谁从在线学习中受益更大？——基于研究生在线知识共享行为的实证研究

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2023.02.003

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在线知识共享是数字时代个体发展的关键环节。研究生是未来知识社会的核心成员，探索影响其在线知识共享行为的因素，对促进研究生公平地享受数字红利，为建设数字中国作出贡献具有积极意义。然而，已有文献缺少对该主题的关注。本研究从社会结构性和个体能动性两个层面出发，探究了导致研究生在线知识共享行为差异化的原因。对501位在读研究生开展问卷调查的结果显示：（1）不是所有研究生都是数字时代的原住民。社会结构性因素（性别、学校类型、城乡所在地、父亲职业、父亲受教育程度）对研究生的在线知识共享行为具有显著影响。与在线知识共享数量相比，社会结构性因素对在线知识共享质量的影响更大。（2）个体能动性因素（信息素养）对研究生的在线知识共享行为同样具有显著影响。与在线知识共享质量相比，个体能动性因素对在线知识共享数量的影响更大。（3）存在互联网情境下的马太效应。社会结构性因素对研究生在线知识共享行为的部分影响通过个体能动性因素间接产生。社会结构性因素处于优势地位的人表现出更高水平的信息素养，这鼓励了他们更加积极和高质量的在线知识共享行为。

关键词: 数字社会, 数字鸿沟, 社会结构性因素, 个体能动性因素, 在线知识共享行为

Abstract:

Online knowledge sharing is the key link of individual development in the digital age. Postgraduates are the core members of the future knowledge society. Exploring the factors affecting their online knowledge sharing behavior is of positive significance to promote postgraduates to enjoy digital dividends fairly and contribute to the construction of Digital China. However, the existing literature lacks attention to this topic. This study examines factors resulting in postgraduates differentiated online knowledge sharing behavior from two dimensions – social structure and individual ability. The results of the questionnaire survey of 501 postgraduates show that: first, structural factors (gender, school type, location, father’s occupation, and father’s education) have a significant impact on postgraduates’ online knowledge sharing behavior. These also have a greater impact on the quality of online knowledge sharing than in a quantity sense. Second, individual ability factors (information literacy) also have a significant impact on postgraduates’ online knowledge sharing behavior. It has a greater impact on the quantity of online knowledge sharing than in a quality sense. Third, there is Matthew effect in the Internet context, and certain effects of structural factors on online knowledge sharing behavior are indirectly generated through individual ability factors. Participants with privileged status regarding structural factors show a higher level of information literacy, which encourages them to be more active in online knowledge sharing behavior and facilitates their high-quality production.

Key words: digital society, digital divide, structural factors, ability factors, online knowledge sharing behavior

孙迟瑶, 刘继安, 徐艳茹. 谁从在线学习中受益更大？——基于研究生在线知识共享行为的实证研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(2): 25-37.

Chiyao Sun, Ji’an Liu, Yanru Xu. Who Benefits More from Online Learning: An Empirical Study on Postgraduates’ Online Knowledge Sharing Behavior[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2023, 41(2): 25-37.

图/表 6

图 1

表 1

表 2

表 3

表 4

表 5

参考文献 0

	董黎明, 焦宝聪. (2014). 基于翻转课堂理念的教学应用模型研究. 电化教育研究, (07), 108- 113+120. doi: 10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2014.07.017
	郭娇. (2021). 数字鸿沟的演变: 从网络接入到心智投入——基于疫情期间大学生在线学习的调查. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 39 (7), 16- 26.
	胡小勇, 徐欢云, 陈泽璇. (2020). 学习者信息素养、在线学习投入及学习绩效关系的实证研究. 中国电化教育, (03), 77- 84.
	黄谷子. (2007). 虚拟社区客户知识转移与企业创新绩效关系研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学.
	吉登斯. (2016). 社会的构成: 结构化理论纲要. 李康, 李猛, 译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.
	邱泽奇. (2020). 站在数字社会的十字路口[R/OL]. [2020−06−17] http://wx56538c7382ed0fcc.h5.xiaoe-tech.com/v1/course/alive/l_5ee1974a4bad2_4rKy42hv?type=2&app_id=appnPEaZN3n5856&pro_id=p_5ecf36de72e02_KLXlVUBL&is_redirect=1
	曾晓牧, 孙平, 王梦丽 & 杜慰纯. (2006). 北京地区高校信息素质能力指标体系研究. 大学图书馆学报, (03), 64- 67.
	中华人民共和国中央人民政府门户网站. (2021). 人力资源社会保障部部署推动提升全民数字技能工作. (2021−04−20) [2021−9−30]. Available From: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-04/20/content_5600710.htm
	中国互联网络信息中心(CNNIC), 2021. 第47次《中国互联网络发展状况统计报告》. (2021−02−03) [2021−10−01].
	Allatt, G., & Tett, L. (2019). Adult literacy practitioners and employability skills: resisting neo-liberalism?. Journal of Education Policy, 34 (4), 577- 594. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2018.1493144
	American Library Association. (1989). Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final Report. Available From: https://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential. (1989−01−10) [2021−06−14].
	Bannykh, G. (2021). Gender Digital Inequality: Conceptualization and Practices. In Digital Transformation and New Challenges (pp. 167−181). Springer, Cham.
	Bannykh, G. A., Kostina S. N., & Kuzmin, A. I. (2018). Information needs of the population of the region: socio-demographic aspect. Bulletin of Tomsk State University Joural, 431, 62- 69.
	Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018, January). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency (pp. 77−91). PMLR.
	Campos-Castillo, C. (2015). Revisiting the First-Level Digital Divide in the United States: Gender and Race/Ethnicity Patterns, 2007–2012. Social Science Computer Review, 33 (4), 423- 439. doi: 10.1177/0894439314547617
	Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S. S. (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information & management, 48 (1), 9- 18.
	Charband, Y., & Navimipour, N. J. (2016). Online knowledge sharing mechanisms: a systematic review of the state of the art literature and recommendations for future research. Information Systems Frontiers, 18 (6), 1131- 1151. doi: 10.1007/s10796-016-9628-z
	Cigna, L. (2018). Digital Inequality in theory and Practice: old and New Divides in the broadband Era, 47−63.
	The Digital Economy Act. (2017) c. 30, para 114. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/30/contents/enacted (accessed 01 October 2021).
	DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E.. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’to ‘digital inequality’: Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Princeton: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, 4 (1), 4- 2.
	Dunn, H. S. (2010). Information literacy and the digital divide: Challenging e-exclusion in the global south. In Handbook of research on overcoming digital divides: Constructing an equitable and competitive information society (pp. 326−344). IGI Global.
	Eynon, R. (2021). Becoming digitally literate: Reinstating an educational lens to digital skills policies for adults. British Educational Research Journal, 47 (1), 146- 162. doi: 10.1002/berj.3686
	Eynon, R. , & A. Geniets.. (2016). The Digital Skills Paradox: How Do Digitally Excluded Youth Develop Skills to Use the Internet?. Learning, Media and Technology, 41 (3), 463- 479.
	Eynon, R., & Malmberg, L. E. (2021). Lifelong learning and the Internet: Who benefits most from learning online?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (2), 569- 583. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13041
	Funes, M., & J. Mackness.. (2018). When Inclusion Excludes: A Counter Narrative of Open Online Education. Learning, Media and Technology, 43 (2), 119- 138.
	Gillani, N., Chu, E., Beeferman, D., Eynon, R., & Roy, D. (2021). Parents’ Online School Reviews Reflect Several Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in K–12 Education. AERA Open, 7, 2332858421992344.
	Hansen, J., & J. Reich. 2015. Socioeconomic Status and MOOC Enrollment: Enriching Demographic Information with External Datasets. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge (LAK‘15), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 59–63. doi:10.1145/2723576.2723615.
	Hargittai, E., Piper, A. M., & Morris, M. R. (2019). From internet access to internet skills: digital inequality among older adults. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18 (4), 881- 890. doi: 10.1007/s10209-018-0617-5
	Hatlevik, O. E., & Gudmundsdottir, G. B. (2013). An emerging digital divide in urban school children’s information literacy: Challenging equity in the Norwegian school system. First Monday, 18(4), https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i4.4232.
	Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51 (4), 1648- 1663.
	Horrigan, J. B. (2020). Report: States Should Target Digital Skills Gaps as Economy Transforms. Available at: https://www.govtech.com/workforce/report-states-should-target-digital-skills-gaps-as-economy-transforms.html (accessed 01 October 2021).
	Houlden, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2019). A posthumanist critique of flexible online learning and its “anytime anyplace” claims. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (3), 1005- 1018. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12779
	ICT, 2020. 衡量数字化发展: 2020年事实与数字. Available From: https://www.itu.int/zh/mediacentre/Pages/pr27-2020-facts-figures-urban-areas-higher-internet-access-than-rural.aspx (2020-11-30) [2021-09-22].
	Irving, L., Klegar-Levy, K., Everette, D. W., Reynolds, T. and Lader, W. (1999), “Falling through the net: defining the digital divide”, A report on the Telecommunications and Information Technology Gap in America, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
	Jackson, L. A., Zhao, Y., Kolenic III, A., Fitzgerald, H. E., Harold, R., & Von Eye, A. (2008). Race, gender, and information technology use: The new digital divide. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11 (4), 437- 442.
	Lee, H. J., Park, N., & Hwang, Y. (2015). A new dimension of the digital divide: Exploring the relationship between broadband connection, smartphone use and communication competence. Telematics and Informatics, 32, 45- 56. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2014.02.001
	Lee, J., Rajtmajer, S., Srivatsavaya, E., & Wilson, S. (2021). Digital Inequality Through the Lens of Self-Disclosure. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2021 (3), 373- 393. doi: 10.2478/popets-2021-0052
	Light, J. (2001). Rethinking the digital divide. Harvard educational review, 71 (4), 709- 734. doi: 10.17763/haer.71.4.342x36742j2w4q82
	Lutz, C. (2019). Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1 (2), 141- 148. doi: 10.1002/hbe2.140
	Macgilchrist, F.. (2019). Cruel Optimism in Edtech: When the Digital Data Practices of Educational Technology Providers Inadvertently Hinder Educational Equity. Learning, Media and Technology, 44 (1), 77- 86.
	Min, S. (2010). From the Digital Divide to the Democratic Divide: Internet Skills, Political Interest, and the Second-Level Digital Divide in Political Internet Use. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7 (1), 22- 35.
	Nguyen, T. M. and Malik, A.. (2020). “Cognitive processes, rewards and online knowledge sharing behaviour: the moderating effect of organisational innovation”. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24 (6), 1241- 1261.
	Pew Research Center. (2014). Internet user demographics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/latest-stats/
	Ragnedda, M., & Muschert, G. W. (2013). The digital divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective. New York, NY: Routledge, pp2−4.
	Scheerder, A., Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second-and third-level digital divide. Telematics and informatics, 34 (8), 1607- 1624.
	Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education?. London: John Wiley & Sons, p41−44.
	Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Eynon, R., Ferreira, G., Knox, J., Macgilchrist, F., & Sancho-Gil, J. M.. (2020). What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning, Media and Technology, 45 (1), 1- 6.
	The Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information Literacy Competency Standards for High Education. Chicago, 2000.
	Torres-Diaz, J., & Duart, J. (2015). Determinants of digital inequality in universities: the case of Ecuador. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11 (3), 149- 161.
	Van Deursen, A. J. , Helsper, E. J. , & Eynon, R.. (2016). Development and validation of the Internet Skills Scale (ISS). Information, Communication & Society, 19 (6), 804- 823.
	Van Deursen, A. J., Helsper, E., Eynon, R., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2017). The compoundness and sequentiality of digital inequality. International Journal of Communication, 11, 452- 473.
	Van-Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: who benefits most from being online? In L. Robinson, S. R. Cotten, J. Schulz, T. M. Hale, & A. Williams (Eds. ), Communication and information technologies annual studies in media and communications (pp. 29–52). Bingley: Emerald.
	Van-Deursen, A., & Van-Dijk, J. (2010). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13 (6), 893- 911.
	Wasko, M. L., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. Mis Quarterly, 29 (1), 35- 57. doi: 10.2307/25148667
	Williamson, B. , Eynon, R. , & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45: 2, 107—114.
	Winters, N., Eynon, R., Geniets, A., Robson, J., & Kahn, K.. (2020). Can we avoid digital structural violence in future learning systems?. Learning, Media and Technology, 45 (1), 17- 30.
	Yu, B., Ndumu, A., Mon, L. M., & Fan, Z. (2018). E-inclusion or digital divide: an integrated model of digital inequality. Journal of Documentation, 74 (3), 552- 574. doi: 10.1108/JD-10-2017-0148
	Zheng, Y. & Walsham, G. (2021). Inequality of what? An intersectional approach to digital inequality under Covid-19. Information and Organization, 31 (1), 100341. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100341
	Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status‐specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90 (2), 274- 291.e. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617.x

类别	分类	频数	比例
性别	男	215	42.91%
性别	女	286	57.09%
受教育程度	硕士研究生	252	50.30%
受教育程度	博士研究生	249	49.70%
学校类型	一流大学建设高校	194	38.72%
	一流学科建设高校	151	30.14%
	普通高校	156	31.14%
城乡所在地	城镇	292	58.28%
城乡所在地	农村	209	41.72%
父亲职业层次	体力劳动者	238	47.50%
	技术工作者	200	39.92%
	企事业负责人	63	12.57%
父亲受教育程度	小学及以下	142	28.34%
	初中	162	32.34%
	高中	118	23.55%
	大学及以上	79	15.77%

	（1）	（2）	（3）	（4）	（5）	（6）	（7）	（8）	（9）
（1）	1.000
（2）	0.967***	1.000
（3）	0.958***	0.853***	1.000
（4）	0.532***	0.497***	0.546***	1.000
（5）	?0.316***	?0.305***	?0.303***	?0.170***	1.000
（6）	0.430***	0.400***	0.429***	0.467***	0.076	1.000
（7）	0.475***	0.442***	0.476***	0.530***	0.137**	0.311***	1.000
（8）	0.435***	0.387***	0.455***	0.376***	0.129*	0.198***	0.468***	1.000
（9）	0.409***	0.360***	0.433***	0.420***	0.052	0.207***	0.487***	0.502***	1.000

		B	S.E.	β	B	S.E.	β
		Model1在线知识共享数量			Model2在线知识共享质量
个体能动性因素	信息意识素养	0.179	0.050	0.206***	0.123	0.050	0.156**
	信息获取素养	0.370	0.053	0.292***	0.280	0.066	0.250***
	信息辨别素养	0.181	0.048	0.218***	0.477	0.054	0.415***
	信息应用素养	0.197	0.065	0.160**	0.207	0.048	0.275***

			B	S.E.	β	B	S.E.	β
			Model3在线知识共享数量			Model4在线知识共享质量
社会结构性因素	性别		?0.333	0.105	?0.151**	?0.445	0.069	?0.215***
	学校类型	一流学科建设高校	0.314	0.107	0.142**	0.532	0.089	0.239***
	学校类型	一流大学建设高校	0.580	0.086	0.305***	0.654	0.087	0.311***
	城乡所在地		0.346	0.085	0.184***	0.316	0.086	0.152***
	父亲职业	技术工作者	0.266	0.086	0.141**	0.418	0.088	0.200***
	父亲职业	企事业负责人	0.388	0.120	0.139**	0.558	0.122	0.181***
	父亲受教育程度	初中水平	0.237	0.091	0.119**	0.497	0.092	0.227***
		高中水平	0.247	0.111	0.113*	0.440	0.113	0.182***
		大学及以上	0.329	0.123	0.129**	0.545	0.124	0.194***

			B	S.E.	β	B	S.E.	β
			Model 5信息意识素养			Model 6信息获取素养
社会结构性因素	性别		?0.078	0.086	?0.033	?0.245	0.063	?0.150***
	学校类型	一流学科建设高校	0.526	0.110	0.205***	0.314	0.081	0.179***
	学校类型	一流大学建设高校	0.877	0.108	0.363***	0.541	0.078	0.327***
	城乡所在地		0.677	0.106	0.283***	0.379	0.078	0.232***
	父亲职业	技术工作者	0.147	0.109	0.061	0.083	0.079	0.050
	父亲职业	企事业负责人	0.149	0.152	0.042	0.164	0.110	0.068
	父亲受教育程度	初中水平	0.356	0.114	0.141**	0.210	0.083	0.122*
		高中水平	0.445	0.140	0.160**	0.203	0.102	0.107*
		大学及以上	0.558	0.154	0.173**	0.190	0.112	0.086
			Model 6信息辨别素养			Model 7信息应用素养
社会结构性因素	性别		?0.182	0.090	?0.073**	?0.173	0.063	?0.103**
	学校类型	一流学科建设高校	0.358	0.116	0.133**	0.300	0.082	0.166***
	学校类型	一流大学建设高校	0.743	0.113	0.293***	0.490	0.080	0.287***
	城乡所在地		0.737	0.111	0.294***	0.370	0.079	0.220***
	父亲职业	技术工作者	0.260	0.114	0.103**	0.151	0.080	0.089
	父亲职业	企事业负责人	0.417	0.158	0.112**	0.118	0.111	0.047
	父亲受教育程度	初中水平	0.375	0.119	0.142**	0.290	0.084	0.163**
		高中水平	0.439	0.146	0.151**	0.339	0.103	0.173**
		大学及以上	0.499	0.161	0.147**	0.464	0.114	0.204***