1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Communication
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

題名 以延伸型整合性科技接受模型與網路特性探討線上募資課程之使用與購買意圖
Explore the Usage and Purchase Intention of Crowdfunding Online Courses based on UTAUT2 Model and Network Features
作者 林亮妤
Lin, Liang-Yu
貢獻者 陳聖智<br>尚孝純
Chen, Sheng-Chih<br>Shang, Shari S. C.
林亮妤
Lin, Liang-Yu
關鍵詞 線上募資課程
使用意圖
購買意圖
延伸型整合性科技接受模型
網路特性
Crowdfunding Online Courses
Usage intention
Purchase intention
Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2)
Network features
日期 2022
上傳時間 2-Sep-2022 15:42:37 (UTC+8)
摘要 在COVID-19疫情壓力之下，民眾對於數位學習需求提升，而群眾募資無論在案件數或募資金額也皆突破歷史新高，線上募資課程作為數位學習之課程種類之一，加入了群眾募資概念，成為一種新型態的線上課程。
本研究以延伸型整合性科技接受模型為研究模型架構，網路特性作為調節變數，探討影響消費者對於線上募資課程之使用與購買意圖之因素。採用問卷調查法，透過線上問卷調查共計回收353份問卷，有效樣本323份，有效問卷回收率91.5%，經由統計分析得出以下結果：
一、有超過九成消費者皆有線上學習經驗，線上募資課程佔了其中13.9%；近七成受測者曾聽說過線上募資課程，有超過三成受測者曾購買課程，其中購買次數以購買過一次線上募資課程為多數。
二、對於線上募資課程，不同性別對UTAUT2不同構面看法無顯著差異；「北部地區」消費者在各構面皆具有正向看法，「學生族群」與「工商服務業」族群則對大部分變項具有正向看法，而教育程度為「大專校院」和「研究所（含）以上」者對於「績效期望」和「價格價值」構面具有正向看法。
三、「享樂動機」、「習慣」、「價格價值」與「社會影響」構面變項皆對消費者對線上募資課程的「使用意圖」具正向影響，且「使用意圖」對「購買意圖」會有正向影響。
四、「網路特性」對於「績效期望」、「易用期望」、「促進條件」構面變項具有調節效果，網路特性會正向影響績效期望、易用期望、促進條件與使用意圖間之影響關係。
There has been an increase in demand for digital learning since the outbreak of COVID-19. In addition, the skyrocket in number of successful crowdfunding cases and the continuous breaking in new records of the amount of funds raised. As a result, crowdfunding online courses, which combined with the concept of crowdfunding and digital learning, became a new type of online course.
This study uses “unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2)” model as the research framework to identify factors that affect consumers’ usage intention and purchase intention of crowdfunding online courses. Additionally, network features were used as moderator variable to realize the moderation effect between variables. This study was conducted via online questionnaire survey, which 353 response were collected, of which 323 questionnaires were valid samples. The effective rate was 91.5%.
The findings of the study are as follows:
1. More than 90% of the respondents have online learning experience, and 13.9% of them have experience in crowdfunding online courses. Almost 70% of the respondents have heard of crowdfunding online courses, and more than 30% of the respondents have purchased the courses. Most of them have purchased a crowdfunding online course once.
2. For crowdfunding online courses, there is no significant difference in the perception of the UTAUT2 variables between different genders. Consumers who live in the “Northern Region” have positive views on all variables. The occupational types “student” and “industry, commerce and service” have positive views on most variables. And those with education level of “Universities and colleges” and “master degree or above” have positive views on the variables ”performance expectancy” and “price value”.
3. The variables “hedonic motivation”, “habit”, “price value” and “social influence” all have positive impact on consumers’ “usage intention” of crowdfunding online courses. And “usage intention” has positive impact on “purchase intention”.
4. “Network features” has a moderation effect on the variables “performance expectancy”, “effort expectancy” and “facilitating conditions”. Network features will positively affect the relationship between performance expectancy and usage intention, between effort expectancy and usage intention, and between facilitating conditions and usage intention.
參考文獻 中文部分
1. Google（2021）。2021智慧消費關鍵報告。Google。
2. 王本正、許富榕（2016）。以延伸型整合性科技接受模式探討行動醫療App協助照護任務之接受度。福祉科技與服務管理學刊，4（4），483-494。
3. 王裕賢（2017）。連結主義應用於高中地理教學—以學生共同編輯維基百科西亞詞條為例。國立臺灣師範大學地理學系未出版碩士論文。
4. 安潔拉（2018）。What Humans and Machines Tell Us about MOOCs: A Primer in South East Asia。國立中正大學教育領導與管理發展國際碩士學位學程未出版碩士論文。
5. 朱國明、袁建中、詹惠君（2011）。以跨服務分類觀點探討行動服務使用者採用模式之研究。電子商務學報，13（3），697-725。
6. 何榮桂（2012）。臺灣教育科技的回顧與展望。台灣教育，674，41-47。
7. 何榮桂（2014）。大規模網路開放課程（MOOCs）的崛起與發展。台灣教育，686，2-8。
8. 吳玉芬（2021）。線上募資課程消費者行為之研究。國立雲林科技大學企業管理系未出版碩士論文。
9. 吳美美（2004）。數位學習現在與未來發展。圖書館學與資訊科學，30（2）。
10. 呂冠璇（2021年7月15日）。WFH需求回不去，高通副總裁劉思泰：5G五大趨勢，台灣有優勢。天下雜誌。2021年8月11日取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5117236?from=search
11. 宋同正（2014）。序—服務設計的本質內涵和流程工具。設計學報，19（2）。
12. 辛雨恩（2021）。虛擬通路、實體通路、社群參與、服務創新、品牌認同、品牌信任對購買意願之影響。國立澎湖科技大學行銷與物流管理系未出版碩士論文。
13. 周君倚、陸洛（2014）。以科技接受模式探討數位學習系統使用態度－以成長需求為調節變項。資訊管理學報，21（1），83-105。
14. 東方線上消費者研究集團（2021年7月）。COVID-19 第六波疫情微解封消費者行為即時調查。東方線上消費者研究集團。
15. 林子欽（2016）。大規模網路開放課程(MOOCs)的商業模式分析。國立清華大學科技管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
16. 林克威（2020年8 月19日）。電商型態百百種，你最適合哪一種？。INSIDE 。2021年8月18日取自https://www.inside.com.tw/article/20722-which-kind-of-e-commerce-should-you-choose
17. 林克威（2020年9月29日）。數位內容的電商興起，內容經濟背後的價值是什麽？。明日科學。2021年8月18日取自https://tomorrowsci.com/master/%E3%80%90%E6%9E%97%E5%85%8B%E5%A8%81%E5%B0%88%E6%AC%84%E3%80%91%E6%95%B8%E4%BD%8D%E5%85%A7%E5%AE%B9%E7%9A%84%E9%9B%BB%E5%95%86%E8%88%88%E8%B5%B7%EF%BC%8C%E5%85%A7%E5%AE%B9%E7%B6%93%E6%BF%9F%E8%83%8C/
18. 林克威（2021年3月24日）。什麼是電商？電子商務的Why & How。INSIDE。2021年8月17日取自https://www.inside.com.tw/article/22960-what-is-e-commerce
19. 林玠均（2021年4月1日）。誰轉變會最大？麥肯錫：後疫情時代的未來工作趨勢。天下雜誌。2021年9月3日取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5114142?from=search
20. 林采臣（2021）。社群體驗價值、品牌社群承諾與品牌忠誠度關係之研究－以全家便利商店為例。嶺東科技大學行銷與流通管理系未出版碩士論文。
21. 林冠仲（2021年8月30日）。【新創園地專欄-林冠仲】數位轉型趨勢下的新創與投資契機。FINDIT。2021年12月30日取自https://findit.org.tw/researchPageV2.aspx?pageId=1794
22. 林品辰（2020）。以社群口碑及關鍵時刻行動策略探討線上學習平台之行銷分析。國立屏東大學行銷與流通管理學系數位行銷碩士在職專班未出版碩士論文。
23. 思科（2021年3月25日）。後疫情催化中小企業數位轉型，思科台灣：三大策略無縫接軌未來工作！。天下雜誌。2021年9月3日取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5113153?from=search
24. 柯俊如。從OCW到MOOCs—開放教育資源的發展。開放教育手札。2021年10月4日取自http://note-on-open-education.blog.ntu.edu.tw/ntumoocs-basics/ocw-oer/
25. 凌榆舜（2021）。高等教育磨課師線上課程購買行為之分析。淡江大學教育科技學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
26. 徐嘉辰、張嘉玲（2021年8月30日）。【群眾募資亮點觀測站】2021H1台灣群眾募資觀測。FINDIT。2021年9月20日取自https://findit.org.tw/researchPageV2.aspx?pageId=1809
27. 張巧真、陳筠惠（2014）。應用延伸型整合科技接受模式探討線上購買意願—以雙媒介之觀點.。電子商務研究，12（2），143-168。
28. 張筱祺、鐘映庭（2020）。智慧學習產業產值調查報告。台北市：經濟部工業局。
29. 張嘉玲（2019年9月19日）。【新興籌募資數位工具介紹】創意籌資的好幫手-回饋型群眾募資平台介紹。FINDIT。2021年10月10日取自https://findit.org.tw/researchPageV2.aspx?pageId=1170
30. 張嘉玲（2021年3月23日）。【群眾募資亮點觀測站】2020台灣群募發生什麼新鮮事?。FINDIT。2021年9月20日取自https://findit.org.tw/researchPageV2.aspx?pageId=1674
31. 戚嘉惠（2020）。延伸型整合型科技接受模式探討旅客對於機場自助報到服務之關係研究。輔仁大學餐旅管理學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
32. 教育部（2021）。全國各級學校因應疫情停課居家線上學習。教育部全球資訊網。2021年12月30日取自https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=8BF1696CC31F4FE9
33. 梁郁如（2020年7月8日）。防疫不停、學習不止！科技背後，「熱忱」才是關鍵。天下雜誌。2021年9月6日取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5101050?from=search
34. 陳君毅（2021年4月14日）。線上學習熱潮年！Hahow年度營收2.7億元、程式類課程貢獻過半，白皮書揭3大趨勢。數位時代。2021年9月6日取自https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/62306/hahow-2020
35. 陳妍俐、陳俐穎（2021）。回饋型群眾募資關鍵成功因素之探討。全球商業經營管理學報，13，39-50。
36. 陳怡文（2019）。淺談自主學習途徑—磨課師。臺灣教育評論月刊，8（1），257-260。
37. 陳映璇（2021年1月4日）。未來教育大變革？線上教學席捲全球，大學校時代來了！。數位時代。2021年9月18日取自https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/60780/education-university-global-generation-december
38. 陳雪華（2012年10月）。數位內容產業digital content industry。國家教育研究院雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網。2021年9月18日取自https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678938/
39. 陳聖智（2021）。後疫情時代的數位傳播—科技創新、智慧教育、與數位人文的觀點。人文與社會科學簡訊，22（3），66-72。
40. 陳詩妤（2020年5月8日）。全球磨課師先驅edX創辦人：教育未來會像零售業一樣「全通路」。親子天下。2021年9月5日取自https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5086131
41. 曾柏鈞（2020）。探討影響消費者對線上影音串流平台使用行為之研究—以延伸性整合型科技接受模型為例。國立屏東科技大學企業管理系所未出版碩士論文。
42. 曾紀幸、林子娟、郭信智（2017）。線上群眾募資平台之參與意圖與行為之影響因素。行銷評論，14（3），231-262。
43. 黃旭昇（2021年9月15日）。新北打造數位校園，2025年全智慧教室。中央通訊社。2021年9月17日取自https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aloc/202109150144.aspx
44. 黃炫彰（2018）。探討回報式群眾募資平台之再贊助意圖─以ZecZec群眾募資平台為例。國立中央大學資訊管理學系未出版碩士論文。
45. 楊士範（2021年6月1日）。實驗國小校長：停課不停學是「千載難逢的機會」，但不能直接把實體搬到線上。關鍵評論網媒體集團。2021年9月17日取自https://www.thenewslens.com/article/151770
46. 楊戎真（2020年6月30日）。零接觸學習：知識型商品線上化，Hahow業績爆發。臺北市就業服務處。2021年9月18日取自https://www.okwork.taipei/ESO/content/tw/Article/161117075814/200629145658
47. 楊怡潔（2020）。網路口碑、信任、知覺價值與線上募資課程購買意願關係之研究。國立臺北科技大學技術及職業教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
48. 楊惠合（2004）。以科技接受模型探討數位學習滿意度之研究。大葉大學資訊管理學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
49. 楊運秀、郭芳伃（2017）。網紅業配文的說服效果：懷疑人格、熟悉度及專業性的影響。行銷評論，14（2），163-189。
50. 群眾觀點（2021年2月8日）。2020台灣群眾集資年度報告。群眾觀點。2021年10月7日取自http://crowdwatch.tw/post/23158/
51. 廖珮妏、余鑑、于俊傑（2012）。應用整合型科技接受模式與創新擴散通用模型於企業導入數位學習之多層次分析。電子商務學報，14（4），657-687。
52. 數位時代採訪中心（2021年11月30日）。7成網友願意付錢看網路內容、Z世代是黃金族群！課程、娛樂最吸金。數位時代。2021年12月12日取自https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/66459/internet-payment-motive-internet
53. 衛生福利部（2021）。COVID-19 防疫關鍵決策時間軸。2021年9月5日取自https://covid19.mohw.gov.tw/ch/sp-timeline0-205.html
54. 鄭英敏（2021）。後疫情時代電商平台消費者購物行為分析與精準行銷之研究。國立高雄科技大學行銷與流通管理系未出版碩士論文。
55. 賴佳吟、洪新原（2015）。從服務科學觀點探討使用者對社群商務之接受。電子商務學報，17（4），423-458。
56. 賴俊雄（2019）。磨課師平臺與人文教學。教育部教學實踐研究計畫成果報告（編號：PHA107126）。台北市：教育部。
57. 賴偉晏（2021年7月12日）。後疫情時代，旅遊業的四大轉型契機。遠見雜誌。2021年9月5日取自https://home.kpmg/tw/zh/home/insights/2021/07/tw-tourism-industry-transformation-after-covid-19.html
 
英文部分
1. Arndt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of marketing Research, 4(3), 291-295.
2. Barua, A., Kriebel, C. H., & Mukhopadhyay, T. (1995). Information technologies and business value: An analytic and empirical investigation. Information systems research, 6(1), 3-23.
3. Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management science, 15(5), 215-227.
4. Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis TAM?. Journal of the association for information systems, 8(4), 212-218.
5. Bradford, C. S. (2012). Crowdfunding and the federal securities laws. Colum. Bus. L. Rev., 1.
6. Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS quarterly, 29(3), 399-426.
7. Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (2018). Design, learning networks and service innovation. Design Studies, 55, 27-53.
8. Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2021). The dynamics of a MOOC`s learner-learner interaction over time: A longitudinal network analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 123(3), 106880.
9. Castillo, N. M., Lee, J., Zahra, F. T., & Wagner, D. A. (2015). MOOCS for development: Trends, challenges, and opportunities. International Technologies & International Development, 11(2), 35-42.
10. Chiu, C. M., Cheng, H. L., Huang, H. Y., & Chen, C. F. (2013). Exploring individuals’ subjective well-being and loyalty towards social network sites from the perspective of network externalities: The Facebook case. International Journal of Information Management, 33(3), 539-552.
11. Conole, G. (2014). A new classification schema for MOOCs. The international journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 65-77.
12. Cormier, D. (2014). Rhizo14–The MOOC that community built. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 3, 107-110.
13. Creelman, A., Ehlers, U., & Ossiannilsson, E. (2014). Perspectives on MOOC quality-An account of the EFQUEL MOOC Quality Project. INNOQUAL-International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 78-87.
14. Dai, H. M., Teo, T., & Rappa, N. A. (2020). Understanding continuance intention among MOOC participants: The role of habit and MOOC performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106455.
15. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information system: Theory and results. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT Sloan School of management, Cambridge, MA.
16. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.
17. de Moura, V. F., de Souza, C. A., & Viana, A. B. N. (2021). The use of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in blended learning courses and the functional value perceived by students. Computers & Education, 161, 1-14.
18. De Notaris, D., Canazza, S., Mariconda, C., & Paulon, C. (2021). How to play a MOOC: Practices and simulation. Entertainment Computing, 37, 100395.
19. Dlačić, J., Arslanagić, M., Kadić-Maglajlić, S., Marković, S., & Raspor, S. (2013). Exploring perceived service quality, perceived value, and repurchase intention in higher education using structural equation modelling. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(1-2), 141-157.
20. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of marketing research, 28(3), 307-319.
21. Downes, S. (2015). The quality of massive open online courses. International Handbook of E-Learning, 1, 93-106.
22. Dushnitsky, G., & Fitza, M. A. (2018). Are we missing the platforms for the crowd? Comparing investment drivers across multiple crowdfunding platforms. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 10, e00100.
23. Ferreira, V., Papaoikonomou, E., & Terceño, A. (2021). Unpeel the layers of trust! A comparative analysis of crowdfunding platforms and what they do to generate trust. Business Horizons, 65(1), 7-19.
24. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
25. Fishbein,M. & Ajzen,L.(1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 53-89.
26. Gabrielli, S., Rizzi, S., Bassi, G., Carbone, S., Maimone, R., Marchesoni, M., & Forti, S. (2021). Engagement and Effectiveness of a Healthy-Coping Intervention via Chatbot for University Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Proof-of-Concept Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9(5), e27965.
27. Gong, J., Liu, T. X., & Tang, J. (2021). How monetary incentives improve outcomes in MOOCs: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 190, 905-921.
28. Hanson, W. (2000). Principles of Internet Marketing. Cincinnati, OH.: South-Western College Publishing.
29. Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems, MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695-704.
30. Hemer, J. (2011). A snapshot on crowdfunding (No. R2/2011). Arbeitspapiere Unternehmen und Region.
31. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet?. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(1), 38-52.
32. Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of consumer research, 17(4), 454-462.
33. Herrero, A., Hernandez-Ortega, B., & San Martín, H. (2020). Potential funders’ motivations in reward-based crowdfunding. The influence of project attachment and business viability. Computers in human behavior, 106, 106240.
34. Hobbs, J., Grigore, G., & Molesworth, M. (2016). Success in the management of crowdfunding projects in the creative industries. Internet Research, 26(1), 146-166.
35. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of consumer research, 9(2), 132-140.
36. Hossain, M., & Oparaocha, G. O. (2017). Crowdfunding: Motives, definitions, typology and ethical challenges. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 7(2), 1-14.
37. Hui, C. H. E. N. (2011). Personality’s influence on the relationship between online word-of-mouth and consumers’ trust in shopping website. Journal of software, 6(2), 265-272.
38. Impey, C., & Formanek, M. (2021). MOOCS and 100 Days of COVID: Enrollment surges in massive open online astronomy classes during the coronavirus pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 4(1), 100177.
39. Iqbal, M. S., Hassan, U., M., & Habibah, U. (2018). Impact of self-service technology (SST) service quality on customer loyalty and behavioral intention: The mediating role of customer satisfaction. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1-23.
40. Ishida, K., Slevitch, L., & Siamionava, K. (2016). The effects of traditional and electronic word-of-mouth on destination image: A case of vacation tourists visiting Branson, Missouri. Administrative Sciences, 6(4), 1-17.
41. Jung, E., Kim, D., Yoon, M., Park, S., & Oakley, B. (2019). The influence of instructional design on learner control, sense of achievement, and perceived effectiveness in a supersize MOOC course. Computers & Education, 128, 377-388.
42. Jung, Y., & Lee, J. (2018). Learning engagement and persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCS). Computers & Education, 122, 9-22.
43. Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American economic review, 75(3), 424-440.
44. Kim, S. S., Malhotra, N. K., & Narasimhan, S. (2005). Research note-two competing perspectives on automatic use: A theoretical and empirical comparison. Information systems research, 16(4), 418-432.
45. Kumar, P., & Kumar, N. (2020). A study of learner’s satisfaction from MOOCs through a mediation model. Procedia Computer Science, 173, 354-363.
46. Lai, L. S., To, W. M., Lung, J. W., & Lai, T. M. (2012). The perceived value of higher education: the voice of Chinese students. Higher Education, 63(3), 271-287.
47. Lang, K. R., & Zhao, J. L. (2000). The role of electronic commerce in the transformation of distance education. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 10(2), 103-127.
48. Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1152–1161.
49. Luik, P., Suviste, R., Lepp, M., Palts, T., Tõnisson, E., Säde, M., & Papli, K. (2019). What motivates enrolment in programming MOOCs?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 153-165.
50. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organization Behavior, 13, 103–123.
51. Massolution (2012). Crowdfunding industry report: market trends, composition and crowdfunding platforms. Retrieved from www.crowdfundinsider.com/2014/03/34255-crowdfunding-fraud-big-threat/
52. Moore, G. (1995). Crossing the Chasm, New York, Harpercollins Publishers.
53. Morosan, C. (2016). An empirical examination of US travelers’ intentions to use biometric e-gates in airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 55, 120-128.
54. Murray, K. B., Liang, J., & Häubl, G. (2010). ACT 2.0: the next generation of assistive consumer technology research. Internet Research, 20, 232–254.
55. Ortega-Arranz, A., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Asensio-Perez, J. I., Martinez-Mones, A., Gomez-Sanchez, E., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2019). To reward and beyond: Analyzing the effect of reward-based strategies in a MOOC. Computers & Education, 142, 1-14.
56. Pappano, L. (2012). The Year of the MOOC. The New York Times, 2(12), 2012.
57. Reparaz, C., Aznárez-Sanado, M., & Mendoza, G. (2020). Self-regulation of learning and MOOC retention. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106423.
58. Rohlfs, J. (1974). A theory of interdependent demand for a communications service. The Bell journal of economics and management science, 5(1), 16-37.
59. Sahm, M., Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Corrigendum to “Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd”. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(29), 610-611.
60. Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & management, 44(1), 90-103.
61. Shah, D. (2020, Dec 14). The Second Year of The MOOC: A Review of MOOC Stats and Trends in 2020. Retrieved from https://www.classcentral.com/report/the-second-year-of-the-mooc/
62. Shang, S. S., Wu, Y. L., & Li, E. Y. (2017). Field effects of social media platforms on information-sharing continuance: Do reach and richness matter?. Information & Management, 54(2), 241-255.
63. Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of business research, 22(2), 159-170.
64. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
65. Sigar, K. (2012). Fret no more: inapplicability of crowdfunding concerns in the internet age and the JOBS Act`s safeguards. Administrative Law Review, 473-506.
66. Stauss, B. (1997). Global word of mouth: service bashing on the Internet is a thorny issue. Marketing management, 6(3), 28-30.
67. Stauss, B. (2000). Using new media for customer interaction: a challenge for relationship marketing. Relationship marketing, 233-253.
68. Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Mazzarol, T. (2005). The difference between positive and negative word-of-mouth—emotion as a differentiator. Proceedings of the ANZMAC 2005 conference: broadening the boundaries, 331-337.
69. Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A., & Howell, J.M. (1991). Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization, MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124-143.
70. Thong, J. Y., Hong, S.-J., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(9), 799-810.
71. Toven-Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. B. (2015). Virtually unlimited classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open online courses. The internet and higher education, 24, 1-12.
72. Tu, C. H., & Sujo-Montes, L. E. (2015). MOOCs. Media rich instruction, 287-304.
73. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
74. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
75. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 157-178.
76. Wang, N., Li, Q., Liang, H., Ye, T., & Ge, S. (2018). Understanding the importance of interaction between creators and backers in crowdfunding success. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 27, 106-117.
77. Wei, T. T., Marthandan, G., Chong, A. Y., Ooi, K., & Arumugam, S. (2009). What drives Malaysian m-commerce adoption? An empirical analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(3), 370–388.
78. Wetter-Edman, K., Vink, J., & Blomkvist, J. (2018). Staging aesthetic disruption through design methods for service innovation. Design Studies, 55, 5-26.
79. Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221-232.
80. Yong, T. S. M., Perialathan, K., Ahmad, M., Juatan, N., Majid, L. A., & Johari, M. Z. (2021). Perceptions and acceptability of a smartphone app intervention (ChildSafe) in Malaysia: qualitative exploratory study. JMIR pediatrics and parenting, 4(2), e24156.
81. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of marketing, 52(3), 2-22.
82. Zhao, Y., Wang, A., & Sun, Y. (2020). Technological environment, virtual experience, and MOOC continuance: A stimulus–organism–response perspective. Computers & Education, 144, 103721.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
數位內容碩士學位學程
109462005
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109462005
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 陳聖智<br>尚孝純zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chen, Sheng-Chih<br>Shang, Shari S. C.en_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 林亮妤zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lin, Liang-Yuen_US
dc.creator (作者) 林亮妤zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Lin, Liang-Yuen_US
dc.date (日期) 2022en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2022 15:42:37 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Sep-2022 15:42:37 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2022 15:42:37 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109462005en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141815-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 數位內容碩士學位學程zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 109462005zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在COVID-19疫情壓力之下，民眾對於數位學習需求提升，而群眾募資無論在案件數或募資金額也皆突破歷史新高，線上募資課程作為數位學習之課程種類之一，加入了群眾募資概念，成為一種新型態的線上課程。
本研究以延伸型整合性科技接受模型為研究模型架構，網路特性作為調節變數，探討影響消費者對於線上募資課程之使用與購買意圖之因素。採用問卷調查法，透過線上問卷調查共計回收353份問卷，有效樣本323份，有效問卷回收率91.5%，經由統計分析得出以下結果：
一、有超過九成消費者皆有線上學習經驗，線上募資課程佔了其中13.9%；近七成受測者曾聽說過線上募資課程，有超過三成受測者曾購買課程，其中購買次數以購買過一次線上募資課程為多數。
二、對於線上募資課程，不同性別對UTAUT2不同構面看法無顯著差異；「北部地區」消費者在各構面皆具有正向看法，「學生族群」與「工商服務業」族群則對大部分變項具有正向看法，而教育程度為「大專校院」和「研究所（含）以上」者對於「績效期望」和「價格價值」構面具有正向看法。
三、「享樂動機」、「習慣」、「價格價值」與「社會影響」構面變項皆對消費者對線上募資課程的「使用意圖」具正向影響，且「使用意圖」對「購買意圖」會有正向影響。
四、「網路特性」對於「績效期望」、「易用期望」、「促進條件」構面變項具有調節效果，網路特性會正向影響績效期望、易用期望、促進條件與使用意圖間之影響關係。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) There has been an increase in demand for digital learning since the outbreak of COVID-19. In addition, the skyrocket in number of successful crowdfunding cases and the continuous breaking in new records of the amount of funds raised. As a result, crowdfunding online courses, which combined with the concept of crowdfunding and digital learning, became a new type of online course.
This study uses “unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2)” model as the research framework to identify factors that affect consumers’ usage intention and purchase intention of crowdfunding online courses. Additionally, network features were used as moderator variable to realize the moderation effect between variables. This study was conducted via online questionnaire survey, which 353 response were collected, of which 323 questionnaires were valid samples. The effective rate was 91.5%.
The findings of the study are as follows:
1. More than 90% of the respondents have online learning experience, and 13.9% of them have experience in crowdfunding online courses. Almost 70% of the respondents have heard of crowdfunding online courses, and more than 30% of the respondents have purchased the courses. Most of them have purchased a crowdfunding online course once.
2. For crowdfunding online courses, there is no significant difference in the perception of the UTAUT2 variables between different genders. Consumers who live in the “Northern Region” have positive views on all variables. The occupational types “student” and “industry, commerce and service” have positive views on most variables. And those with education level of “Universities and colleges” and “master degree or above” have positive views on the variables ”performance expectancy” and “price value”.
3. The variables “hedonic motivation”, “habit”, “price value” and “social influence” all have positive impact on consumers’ “usage intention” of crowdfunding online courses. And “usage intention” has positive impact on “purchase intention”.
4. “Network features” has a moderation effect on the variables “performance expectancy”, “effort expectancy” and “facilitating conditions”. Network features will positively affect the relationship between performance expectancy and usage intention, between effort expectancy and usage intention, and between facilitating conditions and usage intention.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究問題與目的 5
第三節 研究架構與流程 7
第二章 文獻探討 8
第一節 大規模開放式線上課程（MOOCs） 8
一、數位學習與MOOCs發展沿革 8
二、國內外MOOCs平台案例 10
三、MOOCs的評估 12
第二節 群眾募資 20
一、群眾募資發展沿革 20
二、回饋式群眾募資 20
三、線上募資課程 24
第三節 理論與模型探討 27
一、MOOCs與消費價值理論（Consumption Value Theory） 27
二、延伸型整合性科技接受模型（UTAUT2） 28
三、網路外部性與網路特性 37
第四節 小結 40
第三章 研究方法 41
第一節 研究架構與對象 41
一、研究架構與假設 41
二、研究對象 47
第二節 研究設計 48
一、問卷之基本資料 48
二、問卷設計 50
三、問卷發放 57
四、問項計分方式 57
五、分析方法 57
第三節 小結 58
第四章 研究結果與分析 61
第一節 描述性統計分析 61
第二節 信效度分析 74
第三節 各變數之間差異分析 75
第四節 各變數之間相關分析 87
第五節 各變數對使用意圖之影響 89
第六節 網路特性之調節效果分析 91
第七節 使用意圖對購買意圖之影響 97
第八節 分析與討論 98
第五章 結論 103
第一節 研究結論 103
第二節 研究限制 106
第三節 後續研究與建議 108
參考文獻 110		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 6792697 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109462005en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 線上募資課程zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 使用意圖zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 購買意圖zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 延伸型整合性科技接受模型zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 網路特性zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Crowdfunding Online Coursesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Usage intentionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Purchase intentionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2)en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Network featuresen_US
dc.title (題名) 以延伸型整合性科技接受模型與網路特性探討線上募資課程之使用與購買意圖zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Explore the Usage and Purchase Intention of Crowdfunding Online Courses based on UTAUT2 Model and Network Featuresen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文部分
1. Google（2021）。2021智慧消費關鍵報告。Google。
2. 王本正、許富榕（2016）。以延伸型整合性科技接受模式探討行動醫療App協助照護任務之接受度。福祉科技與服務管理學刊，4（4），483-494。
3. 王裕賢（2017）。連結主義應用於高中地理教學—以學生共同編輯維基百科西亞詞條為例。國立臺灣師範大學地理學系未出版碩士論文。
4. 安潔拉（2018）。What Humans and Machines Tell Us about MOOCs: A Primer in South East Asia。國立中正大學教育領導與管理發展國際碩士學位學程未出版碩士論文。
5. 朱國明、袁建中、詹惠君（2011）。以跨服務分類觀點探討行動服務使用者採用模式之研究。電子商務學報，13（3），697-725。
6. 何榮桂（2012）。臺灣教育科技的回顧與展望。台灣教育，674，41-47。
7. 何榮桂（2014）。大規模網路開放課程（MOOCs）的崛起與發展。台灣教育，686，2-8。
8. 吳玉芬（2021）。線上募資課程消費者行為之研究。國立雲林科技大學企業管理系未出版碩士論文。
9. 吳美美（2004）。數位學習現在與未來發展。圖書館學與資訊科學，30（2）。
10. 呂冠璇（2021年7月15日）。WFH需求回不去，高通副總裁劉思泰：5G五大趨勢，台灣有優勢。天下雜誌。2021年8月11日取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5117236?from=search
11. 宋同正（2014）。序—服務設計的本質內涵和流程工具。設計學報，19（2）。
12. 辛雨恩（2021）。虛擬通路、實體通路、社群參與、服務創新、品牌認同、品牌信任對購買意願之影響。國立澎湖科技大學行銷與物流管理系未出版碩士論文。
13. 周君倚、陸洛（2014）。以科技接受模式探討數位學習系統使用態度－以成長需求為調節變項。資訊管理學報，21（1），83-105。
14. 東方線上消費者研究集團（2021年7月）。COVID-19 第六波疫情微解封消費者行為即時調查。東方線上消費者研究集團。
15. 林子欽（2016）。大規模網路開放課程(MOOCs)的商業模式分析。國立清華大學科技管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
16. 林克威（2020年8 月19日）。電商型態百百種，你最適合哪一種？。INSIDE 。2021年8月18日取自https://www.inside.com.tw/article/20722-which-kind-of-e-commerce-should-you-choose
17. 林克威（2020年9月29日）。數位內容的電商興起，內容經濟背後的價值是什麽？。明日科學。2021年8月18日取自https://tomorrowsci.com/master/%E3%80%90%E6%9E%97%E5%85%8B%E5%A8%81%E5%B0%88%E6%AC%84%E3%80%91%E6%95%B8%E4%BD%8D%E5%85%A7%E5%AE%B9%E7%9A%84%E9%9B%BB%E5%95%86%E8%88%88%E8%B5%B7%EF%BC%8C%E5%85%A7%E5%AE%B9%E7%B6%93%E6%BF%9F%E8%83%8C/
18. 林克威（2021年3月24日）。什麼是電商？電子商務的Why & How。INSIDE。2021年8月17日取自https://www.inside.com.tw/article/22960-what-is-e-commerce
19. 林玠均（2021年4月1日）。誰轉變會最大？麥肯錫：後疫情時代的未來工作趨勢。天下雜誌。2021年9月3日取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5114142?from=search
20. 林采臣（2021）。社群體驗價值、品牌社群承諾與品牌忠誠度關係之研究－以全家便利商店為例。嶺東科技大學行銷與流通管理系未出版碩士論文。
21. 林冠仲（2021年8月30日）。【新創園地專欄-林冠仲】數位轉型趨勢下的新創與投資契機。FINDIT。2021年12月30日取自https://findit.org.tw/researchPageV2.aspx?pageId=1794
22. 林品辰（2020）。以社群口碑及關鍵時刻行動策略探討線上學習平台之行銷分析。國立屏東大學行銷與流通管理學系數位行銷碩士在職專班未出版碩士論文。
23. 思科（2021年3月25日）。後疫情催化中小企業數位轉型，思科台灣：三大策略無縫接軌未來工作！。天下雜誌。2021年9月3日取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5113153?from=search
24. 柯俊如。從OCW到MOOCs—開放教育資源的發展。開放教育手札。2021年10月4日取自http://note-on-open-education.blog.ntu.edu.tw/ntumoocs-basics/ocw-oer/
25. 凌榆舜（2021）。高等教育磨課師線上課程購買行為之分析。淡江大學教育科技學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
26. 徐嘉辰、張嘉玲（2021年8月30日）。【群眾募資亮點觀測站】2021H1台灣群眾募資觀測。FINDIT。2021年9月20日取自https://findit.org.tw/researchPageV2.aspx?pageId=1809
27. 張巧真、陳筠惠（2014）。應用延伸型整合科技接受模式探討線上購買意願—以雙媒介之觀點.。電子商務研究，12（2），143-168。
28. 張筱祺、鐘映庭（2020）。智慧學習產業產值調查報告。台北市：經濟部工業局。
29. 張嘉玲（2019年9月19日）。【新興籌募資數位工具介紹】創意籌資的好幫手-回饋型群眾募資平台介紹。FINDIT。2021年10月10日取自https://findit.org.tw/researchPageV2.aspx?pageId=1170
30. 張嘉玲（2021年3月23日）。【群眾募資亮點觀測站】2020台灣群募發生什麼新鮮事?。FINDIT。2021年9月20日取自https://findit.org.tw/researchPageV2.aspx?pageId=1674
31. 戚嘉惠（2020）。延伸型整合型科技接受模式探討旅客對於機場自助報到服務之關係研究。輔仁大學餐旅管理學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
32. 教育部（2021）。全國各級學校因應疫情停課居家線上學習。教育部全球資訊網。2021年12月30日取自https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=8BF1696CC31F4FE9
33. 梁郁如（2020年7月8日）。防疫不停、學習不止！科技背後，「熱忱」才是關鍵。天下雜誌。2021年9月6日取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5101050?from=search
34. 陳君毅（2021年4月14日）。線上學習熱潮年！Hahow年度營收2.7億元、程式類課程貢獻過半，白皮書揭3大趨勢。數位時代。2021年9月6日取自https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/62306/hahow-2020
35. 陳妍俐、陳俐穎（2021）。回饋型群眾募資關鍵成功因素之探討。全球商業經營管理學報，13，39-50。
36. 陳怡文（2019）。淺談自主學習途徑—磨課師。臺灣教育評論月刊，8（1），257-260。
37. 陳映璇（2021年1月4日）。未來教育大變革？線上教學席捲全球，大學校時代來了！。數位時代。2021年9月18日取自https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/60780/education-university-global-generation-december
38. 陳雪華（2012年10月）。數位內容產業digital content industry。國家教育研究院雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網。2021年9月18日取自https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678938/
39. 陳聖智（2021）。後疫情時代的數位傳播—科技創新、智慧教育、與數位人文的觀點。人文與社會科學簡訊，22（3），66-72。
40. 陳詩妤（2020年5月8日）。全球磨課師先驅edX創辦人：教育未來會像零售業一樣「全通路」。親子天下。2021年9月5日取自https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5086131
41. 曾柏鈞（2020）。探討影響消費者對線上影音串流平台使用行為之研究—以延伸性整合型科技接受模型為例。國立屏東科技大學企業管理系所未出版碩士論文。
42. 曾紀幸、林子娟、郭信智（2017）。線上群眾募資平台之參與意圖與行為之影響因素。行銷評論，14（3），231-262。
43. 黃旭昇（2021年9月15日）。新北打造數位校園，2025年全智慧教室。中央通訊社。2021年9月17日取自https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aloc/202109150144.aspx
44. 黃炫彰（2018）。探討回報式群眾募資平台之再贊助意圖─以ZecZec群眾募資平台為例。國立中央大學資訊管理學系未出版碩士論文。
45. 楊士範（2021年6月1日）。實驗國小校長：停課不停學是「千載難逢的機會」，但不能直接把實體搬到線上。關鍵評論網媒體集團。2021年9月17日取自https://www.thenewslens.com/article/151770
46. 楊戎真（2020年6月30日）。零接觸學習：知識型商品線上化，Hahow業績爆發。臺北市就業服務處。2021年9月18日取自https://www.okwork.taipei/ESO/content/tw/Article/161117075814/200629145658
47. 楊怡潔（2020）。網路口碑、信任、知覺價值與線上募資課程購買意願關係之研究。國立臺北科技大學技術及職業教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
48. 楊惠合（2004）。以科技接受模型探討數位學習滿意度之研究。大葉大學資訊管理學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
49. 楊運秀、郭芳伃（2017）。網紅業配文的說服效果：懷疑人格、熟悉度及專業性的影響。行銷評論，14（2），163-189。
50. 群眾觀點（2021年2月8日）。2020台灣群眾集資年度報告。群眾觀點。2021年10月7日取自http://crowdwatch.tw/post/23158/
51. 廖珮妏、余鑑、于俊傑（2012）。應用整合型科技接受模式與創新擴散通用模型於企業導入數位學習之多層次分析。電子商務學報，14（4），657-687。
52. 數位時代採訪中心（2021年11月30日）。7成網友願意付錢看網路內容、Z世代是黃金族群！課程、娛樂最吸金。數位時代。2021年12月12日取自https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/66459/internet-payment-motive-internet
53. 衛生福利部（2021）。COVID-19 防疫關鍵決策時間軸。2021年9月5日取自https://covid19.mohw.gov.tw/ch/sp-timeline0-205.html
54. 鄭英敏（2021）。後疫情時代電商平台消費者購物行為分析與精準行銷之研究。國立高雄科技大學行銷與流通管理系未出版碩士論文。
55. 賴佳吟、洪新原（2015）。從服務科學觀點探討使用者對社群商務之接受。電子商務學報，17（4），423-458。
56. 賴俊雄（2019）。磨課師平臺與人文教學。教育部教學實踐研究計畫成果報告（編號：PHA107126）。台北市：教育部。
57. 賴偉晏（2021年7月12日）。後疫情時代，旅遊業的四大轉型契機。遠見雜誌。2021年9月5日取自https://home.kpmg/tw/zh/home/insights/2021/07/tw-tourism-industry-transformation-after-covid-19.html
 
英文部分
1. Arndt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of marketing Research, 4(3), 291-295.
2. Barua, A., Kriebel, C. H., & Mukhopadhyay, T. (1995). Information technologies and business value: An analytic and empirical investigation. Information systems research, 6(1), 3-23.
3. Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management science, 15(5), 215-227.
4. Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis TAM?. Journal of the association for information systems, 8(4), 212-218.
5. Bradford, C. S. (2012). Crowdfunding and the federal securities laws. Colum. Bus. L. Rev., 1.
6. Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS quarterly, 29(3), 399-426.
7. Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (2018). Design, learning networks and service innovation. Design Studies, 55, 27-53.
8. Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2021). The dynamics of a MOOC`s learner-learner interaction over time: A longitudinal network analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 123(3), 106880.
9. Castillo, N. M., Lee, J., Zahra, F. T., & Wagner, D. A. (2015). MOOCS for development: Trends, challenges, and opportunities. International Technologies & International Development, 11(2), 35-42.
10. Chiu, C. M., Cheng, H. L., Huang, H. Y., & Chen, C. F. (2013). Exploring individuals’ subjective well-being and loyalty towards social network sites from the perspective of network externalities: The Facebook case. International Journal of Information Management, 33(3), 539-552.
11. Conole, G. (2014). A new classification schema for MOOCs. The international journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 65-77.
12. Cormier, D. (2014). Rhizo14–The MOOC that community built. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 3, 107-110.
13. Creelman, A., Ehlers, U., & Ossiannilsson, E. (2014). Perspectives on MOOC quality-An account of the EFQUEL MOOC Quality Project. INNOQUAL-International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 78-87.
14. Dai, H. M., Teo, T., & Rappa, N. A. (2020). Understanding continuance intention among MOOC participants: The role of habit and MOOC performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106455.
15. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information system: Theory and results. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT Sloan School of management, Cambridge, MA.
16. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.
17. de Moura, V. F., de Souza, C. A., & Viana, A. B. N. (2021). The use of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in blended learning courses and the functional value perceived by students. Computers & Education, 161, 1-14.
18. De Notaris, D., Canazza, S., Mariconda, C., & Paulon, C. (2021). How to play a MOOC: Practices and simulation. Entertainment Computing, 37, 100395.
19. Dlačić, J., Arslanagić, M., Kadić-Maglajlić, S., Marković, S., & Raspor, S. (2013). Exploring perceived service quality, perceived value, and repurchase intention in higher education using structural equation modelling. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(1-2), 141-157.
20. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of marketing research, 28(3), 307-319.
21. Downes, S. (2015). The quality of massive open online courses. International Handbook of E-Learning, 1, 93-106.
22. Dushnitsky, G., & Fitza, M. A. (2018). Are we missing the platforms for the crowd? Comparing investment drivers across multiple crowdfunding platforms. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 10, e00100.
23. Ferreira, V., Papaoikonomou, E., & Terceño, A. (2021). Unpeel the layers of trust! A comparative analysis of crowdfunding platforms and what they do to generate trust. Business Horizons, 65(1), 7-19.
24. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
25. Fishbein,M. & Ajzen,L.(1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 53-89.
26. Gabrielli, S., Rizzi, S., Bassi, G., Carbone, S., Maimone, R., Marchesoni, M., & Forti, S. (2021). Engagement and Effectiveness of a Healthy-Coping Intervention via Chatbot for University Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Proof-of-Concept Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9(5), e27965.
27. Gong, J., Liu, T. X., & Tang, J. (2021). How monetary incentives improve outcomes in MOOCs: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 190, 905-921.
28. Hanson, W. (2000). Principles of Internet Marketing. Cincinnati, OH.: South-Western College Publishing.
29. Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems, MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695-704.
30. Hemer, J. (2011). A snapshot on crowdfunding (No. R2/2011). Arbeitspapiere Unternehmen und Region.
31. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet?. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(1), 38-52.
32. Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of consumer research, 17(4), 454-462.
33. Herrero, A., Hernandez-Ortega, B., & San Martín, H. (2020). Potential funders’ motivations in reward-based crowdfunding. The influence of project attachment and business viability. Computers in human behavior, 106, 106240.
34. Hobbs, J., Grigore, G., & Molesworth, M. (2016). Success in the management of crowdfunding projects in the creative industries. Internet Research, 26(1), 146-166.
35. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of consumer research, 9(2), 132-140.
36. Hossain, M., & Oparaocha, G. O. (2017). Crowdfunding: Motives, definitions, typology and ethical challenges. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 7(2), 1-14.
37. Hui, C. H. E. N. (2011). Personality’s influence on the relationship between online word-of-mouth and consumers’ trust in shopping website. Journal of software, 6(2), 265-272.
38. Impey, C., & Formanek, M. (2021). MOOCS and 100 Days of COVID: Enrollment surges in massive open online astronomy classes during the coronavirus pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 4(1), 100177.
39. Iqbal, M. S., Hassan, U., M., & Habibah, U. (2018). Impact of self-service technology (SST) service quality on customer loyalty and behavioral intention: The mediating role of customer satisfaction. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1-23.
40. Ishida, K., Slevitch, L., & Siamionava, K. (2016). The effects of traditional and electronic word-of-mouth on destination image: A case of vacation tourists visiting Branson, Missouri. Administrative Sciences, 6(4), 1-17.
41. Jung, E., Kim, D., Yoon, M., Park, S., & Oakley, B. (2019). The influence of instructional design on learner control, sense of achievement, and perceived effectiveness in a supersize MOOC course. Computers & Education, 128, 377-388.
42. Jung, Y., & Lee, J. (2018). Learning engagement and persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCS). Computers & Education, 122, 9-22.
43. Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American economic review, 75(3), 424-440.
44. Kim, S. S., Malhotra, N. K., & Narasimhan, S. (2005). Research note-two competing perspectives on automatic use: A theoretical and empirical comparison. Information systems research, 16(4), 418-432.
45. Kumar, P., & Kumar, N. (2020). A study of learner’s satisfaction from MOOCs through a mediation model. Procedia Computer Science, 173, 354-363.
46. Lai, L. S., To, W. M., Lung, J. W., & Lai, T. M. (2012). The perceived value of higher education: the voice of Chinese students. Higher Education, 63(3), 271-287.
47. Lang, K. R., & Zhao, J. L. (2000). The role of electronic commerce in the transformation of distance education. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 10(2), 103-127.
48. Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1152–1161.
49. Luik, P., Suviste, R., Lepp, M., Palts, T., Tõnisson, E., Säde, M., & Papli, K. (2019). What motivates enrolment in programming MOOCs?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 153-165.
50. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organization Behavior, 13, 103–123.
51. Massolution (2012). Crowdfunding industry report: market trends, composition and crowdfunding platforms. Retrieved from www.crowdfundinsider.com/2014/03/34255-crowdfunding-fraud-big-threat/
52. Moore, G. (1995). Crossing the Chasm, New York, Harpercollins Publishers.
53. Morosan, C. (2016). An empirical examination of US travelers’ intentions to use biometric e-gates in airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 55, 120-128.
54. Murray, K. B., Liang, J., & Häubl, G. (2010). ACT 2.0: the next generation of assistive consumer technology research. Internet Research, 20, 232–254.
55. Ortega-Arranz, A., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Asensio-Perez, J. I., Martinez-Mones, A., Gomez-Sanchez, E., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2019). To reward and beyond: Analyzing the effect of reward-based strategies in a MOOC. Computers & Education, 142, 1-14.
56. Pappano, L. (2012). The Year of the MOOC. The New York Times, 2(12), 2012.
57. Reparaz, C., Aznárez-Sanado, M., & Mendoza, G. (2020). Self-regulation of learning and MOOC retention. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106423.
58. Rohlfs, J. (1974). A theory of interdependent demand for a communications service. The Bell journal of economics and management science, 5(1), 16-37.
59. Sahm, M., Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Corrigendum to “Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd”. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(29), 610-611.
60. Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & management, 44(1), 90-103.
61. Shah, D. (2020, Dec 14). The Second Year of The MOOC: A Review of MOOC Stats and Trends in 2020. Retrieved from https://www.classcentral.com/report/the-second-year-of-the-mooc/
62. Shang, S. S., Wu, Y. L., & Li, E. Y. (2017). Field effects of social media platforms on information-sharing continuance: Do reach and richness matter?. Information & Management, 54(2), 241-255.
63. Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of business research, 22(2), 159-170.
64. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
65. Sigar, K. (2012). Fret no more: inapplicability of crowdfunding concerns in the internet age and the JOBS Act`s safeguards. Administrative Law Review, 473-506.
66. Stauss, B. (1997). Global word of mouth: service bashing on the Internet is a thorny issue. Marketing management, 6(3), 28-30.
67. Stauss, B. (2000). Using new media for customer interaction: a challenge for relationship marketing. Relationship marketing, 233-253.
68. Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Mazzarol, T. (2005). The difference between positive and negative word-of-mouth—emotion as a differentiator. Proceedings of the ANZMAC 2005 conference: broadening the boundaries, 331-337.
69. Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A., & Howell, J.M. (1991). Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization, MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124-143.
70. Thong, J. Y., Hong, S.-J., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(9), 799-810.
71. Toven-Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. B. (2015). Virtually unlimited classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open online courses. The internet and higher education, 24, 1-12.
72. Tu, C. H., & Sujo-Montes, L. E. (2015). MOOCs. Media rich instruction, 287-304.
73. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
74. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
75. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 157-178.
76. Wang, N., Li, Q., Liang, H., Ye, T., & Ge, S. (2018). Understanding the importance of interaction between creators and backers in crowdfunding success. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 27, 106-117.
77. Wei, T. T., Marthandan, G., Chong, A. Y., Ooi, K., & Arumugam, S. (2009). What drives Malaysian m-commerce adoption? An empirical analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(3), 370–388.
78. Wetter-Edman, K., Vink, J., & Blomkvist, J. (2018). Staging aesthetic disruption through design methods for service innovation. Design Studies, 55, 5-26.
79. Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221-232.
80. Yong, T. S. M., Perialathan, K., Ahmad, M., Juatan, N., Majid, L. A., & Johari, M. Z. (2021). Perceptions and acceptability of a smartphone app intervention (ChildSafe) in Malaysia: qualitative exploratory study. JMIR pediatrics and parenting, 4(2), e24156.
81. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of marketing, 52(3), 2-22.
82. Zhao, Y., Wang, A., & Sun, Y. (2020). Technological environment, virtual experience, and MOOC continuance: A stimulus–organism–response perspective. Computers & Education, 144, 103721.		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202201159en_US