1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Liberal Arts
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 發展「主題分析即時回饋系統」促進非同步線上討論成效
Developing a Topic Analysis Instant Feedback System to facilitate asynchronous online discussion performance
作者 張文騫
Chang, Wen-Chien
貢獻者 陳志銘
Chen, Chih-Ming
張文騫
Chang, Wen-Chien
關鍵詞 非同步線上討論
討論成效
隱性引導策略
隱含狄利克雷分布主題模型
社會性科學議題
科技接受度
Asynchronous online discussion
Discussion performance
Implicit guidance strategy
Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic model
Socio-scientific issues
Technology acceptance
日期 2020
上傳時間 2-Mar-2020 11:11:27 (UTC+8)
摘要 資訊時代下學習與科技越來越密不可分，而非同步線上討論為數位學習中常見的學習活動之一，過程中學習者透過合作方式參與學習，不受時間和空間限制的分享想法、提出問題和進行討論回饋，以達到知識分享及強化學習的目的。但是若缺乏適當有效促進討論的輔助機制，便可能產生討論內容偏離主題，討論內容過於狹隘且不夠深入等問題。因此，本研究設計「主題分析即時回饋系統(Topic Analysis Instant Feedback System, 以下簡稱TAIFS)」，希望透過將學習者合作學習討論的內容，即時轉換成主題與主題比率形式視覺化呈現，使學習者能即時掌握線上討論中全體討論狀況與異同觀點，進而有效提升討論成效。
本研究採用準實驗研究法，隨機選取台北市某高中一年級兩班共61名學生為研究對象，其中一班31名學生被隨機分派為採用TAIFS輔助線上討論之實驗組，另一班30名學生則被分派為使用一般Moodle線上討論之控制組。兩組學習者進行「海岸地區利用」之社會性科學議題(socio-scientific issues, 以下簡稱SSI)線上討論，以探討兩組學習者在討論成效之複雜度與多觀點，以及科技接受度是否具有顯著的差異。此外，也以性別作為背景變項，探討不同性別學習者，在討論成效之複雜度與多觀點，以及科技接受度是否具有顯著的差異。
研究結果發現，相較於使用一般Moodle線上討論區的控制組，採用TAIFS輔助線上討論的實驗組在整體討論成效、分項之複雜度與多觀點皆顯著優於控制組，並且在有TAIFS輔助討論時，不論是女性或男性學習者，在整體討論成效、分項之複雜度與多觀點上的提升並無顯著差異，表明TAIFS輔助不論何種性別的學習者討論時，皆能有效的提升討論成效。但相較沒使用TAIFS的學習者，有使用TAIFS的學習者中，女性學習者在提升多元觀點上較男性學習者明顯。而在科技接受度上兩組並沒有達到統計上的顯著差異，皆呈現普遍高的科技接受度。此外，訪談質性資料分析顯示，採用TAIFS的實驗組受訪者普遍覺得全體討論即時主題、小組討論主題占比，以及檢索詞站內外搜尋的功能，皆能有效幫助學習者從不同角度進行議題討論。
最後基於研究結果，本研究提出TAIFS系統優化建議、Moodle討論區優化建議，以及未來可以繼續進一步探討的研究方向。整體而言，本研究將討論區學習、討論區內容引導策略、自然語言處理與資料視覺化等技術進行整合所發展之TAIFS，提供一個科技輔助線上討論之創新有效學習工具，對於促進數位學習之線上討論具有貢獻。
In the information age, learning and technology are becoming more and more inseparable. Asynchronous online discussion is one of the common learning activities in digital learning. In the process, learners participate in learning through cooperative methods. Sharing ideas and asking questions without being limited by time and space, and give feedback to achieve the purpose of knowledge sharing and reinforcement learning. However, if there is no proper and effective assist mechanism to facilitate discussion, the discussion content may deviate from the topic and the discussion content is too narrow and not deep enough. Therefore, this research designed the "Topic Analysis Instant Feedback System (TAIFS)", hoping to convert the content of the collaborative learning discussions of learners into a visual representation of the topic and the topic ratio in real time, so that the learners can immediately grasp the overall discussion status, similarities opinions and differences opinions in discussions, and effectively improve the discussion performance.
In this study, a quasi-experimental research method was used. A total of 61 students from two classes in a high school in Taipei City were randomly selected. One class of 31 students was randomly assigned to the experimental group using TAIFS to assist online discussion, and the other class of 30 students are assigned to control groups using general Moodle online discussions. Two groups of learners discussed socio-scientific issues (SSI) call "coastal area utilization" to investigate whether the complexity and perspectives of discussion performance, and the acceptance of technology between two groups of learners have significant difference or not. In addition, gender is used as a background variable to investigate whether the complexity and perspectives of discussion performance, and the acceptance of technology between different genders have significant difference.
The results of the study found compared with the control group using the general Moodle online discussion group, the experimental group using TAIFS to assist online discussion was significantly better than the control group in overall discussion performance, sub-item complexity and perspectives. In addition, when TAIFS assisted discussion, whether it was female or male learners, there was no significant difference in the overall discussion performance, sub-item complexity and perspectives. Indicating regardless of gender, when TAIFS assisted the discussion of learners can effectively improve the discussion performance. However, compared with learners who didn’t use TAIFS, among learners who had used TAIFS, female learners were more effective than male learners in improving perspectives. In terms of technological acceptance, the two groups didn’t reach statistically significant differences, but both showed generally high technological acceptance. In addition, the qualitative data analysis of the interviewees showed that the experimental group of respondents who used TAIFS generally felt that the overall discussion of real-time topics, the proportion of group discussion topics, and the internal and external search function can effectively help learners to discuss issues from different perspectives.
Finally, based on the research results, this study puts forward suggestions for optimizing the TAIFS system, optimizing the Moodle discussion area, and research directions that can be further explored in the future. On the whole, this study integrates technologies such as discussion learning, guidance strategies of discussion, natural language processing, and data visualization to provide an innovative and effective learning tool, TAIFS, that assists online discussion with technology to contribute to promote online discussion performance of digital learning.
參考文獻 潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究-理論與實務。新北市：心理出版社。
Abdous, M., He, W., & Yen, C.-J. (2012). Using data mining for predicting relationships between online question theme and final grade. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 15(3), 77-88. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1287025367?pq-origsite=gscholar
Albe, V. (2008). When Scientific Knowledge, Daily Life Experience, Epistemological and Social Considerations Intersect: Students’ Argumentation in Group Discussions on a Socio-scientific Issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
Atapattu, T., Falkner, K., & Tarmazdi, H. (2016). Topic-wise classification of MOOC discussions: A Visual Analytics Approach. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, 276-281. Retrieved from http://www.educationaldatamining.org/EDM2016/proceedings/paper_109.pdf
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2018.05.003
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., Jordan, M. I., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B.(2004). Hierarchical Topic Models and the Nested Chinese Restaurant Process. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 17-24. Retrieved from https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2466-hierarchical-topic-models-and-the-nested-chinese-restaurant-process.pdf
Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 475-488). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816833.029
Bodemer, D. (2011). Tacit guidance for collaborative multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1079-1086. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.016
Bostock, S., & Lizhi, W. (2005). Gender in students` online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(1), 73-86. doi: 10.1080/14703290500048978
Chau, P. Y. K. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 185-204. doi:10.1080/07421222.1996.11518128
Cole, J., & Foster, H. (2007). Using Moodle: Teaching with the Popular Open Source Course Management System. (2nd ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34. Retrieved from http://en.wikieducator.org/images/6/60/ALN_Collaborative_Learning.pdf
Davis, F, D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. doi: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. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.018
Delahunty, J. (2018). Connecting to learn, learning to connect: Thinking together in asynchronous forum discussion. Linguistics and Education, 46, 12-22. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2018.05.003
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining ‘Gamification’. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 9–15. doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040
Dillenbourg, P., & Betrancourt, M. (2006). Collaboration load. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory (pp. 142–163). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier. Retrieved from https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190700
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 275–301). Springer US. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_16
Ding, L. (2019). Applying gamifications to asynchronous online discussions: A mixed methods study. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.022
Ding, L., Kim, C., & Orey, M. (2017). Studies of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 115, 126–142. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.016
Duncan, M. J., Smith, M., & Cook, K. (2013). Implementing online problem based learning (PBL) in postgraduates new to both online learning and PBL: An example from strength and conditioning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 12(1), 79–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.11.004
Eggert, S., & Bogeholz, S. (2009). Students` use of decision‐making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: An application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94(2), 230-258. doi:10.1002/sce.20358
Erkens, M., & Bodemer, D. (2019). Improving collaborative learning: Guiding knowledge exchange through the provision of information about learning partners and learning contents. Computers and Education, 128, 452-472. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.009
Erkens, M., Bodemer, D., & Hoppe, H. U. (2016). Improving collaborative learning in the classroom: Text mining based grouping and representing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 387-415. doi:10.1007/s11412-016-9243-5
Ezen-Can, A., Boyer, K. E., Kellogg, S., & Booth, S. (2015). Unsupervised modeling for understanding MOOC discussion forums: A learning analytics approach. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge, 146–150. doi:10.1145/2723576.2723589
Gao, F., Wang, C., & Sun, Y. (2009). A new model of productive online discussion and its implications for research and instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 2(1), 65–78. doi:10.18785/jetde.0201.05
Gao, F., Zhang, T., & Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 469-483. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01330.x
Goda, K., & Mine, T. (2011). Analysis of students’ learning activities through quantifying Time-series comments. In A. König, A. Dengel, K. Hinkelmann, K. Kise, R. J. Howlett, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Knowlege-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems (pp. 154-164). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23863-5_16
Gross, T., Stary, C., & Totter, A. (2005). User-centered awareness in computer-supported cooperative work-systems: Structured embedding of findings from social sciences. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 18(3), 323-360. doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc1803_5
Hanegan, N. L., Price, L., & Peterson, J. (2008). Disconnections between teacher expectations and student confidence in bioethics. Science and Education, 17(8), 921-940. doi:10.1007/s11191-007-9122-6
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152. doi:10.1023/A:1003764722829
Havre, S., Hetzler, E., Whitney, P., & Nowell, L. (2002). ThemeRiver: visualizing thematic changes in large document collections. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 8(1), 9–20. doi: 10.1109/2945.981848
Hawkes, M. (2006). Linguistic discourse variables as indicators of reflective online interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 231–244. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde2004_4
He, W. (2013). Examining students’ online interaction in a live video streaming environment using data mining and text mining. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 90-102. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.020
Heimbuch, S., & Bodemer, D. (2017). Controversy awareness on evidence-led discussions as guidance for students in wiki-based learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.12.001
Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), 571-606. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0
Hewitt, J. (2001). Beyond threaded discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 38(3), 207–221. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/26522
Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 31–45. doi:10.2190/PMG8-A05J-CUH1-DK14
Hoffman, M. D., Bach, F., & Blei, D. M. (2010). Online learning for Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 1, 856-864. Retrieved from http://papers.nips.cc/paper/3902-online-learning-for-latent-dirichlet-allocation.pdf
Hsiao, I.-H., & Awasthi, P. (2015). Topic facet modeling: semantic visual analytics for online discussion forums. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge, 231-235. doi:10.1145/2723576.2723613
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 and Education, 69(C), 121–130. doi: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. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.749153
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 59-88. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9078-1
Jeong, A., & Frazier, S. (2008). How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in asynchronous discussions and computer‐supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 875–887. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00789.x
Jia, H., & Liu, X. (2013). Scientific referential metadata creation with information retrieval and labeled topic modeling. Proceeding of iConference 2013, 274-288. doi:10.9776/13192
Knowlton, D. S. (2001). Promoting durable knowledge construction through online discussion. Mid‐South Instructional Technology Conference. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED463724
Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 211–224. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9014-4
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. doi:10.1002/sce.1011
Lambiase, J. J. (2010). Hanging by a thread: Topic development and death in an online discussion of breaking news. Language at Internet, 7(9). Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2814
Liu, S. -Y., Lin, C. -S., & Tsai, C. -C. (2011). College students` scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517. doi:10.1002/sce.20422
Lyons, T., & Evans, M. (2013). Blended learning to increase student satisfaction: An exploratory study. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 18(1), 43–53. doi:10.1080/10875301.2013.800626
Marra, R. M., Moore, J. L., & Klimczak, A. K. (2004). Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 23–40. doi:10.1007/BF02504837
Maskeri, G., Sarkar, S., & Heafield, K. (2008). Mining Business Topics in Source Code using Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Proceedings of the 1st India Software Engineering Conference, 113-120. doi: 10.1145/1342211.1342234
Minami, T., & Ohura, Y. (2013). Lecture data analysis towards to know how the students’ attitudes affect to their evaluations. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information Technology and Applications, 164-169. Retrieved from http://www.icita.org/2013/papers/jp-minami.pdf
Minami, T., & Ohura, Y. (2015). How student’s attitude influences on learning achievement? An analysis of attitude-representing words appearing in looking-back evaluation texts. International Journal of Database Theory and Application, 8(2), 129-144. doi:10.14257/ijdta.2015.8.2.13
Ming, N., & Baumer, E. (2011). Using Text Mining to Characterize Online Discussion Facilitation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(2), 71-109. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ935578.pdf
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. doi:10.1080/095006999290570
Ory, J.C (1997). Gender Similarity in the Use of and Attitudes about ALN in a University Setting. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(1), 39-51. doi: 10.24059/olj.v1i1.1942
Osborne, D. M., Byrne, J. H., Massey, D. L., & Johnston, A. N. B. (2018). Use of online asynchronous discussion boards to engage students, enhance critical thinking, and foster staff-student/student-student collaboration: A mixed method study. Nurse Education Today, 70, 40-46. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2018.08.014
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.
Pearson, J. (2006). Investigating ICT using problem-based learning in face-to-face and online learning environments. Computers & Education, 47(1), 56–73. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.09.001
Peng, X., Liu, S., Liu, Z., Gan, W., & Sun, J. (2016). Mining learners’ topic interests in course reviews based on like-lda model. International journal of innovative computing, information & control, 12(6), 2099-2110. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Zhi_Liu43/publication/310830465_Mining_Learners`_Topic_Interests_in_Course_Reviews_based_on_Like-LDA_Model/links/5838ea8a08ae3d91723de53e.pdf
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, Self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557-1586. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues A Critical Review of Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. doi:10.1002/tea.20009
Sadler, T., Barab, S., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391. doi:10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
Sánchez, R., A., & Hueros, A., D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632-1640. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.011
Sangin, M., Molinari, G., Nüssli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2011). Facilitating peer knowledge modeling: Effects of a knowledge awareness tool on collaborative learning outcomes and processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1059-1067. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.032
Smits, P. B., de Buisonjé, C. D., Verbeek, J. H., van Dijk, F. J., Metz, J. C., & ten Cate, O. J. (2003). Problem-based learning versus lecture-based learning in postgraduate medical education. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 29(4), 280–287. doi:10.5271/sjweh.732
Sun, G., & Bin, S. (2018). Topic interaction model based on local community detection in MOOC discussion forums and its teaching application. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(6), 2922-2931. doi:10.12738/estp.2018.6.191
Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3), 254–277. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f493/b38c1c90e329ff9ff9063183735a71aa109e.pdf
Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183-218. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2
Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103-1127. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.007
Tsai, C. Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students` scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers and Education, 116, 14-27. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.009
Tsai, M. J., Liang, J. C., Hou, H. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Males are not as active as females in online discussion: Gender differences in face-to-face and online discussion strategies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 263-277. doi:10.14742/ajet.1557
Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and Face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00621.x
Wang, W., Feng, Y., & Dai, W. (2018). Topic analysis of online reviews for two competitive products using Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 29, 142–156. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2018.04.003
Wei, X., & Croft, W. (2006). LDA-based document models for ad-hoc retrieval. Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, 178–185. doi:10.1145/1148170.1148204
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 191-211). Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_12
Wolfensberger, B., Piniel, J., Canella, C., & Kyburz-Graber, R. (2010). The challenge of involvement in reflective teaching: Three case studies from a teacher education project on conducting classroom discussions on socio-scientific issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 714-721. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.007
Wu, D. & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network. 8(2), 139- 152. doi: 10.1142/S1609945104000115
Wu, P., Yu, S., & Wang, D. (2018). Using a learner-topic model for mining learner interests in open learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 192-204. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26388396?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students` motivation in peer‐moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916-930. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2018.05.003
Yu, K., Zhang, B., Zhu, H., Cao, H., & Tian, J. (2012). Towards personalized context-aware recommendation by mining context logs through topic models. In P.-N. Tan, S. Chawla, C. K. Ho, & J. Bailey (Eds.), Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 431-443). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-30217-6_36
Zhan, Z., Fong, P., S., W., Mei, H., & Liang, T. (2015). Effects of gender grouping on students’ group performance, individual achievements and attitudes in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 587-596. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.038
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊與檔案學研究所
106155003
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106155003
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 陳志銘zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chen, Chih-Mingen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 張文騫zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chang, Wen-Chienen_US
dc.creator (作者) 張文騫zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chang, Wen-Chienen_US
dc.date (日期) 2020en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-Mar-2020 11:11:27 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Mar-2020 11:11:27 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Mar-2020 11:11:27 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0106155003en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128850-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 圖書資訊與檔案學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 106155003zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 資訊時代下學習與科技越來越密不可分，而非同步線上討論為數位學習中常見的學習活動之一，過程中學習者透過合作方式參與學習，不受時間和空間限制的分享想法、提出問題和進行討論回饋，以達到知識分享及強化學習的目的。但是若缺乏適當有效促進討論的輔助機制，便可能產生討論內容偏離主題，討論內容過於狹隘且不夠深入等問題。因此，本研究設計「主題分析即時回饋系統(Topic Analysis Instant Feedback System, 以下簡稱TAIFS)」，希望透過將學習者合作學習討論的內容，即時轉換成主題與主題比率形式視覺化呈現，使學習者能即時掌握線上討論中全體討論狀況與異同觀點，進而有效提升討論成效。
本研究採用準實驗研究法，隨機選取台北市某高中一年級兩班共61名學生為研究對象，其中一班31名學生被隨機分派為採用TAIFS輔助線上討論之實驗組，另一班30名學生則被分派為使用一般Moodle線上討論之控制組。兩組學習者進行「海岸地區利用」之社會性科學議題(socio-scientific issues, 以下簡稱SSI)線上討論，以探討兩組學習者在討論成效之複雜度與多觀點，以及科技接受度是否具有顯著的差異。此外，也以性別作為背景變項，探討不同性別學習者，在討論成效之複雜度與多觀點，以及科技接受度是否具有顯著的差異。
研究結果發現，相較於使用一般Moodle線上討論區的控制組，採用TAIFS輔助線上討論的實驗組在整體討論成效、分項之複雜度與多觀點皆顯著優於控制組，並且在有TAIFS輔助討論時，不論是女性或男性學習者，在整體討論成效、分項之複雜度與多觀點上的提升並無顯著差異，表明TAIFS輔助不論何種性別的學習者討論時，皆能有效的提升討論成效。但相較沒使用TAIFS的學習者，有使用TAIFS的學習者中，女性學習者在提升多元觀點上較男性學習者明顯。而在科技接受度上兩組並沒有達到統計上的顯著差異，皆呈現普遍高的科技接受度。此外，訪談質性資料分析顯示，採用TAIFS的實驗組受訪者普遍覺得全體討論即時主題、小組討論主題占比，以及檢索詞站內外搜尋的功能，皆能有效幫助學習者從不同角度進行議題討論。
最後基於研究結果，本研究提出TAIFS系統優化建議、Moodle討論區優化建議，以及未來可以繼續進一步探討的研究方向。整體而言，本研究將討論區學習、討論區內容引導策略、自然語言處理與資料視覺化等技術進行整合所發展之TAIFS，提供一個科技輔助線上討論之創新有效學習工具，對於促進數位學習之線上討論具有貢獻。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) In the information age, learning and technology are becoming more and more inseparable. Asynchronous online discussion is one of the common learning activities in digital learning. In the process, learners participate in learning through cooperative methods. Sharing ideas and asking questions without being limited by time and space, and give feedback to achieve the purpose of knowledge sharing and reinforcement learning. However, if there is no proper and effective assist mechanism to facilitate discussion, the discussion content may deviate from the topic and the discussion content is too narrow and not deep enough. Therefore, this research designed the "Topic Analysis Instant Feedback System (TAIFS)", hoping to convert the content of the collaborative learning discussions of learners into a visual representation of the topic and the topic ratio in real time, so that the learners can immediately grasp the overall discussion status, similarities opinions and differences opinions in discussions, and effectively improve the discussion performance.
In this study, a quasi-experimental research method was used. A total of 61 students from two classes in a high school in Taipei City were randomly selected. One class of 31 students was randomly assigned to the experimental group using TAIFS to assist online discussion, and the other class of 30 students are assigned to control groups using general Moodle online discussions. Two groups of learners discussed socio-scientific issues (SSI) call "coastal area utilization" to investigate whether the complexity and perspectives of discussion performance, and the acceptance of technology between two groups of learners have significant difference or not. In addition, gender is used as a background variable to investigate whether the complexity and perspectives of discussion performance, and the acceptance of technology between different genders have significant difference.
The results of the study found compared with the control group using the general Moodle online discussion group, the experimental group using TAIFS to assist online discussion was significantly better than the control group in overall discussion performance, sub-item complexity and perspectives. In addition, when TAIFS assisted discussion, whether it was female or male learners, there was no significant difference in the overall discussion performance, sub-item complexity and perspectives. Indicating regardless of gender, when TAIFS assisted the discussion of learners can effectively improve the discussion performance. However, compared with learners who didn’t use TAIFS, among learners who had used TAIFS, female learners were more effective than male learners in improving perspectives. In terms of technological acceptance, the two groups didn’t reach statistically significant differences, but both showed generally high technological acceptance. In addition, the qualitative data analysis of the interviewees showed that the experimental group of respondents who used TAIFS generally felt that the overall discussion of real-time topics, the proportion of group discussion topics, and the internal and external search function can effectively help learners to discuss issues from different perspectives.
Finally, based on the research results, this study puts forward suggestions for optimizing the TAIFS system, optimizing the Moodle discussion area, and research directions that can be further explored in the future. On the whole, this study integrates technologies such as discussion learning, guidance strategies of discussion, natural language processing, and data visualization to provide an innovative and effective learning tool, TAIFS, that assists online discussion with technology to contribute to promote online discussion performance of digital learning.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究問題 4
第四節 研究範圍與限制 5
第五節 名詞解釋 6
第二章 文獻探討 8
第一節 非同步線上討論社會性科學議題 9
第二節 隱含狄利克雷分布主題模型探討 13
第三節 影響討論成效因素 18
第三章 主題分析即時回饋系統設計 20
第一節 系統設計理念 20
第二節 系統架構介紹 22
第三節 系統使用者介面說明 24
第四節 系統開發環境 35
第四章 研究設計與實施 36
第一節 研究架構 36
第二節 研究方法 38
第三節 研究對象 39
第四節 實驗設計與流程 40
第五節 研究工具 44
第六節 資料蒐集與分析 48
第七節 研究實施步驟 50
第五章 實驗結果分析 51
第一節 有無使用TAIFS支援線上討論的兩組學習者之討論成效、科技接受度差異分析 52
第二節 使用TAIFS支援線上討論的不同性別學習者之討論成效、科技接受度差異分析 56
第三節 有無使用TAIFS支援線上討論的兩組不同性別學習者之討論成效、科技接受度差異分析 60
第四節 半結構式訪談質性資料分析 64
第五節　綜合討論 72
第六章 結論與建議 77
第一節 結論 77
第二節 系統優化建議 80
第三節 未來研究方向 82
參考文獻 83
附錄一 參與研究同意書 91
附錄二 科技接受度問卷 92
附錄三 個人議題觀點學習單前後測試題 94
附錄四 文本閱讀教材與小組討論目標 96
附錄五 訪談大綱 102		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2667567 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106155003en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 非同步線上討論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 討論成效zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隱性引導策略zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隱含狄利克雷分布主題模型zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社會性科學議題zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 科技接受度zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Asynchronous online discussionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Discussion performanceen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Implicit guidance strategyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic modelen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Socio-scientific issuesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Technology acceptanceen_US
dc.title (題名) 發展「主題分析即時回饋系統」促進非同步線上討論成效zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Developing a Topic Analysis Instant Feedback System to facilitate asynchronous online discussion performanceen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究-理論與實務。新北市：心理出版社。
Abdous, M., He, W., & Yen, C.-J. (2012). Using data mining for predicting relationships between online question theme and final grade. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 15(3), 77-88. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1287025367?pq-origsite=gscholar
Albe, V. (2008). When Scientific Knowledge, Daily Life Experience, Epistemological and Social Considerations Intersect: Students’ Argumentation in Group Discussions on a Socio-scientific Issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
Atapattu, T., Falkner, K., & Tarmazdi, H. (2016). Topic-wise classification of MOOC discussions: A Visual Analytics Approach. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, 276-281. Retrieved from http://www.educationaldatamining.org/EDM2016/proceedings/paper_109.pdf
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2018.05.003
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., Jordan, M. I., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B.(2004). Hierarchical Topic Models and the Nested Chinese Restaurant Process. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 17-24. Retrieved from https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2466-hierarchical-topic-models-and-the-nested-chinese-restaurant-process.pdf
Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 475-488). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816833.029
Bodemer, D. (2011). Tacit guidance for collaborative multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1079-1086. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.016
Bostock, S., & Lizhi, W. (2005). Gender in students` online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(1), 73-86. doi: 10.1080/14703290500048978
Chau, P. Y. K. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 185-204. doi:10.1080/07421222.1996.11518128
Cole, J., & Foster, H. (2007). Using Moodle: Teaching with the Popular Open Source Course Management System. (2nd ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34. Retrieved from http://en.wikieducator.org/images/6/60/ALN_Collaborative_Learning.pdf
Davis, F, D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. doi: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. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.018
Delahunty, J. (2018). Connecting to learn, learning to connect: Thinking together in asynchronous forum discussion. Linguistics and Education, 46, 12-22. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2018.05.003
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining ‘Gamification’. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 9–15. doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040
Dillenbourg, P., & Betrancourt, M. (2006). Collaboration load. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory (pp. 142–163). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier. Retrieved from https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190700
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 275–301). Springer US. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_16
Ding, L. (2019). Applying gamifications to asynchronous online discussions: A mixed methods study. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.022
Ding, L., Kim, C., & Orey, M. (2017). Studies of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 115, 126–142. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.016
Duncan, M. J., Smith, M., & Cook, K. (2013). Implementing online problem based learning (PBL) in postgraduates new to both online learning and PBL: An example from strength and conditioning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 12(1), 79–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.11.004
Eggert, S., & Bogeholz, S. (2009). Students` use of decision‐making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: An application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94(2), 230-258. doi:10.1002/sce.20358
Erkens, M., & Bodemer, D. (2019). Improving collaborative learning: Guiding knowledge exchange through the provision of information about learning partners and learning contents. Computers and Education, 128, 452-472. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.009
Erkens, M., Bodemer, D., & Hoppe, H. U. (2016). Improving collaborative learning in the classroom: Text mining based grouping and representing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 387-415. doi:10.1007/s11412-016-9243-5
Ezen-Can, A., Boyer, K. E., Kellogg, S., & Booth, S. (2015). Unsupervised modeling for understanding MOOC discussion forums: A learning analytics approach. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge, 146–150. doi:10.1145/2723576.2723589
Gao, F., Wang, C., & Sun, Y. (2009). A new model of productive online discussion and its implications for research and instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 2(1), 65–78. doi:10.18785/jetde.0201.05
Gao, F., Zhang, T., & Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 469-483. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01330.x
Goda, K., & Mine, T. (2011). Analysis of students’ learning activities through quantifying Time-series comments. In A. König, A. Dengel, K. Hinkelmann, K. Kise, R. J. Howlett, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Knowlege-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems (pp. 154-164). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23863-5_16
Gross, T., Stary, C., & Totter, A. (2005). User-centered awareness in computer-supported cooperative work-systems: Structured embedding of findings from social sciences. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 18(3), 323-360. doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc1803_5
Hanegan, N. L., Price, L., & Peterson, J. (2008). Disconnections between teacher expectations and student confidence in bioethics. Science and Education, 17(8), 921-940. doi:10.1007/s11191-007-9122-6
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152. doi:10.1023/A:1003764722829
Havre, S., Hetzler, E., Whitney, P., & Nowell, L. (2002). ThemeRiver: visualizing thematic changes in large document collections. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 8(1), 9–20. doi: 10.1109/2945.981848
Hawkes, M. (2006). Linguistic discourse variables as indicators of reflective online interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 231–244. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde2004_4
He, W. (2013). Examining students’ online interaction in a live video streaming environment using data mining and text mining. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 90-102. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.020
Heimbuch, S., & Bodemer, D. (2017). Controversy awareness on evidence-led discussions as guidance for students in wiki-based learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.12.001
Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), 571-606. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0
Hewitt, J. (2001). Beyond threaded discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 38(3), 207–221. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/26522
Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 31–45. doi:10.2190/PMG8-A05J-CUH1-DK14
Hoffman, M. D., Bach, F., & Blei, D. M. (2010). Online learning for Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 1, 856-864. Retrieved from http://papers.nips.cc/paper/3902-online-learning-for-latent-dirichlet-allocation.pdf
Hsiao, I.-H., & Awasthi, P. (2015). Topic facet modeling: semantic visual analytics for online discussion forums. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge, 231-235. doi:10.1145/2723576.2723613
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 and Education, 69(C), 121–130. doi: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. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.749153
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 59-88. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9078-1
Jeong, A., & Frazier, S. (2008). How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in asynchronous discussions and computer‐supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 875–887. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00789.x
Jia, H., & Liu, X. (2013). Scientific referential metadata creation with information retrieval and labeled topic modeling. Proceeding of iConference 2013, 274-288. doi:10.9776/13192
Knowlton, D. S. (2001). Promoting durable knowledge construction through online discussion. Mid‐South Instructional Technology Conference. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED463724
Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 211–224. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9014-4
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. doi:10.1002/sce.1011
Lambiase, J. J. (2010). Hanging by a thread: Topic development and death in an online discussion of breaking news. Language at Internet, 7(9). Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2814
Liu, S. -Y., Lin, C. -S., & Tsai, C. -C. (2011). College students` scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517. doi:10.1002/sce.20422
Lyons, T., & Evans, M. (2013). Blended learning to increase student satisfaction: An exploratory study. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 18(1), 43–53. doi:10.1080/10875301.2013.800626
Marra, R. M., Moore, J. L., & Klimczak, A. K. (2004). Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 23–40. doi:10.1007/BF02504837
Maskeri, G., Sarkar, S., & Heafield, K. (2008). Mining Business Topics in Source Code using Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Proceedings of the 1st India Software Engineering Conference, 113-120. doi: 10.1145/1342211.1342234
Minami, T., & Ohura, Y. (2013). Lecture data analysis towards to know how the students’ attitudes affect to their evaluations. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information Technology and Applications, 164-169. Retrieved from http://www.icita.org/2013/papers/jp-minami.pdf
Minami, T., & Ohura, Y. (2015). How student’s attitude influences on learning achievement? An analysis of attitude-representing words appearing in looking-back evaluation texts. International Journal of Database Theory and Application, 8(2), 129-144. doi:10.14257/ijdta.2015.8.2.13
Ming, N., & Baumer, E. (2011). Using Text Mining to Characterize Online Discussion Facilitation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(2), 71-109. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ935578.pdf
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. doi:10.1080/095006999290570
Ory, J.C (1997). Gender Similarity in the Use of and Attitudes about ALN in a University Setting. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(1), 39-51. doi: 10.24059/olj.v1i1.1942
Osborne, D. M., Byrne, J. H., Massey, D. L., & Johnston, A. N. B. (2018). Use of online asynchronous discussion boards to engage students, enhance critical thinking, and foster staff-student/student-student collaboration: A mixed method study. Nurse Education Today, 70, 40-46. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2018.08.014
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.
Pearson, J. (2006). Investigating ICT using problem-based learning in face-to-face and online learning environments. Computers & Education, 47(1), 56–73. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.09.001
Peng, X., Liu, S., Liu, Z., Gan, W., & Sun, J. (2016). Mining learners’ topic interests in course reviews based on like-lda model. International journal of innovative computing, information & control, 12(6), 2099-2110. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Zhi_Liu43/publication/310830465_Mining_Learners`_Topic_Interests_in_Course_Reviews_based_on_Like-LDA_Model/links/5838ea8a08ae3d91723de53e.pdf
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, Self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557-1586. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues A Critical Review of Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. doi:10.1002/tea.20009
Sadler, T., Barab, S., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391. doi:10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
Sánchez, R., A., & Hueros, A., D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632-1640. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.011
Sangin, M., Molinari, G., Nüssli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2011). Facilitating peer knowledge modeling: Effects of a knowledge awareness tool on collaborative learning outcomes and processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1059-1067. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.032
Smits, P. B., de Buisonjé, C. D., Verbeek, J. H., van Dijk, F. J., Metz, J. C., & ten Cate, O. J. (2003). Problem-based learning versus lecture-based learning in postgraduate medical education. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 29(4), 280–287. doi:10.5271/sjweh.732
Sun, G., & Bin, S. (2018). Topic interaction model based on local community detection in MOOC discussion forums and its teaching application. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(6), 2922-2931. doi:10.12738/estp.2018.6.191
Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3), 254–277. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f493/b38c1c90e329ff9ff9063183735a71aa109e.pdf
Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183-218. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2
Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103-1127. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.007
Tsai, C. Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students` scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers and Education, 116, 14-27. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.009
Tsai, M. J., Liang, J. C., Hou, H. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Males are not as active as females in online discussion: Gender differences in face-to-face and online discussion strategies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 263-277. doi:10.14742/ajet.1557
Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and Face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00621.x
Wang, W., Feng, Y., & Dai, W. (2018). Topic analysis of online reviews for two competitive products using Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 29, 142–156. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2018.04.003
Wei, X., & Croft, W. (2006). LDA-based document models for ad-hoc retrieval. Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, 178–185. doi:10.1145/1148170.1148204
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 191-211). Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_12
Wolfensberger, B., Piniel, J., Canella, C., & Kyburz-Graber, R. (2010). The challenge of involvement in reflective teaching: Three case studies from a teacher education project on conducting classroom discussions on socio-scientific issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 714-721. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.007
Wu, D. & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network. 8(2), 139- 152. doi: 10.1142/S1609945104000115
Wu, P., Yu, S., & Wang, D. (2018). Using a learner-topic model for mining learner interests in open learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 192-204. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26388396?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students` motivation in peer‐moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916-930. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2018.05.003
Yu, K., Zhang, B., Zhu, H., Cao, H., & Tian, J. (2012). Towards personalized context-aware recommendation by mining context logs through topic models. In P.-N. Tan, S. Chawla, C. K. Ho, & J. Bailey (Eds.), Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 431-443). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-30217-6_36
Zhan, Z., Fong, P., S., W., Mei, H., & Liang, T. (2015). Effects of gender grouping on students’ group performance, individual achievements and attitudes in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 587-596. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.038		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202000307en_US