隨著網際網路及行動科技應用的普及，愈來愈多大學開設資訊倫理課程，透過線上議題討論，可以增加對話機會與提升論述品質。探究社群（Community of Inquiry, CoI）模型是一個適合分析線上討論成果的完整工具，該模型中包括認知呈現（cognitive presence, CP）、教學呈現（teaching presence, TP）與社交呈現（social presence, SP）；最近更有學者試圖把學習面向（learning presence, LP）納入原本的CoI模型中，來加強該模型的完整性。但使用擴大探究社群（extended CoI, ECoI）模型來瞭解與解釋線上討論中之各類型呈現，相關研究目前才剛起步；另外，對於 ECoI模型結構的探索，目前的研究仍付諸闕如。
有鑑於此，本研究採用Bird（2007）的3C線上課程設計模式來設計資訊倫理課程，並將學生分成兩組，分別於每一個課程主題中進行「理論型」與「個案型」線上議題討論，透過教學鷹架引導學生提升論述品質。採用內容分析法分析網路論壇資料，SPSS工具分析ECoI調查問卷與課程回饋問卷的結果，並比較兩組討論策略在ECoI模型中各構面的差異；透過部分最小平方法的結構方程模型（partial least squares - structural equation modeling, PLS - SEM）工具來探索ECoI模型各構面的結構關係與預測程度。
研究結果發現，學生對整體課程表示滿意，以TP表現最佳；兩類型線上討論策略在各類知覺呈現中，均無顯著差異，而線上討論的結果除了CP外，其餘三大類呈現是理論型優於個案型討論，主要差異來自TP的直接教導，SP的凝聚溝通，以及LP的追蹤檢視、策略使用等進階分類。最後，在ECoI模型結構分析中，發現SP對CP不具預測力，但TP仍然扮演關鍵角色，並能透過SP與LP高度預測CP，LP更可以直接預測CP，顯示其重要性值得重視。上述結果可以提供教授相關課程教師進行教學設計與帶領之參考，並建立一個衡量線上討論論述品質的完整方法。

With the popularization of the Internet and mobile technology, more and more universities establish information ethics courses. Through the online discussion forum we can increase dialogic opportunities and improve the quality of discussion. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) model is a suitable tool for analyzing the learning outcomes of online discussions. It includes cognitive presence (CP), teaching presence (TP) and social presence (SP); more recently, scholars have tried to integrate learning presence (LP) with the original CoI models to enhance the integrity of the model. But using the extended community of inquiry (extended CoI, ECoI) model to understand and explain the learning outcomes in an online discussion, related research is just beginning; In addition, the exploration of ECoI model structure, current research is still lacking.
This study used Bird’s (2007) 3C online courses design model to design the information ethics course. We divided students into two types of online discussion strategies (theory type and case type), and used the teaching scaffoldings to guide students to enhance discursive quality. We used content analysis method to count the posts on the online discussion forum, the SPSS tool to analyze the results of ECoI survey and course response questionnaires, and compared the differences of every presence in ECoI model between two kinds of discussion strategies. In addition, partial least squares - structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) were further applied to explore the structural relationships and predictive power in ECoI model.
The study found that students were satisfied with overall curriculum, especially for TP. All perceived presences between the two kinds of discussion strategies had no significant differences. The study revealed that “theory type of online discussion” is higher than “case type” except the CP and their main difference was with direct instruction in TP, cohesive communication in SP, and monitoring and strategy use in LP. In ECoI model structural relationships, SP had no predictive power to CP; TP still played the key role and highly predicted CP through SP and LP; LP can directly predict CP. These results can provide teachers’ references on instruction design and moderator, and establish a complete method to measure the quality of online discussion.

論文審定書…………………………………………………………….... i
致謝………………………………………………………………………ii
中文摘要………………………………………………………………... iii
英文摘要………………………………………………………………... iv
第一章 緒論……………………………………..…….………….……..1
第一節 研究動機……………………………………….……….…… 1
第二節 研究目的……………………………………….……….…… 4
第三節 名詞釋義……………………………………….……….…… 5
第四節 研究限制………………………………………...….….……..7
第二章 文獻探討………………………………………………….….…9
第一節 資訊倫理教學相關研究………………………..…...…..…...9
第二節 對話與線上討論教學之相關研究.…………………..….…15
第三節 CoI模型與教學應用之相關研究………………..…. …… 23
第三章 研究方法..………………………….……..…………….….….31
第一節 研究架構…………………….………..………….….…..… 31
第二節 研究參與者…………………….……..………….….…..… 35
第三節 課程與教學設計……………….………………...…………36
第四節 研究工具與資料收集………….…………….……..…...….40
第五節 資料分析方法……………….…………….………….…….44
第四章 研究結果……………………………….…….……..…..….….51
第一節 整體教學成果……………..………………………….. 51
第二節 兩種討論策略在各類呈現之比較…....……………… 59
第三節 兩種討論策略於各類呈現細部分析之比較……….... 62
第四節 整體ECoI模型結構分析……………………………… 68
第五章 研究討論……………………………….……………….……..73
第一節 整體課程成果之討論…………..………………………73
第二節 不同討論策略設計之討論………………………….... 79
第三節 擴大探究社群模型各類呈現之討論…..…………..… 81
第四節 探究社群模型之教學應用討論…………………… … 88
第六章 結論與建議……………………………………....……….......…. 93
第一節 結論…………………………………….……………… 93
第二節 建議…………………………………….……..…….…. 97
參考文獻……………………….…………………….….........…..….….101

一、中文文獻
方志華（2010）。道德情感與關懷教學。台北市：學富。
任文瑗、陸啟超（2004）。資訊倫理教育與侵權行為議題之探討。資訊與教育雜誌，94，37-50。
呂耀懷（2005）。作為一種規範學科的信息倫理學。信息、網絡倫理研究，1。
李儀訢（2003）。資訊倫理線上學習架構與雛型系統發展之研究。國立屏東科技大學資訊管理所碩士論文，未出版，屏東。
林建宏、周倩（2014）。我國大專院校資訊科系之資訊倫理相關課程開設現況研究。教育科學研究期刊，59(1)，197-228。
林博民（2005）。網路教學環境中互動策略的應用與發展。生活科技月刊，38（7），13-25。
孫效智（2009）。台灣生命教育的挑戰與願景。課程與教學，12（3），1-25。
梁俊蘭（2002）。信息倫理學：新興的交叉科學。國外社會科學，1，46-50。
陳協志、劉建人、柯菁菁（2004）。合作學習於資訊倫理教學之成效評估。高苑學報，10，161-168。
陸成（譯）（2006）。T. Forester & P. Morrison著。計算機倫理學：計算機學中的警示與倫理困境。北京：北京大學。
劉建人、柯菁菁、陳協志（2006）。資訊倫理與社會，2版。台北：普林斯頓國際。
劉建人、張淑美（2010）。生命教育「倫理思考與抉擇」融入技職院校「資訊倫理」課程之教學省思。教育科學研究期刊，55(4)，215-246。
劉建人、楊淑晴（2014）。使用探究社群模型探討Web 2.0科技融入大學協作式課程之研究：比較Wiki融入與線上討論教學。課程與教學季刊，17(2)，167-196。
劉毓芬（2013）。PBL應用於通識課程問題設計研究-以資訊素養與倫理課程為例。通識學刊：理論與實務，2(2)，225-240。
鍾佳雯（2003）。資訊倫理教學對大專學生資訊倫理認知與行為意向之影響—以屏東科技大學四年制新生為例。屏東科技大學資管所碩士論文，未出版，屏東市。
 
二、英文文獻
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233-250.
Akyol, Z., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). The impact of course duration on the development of a community of inquiry. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3), 231-246.
Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249-257.
Annand, D. (2011). Article review – Social presence within the Community of Inquiry framework. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,13(1), 250-253.
Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. Interna¬tional Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5), 38-54. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/924/1855
Arbaugh, B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Richardson, J. C, Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 73−85.
Arbaugh, J. B., Bangert, B., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the community of inquiry（CoI）framework: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 37-44.
Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 9−21.
Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2–3). Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v4n2/v4n2_aviv.asp.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Learning and conversation. Conversational learning: An experiential approach to knowledge creation (pp. 2-11). Westport: Quorum.
Bangert, A. W. (2009). Building a validity argument for the community of inquiry survey instrument. Internet and Higher Education, 12(2), 104-111.
Bebeau, M. J. (1994). Influencing the moral dimensions of dental practice. In J. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral Development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 121-146). NY: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Bebeau, M. J. (2002). The defining issues test and the four component model: Contributions to professional education. Journal of Moral Education, 31(3), 271-295.
Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Intermediate’ concepts and the connection to moral education. Educational Psychology Review, 11(4), 343-360.
Beers, P., Boshuizen, H., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2007). The analysis of negotia¬tion of common ground in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 427- 435.
Beers, P., Boshuizen, H., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 623-643.
Bird, L. (2007). The 3 ‘C’ design model for networked collaborative e-learning: A tool for novice designers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(2), 153-167.
Brooks, R. (2010). The development of a code of ethics: An online classroom approach to making connections between ethical foundations and the challenges presented by information technology. American Journal of Business Education, 3(10), 1-13.
Bynum, T. W., & Rogerson, S. (2004). Computer ethics and professional responsibility. Blackwell.
Capurro, R. (2005). Information ethics. CSI Communications, 28(12), 7-10.
Capurro, R. (2006). Toward an ontological foundation of information ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 8, 175–186.
Carbo, T., & Almagno, S. (2001). Information ethics: The duty, privilege and challenge of educating information professionals. Library Trends, 49(3), 510-518.
Carbo, T., & Smith, M. M. (2008). Global information ethics: Intercultural perspectives on past and future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(7), 1111-1123.
Carbo, T. (2005). Information ethics education: A brief overview of current issues. CSI Communications, 28 (12), 25-26.
Carbo, T. (2008). Ethics education for information professionals. Journal of Library Administration, 47 (3/4), 5-25.
Chang, C. L. (2011). The effect of an information ethics course on the information ethics values of students—A Chinese guanxi culture perspective. Computer in Human Behavior, 27(5), 2028-2038.
Chi, M. T. C. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), VII-XVI.
Clough, G., Jones, A. C., McAndrew, P., & Scanlon, E. (2008). Informal learning with PDAs and smartphones. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 359–371.
Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52, 141-146.
Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darabi, A., Arrastia, M. C., Nelson, D. W., Cornille, T., & Liang, X. (2011). Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 216-227.
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2010). Roles as structuring tool in online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge construction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 516-523.
Dewey, J. (1910/1991). How we think. New York: Prometheus.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Ellis, T. S., & Griffith, D. (2001). The evaluation of IT ethical scenarios using a multidimensional scale. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 32(1), 75–85.
Ess, C. (2006). Ethical pluralism and global information ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 8, 215-226.
Ess, C. (2008). Luciano Floridi’s philosophy of information and information ethics: Critical reflections and the state of the art. Ethics and Information Technology, 10, 89-96.
Ess, C. (2009). Floridi's philosophy of information and information ethics: Current perspectives, future directions. The Information Society, 25(3), 159-168.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.
Fallis, D. (2007). Information ethics for twenty-first century library professionals. Library Hi Tech, 25(1), 23–36.
Floridi, L. (1999). Information ethics: On the philosophical foundation of computer ethics (2nd Ed.). Retrieved from: http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~floridi/ie.htm
Floridi, L. (2008). Information ethics: A reappraisal. Ethics and Information Technology, 10, 189-204.
Forester, T., & Morrison, P. (1994). Computer ethics: Cautionary tales and ethical dilemmas in computing. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT press.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Fowler, C., & Mayes, J. (2000). Learning relationships from theory to design. In D. Squires, G. Conole & G. Jacobs (Eds.), The changing face of learning technology (pp. 39–50). Cardiff : University of Wales Press.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-23.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry. Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 8(2), 61-74.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31- 36.
Garrison, S. D. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
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.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hammond, M. (2005). A review of recent papers on online discussion in teaching and learning in higher education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 9-23.
Hansen, R. S. (1992). A multidimensional scale for measuring business ethics: A purification and refinement. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 523-534.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117–136). The Najaden papers, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51, 1111-1124.
Hongladarom, S. (2008). Floridi and Spinoza on global information ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 10, 175-187.
Ice, P. (2008). The impact of asynchronous audio feedback on teaching, social and cognitive presence. Banff, Alberta: First International Conference of the Canadian Network for Innovation in Education.
Ice, P., Arbaugh, B., Diaz, S., Garrison, D. R., Richardson, J. Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2007). Community of Inquiry Framework: Validation and Instrument Development. The 13th Annual Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning, Orlando, November.
Jackson, S. A., &Baltes, B. (2010). Online graduate students’ understanding of information ethics issues: An exploratory study. The University of the Fraser Valley Research Review, 3(2), 26-38.
Joo, Y. J., Lim, K.Y., & Kim, E. K. (2011). Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1654–1664.
Jung, I. (2009). Ethical judgments and behaviors: Applying a multidimensional ethics scale to measuring ICT ethics of college students. Computers & Education, 53(3), 940-949.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(6), 8-18.
Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers & Education, 55(2), 808-820.
Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rded. New York: The Guilford Press.
Lambropoulos, N., Faulkner, X., & Culwin, F. (2012). Supporting social awareness collaborative e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 295-236.
Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1993). Structured coding for the study of language and social interaction. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp.169-206). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2000). Management information systems: Organization and technology in the networked enterprise. Prentice Hall.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, C. - J., & Yang, S. C. (2012). Applying the practical inquiry model to investigate the quality of students’ online discourse in an information ethics course based on Bloom’s teaching goal and Bird’s 3C model. Computers & Education, 59(2), 466-480.
Liu, C.- J., & Yang, S. C. (2014). Using the community of inquiry model to investigate students' knowledge construction in asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(3), 327-354.
Maner, W. (2002). Heuristic methods for computer ethics. Metaphilosophy, 33(3), 339-365
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
Minocha, S., Schroeder, A., & Schneider, C. (2011). Role of the educator in social software initiatives in further and higher education: A conceptualization and research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 889-903.
Namlu, A. G., & Odabasi, H. F. (2007). Unethical computer using behavior scale: A study of reliability and validity on Turkish university students. Computers & Education, 48, 205-215.
Ocholla, D. (2009). Information ethics education in Africa. Where do we stand？The International Information & Library Review, 41, 79-88.
Piaget, J. (1962). The language and thought of the child (3rd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual development from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1-12.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385-407.
Quinn, M. J. (2006). On teaching computer ethics within a computer science department. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 335-343.
Redmond, P., & Lock, J. V. (2006). A flexible framework for online collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(4), 267–276.
Reidenbach, E. E., & Robin, D. P. (1988). Some initial steps toward improving the measurement of ethical evaluations of marketing activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 871-879.
Rekkedal, T., & Dye, A. (2007). Mobile distance learning with PDAs: Development and testing of pedagogical and system solutions supporting mobile distance learners. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1-21.
Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1/2), 52-59.
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Retrieved from: http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v7n1/index.asp
Rienties, B., Gierbers, B., Tempelaar, D. & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). Resigning teaching presence in order to enhance cognitive presence: A longitudinal analysis. In Z. Akyol & D. R. Garrison (Ed.), Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and practice. (pp. 109-132). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Rubin, B., Fernands, R., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2013). The effects of technology on the community of inquiry and satisfaction with online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 17, 48-57.
Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32(6), 475-502.
Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46(1), 49–70.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543-553.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721-1731.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2012). Learning presence as a moderator in the community of inquiry model. Computer & Education, 59, 316-326.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2013). Understanding distinctions in learning in hybrid, and online environments: an empirical investigation of the community of inquiry framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 355-370.
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Jian, S.-B., Vickers, J., & Tseng, C.-H. (2012, October). “Learning presence” in the community of inquiry: New evidence for an emerging construct. Paper presented at Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort, Florida. Retrived from http://www.sunyresearch.net/hplo/?page_id=224
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Gozza-Cohen, M., Jian, S.-B., Pickeet, A. M., Wilde, J., & Tseng, C.-H. (2013). Online learner self-regulation: Learning presence viewed through quantitative content- and social network analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 427-461.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175−190.
Shea, P., Vickers, J., & Hayes, S. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the Community of Inquiry framework: A re-examination of measures and approach. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 127-153.
Sigala, M. (2007). Integrating Web 2.0 in e-learning environments: A socio-technical approach. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 3(6), 628-648.
Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in online discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 147–164). London: Kogan.
Swan, K., & Ice, P. (2010). The community of inquiry framework ten years later: Introduction to the special issue. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 1-4.
Swan, K., & Shea, P. (2005). Social presence and the development of virtual learning communities. In S. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 239–260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: the Community of Inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.) Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43-57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Swann, J. (2010). A dialogic approach to online facilitation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 50-62.
Torras, M. E., & Mayordomo, R. (2011). Teaching presence and regulation in an electronic portfolio. Computer in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2284-2291.
Tsai, C.-W., Shen, P.-D., & Fan, Y.-T. (2013). Research trends in self-regulated learning research in online learning environments: A review of studies published in selected journals from 2003 to 2012. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 107-110.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. New York: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
Wang, C.-H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M.E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302-323.
Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer.
Wegerif, R. (2013). Dialogic: Education for the Internet age. New York: Routldge.
Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments with cooperation scripts. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication: And how they may be overcome (pp. 15-38). Boston: Kluwer.
Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments with cooperation scripts. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication: And how they may be overcome (pp. 15-38). Boston: Kluwer.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical back-ground, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166–183.