網路學習社群中的共構面貌：以迷思概念為探針

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：95

、訪客IP：18.119.110.76

姓名

祝惠珍(HUI-CHEN CHU) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

網路學習社群中的共構面貌：以迷思概念為探針

相關論文

★ 網路學習社群中的潛水現象：一種被忽略的充分參與	★ 敘說一位研究型大學教師之自我座落
★ 敘說實習教師之教師認同	★ 情意鷹架者的實踐知識－以 LAIN 網路學習社群為例
★ 全控機構的學習－從實踐社群的觀點看海軍義務役男	★ 工科研究生的學習樣貌—一個情境學習的觀點
★ 從學習者成為鷹架者──社群觀點探看身分轉變的學習	★ 網路科學探究的合作學習：小組認同與共同作者的決定歷程
★ 應用搭配字學習工具於網路瀏覽以提升英語學習者對搭配字之察覺能力	★ 節能減碳實踐中教師和行政的矛盾－活動理論觀點
★ 線上小組推進探究的關鍵時刻	★ 以行動者網絡理論探討國小教師在數位閱讀寫作推動初期的困境
★ 數學擬題活動的合作效果─五年級學童之經驗	★ 看見機動教師-國小校園內的新角色
★ 一對一數位教室的另類學習:設計與湧現的觀點	★ 我的師傅們不教英文：一位國中英語教師在跨領域社群中的學習

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

對於網路團體學習中所呈現混亂的討論現象，我們並非透過單純檢視討論結果，做為判定學習是否有效的依據。而是透過探尋迷思隱沒、流轉、擴散、凝結的過程，發現學習者協商、取捨、忖踱間，處處充滿複雜的心思。單純的從科學概念的對錯，或是討論過程的結構性去解釋學習，無異是過度簡化網路合作學習的豐富性。
本研究正是在這樣的論辯脈絡下，以迷思概念為探針，做為分析的起點工具，在一個491人的網路探究式學習社群中，擷取十個討論小組，採參與典範的理論取向，借助Wenger社會的學習理論、Roth社會實踐取向的科學學習、Hickey對動機理論的翻新，以研究者的親身參與及緊貼閱讀，從社會文化的角度而非認知面的觀點，細察迷思概念在共構學習中賦予了團體學習哪些新的面貌？
以迷思概念為探針，本研究發現學員自在地揭露其納藏的迷思概念的想法，卻足以引發豐沛的正向合作共構的活動。社群成員共構的不只是認知面所在意的科學知識，更包括一種在Lain社群生活的意義探詢，展現在促成彼此的投入相互可能、捉摸社群的標準與價值、並透過「隱」與「現」的參與過程，流露出一種成熟的施為與投入姿態，這些安身立命的生活方式的謀定，也正是他們實踐知識的一部份。所以共構學習的面貌--認知面共構的基礎，其實是來自社會文化面的相互豢養。
深掘充滿迷思的討論表象下，背後所彰顯的學習意義，進一步能夠重新賦予團體學習中，共構面貌的社會性理解，是本研究的最大旨趣。

摘要(英)

The effectiveness of online learning is always emphasized in CSCL (computer supported collaborative learning). Research from an acquisition perspective normally argues that peer collaboration may not be an effective learning environment since peers disseminate misconceptions. The messiness showed in discussion forum is almost everywhere in online learning. However, rather than using rubrics to evaluate the quality or accuracy of group final products, this study analyzed the dynamics of threaded postings generated by group members to illuminate the evolution of misconceptions embedded in these interactions and to explore the meaning of misconceptions from a participation paradigm.
In an inquiry-based learning community consisting of 56 groups of high school students, postings from ten group discussion forums were selected and analyzed. This study utilized closing reading and participatory observation to scrutinize the meaning of misconceptions in group knowledge building. Misconceptions are not the representation of deficient acquisition. On the contrary, exploration from this study reveals vividly the engaged participation embarked by these seemingly unproductive dialogues.
From this study, I discovered that through sharing misconceptions, group learners are more engaged in productive learning activities such as negotiation, coercion, coordination, trade-off, and so on. It was, therefore, not appropriate to interpret the spread of misconceptions as index of failure for group learning. It was evidenced in this study that sharing these alternative ideas facilitated group learning and knowledge co-construction. Willing to share not-so-sure ideas is an expression of responsibility and a required participation. Through the mutual engagement, the group members became emerged in online community and became a member in the communities of practice. The foundations of cognitive co-construction are indeed built on social-cultural notions of participation. The phenomena of learners’ motivation in online community were also reexamined.

關鍵字(中)

★ 迷思概念
★ 共構學習
★ 科學學習
★ 網路學習社群
★ 討論區分析

關鍵字(英)

★ online learning communities
★ misconception
★ collaborative knowledge construction
★ group learning

論文目次

第一章研究動機 .…………………………………………………………….1-9
第一節從討論的生活實踐出發……….………………………………………1
第二節在角色與經驗的轉換中定錨….………………………………………2
第三節學習現象與研究動機…….……………………………………………9
第二章文獻回顧 ……………………………………………………………10-39
第一節習得典範的迷思概念相關研究………………………………………11
第二節網路合作學習中的共構活動…………………………………………14
第三節參與典範的學習主張…………………………………………………24
第四節科學實踐社群的知識翻新活動………………………………………29
第五節研究方法學的考量……………………………………………………31
第三章研究方法論 ..…………………………………………………….…40-63
第一節研究架構………………………………………………………………40
第二節研究場域………………………………………………………………42
第三節研究者位置……………………………………………………………53
第四節研究對象………………………………………………………………54
第五節資料蒐集與分析………………………………………………………54
第四章研究結果 .……………………………………………………………64-109
第一節迷思概念在團體學習中的樣貌………………………………………64
第二節迷思概念作為一種投入的入口………………………………………75
第三節社群標準、價值對學習動機的影響…………………………………78
第四節繞著迷思概念學得的是據有…………………………………………92
第五節圖表在共構學習中的實踐意義..……………………………………102
第五章討論 ...………………………………………………………….……110-115
第一節從迷思概念重建對共構學習的再理解……………………………...110
第二節討論區方法學的嘗試………………………………………………...113
第三節對於自身與過去研究的反省………………………………………...114
參考書目….……………………………………………………………….…….116-121

參考文獻

Akkuş, H., Atasoy, B. & Geban, Ö.(2003). Effectiveness of Instruction Based on the Constructivist Approach on Understanding Chemical Equilibrium Concepts. Research in Science and Technological Education, 21, 209-227.
Barab, S., Scheckler, R., & MaKinster, J. (2001). Designing System Dualities: Building Online Community. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2002). Preparing pre-service teachers: Developing an empirical account of a community of practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 11(4), 489-542.
Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Kirschner, P. (2004, April). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. In P. A. Kirschner (Chair), Learning in innovative learning environments. Symposium conducted at the AERA, San Diego, California, USA.
Blosser, P. E. (1987). Science misconceptions research and some implications for the teaching of science to elementary school students.( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED282776)
Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Campos, M. (2003).A constructivist method for the analysis of networked cognitive communication, and the assessment of collaborative learning and knowledge-building. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2).
Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2003). Assessing and scaffolding knowledge building: Pedagogical knowledge building principles and electronic portfolios. In P. Dillenbourg (Series Ed.) & B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen & U. Hoppe (Vol. Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning;& U. Hoppe (Vol. Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning; Vol. 2. Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 21-29). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chen,F.C., Lee,Y.W., Chu, H.J., Wang,.H.R.,＆Jiang H.M. (2005,June). Effective Discussions, Social Talks and Learning—A paradox on learning in discussion forums. CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) Conference, Taipei, Taiwan.
Clark, D., & Linn, M. C. (2003). Designing for Knowledge Integration: The Impact of Instructional Time. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451-494.
Dillenbourg, , P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed). Three worlds of CSCL.
Dillenbourg, P. Baker,M., Blaye, A. & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds). Learning in Humans and Machine: towards an interdisciplinary learning science. (p. 189-211). Oxford: Elsevier. (A)
Erickson, G. (2001). Research programmes and the student science learning literature. In J. Leach, R. Millar, and J.Osborne (eds.), Improving Science Education: The Contribution of Research. Milton Keynes, U.K.: Open University Press.
Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213-232
Flynn, T. and Polin, L. (2003). Making Sense of Online Learning: Frames, Rubrics, Tools & CodingSystems for Analyzing Asynchronous Online Discourse. Paper presented at AERA 2003Conference held April 25, 2003, at Chicago, IL. Retrieved from the Internet on May 22, 2004from http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/aera/03/communities/Making-Sense-of-Online-Lear.pdf
Goodwin, C. （1990）. Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 283-307.
Hara, N., Bonk, CJ, & Angeli, C. (2002). Content analysis of online discussion
in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis, In Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117-136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Henriques, L. (2002) Children's ideas about weather: A review of the literature. School Science and Mathematics, 102(5), 202-215.
Hewitt, J. and Teplovs, C. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads. Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, 232-241.
Hewitt, J. (2001). Beyond threaded discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 207-221.
Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 31-45.
Hewitt, J.(2004). An exploration of community in a knowledge forum classroom: an activity system analysis. In Sasha Barab, Rob Kling and James Gray (2004).Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning
Hickey, D. T., & Granade, J. (2004). The Influence of sociocultural theory on our theories of engagement and motivation. D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited: Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (Volume 4). (pp. 223-247). Greenwich, CO: Information Age Publishing.
Hsi, S. (1997). Facilitating knowledge integration in science through electronic discussion: The Multimedia Forum Kiosk. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Jeong, A. (2003). Sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25-43.
Jeong, A. (2004). The effects of communication style and message function in triggering responses and critical discussion in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Associa
Jeong, H. & Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Does collaborative learning lead to the construction of common knowledge? In Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Conferenceof the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kirschner, P.A.(2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed). Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61-91). Heerlen, Open Universiteit Nederland.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J.L. (2001) Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 38, nr. 3. 296–316
Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Analyzing patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students' online science discussion. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. The proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 421-428). University of Maastricht.
Magnusson, S. J., Templin, M., & Boyle, R. A. (1997). Dynamic science assessment: A new approach for investigating conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1), 91-142.
Moss, C. M. & Shank, G. (2002): Using Qualitative Processes in Computer Technology Research on Online Learning: Lessons in Change from “Teaching as Intentional Learning”. ForumQualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-Line Journal], 3(2). http://www.qualitative -research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological Foundations for CSCL: A Comparison of Three Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community: Proceedings of the Computer-supported Collaborative Learning 2002 Conference (pp. 24-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Available: http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/228.html
Reyes P., Tchounikine P., (2003), Supporting emergence of threaded learning conversations through augmenting Interactional and Sequantial Coherence. In: International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL, best PhD student paper award), 2003, Bergen (Norway), p. 83-92.
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.
Roth, W.-M. (1996). Knowledge diffusion in a grade 4-5 classroom during a unit on
civil engineering: An analysis of a classroom community in terms of its changing
resources and practices. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 179-220.
Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, MK (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice?
Science Education, 81, 91-106.
Roth, WM., & McGinn, MK (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing
as social. practice. Review of Education Research, 68(1), 35-59.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building Communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
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
Stahl, G. (2000). A Model of Collaborative Knowledge-Building. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 70-77). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stahl, G. (2002) The complexity of a collaborative interaction [poster], In: Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS '02), Seattle, WA. Available at:http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/cscl/papers/ch02.pdf.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1996a). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: the case of ‘more of A–more of B’. International Journal of Science Education, 18(6), 653–667.
Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2004). Scripting Argumentation in computer-supported learning environments. In P. Gerjets, P. A. Kirschner, J. Elen & R. Joiner (Eds.), Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning. Proceedings of the first joint meeting of the EARLI SIGs "Instructional Design" and "Learning and Instruction with Computers" (pp. 320-330) [CD-ROM]. Tübingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2002, April). A Discourse Analysis of Online Social Argumentation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans LA, April 1-5.
Teasley, S. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B.Resnick & R. Säljö & C. Pontecorvo & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361-384). Berlin: Springer.
Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. [Dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität]. Verfügbar unter: http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/archive/00001120/01/Weinberger_Armin.pdf.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.
江火明、陳斐卿（2002）。路開拓科展新視野。陳德懷、林佩玉主編，啟動學習革命。(頁209-220)。台北：遠流。
江火明、陳斐卿與李郁薇（2004）。從Wenger的社會學習理論談網路學習社群討論區的設計考量，125，93-105。
李郁薇（2005）。網路潛水社群中的潛水現象：一種被忽略的充分參與。國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文。
李維史陀（Levi-Strauss, C）（1989）。憂鬱的熱帶（Tristes Tropiques）（王志明譯）。台北：聯經。
林清山譯（民95）：教育心理學—認知取向。台北市：遠流出版公司。
拉圖爾、伍爾加（Latour, B & Woolgar, S）（2004）。實驗室生活：科學事實的建構過程（Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts）（張伯霖、刁小英譯）。北京：東方。
祝惠珍、陳斐卿、李郁薇與江火明（2005）。網路學習社群中的流失學員：投入後的疏離參與。夏威夷楊百翰大學主辦：全球華人教育資訊科技學術研討會（GCCCE 2005）。
張春興（2005）。教育心理學--三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華。
張盈堃（2004）。偽裝的形貌與越界的政治：再彈基層教師的生活世界與實行邏輯。應用心理研究，21，66-89。
陳斐卿、江火明（2004）。從參與典範看行動學習輔具在科學學習的意義。數位學習電子期刊，2。http://www.ael.org.tw/filectrl/2-5.pdf
博藍尼（Polanyi, M）（2004）。個人知識（Personal Knowledge）（許澤民譯）。台北：商周。
鄒川雄(2003)。生活世界與默會知識。載於齊力、林本炫主編的之質性研究方法與資料分析，頁19-53，嘉義：南華大學教育社會學所。
諾爾-賽蒂納（Knorr-Cetina, KD）（2001）。製造知識：建構主義與科學的與境性（The Manufacture of Knowledge）（張伯霖、刁小英譯）。北京：東方。
鄧巴（Robin Dunbar）（民91）。哈拉與抓虱的語言（Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language）（洪莉譯）。台北：遠流。

指導教授

陳斐卿(Fei-Ching Chen)

審核日期

2006-7-18

推文