English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 92429/122733 (75%)
Visitors : 26279403      Online Users : 240
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131067


    Title: 發展「合作共筆視覺化互動網絡分析系統」促進線上合作編輯成效
    Developing a Collaborative Writing System with Visualization Interaction Network Analysis to Facilitate Online Collaborative Writing Performance
    Authors: 廖振凱
    Liao, Cheng-Kai
    Contributors: 陳志銘
    Chen, Chih-Ming
    廖振凱
    Liao, Cheng-Kai
    Keywords: 電腦輔助合作共筆
    團體意識
    搭便車現象
    社會網絡分析
    資料 視覺化
    電腦中介溝通能力
    科技接受度
    Computer supported collaborative writing
    Group awareness
    Free riders
    Social network analysis
    Data visualization
    Computer-mediated communication
    Technology acceptance
    Date: 2020
    Issue Date: 2020-08-03 17:49:40 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 近年來,電腦輔助合作共筆(Computer Supported Collaborative Writing, CSCW)因其具有應用在教學上提升合作學習效益的潛力,因此受到越來越多教育研究者的關注。而透過電腦中介來進行合作學習,時常因為缺乏社會臨場感,而造成學習者無法建構團體意識資訊,進而導致參與率下降,甚至出現搭便車與吸允者現象等。因此,本研究設計「合作共筆視覺化互動網絡分析系統(Collaborative Writing System with Visualization Interaction Network Analysis, CWS-VINA)」輔以合作共筆,希望透過社會網絡圖呈現學習者的貢獻度及互動情形,輔助合作共筆小組成員建構團體意識資訊,進而促進學習者的合作共筆參與行為、降低參與不均現象,進而提升合作共筆學習表現。
    本研究採用準實驗研究法,隨機選取台北市某國中二年級 50 位學生作為研究對象,進行即時合作共筆寫作。其中一班 26 名學生被分派為採用 CWS-VINA輔助合作共筆的實驗組,另一班 24 名學生則被分派為採用不具合作共筆分析圖(Collaborative Writing System without Visualization Interaction Network Analysis, CWS-NVINA)的控制組,以探討兩組學習者在學習表現與科技接受度上是否具有顯著差異。此外,也以先備知識、電腦中介溝通 (Computer-Mediated Communication, CMC)能力為背景變項,探討不同背景變項之兩組學習者,在分別採用 CWS-VINA 與 CWS-NVINA 輔助合作共筆的學習表現以及科技接受度是否具有顯著的差異。此外,也透過訪談資料探討兩組學習者的參與行為模式。
    研究結果發現,採用 CWS-VINA 輔助合作共筆的整體學習者、高低不同先備知識學習者、高低不同 CMC 能力實驗組學習者的學習表現皆顯著優於採用CWS-NVINA 的控制組。在科技接受度上,整體實驗組學習者與低 CMC 能力實驗組學習者在整體科技接受度與認知有用性顯著優於採用 CWS-NVINA 的控制組學習者,但是在認知易用性上則沒有達到統計上的顯著差異。此外,從訪談資料分析結果來看,採用 CWS-VINA 輔以合作共筆能夠有效幫助學習者建構團體意識資訊,促進組內成員的溝通協調、激勵組內成員增進貢獻度,也會降低參與不均的現象。
    最後基於研究結果,本研究提出應用 CWS-VINA 於教學場域之教學建議、系統改善建議,以及未來可以繼續進一步探討的研究方向。整體而言,本研究將電腦輔助合作共筆、社會網絡與資料視覺化等技術進行結合,發展 CWS-VINA團體意識工具,提供一個科技輔助線上合作共筆之創新有效學習工具,對於促進電腦輔助合作共筆具有貢獻。
    In recent years, Computer Supported Collaborative Writing (CSCW) has attracted more and more attention from education researchers because of its potential to improve the effectiveness of collaborative learning in teaching. Cooperative learning through computer intermediaries often lacks a sense of social presence, which prevents learners from constructing group awareness, which in turn leads to a decline in participation rates, and even free riders and suckers effects. Therefore, this research designed "Collaborative Writing System with Visualization Interaction Network Analysis (CWS-VINA)" to supplement collaborative writing, hoping to visualization learners' contribution and interaction through social network diagrams. Assist group members to construct group awareness, thereby promoting the learners’ collaborative writing participation behavior, reducing uneven participation, and improving the cooperative writing learning performance.

    With a quasi-experimental research method, 50 G8 students from a middle school in Taipei City were randomly selected as the research objects for real-time collaborative writing experiment. Among them, 26 students in one class were assigned to the experimental group using CWS-VINA assisting collaborative writing, and 24 students in the other class were assigned to the control group using "Collaborative Writing System without Visualization Interaction Network Analysis (CWS-NVINA)". In order to explore whether the two groups of learners have significant differences in learning performance, participation behavior and technology acceptance, as well as learners with different prior knowledge and Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) capabilities as background variables. In addition, the interview data was used to explore the participation behavior patterns of the two groups of learners.

    Research results show that overall learners, learners with different levels of prior knowledge and learners with different levels of CMC capabilities in the experimental group using CWS-VINA had significantly better learning performance than the control group using CWS-NVINA. Overall learners and learners with low CMC capabilities in the experimental group are significantly better than control group in terms of overall technology acceptance and perceived usefulness, but not in perceived ease-of-use. In addition, from the analysis results of the interview data, the use of CWS-VINA can effectively help learners construct group awareness, promote communication and coordination among group members, encourage group members to increase their contribution, and reduce uneven participation.

    Based on the research results, this research proposes teaching suggestions for applying CWS-VINA in the teaching field, suggestions for system improvement, and future research directions. On the whole, this research combines computer-assisted collaborative writing, social networking, and data visualization to develop CWS-VINA group awareness tools and provide an innovative and effective learning tool for technology-assisted online collaborative writing.
    Reference: 參考文獻
    Allen, N., Atkinson, D., Morgan, M., Moore, T., & Snow, C. (1987). What experienced collaborators say about collaborative writing: Iowa State Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 1(2), 70–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/105065198700100206
    Barnes, J. A. (1954). Class and committees in a norwegian island parish. Human Relations, 7(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700102
    Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009). What type of collaboration helps? Psychological ownership, perceived learning and outcome quality of collaboration using Google docs. Proceedings of the Chais Conference on Instructional Technologies Research, 48–55.
    Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1043–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.014
    Buder, J., & Bodemer, D. (2008). Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 123–139.
    Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2011). Collaboration and psychological ownership: How does the tension between the two influence perceived learning? Social Psychology of Education, 14(2), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9141-z
    Cela, K. L., Sicilia, M. Á., & Sánchez, S. (2015). Social network analysis in E-learning environments: A preliminary systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9276-0
    Chen, C.Y., Pedersen, S., & Murphy, K. L. (2012). The influence of perceived information overload on student participation and knowledge construction in computer-mediated communication. Instructional Science, 40(2), 325–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9179-0
    Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52(1), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.003
    Coyle, J. E. (2007). Wikis in the college classroom: A comparative study of online and face-to-face group collaboration at a private liberal arts university. Kent State University.
    Dado, M., & Bodemer, D. (2017). A review of methodological applications of social network analysis in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 22, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.005
    Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
    Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2011). Guiding knowledge communication in CSCL via group knowledge awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1068–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.018
    Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1145/143457.143468
    Duin, A. H. (1991). Computer-supported collaborative writing: The workplace and the writing classroom. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 5(2), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651991005002001
    Ede, L. S., & Lunsford, A. A. (1992). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. SIU Press.
    Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51–71.
    Freeman, L. C. (2000). Visualizing Social Networks. J. Soc. Struct.1.
    Galegher, J., & Kraut, R. E. (1994). Computer-mediated communication for intellectual teamwork: An experiment in group writing. Information Systems Research, 5(2), 110–138. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.5.2.110
    Hasan, B., & Ahmed, M. U. (2007). Effects of interface style on user perceptions and behavioral intention to use computer systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 3025–3037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.08.016
    Huang, W., Eades, P., & Hong, S.-H. (2009). Measuring effectiveness of graph visualizations: A cognitive load perspective. Information Visualization, 8(3), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1057/ivs.2009.10
    Hwang, G.-J., Yang, L.-H., & Wang, S.-Y. (2013). A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students’ learning performance in natural science courses. Computers & Education, 69, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.008
    Janssen, J., & Bodemer, D. (2013). Coordinated computer-supported collaborative learning: Awareness and awareness tools. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.749153
    Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Group awareness tools: It’s what you do with it that matters. Comput. Hum. Behav., 27(3), 1046–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.002
    Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
    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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.78
    Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123
    Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2009). Visualization of group members’ participation: How information-presentation formats support information exchange. Social Science Computer Review, 27(2), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439309332312
    Koschmann, T. D. (1993). Introduction: Toward a theory of computer support for collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 219–225.
    Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. A. (2001). The social affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. 31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.01CH37193), 1, T1F-12–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2001.963856
    Kreijns, Karel, Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2
    Law, N., Yuen, J., Wong, W. O. W., & Leng, J. (2011). Understanding learners’ knowledge building trajectory through visualizations of multiple automated analyses. in S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. Hmelo-Silver (eds), Analyzing Interactions in CSCL: Methods, Approaches and Issues (p 47–82). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7710-6_3
    Li, L.-Y. (2019). Effect of Prior Knowledge on Attitudes, Behavior, and Learning Performance in Video Lecture Viewing. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(4–5), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1543086
    Liu, M., Liu, L., & Liu, L. (2018). Group awareness increases student engagement in online collaborative writing. The Internet and Higher Education, 38, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.04.001
    Lowry, P. B., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Using internet-based, distributed collaborative writing tools to improve coordination and group awareness in writing teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(4), 277–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2003.819640
    Lund, A., & Smørdal, O. (2006). Is there a space for the teacher in a WIKI? Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1145/1149453.1149466
    Michinov, N., & Primois, C. (2005). Improving productivity and creativity in online groups through social comparison process: New evidence for asynchronous electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.004
    Neuwirth, C. M., Kaufer, D. S., Chandhok, R., & Morris, J. H. (1990). Issues in the design of computer support for co-authoring and commenting. Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’90, 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1145/99332.99354
    Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics, 64, 016131. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016131
    Ouyang, F., & Scharber, C. (2017). The influences of an experienced instructor’s discussion design and facilitation on an online learning community development: A social network analysis study. Internet and Higher Education, 35, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.07.002
    Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., Kirschner, P. A., Erkens, G., & Jaspers, J. (2011). Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1087–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.024
    Rick, J., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating CoWeb: A scholarship of application. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 89–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-6842-6
    Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven Problems of Online Group Learning (and Their Solutions). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 257–268.
    Ruël, G. C., Bastiaans, N., & Nauta, A. (2003). Free-riding and team performance in project education. International Journal of Management Education, 3(1), 26–38.
    Schreiber, M., & Engelmann, T. (2010). Knowledge and information awareness for initiating transactive memory system processes of computer-supported collaborating ad hoc groups. Comput. Hum. Behav., 26(6), 1701–1709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.019
    Sharples, M., Goodlet, J. S., Beck, E. E., Wood, C. C., Easterbrook, S. M., & Plowman, L. (1993). Research Issues in the Study of Computer Supported Collaborative Writing. in: Mike Sharples (eds), Computer Supported Collaborative Writing (p 9–28). Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2007-0_2
    Smith, B., & MacGregor, J. (1993). What is collaborative learning? Wash Cent News, 7, 1–11.
    Spitzberg, B. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence. J. Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 629–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x
    Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2014). The effects of collaborative writing activity using Google docs on students’ writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 13(2), 148–156.
    Van Blankenstein, F. M., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2013). Relevant prior knowledge moderates the effect of elaboration during small group discussion on academic achievement. Instructional Science, 41(4), 729–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9252-3
    Ware, P., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning, 12(1), 43–63. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44130
    Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press.
    Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127–136.

    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    圖書資訊與檔案學研究所
    106155017
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106155017
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202001081
    Appears in Collections:[圖書資訊與檔案學研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    501701.pdf3999KbAdobe PDF10View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback