匯談(Dialogue)是對話的互動程序，對促進群體成員的互助與合作、增進群體學習，使得知識分享更為容易。而透過匯談的過程，將促使群組成員之間產生協同合作的行為，以創造新的知識。在虛擬教室中，溝通所延伸的範疇是提供學習者學習經驗分享的基石，隨著虛擬教室的課程內容越來越富變化，提供學習者引導他們自身自我學習的機會越來越多，我們必須特別注意學習的過程而不僅止於學習的成果。
本文首先定義匯談，透過匯談模式之建立，第一，我們採取語言行動理論，追蹤虛擬教室中成員互動學習之下的思考以及合作行為。第二，整合對話環境及對話模型，描述每個匯談過程的階段與整體的的匯談機制。第三，本研究針對網路學習者的相互溝通過程進行分析，內容著重在線上學習平台對知識分享之支援，以了解網路教學平台的互動學習成效。
研究發現在線上學習平台的語言行動，較語言行動理論簡潔，但並無相悖之處。同時，透過語言行動理論與對話環境的整合，可深入了解學習平台之知識分享機制。最後，線上學習平台所提供的系統功能，可以超越語言表述的限制，而在互動學習的教學上，接近語言表述的效果。本研究對線上學習平台的知識分享提出新的思維，為虛擬群體學習與知識分享研究提供重要的基礎。

Dialogue is an interactive process of conversation with the potential to improve collective learning. The literature on collective interactive learning indicates that the dialogue process contributes to behavior and creates new thinking among participants. In the virtual classroom, the dialogue process plays an important role in directing the attention of participants in e-learning systems away from content concerns and toward the interactive learning process.
In this article, we define dialogue process in the virtual classroom and create a new dialogue model. We first adopt a speech-act theory to trace and describe some of the dialogue processes that underlie thinking and acting in the virtual classroom where collective action is sought. Second, we integrate the dialogue environment and model to describe each dialogue process and the integral underlying mechanisms. Third, our work focused on the learning effect which is supported by knowledge sharing from e-learning, and would be a necessary precursor to productive collective learning in virtual classroom.
Our findings show that the speech act in the e-learning platform is more simplified than but not contrary to the speech-act theory. Also, integrating the speech-act theory and dialogue environment makes the e-learning sharing mechanism more understandable. Last, the system functions provided by e-learning platform goes beyond the limit of language.  They are closer to the effect of language on the interaction e-learning. This study provides new insight into knowledge sharing in an e-learning platform, and provides an important basis for visual learning and knowledge sharing.

目錄
1.	研究背景與動機	1
2.	文獻探討	3
2.1.	虛擬教室中的學習	3
2.2.	互動學習：匯談(DIALOGUE)	5
2.3.	語言行動理論（SPEECH ACT THEORY）	8
3.	研究模式	10
4.	研究方法	13
4.1.	資料的抽樣與蒐集	13
4.2.	匯談分析方式	15
4.3.	分析程序	17
5.	資料分析	17
5.1.	語言行動理論對話模型與對話環境之驗證	17
5.2.	同步平台與非同步平台之趨勢分析	27
6.	討論	31
7.	結論	33
8.	參考文獻	35

圖目錄
圖 1 對話環境的演變(SCHARMER 2001)	7
圖 2 研究模式	12
圖 3 語言行動理論對話基礎模型（WINOGRAD, AND FLORES 1985）	16
圖 4 語言行動理論對話基礎模型編碼	18
圖 5 語言行動理論對話模型與對話環境之整合	20
圖 6 語言行動理論對話修正模型與對話環境之整合－無A之REQUEST	22
圖 7 語言行動理論對話修正模型與對話環境之整合－無B之COMMIT	24
圖 8 語言行動理論對話修正模型與對話環境之整合－無A之DECLARE	25
圖 9 情緒性語言於線上學習平台之分佈	27
圖 10 編碼2於同步與非同步平台頻率趨勢比較	28
圖 11 編碼5於同步與非同步平台頻率趨勢比較	29
圖 12 編碼1於同步與非同步平台頻率趨勢比較	29
圖 13 編碼3於同步與非同步平台頻率趨勢比較	30
圖 14 編碼4於同步與非同步平台頻率趨勢比較	31

1.	Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C., and Robson, K., “In the name of the client: The service ethic in two professional services firms,” Human Relations, 53, 2000, pp.1151-1174.
2.	Applebee, A.N., Curriculum as conversation: Transforming traditions of teaching and learning, Chicago：University of Chicago Press, 1996.
3.	Austin, J.L., How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Oxford Participant D Press, 1962.
4.	Bach, K. and Harnish, R.M., Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts, MIT Press, 1979.
5.	Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., and Franke, M., “Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics education,” Elementary School Journal, 93, 1996, pp.3-20.
6.	Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P.L., and Carey, D.A., “Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of students’ problem solving in elementary arithmetic,” Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 1988, pp.385-401.
7.	Equifax Inc., The Equifax Report on Consumers in the Information Age, Atlanta: GA, 1990.
8.	Evans, D.A., Situations and Speech Actions: Toward Formal Semantics of Discourse, Garland Publishing Inc, 1985.
9.	Fairclougth, N., and Wodak, R., “Critical discourse analysis,” In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.) Discourse as social interaction, Volumn1, 1997, pp.258-284.
10.	Fennema, E., Franke, M.L., Carpenter, T.P., and Carey, D.A., “Using children's mathematical knowledge in instruction,” American educational research journal, 30:3, 1993, pp.555-583.
11.	Franke, M.L., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Ansell, E., and Behrend, J., “Understanding teachers’ self-sustaining generative change in the context of professional development,” Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 1998, pp.67-80.
12.	Grant, D., Keenoy, T., and Oswick, C., “Organizational discourse: Of diversity, dichotomy and multi-disciplinarily,” In D. Grant, T. Keenoy, and C. Oswick (Eds.), Discourse and Organization, London: Sage, 1998, pp.1-14.
13.	Hamel, F.L., Teacher understanding of student understanding: Revising the gap between teachers' conceptions and students’ ways with literature, Forthcoming , 2003.
14.	Holmer-Nadeson, M., “Organizational identity and space of action,” Organization Studies, 17, 1996, pp.49-81.
15.	Isaacs, W., “Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning,” Organizational Dynamics, 22:2, 1993, pp.24-50.
16.	Isaacs, W., “The process and potential of dialogue in social change,” Educational Technology, 36, Jan, 1996, pp.20-36.
17.	Isaacs, W., and Senge, P., “Overcoming Limits to Learning in Computer-Based Learning Environments,” European Journal of Operational Research, Amsterdam, 59:1, May,1992, pp.183-197.
18.	Isaacs, W., The Dialogue and The Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in Business and in Life, Doubleday, 1999.
19.	Levinson, S., Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
20.	Langer, J.A., Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction, New York: Teachers College Press, 1995.
21.	Mauws, M. K., But is it art? “Decision making and discursive resources in the field of cultural production” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 2000, pp.229-244.
22.	Nussbaum, C., “Habermas on Speech Acts: a Naturalistic Critique,” Philosophy Today, Summer, 1998, pp.126-145.
23.	Orlikoswki, W.J., and Yates, J., “Genre reporting: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations” Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 1994, pp.541-574.
24.	Pearson, P.D., Roehler, L., Dole, J., and Duffy, G., “Developing expertise in reading comprehension” In S.J. Samuels and A.E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research says to the teacher (2nd Ed), Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 1992, pp.145-199.
25.	Pennycook, A., “The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching,” TESOL Quarterly, 23, 4, 1989, pp.589-618.
26.	Peterson, P.L., Fennema, E., and Carpenter, T.P., “Teachers' knowledge of students' mathematics problem-solving knowledge” In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol.2 Teachers' knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice Greenwich, CN: JAI press. 1991, pp.49-86.
27.	Phillips, N., and Hardy, C., “Managing multiple identities: Discourse, legitimacy and resources in the UK refugee system” Organization, 4, 1997, pp.159-186.
28.	Rosenblatt, L., Literature as exploration, New York: Noble and Noble, 1938, 1976.
29.	Rosenblatt, L., The reader, the text, the poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1978.
30.	Russell, D., Calvey, D., and Banks, M., “Creating new learning communities: Towards effective e-learning production,” Journal of Workplace Learning, Bradford, 15:1, 2003, pp.34-52.
31.	Salzer-Morling, M., “As God Created the earth: A saga that makes sense?” In D. Grant. T. Keenoy, and C. Oswick (Eds.), Discourse and organization, London: Sage. 1998, pp.104-118.
32.	Scharmer, C. O, “Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing and organizing around emerging opportunities” Journal of Knowledge Management, Kempston: 5:2, 2001, pp.137.
33.	Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., and Hurwitz, L., Reading for understanding: A guide to improving reading in middle and high school classrooms, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
34.	Scholes, R., The rise and fall of English. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998.
35.	Searle, J.R., and Vanderveken, D., Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, Cambridge Participant D Press, 1985
36.	Searle, J.R., and Vanderveken, D., Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge Participant D Press, 1969.
37.	Searle, J.R., Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge Participant D Press, 1979.
38.	Searle, J.R., Parret, H., and Verschueren, J., On Searle on Conversation, John Benjamin Publishing Company, 1992.
39.	Shulman, L.S., “Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching,” Educational researcher, 15:2, 1986, pp.4-14.
40.	Tsohatzidis, S.L., Foundations of Speech Act Theory- Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, T.J. Press Ltd., Pad stow: Cornwall, 1994.
41.	Vinge, Per-Gunnar., “The Swedish Data Act. Stockholm,” Federation of Swedish Industries, 1973.
42.	Wilhelm, J.D., Edmiston, B., and Beane, J.A., Imagining to Learn: Inquiry, Ethics, and Integration Through Drama Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1998.
43.	Wilhelm, J.D., You gotta BE the book: Teaching engaged and reflective reading with adolescents, New York: Teachers College Press, 1997.
44.	Winograd T., and Flores F., Understanding Computers and Cognition, Ablex Publishing Corp, 1985.
45.	Woodilla, J., “Workplace conversations: The text of organizing,” In D. Grant, T. Keenoy, and C. Oswick (Eds.), Discourse and organization, London: Sage, 1998.
46.	Yoong, P. and Gallupe, B., “Action learning and groupware technologies: a case study in GSS facilitation research,” Information Technology and People, 14:1, 2001,pp.78-93.