding schemes used for the analysis of online discussion forums 18
2-5 Summary 22
Chapter 3 Developing a set of evaluative criteria for online
discussion forums 24
3-1 Adapting a method to develop evaluation criteria for online discussion forums: from the perspective of users 24
3-2 Adapting a method to develop evaluation criteria for online discussion forums: from the perspective of experts 29
3-3 Evaluative criteria based on social cognitive theory 31
3-3-1 Types of online discussion forums frequented by students 31
3-3-2 Developed indicators 32
3-4 Discussion 38
3-5 Summary 39
Chapter 4 The application of the developed evaluative criteria:
Using the evaluative criteria as guidelines for operating a
class-based online discussion forum 40
4-1 Applying the evaluative criteria as guidelines and the research questions 40
4-2 Strategies to develop online discussion forums that satisfy the evaluative criteria 41
4-3 Methodology 43
4-3-1 Participants 43
4-3-2 Course content and procedure 44
4-3-3 The online discussion forum used in case study one 45
4-3-4 Coding scheme 46
4-3-5 Data collection and analysis 47
4-4 Results of using the developed evaluative criteria as guidelines 49
4-4-1 How do students react to an online discussion forum developed in accordance with the evaluative criteria 49
4-4-2 Do students engage in higher quality interactions in an online discussion forum such as this 52
4-4-3 How do students evaluate the class-based online discussion forum developed in accordance with the evaluative criteria 55
4-5 Discussion of using the developed evaluative criteria as guidelines 62
4-6 Summary 67
Chapter 5 The application of the developed evaluative criteria:
Using the evaluative criteria as filter for identifying
online discussion forums with different qualities 69
5-1 Applying the evaluative criteria as filter and the research questions 69
5-2 Two online Q&A discussion forums used as alternative learning resources 70
5-3 Methodology 72
5-3-1 Course and Participants 72
5-3-2 The experiment and research hypotheses 73
5-3-3 Data collection and analysis 76
5-4 Results of using the developed evaluative criteria as filter 77
5-4-1 Do students using a sophisticated online discussion forum behave differently from those using a less-sophisticated forum? 77
5-4-2 Do students using a sophisticated online discussion forum ask higher level questions from those using a less-sophisticated forum? 79
5-5 Discussion of using the developed evaluative criteria as filter 82
5-6 Summary 86
Chapter 6 Conclusions and future work 88
6-1 Conclusions and contribution 88
6-2 Limitation 90
6-3 Suggestion for implications 93
6-4 Future work 96
References 99
Appendix 1 The questionnaire for Delphi consultation (Round one) 113
Appendix 2 The questionnaire for Delphi consultation (Round two) 116
Appendix 3 The questionnaire for Delphi consultation (Round three) 119
Appendix 4 The evaluative sheet for users to grade the online discussion forums used in GEPT course in second stage of the study (in Chinese) 122
Appendix 5 The informed consent for research subjects (in Chinese) 125
Appendix 6 The evaluative sheet for experts to grade the online Q&A discussion forums used by the students as alternative learning resources in third stage of the study 126
List of Figures
Figure 1 Schematization of the relations among behavior (B), cognitive and other personal factors (P), and the external environment (E) 9
Figure 2 Theoretical framework based on social cognitive theory to investigate the use of online discussion forums by students 11
Figure 3 Liu’s model illustrating the use of a discussion forum in a computer science course from the perspectives of social cognitive theory 17
Figure 4 The procedure involved in generating evaluative criteria 30
Figure 5 The fifteen indicators extracted according to the tenets of social cognitive theory 37
Figure 6 Experimental procedure for group S 75
Figure 7 Experimental procedure for group LS 76
List of Tables
Table 1 The descriptive statistics results of personal influences from students’ evaluation of class-based online discussion forum 55
Table 2 The descriptive statistics results of behavioral influences from students’ evaluation of class-based online discussion forum 59
Table 3 The descriptive statistics results of environmental influences from students’ evaluation of class-based online discussion forum 60
Table 4 Scores of Yahoo knowledge plus and Softking 71
Table 5 Descriptive statistics of group S and group LS related to the behavior of students in class-based online discussion forums 78
Table 6 Results from three sets of t-tests 79
Table 7 Descriptive statistics of the questions asked by group S and group LS in class-based online discussion forum 80
Table 8 The results from four sets of t-tests 81
Table 9 Summary of ANCOVA test on student performance 82

參考文獻

Adamic, L.A., Zhang, J., Bakshy, E., & Ackerman, M. (2008). Knowledge sharing and Yahoo Answers: Everyone knows something. Proceeding of the 17th international conference on WWW (pp. 665-674), New York: ACM press. doi:10.1145/1367497.1367587
An, H, Shin, S. & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computer & Education, 53(3), 749-760. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Archee, R., & Whitty, M. (2003). Making the right decision: Real-time versus asynchronous online interaction. In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 2555-2562). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Balaji, M.S. & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interactions in online discussion forum: empirical research from ‘Media Richness Theory’ perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 1-22.
Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Vol.6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Baron, R.A., Byrne, D., & Branscombe, N.R. (2006). Social Psychology (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Basset, P. (2011). How do students view asynchronous online discussions as a learning experience? Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7, 69-79.
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41–49. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1948.tb01783.x
Berlanga, A., Sloep, P., Kester, L., Brouns, F., Van Rosmalen, P., Koper, R. (2008). Ad hoc transient communities: towards fostering knowledge sharing in Learning Networks. International Journal of Learning Technology 3(4), 443–458. doi:10.1504/IJLT.2008.019378
Bernard., M. L., Mills., M. M., & Friend, C. (2000). Male and female attitudes toward computer-mediated group interactions. Usability News, 2(2). Retrieved from http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/gender.htm
Bernhard, D., & Gurevych, I. (2008). Answering learners’’ questions by retrieving question paraphrases from social Q&A sites. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp.44-52). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Besterfield-Sacrre , M.E., Shuman, L.J., Wolfe, H., Atman, C.J., McGourty, J., Miller, R.L., Olds, B.M., & Rogers, G. (2000). Defining the outcomes: A Framework for EC 2000. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Education, 43(2), 100–110. doi:10.1109/13.848060
Bian, J., Liu, Y., Agichtein, E., & Zha, H. (2008). Finding the right facts in the crowd: factoid question answering over social media. Proceeding of the 17th international conference on W WW (pp. 467-476). New York: ACM press. doi:10.1145/1367497.1367561
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
Bullen, M. (1997). A case study of participation and critical thinking in a university-level course delivered by computer conferencing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Chen, F. C. & Wang, T. C. (2009). Social conversation and effective discussion in online group learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 587-612. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9121-1
Chen, S.-J., & Caropreso, E. J. (2004). Influence of personality on online discussion. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/index.cfm.
Chen, Y., Ho, T. H., & Kim, Y.M. (2010). Knowledge market design: A field experiment at Google Answers. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12(4), 641-664. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9779.2010.01468.x
Cheng, S. S., Liu, E. Z. F., & Shieh, R. S. (2012). Identifying the factors that attract users to online Q&A discussion forums. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(2), 283-292. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2012.40.2.283
Cheng, S. S., Liu, E. Z. F., Chen, N. S., Shih, R. C., & Chang C. S. (in press). Gender differences in college students’ behaviors in an online question-answer discussion activity. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher.
Chin, C., Brown, D. E., & Bruce, C. B. (2002). Student-generated questions: a meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (5), 521-549. doi: 10.1080/09500690110095249
Chou, P. N., & Chen, W. F. (2010). Chinese Students’ Perceptions of Online Learning in Western Discussion Boards: A Cultural Perspective. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 7(2). Retrieved from http://itdl.org/Journal/Feb_10/article03.htm
Cifuentes, L., Murphy, K. L., Segur, R., & Kodali, S. (1997). Design considerations for computer conferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 177–201.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M. & Keer, V. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computer & Education, 46 (1), 6-28. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2010). Roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge construction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 516–523. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.03.001
Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. doi:10.1080/01587910500081376
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M. & Keer, V. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computer & Education, 46 (1), 6-28. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath.
Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, et al. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412-433. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00331.x
Fahy, P. J. (2001). Addressing some common problems in transcript analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v1.2/research.html#Fahy
Fahy, P. J. (2005). Online and face-to-face group interaction processes compared using Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis (IPA). European Journal of Open Distance and E-learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Patrick_J_Fahy.htm
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), 87-105. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. doi: 10.1080/08923640109527071
Guiller, J., & Durndell, A. (2007). Students’ linguistic behavior in online discussion groups: Does gender matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2240-2255. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.004
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), 397-431.
Gyongyi, Z., Koutrika, G., Pedersen, J., & Garcia-Molina, H. (2008). Questioning Yahoo! Answers. Proceedings of the First WWW Workshop on Question Answering on the Web. Beijing, China. Retrived from http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/819/1/2007-35.pdf
Hammond, M. (1999). Issues associated with participation in on-line forums - the case of the communicative learner. Education and Information Technologies, 4(4), 353-367. doi:10.1023/A:1009661512881
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152. doi:10.1023/A:1003764722829
Harper, F. M., Raban, D., Rafaeli, S., & Konstan, J. A., (2008). Predictors of answer quality in online Q&A sites. Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 865–874). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357191
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.) Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers, (pp.117-136). London: Springer-Verlag.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2011). Student facilitators’ habits of mind and their influences on higher-level knowledge construction occurrences in online discussions: a case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(3), 275-285. doi:10.1080/14703297.2011.593704
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. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0
Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conference. The Journal of Learning Science, 14(4), 567-589. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4
Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42. doi:10.1080/08923649409526853
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. doi:10.1080/10494820701206974
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.
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. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.07.006
Jahnke, J. (2010). Student perceptions of the impact of online discussion forum participation on learning outcomes. Journal of Learning Design, 3(2), 27-34.
Jeng, M. C. (2002). The Effects of Questioning on Instruction. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 1(15), 87-114.
Jeon, J., Croft, W. B., Lee, J. H., & Park, S. (2006). A framework to predict the quality of answers with non-textual features. In SIGIR ’06: Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp 228–235). New York: ACM press. doi:10.1145/1148170.1148212
Jeong, A. (2004). The combined effects of response time and message content on growth patterns of discussion threads in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 36–53.
Jurczyk, P., & Agichtein, E. (2007). Discovering authorities in question answer communities by using link analysis. Proceedings of the Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 919–922). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1321440.1321575
Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & Laflamme, E. (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 260-271. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00620.x
Kay, R. H. (2008). Exploring gender differences in computer-related behaviour: Past, present, and future. In T. T. Chen & I. Chen (Eds.), Social information technology: Connecting society and cultural issues (pp. 12-30). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Kim, S., & Oh, S. (2009). User’s relevance criteria for evaluating answers in a social Q&A site. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 60(4), 716-727. doi: 10.1002/asi.21026
Kim, S., Oh, S.J., & Oh, S. (2007). Best-answer selection criteria in a social Q&A site from the user-oriented relevance perspective. Proceeding of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 44 (1), 1-15. doi: 10.1002/meet.1450440256
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664-687. doi:10.3102/00028312027004664
King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologies, 27(1), 111-126. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_8
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368. doi:10.3102/00028312031002338
King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 13-17.
King, A. & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 127-148. doi:10.1080/00220973.1993.9943857
Kirkwood, A. (2008). Getting it from the Web: Why and how online resources are used by independent undergraduate learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24 (5), 372-382. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00265.x
Khan, S. (2005). Listservs in the college science classroom: Evaluating participation and ‘‘richness’’ in computer-mediated discourse. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 325–351.
Lee, Y. W., Chen, F. C., Zhu, H. J., ＆ Jiang, H. M. (2005, June). Lurkers’’ Learning Trajectory－the Formation of Identity and the Negotiability. GCCCE (The 9th Global Chinese Conference on Computing in Education) Conference, Hawaii, U.S.A.
Li, N., & Kirkup, G. (2007). Gender and cultural differences in internet use: A study of China and the UK. Computers and Education, 48(2), 301–317. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.007
Li, Q. (2002). Gender and computer-mediated communication: An exploration of elementary students’’ mathematics and science learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(4), 341-359.
Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Does attitude influence achievement? IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(2), 211.
Liu, E. Z. F. (2007a). Developing a personal and group-based learning portfolio system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1117-1121. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00691.x
Liu, E. Z. F. (2007b). Using web-based forum to facilitate students to learn introduction to computer science. Instructional Technology & Media, 80, 37-57.
Liu, E. Z. F. (2008). The case study of learning through online forum. National Central University Journal of Humanities, 35, 261-286.
Liu, E. Z. F., & Lin, S. S. J. (2007). Relationship between peer feedback, cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies and achievement in networked peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1122-1125. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00702.x
Liu, E. Z. F., Cheng, S. S., Lin, C. H., Chang, Y.F., & Chen, W. –T. (2008). The development of evaluation indicators for LEGO multimedia instructional material. WSEAS Transactions on Computers, 7(10), 1782-1791.
Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. S. (2010). Student satisfaction and self-efficacy in a cooperative robotics course. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(8), 1135-1146. doi:10.2224/sbp.2010.38.8.1135
Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, S. S. J., & Yuan, S. M. (2002). Alternatives to instructor assessment: A case study of comparing self and peer assessment with instructor assessment under networked innovative assessment procedures. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 1-10.
Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, S. S. J., Chiu, C., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44, 246-251.
Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computer & Education, 50(3), 627-639. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.002
Lowes, S., Lin, P., & Wang, Y. (2007). Studying the effectiveness of the discussion forum in online professional development courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 181-210.
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. doi:10.1016/S03601315(02)00129-X.
Meyer, K. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 101-114.
Morris, M. R., Teevan, J., & Panovich, K. (2010) What do people ask their social networks, and why? A Survey study of status message Q&A behavior. In Proceedings of CHI, 2010 (pp.1739-1748). New York: ACM press. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753587
Muller, M., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory Design. Communications of the ACM, 36 (4), 25-28. doi:10.1145/153571.255960
Murphy, E., & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol30.2/cjlt30-2_art-2.html.
Na, M. (2001). The cultural construction of the computer as a masculine technology: An analysis of computer advertisements in Korea. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 7(3), 93-114.
Newman, G., Webb, B. & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3(2), 56-77.
Norris, S.P. & Ennis, R. H. (1989) Evaluating critical thinking. Publications, Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest
Oliver, M., & Shaw, G. P. (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 56–67.
Pena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42(3), 243-265. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2003.08.003
Prinsen, F., Volman, M. L. L., & Terwel, J. (2007). The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1037–1055. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00692.x
Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In V. Richardson (ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings (pp. 3-14). London: Falmer Press.
Ridings, C. & Wasko, M. (2010). Online discussion group sustainability: Investigating the interplay between structural dynamics and social dynamics over time. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(2), 95-121.
Rosenbaum, H., & Shachaf, P. (2010). A structuration approach to online communities of practice: The case of Q&A communities. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1933-1944. doi:10.1002/asi.21340
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodolgical issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8-22.
Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge-building in asynchronous discussion groups: going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46(1), 49-70. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.006
Selfe C. L., & Meyer P. R. (1991). Testing claims for online conferences. Written Communication, 8(2), 163-192. doi:10.1177/0741088391008002002
Shachaf, P. (2009). The paradox of expertise: is the Wikipedia Reference Desk as good as your library? Journal of Documentation, 65(6), 977-996. doi:10.1108/00220410910998951
Shaw, J. & Woodthorpe, J. (2009, July). fOUndIt? Sharing online resources to support subject communities. In: 7th International Conference on Education and Information Systems, Technologies and Applications: EISTA 2009, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Tagg, A. C., & Dickinson, J. A. (1995). Tutor messaging and its effectiveness in encouraging student participation on computer conferences. Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 33-55.
Toledo, C. A., (2006). Does your dog bite? Creating good questions for online discussions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 150-154.
Tsai, M. J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Junior high school students’ internet usage and self-efficacy: A re-examination of the gender gap. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1182-1192. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.004
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Wang, Q.Y. (2008). Student-facilitators’ roles of moderating online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 859–874. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00781.x
Wang, K.T., Huang, Y.M., Jeng, Y.L., & Wang, T.I. (2008). A blog-based dynamic learning map. Computers & Education, 51 (1), 262-278. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.005
Wang, S. L., & Lin, S. S. J. (2007). The application of Social Cognitive Theory to web-based learning through NetPorts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 600-612. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00645.x
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Xie, K., DeBacker, T. K., & Ferguson, C. (2006). Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 67–89. doi:10.2190/7BAK-EGAH-3MH1-K7C6.
Yang, H. & Tang, J. (2003). Effects of social network on students’’ performance: a web based forum study in Taiwan. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 93-107.
Yang, Y. T. C., Newby, T. J., & Bill, R. L. (2005). Using Socratic Questioning to promote critical thinking skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments. The American Journal of Distance, 19 (3), 163-181. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_4
Yukelturk, E. (2010). An investigation of factors affecting student participation level in an online discussion forum. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 24-32.
Zhao, N., & McDougall, D. (2005). Cultural factors affecting Chinese students’ participation in asynchronous online learning. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005 (pp. 2723-2729).Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. In: Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1996 national convention of the association for educational communications and technology. Indianapolis: Available from ERIC documents: ED 397 849. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED397849.pdf .
Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34(6), 451–480. doi:10.1007/s11251-006-0004-0

指導教授

劉旨峯(Eric Zhi-Feng Liu)

審核日期

2012-7-27

推文