第一節、結論
本研究之目的為取得在電腦支援合作學習中提升任務導向型學生發話品質 的介入策略及相關知識。藉由德懷術調查取得六項專家教師認為應介入的問題與 26 項介入策略及其相關知識，其中有 22 項介入策略被專家教師們歸為有效（德 懷術調查得分至少 3.50）。為了進一步檢驗介入策略之成效，安排教師使用各項 介入策略實際介入學生的活動。結果發現，「稱讚學生並指定表現較佳的組員回 應」策略（tw-p2s2）與「請學生重述以釐清問題或想法，並請組員回應」策略
（tw-p3s1）能成功提升任務導向型學生與任務有關知識的發話量。
第二節、建議
本研究透過多位專家教師取得的介入策略，可供教學者日後進行電腦支援合 作學習活動中，用以提升任務導向型學生的發話品質。實際採用各項介入策略的 結果發現，「稱讚學生並指定表現較佳的組員回應」策略（tw-p2s2）與「請學 生重述以釐清問題或想法，並請組員回應」策略（tw-p3s1）屬於有效，但其他 策略中，有些在本研究安排的實際介入活動中被採用的次數不夠多而無法完全彰 顯其效益，仍有待未來後續研究。如何將本研究取得之介入策略轉換為電腦可以 理解的文字，則有待未來發展智慧型電腦支援合作學習系統來研究。
參考文獻
Ackerman, M., S. . (1998). Augmenting organizational memory: A field study of answer garden. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 16(3), 203-224.
Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C. J. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system: The quality of computer-mediated interactions. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 31-44.
Borges, M. A. F., & Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2003). Supporting the facilitator in a collaborative learning environment. International Journal of Continuing
Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 13(1/2), 39-56.
Brits, H., & du Plessis, L. (2007). Application of focus group interviews for quality management: An action research project. Systemic Practice and Action
Research, 20(2), 117-126.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and
instruction: Essays in honor of robert glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Card, K. A., & Horton, L. (2000). Providing access to graduate education using computer-mediated communication. International Journal of Instructional
Media., 27(3), 235-246.
Chiu, C. H. (2003). Exploring how primary school students function in computer supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Continuing
Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 13(3/4), 258-267.
Edens, K. M. (2000). Promoting communication, inquiry, and reflection in an early practicum experience via an on-line discussion group. Action in Teacher
Education, 22(2A), 14-23.
Eichinger, D., Anderson, C. W., Palincsar, A. S., & , & David, Y. M. (1991). An
illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norms in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL. .Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437-469.
Hewitt, J., & Teplovs, C. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads, Proceedings of the 1999 conference on Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 29). Palo Alto, California:
International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Horn, D. (1994). Distance education: Is interactivity compromised? Performance and
Instruction, 33(9), 12-15.
Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2005). Instructional interventions to enhance collaboration in powerful learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 689-696.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups : A practical guide for applied
research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Lipponen, L. (2000). Towards knowledge building: From facts to explanations in primary students' computer mediated discourse. Learning Environments
Research, 3(2), 179-199.
Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Hakkarainen, K., & Palonen, T. (2002). Effective participation and discourse through a computer network: Investigating elementary students' computer supported interaction. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 27(4), 355-384.
Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students' computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 487-509.
Moran, C. (1991). We write, but do we read? Computers and Composition, 8(3), 51-61.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (second ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Murphy, E. (2004). Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online
asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421-431.
Or-Bach, R., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (2004). Designing adaptive interventions for online collaborative modeling. Education & Information Technologies, 9(4), 355-375.
Orvis, K. L., Wisher, R. A., Bonk, C. J., & Olson, T. M. (2002). Communication patterns during synchronous web-based military training in problem solving.
Computers in Human Behavior, 18(6), 783-795.
Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 503-534.
Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Science discourse through collaborative concept mapping: New perspectives for the teacher. International Journal of
Science Education, 16(4), 437-455.
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89-99.
Seo, K. K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: Addressing the
Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 21-36.
Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 40-62.
Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups: Theory and
practice (second ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory
into Practice, 41(1), 40-46.
van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of
representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in cscl. Computers in
Human Behavior, 21(4), 575-602.
Wan, D., & Johnson, P., M. (1994). Computer supported collaborative learning using clare: The approach and experimental findings, Proceedings of the 1994 ACM