臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：從學習者角度與介面設計因素來探討影響數位學習績效之研究
作者：侯幸雨 引用關係
作者(外文)：Hsing-yu Hou
校院名稱：國立雲林科技大學
系所名稱：管理研究所博士班
指導教授：侯東旭
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2009
主題關鍵詞：數位學習績效；田口直交表；Kepner-Tregoe分析；人際智能；人因實驗；迴歸分析；資料探勘；數位圖書館導覽設計；Kepner-Tregoe Analysis；E-Learning performance；social intelligence；Taguchi Orthogonal Array；ergonomic experiment；Regression Analysis；Digital Library Guide Design；Data Mining
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:70
學習條件分為內在條件和外在條件，「內在條件」是指存在於學習者本身，對學習者有幫助的因素，在學習者進行新學習前，便已存在學習者內部；「外在條件」是指存在於學習者外面，足以影響有效教學的各種刺激情境，而此情境是可加以安排或控制的。數位學習（E-Learning）是指學習中輔以電子科技，可以克服時間與空間的限制，具有知識分享與傳遞的功能，以學習者為導向，可提升學習者之學習動機、加速學習態度和降低學習成本。因此本研究試從學習者的角度下去設計，針對不同學習者的屬性來分析設計因子對數位學習績效之影響，期望將來數位學習情境可以滿足個人化的服務需求，並提升數位服務的品質。
本文首先進行田口實驗，試從人因工程四大角度來探討數位學習介面設計對數位學習績效有顯著影響之因子，研究結果發現色彩、溝通介面、回饋和學習型態對邏輯的績效有顯著的差異；而評量期間、資訊量、情境、導引、學習型態及線上的學習習慣等因子將影響到創意績效之結果；較佳的因子組合就會提升數位學習績效，網路教學品質也會有所改善。此外本研究從學習者角度出發，蒐集受試者之網路學習歷程、個人學習風格與電腦學習經驗等，利用統計方法的逐步迴歸分析與資料探勘之Apriori關聯法則與決策樹分類來找出影響數位學習績效的因子，提高因子對績效的貢獻度並建立高績效的學習規則。逐步迴歸分析結果發現邏輯題組方面有顯著影響的因子為：張貼文章、閱讀頁數*性別、會使用軟體種類*性別、上課次數*電腦學習經驗(年)。在創意方面有顯著影響的因子為討論次數*上線時間、閱讀進度*外向、性別等。透過Clementine軟體發現決策樹中屬於理性風格者其在邏輯評量方面表現比較好，從關聯法則與交叉統計分析得到上線久、電腦學習經驗多是兩種評量中導致高績效的共同因子，女生在創意部分則有較好表現。兩者探勘工具都發現上線久且討論多者在創意評量上會表現比較好，所以互動式學習是數位學習中重要的因子。
以上研究發現互動是數位學習中重要的因子，而在多元智能中人際智能可以用來衡量群體互動的績效。為了改善數位學習設計，讓推動數位學習者能推出更適合學習者使用的數位教材，唯有以使用者為中心的人機介面設計方法（User-Centered Design ）與軟體功能開發結合，才能設計出適當良好的數位教材。因此第二階段將從數位學習設計者來評量績效，也就是希望可以找出設計規則，讓數位教材品質更好，進而提高學習者之學習績效。本文應用人際智能量表與電腦自我效能量表於環球技術學院的數位圖書館設計者，以便了解設計者人際智能與設計作品績效之間的關係。利用Kepner-Tregoe分析來蒐集設計作品之分數，以決定最後最佳的數位圖書館導覽影片。研究方法中以因素分析、信度分析及相關係數來進行統計分析。因素分析部份參考先前文獻，兩量表皆各分成三大因子，分析結果顯示人際智能三大因子彼此有顯著相關，也跟基礎電腦技能有顯著相關，此外在應用Kepner-Tregoe分析中也找到了最好的數位圖書館設計作品，規則顯示如果設計者有好的基礎電腦技能及好的人際智能，就可以設計出較好的數位圖書館導覽作品。
There are two conditions about learning, one is in inner and the other is in outer situation. Inner condition means the factor which can help learners and exist in learners. Outer condition exists out of the learners and affects teaching and learning situation. Besides, the outer condition can be arranged and controlled. E-Learning means learning with electronic technology and can overcome the limitation of time and space. E-Learning can improve the learners’ motivation and decrease learning cost. In order to provide the good E-Learning service to the learners, the instructors have to design the web teaching system based on the learners’ needs, then to evaluate the learners’ performance and find out significant factors to improve the web teaching quality.
This study applies Taguchi Orthogonal Array of Quality Engineering Techniques and ANOVA to explore the factors that influence the E-learning performance. The human factors approach is used to investigate the factors that have effects on E-Learning performance from the four dimensions—Environment, Task process, Management and Subject. In addition, logical and creative problems are used to evaluate the E-Learning performance. This research finds that Color, Communicated Interface, Feedback and Learning Type have more significant effects on logical performance. In addition, Measured Period, Information Amount, Situation, Guidance, Learning Type and On-line habits have significant effects on creative performance. When the optimal E-Learning factors combination is used, the learning performance is improved and the quality of web teaching is better.
E-Learning can improve the learners’ motivation and decrease learning cost. In order to satisfy learners’ needs and enhance learning quality, the instructors should design and improve E-Learning from learners’ perspective. The objectives of this research are to find the factors that may affect the learning performance from the learners’ perspective, and use the regression analysis to find the significant factors. This research finds that the significant factors on the logical performance are the frequency of pasting articles, interactions between the reading pages and gender, and the interactions between the frequencies of attending the class and prior computer experiences in years. The significant factors on the creative performance include the interactions between the frequency of discussion on line and the average daily on-line time, the interactions between the reading progress and active, and gender. Besides, interactive students can get better performance in logical or creative scores. The research also did data mining from the web learning portfolios, learning styles and learning experiences using Apriori rules, Decision trees and Cross tables in order to perform statistical analyses. We used Clementine software for data mining. In the Decision trees, this research found that the sensing style students could have better logical performance. From Apriori rules and Cross statistical analysis, the high average daily on-line time could create higher performance in creative measurements. Females had better performance in the creative parts of evaluation. Interaction is the most important factor in two methods.
Besides, social intelligence can measure the group interactive performance in multiple intelligences. In order to improve the E-Learning design, as soon as combining User-Centered Design and software function development can let the E-Learning designers present suitable E-Learning materials to learners. Therefore, in the second stage of this research tries to find out the designing rules to let materials quality and learners performance better. This research applied TSIS and computer self-efficiency to the digital library designers in an university library in Taiwan. The KTA analysis was applied to select the best digital library design. The factor analysis, reliability analysis and correlation analysis were applied. The factor analysis used the same factors with that of previous researches in TSIS and computer self-efficiency. The reliability analysis showed good reliability in subscale of the TSIS and computer self-efficiency. The correlation analysis showed the positive correlated among the TSIS subscales and between the basic level of computer self-efficiency and the three TSIS subscales. Finally, the KTA was applied to collect digital library guide movies scores to decide the final alternative design. The result shows that if all the designers are good at the basic computer skill, they have good social intelligence, and therefore they can design better digital library guide.
中文部分
1.王克先，1997，『學習心理學』，桂冠圖書公司，台北。
2.王秀園，2005，『學習大革命-善用腦子讀好書』，宇宙光全人關懷，台北。
3.李青蓉，2000，『建立成人網路學習者之網路學習模式』，非同步網路教學課程中心建置計劃研討會論文集，1-8頁。.
4.李青蓉、魏丕信、施郁芬、邱昭彰，1998，人機介面設計，空中大學出版社。
5.李春雄，2004，『混合式數學學習模式學習歷程及成效之分析』，國立高雄師範大學資訊教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
6.周倩、孫春在，1996，『遠距合作學習環境之設立與建立：CORAL經驗』，教學科技與媒體，第39 期，357-366頁。new window
7.林甘敏、陳年興，2001，『網路大學學習問題探討』，全球華人學習科技研討會論文集。new window
8.林奇賢，1997，『全球資訊網輔助學習系統網路與國小教育』，資訊與教育，第58期，2-11頁。
9.洪昆裕、董興國，2006，『從學習理論探討影響網路學習績效因素之研究--以銘傳大學學生為例』，電子商務學報。new window
10.美國訓練發展協會，2001，from http://www.astd.com。
11.孫春在，1997，『合作式遠距教學簡介』，資訊與教育，58，12-17頁。
12.高新發、陳姝香，2002，多媒體設計，台北：全華出版社。
13.張履揆、梁朝雲，1998，『國內外遠距教學專案之特色介紹與系統分析』，視聽教育雙月刊，39卷第5期，23-40頁。
14.梁佳玲、蔡玉娟、陳年興，2002，『影響網路學習成效之因素研究』，第八屆資訊管理研究暨實務研討會論文集。new window
15.陳年興，1998，『全球資訊網整合式學習環境』，資訊與教育雜誌，64，2-13頁。
16.陳年興，2001，『網路大學推動與相關問題之探討』，電子月刊。
17.楊家興，1999，『虛擬學校：資訊網路下整合性的教學環境』，教學科技與媒體，第47 期，12-23頁。
18.賈馥茗主編， J. Dewey著，1992，我們如何思考（How We Think），台北：五南。
19.蔣姿儀，1996，『國民小學學生電腦態度、電腦素養及其相關因素之研究』，國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
20.鄭博文、侯幸雨，2005，『運用迴歸方法分析數位學習因子與其績效間之關係』，南華大學第一屆決策與管理研討會論文集。
21.韓慧文，2000，『線上教學實施現況』，虛擬大學之組織與管理國際研討會論文集。

英文部分
1.Agrawal, R. and Srikant, R., “Fast Algorithms for Mining Association Rules in Large Databases,” Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Based, 1994, pp.478-499.
2.Ali, R. M. and Kor, L. W., “Association between Brain Hemisphericity, Learning Styles and Confidence in Using Graphics Calculator for Mathematics,” Eurasia J. Math., Sci. &Tech. Ed., 2007, 3(2), pp.127-131.
3.Amabile, T. M., “Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do,” California Management Review, 1997, 40(1): pp.39-58.
4.Amabile, T. M., “The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization,” Journal of personality and social psychology, 1983, 45(2): pp.357-376.
5.Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M., “Assessing the work environment for creativity,” Academy of Management Journal, 1996, 39(5): pp.1154-1184.
6.American Society for Training and Development, from http://www.astd.com, 2001.
7.Bailey, W. R., Human Performance Engineering, Prentice Hall Europe, 1995.
8.Bandura, A., “Social foundations of thought and action,” A social cognitive theory, 1986, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9.Barnes, M.L. and Sternberg, R.J., “Social intelligence and decoding of nonverbal cues,” Intelligence, 1989, 13, pp. 263-287.
10.Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S., “An investigation of the effectiveness of color and graphical presentation under varying time constraints,” MIS Quarterly, 10(1), 1986, pp.59-84.
11.Bjoerkqvist, K., Osterman, K. and Kaukiainen, A., “Social intelligence-empathy=aggression? ” Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(2), 2000, pp. 191-200.
12.Bostrom, R.P., Olfman, L. and Sein, M.K., “The importance of learning style in end-user Training,” MIS Quarterly, 14(1), 1990, pp.101-119.
13.Brandon-Hall report, from http://www.brandon-hall.com/publications/elearning101/elearning101.shtml, 2007.
14.Bransford, D., “Human cognition,” Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1978.
15.Buckley, B.C. and Boulter, C.J., “Investigating the role of representations and expressed models in building mental models,” In J.K. Gilbert ＆ C.J. Boulter （Eds.）, Developing models in science education, Netherlands: Kluwer, 2000, pp.119-135.
16.ChanLin, L. J., “The effects of verbal elaboration and visual elaboration on student learning,” International Journal of Instructional Media, 1997, 24(4), pp.333-339.
17.Chen, C. M., Hsieh, Y. L. and Hsu, S. H., “Mining learner profile utilizing association rule for web-based learning diagnosis,” Expert Systems With Applications Volume: 33, Issue: 1, July, 2007, pp. 6-22.
18.Chiang, T. Y., “A Study of Attitude and Literacy Toward Computer and Relationships about Junior Secondary and Primary School Students,”National Cheng Chi University unpublished Ph. D Dissertations, 1996.
19.Chou, H.W. “Influences of Cognitive Style and Training Method on Training Effectiveness,” Computers & Education, 37, 2001, pp.11–25.
20.Clariana, R. B. and Smith, L., “Learning style shifts in computer-assisted instructional settings,” (ERIC NO. ED295796), 1988.
21.Coffin, R.J. and MacIntyre, P.D., “Motivational influences on computer-related affect states,” Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 1999, pp.549-569.
22.Compeau, D.R. and Higgins, C.A., “Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test,” MIS Quarterly, 1995, pp.189-211.new window
23.Cooley, R., Mobasher, B. and Srivastava, J., “Web Mining: information and pattern dis-covery on the World Wide Web,” in ICTAI’97, 1997, December.
24.Crant, J. M., “Proactive behavior in organizations,” Journal of Management, 2000, 26(3): pp.435-462.
25.Dambrot, F.H., Watkins-Malek, M.A., Silling, S.M., Marshall, R. S. and Garver, J. A., “Correlates of Sex Differences in Attitudes toward and Involvement with Computers,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 1985, pp.71-86.
26.Daniel, G., “SQ-I-You---Social Intelligence,” The New Science of Human Relationships, China Times Publishing Company, 2007, pp. 393.
27.David, L., “Multiple intelligence approached to Assessment: solving the assessment conundrum,” 2000, pp. 133-135.
28.Davis, F.D., “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 1989a, pp.319-340.
29.Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R., “User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models,” Management Science, 35(8), 1989b, pp.982-1003.
30.Doherty, F., “Learning on the Web,” Elsevier Science Ltd, 1996.
31.Dufner, D., Kwon, O. and Hadidi, R., “Development and Implementation of a Web-enabled Cyber Co-laboratory for Asynchronous Teams (Web-CC AT),” 1998 IEEE proc.31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1998, pp.330-339.
32.Duntsch, I. and Gediga, G., “Rough set data analysis,” In Proc.of Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology, 2000, pp.281-301.
33.Eastmond, D. V., “Learning Approaches of Adult Students Taking Computer Conferencing Courses,” ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED352938, 1992.
34.Feng, T. and Fionn, M., “Towards Knowledge Discovery from WWW Log Data,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing, 2000.
35.Ford, M.E. and Tisak, M.S., “A further search for social intelligence,” Journal of Educational psychology, 1983, 75, pp. 197-206.
36.Fowlkes, W.Y., Creveling, D. M., “Introduction to quality engineering,” In: Engineering methods for robust product design-Using Taguchi methods in technology and product development. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995.
37.Frawley, W. J., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G. and Matheus, C. J., “Knowledge discovery databases: An overview,” in Knowledge Discovery in Databases (G. Piatetsky-Shapiro and W. J. Frawley, eds.), Cambridge, MA: AAAI/MIT, 1991, pp.1-27.
38.Gagne’, E. D., “The conditions of learning and theory of instruction,” 1985, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
39.Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J. and Wager, W. W., “Principles of instructional design,” Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 1992.
40.Gardner, H., “Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences,” New York: Basic Books, 1983.
41.Gini, G., “Brief report: Adaptation of the Italian Version of the Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale to the adolescent population,” Journal of Adolescence, 2006, pp. 307-312.
42.Gnardellis, T. and Boutsinas, B., “On Experimenting with Data Mining in Education,” 2001.
43.Goleman, D., “Emotional intelligence,” 1995, New York, NY, US: Bantam Books.
44.Gough, B., “One second of reading,” In E. Kavanagh and I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), “Language by ear and by eye,” Cambridge, MA: MIT Pre, 1973, pp.331-358.
45.Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C., “Multivariate Data Analysis,” N.Y.: Macmillan, 1998.
46.Hakiel, S., “Delivering ease of use,” Computing &Control Engineering, 1997.
47.Hamdi, M. S., “MASACAD: A multi-agent approach to information customization for the purpose of academic advising of students” Applied Soft Computing Journal Volume: 7, Issue: 3, June, 2007, pp. 746-771.
48.Han, J. and Kamber, M., “Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques,” SanFrancisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2000.
49.Harasim, L. M., “Online education: an environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification,” In L. Harasim (Ed.), New York: Praeger, 1990.
50.Hatch, T. and Gardner, H., “Finding cognition in the classroom: an expanded view of human intelligence,” In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp.164-186.
51.Hawkins, R., “Computer Literacy and Computer Use Among College Students: Differences in Black and White,” The Journal of Negro Education, 1997, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp.147-158. Spring.
52.Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J. and Gunawardena, C. N., “Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners,” The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 1994, pp.30-42.
53.Hou, T.H. and Hou, H.Y., “The Ergonomic Experiment in E-Learning on Life Education,” 7th Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Human Interaction (APCHI 2006), Taipei, R.O.C, 2006, October 11-14.
54.Hou, T.H, and Hou, H.Y., “A learner‘s perspective on the factors of E-Learning performance,” Journal of Internet Technology, 2008, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.179-184.
55.Hughes, C. and Hewson, L., “Online Interactions: Developing a Neglected Aspect of the Virtual Classroom,” Education Technology, 1998, pp.48-55.
56.Igbaria, M. and Iivari J., “The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage,” Omega, 23(6), 1995, pp.587-605.
57.Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T. and Davis, G. B., “Testing the Determinants of Microcomputer Usages via a Structural Equation Model,” Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol.11, No.4, 1995, pp.87-114.
58.Jenkins, J. J., “Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model of memory experiments,” In Cermak, L. S. and Craik, F. I. M. (Eds.), Levels of processing and human memory, 1979, pp.429-446.
59.Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D., “LISREL8: User’s Reference Guide,” Mooresville: Scientific Software, 1996.
60.Kearsley, G., The Nature and Value of Interaction in Distance Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.hfni.gsehd.gwu.edu/~etl/interact.html, 2006.
61.Keefe, J. W., “Profiling and Utilizing Learning Style,” Reston, Va: NASSP, 1988.
62.Keegan, D., “A definition of distance education,” In Foundations of distance education (2nd ed.), London: Routledge, 1990.
63.Kepner-Tregoe Technique, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepner-Tregoe.
64.Khalifa, M. and Lam. R., “Web-based learning: effects on learning process and out-come,” IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.350-356, 2002.
65.Kitao. K., “Necessary facilities for foreign language CAI,” CALL Communications, 161, 1994, pp.25-27.
66.Kline, R. B., “Principles and practice of structural equation modeling,” New York: The Guilford Press, 1998.
67.Kolb, D. A., “Learning Style technical manual,” Boston: Mcber and Company, 1976.
68.Kosmitzki, C. and John, O. P., “The implicit use of explicit conceptions of social intelligence,” Personality and Individual Differences, 1993, 15, pp.11-23.
69.Lai, L., “Influence of audio-visual presentations on learning abstract concepts,” International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(2), 2000, pp.199-207.
70.Lee, J., Hong, N. L. and Ling, N. L., “An analysis of students’ preparation for the virtual learning environment,” The internet and higher education, 2002, pp.231-242.
71.MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., Mar, C. M. and Reith, J. V., “Alternative Strategies for Cross-Validation of Covariance Structure Models,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol.29, No.1, 1994, pp.1-32.
72.McCarthy, B., “The 4Mat system: Teaching to Learning Styles with Right/left Mode Techniques,” EXCEL. Inc. 1987.
73.Michael, J.A. and Gordon, S. L., “Data mining techniques: for marketing, sales, and customer support,” New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1997.
74.Miller, G., “The magical Number seven, Plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information,” Psychological Review, 1956, pp.63.
75.Minocha, S., “Require Development in User-Centered System Design,” IEEE, vol. 9, 1999, pp.1-4.
76.Moller, L., “Designing Communities of Learners for Asynchronous Distance Education,” ETR&D, 46, 1998, pp115-122.
77.Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I., “Development of an Instrument of Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research, 1991, Vol.2, No.3, pp.192-222
78.Moran, T.P., “An Applied Psychology of the User,” Computing Surveys, Vol. 13(1), 1981, pp.1-11.
79.Murphy, C.A., Coover, D. and Owen, S.V., “Development and validation of the computer self-efficacy scale,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 1989, pp.893-899.
80.Murphy, K. L., Drabier, R. and Epps, M. L., “A Constructivist look at interaction and collaboration via computer conferencing,” In: Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document NO. ED423852), 1998.
81.Najjar, L. J., “Principles of educational multimedia user interface design,” In R. W. Swezey and D. H. Andrews (Eds.), “Readings in training and simulation: A 30 year perspective, Santa Monica,” CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2001, pp.146-158.
82.Nick van Dam, “The e-Learning Fieldbook,” New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
83.Nkambou, R. and Gauthier, G., “Integrating WWW resources in an Intelligent Tutoring System,” Journal of Network and Computer Application 19, 1996, pp.353-365.
84.Nunamaker, J. R., Chen, J. F. and Purdin, T. D. M., “Systems development in information systems research,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 1991, pp.89-106.
85.Ogata, H. and Yano, Y., “Knowledge Awareness: Bridging Learners in a Collaborative Learning Environment,” International Journal of Education Telecommunications, 4(2/3), 1998, pp.219-236.
86.Owen, S. V., “Using self-efficiency in program evaluation,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. 1986.
87.Phillips, C. and Kemp, E., “Toward the Integration of Software Engineering and HCI Education: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach,” IEEE, vol. 6, 1996, pp.145-150.
88.Picciano, A. G., “Distance learning: making connections across virtual space and time,” Prentice-Hall, Inc, 2001.
89.Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R. and Ives, B., “Web-based virtual learning environments: A research Framework and a Preliminary Assessment of Effectiveness in Basic IT Skills Training,” MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 2001, pp.401-426.
90.Preece, J., “A Guide to Usability Human Factors in Computing,” New York: Wiley Computer Publishing, 1998.
91.Quarstein, V. A. and Peterson, P. A., “Assessment of Cooperative Learning: A Goal-Criterion Approach,” Innovative Higher Education, 2001, 26. (1), pp.59-77.
92.Quinlan, J. R., “Induction of Decision Trees,” Machine Learning, 1, 1, 1996, pp.81-106.
93.Quinlan, J. R., “C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning,” San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.
94.Rasmussen, K. L., and Davidson-Shivers, G. V., “Hypermedia and learning Styles: Can performance be influenced?” Journal of Education Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(4), 291-308, 1998.
95.Reisinger, Y. and Turner, L., “Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Application in Tourism,” Tourism Management, Vol.20, 1999, pp.71-88.
96.Relan, A. and Gillani, B.B., “Web-Based Instruction and the Traditional Classroom: Similarities and Differences,” Web-Based Instruction, New Jersey USA, 1997, pp.41-46.
97.Rhodes, M., “An analysis of creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.),” Frontiers of creativity Research. New York: Bearly Limited, 1961, pp.216-222.
98.Richard, J. R. and Michael, W. G., “Data Mining a Tutorial-Based Primer,” Addison Wesley, New York, 2002, pp.4-27.
99.Rogers, E. M., Diffusion of Innovations, 2nd ed., NY: Free Press, 1995.
100.Rosenberg, M.J., E-learning：strategies for delivering knowledge in the digitalage, New York：Mcgraw Hill, 2001.
101.Ross, J., Taguchi Techniques for Quality Engineering, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY, 1996.
102.Sanders, M. S. and McCormick, E. J., Human Factors in Engineering and Design, McGraw-Hill, 1992, pp.34-36.
103.Scott, B., “The pedagogy of on-line learning: A report from the University of the Highlands and Islands Millennium Institute,” Information Services and Use, 2002, pp.19-26.
104.Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., and Oldham, G. R., “The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?” Journal of Management, 2004, 30(6): pp.933-958.
105.Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W., “Mathematical Theory of Communication, “University of Illinois Press, IL, 1949.
106.Shashaani, L., “Gender-based differences in attitudes toward computers,” Computer and Education, 18. 1993, pp.263-267.
107.Shores, E. F. and Grace C., “The Portfolio Book A Step-by-Step Guide for Teachers,” Gryphon House, Inc, 1998.
108.Silvera, D. H., Martinussen, M. and Dahl, T.I., “The Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale, a self-report measure of social intelligence,” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2001, 5, pp.313-319.
109.Soloman, B. A. and Felder, R. M., Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire, from http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html, 2005.
110.Soong, Hock, M.H., Chan, C., Chua, B. C. and Lih, K. F., “Critical success factors for on-line course resources,” Computers & Education, 2001, pp.101-120.
111.Sperling, G., “The information available in brief visual presentation,” Psychological Monograph, 74, 1960.
112.Sperry, R.W., “Left-brain, right-brain,” Saturday Review, 19(26), 1975, pp.30-33.
113.Stephen, W. H. and Marshall, G. J., “The Five Levels of Web Use in Education: Factors to Consider in Planning Online Course,” Educational Technology, 1999, pp.28-32.
114.Sun, P. C., Cheng, H. K., Lin, T. C. and Wang, F. S., “A design to promote group learning in e-learning: Experiences from the field,” Computers & Education Volume: 50, Issue: 3, April, 2008, pp. 661-677.
115.Swisher, K., “American Indian learning styles survey: An assessment of teachers’ knowledge,” The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 13, 1994, pp.59-77.
116.Torkzadeh, G. and Koufteros, X., “Factorial validity of a computer self-efficacy scale and the impact of computer training,” Educational & Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 1994, pp.813-821.
117.Wang, T. I., Wang, K. T. and Huang, Y. M., “Using a style-based ant colony system for adaptive learning,” Expert Systems With Applications Volume: 34, Issue: 4, May, 2008, pp. 2449-2464.
118.Wedman, J. and Diggs, L., “Identifying barriers to technology-enhanced learning environments in teacher education,” Computers in Human Behavior, 2001, pp.421-430.
119.Wickens, C.D., “Engineering Psychology and Human Performance,” Haper Collins Publishers, 2nd, New York, 1992, pp.59-64.
120.Witten, I. H. and Frank, E., “Data Mining, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers,” San Francisco, 2000.
121.Yang, S.W., “Study on the Correlation between Evaluation Method and Behavior on Adult Learning,” Chung-Cheng University unpublished Thesis, 2003.
122.Young, R.M., “Surrogates and mappings: two kinds of conceptual model for interactive devices,” Mental Models, A,L. Stevens and D. Genter(eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associvats, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983, pp.35-52.
123.Zmud, R.W., “Individual differences and MIS Success: A review of the empirical literature,” Management Science, 25(10), 1979, pp.966-979.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1037（臺灣：1013，外國：24） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2133566 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67945333
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上