(3.237.97.64) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/04 15:23
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:黃曉慧
論文名稱:導入「惡魔代言人」角色於線上小組合作論證中對國小六年級生發展論證能力的影響
論文名稱(外文):Effects of assigning students to play 'devil's advocate' roles in paired online collaborative argumentation
指導教授:邱瓊慧邱瓊慧引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:資訊教育學系
學門:教育學門
學類:專業科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2011
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:117
中文關鍵詞:論證論證能力線上合作論證兩人小組惡魔代言人
外文關鍵詞:argumentationargumentation skillsonline collaborative argumentationsmall groupdevil’s advocate
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:291
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:28
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究旨在探討非同步合作論證中學生於兩人小組內輪流扮演故意唱反調之惡魔代言人對其發展論證能力、學習網路著作權、以及小組互動特徵的影響,並瞭解學生對於兩人小組中有「惡魔代言人」的觀感。本研究採準實驗研究法,國小六年級學生共六個班級174位學生參與實驗活動,從中抽取三班為實驗組,另三班為對照組,以有/無導入「惡魔代言人」角色為實驗處理。班級內隨機分派兩人一組於研究者所架構的網路平台進行非同步論證活動,並透過此系統收集學生學習過程的活動紀錄。實驗程序歷時15週,利用各班每週一堂40分鐘的電腦課於電腦教室進行實驗活動,以網路著作權議題為論證主題。研究結果顯示,導入「惡魔代言人」角色能夠幫助學生提供有說服力的證據來支持自己的論點、以及從不同立場思考議題以提出反駁,但對學生發表個人論點、及說明論點和證據之間關係的理由方面無影響。在學習著作權方面,導入「惡魔代言人」角色有助於學生學習相關知識,以及有助於前測態度分數較低的學生改善其對網路著作權的態度,不過在行為意向上則無影響。此外,本研究也發現有導入「惡魔代言人」的小組傾向評鑑自己與組員的論述,且學生對於反駁的態度會影響扮演的意願,而無導入「惡魔代言人」的小組傾向建構論述元素,少有互相評論的情形。最後,針對研究結果提出討論與相關建議。
This study explored effects of assigning students to play 'devil's advocate' roles in paired online collaborative argumentation. It was hypothesized that students in pairs with one playing the role of ‘devil's advocate’ in argumentation skills (claim, data, warrant, rebuttal) and achieved differently from students in pairs but without any role arrangement during online collaborative argumentation on copyright law and ethics on the web. The study adopted a pre-test and post-test quasi-experimental design with an experimental group (N=60) and a comparison group (N=60). The argumentation activity was consisted of four topics and was conducted during the weekly computer class of each class (each lasted 40 minutes). The results show that the role of devil's advocate' has an impact for students to learn argumentation skill and knowledge toward copyright law and ethics on the web.
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 5
第三節 名詞釋義 6
第貳章 文獻探討 7
第一節 論證 7
第二節 合作論證 10
第三節 惡魔代言人策略 17
第參章 研究方法 26
第一節 研究設計 26
第二節 研究假設 26
第三節 研究對象 27
第四節 實驗處理 28
第五節 論證系統 35
第六節 研究工具 40
第七節 實驗流程 48
第八節 資料處理與分析 50
第肆章 研究結果 55
第一節 實驗任務完成情形 55
第二節 「惡魔代言人」對發展論證能力之影響 56
第三節 「惡魔代言人」對學習網路著作權之影響 63
第四節 「惡魔代言人」對小組互動特徵之影響 68
第五節 「惡魔組」對「惡魔」角色的觀感 79
第伍章 討論 84
第一節 「惡魔代言人」對發展論證能力影響之探討 84
第二節 「惡魔代言人」對學習網路著作權影響之探討 87
第三節 「惡魔代言人」對小組互動特徵影響之探討 89
第四節 「惡魔組」對「惡魔」角色的觀感之探討 91
第陸章 結論 94
第一節 結論 94
第二節 建議 96
參考文獻 98
附錄一 網路著作權知識測驗 107
附錄二 網路著作權態度量表 112
附錄三 網路著作權行為意向量表 114
附錄四 扮演「惡魔」觀感的問卷 116
大纪元. (2007). 美國習慣用語「devil's advocate」 [Electronic Version] from http://hk.epochtimes.com/7/10/10/52949.htm.
尹玫君. (2004). 國小學生資訊倫理態度和行為的探討. 南大學報, 38(2), 1-21.
尹玫君, & 王瑞玉. (2008). 國小網路著作權教學設計與實施成效之探討. 教育研究學報, 42(1), 57-78.
台灣網路資訊中心. (2009). Retrieved 06/21, 2011, from http://statistics.twnic.net.tw/item04.htm
邱皓政. (2006). 量化研究法 : Spss中文視窗版操作實務詳析. 臺北市: 雙葉書廊.
郭生玉. (2001). 心理與教育研究法. 中和市: 精華書局.
黃柏鴻, & 林樹聲. (2007). 論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思(literature review and reflection on the research about argumentation instruction). 科學教育月刊(302), 5-20.
經濟部智慧財產局. (2007). 校園著作權百寶箱—網路篇. from http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=3474&guid=9889c2f1-e699-4941-bde0-f898190cee56&lang=zh-tw
蕭妙香, & 陳瀅淑. (2006). 台南市國小學童法律知識與態度之探討. 教育研究學報, 40(1), 23-49.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453-474.
Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114.
Andrews, R. (2005). Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text, 25(1), 107-127.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 205-216). The Netherlands, Boston: Dordrecht.
Andriessen, J. E. B. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bertucci, A., Conte, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2010). The impact of size of cooperative group on achievement, social support, and self-esteem. The Journal of General Psychology, 137(3), 256-272.
Chen, G., & Chiu, M. M. (2008). Online discussion processes: Effects of earlier messages' evaluations, knowledge content, social cues and personal information on later messages. Comput Educ Computers and Education, 50(3), 678-692.
Chin, C., & Teou, L. Y. (2008). Using concept cartoons in formative assessment: Scaffolding students' argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1307-1332.
Chiu, M. M. (2008). Effects of argumentation on group micro-creativity: Statistical discourse analyses of algebra students’ collaborative problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 382-402.
Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22.
Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 345-374.
Dyson, B., & Grineski, S. (2001). Using cooperative learning structures in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(2), 28-31.
Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck, H. A. F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory : A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
Friedkin, N. E. (2010). The attitude-behavior linkage in behavioral cascades. Soc. Psychol. Q. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(2), 196-213.
Gerber, S., Scott, L., Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2005). Instructor influence on reasoned argument in discussion boards. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 25-39.
Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 167-180.
Gose, M. (2009). When socratic dialogue is flagging: Questions and strategies for engaging students. College Teaching, 57(1), 45-50.
Handley, I. M., & Runnion, B. M. (2011). Evidence that unconscious thinking influences persuasion based on argument quality. Social Cognition, 29(6), 668-682.
Herrick, J. A., & Iltis, R. S. (2004). Argumentation : Understanding and shaping arguments. State College, Pa: Strata Pub.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
Hopkins, P. E., & Hirst, D. E. (1998). Comprehensive income reporting and analysts' valuation judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 36, 47-75.
Jeong, A., & Frazier, S. (2008). How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in asynchronous discussions and computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 875-887.
Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427-445.
Jeong, A., & Lee, J. (2008). The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 651-665.
Jeong, A. C. (2004). The effects of communication style and message function in triggering responses and critical discussion in computer-supported collaborative argumentation.
Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a cscl scenario. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205-226). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 861-871.
Joiner, R., Jones, S., & Doherty, J. (2008). Two studies examining argumentation in asynchronous computer mediated communication. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 243-255.
Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439-457.
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1310-1328.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
Limon, M. S., Turner, M. M., & Zompetti, J. P. (2008). Informal arguing: The likelihood of providing arguments, rebuttals, refutations, and evidence in an argumentative interaction. Argumentation and advocacy : the journal of the American Forensic Association, 45(1), 37-48.
Lin, C.-H., Huang, S.-M., Wu, P.-S., & Chiu, C.-H. (2010). Primary school students' decision-making argumentation in cyber-ethics dilemmas. Paper presented at the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. ashington, DC.
Lisette, M., Jerry, A., Paul, K., & Gellof, K. (2007). Effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on interactive argumentation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th iternational conference on Computer supported collaborative learning. New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students' construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 310-317), Santa Monica, California. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
MacDougall, C., & Baum, F. (1997). The devil's advocate: A strategy to avoid groupthink and stimulate discussion in focus groups. Qualitative health research, 7(4), 532.
Maloney, J. (2007). Children's roles and use of evidence in science: An analysis of decision-making in small groups. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 371-401.
McCann, T. M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 62-76.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377.
Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017.
Missimer, C. A. (1995). Good arguments : An introduction to critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17-39.
Nemeth, C., Brown, K., & Rogers, J. (2001a). Devil's advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6), 707-720.
Nemeth, C. J., Connell, J. B., Rogers, J. D., & Brown, K. S. (2001b). Improving decision making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 48-58.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(3), 286-313.
Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Original article: Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95-110.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science Science, 328(5977), 463-466.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Paulson, D. R., & Faust, J. L. (2002). Active learning for the college classroom [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 2008/12/03 from http://www.calstatela.edu/dept/chem/chem2/Active/.
Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In Informal reasoning and education. (pp. 83-105): Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Pilkington, R., & Kuminek, P. (2004). Using role-play activity with synchronous CMC to encourage critical reflection on peer debate. In M. Monteith (Ed.), ICT for curriculum enhancement (pp. 69-84): Intellect L & D E F A E.
Raghavan, S. A. (1990). Birbal a computer-based devil's advocate. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science. (pp. 391-402).
Retalis, S., Pain, H., & Haggith, M. (1996). Arguing with the devil: Teaching in controversial domains. Lecture notes in computer science(1086), 659.
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L.-J., Clark, A.-M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., et al. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29-48.
Rojas-Drummond, S., & Zapata, M. P. (2004). Exploratory talk, argumentation and reasoning in mexican primary school children. Language and Education, 18(6), 539-557.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
Schommer-Aikins, M., & Easter, M. (2009). Ways of knowing and willingness to argue. The Journal of Psychology, 143(2), 117-132.
Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32(6), 475-502.
Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179-199). Dordrecht: Springer.
Spatariu, A., Hartley, K., Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Quinn, L. F. (2007). The influence of the discussion leader procedure on the quality of arguments in online discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), 83-103.
Strohmetz, D. B., & Skleder, A. A. (1992). The use of role-play in teaching research ethics: A validation study. Teaching of Psychology, 19(2), 106-108.
Tobin, S. J., & Weary, G. (2008). The effects of causal uncertainty, causal importance, and initial attitude on attention to causal persuasive arguments. Social Cognition, 26(1), 44-65.
Topper, A. (2005). Facilitating student interactions through discursive moves: An instructor's experience teaching online graduate courses in educational technology. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 55-67.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Veerman, A., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science, 30(3), 155-186.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Enhancing learning through synchronous discussion. Computers & Education, 34(2-3), 1-22.
Voss, J., & Van Dyke, J. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 89-111.
Walker, S. A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil's advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 172-182.
Wong, E. Y. W. (1995). How should we teach computer ethics? A short study done in hong kong. Computers & Education, 25(4), 179-191.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔