跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.212.99.208) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/04/17 17:25
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:范蔚敏
研究生(外文):Fan, Wei Min
論文名稱:基於學習社群角色行為特徵之網路合作式學習分組策略及其討論歷程評估研究
論文名稱(外文):A Study on Developing a Group Formation Strategy based on Learning Community Roles’ Behavior Features for Web-based Cooperative Learning
指導教授:陳志銘陳志銘引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chen, Chih Ming
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立政治大學
系所名稱:圖書資訊與檔案學研究所
學門:傳播學門
學類:圖書資訊檔案學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2011
畢業學年度:99
語文別:中文
論文頁數:123
中文關鍵詞:學習社群角色行為特徵異質性分組合作式學習
外文關鍵詞:Role behavior featuresLearning communityHeterogeneous groupsCooperative learning
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:5
  • 點閱點閱:1095
  • 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:4
隨著網路學習模式的發展演進,數位學習模式也逐漸由重視個人自我學習,慢慢轉變成由電腦促成多人合作學習模式,進而產生了網路學習社群的概念。過去網路社群相關研究多以一般商業社群或是社交導向社群為研究範圍,並依據使用者參與動機及透過討論區內容分析互動行為,加以歸納出網路社群角色類型以及不同角色類型對社群經營的影響。而網路學習社群研究則著重於討論互動的歷程,以探討成員行為與角色之間的關係為主,鮮少有研究定義網路學習社群角色類型與行為特徵,並據此促成更有效的網路合作式學習成員組合,提升網路合作式討論歷程。
本研究以過去社交性及網路學習社群之研究為基礎,應用其研究結果於學習社群角色探討,並定義網路學習社群角色類型行為特徵,再依據網路合作式學習應以異質性分組實施之理論基礎,提出基於學習社群角色行為特徵之異質性分組策略,探討不同分組機制下網路學習社群成員進行合作學習之討論歷程差異。本研究採取準實驗法,實驗過程分為隨機分組與立意分組兩階段,每一階段分別實施三週。由教師選定學科領域範圍,小組在限定範圍內發想題目進行討論與合作,並且在wiki共筆平台上完成各組之小組作業。在資料分析層面以數位學習平台討論區紀錄、兩階段團體效能與凝聚力問卷前後測資料進行序列分析量化地分析,並且輔以平台討論紀錄說明分析結果。
實驗結果顯示以社群角色類型行為特徵所發展之異質分組策略可以使小組在合作式學習討論歷程上有所影響,共計三點發現:一、相較於隨機分組策略本研究所提異質性立意分組策略能有效提升小組討論互動程度與討論行為歷程層次,異質性立意分組策略使小組合作歷程跳脫單純的資訊分享行為晉升到尋求解決方法以及歸納與分析之反覆修正的討論行為歷程。二、相較於隨機分組策略本研究所提異質性立意分組策略對於小組知識建構層次有一定程度的提昇之效,第二階段各組在協商意涵與共同建構知識行為上提昇2%,而在驗證與修正已存在的經驗與知識行為上提昇8%,顯示異質性分組策略下小組在驗證與修正已存在的經驗與知識之層次有明顯提昇。三、異質性立意分組策略對於團體效能提昇有所助益,隨著合作歷程的轉變也同時了提昇的小組完成任務之信念。

As web-based learning, which evolves from self-leaning into cooperative learning, makes a concept of web-based group learning community. Most studies about community focus on commercial community or social community and analyze users’ motives and behaviors through online discussion contents to conclude many types of community role and their impacts on community interactions. In contrast, web-based learning community studies focus on relationships between users’ behaviors and their role behaviors features but researchers seldom take advantage of the relationships result to form a formation strategy and see how it affect the process of group discussion.
The purpose of study is to organize and conclude relative community studies to identify students’ role behavior features and make a group formation strategy based on heterogeneous group learning theory. This study was conducted by quasi-experiment. The experiment had two phases: I. Group learning in random arrangement, and II. Group learning in group formation strategy. In each phase, the course teacher announced relative issues and asked each group to figure out a topic as well as write a general report of the topic on wiki platform for three weeks. After experiment, researcher collected questionnaires of group efficiency and group cohesion, discussion contents to analyze.
After comparing two phases, the experiment result contained three results: 1. The heterogeneous group formation strategy raised most groups in phase II the solving-problem behavior level and made groups not only share information but also search lot of information to analyze their interested topic. 2. The heterogeneous group formation strategy affected knowledge construction process of group learning. Phase II raised 8% high level knowledge construction behavior-“testing and modification of proposed synthesis or co-construction”. 3. The heterogeneous group formation strategy raised the group efficiency to help group members have faith to fulfill their learning task. Besides, the result indicates that good learning process didn’t have direct impacts on the scores of their group task.

目次
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題 2
第三節 研究範圍與限制 3
第四節 名詞解釋 4
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 合作式網路學習社群 7
第二節 社群角色類型與行為特徵 13
第三節 知識建構歷程 24
第四節 團體效能與團體凝聚力 30
第三章 研究方法與設計 34
第一節 研究方法 34
第二節 研究架構與步驟 36
第三節 研究工具 38
第四節 研究對象 41
第五節 實驗設計 41
第四章 實驗結果與分析 43
第一節 網路學習社群中依據角色行為特徵維度之分組策略 43
第二節 兩階段不同分組策略之合作學習討論行為歷程差異分析 58
第三節 兩階段不同分組策略之合作學習知識建構層次差異分析 69
第四節 兩階段不同分組策略之合作學習團體效能與團體凝聚力差異分析 87
第五節 訪談資料整理 93
第五章結論與建議 98
第一節 研究結果 98
第二節 異質性分組策略應用於實際教學建議 100
第三節 未來研究方向 101
參考文獻 102
附錄 111

參考文獻
壹、 中文文獻
吳武典(1979)。社會及行為科學研究法(下冊,再版),臺北市:東華。
岳修平、鐘婉莉(2005)。專題式學習小組網路溝通互動之研究,國立高雄師範大學教育學系教育學刊,25 期,p.1-23。
洪慧婷(2007)。網路合作學習之團體信念、合作學習行為與團體表現之關聯性研究,未出版碩士,國立臺灣科技大學技術及職業教育研究所,台北市。
侯惠澤(2008)。線上合作解題討論教學之知識建構行為模式探究。2008電腦與網路科技在教育上的應用研討會(CNTE 2008)。新竹:新竹教育大學資訊科技研究所。
張基成(2003)。網路學習社群之經營與管理。T&D飛訊,第八期。
許喬雯、岳修平、林維真(2010)。專題式學習小組溝通行為與成員角色之研究,圖書資訊學刊,8:1,p137-164。
陳盈秀(2005)。人際互動下虛擬經驗類型之硏究:以手機王虛擬社群為例,位出版碩士,國立臺北科技大學商業自動化與管理研究所,台北市。
陸希平、王本榮、陳家玉(2006)。問題導向學習。醫學教育,10,89-87。
陸希平、林妍如、林中生、李孟智、陳家玉(2004)。問題導向式教學中老師與學生的角色認知。醫學教育,8:3,358-362。
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,未出版碩士,國立中正大學企業管理硏究所,嘉義縣。
彭慧芳(2010)。臺灣兩所大學學生網路讀書會中視訊會議與論壇討論互動模式之言談分析,未出版碩士,國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。
檢自:大英百科全書,取自:大英線上繁體中文版,日期:2010年10月21日。http://daying.wordpedia.com/content.aspx?id=064188
貳、 英文文獻
"role" Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Craig Calhoun, ed. Oxford University Press 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. National Cheng Chi University Library. 21 October 2010 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Mainandentry=t104.e1461
Agarwal, R. & Prasad, J. (1999). “Are Individual Difference Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies?” Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361-391.
Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18, 894897.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Selfefficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Selfefficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (2004). Introduction. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 3-15). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman.
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138.
Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. 31(1), 71-88.
Carron A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory. New York: Harper & Row.
Colachico, D. (2007). Developing a sense of community in an online environment. International Journal of Learning, 14(1), 161-165.
Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort-based online learning. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1-21.
Corsini, R. (2002). The dictionary of psychology. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Cota, A. A., Longman, S. R., Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1995). Using and misusing factor analysis to explore group cohesion. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(2), 308-316.
D’Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving behavior modification. Journal of Normal Psychology, 78(1), 112–119.
E. Triantafillou, A. Pomportsis, and S. Demetriadis (2003)“The Design and the Formative Evaluation of an Adaptive educational System Based on Cognitive Styles,” Computers and Education, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 87-103.
Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets west meets mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319-348.
Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2004). Examining the relationship between higher-order learning and students’ perceived sense of community in an online learning environment. Paper presented at the 10th Australian World Wide Web conference, Gold Coast, Australia.
Falk, Joni K. &Drayton, Brian. &. Linn, Marcia C. (2009). Creating And Sustaining Online Professional Learning Communities. New York. Teachers College Press.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.
Graham, M., and H. Scarborough. 1999. Computer mediated communication and collaborative learning in an undergraduate distance education environment. Australia Journal of Educational Technology 15 (1): 20–46.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 467–476.
González, M. G., Burke, M. J., Santuzzi, A. M., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). The impact of group process variables on the effectiveness of distance collaboration groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(5), 629-648.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.
Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research 17(4), 397–431.
Hall, S.(1999). Encoding and decoding. In S. During (Ed.), The cutural studies redear(2nd ed.) New York: Routledge, p.507-517.
Hara, N., C. J. Bonk, and C. Angeli. 2000. Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science 28 (2): 115–152.
Hiltz, S. R., N. Coppola, N. Rotter, M. Turoff, and R. Benbunan-Fich. (2000). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning etworks 4 (2). Available online at http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v4n2/v4n2_hiltz.asp
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: New York University Press.
Hou, H.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Sung, Y.-T. (2008). Analysis of Problem-Solving-Based Online Asynchronous Discussion Pattern. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (1), 17-28.
Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2009). A Sequential Behavioral Detection and Process Analysis of Knowledge Construction of a Collaborate Learning Instructional Discussion Activity in an Online Learning Community, paper presented at GCCCE2009, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 77-93.
Little, B. L., & Madigan, R. M. (1997). The relationship between collective efficacy and performance in manufacturing work teams. Small Group Research, 28(4), 517–534.
Jeong, H. & Chi, M. T. H.(2000). Does collaborative learning lead to the construction of common knowledge?.In Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Conferenceof the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1983). The socialization and achievement crisis: Are cooperative learning experiences the solution? In L. Beckman (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology Annual 4 (pp 119-164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone (3rd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.
Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology - A constructivist perspective. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, D. W. Johnson, R. T. & Smith, Karl A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). "Making Cooperative Learning Work". Theory into Practice, Vol. 38, No. 2, (Spring, 1999), pp. 67-73
Kenny, D., National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, S., & And, O. (1995). The Effects of Group Composition on Gifted and Non-Gifted Elementary Students in Cooperative Learning Groups. Retrieved from ERIC database
King, K. P. 2002. Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. Internet and Higher Education 5 (3): 231–246.
Kolb, D. A.(1976) Learning Style Inventory, Technical Manual, McBer and Company, NewYork.
Kolb, D. A.(1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning andDevelopment, Prentice Hall, New York.
Kozinet, Robert V. (1999). E-Tribalized Marketing? The Strategic Implications of Virtual Communities of Consumption, European Management Journal, 17, pp.252-264.
Kristof, A.L.(1996). "Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications." Personnel Psychology, 49 (1), 1–49.
Larson, C., Dansereau, D., O'Donnell, A., Hythecker, V., Lambiotte, J., & Rocklin, T. (1985). Effects of metacognitive and elaborative activity on cooperative learning and transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 342348.
Laughlin, P. (1965). Selection strategies in concept attainment as a function of number of persons and stimulus display. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 323-327.
Laughlin, P. (1972). Selection versus reception concept-attainment paradigms for individuals and cooperative pairs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 116-122.
Laughlin, P., & Jaccard, J. (1975). Social facilitation and observational learning of individuals and cooperative pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 873-879
Laughlin, P., McGlynn, R., Anderson, J., & Jacobson, E. (1968). Concept attainment by individuals versus cooperative pairs as a function of memory, sex, and concept rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 410417.
Law, N. (2005). Assessing Learning Outcomes in CSCL Settings. Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005, Taipei, Taiwan,373 – 377.
Lin and Huang, F., Lin, S. and Huang, T. (2007). Knowledge sharing and creation in a teachers’ professional virtual community. Computers and Education, 50, 742-756.
Liu, X., Magjuka, R.J., Bonk, C.J., & Lee, S.-H. (2007). Does sense of community matter? An examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning communities in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9-24.
Lott, A. J. & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64(4), 259-309.
Marr, M. (1997). Cooperative Learning: A Brief Review. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13(1), 7-20.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
McGlynn, R. (1972). Four-person group concept attainment as a function of interaction format. Journal of Social Psychology, 86, 89-94.
Mitchell, M., Montgomery, H., Holder, M., & Stuart, D. (2008). Group Investigation as a Cooperative Learning Strategy: An Integrated Analysis of the Literature. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(4), 388-395. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Mwerinde, P., & Ebert, C. (1995). An Examination of the Relationship between the Problem-Solving Behaviors and Achievements of Students in Cooperative-Learning Groups. Retrieved from ERIC database
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in selfefficacy research. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
personal and human resources management. Boston: Elsevier, 181–214.
Ravenscroft, S., Buckless, F., & Zuckerman, G. (1997). Student team learning-replication and extension. Accounting Education: A Journal of Theory, Practice and Research, 2(2), 151–172.
Rovai, A.P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2001). Knowledge Building. In Encyclopedia of Education, Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society,Chicago: Open Court, 67-98
Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (ed.).Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge University
Seibold, G. L., & Kelly, D. R. (1988). Development of the combat platoon cohesion questionnaire. Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Sciences.
Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., & Whyte, G. (2000). Effect of self- and group efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation. Human Performance, 13 (3), 279-298.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw Hill.
Shea, P., Li, C.S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), January 2005. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/index.htm
Slavin, Robert E. (1980) "Cooperative Learning." Review of Educational Research Summer, Vol. 50, No. 2, Pp. 315-342
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: theory, research and practice (2nd ed).
Soller, A. L. (2001). Supporting Social Interaction in an Intelligent Collaborative Learning System. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 40-62.
Spurlin, J., Dansereau, D., Larson, C., & Brooks, L. (1984). Cooperative learning strategies in processing descriptive text: Effects of role and activity level of the learner. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 451-463.
Stahl, G. (2000). A Model of Collaborative Knowledge-Building, Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences.Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum,70-77.
Sugrue, B. (1993). Specifications for the design of problem-solving assessments in science. Project 2.1 designs for assessing individual and group problem-solving. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Swan, K., Shen, J., & Hiltz, S.R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45-62.
Thorsten Henning – Thurau , Kevin P. Gwinner, "Gianfranco Walsh , DwayneD. Gremler , Customer-Option Platforms:What Motives Consumers toArticulate Themselves On The Internet ? ,"Journal Of Interactive Marketing,Vol.18, No.1, 2004, pp.38-52.
Turel, Ofir & Zhang, Yi (Jenny).(2010) Does virtual team composition matter? Trait and problem-solving configuration effects on team performance. Behaviour & Information Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, 363–375.
Van der Laan Smith, J. and R. M. Spindle. 2007. The impact of group formation in a cooperative learning environment. Journal of Accounting Education 25(4): 153-167.
Visher,Mary. Schneider,Emily. Wathington,Heather. Herbert,Collado.(2010)Scaling Up Learning Communities-The Experience of Six Community Colleges. National Center for Postsecondary Research.
Webster, J. and Staples, S., 2006. Comparing virtual teams to traditional teams: An identification of new research opportunities. In: J.J. Martocchio, ed. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Volume 25, pp.181-215.
Welser, Howard T., Gleave, Eric. & Fish, Danyel. (2007) "Visualizing the Signatures of Social Roles in Online Discussion Groups" Journal of Social Structure; 2007; 8 (2) p.1-31.
Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Oral discussion, group to individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 60-66.
Yang, F., Wang, M., Shen, R. & Han, P. (2007). Community-organizing agent: An artificial intelligent system for building learning communities among large numbers of learners. Computers and Education, 49, 131–147.
Yeh, Y.-C. (2010). Analyzing Online Behaviors, Roles, and Learning Communities via Online Discussions. Educational Technology and Society, 13 (1), 140–151.
Yeh, Yu-chu. (2010). Integrating collaborative PBL with blended learning to explore preservice teachers’ development of online learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, v.26, 1630-1640.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 387–399.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top