本論文採用質性個案研究法，使用「立意取樣」選取國立大學師資培育中心的課程——「課程發展與設計」。研究將闡述師資培育中心的學生，在經歷過「課程發展與設計」的課室小組討論後，學期初至學期末學習者對於課室小組討論觀點的改變。對應到四個研究問題：一、學習者於「課程發展與設計」開始前，如何看待與形成課室小組討論觀點？二、學習者經歷一學期討論頻率高的「課程發展與設計」後，如何看待課室小組討論？三、學習者參與「課程發展與設計」的小組討論與反思活動後，學習者、授課教師與研究者分別認為研究對象對於課室小組討論的觀點產生何種變化或不變化？四、學習者、授課教師與研究者認為學習者的課室小組討論觀點，產生改變或不改變的原因為何？研究資料包括了全班的個人反思、個人教案設計、小組教案設計、田野觀察、學習者訪談（各一小組一名）、授課教師訪談。
本研究結果顯示，學習者對於討論觀點的改變因素有五點：發言的安全感、學習合作、真實的體驗、高頻率的討論、高頻率的反思。此外，研究者也會說明不如教師預期的學習者，他們分別的學習狀況及不如預期的原因。為了更深入課室小組討論的本質，為新興的討論模式定位，本研究主張：一、討論中有三種常見的類型：共同建構的討論、單方面的討論、無共識的討論。二、影響課室小組討論觀點改變的因素有學習者的個性與學習風格、學習合作、討論的學習觀點。三、討論的實踐策略包含了改變學習習慣、發言安全感、訂定討論的規則、好的討論內容、大量的課堂討論、大量的課後反思。

The researcher adopts a qualitative case study and a purposive sampling to select the curriculum of the National University Center for Teacher Education-“Curriculum Development and Design”. This study is designed to understand that students change their viewpoints of group discussion in the classroom from the start of the semester to the end of the term after experiencing the group discussion of "Curriculum Development and Design". Corresponding to four research questions: (1) Before the beginning of “Curriculum Development and Design”, how do learners perceive and form their viewpoints of group discussion in the classroom? (2) After a semester of “Curriculum Development and Design” with a high frequency of the discussion, how do learners perceive their viewpoints of group discussion in the classroom? (3) After learners participate in the group discussion and reflection activities of "Curriculum Development and Design", what changes do learners, the teacher, and researchers think of learner’s viewpoints of group discussion in the classroom? (4) What reason do learners, the teacher, and researchers believe that the views of learners’ classroom group discussions have changed or not changed? The research data include personal reflections, personal design of lesson plan, group design of lesson plan, field observation, interviews with learners (one for each group), and interviews with teachers.
The results of the study show that learners have five points about the changing factors of viewpoints of group discussion: (1) the safety of speaking, (2) learning cooperation and collaboration, (3) authentic experience, (4) high-frequency discussion, and (5) high-frequency reflection. Furthermore, the researcher also illustrates the learning condition of the learner who are not as good as the teacher's expectations and the reasons why they are not as good as expected.
The research proposes: (1) There are three common types of discussion: co-construction discussion, unilateral discussion, and non-consensus discussion. (2) The factors which influence the changes in the viewpoints of group discussions in the classroom are the learners' personality, learning style, learning collaboration, learning cooperation, and the learning perspectives of discussion. (3) The practical strategies for discussion include changing study habits, the safety of speaking, setting discussion rules, discussion content, a lot of classroom discussions, and lots of after-school reflections.

[1] 王世豪（2019）．深度討論教學法在閱讀理解的教學應用．於王世豪總校閱．深度討論力：高教深耕的國文閱讀思辨素養課程（初版，9-13頁）・五南。
[2] 王金國（2000）．簡介小組討論教學法・教育研究，8，137-147。
[3] 王金國（2004）．多功能的討論教學・靜宜大學地方教育輔導通訊，8，1-8。
[4] 王佳琪、宋世祥(2019)．設計思考融入職前師資培育課程之實施與成效：以適性教學為例．教育科學研究期刊，64（4），145-173。
[5] 王美琇（2008）．小組討論中同儕互動之言談分析（碩士論文）．取自華藝線上圖書館。
[6] 王財印、吳百祿、周新富（2004）．教學原理（初版）．心理。
[7] 石素錦（2003）．國小英文教學師生言談互動模式之探討．高雄師大學報，15，419-446。
[8] 李思源（2018）．生活需要儀式感（初版）．圓神。
[9] 李奉儒（2003）．P.Freire的批判教學論對於教師實踐教育改革的啟示．教育研究集刊，49(3)，1-30。
[10] 沈翠蓮（2001）．教學原理與設計（初版）．五南。
[11] 林佩玄（2013）．台灣高中生在英文文學圈之言談：主題、討論者角色及言談互動（碩士論文）．取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/u35pn4。
[12] 林寶山（1990）．教學論：理論與方法（初版）．五南。
[13] 吳英長（1997）・討論教學法・於黃光雄總校閱，教學理論（初版）・復文圖書。
[14] 徐銀銀（2018）淺談有效課堂小組討論如何落實——以學生的核心素養為導向．現代教育科學，6，99-103。
[15] 陳昭珍（2020）・深度討論教學法概述・於陳昭珍總校閱．深度討論教學法理論與實踐（初版，3-20頁）・元照。
[16] 陳昭珍、黃子純、李純瑀、陳冠蓉、顧蕙倩、陳嘉琪、王世豪（2020）・深度討論教學法理論與實踐（初版）・元照。
[17] 陳埩淑（2002）．教室言談在教學上的涵意與應用．課程與教學，5（4），125-140。
[18] 陳紀錚（2016）．以學生為中心的課堂[討論]．臺灣教育評論月刊，5（6）， 239-244。
[19] 黃永和、李佳潔（2013）．營造討論的學習環境：一個班級的教學實踐經驗．新竹教育大學教育學報，30（2），29-64。
[20] 黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）．合作學習（初版）．五南。
[21] 楊文金（2000）．同儕友伴關係對六年級學生科學問題組對討論的影響分析．科學教育月刊，8（2），123-140。
[22] 蔡敏玲（2002）．教育質性研究歷程的展現：尋找教室團體互動的節奏與變奏（初版）・心理。
[23] 謝賢頴（2019）・課室小組討論的口語參與——以六名大學師資生為例（未出版碩士論文）・國立中央大學，桃園市。
[24] Cazden, C. B. （1998）．教室言談: 教與學的語言（蔡敏玲、彭海燕譯；初版）・心理。（原著出版於1988）
[25] Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N.（2018）．質性研究的五種取徑（李政賢譯）・ 五南。（原著出版於2016）
[26] Gambrell, L. B., & Almasi, J. F.（2004）．鮮活地討論！培養專注的閱讀（谷瑞勉譯；初版）・心理。（原著出版於1996）
[27] Henderson, J. G.（2000）．反思教學：成為一位探究的教育者（李慕華譯；初版）・心理。（原著出版於1992）
[28] Saltet, J., & Giordan, A.（2009）．學習如何學習（林雅芬譯；初版）・商周。（援助出版於2007）
[29] Shor, I., & Freire, P（2008）．解放教育學：轉化教育對話錄（林邦文譯）・巨流。（原著出版於 1987）
[30] Walsh, J.A., & Sattes, B.D.（2020）．課室討論的關鍵：有意義的發言、專注聆聽與深度思考（張碧珠譯）・五南。（原著出版於2015）
[31] Abdullah, M. Y., Bakar, N. R. A., & Mahbob, M. H. (2012). Student's Participation in Classroom: What Motivates them to Speak up? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 516-522.
[32] Aitken, J. E., & Neer, M. R. (1993). College student question‐asking: The relationship of classroom communication apprehension and motivation. Southern Journal of Communication, 59(1), 73-81.
[33] Allington, R. (2001). Teaching children to read: What really matters. Preventing early learning failure, 5-14.
[34] Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders' sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 314-351.
[35] Applebee, A. N. (2003). The language of literature. New York: McDougal.
[36] Armstrong, M., & Boud, D. (1983). Assessing participation in discussion: An exploration of the issues. Studies in Higher Education, 8(1), 33-44.
[37] Astuti, A. P., Aziz, A., Sumarti, S. S., & Bharati, D. A. L. (2019). Preparing 21st Century Teachers: Implementation of 4C Character’s Pre-Service Teacher through Teaching Practice. Paper presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
[38] Ball, D., & Forzani, F. (2011). Teaching skillful teaching. The Effective Educator, 68(4), 40-45.
[39] Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1991). Grouping students for reading instruction. Handbook of reading research, 2, 885-910.
[40] Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 385-414.
[41] Boyd, M., &Galda, L. (2011). Real Talk in elementary classrooms: Effective oral language practice. New York: Guilford.
[42] Bridges, D. (1979). Education democracy and discussion. Windsor, England: NFER.
[43] Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, 393-451.
[44] Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
[45] Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84-92.
[46] Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse'in MC Wittrock (Ed.). In Handbook of Research on Teaching(3rd ed.) (pp. 432-463). New York: London Macmillan.
[47] Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning: ERIC.
[48] Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. Handbook of discourse processes, 165-197.
[49] Cecil, N. L., & Pfeifer, J. (2011). The art of inquiry: Questioning strategies for K-6 classrooms. Portage & Main Press.
[50] Chapin, S. H., O'Connor, C., O'Connor, M. C., & Anderson, N. C. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, Grades K-6: Math Solutions.
[51] Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 378-411.
[52] Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.
[53] Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers.
[54] Dillon, J. (1985). Using questions to foil discussion. Teaching and teacher education, 1(2), 109-121.
[55] Dillon, J. T. (1983). Teaching and the Art of Questioning. Fastback 194: ERIC.
[56] Dillon, J. T. (1984). Research on questioning and discussion. Educational Leadership, 42(3), 50-56.
[57] Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum studies, 20(3), 197-210.
[58] Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed ( 30th Anniversary Edition ) . NY:
Continuum.
[59] Gambrell, L. B., & Almasi, J. F. (1996). Lively discussions! Fostering engaged reading: ERIC.
[60] Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 20-20.
[61] Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling: Psychology Press.
[62] Gershon, M. (2018). How to use questioning in the classroom: The complete guide. Hawker Brownlow.
[63] Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and instruction, 14(2), 197-213.
[64] Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2009). Toward a trialogical approach to learning. In B. Schwarz. T. Dreyfus, & H. Hershkowitz (Eds). Transtormation of knowledge thiough.classroom interaction (pp. 65-80). London, UK: Routledge.
[65] Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught? A quantitative synthesis of “metacognitive” studies. Educational researcher, 17(9), 5-8.
[66] Hayakawa, S. I. & Hayakawa A. R. (1949). Language in thought and action. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
[67] Howard, J. R., & Henney, A. L. (1998). Student participation and instructor gender in the mixed-age college classroom. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(4), 384-405.
[68] Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of educational Research, 49(1), 51-69.
[69] Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research: Interaction Book Company.
[70] Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational technology, 31(9), 28-33.
[71] Kindley, R. (2002). The power of simulation-based e-learning (SIMBEL). The eLearning Developers’ Journal, 17, 1-8.
[72] Kucan, L. (2009). Engaging teachers in investigating their teaching as a linguistic enterprise: The case of comprehension instruction in the context of discussion. Reading Psychology, 30(1), 51-87.
[73] Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational researcher, 28(2), 16-46.
[74] Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[75] Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning. Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, 87-113.
[76] Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values: ERIC.
[77] McKeachie, W. J. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical background. Journal of educational psychology, 82(2), 189.
[78] McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Transforming knowledge into professional development resources: Six teachers implement a model of teaching for understanding text. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 391-408.
[79] McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Boston, MA: MIT press.
[80] Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom: Harvard University Press.
[81] Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377.
[82] Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach: Routledge.
[83] Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2015). Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion. Socializing intelligence through talk and dialogue, 347-362.
[84] Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., Li, M., & Croninger, R. M. (2016). What REALLY works: Optimizing classroom discussions to promote comprehension and critical-analytic thinking. Policy Insights from the behavioral and brain sciences, 3(1), 27-35.
[85] Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of educational psychology, 101(3), 740.
[86] O’Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (2007). When is dialogue ‘dialogic’? Human Development, 50(5), 275-285.
[87] Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulated comprehension. Advances in research on teaching, 1, 35-71.
[88] Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2002). Designing collaborative learning contexts. Theory into practice, 41(1), 26-32.
[89] Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, 11, 47-87.
[90] Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices, 319-334.
[91] Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L.-j., Glina, M., & Anderson, R. C. (2009). Measuring argumentative reasoning: What's behind the numbers? Learning and individual differences, 19(2), 219-224.
[92] Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L. J., Clark, A. M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen‐Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29-48.
[93] Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2016). Creating, crisscrossing, and rising above idea landscapes. In R. H. Huang, A. Kinshuk, & J. K. Price (Eds.), ICT in education in global context: Comparative reports of k-12 schools innovation (pp. 3-17). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
[94] Silver, H., Strong, R. W., & Perini, M. J. (1997). Integrating Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 22-27.
[95] Sipayung, D. H., Sani, R. A., & Bunawan, H. (2018). Collaborative Inquiry For 4C Skills. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual International Seminar on Transformative Education and Educational Leadership (AISTEEL 2018).
[96] Slavin, R. E. (1990). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52-54.
[97] Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 372-391.
[98] Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom: Simon and Schuster.
[99] Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational technology research and development, 45(2), 85-115.
[100] Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
[101] Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2015). Questioning for classroom discussion: Purposeful speaking, engaged listening, deep thinking: ASCD.
[102] Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action: Taylor & Francis.
[103] Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College students' perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570-601.
[104] Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom: Prentice Hall International.
[105] Wilkinson, I. A., Reznitskaya, A., Bourdage, K., Oyler, J., Glina, M., Drewry, R., . . . Nelson, K. (2017). Toward a more dialogic pedagogy: changing teachers’ beliefs and practices through professional development in language arts classrooms. Language and education, 31(1), 65-82.