本研究建構了一個「匿名」的網路合作設計環境，企圖探討「自我效能」因素，對合作學習過程中，個人知覺與實際行為的影響，並且希望找出較佳的合作分組方式，改進教室內呆板的學習方式，及同儕間「面對面」合作學習的若干缺失。
教學實驗從高職「資料處理科」五個班級中，選取135位有效樣本，按照「程式設計」學科「自我效能問卷」得分的高低，以三種不同的群組方式，進行「電腦遊戲軟體」的共同創作。研究針對「集體效能」、「合作滿意度」、「作品成績」及「互動模式」等變項，進行資料的收集，並以量化統計及質性分析，兩者交互參照的方法，整合結論。
研究結果有以下重要發現： (1) 「自我效能」間接影響合作「知覺」 (2) 「自我效能」直接影響小組「互動模式」 (3) 「自我效能」與能力表現相關 (4) 匿名合作減少「社會懈怠」(5) 效能混合的「高中低」分組較佳。

This thesis studies the impacts of self-efficacy on web-based cooperative learning by conducting an instructional experiment in an anonymous, online, web-based, cooperative design environment.
The subjects, 135 vocational high school students majored in Data Processing, were organized into small groups, in three different ways, based on their scores on a self-efficacy questionnaire. Without knowing partners’ real identities, they were then assigned a collaborative computer game design course project.
The impacts of self-efficacy on students’ perception and actual behavior in a cooperative learning process was studied to reveal better grouping strategies, to improve conventional classroom style learning and to remedy the drawbacks of ‘face-to-face’ collaboration among peers.
The experiment focused on factors such as collective self-efficacy, satisfaction about cooperation, project scores, and social interaction. The collected data was quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed, to achieve several concluding remarks.
This study suggests: (1) self-efficacy indirectly influences on cooperative perception, (2) self-efficacy directly impacts the social interaction of a group, (3) self-efficacy is related to individual performance, (4) anonymous collaboration reduces social loafing, and (5) the grouping strategy based on students with mixed self-efficacy levels is better.

目錄
中文摘要…………………………………………………………………………………i
英文摘要………………………………………………………………………………...ii
誌謝……………………………………………………………………………………..iii
目錄……………………………………………………………………………………..iv
表目錄…………………………………………………………………………………..vi
圖目錄………………………………………………………………………………….vii
一、 緒論…………………………… ……………………………… ……………..1
1.1 研究動機 1
1.2 研究目的 4
1.3 研究的重要性 5
1.4 論文架構 7
二、 文獻探討…………………………… ………………………… …………….9
2.1 自我效能 9
2.1.1 自我效能的定義 9
2.1.2 影響自我效能的因素 10
2.1.3 自我效能對個人學習的影響 11
2.1.4 自我效能對合作學習的影響 12
2.2 集體效能 14
2.2.1 集體效能的定義 14
2.2.2 影響集體效能的因素 14
2.2.3 集體效能對合作的影響 16
2.3 合作互動歷程 17
2.3 1 同儕互動之本質 18
2.3.2 團體工作之社會懈怠 19
2.3.3 合作互動分析方法 21
三、 研究架構與方法………………… ……………………………………………24
3.1 研究架構 24
3.2 變數定義與操作化 25
3.3 研究問題 27
3.4 研究流程與方法 30
3.5 實驗設計 33
3.5.1 設計理念概述 33
3.5.2 實驗對象 36
3.5.3 問卷施測過程 36
3.5.4 合作分組 36
3.5.5 實驗平台 38
3.5.6 網路匿名合作設計 39
3.5.7 資料收集和分析步驟 41
四、 實驗結果分析……………… ………………………………………………45
4.1 量化分析 45
4.2 量化分析歸納 56
4.3 質性分析 58
五、 結論與未來展望……… ……………………………………………………77
參考文獻……………… …………………………………………………….82
附錄一………………… ……………………………………………………….85
附錄二………………… …………………………………………………….86
附錄三……………………… ……………………………………………….87
附錄四…………………… …………………………………………………….88

[1] 王淑玲(1999),國科會人文處計畫申請之研究背景及目的；我國大學生之學習動機及學習策略之研究 (NSC 89-2413-H-011-001-S)
[2] 林清山、林天佑（1996）：合作學習。教育資料與研究，（13）。
[3] 黃政傑、林佩璇（民85），合作學習，五南圖書公司。
[4] 張志成 (民86)，自我效能和集體效能與團隊凝聚力之相關研究及不同凝聚力組型輸贏歸因之探討。國立體育學院體育研究所碩士論文。
[5] 萬金生（民88），自我效能影響個人參與資訊委外績效之研究：以台灣公營機構為例。國立中山大學資訊管理研究所未出版之碩士論文。
[6] 楊文金（民87），同儕互動的社會本質，科學教育，8期，2-11。
[7] 潘正德（民83），團體動力學，台北：心理出版社。
[8] Anshel M. H. (1995). Examining social loafing among elite female rowers as a function of task duration and mood. Journal of Sport Behavior, 18, 39-49.
[9] Aviv R. and Golan G. (1998), Pedagogical Communication Patterns in Collaborative Telelearning, Journal of Educational technology Systems 26(3)(1998), 201-208.
[10] Berge (1997) , Computer Conferencing and The On-line Classroom, International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 3(1)(1997), 3-21.
[11] Bandura A.(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37,122-147.
[12] Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall.
[13] Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action : social ognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ：Prentice Hall.
[14] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy：The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.
[15] Bandura A. (1990). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. Journal of Applied Sport Psycholohy, 2, 128-163.
[16] Bandura A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In Hamilton V., Bower G. H., & Feijda N. H. (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation ( pp.37-61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kliwer Academic Publishers.
[17] Bantel, K. & Jackson, S. (1989).”Top management and innovations in banking：Does the composition of the top team make a difference “Strategic Management Journal,10,107-124.
[18] Borthick, A. Faye; Jones, Donald R. (2000), The Motivation for Collaborative Discovery Learning Online and Its Application in an Information Systems Assurance Course. Issues in Accounting Education, May2000, Vol. 15 Issue 2, p181, 30p.
[19] Bock, Marjorie; Joseph, Laurice M. (2000), Student As a Strategic Participant on Collaborative Problem-Solving Teams: An Alternative Model for Middle and Secondary Schools. Intervention in School & Clinic, Sep2000, Vol. 36 Issue 1, p47, 7p, 3 charts.
[20] Brown A. (1997), Designing for Learning: What are the Essential Features of an Effective Online Course? Australian Journal of Educational Technology 13(2)(1997), 115-126.
[21] Brid A. M. (1977). Development of a model for predicting team performance. Research Quarterly, 48, 24-32.
[22] Chinn, Clark A.; O''Donnell, Angela M.; Jinks, Theresa S. (2000),The Structure of Discourse in Collaborative Learning. Journal of Experimental Education, Fall2000, Vol. 69 Issue 1, p77, 21p, 2 diagrams.
[23] Gay G. and Lentini M. (2000),Use of Communication Resources in a Networked Collaborative Design Environment, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 1(1)(1995), Available: (http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol1/issue1/IMG JCMC/ResourceUse.html) Last accessed on 26/01/00.
[24] Graham M. and Scarborough H. (1999), Computer Mediated Communication and Collaborative Learning in an Undergraduate Distance Education Environment, Australian Journal of Educational Technology 15(1)(1999), 20-46.
[25] Henri F. (1992), Computer Conferencing and Content Analysis, in: Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing: The Najaden Papers, A.R. Kaye, ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992, pp. 117-136.
[26] Jaffe J.M., Lee Y.E., Haung L.N. and Oshagan H. (1999), Gender Identification, Interdependence, and Pseudonyms in CMC: Language Patterns in an Electronic Conference, The Information Society 15 (1999), 221-234.
[27] Karayan S.S. and Crowe J.A. (1997) , Students'' perceptions of Electronic Discussion Groups, THE Journal 24(9)(1997), Available: (http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A1367.cfm) Last accessed on 30/04/1999.
[28] Lyle (1999),An investigation of pupil perceptions of mixed-ability grouping to enhance literacy in children,Educational Studies (Carfax Publishing), Nov99, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p283, 14p.
[29] Marjanovic A. (1999), Learning and Teaching in a Synchronous Collaborative Environment, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 15(2)(1999), 129-138.
[30] Mason R. (1991), Analysing Computer Conferencing Interactions, International Journal of Computers in Adult Education and Training 2(3)(1991), 161-173.
[31] Roull and Kiesler S. (1993), Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organisation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 1993.
[32] Sankaran, Siva R.; Bui, Tung (2001), Impact of Learning Strategies and Motivation on Performance: A Study in Web-Based Instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, Sep2001, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p191, 8p, 7 charts, 1 diagram.
[33] Zafeiriou, Nunes, Jose Miguel Baptista, Ford, Nigel.(2001),”Using students'' perceptions of participation in collaborative learning activities in the design of online learning environments.”; Education for Information, 2001, Vol 19 Issue 2, p83, 24p, 5 diagrams.
[34] Zigurs I., Poole M.S. and De Sanctis G.L. (1998), A Study of Influence in Computer Mediated Group Decision Making, MIS Quarterly 12 (1988), 625-644.