科技意會常被用來解釋科技採納的結果。現有科技意會研究多探討陌生且新穎科技的意會，卻較少說明人們如何意會半新科技。本研究所謂之半新科技，是指科技功能與既有科技有部份重疊之科技創新。由於使用者早為這些科技功能建立穩定的既有意會，這些既有意會將干擾人們理解新科技之路，使得人們無感於它的新。因此，半新科技意會的軌跡不僅是「溫故知新」，甚至需要「革故鼎新」。本研究以科技意會的革故鼎新來說明半新科技的意會調適。以台灣某所大學教授使用數位學習科技的案例，本研究呈現意會延用、意會中斷與意會再生等意會調適歷程，來解讀教授們應用該科技的教學做法。本研究接著討論人們對於半新科技的意會可能受既有科技意會影響，使得人們過度關注其「舊功能」而忽略其「新概念」。最後，我們提出本研究的學術貢獻與實務意涵。

Sensemaking perspective is usually applied to explain people’s reaction to a technology adoption. Most of sensemaking studies concern about how people interpret a new innovation. But these findings may not be appropriate for explaining the process that people make sense to a “semi-new” innovation. An innovation can be semi-new when it shares technology features with existing innovation. To the users, this kind of innovation is not quite new because they have known the technology features well. In this light, users become senseless to the semi-new innovation, and the sensemaking process would be strongly dominated by the existing interpretation. Users may spontaneously apply their existing interpretations to understand the semi-new innovation, and use it as the way they usually do. Therefore, instead of tuning existing sesnsemaking, the sensemaking toward semi-new innovation might involves a process of unlearn and relearn. This study described the sensemaking adaptation process of a semi-new technology. By analyzing how university faculty used an e-learning technology in a national university located in the middle Taiwan, our findings presented three periods of sensemaking adaptation which involved with unlearn and relearn. The findings showed, the faculty initially understood the e-learning technology by their existing sense on the particular technology features, and used these technology features as what they usually did. However, the consequences of technology use were far from their expectation. After that, the faculty made sense of the technology along with their interpretations of being an educator, and then generated five distinct interpretations on the technology. By this case, we highlighted that the existing sensemaking might impede the interpretation on seminew innovation by making people pay attention to the “old technology features” without noticing the “new concept” of the semi-new innovation. Finally, the contributions to academy and practice were also discussed.

科技意會常用於解釋科技採納的結果。然而，現有科技意會研究大多探討 使用者對於陌生且新穎科技的意會與意會演進，較少探討使用者如何意會半新 科技的過程。本研究所謂之半新科技，是指科技功能與既有科技有部份重疊之 科技創新。例如數位學習科技是將檔案上傳、公告、討論區等既有科技功能應 用於教學之中。這種創新，說新不新、說舊不舊，是謂「半新」。由於使用者 對重疊的科技功能並不陌生，且已經建立穩定之既有意會，這些既有的科技意 會可能會干擾、甚至主導新科技的理解之路。因此，半新科技的意會軌跡不僅 涉及「溫故知新」、甚至需要「革故鼎新」(unlearn and relearn)。 本研究針對半新科技，以意會延用、意會中斷與意會再生三個時期，來描 述科技意會的調適。最後，本研究呈現五種對數位學習科技的新意會與教學調 適。本研究的管理意涵有三，可供實務界參考：第一，人們傾向以「溫故知新」 來意會新的科技。但針對半新科技，本研究指出既有的科技意會將會干擾使用 者理解該科技之路，而令他們只注意到舊的科技功能，而忽略半新科技的創新 之處。第二，本研究呈現半新科技的意會調適，將歷經意會的延用、中斷與再 生，並指出半新科技的意會可能涉及「革故鼎新」。第三，本研究說明五種數 位學習的新意會與教學調適，並說明各個教學調適的新實務。綜合而言，本研 究具有三項價值：第一、探討半新科技的意會歷程。第二、說明意會調適的革 故鼎新。第三、以案例來呈現教學意會、科技意會與教學調適的關係。

林家五、黃國隆、鄭伯壎，2004，「從認同到開創：創業家的動態意會歷程」，中山
管理評論，12 卷 2 期：337~397。
侯勝宗、吳思華，2009，「時空情境、科技意會與工作實務：以計程車實務社群為
例」，管理學報，26 卷 3 期：309~332。
侯勝宗、樊學良，2011，「負面科技意會、前因變項與個人科技採用行為關係之縱貫
研究：以台灣大車隊為例」，管理評論，30 卷 3 期：73~91。
蕭瑞麟、侯勝宗、歐素華，2011，「演化科技意會─衛星派遣科技的人性軌跡」，資訊
管理學報，18 卷 4 期：91~110。
Argyris, C., 2002, “Double-Loop Learning, Teaching, and Research,” Academy of
Management Learning & Education, Vol. 1, No. 2, 206-218.
Barrett, M. I., 1999, “Challenges of EDI Adoption for Electronic Trading in the London
Insurance Market,” European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1-
15.
Bartunek, J. M. and Moch, M. K., 1987, “First-Order, Second-Order, and Third-Order
Change and Organization Development Interventions: A Cognitive Approach,”
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, 483-500.
Benchicou, S., Aichouni, M., and Nehari, D., 2010, “E-Learning in Engineering Education:
A Theoretical and Empirical Study of The Algerian Higher Education Institution,”
European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 35, No. 3, 325-343.
Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., and Ciganek, A. P., 2012, “Critical
Success Factors for E-Learning in Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis
Between ICT Experts and Faculty,” Computers and Education, Vol. 58, No. 2,
843-855.
Christensen, C. M., 2003, The Innovator’s Solution: Creating And Sustaining
Successful Growth, 1st, Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Chu, T. H. and Robey, D., 2008, “Explaining Changes In Learning And Work Practice
Following The Adoption of Online Learning: A Human Agency Perspective,”
European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 17, No. 1, 79-98.
Davidson, E. J., 2002, “Technology Frames and Framing: A Socio-Cognitive Investigation
of Requirements Determination,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 4, 329-358.
Dutton, J. E. and Dukerich, J. M., 1991, “Keeping An Eye on The Mirror: Image And
Identity In Organizational Adaptation,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34,
No. 3, 517-554.
Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., and Lilius, J., 2006, “Explaining Compassion
Organizing,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 1, 59-96.
Faulker, P. and Runde, J., 2009, “On the Identity of Technological Objects and User
Innovation in Functions,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, 442-
462.
Feenberg, A., 1991, Critical theory of technology, 1st, New York: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, A., 1984, The Constitution of Society: Outline of The Theory of Structure, 1st
,
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Gioia, D. A. and Chittipeddi, K., 1991, “Sensemaking And Sensegiving in Strategic Change
Initiation,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 6, 443-448.
Gioia, D. A. and Thomas, J. B., 1996, “Identity, Image and Issue Interpretation:
Sensemaking during Strategic Change in Academia,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 3, 370-403.
Gopal, A. and Prasad, P., 2000, “Understanding GDSS in Symbolic Context: Shifting the
Focus from Technology to Interaction,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 3, 509-546.
Griffith, T., 1999, “Technology Features as Triggers For Sensemaking,” Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 3, 472-488.
Hasan, B. and Ahmed, M. U., 2007, “Effects of Interface Style on User Perceptions And
Behavioral Intention To User Computer Systems,” Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 6, 3025-3037.
Hsiao, R. L., Wu, S. H., and Hou, S. T., 2008, “Sensitive Cabbies: Ongoing Sense-Making
Within Technology Structuring,” Information and Organization, Vol. 18, No. 4,
251-279.
Hsu, C., 2009, “Frame Misalignment: Interpreting The Implementation of Information
Systems Security Certification In An Organization,” European Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 2, 140-150.
Karsten, H., 1995, “It’s Like Everyone Working around the Same Desk: Organizational
Readings of Lotus Notes,” Scandinavia Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 7,
No. 1, 3-32.
Keenan, A. P. and Lee, Y. K., 2006, “The Influence of System Characteristics on ELearning Use,” Computers & Education, Vol. 47, No. 2, 222-244.
Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A., and Kelly, V., 1991, The Assessment of
Performance In Design And Technology, 1st, London: School Examinations and
Assessment Council.
Lin, A. and Silva, L., 2005, “The Social and Political Construction of Technological
Frames,” European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14, No. 1, 49-59.
McPherson, M. A. and Nunest, J. M., 2008, “Critical Issues for E-Learning Delivery: What
May Seem Obvious is Not Always Put into Practice,” Computer Assisted
Learning, Vol. 24, No. 5, 433-445.
Orlikowski, W. J. and Gash, D. C., 1994, “Technology Frames: Making Sense of
Information Technology in Organizations,” ACM Transactions on Information
Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2, 174-207.
Orlikowski, W. J. and Iacono, S., 2001, “Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the
“IT” in IT Research-A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact,” Information Systems
Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, 121-134.
Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., and Fujimoto, M., 1995, “Shaping Electronic
Communication: The Metastructuring of Technology in the Context of Use,”
Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 4, 423-444.
Prasad, P., 1993, “Symbolic Processes in the Implementation of Technological Change: A Symbolic Interactionist Study of Work Computerization,” Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1400-1429.
Rosenberg, M. J., 2001, E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge In The
Digital Age, 1st, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schmid, E., 2006, “Investigating the Use of Interactive Whiteboard Technology in The
English Language Classroom through the Lens of A Critical Theory of Technology,”
Computer Assisted Language Learning, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62.
Sela, E. and Sivan, Y. Y., 2009, “Enterprise E-Learning Success Factors: An Analysis of
Practitioners’ Perspective,” Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and
Learning Objects, Vol. 5, No. 1, 335-343.
Selim, H. M., 2007, “Critical Success Factors for E-Learning Acceptance: Confirmatory
Factor Models,” Computers & Education, Vol. 49, No. 2, 396-413.
Spicer, A., 2005, “The Political Process of Inscribing a New Technology,” Human
Relations, Vol. 58, No. 7, 867-890.
Tyre, M. J. and Orlikowski, W. J., 1994, “Windows of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of
Technological Adaptation in Organizations,” Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 1,
98-118.
Van Dam, N., 2004, The E-Learning Fieldbook: Implementation Lessons and Case
Studies From Companies That Are Making E-Learning Work, 1st, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Weick, K. E., 1995, Sensemaking in Organizations, 1st, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.