教育评价

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

  • 孙迟瑶 ,
  • 刘继安 ,
  • 徐艳茹
展开
  • 1. 中国科学院大学中丹学院,北京 100049
    2. 中国科学院大学公共政策与管理学院,北京 100049

网络出版日期: 2023-01-18

基金资助

国家社会科学基金教育科学“十三五”规划一般课题“研究生科研资助在创新人才培养中的作用机理与制度构建”(BIA170171)

Who Benefits More from Online Learning: An Empirical Study on Postgraduates’ Online Knowledge Sharing Behavior

  • Chiyao Sun ,
  • Ji’an Liu ,
  • Yanru Xu
Expand
  • 1. Sino-Danish College, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
    2. School of Public Policy and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Online published: 2023-01-18

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。

本文引用格式

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 . DOI: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2023.02.003

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.

参考文献

null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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
null 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.
null 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
null 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].
null Allatt, G., & Tett, L. (2019). Adult literacy practitioners and employability skills: resisting neo-liberalism?. Journal of Education Policy, 34 (4), 577- 594.
null 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].
null Bannykh, G. (2021). Gender Digital Inequality: Conceptualization and Practices. In Digital Transformation and New Challenges (pp. 167−181). Springer, Cham.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null Cigna, L. (2018). Digital Inequality in theory and Practice: old and New Divides in the broadband Era, 47?63.
null 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).
null 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.
null 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.
null Eynon, R. (2021). Becoming digitally literate: Reinstating an educational lens to digital skills policies for adults. British Educational Research Journal, 47 (1), 146- 162.
null 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.
null 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.
null Funes, M., & J. Mackness.. (2018). When Inclusion Excludes: A Counter Narrative of Open Online Education. Learning, Media and Technology, 43 (2), 119- 138.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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).
null 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.
null 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].
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null Light, J. (2001). Rethinking the digital divide. Harvard educational review, 71 (4), 709- 734.
null Lutz, C. (2019). Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1 (2), 141- 148.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null Pew Research Center. (2014). Internet user demographics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/latest-stats/
null Ragnedda, M., & Muschert, G. W. (2013). The digital divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective. New York, NY: Routledge, pp2?4.
null 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.
null Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education?. London: John Wiley & Sons, p41?44.
null 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.
null The Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information Literacy Competency Standards for High Education. Chicago, 2000.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null Van-Deursen, A., & Van-Dijk, J. (2010). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13 (6), 893- 911.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null 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.
null Zheng, Y. & Walsham, G. (2021). Inequality of what? An intersectional approach to digital inequality under Covid-19. Information and Organization, 31 (1), 100341.
null Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status‐specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90 (2), 274- 291.e.
文章导航

/