臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

以跨層次探討環境特性、創新決策、教學品質對顧客再購意願影響之研究：整合科技擴散通用模型與科技接受模型觀點
學生：黃瑞展 指導教授：蘇明鴻博士,柯伯昇 博士

國立高雄應用科技大學機械工程系博士班
摘要
隨著世代的變革，全球服務產業正蓬勃發展之下，服務業在現今的經濟結構中，已佔有相當重要的地位，文教機構(所謂的補習班)服務產業要如何帶給消費者最優質的服務品質與學習環境並且獲得高評價，以避免在同業競爭的激烈環境中遭到淘汰，因此對於強化服務品質的提升則會是企業永續經營成功重要的關鍵問題所在。1.利用創新擴散通用模型，來探討科技創新特性、組織系統化特性、環境開放特性會對創新採用決策與教學品質的組織層次關連性2.利用整合型科技接受模式為個體層級理論基礎，探討組織科技模型對學習滿意度及再購意願的關連性。3.企圖結合創新擴散，並整合科技接受模型，探討教學品質、學習滿意度及再購意願間。本研究實證與分析結果針對問卷調查與SPSS及SEM之研究工具，進行有效問卷資料的統計分析，最後敘述本研究分析的結果。

關鍵字：創新決策、教學品質、再購意願、科技擴散通用模型、科技接受模型

The Relationship among Environmental Characteristic, Innovation Decision, E-Service Quality and Repurchase Intention - An Integrated Perspective of IDT General Model and TAM.
Student：Jui-Chan Huang Advisors : Dr. Ming-Hung Shu,Dr. Po-Sheng Ko

Institute of Mechanical Engineering National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences
Abstract
With the time change, service industry is massively developed and acts a significant role in modern economic structure. Taiwan’s service industry has also led economic development. “How does education industry (i.e. the so-called cramming school) obtain outstanding reputation by providing customer the best service quality and learning environment”. As a result, reinforcing the upgrade of service quality will be the key to success of corporate sustainable development (Chin-Ting Chen, 2004).In summary, the purposes of this paper are as follows:1. Explore/Discuss the organization-level correlation under IDT general model, including the factors like technology innovative characteristic, organizational systematic characteristic, environment opening characteristic, innovation adoption policy and teaching quality.2. On the basis of UTAUT for individual level, explore/discuss the correlation among, learning satisfaction and repurchase intention. 3. After the integration of ID and TAM, explore/discuss the bottom-up concept/approach among teaching quality, learning satisfaction and repurchase intention. Results of empirical analysis: it first conducts statistics analysis on valid questionnaires via SPSS and SEM tools. Then, the research analysis is presented at the end.
Key Words：Innovation Decision, E-Service Quality, Repurchase Intention, IDT, TAM.

Table of Contents
中文摘要 I
Abstract II
謝誌 III
Table of Contents IV
List of Table VI
List of Figure VII
Chapter One. Introduction 1
1. Research background and motivation 1
2. Research purpose 4
3. Research process 5
Chapter Two. Literature review 7
1. Teaching model 7
2. Core theory (1) Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) 13
3. Adoption decision on innovation technology 16
4. The correlation between innovation diffusion and adoption decision on innovation technology 23
5. E-Service quality 24
6. The mediating effect of adoption decision on innovation technology 27
7. Core theory (2) Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) 28
8. learning satisfaction 35
9. Repurchase intention 37
10. The empirical research on the correlation between TAM and IDT 38
Chapter Three. Research method 41
1. Research framework 41
2. Research hypothesis 42
3. Procedure 43
4. The operational definition and scale of research variable 44
5. Statistical method 50
Chapter Four. Research findings 53
1. CFA and Discriminant Validity 53
2. The analysis of basic data 54
3. Correlations 59
4. Hypotheses Testing 60
Chapter 5. Suggestion and managerial implication 63
1. Conclusion and discussion 63
2. Theoretical and practical implication 64
3. Research limitations 64
Reference 66
Appendix A Organization level 76
Appendix B Individual level 80

List of Table
Table 2-1. The table of adoption theory for organization innovation among scholars 17
Table 3-1. Measurement questions 49
Table 4-1. Comparison of Measurement Models 54
Table 4-2. Organizational level valid questionaire survey 55
Table 4-3. Organizational level frequency table 55
Table 4-4. Individual level valid questionaire survey 56
Table 4-5. Individual level frequency table 56
Table 4-6. Individual level the analysis of frequency for curriculum category 58
Table 4-7. Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-Correlations, and Coefficient Alphas 59
Table 4-8. Estimations of Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 62

List of Figure
Figure 1-1. The flow chart 6
Figure 2-1. The scope of E-learning definitions 12
Figure 2-2. Innovation adoption theory 17
Figure 2-3. TRA model 29
Figrue 2-4. TBP model 31
Figure 2-5. Uunified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model 35
Figure 3-1. Research framework 41

Chinese Reference
1.Shi Jinxiang (1997). Combined with innovation diffusion theory and models to explore the influence of UTAUT digital learning platform Factors used by teachers. Dayeh University Department of Information Management Master of serving special classes, master's thesis.
2.Jiang Zhiqing, Huang Jin, Yan Ji (2005), SMEs employ comparison of Internet technology: integrated generic model of innovation diffusion perspective, Information Management Technology, 12 (2), 103-139.
3.Cross-level forest Zheng 棽 (2005), Organizational Citizenship Behavior Analysis: Application-level linear model, Journal of Management, 22 (4), 503-524.
4.Lin Zheng Chen, Peng station light (2006), multi-level management studies: analysis of levels of concepts, theories and methods, Journal of Management, 23 (6), 649-675.
5.Qiuhao Zheng, Wen Fuxing (2007), hierarchical linear model analysis of the context of the effect: the School of Organizational Innovation Climate and Teachers' creative expression, for example, Education and Psychology, 30 (1), 1-35.
6.Qiuhao Zheng, Wen Fuxing (2009), organizational research multilevel adjustable intermediary effect: the organizational climate for innovation,
7.Organizational commitment and job satisfaction of empirical research, for example, Journal of Management, 26 (2), 189-211.
8.Chen Qiguang, Chen true, in the long Jubilee, Cai governance (2006), between government agencies serving the public as to explore the diffusion process of innovation, quality Sinica, 13 (3), 329-343.

English Reference
1.Ahn, T., Ryu, S., Han., I. (2007), The impact of Web quality and playfulness on user acceptance of online retailing, Information and Management,
2.Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M.（1980）.Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hal.
3.Ajzen, I.（1985）. From Intentions to Actins: a theory of Planned Behavior. Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Heidelberg: Springer, 11-39.
4.Ajzen, I （1989）. Attitude Structure and Behavior. In A.R. Pratkanis, S.J. Breckler, and A.G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude Structure and Function (pp. 241-274). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. Aldrich, H. E. & Pfeffer, J. (1976). Environments of organizations, Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 79-105.
6.Alpkan, L., Bulut, C., Gunday, G., Ulusony, G., Kilic, K. (2010). Organizational support for intrapreneurship and its interaction with human capital to enhance innovative performance, Management Decision, 48(5), 732-755.
7.Barbera, E. (2004), “Quality in virtual education environments,” British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 13-20
8.Barker, K. C. (2007), “E-learning quality standards for consumer protection and consumer confidence: A Canadian case study in e-learning quality assurance,” Educational Technology & society, 10, 109-119.
9.Bhattacherjee, A., (2001). An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service continuance, Decision Support Systems, 32(2), 201-214
10.Chang S, Tung F.（2008 a, January）. An empirical investigation of students' behavioural intentions to use the online learning course websites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 71-83.
11.Chau, P. Y. K. & Hu, P. J. H. (2002). Information technology acceptance by individual professional: A model comparison approach, Decision sciences, 32(4), 699-719.
12.Comstock, D. & Scott, R.W. (1977). Technology and the structure of subunits: Distinguishing individual and work group effects, Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(2), 177-202.
13.Chin, W. W. (1998), The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling, Modern Methods for Bussiness Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 295-336
14.Churchill, G. A. Jr. and Suprenant. C. (1982), An investigation into to the determainants of customer satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 491-504.
15.Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
16.DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992),Information system success: The quest for the dependent variable, Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.
17.DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Inofrmation system success: A Ten-Year Update, Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
18.Erkki, K. (2008), The Development, Implementation and Use of e-learning: Critical Realism and Design Science Perspectives, Department of Compu Sciences University of Tampere.
19.Fornell, C. R., and Larcker, D. F. (1981), Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variable and Measurement Error: A lgebra and Statistic, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388
20.Gefen, D., E., Karahanna, & D. W. Straub, (2003). Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model, MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51-90.
21.Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 905–922.
22.Ho, S. H. & Huang, C. H. (2009). Exploring success factors of video game communities in hierarchical linear modeling, the perspectives of members and leaders, Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 761–769.
23.Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An Overview of the Logic and Rationale of Hierarchical Linear Models, Journal of Management, 23(6), 723-744.
24.Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 170–178.
25.House, R., Rousseau, D. M. & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In L.L. Cummings, and B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 71-114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
26.Horton, W. (2000), Designing web-based training: How to teach anyone anything anywhere anytime, New York, Wiley.
27.Hu, P.J., Chau, O.R., & Sheng, K.Y.（1999）. Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16, 91-112.
28.Johnson, R. D., Gueutal, H. & Falbe, C. M. (2009). Technology, trainees, metacognitive activity and e-learning effectiveness, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(6), 545-566.
29.Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL8.14: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language, Chicago, Scientific Software International.
30.Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., & Chervany, N.L.（1999）. Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23, 183-213.
31.Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and Flow Theory to Online Consumer Behavior, Information Systems Research, 13(2), 205-223.
32.Kotler, P. (2003), Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, New York, NT.
33.Kotler, Philip, Ang, Swee Hoon, Leong, Siew Meng, and Tan, C. T. (1996), Marketing management: An Asian perspective, Prentice Hall.
34.Lee, Ya-Ching. (2006). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online Information Review, 30(5), 517-541.
35.Liaw, S.S.（2008）. Investigating students' perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Comput. Educ, 51 (2), 864-873.
36.Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sena, M. P. & Zhuang, Y. (2000). The technology acceptance model and the World Wide Web, Decision Support Systems, 29(3), 269-282.
37.Lee, J. K. & Lee, W. K. (2008). The relationship of e-learner's self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-learning environmental quality, Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (1), 32-47.
38.Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12, 752-780.
39.Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model, Information and Management, 40(3), 191-204.
40.Lewis, N. J., & Orton, P. (2000). The five attributes of innovative e-learning, Training and Development, 54(6), 47-51. Liao, P. W., Yu, C., Yi, C. C. (2011). Exploring effect factors of e-learning behavioral.intention on cross level analysis, Advanced Materials Research, 204-210, 174-177.
41.Mathieson, K.（1991）. Predicting user intention: comparing the technology acceptance model with theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2 (3), 173-191.
42.Martocchio, J. J. (1994). The effects of absence culture on individual absence, Human Relations, 47(3), 243-262.
43.Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior, Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173-191.
44.Moore, G.C. & Benbasat, I. （1991）. Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222.
45.Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context, Information and Management, 38(4), 217-230.
46.Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM, Computers & Education, 48(2), 250-267.
47.Nunnally, J. C. (1978), Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
48.Nunnally, J. C. (1978), A congnitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 490-469.
49.Nicholson, P. (2007), A History of E-learning: Echoes of the Pioneers.
50.Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1985), Problem and strategies in services marketing, Joumal of Marketing. 49(2), 33-46.
51.Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. “SERVQUAL:A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality”,Journal of Retailing,64,pp.13-40,Spring 1988.
52.Pawlowski, J. M. (2007), “The quality adaptation model: Adaptation and adoption of the quality standard ISO/IEC 1979 6-1 for learning, education, and training,” Educational Technology and Society, 10(2), 3-16.
53.Roca, J. C., Chiu, C., & Martínez, F. J. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud, 64(8), 683-696.
54.Roca, J. C., & Gange, M. (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective, Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1585-1604
55.Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in thedigital age. New York: McGraw-Hill.
56.Fornell, C. R., and Larcker, D. F. (1981), Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variable and Measurement Error: A lgebra and Statistic, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388.
57.Horton, W. (2000), Designing web-based training: How to teach anyone anything anywhere anytime, New York, Wiley.
58.Kotler, P. (2003), Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, New York, NT.
59.Kotler, Philip, Ang, Swee Hoon, Leong, Siew Meng, and Tan, C T. (1996),
60.Marketing management: An Asian perspective, Prentice Hall.
61.Nunnally, J. C. (1978), Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
62.Nunnally, J. C. (1978), A congnitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 490-469.
63.Nicholson, P. (2007), A History of E-learning: Echoes of the Pioneers.
64.Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1985), Problem and strategies in services marketing, Joumal of Marketing. 49(2), 33-46.
65.Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality”, Journal of Retailing,64,pp.13-40,Spring 1988.
66.Pawlowski, J. M. (2007), “The quality adaptation model: Adaptation and adoption of the quality standard ISO/IEC 1979 6-1 for learning, education, and training,” Educational Technology and Society, 10(2), 3-16.
67.Reeves, C. A., and D. A. Bednar. (1994), Defining quality: Alternatives and implications, Academy of Management Review, 19, 419-445.
68.Robert, A. E., Nerida, J. Mary, J, M., Mary P., and Stephen S. (2007), ManagingQuality Improvement of eLearning in a Large, Campus-based University, University of Sydney Sydney Australia.
69.Roldan, J. L., and Millan, A. L. (2000), Analysis of The Information System success. Dimensions Interdependence: An adaptation of the DeLone & McLean‘s model in the Spanish EIS Field, BIT World 2000, Conference Proceedings.
70.Rosenberg, M. J. (2001), E-Learning: Strategies for delivery knowledge in the digital age, New York, McGraw-Hill.
71.Sakaguchi, T., and Frolick, M. N. (1997), A Review of the Data Warehousing Literature, Journal of Data Warehousing, 2(1), 34-54.
72.Seddon, P. B., and Kiew, M. Y. (1996), A Partial Test and Development of DeLoneand McLean’s Model of IS Success, The Australian Journal of Information Systems, 4(1), 90-109.
73.Shank, M. D., Walker, M., and Hayes, T. (1995), Understanding professional service expectations: Do we know what our students expect in a quality education? , Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 13(1), 71-89.
74.Urdan, Trace A. & Weggen, Cornelia C.（2000）. Corporate E-learning: Exploring a New Frontier. WR Hambrecht+Co., San Francisco.
75.Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies, Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
76.Venkatesh, V. & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? gender, social influences, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior, MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115-139.
77.Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B. & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
78.Volkoff, O., Chan, Y. E. & Peter, N. E. F. (1999). Leading the development and implementation of collaborative interorganizational systems, Information and Management, 35(2), 63-75.
79.Welsh, E.T., Wanberg, C.R., Brown, K.G. & Simmering, M.J. (2003). E-learning: emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development, 7 (4), 245-258.
80.Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture, American Education Research Journal, 39(1), 165-205.
81.Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations, Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.
82.Zhen, Z., Michael, J. Z., & Kristopher, J. P. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models, Organization Research Methods, 12(4), 695-719.