臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

網路社群平台近年的蓬勃發展，整合了以往E-Mail、即時通訊、Blog、影音播放等功能，除了分享個人的所見所聞，也可做為是合作學習的平台，賴於Web2.0的技術，新的學習趨向快速、數位化以及個人化。可以透過手機或電腦等數位裝置，接收網路上面的各項訊息，進而與其他人進行網路合作學習。
本研究以活動理論來探討學生使用網路社群平台的情況，從「活動」、「行為」以及「操作」三個層級來對「主體」、「目標」、「規則」、「工具」、「社群」、「勞力分配」、六個物件工具的詳細內容做說明，並以線上討論行為、學習滿意度及創意自我效能三部份的問卷來評估學習結果與使用情形的影響。本研究透過Facebook平台的使用，協助分組的專案計畫進行，觀察小組成員在平台上互動的情況及關注程度，並透過問卷和期末分組評量的結果，來評估使用社群平台對期末專案的成效為何。
研究結果顯示，學生特質(如學習積極度與性別)，會影響使用Facebook的頻繁程度、以及影響學習成效；而使用Facebook討論區頻繁的學生，也具有較好的學習成效；本研究也發現分組時的異質程度對學生使用網路社群平台時的積極程度及學習成效。

In this study, we explored the students’ computer-supported collaborative learning behavior based on the Facebook platform. Activity Theory was applied to explain the subjects using behavioral phenomenon. Sixty two senior college students major in Information Management took Decision Support System (DSS) class. Besides the lectures and class discussion, the students participated in the DSS Facebook for collaborative learning.
In the result, we found that students’ characteristics (e.g., gender and mindset of learning) are important factors to affect their Facebook usage behavior and learning result. The students using DSS Facebook more often get better performance in the final project, learning satisfaction and the online communication behavior survey.
We also found that gender affects the usage of social networks platform. For instance, male students use social networks platform several times per week and get better performance in online communication, learning satisfaction and creativity self-efficacy. The mixed gender group got better project performance than same gender group, too.

目錄
書名頁…………………………………………………………………………………………….i
論文口試委員審定書……………………………………………………………………………ii
授權書……………………………………………………………………………………….…..iii
中文摘要…………………………………………………………………………………….….iv
英文摘要……………………………………………………………………………………….v
誌謝…………………………………………………………………………………………….vi
目錄………………………………………………………………………………………….….vii
表目錄……………………………………………………………………………………….…..xi
圖目錄………………………………………………………………………………………….xiii

第一章、 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.1.1 網路使用人口 1
1.1.2 網路合作學習的發展 3
1.2 研究目的 4
1.3 研究範圍與限制 5
第二章、 文獻探討 6
2.1 合作學習、電腦支援協同學習與網路合作學習 6
2.1.1 合作學習Collaborative learning 6
2.1.2 電腦支援協同學習Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) 12
2.1.3 網路合作學習Network collaborative learning 14
2.2 網路社群平台─Facebook 15
2.2.1 Facebook的發展 15
2.2.2 Facebook的互動功能 15
2.3 活動理論Activity Theory 18
2.4 學習成效Learning performance 23
2.4.1 線上討論行為Online Communication Behavior 23
2.4.2 學習滿意度Learning Satisfaction 23
2.4.3 創意自我效能Creativity Self-efficacy 25
第三章、 研究方法 27
3.1 研究架構 27
3.2 研究假說 28
3.2.1 學生特質對Facebook討論區使用的關係 28
3.3 研究設計 32
3.4 問卷設計 33
3.4.1 問卷題項與信效度 33
3.4.2 調查對象 34
3.4.3 使用概況 34
第四章、 研究結果 35
4.1 樣本描述性分析 35
4.1.1 個人基本資料的描述性統計分析 35
4.1.2 問題解決與資料處理方式描述性統計分析 36
4.1.3 網路社群使用之非連續項目敘述性統計 39
4.1.4 線上討論學習調查之描述性統計(N = 62) 41
4.1.5 學習滿意度之描述性統計(N = 62) 42
4.1.6 創意自我效能之描述性統計(N = 62) 43
4.2 相關性分析 45
4.2.1 卡方分析─學習積極度與使用Facebook情況(N = 62) 45
4.2.2 卡方分析─性別與使用Facebook情況(N = 62) 48
4.2.3 獨立樣本T檢定-H1A、H1B、H1C假說(N = 62) 51
4.2.4 獨立樣本T檢定-H1D、H1E、H1F假說(N = 62) 52
4.2.5 獨立樣本T檢定-H2A、H2B、H2C、H2D假說(N =62) 53
4.2.6 獨立樣本T檢定-H2E、H2F、H2G、H2H假說(N = 62) 54
4.2.7 獨立樣本T檢定-H3I、H3J、H3K、H3L假說(N = 62) 55
4.2.8 皮爾森相關係數(Pearson correlation coefficient)(N = 62) 56
4.3 組別相關性分析 58
4.3.1 組別獨立樣本T檢定(N = 12) 58
4.3.2 組別皮爾森相關係數(N = 12) 60
4.4 樣本分析(高職生N = 41) 61
4.4.1 基本資料的描述性統計分析(N = 41) 61
4.4.2 線上討論行為調查之描述性統計(N = 41) 62
4.4.3 學習滿意度之描述性統計(N = 41) 63
4.4.4 創意自我效能之描述性統計(N = 41) 64
4.4.5 獨立樣本T檢定(N = 41) 65
4.4.6 皮爾森相關係數分析(N = 41) 69
4.4.7 組別相關性分析(N = 9) 71
4.5 簡單迴歸分析使用Facebook討論區對學習成效之關係 73
4.6 研究模型與假說檢驗 77
4.7 討論 81
4.7.1 學生的學習積極度對其使用Facebook 討論區之關係(H1A、H1B、H1C) 81
4.7.2 學生性別對其使用Facebook 討論區之關係(H1D、H1E、H1F) 81
4.7.3 學生學習積極度與學習成果之關係(H2A、H2B、H2C、H2D) 82
4.7.4 學生性別與學習成果之關係(H2E、H2F、H2G、H2H) 82
4.7.5 使用Facebook討論區的參與程度對學習結果之關係(H3A、H3B、H3C、H3D) 83
4.7.6 使用Facebook討論區的貢獻程度對學習結果之關係(H3E、H3F、H3G、H3H) 83
4.7.7 使用Facebook討論區的頻率對學習結果之關係(H3I、H3J、H3K、H3L) 84
第五章、 結論 86
5.1 結論及建議 86
5.1.1 學生特質對Facebook討論區使用的影響 86
5.1.2 學生特質對學習成效的影響 86
5.1.3 使用Facebook討論區進行討論對學習成效的影響 87
5.2 研究貢獻 88
5.3 研究限制與未來研究方向 89
參考文獻 90
附錄 95

參考文獻
中文文獻：
1.世界網路市場研究機構(Miniwatts Marketing Group) 對網路使用普及率調查2011年3月
2.資策會FIND國內網路使用普及率調查2012年
3.交通部「民眾使用網際網路狀況調查」96年3月
4.洪素蘋、林珊如（2004）。Whatever you say, I can do it ─「學生創意自我效能量表」之編製。論文發表於政治大學創新與創造力研究中心主辦之2004年第二屆「創新與創造力」研討會

英文文獻：
1.Allen, M., J. Bourhis, et al. (2002). "Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis." The American Journal of Distance Education 16(2): 83-97.
2.Baghcheghi, N., H. R. Koohestani, et al. (2011). "A comparison of the cooperative learning and traditional learning methods in theory classes on nursing students' communication skill with patients at clinical settings." Nurse Education Today.
3.Bandura, A. (1982). "Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency." American psychologist 37(2): 122.
4.Bandura, A. and D. Cervone (1983). "Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems." Journal of personality and social psychology 45(5): 1017.
5.Barab, S. A., M. Barnett, et al. (2002). "Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course." Mind, Culture, and Activity 9(2): 76-107.
6.Baran, B. (2010). "Facebook as a formal instructional environment." British Journal of Educational Technology 41(6): E146-E149.
7.Benson Soong, M., H. Chuan Chan, et al. (2001). "Critical success factors for on-line course resources." Computers &; Education 36(2): 101-120.
8.Bicen, H. and N. Cavus (2010). "The most preferred social network sites by students." Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2(2): 5864-5869.
9.Blum, K. D. (1999). "Gender differences in asynchronous learning in higher education: Learning styles, participation barriers and communication patterns." Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 3(1): 46-66.
10.Chai, S. and M. Kim (2011). "A socio-technical approach to knowledge contribution behavior: An empirical investigation of social networking sites users." International Journal of Information Management.
11.Chen, P. S. D., A. D. Lambert, et al. (2010). "Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement." Computers &; Education 54(4): 1222-1232.
12.Cheung, C. M. K., P. Y. Chiu, et al. (2011). "Online social networks: Why do students use facebook?" Computers in Human Behavior 27(4): 1337-1343.
13.Cho, H., G. Gay, et al. (2007). "Social networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community." Computers &; Education 49(2): 309-329.
14.Clough, G., A. Jones, et al. (2008). "Informal learning with PDAs and smartphones." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24(5): 359-371.
15.Conrath, K. and J. Zeccola (2009). "Does social networking hurt student grades." American Teacher 94(2): 3.
16.Curtis, D. D. and M. J. Lawson (2001). "Exploring collaborative online learning." Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 5(1): 21-34.
17.Danciu, E. and G. Grosseck (2011). "Social aspects of web 2.0 technologies: Teaching or teachers' challenges?" Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 15: 3768-3773.
18.Davies, J. and M. Graff (2005). "Performance in e‐learning: online participation and student grades." British Journal of Educational Technology 36(4): 657-663.
19.Dogruer, N. and R. Eyyam (2011). "What is the motivation for using Facebook?" Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 15: 2642-2646.
20.Gulnar, B., Ş. Balcı, et al. (2010). Motivations of Facebook, You Tube and Similar Web Sites Users, Bilig.
21.Giannousi, M., N. Vernadakis, et al. (2009). "Students’ satisfaction from blended learning instruction." Internet 1(1): 61-68.
22.Gist, M. E. and T. R. Mitchell (1992). "Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability." Academy of Management Review: 183-211.
23.Hagel, J. and A. Armstrong (1997). Net gain: expanding markets through virtual communities, Harvard Business Press.
24.Heiberger, G. and R. Harper (2008). "Have you Facebooked Astin lately? Using technology to increase student involvement." New Directions for Student Services 2008(124): 19-35.
25.Hong, K. S. (2002). "Relationships between students' and instructional variables with satisfaction and learning from a Web-based course." The Internet and Higher Education 5(3): 267-281.
26.Howard, G. S. and R. R. Schmeck (1979). "Relationship of changes in student motivation to student evaluations of instruction." Research in Higher Education 10(4): 305-315.
27.Hsu, C. L. and J. C. C. Lin (2008). "Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation." Information &; Management 45(1): 65-74.
28.Jennifer Richardson, K. S. (2003). "Examining Social Presence in Online Courses in Relation to Students’ Perceived Learning and Satisfaction." Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 7(1).
29.Johnson, D. W. and R. T. Johnson (1974). "Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic." Review of Educational Research 44(2): 213-240.
30.Kaptelinin, V., K. Kuutti, et al. (1995). "Activity theory: Basic concepts and applications." Human-Computer Interaction: 189-201.
31.Kuutti, K. (1996). "Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research." Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction: 17-44.
32.Lampe, C., N. B. Ellison, et al. (2008). Changes in use and perception of Facebook, ACM.
33.Lowyck, J. and J. Poysa (2001). "Design of collaborative learning environments." Computers in Human Behavior 17(5-6): 507-516.
34.McKinney, D., J. L. Dyck, et al. (2009). "iTunes University and the classroom: Can podcasts replace Professors?" Computers &; Education 52(3): 617-623.
35.Moore, M. G. (1989). "Editorial: Three types of interaction."
36.Neo, M. (2005). "Engaging students in group-based co-operative learning-A Malaysian perspective." JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGYAND SOCIETY 8(4): 220.
37.OReilly, T. (2007). "What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software."
38.Page, K. R., D. T. Michaelides, et al. (2005). "Collaboration in the Semantic Grid: a Basis for e-Learning." Applied Artificial Intelligence 19(9-10): 881-904.
39.Pontiggia, A. and F. Virili (2010). "Network effects in technology acceptance: Laboratory experimental evidence." International Journal of Information Management 30(1): 68-77.
40.Rienties, B., D. Tempelaar, et al. (2009). "The role of academic motivation in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning." Computers in Human Behavior 25(6): 1195-1206.
41.Shachar, M. and Y. Neumann (2003). "Differences between traditional and distance education academic performances: A meta-analytic approach." The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 4(2): Article 4.2. 9.
42.Sharan, S. (1980). "Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations." Review of Educational Research 50(2): 241-271.
43.Slavin, R. E. (1999). "Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning." Theory into Practice 38(2): 74-79.
44.So, H. J. and T. A. Brush (2008). "Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors." Computers &; Education 51(1): 318-336.
45.Solimeno, A., M. E. Mebane, et al. (2008). "The influence of students and teachers characteristics on the efficacy of face-to-face and computer supported collaborative learning." Computers &; Education 51(1): 109-128.
46.Tierney, P. and S. M. Farmer (2002). "Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance." Academy of Management Journal: 1137-1148.
47.Tsai, C. W. (2010). "Do students need teacher's initiation in online collaborative learning?" Computers &; Education 54(4): 1137-1144.
48.Wang, A. and S. Kong (2011). "A Study of Relations between Students’ CMC Behaviors and Perceived Effects of CMC on Learning for Incorporating CMC in Hybrid Learning." Hybrid Learning: 95-104.
49.Webb, N. M. (1982). "Student interaction and learning in small groups." Review of Educational Research 52(3): 421-445.
50.Wertsch, J. V. (1984). "The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues." New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 1984(23): 7-18.