模擬實務社群之作業支援系統｜國立中央大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	李良一 Liang-Yi Li
論文名稱：	模擬實務社群之作業支援系統 Homework Support Systems in Simulated Community of Practices for Situated Learning
指導教授：	陳國棟 Gwo-Dong Chen
口試委員:
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	資訊電機學院 - 資訊工程學系 Department of Computer Science & Information Engineering
畢業學年度：	97
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	96
中文關鍵詞：	作業、實務社群、情境學習、近側發展區
外文關鍵詞：	Zone of Proximal Development, Situated Learning, Community of Practice, Homework
相關次數：	點閱：10 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

作業是一個很重要的學習活動，學生能在作業的過程中練習老師上課教的技術及知識，老師也能利用作業的成果，來評量學生的學習表現。然而一般的作業活動有以下的問題，首先每位學生得到相同的作業題目，這些題目並沒有考量到學生的差異性，導致有些學生無法由作業中學習，第二，這些作業或工作主要是設計讓學生可獨立完成，而學生也有困難與同學在放學後互動，所以學生在做作業的過程中互助及合作是較少的，第三，學生在完成作業的過程中建構了許多有用的知識，但是這些知識卻沒有有效的被分享。
本研究發展了三個系統來解決這些問題，包括一個作業支援系統，Coursework Journal系統及ProgrammingWiki系統，作業支援系統的設計概念是依據近測發展區，他能分析學生的網路作品集以提供適性化的作業題目及學習支援來幫助學生在他們的近測發展區中學習，當學生做作業是在他們的近測發展區時，他們所用到的知識及技能會在他們完成作業後發展。Coursework Journal系統及ProgrammingWiki系統是依據一個模擬實務社群的方法來建構，這個方法的設計原則是依據情境學習理論中認為的學習是發生在實務社群，學習是一個新手變成老手的軌跡，他不僅模擬實務社群的角色及工作，也模擬參與者由邊際參與到核心參與的過程。在這些被模擬的社群中，學生的角色能依據他們的學習狀態被改變，由角色工作的訓練學生能發展不只是知識也包括社群的技能。兩個線上學習社群依據這個方法被發展，一個稱為Coursework Journal，他模擬了期刊投稿社群，是被建構去促進作業活動的知識分享，另一個稱為ProgrammmingWiki，他模擬了軟體開發社群，是被建構去促進正面的社會互賴。
評量結果顯示學生由這個線上作業支援系統的支援有較多的機會進入他們的近側發展區；在Coursework Journal中主動分享知識的學生及分享的知識漸漸變多；而在ProgrammingWiki學生也認為正面的社會互賴也增加了。這些結果指出這些系統及方法能夠改善作業活動，更進一步，一些存在在此系統及方法的限制被提出，此外由於此模擬實務社群的方法是非常新穎，所以這個方法對學習的影響也被討論。

Students can practice skills and construct knowledge by carrying out homework. However, every student is assigned the same problem in general hands-on homework activities, with no consideration for learners’ diversity. Hence, some students do not take the task seriously when producing their homework. In addition, the kind of activity is structured for individual learning, collaboration between students is less. Furthermore, what one has learned—that is, the knowledge constructed by learners—cannot be shared efficiently during conventional homework activity. This study designed and developed three systems to solve the problems in the homework activity: a homework support system, a Coursework Journal system, and a ProgrammingWiki system. The homework support system was designed based on the concept of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). It can provide adaptive homework exercises and assistance by analyzing Web Portfolios to support learning within students’ ZPD. The Coursework Journal and ProgrammingWiki were designed by a methodology that simulates a real-world Community of Practice (CoP). The principles of the methodology is based on situated learning that learning is a trajectory in which a newcomer moves from Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP) to central participation in a CoP. This methodology not only simulates the role structure and tasks of a CoP but also the participation process. In the simulated communities, students’ roles are changed based on their learning status. Therefore they are given opportunity to develop not only programming knowledge but also community skills by playing different roles. Two online learning communities were constructed based on the methodology. One is called Coursework Journal; it simulated the real world journal publishing community for promoting knowledge sharing in the homework activity. The other is called ProgrammingWiki, it simulated the software development community for promoting positive social interdependence. The results of evaluations show that students with the support of the homework support system in a homework activity have higher likelihood of doing their homework within their ZPD than without the support of the homework support system; the quantity of knowledge sharing and the number of the students who actively share knowledge were increased in the Coursework Journal; and the students also highly agreed that the ProgrammingWiki can promote positive social interdependence. The results indicate that the proposed system can improve homework activity. Furthermore, some limitations existing in the system and methodology are proposed. In addition, the methodology is innovative, thus the effects of the methodology also are discussed.

摘要 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	i
Abstract ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	iii
Table of Content -----------------------------------------------------------------------------	v
List of Figures --------------------------------------------------------------------------------	viii
List of Tables ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------	ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION----------------------------------------------------------	1
1.     Background -----------------------------------------------------------------------	1
2.     Motivation ------------------------------------------------------------------------	5
3.     Goals ------------------------------------------------------------------------------	5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW----------------------------------------------	7
1.     Theoretical Background --------------------------------------------------------	7
1.1.      Situated Learning -------------------------------------------------------	7
1.2.      Zone of Proximal Development --------------------------------------	8
1.3.      Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in Cognitive    Process --------------------------------------------------------------------------------	9
1.4.      Social Interdependence Theory ---------------------------------------	11
2.     Related Work ---------------------------------------------------------------------	12
2.1.      Online Assignment System --------------------------------------------	12
2.2.      Knowledge Sharing on the Web --------------------------------------	13
2.3.      Authentic Learning Environments -----------------------------------	14
2.3.1.  Virtual Environment -------------------------------------------	15
2.3.2.  Problem-Based Learning -------------------------------------	15
2.3.3.  Role-Play Simulation ------------------------------------------	16
2.4.      Community of Practice Approaches ---------------------------------	16
2.4.1.  Make-up a Community of Practice --------------------------	16
2.4.2.  Simulate a Community of Practice --------------------------	17
2.4.3.  Participating into a Community of Practice ----------------	17
CHAPTER 3 DESIGN METHODOLOGIES -------------------------------------------	19
1.     Homework Support System ----------------------------------------------------	21
1.1.      Personalized Assignment Dispatching System ----------------------	26
1.1.1.  Determine Attributes and Measure the Level of the Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------	27
1.1.2.  Decision Model Construction --------------------------------	30
1.2.      E-dictionary System ----------------------------------------------------	31
1.3.      Peer Recommendation System ----------------------------------------	34
2.     Coursework Journal -------------------------------------------------------------	35
2.1.      Learning Activity -------------------------------------------------------	36
2.1.1.  The Schedule of One Journal Issue --------------------------	37
2.1.2.  The Schedule for Forming a CoP ----------------------------	38
2.2.      Learning by Knowledge Sharing -------------------------------------	39
2.3.      Learning from Peripheral to Central Participation -----------------	40
2.4.      Assessing Improvement -----------------------------------------------	43
2.5.      Implementation of Coursework Journal System --------------------	44
3.     ProgrammingWiki ---------------------------------------------------------------	48
3.1.      Learning Activity -------------------------------------------------------	48
3.2.      Learning from Peripheral to Central ----------------------------------	50
3.3.      Promote Positive Social Interdependence ---------------------------	51
3.4.      Implementation of ProgramingWiki ---------------------------------	53
3.4.1.  Personal Information Management --------------------------	54
3.4.2.  Monitor and Manage the Flow of the Learning Activity -	56
3.4.3.  Peer Review and Discussion ---------------------------------	57
3.4.4.  Knowledge Repository ----------------------------------------	59
4.     Limitations ------------------------------------------------------------------------	60
CHAPTER 4 EVALUATION --------------------------------------------------------------	63
1.     Evaluation of the Homework Support System -------------------------------	63
1.1.      Results --------------------------------------------------------------------	64
1.2.      Comments from Interview with the Students -----------------------	67
2.     Evaluation of Coursework Journal --------------------------------------------	69
2.1.      The Quantity of Knowledge Sharing ---------------------------------	69
2.2.      Assessment of Required Abilities in Each Role ---------------------	70
2.3.      The Trend of Role Migration ------------------------------------------	72
2.4.      Correlation between Coursework Journal Scores and Examination Scores -----------------------------------------------------------------	73
2.5.      Comments from the Teachers/TAs and the Students ---------------	74
3.     Evaluation of ProgrammingWiki ----------------------------------------------	76
3.1.      Providing a Context for Developing Different Skills --------------	77
3.2.      Learning from Peripheral to Central Participation -----------------	79
3.3.      Group Interaction -------------------------------------------------------	81
3.4.      Motivation for Participating into the Activity -----------------------	82
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION ---------------------------------------------------------------	85
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION -------------------------------------------------------------	88
REFERENCE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------	91

                                

1. Cosden, M., et al., When Homework is not Home Work: After-School Programs for Homework Assistance. Educational Psychologist, 2001. 36(3): p. 211-221.
2. Cooper, H. and J.C. Valentine, Using research to answer practical questions about homework. Educational Psychologist, 2001. 36(3): p. 143-153.
3. Epstein, J.L. and F.L. Van Voorhis, More than minutes: Teachers'' roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 2001. 36(3): p. 181-193.
4. Vygotsky, L., Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 1978: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Tharp, R.G. and R.G. Gallimore, Rousing minds to life: Teaching,learning, and schooling in social context. 1988, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Corno, L., Looking at Homework Differently. The elementary School Journal, 2000. 100(5): p. 529-548.
7. Glazer, N.T. and S. Williams, Averting the homework crisis. Educational Leadership, 2001. 58(7): p. 43-45.
8. Brown, J.S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid, Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 1989. 18: p. 32-42.
9. Barab, S.A. and T.M. Duffy, From practice fields to communities of practice, in Theoretical foundations of learning environments, D.H. Jonassen and S.M. Land, Editors. 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum associates, 25-55: Mahwah, New Jersey.
10. Hannafin, M.J., et al., Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1997. 45(3): p. 101-117.
11. Birenbaum, M. and F. Dochy, Alternatives in Assessment of Achievements, Learning Processes and Prior Knowledge 1996: Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
12. Herrington, J. and A. Herrington, Authentic Assessment and Multimedia: how university students respond to a model of authentic assessment. Higher Education Research & Development, 1998. 17(3): p. 305-322.
13. Jonassen, D.H., Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking. 2000, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
14. Clark, J., A product review of WebCT. Internet and Higher Education, 2002. 5(1): p. 79-82.
15. Yi, M.Y. and Y. Hwang, Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficiency, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 2003. 59(4): p. 431-449.
16. Hiltz, R.S., The virtual classroom: learning without limits via computer network. 1994, Norwood, NJ: Alex Publishing Corporation.
17. Chang, C.K., G.D. Chen, and K.L. Ou, Student Portfolio Analysis by Data Cube Technology for Decision Support of Web-based Classroom Teacher. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1998. 19(3): p. 307-308.
18. Chen, G.D., et al., Web learning portfolios: a tool for supporting performance awareness. Innovations in Education and Training International 2000. 38(1): p. 19-30.
19. Chen, G.D., et al., Discovering decision knowledge from web log portfolio for managing classroom processes by applying decision tree and data cube technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2000. 23(3): p. 305-332.
20. Vera, A.H. and H.A. Simon, Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 1993. 17: p. 7-48.
21. Fodor, J.A., Language of thought. 1975: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Gardner, H., The mind''s new science. 1985: New York: Basic Books.
23. Lave, J. and E. Wenger, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. 1991: NewYork:Cambridge University Press.
24. Wenger, E., Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity 1998: Cambridge University Press.
25. Wenger, E., R. McDermott, and W.M. Snyder, Cultivating Communities of Practice 2002: Harvard Business School Press.
26. Bloom, B.S., Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. 1956, New York: Longmans.
27. Anderson, L.W. and D.R. Krathwohl, A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Blooms’ educational objectives. 2001, New York: Longman.
28. Johnson, D.W. and R.T. Johnson, Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. 1999: Allyn and Bacon.
29. Johnson, D.W. and R.T. Johnson, Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. 1989: Interaction Book Company.
30. Johnson, D.W., Social Interdependence: Interrelationships Among Theory, Research, and Practice. American Psychologist, 2003. 58(11): p. 934-945.
31. Johnson, D.W. and F.P. Johnson, Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. 8th ed. 2002, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
32. Collis, B., W. De Boer, and K. Slotman, Feedback for web-based assignments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2001. 17(3): p. 306-313.
33. Dawson-Howe, K.M., Automatic submission and administration of programming assignments. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 1996. 28(2): p. 40-42.
34. Lee, F.L. and R.M. Heyworth, Electronic Homework. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2000. 22(2): p. 171-186.
35. Saikkonen, R., L. Malmi, and A. Korhonen, Fully Automatic Assessment of Programming Exercises. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 2001. 33(3): p. 133-136.
36. Ronen, M. and M. Eliahu, Simulation as a home learning environment- students'' views. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1999. 15(4): p. 258-268.
37. Murray, T. and I. Arroyo. Toward Measuring and Maintaining the Zone of Proximal Development in Adaptive Instructional Systems. in 6th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2002). 2002. Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer, 524-533.
38. Syang, A. and N.B. Dale, Computerized adaptive testing in computer science: assessing student programming abilities. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 1993. 25(1): p. 53-56.
39. Lilley, M., T. Barker, and C. Britton, The development and evaluation of a software prototype for computer-adaptive testing. Computers & Education, 2004. 43(1-2): p. 109-123.
40. Lord, F.M., Applications of Item Response Theory to practical testing problems. 1980, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41. Rogers, H.J., H. Swaminathan, and R.K. Hambleton, Fundamentals of item response theory. 1991, Newbury Park: Sage.
42. Reigeluth, C.M., Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. 1999, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. Pea, R.D., Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. 1993, Cambridge, MA Cambridge University Press.
44. Pena-Shaffa, J.B. and C. Nicholls, Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 2004. 42(3): p. 243-265.
45. Rossman, M.H., Successful Online Teaching Using An Asynchronous Learner Discussion Forum. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1999. 3(2): p. 91-97.
46. Preece, J., B. Nonnecke, and D. Andrews, The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 2004. 20(2): p. 201-223.
47. Scardamalia, M. and C. Bereiter, Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1994. 3(3): p. 265-283.
48. Barab, S.A., M. Barnett, and K. Squire, Developing an empirical account of a community of practice: Characterizing the essential tensions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2002. 11(4): p. 489-542.
49. Lin, S.S.J., E.Z.F. Liu, and S.M. Yuan, Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2001. 17(4): p. 420-432.
50. Silva, E. and A. Moreira, WebCoM: a tool to use peer review to improve student interaction. Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 2003. 31(3): p. 1-14.
51. Smith, H., A. Cooper, and L. Lancaster, Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Peer Assessment: A Case for Student and Staff Development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 2002. 39(1): p. 71-81.
52. Tsai, C.C., S.S.J. Lin, and S.M. Yuan, Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system. Computers & Education, 2002. 38(1-3): p. 241-252.
53. Sung, Y.T., et al., The design and application of a web-based self- and peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 2005. 45(2): p. 187-202.
54. Barab, S.A., K.D. Squire, and W. Dueber, A Co-Evolutionary Model for Supporting the Emergence of Authenticity. Educational Technology Research & Development, 2000. 48(2): p. 37-62.
55. Dünser, A., et al. Virtual and Augmented Reality as Spatial Ability Training Tools. in 7th ACM SIGCHI New Zealand chapter''s international conference on Computer-human interaction. 2006. July 06 - 07, 2006, Christchurch, New Zealand.
56. Arts, J.A.R., W.H. Gijselaers, and M.S.R. Segers, Enhancing problem-solving expertise by means of an authentic, collaborative, computer supported and problem-based course. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2006. 21(1): p. 71-90.
57. Westera, W., et al., Computer-supported training of psycho-diagnostic skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 2003. 11(3): p. 215-231.
58. Vanderbilt, C.a.T.G.a., Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 1990. 19(6): p. 2-10.
59. Suzuki, T., T. Yasuda, and S. Yokoi, Construction of virtual town and driving simulation in it using graphics workstation. Journal of the Institute of Television Engineers of Japan, 1994. 48(10): p. 1318-1325.
60. Katz, W. ROADNET - distributed interactive simulation applied to driver training, city planning and transportation research. in Twenty-Sixth Annual Summer Computer Simulation Conference. 1994. San Diego, California, USA.
61. Bricken, M., Virtual Reality Learning Environments: Potentials and Challenges. Computer Graphics 1991. 25(3): p. 178-184.
62. Zualkernan, I.A., A framework and a methodology for developing authentic constructivist e-learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 2006. 9(2): p. 198-212.
63. Shearer, R. and R. Davidhizar, Using role play to develop cultural competence. Journal of Nursing Education, 2003. 42(6): p. 273-276.
64. Carr, T., et al., From peripheral to full participation in a blended trade bargaining simulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2004. 35(2): p. 197-211.
65. Guldberg, K. and R. Pilkington, A community of practice approach to the development of non-traditional learners through networked learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2006. 22(3): p. 159-171.
66. Herrington, T. and J. Herrington, Authentic learning environments in higher education. 2005, Hershey, PA: Information Science
67. Astrachan, O. and D. Reed, AAA and CS 1: The Applied Apprenticeship Approach to CS 1, in Proceedings of the twenty-sixth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, C. Laxer, et al., Editors. 1995, ACM Press, 1-5: New York.
68. Schworm, S. and A. Renkl, Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers & Education, 2006. 46(4): p. 426-445.
69. Jonassen, D.H., K. Beissner, and M. Yacci, Structural knowledge: techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. 1993, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
70. Novak, J.D. and D.B. Gowin, Learning How to Learn. 1984, New York: Cambridge University Press
71. Novak, J.D., Clarify with concept maps. Science Teacher, 1991. 58(7): p. 44-49.
72. Hoeft, R.M., et al., TPL-KATS-concept map: a computerized knowledge assessment tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 2003. 19(6): p. 653-657.
73. Turns, J., C.J. Atman, and R. Adams, Concept Maps for Engineering Education: A Cognitively Motivated Tool Supporting Varied Assessment Functions. IEEE Transactions on Education, 2000. 43(2): p. 164-173.
74. Chiu, C.H., Evaluating system-based strategies for managing conflict in collaborative concept mapping. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2004. 20(2): p. 124-132.
75. Hugheds, G. and D. Hay, Use of concept mapping to integrate the different perspectives of designers and other stakeholders in the development of e-learning materials. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2001. 32(5): p. 557-569.
76. Chang, K.E., Y.T. Sung, and C.L. Lee, Web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2003. 19(1): p. 56-69.
77. Chang, C.K., An architectural system for retrieving messages to respond dangling questions in learning forum. Computers & Education, 2002. 39(1): p. 51-64.
78. Lee, Y.J., Concept mapping your Web searches: a design rationale and Web-enabled application. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2004. 20(2): p. 103-113.
79. Triantafillou, E., et al., The value of adaptivity based on cognitive style: an empirical study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2004. 35(1): p. 95-106.
80. Kuo, R., et al., Analyzing Problem''s Difficulty based on Neural Networks and Knowledge Map. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 2004. 7(2): p. 42-50.
81. Quinlan, J.R. Boosting, Bagging, and C4.5. in Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1996. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 725-730.
82. Mitchell, T.M., Machine Learning. 1997, New York: McGraw-Hill.
83. Beck, J., M. Stern, and B.P. Woolf, Using the Student Model to Control Problem Difficulty, in User Modeling: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, UM97, A. Jameson, C. Paris, and C. Tasso, Editors. 1997, Springer Wien New York, 277-288: Vienna, New York.
84. Rovinelli, R.J. and R.K. Hambleton, On the use of content specialists in the assessment of of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal of Educational Research, 1977. 2: p. 49-60.
85. Han, J. and M. Kamber, Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. 2000, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
86. Jakovljevic, M. Concept Mapping and Appropriate Instructional Strategies in Promoting Programming Skills of Holistic Learners. in 2003 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on Enablement through technology 2003. Republic of South Africa: South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, 308-315.
87. Murphy, L., et al. A multi-institutional investigation of computer science seniors'' knowledge of programming concepts. in the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, February 23 - 27, 2005. 2005. Louis, Missouri, USA: ACM Press.
88. Hill, J.R. and M.J. Hannafin, Teaching and Learning in Digital Environments: The Resurgence of Resource-Based Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2001. 49(3): p. 1042-1629.
89. Marchionini, G., Information seeking in electronic environments. 1995, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
90. Chang, C.K., G.D. Chen, and L.Y. Li, Constructing a community of practice to improve coursework activity. Computers & Education, 2008. 50(1): p. 235-247.
91. Mazzolini, M. and S. Maddison, Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 2003. 40(3): p. 237-253.
92. Ackerman, M.S. and D.W. McDonald, Answer Garden 2: merging organizational memory with collaborative help, in Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, M.S. Ackerman, Editor. 1996, ACM Press, 97-105: New York.
93. Greer, J., et al., The intelligent helpdesk: Supporting peer-help in a university course, in Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS''98), B.P. Goettl, et al., Editors. 1998, Springer , 494-503: Berlin / Heidelberg.
94. Vivacqua, A. and H. Lieberman. Agents to Assist in Finding Help. in the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI 2000). 2000. April 01 - 06, 2000,The Hague, The Netherlands: ACM Press.
95. Pea, R.D., Seeing What We Build Together: Distributed Multimedia Learning Environments for Transformative Communications. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1994. 13(3): p. 285-299.
96. Crook, C., Computers and the Collaborative Experience of Learning. 1994: London: Routledge.
97. Sawyer, S., Software development teams, in Communications of the ACM. 2004. p. 95-99.
98. Gustafson, D.A., Schaum''s outline of theory and problems of software engineering 2002, New York: McGraw-Hill.
99. Guzdial, M., J. Rick, and C. Kehoe, Beyond adoption to invention: Teacher-created collaborative activities in higher education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2001. 10(3): p. 265-279.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文