本研究旨在發展一支援惡魔代言人策略的線上社群合作論證系統。本研究經由線上合作論證、論證系統及惡魔代言人策略的研究中，探討並歸納出線上社群合作應有的形式以及惡魔代言人應有的行為後，規劃、建置一合作論證系統。本研究透過軟體測試、有經驗者測試、及使用者測試，以評估本系統的軟體品質、內容效度、與優使性。評估結果指出，本系統能夠有效的支援具大規模論述量的合作論證以及支援惡魔代言人策略，學生願意使用本系統進行合作論證活動；本研究同時針對評估結果詳細的加以討論，提出未來系統改善與相關研究的建議。

A web-based learning system supporting the “devil’s advocate” strategy toward online communities has been developed to facilitate collaborative argumentation activities. In this study, the pedagogical basis underlying the design and the various functions embedded in the system are explained in the light of argument theory. The software alpha test in terms of the white-box test and black-box test has been executed to establish the quality of programming and logical correctness. The software beta test has been conducted to analyze to what extent the system meets the users’ demand. Participants of this beta test are external consultants who are experienced with argumentation and computer education and external students who belong to the target user of this software. A preliminary study involving 100 sixth-grade students to evaluate the usability and the instructional potential of the system has been conducted. Results taken from questionnaires revealed that students are favorable to the system’s interface design and potentials in promoting their argumentative capability in the applied content domain. Data analysis further indicated that students feel the system has fluent navigation but appeal relative low affect to learn. Guidelines pertaining to instructional implementation are offered.

中文部分
李允中（2009）。軟體工程。臺北市，臺灣：McGraw-Hill。
飛思科技研發中心（2005）。軟體測試理論與實作。新北市，臺灣：博碩文化股份有限公司。

英文部分
Abi-El-Mona, I., & Hug, B. (2006). Showing evidence: Analysis of students' arguments in a range of settings. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences. Bloomington, Indiana.
Andrews, R. (2005). Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text, 25(1), 107-127.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Paper presented at the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Boston, MA.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797- 817.
Bertucci, A., Conte, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2010). The impact of size of cooperative group on achievement, social support, and self-esteem. Journal of General Psychology, 137(3), 256-272.
Branon, R. F., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education: A survey of instructors. TechTrends, 45(1), 36-42.
Campos, M. N. (2007). Communication as argumentation: The use of scaffolding tools by a networked nursing community. Canadian Journal of Communication, 32(3), 457-474.
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.
Chin, C., & Teou, L. Y. (2008). Using concept cartoons in formative assessment: Scaffolding students' argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1307-1332.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
Clark, D. S., V., Stegmann, K., Marttunen, M., Kollar, I., Janssen, J., Erkens, G., et al. (2010). Online learning environments, scientific argumentation, and 21st century skills. In B. Ertl (Ed.), E-collaborative knowledge construction: Learning from computer-supported and virtual environments (pp. 1-39). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
CoŞKun, H. (2011). The effects of group size, memory instruction, and session length on the creative performance in electronic brainstorming groups. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(1), 91-95.
Dejonckheere, P. J. N., Van De Keere, K., & Mestdagh, N. (2009). Training the scientific thinking circle in pre- and primary school children. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(1), 1-16.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O'Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189-211). Oxford: Elsevier.
Dimitracopoulou, A. (2005). Designing collaborative learning systems: Current trends & future research agenda. In T. W. Chan (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005, the next 10 years! (pp. 115-124), Taipei, Taiwan. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Driscoll, M. (1999). Web-based training in the workplace. Adult Learning, 10, 21-25.
Easterday, M. W., Kanarek, J. S., & Harrell, M. (2009). Design requirements of argument mapping software for teaching deliberation. In T. Davies & S. P. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice (pp. 317-323). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory : A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.
Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: A theory of argument structure. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Gerber, S., Scott, L., Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2005). Instructor influence on reasoned argument in discussion boards. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 25-39.
Gillies, R. M., & Khan, A. (2009). Promoting reasoned argumentation, problem-solving and learning during small-group work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 7-27.
Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 167-180.
Gordon, T. F. (2007). Visualizing carneades argument graphs. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1-4), 109-117.
Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2007). The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-11), 875-896.
Gose, M. (2009). When socratic dialogue is flagging: Questions and strategies for engaging students. College Teaching, 57(1), 45-50.
Griffin, R. W., & Moorhead, G. (2010). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations. Boston, MA: South-Western College Pub.
Gürkan, A., Iandoli, L., Klein, M., & Zollo, G. (2010). Mediating debate through on-line large-scale argumentation: Evidence from the field. Information Sciences, 180(19), 3686-3702.
Ho, C. M. L., & Chee, Y. S. (2011). Unpacking students' "voices of reason": The case of web-based scaffolding for teaching argumentation. In C. M. L. Ho, K. T. Anderson & A. P. Leong (Eds.), Transforming literacies and language: Multimodality and literacy in the new media age (pp. 122-145). New York, NY: Continuum.
Huang, C. J., Chen, H. X., & Chen, C. H. (2009). Developing argumentation processing agents for computer-supported collaborative learning. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2, Part 2), 2615-2624.
Jamaludin, A., Caroline, H. M. L., & San, C. Y. (2007). The impact of structured argumentation and enactive role play on students' argumentative writing skills. In R. J. Atkinson, C. McBeath, S. K. A. Soong & C. Cheers (Eds.), Proceedings of ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 430-439), Singapore. Centre for Educational Development, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Jamaludin, A., Chee, Y. S., & Ho, C. M. L. (2009). Fostering argumentative knowledge construction through enactive role play in second life. Computers & Education, 53(2), 317-329.
Jeong, A., & Frazier, S. (2008). How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in asynchronous discussions and computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 875-887.
Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427-445.
Jeong, A., & Lee, J. (2008). The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 651-665.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47-62.
Joiner, R., Jones, S., & Doherty, J. (2008). Two studies examining argumentation in asynchronous computer mediated communication. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 243-255.
Jonassen, D., & Jr, H. R. (2005). Mapping alternative discourse structures onto computer conferences. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 1(1), 113-129.
Karacapilidis, N., Tzagarakis, M., Karousos, N., Gkotsis, G., Kallistros, V., Christodoulou, S., et al. (2009). Tackling cognitively-complex collaboration with cope_it! International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 4(3), 22-38.
Kirakowski, J. (2002). Is ergonomics empirical? Ergonomics, 45(14), 995-997.
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning & Instruction, 17(6), 708-721.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23(4), 435-451.
Leinonen, T., Kligyte, G., Toikkanen, T., Pietarila, J., & Dean, P. (2003). Learning with collaborative software: A guide to fle3. Helsinki: Media Lab, University of Art and Design Helsinki.
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332–360.
Limon, M. S., Turner, M. M., & Zompetti, J. P. (2008). Informal arguing: The likelihood of providing arguments, rebuttals, refutations, and evidence in an argumentative interaction. Argumentation and advocacy : the journal of the American Forensic Association., 45(1), 37-48.
Lin, S. S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017.
Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., & McLaren, B. M. (2011). Developing collaborative argumentation systems: What advice do the experts have? In C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL-2011).
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449-521.
Loui, R. P. (2005). A citation-based reflection on toulmin and argument. Argumentation, 19(3), 259-266.
MacDougall, C., & Baum, F. (1997). The devil's advocate: A strategy to avoid groupthink and stimulate discussion in focus groups. Qualitative health research., 7(4), 532.
Maloney, J. (2007). Children's roles and use of evidence in science: An analysis of decision-making in small groups. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 371-401.
McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning: Special Issue: Developing dialogue for learning, 20(3), 194-204.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377.
Moskaliuk, J., Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., & Hesse, F. W. (2011). Knowledge building in user-generated online virtual realities. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 3(1), 38-46.
Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. (2007). Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1072-1088.
Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kirschner, P., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on interactive argumentation. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th iternational conference on Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 532-541), New Brunswick, NJ. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17-39.
Nemeth, C., Brown, K., & Rogers, J. (2001). Devil's advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6), 707-720.
Nihalani, P. K., Wilson, H. E., Thomas, G., & Robinson, D. H. (2010). What determines high- and low-performing groups? The superstar effect. Journal Of Advanced Academics, 21(3), 500-529.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(3), 286-313.
Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., & Reynolds, R. E. B., Lisa D. (2004). Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research 30(1-2), 113-137.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science Science, 328(5977), 463-466.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Pilkington, R., & Kuminek, P. (2004). Using role-play activity with synchronous CMC to encourage critical reflection on peer debate. In M. Monteith (Ed.), Ict for curriculum enhancement (pp. 69-84). Bristol: Intellect.
Raghavan, S. A. (1990). Birbal a computer-based devil's advocate. Paper presented at the Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, USA.
Ravenscroft, A., McAlister, S., & Sagar, M. (in press). Digital dialogue games and interloc: A deep learning design for collaborative argumentation on the web. In N. Pinkwart & B. McLaren (Eds.), Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills: Bentham Science E-Books.
Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2004). Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 14, 961-980.
Retails, S., Pain, H., & Haggith, M. (1996). Arguing with the devil: Teaching in controversial domains. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier & A. Lesgold (Eds.), (Vol. 1086, pp. 659-667). Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer.
Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Royce, W. W. (1987). Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques. In Proceedings of ICSE '87: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering (pp. 328-338), Monterey, California, United States. IEEE Computer Society Press.
Salminen, T., Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2010). Visualising knowledge from chat debates in argument diagrams. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 379-391.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2008). Pedagogical biases in educational technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 48(3), 3-11.
Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 43-102.
Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Loll, F., & Pinkwart, N. (in press). How tough should it be? Simplifying the development of argumentation systems using a configurable platform. In N. Pinkwart & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills. Oak Park, IL: Bentham Science Publishers.
Schommer-Aikins, M., & Master, E. (2009). Ways of knowing and willingness to argue. The Journal of Psychology., 143(2), 117-132.
Schwarz, B. B., Schur, Y., Pensso, H., & Tayer, N. (2011). Perspective taking and synchronous argumentation for learning the day/night cycle. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 113-138.
Schworm, S., Bradler, P., & Renkl, A. (2008). Help design in a computer-based learning environment teaching argumentation skills through the use of double-content-examples. In G. Kanselaar, V. Jonker, P. A. Kirschner & F. J. Prins (Eds.), Proceedings of Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences (pp. 319-326), Utrecht, The Netherlands. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285-296.
Serçe, F. C., Swigger, K., Alpaslan, F. N., Brazile, R., Dafoulas, G., & Lopez, V. (2011). Online collaboration: Collaborative behavior patterns and factors affecting globally distributed team performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 490-503.
Sethi, R. J., & Gil, Y. (2011). A social collaboration argumentation system for generating multi-faceted answers in question and answer communities. Paper presented at the the AAAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument. San Francisco, CA.
Simmel, G. (1950). The metropolis and mental life. In K. Wolff (Ed.), The sociology of georg simmel (pp. 409-424). New York: Free Press.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). Wise science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stahl, G. (2007). CSCL and its flash themes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 1-4.
Stoff, R. (2008). Thirteen argumentative fallacies. St. Louis Journalism Review, 38(309), 17-17.
Stone, I. F. (1989). The trial of socrates. New York: Anchor.
Strohmetz, D. B., & Skleder, A. A. (1992). The use of role-play in teaching research ethics: A validation study. Teaching of Psychology, 19(2), 106-108.
Suthers, D. D. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103.
Suthers, D. D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., Paolucci, M. (1995). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In J. Greer (Ed.), Proceedings of Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 1995) (pp. 266-273), Charlottesville. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Tao, X., Shen, Z., Miao, C., Theng, Y.-L., Miao, Y., & Yu, H. (2011). Automated negotiation through a cooperative-competitive model. In T. Ito, M. Zhang, V. Robu, S. Fatima, T. Matsuo & H. Yamaki (Eds.), Innovations in agent-based complex automated negotiations (Vol. 319, pp. 161-178). Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer.
Teo, Y.-H., & Daniel, C. (2007). Using sentence openers to support students' argumentation in an online learning environment. Educational Media International, 44, 207-218.
Topper, A. (2005). Facilitating student interactions through discursive moves: An instructor's experience teaching online graduate courses in educational technology. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 55-67.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
van Gelder, T. (2007). The rationale for rationale. Law, Probability and Risk, 6, 23-42.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (1999). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated argumentation. In C. M. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1999 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 77-94), Palo Alto, California. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Walker, S. A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil's advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 172-182.
Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Walton, D. N. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, M. (2007). Designing online courses that effectively engage learners from diverse cultural backgrounds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 294-311.
Warnick, B. (2007). Rhetoric online: Persuasion and politics on the world wide web. NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Wecker, C., Stegmann, K., Bernstein, F., Huber, M. J., Kalus, G., Kollar, I., et al. (2010). S-col: A copernican turn for the development of flexibly reusable collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 321-343.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computer in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506-515.
Werner, K., & Rittel, H. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems (Working paper No. 131). Heidelberg, Germany: Studiengruppe für Systemforschung.
Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The principles of judicial proof (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Williams, W. M., Papierno, P. B., Makel, M. C., & Ceci, S. J. (2004). Thinking like a scientist about real-world problems: The cornell institute for research on children science education program. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 107-126.
Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687-719.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.