本研究以國立台灣師範大學物理教學示範實驗教室 (NTNU Virtual Physics Laboratory, VPL) 物理非同步討論區為研究對象，研究共分為三大部分。第一部分從高中物理討論串中篩選出發問者為高中生，且問題內容在高中課程標準綱要範圍內的616個物理討論串。以內容分析法依問題類型、物理分類（根據課綱分類修改後分為十五類）、討論結果、討論長度進行歸類後，探討不同類型的問題與後續討論串發展的關聯。並將這些討論串的物理分類分佈比例與88年開始實施之課程綱要相較，找出比例明顯高於課綱時數之物理分類，更進一步針對這些問題進行質性分析。第二部分與第三部分皆以討論區資料庫中網友在討論區進行討論的log紀綠檔進行分析。第二部分中，本研究針對VPL物理討論區中大學討論版2198個討論串、高中討論版3201個討論串、國中討論版1859個討論串進行分析，比較三個討論版中，留言字數及發問者參與討論程度與討論串長度的關聯。而在第三個部分，本研究將討論區中2292位網友依其發起與回應討論串的情形分為三種角色（發問者、回應者和兩者皆有），比較不同角色網友的行為模式的差異，另外也比較不同性別網友的角色與行為差異。
研究結果如下：
一、 高中物理討論串的問題大部分屬於概念理解、概念連結與計算應用三類，資訊誤解與忽略、尋求資訊二類的問題較少。而不同物理分類的討論串問題類型亦不盡相同；另外討論長度與問題類型，討論結果與問題類型及物理分類皆有關，但討論長度與討論結果無關聯。
二、 在高中物理討論串中，牛頓運動定律、轉動、流體力學與靜電學的比例明顯高於課綱時數比例，而其中牛頓運動定律是問題比例最高的一項。研究發現討論串中有許多提及假想力的問題，然而這個概念卻沒有被納入課綱的教學範圍。另外還有許多的問題，諸如：系統選擇的混亂、思考時沒有畫力圖的習慣、對於位能、浮力等概念的有所誤解、對轉動單元的物理量與關聯不能理解等等問題存在，本研究也針對這些問題提出進一步的教學建議。
三、 討論串首篇留言字數越多時，討論串的長度也會越長，但其與討論人數無關。討論串的平均每篇留言字數則是會隨著討論主題的物理程度、討論串長度及討論人數越多而增加，而當發問者的參與程度越高時，討論串也會越長。
四、 「發問者」與「回應者」均屬討論區中的新手，而同時扮演兩種角色的「兩者皆有」者則屬於老手，研究發現老手的參與時間、留言數量、參與討論程度均較新手多，而登入的頻繁程度則低於新手。另外女性網友較傾向扮演發問者的角色，但參與態度較男性網友不積極，不過留言字數則無差異。

In this study we analyzed a non-course-based online discussion forum of NTNU virtual physics laboratory (VPL) in Taiwan. There were three topics in our study: First, we content analyzed the physics questions of 616 discussion threads originated by senior-high-school students. We tried to understand the kinds of questions that influence the growth of discussion threads and the outcomes of discussions. We also compared the proportion of 15 physics categories of VPL senior-high-school questions with the learning hour percentages of each physics categories of national senior-high- school curriculum. Second, we choose 7258 discussion threads from three boards (College/ Senior-high-school/Junior-high-school) in VPL. What we want to know is how the number of post words and the frequency of question asked by participants relate to the length of discussion threads and the number of participants, and also compared the difference between the three boards. Third, 2292 participants who had posted more than 1 post were categorized into three roles based on the number of times they asked questions and made replies to the topics initiated by others. Then we analyzed the behavioral difference of the three roles and the gender difference of these participants. The result of the research shows:
1. Most of the senior-high-school questions belonged to three categories: 「concept understanding」, 「linking between concepts」 and 「problem solving and application」. And questions with different physics categories resulted from different categories of questions. We found that the categories of questions affected the growth of discussion, but the physics categories won't. The outcomes of discussion were influenced both by the questions types and physics categories. But there were no relationship between the growth and outcomes of discussion.
2. We found that the proportion of questions related to Newton's law, rotation, fluid mechanics and electrostatics of physics categories of questions in VPL were higher than in national senior-high- school curriculum. Many questions are related to 「fictitious force」, but the concept wasn't included in the curriculum. Besides, many problems arose as a consequence of the confusion from the process of students learning physics.
3. In VPL, the more number of initial post words of a discussion thread, the longer the length of a discussion thread. In general, the number of initial post words won't affect the number of participants. But the average number of words per post will be directly proportional to the length of the discussion threads, number of participants and level of physics questions.
4. Novice tends to only either 」Post a new topic」 or 「Reply to other's post」, and people who does both could be viewed as 「expert」. We found that the experts are more active in terms of participation time, the numbers of post and participation frequency. But the login frequency of the expert was less than the novice. Moreover, the attitudes of female toward discussions with others are generally negative. But there had no difference in the number of post words by both the male and the female.

一、 中文部分
王石番 (1991)：傳播內容分析法－理論與實證。台北：幼獅。
呂益彰 (2000)：網路學習社群於大學實施之實證研究─社群的使用、影響使用的因素及對學業成就的影響。淡江大學教育科技學系碩士論文。
李永吟 (1999)：認知教學：理論與策略。台北：心理出版。
李逢堅 (2003)：網路討論版教學與管理之研究。教學科技與媒體，66，72-83頁。
李建億 (2006)：網際網路專題學習互動歷程之研究。科學教育學刊，14(1)， 101-120頁。
林仁政 (2006)：初探單純酒癮與酒癮合併憂鬱症患者大腦血清素轉運體顯影與認知功能之關連性。中原大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
林容孜 (2008)：同步與非同步線上交談：文本特色與對寫作的影響。國立交通大學英語教學研究所碩士論文。
張基成 (2003)：網路學習社群之經營與管理。T&D飛訊，8。線上檢索日期：2009年5月15日。網址：http://www.ncsi.gov.tw/NcsiWebFileDocuments/df6e3a0c1d9dd0e6be666b3b2ef1c4ce.pdf。
張基成 (2004)：網路專題學習社群線上公共、專題與專家討論分享比較。教學科技與媒體，67，38-49頁。
張基成、傅心怡 (2003) ：網路學習社群討論分享行為表現量化實證研究－性別與上網次數對行為表現之影響。教學科技與媒體，66，4-17頁。
郭嘉文 (1999)：我國大學BBS站圖書館討論區之調查研究。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學系碩士論文。
陳文俊譯(Babbie, E. R.著) (2005)：社會科學研究方法。台北：雙葉書廊。
陳志昌 (2002)：不同教學方式下學習成效之研究─網大教學與網大輔助傳統教學之比較。國立中山大學傳播管理研究所碩士論文。
陳奕麟 (2000)：國科會計畫案：台灣網路社群的社群意識形成與新興的公共領域。
黃學碩 (1997)：網際網路公共傳播內容的分析－以交大BBS站為例。交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文。
黃毓玲 (2004)：以言談方法解析鷹架輔助之線上即時互動。國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文。
楊堤雅 (2000)：網際網路虛擬社群成員之角色與溝通互動之探討。國立中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
楊惠鈞 (2002)：網路公共論壇之研究─以教育改革議題為例.。國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
董興國 (2003)：從學習理論探討影響網路學習績效因素之研究--以銘傳大學學生為例。銘傳大學資訊管理學系碩士在職專班碩士論文。
瞿海源 (2001)：網路公共論壇與民意－有關停建核四事件討論之分析。第四屆資訊科技與社會轉型研討會論文。
林明瑞主編 (2006)：高級中學物質科學物理篇上冊。台南：南一。
林明瑞主編 (2006)：高級中學物質科學物理篇下冊。台南：南一。
林明瑞主編 (2006)：高級中學物理上冊。台南：南一。
褚德三主編 (2006)：高級中學物質科學物理篇(上)。台北：龍騰。
褚德三主編 (2006)：高級中學物理 (上)。台北：龍騰。
連坤德、陳忠志主編 (2007)：高級中學物質科學(物理篇)下。台南：翰林。
連坤德、陳忠志主編 (2007)：高級中學物理上。台南：翰林。
教育部 (2008)：97年1月發佈之普通高級中學課程綱要延後1年至99學年度起開始實施。教育部新聞稿。線上檢索日期：2009年5月15日。網址： http://140.116.223.225/98course/970606news98course.pdf

二、 英文部分：
Balka, E. (1993). Women's access to on-line discussions about feminism. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3(1). Retrieved May 15, 2009, from: http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v3n193.htm
Barrett, E., & Lally, V. (1999). Gender differences in an on-line learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 15, 48-60.
Baym, N. (1996). Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29(4), 315-345.
Berge, Z. L. & Collins, M. (1995). Computer-mediated scholarly discussion groups. Computers & Education, 24(3), 183-189.
Briton, N. J., & Hall, J. A. (1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 32, 79-90.
Brusilovsky, P., Eklund, J. & Schwarz, E. (1998). Web-based Education for All: A Tool for Development Adaptive Courseware. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1-7), 291-300.
Burgoon, J. K., & Dillman, L. (1995). Gender, immediacy, and nonverbal communication. In P. Kalbfleisch & M. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power and communication in human relationships (pp. 63-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Caspi, A., Gorsky, P. & Chajut, E. (2003). The influence of group size on nonmandatory asynchronous instructional discussion groups. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 227-240.
Danet, B. (1998). Text as mask: Gender and identity on the Internet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0 (pp. 129-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
December, J. (1997). Notes on defining of computer-mediated communication. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, 4(1). Retrieved May 15, 2009, from: http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/jan/december.html
Fahy, P., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001). Patterns of Interaction in a Computer Conference Transcript. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved May 15, 2009,
from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/36/73
Fahy, P. J. (2002). Epistolary and Expository Interaction Patterns in a Computer Conference Transcript. The Journal of Distance Education 17(1), 20-35
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1978). Mathematics achievement and related factors: A further study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 190-203.
Fuller, H., Grant, S. C., Lawyer, K. C., Porter, R. L., & Rajala, S. A. (1997). Attitude about Engineering Survey, Fall 1995 and 1996:A Study of Confidence by Gender. Paper presented at the 1997 ASEE Annual Conference.
Graddol, D., & Swann, J. (1989). Gender Voices. London: Basil Blackwell.
Guan, Y. H., Tasi, C. C., & Hwang, F. K. (2006). Content analysis of online discussion on a senior-high-school discussion forum of virtual physics laboratory. Instructional Science, 34, 279-311.
Guzdial, M. (1997). Information ecology of collaborations in educational settings: Influences of tool. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning conference, CSCL'97, Toronto Canada.
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.
Harasim, L. (1989). Online education as a new domain. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers, and distance education (pp. 50-62). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Hardy, V., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (1994). Computer conferencing: A new medium for investigating issues in gender and learning. Higher Education, 28, 403-418.
Hecht, E. (1996). Physics: calculus. California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Henri, F. (1991). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing :The Najaden papers (pp. 117-136). London: Springer-Verlag.
Herring, S. C. (1992). Gender and Participation in Computer-Mediated Linguistic Discourse. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Philadelphia, PA.
Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3(2). Retrieved July 9, 2009, from http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/ejc.txt
Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 81-106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In Tannen, Deborah, Deborah Schiffrin & Heidi Hamilton (eds.) Handbook of discourse analysis. (pp. 612-634) Oxford: Blackwell.
Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and Power in Online Communication. In Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 202-228). Oxford: Blackwell.
Herring, S. C., Johnson, D., & DiBenedetto, T. (1995). 'discussion is going too far!' Male resistance to female participation on the Internet. In M. Bucholtz & K. Hall (Eds.), Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self (pp. 67-96). New York: Routledge.
Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 31-45.
Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The journal of the learning sciences, 14(4), 567-589.
Hewitt, J., & Teplovs, C. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads. Proceedings of the 1999 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning.
Holmes, J. (1992). Women's talk in public contexts. Discourse and Society, 3(2), 131-150.
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social science and humanities. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Howell-Richardson, C., & Mellar, H. (1996). A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer mediated communication courses. Instructional Science, 24, 47-69.
Jones, Q. (2000, March 1). Time to split, virtually: Expanding virtual publics into vibrant virtual metropolises. Paper presented at the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Science.
Jones, Q., Ravid, G. & Rafaeli S. (2004). Information overload and the Message Dynamics of Online Interaction Spaces: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Exploration. Information Systems Research ,15(2) , 194-210
Kelsey, K. D. (2000). Participant interaction in a course delivered by interactive compressed video technology. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 63-74.
Knight, R. D. (2004). Five easy lessons: Strategies for Successful Physics Teaching. San Francisco: Addison Wesley.
Laat, M. d. (2002). Network and content analysis in an online community discourse. Paper presented at Networked Learning 2002 Conference. Sheffield, UK
Lai, K. W. (1997). Computer-mediated communication for teenage students: a content analysis of a student messaging system. Education and information Technologies, 2, 31-45.
Li, Q. (1999). Teachers' beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review. Educational Research, 41(1), 63-76.
Li, Q. (2002). Gender and Computer-Mediated Communication: An Exploration of Elementary Students' Mathematics and Science Learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(4), pp. 341-359. Norfolk, VA: AACE.
Li, Q. (2005). Gender and CMC: A review on conflict and harassment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 382-406.
Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (1997, December). Developing culture of inquiry in computer supported collaborative learning. Paper presented at the the second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Toronto.
Lorentsen, A. (1989). Evaluation of computer conferencing in open learning. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers, and distance education (pp. 196-197). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
McDonald, J., & Gibson, C. C. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics and group development in computer conferencing. American Journal of Distance Education, 12(1), 7-25.
Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16, 153-222.
Oren, A., Mioduser, D., & Nachmias, R. (2002). The development of social climate in virtual learning discussion groups. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Retrieved May 15, 2009, from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/80/154
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W., & Gay, G. (2001). An Epistemological Framework for Analyzing Student Interactions in Computer-Medicated Communication Environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 41-68.
Pena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computer & Education, 42, 243-265.
Romiszowski, A., & Mason, R. (2004). Computer-Mediated Communication. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 398). London: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.
Scott, W., & Heller, R. (1991). Teamwork strategies for integrating women and minorities into the physical science. The Science Teacher, 58(1), 24-28.
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse function and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-199.
Sussman, N. M., & Tyson, D. H. (2000). Sex and power: gender differences in computer-mediated interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(4), 381-394.
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5. London: Virago Press.
Tannen, D. (1996). Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wells, R. A. (1990). Computer-Mediated Communications for Distance Education and Training: Literature Review and International Resources. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED343569&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED343569
Weltner, K. et al. (1980). Gender differences in reasons to questions on the Australian National chemistry quiz. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 833-846
Yate, S. J. (1992). Gender and computer-mediated communication: an analysis of DT200 in 1990. CITE Report.
Zaphiris, P., Ang, C. S., & Laghos, A. (2008). Online Communities. In A. Sears & J. A. Jacko (Eds.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications (2 ed., pp. 604-618): CRC.
Zhu, E. (1996). Learning and Mentoring: Electronic Discussion in a Distance-learning Course. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic Collaborators: Learner-centered Techniques for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse. (pp. 233-260). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.