淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-2306200809431900
中文論文名稱 以概念圖探討網路群組學習的知識建構過程
英文論文名稱 The study of knowledge construction process in computer support collaborative learning adopt concept map
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 資訊管理學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Information Management
學年度 96
學期 2
出版年 97
研究生中文姓名 黃冠男
研究生英文姓名 Kuan-Nan Huang
學號 695630888
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2008-05-24
論文頁數 81頁
口試委員 指導教授-游佳萍
委員-方鄒昭聰
委員-廖賀田
委員-翁頌舜
中文關鍵字 網路群組學習  知識建構過程  概念圖  內容分析 
英文關鍵字 Computer Support Collaborative Learning  Knowledge Construction Process  Concetp Map  Content Analysis 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學管理學
學科別社會科學資訊科學
中文摘要 本研究以概念圖與內容分析方法為分析工具,瞭解學習者在網路群組學習環境的互動過程。因為概念圖可衡量學習者學習成效的特性,分析學習者在知識建構過程中,各階段的互動討論方式,而內容分析方法,則可分析學習者如何在不同任務類型的議題中,建構知識的過程與學習方式。
首先,研究結果顯示大部份的學習者在網路群組學習環境下,採用「階層」及「關係」等縱向聯結的思考模式,較少有發揮聯想力的「舉例」及橫向聯結「交叉聯結」的思考模式。透過概念圖得分的比較可發現不同的討論議題與概念圖之間,似乎沒有太大的關聯。因此,建議教學者在授課時,除了維持學習者對於議題的概念關係聯結與舉例的技巧,需要更進一步鼓勵學習者發展或練習使用「階層」的討論技巧。其次,學習者在網路群組的學習過程中,討論活動主要出現在知識建構第一階段的資訊分享或比較,較少有第四階段的共識測試或修改,顯示網路群組學習比較欠缺此階段的活動,也是日後應該要繼續努力與改進的方向。第三,在網路群組學習環境下,學習者無論在第一階段的知識分享與比較,或是第二階段的溝通協調上,較常使用到「階層」的討論方式,對於「關係」這項學習技巧拿手的學習者,也比較容易達成議題的總結及得出共識。因此,建議教學者可以多多提供「關係」上的練習教材,讓學習者能夠學習下結論,並增加學習者舉一反三的思考或是橫向概念的聯結。
其他部分的研究結果如下所述:(1)任務類型:學習者在面對各類型的任務時,也都有不同的討論方式。(2)小組成員的性別差異:單一性別的小組,在學習方法上較為簡單,男女混合的小組,在學習行為上就比較多樣化。(3)編碼句數的多寡/概念圖之分析:會對教學者的評量成績有影響,但沒有絕對必然的關係。
最後,在後續研究上,本研究建議教學者可採用將男女生混合的分組方式,瞭解學習者在網路群組互動的學習成效是否會受到影響而有所改變。或是在教學的過程中,透過概念圖作為教學與學習輔助的工具,以觀察學習者是否有更豐富的學習策略與成效。
英文摘要 In order to concept may can measure and analyze the performance of learner and demonstrate knowledge construction process in different stage; and content analysis technique can analyze learners construct knowledge how to build in different kind of knowledge, therefore, this study use these two method to investigate the computer support collaborative learning (CSCL).
Firstly, a numbers of learners use “hierarchies” and “relationships” to discuss and share information more than they use “examples” and “cross-links” in the CSCL environment. Then, there are only few relations between the issues of discussion and concept map. For this reason, this study suggests that teacher should emphasize both “examples” and “cross-links” in the teaching process, then, motivate learners practice to use “hierarchies” skill. Secondly, the discuss activities only appear in the first stage of knowledge construction (share or compare information), but the forth stage of knowledge construction (revise opinions). It should be emphasize in the future. Thirdly, learners often use “hierarchies” method to discuss both in the first and second stage of knowledge construction. Meanwhile, some learners who use “relationships” method could perform the conclusion more easily. In view of this, we suggest teacher can provide many practices of “relationships” and learners can produce many ideas and horizontal concept linkages in this learning environment.
On the other hand, this study find that: (1) task type: learners have different discuss strategy in different task type; (2) gender gap: mixed gender team whose learning strategies much more than single gender team; (3) analysis of coding number/ concept map: will be influence the measure score of teacher’s but not absolutely.
Finally, this study suggests that: (1) teacher can use mixed gender team to investigate the learning performance will be better or not in the CSCL environment; (2) learners will with/not more learning strategies or performance, if use concept map be the teaching and learning auxiliary tool in the teaching process.
論文目次 目錄
壹、 緒論 1
貳、 文獻探討 6
一、網路群組學習(CSCL) 6
二、知識建構(Knowledge Construction) 11
三、概念圖(Concept Map) 13
參、 研究方法 17
一、樣本描述及程序 17
二、概念圖 21
三、內容分析 24
肆、 研究發現與討論 34
一、概念圖的建構 34
二、內容分析結果 45
三、概念圖與內容分析結果之相關比較 51
四、各項分析結果與教學者評量成績之比較 52
伍、 結論 53
陸、 參考文獻 56
柒、 附錄 61


表目錄
表1 網路群組學習相關研究的整理 7
表2 任務與媒體在資訊豐富之適合度 8
表3 國內、外研究網路群組學習的團隊 10
表4 分析樣本的分組,以及成員性別 18
表5 任務分類法的主要類型與內容 19
表6 課程討論議題名稱及任務分類 20
表7 概念圖計分例子 23
表8 知識建構學者相關編碼整理 27
表9 認知學習與知識建構架構 28
表10 知識建構過程 29
表11 知識建構模式 30
表12 社會認知學習理論 31
表13 各組概念圖的各項得分加總 34
表14 概念圖得分平均後的性別差異比較 41
表15 各組概念圖得分與教學者的標準概念圖得分之比較 44
表16 概念圖與知識建構過程的相關性分析 52
表17 編碼句數、概念圖得分,以及教學者評量成績之相關係數比較 52

圖目錄
圖1 網路群組學習環境下,不同的理論架構的演進 3
圖2 任務類型分類矩陣 19
圖3 概念圖之圖例 23
圖4 長期圖表變化 類型I:「平均型」 36
圖5 長期圖表變化 類型II:「起伏型」 36
圖6 長期圖表變化 類型III:「漸進型」 37
圖7 長期圖表變化 類型IV:「疲乏型」 38
圖8 各類型任務在概念圖得分上的比較 39
圖9 概念圖得分分佈圖 - 只有一項高分之組別 40
圖10 概念圖得分分佈圖 - 有兩項高分之組別 40
圖11 概念圖得分分佈圖 - 有三項高分之組別 41
圖12 概念圖得分分佈圖 - 各項得分皆不佳之組別 41
圖13 概念圖成績標準化後的差異比較 - 女生組 42
圖14 概念圖成績標準化後的差異比較 - 男女混合組 42
圖15 概念圖成績標準化後的差異比較 - 男生組 43
圖16 概念圖成績標準化後的性別差異比較 44
圖17 各類任務的編碼數 – 以知識建構階段比較 46
圖18 各類任務的編碼數 – 知識建構的第一階段 47
圖19 各類任務的編碼數 – 知識建構的第二階段 48
圖20 不同性別成員在各類型任務中的編碼比較 – 男生組 50
圖21 不同性別成員在各類型任務中的編碼比較 – 女生組 50
圖22 不同性別成員在各類型任務中的編碼比較 – 男女混合組 51

附錄
附錄一 編碼表 61
附錄二 編碼訓練流程 65
附錄三 編碼員先行訓練 66
附錄四 A班概念圖得分統計 67
附錄五 各組討論過程的編碼數 – 依任務別分 70
附錄六 各組討論過程的編碼數– 依知識建構階段分 71
附錄七 編碼句數、概念圖得分,以及教學者評量成績之比較 76
附錄八 各討論任務之概念圖範例 77
參考文獻 [1] 王夕堯、江武雄、郭重吉,民89,『從理論到實務談建構主義』,民國96 年11月1 日取自: http://mail.dali.tcc.edu.tw/~com/idea/idea1/idea2.doc
[2] 李美華等譯,Earl Babbie著1998,社會科學研究方法(上下),時英出版社。
[3] 林義男主譯、陳淳文譯,Robert P.Weber著,1989,內容分析法導論,台北,巨流圖書公司。
[4] 余民寧,民86,『有意義的學習:概念圖之研究』,台北:商鼎。
[5] 祝惠珍,民95,網路學習社群中的共構面貌:以迷思概念為探針,國立中大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文。
[6] 陳弘哲,民93,自動化建構e-Learning領域之概念圖,國立中山大學資訊管理學系研究所碩士論文。
[7] 張靜嚳,民84,『何謂建構主義?』,民國96 年11月1 日取自:http://www.bio.ncue.edu.tw/c&t/issue1-8/v3-1.htm
[8] Acton, W. H., Johnson, P. J., & Goldsmith, T. E. “Structural Knowledge assessment: Comparison of referent structures”, Journal of Educational Psychology (86),1994, pp. 303-311.
[9] Alavi, M., Wheeler, B. C., and Valacich, J.S. “Using IT to Reengineer Business Education: An Exploratory Investigation of Collaborative Telelearning”, MIS Quarterly (19:3), 1995, pp. 293-312.
[10] Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. “Assessing teaching presence in a computer conference context”, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (5:2), 2001.
[11] Ausubel, D. P. The psychology of meaningful verbal learning, Grune & Stratton, New York, 1963.
[12] Ausubel, D. P. Educational psychology: A cognitive view, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1968.
[13] Babbie, E. The Practice of Social Research, 8th edition, Belmont, Wadsworth Publishing Company, California, 1998.
[14] Bagley, C. & Hunter, B. “Restructuring, constructivism, and technology: For going a new relationship”, Educational Technology, (32:7), 1992, pp.22-27.
[15] Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Kirschner, P. Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. In P. A. Kirschner (Chair), Learning in innovative learning environments, Symposium conducted at the AERA, San Diego, California, USA, April 2004.
[16] Beyerbach, B. A., & Smith, J. M. “Using a computerized concept mapping program to assess preservice teachers’ thinking about effective teaching”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching (27),1990, pp. 961-971.
[17] Brown, J. S, Collins, A., & Duguid, P. “Situated cognition and the culture of learning”, Education Researcher (18), 1989, 32-42.
[18] Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. “Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics”. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1989.
[19] De Wever, B., Schellens T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer H. “Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review”, Computers & Education (46), 2005, pp. 6-28.
[20] Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D. Designing environment for constructive learning, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1993.
[21] Gaines, B. R. & Shaw, M. L. G.. Concept mapping on the web. Proceedings of Fourth International World Wide Web Conference, Sebastopol, CA, O'Reilly, 1995.
[22] Gaines, B. R. & Shaw, M. L. G.. “Knowledge acquisition, modeling and inference through world wide web”, Human Computer Studies (46), 1997, pp. 729-759.
[23] Garrison, D. R. “Critical thinking and selfdirected learning in adult education: An analysis of responsibility and control issues”, Adult Education Quarterly (42:3), 1992, pp. 136-148.
[24] Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. “Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education”, American Journal of Distance Education (15), 2001, pp. 7-23.
[25] Garrison, D. R. Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Paper presented at the Sloan-C Summer workshop, Baltimore, MD, 2006.
[26] Goodman, P. S., and Darr, E. D. “Computer-Aided Systems and Communities: Mechanisms for Organizational Learning in Distributed Environments”, MIS Quarterly (22:4), 1998, pp. 417-440.
[27] Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A.,Anderson, T. “Analysis of a 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), 1997, pp. 397-431.
[28] Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. “Transcript analysis of computer-mediated conferences as a tool for testing constructivist and social-constructivist learning theories”, Distance Learning (5-7), August 1998.
[29] Gunawardena, C. N., Jennings, B., Ortegano-Layne, L., Frechette, C., Carabajal, K., Lindemann, K., & Mummert, J. “Building an online wisdom community: a transformational design model”, Journal of Computing in Higher Education (15:2), 2004, pp. 40-62.
[30] Gunawardena, C. N., Ortegano-Layne, L., Carabajal, K., Frechette, C., Lindemann, K., and Jennings. B. “New Model, New Strategies: Instructional design for building online wisdom communities”, Distance Education (27:2), 2006.
[31] Henri, F. “Computer conferencing and content analysis”, In A.R. Kaye(Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing, pp.117-136, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1992.
[32] Holsti, O. R. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Reading , Mass, Addison-Wesley, 1969.
[33] Jeong, H. & Chi, M. T. H. “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, 2000.
[34] Jonassen, D. H. “Hypertext as instructional design”, Educational Technology Research and Development (19:1), 1991, pp. 83-92.
[35] Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993.
[36] Jonassen, D. H. Computer in classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1996.
[37] Jonassen, D. H., Reeves, T., & Hong, N. ”Concept mapping as cognitive learning and assessment tools”, Journal of Interactive Learning Research (8), 1998, pp. 298-208.
[38] Kane, M., & Trochim, W. M. K. Concept mapping for planning and evaluation, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2007.
[39] Krippendorff, K. Content analysis, an introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1980.
[40] Lloyd, C. V. “The elaboration of concepts in three biology textbooks: Facilitating student learning”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching (27), 1990, pp. 1019-1032.
[41] McGrath, J. E. Groups: Interaction and performance, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.
[42] McGrath, J. E. & Hollingshead, A. B. Putting the "Group" back in Group Support Systems: Some Theoretical Issues about Dynamic Processes in Groups with Technological Enhancements. In L. M. Jessup & J. E. Valacich (Eds.). Group Support Systems: New Perspectives, pp. 78-96, McMillan, New York, 1993.
[43] Nelson, W. Adaptive hypermedia instructional systems: Possibilities for learner modeling, ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 347195, 1992.
[44] Nelson, W. A. “Efforts to improve computer-based instruction: The role of knowledge representation and knowledge construction in hypermedia systems”, Computers in the Schools (10:3/4), 1994, pp.371-399.
[45] Neuendorf, K. A. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002.
[46] Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. “A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning”, Interpersonal Computing and Technology (3), 1995, pp. 56-77.
[47] Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, London:Cambridge University Press.
[48] Novak, J. D. “Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching (27), 1990, pp. 937-949.
[49] Novak, J. D. “Clarify with concept maps”, The Science Teacher (58), 1991, pp. 45-49.
[50] Okebukola, P. A., & Jegede, O. J. “Cognitive preference and learning model as determinants of meaningful learning through concept mapping”, Science Education (71), 1989, pp. 232-241.
[51] Ortegano-Layne, L. & Gunawardena, C. N. “Synthesizing Social Construction of Knowledge In Online Conferences Using Concept Maps”, In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak & F. M. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra, 2004.
[52] Reader, W., & Hammond, N. “Computer based tools to support learning from hypertext: concept mapping tools and beyond”, Computer and Education (22:1/2), 1994, pp. 99-106.
[53] Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. “Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing”, Journal of Distance Education (14), 1999, pp. 51-70.
[54] Suh, S.K. “Impact of communication medium on task performance and satisfaction: an examination of media-richness theory”, Information and Management (35:5), 1999, pp. 295-312.
[55] Sutherland, S., & Katz, S. “Concept mapping methodology: A catalyst for organizational learning”, Evaluation and Program Planning (28), 2005, pp. 257-269.
[56] Taylor, P., & Campbell-Williams, M. “Discourse towards balanced rationality in the high school mathematics classroom: Ideas from Habermas' critical theory”, Sociological and Anthropological Perspectives' Working Subgroup (17-23), August 1992, Quebec.
[57] Trochim, W. M. K. “Concept Mapping for Evaluation and Planning”, Evaluation and Program Planning (12:n1), 1989, spec iss p1-111.
[58] Von Glaserfseld, E. “Learning as a constructive activity”, In C. Javvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics, pp. 3-17, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987.
[59] Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. In Euro CSCL 2001, pp. 625–632, Maastricht: McLuhan institute, University of Maastricht, 2001.
[60] Von Glasersfeld, E. “Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching”, Synthese (80), 1989, pp. 121-140.
[61] Wandersee, J. H. “Concept mapping and the cartography of cognition”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching (27), 1990, pp. 923-936.
[62] Weber, R. P. Basic Content Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1985.
[63] Weinberger, A. “Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction.”, Dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, 2003, Verfügbar unter: http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/archive/00001120/01/Weinberger_Armin.pdf.
[64] Winitzky, N. “Structure and process in thinking about classroom management: An exploratory study of prospective teachers”, Teaching and Teacher Education (8), 1992, pp. 1-14.
[65] Winitzky, N., Kauchak, D., & Kelly, M. “Measuring teachers’ structural knowledge”, Teaching and Teacher Education (10), 1994, pp. 125-139.

論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2011-07-01公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2011-07-01起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信