根據研究過程中遭遇的問題及研究結果，本研究針對教學實務及未來研究分 別提出建議。
（一） 教學實務建議
1. 從研究結果發現，學生在論證主題二的論述與回應的品質明顯較低，
推測國小學生對「付費成為音樂網站會員後，下載音樂是否合法」
這個主題情境不太瞭解，或大多沒有相關經驗，故影響其查詢資料 及發表論述。建議在選擇論證主題時，其內容要盡量貼近學生的日 常生活經驗，如此才能避免學生因為沒遇過類似問題，因為誤解或 不瞭解問題而影響到學生發表論述和回應。
2. 從研究結果發現，學生對於著作權的相關問題，有部分仍持有不確 定的認知和態度，建議在進行論證主題活動的過程中即時檢視學生 發表的論述，並在結束一個論證主題後立即給予學生回饋，針對這 個論證主題提出一個完整的論述做為總結，以避免學生接收到同儕 的回應後，卻不知道如何改進自己的論述，及避免學生在論證主題 結束後仍不確定情境中的行為是否正確，如此也許更能突顯「惡魔 代言人」的效果。
3. 學生給予同儕的回應可當作是一種回饋，Nicol 和 Macfarlane-Dick
（2006）認為良好的回饋必須有助於學習者在學習過程中的自我評 估和提供學習者彌補實際表現和預期表現兩者之間差距的機會。從
91
研究結果發現，接受到較多具體回應的學生，其論證能力的發展較 佳，故建議可以針對學生的回應技巧進行補強訓練，以期學生能提 出更為具體、有建設性的回應。
4. Black（2005）提到在進行線上討論時，可能會有討論集中在部分成 員身上的情形，本研究發現學生在論證過程中，確實會針對部分學 生的論述發表回應，如此可能造成部分學生沒有接受到回應，間接 影響惡魔代言人的效果。為避免學生在論證過程中都沒有接受到回 應，故本研究建議，可以更改論證系統顯示論述的方式，將尚未接 受到回應的論述呈現在最顯眼處或最上方，增加其被瀏覽的機會，
或許可以改善此問題。
（二） 未來研究建議
1. 學生的學習風格也可能影響其進行論證活動，例如 Schunk 與 Zimmerman（1994）認為自律的學習者較能察覺自己的學習品質，
並能調整自己的學習行為。故自律程度較高的學生在發表論述、回 應他人、或接受他人回應時的表現，可能與自律程度較低的學生不 同，所以建議未來在進行合作論證相關研究時，可以調查學生的學 習風格，或許會有其他的研究發現。
2. 本研究的論證活動於傳統電腦教室中進行，學生都是同一時間在線 上進行論證活動，但一般線上論證或線上討論大多是採用非同步的 方式，不限制時間地點於網路上進行。本研究建議可以嘗試模擬一 般的線上論證，導入「惡魔代言人」並探討其效果。
92 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). 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.
93 英文部分
Aldler, P. R., & Christopher, J. A. (1998). Internet community priner- overview and business opportunity. from http:// www.digitalplaces.com/
Andrews, D. C. (2002). Audience-specific online community design. Commun. ACM, 45(4), 64-68.
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In Computer-supported collaborative learning (Vol. 1, pp. 205-216). The Netherlands, Boston: Dordrecht.
Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction (Vol. 5 Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1996). Flexible structuring the interaction in a cscl environment. In P. Brna, A. Paiva & J. Self (Eds.), Proceedings of EuroAIED (pp.
401-407), Lisbon: Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian.
Bell, P. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with kie. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). Educational applications of cmcs: Solving case studies through asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(3), 0.
Black, A. (2005). The use of asynchronous discussion: Creating a text of talk.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 5-24.
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2007). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking (8 ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and
94 Development, 50(3), 5-22.
Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of educational research, 64(1), 1.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Cosier, R. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Agreement and thinking alike: Ingredients for poor decisions. The Executive, 4(1), 69-74.
CoŞKun, H ( ) The effects of group size, memory instruction, and session length on the creative performance in electronic brainstorming groups. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(1), 91-95.
Cunningham, D. (1992). Beyond educational psychology: Steps toward an educational semiotic. Educational Psychology Review, 4(2), 165-194.
Derry, S. J., Levin, J. R., Osana, H. P., Jones, M. S., & peterson, M. (2000). Section on teaching, learning, and human development - fostering students' statistical and scientific thinking: Lesson learned from an innovative college course. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 747-775.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment:A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In C. J.
B. K. S. King (Ed.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 51-78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
95
Dufner, D., Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1994, 4-7 Jan. 1994). Distributed group support:
A preliminary analysis of the effects of the use of voting tools and sequential procedures. In Proceedings of System Sciences, 1994. Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 114-123).
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.
Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., et al. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 78-99.
Fernback, J., & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual communities: Abort, retry, failure?
Paper presented at the the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Albuquerque. New Mexico.
Galegher, J., & Kraut, R. R. (1994). Computer-mediated communication for intellectual teamwork: An experiment in group writing. Information Systems Research, 5(2), 110-138.
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.
Ghazali, H. (2003). Examining high-school students' views on computer and information ethics. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
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
96
engaging students. College Teaching, 57(1), 45-50.
Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey, T. M. (2000). Using spss for windows : Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Handley, I. M., & Runnion, B. M. (2011). Evidence that unconscious thinking influences persuasion based on argument quality. Social Cognition, 29(6), 668-682.
Hong, K. S., Brudvik, O. C., & Chee, Y. S. (2006). 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.
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.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1105-1125.
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.
Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of
97 Educational Research, 39(8), 861-871.
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.
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.
Kannan, P. K., Chang, A.-M., & Whinston, A. B. (2000). Electronic communities in e-business: Their role and issues. Information Systems Frontiers, 1(4), 415-426.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence : The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D.Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
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.
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. In Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Washington, DC.
Lin, Y.-M., & Laffey, J. (2006). Exploring the relationship between mediating tools and student perception of interdependence in a cscl environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(4), 385-400.
98
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 Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp.
310-317), Santa Monica, California. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 93-107.
McAlister, S., Revenscroft, 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.
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.
Nemeth, C., Brown, K., & Rogers, J. (2001). Devil's advocate versus authentic dissent:
Stimulating quantity and quality. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 31, 707-720.
Nemeth, C. J., Connell, J. B., Rogers, J. D., & Brown, K. S. (2001). Improving decision making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 48-58.
99
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.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom.
Social Studies, 93(2), 79.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Golanics, J. D. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. J. Comput.
Assisted Learn. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 167-180.
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., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Osborne, J. A. t. l. i. s. T. r. o. c., critical discourse. Science Science, 328(5977), 463-466. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science Science, 328(5977), 463-466.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. . (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In D. N. P. J. Voss, and J. Segal (Ed.), Informal reasoning (pp.
83-105). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press Paperbacks.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books , Inc.
Pilkington, R., & Kuminek, P. (2004). Using role-play activity with synchronous cmc
100
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.
Pilkington, R., & Walker, A. (2003a). Using cmc to develop argumentation skills in chileren with a 'literacy deficit'. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (computer-supported collaborative learning series) (pp.
144-176). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
Pilkington, R., & Walker, S. (2003b). Facilitating debate in networked learning:
Reflecting on online synchronous discussion in higher education. Instructional Science, 31(1-2), 41-63.
Raghavan, S. A. (1990). Birbal a computer-based devil's advocate. In Proceedings of System Sciences, 1990., Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 391-402), Kailua-Kona, HI , USA.
Ravenscroft, A., & Matheson, M. P. (2001, 6-8 August). Carpe diem: Models and methodologies for designing engaging and interactive e-learning discourse. In T.
Okamoto, R. Hartley, Kinshuk & J. P. Klus (Eds.), Proceedings of Second IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT2001) (pp.
74-77), Madison, WI. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA.
Ravits, J. (1997). An isd model for building online communities: Furthering the dialogue. In O. Abel, N. Maushak & K. Wright (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1997 national convention of the association for educational communications and technology (pp. 297-307).
Retails, S., Pain, H., & Haggith, M. (1996). Arguing with the devil: Teaching in controversial domains. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (Vol. 1086, pp. 659-667). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin.
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L.-J., Clark, A.-M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., et
101
al. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29 - 48.
Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier.
Rojas-Drummond, S., & Zapata, M. (2004). Exploratory talk, argumentation and reasoning in mexican primary school children. Language and Education, 18(6), 539-555.
Savery, J., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design: Educational Technology Publications Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 43-102.
Schneider, B., & Cheslock, N. (2003). Measuring results gaining insight on behavior change strategies and evaluation methods from environmental education, museum, health, and social marketing programs. from http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/59360114.html
Schommer-Aikins, M., & Master, E. (2009). Ways of knowing and willingness to argue. The Journal of Psychology, 143(2), 117-132.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seng Chee Tan, A J Turgeon, & Jonassen, D. H. (2001). Develop critical thinking in group problem solving through computer-supported collaborative argumentation:
A case study. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 30, 97-104.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation:
102
Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socialscientific contexts. In S. E. M. P.
Jimenez-Aleixandre (Ed.), Argumentation in science education : Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: The Netherlands: 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.
Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.
Swinyard, William R., Rinne, Heikki, Kau, & Keng., A. (1990). The morality of software piracy: A cross-cultural analysis. Business Ethics, 9(8), 655.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Tobin, S. J., & Weary, G. (2008). The effects of causal uncertainty, causal importance, and initial attitude on attention to causal persuasive arguments. Soc. Cogn. 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.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through
103
computer-mediated communication in academic education. In A. E. K. H. P.
Dillenbourg (Ed.), Proceedings of the First European Conferenceon CSCL, Maastricht. McLuhan Institute, University of Maastricht.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34(3-4), 269-290.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34(3-4), 269-290.