中 華 大 學

中 華 大 學 碩 士 論 文

影響國小學童資訊倫理行為之研究：

以新北市某國小為例

A Study on the Information Ethics Behavior of Elementary School Student：

A Case of an Elementary School in New Taipei City

系 所 別：資訊管理學系碩士班

學號姓名：M09910010 陳英傑

指導教授：應鳴雄 博士

36饋

:

ABSTRACT

With the information technology prevailing and the Internet extended, not only the development of basic information capacity, but the information ethics has been an important issue of the information education for elementary school students. As students’

access to the computer has become earlier, it is also worth looking into whether the implementation of information ethics course meets the time. To understand the information ethics behavior of elementary students, this study inquires the differences of information ethics behavior among students with different background, and the effects of internet self-efficacy on their information ethics behavior.

A survey is conducted by sampling on 362 students from second to sixth grade at an elementary school in New Taipei City. Based on literatures, this study develops a questionnaire, “Elementary School Student’s Internet Self-Efficacy and Information Ethics Behavior”. It includes four issues: information security, netiquette, internet privacy and intellectual property rights. Descriptive statistics and Anova are used for data analysis.

The research indicates that students’ information ethics behavior is positive as a whole, and the performance of information security, netiquette and internet privacy are better than that of intellectual property rights. In terms of the effects of individual background on the performance of information ethics, girls’ behavior on information security and intellectual property rights is better than that of boys'. There are significant differences among different grades students on the issues of information security, internet privacy and intellectual property rights. In general, high grade students have higher performance scores than low and middle grade students. As to the effects of internet self-efficacy on information ethics, students who get high, middle, and low scores on basic computer operation also perform differently on the issues of netiquette, internet privacy and intellectual property rights.

Generally, the performance of students with high scores is better than that of students with middle and low scores.

Keywords: information ethics, internet self-efficacy, intellectual property rights, internet privacy, netiquette

100 7

...i

ABSTRACT ... ii

... iii

... iv

... vii

... ix

... 1

1.1 ...1

1.2 ...3

1.3 ...3

1.4 ...4

1.5 ...6

... 7

2.1 ...7

2.1.1 ...7

2.1.2 ...10

2.1.3 ...13

2.2 ...16

2.2.1 ...16

2.2.2 ...20

2.2.3 ...21

... 23

3.1 ...23

3.2 ...24

3.3 ...27

3.4 ...28

3.6.1 ...30

3.6.2 ...33

3.6.3 ...34

3.7 ...34

... 37

4.1 ...37

4.2 ...38

4.3 ...39

4.3.1 ...39

4.3.2 ...40

4.3.3 ...41

4.3.4 ...42

4.4 ...43

4.4.1 ...43

4.4.2 ...45

4.5 ...49

4.5.1 ...49

4.5.2 ...51

4.6 ...52

4.6.1 ...53

4.6.2 ...56

... 58

5.1 ...58

5.2 ...59

5.3 ...60

5.4 ...60

... 61

...61

...64

... 67 ( ) ... 72

2-1 ... 13

2-2 ... 14

3-1 ... 27

3-2 ... 31

3-3 (N=75) ... 35

3-4 (N=75) ... 36

4-1 (N=36饋) ... 37

4-2 ... 38

4-3 ... 39

4-4 ... 40

4-5 ... 41

4-6 ... 42

4-7 ... 43

4-8 ... 44

4-9 ... 45

4-10 ... 46

4-11 ... 47

4-12 ... 47

4-13 ... 48

4-14 ... 50

4-15 ... 51

4-16 ... 51

4-17 ... 52

4-18 ... 53

4-19 ... 54

4-20 ... 54

4-21 ... 55

4-22 ... 56

4-23 ... 56

1-1 ... 5

2-1 ... 9

2-2 ... 17

3-1 ... 24

3-2 ... 34

1.1

1997

2001

(2008)

2010 ( )

16 24

2006

2003 2008

( )

( 1996 2000 2005)

2005

1.2

( ) ( ) ( )

1.3

3 2003

1.4

( ) ( )

( )

( )

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

1-1

1.5

( )

( )

( )

( ) SPSS18

( )

2.1

2.1.1

ethics

1983 1987

Forcht(1991)

Emmans 2000

(2003)

( )

( )

( )

( )

1998

Norbert Wiener 1940

1948 1950 Cybernetics The Human

Use of Human Beings God and Golem, Inc.

teleworking 1976 Walter Maner

Computer Ethics Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008 Froehlich 2004

information ethics 1980 Capurro 1988 Hauptman

1988 Hauptman Ethical challenges in librarianship

1997

2000

Parker 1979

( )

( )

( )

( )

2004

2-1

2-1

(2004)

2.1.2

ethical issue party

Mason, 1986

Mason 1986

privacy accuracy property

accessibility PAPA

( ) privacy

Mason

( ) accuracy

Mason

( ) property

( ) accessibility

Anderson, et al. 1993 ACM

intellectual property privacy confidentiality quality in professional work

fairness and discrimination liability software risks conflicts of interest unauthorized access

Huff & Martin 1995

(quality of life) (use of power) (risk

and reliability) (property rights) (privacy) (equity and access) (honesty and deception)

Laudon & Laudon 1998

(information rights and obligations) (property rights) (accountability and control)

(system quality) (quality of life)

Computer Ethics Institute, 1992

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

Hauptman & Motin 1994

( )

( ) censorship

( ) ( )

( )

( )

( ) ( )

( ) ( )

(1996) (1998)

( 2003)

5

2-1 2-1

5 5-2-1

5-3-1 5-3-2 5-3-3

2.1.3

2-2

2-2

( )

 (2001)

-- ( )




(2003)

( )








 (2004)

( )









(2004)

( )





  (2005)

( )

 



(2005)

- -(

)



(饋006)

( )







 
(2006)

( )

 
(2008)

( )






2-2 ( )

( )

 

(2008)

( )

 

 






(2009)

( )









 

(2011)

( )

 

 



2-2

( ) 2-2

(2002)

( ) 2-2

( ) 2-2

( ) 2-2

2.2

2.2.1

self-efficacy Bandura 1977

Bandura

ability

skill 1

2-2

(1991)

Bandura 1997

performance experiences

(vicarious experience) (verbal experience)

(psychological and affective states)

( ) performance experiences

Bandura, 1982, 1997)

( ) (vicarious experience)

( Bandura, 2001)

( ) (verbal experience)

1.

饋.

3.

4.

1.

饋.

3.

1.

饋.

3.

4.

( ) (psychological and affective states)

( )

(Jex et al., 2001)

(differ in level)

(differ in strength) (differ in generality)

Bandura (1986)

( ) (choice behavior):

( ) (effort expenditure and persistence):

( ) (thought patterns and emotional reactions):

Bandura(1986) :

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

Mager(1992)

( ) (choice behavior

( ) (motivation

( ) (perseverance

( ) (facilitative thought patterns

( ) (vulnerability to stress and depression

2.2.2

Murphy(1989 (computer self-efficacy

Compeau & Higgins(1995

( ) (magnitude

( ) (strength

( ) (generality

Compeau & Higgins(1995) Bandura

( ) (guided mastery)

( ) (behavior modeling)

Compeau & Higgins(1995)

( ) (social persuasion)

( ) (physiological states)

( )

2.2.3

(internet self-efficacy ( 2004

Ma & Liu, 2005 Wu & Tsai(2006)

Torkzadeh et al. (2006)

Liaw(2002)

Joo et al. (2000) Liang &

Tsai(2008)

Tsai & Tsai(2003)

3.1

( 2003 2004

2009)

2010 ( )

(Tsai & Tsai, 2003)

3-1

3-1

3.2

(2002)

(2004)

(2005)

H1

H1

H1a

H1b

H1c

H1d

- -

- -

- - H1

H3

- H5 - - - H2

H4

H6

(2008)

(2005)

H2

H2

H2a

H2b

H2c

H2d

(2004)

(2008)

1 4 8 8

H3

H3

H3a

H3b

H3c

H3d

(2001)

H4

H4

H4a

H4b

H4c

H4d

(Ma & Liu, 2005) Joo et al. (2000) Liang & Tsai(2008)

H5 H6

H5

H5a

H5b

H5c

H5d

H6

H6a

H6b

H6c

H6d

3.3

1754

70 27 33

3-1 3-1

3D

3.4

simple random sampling

( ) (descriptive statistics)

( ) (reliability analysis)

Cronbach's α Cronbach's α

Guielford (1965) Cronbach's α 0.7

0.35 0.7 0.35

( ) (multivariate analysis of variance MANOVA )

(multivariate analysis of variance MANOVA )

3.5

( )

(2003)

( )

Torkzadeh et al.(2006)

( ) (

E-mail )

( )

( )

1 2 ……

3.6

3.6.1

( )

(2004) (2008)

(2004)

120

4

3 4 4 15

Cronbach's α .60 .76 Cronbach's α .87

(2004)

( 饋003)

(2008)

3-2

1

2 3 4 5

3-2

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

Q6 E-mail

Q7

3-3 ( )

Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14

Q15 MP3

Q16 E-mail

Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20

( )

(2008)

(2008)

199

10 30

Cronbach's α .869 .909 Cronbach's α

.954

(2008)

1 2

3 4 5

( )

( ) (

1 饋 3 4 5 5 ) (

)

3.6.2

( )

( )

3.6.3

3-2

3-2

3.7

3-3

Cronbach's α .7 Cronbach's α

Q6 Q6

Cronbach's α .763 .753 .732 .846

Cronbach's α .913

19

3-4 (N=75)

Cronbach's α

Cronbach's α

Q1 .478 .738

.763

Q2 .604 .692

Q3 .532 .721

Q4 .553 .716

Q5 .503 .729

Q6 .113 .753

.662

Q7 .605 .523

Q8 .519 .562

Q9 .446 .600

Q10 .479 .580

Q11 .465 .696

.732

Q12 .437 .706

Q13 .536 .668

Q14 .609 .637

Q15 .421 .712

Q16 .652 .817

.846

Q17 .666 .811

Q18 .769 .781

Q19 .684 .806

Q20 .509 .850

3-4

Cronbach's α

.841 .894 Cronbach's α .921

3-5 (N=75)

Cronbach's α

Cronbach's α

Q1 .521 .833

.841

Q2 .782 .778

Q3 .743 .789

Q4 .546 .828

Q5 .492 .841

Q6 .644 .810

Q7 .482 .892

.894

Q8 .681 .881

Q9 .538 .889

Q10 .510 .891

Q11 .524 .890

Q12 .570 .888

Q13 .674 .881

Q14 .700 .880

Q15 .760 .876

Q16 .776 .874

Q17 .593 .886

SPSS 18

(descriptive statistics) (multivariate analysis

of variance MANOVA )

4.1

421

59 362 85.99% 4-1

Cronbach's α .726 .721 .712 .845 Cronbach's α .907

Cronbach's α .810

.883 Cronbach's α .910

.70

4-1 (N=36饋)

Cronbach's α Cronbach's α

5 .726

.907

4 .721

5 .712

5 .845

4.2

4-2 4-2

53.59 46.41 20.72

38.95 40.33 31.49

25.97 57.46

58.74

4-2

(%) (1)

(饋)

194 168

53.59 46.41 (1)

(饋) (3)

75 141 146

20.72 38.95 40.33 (1)

(饋) 1 (3) 饋 (4) 3 (5) 4 (6) 5

(7) 5

114 94 62 36 21 11 24

31.49 25.97 17.13 9.94 5.80 3.04 6.63 (1)

(饋) (3) (4)

171 95 53 43

47.24 26.24 14.64 11.88

4.3

4.3.1

4-3

3

Q4 Q5 4

4-3

Q1 3.50 1.166

Q2 3.53 1.182

4-3 ( )

4.3.2

4-4

3

Q7 Q8 4

4-4

Q3 3.54 1.153

Q4 4.03 1.184

Q5 4.05 1.151

Q6 3.85 1.231

Q7

1珉 15

30

4.13 1.120

Q8

E-mail

4.07 1.081

Q9

ball ball u ball

3.68 1.210

4.3.3

4-5

3

Q10 Q12 Q14 3.5

MP3

4-5

Q10 3.31 1.169

Q11 30 3.96 1.160

Q12 3.47 1.274

Q13 3.81 1.210

Q14 MP3

MP3 E-mail

3.32 1.255

4.3.4

4-6

3

Q15 Q19 4 E-mail

4-6

Q15

E-mail E-mail

4.20 1.074

Q16 3.94 1.160

Q17 3.99 1.126

Q18 5

E-mail

3.90 1.188

Q19 4.19 1.081

4.4

H1 H2

4.4.1

4-7

Wilks’ Lambda .964 .942 F 2.650 4.287 p .023 .001

H1

4-7

Wilks’ Lambda F p =0.05

.964 2.650 .023*

.981 1.775 .133

.942 4.387 .001**

.983 1.249 .286

*p<.05 , **p<.01

(饋005)

(2006)

(2009)

Scheffe

4-8

Q4 Q5

Q4 Q5

4-8

F p

Q1 3.51 1.244 3.49 1.072 .019 .890

Q2 3.44 1.242 3.64 1.102 2.558 .111

Q3 3.43 1.182 3.66 1.110 3.699 .055

Q4 3.86 1.220 4.22 1.113 8.474 .004**

Q5 3.92 1.197 4.20 1.079 5.351 .021*

*p<.05 , **p<.01

4-9

Q11 Q12 Q13

Q11 Q12 Q13

4-9

F p

Q10 3.23 1.235 3.39 1.084 1.710 .192

Q11 3.85 1.241 4.10 1.045 4.218 .041*

Q12 3.19 1.343 3.79 1.111 20.703 .000**

Q13 3.64 1.309 4.00 1.055 8.166 .005**

Q14 3.25 1.297 3.40 1.204 1.223 .270

*p<.05 , **p<.01

4.4.2

4-10

Wilks’ Lambda .869 .927 .913 F 5.144 2.724

3.307 p .000 .003 .000

4-10

Wilks’ Lambda F p =0.05

.869 5.144 .000**

.976 1.108 .355

.927 2.724 .003**

.913 3.307 .000**

**p<.01

(2005) (2004)

(2005) (2006)

(2009)

Scheffe

4-11 Q1

Q2 Q4

4-11

F p

Q1 3.39 1.384 3.25 1.057 3.79 1.082 8.655 .000** >

>

Q2 3.15 1.332 3.34 1.133 3.91 1.037 14.332 .000** >

>

Q3 3.61 1.262 3.43 1.161 3.60 1.086 .932 .395

Q4 4.16 1.175 3.77 1.252 4.21 1.078 5.845 .003** >

Q5 4.05 1.184 3.93 1.163 4.16 1.118 1.418 .244

**p<.01

4-12

Q10 Q13

4-12

F p

Q10 3.56 1.177 3.05 1.161 3.42 1.132 6.084 .003** >

>

Q11 3.93 1.298 3.84 1.161 4.09 1.076 1.635 .196 Q12 3.53 1.288 3.30 1.314 3.59 1.219 1.921 .148

Q13 3.51 1.339 3.74 1.193 4.03 1.120 5.077 .007** >

Q14 3.24 1.384 3.31 1.271 3.37 1.175 .269 .764 **p<.01

4-13

Q17 Q18 Q19

4-13

F p

Q15 4.25 1.116 4.09 1.082 4.28 1.042 1.218 .297 Q16 4.11 1.192 3.77 1.203 4.01 1.086 2.497 .084

Q17 4.19 1.062 3.75 1.166 4.13 1.084 5.561 .004** >

>

Q18 3.67 1.298 3.77 1.193 4.16 1.081 5.929 .003** >

>

Q19 4.36 1.061 3.99 1.159 4.30 .985 4.294 .014* >

*p<.05 , **p<.01

Q10 Q17

4.5

H3

H4

4.5.1

1

2 3

H3

4-14

Wilks’ Lambda F p =0.05

.964 1.312 .219

.969 1.421 .184

.963 1.354 .198

.943 2.132 .020*

*p<.05

(2005)

(2004)

Scheffe 4-15

Q16

1 2

3 (2003)

4-15

1 2 3 F p

Q15 4.23 1.056 4.24 1.036 4.11 1.162 .463 .630

Q16 3.96 1.116 4.09 1.043 3.65 1.346 4.217 .015* 1 2

>3

Q17 3.96 1.167 4.06 1.058 3.91 1.192 .576 .562 Q18 4.03 1.117 3.94 1.109 3.68 1.374 2.267 .105 Q19 4.27 1.016 4.11 1.128 4.23 1.080 .822 .440

*p<.05

4.5.2

4-16

H4 4-16

Wilks’ Lambda F p =0.05

.951 1.197 .268

.974 .795 .656

.951 1.198 .267

.974 .634 .848

4.6

H5 H6

(H) (M) (L)

4-17 4-17

H 8 32 69 109

M 19 50 55 124

L 48 59 22 129

75 141 146 362

H 11 32 73 116

M 27 51 43 121

L 37 58 30 125

75 141 146 362

4.6.1

4-18

Wilks’ Lambda

.953 .946 .925 F 2.164 2.015 2.806 p .028 .029 .002

H5 4-18

Wilks’ Lambda F p =0.05

.955 1.668 .084

.953 2.164 .028*

.946 2.015 .029*

.925 2.806 .002*

*p<.05

Scheffe

4-19 Q9

4-19

H M L F p

Q6 4.09 1.127 3.75 1.304 3.75 1.225 2.949 .054 Q7 4.33 .933 3.99 1.259 4.09 1.107 2.782 .063 Q8 4.25 .925 4.09 1.148 3.91 1.121 2.988 .052

Q9 3.95 1.166 3.49 1.246 3.63 1.180 4.498 .012* H>M

*p<.05

4-20

Q11 Q13

4-20

H M L F p

Q10 3.24 1.269 3.25 1.123 3.42 1.123 .923 .398

Q11 4.26 1.004 3.90 1.188 3.78 1.213 5.540 .004** H>L Q12 3.65 1.243 3.37 1.303 3.40 1.266 1.662 .191

Q13 4.07 1.086 3.65 1.250 3.73 1.242 3.978 .020* H>M Q14 3.47 1.316 3.18 1.217 3.33 1.233 1.569 .210

*p<.05 , **p<.01

4-21

Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19

E- mail

4-21

H M L F p

Q15 4.47 .888 4.23 1.013 3.95 1.214 7.317 .001** H>L Q16 4.25 1.047 3.88 1.193 3.73 1.171 6.329 .002** H>L Q17 4.30 1.032 3.94 1.139 3.79 1.143 6.560 .002** H>L H>M Q18 4.29 1.048 3.86 1.136 3.61 1.264 10.326 .000** H>L

H>M Q19 4.47 .958 4.20 1.028 3.95 1.175 7.137 .001** H>L

**p<.01

4.6.2

4-22

H6 4-22

Wilks’ Lambda F p =0.05

.967 1.194 .291

.975 1.149 .328

.970 1.107 .354

.966 1.241 .261

4-23 4-23

H1

H1a

H1b

H1c

H1d

H饋

H饋a

H饋b

H饋c

H饋d

H3

H3a

H3b

H3c

H3d

4-23 ( )

H4

H4a

H4b

H4c

H4d

H5

H5a

H5b

H5c

H5d

H6

H6a

H6b

H6c

H6d

5.1

( )

E-mail

MP3

( )

( ) 1

2 3

( )

5.2

( )

MP3 ( )

( )

( )

5.3

( )

( )

5.4

( )

( )

1. 38 2

1-21 2004

2. 1-2 1983

3. 47-49 1987

4. 35

5 149-180 2005

5.

11 4 23-44 2004

6. 2006

2006 7.

2004 8.

2009

9. 22

7-54 1991

10. 2004

11. 5

12-18 1998

http://www.edu.tw/news.aspx?news_sn=3571&pages=0 2010

13. 2001

14. 2003

15. 2008

16. --

175 11-12 1997

17. 1996

18.

5 3 1-27 2000

19.

2005

20. -

- 饋005

21. --

2001 22.

2006 23.

2005

24. 5 19-20

1998 25.

2002

26. 47 27-31 1992

27. —

2008 28.

2000 29.

2008

30. 467 47-51 2006

31. -

2003 32.

2003 33.

2004 34.

1 49-58 2008

35.

(ICIM2011) 2011

36.

1996

1. Anderson R. E. & Johnson D. G. (1993), Gotterbarn D. & Perrole Judith.,

“ Using the New ACM code of ethics in Decision Making,” Communications of ACM, Vol.36, No.2, pp.98-107.

2. Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,”

Psychlogical Review, Vol.84, No.2, pp.191-215.

3. Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy: Mechanism in human agency,” American Psychologist, Vol.37, No.1, pp.122-147.

4. Bandura, A. (1986), “Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy,” Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol.8, No.3, pp.231-255.

5. Bandura, A. (1997), Self Efficacy: The exercise of control, New York: Freeman.

6. Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective, Annual Review of Psychology, No.52, pp.1-26.

7. Capurro R. (1988), “Informationsethos und Informationsethik. Gedanken zumVerantwortungsvollen Handeln im Bereich der Fachinformation [Information ethos and information ethics], Ideas to take responsible action in the field of information,” Nachrichten für Dokumentation, Vol.39, No.1- 4, pp. 1-4.

8. Compeau, D. & Higgins, C. A. (1995), “Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test,” MIS Quarterly, No.19, pp.189-211.

9. Computer Ethics Institute (1992), Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics, Retrieved

April 28, 2011, from the World Wide Web:

http://www.computerethicsinstitute.org/publications/tencommandments.html

10. Emmans, C. (2000), “Internet ethics won’t go away,” The Education Digest, No.66, pp.24-26.

11. Forcht, K. A. (1991), “Accessing the Ethical Standards and Policies in Computer-based Environment,” in Dejoie, R. ed. et. al., Ethical Issues in Information Systems, (Boston, MA: Boyd and Eraser, 1991), p.57.

12. Froehlich, T. (2004), A brief history of information ethics, Retrieved April 8, 2011, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ub.es/bid/13froel2.htm

13. Guielford, J. P. (1965), Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, 4th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.

14. Hauptman R. (1988), Ethical challenges in librarianship, Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

15. Hauptman, R. & Motin, S. (1994), “The Internet, Cyberethics, and Virtual Morality,”

Online, Vol.18, No.2, pp.8-9.

16. Huff, C. & Martin, C.D. (1995), “Computing Consequences: a Framework for Teaching Ethical Computing,” Communication of the ACM, Vol.38, No.12, pp.75-84.

17. Jex, S.M., Bliese, P.D., Buzzell, S. & Primeau, J. (2001),” The impact of self-efficacy on stressor-strain relations: Coping style as an explanatory mechanism,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.86, No.3, pp.401-409.

18. Joo,Y.J., Bong.M.& Choi, H.J. (2000), “Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and Internet self-efficacy in Web-based instruction,”

ETR&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol.48, No.2, pp.5-17.

19. Laudon, K. C. & Laudon, J. P. (1998), Management Information Systems: New Approach to Organization and Technology, Prentice Hall.

20. Liang, J.C.&Tsai, C.C. (2008), “Internet self-efficacy and preferences toward constructivist Internet-based learning environments: A study of pre-school teachers in Taiwan,” Educational Technology & Society, Vol.11, No.1, pp.226-237.

22. Ma,Q. & Liu,L. (2005), “The role of internet self-efficacy in the acceptance of web-based electronic medical records,” Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, Vol.17, No.1, pp.38-57.

23. Mager, R.F. (1992), No self-efficacy, no performance, Training, April, pp.32-36.

24. Mason, R. O. (1986), “Four ethical issues of the information age,” MIS Quarterly, Vol.10, No.1, pp.5-12.

25. Murphy, C. A., Coover, D. & Owen, S. V.(1989), “Development and validity of the computer self-efficacy scale,” Educational and psychological measurement, No.49, pp.893-899.

26. Parker, D. B. (1979), Ethical conflicts in computer science and technology, AFIPS Press.

27. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008), Computer and Information Ethics, Retrieved April 11, 2011, from the World Wide Web:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-computer/

28. Torkzadeh, G., Chang,C.J.& Demirhan, D. (2006), “A contingency model of computer and Internet self-efficacy,” Information & Management, No.43, pp.541-550.

29. Tsai ,M.J. & Tsai, C.C. (2003), “Information searching strategies in Web-based science learning: The role of Internet self-efficacy,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, No.40, pp.43-50.

30. Wu,M.ED., & Tsai,ED.D. (2006), “University students’internet attitudes and internet self-efficacy:A study at three universities in Taiwan,” Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Vol.9, No.4, pp.441-450.

非常可能 可能 不一定 不可能 非常不可能

1.

饋.

3.

非常可能 可能 不一定 不可能 非常不可能

5.

6.

7.

1珉 15 30

珉.

E-mail

9.

ball ball u ball

10.

11. 30

1饋.

13.

14. MP3

MP3 E-mail

非常可能 可能 不一定 不可能 非常不可能

15.

E-mail E-mail

16.

17.

1珉. 5

E-mail

19.

毫無信心 不太有信心 普通 有信心 非常有信心

1.

饋.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

珉.

9.

10. ( Yahoo

Google )

11.

1饋.

13. (

Yahoo msn Google )

14. (E-mail)

(E-mail) 15.

16. ( Yahoo msn Skype)

17.

( ((

( ))) )

1.

饋.

3.

1 饋 3 4 5 5

4.

(((( ))))

為 卷

卷

為

和 和 和 和

與

應

為為

為為

不一 不

不 得

非常可能 可能 不一定 不可能 非常不可能

1. 一 個

和 一

2. 一

得 一

和

和 卷 興

非常可能 可能 不一定 不可能 非常不可能

3. 一 一

個

個 個

4.

一 一

答應

5. 一

得

6.

哥

7.

不 一 曾

18 少 15 30

8. 和 一

處 期-mail

9.

ball

ball u ball

非常可能 可能 不一定 不可能 非常不可能

10. 個

和

和

11. 載一 30

更

12. 爸 一

一

13. 一

一 一

為

14.

和 謝讓3 曲 興

謝讓3 載 期-mail

15. 一

期-mail

期-mail

一 子

非常可能 可能 不一定 不可能 非常不可能

16.

一

17. 一

一

一 一

一 答應

18. 一

5 期-mail 和

一

19.

不

應

得

毫無信心 不太有信心 普通 有信心 非常有信心

1.

得 2.

得 3.

得

4. 得

5.

得

6. 得

7.

得 8.

得

9. 得

10. (

Yahoo 當oogle )

得 11.

得 12.

得 13.

( Yahoo msn 當oogle )

得

毫無信心 不太有信心 普通 有信心 非常有信心

14. 子 (期-mail)

子 (期-mail)

得 15.

得

16. ( Yahoo

msn Skype)

得 17.

個

個 得

個個個

個 ((((

))))

1.

2.

3.

1 2 3 4

5 5

4.

和

不了

不 不了

不

卷

地 謝