臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究主要探討，小組成員在網路合作學習的過程中，其個人知識轉換能力對學習的影響，並進一步分析以學習輔助者介入為實驗處理對討論互動行為的影響。本研究採用實驗研究法之準實驗設計，研究對象為高中一年級修習『計算機概論課程』的學生，共八個班級331位學生每個班級一半為實驗組一半為控制組， 並以學習輔助者介入實驗組作為實驗處理，以班為單位進行異質分組後在研究者所架構的網路平台進行『同步』討論活動，並以系統收集學生的所有討論互動狀況，研究共施行一學期三個單元的網路合作學習活動，在活動初與末分別對所有學生實施知識轉換能力（knowledge conversion abilities）評量，以瞭解實驗前後知識轉換能力之改變。而在討論互動行為，本研究主要以IBIS((Issue-based information system)之九個指標先對小組成員之對話訊息作初步的歸類，再依訊息出現順序歸納學習者的討論互動行為。
研究結果顯示：
（一）實驗前、後『個人』知識轉換能力有顯著差異，且整體知識轉換能力呈下滑趨勢。
（二）不同知識轉換程度者在其參與度與討論類型之表現有所不同，高、中知識轉能力者一般有較高參與度，且在一人主導類型內較易擔任領導者角色。
（三）學習輔助者介入討論活動中對學習者個人之知識轉換能力以及學習成績的表現雖無影響，但學習輔助者的介入卻顯著影響小組參與度
（四）從討論訊息內容分析結果，學習者討論過程鮮少達到高認知層次
（五）在探討小組互動的發展過程，本研究歸納出『協同合作型』、『一人主導型』、『部分討論型』、『無討論型』四個主要的討論類型，而進一步深入比較發現四種討論類型相對應之成績表現並無顯著差異，然而有學習輔助者的介入，可以幫助學生以協同合作的方式完成討論任務。
（六）本研究亦發現學習者在網路合作學習討論的過程中出現溝通困難、資料搜尋、資料整合、搭便車者、題目理解等之學習困難。
（七）檢視整體研究過程，發現學習者趨向於以團隊合作方式完成學習
最後，本研究也建議教學者在課堂分組討論或實作時，應提供學生適當的認知鷹架環境，以促進學生的概念學習與知識建構。

This study explored the role of individual’s knowledge conversion ability on learning performance in network-based collaborative learning environments.
Furthermore, it also analyzed the influence of the use of a moderator on the discussion interaction on such environments. This study was conducted with a quasi-experimental research design. 331 senior high students from eight classes were selected to join this study. Half of the students in each class were assigned to the experimental group, and the others were assigned to the control group. And the moderator was processed in the experimental group.
The students’ discussion activities were fully recorded by the networked learning system. The research treatment was conducted for a semester (three instructional units). Students’ knowledge conversion abilities were assessed by a knowledge conversion ability questionnaire both before the treatment and after it. In exploring students’ discussion interaction behaviors, this study used the nine indicators of Issue-Based Information System(IBIS) to categorize student discussion information, and then analyze their interaction patterns by the information.
The research findings were as follows:
1.There were significant differences in individual’s knowledge conversion abilities, and it appeared to be declining after the treatment.
2. There were significant differences on participation rate and the interaction pattern among students with different levels of knowledge conversion abilities. In general, students with high or middle level of knowledge conversion abilities had higher participation rate than those of low level, and they were likely the leaders in the interaction groups of centralized knowledge exchange.
3. The results suggested that the existence of the moderator could help to enhance the online participation rate, but it was not very effective for facilitating the knowledge conversion ability and academic performance.
4. Also, according to the content analysis of student online discussion, few students achieved higher level of cognition.
5. The exploration of group interaction revealed four major discussion types, such as “distributive knowledge exchange” “centralized knowledge exchange” “partial knowledge exchange” and “none knowledge exchange”. However, there was no significant difference among the discussion types in their academic performance. However, the existence of moderator helped students to become “distributive knowledge exchange” teams.
6. The study also found several learning difficulties in online discussion such as communication difficulty, information searching, information integration, free rider, difficulty in understanding the learning task and so on.
7. The students tended to accomplish learning task through team cooperation along the implementation of online discussion.
This study finally suggested that instructors should pay more attention to provide students with appropriate scaffolds to promote students’ conceptual learning and knowledge construction.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 4
第三節 研究限制 5
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 網路合作學習 7
第二節 學習輔助者 19
第三節 知識轉換 25
第三章 研究方法 34
第一節 研究設計 34
第二節 研究流程 37
第三節 研究對象 40
第四節 研究工具 42
第五節 資料處理與分析 51
第四章 研究結果 52
第一節 知識轉換能力之描述性統計分析 52
第二節 知識轉換能力在同步討論區下的表現情形分析 54
第三節 學習輔助者介入同步討論區下學生之學習情形 65
第四節 團體成員線上討論行為現況分析 71
第五節 整理與討論 95
第六節 網路合作學習之相關質性資料分析 101
第五章 討論與建議 126
第一節 結論 126
第二節 在教學上的應用 129
第三節 研究建議 130
參考文獻 134
附錄一 模擬討論活動學習單 139
附錄二 第一次討論活動學習單 140
附錄三 第二次討論活動學習單 141
附錄四 第三次討論活動學習單 142

教育部(2000)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程(第一學習階段)暫行綱要。
王如哲（2005）。知識經濟與教育。台北：五南。
王思峰、黃家齊和鄭俐敏（2002）。團隊知識轉換與知識創造的實驗研究-知識螺旋理論的驗證。管理與系統，9(1)，29-60。
楊子江、王美音（譯）(1997)。Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. 著。創新求勝。台北：遠流。
黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）。合作學習。台北：五南。
Albino, V., Garavelli, A. C., & Schiuma, G. (1999). Knowledge transfer and inter-firm relationships in industrial districts: the role of the leader firm. Technovation, 19(11), 53-63.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2002). Managing the on-line classroom : A study of technological and behavioral characteristics of web-based MBA course. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13, 203-223.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1-8.
Baines, L. A., & Stanley, G. (2000).We want to see the teacher : Constructivism and the rage against expertise. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 4,327-330.
Bartlett, R. L. (1995). A filp of the coin-A roll of the die: An answer to the free-rider problem in economic instruction. The Journal of Economic Education, 26(2), 131-139.
Berge, Z.L., & Collins, M. (1995). Computer-mediated scholarly discussion groups. Computers and Education , 24(3), 183-189.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(2), 14-21.
Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). The case for constructivist classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Chang, C.Y., & Tsai, C.C. (2005). The interplay between different forms of CAI and students’ preferences of learning environment in the secondary science class. Science Education, 89, 707-724.
Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33,483-511.
Chou, C., & Tsai C.C. (2002). Developing Web-based curricula: Issues and Challenges. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 623-636.
Christensen, E. W., Anakwe, U. P., & Kessler, E. H. (2001). Receptivity to distance learning: The effect of technology, reputation, constraints and learning preferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 263-279.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3),253-277.
Collazos, C. A., Guerrero, L. A., & Pino, J. A. (2004). Computational design principles to support the monitoring of collaborative learning processes. Advanced Technology for Learning, 1(3), 174-180.
Cook, P. (1999). I heard it trough the grapevine: making knowledge management work by learningto share knowledge, skills and experience. Industrial and Commercial Training, 31(3), 101-105.
Desouza, K. C. (2003). Facilitating tacit knowledge exchange. Communications of the ACM, 46(6), 85-88.
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109-128.
Gillbert, M., & Hayes, M. C. (1996). Understanding the process of knowledge transfer to achieve successful technological innovation. Technovation, 16(6), 301-312
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.
Guan, Y. H., Tsai, C. C., & Hwang, F. K. (2006). Content analysis of online discussion on a senior-high-school discussion forum of a virtual physics laboratory. Instructional Science, 34, 279-311.
Hassenplug, C. A., & Harnish, D. (1998).The nature and importance of interaction in distance education credit classes at technical institutes. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 22(6), 591-606.
Helic, D., Maurer, H., & Scerbakov, N. (2004). Knowledge transfer process in a modern WBT system. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 27, 163-190.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.
Holliman, R., & Scanlon, E. (2006). Nvestigating cooperation and collaboration in near synchronous computer mediated conferences. Computers & Education, 46(3), 322-335.
Hong, K. S. (2002). Relationships between students’ and instructional variables with satisfaction and learning from a Web-based course. Internet and Higher Education,5, 267-281.
Hoof, B. V. D., & Weenen, F. D. L. V. (2004). Committed to share: Commitment and CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Processs Management, 11(1), 13-24.
Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computer & Education, 48,427-445.
Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (1999).A study of students’ perceived learning in a Web-based online environment. ERIC Accession No. ED448721.
Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, Satisfaction and participateon in W-b-Based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153-162.
Kaiser, P. R., Tullar, W. L., & Mckowen, D. (2000). Student team projects by internet. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 75-82.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: potential limitations. Education Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.
Liu, C.C., & Tsai, C.C.(in press).An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computer & Education.
McCombs, B. L. (2000). Reducing the achievement gap. Society,37(5),29-39.
McFadzean, E. S. & McKenzie, J. (2001). Facilitating virtual learning groups :A practical approach. Journal of Management Development, 20(6), 470-494.
McFadzean, E. S. & Nelson, T. (1998). Facilitating problem solving groups: A conceptual model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,19(1),6-13.
McFadzean, E. S., Somersall, L. & Coker, A. (1999). A framework for facilitating group processes. Strategic Change, 8(7), 421-431.
Miyake, N., & Norman, D. A. (1979). To ask a question, one must know enough to know what is not know. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(3), 357-364.
Munter, M. (1998). Meeting technology: From low-tech to high-tech.Business Communication Quarterly, 61(2), 80-87.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N.(1998). The concept of “ba”: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54.
Olaniran, B. A. (2006). Applying synchronous computer-mediated communication into course design: some considerations and practical guides. Computer-Wide Information Systems, 23(3), 210-220.
OR-Bach, R., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (2004). Designing adaptive interventions for online collaborative modeling. Education and Information Technologies, 9(4), 355–375.
Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006).The influence of system characteristics on Ee-learning use. Computers & Education, 47,222-244.
Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability in online communities: determining and measuring success. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(5), 347-356.
Raquel, B.F. (2002). Improving education and training with IT. Communications of the ACM, 45(6), 94-99.
Resta, P. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educ Psychol rev, 19, 65-83.
Scherire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32,475-520.
Senge, P. (1997). Sharing knowledge. Executive excellence, 14(11), 17-18.
Slavin, R. E. (1999). Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 74-79.
Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K., Connors, H. R., & Frey, B. B. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction : Determining the impact of a web-based environment by controlling for student characteristic. The Ameircal Journal of Distance Education, 16(3),169-189.
Tsai, C. C. (2004). Information commitment in web-based learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 105-112.
Tsai, C. C. (2008). The preferences toward constructivist Internet-based learning environments among university students in taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 24,16-31.
Tsai, C. C., & Lin, C. C. (2004). Taiwanese adolescents’ perceptions and attitudes regarding the Internet: Exploring gender differences. Adolescence, 39, 725-734.
Tsai, C.-C. (2000). A typology of the use of educational media, with implications for Internet-based instruction. Educational Media International, 37, 157-160.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34, 269-290.
Verkasalo, M., & Lappalainen, P. (1998). A method of measuring the efficiency of the knowledge utilization process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45(4), 414-423.
Walker, S. A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil’s advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 20, 172–182.
Weeinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33,1-30.
Wehrs, W. (2002). An assessment of the effectiveness of cooperative learning in introductory information system. Journal of Information System Education, 13(1), 37-49.
Wen, M. L., Tsai, C. C., Lin, H. M., & Chuang, S. C. (2004). Cognitive-metacognitive and content-technical aspects of constructivist Internet-based learning environments: a LISREL analysis. Computer & Education, 43, 237-248.
Yang, F. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (in press).Investigating university student preferences and beliefs about learning in the web-based context. Computer & Education.