跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.213.63.130) 您好!臺灣時間:2023/01/29 11:19
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:姚吳燊
研究生(外文):Wu Shen Yau
論文名稱:教學環境中的力場、知識轉移與學習成效關係之研究
論文名稱(外文):A Study on the Relationships of Ba, Knowledge Transfer and Learning Effect under the Teaching Environment
指導教授:張添香張添香引用關係
指導教授(外文):Tien-Hsiang Chang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄應用科技大學
系所名稱:資訊管理研究所碩士班
學門:電算機學門
學類:電算機一般學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2005
畢業學年度:94
語文別:中文
論文頁數:105
中文關鍵詞:力場知識轉換組織知識分享氣候學習成效數位學習
外文關鍵詞:BaKnowledge transferOrganization knowledge sharing climateLearning effectE-learning
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:893
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
近年來國內外的許多學者,以Nonaka & Takeuchi學者於1995年所提出之SECI模式來衡量組織中所能達到的知識轉換程度,並藉此模式衡量組織知識創造的能力。就個人而言,在工作上或學業上需要創新來突破目前困境時,亦可利用SECI模式來改善自我知識創造的能力。以Nonaka & Noboru於1998年所提出的”Ba”觀念來講,不同的知識分享環境,就形成了不同的力場,而不同的知識分享力場會造成不同程度的知識交流。在學校的學習中,不同的學習環境,也造就不同的學習力場,不論教學方式如何變化,最終目的是要讓學生在學習知識的過程中更有效率。雖然目前有許多的研究文獻在運用SECI模式來衡量組織的知識管理或是工作績效,但是幾乎全都是針對公司企業或是學校教職員所在的行政或教學單位,鮮少有針對學生個體,探討其在學校學習知識過程中的知識轉移程度。所以本研究運用Nonaka & Noboru的”Ba”理念以及SECI模式,來進一步深入探討不同學習環境對於學生知識轉移程度的效果,進而影響最後的學習效果。
本研究以高雄應用科技大學為例,針對該校所設立之數位學習平臺開課比例最高的資訊管理系為對象發放問卷,從161份有效樣本的分析結果發現,在學生學習的過程中,學習力場會影響知識轉換不同的階段,而知識轉換也會影響學生的學習成效,本研究問卷採取傳統授課以及配合數位平臺授課兩種不同的問卷發放,研究結果發現:
一、數位平臺的使用狀況,從分析結果來看,仍是屬於輔助教學的工具。
二、不論從傳統教學或數位平台輔助教學來看,都顯示出學生心目中感覺對自已比較有幫助的教學方式,都不是教師實際上在教學上最常採用的方式。例如大部份的傳統教學課程實際授課都會採用分組討論方式進行教學,但是在學生心目中此方式受用的程度並不高。
三、兩種的授課方式所呈現的結果並不相同,傳統教學方式的課程知識轉換中的共同化活動以及結合活動會影響學生的學習成效,而配合數位學習平臺教學方式,卻是共同化和內隱化活動會影響學習成效。
四、學習力場中不同的因素影響知識轉換的活動也不相同,以傳統教學而言,教學多元化會影響外顯化以及結合的活動,學生態度會影響共同化活動以及結合的活動,教師態度也會影響內隱化的活動;以配合數位學習平臺方式而言,教學多元化會影響結合、內隱化以及外顯化活動,學生態度會影響共同化及內隱化的活動,教師態度則會影響外顯化的活動。
五、知識轉換對學生學習成效的影響,也會因為課程性質不同而有不同加強的地方,如課程性質是屬於(基礎+概論)或是(應用+專業),此兩種性質的課程則應增加共同化的活動,(基礎+專業)則應增加結合的活動。
In recent years, more internal and international researchers used SECI model, proposed by Nonaka & Takeuchi in 1995, to evaluate the effect of knowledge management on enterprises. SECI model can also evaluate the ability of knowledge creation and suitable evaluate the process of knowledge creation.
Furthermore, Nonaka & Noboru addressed the concept “Ba” in 1998. According to the concept of “Ba”, the different knowledge sharing environments represent different “Ba”, and different “Ba” can cause different level of knowledge transfer. We observe the students’ learning behavior in school; we can find the same situation as following. The different learning environments represent different “Ba” of students’ learning, different “Ba” may cause different level of students’ knowledge transfer, and different level of students’ knowledge transfer may cause different learning effects. In this research, we want to know the relationships of Ba ,SECI and the learning effect of students’ learning in school.
The questionnaires are random distributed to the students of the department of Information Management of National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, the department of the highest rate to combine e-learning platform in teaching. 161 valid samples are returned. The data indicates some findings as followings.
1. The using rate of the e-learning platform in teaching is low in National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences. The e-learning platform played the role of teaching assist tool, especially after class.
2. The more helpful teaching methods considered by students are not the frequent teaching methods adopted by teachers. This offers an improvement direction of teaching method’s choosing for teachers.
3. Under the influence the information technology involved teaching factor we considered, traditional teaching and teaching combining e-learning platform, there are different activities of knowledge transfer that affect the effect of students’ learning. For traditional teaching circumstance, the Socialization and Combination activities will significant affect the effect of students’ learning. For teaching combining e-learning platform circumstance, the Internalization and Socialization activities will significant affect the effect of students’ learning.
4. The different factors of “Ba” will cause different influences on activities of SECI model. For traditional teaching circumstance, the factor of teaching diversification will affect the activities of Externalization and Combination, the factor of attitude of student will affect the activities of Socialization and Combination, and the factor of the attitude of teacher will affect the activities of Internalization. For teaching combining e-learning platform circumstance, the factor of teaching diversification will affect the activities of Combination and Internalization and Externalization, the factor of attitude of student will affect the activities of Socialization and Internalization, and the factor of attitude of teacher will affect the activities of Externalization.
5. Under the consideration of different course characteristics, there are different activities of SECI will affect the effect of students’ learning. This finding can give a good suggestion to teacher which activities of SECI should be enhanced on which kind of courses to improve learning effect. We find that if the characteristics of courses are (basic + introduction orientation) and (advanced application + specialty orientation), they should to enhance the activities of Socialization, and if the characteristics of courses are (basic + specialty orientation), they should to enhance the activities of Combination.
目錄
摘 要 i
ABSTRACT iii
一、緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究流程 3
1.4 章節結構 3
二、文獻探討 5
2.1 學習力場 5
2.1.1 授課方式 6
2.1.2 教師教學態度 8
2.1.3 學生學習態度 11
2.2 知識轉換 13
2.3 學習成效 16
2.4 小結 17
三、研究方法 19
3.1 研究架構 19
3.2 研究假說 19
3.3 研究變項定義 20
3.3.1 教學方式 20
3.3.2 教學多元化 21
3.3.3 學生學習態度 21
3.3.4 教師教學態度 22
3.3.5 組織知識分享氣候 23
3.3.6 知識轉換過程 23
3.3.7 學習成效 29
3.4 資料分析方法 30
3.5 問卷內容設計 31
3.5.1 問卷編製過程 31
3.6 研究對象 33
3.6.1 問卷抽樣對象 33
3.6.2 問卷抽樣方式 34
四、資料分析與討論 35
4.1 資料回收結果 35
4.1.1 基本資料敘述性統計分析 35
4.1.2 知識轉換活動次數與重要性平均數比較分析 38
4.1.3 上網地點比例分析 41
4.1.4 傳統授課之教學方式採用與學生感覺受用程度分析 42
4.1.5 配合數位平臺授課之教學方式採用與學生感覺受用程度分析 43
4.2 信度與效度分析 46
4.2.1 因素分析 47
4.2.2 判別效度分析 50
4.3 信度分析 53
4.4 迴歸分析 53
4.4.1 傳統授課部份 55
4.4.2 配合數位學習平臺授課部份 59
五、結論與建議 68
5.1 結論與建議 68
5.2 研究貢獻 74
5.3 未來研究方向 75
參考文獻………….......…………………………...……………………………………78
附錄一..............................................................................................................................82
附錄二..............................................................................................................................86
1.向癸花,2005年,論學生緘默知識資源及其開發,
http://www2.nbedu.net.cn:82/gate/big5/www.nbedu.gov.cn/article/show_article.asp?ArticleID=13161
2.高梨智弘,森田松太郎,2000,知識管理的基礎與實例(Knowledge Management Practice)吳承芬譯,小知堂,台北。
3.李明昌,1997,國民小學家長參與、學習態度與自我概念關係之研究,台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
4.吳英孝,2004,網路化數學學習之成效研究-以高中三角函數復習為例,高雄師範大學數學系碩士論文(未出版)。
5.吳明隆,2003,SPSS統計應用學習實務:問卷分析與應用統計,知城,台北
6.林奇賢,1997,全球資訊網輔助學習系統-網際網路與國小教育,資訊與教育,58期,2-9頁。
7.林勇,粘錦成,2000,能力本位教育與傳統教育差異,能力培訓專刊,20-24頁。
8.邵瑞珍,皮連生,1995,教育心理學,五南,台北。
9.洪明洲,1999,大學教學理念與技術的演進—網路教學與學習效果之改善實例,提昇教學品質研習會報告論文,海洋大學。
10.洪榮昭,劉明洲,1997,電腦輔助教學之設計原理與應用,師大書苑,台北。
11.野中郁次郎(Nonaka I.),竹內弘高(Tackeuchi H.),2004,企業創新的螺旋,胡瑋珊譯,中國生產力中心,台北。
12.高廣孚,1988,教學原理,五南,台北。
13.張芬芬,1984,師大結業生分發實習前後教學態度與任教意願之比較研究,國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
14.張春興,林清山,1981,教育心理學,東華書局,台北。
15.張新仁,1982,國中學生學習行為- 學習方法、學習習慣、學習態度之研究,國立師範大學教育研究所碩士(未出版)。
16.郭金池,1989,國民小學教師價值觀念、進修態度與教學態度之研究,國立高雄師範學院教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
17.陳年興,2000,網路教學與傳統教學之比較分析,遠距教育,15/16 合刊,153-163頁。
18.陳年興,王敏煌,1997,Web上Courseware製作之輔助工具,第八屆國際資訊管理學術研討會論文集,667-674 頁。
19.陳青青,1972,師資態度量表之編製。台北市立師專學報,1,154-188。
20.陳博政,1983,國中能力分班、教師期待與教師教學態度之研究,國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
21.陳儒晰,2004,資訊科技與學校教育的教育社會學分析,臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文(未出版)。
22.楊叔卿,2000,迎接二十一世紀的「艾麗絲」,網際網路輔助教育的理念。教學科技與媒體,50,2-11頁。
23.溫嘉榮,吳明隆,1999,新時代資訊教育的理論與實務應用,松崗,台北。
24.黃鈺雯,2004,嘉義地區國小教師教學態度、師生互動與學生學習動機關係之研究,嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
25.劉惠如,陳年興,2001,結合式網路教學之課程設計與教學成效,第十屆國際資訊管理學術研討會論文集。
26.蔡雅真,2004,探討影響校園內部知識分享的相關因素及成效-以台南縣市中小學知識管理實務為例,成功大學工業與資訊管理學系碩士論文(未出版)。
27.廖珮泠,2004,工作設計系學生學習態度與學習困擾之研究,雲林科技大學工作設計研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
28.盧俊吉,2001,大學電子期刊徵社群知識創造與知識分享之控討-以台大Lifelearn徵社群為例,台灣大學農業推廣學碩士論文(未出版)。
29.賴清標(1979)。師專生任教意願及教學態度之調查分析。台北:國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
30.蘇怡如(2000)。台南市國小英語教師教學態度及教學策略取向之分析。台南:國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
31.Alavi, M., 1994, Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation, MIS Quarterly 18(2), 150-174.
32.Albino, V., Garavelli A. C.; Gorgoglione M., 2004, Organization and technology in knowledge transfer, Benchmarking 11, 6, pg584-600.
33.Hooff, Bart van den & Jan, A de Ridder., 2004, Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing, Journal of Knowledge Management.Vol.8, Iss. 6;pg. 117
34.Cook, W. W., Leeds, C. H., Callis, R., 1951, The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory Manual, NY: The psychological corporation
35.Darr, E.D. & Kurtzberg, T.R., 2000, An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 28-44
36.Dickson, M. W., Smith D. B., Grojean M. W., Ehrhart,M., 2001, Ethical Climate: The Result of Interactions Between Leadership, Leader Values, and Follower Values, Leadership Quarterly 12, 1–21.
37.Farivar, S. H., 1985, Developing and implementing a cooperative learning program in a middle elementary classroom, Disseration abstracts internation, 46,1823, 6-10﹒
38.Frey, P. W., 1973, Student Rating of Teaching: Validity of Several Rating Factor, Science, 182, 83-85.
39.Gagn'e, R. M., 1974, Essentials of learning for instruction. IL: Dryden press.
40.Bock Gee-Woo , Robert W Zmud,Young-Gul Kim, Jae-Nam Lee., 2005, Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-phychological forces, and organizational climate, MIS Quarterly.Minneapolis: Vol. 29,Iss.1;pg.87,25pgs
41.Hall, D. T., 1970, The effect of teacher-student congruence upon student learning in college classes, Journal of Education Psychology, 61, 205-213.
42.Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C, 1998, Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, NJ,.
43.Hidding, G. & Shireen, M. C., 1998, Anatomy of a learning organization: Turning knowledge into capital at Andersen Consulting, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol.5 (1), 3-13.
44.Irma Becerra-Fernandez & Rajiv Sabherwal., 2001, Organizational knowledge management: A contingency perspective, Journal of Management Information Systems; Summer; 18, 1; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 23
45.Yang Jen-Te., 2004, Job-related knowledge sharing: comparative case studies, Journal of Knowledge Management.Vol.8,Iss.3;pg.118
46.Kaiser,H.F., 1974, An index of factorial simplicity.Psychometrika,39,p p.31-36.
47.Kwan, M. Millie; Cheung, Pak-Keung, 2006, The Knowledge Transfer Process: From Field Studies to Technology Development, Journal of Database Management, 17, 1; pg. 16-32
48.Litwin, G.H., & Stringer, R.A., 1968, Motivation and organizational climate, Boston: Harvard University.
49.Lee Heeseok & Choi Byounggu., 2003, Knowledge Management Enablers,Processes, and Organizational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination, Journal of Management Informtion Sysiem, Vol.20. No. I. pp. 179-228
50.Lee Hyun-Soo, Chae Young-ll, Suh Yung-Ho., 2004, Knowledge Conversion and Practical Use with Information Technology in Korean Companies, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence.,Vol. 15, Iss. 3; p. 279-294
51.Marzano, R.J., & Pickering, D.J., 1997, . Dimensions of learning -Teacher's manual(2nd ed.), Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
52.Mager, R. F., 1968, Development attitude toward learning, Palo Alto: Fearon.
53.McGill, M.E., Slocunm, J.W. & Lei, D.T., 1992, Management Pratctices in learning organizations, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 21 No.2, pp.. 5-17
54.Tsai Ming-Tien & Tsai Ling-Long., 2005, An Empirical Study of the Knowledge Transfer Methods used by Clinical Instructor, International Journal of Management; 22, 2, pg. 273
55.Grojean, Michael W., Christian J. Resick, Dickson Marcus W., D., Smith Brent, 2004, Leaders, Values, and Organizational Climate: Examining Leadership Strategies for Establishing an Organizational Climate Regarding Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics 55: 223–241.
56.Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H., 1995, The knowledge-creating company:How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, New York:Oxford University Press.
57.Nonaka, I & Noboru, K., 1998, The concept of "ba": Building a foundation for knowledge creation, California Management Review, 40, 3, 40-54.
58.Nonaka I., Toyama R., Noboru K., 2000, SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation, Long Range Planning 33, pg5-34
59.Nunnally, J. C., 1967, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York,.
60.Rousseau, D.M., 1988, The construction of climate in organizational research, in Cooper, C. and Robertson, I.L.(eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, Chichester: Wiely.
61.Reichers, A. E.& Schneider B, 1990, Climate and Culture: An Evolution of Constructs, Organizational Climate and Culture (Jossey Bass, San Francisco), pp. 5–39.
62.Schneider, B., 1975, Organizational Climate: An Essay, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28, 447-479.
63.Seng Chan Veng , Zannes Estelle , Pace R Wayne., 2002, The contributions of knowledge management to workplace learning, Journal of Workplace Learning. Vol.14,Iss. 4; pg. 138-148.
64.Westphal Thorsk G & Shaw Vivienne., 2005, Knowledge Transfers in Acquisitions - An Exploratory Study and Model, Management International Review;; 45, pg. 75
65.Victor, B. & Cullen, J. B, 1987, A Theory and Measure of Ethical Climate in Organizations, Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 9, 51–71.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top