臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討任務主題、性別、及分組方式對國中生以網路即時討論做決策之言談模式的影響。本研究的對象為男女各半總共四十八位的國二學生，四人一組進行網路即時討論。分組方式有兩種：同性組六組(男生組三組、女生組三組)及異性混合組六組(男女各半)。他們總共參加兩次聊天室的即時討論活動做小組決策。研究者先將聊天室的對話內容針對談話量(quantity of participation)、同意及異議策略(agreement and disagreement strategies)和網路語言使用(Internet language uses)等三方面進行分析，再以3-way ANOVA和paired t-test等統計方法探討任務主題、性別、及分組方式等三因子對受試者的表現是否有顯著的影響及交互作用。
本研究的結果摘要如下：
1.在談話量方面，任務主題對受試者的發言總字數和發言次數有顯著的影響，性別及分組方式則沒有顯著的影響。另外，受試者的談話量也可能受到任務主題和分組方式的交互作用影響。
2.在同意及異議策略的使用方面，只有分組方式有顯著的影響。受試者在同性組時會比在異性混合組時明顯使用較多的同意及異議策略。另外，不管在同性組或異性混合組，受試者都傾向於委婉或客氣的表示不同看法，而較少使用強烈或直接的異議策略。
3.受試者使用網路語言的次數並未受到任務主題、性別、及分組方式等單一因子影響，但是明顯受到三個因子之間交互作用的影響。
最後，本研究依據實驗結果，對資訊融入教學活動及未來研究方向，提出一些具體建言。

This study investigates the effects of the task topics, the gender, and the grouping methods on the quantity of participation, the strategies in indicating agreement and disagreement, and the Internet language uses of junior high school students in decision-making process through synchronous online discussion. There were 48 subjects, 24 males and 24 females, in this study. They were assigned to 12 groups, which consisted of 6 same-sex groups (3 male-only and 3 female-only) and 6 mixed-sex groups. All subjects were asked to complete two decision-making tasks through only real-time online discussion. The chat room transcripts were coded and then analyzed through 3-way ANOVA and paired t-test to examine the effects and interaction of the three factors: the task topics, the gender, and the grouping methods.
The results of this study are summarized as follows.
1.The subjects’ quantity of participation was influenced neither by the gender nor by being grouped with the subjects of the same or the opposite sex. However, the topic selection of the task has significant effects on the number of words and speech turns contributed by the subjects, but not on their mean length of turn (MLT). Furthermore, the significant interaction between the task topic and the grouping method indicates that the subjects’ participation quantity (i.e., words and turns) was influenced by the task topic and the grouping method simultaneously.
2.Neither the task topic nor the gender has any significant effects on the subjects’ use of strategies in showing agreement and disagreement, but the grouping method is a significant factor in this aspect. The subjects tended to use more agreement and disagreement strategies (both aggravated and mitigated ones) when they were in the same-sex groups than in the mixed-sex groups. Furthermore, all subjects tended to use mitigated disagreement rather than direct aggravated disagreement when they had conflicts with their chat mates, no matter whether they were in the same-sex or the mixed-sex groups.
3.No significant gender differences were found in the Internet language uses produced by the subjects in the online discussion. Nor did the subjects show any significant differences in their Internet language uses when they were in the same-sex and in the mixed-sex groups. However, it was worth noting that the quantity of Internet language uses produced by the subjects in the synchronous online discussion depends mainly on the interaction between the three factors: the task topics, the gender, and the grouping methods.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Motivation and Background 1
Purposes of the Study 4
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 7
Limitations of the Study 8
Definition of Terms 9

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
CMC vs. FTF Communication 11
Differences between CMC and FTF 11
Advantages of CMC in Teaching 13
Cooperative Learning and CMC 16
Gender Differences in Communication 17
Gendered Interactive Patterns in FTF and CMC Communication 17
Amount of Speech in FTF Communication 19
Quantity of Participation in CMC Communication 20
Strategies in Conflict Management 22
Gender Differences toward Conflict in FTF and CMC Communication 22
Conflict Management Strategies in FTF Communication 24
Conflict Management Strategies in CMC Communication 26
Internet Language Uses 27
Language Use on the Internet 28
Su’s Categorization of Creative Language Use on the Taiwan-based Internet 29
Stylized English 30
Stylized Taiwanese-accented Mandarin 30
Stylized Taiwanese 31
Zhuyin Wen 32
Other Creative Language Uses Found among the Internet Users in Taiwan 33
Abbreviation 33
Particles 34
Context Variables in CMC 35
Variables Affecting Online Communication Patterns 35
Pseudonym and Identity 36
Group Gender Composition 37

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
Subjects 40
Tasks 42
Procedures 43
The Pilot Study 43
The Actual Study 45
Data Collection and Coding 49
Coding of Variables 49
Quantity of Participation 50
Agreement and Disagreement Strategies 51
Internet Language Uses 53
Data Analysis 56

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction 58
Descriptive Statistics of the Effects of the Three Factors 59
General Observation of the Students’ Participation 63
Results and Discussion on the Quantity of Participation 65
Words 65
Turns 68
MLT 73
Discussion on Research Question One 74
Results and Discussion on Agreement and Disagreement Strategies 75
Agreement 76
Aggravated Disagreement 79
Mitigated Disagreement 84
Discussion on Research Question Two 87
Results and Discussion on Internet Language Uses 89
Particles 89
Phonetic Symbols 92
Transliteration 94
Discussion on Research Question Three 97

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary 99
Conclusion 101
Pedagogical Implications 103
Suggestions for Future Studies 105

REFERENCES 108
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Gender Group Composition and the Two Task Topics 114
Appendix B: Definition of Coding Variables 115
Appendix C: Coded Transcript of the Third Male-only Group in Topic 2 116
Appendix D: Excerpt Transcript of the Two Female Subjects in Topic 2 120
Appendix E: Quantity of Participation Contributed by the Subjects 122
Appendix F: Agreement and Disagreement Strategies Used by the Subjects 124
Appendix G: Internet Language Uses Produced by the Subjects 126
Appendix H: Statistical Results of Variables in Quantity of Participation 128
Appendix I: Statistical Results of Variables in Agreement and Disagreement
Strategies 129
Appendix J: Statistical Results of Variables in Internet Language Uses 130

Carr, T., Cox, G., Eden, A., & Hanslo, M. (2004). From peripheral to full participation in a blended trade bargaining simulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(2), 197-211.

Chadwick, S. A. (1999). Teaching virtually via the web: Comparing student performance and attitudes about communication in lecture, virtual web-based, and web-supplemental courses. Electronic Journal of Communication, 9(1). Retrieved March 15, 2006, from http://www.cios.org/getfile/Chadwickv9n199

Chattong, J. (2004). Gender patterns in the computer-mediated environment. Unpublished Thesis (M.A.), California State University, Fullerton.

Chester, A., & Gwynne, G. (1998). Online teaching: Encouraging collaboration through anonymity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(2). Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue2/chester.html

Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic language. In Herring (Eds.),
Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. New York: John Benjamins.

Connolly, T., Jessup, L., & Valacich, J. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36(6), 689-703.

Cooper, P. M., Friedley, S. A., Stewart, A. D., & Stewart, L. P. (2003). Communication and gender. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 183-193.

Duran, R. L., Kelly, L., & Zolten, J. J. (2001). The effect of reticence on college students’use of electronic email to communicate with faculty. Communication Education, 30(2), 170-176.

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.
Flanagin, A. J., O’Connor, J., Seilbold, D. R., & Tiyaamornwong, V. (2002).
Computer-mediated group work: The interaction of member sex and anonymity. Communication Research, 29(1), 66-93.

Fromkin, V., & Rodman, R. (1998). An introduction to language (6th edition). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College.

Gay, G., Martin, W., & Pena-Shaff, J. (2001). An epistimologocal framework for analyzing student interactions in computer-mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 41-70.

Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Children’s arguing. In S. Philips, S. Steele & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp.200-48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, M. H. (1995). Co-construction in girls’ hopscotch. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 261-282.

Graddol, D., & Swann, J. (1989). Gender voices. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Herring, S. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication.
Electronic Journal of Communication, 3(2), 1-17.

---. (1994). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bring
familiar baggage to the new frontier. Paper presented at the American Library Association Annual Convention, June, Miami, FL. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/gender/herring.txt

---. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S. Herring (Eds.),
Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.81-106). New York: John Benjamins.

---. (1998). Virtual gender performances. Talk presented at Texas A & M University, Texas.

---. (1999). The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment online. The Information Society, 15, 151-167.

Herschel, R. T. (1994). The impact of varying gender composition on group brainstorming performance in a GSS environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 10(2), 209-222.

Hirschman, L. (1994). Female-male differences in conversational interaction. Language in society, 23, 427-442.

Ingram, A. L., Hathorn, L. G., & Evans, A. (2000). Beyond chat on the Internet. Computers & Education, 35(1), 21-35.

James, D., & Drakich, J. (1993). Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: A critical review of research. In D. Tannen (Eds.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 281-312). New York: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1997). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Cooperation in the Classroom (6th edition). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Kaplan, N., & Farrell, E. (1994). Weavers of webs: A portrait of young women on the net. Arachnet Journal on Virtual Culture [on-line serial], 2(3).

Knowlton, D. S., & Knowlton, H. M. (2001). The context and content of online
discussions: Making cyber-discussions viable for the secondary school curriculum. American Secondary Education, 29(4), 38-52.

Kuo, S. (1991). Conflict and its management in Chinese verbal interactions: Casual conversations and parliamentary interpellations. Unpublished Thesis (Ph D.), Georgetown University, Washington, D. C.

Maltz, D., ＆ Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (Eds.), Communication, language and social identity (pp.196-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Group: Interaction and performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJ.

Murph, K. L., & Collins, M. P. (1997). Development of communication conventions in instructional electronic chats. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL., March 24-28, 1997. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://disted.tamu.edu/aera97a.htm

Nemiroff, P., & Pasmore, W. (1975). Lost at sea: A consensus-seeking task. In W. Pfeiffer & J. Jones (Eds.), 1975 handbook for group facilitators (pp. 28-34). La Jolla, CA: University Associates.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the Cyberspace classroom: the realities of online teaching. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Paulsen, M.F. (2003). Cooperative Freedom: An Online Education Theory. In Online Education and Learning Management Systems. Retrieved Oct.16, 2006, from http://www.studymentor.com

Poynton, C. (1989). Language and gender: Making the difference. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 503-513.

Rodino, M. (1997). Breaking out of binaries: Reconceptualizing gender and its relationship to language in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(3). Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue3/rodino.html

Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Lingenfelter, D. (1996a). Gender and group composition in small task groups using computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 12(2), 209-224.

---. (1996b). Gender, group composition, and task type in small task groups using computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 12(4), 549-565.

---. (1996c). Gender language style and group composition in Internet discussion groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(3). Retrieved March 3, 2006, from
http://jcmc.mscc.huji.ac.jl/vol2/issue3/savicki.html

Savicki, V., Kelley, M, & Oesterreich, E. (1998). Effects of instructions on
computer-mediated communication in single- or mixed-gender small task groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(1), 163-180.

Savicki, V., Kelley, M. (2000). Computer mediated communication: Gender and group composition. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(5), 817-826.

Shaffer, D. R., Pegalis, L. J., & Cornell, D. P. (1992). Gender and self-disclosure revisited: Personal and contextual variations in self-disclosure to same-sex acquaintances. Journal of Social Psychology, 132(3), 307-315.

Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights：Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Processes, 13, 5-31.

---. (1992). Conflict talk：Socio-linguistic challenges to self-assertion and how young girls meet them. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 95-117.

---. (1996). You can be the baby brother but you aren’t born yet：Preschool girls’negotiation for power and access in pretend play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 57-80.

Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.

Spitzer, M. (1986). Writing style in computer conferences. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communications PC 29, 19-22.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.

---. (1991). Computers, networks, and work. Scientific America, September.

Su, H. (2003). The multilingual and multi-orthographic Taiwan-based Internet: creative uses of writing systems on college-affiliated BBSs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(1). Retrieved May 23, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue1/su.html

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.

Werry C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In S. Herring (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.47-63). New York: John Benjamins.

Wood, J. T. (1997). Gendered lives; Communication, gender, & culture. Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: individuation, reason, and order vs.
deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 237-307). University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

林珊如、蔡今中 (Lin & Tsai, 1999): 我國學生電腦網路沉迷現象之整合研究—子計畫三：中學生網路沉迷現象知深度訪談研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。

施香如 (Shi, 2001): 迷惘、迷網—談青少年網路使用與輔導。學生輔導通訊，74，18-25。

馬以工 (Ma, 1989): 當今婦女角色與定位。 國際崇她社台北三社。

教育部 (2003): 九年一貫課程綱要。 教育部編印。

盧諭緯 (Lu, 1997): 說文解字：初探網路語言現象及其社會意義。第二屆「資訊科技與社會轉型研討會」論文。 Retrieved June 16, 2006, from http://www.ios.sinica.edu.tw/pages/seminar/infotec2/info2-20.htm