臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究的目的在探討專家教師於網路合作學習活動中引發低參與度學生意見發表與討論的知識。本研究為取得輔助低參與度學生的介入策略及其適當性之知識（即幫助低參與度學生達到互相討論目標所採行的具體作法及該作法的適當程度），邀請具有網路合作學習指導或研究經驗的專家教師參與團體焦點訪談與德懷術調查，共得到5項專家教師認為應該介入的問題，以及11項專家教師認為適當的介入策略。此外，本研究為了檢驗這些介入策略的實際效益，進而安排一場專家教師於網路合作學習環境中實際介入低參與度學生的活動，結果顯示，專家教師認為針對低參與度學生介入必要性最低的「學生側重自顧自的任務執行或構圖的直接操作致較少參與討論」問題，專家的介入最頻繁。而專家教師對各策略的預期成效，亦跟教師介入活動的實際成效有很大的出入。本研究可作為教師日後在提升學生參與度之參考，或作為發展智慧型網路合作學習系統的依據。

The purpose of the research was to acquire the knowledge of expert tutor’s intervention strategies for promoting students’ participation in computer supported collaborative learning activities. In order to acquire such knowledge, which includes the course of actions that expert tutors would take to facilitate little-contribution students in achieving group learning purpose as well as the collectively-considered appropriateness of these actions, nine expert tutors were invited to participate in a Delphi investigation and a focus group interview. After analysis, five situations in which tutors considered should intervene and eleven appropriate intervention strategies were identified. For further examining the actual effects of the acquired knowledge, a computer supported collaborative learning activity was conducted for tutors to practically apply the intervention knowledge. The result showed that the most-frequently-intervened situation was when students tend to complete the group task by themselves without noticing others’ opinions. What’s interesting is, according to the Delphi investigation, this situation was considered as least-worth-intervening situation by most tutors. Additionally, the expected effects of each intervention strategy were of much different from the tutors’ actual practices. The findings of the study can serve as the basis for the adoption of intervention strategies in computer supported collaborative learning environment and for the development of intelligent group learning systems.

一、 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究目的 3
二、 提升參與度策略之文獻探討 4
三、 德懷術（DELPHI）調查 11
3.1 第一回合德懷術調查問卷 11
3.1.1 資料來源 11
3.1.2 資料分析 12
3.1.3 結果 13
3.2 德懷術調查程序 17
3.3 德懷術專家成員 19
3.4 德懷術線上調查工具 20
3.5 資料處理與分析 21
3.5.1 德懷術停止標準 22
四、 德懷術調查結果 23
4.1 第一回合問卷調查 23
4.1.1 問卷結構及內容 23
4.1.2 結果分析 25
4.2 第二回合問卷調查 25
4.2.1 問卷結構及內容 25
4.2.2 結果分析 29
4.3 第三回合問卷調查 29
4.3.1 問卷結構及內容 29
4.3.2 結果分析 32
4.4 第四回合問卷調查 33
4.4.1 問卷結構及內容 33
4.4.2 結果分析 36
4.5 專家教師對提升參與度問題及策略的看法 36
4.5.1 介入問題之必要性 36
4.5.2 介入策略之適當性 36
五、 提升參與度策略的效益檢驗 38
5.1 專家教師介入活動 38
5.1.1 找出並安排被介入的學生 38
5.1.2 安排專家教師進行介入 38
5.2 實驗活動之系統支援 39
六、 提升參與度策略之效益檢驗結果 45
6.1 介入問題1：學生因為缺乏合作學習經驗，致較少參與討論 49
6.2 介入問題2：學生側重自顧自的任務執行而缺乏討論 49
6.3 介入問題3：學生缺乏發表意見的自信致較少參與討論 61
6.4 介入問題4：學生不對組員的意見進行回應與討論 72
6.5 介入問題5：學生單純缺乏發表意見的意願致較少參與討論 75
七、 討論 77
7.1 「設立階段性目標」策略之討論 77
7.2 「模仿學生小組成就區分法的做法依據個人表現計較小組績效」策略之討論 77
7.3 「設定關於發言的最低要求」策略之討論 78
7.4 「鼓勵」策略之討論 79
7.5 「提供各學生不同的重要資訊」策略之討論 80
八、 結論與建議 81
8.1 結論 81
8.1.1 提升學生參與度的介入策略 81
8.1.2 介入策略的效果 82
8.1.3 介入策略的運用 82
8.2 建議 83
參考文獻 84
中文部分 84
英文部分 85
附錄一：能源概念參考文章 89
附錄二：專家教師三次介入活動專家圖 93
附錄三：能源相關之重要資訊內容摘要 95
附錄四：快捷語一覽表 97

Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175-193.
Barab, S. A. & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Barros, B., & Verdejo, F. M. (2000). Analysing student interaction processes in order to improve collaboration: The DEGREE approach. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 221-241
Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S., & Turoff, M. (2001). A comparative content analysis of face-to-face vs. Aln-mediated teamwork. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-34). Retrieved 10 October, 2005, from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7255/20032/00926189.pdf?arnumber=926189
Bonk, C. J., & King, K. S. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner centered technologies for literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Boose, J. (1989). A survey of knowledge acquisition techniques and tools. Knowledge Acquisition, 1(1), 3–38.
Borges, M. A. F., Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2003). Supporting the facilitator in a collaborative learning environment. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning 13, (1/2), 39-56.
Buss, A. R. (2001). A Delphi study of educational telecollaborative projects: Identifying critical elements and obstacles. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(3), 235-48.
Carroll, J. M., Neale, D. C., Isenhour, P. L., Rosson, M. B. & McCrickard, D. S. (2003). Notification and awareness: Synchronizing task-oriented collaborative activity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(5), 605-632.
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.
Constantino-González, M. A., & Suthers, D. D. (2002). In Coaching collaboration in a computer-mediated learning environment. Proceedings of Computer-Support for Collaborative Learning 2002 (CSCL 2002) . Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Boulder, Colorado.
Connolly, T. & Porter, A. L. (1990). Discretionary databases in forecasting. Journal of forecasting, 9, 1-12.
Connolly, T. & Thorn, B. K. (1990). Discretionary databases: Theory, data, and implications. In J. Fulk & C. W. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 219–233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Connolly, T., Thorn, B. K. & Heminger, A. (1992). Discretionary databases as social dilemmas. In W. B. G. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, & H. A. M. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 199-208). New York: Pergammon Press.
Gros, B. (2001). Instructional design for computer-supported collaborative learning in primary and secondary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(5-6), 439-451.
Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Grasel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12(2), 213-232.
Franchak, S. J., Desy, J. & Norton, E. L. (1984). Involving business, industry, and labor: Guidelines for planning and evaluation vocational education programs (Research and Development Series No. 250). Columbus, The Ohio State University. The National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Gaudioso, E., & Boticario, J. G. (2003). Collecting, analyzing and interpreting data for user model acquisition in open web-based adaptive collaborative environment. Knowledge-Based Intellignet Information and Engineering Systems, Pt 2, Proceedings (Vol. 2774, pp. 1314-1320).
Gros, B. (2001). Instructional design for computer-supported collaborative learning in primary and secondary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(5-6), 439-451.
Harrer, A. (2000). Interaction analysis at coordination level with semi-structured interfaces. In Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Analysis and Modelling of Collaborative Learning Interactions, the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI2000), Berlin, Germany.
Hron, A. & Friedrich, H. F. (2003). A review of web-based collaborative learning: factors beyond technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 70-79.
Jarboe, S. (1996). Procedures for enhancing group decision making. In B. Hirokawa, & M.Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (pp. 345-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kalman, M. E. (1999). The effects of organizational commitment and expected outcomes on the motivation to share discretionary information in a collaborative database: Communication dilemmas and other serious games. (UMI Microform 9933735.) Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses - free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 78-94.
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. In P. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL (pp. 7-47). Heerlen, Netherlands: Open University of the Netherlands.
Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Hakkarainen, K., & Palonen, T. (2002). Effective participation and discourse through a computer network: Investigating elementary students'' computer supported interaction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(4), 355-384.
Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students'' computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 487-509.
Murry, J. W., & Hammons, Jr. J. (1995). Delphi: A versatile methodology for conductingqualitative research. The Review of Higher Education. 18(4), 423-436.
Reid, F., Malinek, V., Stott, C., & Evans, J. (1996). The messaging threshold in computer-mediated communication. Ergonomics, 39(8), 1017-1037.
Robertson, J., Good, J., & Pain, H. (1998). BetterBlether: The design and evaluation of discussion tool for education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 219-236.
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89-99.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 429-445.
Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 40-62.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34, 269-290.
Wagner, W. P., Najdawi, M. K., & Chung, Q. B. (2001). Selection of knowledge acquisition techniques based upon the problem domain characteristics of production and operations management expert systems. Expert Systems, 18(2), 76-87.
Walker, S. A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil''s advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 172-182.