跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.210.85.190) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/12/06 01:27
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:石官玉
研究生(外文):Kuan-Yu Shih
論文名稱:Web 2.0工具應用於大學生課程相關學習活動之研究
論文名稱(外文):A survey of applying Web 2.0 to undergraduates’ learning
指導教授:吳明德吳明德引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ming-Der Wu
口試委員:朱則剛陳光華
口試委員(外文):Tsa-Kang ChuKuang-Hua Chen
口試日期:2013-07-17
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:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:中文
論文頁數:173
中文關鍵詞:大學生Web 2.0學習活動課程活動使用行為
外文關鍵詞:undergraduatesWeb 2.0learningcurricular activitiesuser behavior
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:1578
  • 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:1
本研究旨在瞭解Web 2.0應用於大學生課程相關學習活動之情形,以及大學生對於相關應用之看法。具體而言,本研究之目的為探討:1. 大學生Web 2.0工具之課程相關學習活動應用行為,2. 大學生Web 2.0日常與學習活動使用行為關聯,3.大學生對Web 2.0應用於課程相關學習活動之態度與看法。本研究採半結構式深度訪談法,訪談對象為21位國立臺灣大學之大學部學生,所有訪談對象皆擁有Web 2.0工具課程相關學習活動使用經驗。除透過訪談問題來了解大學生之Web 2.0學習活動使用行為與看法,本研究另設計受訪者基本資料調查表以蒐集及分析受訪者之基本資料、應用之Web 2.0工具類型與使用頻率資料。
研究結果顯示,大學生在課程相關學習活動中應用廣泛的工具類型。以多媒體分享服務、社群網站、Wikis與課程管理平台等工具最為普遍;課程教師、日常使用習慣與同儕則是影響大學生學習活動工具應用的主要因素。在學習活動中,大學生主要應用Web 2.0工具於小組合作、作業呈現、資料查找、獲取與分享,且以資訊取用為主,甚少參與內容創造。此外,大學生在日常生活中亦使用多元化的Web 2.0工具,其中以部落格、多媒體分享服務、線上溝通工具、社群網站與Wikis最受青睞。日常使用Web 2.0工具之主要影響因素為日常網路瀏覽行為、同儕與教師。大學生日常應用Web 2.0之方式多元,資料查找、儲存與分享、溝通聯繫與休閒娛樂是主要的使用方式,惟日常使用Web 2.0工具仍以資訊取用為主,較少貢獻資訊內容。研究結果也顯示,大學生Web 2.0工具之日常使用與學習活動應用會交互影響,但日常使用之影響力較為明顯。
本研究也發現,大學生認為應用Web 2.0工具於學習活動之優點為:有助於人際溝通聯繫、小組合作、資料查找、分享,以及學習方式與工具多元化;但容易分心、線上溝通效率不佳、人際疏離、資料品質與設備問題等則為其缺點。整體而言,大學生認同運用Web 2.0工具於學習活動,但應適當地使用;而且教師應選擇學生常用的工具,或結合多項工具使用,並善用Web 2.0工具的優點;同時,大學生認為教師應視課程性質與需求運用Web 2.0工具,並主動參與及帶領、鼓勵學生使用。
基於研究結果,本研究分別針對大學教師與高等教育機構提出建議。首先,大學教師應依據課程性質與授課需求適度將Web 2.0工具融入教學活動,並於應用之初即明確告知學生工具運用之目的及所欲達成之教學目標,讓學生有所依循。再者,大學教師應了解並應用學生日常慣用的Web 2.0工具輔助教學,以提高學生的工具使用意願;最後,由於本研究發現即使是學習活動應用,大學生仍甚少參與Web 2.0工具之內容貢獻,故建議大學教師應主動參與並帶領學生應用Web 2.0工具,帶動學生參與內容貢獻之風氣。而高等教育機構方面,本研究建議參考或結合現有Web 2.0工具改善課程管理平台,創新運用學生已然熟悉的工具於課程活動;同時,高等教育機構也應鼓勵教師應用Web 2.0工具輔助教學,吸引學生參與課程,提升學習效率。

This study aims to understand the Web 2.0 usage in undergraduates’ learning as well as students'' views for those applications. Specifically, this study tries to investigate: 1) undergraduates’ uses of Web 2.0 in learning activities, 2) the correlation between undergraduates’ Web 2.0 daily use and learning use, 3) the attitudes and opinions of undergraduates about applying Web 2.0 to learning activities. This study adopted the semi-structured interview method to interview 21 undergraduates from National Taiwan University. All of the interviewees were asked about their usage of Web 2.0 in school learning. In addition to the interview questions, the interviewees also filled in a form about their basic information, choice of Web2.0 tools and the frequency of use. The analysis is based on these data collected.
The results show that undergraduates apply various Web 2.0 tools to learning. The major tools are multimedia-sharing services, social networking sites, Wikis and course management systems. The major influence factors come from teachers, habits and peers. In learning activities, Web 2.0 is mostly used for group work, presentation, information searching, accessing and sharing. When undergraduates apply Web 2.0 to learning, they browse and access to information but rarely create content. In addition, undergraduates also use diverse Web 2.0 tools in daily life. The most popular tools are blogs, multimedia-sharing services, online communication tools, social networking sites and Wikis. The major factors affecting the Web 2.0 daily use were web browsing, peers and teachers. The undergraduates use Web 2.0 in the daily life in various ways, mostly information searching, storage and sharing, communication and entertainment. Even in the daily life, undergraduates still rarely contribute to Web 2.0 platform. The results also indicate that undergraduates’ Web 2.0 daily usage would interwork with its application to learning, but the influence of daily usage is more obvious.
The study also finds that undergraduates consider the advantages of applying Web 2.0 to learning activities are: supporting interpersonal interaction, facilitating group cooperation, easing information searching and sharing, and diversifying learning methods and tools. However, there are also many shortcomings when applying Web 2.0 to learning activities. For example, students are easily distracted, online communication efficiency decreases, and interpersonal relationship becomes alienated. Moreover, there exist data quality and technology equipment problems. Overall, undergraduates agree with the use of Web 2.0 in learning activities and also agree that it should be used appropriately. The students expect that teachers should apply tools which students usually use, make good use of Web 2.0, and encourage students to actively use Web 2.0. Also, the students suggest that teachers should depend on the character and needs of courses to apply Web 2.0, participate in the activities on Web 2.0 actively and lead and encourage students to use
This study offers university teachers and higher education institutions some suggestions based on the findings. Firstly, university teachers should depend on the character and needs to apply Web 2.0 properly and explicitly explain to students why apply Web 2.0 to teaching and what goals they want to achieve at the beginning. Secondly, university teachers should understand and apply the students’ familiar Web 2.0 tools to improve students'' willingness to use these tools. Lastly, the study finds that even in learning, students rarely involve in content creation. The study suggests that university teachers should lead the students to actively use Web 2.0 and to raise students’ willingness to contribute to the content. For higher education institutions, the study suggests to combine the existing Web 2.0 tools to improve the course management systems and to apply students’ familiar tools in curricular activities creatively. Furthermore, higher education institutions should encourage teachers to apply Web 2.0 to improve their teaching, to attract students to participate in curricular activities and enhance their learning efficiency.

誌 謝 i
摘 要 iii
目 次 ix
表目次 xi
圖目次 xiii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 問題陳述 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題 4
第三節 研究範圍與限制 5
第二章 文獻分析 7
第一節 Web 2.0工具之日常性應用研究 7
第二節 Web 2.0工具之教學應用研究 17
第三節 大學生Web 2.0工具學習活動應用研究 33
第三章 研究方法與步驟 39
第一節 研究方法 39
第二節 研究對象 40
第三節 研究工具與研究實施 41
第四節 研究實施流程 42
第四章 研究結果分析 45
第一節 受訪者背景資料分析 45
第二節 大學生Web 2.0工具之課程相關學習活動使用行為 46
第三節 大學生Web 2.0日常與學習活動使用行為關聯 83
第四節 大學生對Web 2.0應用於課程相關學習活動之態度與看法 119
第五章 結論與建議 149
第一節 結論 149
第二節 建議 155
第三節 未來研究建議 158
參考書目 161
附錄一 受訪者基本資料調查表 169
附錄二 訪談大綱 171
附錄三 前測訪談大綱 173


卜小蝶(民96)。Web 2.0與Library 2.0簡介。國立成功大學圖書館館刊,16,8-14。
王玫、黃仁清(民99)。Blog運用於通識美學課程之教學實踐。實踐博雅學報,14,29-61。
王雨涵(民96)。應用Wiki平台設計視覺藝術教學的群組活動之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中技術學院多媒體設計研究所,臺中。
王雲東(民96)。社會研究方法:量化與質性取向及其應用。臺北:威仕曼文化。
行政院研考會(民99)99年個人家戶數位落差調查報告中文摘要。取自http://www.rdec.gov.tw/public/Attachment/171514524071.pdf
朱則剛(民98)。學習理論與教學理論。載於臺灣教育傳播暨科技學會(主編),教育科技─理論與實務【理論篇、研究方法篇】(49-73 頁)。臺北市:學富文化。
吳幸宜(譯)(民83)。學習理論與教學應用(原作者:Gredler, M. E.)。臺北市:心理。(原著出版年:1991)
吳京澤(民99)。探索學生應用Web2.0於課程學習上的認知與接受(未出版之碩士論文)。南台科技大學資訊傳播系,臺南市。
李政賢(民95)。質性研究:設計與計畫撰寫(原作者:Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B.)。臺北市:五南。(原著出版年:1999)
林文川、楊淑晴(民100)。應用wiki網路寫作系統發展大專英文寫作技巧之研究。課程與教學季刊,14(2),75-102。
林佳蓉(民98)。教學設計理論基礎與重要模式。載於臺灣教育傳播暨科技學會(主編),教育科技─理論與實務【理論篇、研究方法篇】(75-119 頁)。臺北市:學富文化。
林泰宏(民97)。LIBRARY 2.0!?。國立成功大學圖書館館刊,16,24-36。
林翠雲(民97)。播客、部落格、行動學習與遊戲式學習─〈華語e起來學習網〉的四種數位學習模式。中原華語文學報,2,135-154。
岳修平(民97)。Web 2.0影音分享平台之學習應用探討。臺灣圖書館管理季刊,4(3),9-21。
陳盈蓁(民99)。大學圖書館部落格迴響之研究(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。
黃若詒、岳修平、張玨(民98)。應用Wiki平台於大學性別通識課程之研究。教學科技與媒體,88,70-89。
粟四維(民96年5月)。Web 2.0再掀企業革命。數位時代:15分鐘搞懂Web 2.0特刊,取自http://www.bnext.com.tw/magazine/list/cid/147/
創市際市場研究顧問公司(民101)。創市際月刊報告書 2012年4月,取自http://www.scribd.com/doc/91786083/InsightXplorer-Monthly-Report-201204
鄭照順、鄒浮安(民100)。大學生網路使用行為與網路影響之研究─以高苑科技大學為例。高苑學報,17(2),119-134。
簡西村、蘇偉仁(民95)。Web 2.0:網路上有錢 創意在裡面。臺北市:資訊工業策進會。
簡西村、洪毓祥(民95)。Web 2.0創新應用案例集:科技化服務新趨勢。臺北市:資訊工業策進會。
盧姵綺(民100)。Blog網路學習社群對大學生藝術通識課程知識建構影響之研究。教育科學研究期刊,56(2),137-174。
Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71-80.
Anderson, P.(2007)What is Web 2.0? Ideas ,technologies and implications for education. Bristol: JISC. Retrieved from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf
Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0, pedagogical support for reflexive and emotional social interaction among Swedish students. Internet and higher Education, 13(4), 197-205.
Boeninger, C. F. (2007). The wonderful world of Wikis: Applications for libraries. In Courtney, N. (Eds.) Library 2.0 And beyond: Innovative technologies and tomorrow’s user (pp. 25-33). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Brown, S. A. (2012). Seeing Web 2.0 in context: A study of academic perception. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 50-57.
Burhanna, K. J., Seeholer, J., & Salem, J. (2009). No natives here: A focus group Study of student perceptions of Web 2.0 and the academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(6), 523-536.
Corrin, L., Lockyer, L., & Bennett, S. (2010). Technological diversity: an investigation of students’ technology use in everyday life and academic study. Learning, Media and Technology, 35(4), 387-401.
Crook, C. (2008). Web 2.0 Technologies for Learning: The current landscape – opportunities, challenges and tensions. Coventry: Becta. Retrieved from: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1475/2/becta_2008_web2_currentlandscapeadditional_litrev.pdf
Dohn, N. B. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343-363.
Edwards, J. T., & Baker, C. (2010). A case study: Google collaboration applications as online course teaching tools. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 828-838.
Farkas, M. G. (2007). Social software in libraries: Building collaboration, communication, and community online. Medford, N.J. : Information Today.
Farmer, B., Yue, A., & Brooks, C. (2008). Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort university teaching: A case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 123-136.
Franklin, T., & van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for content for learning and teaching in higher education. Bristol: JISC. Retrieved from: http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/148/1/web2-content-learning-and-teaching.pdf
Funk, T. (2009). Web 2.0 and beyond: Understanding the new online business models, trends, and technologies. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 478-482.
Harris, A. L., & Rea, A. (2010). Web 2.0 and virtual world technologies: A growing impact on IS education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 137-144.
Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 183-198.
Hrastinski, S., & Aghaee, N. M. (2012). How are campus students using social media to support their studies? An explorative interview study. Education and Information Technologies, 17(4), 451-464.
Hussain, I., Gulrez, N., & Tahirkheli, S. A. (2012, February). Academic use of social media: Practices and problems of university students. Paper presented at 2012 International Conference on Education and Management Innovation, Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.ipedr.com/vol30/37-ICEMI%202012-M00074.pdf
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722-732.
Jones, S., Johnson-Yale, C., Millermaier, S., & Perez, F. S. (2009). Everyday life, online: U. S. college students’ use of the Internet. First Monday, 14(10), Retrieved from: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2649/2301
Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2010). A five-year study of on-compus Internet use by undergraduate biomedical students. Computer & Education, 55(4), 1564-1571.
Karasavvidis, I. (2010). Integrating Web 2.0 technologies in undergraduate teaching: Experiences with a Wiki implementation. In M. Iskander, V. Kapila & M. A. Karim (Eds.), Technological Developments in Education and Automation, (pp. 449-454). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media B.V..
Kenny, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., & Gray, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122.
Kretz, C. (2007) Podcasting in libraries. In Courtney, N. (Eds.), Library 2.0 And beyond: Innovative technologies and tomorrow’s user (pp. 35-48). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Kumar, S. (2009). Undergraduate perceptions of the usefulness of Web 2.0 in higher education: Survey Development. In Proceedings of 8th European Conference on E-learning (ECEL). Retrieved from: http://web2integration.pbworks.com/f/Undergraduate%2BPerceptions%2Bof%2Bthe%2BUsefulness%2Bof%2BWeb%2B2.0%2Bin%2BHigher%2BEducation.pdf
Kumar, S. (2010). The Net generation’s informal and educational use of new technologies. In Education, 16(2), Retrieved from: http://www.ineducation.ca/article/net-generation-s-informal-and-educational-use-new-technologies
Laru, J., Naykki, P., & Jarvela, S. (2012). Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education context. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 29-38.
Luo, L. (2009). Web 2.0 integration in information literacy instruction: an overview. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(1), 32-40.
Magolda, P. M., & Platt, G. J. (2009). Untangling web 2.0’s influences on student learning. About Campus, 14(3), 10-16.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computer & Education, 56(2), 429-440.
Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2008). E-learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher education. New York: Routledge.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from: http://tim.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Sendall, P., Ceccucci, W., & Peslak, A. (2008). Web 2.0 Matters: An analysis of implementing Web 2.0 in the classroom. Information Systems Education Journal, 6(64), Retrieved from: http://isedj.org/6/64/ISEDJ.6(64).Sendall.pdf
Thompson, J. (2007). Is education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students? Innovate, 3(4), Retrieved from: http://dmc.utep.edu/blackboard/in/in/ed1_web2.pdf
Uzunboylu, H., Bicen, H., & Cavus, N. (2011). The efficient virtual learning environment: A case study of web 2.0 tools and Windows live spaces. Computer & Education, 56(3), 720-726.
Virkus, S. (2008). Use of Web 2.0 technologies in LIS education: experiences at Tallinn University, Estonia. Program: electronic library and information systems, 42(3), 262-274.
Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., & Gray, K. (2010). Digital divides? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1202-1211.
Wu, Ming-der, & Yeh, Ssu-Tsen (2012). Effects of undergraduate student computer competence on usage of library electronic collections. Journal of Library and Information Studies, 10(1), 1-17.
Zakaria, M. H., Watson, J., & Edwards, S. L. (2010). Investigating the use of Web 2.0 technology by Malaysian students. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 4(1), 17-29.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top