4.7 Article

Multi-level analysis of peer support, Internet self-efficacy and e-learning outcomes - The contextual effects of collectivism and group potency

期刊

COMPUTERS & EDUCATION
卷 55, 期 1, 页码 145-154

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.011

关键词

Adult learning; Cooperative/collaborative learning; Interactive learning environments

资金

  1. National Science Council, Taiwan [NSC96-2511-S-011-002-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study intends to explore the role of collectivism and group potency at group level in predicting individual Internet self-efficacy (ISE) and individual e-learning outcomes for people aged over 45 Group learning has been widely discussed in the research into online formats. However, less study has been carried out about how collectivism and collective group potency affect individual learning decisions. especially using the technique of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) for cross-level analysis, which provides the solution of case dependency between group members. This study examines the mediation effects of ISE between peer support and e-learning outcomes It also explores the contextual effects of group potency, and the moderation effects of collectivism and group potency at an individual level. The results show that ISE fully mediates the relationship between peer support and learners' persistence in e-learning, and partially mediates learners' perceived learning and satisfaction It is noteworthy that the findings do not support direct group-level contextual effects of group potency. Instead, the results suggest that group potency moderates ISE-perceived learning and ISE-satisfaction relationships. On the other hand, collectivism also moderates the relationship between peer support and ISE. This study highlights the group-level effects of group potency, and suggests that adult educators design and deliver e-learning courses with an emphasis on facilitating group processes (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据