i t and organization lab

i T and Organization LAB

指導教授

博士班研究生

呂　新　科

謝　清　佳　

iiT and Organization LAB

The effect of Cognitive style & model type on DSS acceptance: An empirical StudyPeriodical paperEuropean Journal of Operational Research 131 (2001) 649-663EJoOR - 2001

Digital Learning Dashboard in an University Conference paper第四屆全球華人科技研討會（ Singapore ）GCCCE - 2000

Exploring the Framework of Knowledge Management on Campus Conference paper全國計算機會議（台北）NCS - 2001 Dec

An Exploring on the Effects of Learning style on the Acceptance of Blended e-Learning Systems (conference paper) (unfinished)2003 3rd International Conference on Technology in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

July 14-16, 2003 Heidelberg, Germany

HDomain

Conference Track

Information System and Knowledge Management

Exploring the Framework of Knowledge Management on Campus

Exploring the Framework of Knowledge Management on Campus Conference paper全國計算機會議（台北）NCS - 2001 Dec

本研究的主要目的便是經由文獻探索，據以相關理論架構為基礎提出符合校園營運的知識管理統合架構。

同時以數位華岡的經營實務去解析這個架構並驗証執行成效。

Introduction

知識的內涵知識的內涵Wisdom

Knowledge

Information

Data

Events

Abstract

Real-World

智慧

知識

資訊

資料

事件

Wisdom

Knowledge

Information

Data

Events

Abstract

Real-World

智慧

知識

資訊

資料

事件

Wisdom

Knowledge

Information

Data

Events

Abstract

Real-World

智慧

知識

資訊

資料

事件

EDIKW 知識演進模型資料來源：本研究

管理顧問 Arthur Andersen 及 Million Dollar 均引用「資料－資訊－知識－智慧」的架構 [6]

Support Decision Making

Support Organization Learning

Theoretical Background

KM Literature Review

認識論觀點 (Epistemology) : 外顯與內隱知識

本體論觀點 (Ontological) : 層次分為個人、群體、組織、跨組織

Nonaka [8]Nonaka [8] 認為這些觀點會隨著知識創造的程序而轉移，知識的轉移將隨觀點呈現螺旋的互動形式。認為這些觀點會隨著知識創造的程序而轉移，知識的轉移將隨觀點呈現螺旋的互動形式。

知識的分類觀點



use

create

identify

collectorganize

share

adapt

KKexplicit

tacit

Technology

Technology

Measurement

Measurement

Culture

Culture

LeadershipLeadership

Str

ateg

yS

trat

egy

ProcessProcess

Enablers

use

create

identify

collectorganize

share

adapt

KKexplicit

tacit

Technology

Technology

Measurement

Measurement

Culture

Culture


Str

ateg

yS

trat

egy

ProcessProcess

Enablers

知識管理架構資料來源： [7]

引用美國生產力暨品質中心 [9] 與 Arthur Andersen 顧問公司共同發展的「知識管理架構 (Knowledge Management Framework) 」，結合外顯與內隱知識的分類理論



知識管理與組織學習

學習週期

分析精製整合回饋需求搜尋評估導入

注意保存強化喚回

供給迴路回饋迴路需求迴路

經驗綜合經驗運用

知識管理

學習週期

知識管理

Create Identify Collect Organize Share Adapt Use

學習週期

分析精製整合回饋需求搜尋評估導入

注意保存強化喚回

供給迴路回饋迴路需求迴路

經驗綜合經驗運用

知識管理

學習週期

知識管理

Create Identify Collect Organize Share Adapt Use

知識整合型學校的學習架構資料來源：本研究

本研究整合 Moore 的學習週期理論 [11] 與 APQC 協同 Arthur Andersen 顧問公司發展的「知識管理架構」 [9]



校園知識層級

UniversityUniversity

CollegeCollege

DepartmentDepartment

ClassClass

Individual Individual

Inter-School

UniversityUniversity

CollegeCollege

DepartmentDepartment

ClassClass

Individual Individual

Inter-School

校園知識組織性層級及生成性階層資料來源：本研究

知知識識

知識學習循環知識學習循環

Process Process

Organized Organized

資資訊訊

資訊管理循環資訊管理循環

資資料料

資料處理循環資料處理循環

知知識識

知識學習循環知識學習循環

Process Process

Organized Organized

資資訊訊

資訊管理循環資訊管理循環

資資料料

資料處理循環資料處理循環

生成性階層(Production Layers)

組織性層級(Organizational Levels )

以本體論 (Ontological) 的觀點來看，將組織知識層級分為個人、群體、組織、跨組織 [8] ，參酌此知識層次結構的理論，規劃學校知識層級 (Knowledge Levels) ，劃分為六個層次依序為個人、班級 ( 課程 ) 、系所、院部、跨校層次。

Maturana [13] 則將組織的知識體系稱之為知識樹 (Knowledge Tree) ，這是個有趣且富創意的類比方式，我們也根據這樣的精神發展「數位華岡」的知識樹，從根部、樹軀幹、樹幹、枝幹、小枝幹、再至各單獨的樹葉



EnablersEnablers

完善的資訊基礎建設Technology

激勵及適切的組織性機制StrategyLeadershipMeasurement

學習導向的組織文化Culture

use

create

identify

collectorganize

share

adapt

KKexplicit

tacit

Technology

Technology

Measurement

MeasurementC

ultureC

ulture


Str

ateg

yS

trat

egy

ProcessProcess

Enablers

use

create

identify

collectorganize

share

adapt

Kexplicit

tacit

Technology

Technology

Measurement

MeasurementC

ultureC

ulture


Str

ateg

yS

trat

egy

ProcessProcess

Enablers



use

create

identify

collectorganize

share

adapt

知識

顯隱

領導

知識管理

知識管理觸媒

應用領域應用領域

科技衡量

文化

策略

服務服務

行政行政教學教學

研究研究

知識創造知識創造知識運用知識運用Information

DATA

行政行政教學教學

服務服務研究研究

資訊彙集資訊彙集資訊應用資訊應用

知識層知識層

資訊層資訊層

資料層資料層應用領域應用領域

資訊管理觸媒

資訊管理

Support Decision Making

Support Organization Learning

Framework

The effect of Cognitive style & model type on DSS acceptance: An empirical StudyPeriodical paperEuropean Journal of Operational Research 131 (2001) 649-663EJoOR - 2001

Research Model

Correlation / Path Analysis

An Exploring on the Effects of Learning style on the Acceptance of Blended e-Learning Systems (conference paper)2003

Introduction


Research Model

Measure and Methodology

Findings and Discussion

3rd International Conference on Technology in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

July 14-16, 2003 Heidelberg, Germany

This paper presents a path analytic model of students’ acceptance of blended courseware from the perspectives of individual’s learning styles, beliefs and attitudes. Another contribution of this study is to integrate learning styles with the popular TAM model as a new theoretical framework to examine the acceptance of e-learning systems.

TAM

TRA TBP

TAM2

1975 Fishbein and Ajzen’s

Ajzen et al(1985)

David et al (2000)

Davis1980)

Theoretical Background Adoption Models

TAM, a dominant model, proposed by Davis(1980) was adapted from the TRA model. Much research in the last two decades implies that TAM is one of the most widely cited and influential models. According to TAM, the usage of system is highly correlated with the behavior intention, which is largely determined by attitude toward the system. The construct of attitude will be influenced by individual’s beliefs, which is further defined by two determinants, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. A number of researchers examine the possible mediating effects as additional constructs to extant models.(Dishaw & Strong) The TPB model proposed by Ajzen(1991) extends from the original TRA model by taking subjective norms and perceived behavior control into consideration. Lucas and Spitler (1999) also extended TAM, including social norms and user performance, and tested their model in a field study.

Theoretical Background Adoption Models

Individual

System

Beliefs

Attitude

Intention

Individual

Beliefs

Attitude

Intention

Social NormExternal

Theoretical Background Extant Constructs in Adoption Models

Use

Use

Individual difference is regarded as a dominant factor to the adoption behavior of information system. David & Detmar(1997) reported that gender differences that might relate to beliefs and use of computer-based media. LU et al(2000) have examined the difference in cognitive style how to impact on the usage behavior of DSS systems. Because of the variety of perspectives used to differentiate individual, the meaningful difference factors are chosen based on the relevance to the characteristics of research subject, web-based learning.

Theoretical Background Individual Difference

Individual

Beliefs

Attitude

Intention

Individual

Beliefs

Attitude

Intention

Social NormExternal

Web-based LearningLearning Styles

DSS SystemDecision StylesEJoOR - 2001

ICTTL 2003

Theoretical Background Individual Difference

System

Use

Use

Theoretical Background Learning Styles

Kolb’s(1984) Learning Style Inventory model classifies learners in terms of their relative preferences for thinking in four different types based on concrete experience or abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation or reflective observation dimensions.

Type 1 preferences for concrete experience and reflective observation. Type 2 preferences for abstract conceptualization and reflective observation. Type 3 preferences abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. Type 4 preferences concrete experience and active experimentation.

Four categories:

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a well-known model classifies learner by

extroverts/introverts,

sensing/intuition,

thinking/feeling,

judging/perceiving dimensions.

Active/ Reflective:Active learners like to try things out and see how they work and like to work with others.

Reflective learners like to think things through first.

Sensing/Intuitive:Sensors like to learn facts, use well established methods and practical and careful.

Intuitors tend to work fast and be innovative and can often handle abstract and mathematical

concepts well.

Visual/Verbal:Visual learners like diagrams, pictures, graphs and films.

Verbal learners get more out of words heard and written.

Sequential/Global:Sequential learners like to work in linear steps that follow logically.

Global learners like to jump in, absorb material nearly at random and then get the big picture.

Theoretical Background Learning Styles

Felder & Silverman (1988) proposed a model of learning styles that has been

emerged as a popular model to classify learners in the educational field.

44 self-report questions.

Learning Styles Beliefs UsageIntentionAttitude

Usefulness

Ease of Use Duration

Social Norm

WillingnessPreference

SEN-INT

SEQ-GLO

ACT-REF

VIS-VRB

TBP, TAM2 TBP, TAM2

3

2

1

By examining individual difference effects in the context of TAM, the integrated model identifies learning style as impact factor to individual’s beliefs and attitude. Furthermore, this paper examines the influence of learning style and social norm on IT usage behavior. Learning style and social norm were explicitly incorporated in TAM as external variables affecting perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in the research model.

TAM

Research Model extend from TAM

The sample includes 167 undergraduate students of a Basic Computer Skills course in Chinese Culture University. They were asked to use e-Learning systems to support the classroom teaching during a whole semester. The frequency and duration of usage were collected automatically by systems.

Measure and Methodology extend from TAM

Samples

Questionnaire

Learning Styles: LSI 44 items (Felder-Silverman Model) Beliefs (PU / PETU) + Attitude + Intention : 16 items

Measure and Methodology Extension from TAM

Usage Construct

Duration Article read Article post File download Announcement Homework

Statistics Methods

Description Statistics Reliability : Cronbach Validity: Factor Analysis Correlation Path Analysis

∑UisWiStandardized

REF

ACT

VRB

VIS

SEQ SENINTGLO

-30

3 -3 – 3 Non-Diff. Zone

ACT

VIS

SEQ SEN

0.65

5.43 *

-0.22

2.22

A Group

ACT

VIS

SEQ SEN

5.19 *

1.55

8.27 *

-5.36 *

C Group

ACT

VIS

SEN

1.28

6.03 *

6.17 *

-5 *SEQ

D Group

ACT

VIS

SEQ SEN

1.4

-2.8

2.1

-2.7

E Group

ACT

VIS

SEQ SEN

4.47 *

3.49 *

3.36 *

0.38

B Group

ACT

VIS

SEQ SEN

-5.71 *

3 *

4.53 *

-2.65

F Group

ACT

VIS

SEQ SEN

5.36 *

6.27 *

9 *

5.55 *

G Group

ACT

VIS

SENSEQ

Learning Styles

Beliefs Usage

Usefulness

Ease of Use Usage

SEN-INT

SEQ-GLO

ACT-REF

VIS-VRB

Social Norm

0.185 *

-0.185 *

0.219 **

0.5 **

0.16 *

Intention

Willingness

Attitude

Preference

0.696 **

0.396 **

-0.185 *

0.594 **

0.391 **

0.4**

0.44**

- 0.167*

Samples 164** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Findings Correlation (Unfinished)

i t and organization lab

Documents