隨著網路科技的不斷進步，數位學習(e-Learning)已經成為各國資訊教
育及企業員工訓練的重點項目。本研究利用大一計算機概論之課程，將
輔助之教學網站已Wiki 建置而成，並利用Wiki 之優點在網路上實施一
模擬實務社群，在長時間的經營之下，參照實際公司的專案設計流程，
產生一角色連結知識認知的網路實務社群環境，詳細觀察其角色融入之
情形，並由問卷及訪談得知，學生的確可經由角色來達到實務社群當中
由邊際往中央靠攏的效果。
關

This research use Wiki construction, utilize advantage of Wiki
implement one simulation practice community at network already
auxiliary teaching website, under long-time management, design
the procedure according to the special project of the real company,
produce a role and link community''s environment of network
practice with cognitive knowledge, observe the situation that its
role incorporates in detail, learn by questionnaire and interview
student can is it reach practice among the community by margin
result that central authorities draw close to come via role
really.

參考文獻
中文部份：
1. 教育部（民90a），創造力政策白皮書，台北市：教育部。
2. 教育部（民90b），國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要－自然與生活科技學習領
域，台北市：教育部。
3. 朱則剛（民83），建構主義知識論與情境認知對教育科技的意義，視聽教育雙
月刊，35(4)，1-15。
4. 張春興（民85），教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐，台北市：東華書局股
份有限公司。
5. 徐照麗（民89），教學媒體：系統化的設計與運用，台北市：五南圖書出版公
司。
6. 羅豪章（民90）。鷹架理論在電腦輔助教學上之應用。視聽教育雙月刊，42(4)，
20-30。
7. 鐘邦友（民89），以情境學習為觀點的統整課程設計，北縣教育，30，32-37。
8. 邱貴發、鐘邦友（民82），情境學習理論與電腦輔助學習軟體設計，台灣教育，
510，23-29。
9. 邱貴發（民85），情境學習理念與電腦輔助學習－學習社群理念探討，台北市：
師大書苑。
10. 羅清水（民87），認知心理學理論對電腦輔助教學設計發展與成效之影響，教
育資訊，15(1)，1-15。
11. 楊家興（民84），情境教學理論與超媒體學習環境，教學科技與媒體，22，40-48。
12. 黃丞亨（民92），企業運用CoP 發展人力資本之研究----以資訊電子產業4 家
公司為例。
13. 廖肇弘，（2001），「善用知識社群加速企業創新」，管理雜誌，第328 期，
P114-117。
14. 林燦螢，（2001），智慧資本發展模式之研究，國立臺灣師範大學工業教育博士
論文。
81
15. 林信成（2005），Wiki 協作系統在數位典藏內容加值之應用研究，TANet 研討
會論文集
16. 葉連祺（2004），布魯姆認知領域教育目標分領修訂版之探討，教育研究月刊 105
期。
17. 張素真（1993），研發部門績效評估項目之探討─以某國營企業為例，靜宜大學
18. 管理科學研究所碩士論文。
82
英文部份：
1. Allee, V.,（2001）. Knowledge Networks and Communities of Practice. Retrieved
March 10, 2002 from
http://www.odnetwork.org/odponline/vol32n4/knowledgenets.html
2. Anderson, W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Blooms’ educational objectives. New York, NY:
Longman
3. Bransford, J., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn—Brain. Mind,
experience, and school. In Technology to support learning, National Academy Press.
4. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
5. Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1993). Stolen knowledge. Educational Technology, 33(3),
10-15.
6. Brandt, E. & Grunnet, C. Evoking the future: Drama and props in user centered
design. In Proc. Participatory Design Conference, (2000), 11-20.
7. Bryan-Kinns, N. Daisyphone: The Design and Impact of a Novel Environment for
Remote Group Music Improvisation. In Proc. CHI 2004, ACM Press (2004),
135-144.
8. Buchenau, M., Fulton Suri, J. Experience Prototyping. In Proc. DIS 2000, ACM
Press (2000), 424-433.
9. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification
of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman,
Green.
10. Collins, A., Brown, J. S. & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:
Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick(Ed)
Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494).
11. Ford, P.（1999）. Cost versus Knowledge for Different Types of Groups.
12. Hutchins, E. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organization Science, 2:88-115.
13. Johnstone.K. Impro: Improvation and the Theatre. Methuen Publishing, London,
83
1989.
14. Kuutti, K., Iacucci, G., Iacucci, C. Acting to Know: Improving Creativity in the
Design of Mobile Services by Using Performances. In Proc. C&C 2002, ACM Press
(2002),95-102.
15. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Combridge, NY: Combridge University Press.
16. Merode, L.D.（1998）. “Communities of Practice” .Retrieved May 14,2001 from
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/com-prac/files/articles/LdMerode_Communities_of_
Practice.doc
17. Pascale, R. T. 1984. The Honda effect excerpted from perspectives on strategy: The
real story behind Honda’s success. California Management Review, 26:47-72.
18. Roblyer, M. D. & Edwards, J. (2000), learning theories and integration model. In
Integrating educational technology into teaching, Prentice Hall.
19. Sutton, R., Hargadon. Brainstorming Groups in Context: Effectiveness in a Product
Design Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 4 (1996), 685-718.
20. Scott,Susanne G. & Bruce,Reginald A.(1994),"Determinants of innovative behavior:
A path model of individual innovation in the workplace," Academy of Management
Journal , 37:580-
21. Tierney,Pamela;Farmer,Steven M. & Graen,George B.(1999), An examination of
leadership and employee creativity:The relevance of traits and relationship,"
Personnel Psychology, 52:591-620
22. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. 2004. Theatrical improvisation: Lessons for orga65
23. nizations. Organ. Stud., 25(5): 727-749.
24. Weick, K. E. 1998. Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis.
Organization Science, 9: 543-555.
25. Weick, K. E. 1993. Organizational redesign as improvisation. In G. P. Huber and W.
H. Glick (eds.) Organizational Change and Redesign: 346-379. New York: Oxford
University Press.
26. Wenger, E C.（1998）. Communities of Practice ：Learning, Meaning, and Identity.
Cambridge, UK：Cambridge University.
27. Walker, W. A Computer Participant in Musical Improvisation. In Proc. CHI 1997,
84
ACM Press (1997), 123-131.
28. Wikipedia，<http://wikipedia.org/>(2007/05/15)