根據研究結果，本研究從教學上、研究上提出以下建議，以供國小教師或 未來相關研究欲導入「惡魔代言人」於小組中進行論證活動的參考資訊。
一、在教學實務上的建議
（一）安排主題由簡單至複雜
本研究發現學生在說明證據和論點之間的因果論述有困難。究其原因，學 生針對網路著作權相關議題有似是而非的觀點和態度，而發表理由需要瞭解議 題相關的證據內容、以及協調論點和證據之間的關係，在觀念不確定或不瞭解 的情況下難以順暢表達推理過程，所以對於主題的設計可由簡單至複雜，讓學 生可逐漸熟悉網路著作權的基本概念和推理方式，並於活動結束後，針對討論 議題作總結和提供學生適當的論述範例，以促進學生對於議題的概念理解與論 述建構。
（二）提供扮演「惡魔」的標準
研究結果發現，學生能正確判斷自己和組員在論證活動的過程中是否有扮 演「惡魔」的人數比例不高。究其原因，本研究教導學生扮演「惡魔」應有的 唱反調行為並於論證系統上提供相關行為的提示和句型，但並未指導學生如何 判斷扮演的好壞，導致學生無法確定自己和組員的唱反調行為是否符合扮演「惡 魔」的標準，所以要求學生扮演「惡魔」的同時，應給予準則讓學生可對照、
依循並判斷自己和組員是否有符合標準或不足之處。
（三）培養網路禮節
本研究發現非同步討論中，學生不適當的攻擊行為，會影響小組後續的討 論。有學生於活動後反應組員扮演的「惡魔」太挑釁，所以除了教導學生發表
論述和扮演「惡魔」的訓練之外，訓練過程中，應讓學生瞭解如何有禮貌的評 論別人和接受他人的評論。
二、在未來研究上的建議
（一）擴大研究對象
本研究發現國小學生扮演「惡魔代言人」角色進行小組討論是可行的，未 來研究或許可擴及其他學習階段的學生，以便瞭解不同對象的差異情形。
（二）運用不同分組方式
本研究的兩人小組為電腦隨機分組，以確保各組貣點的公帄性。未來研究 或許可嘗詴選擇學生的某特性，如學習成尌、性別、學習風格或個人興趣等分 組方式，並將不同特性的學生散布於各組，讓學生在扮演「惡魔代言人」角色 的過程中能互相學習。
參考文獻
中文部分
大纪元. (2007). 美國習慣用語「devil's advocate」 [Electronic Version] from http://hk.epochtimes.com/7/10/10/52949.htm.
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
邱皓政. (2006). 量化研究法 : Spss 中文視窗版操作實務詳析. 臺北市: 雙葉書 廊.
郭生玉. (2001). 心理與教育研究法. 中和市: 精華書局.
黃柏鴻, & 林樹聲. (2007). 論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思（literature review and reflection on the research about argumentation instruction）. 科學教 育月刊(302), 5-20.
經 濟 部 智 慧 財 產 局 . (2007). 校 園 著 作 權 百 寶 箱 — 網 路 篇 . from http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=3474&guid=9889c2f1-e6 99-4941-bde0-f898190cee56&lang=zh-tw
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., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 22(5), 453-474.
Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer
interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
33(10), 1099-1114.
Andrews, R. (2005). Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text, 25(1), 107-127.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In P.
Dillenbourg (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 205-216).
The Netherlands, Boston: Dordrecht.
Andriessen, J. E. B. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bertucci, A., Conte, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2010). The impact of size of cooperative group on achievement, social support, and self-esteem. The Journal
of General Psychology, 137(3), 256-272.
Chen, G., & Chiu, M. M. (2008). Online discussion processes: Effects of earlier messages' evaluations, knowledge content, social cues and personal information on later messages. Comput Educ Computers and Education, 50(3), 678-692.
Chin, C., & Teou, L. Y. (2008). Using concept cartoons in formative assessment:
Scaffolding students' argumentation. International Journal of Science Education,
31(10), 1307-1332.
Chiu, M. M. (2008). Effects of argumentation on group micro-creativity: Statistical discourse analyses of algebra students’ collaborative problem solving
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 382-402.
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.
Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of
Psychology, 57(1), 345-374.
Dyson, B., & Grineski, S. (2001). Using cooperative learning structures in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(2), 28-31.
Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck, H. A. F. (1996). Fundamentals of
argumentation theory : A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum.
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.
Friedkin, N. E. (2010). The attitude-behavior linkage in behavioral cascades. Soc.
Psychol. Q. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(2), 196-213.
Gerber, S., Scott, L., Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2005). Instructor influence on reasoned argument in discussion boards. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 53(2), 25-39.
Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 167-180.
Gose, M. (2009). When socratic dialogue is flagging: Questions and strategies for engaging students. College Teaching, 57(1), 45-50.
Handley, I. M., & Runnion, B. M. (2011). Evidence that unconscious thinking influences persuasion based on argument quality. Social Cognition, 29(6), 668-682.
Herrick, J. A., & Iltis, R. S. (2004). Argumentation : Understanding and shaping
arguments. State College, Pa: Strata Pub.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions.
Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
Hopkins, P. E., & Hirst, D. E. (1998). Comprehensive income reporting and analysts'
valuation judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 36, 47-75.
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.
Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels.
Computers & Education, 48(3), 427-445.
Jeong, A., & Lee, J. (2008). The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 651-665.
Jeong, A. C. (2004). The effects of communication style and message function in
triggering responses and critical discussion in computer-supported collaborative argumentation.
Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a cscl scenario. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in
computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205-226). The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of
Educational Research, 39(8), 861-871.
Joiner, R., Jones, S., & Doherty, J. (2008). Two studies examining argumentation in asynchronous computer mediated communication. International Journal of
Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 243-255.
Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 58(4), 439-457.
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity:
Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International
Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer:
A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1310-1328.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
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.Lisette, M., Jerry, A., Paul, K., & Gellof, K. (2007). Effects of synchronous and
asynchronous CMC on interactive argumentation. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 8th iternational conference on Computer supported collaborative learning. New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.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
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp.
310-317), Santa Monica, California. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
MacDougall, C., & Baum, F. (1997). The devil's advocate: A strategy to avoid
groupthink and stimulate discussion in focus groups. Qualitative health research,
7(4), 532.
Maloney, J. (2007). Children's roles and use of evidence in science: An analysis of decision-making in small groups. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 371-401.
McCann, T. M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 62-76.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377.
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.
Missimer, C. A. (1995). Good arguments : An introduction to critical thinking.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science.
Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17-39.
Nemeth, C., Brown, K., & Rogers, J. (2001a). Devil's advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 31(6), 707-720.
Nemeth, C. J., Connell, J. B., Rogers, J. D., & Brown, K. S. (2001b). Improving decision making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 48-58.
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.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(3),
286-313.
Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Original article: Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95-110.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science Science, 328(5977), 463-466.
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.
Paulson, D. R., & Faust, J. L. (2002). Active learning for the college classroom [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 2008/12/03 from http://www.calstatela.edu/dept/chem/chem2/Active/.
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.
Pilkington, R., & Kuminek, P. (2004). Using role-play activity with synchronous CMC to encourage critical reflection on peer debate. In M. Monteith (Ed.), ICT
for curriculum enhancement (pp. 69-84): Intellect L & D E F A E.
Raghavan, S. A. (1990). Birbal a computer-based devil's advocate. In Proceedings of
the Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science.
(pp. 391-402).
Retalis, S., Pain, H., & Haggith, M. (1996). Arguing with the devil: Teaching in controversial domains. Lecture notes in computer science(1086), 659.
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.
Rojas-Drummond, S., & Zapata, M. P. (2004). Exploratory talk, argumentation and reasoning in mexican primary school children. Language and Education, 18(6), 539-557.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
Schommer-Aikins, M., & Easter, M. (2009). Ways of knowing and willingness to argue. The Journal of Psychology, 143(2), 117-132.
Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing.
Instructional Science, 32(6), 475-502.
Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran &
M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education:
Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179-199). Dordrecht: Springer.
Spatariu, A., Hartley, K., Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Quinn, L. F. (2007). The influence of the discussion leader procedure on the quality of arguments in online discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), 83-103.
Strohmetz, D. B., & Skleder, A. A. (1992). The use of role-play in teaching research ethics: A validation study. Teaching of Psychology, 19(2), 106-108.
Tobin, S. J., & Weary, G. (2008). The effects of causal uncertainty, causal importance, and initial attitude on attention to causal persuasive arguments. Social Cognition,
26(1), 44-65.
Topper, A. (2005). Facilitating student interactions through discursive moves: An instructor's experience teaching online graduate courses in educational technology. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 55-67.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Veerman, A., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science, 30(3), 155-186.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Enhancing learning through synchronous discussion. Computers & Education, 34(2-3), 1-22.
Voss, J., & Van Dyke, J. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background
comments. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 89-111.
Walker, S. A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil's advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 172-182.
Wong, E. Y. W. (1995). How should we teach computer ethics? A short study done in hong kong. Computers & Education, 25(4), 179-191.
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.
附錄一 網路著作權知識測驗
1. 法律保障創作和發明，下列那一種行為違反著作權法？
（1） 偷看別人的書信
（2） 模仿人家的簽名
（3） 拷貝電腦遊戲程式再低價賣給同學
（4） 在網路上公佈同學的姓名跟家裡電話
2. 菲菲對於智慧財產權的適用範圍有疑問，請問你知道下列哪些東西是屬於智慧財產權 所保障的範圍嗎？
（1） 作文、繪畫、音樂作曲
（2） 金錢、珠寶
（3） 房地產
（4） 人權和自由權
3. 在網路上隨意複製他人的圖片，會違反什麼法？
（1） 違反刑法
（2） 違反商標法
（3） 違反著作權法
（4） 侵犯隱私權
親愛的小朋友，你好！
請仔細閱讀以下題目，選出你認為最適合的答案。為了節省你的時間，每一題都必頇填答 才能送出喔！
國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所 指導教授：邱瓊慧 教授
研究生：黃曉慧 中華民國九十九年九月
4. 抄襲同學的作文，以自己名義去投稿，是否違法？
他的作法是否正確呢？
16. 小明寫了一篇文章，其中引用了小花所寫另一篇文章的80%，但已註明出處，是否違
22. 小傑非常喜歡小薰，所以寫了一封email希望能夠打動小薰的心，小薰看到之後把email 內容貼到部落格中，請問小薰這樣做正確嗎？
（1） 正確，因為email既然寄給小薰了，小薰尌可以隨意使用
（2） 正確，部落格既然是小薰的，她尌可以在上面發佈任何資訊
（3） 不正確，因為要給別人看只能用轉寄email的方式，不可以貼在部落格上
（4） 不正確，email雖然已經寄給小薰，還是必頇先經過小傑的同意才能公開內容
23. 友慧在夜市發現有人在販賣便宜的盜版光碟，這時候她應該怎麼做？
（1） 假裝沒看到尌好
（2） 自己買幾片盜版光碟回家觀賞
（3） 立刻向警察單位檢舉
（4） 買下來看完之後再賣給同學賺零用錢
附錄二 網路著作權態度量表
17. 因為不知道著作權法的規定而觸犯著作權法時，仍然要接受處罰
18. 既然作者將本身的作品發表在網路上，便表示作者願意與他人分享使用該作品 19. 網路上的文章可以直接抄襲，不用做其他修改
20. 公開放在網路上的資訊（圖片、文章、音樂、軟體）並不表示任何人都可以使 用
21. 知道是盜版軟體，即使有人放在網路上，還是不可以下載使用
22. 網路上的資訊，並不是隨時都可以下載使用，因為有可能會涉及著作權的問題 23. 雖然個人購買的是合法軟體，也不可以將此軟體放在自己的網站中供人下載 24. 在未經原著作人同意下，可以下載網路上的作品作為商業用途
25. 將自己購買的合法軟體複製成光碟，再轉賣給其他人 26. 可以列印網路上的明星照片賣給別人
27. 可以把家裡錄下來的電視節目燒成光碟賣給別人 28. 為了完成學校的功課，可以將網路上資訊直接拷貝使用
27. 可以把家裡錄下來的電視節目燒成光碟賣給別人 28. 為了完成學校的功課，可以將網路上資訊直接拷貝使用