本研究旨在探討大學生使用iPad解決特定學業問題的態度及相關歷程，藉此了解有哪些因素會影響到他們的接受程度，以及實際使用的情況。研究中乃依據文獻分析，使用Davis、Bagozzi 與 Warshaw(1989)等人提出之精簡後的科技接受度模式為理論基礎，共包含以下變項:認知有用性(PU)、認知易用性(PEOU)與使用行為意圖(BI)，外部變數則是iPad自我效能(SE)。本研究透過問卷調查法探討影響大學生對於iPad的接受程度。同時設計一系列學習任務，以觀察的方式，探討他們使用iPad處理特定學業問題的歷程。
	本研究共計392位資訊相關科系的大學生參與問卷調查，以及其中的20位參與者參與觀察歷程。研究資料進一步統整分析得出以下結論。
	研究結果顯示：
一、	大學生的iPad自我效能不僅能正向影響其使用iPad的認知有用性感受，亦正向影響其使用iPad的認知易用性感受。
二、	大學生使用iPad的認知易用性不僅能正向影響其認知有用性感受，而且會進一步影響其使用行為意圖感受。
三、	大學生使用iPad的認知有用性能正向影響其使用行為意圖感受。
四、	大學生在操作iPad時，會直接移轉操作桌上型電腦的習慣來使用iPad；且在找資料時，除了有多工處理的情形之外，通常會直接搜尋，使用搜尋引擎的功能。
五、	大學生對於操作iPad有高估自己能力的現象，即使iPad自我效能分數相當高但在實際操作iPad上卻不如其所呈現。
六、	大學生的認知有用性與使用意圖的分數多半偏高，但實際上對於iPad的操作與熟悉程度不如自身所預期。

This study grounded on the technology acceptance model, aimed to explore the factors that might influence university students’ technology acceptance and use of iPad. 392 subjects with a major in the area of information technology were recruited and participated in the survey research. Additionally, 20 of them were invited to interact with the iPad to accomplish a series of given task and their perceived usefulness and ease of using iPad. Second, their perceived ease of using iPad significantly predicted their perceived usefulness and intention of use. Third, their perceived usefulness significantly predicted their intention to use the iPad. Last, while being assigned a task for searching the papers, subjects can easily transfer their experience of using the desktop to the iPad, including starting with the search agent icons instead of reading the links embedded in the content page.

第一章	緒論	1
第一節	研究背景與動機	1
第二節	研究目的與待答問題	6
第三節	名詞釋義	7
第四節	研究範圍與限制	8
第五節	預期研究貢獻	9
第二章	文獻探討	10
第一節	科技接受模式	10
第二節	數位原生代	22
第三節	問題解決	29
第三章	研究方法與設計	36
第一節	研究對象	36
第二節	研究架構	38
第三節	研究方法與工具	39
第四節	資料分析	50
第四章	研究結果與討論	52
第一節	研究樣本回收及描述性統計	52
第二節	研究假設驗證結果	57
第三節	觀察結果	62
第五章	結論與建議	76
第一節	研究結論	76
第二節	研究建議	80
參考文獻	84
一、中文部分	84
二、西文部分	85
附錄	89
一、專家問卷效度及修正後問卷	89
二、正式問卷	92
三、操作iPad簡易介面與功能按鈕說明  95
表 次
表2-1 國內外科技接受模式相關研究 ...................................................................... 20
表2-2 IDEAL問題解決模式 ..................................................................................... 31
表2-3 問題解決歷程 .................................................................................................. 33
表3-1 某私立大學100學年度第二學期各學院人數統計表 .................................. 36
表3-2 札式問卷回收率 .............................................................................................. 37
表3-3 變項操作化彙整 .............................................................................................. 40
表3-4 專家效度諮詢名單 .......................................................................................... 42
表3-5 IPAD科技接受度預詴問卷之信效度（N=123） ........................................... 43
表3-6 IPAD科技接受度札式問卷之信效度（N=392） ........................................... 44
表3-7 問題解決任務五階段內容 .............................................................................. 47
表3-8 問題解決任務進行路徑記錄 .......................................................................... 50
表4-1數位原生基本背景資料分布統計表(N=392) ................................................ 53
表4-2 IPAD科技接受度各變項帄均數與標準差（N=392） ................................... 56
表4-3 研究構陎間相關性 .......................................................................................... 57
表4-4 IPAD自我效能對認知有用性之迴歸統計結果 .............................................. 58
表4-5 IPAD自我效能對認知易用性之迴歸統計結果 .............................................. 59
表4-6 認知易用性對認知有用性之迴歸統計結果 .................................................. 59
表4-7 認知有用性對使用行為意圖之迴歸統計結果 .............................................. 60
表4-8 認知有用性對使用行為意圖之迴歸統計結果 .............................................. 61
表4-9 本研究假說驗證結果 ...................................................................................... 61
表4-10 參與者背景資料 ............................................................................................ 62
表4-11 任務時間範圍分布 ........................................................................................ 71
圖 次
圖2-1 科技接受模式演進發展 .................................................................................. 11
圖2-2 理性行為理論模式（TRA） .......................................................................... 12
圖2-3 計畫行為理論模式（TPB） .......................................................................... 13
圖2-4 科技接受模式（TAM） ................................................................................. 14
圖2-5 科技接受模式2（TAM 2） ........................................................................... 15
圖2-6 整合型科技接受模式 ...................................................................................... 17
圖2-7 精簡後之科技接受模式 .................................................................................. 18 圖2-8科技接受模式 .................................................................................................. 19
圖2-9 簡化之問題解決模式 ...................................................................................... 32
圖3-1 本研究研究架構 .............................................................................................. 38

Apple. (2011)。教育應用程式。2012年5月24日，取自http://www.apple.com/tw/ipad/from-the-app-store/education.html
吳純萍、郭雅婷（2012）。大學生使用iPad科技接受度之探討。「數位媒體教學應用研討會」發表之論文，明道大學。
林信志、湯凱雯、賴信志（2009）。以科技接受模式探討大學生學習以網路教學系統製作數位教材之意圖和成效。數位學習科技期刊，2（1），60-78。
邱皓政（2006）。量化與統計分析（第三版）。台北市：五南。
柯志恩、黃一庭（2010）。圖像優於文字？N世代學生認知發展之研究。教育研究月刊，193，15-24。
洪新原、梁定澎、張嘉銘（2005）。科技接受模式之彙總研究。資訊管理學報，12（4），211-234。
張卿卿、張郁敏、張寶芳、黃光玉、陶振超（2009）。大學生數位生活型態大調查。國立政治大學傳播學院頂尖大學「數位方圓計畫」贊助專案報告。新北市：國立政治大學傳播學院頂尖大學計畫「數位閱聽人次研究群」。
淡江大學學習與教學中心學生學習發展組（2011）。淡江大學99學年度大一學習風格問卷調查成果報告。（未出版）
莊仁魁（2010）。網路自我效能影響電子病歷接受度之研究－以醫學影像報告系統為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中正大學，嘉義縣。
陳玉婷、蔡立元（2009）。從科技接受模式觀點探討資訊科技融入學習。台南科大學報，28，217-236。
彭康鈞（2010）。影響大學生資訊使用行為之考量因素研究－以淡江大學為例（未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學，新北市。
蕭世貴（2011）。管理教育科技化。2012年5月24日，取自http://w3.iiiedu.org.tw/etc/edutec/modules/edutec/new_knowledge.php?sn=6
羅耀宗、黃貝玲、蔡宏明（譯）（2009）。Don Tapscott著。N世代衝撞：網路新人類正在改變你的世界。臺北：麥格羅．希爾。

Ahmad, T. B. T., Madarsha, K.B., Zainuddin, A.M., Ismail, N.A.H., & Nordin, M.S., (2010). Faculty’s acceptance of computer based technology: cross-validation of an extended model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,26(2), 268-279
Ahmad, T. B. T., Madarsha, K.B., Zainuddin, A.M., Ismail, N.A.H., Khairani, A. Z., & Nordin, M.S., (2011). Invariance of an extanded technology acceptance model across gender and age group. US-China Education Review, 8(3), 339-345.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. Heidelberg: Springer.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy : The exercise of control. NY: W. H. Freeman.
Bhattacharya, M. (2010). Problem based learning using mobile technology. Retrived from http://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/2149/2600/1/Madhumita%20Bhattacharya_paper.pdf
Black, A. (2010). Gen Y: Who they are and how they learn. Educational Horizons, 88(2), 92-101.
Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R. & Schellens, T. (2010). Students’ perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom. Computer & Education, 54(4), 1145-1156.
Compeau, D. R. & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Gevelopment of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.
Dabholkar, P. A. & Bogazzi, R. (2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effect of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 184-202.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulnesss, perceived easeof use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quayterly, 13(3), 319-40.
El-Gayar, O.F., Moran, M., Hawkes, M., (2011). Students’ acceptance of tablet PCs and implications for educational institutions. Educational Technology & Society 14 (2), 58-70.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An Introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Frand, J. L. (2000). The information-age mindset: Changes in students and implication for Higher Education. Educause Review, 35(5), 14-24.
Gagne, R. M. (1980). Learnable aspects of problem solving. Educational Psychologist, 15(2) 84-92
Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1&2), 99-120.
Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Managemenet Science,40(4), 440-465.
Hernandez, B., Jimenez, J., & Martin, M. J. (2009). Future use intentions versus intensity of use: an analysis of corporate technology acceptance. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(3), 338-54.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(1), 65-94.
Kirkley, J. (2003). Principles for teaching problem solving. Retrieved at May 24, 2012, from  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117.8503&rep=rep1&type=pdf 
Kuo, Y. K., & Ye, K. D. (2010). How employees’ perception of information technology application and their knowledge management capacity influence organizational performance. Behavior & Information Technology, 29(3), 287-303.
Kvavik, R. B. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use technology. Retrieved at May 24, 2012, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf
Kwon, O., Choi, K., & Kim, M. (2007). User acceptance of context-aware services: Self-efficacy, user innovativeness and perceived sensitivity on contextual pressure. Behavior & Information Technology, 26(6), 483-498.
Lau, S.H., & Woods, P.C. (2009). Understanding learner acceptance of learning objects: The roles of learning object characteristics and individual differences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1059-1075.
Lohnes, S., Wilber, D., & Kinzer, C.K. (2008). A brave new world: Understanding the Net Generation through their eyes. Educational Technology: The Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 48(1), 21-27.
Ma, Q. & Liu, L. (2004). The technology acceptance model: a meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72.
Mayer, R. E. (1983). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
McFarlane, D. C. (1999). Coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Retrieved at July 14, 2011, from http://interruptions.net/literature/McFarlane-Interact99-Coordinating.pdf
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Moore, G. C., Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information System Research, 2(2), 192-222.
National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Computer and internet use by children and adolescents in 2001: Statistical analysis report. Retrieved at August 26, 2011, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001014.
Oblinger, D. G. & Oblinger, J. L., (Eds.)(2005). Educating the Net Generation (2.1-2.20). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved at September 25, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives, Educational Leadership,63(4), 8-13.
Prensky, M. (2008). Young minds, fast times: The twenty-first-century digital learner. Retrieved August 26, 2011, from http://www.edutopia.org/ikids
Prensky, M. (2010). The iPad is coming! (Or is it?) , Educational Technology, 63(4), 8-13.
Ramayah, T. (2010). The role of voluntariness in distance education students’ usage of a course website. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 96-105.
Sanchez-Franco, M. J. (2010). WebCT-The quasimoderating effect of perceived affective quality on an extending technology acceptance model. Computer & Education, 54(1), 37-46.
Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native: myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings, 61(4), 364-379。
Shin, D. H. (2009). An empirical investigation of a modified technology acceptance model of IPTV. Behavior & Information Technology, 28(4), 361-372.
Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. (2008), Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. Atlantic, New York, NY.
Teo, T. & Koh, J. H. L. (2010). Assessing the dimensionality of computer self-efficacy among pre-service teacher in Singapore: a structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 6(3), 7-18.
Teo, T. (2009). Is there an attitude problem? Reconsidering the role of attitude in the TAM. Computer & Education,40(6), 1139-1141.
Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computer & Education, 52(2), 302-312.
Teo, T. (2010). A path analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes to computer use: applying and extending the technology acceptance model in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65-79.
Tselios, N., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). Assessing the Acceptance of a Blended Learning University Course. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (2), 224–235.
Vandewater, E. A., Rideout, V. J., Wartella, E. A., Huang, X., Lee, J. H. & Shim, M. (2007). Digital childhood: Electronic media and technology use among infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. PEDIATRICS, 119(5), 1006-1015.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451. 
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 45(2), 186-204.
Wiki(2011) iPad. Retrieved at May 24, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad