(34.234.76.59) 您好!臺灣時間:2019/01/16 19:45
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
本論文永久網址: 
line
研究生:柯俊如
研究生(外文):Chun-Ru Ko
論文名稱:以探究社群理論架構探討臺大MOOCs討論區臨場感展現的學科差異
論文名稱(外文):Disciplinary Differences Manifested through NTU MOOCs Forums: A Community of Inquiry Perspective
指導教授:林珊如林珊如引用關係
口試委員:唐蓉邱銘心林維真
口試日期:2015-11-19
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
論文出版年:2015
畢業學年度:104
語文別:中文
論文頁數:255
中文關鍵詞:大規模開放線上課程探究社群臨場感學科差異同儕學習華人學習者內容分析
外文關鍵詞:MOOCCommunity of InquiryPresenceDisciplinary DifferencePeer-LearningChinese LearnerContent Analysis
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:6
  • 點閱點閱:1086
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:245
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
隨著Udacity、Coursera與edX等MOOCs平台接連推出,世界各地知名大學投入開課行列,至今已有超過4000門使用各種語言開設不同學科的MOOCs課程。雖然MOOCs可以降低高等教育成本,並結合連結主義、翻轉教室、學習分析等進行教學創新,然而MOOCs的低完成率飽受批評,導致MOOCs學習者行為研究隨之而起。一些研究者發現MOOCs課程完成者經常會活躍於討論區,可見討論區互動與良好的MOOCs學習經驗有關。因此,本研究利用已成熟發展的探究社群理論架構做為資料分析架構,針對MOOCs討論區進行質化與量化內容分析,藉由觀察討論區展現的社會臨場感、認知臨場感以及教學臨場感,呈現目前MOOCs學習者的互動經驗並據此對於教學團隊及平台設計者提出建議。
由於先前針對MOOCs討論區進行的實證研究多為單一課程個案並以西方學習者為研究對象,這些研究成果未必能推及其他學科與華人學習者。本研究以國立臺灣大學於Coursera開設的「職場素養」、「紅樓夢一」、「工程圖學」、「基礎光學一」四門課程作為研究對象,藉由比較四門課程展現的軟硬學科及應用基礎學科特色,提出差異化的建議。
研究結果顯示,四門中文MOOCs的探究社群臨場感分布具有顯著差異。軟學科課程不具有特定知識典範而鼓勵個人闡述己見,促使討論區展現較多人際溝通類別的社會臨場感、探索階段的認知臨場感與直接指導類別的教學臨場感;硬學科課程有特定知識典範且重視知識權威,討論區會展現較多開放溝通類別的社會臨場感與觸發事件階段的認知臨場感。應用學科課程重視經驗與應用,討論區會展現較多人際溝通類別的社會臨場感且更容易進入決議階段的認知臨場感;基礎學科課程重視理論性知識且知識門檻較高,則使討論區展現較多探索階段的認知臨場感。
除了學科特性的影響,MOOCs特色也是造成四門中文MOOCs討論區臨場感分布差異的原因。首先,MOOCs的學習者組成特性會引發增加社會臨場感與教學臨場感出現機會的特殊對話,且這些特殊對話會隨著學科特性有所不同。MOOCs學習者因為組成背景多元,會展開世代、兩岸、專業、動機的交流對話,並且因為可以彈性進出MOOCs課程而出現延後進入課程者、提早離開課程者、不回應後續對話者及即時同步對話者的特殊對話,這些對話都促使討論區產生更多自我揭露的機會。同時,MOOCs學習者為了解決人數眾多造成的溝通問題,自行發展出「頂文」與「歪樓」策略。其次,MOOCs的評分機制會引發更多提升認知臨場感與教學臨場感質量的特殊對話。一方面同儕互評機制使討論區出現系統操作問題、作業分數爭議、評分標準說明、反思評分標準、發起教學活動、作業分享、回應同儕評語的討論,另一方面自動評分機制也讓討論區出現系統操作問題、作業設定錯誤舉報、挑戰作業繳交次數、交流時顧慮作弊的對話。MOOCs討論區的標籤他人、匿名發言、正負評評分機制的功能亦會影響不同臨場感的展現。有鑑於探究社群編碼表未能分析所有MOOCs特色引發的對話類型,未來應繼續發展學習臨場感或後設認知臨場感使此理論架構更為完善。
最後,研究者發現四門中文MOOCs討論區的對話展現出尊師重道、重視非語言表達、避免衝突的華人學習者特色,同樣會影響四門中文MOOCs討論區的臨場感分布。
本研究不同於既往文獻,以華人學習者為研究對象,同時針對四門不同學科類型的課程進行比較。除了根據結果提出提升討論區互動成效的具體建議,也對於探究社群編碼表提出修正建議,同時發展能對應不同臨場感的MOOCs討論區訊息主題分類表,以利後續研究者參考。
In 2012, the launch of the Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) platforms Udacity, Coursera and edX prompted leading universities such as Stanford, MIT, and Harvard to immediately offer MOOCs. According to the MOOCs accumulator Class Central, the cumulative number of MOOCs will total nearly 4000 by 2016. These free online courses, from different disciplines and taught in several languages, can reduce the cost of higher education and improve teaching by combining education with Connectivism, the Flipped Classroom, and Learning Analytics. However, MOOCs face a serious problem of the low completion rate. Researchers have conducted studies on MOOCs learners’ behaviors to remedy this issue, and have found that those who complete MOOCs courses tend to actively participate in the forums.
Under the assumption that forum interactions positively impact the MOOCs learning experience, this study has adopted the “Community of Inquiry” theoretical framework to analyze messages in MOOCs forums. This researcher will observe how social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence are presented in MOOCs forums, making recommendations to MOOCs teaching teams and platform designers accordingly. Because most MOOCs forum research studies have focused on one course and are aimed at western learners, their results may not be applicable to all disciplines and Chinese learners. Therefore, this study quantitatively and qualitatively analyzes the content of four Chinese MOOCs offered on Coursera by National Taiwan University: “Professionalism,” “Red Chamber Dream 1,” “Engineering Graphics,” and “Basic Optical 1.” By presenting the disciplinary differences and interaction characteristics of Chinese learners, this study will be able to make specific recommendations to Chinese MOOCs teaching teams in different disciplines.
This researcher finds significant differences between the categories of social presence, cognitive presence and teaching presence in the four sampled Chinese MOOCs. Soft subject students (students in disciplines that lack a fixed paradigm) are encouraged to make different interpretations and are therefore present more in the “Interpersonal Communication” category of social presence, “Exploration” stage of cognitive presence, and “Direct Instruction” category of teaching presence. Hard subject learners (students in disciplines that have a fixed paradigm) depend on accumulative knowledge and accordingly are present more in the “Open Communication” category of social presence and “Triggering Event” stage of cognitive presence. Applied subject (where application of knowledge is heavily emphasized) students are present more in the “Interpersonal Communication” category of social presence and “Resolution” stage of cognitive presence, while pure subject (where application of knowledge is less heavily emphasized) learners are present more in the “Exploration” stage of cognitive presence.
In addition to these disciplinary differences, the characteristics of MOOCs also impacts how these students develop their presence in the forums. The diverse background of MOOCs learners may lead to new dialogues that increase social presence and teaching presence. The multiple learning paths available to these students—such as delayed course takers, early course takers, no follow-up learners, and synchronous communicators—may cause more self-exposure in the forums. Finally, MOOCs learners learn to bump messages and change thread topics to solve communication problems caused by the presence of large-scale participation, which may also increase their social presence.
Additionally, the design of the MOOCs assessment system and forums will also lead to more conversations that enhance the quality and quantity of the cognitive presence and teaching presence. Adopting peer assessment will lead to MOOCs learners discussing the following in the forums: technical problems, controversies over scoring, practices of rubrics, and reflections on assignment design. Students also are more likely to share assignments, respond to reviewers’ opinions, and hold learning activities in the forums. However, the automatic grading system not only triggers discussions about system errors or bugs, but also leads to MOOCs learners considering the possibility of cheating. As for the function of MOOCs forums, the voting system provides an important way to express opinion even though tagging other learners and anonymous discussions are not beneficial for the social presence.
Besides these results, this study identified Chinese learners’ characteristics that impact forum presence development: respecting their professors, paying attention to non-verbal expressions, and avoiding conflicts, and developed a message topic classification table based on the MOOCs forums that can refer to a specific presence. Subsequent research can adopt these recommendations to optimize the Community of Inquiry theoretical framework.
目 次 I
表 次 V
圖 次 IX

第壹章 緒論 1

第一節 研究背景與動機 2
第二節 研究目的與問題 8
第三節 研究範圍與限制 9
第四節 名詞解釋 11

第貳章 文獻分析 14

第一節 大規模開放線上課程(MOOCS) 14
一、MOOCs的發展背景與定義演變 15
二、MOOCs學習環境的特色 21
三、MOOCs討論區的重要性 25
四、小結 28

第二節 探究社群 29
一、建構主義理論基礎 30
二、探究社群理論架構 31
三、以探究社群理論作為分析架構之考量 39
四、小結 43

第三節 學科差異 44
一、學科差異於數位學習的研究價值 45
二、學科分類架構及定義 45
三、學科差異對教學活動的影響 48
四、MOOCs的學科差異 50
五、小結 53

第四節 相關實證研究 54
一、數位學習討論區互動的學科差異 55
二、MOOCs討論區的使用者行為 57
三、小結 64

第參章 研究設計與實施 67

第一節 研究方法 67
第二節 研究流程 70
第三節 研究對象 72
第四節 資料處理與分析 82
第五節 研究信度與效度 98
第六節 研究倫理 100

第肆章 研究結果 104

第一節 四門中文MOOCS的探究社群臨場感分布差異 104
一、四門MOOCs討論區的社會臨場感分布差異 107
二、四門MOOCs討論區的認知臨場感分布差異 113
三、四門MOOCs討論區的教學臨場感分布差異 124
四、小結 134

第二節 MOOCS學習者特性對探究社群的影響 142
一、背景多元之學習者引發的特殊對話 142
二、彈性進出之學習者對討論區互動的影響 150
三、學習者因應人數眾多展現的對話策略 157
四、MOOCs學習者特性的學科差異 161
五、小結 168

第三節 MOOCS平台功能對探究社群的影響 173
一、評分機制採納對臨場感的影響 173
二、討論區功能對臨場感的影響 183
三、小結 188

第伍章 綜合討論 192

第一節 中文MOOCS討論區展現的學科差異 192
一、探究社群臨場感分布會因學科而異 192
二、訊息主題分布會因學科差異 194
三、MOOCs學習者特性引發的特殊互動會因學科而異 197
四、與以往學科差異研究之不同處 197

第二節 MOOCS特色對探究社群臨場感展現的影響 200
一、MOOCs學習者特性會引發影響臨場感分布的特殊對話 200
二、MOOCs平台功能特色引發影響臨場感分布的特殊對話 202

第三節 中文MOOCS討論區展現的華人學習者特性 203
一、尊師重道 204
二、重視非語言表達線索 209
三、避免衝突 211

第四節 以探究社群分析中文MOOCS討論區的適用性 214
一、探究社群編碼表的實務判斷調整 214
二、探究社群理論的發展方向 217

第陸章 結論與建議 218

第一節 結論 218
第二節 建議 222
第三節 未來研究方向 231

參考文獻 233
附錄:編碼示例 248
MOOC学院。(2013)。MOOC中文用户大摸底。民103年11月23日取自 http://mooc.guokr.com/post/610667/
MOOC学院。(2014)。2014年慕课学习者调查报告。民103年11月23日取自 http://mooc.guokr.com/post/610674/
楊鎮華。(2013)。磨課師推動計畫。民103年12月13日取自http://amaaa.nsysu.edu.tw/ezfiles/258/1258/img/1547/149103737.pdf
臺大校訊。(2013)。Coursera最受歡迎華語 MOOC課程臺大囊括全球前四名。民103年11月23日取自 http://host.cc.ntu.edu.tw/sec/schinfo/schinfo_asp/ShowContent.asp?num=1171&sn=12333
Abelson, H. (2008). The Creation of OpenCourseWare at MIT. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(2), 164-174.
Adamopoulos, P. (2013). What makes a great MOOC? An interdisciplinary analysis of student retention in online courses. Paper presented at the Thirty fourth international conference on information systems, Milan.
Ackland, R. (2013). Web Social Science: Concepts, Data and Tools for Social Scientists in the Digital Age. London: Sage Publications.
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011a). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 14, 183-190.
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011b). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233–250.
Akyola, Z., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). The impact of course duration on the development of a community of inquiry. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3), 231-246.
Allen, B. (1990). The Effects of Academic Background on Statement of Information Need. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 60(2), 120-138
Anakwe, U. P. (1999) Distance Learning and Cultural Diversity: Potential Users' Perspective, International Journal of Organizational Analysis,7,224-243.
Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Leskovec, J. (2014). Engaging with massive online courses. Paper presented at the WWW '14 Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web, New York, NY, USA
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Teacher Presence in a Computer Conferencing Context. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.409.9114&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Does the Community of Inquiry Framework Predict Outcomes in Online MBA Courses? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/490/1045
Arbaugh, J. B., Bangert, A. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010).Subject matter effects and the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 37-44
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 133–136.
Archer, W. (2010). Beyond online discussion: Extending the community of inquiry framework to entire courses. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 69.
Auletta, K. (2012). Get Rich U.: There are no walls between Stanford and Silicon Valley. Should there be? . Retrieved 11/24, 2014, from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/30/get-rich-u
Ballard, B., & Clancy, J. (1991).Teaching students from overseas: A brief guide for lecturers and supervisors. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Baron, J. 1998, ‘Teaching online across cultures’, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Open Learning, Queensland Open Learning Network, Brisbane, 2–4 December, pp. 67–72.
Baxter, J. A., & Haycock, J. (2014). Roles and Student Identities in Online Large Course Forums: Implications for Practice International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1593/2763
Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The Academic Profession: National, Disciplinary, and Institutional Settings (pp. 271–304). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151-161.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.
Biggs, J. (1996). Western misperceptions of the Confucian-Heritage learning culture. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences. (pp. 45–67). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.
Belanger, Y., & Thornton, J. (2013).Bioelectricity: A quantitative approach. Retrieved on May 7 from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/6216/Duke_Bioelectricity_MOOC_Fall2012.pdf
Bischoff, P. (2014). Coursera picks up steam in China as more students take MOOCs on mobile. Retrieved 11/23, 2014, from https://www.techinasia.com/coursera-picks-steam-china-students-moocs-mobile/
Bob, K., & Chris, J. (2007). Academic use of digital resources: Disciplinary differences and the issue of progression revisited. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 10(1), 52–60.
Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying Learning in the Worldwide Classroom Research into edX’s First MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13-25.
Brown, M. (2011). Learning Analytics: The Coming Third Wave. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/learning-analytics-coming-third-wave
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, C. (2007). Giving knowledge for free : the emergence of open educational resources. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Chai, Y., & Yang, L-S. (2014). A Literature Review of MOOC. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Science and Social Research.
Chaturvedi, S., Goldwasser, D., & Daumé III, H. (2014). Predicting instructor's intervention in MOOC forums. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Chen, C. C., Chen, X. & Meindl, J. H. (1998). How Can Cooperation be Fostered? The Cultural Effects of Individualism-Collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 285-304.
Cheng, J. C. Y. (2014). An exploratory study of emotional affordance of a Massive Open Online Course. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/?p=archives&year=2014&halfyear=1&article=607
Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B, Bennett, A., Woods. D & Emanuel. E. J. (2013). The MOOC Phenomenon: Who Takes Massive Open Online Courses and Why? (November 6, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2350964 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2350964
Clinnin, K. (2014). Redefining the MOOC: Examining the multilingual and community potential of massive online courses. Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies, 2(3), 140-162.
Convery, I., & Cox, D. (2012). A review of research ethics in internet-based research. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 6(1), 50-57.
Coursera Blog. (2015). Daphne Koller: Announcing the first MBA on Coursera from the University of Illinois. Retrieved 9/3, 2015, from http://blog.coursera.org/post/118152158892/daphne-koller-announcing-the-first-mba-on
Coursera Blog. (2015). Coursera Celebrates 1 Million Learners in China with Alipay Integration. Retrieved 9/3, 2015, from http://blog.coursera.org/post/123957682612/coursera-celebrates-1-million-learners-in-china
Crowley, B. P., & Delfico, J. F. (1996). Content Analysis: A Methodology for Structuring and Analyzing Written Material. The U.S. Government Accountability Office : Program Evaluation and Methodology Division
D'Antoni, S., & Savage, C. (Eds.). (2009). Open educational resources: conversations in cyberspace. UNESCO.
Daniel, J. (2012). Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. 3 (18), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/2012-18
Dewey, J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed. The School Journal, LIV(3), 77-80.
DeBoer, J., Ho, A. D., Stump, G. S., & Breslow, L. (2014). Changing “Course”: Reconceptualizing Educational Variables for Massive Open Online Courses. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 74–84.
Dennen, V. P. (2008). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1624–1633.
Doolin, B. (1998). Information technology as disciplinary technology: being critical in interpretive research on information systems. Journal of Information Technology (13), 301–311
Donald, J. C. (1983). Knowledge structures: methods for exploring course content, Journal of Higher Education, 54, 31–41.
Ebbena, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: a review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(3), 328-345.
edX. (2015). Start Learning with Global Freshman Academy. Retrieved 9/3, 2015, from https://www.edx.org/gfa
Ferguson, R., & Shum, S. B. (2011, 27 Feb - 01 Mar 2011). Learning Analytics To Identify Exploratory Dialogue within Synchronous Text Chat. Paper presented at the LAK 2011: 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, Banff, Alberta.
Fisher, D. H., & Fox, A. (2013). Report on the CCC-CRA Workshop on Multidisciplinary Research For Online Education. Washington, DC: Computing Community Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.cra.org/ccc/files/docs/CCC-MROE-Report.pdf
Garrison, D. R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: a conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 10(4), 287-303.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. NY: Routledge.
Garrison, D. R. (2012). Theoretical Foundations and Epistemological Insights of the Community of Inquiry. In Z. Akyol , & D. R. Garrison, Educational Communities of Inquiry: Theoretical Framework, Research and Practice (pp. 1-11). Hershey, PA : IGI Global.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. , Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.
Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A Transactional Perspective on Teaching and Learning : A Framework for Adult and Higher Education. UK: Pergamon.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 1-8.
General Assembly, U. N. (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Retrieved 11/23, 2014, from The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx
George, A. (1959). Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Content Analysis. In I. d. S. Pool (Ed.), Trends in Content Analysis. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Glance, D. G., Forsey, M., & Riley, M. (2013). The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses. First Monday , 18(5). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4350/3673
Gillania, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18-26.
Gorsky, P., Caspi, A., Antonovsky, A., Blau, I., & Mansur, A. (2010). The Relationship between Academic Discipline and Dialogic Behavior in Open University Course Forums. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 49-72.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixing Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.
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.
Haythornthwaite, C., Laat, M. d., & Dawson, S. (2013). Introduction to the Special Issue on Learning Analytics. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1371).
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45–58.
Ho, A. D., Reich, J., Nesterko, S., Seaton, D. T., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J., & Chuang, I. (2014). HarvardX and MITx: The first year of open online courses (HarvardX and MITx Working Paper No. 1)
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications, Newbury, CA
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and Reality. New York, USA: Columbia University. Retrieved from http://www.academicpartnerships.com/sites/default/files/MOOCs_Expectations_and_Reality.pdf
Huang, J., Dasgupta, A., Ghosh, A., Manning, J., & Sanders, M. (2014). Superposter behavior in MOOC forums Paper presented at the L@S '14: Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Ice, P. (2012). Through the Looking Glass: Emerging Technologies and the Community of Inquiry Framework. In Z. Akyol & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational Communities of Inquiry: Theoretical Framework, Research and Practice (pp. 446-465). Hershey, Pa.: IGI Global
Kay, J., Reimann, P., Diebold, E., & Kummerfeld, B. (2013). MOOCs: So Many Learners, So Much Potential ... Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 28(3), 70-77.
Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2013). How satisfied are you with your MOOC?” - A Research Study on Interaction in Huge Online Courses. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Victoria, Canada.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology 2nd Edition. London: Sage.
Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. Paper presented at the LAK '13 Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, New York, NY, USA.
Knox, J. (2014). Digital culture clash: “massive” education in the E-learning and Digital Cultures MOOC. Distance Education, 35(2), 164-177.
Koutropoulos, A., Gallagher, M. S., Abajian, S. C., Waard, I. d., Hogue, R. J., Keskin, N. Ö., & Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). Emotive Vocabulary in MOOCs: Context & Participant Retention. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/?p=current&article=507
Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014). Interrelationships between and among social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Internet and Higher Education, 21, 68-73.
Ku, H., & Lohr, L. L. (2003). A case study of Chinese students’ attitude toward their first online learning experience. Education Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 94-102.
Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice and Using Software. London: SAGE.
Lam, P., McNaught, C., Lee, J., & Chan, M. (2014). Disciplinary difference in students' use of technology, experience in using eLearning strategies and perceptions toward eLearning. Computers & Education, 73, 111-120.
Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593-618.
Lim, H. L. (2009). Understanding Group Interaction and Knowledge Building in Virtual Learning Environments. In V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of Research on E-Learning Applications for Career and Technical Education: Technologies for Vocational Training (pp. 312-328). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Liu, X., Liu, S., Lee, S.-h., & Magjuka, R. J. (2010). Cultural Differences inOnline Learning: International Student Perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (3), 177–188.
Mackness, J., Mak, S. & Williams, R. (2010) The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In:Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., Jones, C., De Laat, M., McConnell, D. and Ryberg, T., eds. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010 : University of Lancaster, Lancaster, pp. 266-275.
Meisenhelder, S. (2013). MOOC Mania. Thought & Action, 29, 7-26.
Nagel, L., & Kotzé, T. G. (2010). Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals about teaching presence in a large online class. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 45-51.
Nesterko, S. O., Seaton, D. T., Kashin, K., Han, Q., Reich, J., Waldo, J., Chuang I., & Ho, A. D. (2015a). Age Composition (HarvardX Insights). Retrieved 9/3, 2015, from http://harvardx.harvard.edu/harvardx-insights/age-composition
Nesterko, S. O., Seaton, D. T., Kashin, K., Han, Q., Reich, J., Waldo, J., Chuang I., & Ho, A. D. (2015b). Education Levels Composition (HarvardX Insights). Retrieved 9/3, 2015, from http://harvardx.harvard.edu/harvardx-insights/education-levels-composition
Nesterko, S. O., Seaton, D. T., Kashin, K., Han, Q., Reich, J., Waldo, J., Chuang I., & Ho, A. D. (2015c). World Map of Age Composition (HarvardX Insights). Retrieved 9/3, 2015, from http://harvardx.harvard.edu/harvardx-insights/world-map-age-composition
Nesterko, S. O., Seaton, D. T., Kashin, K., Han, Q., Reich, J., Waldo, J., Chuang I., & Ho, A. D. (2015d). World Map of Education Composition (HarvardX Insights). Retrieved 9/3, 2015, from http://harvardx.harvard.edu/harvardx-insights/world-map-education-composition
Nesterko, S. O., Seaton, D. T., Kashin, K., Han, Q., Reich, J., Waldo, J., Chuang I., & Ho, A. D. (2015e). World Map of Enrollment (HarvardX Insights). Retrieved 9/3, 2015, from http://harvardx.harvard.edu/harvardx-insights/world-map-enrollment
Nesterko, S. O., Seaton, D. T., Kashin, K., Han, Q., Reich, J., Waldo, J., Chuang I., & Ho, A. D. (2015f). World Map of Gender Composition (HarvardX Insights). Retrieved 9/3, 2015, from http://harvardx.harvard.edu/world-map-gender-composition
Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: a conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405-407.
Pappano, L. (2012). The Year of the MOOC. Retrieved 11/24, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.htm
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.
Richardson , J. C., Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes , M., Ice, P., Swan , K. P., & Garrison, D. R. (2012). Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design. In L. Moller, & J. B. Huett, The Next Generation of Distance Education : Unconstrained Learning (pp. 97-125). Springer US.
Riff, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2005). Analyzing Media Messages : Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research (2nd Edition). Florence, KY, USA: Taylor and Francis.
Riff, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2014). Analyzing Media Messages : Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research (3rd Edition). Florence, KY, USA: Taylor and Francis.
Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like Courses: Two Successful and Distinct Course Formats for Massive Open Online Courses European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning.
Rodriguez, O. (2013). The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). Open Praxis, 5(1), 67-73.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001a). Methodological Issues in the Content Analysis of Computer Conference Transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8-22.
Rourke , L., Anderson , T., Garrison , D. R., & Archer, W. (2001b). Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing. Journal of Distance Education , 14(2), 50-71.
Saadatdoost, R., Sim, A. T. H., Mittal, N., Jafarkarimi, H., & Hee, J. M. (2014). A netnography study of MOOC community Paper presented at the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems 2014.
Shah, D. (2014). Online Courses Raise Their Game: A Review of MOOC Stats and Trends in 2014. Retrieved 12/29, 2014, from https://www.class-central.com/report/moocs-stats-and-trends-2014/
Sharples, M., Adams, A., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M., & Whitelock, D. (2014). Innovating Pedagogy 2014: Open University Innovation Report 3. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/iet/main/files/iet-web/file/ecms/web-content/Innovating_Pedagogy_2014.pdf
Shea, P., Sau, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190.
Shea, P. & Bidjerano, T.(2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721-1731
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Uzuner, S., Vickers, J., Wilde, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., & Jian, S. (2012). Learning presence: A new conceptual element within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 89-95.
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Uzuner, S., Gozza-Cohen, Vickers, J, & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Reconceptualizing the community of inquiry framework: An exploratory analysis. Internet and Higher Education, 23 (4), 9-17.
Smart, J. C. & Ethington, C. A. (1995). Disciplinary and institutional differences in undergraduate education goals, in: N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds) Disciplinary Differences in Teaching and Learning: implication s for practice, pp. 49–57 (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication. London, UK: Wiley.
Shum, S. B., & Ferguson, R. (2011). Social learning analytics (Technical Report KMI-11-01). London: Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University.
Siemens, G., Gašević, D. & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the digital university: A review of the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning. Retrieved from http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/article/Preparing-for-the-digital-university%3A-a-review-of-the-history-and-current-state-of-distance,-blended,-and-online-learnin
Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is Collaborative Learning? . In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, V. Tinto, B. L. Smith & J. MacGregor (Eds.), Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment at Pennsylvania State University.
Smith, G. G., Heindel, A. J., & Torres-Ayala, A. T. (2008). E-learning commodity or community: Disciplinary differences between online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 152-159.
Smith, P. J. & Smith, S. N. (1999). Differences between Chinese and Australian students: some implications for distance educators. Distance Education. 20 (1). 64-80.
Stewart, B. (2013). Massiveness + Openness = New Literacies of Participation? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/stewart_bonnie_0613.htm
Stump, G. S., DeBoer, J., Whittinghill, J., & Breslow, L. (2013). Development of a Framework to Classify MOOC Discussion Forum Posts: Methodology and Challenges. MIT Teaching and Learning Laboratory.
Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, , J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: the Community of Inquiry framework. In R. P. C. , Information Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive Learning Frameworks. (pp. 43-57.). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Tashakkori, A. & Newman, I. (2010). Mixed methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. In McGaw, B., Baker, E. & Peterson, P. P. (Eds) International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd Edition). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Taylor, J. C. (2001). Fifth generation distance education. Instructional Science and Technology, 4(1), 1-14.
Tolu, A. T., & Evans, L. S. (2012). From Distance Education to Communities of Inquiry: A Review of Historical Developments. In Z. Akyol , & D. R. Garrison, Educational Communities of Inquiry: Theoretical Framework, Research and Practice (pp. 45-65). Hershey, Pa.: IGI Global.
Tovar, E., Dimovska, A., Piedra, N., & Chicaiza, J. (2013). OCW-S: Enablers for building sustainable open education evolving OCW and MOOC. Paper presented at the Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2013 IEEE, Berlin.
Toven-Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. B. (2015). Virtually unlimited classrooms: Pedogogical practice in Massive Open Online Courses. Internet and Higher Education, 24, 1-12.
Thompson, L. & Ku, H. (2005). Chinese graduate students' experiences and attitudes toward online learning, Educational Media International, 42:1, 33-47.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism, Westview, Boulder, CO.
Tu, C. (2001). How Chinese Perceive Social Presence: An Examination of Interaction in Online Learning Environment. Education Media International. 38(1). 45-60
UNESCO. (2002). Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries Final report UNESCO. Design, 2002(July), 1-3.
Vovides, Y., & Korhumel, K. (2012). Design-Based Approach for the Implementation of an International Cyberlearning Community of Inquiry for Medical Education. In Z. Akyol & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational Communities of Inquiry: Theoretical Framework, Research and Practice (pp. 509-525). Hershey, Pa.: IGI Global.
Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (eds.). (1996). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences. Hong Kong: The Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong
Wen, M., Yang, D., & Rosé, C. P. (2014). Sentiment Analysis in MOOC Discussion Forums: What does it tell us? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, London, UK.
Wiley, D., & Green, C. (2012). Chapter6. Why Openness in Education? In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Game Changers: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/chapter-6-why-openness-education
Yang, Q. (2014). Students Motivation in Asynchronous Online Discussions with MOOC Mode. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(5), 325-330.
Yi, K., Beheshti, J., Cole, C., Leide, J. E. & Large, A. (2006). User search behavior of domain-specific information retrieval systems: An analysis of the query logs from PsycINFO and ABC-Clio's Historical Abstracts/America: History and Life. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1208–1220.
Waldrop, M. M. (2013). Massive Open Online Courses, aka MOOCs, Transform Higher Education and Science. Nature, 495, 160–163.
Warrem, P. D., Nulty, D.D. & O’Grady, G. (1996). Examination Practices and Procedures in Australian Universities (Canberra, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs).
Whitmire, E. (2002). Disciplinary differences and undergraduates' information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(8), 631–638.
Zhang, Y. L. (2013). Power Distance in Online Learning: Experience of Chinese Learners in U.S. Higher Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4), 238-254.
Zhao, N. & McDougall, D. (2008). Cultural Influences on Chinese Students' Asynchronous Online Learning in a Canadian University. Journal of Distance Education. 22(2). 59-80
Zhu, C. (2012). Student Satisfaction, Performance, and Knowledge Construction in Online Collaborative Learning Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127-136.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔