English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 109952/140891 (78%)
Visitors : 46232765      Online Users : 1035
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: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60176

    Title: 基於學習社群角色行為特徵之網路合作式學習分組策略及其討論歷程評估研究
    A Study on Developing a Group Formation Strategy based on Learning Community Roles’ Behavior Features for Web-based Cooperative Learning
    Authors: 范蔚敏
    Fan, Wei Min
    Contributors: 陳志銘
    Chen, Chih Ming
    Fan, Wei Min
    Keywords: 學習社群角色行為特徵
    Role behavior features
    Learning community
    Heterogeneous groups
    Cooperative learning
    Date: 2010
    Issue Date: 2013-09-04 16:41:02 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 隨著網路學習模式的發展演進,數位學習模式也逐漸由重視個人自我學習,慢慢轉變成由電腦促成多人合作學習模式,進而產生了網路學習社群的概念。過去網路社群相關研究多以一般商業社群或是社交導向社群為研究範圍,並依據使用者參與動機及透過討論區內容分析互動行為,加以歸納出網路社群角色類型以及不同角色類型對社群經營的影響。而網路學習社群研究則著重於討論互動的歷程,以探討成員行為與角色之間的關係為主,鮮少有研究定義網路學習社群角色類型與行為特徵,並據此促成更有效的網路合作式學習成員組合,提升網路合作式討論歷程。
    As web-based learning, which evolves from self-leaning into cooperative learning, makes a concept of web-based group learning community. Most studies about community focus on commercial community or social community and analyze users’ motives and behaviors through online discussion contents to conclude many types of community role and their impacts on community interactions. In contrast, web-based learning community studies focus on relationships between users’ behaviors and their role behaviors features but researchers seldom take advantage of the relationships result to form a formation strategy and see how it affect the process of group discussion.
    The purpose of study is to organize and conclude relative community studies to identify students’ role behavior features and make a group formation strategy based on heterogeneous group learning theory. This study was conducted by quasi-experiment. The experiment had two phases: I. Group learning in random arrangement, and II. Group learning in group formation strategy. In each phase, the course teacher announced relative issues and asked each group to figure out a topic as well as write a general report of the topic on wiki platform for three weeks. After experiment, researcher collected questionnaires of group efficiency and group cohesion, discussion contents to analyze.
    After comparing two phases, the experiment result contained three results: 1. The heterogeneous group formation strategy raised most groups in phase II the solving-problem behavior level and made groups not only share information but also search lot of information to analyze their interested topic. 2. The heterogeneous group formation strategy affected knowledge construction process of group learning. Phase II raised 8% high level knowledge construction behavior-“testing and modification of proposed synthesis or co-construction”. 3. The heterogeneous group formation strategy raised the group efficiency to help group members have faith to fulfill their learning task. Besides, the result indicates that good learning process didn’t have direct impacts on the scores of their group task.
    Reference: 參考文獻
    壹、 中文文獻
    岳修平、鐘婉莉(2005)。專題式學習小組網路溝通互動之研究,國立高雄師範大學教育學系教育學刊,25 期,p.1-23。
    侯惠澤(2008)。線上合作解題討論教學之知識建構行為模式探究。2008電腦與網路科技在教育上的應用研討會(CNTE 2008)。新竹:新竹教育大學資訊科技研究所。
    貳、 英文文獻
    "role" Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Craig Calhoun, ed. Oxford University Press 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. National Cheng Chi University Library. 21 October 2010 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Mainandentry=t104.e1461
    Agarwal, R. & Prasad, J. (1999). “Are Individual Difference Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies?” Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361-391.
    Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18, 894897.
    Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Bandura, A. (1977). Selfefficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
    Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
    Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.
    Bandura, A. (1997). Selfefficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
    Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (2004). Introduction. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 3-15). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman.
    Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138.
    Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. 31(1), 71-88.
    Carron A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
    Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory. New York: Harper & Row.
    Colachico, D. (2007). Developing a sense of community in an online environment. International Journal of Learning, 14(1), 161-165.
    Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
    Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort-based online learning. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1-21.
    Corsini, R. (2002). The dictionary of psychology. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
    Cota, A. A., Longman, S. R., Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1995). Using and misusing factor analysis to explore group cohesion. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(2), 308-316.
    D’Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving behavior modification. Journal of Normal Psychology, 78(1), 112–119.
    E. Triantafillou, A. Pomportsis, and S. Demetriadis (2003)“The Design and the Formative Evaluation of an Adaptive educational System Based on Cognitive Styles,” Computers and Education, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 87-103.
    Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets west meets mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319-348.
    Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2004). Examining the relationship between higher-order learning and students’ perceived sense of community in an online learning environment. Paper presented at the 10th Australian World Wide Web conference, Gold Coast, Australia.
    Falk, Joni K. &Drayton, Brian. &. Linn, Marcia C. (2009). Creating And Sustaining Online Professional Learning Communities. New York. Teachers College Press.
    Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.
    Graham, M., and H. Scarborough. 1999. Computer mediated communication and collaborative learning in an undergraduate distance education environment. Australia Journal of Educational Technology 15 (1): 20–46.
    Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507.
    Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 467–476.
    González, M. G., Burke, M. J., Santuzzi, A. M., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). The impact of group process variables on the effectiveness of distance collaboration groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(5), 629-648.
    Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.
    Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research 17(4), 397–431.
    Hall, S.(1999). Encoding and decoding. In S. During (Ed.), The cutural studies redear(2nd ed.) New York: Routledge, p.507-517.
    Hara, N., C. J. Bonk, and C. Angeli. 2000. Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science 28 (2): 115–152.
    Hiltz, S. R., N. Coppola, N. Rotter, M. Turoff, and R. Benbunan-Fich. (2000). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning etworks 4 (2). Available online at http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v4n2/v4n2_hiltz.asp
    Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: New York University Press.
    Hou, H.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Sung, Y.-T. (2008). Analysis of Problem-Solving-Based Online Asynchronous Discussion Pattern. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (1), 17-28.
    Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2009). A Sequential Behavioral Detection and Process Analysis of Knowledge Construction of a Collaborate Learning Instructional Discussion Activity in an Online Learning Community, paper presented at GCCCE2009, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 77-93.
    Little, B. L., & Madigan, R. M. (1997). The relationship between collective efficacy and performance in manufacturing work teams. Small Group Research, 28(4), 517–534.
    Jeong, H. & Chi, M. T. H.(2000). Does collaborative learning lead to the construction of common knowledge?.In Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Conferenceof the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1983). The socialization and achievement crisis: Are cooperative learning experiences the solution? In L. Beckman (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology Annual 4 (pp 119-164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
    Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction.
    Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone (3rd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.
    Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology - A constructivist perspective. NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Johnson, D. W. Johnson, R. T. & Smith, Karl A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction.
    Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). "Making Cooperative Learning Work". Theory into Practice, Vol. 38, No. 2, (Spring, 1999), pp. 67-73
    Kenny, D., National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, S., & And, O. (1995). The Effects of Group Composition on Gifted and Non-Gifted Elementary Students in Cooperative Learning Groups. Retrieved from ERIC database
    King, K. P. 2002. Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. Internet and Higher Education 5 (3): 231–246.
    Kolb, D. A.(1976) Learning Style Inventory, Technical Manual, McBer and Company, NewYork.
    Kolb, D. A.(1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning andDevelopment, Prentice Hall, New York.
    Kozinet, Robert V. (1999). E-Tribalized Marketing? The Strategic Implications of Virtual Communities of Consumption, European Management Journal, 17, pp.252-264.
    Kristof, A.L.(1996). "Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications." Personnel Psychology, 49 (1), 1–49.
    Larson, C., Dansereau, D., O`Donnell, A., Hythecker, V., Lambiotte, J., & Rocklin, T. (1985). Effects of metacognitive and elaborative activity on cooperative learning and transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 342348.
    Laughlin, P. (1965). Selection strategies in concept attainment as a function of number of persons and stimulus display. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 323-327.
    Laughlin, P. (1972). Selection versus reception concept-attainment paradigms for individuals and cooperative pairs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 116-122.
    Laughlin, P., & Jaccard, J. (1975). Social facilitation and observational learning of individuals and cooperative pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 873-879
    Laughlin, P., McGlynn, R., Anderson, J., & Jacobson, E. (1968). Concept attainment by individuals versus cooperative pairs as a function of memory, sex, and concept rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 410417.
    Law, N. (2005). Assessing Learning Outcomes in CSCL Settings. Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005, Taipei, Taiwan,373 – 377.
    Lin and Huang, F., Lin, S. and Huang, T. (2007). Knowledge sharing and creation in a teachers’ professional virtual community. Computers and Education, 50, 742-756.
    Liu, X., Magjuka, R.J., Bonk, C.J., & Lee, S.-H. (2007). Does sense of community matter? An examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning communities in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9-24.
    Lott, A. J. & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64(4), 259-309.
    Marr, M. (1997). Cooperative Learning: A Brief Review. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13(1), 7-20.
    Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
    McGlynn, R. (1972). Four-person group concept attainment as a function of interaction format. Journal of Social Psychology, 86, 89-94.
    Mitchell, M., Montgomery, H., Holder, M., & Stuart, D. (2008). Group Investigation as a Cooperative Learning Strategy: An Integrated Analysis of the Literature. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(4), 388-395. Retrieved from ERIC database.
    Mwerinde, P., & Ebert, C. (1995). An Examination of the Relationship between the Problem-Solving Behaviors and Achievements of Students in Cooperative-Learning Groups. Retrieved from ERIC database
    Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in selfefficacy research. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    personal and human resources management. Boston: Elsevier, 181–214.
    Ravenscroft, S., Buckless, F., & Zuckerman, G. (1997). Student team learning-replication and extension. Accounting Education: A Journal of Theory, Practice and Research, 2(2), 151–172.
    Rovai, A.P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332.
    Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2001). Knowledge Building. In Encyclopedia of Education, Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.
    Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society,Chicago: Open Court, 67-98
    Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (ed.).Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge University
    Seibold, G. L., & Kelly, D. R. (1988). Development of the combat platoon cohesion questionnaire. Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Sciences.
    Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., & Whyte, G. (2000). Effect of self- and group efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation. Human Performance, 13 (3), 279-298.
    Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw Hill.
    Shea, P., Li, C.S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190.
    Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), January 2005. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/index.htm
    Slavin, Robert E. (1980) "Cooperative Learning." Review of Educational Research Summer, Vol. 50, No. 2, Pp. 315-342
    Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: theory, research and practice (2nd ed).
    Soller, A. L. (2001). Supporting Social Interaction in an Intelligent Collaborative Learning System. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 40-62.
    Spurlin, J., Dansereau, D., Larson, C., & Brooks, L. (1984). Cooperative learning strategies in processing descriptive text: Effects of role and activity level of the learner. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 451-463.
    Stahl, G. (2000). A Model of Collaborative Knowledge-Building, Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences.Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum,70-77.
    Sugrue, B. (1993). Specifications for the design of problem-solving assessments in science. Project 2.1 designs for assessing individual and group problem-solving. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
    Swan, K., Shen, J., & Hiltz, S.R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45-62.
    Thorsten Henning – Thurau , Kevin P. Gwinner, "Gianfranco Walsh , DwayneD. Gremler , Customer-Option Platforms:What Motives Consumers toArticulate Themselves On The Internet ? ,"Journal Of Interactive Marketing,Vol.18, No.1, 2004, pp.38-52.
    Turel, Ofir & Zhang, Yi (Jenny).(2010) Does virtual team composition matter? Trait and problem-solving configuration effects on team performance. Behaviour & Information Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, 363–375.
    Van der Laan Smith, J. and R. M. Spindle. 2007. The impact of group formation in a cooperative learning environment. Journal of Accounting Education 25(4): 153-167.
    Visher,Mary. Schneider,Emily. Wathington,Heather. Herbert,Collado.(2010)Scaling Up Learning Communities-The Experience of Six Community Colleges. National Center for Postsecondary Research.
    Webster, J. and Staples, S., 2006. Comparing virtual teams to traditional teams: An identification of new research opportunities. In: J.J. Martocchio, ed. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Volume 25, pp.181-215.
    Welser, Howard T., Gleave, Eric. & Fish, Danyel. (2007) "Visualizing the Signatures of Social Roles in Online Discussion Groups" Journal of Social Structure; 2007; 8 (2) p.1-31.
    Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Oral discussion, group to individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 60-66.
    Yang, F., Wang, M., Shen, R. & Han, P. (2007). Community-organizing agent: An artificial intelligent system for building learning communities among large numbers of learners. Computers and Education, 49, 131–147.
    Yeh, Y.-C. (2010). Analyzing Online Behaviors, Roles, and Learning Communities via Online Discussions. Educational Technology and Society, 13 (1), 140–151.
    Yeh, Yu-chu. (2010). Integrating collaborative PBL with blended learning to explore preservice teachers’ development of online learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, v.26, 1630-1640.
    Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 387–399.
    Description: 碩士
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098155001
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[圖書資訊與檔案學研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    500101.pdf1633KbAdobe PDF2818View/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 Copyright Announcement
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback