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

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 基於校長科技領導視角之臺北市國民小學混成學習指標與權重體系建構之研究： 模糊德懷術與層級分析法之應用
Research on the Construction of Blended Learning Indicators and Weight System of National Primary Schools in Taipei City Based on the Perspective of Principal`s Science and Technology Leadership：Fuzzy Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process
作者 詹明霞
Chan, Ming-Shin
貢獻者 張奕華
Chang, Yi-Hua
詹明霞
Chan, Ming-Shin
關鍵詞 臺北市國民小學
混成學習
指標建構
模糊德懷術
層級分析法
Taipei City elementary schools
blended learning
indicator construction
fuzzy Delphi method
analytic hierarchy process
日期 2023
上傳時間 2-Aug-2023 14:33:17 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究旨在建構臺北市國民小學混成學習指標與權重體系。首先進行文獻探討，分析與歸納出臺北市國民小學混成學習之初擬指標；其次，再以專家審題問卷、模糊德懷術問卷以及層級分析相對權重進行調查。本研究邀請13位具有混成學習教學理念或具有數位學習實務工作經驗之學者、專家為對象，透過專家意見修正指標，再以模糊德懷術建立三角模糊術與解模糊化之方法，彙整專家小組成員對指標重要性之見解並依此篩選指標；最後以層級分析法求得各層面及其指標之相對權重，完成臺北市國民小學混成學習指標與權重體系之建構。
根據研究之結果與分析，本研究歸納主要結論如下：
一、本研究建構之臺北市國民小學混成學習指標，包含五個層面與37項指標。
二、本研究建構之臺北市國民小學混成學習指標之五個層面，依其權重排序分別為「面對面教學」（31%）、「教學方法和評量」（24.1%）、「同步非同步教學」及「互動性科技」（17.2%）、「線上學習」（10.3%）。
三、本研究建構之臺北市國民小學混成學習指標計37項，在「面對面教學」層面首重「教師即時掌握學生的學習成效並調整教學方法及內容」：在「教學方法和評量」層面以「教師善用適合的教學學習平台」最為重要；在「同步非同步教學」層面以「教師針對線上課程，掌握互動性的教學方法」最為重要；在「互動性科技」層面以「教師提供易於使用的數位教學軟體（工具）」；在「線上學習」層面最須重視「教師設計適合線上課堂的教學活動」。
最後，依據研究結果提出具體建議，以做為國民小學教育機構、國民小學教師以及後續研究者之參考。
This study aims to construct the blended learning indicators and weight system for elementary schools in Taipei City. Firstly, a literature review is conducted to analyze and summarize the initial proposed indicators for blended learning in Taipei City`s elementary schools. Secondly, investigations are carried out using expert review questionnaires, fuzzy Delphi questionnaires, and analytic hierarchy process for relative weights. Thirteen scholars and experts with ideas on blended learning teaching or practical experience in digital learning are invited to participate in this study. The indicators are refined based on expert opinions, and the fuzzy Delphi method is employed to establish the triangular fuzzy technique and defuzzification method. The views of the expert group members on the importance of indicators are collected, and the indicators are screened accordingly. Finally, the relative weights of each level and their indicators are determined using the analytic hierarchy process, completing the construction of the blended learning indicators and weight system for elementary schools in Taipei City.
According to the results and analysis of the study, the main conclusions are as follows:
1. The blended learning indicators for elementary schools in Taipei City constructed in this study consist of five levels and 37 indicators.
2. The five levels of blended learning indicators in Taipei`s elementary schools, ranked according to their weights, are as follows:"Face-to-face teaching" (31%),"Teaching methods and assessment" (24.1%),"Synchronous and asynchronous teaching" and "Interactive Technology" (17.2%),"Online Learning" (10.3%).
3. Among the 37 blended learning indicators in Taipei`s elementary schools, the following key points are highlighted at each level:"Face-to-face teaching": Emphasis on teachers grasping students` learning effects in real time and adjusting teaching methods and
content,"Teaching methods and evaluation": Emphasis on teachers making good use of suitable teaching and learning platforms,"Synchronous and asynchronous teaching": Emphasis on teachers mastering interactive teaching methods for online courses,"Interactive technology": Emphasis on teachers providing easy-to-use digital teaching software (tools),"Online learning": Emphasis on teachers designing teaching activities suitable for online classrooms.
Finally, based on the research findings, specific suggestions are provided as a reference for national primary education institutions, primary school teachers, and future researchers.
參考文獻 參考文獻
壹、中文部分
王文科、王智弘。（2020）。教育研究法。臺北市：五南。
史美瑤（2014）。 混成學習（Blended/Hybrid Learning）的挑戰與設計。評鑑雙月
刊， 50，34-36。
吳清山、林天祐（2006）。科技領導。教育資料與研究雙月刊，71，195-196。
李小玲（2019）。混成學習模式對偏遠地區國中英語科補救教學學生英語學習成效
之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。
吳政達（2008）。教育政策分析:概念、方法與應用。臺北市：高等教育。
林佳誼（2021 年11 月）。混成式學習。天下雜誌，735，86-91。
秦夢群（2010）。教育領導理論與應用。臺北市：五南。
張奕華（2007）。學校科技領與管理理論與實務。臺北市：高等教育。
張奕華（2010）。校長科技領導-模式、指標與應用。臺北市：洪葉。
張奕華、吳怡佳（2011）。科技領導、知識管理與學校效能結構關係之驗證。教育
行政與評鑑學刊，11，1-28。
郭伯臣（2020）。校園防疫與中小學數位學習之現況與未來。國土及公共治理季
刊，8(4)，72-79。
陳盈螢（2021 年 8 月)。北市公布開學防疫指引 混成教學僅近3 成老師支持。翻
轉教育電子報。取自https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/006746
許進榮、林朝清（2020）。校長科技領導的組織行為模式與學校效能關係之研究。
學校行政，127，12-42。取自http://doi:10.6423/HHHC.202005_(127).0002
邱紹雯（2021 年9 月）。開學後，88%老師願意改變傳統教學法。親子天下，120，
82-85。
教育部資訊及科技教育司（2021 年6 月）全國高級中等人以下學校學生居家線上
學習參考指引。取自
https://learning.cloud.edu.tw/onlinelearning/dist/pdf/1100908.pdf
教育部（2021a）。教育部〈因應疫情停課居家線上學習規劃110 年5 月18 日〉通
報。取自https://cpd.moe.gov.tw/page_two.php?id=34842
蔡亞樺（2021 年8 月）。北市國小願試辦「混成教學」 教育局：投影機、攝影機
補助無上限。自由時報。取自
https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/3642442
教育部（2016）。國民教育法。取自
https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=FL008927
國家教育研究院（2012）。雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網〈雙語詞彙、學術名
詞暨辭書資訊網〉。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678942/。
葉晉嘉、翁興利、吳濟華（2007）。德菲法與模糊德菲法之比較研究。調查研究—
方法與應用，21，31-58。
鄭淵全、郭伯臣（2021）。遠距教學與自主學習。師友雙月刊，629（8），6-20。
黃加明（2022）。COVID-19 後疫情時期中等學校線上及混成教學的挑戰與實踐。
中等教育，73（1），97-113。
林和春、李逸萱（2023）。桃園市國民小學教師知覺校長科技領導與教師學術樂觀
關係之研究。學校行政雙月刊，144，126‒146。
貳、外文部分
AlAbdulkarim, L. M. & Albarrak, A. I. (2015). Students’ attitudes and satisfaction
towards blended learning in the Health Sciences. In International Conference on
Advances in Education and Social Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United
States, 2010. The Sloan Consortium (NJ1).
Alqahtani, M., & Mohammad, H. (2015). Mobile Applications` Impact on Student
Performance and Satisfaction. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 14(4) , 102-112.
Ameta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the
general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122.
Amro, H. J., Mundy, M.-A., & Kupczynski, L. (2015). The effects of age and gender on
student achievement in face-to-face and online college algebra classes. Research in
Higher Education Journal, 27, 1-22. Retrieved from
http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/142077.pdf
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical
investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1),
49-82.
Angelone, L., Warner, Z., & Zydney, J. M. (2020). Optimizing the technological design
of a blended synchronous learning environment. Online Learning, 24(3), 222–240.
Asif, M., Edirisingha, P., Ali, R., & Shehzad, S. (2020). Teachers’ practices in blended
learning environment: perception of students at secondary education level. Journal
of Education and Educational Development, 7(2), 286–306.
Bajah, S., Bunyi, G., Knott, M., Matiru, R., Mulusa, T., Muriuki, G., & Mutunga, P.
(1995). Methods of teaching and learning. In Teach Your Best: A Handbook for
University Lecturers (Eds. Institute for Socio-Cultural Studies), p.387. Kassel,
Germany: ISBN 3-88939-076-5.
Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student
affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), n1.
Basitere, M., & Ivala, E. N. (2017). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of
multimedia and Wiley Plus Web‑Based Homework System in enhancing learning in
The Chemical Engineering Extended Curriculum Program Physics Course.
Electronic journal of e-Learning, 15(2), 156‑173.
Bell, J., Sawaya, S., & Cain, W. (2014). Synchromodal classes: Designing for shared
learning experiences between face-to-face and online students. International Journal
of Designs for Learning, 5(1). Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/209656/
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abram, P. C. (2014).
A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From
the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26, 87-122.
doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
Bervell, B., & Umar, I. N. (2018). Utilization decision towards LMS for blended learning
in distance education: Modeling the effects of personality factors in exclusivity.
Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 10(3), 309-333.
Bicen, H., Ozdamli, F., & Uzunboylu, H. (2014). Online and blended learning approach
on instructional multimedia development courses in teacher education. Interactive
Learning Environments, 22(4), 529–548.
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. O. E. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight
keys to success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-100.
Blackman, G., Pedersen, J., March, M., Reyes-Fournier, E., & Cumella, E. J. (2019). A
comprehensive literature review of online teaching effectiveness: Reconstructing the
conceptual framework [Unpublished manuscript].
Bloemer, W., & Swan, K. (2013). Investigating informal blending at the University of
Illinois Springfield. In Blended Learning: Research perspectives (pp.52-69) :
Routledge.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.
Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.
Boelens, R., de Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of
blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22,
1-18. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001.
Borel, D. A., Young, J. K., Martin, G. E., Nicks, R. E., Mason, D. D., & Thibodeaux, T.
N. (2019). School principal interns` perceived level of preparedness for technology
leadership. Education Leadership Review, 20(1), 101-118.
Carstens, K. J., Mallon, J. M., Bataineh, M., & Al-Bataineh, A. (2021). Effects of
technology on student learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology -
TOJET, 20(1), 105–113.
Chang, I.-H., Chin, J. M., & Hsu, C.-M. (2008). Teachers` perceptions of the dimensions
and implementation of technology leadership of principals in Taiwanese elementary
schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 229-245.
Chang, I.-H. (2012). The effect of principals` technological leadership on teachers`
technological literacy and teaching effectiveness in Taiwanese elementary schools.
Educational Technology and Society, 15(2), 328-340.
Cheawjindakarn, B., Suwannatthachote, P., & Theeraroungchaisri, A. (2013). Critical
success factors for online distance learning in higher education: A review of the
literature. Creative Education, 3(8), 61-66.
Creighton, T. (2003). The principal as technology leader. Review of Educational
Research, 59(2), 117–142.
Cronje, J. (2020). Towards a new definition of blended learning. Electronic journal of e-
Learning, 18(2), 114–121.
D`Abundo, M. L., & Sidman, C. (2018). Integrating web-based technologies into the
education and training of health professionals. In M. Khosrow-Pour, D.B.A. (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of information science and technology (4th ed., pp. 5820-5828). IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2255-3.ch506.
Dangwal, K. L. (2017). Blended Learning: An innovative approach. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 5(1), 129–136.
Davies, P. M. (2010). On school educational technology leadership. Management in
Education, 24 (2), 55-61.
Dexter, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2020). What does technology integration research tell us
about the leadership of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 52(1), 17-36. doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1668316.
Dianati, S., Nguyen, M., Dao, P., Iwashita, N., & Vasquez, C. (2020). Student perceptions
of technological tools for flipped instruction: The case of Padlet, Kahoot and Cirrus.
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 17(5), 1-14.
Dianne, L.Y. (2000). Images of school principals’ information and communications
technology eadership. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education,
9(3), 200-210.
Dolenc, K., Šorgo, A., & Ploj Virtič, M. (2021). Forced continuance intention model
(FCIM) of distance online teaching in the time of the initial COVID-19 outbreak.
Unpublished manuscript.
Doom, C. A. (2016). Teacher+ technology= blended learning: How important is the
teacher in this equation? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of
Nebraska-Lincoln.
DreamBox Learning. (2014). Blended learning innovations: 10 major trends. Retrieved
from http://www.dreambox.com/white-papers/blended-learning-innovations-10-
major-trends
DreamBox Learning. (2014). Blended learning innovations: 10 major trends. Retrieved
from http://www.dreambox.com/white-papers/blended-learning-innovations-10-
major-trends
Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarski, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward
flexible online learning in management education. The Journal of Educational
Research, 98(6), 331-338. https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.98.6.331-338
Dringus, L. P., & Seagull, A. B. (2013). A five-year study of sustaining blended learning
initiatives to enhance academic engagement in computer and information sciences
campus courses. In Blended learning: Research perspectives, 2, 122-140.
Dziuban, C., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Blended learning: Research perspectives (2nd ed.).
New York : Routledge.
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended
learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-16.
Elfaki, N. K., Abdulraheem, I., & Abdulrahim, R. (2019). Impact of e-learning vs
traditional learning on student’s performance and attitude. International Journal of
Medical Research & Health Sciences, 8(10), 76-82.
EPIC-Learning. (2013). Interactive learning centers announces name change to epic
learning. Retrieved from
https://www.hefreelibrary.com/Interactive+Learning+Centers+Announces+Name+C
hange+to+EPIC+Learning.-a054024665
Eryilmaz, M. (2015). The effectiveness of blended learning environments. Contemporary
Issues in Education Research, 8(4), 251-256. doi:10.19030/cier.v8i4.9433
Fidalgo, P., Thormann, J., Kulyk, O., & Lencastre, J. A. (2020). Students’ perceptions on
distance education: A multinational study. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1-18.
Fisher, A., Exley, K., & Ciobanu, D. (2014). Using technology to support learning and
teaching: Routledge.
Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty first century
principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41 (2), 124-142.
Fresen, J., & Laurent, X. (2016, October). Towards designing an Oxford experience in an
online distance program. In EDEN Conference Proceedings (No. 2, pp. 10-16).
Fresen, J. W. (2018). Embracing distance education in a blended learning model:
Challenges and prospects. Distance Education, 39(2), 224–240.
Galusha, J. M. (1988). Barriers to learning in distance education. ERIC, Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED416377.pdf
Geng, F., Fresen, J. W., & Burholt, S. (2017). Oxford MOOC development guide
(Unpublished internal document). University of Oxford.
Gilpin, S. (2020). A framework for fostering emerging online learner persistence: The
role of asynchronous and synchronous discussions. Journal of Teaching and
Learning, 14(1), 29–43.
Gottlieb, S. (2015). Zoran popovic to address the SXSW edu conference festival [Press
release]. Retrieved from Street Insider website:
http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/Zoran+Popovic/
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student
engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference.
Grady, M. L. (2011). Leading the technology-powered school: Corwin Press.
Hakansson Lindqvist, M. (2019). School leaders’ practices for innovative use of digital
technologies in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1226-
1240. doi:10.1111/bjet.12782
Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of
study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 19–
42.
Hartnett, M. (2016). The importance of motivation in online learning. In S. Kapoor & S.
K. Srivastava (Eds.), Motivation in online education (pp. 5-32).
Hero, J. L. (2019). The impact of technology integration in teaching performance. Online
Submission, 48(1), 101-114.
Hsieh, C.-C., & Hsiao, W.-C.(2013). The study on the relationship between principals`
technology leadership and student learning achievement in elementary school:
School ICT use as a mediator. Journal of Educational Theory and Practice, 27, 291-
324.
Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63(5), 564-
569. doi:10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5
Hui, M. (2016). A teacher-developed blended learning model on building reading
comprehension skills to support across-curriculum performances. Retrieved from
https://hdl.handle.net/10171/41270
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2014). Retrieved from
https://id.iste.org/docs/pdfs/2014_ISTE_Standards-A_PDF.pdf
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educationleaders
Jaipal-Jamani, K., Figg, C., Collier, D., Gallagher, T., Winters, K. L., & Ciampa, K.
(2018). Developing TPACK of university faculty through technology leadership
roles. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 39-55.
Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social
presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638-654. doi:10.1111/jcal.12107
Kamalluarifin, W. F. S. W., Aniza, F. N. F. M., Jayabalan, H., Saufi, M. L. H. M., &
Karib, S. H. F. (2018). Blended Learning: Satisfaction among Accounting Students
in UNITEN KSHAS. Global Business and Management Research, 10(3), 547-557.
Kaur, M. (2013). Blended learning-its challenges and future. Procedia-social and
behavioral sciences, 93, 612-617.
Kaya, Z., & Yılayaz, Ö. (2013). Technology integration models in teacher education and
technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Western Anatolian
Educational Sciences, 4(8), 57-83.
Keane, T., Boden, M., Chalmers, C., & Williams, M. (2020). Effective principal
leadership influencing technology innovation in the classroom. Education and
Information Technologies, 25(6), 5321-5338.
Keegan, D. (2002). The future of learning: From eLearning to mLearning, Retrieved from
ERIC ED472435 database.
Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped
classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet
and Higher Education, 22, 37–50. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003
Lam, J. (2015). The student experience of a blended learning course in Hong Kong.
International Journal of Technical Research and Application, 20, 4-13.
Larsen, L. J. E. (2012). Teacher and student perspectives on a blended learning intensive
English program writing course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State
University.
Laster, S., Otte, G., Picciano, A., & Sorg, S. (2005). Redefining Blended Learning. Paper
presented at the 2005 Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning, Chicago.
Leader-Janssen, E. M., Nordness, P. D., Swain, K. D., & Hagaman, J. L. (2016). Students`
perceptions of an online graduate program in special education for emotional and
behavioral disorders. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(4), 246-258.
doi:10.1177/0888406416637411.
Lee, L.-T., & Hung, J. C. (2015). Effects of blended e-Learning: a case study in higher
education tax learning setting. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences,
5(1), 1-15. doi:10.1186/s13673-015-0024-3
Leeds, E. M., Campbell, S. M., Baker, H., Ali, R., Brawley, D., & Crisp, J. (2013). The
impact of student retention strategies: An empirical study. International Journal of
Management in Education, 7(1), 22–43. doi:10.1504/IJMIE.2013.050812
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2004). What we know about successful leadership. Practising
Administrator, 26(4), 4-7.
Lee, L. T., & Hung, J. C. (2015). Effects of blended e-Learning: A case study in higher
education tax learning setting. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences,
5(1), 1-15. doi:10.1186/s13673-015-0024-3
Liu, S. Y., Gomez, J., & Yen, C. J. (2009). Community college online course retention
and final grade: Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 8(2), 165–182.
Long, N. T., & Van Hanh, N. (2020). A structural equation model of blended learning
culture in the classroom. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(4), 99-115.
Lv, L., Shao, Y., Sun, H., Feng, C., & Zhuang, S. (2016). 2017 blue book of Chinese
iInternet education industry. Beijing: Peking University Press, 5(1),156.
Luna, Y. M., & Winters, S. A. (2020). Student perceptions on blended/flipped and
taditional face-to-face: A course redesign assessment. Journal of Curriculum and
Teaching, 9(3), 1-12.
Machado, L. J., & Chung, C.-J. (2015). Integrating technology: The principals’ role and
effect. International Education Studies, 8(5), 43-53.
Ma, J., Li, C., & Liang, H.-N. (2019). Enhancing students’ blended learning experience
through embedding metaliteracy. Education Research International, 1,1-8.
doi:10.1155/2019/6791058
Mandinach, E. B., & Miskell, R. C. (2017). Blended learning and data use in three
technology-infused charter schools. LEARNing Landscapes, 11 (1), 183-198.
Martín-Martínez, L., Sainz, V., & Rodríguez-Legendre, F. (2020). Evaluation of a
blended learning model for pre-service teachers. knowledge Management & ELearning,
12(2), 147–164. doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2020.12.008
Masie, E. (2002). Blended learning: The magic is in the mix. The ASTD e-learning
handbook, 58, 1-63.
McLeod, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage.
Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 216-240.
Mese, E., & Sevilen, Ç. (2021). Factors influencing EFL students` motivation in online
learning: A qualitative case study. Journal of Educational Technology and Online
Learning, 4(1), 11-22.
Milz, S. (2020). Assessing student performance between face-to-face and online course
formats in a college-level communications course. Canadian Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2),1-29.
Moallem, M. (2015). The impact of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools
on learner self-regulation, social presence, immediacy, intimacy, and satisfaction in
collaborative online learning. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-
Learning, 3(3), 55-77.
Moore, M. G. (2006). Foreword. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of
blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. xvii–xxx). San Francisco,
CA: Pfeiffer. Retrieved from http://www.publicationshare.com/p
Murphy, D. T., & Gunter, G. A. (1997). Technology integration: The importance of
administrative supports. Educational Media International, 34 (3), 136-139.
Öberg, L. M., Nyström, C. A., Hrastinski, S., Mozelius, P., & Söderback, J. (2019).
Interaction and group work in blended synchronous higher education: Exploring
effects on learning outcomes, satisfaction and retention. Proceedings of the 18th
ECEL, 420-428.
Paniagua, A., Luengo, R., Carvalho, J. L. T., & Casas, L. M. (2017). Blended learning en
la formación permanente del profesorado. Aportaciones de asesores de formación
sobre modalidades formativas. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 52(3), 1-
15.
Perkins-Jacobs, M. V. (2015). Principals` perceptions of technology implementation in
high schools and their effects on leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Arkansas.
Poláková, P., & Klímová, B. (2019). Mobile technology and generation Z in the English
language classroom—A preliminary study. Education Sciences, 9(3), 203-224.
doi:10.3390/educsci9030203
Poláková, P., & Klímová, B. (2020). Assessment of vocabulary knowledge through a
mobile application. Procedia Computer Science, 176, 1523-1530.
Poláková, P., & Klímová, B. (2021). The perception of Slovak students on distance online
learning in the time of coronavirus—A preliminary study. Education Sciences, 11(2),
81.
Ploj Virtic, M., Dolenc, K., & Šorgo, A. (2021). Changes in online distance learning
behaviour of University students during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, and
development of the model of forced distance online learning preferences. European
Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 393-411.
Richardson, J. W., & Sterrett, W. L. (2018). District technology leadership then and now:
A comparative study of district technology leadership from 2001 to 2014.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 589-616.
Roach, T. (2014). Student perceptions toward flipped learning: New methods to increase
interaction and active learning in economics. International Review of Economics
Education, 17, 74-84. doi:10.1016/j.iree.2014.08.003
Roehling, J. V., Hebert, M., Nelson, J. R., & Bohaty, J. J. (2017). Text structure strategies
for improving expository reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 71-
82.
Schmeltzer, T. (2001). Training administrators to be technology leaders. Technology and
Learning, 21(11), 16-22.
Sharoff, L. (2019). Creative and innovative online teaching strategies: Facilitation for
active participation. Journal of Educators Online, 16(2), 1-9.
doi:10.9743/JEO.2019.16.2.9
Sezer, B., & Deryakulu, D. (2012). The competencies of elementary school administrators
regarding their technology leadership roles. Educational Technology Teory and
Practice, 2(2), 70-92.
Sheninger, E. C. (2014). Digital leadership: Changing technology for change-savvy
school leaders: Corwin, a SAGE Company.
Sheninger, E. (2019). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times (2nd
ed.): Corwin Press.
Sherry, L. (1995). Issues in distance learning. InternationalJournal of Educational
Telecommunications, 1(4), 337-365.
Sincar, E. (2013). Friction identification and compensation of its effects in stabilized
platforms (Master`s thesis). Middle East Technical University.
Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning pro-grams. Educational
Technology, 43 (6), 51-54.
Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Mountain View,
CA: Innosight Institute.
Sohrabi, B., Vanani, I. R., & Iraj, H. (2019). The evolution of e-learning practices at the
University of Tehran: A case study. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An
International Journal, 11(1), 20-37.
Sundeen, T. H., & Sundeen, D. M. (2013). Instructional technology for rural schools:
Access and acquisition. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32(2), 8-14.
Szeto, E., & Cheng, A. Y. (2016). Towards a framework of interactions in a blended
synchronous learning environment: what effects are there on students` social
presence experience? Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 487-503.
doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.881391
Tarc, P. (2020). Education post-`COVID-19`: Re-visioning the face-to-face classroom.
Current Issues in Comparative Education, 22(1), 121-124.
Tayebinik, M., & Puteh, M. (2013). Does greater participation in online courses lead to
passing grade? An EFL learning context. British Journal of Educational Technology,
44(6), 199-202.
Thomas, S. (2016). Future Ready Learning: reimagining the role of technology in
education. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf
Thomas, S. (2016). Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the role of technology in
education. 2016 national education technology plan. (Office of Educational
Technology). Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf
Trujillo Maza, E. M., Gómez Lozano, M. T., Cardozo Alarcón, A. C., Moreno Zuluaga,
L., & Gamba Fadul, M. (2016). Blended learning supported by digital technology
and competency-based medical education: a case study of the social medicine course
at the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 1-13. doi:10.1186/s41239-016-0027-9
UNESCO. (2020). Global Education Coalition. Retrieved from
https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/globalcoalition
Valdez, G. (2004). Critical issue: Technology leadership: Enhancing positive educational
change. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 6(7), 1-30.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-
204.
Verma, G. (2019). The importance of a positive learning environment. Retrieved from
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/importance-positive-learning-environment-geetaverma#:~:
text=A%20positive%20classroom%20environment%20helps,leads%20to
%20wonderful%20learning%20outcomes
Vickers, R., Field, J., & Melakoski, C. (2015). Media culture 2020: Collaborative
teaching and blended learning using social media and cloud-based technologies.
Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(1), 62-73. doi:10.30935/cedtech/6139
Wang, M. L., & Lin, Y. H. (2008). To construct a monitoring mechanism of production
loss by using FuzzyDelphi method and fuzzy regression technique: A case study of
IC package testing company. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(3), 1156-1165.
Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher
perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course.
Computers & Education, 88, 354-369. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.008
Wang, A. I., & Lieberoth, A. (2016, October). The effect of points and audio on
concentration, engagement, enjoyment, learning, motivation, and classroom
dynamics using Kahoot. In European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp.
738). Academic Conferences International Limited. Retrieved from
https://bit.ly/2H5vHHe
Yeung, A. S., Taylor, P. G., Hui, C., Lam‐Chiang, A. C., & Low, E. L. (2012). Mandatory
use of technology in teaching: Who cares and so what? British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(6), 859-870. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01253.x
Yudiawan, A., Sunarso, B., & Sari, F. (2021). Successful Online Learning Factors in
COVID-19 Era: Study of Islamic higher education in West Papua, Indonesia.
International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(1), 193-201.
Zarzycka-Piskorz, E. (2016). Kahoot it or not? Can games be motivating in learning
grammar? Teaching English with Technology, 16(3), 17-36.
Zhao, N., Zhou, X., Liu, B., & Liu, W. (2020). Guiding teaching strategies with the
education platform during the COVID-19 epidemic: Taking Guiyang No. 1 Middle
School teaching practice as an example. Sci Insigt Edu Front, 5(2), 531-539.
Zubanova, S., Bodrova, T., & Kruchkovich, S. (2020). Testing: Methodology and quality
indicators. Propósitosy Representaciones, 8(2), 507-513.
doi:10.20511/pyr2020.v8n2.507
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
學校行政碩士在職專班
108911009
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108911009
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 張奕華zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chang, Yi-Huaen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 詹明霞zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chan, Ming-Shinen_US
dc.creator (作者) 詹明霞zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chan, Ming-Shinen_US
dc.date (日期) 2023en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-Aug-2023 14:33:17 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Aug-2023 14:33:17 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Aug-2023 14:33:17 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0108911009en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146692-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 學校行政碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 108911009zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在建構臺北市國民小學混成學習指標與權重體系。首先進行文獻探討，分析與歸納出臺北市國民小學混成學習之初擬指標；其次，再以專家審題問卷、模糊德懷術問卷以及層級分析相對權重進行調查。本研究邀請13位具有混成學習教學理念或具有數位學習實務工作經驗之學者、專家為對象，透過專家意見修正指標，再以模糊德懷術建立三角模糊術與解模糊化之方法，彙整專家小組成員對指標重要性之見解並依此篩選指標；最後以層級分析法求得各層面及其指標之相對權重，完成臺北市國民小學混成學習指標與權重體系之建構。
根據研究之結果與分析，本研究歸納主要結論如下：
一、本研究建構之臺北市國民小學混成學習指標，包含五個層面與37項指標。
二、本研究建構之臺北市國民小學混成學習指標之五個層面，依其權重排序分別為「面對面教學」（31%）、「教學方法和評量」（24.1%）、「同步非同步教學」及「互動性科技」（17.2%）、「線上學習」（10.3%）。
三、本研究建構之臺北市國民小學混成學習指標計37項，在「面對面教學」層面首重「教師即時掌握學生的學習成效並調整教學方法及內容」：在「教學方法和評量」層面以「教師善用適合的教學學習平台」最為重要；在「同步非同步教學」層面以「教師針對線上課程，掌握互動性的教學方法」最為重要；在「互動性科技」層面以「教師提供易於使用的數位教學軟體（工具）」；在「線上學習」層面最須重視「教師設計適合線上課堂的教學活動」。
最後，依據研究結果提出具體建議，以做為國民小學教育機構、國民小學教師以及後續研究者之參考。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study aims to construct the blended learning indicators and weight system for elementary schools in Taipei City. Firstly, a literature review is conducted to analyze and summarize the initial proposed indicators for blended learning in Taipei City`s elementary schools. Secondly, investigations are carried out using expert review questionnaires, fuzzy Delphi questionnaires, and analytic hierarchy process for relative weights. Thirteen scholars and experts with ideas on blended learning teaching or practical experience in digital learning are invited to participate in this study. The indicators are refined based on expert opinions, and the fuzzy Delphi method is employed to establish the triangular fuzzy technique and defuzzification method. The views of the expert group members on the importance of indicators are collected, and the indicators are screened accordingly. Finally, the relative weights of each level and their indicators are determined using the analytic hierarchy process, completing the construction of the blended learning indicators and weight system for elementary schools in Taipei City.
According to the results and analysis of the study, the main conclusions are as follows:
1. The blended learning indicators for elementary schools in Taipei City constructed in this study consist of five levels and 37 indicators.
2. The five levels of blended learning indicators in Taipei`s elementary schools, ranked according to their weights, are as follows:"Face-to-face teaching" (31%),"Teaching methods and assessment" (24.1%),"Synchronous and asynchronous teaching" and "Interactive Technology" (17.2%),"Online Learning" (10.3%).
3. Among the 37 blended learning indicators in Taipei`s elementary schools, the following key points are highlighted at each level:"Face-to-face teaching": Emphasis on teachers grasping students` learning effects in real time and adjusting teaching methods and
content,"Teaching methods and evaluation": Emphasis on teachers making good use of suitable teaching and learning platforms,"Synchronous and asynchronous teaching": Emphasis on teachers mastering interactive teaching methods for online courses,"Interactive technology": Emphasis on teachers providing easy-to-use digital teaching software (tools),"Online learning": Emphasis on teachers designing teaching activities suitable for online classrooms.
Finally, based on the research findings, specific suggestions are provided as a reference for national primary education institutions, primary school teachers, and future researchers.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 目 次
第一章 緒 論……………………………………………………………………… 1
第一節 研究動機.................................. 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題.......................... 5
第三節 名詞釋義................................... 6
第四節 研究方法與步驟............................‧.. 7
第五節 研究範圍與限制.............................. 13
第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………………………… 15
第一節 校長科技領導之趨勢與相關研究.................. 15
第二節 混成學習之意涵與相關研究...................... 25
第三節 國民小學混成學習指標分析與建構................ 33
第四節 臺北市國民小學混成學習之初擬指標.............. 48
第三章 研究設計與實施 ……………………………………………………………49
第一節 研究架構.................................... 49
第二節 研究對象.............................. 52
第三節 研究工具 ............................. 56
第四節 實施程序.............................. 58
第五節 資料處理與分析........................ 61
第四章 結果分析與討論…………………………………………………………… 61
第一節 臺北市國民小學混成學習指標結果分析...... 61
第二節 臺北市國民小學混成學習指標問卷結果分析.... 79
第三節 臺北市國民小學混成學習指標權重結果分析.... 92
第四節 綜合討論與分析......................... 106
第五章 結論與建議…………………………………………………………………109
第一節 結論.................................. 109
第二節 建議.................................. 113
參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………… 116
壹、中文部分................................. 116
貳、外文部分 ................................ 128
附錄
附錄一 專家學者邀請函…………………………………………………141
附錄二 「臺北市國民小學混成學習指標」專家審題問卷…………… 142
附錄三 「臺北市國民小學混成學習指標」模糊德懷術問卷……………147
附錄四 「臺北市國民小學混成學習指標」相對權重問卷………………155
表 次
表 2-1 校長科技領導之相關研究項目彙整表.......... 23
表 2-2 混成學習之內涵彙整表..................... 32
表 2-3 臺北市國民小學混成學習之初擬指標.......... 49
表3-1 模糊德懷術專家諮詢小組(依類別與姓氏筆畫排列).. 55
表 3-2 臺北市國民小學混成學習指標之專家審題問卷題項 56
表4-1 臺北市國民小學混成學習指標採用程度統計……………………………...68
表4-2 「面對面」層面指標採用程度統計...……………..………………….…….69
表4-3 「線上學習」層面指標採用程度統計..……………………………….……69
表4-4 「同步非同步」層面指標採用程度統計…………………………….……..70
表4-5 「教學方法和成效」層面指標採用程度統計……………………………. .71
表4-6 「互動和教學科技」層面指標採用程度統計…………………………….. 72
表4-7 臺北市國民小學混成學習指標專家審題問卷修正對照表…………… 82
表4-8 臺北市國民小學混成學習各層面之三角模糊術………………………… 86
表4-9 「面對面教學」層面指標之三角模糊術………………………………….. 86
表4-10 「線上學習」層面指標之三角模糊術…………………………………….87
表4-11 「同步非同步教學」層面指標之三角模糊術…………………………….88
表4-12 「教學方法和評量」層面指標之三角模糊術…………………………….88
表4-13 「互動性科技」層面指標之三角模糊術……………………………….....89
表4-14 臺北市國民小學混成學習各層面解模糊化數值………………………….90
表4-15 「面對面教學」層面指標解模糊化數值………………………………….91
表4-16 「線上學習」層面指標解模糊化數值…………………………… ………92
表4-17 「同步非同步教學」層面指標解模糊化數值………………………….…93
表4-18 「教學方法和評量」層面指標解模糊化數值…………………………….94
表4-19 「互動性科技」層面指標解模糊化數值…………………………………..95
表4-20 確立之臺北市國民小學混成學習層面及指標…………………………….96
表4-21 臺北市國民小學混成學習各層面之權重分配與排序.……………………99
表4-22 「面對面教學」層面指標之權重分配與排序……………...……………100
表4-23 「線上學習」層面指標之權重分配與排序………………………..……102
表4-24 「同步非同步」層面指標之權重分配 ……..……………….……...…103
表4-25 「教學方法和評量」層面指標之權重分配與排序..……………………105
表4-26 「互動性科技」層面指標之權重分配與排序............. 106
表4-27 「臺北市國民小學混成學習」整體指標之相對權重分配及排序….108
表4-28 臺北市國民小學混成學習指標與權重體系…………………………….110
表4-29 層面及指標建構階段項次修正表………………………….…….112
圖 次
圖1-1 研究流程…………………………………………………………………… 12
圖3-1 研究架構…………………………………………………………………… 52
圖4-1 臺北市國民小學混成學習指標各層面之相對權重分配長條圖…… 98
圖4-2「面對面教學」層面之相對權重分配長條圖…………………………… 99
圖4-3「線上學習」層面之相對權重分配長條圖……………………………… 101
圖4-4「同步非同步」層面之相對權重分配長條圖…………………………… 102
圖4-5「教學方法和評量」層面之相對權重分配長條圖……………………… 104
圖4-6「互動性科技」層面相對權重分配長條圖……………………………… 105
圖4-7「臺北市國民小學混成學習」整體指標之相對權重分配長條圖…… 107		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 6446994 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108911009en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 臺北市國民小學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 混成學習zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 指標建構zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 模糊德懷術zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 層級分析法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Taipei City elementary schoolsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) blended learningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) indicator constructionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) fuzzy Delphi methoden_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) analytic hierarchy processen_US
dc.title (題名) 基於校長科技領導視角之臺北市國民小學混成學習指標與權重體系建構之研究： 模糊德懷術與層級分析法之應用zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Research on the Construction of Blended Learning Indicators and Weight System of National Primary Schools in Taipei City Based on the Perspective of Principal`s Science and Technology Leadership：Fuzzy Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Processen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 參考文獻
壹、中文部分
王文科、王智弘。（2020）。教育研究法。臺北市：五南。
史美瑤（2014）。 混成學習（Blended/Hybrid Learning）的挑戰與設計。評鑑雙月
刊， 50，34-36。
吳清山、林天祐（2006）。科技領導。教育資料與研究雙月刊，71，195-196。
李小玲（2019）。混成學習模式對偏遠地區國中英語科補救教學學生英語學習成效
之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。
吳政達（2008）。教育政策分析:概念、方法與應用。臺北市：高等教育。
林佳誼（2021 年11 月）。混成式學習。天下雜誌，735，86-91。
秦夢群（2010）。教育領導理論與應用。臺北市：五南。
張奕華（2007）。學校科技領與管理理論與實務。臺北市：高等教育。
張奕華（2010）。校長科技領導-模式、指標與應用。臺北市：洪葉。
張奕華、吳怡佳（2011）。科技領導、知識管理與學校效能結構關係之驗證。教育
行政與評鑑學刊，11，1-28。
郭伯臣（2020）。校園防疫與中小學數位學習之現況與未來。國土及公共治理季
刊，8(4)，72-79。
陳盈螢（2021 年 8 月)。北市公布開學防疫指引 混成教學僅近3 成老師支持。翻
轉教育電子報。取自https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/006746
許進榮、林朝清（2020）。校長科技領導的組織行為模式與學校效能關係之研究。
學校行政，127，12-42。取自http://doi:10.6423/HHHC.202005_(127).0002
邱紹雯（2021 年9 月）。開學後，88%老師願意改變傳統教學法。親子天下，120，
82-85。
教育部資訊及科技教育司（2021 年6 月）全國高級中等人以下學校學生居家線上
學習參考指引。取自
https://learning.cloud.edu.tw/onlinelearning/dist/pdf/1100908.pdf
教育部（2021a）。教育部〈因應疫情停課居家線上學習規劃110 年5 月18 日〉通
報。取自https://cpd.moe.gov.tw/page_two.php?id=34842
蔡亞樺（2021 年8 月）。北市國小願試辦「混成教學」 教育局：投影機、攝影機
補助無上限。自由時報。取自
https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/3642442
教育部（2016）。國民教育法。取自
https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=FL008927
國家教育研究院（2012）。雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網〈雙語詞彙、學術名
詞暨辭書資訊網〉。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678942/。
葉晉嘉、翁興利、吳濟華（2007）。德菲法與模糊德菲法之比較研究。調查研究—
方法與應用，21，31-58。
鄭淵全、郭伯臣（2021）。遠距教學與自主學習。師友雙月刊，629（8），6-20。
黃加明（2022）。COVID-19 後疫情時期中等學校線上及混成教學的挑戰與實踐。
中等教育，73（1），97-113。
林和春、李逸萱（2023）。桃園市國民小學教師知覺校長科技領導與教師學術樂觀
關係之研究。學校行政雙月刊，144，126‒146。
貳、外文部分
AlAbdulkarim, L. M. & Albarrak, A. I. (2015). Students’ attitudes and satisfaction
towards blended learning in the Health Sciences. In International Conference on
Advances in Education and Social Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United
States, 2010. The Sloan Consortium (NJ1).
Alqahtani, M., & Mohammad, H. (2015). Mobile Applications` Impact on Student
Performance and Satisfaction. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 14(4) , 102-112.
Ameta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the
general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122.
Amro, H. J., Mundy, M.-A., & Kupczynski, L. (2015). The effects of age and gender on
student achievement in face-to-face and online college algebra classes. Research in
Higher Education Journal, 27, 1-22. Retrieved from
http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/142077.pdf
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical
investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1),
49-82.
Angelone, L., Warner, Z., & Zydney, J. M. (2020). Optimizing the technological design
of a blended synchronous learning environment. Online Learning, 24(3), 222–240.
Asif, M., Edirisingha, P., Ali, R., & Shehzad, S. (2020). Teachers’ practices in blended
learning environment: perception of students at secondary education level. Journal
of Education and Educational Development, 7(2), 286–306.
Bajah, S., Bunyi, G., Knott, M., Matiru, R., Mulusa, T., Muriuki, G., & Mutunga, P.
(1995). Methods of teaching and learning. In Teach Your Best: A Handbook for
University Lecturers (Eds. Institute for Socio-Cultural Studies), p.387. Kassel,
Germany: ISBN 3-88939-076-5.
Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student
affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), n1.
Basitere, M., & Ivala, E. N. (2017). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of
multimedia and Wiley Plus Web‑Based Homework System in enhancing learning in
The Chemical Engineering Extended Curriculum Program Physics Course.
Electronic journal of e-Learning, 15(2), 156‑173.
Bell, J., Sawaya, S., & Cain, W. (2014). Synchromodal classes: Designing for shared
learning experiences between face-to-face and online students. International Journal
of Designs for Learning, 5(1). Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/209656/
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abram, P. C. (2014).
A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From
the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26, 87-122.
doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
Bervell, B., & Umar, I. N. (2018). Utilization decision towards LMS for blended learning
in distance education: Modeling the effects of personality factors in exclusivity.
Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 10(3), 309-333.
Bicen, H., Ozdamli, F., & Uzunboylu, H. (2014). Online and blended learning approach
on instructional multimedia development courses in teacher education. Interactive
Learning Environments, 22(4), 529–548.
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. O. E. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight
keys to success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-100.
Blackman, G., Pedersen, J., March, M., Reyes-Fournier, E., & Cumella, E. J. (2019). A
comprehensive literature review of online teaching effectiveness: Reconstructing the
conceptual framework [Unpublished manuscript].
Bloemer, W., & Swan, K. (2013). Investigating informal blending at the University of
Illinois Springfield. In Blended Learning: Research perspectives (pp.52-69) :
Routledge.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.
Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.
Boelens, R., de Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of
blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22,
1-18. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001.
Borel, D. A., Young, J. K., Martin, G. E., Nicks, R. E., Mason, D. D., & Thibodeaux, T.
N. (2019). School principal interns` perceived level of preparedness for technology
leadership. Education Leadership Review, 20(1), 101-118.
Carstens, K. J., Mallon, J. M., Bataineh, M., & Al-Bataineh, A. (2021). Effects of
technology on student learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology -
TOJET, 20(1), 105–113.
Chang, I.-H., Chin, J. M., & Hsu, C.-M. (2008). Teachers` perceptions of the dimensions
and implementation of technology leadership of principals in Taiwanese elementary
schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 229-245.
Chang, I.-H. (2012). The effect of principals` technological leadership on teachers`
technological literacy and teaching effectiveness in Taiwanese elementary schools.
Educational Technology and Society, 15(2), 328-340.
Cheawjindakarn, B., Suwannatthachote, P., & Theeraroungchaisri, A. (2013). Critical
success factors for online distance learning in higher education: A review of the
literature. Creative Education, 3(8), 61-66.
Creighton, T. (2003). The principal as technology leader. Review of Educational
Research, 59(2), 117–142.
Cronje, J. (2020). Towards a new definition of blended learning. Electronic journal of e-
Learning, 18(2), 114–121.
D`Abundo, M. L., & Sidman, C. (2018). Integrating web-based technologies into the
education and training of health professionals. In M. Khosrow-Pour, D.B.A. (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of information science and technology (4th ed., pp. 5820-5828). IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2255-3.ch506.
Dangwal, K. L. (2017). Blended Learning: An innovative approach. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 5(1), 129–136.
Davies, P. M. (2010). On school educational technology leadership. Management in
Education, 24 (2), 55-61.
Dexter, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2020). What does technology integration research tell us
about the leadership of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 52(1), 17-36. doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1668316.
Dianati, S., Nguyen, M., Dao, P., Iwashita, N., & Vasquez, C. (2020). Student perceptions
of technological tools for flipped instruction: The case of Padlet, Kahoot and Cirrus.
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 17(5), 1-14.
Dianne, L.Y. (2000). Images of school principals’ information and communications
technology eadership. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education,
9(3), 200-210.
Dolenc, K., Šorgo, A., & Ploj Virtič, M. (2021). Forced continuance intention model
(FCIM) of distance online teaching in the time of the initial COVID-19 outbreak.
Unpublished manuscript.
Doom, C. A. (2016). Teacher+ technology= blended learning: How important is the
teacher in this equation? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of
Nebraska-Lincoln.
DreamBox Learning. (2014). Blended learning innovations: 10 major trends. Retrieved
from http://www.dreambox.com/white-papers/blended-learning-innovations-10-
major-trends
DreamBox Learning. (2014). Blended learning innovations: 10 major trends. Retrieved
from http://www.dreambox.com/white-papers/blended-learning-innovations-10-
major-trends
Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarski, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward
flexible online learning in management education. The Journal of Educational
Research, 98(6), 331-338. https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.98.6.331-338
Dringus, L. P., & Seagull, A. B. (2013). A five-year study of sustaining blended learning
initiatives to enhance academic engagement in computer and information sciences
campus courses. In Blended learning: Research perspectives, 2, 122-140.
Dziuban, C., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Blended learning: Research perspectives (2nd ed.).
New York : Routledge.
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended
learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-16.
Elfaki, N. K., Abdulraheem, I., & Abdulrahim, R. (2019). Impact of e-learning vs
traditional learning on student’s performance and attitude. International Journal of
Medical Research & Health Sciences, 8(10), 76-82.
EPIC-Learning. (2013). Interactive learning centers announces name change to epic
learning. Retrieved from
https://www.hefreelibrary.com/Interactive+Learning+Centers+Announces+Name+C
hange+to+EPIC+Learning.-a054024665
Eryilmaz, M. (2015). The effectiveness of blended learning environments. Contemporary
Issues in Education Research, 8(4), 251-256. doi:10.19030/cier.v8i4.9433
Fidalgo, P., Thormann, J., Kulyk, O., & Lencastre, J. A. (2020). Students’ perceptions on
distance education: A multinational study. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1-18.
Fisher, A., Exley, K., & Ciobanu, D. (2014). Using technology to support learning and
teaching: Routledge.
Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty first century
principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41 (2), 124-142.
Fresen, J., & Laurent, X. (2016, October). Towards designing an Oxford experience in an
online distance program. In EDEN Conference Proceedings (No. 2, pp. 10-16).
Fresen, J. W. (2018). Embracing distance education in a blended learning model:
Challenges and prospects. Distance Education, 39(2), 224–240.
Galusha, J. M. (1988). Barriers to learning in distance education. ERIC, Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED416377.pdf
Geng, F., Fresen, J. W., & Burholt, S. (2017). Oxford MOOC development guide
(Unpublished internal document). University of Oxford.
Gilpin, S. (2020). A framework for fostering emerging online learner persistence: The
role of asynchronous and synchronous discussions. Journal of Teaching and
Learning, 14(1), 29–43.
Gottlieb, S. (2015). Zoran popovic to address the SXSW edu conference festival [Press
release]. Retrieved from Street Insider website:
http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/Zoran+Popovic/
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student
engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference.
Grady, M. L. (2011). Leading the technology-powered school: Corwin Press.
Hakansson Lindqvist, M. (2019). School leaders’ practices for innovative use of digital
technologies in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1226-
1240. doi:10.1111/bjet.12782
Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of
study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 19–
42.
Hartnett, M. (2016). The importance of motivation in online learning. In S. Kapoor & S.
K. Srivastava (Eds.), Motivation in online education (pp. 5-32).
Hero, J. L. (2019). The impact of technology integration in teaching performance. Online
Submission, 48(1), 101-114.
Hsieh, C.-C., & Hsiao, W.-C.(2013). The study on the relationship between principals`
technology leadership and student learning achievement in elementary school:
School ICT use as a mediator. Journal of Educational Theory and Practice, 27, 291-
324.
Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63(5), 564-
569. doi:10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5
Hui, M. (2016). A teacher-developed blended learning model on building reading
comprehension skills to support across-curriculum performances. Retrieved from
https://hdl.handle.net/10171/41270
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2014). Retrieved from
https://id.iste.org/docs/pdfs/2014_ISTE_Standards-A_PDF.pdf
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educationleaders
Jaipal-Jamani, K., Figg, C., Collier, D., Gallagher, T., Winters, K. L., & Ciampa, K.
(2018). Developing TPACK of university faculty through technology leadership
roles. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 39-55.
Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social
presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638-654. doi:10.1111/jcal.12107
Kamalluarifin, W. F. S. W., Aniza, F. N. F. M., Jayabalan, H., Saufi, M. L. H. M., &
Karib, S. H. F. (2018). Blended Learning: Satisfaction among Accounting Students
in UNITEN KSHAS. Global Business and Management Research, 10(3), 547-557.
Kaur, M. (2013). Blended learning-its challenges and future. Procedia-social and
behavioral sciences, 93, 612-617.
Kaya, Z., & Yılayaz, Ö. (2013). Technology integration models in teacher education and
technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Western Anatolian
Educational Sciences, 4(8), 57-83.
Keane, T., Boden, M., Chalmers, C., & Williams, M. (2020). Effective principal
leadership influencing technology innovation in the classroom. Education and
Information Technologies, 25(6), 5321-5338.
Keegan, D. (2002). The future of learning: From eLearning to mLearning, Retrieved from
ERIC ED472435 database.
Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped
classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet
and Higher Education, 22, 37–50. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003
Lam, J. (2015). The student experience of a blended learning course in Hong Kong.
International Journal of Technical Research and Application, 20, 4-13.
Larsen, L. J. E. (2012). Teacher and student perspectives on a blended learning intensive
English program writing course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State
University.
Laster, S., Otte, G., Picciano, A., & Sorg, S. (2005). Redefining Blended Learning. Paper
presented at the 2005 Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning, Chicago.
Leader-Janssen, E. M., Nordness, P. D., Swain, K. D., & Hagaman, J. L. (2016). Students`
perceptions of an online graduate program in special education for emotional and
behavioral disorders. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(4), 246-258.
doi:10.1177/0888406416637411.
Lee, L.-T., & Hung, J. C. (2015). Effects of blended e-Learning: a case study in higher
education tax learning setting. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences,
5(1), 1-15. doi:10.1186/s13673-015-0024-3
Leeds, E. M., Campbell, S. M., Baker, H., Ali, R., Brawley, D., & Crisp, J. (2013). The
impact of student retention strategies: An empirical study. International Journal of
Management in Education, 7(1), 22–43. doi:10.1504/IJMIE.2013.050812
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2004). What we know about successful leadership. Practising
Administrator, 26(4), 4-7.
Lee, L. T., & Hung, J. C. (2015). Effects of blended e-Learning: A case study in higher
education tax learning setting. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences,
5(1), 1-15. doi:10.1186/s13673-015-0024-3
Liu, S. Y., Gomez, J., & Yen, C. J. (2009). Community college online course retention
and final grade: Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 8(2), 165–182.
Long, N. T., & Van Hanh, N. (2020). A structural equation model of blended learning
culture in the classroom. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(4), 99-115.
Lv, L., Shao, Y., Sun, H., Feng, C., & Zhuang, S. (2016). 2017 blue book of Chinese
iInternet education industry. Beijing: Peking University Press, 5(1),156.
Luna, Y. M., & Winters, S. A. (2020). Student perceptions on blended/flipped and
taditional face-to-face: A course redesign assessment. Journal of Curriculum and
Teaching, 9(3), 1-12.
Machado, L. J., & Chung, C.-J. (2015). Integrating technology: The principals’ role and
effect. International Education Studies, 8(5), 43-53.
Ma, J., Li, C., & Liang, H.-N. (2019). Enhancing students’ blended learning experience
through embedding metaliteracy. Education Research International, 1,1-8.
doi:10.1155/2019/6791058
Mandinach, E. B., & Miskell, R. C. (2017). Blended learning and data use in three
technology-infused charter schools. LEARNing Landscapes, 11 (1), 183-198.
Martín-Martínez, L., Sainz, V., & Rodríguez-Legendre, F. (2020). Evaluation of a
blended learning model for pre-service teachers. knowledge Management & ELearning,
12(2), 147–164. doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2020.12.008
Masie, E. (2002). Blended learning: The magic is in the mix. The ASTD e-learning
handbook, 58, 1-63.
McLeod, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage.
Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 216-240.
Mese, E., & Sevilen, Ç. (2021). Factors influencing EFL students` motivation in online
learning: A qualitative case study. Journal of Educational Technology and Online
Learning, 4(1), 11-22.
Milz, S. (2020). Assessing student performance between face-to-face and online course
formats in a college-level communications course. Canadian Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2),1-29.
Moallem, M. (2015). The impact of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools
on learner self-regulation, social presence, immediacy, intimacy, and satisfaction in
collaborative online learning. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-
Learning, 3(3), 55-77.
Moore, M. G. (2006). Foreword. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of
blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. xvii–xxx). San Francisco,
CA: Pfeiffer. Retrieved from http://www.publicationshare.com/p
Murphy, D. T., & Gunter, G. A. (1997). Technology integration: The importance of
administrative supports. Educational Media International, 34 (3), 136-139.
Öberg, L. M., Nyström, C. A., Hrastinski, S., Mozelius, P., & Söderback, J. (2019).
Interaction and group work in blended synchronous higher education: Exploring
effects on learning outcomes, satisfaction and retention. Proceedings of the 18th
ECEL, 420-428.
Paniagua, A., Luengo, R., Carvalho, J. L. T., & Casas, L. M. (2017). Blended learning en
la formación permanente del profesorado. Aportaciones de asesores de formación
sobre modalidades formativas. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 52(3), 1-
15.
Perkins-Jacobs, M. V. (2015). Principals` perceptions of technology implementation in
high schools and their effects on leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Arkansas.
Poláková, P., & Klímová, B. (2019). Mobile technology and generation Z in the English
language classroom—A preliminary study. Education Sciences, 9(3), 203-224.
doi:10.3390/educsci9030203
Poláková, P., & Klímová, B. (2020). Assessment of vocabulary knowledge through a
mobile application. Procedia Computer Science, 176, 1523-1530.
Poláková, P., & Klímová, B. (2021). The perception of Slovak students on distance online
learning in the time of coronavirus—A preliminary study. Education Sciences, 11(2),
81.
Ploj Virtic, M., Dolenc, K., & Šorgo, A. (2021). Changes in online distance learning
behaviour of University students during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, and
development of the model of forced distance online learning preferences. European
Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 393-411.
Richardson, J. W., & Sterrett, W. L. (2018). District technology leadership then and now:
A comparative study of district technology leadership from 2001 to 2014.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 589-616.
Roach, T. (2014). Student perceptions toward flipped learning: New methods to increase
interaction and active learning in economics. International Review of Economics
Education, 17, 74-84. doi:10.1016/j.iree.2014.08.003
Roehling, J. V., Hebert, M., Nelson, J. R., & Bohaty, J. J. (2017). Text structure strategies
for improving expository reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 71-
82.
Schmeltzer, T. (2001). Training administrators to be technology leaders. Technology and
Learning, 21(11), 16-22.
Sharoff, L. (2019). Creative and innovative online teaching strategies: Facilitation for
active participation. Journal of Educators Online, 16(2), 1-9.
doi:10.9743/JEO.2019.16.2.9
Sezer, B., & Deryakulu, D. (2012). The competencies of elementary school administrators
regarding their technology leadership roles. Educational Technology Teory and
Practice, 2(2), 70-92.
Sheninger, E. C. (2014). Digital leadership: Changing technology for change-savvy
school leaders: Corwin, a SAGE Company.
Sheninger, E. (2019). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times (2nd
ed.): Corwin Press.
Sherry, L. (1995). Issues in distance learning. InternationalJournal of Educational
Telecommunications, 1(4), 337-365.
Sincar, E. (2013). Friction identification and compensation of its effects in stabilized
platforms (Master`s thesis). Middle East Technical University.
Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning pro-grams. Educational
Technology, 43 (6), 51-54.
Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Mountain View,
CA: Innosight Institute.
Sohrabi, B., Vanani, I. R., & Iraj, H. (2019). The evolution of e-learning practices at the
University of Tehran: A case study. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An
International Journal, 11(1), 20-37.
Sundeen, T. H., & Sundeen, D. M. (2013). Instructional technology for rural schools:
Access and acquisition. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32(2), 8-14.
Szeto, E., & Cheng, A. Y. (2016). Towards a framework of interactions in a blended
synchronous learning environment: what effects are there on students` social
presence experience? Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 487-503.
doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.881391
Tarc, P. (2020). Education post-`COVID-19`: Re-visioning the face-to-face classroom.
Current Issues in Comparative Education, 22(1), 121-124.
Tayebinik, M., & Puteh, M. (2013). Does greater participation in online courses lead to
passing grade? An EFL learning context. British Journal of Educational Technology,
44(6), 199-202.
Thomas, S. (2016). Future Ready Learning: reimagining the role of technology in
education. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf
Thomas, S. (2016). Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the role of technology in
education. 2016 national education technology plan. (Office of Educational
Technology). Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf
Trujillo Maza, E. M., Gómez Lozano, M. T., Cardozo Alarcón, A. C., Moreno Zuluaga,
L., & Gamba Fadul, M. (2016). Blended learning supported by digital technology
and competency-based medical education: a case study of the social medicine course
at the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 1-13. doi:10.1186/s41239-016-0027-9
UNESCO. (2020). Global Education Coalition. Retrieved from
https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/globalcoalition
Valdez, G. (2004). Critical issue: Technology leadership: Enhancing positive educational
change. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 6(7), 1-30.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-
204.
Verma, G. (2019). The importance of a positive learning environment. Retrieved from
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/importance-positive-learning-environment-geetaverma#:~:
text=A%20positive%20classroom%20environment%20helps,leads%20to
%20wonderful%20learning%20outcomes
Vickers, R., Field, J., & Melakoski, C. (2015). Media culture 2020: Collaborative
teaching and blended learning using social media and cloud-based technologies.
Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(1), 62-73. doi:10.30935/cedtech/6139
Wang, M. L., & Lin, Y. H. (2008). To construct a monitoring mechanism of production
loss by using FuzzyDelphi method and fuzzy regression technique: A case study of
IC package testing company. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(3), 1156-1165.
Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher
perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course.
Computers & Education, 88, 354-369. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.008
Wang, A. I., & Lieberoth, A. (2016, October). The effect of points and audio on
concentration, engagement, enjoyment, learning, motivation, and classroom
dynamics using Kahoot. In European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp.
738). Academic Conferences International Limited. Retrieved from
https://bit.ly/2H5vHHe
Yeung, A. S., Taylor, P. G., Hui, C., Lam‐Chiang, A. C., & Low, E. L. (2012). Mandatory
use of technology in teaching: Who cares and so what? British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(6), 859-870. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01253.x
Yudiawan, A., Sunarso, B., & Sari, F. (2021). Successful Online Learning Factors in
COVID-19 Era: Study of Islamic higher education in West Papua, Indonesia.
International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(1), 193-201.
Zarzycka-Piskorz, E. (2016). Kahoot it or not? Can games be motivating in learning
grammar? Teaching English with Technology, 16(3), 17-36.
Zhao, N., Zhou, X., Liu, B., & Liu, W. (2020). Guiding teaching strategies with the
education platform during the COVID-19 epidemic: Taking Guiyang No. 1 Middle
School teaching practice as an example. Sci Insigt Edu Front, 5(2), 531-539.
Zubanova, S., Bodrova, T., & Kruchkovich, S. (2020). Testing: Methodology and quality
indicators. Propósitosy Representaciones, 8(2), 507-513.
doi:10.20511/pyr2020.v8n2.507		zh_TW