網路數學討論區使用者批判思考表現、參與歷程觀感、動機與程度之相關研究

Abstract

先前研究(如Wu & Lee, 1999)提出學習者能透過電子佈告欄(Bulletin Board System, BBS)的討論運用反省性的思考能力，但卻因為學習者缺乏內在動機與參與熱忱，使得研究結果無法得知學習者真正能展現的思考技巧；除此，現階段有關於電子佈告欄的研究議題，大多將焦點放在非學習層面，包括社交關係或敵意行為，使得多數人對電子佈告欄產生負面的看法。為彌補過去學習者參與動機不足之研究限制，本研究將調查電子佈告欄之數學討論區，自發參與數學討論之使用者的個人背景、參與動機、參與程度、參與歷程觀感，與其批判思考的表現情形，目的在彰顯電子佈告欄適用於討論學習的正面性，以回歸其訊息溝通之功能，並對教師有效應用電子佈告欄數學討論區於教學提供一些建議。 本研究以質量並重的研究方式，由交大應數資訊站立意取樣研究樣本，採自陳網路問卷與內容分析法進行資料收集，有效樣本人數共191人，內容分析兩個月間數學討論區之文章篇數共3264篇。研究結果如下： (一) 不同個人背景之使用者在批判思考技巧、批判思考意向、參與歷程觀感、 參與動機與參與程度之差異情形。 1. 男性在「簡易性」層面之參與歷程觀感、「實際參與程度」、「參與總月數」 顯著高於女性。 2. 使用者之年齡在批判思考技巧、「學校學習」層面之參與動機明顯具有差 異，且在「參與總月數」上，以30歲以上之使用者為最高。 3. 使用者之學科背景在「分析力與系統性」層面之批判思考意向與「追求專 業」層面之參與動機具有顯著差異，且理科背景之使用者在「真實性」層 面之參與歷程觀感與「社會服務」層面之參與動機顯著高於文、商、管理 或醫學背景之使用者。 4. 使用者之教育程度在參與歷程觀感具有顯著差異，且普遍而言，高中職程度之使用者其參與動機、每星期參與時數、實際參與程度，顯著較高於大學程度，而大學程度高於研究所程度之使用者。唯有在參與總月數上，研究所程度高於大學程度之使用者。 5. 非學生身分之使用者在「探究性」層面之參與歷程觀感與「實際參與程度」顯著高於學生。 (二) 使用者各層面之參與歷程觀感、參與動機、每星期參與時數與批判思考意向皆具有顯著相關；但批判思考技巧卻與上述研究變項無顯著相關。再者使用者實際參與程度僅與其每星期參與時數具有顯著相關。 (三) 使用者之參與歷程觀感、參與動機、參與總月數可正面影響其參與數學討論區之批判思考意向。 (四) 數學討論區使用者在參與數學討論區時多使用「推論」與「澄清」層面之 批判思考技巧，而在「奠基」與「判斷」上則較少運用。

Some studies (e.g., Wu & Lee, 1999) indicated that students have opportunities to develop reflective thinking with the support of using the electronic bulletin board system (BBS). However, these studies also showed if students lack intrinsic motivations and participation, they don’t use the best thinking skills in BBS. The main purpose of the study is to survey the active-participating users’ demographic profile, participating perceptions, motivations, involvement levels, and critical thinking to investigate whether BBS helps to facilitate users’ communication and meaningful learning. The research methods used in this study is questionnaire and content analysis. Based on self-selective samples, the researcher collected the quantitative data from 191 respondents. According to “Critical Thinking Analyzing Category” developed by the researcher, 3264 postings in two months on math discussion board were analyzed. The major findings are following. 1. Users’ demographic differences made some significant impacts on their critical thinking, participating perceptions, motivations, and involvement levels. (1) Male users rated significantly higher on “easy use” dimension of participating perceptions, their actual participating involvement level, and total participating months. (2) Users’ age made significant differences in critical thinking skills and “academic learning” dimension of participating motivation. In particular, users above 30 year-old had most participating total months. (3) Users’ academic majors made significant differences in “analyticity and systematization” dimension of critical thinking dispositions and “searching profession” dimension of participating motivation. In particular, science majors were significantly higher in “authentic” dimension of participating perceptions and “social service” dimension of participating motivation than other majors. (4) Users’ education level made significant differences in participating perceptions. In particular, senior and vocational high school students had higher scores in participating motivation, more use hours of every week, actual involvement level than college-level users. Graduate users only had significantly more total participating months than college-level students. 2. Users’ participating perceptions, motivations, use hours of every week, and critical thinking dispositions were significantly correlated; however, users’ critical thinking skills were not significantly correlated to above variables. 3. Users’ participating perceptions, motivations, and total participating months significantly and positively affected users’ critical thinking dispositions. 4. The most uses of critical thinking skills by users were “inference” and “clarification”, and the less were “basis support” and “judgment”.