博碩士論文 982201005 詳細資訊




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:17 、訪客IP:18.206.48.142
姓名 戴雯(Wen Dai)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 數學系
論文名稱 以課程論壇做為知識分享工具之研究 –以中央大學計算機概論課程為例
(The study about the course forum as a tool of knowledge sharing-A case study )
相關論文
★ 中小學數學教師創意教學競賽金牌得獎作品可行性分析之個案研究★ 線上問卷調查開發應用與Matlab對於微積分學習成效之探討
★ 中小學數學創意教學競賽實施之研究★ 評分者對數學科創意教學觀點之比較 以中小學數學教師創意教學競賽為例
★ 小波轉換於圖形比對的一種方法★ 算術計算中誤解的文字或符號所造成的錯誤及影響
★ 相同教學單元之創意作品所著重創意觀點與創意呈現之比較-以『中小學數學教師創意教學競賽』作品為例★ 利用凌波轉換保護影像竄改及偵測還原
★ 遊戲方式表現創意的教學策略之探討-以『中小學數學教師創意教學競賽』作品為例★ 國小四、五年級分數運算錯誤類型分析之研究
★ 因、倍數創意教學作品分析與比較-以「中小學數學教師創意教學競賽」作品為例★ On the Positive Solution for Grad-Shafranov Equation
★ 從微積分課後輔導,分析學生的數學學習問題:以一個助教的實例作探討★ 評估學生自願使用e-portfolio對於提高課程表現的成效-以國立中央大學為例
★ 線上討論的知識建構模式特徵 -以 批 踢 踢 實 業 坊 的 微 積 分 討 論 為 例★ 高中生數學學習成就之研究—以桃園縣某高中為例
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]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 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。
  3. 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。

摘要(中) 本研究的主要目的在於探討課程論壇中,學生討論內容的知識建構層次和行為模式。我們以中央大學計算機概論課程論壇為研究對象,對論壇中學生的討論內容進行分析。首先,根據互動分析模型(Interaction Analysis Model ,IAM)的知識建構階層,對論壇中學生發表的留言進行編碼分類;接著,將編碼完的結果分別利用定量內容分析(quantitative content analysis)和滯後序列分析(lag-sequential analysis),說明產生的結果。本研究結果顯示以不同的編碼單位對討論內容進行編碼,結果大致上是一致的,所以若將研究結果與其他相同性質的結果比較,就算研究使用不同的編碼單位,並不會造成研究間比較結果的變因。將本研究的結果跟先前一些同質性的研究結果做對照,結果大致相仿,學生們討論的知識建構層次,大部份集中於K1層次,主要內容為分享、比較資訊或提出相同的看法。
本研究的另一個目的在於探討老師適時的介入學生的討論,是否可以提升學生討論過程中的知識建構層次,以增加學生的學習成效。侯惠澤(2007)發表的文章中,建議老師主動提供學生討論的方針與回饋,以提升學生討論過程中的知識建構層次。本研究的結果顯示,有老師適時地介入學生的討論,適時地給予學生討論方向,或引導學生進入更深更廣的討論,可以促進學生較高知識建構層次(K3、K5)的討論,可有效地提高學生的學習成效。
此外,研究者發現以往觀察線上非同步討論平台的研究,幾乎都是針對特定某一族群於特定某一短時間內的討論內容進行分析,而這般特定族群的結果是否能夠代表整體的表現?群體間特性的差異是否會造成不同的結果?本研究結果顯示,不同的學生族群進行討論的模式不盡相同,所以於短時間內某一群學生的討論行為,不足以代表整體學生討論的行為表現。
最後,根據以上結果,本研究針對要以課程論壇讓學生進行討論的老師,以及往後要研究線上非同步討論平台的研究者提出一些具體的建議。
摘要(英) The main purpose of this study is to explore the level of knowledge construction and behavior of students’ discussion in the course forum. We analyzed the content of students’ discussions in the course forum of Introduction to Computer Science course of National Central University. According to the classifications of knowledge- construction, Interaction Analysis Model (IAM), coding the post messages of students in the course forum. We illustrate the results with quantitative content analysis and lag-sequential analysis.
The results of this study would be encoded and counted in different units, articles and paragraphs. Then we got that using different coding units encode the contents of students’ discussion, the results generally are consistent. In view of this, put the results of similar studies together, even if studies using different coding units, it would not cause any changes in the comparison between studies.
Comparing the results of our study with findings of some previous similarly studies, the results shows that, the knowledge-construction of students’ discussions are concentrated in K1 level - the main contents are sharing, comparing of information or raised the same views.
Another purpose of this study is to explore that if teachers involve in the discussions timely, would it enhance the level of knowledge-construction or no in order to increase students’ learning during the discussion. Hou (2007) found that if teachers did not involve in the discussion, the knowledge-construction are mostly in the lower levels, K1and K2. He recommends that teachers actively provide guidance and feedback to students, to enhance the level of knowledge-construction during the discussions. The results of this study showed that teachers involved in students’ discussions timely, and gave students the direction of discussions timely or guided students into deeper and broader discussions, it could promote a higher level of knowledge-construction (K3, K5) of discussions between students, and may improve students’ learning effectively.
Besides, we found that the previous research of observing discussions in online asynchronous platforms; almost all analyses are focused on the content of specific group in a particular short time. We want to know whether the results of such a particular group can represent the overall performance or no, and if the difference between groups will cause different outcomes or no. We recount the data of each academic year separately, and it showed that there are different behavior patterns between the discussions of different groups in the short term. So we got that the behavior of a group of particular students’ discussions in the short term could not represent the behavior of overall students.
Finally, according to the above results, this study proposes concrete suggestions to the teacher who allow students to discuss in a course forum and to the researchers study asynchronous online discussion platform in the future.
關鍵字(中) ★ 滯後序列分析
★ 定量內容分析
★ 電腦中介溝通
★ 知識建構
★ 互動分析模型
★ 非同步的討論
★ 課程論壇
關鍵字(英) ★ Interaction Analysis Model
★ lag-sequential analysis
★ asynchronous discussion
★ curriculum forum
★ quantitative content analysis
★ Computer-mediated communication,CMC
★ IAM
★ knowledge-construction
論文目次 中文提要 ---- i
英文提要 ---- ii
誌謝 ---- iv
目錄 ---- v
表目錄 ---- vi
圖目錄 ---- vii
關鍵字 ---- viii
第一章 緒論(Introduction) ---- 1
第二章 研究內容與方法(Method) ---- 8
2-1 使用系統(system) ---- 9
2-2 研究對象 ---- 13
2-3 編碼方案(coding scheme) ---- 14
第三章 文獻回顧(Literature review ) ---- 20
3-1 電腦中介溝通 (CMC) ---- 21
3-2 滯後序列分析 (lag-sequential analysis) ---- 29
第四章 實驗部份 ---- 33
4-1 研究程序 ---- 33
4-2 資料分析 ---- 34
第五章 結果與討論 ---- 36
5-1 結果 ---- 36
5-1-1 定量內容分析 (quantitative content analysis) ---- 40
5-1-2 滯後序列分析 (lag-sequential analysis) ---- 42
5-2 討論 ---- 45
5-2-1 定量內容分析 (quantitative content analysis) ---- 46
5-2-2 本研究與侯惠則(2007)結果的比較 ---- 48
5-2-3 本研究與侯惠則(2008)結果的比較 ---- 52
5-2-4 研究的編碼單位及觀察時間長短是否影響結果 ---- 56
5-2-5 滯後序列分析 (lag-sequential analysis) ---- 65
第六章 結論、建議與未來展望 ---- 68
參考文獻 ---- 71
附錄一 中央大學數學系計算機概論課程-學期學習計畫 ---- 74
附錄二 中央大學數學系計算機概論課程-學期成績計算標準 ---- 81
附錄三 Newman et al.(1996)提出的編碼分類 ---- 81
參考文獻 [1] Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
[2] Berge, Z. (1997). Characteristics of online teaching in post-secondary, formal education. Educational Technology, 37(3), 35-47.
[3] Driscoll, M. P. (2000).Psychology of learning for instruction, 2ed.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
[4] Bodzin, A. M. & Park, J. C. (2000). Dialogue patterns on the World Wide Web. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19(2), 161–194.
[5] Garrison, D. R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: a conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 10, 287–303.
[6] Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 1–14.
[7] Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000).Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] Harasim, L. M. (1989). Online education as a new domain. In R. Mason & A. R. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: communication, computers and distance education (pp. 50–62). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
[11] Harasim, L. (1990). On-line education: Perspectives on a new environment. New York:Praeger.
[12] Heeok Heo , Kyu Yon Lim , Youngsoo Kim (2010). Exploratory study on the patterns of online interaction and knowledge co-construction in project-based learning. Computers & Education, 55 (2010),1383–1392
[13] Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing (pp. 117–136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
[14] 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 Environment,15(3),237-251
[15] Hou, H.T., Chang, K.E., & Sung, Y.T. (2008). Analysis of problem-solving based online asynchronous discussion pattern. Educational Technology and Society, 11(1), 17–28.
[16] Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2009).Using blogs as a professional development tool for teachers: analysis of interaction behavioral patters. Interactive Learning Environment,15(3),237-251
[17] 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.
[18] Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2010).Applying lag sequential analysis to detect visual behavioural patterns of online learning activities. British Journal of Educational Technology,
41(2),E25-E27
[19] Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43.
[20] 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
[21] Mason, R. (1992). Evaluation methodologies for computer conferencing applications. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative (pp. 105–116). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Learning Through Computer Conferencing
[22] Musser, J., O’Reilly, T. & the O’Reilly Radar Team. (2006). Web 2.0: principles and best practices. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
[23] Newman, D. R., 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, 56–77.
http://www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/papers/methods/contpap.html
(Retrieved August 15, 2004).
[24] Rourke, L., Anderson,T., Garrison,D. R. & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,12 (2001), 8-22.
[25] Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77–90.
[26] Zhu,E.(2006).Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34(6), 451-480.
指導教授 蕭嘉璋(Chia-Chang Hsiao) 審核日期 2012-7-17
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   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明