本研究主要是探討在CMC的情境下，運用鷹架輔助進行線上即時互動，透過言談分析工具了解師生與同儕間的互動情形。經由文獻分析法與言談分析法達成下列研究目的：（1）分析整合目前有關研究提出的言談分析架構；（2）建立線上即時互動言談分析架構；（3）透過文本範例分析結果，瞭解鷹架策略、互動歷程的改變。
主要分析的文本範例是由一位專家教師與十二位職前教師，透過文本為主的線上即時聊天室，探討「主題統整教學計畫」的設計方法，進行為期七週的即時互動課程。經由文本範例的分析，以驗證本研究建立之分析架構的可用性，並做為分析架構的修正依據。
根據本研究的發現，得到以下結論：
1. 目前研究之分析架構整體歸納分為五個向度，分別為言談行為、認知、互動討論、互動型態、鷹架等向度。
2. 進行言談分析時，依據分析架構中不同向度的探討目的，使用不同的分析單位。
3. 線上言談鷹架策略的使用目的，包含「促進思考或深入探討」、「促進腦力激盪」、「給予鼓勵與支持」、「歸納總結討論內容」、「提供解釋說明」、「掌握與確認討論主軸」、「促進討論」等七種目的。
4. 透過分析架構向度間的交錯分析，得以對互動歷程有全面性的瞭解
本研究提供研究者建立即時互動言談分析工具的方法，以及實務教學者使用線上言談鷹架策略的參考，期有助於未來網路課程更深入的探討。

The present study applies the theory of scaffolding for synchronous communication and uses the discourse analysis framework to elaborate teacher-student and peers interaction in the computer-mediated communication (CMC) environment. Through the qualitative method of “documentary analysis” and “discourse analysis,” this study attempts to achieve the following research purpose: (1) Analyzing and summarizing the present discourse analysis framework research; (2) Creating a framework for analyzing synchronous communication; and (3) Interpreting the strategies of verbal scaffolding and the progress of interaction through text analysis.
The text sample in the present study is analyzed based on the discourse between a teacher and twelve pre-service teacher in a synchronous chatting environment, where they discussed the way to design “Instructional planning” for a seven-week web-based course. The purpose of analyzing the texts is to validate the usability of the framework, and to provide the basis for further amendment.
The major research results are summarized as follows:
1. The present discourse analysis research is divided into five dimensions, including “speech act,” “cognitive,” “discussion,” “interaction types,” and “scaffolding.”
2. Different unit of analysis could be used in accordance with different purposes of dimensions.
3. Seven purposes of using the strategies of verbal scaffolding are addressed, including “prompt thinking and discuss,” “invites interaction of ideas,” “encourage and support,” “summarize the statements,” “provide the explanation,” “focus discussion,” and “prompt discussion”.
4. The use of multi-dimension analysis facilitates comprehension of the entire interaction process.
This research provides the way of establishing a discourse framework of synchronous communication for relevant researchers, and offers the strategies of verbal scaffolding for teachers involved in web-based courses. We hope that the results would be helpful for those who intend to improve interactions in the web-based course.

一、中文部分
王石番（民80）。傳播內容分析法：理論與實證。台北：幼獅。
Robert K. Logan（民90）。第六種語言：網路時代的新傳播語彙。（林圭譯）。台北市：藍鯨出版。(原著出版年：2000年)
高台茜（民92）。網頁小組討論之小老師鷹架輔助對小組互動品質的促進效果研究。第十一屆國際電腦輔助教學研討會 (ICCAI2003) 暨第十六屆中華民國電腦輔助教學研討會論文集。台北市：國立台灣師範大學。
陳貞伶（民91）。國小補校教師言談鷹架類型之研究--以國語科教學為例。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陳埩淑（民89）。課程與教學的關係在教室層面上的探究。教育研究，8，125-135。
許淑玫、游自達（民89）。交互教學歷程中學生發問類型及教師鷹架探討。課程與教學季刊，3（4），1-30。
黃惠仙（民91）。網路學習者互動歷程之研究－以文本溝通為例。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
劉子鍵（民92）。網路課程對職前教師教學計劃設計之實作表現的影響。第七屆全球華人學習科技研討會暨第十一屆國際電腦輔助教學研討會。中國大陸：南京大學。（NSC 91-2520-S-008-009）
劉子鍵和黃毓翎（民92）。以言談分析方法解析電腦中介溝通之師生即時互動。第七屆全球華人學習科技研討會暨第十一屆國際電腦輔助教學研討會。中國大陸：南京大學。（NSC 91-2520-S-008-009）
二、英文部分
Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral
performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167.
Curran V, Kirby F, Parsons E, Lockyer J.(2003). Discourse Analysis of
Computer-Mediated Conferencing in World Wide Web-Based Continuing Medical Education. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 23(4), 229-238.
Darhower, M.(2002). Instructional Features of Synchronous Computer-Mediated
Communication in the Intermediate L2 Class: A Sociocultural Case Study. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 249-77.
Dysthe, Olga (2002).The learning potential of a web-mediated discussion in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 339-352
Fahy, P. J. (2001a). Addressing some common problems in transcript analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(2). (Available: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v1.2/research.html#Fahy.)
Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001b). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference transcript. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,2(1). (Available: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v2.1/fahy.html.)
Fahy, P. J. (2002). Use of Linguistic Qualifiers and Intensifiers in a Computer Conference. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 5 -22.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer W. (2000) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education , 11(2), 1-14.
Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the development of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 95-116). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A. & Anderson, T. (1997) Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 395-429.
Hara, N .（2002）.Analysis of computer-mediated communication: using formal concept analysis as a visualizing methodology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26, 25-49.
Hara, N., Bonk, C.J.,＆ Angeli, C.（2000）.Content analysis of an one-line discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.
Hatano, G.＆Inagaki, K.（1991）.Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, ＆S. D. Teasley（Eds.）,Perspectives on socially shared cognition（pp.331-349）.Washington, DC：American Psychology Association.
Henri, F. (1991). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najadeen papers (pp. 117-136). London: Springer-Verlag.
Henri, F. (1995). Distance learning and computer mediated communication:
Interactive, quasi-interactive or monologue? In C. O''Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning , 128, 145-165.
Herring, Susan C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. Hamilton (Eds). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis（pp.612-634）.Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,.
Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding scientific competencies within
classroom communities of inquiry. In K. Hogan & M. Pressly (Eds.), Scaffolding
students learning: Instructional approaches & Issues (pp. 74-107). Cambridge,MA: Brooklins Books.
Howell-Richardson, C.＆Mellar, H.(1996). A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer-mediated communication course. Instructional Science, 24 , 47-69.
Jensen, A. D. & Chilberg, J. C.（1991）. Small group communication. Theory and application. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Karen, K.（2001）.Following the thread in computer conferences. Computer＆Education, 37, 81-99.
Koivusaari, R. (2002). Horizontal and Vertical Interaction in Children''s Computer-mediated Communications. Educational Psychology, 22(2), 235-247.
Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P. & Ootes, A. A. W. (2003). Using sentence openers
to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers & Education, 41, 291-308.
Ligorio, M.B., Talamo, A., & Simons, P.R.J. (2002). Synchronic tutoring of
virtual community. Mentoring & Tutoring, 10, 137-152.
Mann, C. & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McIsaac, M. S., Blocher, J. M., Mahes, V., & Vrasidas, C. (1999). Student and teacher perceptions of interaction in online computer-mediated communication. Educational Media International, 36(2), 121-131.
Mercer, N and Fisher, E. (1997). The Importance of Talk .In Wegerif, R.＆Mercer, N. (Eds.),Computers and talk in the primary classroom. （pp.13-21）Clevedon : Multilingual Matters.
Mitchell J. Nathan＆Eric J. Knuth（2003）. A Study of Whole Classroom Mathematical Discourse and Teacher Change. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 175-207.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W. & Gay, G. (2001). An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computer-mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 41-68.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001) Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Education 12.1-18
Schwandt, T. A.（1997）.Qualitative inquiry：A dictionary of terms. Thousand
Oaks, CA：Sage.
Smith, B.（2003）Computer–Mediated Negotiated Interaction: An Expanded Model. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), p38-57.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through Synchronous Electronic Discussion. Computers & Education, 34(2-3),1-22.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G.(1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Zhu, E. (1996). Learning and Mentoring: Electronic Discussion in a Distance-learning Course. In K. S. K. C.J. Bonk (Ed.), Electronic Collaborators: Learner-centered Techniques for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.