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：大學生線上學習感知、學習行為、學習成就與課程滿意度於線上學習模式與混成學習模式之關係研究─以自我決定理論觀點探討線上學習感知
作者：魏彗娟
作者(外文)：Wei, Huei-Chuan
校院名稱：國立交通大學
系所名稱：教育研究所
指導教授：周倩
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2017
主題關鍵詞：線上學習感知；學習行為；學習成就；課程滿意度；自我決定理論；online learning perceptions；learning behaviors；learning achievement；course satisfaction；self-determination theory
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(0) 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:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:12
隨著資訊科技的發展與網際網路資訊的快速成長，不僅提供學習者豐富易取得的學習資源，也改變了教學與學習的型態，從過去以教師為中心之傳統教學方式，轉變成以學習者為中心的學習方式，讓學習者更能掌握自身的學習。由於線上學習漸漸受到教育界的重視，各大專院校也紛紛開設全然線上課程，或是結合線上學習與傳統面對面學習之混成課程，並鼓勵學生修習此類型的課程，擴展學習的型態，累積不同的學習經驗。許多教育研究者也開始關心學習者感知不同學習型態之相關議題。
然而，過去研究雖指出學習者對於線上學習的感知對於其學習成就及課程滿意度有關，但卻較少探討學習者在接受不同學習傳遞模式之後，對於線上學習的感知是否產生差異，以及將學習者的線上學習感知、學習成就以及課程滿意度納入討論，進一步了解當學習者接受不同的學習傳遞模式時，這三個變項之間的關係是否會因為不同的學習傳遞模式而有所不同，尤其是針對同一位學生在接受線上學習以及混成學習這二種學習傳遞模式的情境下。此外，除了線上學習感知，過去多數學者亦指出學習者的個人內在因素（例如：學習需求、學習偏好等）也是影響學習成就的一大面向，尤其在以學習者為中心的學習模式中更為明顯。然而，過去文獻在探討這個議題時，多以單一模式（例如學習者處於線上學習環境中或是學習者處於混成學習環境中）作為研究場域，較少將二者同時納入，探討同一位學習者在處於不同學習傳遞模式的個人內在因素與學習成就之間的關係。為了解決上述所提之問題並補足過去研究不足之處，本研究採用Deci和Ryan（1985）所提出之「自我決定理論」（Self-Determination Theory, SDT）作為探討線上學習感知的基礎，利用SDT之三種需求：感知自主與自決性（perceived autonomy）、感知自我效能（perceived competence）、感知與自我相關性（perceived relatedness）之概念作為線上學習感知之架構，了解學習者處於不同學習傳遞模式的學習環境中，學習者以SDT為基礎的線上學習感知對於其學習行為、學習成就與整體課程滿意度之間的關係。整體而言，本研究旨探討大學生在同一門課中接受線上學習以及混成學習二種傳遞模式，其線上學習感知是否會因為不同學習傳遞模式而有所差異，以及探討大學生在不同學習傳遞模式中，其線上學習感知、學習行為、學習成就以及整體課程滿意度之關係為何。
首先，本研究以驗證性因素分析檢定在線上學習以及混成學習之二種不同的學習傳遞模式中，以SDT為基礎之線上學習感知問卷是否具有效性及穩定性，確認此研究工具之信度與效度，以作為後續各項統計檢定於不同學習傳遞模式中的依據。接著，本研究探討大學生線上學習感知在線上學習與混成學習二種學習傳遞模式中的差異。最後，本研究分別探討大學生在接受線上學習與混成學習二種學習傳遞模式之後，其線上學習感知、學習行為、學習成就、以及整體課程滿意度之間的關係。
綜合以上，本研究問題歸納如下：
1. 大學生的線上學習感知在線上模式中的線上學習感知量表分數是否與在混成模式中的線上學習感知量表分數有顯著差異？
2. 在線上模式中，大學生的線上學習感知、學習行為、學習成就之關係為何？
3. 在混成模式中，大學生的線上學習感知、學習行為、學習成就之關係為何？
4. 在整體課程中，大學生在線上模式與混成模式之線上學習感知、與整體課程滿意度之關係為何？
本研究對象為233名曾於101與102學年度自行選修國立交通大學「資訊素養與倫理」通識課程之大學生。此課程共十八週，第一週為課程內容簡介，以面對面的方式授課；第二週至第八週為線上學習模式，上課以全然線上的方式進行；第九週為期中考，同學須到實體教室參與考試；第十週至第十六週為混成式學習，上課以面對面授課以及線上課程交錯安排的方式進行混成模式；第十七週為期末考，同學需到實體教室參與考試；第十八週則是課後反思，沒有安排課程。
本研究以「以SDT為基礎的線上學習感知量表」（the SDT-based Online Learning Perceptions Scale，簡稱SDT-based OLPS或是OLPS）作為主要施測工具之一，該量表包含原有理論三個面向及與面向相對應的五個因素─面向一：感知自我效能（perceived competence），包含學習需求（learning needs）、個人學習偏好（personal learning preference）二個因素；面向二：感知自主與自決性（perceived autonomy），包含個人學習樂趣（personal learning enjoyment）、彈性（flexibility）二個因素；面向三：感知與自我相關性（perceived relatedness），包含互動性（interaction）一個因素。另外，本研究以「整體課程滿意度量表」（Overall Course Satisfaction Scale，簡稱OCSS）作為主要施測工具之一，此量表包含授課方式、課程內容與架構、教學者與助教、線上討論區、測驗方式以及課程整體印象等六個題項，以了解學習者對於整體課程不同面向之滿意度。學習行為包含線上討論區張貼文章篇數（線上模式／混成模式分別累計）、線上教材閱讀次數（線上模式／混成模式分別累計）。學習成就則包含非同步線上討論成績（線上模式／混成模式分別累計）、第一次測驗成績、第二次測驗成績、課室參與成績。此外，在統計分析方法部分，本研究採用驗證性因素分析、成對樣本t檢定、單因子變異數分析以及結構方程模式進行檢驗。
透過調查問卷資料之統計分析，本研究歸納出主要結果包括：（1）線上學習感知之學習需求與互動性在混成模式中的分數高於線上模式中的分數，而線上學習感知之個人學習樂趣在線上模式中的分數高於混成模式中的分數；（2）在線上模式中，對於線上學習感知而言，彈性這面向對線上教材閱讀次數有正向影響，個人學習偏好則對非同步線上討論成績有正向影響。對於學習行為而言，線上討論區張貼文章篇數對非同步線上討論成績有正向影響，線上教材閱讀次數則對非同步線上討論成績以及第一次測驗成績有正向影響，此外，線上教材閱讀次數分別在線上學習感知之彈性與非同步線上討論成績之關係以及線上學習感知之彈性與第一次測驗成績之關係具有顯著中介效果；（3）在混成模式中，線上學習感知分別對學習行為以及學習成就皆無影響。但在學習行為與學習成就之關係中，線上討論區張貼文章篇數對非同步線上討論成績、第二次測驗成績、混成式課程參與成績皆有正向影響，線上教材閱讀次數僅對非同步線上討論成績、第二次測驗成績有正向影響；（4）在整體課程中，線上模式中的線上學習感知之彈性對整體課程滿意度有正向影響，混成模式中的線上學習感知之學習需求與個人學習偏好對整體課程滿意度有正向影響。
簡言之，本研究採用自我決定理論（Self-Determination Theory, SDT）之架構作為線上學習感知的基礎，提出五個因素並依據其因素特性分類至SDT之三個面向，以本研究所蒐集之實證資料支持此量表之架構，並於線上模式與混成模式皆呈現構面穩定性。此外，本研究更進一步澄清線上學習感知、學習行為、學習成就以及整體課程滿意度之關係。本研究提出未來研究的建議，同時也提供教學設計者在設計線上課程或混成式課程時可參考的實務建議。
With the rapid development of network and communication technologies, various innovative instructional delivery methods have provided learning solutions meeting the diverse needs of instructors and learners in higher education. In particular, the concept of learner-centered has been more important than traditional instructor-centered in online synchronous and asynchronous learning environments. Therefore, more and more higher education institutions are starting to provide web-based courses or at least add asynchronous or synchronous components to complement classroom-based courses such as online learning and blended learning. In addition, researchers have focused on the issues of online learning perceptions in different learning delivery modes. Previous studies have concluded that learners’ perceptions toward online learning is a key factor that influences learners’ achievement or satisfaction. However, little research has explored the differences of learners’ online learning perceptions through particular learning delivery modes, that is, in online learning or blended learning, and the relationships among online learning perceptions, learning behaviors, learning achievements, and overall course satisfaction in the online learning delivery mode and in the blended learning delivery mode. Furthermore, the concepts of online learning perceptions are complex and varied with dynamic learning contexts. Past studies have usually focused on the features of online learning (e.g., flexibility, adaptability, convenience, interaction) and viewed these features to be factors of online learning perceptions. Little research has focused on personal intrinsic motivation or individuals’ needs for taking courses designed with respectively online learning or blended learning modes. In order to better understand college learners’ perceptions and personal motivational factors toward online learning, the current study applied the self-determination theory (SDT) as a theoretical framework for online learning perceptions to measure learners’ online learning perceptions of the online mode and of the blended mode.
In response to these issues mentioned above, the objective of this study was to examine the relationships among college learners’ online learning perceptions (based on the SDT), learning behaviors, learning achievements in the online mode and in the blended mode, respectively, and overall course satisfaction.
This study investigated the following research questions:
1. Is there a significant difference between college learners’ online learning perceptions (as measured by the SDT-based Online Learning Perceptions Scale) of the online mode and of the blended mode?
2. What are the relationships among college learners’ online learning perceptions, learning behaviors (as measured by the number of postings on the discussion board and by the times of viewing the learning materials), and learning achievements (online-discussion score, first-exam score) in the online learning delivery mode?
3. What are the relationships among college learners’ online learning perceptions, learning behaviors (as measured by the number of postings on the discussion board and by the times of viewing the learning materials), and learning achievements (online-discussion score, second-exam score, in-class participation score) in the blended learning delivery mode?
4. What is the relationship between college learners’ online learning perceptions of the online and the blended learning delivery modes and overall course satisfaction?
Two hundred and thirty-three college level students enrolled in a NCTU general-education undergraduate course named Internet Literacy and Ethics in the online learning mode as well as the blended learning mode participated in this investigation. The SDT-based Online Learning Perceptions Scale (SDT-based OLPS or OLPS) and Overall Course Satisfaction Scale (OCSS) were the instruments used in this study. Learning achievements were measured by online-discussion score, first-exam score, second-exam score, and in-class participation score.
This study utilized confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to clarify and confirm the structures of OLPS and OCSS. A paired-samples t-test was conducted to answer the research question 1. The structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to answer the research question 2, 3, and 4.
Analysis showed that the scores of learning needs and interaction of online learning perceptions were higher in the blended mode than those in the online mode. The score of personal learning enjoyment of online learning perceptions was higher in the online mode than in the blended mode. In the online learning delivery mode, the dimension of personal learning preference and learning behaviors (as measured by the number of postings on the discussion board and by the times of viewing the learning materials) were statistically significant predictors of learners’ online-discussion score. The times of viewing the learning materials also was a statistically significant predictor of learners’ first-exam score. In the blended learning delivery mode, learners’ online learning perceptions did not influence their learning behaviors (as measured by the number of postings on the discussion board and by the times of viewing the learning materials) and learning achievements (as measured by online-discussion score, second-exam score, and in-class participation score). The number of postings on the discussion board and the times of viewing the learning materials were statistically significant predictors of learners’ online-discussion score, second-exam score, and in-class participation score. Moreover, the dimension of flexibility of online learning perceptions of the online mode and the dimensions of learning needs and personal learning preference of online learning perceptions of the blended mode were statistically significant predictors of learners’ overall course satisfaction. This study provided some considerations for academics and practitioners to better design online courses and blended courses and guide to students to a more fruitful learning experience in both the online learning delivery mode and blended learning delivery mode.
Abdous, M. h., & Yen, C.-J. (2010). A predictive study of learner satisfaction and outcomes in face-to-face, satellite broadcast, and live video-streaming learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 248-257. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.005
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
Alptekin, S. E., & Karsak, E. E. (2011). An integrated decision framework for evaluating and selecting e-learning products. Applied Soft Computing, 11(3), 2990-2998. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2010.11.023
Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with Internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 32-54. doi:10.1177/105256290002400104
Arbaugh, J. B. (2014). System, scholar or students? Which most influences online MBA course effectiveness? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 349-362. doi:10.1111/jcal.12048
Arbaugh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and structural characteristics, student Learning and satisfaction with web-based courses: An exploratory study of two on-line MBA programs. Management Learning, 33(3), 331-347. doi:10.1177/1350507602333003
Artino, A. R. (2008). Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instructional quality: Predicting satisfaction with online training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 260-270. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00258.x
Bacon, D. R. (2016). Reporting actual and perceived student learning in education research. Journal of Marketing Education, 38(1), 3-6. doi:10.1177/0273475316636732
Bagozzi, R. R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Bailey, M., Ifenthaler, D., Gosper, M., Kretzschmar, M., & Ware, C. (2015). The changing importance of factors influencing students’ choice of study mode. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(2), 169-184. doi:10.1007/s10758-015-9253-9
Ballard, S., Stapleton, J., & Carroll, E. (2004). Students’ perceptions of course web sites used in face-to-face instruction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(3), 197-211.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of though and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
Barnard, L., Paton, V., & Lan, W. (2008). Online self-regulatory learning behaviors as a mediator in the relationship between online course perceptions with achievement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(2).
Batalla-Busquets, J.-M., & Pacheco-Bernal, C. (2013). On-the-job e-learning : Workers’ attitudes and perceptions. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 14(1), 41-64.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
Bernard, R. M., Brauer, A., Abrami, P. C., & Surkes, M. (2004). The development of a questionnaire for predicting online learning achievement. Distance Education, 25(1), 31-47. doi:10.1080/0158791042000212440
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 130-159). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Butz, N. T., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2016). A mixed methods study of graduate students’ self-determined motivation in synchronous hybrid learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 85-95. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.10.003
Butz, N. T., Stupnisky, R. H., Peterson, E. S., & Majerus, M. M. (2014). Motivation in synchronous hybrid graduate business programs: A self-determination approach to contrasting online and on-campus students. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 10(2), 211-227.
Buzzetto-More, N. (2015). Student attitudes towards the integration of YouTube in online, hybrid, and web-assisted courses: An examination of the ompact of course modality on perceptions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(1), 55-73.
Caplan, G. M. (2015). A comparative analysis of student achievement & retention in traditional and online first semester anatomy & physiology courses. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Chandler, B., & Maddux, C. D. (1998). Student use of instructors’ web sites. In S. McNeil, J. D. Price, S. Boger-Mahall, B. Robin, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher education annual 1998. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. (ERIC No. ED 421 152).
Chen, C. C., & Jones, K. T. (2007). Blended learning vs. traditional classroom settings: Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA accounting course. Journal of Educators Online, 4(1), 1-15.
Chen, K.-C., & Jang, S.-J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741-752. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011
Chen, S.-C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hsiao, C.-C. (2015). Exploring student perceptions, learning outcome and gender differences in a flipped mathematics course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4). doi:10.1111/bjet.12278
Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). The undermining effect is a reality after all—extrinsic rewards, task interest, and self-determination: Reply to Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron (1999) and Lepper, Henderlong, and Gingras (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 692-700. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.692
Deci, E. L., & Proac, J. (1978). Congitive evaluation theory and the study of human motivation. In M. R. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the psychology of human motivation (pp. 149-176). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 39-80.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109-134. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Dennen, V. P., Aubteen Darabi, A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructor–learner interaction in online courses: The relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on performance and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 65-79. doi:10.1080/01587910701305319
Duggan, A., Hess, B., Morgan, D., Kim, S., & Wilson, K. (2001). Measuring students’ attitudes toward educational use of the Internet. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(3), 267-281. doi:10.2190/GTFB-4D6U-YCAX-UV91
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109-132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215-235. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00114.x
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 18(1), 39-50.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 61-74.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30-50. doi:10.1111/jcal.12020
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and furure directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. J. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed) (pp. 333-350). New York, NY: Routledge.
Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4-14. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Horzum, M. B., Kaymak, Z. D., & Gungoren, O. C. (2015). Structural equation modeling towards online learning readiness, academic motivations, and perceived learning. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(3), 759-770.
Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1755-1765. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.005
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Hung, M.-L. (2012). A study of the relationship between college-level online learners’ readiness and learning performance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: Community college student voices. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(1), 27-38. doi:10.1080/08923647.2014.867697
Johnson, R., Stewart, C., & Bachman, C. (2015). What drives students to complete online courses? What drives faculty to teach online? Validating a measure of motivation orientation in university students and faculty. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(4), 528-543. doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.788037
Köse, U. (2010). A blended learning model supported with Web 2.0 technologies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2794-2802. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.417
Kang, M., & Im, T. (2013). Factors of learner–instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 292-301. doi:10.1111/jcal.12005
Kanwar, A. (2015). The impact of online and distance learning on higher education and training. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from the World Wide Web: https://www.col.org/news/speeches-presentations/impact-online-and-distance-learning-higher-education-and-training
Ke, F. (2013). Online interaction arrangements on quality of online interactions performed by diverse learners across disciplines. The Internet and Higher Education, 16(0), 14-22. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.07.003
Ke, F., & Kwak, D. (2013). Online learning across ethnicity and age: A study on learning interaction participation, perceptions, and learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 61(0), 43-51. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.003
Kim, K.-J., & Frick, T. W. (2011). Changes in student motivation during online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 1-23. doi:10.2190/EC.44.1.a
King, S. E., & Arnold, K. C. (2012). Blended learning environments in higher education: A case study of how professors make it happen. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 25(1-2).
Kline, B. R. (Ed.) (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Kuo, Y.-C. (2014). Accelerated online learning: Perceptions of interaction and learning outcomes among African American students. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(4), 241-252. doi:10.1080/08923647.2014.959334
Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20(0), 35-50. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367-384. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367
Law, K. M. Y., Lee, V. C. S., & Yu, Y. T. (2010). Learning motivation in e-learning facilitated computer programming courses. Computers & Education, 55(1), 218-228. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.007
Lee, Y., Choi, J., & Kim, T. (2013). Discriminating factors between completers of and dropouts from online learning courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 328-337. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01306.x
Li, N., Marsh, V., & Rienties, B. (2016). Modelling and managing learner satisfaction: Use of learner feedback to enhance blended and online learning experience. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 216-242. doi:10.1111/dsji.12096
Liao, P.-W., & Hsieh, J. Y. (2011). What influences Internet-based learning? Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 39(7), 887-896. doi:10.2224/sbp.2011.39.7.887
Liaw, S.-S., Huang, H.-M., & Chen, G.-D. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1066-1080. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.001
Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2014). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27-42.
Müller, T. (2008). Persistence of women in online degree-completion programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2).
MacCallum, R. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 107-120. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.1.107
Marshall, J., Greenberg, H., & Machun, P. A. (2012). How would they choose? Online student preferences for advance course information. Open Learning, 27(3), 249-263. doi:10.1080/02680513.2012.716656
Matzat, U. (2013). Do blended virtual learning communities enhance teachers’ professional development more than purely virtual ones? A large scale empirical comparison. Computers & Education, 60(1), 40-51. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.006
Mitchell, P., & Forer, P. (2010). Blended learning: The perceptions of first-year geography students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(1), 77-89. doi:10.1080/03098260902982484
Moore, J. C. (2002). Elements of quality: The sloan-c framework (Pillar reference manual) (Vol. 3). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Morris, L. V., Finnegan, C., & Wu, S.-S. (2005). Tracking student behavior, persistence, and achievement in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), 221-231. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.06.009
Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15-23. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.001
Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Niemiec, C. P., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., Bernstein, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of autonomous self-regulation for college: A self-determination theory perspective on socialization. Journal of Adolescence, 29(5), 761-775. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.11.009
NMC. (2016). NMC Horizon report: 2016 Higher education edition. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from the World Wide Web: http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54(1), 222-229. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.005
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2013). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Palmer, S. R., & Holt, D. M. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 101-113. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00294.x
Peterson, C., Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. (1993). Learned helplessness: A theory for the age of personal control. New York: Oxford University Press.
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networkspp, 6, 21-40.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. doi: 10.1108/10748120110424816
Reinhart, J., & Schneider, P. (2001). Student satisfaction, self-efficacy, and the perceptions of the two-way audio/video distance learning environment: A preliminary examination. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(4), 357-365.
Rice, R. E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 219-244. doi:10.2307/2393354
Rienties, B. (2014). Understanding academics’ resistance towards (online) student evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 987-1001. doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.880777
Rigby, C. S., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: Self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 16(3), 165-185. doi:10.1007/bf00991650
Roca, J. C., & Gagné, M. (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1585-1604. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.001
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749-761. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Saadé, R. G., & Kira, D. (2006). The emotional state of technology acceptance. The Journal of Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3, 529-539.
Sahin, I., & Shelley, M. (2008). Considering students' perceptions: The distance education student satisfaction model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 216-223.
Sanders, D. W., & Morrison-Shetlar, A. I. (2001). Student attitudes toward web-enhanced instruction in an introductory biology course. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 251-262. doi:10.1080/08886504.2001.10782313
Sanderson, G. (1995). Objectives and evaluation. In S. Truelove (Ed.), Handbook of training and development ( 2nd ed., pp. 113-144). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. R. (2010). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Higher Ed.
Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49(2), 396-413. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.004
Selwyn, N. (1997). Students’ attitudes toward computers: Validation of a computer attitude scale for 16–19 education. Computers & Education, 28(1), 35-41. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(96)00035-8
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Does online learning impede degree completion? A national study of community college students. Computers & Education, 75, 103-111. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.009
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482-497. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482
Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. Los Angeles, CA: Centra Software.
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(2), 169-191.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006). Students’ motivational processes and their relationship to teacher ratings in school physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(1), 100-110. doi:10.1080/02701367.2006.10599336
Stockwell, B. R., Stockwell, M. S., Cennamo, M., & Jiang, E. (2015). Blended learning improves science education. Cell, 162(5), 933-936. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.009
Stokes, S. P. (2001). Satisfaction of college students with the digital learning environment: Do learners’ temperaments make a difference? The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 31-44. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00046-X
Sun, P.-C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.-Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183-1202. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
Titus, J. J. (2008). Student ratings in a consumerist academy: Leveraging pedagogical control and authority. Sociological Perspectives, 51(2), 397-422. doi:10.1525/sop.2008.51.2.397
Tsai, C.-C., Chuang, S.-C., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, M.-J. (2011). Self-efficacy in Internet-based learning environments: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 222-240.
Tsai, C.-C., Lin, S. S. J., & Tsai, M.-J. (2001). Developing an Internet attitude scale for high school students. Computers & Education, 37(1), 41-51. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00033-1
Vonderwell, S., & Zachariah, S. (2005). Factors that influence participation in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education (International Society for Technology in Education), 38(2), 213-230.
Wang, Y.-S. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information & Management, 41(1), 75-86. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00028-4
Wei, H.-C., Peng, H., & Chou, C. (2015). Can more interactivity improve learning achievement in an online course? Effects of college students’ perceptions and actual use of a course-management system on their learning achievement. Computers & Education, 83(0), 10-21. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.013
Xie, K., Debacker, T. K., & Ferguson, C. (2006). Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 67-89. doi:10.2190/7bak-egah-3mh1-k7c6
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). The impact of online learning on students’ course outcomes: Evidence from a large community and technical college system. Economics of Education Review, 37, 46-57. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.08.001
Yukselturk, E., & Top, E. (2013). Exploring the link among entry characteristics, participation behaviors and course outcomes of online learners: An examination of learner profile using cluster analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 716-728. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01339.x
Zacharis, N. Z. (2011). The effect of learning style on preference for web-based courses and learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 790-800. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01104.x
Zerihun, Z., Beishuizen, J., & Van Os, W. (2012). Student learning experience as indicator of teaching quality. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(2), 99-111. doi:10.1007/s11092-011-9140-4
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
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：682（臺灣：669，外國：13） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2133566 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67944546
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