簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 吳佩珊
論文名稱: 鷹架淡出對國小學生進行線上論述活動的影響
The effects of scaffold-fading on the elementary student in online activity of argument construction
指導教授: 邱瓊慧
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 資訊教育研究所
Graduate Institute of Information and Computer Education
論文出版年: 2012
畢業學年度: 100
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 108
中文關鍵詞: 論據線上論述活動鷹架淡出網路著作權倫理與法律
英文關鍵詞: argument, online activity of argument construction, scaffolding, fading, cyber law and ethics
論文種類: 學術論文
相關次數: 點閱:129下載:15
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 本研究探討於線上論述活動中導入鷹架淡出策略對國小學生的影響。本研究邀請新北市某國小的86位國小六年級學生參與本研究,並將學生分配至下列兩組:鷹架淡出組與鷹架持續組,針對網路著作權倫理與法律相關議題進行為期四週的線上論述活動,最後對兩組之論述能力、網路著作權倫理與法律知識、態度、與行為意向進行比較。研究結果發現,鷹架淡出組的學生在論述能力的理由與反駁都顯著優於鷹架持續組的學生;而在網路著作權倫理與法律方面,鷹架淡出組的學生在態度與行為意向上亦顯著優於鷹架持續組的學生。

    This study investigated whether scaffold-fading influences elementary students’ learning in an online activity of argument construction. Eighty-six 6th grade students were assigned to two conditions: Faded and Continuous. Students participated in an online activity of argument construction about the issues of cyber law and ethics for four weeks. The students’ skills of argument construction, knowledge, attitude, and behavior regarding cyber law and ethics were compared. It was found that the students in the Faded group demonstrated significantly better skills of argument construction in terms of warrant and rebuttal, attitude and behavior than the students in the Continuous group.

    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 8 第一節 論述理論 8 第二節 鷹架與論述 12 第三節 鷹架淡出與論述 17 第四節 網路著作權知識、態度、與行為意向 26 第五節 研究假設 32 第參章 研究方法 33 第一節 研究設計 33 第二節 參與者 34 第三節 實驗處理 35 第四節 支援論述活動之系統 42 第五節 實驗前訓練 44 第六節 研究工具 45 第七節 研究程序 56 第八節 資料分析 59 第肆章 研究結果 62 第一節 有效樣本 62 第二節 論述能力 62 第三節 網路著作權倫理與法律 69 第伍章 討論 73 第一節 論述能力 73 第二節 網路著作權倫理與法律 83 第陸章 結論與建議 85 第一節 結論 85 第二節 研究限制 86 第三節 建議 87 參考文獻 89 附錄一 網路著作權倫理與法律知識測驗 98 附錄二 網路著作權倫理與法律態度量表 105 附錄三 網路著作權倫理與法律行為意向量表 107 表目錄 表2-1 論述中的鷹架使用情形整理 17 表2-2 淡出使用情形整理 24 表2-3我國近年針對網路著作權與資訊倫理相關研究彙整表 30 表3-1 各論據元素鷹架模型 37 表3-2 每個主題提供的鷹架與淡出情形 42 表3-3 論據元素品質評鑑標準 46 表3-4 網路著作權倫理與法律知識測驗雙向細目表 49 表3-5 網路著作權倫理與法律態度量表分類細目表 51 表3-6 網路著作權倫理與法律態度量表分類細目表 53 表3-7 研究程序表 58 表3-8 鷹架使用狀況問卷結果摘要表 61 表4-1 論述能力測驗之描述性統計摘要表 63 表4-2 論述能力測驗多變量共變數分析摘要表 68 表4-3 網路著作權倫理與法律知識測驗之描述性統計摘要表 69 表4-4 網路著作權倫理與法律知識測驗單變量共變數分析摘要表 70 表4-5 網路著作權倫理與法律態度量表之描述性統計摘要表 70 表4-6 網路著作權倫理與法律態度量表單變量共變數分析摘要表 71 表4-7 網路著作權倫理與法律行為意向量表之描述性統計摘要表 71 表4-8 網路著作權倫理與法律行為意向量表單變量共變數分析摘要表 72 表5-1 論述活動過程中論點鷹架使用實際狀況 74 表5-2 高、中、低能力學生的論點品質分數摘要表 75 表5-3 論述活動過程中證據鷹架使用實際狀況 76 表5-4 高、中、低能力學生的證據品質分數摘要表 77 表5-5 論述活動過程中理由鷹架使用實際狀況 78 表5-6 高、中、低能力學生的理由品質分數摘要表 80 表5-7 論述活動過程中反駁鷹架使用實際狀況 81 表5-8 高、中、低能力學生的反駁品質分數摘要表 82   圖目錄 圖2-1 TAP架構圖(Toulmin, 1958) 10 圖3-1 研究架構圖 34 圖3-2 電腦教室座位配置圖 36 圖3-3 論述活動鷹架與論述能力對照圖 41 圖3-4 系統瀏覽介面 43 圖3-5 系統發表介面 44 圖3-6 網路著作權倫理與法律知識測驗線上施測畫面 49 圖3-7 網路著作權倫理與法律態度量表線上施測畫面 51 圖3-8 網路著作權倫理與法律行為意向量表線上施測畫面 53 圖3-9 鷹架使用狀況問卷填答畫面(鷹架持續組) 55 圖3-10鷹架使用狀況問卷填答畫面(鷹架淡出組) 56

    中文部分
    尹玫君. (2003). 我國師範院校學生資訊倫理的態度與行為之研究. 南師學報, 37(1), 1-18.
    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
    林守仁, 蔡瑜珍, 江侑霖, & 林育慈. (2006). 國小學童資訊態度之研究. In Proceedings of 2006台灣網際網路研討會, 花蓮.
    張春興. (1991). 張氏心理學辭典. 台北:台灣東華.
    張慶勳. (1996). 學校組織行為. 台北市:五南.
    教育部. (2008). 國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要-自然與生活科技學習領域. Retrieved. from http://teach.eje.edu.tw/data/files/class_rules/nature.pdf.
    郭生玉. (2001). 心理與教育研究法. 中和市: 精華書局.
    著作權法. (2010修正).
    黃柏鴻, & 林樹聲. (2007). 論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思. 科學教育月刊(302), 5-20.
    經濟部智慧財產局. (2007). 智慧財產權 171 小題庫. from
    http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/MultiMedia_FileDownload.ashx?guid=a3a5d6f0-52a8-4101-b1dd-2662b50ec002
    蔡俊彥, 黃台珠, & 楊錦潭. (2007). 符合 Toulmin論證模式之系統發展研究. In Proceedings of TANET2007臺灣網際網路研討會, 國立台灣大學.
    鄧達鈞, 張志銘, 陳昭秀, & 周倩. (2007). 國小六年級網路素養與倫理課程之發展與實施成效探討. In Proceedings of 2007台灣網際網路研討會, 台北市.
    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.

    英文部分
    Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.tion-Wesley, Boston, MA.
    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.
    Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Proceedings of Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments (pp. 1-25), Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    Belland, B. R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285-309.
    Bulu, S., & Pedersen, S. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 507-529.
    Chamberlain, T. C. (1965). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 148,754-759.
    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.
    Cialdini, R.B. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Guilford.
    Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
    Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Collin, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Proceedings of Knowing, leartiing, and instrrrction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494), Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 345-374.
    De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139-156.
    Deatline-Buchman, A., & Jitendra, A. K. (2006). Enhancing argumentative essay writing of fourth-grade students with learning disabilities. Leaming Disability Quarterly, 29(1), 39-54.
    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.
    Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intentions and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Boston, MA: Addition-Wesley.
    Ghazali, H. (2003). Examining high-school students' views on computer and information ethics. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
    Handley, I. M., & Runnion, B. M. (2011). Evidence that unconscious thinking influences persuasion based on argument quality. Social Cognition, 29(6), 668-682.
    Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Hong, K. S., Brudvik, O. C., & Chee, Y. S. (2006, Nov 30 - Dec 4). The impact of structured discussion on students' attitudes and dispositions toward argumentation. In R. Mizoguchi, P. Dillenbourg & Z. Zhu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 133-140), Amsterdam. IOS Press.
    Hopkins, P. E., & Hirst, D. E. (1998). Comprehensive income reporting and analysts' valuation judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 36(47-75).
    Jackson, S. L., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. In Proceedings of Proceedings of Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 187-194), Los Angeles. ACM.
    Jamaludin, A., Chee, Y. S., & Ho, C. M. L. (2009). Fostering argumentative knowledge construction through enactive role play in second life. Computers & Education, 53(2), 317-329.
    Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427-445.
    Kaiser, G. (2000). Building computing ethics from the ground up. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the 28th annual ACM SIGUCCS conference on User services: Building the future (pp. 146-148), Richmond, Virginia, United States. ACM.
    Kester, L., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Effects of fading support on hypertext navigation and performance in student-centered e-learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(2), 165-179.
    Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Ootes, S. A. W. (2003). Using sentence openers to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers & Education, 41(3), 291-308.
    Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
    Lawson, A. E. (2000). How do humans acquire knowledge? and What does that imply about the nature of knowledge? Science & Education, 9, 577-598.
    Lee, H. S., & Songer, N. B. (2004). Expanding an understanding of scaffolding theory using an inquiry-fostering science program. Retrieved September 03, 2010, from http://www.biokids.umich.edu/papers/56LeeSongerScaffolding.pdf
    Leonard, L. N. K., & Cronan, T. P. (2001). Illegal, inappropriate, and unethical behavior in an information technology context: A study to explain influences. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1(12), 1-31.
    Lewis, R. W. (1988). Biology: A hypothetico-deductive science. The American Biology Teacher, 50(6), 362-367.
    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.
    Lin, S. S., & 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.
    Lizotte, D. J., Harris, C. J., McNeill, K. L., Marx, R. W., & Krajcik, J. (2003). Usable assessments aligned with curriculum materials: Measuring explanation as a scientific way of knowing. Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
    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 the sixth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 310-317), Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 20(3), 194-204.
    McCann, T. M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 62-76.
    McLachlan, G. J. (1999). Mahalanobis distance. Resonance, 4, 20-26.
    McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
    Medawar, P. B. (1969). Induction and intuition in scientific thought. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Dociety.
    Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(2), 79-84.
    Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95-110.
    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.
    Pallant, A., & Lee, H. S. (2011). Characterizing uncertainty associated with middle school students' scientific arguments. Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Orlando, FL.
    Papadopoulos, P. M., Demetriadis, S. N., Stamelos, I. G., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2009). Prompting students’ context-generating cognitive activity in ill-structured domains: Does the prompting mode affect learning? Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(2), 193-210.
    Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal Of The Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.
    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.
    Peterson, L., McLaughlin, T. F., Weber, K. P., & Anderson, H. (2008). The effects of model, lead, and test technique with visual prompts paired with a fading procedure to teach “where” to a 13-year-old echolalic boy with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 20(1), 31-39.
    Popper, K. R. (1965). Conjectures and Refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
    Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
    Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.
    Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. In C. C. E. Block & M. E. Pressley (Eds.), Proceedings of Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. Solving problems in the teaching of literacy (pp. 319-334), New York. Guilford.
    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.
    Rock, M. L., & Thead, B. K. (2007). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 313 - 349.
    Rojas-Drummond, S., & Zapata, M. P. (2004). Exploratory talk, argumentation and reasoning in mexican primary school children. Language and Education, 18(6), 539-557.
    Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal Of Research In Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
    Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
    Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 77-96.
    Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285-296.
    Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 235 - 260.
    Simpson, P. M., Banerjee, e., & Simpson, C. L. (1994). Softlifting: A model of motivating factors. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(6), 431-438.
    Swinyard, W. R., Rinne, H., & Kau, A. K. (1990). The morality of software piracy: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(8), 655-664.
    Teo, Y. H., & Churchill, D. (2007). Using sentence openers to support students' argumentation in an online learning environment. Educational Media International, 44(3), 207-218.
    Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
    Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes (14th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    WIPO. (1967). Convention establishing the world intellectual property organization. Retrieved September 3, 2011, from
    http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/trtdocs_wo029.html
    Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
    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.

    QR CODE