跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(100.28.227.63) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/06/22 01:29
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:莊竣顯
研究生(外文):Chun-Hsien Chuang
論文名稱:大學生個人差異及其小組報告之協作資訊行為研究
論文名稱(外文):Individual Differences in Undergraduate Students’ Collaborative Information Seeking Behavior When Working on Group Projects
指導教授:蔡天怡蔡天怡引用關係
指導教授(外文):Tien-I Tsai
口試委員:唐牧群張郁蔚
口試日期:2017-11-16
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:圖書資訊學研究所
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:2017
畢業學年度:106
語文別:中文
論文頁數:167
中文關鍵詞:資訊行為協作資訊尋求行為大學生小組組成人格特質
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:830
  • 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
在現今高等教育場域中,課程教學方式已由傳統的教師單方面講授,轉變為倡導學生分組協作學習,許多大學課程皆要求學生須以小組協作的方式進行實作、展演或是研究報告等等,學生必須經由溝通討論、任務分工、資訊蒐集等方式一同完成,因此,協作資訊尋求活動在學生的小組報告歷程中扮演相當重要的角色,而在影響資訊尋求行為之因素中,個人差異是一個相當重要的層面,本研究希望瞭解不同個人差異之大學生在進行課堂小組報告時,其協作資訊尋求行為之異同,並且探討隸屬於不同小組組成之大學生,其協作資訊尋求行為受小組組員影響之程度,具體的研究問題包括:
一、 大學生在進行課業相關報告之協作時,使用各種協作工具(如:即時通訊軟體)及資源管道(如:網際網路)的頻率高低為何?其主要考量因素(如:正確性)又為何?
二、 不同性別、學科、年級與人格特質之大學生,在進行課業相關報告之協作時,使用各種資源管道之頻率高低分別有何異同?其主要考量因素又有何異同?
三、 隸屬於不同小組組成(即組員的性別、年級與學科分布)之大學生,其協作資訊行為受小組組員影響之程度為何?
本研究採問卷調查法,以過去一年內曾經歷小組報告之國立臺灣大學大學部學生為對象,共回收535份有效問卷。參與本研究之大學生以女性為多,年級分布大致平均,學科領域以人文、傳播與社會相關學門之學生較多,人格特質則以慢步調者最多。本研究中,小組組成型態以單一性別、年級與科系組成佔多數,顯示大學生多以與自身個人背景相近者為組員。在協作經驗之概況方面,大學生進行課程相關之小組報告協作相當普遍,小組協作之課程類型以系內必修、選修為主;在小組協作之運作上,大學生多以集體共同決策為主,較少出現明顯的領導角色。
本研究之主要研究發現可歸納為以下三點:
一、就小組報告中的協作資訊尋求行為而言,大學生偏好使用網際網路蒐集與分享資訊,但其與組員進行協作與討論時仍偏好以實體方式進行。大學生雖然偏好利用網際網路蒐集資訊,但多數學生認為紙本資源之正確性與可信度較高。此外,大學生重視資源取得之便利性,以及所花費的金錢成本。
二、不同個人差異之大學生其協作資訊尋求行為有所不同。其中,女性、低年級、任務導向特質之學生所選擇的資訊資源與管道較為多元,而不同性別、年級與人格特質的學生對於資訊取得之成本考量存在諸多差異。
三、隸屬於不同小組組成之大學生,其協作資訊尋求行為受小組組員影響之程度有所不同。當學生隸屬於多元組成之小組時,其在資訊尋求之作法上改變程度較高,往往嘗試不同的資訊資源與管道。
本研究根據前述研究結果,提供大學教師與大學圖書館實務上之建議:在大學教師教學方面,建議教師可盡量鼓勵學生在小組報告時,採異質性分組,以增加小組組成之多元性,並善用課堂時間促成小組的實體討論,以提升組員間之熟悉度與溝通討論之意願。此外,教師亦可善用網路資源與資訊分享工具,進一步促成學生之小組協作。在大學圖書館服務方面,建議圖書館系統可根據本研究及相關研究結果,透過系統帶入之使用者之性別、年級等個人差異資料,甚至讓學生進行幾種常見情境的客製化設定(如:小組報告),並據此調整資源推薦的排序,推薦更符合學生個人差異與情境之資源。而由於大學生偏好網路資源卻對其可信度持保留態度,館員可透過多元的形式提供資訊素養教育,並提供具權威性與可信度之網路資源指引。最後,大學圖書館亦可提供各種線上協作平台之利用教育課程,讓大學生小組報告之協作更加順利。
Small-group teaching has been a preferred pedagogy in higher education. In many college courses, students are required to work in small groups. And they must complete group projects to fulfill the course requirements through communicating, discussing, and seeking information with their peers. Therefore, collaborative information seeking (CIS) plays an important role in students’ group projects.
The current study would like to investigate college students’ CIS behavior when working on coursework-related group projects. The research questions of this study are as follows:
1. When working on coursework-related group projects, how often do students use various collaborative tools (e.g., instant messengers) and sources (e.g., the internet) in their information seeking processes? What are the main considerations when they select specific collaborative tools and information sources?
2. When students work on coursework-related group projects, what are the differences in the frequencies of using various sources among students with different genders, disciplines, study levels, and personality traits?
3. How likely are students within different group compositions tend to be influenced by other peers in the group while collaboratively seeking information for their coursework-related group projects?
This study used a questionnaire to collect data. Participants were recruited from undergraduate students at National Taiwan University. Only those who had experiences on coursework-related group projects within the past year can participate in the current study. Among 535 valid responses, there were more female participants. While underclassmen and upperclassmen were quite evenly distributed, nearly half of the participants were from humanities, communication and social sciences. Most students were with the personality traits of either submission or compliance and were considered as slow-paced students.
The results show that it is quite common for undergraduate students to work on coursework-related group projects, and the courses that required group projects were typically required and elective courses within students’ home departments. While working in groups, students mostly made decisions collectively rather than following the instruction from a specific “leader.” The major findings of the current study can be summarized as follows:
1. Students preferred using the internet to seek and share information, but they also preferred in-person discussions and believed that information derived from physical resources was more accurate and credible than information derived from the internet. While selecting sources, students typically valued convenience and the cost of accessing resources.
2. Students with different individual differences exhibit different collaborative information seeking preferences. Female, underclassmen, task-oriented students used a wider variety of information sources; students with different gender, study levels, and personality traits select information based on different criteria.
3. When students were in heterogeneous groups, they were more likely to be influenced by other peers in the small group—students were more likely to change their information seeking strategies and use a different source to gather information.
Based on the research findings, this study provided several suggestions for instructors and librarians in higher education institutions. For instructors, it is important to facilitate heterogeneous group formation in class. Before group formation, it would be important for the instructor not only to encourage students to form heterogeneous groups but also to intentionally spend some course time helping students know one another. It is also important for instructors to consider using online tools and platforms to facilitate students’ engagement and collaboration. For academic libraries, library systems can recommend resources according to customized settings based on students’ individual differences and their collaborative contexts. This way, librarians can also easily recommend appropriate information resources for students who are working on coursework-related group projects. Given that students prefer using online sources with reservations on their credibility, librarians can offer information literacy courses and provide guides to credible online sources. Finally, libraries can offer library instruction courses on collaborative tools in order to help students effectively collaborate in their projects.
論文口試委員審定書 i
謝辭 ii
中文摘要 iv
英文摘要 vi
表次 xi
圖次 xiii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 6
第三節 研究範圍與限制 7
第四節 名詞解釋 7
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 大學生的資訊尋求行為 9
第二節 協作資訊尋求行為 17
第三節 協作資訊尋求行為相關研究 23
第四節 小組組成與人格特質 31
第三章 研究設計與實施 43
第一節 研究方法 43
第二節 資料蒐集 48
第三節 資料分析 50
第四節 研究流程 54
第四章 研究結果 57
第一節 大學生個人差異與協作經驗概況 57
第二節 大學生之小組協作資訊尋求行為概況 64
第三節 不同個人差異大學生協作資訊尋求行為之異同 71
第四節 不同小組組成對大學生協作資訊尋求行為之影響 107
第五章 結論與建議 113
第一節 結論 113
第二節 建議 120
第三節 未來研究之建議 123
參考文獻 125
附錄一 大學生個人差異及其小組報告之協作資訊行為研究問卷 146
附錄二 QRcode便條問卷 161
附錄三 不同人格特質大學生對使用紙本資源蒐集資訊之考量因素獨立樣本t檢定分析 162
附錄四 不同人格特質大學生對使用電子資源蒐集資訊之考量因素獨立樣本t檢定分析 163
附錄五 不同人格特質大學生對使用網路資源蒐集資訊之考量因素獨立樣本t檢定分析 164
附錄六 不同人格特質大學生對使用社群媒體蒐集資訊之考量因素獨立樣本t檢定分析 165
附錄七 不同人格特質大學生對詢問親友同儕蒐集資訊之考量因素獨立樣本t檢定分析 166
附錄八 不同人格特質大學生對詢問專業人士蒐集資訊之考量因素獨立樣本t檢定分析 167
王秀卿(2001)。網路使用與資訊尋求行為之文獻探討。大學圖書館,5(1),144-162。
王宣閎(2015)。創業家挫折學習之歷程與歸因探討(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所,臺北市。
王茂彩(譯)(2011)。孩子不同需要不同--因材施教的藝術(原作者:C. F. Boyd, D. Boehi, & R. A. Rohm)。臺北市:中國學園傳道會。
王梅玲(2012)。關鍵事件法(Critical incident)。圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。取自Retrievedfromhttp://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1679272/
危芷芬(譯)(2015)。心理學導論(原作者:S. Nolen-Hoeksema)。臺北市 : 新加坡商聖智學習
朱柔若(譯) (2000)。社會研究方法:質化與量化取向(W. L. Neuman)。台北市:揚智。
吳明隆(2010)。論文寫作與量化硏究。臺北市 : 五南圖書。
吳美美(2012)。協作資訊尋求。雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1679202/?index=10
吳美美、Foster, J.(2009)。探究小組協作資訊尋求的成功與困難因素。教育資料與圖書館學,47(2),123-146。
李元墩、林育理、陳啟光(2001)。銀行業主管領導型態與部屬人格特質、組織承諾及其生產力關係模式之研究─LISREL分析法之應用。人力資源管理學報,1(2),1–23。
李宜敏(1998)。護生資訊尋求行為及圖書館利用之研究:以國立台北護理學院護理系護生為例(未出版之碩士論文)。淡江大學教育資料科學學系研究所,新北市。
李惠萍(2003)。輔仁大學餐旅管理學系學生之資訊需求與資訊尋求行為(未出版之碩士論文)。淡江大學,新北市。
李逸文(2001)。資訊尋求行為研究:以實踐大學設計學院學生為例(未出版之碩士論文)。淡江大學圖書資訊學研究所,新北市。
李德治、童惠玲(2010)。多變量分析 : 專題及論文常用的統計方法。臺北市 : 雙葉書廊。
卓淑玲(2011)。從小組合作撰寫小論文歷程探討高中生之資訊需求和資訊尋求行為(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中興大學圖書資訊學研究所,臺中市。
邱皓政(2010)。量化研究與統計分析 : SPSS(PASW)資料分析範例解析。臺北市 : 五南圖書。
邱皓政(2012)。量化研究法。臺北市 : 雙葉書廊。
洪新原、張麗敏、游志偉(2011)。群組成員的熟悉度與合作經驗對於群體支援系統成效之影響。商略學報,3(4),211-231。
范道明(2006)。大學生之資訊需求與資訊尋求行為研究-以台灣師範大學工業科技教育系為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育學系在職進修碩士班,臺北市。
徐嘉琳(2005)。數位學習者之資訊尋求行為研究-以政大遠距教學網為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學圖書資訊研究所,臺北市。
翁怡華(2008)。實踐大學建築設計學系學生之資訊行為研究(未出版之碩士論文)。輔仁大學圖書資訊學研究所,新北市。
張文菁、翁良杰、藍庭國(2014)。團隊成員多元性、成員交換關係及成員角色定義幅度對團隊品質之影響。品質學報,21(1),33-55。
張秀美、曾仁佑、陳斐卿、鄭凱天(2014)。線上小組學習的發生處-以迷思概念為探針。科學教育學刊,22(2),185- 209。
張春興(1998)。心理學。臺北市:東華書局。
張容瑄(2010)DISC人格、團隊組成、團隊互動對績效的影響-以AMBA團隊經營課程為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學企業管理研究所,臺北市。
張綉綾(2011)。運用關鍵事件法探討餐飲業過度服務行為(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄餐旅大學餐旅管理研究所,高雄市。
教育部(2016)105學年度大學校院系所彙整表[資料檔]。臺北市:教育部
許喬雯(2009)。多媒體教學影片專案小組成員角色、合作參與及學習表現之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學生物產業傳播暨發展學研究所,臺北市。
陳海泓(2012)。KWL、協作學習和引導探究結合數位教材對大學生學業成就的影響。區域與社會發展研究,(3),29-56。
陳錫堯(2001)。人格特質分析系統(超級DISC)應用在企業界之效果研究(未出版之碩士論文)。大葉大學事業經營研究所,彰化縣。
彭康鈞(2010)。影響大學生資訊使用行為之考量因素研究-以淡江大學為例(未出版之碩士論文)。淡江大學教育科技學系碩士班,新北市。
游恆山(譯)(2014)。心理學(原作者:R. J. Gerrig)。新北市:臺灣培生教育。
黃政傑、林佩璇(1996)。合作學習。臺北市:五南。
黃家齊、蔡達人(2003)。團隊多元化與知識分享、知識創造及創新績效。臺大管理論叢,13(2),233-280。
黃彩玉、鄭麗霞(2013)。獎勵模式與合作學習策略對大專不同能力舞蹈學習成效之研究。嘉大體育健康休閒期刊,12(3),254-263。
黃慧新、張詠惠(2007年5月)。團隊合作學習對廣告教學內容吸收之研究。2007第 11 屆科際整合管理研討會發表之論文。東吳大學城中校區。取自 http://www.scu.edu.tw/ba/2007conference/2007paper/thesis/34-GM04.pdf
楊曉雯(1994)。淺析資訊特性及讀者的資訊需求。國立中央圖書館台灣分館館訊,16,25-29。
葉雯霞、李育諭、孫國瑋(2014)。大學生領導類型DISC量表適用性之研究。科學與人文研究,3(1),1-14。
潘中道、郭俊賢(譯)(2011)。行為科學統計學第七版(原作者:R. R. Pagano)。 台北市:雙葉書廊。
潘中道、黃瑋瑩、胡龍騰(譯)(2000)。研究方法:步驟化學習指南(R. Kumar)。台北市:學富。
蔡秀琴(2007)。藝術領域學生資訊需求及資訊尋求行為之研究─以國立臺灣藝術大學為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育學系在職進修碩士班,臺北市。
蔡佩穎、張惠博、林雅慧、張文華(2010)。小組立場、小組組成及文本特性對於學生論證生殖遺傳新聞之效應。科學教育學刊,18(3),253-276。
蔡宗樺(2008)。從不同性別、科系、年級探究我國國立大學學生擷取與使用網路資訊的行為與觀念(未出版之碩士論文)。國立清華大學資訊系統與應用研究所,新竹市。
蔡毓智(譯)(2013)。研究方法:基礎理論與技巧(原作者:E. R. Babbie)。台北市:雙葉書廊。
盧瑞珍(2013)。合作學習對學生學習成效影響之後設分析-以2005至2012年之學位論文與期刊為範圍(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育學研究所,臺北市。
賴惠德(2016)。心理學 : 認知,情緒,行為。臺北市:雙葉書廊。
謝東倫(2006)。數位博物館使用行為分析─以輔仁大學織品服飾數位博物館為例(未出版之碩士論文)。輔仁大學圖書資訊學研究所,新北市。
謝珍妮(2010)。科技機構研究人員協同合作與資訊行為之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所,臺北市。
藍伯茹(2016)。消費者進行孕婦按摩之動機(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄大學國際高階經營管理碩士在職專班,高雄市。
顏逸昕(2009)。大學院校管理學院學生資訊需求與尋求行為之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立勤益科技大學企業管理研究所,臺中市。
蘇雅屏(2002)。非同步教學課程學生之資訊尋求行為研究(未出版之碩士論文)。輔仁大學圖書資訊學研究所,新北市。
Alagna, S. W., Reddy, D. M., & Collins, D. (1982). Perceptions of functioning in mixed-sex and male medical training groups. Academic Medicine, 57(10), 801-3.
Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Austin, A. E., & Baldwin, R. G. (1991). Faculty Collaboration: Enhancing the Quality of Scholarship and Teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7, 1991. ERIC. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED346805
Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000). To your heart''s content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 802-836.
Beamish, G. (2005). How chief executives learn and what behaviour factors distinguish them from other people. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(3), 138-144.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories. Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Milton Keynes, England: Society for Research into Higher Education.
Belbin, R. M. (2010). Management teams : why they succeed or fail (3rd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41–49.
Biglan, A. (1973a). The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195-203.
Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships Between Subject Matter Characteristics and the Structure and Output of University Departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204-213.
Blignaut, P., & Naude, A. (2008). The influence of temperament style on a student’s choice of and performance in a computer programming course. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1010-1020.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87-111.
Bray, S. R., & Brawley, L. R. (2002). Role Efficacy, Role Clarity, and Role Performance Effectiveness. Small Group Research, 33(2), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640203300204
Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S. M., & Fein, S. (2002). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,. Retrieved from http://tulips.ntu.edu.tw:1081/record=b2407122*cht
Bruce, H., Fidel, R., Pejtersen, A. M., Dumais, S., Grudin, J., & Poltrock, S. (2003). A comparison of the collaborative information retrieval behaviour of two design teams. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 4(1), 139-153.
Buvat, J. (2007). Digital Natives: How is the younger generation reshaping the telecom and media landscape. Retrieved from http://www.capgemini.com/resources/thought_leadership/digital_natives/
Callinan, J. E. (2005). Information-seeking behaviour of undergraduate biology students: A comparative analysis of first year and final year students in University College Dublin. Library Review, 54(2), 86-99.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters. The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 38(4), 476.
Chalmers, M. (2002). Awareness, representation and interpretation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11(3-4), 389-409.
Chaurasia, N. K., & Chaurasia, M. P. (2012). Exploring the information seeking behaviour of students and scholars in electronic environment: A case study. International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 2(1), 67.
Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N., & Montgomery, G. E. (2005). Reconsidering forced-choice item formats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance, 18, 267–307.
Chung-Herrera, B. G., Goldschmidt, N., & Doug Hoffman, K. (2004). Customer and employee views of critical service incidents. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(4), 241-254.
Croxton, R. A. (2016). Undergraduate students and academic library utilization: a quantitative dominant mixed methods study of information seeking needs, preferences, and motivation (Doctoral dissertation). The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Retrieved from https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/listing.aspx?id=21337
Denning, P. J., & Yaholkovsky, P. (2008). Getting to we. Communications of the ACM, 51(4), 19-24.
Dermody, K., & Majekodunmi, N. (2011). Online databases and the research experience for university students with print disabilities. Library Hi Tech, 29(1), 149-16.
Donath, J., & Robertson, N. (1994). The sociable web. In Proceedings of the Second International WWW conference. Symposium conducted at the meeting of IW3C2,Chicago, IL.
Duck, J. M. (2014). Making the connection: Improving virtual team performance through behavioral assessment profiling and behavioral cues. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 33, 358-359. Retrieved from https://absel-ojs-ttu.tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/article/view/544
Dyson, B., Griffin, L. L., & Hastie, P. (2004). Sport education, tactical game, and cooperative learning: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest, 56, 226-240
Elbeshausen, S., Womser-Hacker, C., & Mandl, T. (2014). Searcher heterogeneity in collaborative information seeking within the context of work tasks. In Proceedings of the 5th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (pp. 327-329). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2637054
Endsley, M. R. (1999). Situation awareness in aviation systems. In D. J. Garland, J. A.Wise, & V. D. Hopkin (Eds.), Handbook of aviation human factors (pp. 257-276). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eysenck, H. J. (1970). Biological Dimensions of personality. New York: Guilford Press.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Fescemyer, K. (2000). Information-seeking behavior of undergraduate geography students. Research Strategies, 17(4), 307-317.
Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis framework. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 10(1). paper 210 [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-1/paper210.html]
Fidel, R., Mark Pejtersen, A., Cleal, B., & Bruce, H. (2004). A multidimensional approach to the study of human‐information interaction: A case study of collaborative information retrieval. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 55(11), 939-953.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327.
Forbes, L. P., Kelley, S. W., & Hoffman, K. D. (2005). Typologies of e-commerce retail failures and recovery strategies. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(5), 280-292.
Foster, J. (2006). Collaborative information seeking and retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40(1), 329-356.
G*Power: Statistical Power Analyses. (Version 3.1.9.2). [Computer software]. Heinrich-Heine-Universität: Düsseldorf.
Golovchinsky, G., & Diriye, A. (2011). Session-based search with Querium. In Proceedings of the HCIR 2011 Workshop, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Golovchinsky, G., Adcock, J., Pickens, J., Qvarfordt, P., & Back, M. (2008). Cerchiamo: a collaborative exploratory search tool. Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8–12.
Golovchinsky, G., Pickens, J., & Back, M. (2009). A taxonomy of collaboration in online information seeking. arXiv Preprint arXiv:0908.0704. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0704
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information Distribution Affect Process and erformance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 1-15.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw Hill.
Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2002). A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11(3-4), 411-446.
Güver, S., & Motschnig, R. (2017). Effects of Diversity in Teams and Workgroups: A Qualitative Systematic Review. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 7(2), 6-34.
Halder, S., Ray, A., & Chakrabarty, P. K. (2010). Gender differences in information seeking behavior in three universities in West Bengal, India. The International Information & Library Review, 42(4), 242-251.
Hansen, P., & Järvelin, K. (2005). Collaborative information retrieval in an information-intensive domain. Information Processing & Management, 41(5), 1101-1119.
Hansen, P., Shah, C., & Klas, C. P. (Eds.). (2015). Collaborative information seeking: Best practices, new domains and new thoughts. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-18988-8
Hansen, Z., Owan, H., & Pan, J. (2006). The Impact of Group Diversity on Performance and Knowledge Spillover--An Experiment in a College Classroom (No. w12251). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Harrison, L. A. (2009). Understanding the collaborative information seeking practices of undergraduate students (Master’s thesis). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved from http://www.ils.unc.edu/MSpapers/3565.pdf
Hawks, S. J. (2014). The flipped classroom: Now or never? AANA Journal, 82(4), 264-269.
Heath, C., Svensson, M. S., Hindmarsh, J., Luff, P., & Vom Lehn, D. (2002). Configuring awareness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11(3-4), 317-347.
Heggestad, E. D., Morrison, M., Reeve, C. L., & McCloy, R. A. (2006). Forced-choice assessments of personality for se slection: Evaluating issues of normative assessment and faking resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 9-24.
Heinström, J. (2002). Fast surfers, broad scanners and deep divers: Personality and information-seeking behaviour (doctoral dissertation). Åbo Akademi University. Retrieved from http://www.abo.fi/fakultet/media/21373/thesis_heinstrom.pdf
Heinström, J. (2003). Fast surfers, Broad scanners and Deep divers as users of information technology–relating information preferences to personality traits. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 40(1), 247-254.
Herner, L., Higgins, K., Pierce, T., & Miller, S. P. (2002). Study groups for active learning opportunities in preservice education. Professional Educator, 25(2), 29-40.
Hertzum, M. (2008). Collaborative information seeking: The combined activity of information seeking and collaborative grounding. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 957-962.
Hilgard, E. R., Atkinson, R. C., & Atkinson, R. L. (1975). Introduction to psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hinds, P. J., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Wholey, D. (2000). Choosing work group members: Balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 81(2), 226-251.
Hoffman, K. D., Kelley, S. W., & Rotalsky, H. M. (1995). Tracking service failures and employee recovery efforts. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(2), 49-61.
Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(4), 413-424.
Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27-40.
Huteau, M. (1985). Les conceptions cognitive de la personnalité. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
Hyldegård, J., & Ingwersen, P. (2007). Task complexity and information behaviour in group based problem solving. Information Research, 12(4). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis27.html
Jackson, D. N., Wroblewski, V. R., & Ashton, M. C. (2000). The impact of faking on employment tests: Does forced choice offer a solution? Human Performance, 13, 371-388.
Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675-689.
Jahng, N., Nielsen, W. S., & Chan, E. K. (2010). Collaborative learning in an online course: A comparison of communication patterns in small and large group activities. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 24(2), . 39-58
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2009). Influence of Group Member Familiarity on Online Collaborative Learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 161-170.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.
Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types: or the psychology of individuation. Oxford, England: Harcourt, Brace.
Kagan, J. (1994). Galen’s prophecy : temperament in human nature. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books. Retrieved from http://tulips.ntu.edu.tw:1081/record=b2362249*cht
Karamuftuoglu, M. (1998). Collaborative information retrieval: toward a social informatics view of IR interaction. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (1986-1998), 49(12), 1070.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1971). Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review. Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (4). 409-418
Kim, K.-S., Sin, S.-C. J., & Tsai, T.-I. (2014). Individual Differences in Social Media Use for Information Seeking. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(2), 171-178.
Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., & Flood, P. (1999). Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 445-465.
Komissarov, S., & Murray, J. (2016). Factors that Influence Undergraduate Information-seeking Behavior and Opportunities for Student Success. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(4), 423-429.
Lai, J. (2009). Digital Natives as Preservice Teachers: What Technology Preparation Is Needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 91-132.
Lancaster, F. W. (1995). Needs, demands and motivations in the use of sources. Journal of Information, Communication, and Library, 1(3), 3-19.
Leckie, G. J., Pettigrew, K. E., & Sylvain, C. (1996). Modeling the information seeking of professionals: A general model derived from research on engineers, health care professionals, and lawyers. The Library Quarterly, 66(2), 161–193.
Lee, J. (2013). Graduate students'' collaborative information seeking in a group-based learning setting (Doctoral dissertation). University of North Texas. Retrieved from https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc271854/
Lee, J., Paik, W. & Joo, S. (2012). Information resource selection of undergraduate students in academic search tasks. Information Research, 17(1), Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/17-1/paper511.html
Li, N., & Kirkupb, G. (2007). Gender and cultural differences in Internet use: A study of China and the UK. Computers & Education, 48(2), 301-317.
Liechti, O., & Sumi, Y. (2002). Editorial: Awareness and the WWW. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56(1), 1-5.
London, S. (1995). Collaboration and community. Richmond, VA: Pew Partnership for Civic Change, University of Richmond. Retrieved from http://www.upperskeena.ca/storytellers/CCL%20research/ccl/themes/micro-macro/collaboration.pdf
Majid, S., & Ai, T. T. (2002). Usage of information resources by computer engineering students: a case study of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Online Information Review, 26(5), 318-325.
Marston, W. M. (1928). Emotions of normal people. Kegan Paul Trench Trubner And Company., ltd. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/emotionsofnormal032195mbp
Martin, J. (2008). The information seeking behavior of undergraduate education majors: does library instruction play a role? Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 3(4), 4-17.
Meinhart, W. A. (1981). Group effectiveness in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 520-521.
Mick, C. K., Lindsey, G. N., & Callahan, D. (1980). Toward usable user studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 31(5), 347–356.
Morris, M. R., & Horvitz, E. (2007, October). SearchTogether: an interface for collaborative web search. In Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (pp. 3-12). ACM.
Naderi, H., & Rumpler, B. (2010). PERCIRS: a system to combine personalized and collaborative information retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 66(4), 532-562.
Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and Learning in their Disciplinary Contexts: A Conceptual Analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405-417.
Nieva, V. F., Fleishman, E. A., & Rieck, A. (1985). Team dimensions: Their identity, their measurement and their relationships. DTIC Document. Retrieved from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA149662
O’Brien, H. L., & Symons, S. (2005). The information behaviors and preferences of undergraduate students. Research Strategies, 20(4), 409–423.
O’Farrell, M., & Bates, J. (2009). Student information behaviours during group projects: A study of LIS students in University College Dublin, Ireland. In Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 61, pp. 302-315). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdf/10.1108/00012530910959835
Odell, P. M., Korgen, K. O., Schumacher, P., & Delucchi, M. (2000). Internet use among female and male college students. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(5), 855-862.
O''Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21-37.
Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of collaborative vs cooperative learning. Retrieved from http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/pr/ted.html
Paul, S. A., & Morris, M. R. (2009, April). CoSense: enhancing sensemaking for collaborative web search. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1771-1780). ACM.
Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P. (2001). Personality: Theory and research. 8th Edition, New York: Wiley & Sons.
Pervin, L. A. (1970). Personality: theory, assessment, and research. New York: Wiley. Retrieved from http://tulips.ntu.edu.tw:1081/record=b1227616*cht
Prenksy, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II. Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Reddy, M. C., & Jansen, B. J. (2008). A model for understanding collaborative information behavior in context: A study of two healthcare teams. Information Processing & Management, 44(1), 256-273.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2012). Essentials of organizational behavior. New York: Pearson Education Inc.
Roberts, N. C., & Bradley, R. T. (1991). Stakeholder collaboration and innovation: A study of public policy initiation at the state level. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 209–227.
Rozaklis, L. (2012). The academic library in the life of the undergraduate: An investigation of undergraduates’ academic information behaviors in the digital age (Doctoral dissertation). Drexel University. Retrieved from https://idea.library.drexel.edu/islandora/object/idea%3A3959
Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. Ablex Publishing. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-98450-001
Sams, A., & Bergmann, J. (2013). Flip your students’ learning. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 16-20.
Savolainen, R. (2008). Source preferences in the context of seeking problem-specific information. Information Processing & Management, 44(1), 274–293.
Schmidt, K. (2002). The problem withawareness’: Introductory remarks onawareness in CSCW’. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11(3-4), 285-298.
Shah, C. & Marchionini, G. (2010). Awareness in collaborative information seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(10), 1970-1986.
Shah, C. (2008) Toward collaborative information seeking (CIS). arXiv Preprint arXiv:0908.0709. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0709
Shah, C. (2010). Coagmento-a collaborative information seeking, synthesis and sense-making framework. Integrated Demo at CSCW, 6–11.
Shah, C. (2012). Collaborative information seeking: The art and science of making the whole greater than the sum of all. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Shah, C. (2014). Collaborative information seeking. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 215-236.
Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do Friends Perform Better than Acquaintances: The Interaction of Friendship, Conflict and Task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2(2), 149-165.
Shaw, D. (1996). Undergraduate use of CD-ROM databases: Observations of human-computer interaction and relevance judgments. Library & information science research, 18(3), 261-274.
Simone, C., & Bandini, S. (2002). Integrating awareness in cooperative applications through the reaction-diffusion metaphor. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11(3-4), 495-530.
Simsek, A. & Tsai, B. (1992). The impact of cooperative group composition on student performance and attitudes during interactive videodisc instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(3), 86-91.
Slowikowski, M. K. (2005). Using the DISC Behavioral Instrument to Guide Leadership and Communication. AORN Journal, 82(5), 835–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-2092(06)60276-7
Snyder, B., & DeSelms, C. (1982, April). Creative Student-Centered Communication: Activities for the Foreign-and Second-Language Classrooms. In the Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Symposium comducted at the meeting of the ESL and the Foreign Language Teacher, Louisville, KY.
Sonnenwald, D. H., & Pierce, L. G. (2000). Information behavior in dynamic group work contexts: interwoven situational awareness, dense social networks and contested collaboration in command and control. Information Processing & Management, 36(3), 461-479.
Soria, K. M., Fransen, J., & Nackerud, S. (2014). Stacks, serials, search engines, and students'' success: First-year undergraduate students'' library use, academic achievement, and retention. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(1), 84-91.
Spence, P. R. (2013). Interconnectedness and contingencies: A study of context in collaborative information seeking (Doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/17388
Taylor-Powell, E., Rossing, B., & Geran, J. (1998). Evaluating collaboratives: Reaching the potential. Retrieved from https://learningstore.uwex.edu/Assets/pdfs/G3658-08.pdf
Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships Between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Job Performance. Journal of Management, 26(1), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600104
Twait, M. (2005). Undergraduate students’ source selection criteria: A qualitative study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(6), 567-573.
Twidale, M., & Nichols, D. (1996). Collaborative browsing and visualisation of the search process. In Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 48, pp. 177-182). Retrieved from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/53455/1/twidale_aslib_96.pdf
Valentine, B. (1993). Undergraduate research behavior: Using focus groups to generate theory. The journal of academic librarianship, 19(5), 300-304.
Wagner, G. W., Pfeffer, J., & O''Reilly, C. A. (1984). Organizational demography and turnover in top-management groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 74-92.
Waldman, M. (2003). Freshmen''s use of library electronic resources and self-efficacy. Information Research, 8(2). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/8-2/paper150.html
Weller, A. (2005). Information-seeking behaviour in generation Y students: Motivation, critical thinking and learning theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 46-63.
Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1993). Top management team turnover as an adaptation mechanism: The role of the environment. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 485-504.
Wilbur, S. B., & Young, R. E. (1988). The COSMOS project: a multi-disciplinary approach to design of computer supported group working. Euteco, 88, 20-22.
Wildemuth, B. M., & Hughes, A. (2005). Perspectives on the Tasks in which Information Behaviors Are Embedded. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & L. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 275-279). Medford, N.J.: Information Today.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. Res Organ Behav, 20, 77-140.
Wilson, T. D. (1981). On User Studies and information Needs. Journal of Librarianship, 37(1), 3-15.
Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249-270.
Wittenbaum, G. M., & Stasser, G. (1996). Management of information in small groups. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-98278-001
Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management journal, 32(2), 353-376.
Zhan, Z., Fong, P. S., Mei, H., & Liang, T. (2015). Effects of gender grouping on students’ group performance, individual achievements and attitudes in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in human Behavior, 48, 587-596.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top