大學課室的學習績效是由許多因素彼此互動產生的，因此有研究者以劇場理論描述之。目前大學中混合式教室日益增加，希望能結合數位與面對面傳統教室的優點。本研究利用社群診斷模式中的四個評量：學習呈現、教師呈現、社會呈現及認知呈現；並加入一個新評量：平台呈現，試圖去了解混合式教室可能產生的教學成效。本研究以兩個循環的行動研究來發展及檢驗有效混合教室的教學策略；在第一個循環中以相同的教師及教材，比較線上與面對面兩種教室所產生的滿意或不滿意事件，來評估平台造成的影響；進一步以第一階段發現的原則應用於設計第二階段混合教室的教學策略來驗證其有用性。

Classroom learning performance in higher education, a complicated processs affected by a large number of variables that interact with one another, is examined in this paper based on the framework of dramaturgy theory. Blended classroom settings are increasingly favored in the realm of higher education in order to reap the benefits from both online and traditional face-to-face classrooms. This study utilizes four measurements to explore the possible effects of different pedagogical designs in the blended classroom: learning, teacher, social, and cognitive presences, from the community of inquiry model, and adds a fifth: platform presence. This study uses a two-cycle action research process to develop and test effective strategies of blended classroom pedagogy. In the first cycle, the influence of the platform is studied by evaluating incidences of satisfaction and disatisfaction beween the face-to-face and e-learning classroom, with shared teachers and content. Guidelines for pedagogical design that emerge from analyzing the first cycle are further applied to the second cycle of action research in order to evaluate their degree of usefulness.

Previous studies in the literature have pointed out that both e-learning and traditional face to face (F2F) classrooms have their own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, with the hybrid classroom approach (combining e-learning and face to face), we will encounter management dilemmas related to pedagogical design for instructors trying to take advantage of the strengths of both the F2F and e-learning environments, while minimizing any situational shortcomings. Effective learning may take place in a blended learning environment as a consequence of various learning elements and the interactions that take place between them. However, the breadth and interrelatedness of the various variables arising from the instructor’s characteristics, students’ background, learning context, pedagogical design, content, etc., make it difficult to accurately predict learning performance. A research framework that ignores the interactions and chooses some variables as research variables while assuming others are controlled would seem to insufficient, therefore we choose the qualitative action research method, observing interactions in two cycles.

Baskerville, R. L. and Wood-Harper, A. T., 1996, “A Critical Perspective on Action
Research as a Method for Information System Research,” Journal of Information
Technology, Vol. 11, No. 3, 235-246.
Bates, A. W., 2005, Technology, E-Learning and Distance Education, 1st, New York:
Rutledge Flamer.
Baylor, A. L. and Ritchie, D., 2002, “What Factors Facilitate Teacher Skill,Teacher Morale,
and Perceived Student Learning in Technology-using Classrooms?” Computers &
Education, Vol. 39, No. 4, 395-414.
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., and Tetreault, M. S., 1990, “The Service Encounter:
Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54,
No. 1, 71-84.
Bloom, B. S., 1984, Bloom Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, 1st, Boston: Pearson
Education.
Cho, V., Cheng, T. E., and Lai, W. J., 2009, “The Role of Perceived User-interface Design
in Continued Usage Intention of Self-paced E-learning Tools,” Computers &
Education, Vol. 53, No. 2, 216-227.
Davison, R. M., Martinson, M. G., and Kock, N., 2004, “Principle of Canonical Action
Research,” Information Systems Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 65-86.
Flanagan, J. C., 1954, “The Critical Incident Technique,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 51,
No. 4, 327-358.
Francescato, D., Porcelli, R., Mebane, M., Cuddetta, M., Klobas, J., and Renzi, P., 2006,
“Evaluation of Efficacy of Collaborative Learning in Face-to-face and Computersupported University Contexts,” Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 2,
163-176.
Freitas, S. D. and Olive, M., 2006, “How Can Exploratory Learning With Games And
Simulations within the Curriculum Be Most Effectively Evaluated?” Computer & Education, Vol. 46, No. 3, 249-264.
Fu, F., Su, R., and Yu, Y., 2009, “EGameFlow: A Scale to Measure Learners' Enjoyment of
E-learning Games,” Computers & Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, 101-112.
Garrison, D. R. and Arbaugh, J. B., 2007, “Researching the Community of Inquiry
Framework: Review, Issues, and Future Direction,” The Internet and Higher
Education, Vol. 10, No. 3, 157-172.
Garrison, D. R. and Kanuka, H., 2004, “Blended Learning: Uncovering Its Transformative
Potential in Higher Education,” Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, 95-
105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W., 2000, “Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based
Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education,” The Internet and
Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. 2-3, 87-105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W., 2001, “Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence,
and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education,” American Journal of
Distance Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, 7-23.
Goffman, E., 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, 1st, London: Penguin.
Gremler, D. D., 2004, “The critical incident technique in Service Research,” Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, 65-89.
Grove, S. J., Fisk, R. P., and Bitner, M. J., 1992, “Dramatizing the Service Experience: A
Managerial Approach,” Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol.
1, No. 1, 91-121.
Halliday, S. V., Davis, B. J., Ward, P., and Lim, M., 2008, “A Dramaturgical Analysis of the
Service Encounter in Higher Education,” Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.
24, No. 1, 47-68.
Herzberg, F., 2003, “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?” Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 81, No. 1, 87-96.
Kiili, K., 2005, “Digital Games-based Learning: Towards an Experiential Gaming Model,”
The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 3, 13-24.
Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O., and Schultze, U., 2004, “Design Principles for Competence
Management Systems-A Synthesis of an Action Research Study,” MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 28, No. 3, 435-472.
Marjanovice, O., 1999, “Learning and Teaching in a Synchronous Collaborative Learning
Environment,” Journal of Computer Assistance Learning, Vol. 15, No. 2, 129-
148.
Moisio, R. and Arnould, E. J., 2005, “Extending the Dramaturgical Framework in
Marketing: Drama Structure, Drama Interaction and Drama Content in Shopping
Experience,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4, No. 4, 246-256.
Myers, M. D. and Newman, M., 2007, “The Qualitative Interview in IS Research:
Examining the Craft,” Information and Organization, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2-26.
Osguthorpe, R. T. and Graham, C. R., 2003, “Blended Learning Environments: Definitions
and Directions,” Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Vol. 4, No. 3, 227-233.
Shea, P. and Bidjerano, T., 2010, “Learning Presence: Towards a Theory of Self-efficacy,
Self-regulation, and the Development of a Community of Iinquiry in Online and
Blended Learning Environments,” Computers & Education, Vol. 55, No. 4, 1721-
1731.
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Biderano, T., Pickett, A., Gozza-Cohen, M.,
Wiide, J., and Jian, S., 2012, “Learning Presence: Additional Research on a New
Conceptual Element Within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework,” The
Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 15, No. 2, 89-95.
Smith, R. A. and Houston, M. J., 1985, “A Psychometric Assessment of Measures of Scripts
in Consumer Memory,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, 214-224.
So, H. and Brush, T. A., 2008, “Student Perceptions of Collaborative Learning, Social
Presence and Satisfaction in a Blended Learning Environment: Relationships and
Critical Factors,” Computer & Educations, Vol. 51, No. 1, 318-336.
Sun, P., Tsai, R. J., Finger, C., Chen, Y., and Yeh, D., 2008, “What Drives a Successful ELearning? An Empirical Investigation of the Critical Factors Influencing Learner
Satisfaction,” Computers & Education, Vol. 50, No. 4, 1183-1202.
Susman, G. and Evered, R., 1978, “An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action
Research,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 4, 582-603.
Suthers, D. D., Hundhausen, C. D., and Girardeau, L. E., 2003, “Comparing the Roles of
Representations in Face-to-face and Online Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning,” Computers & Education, Vol. 41, No. 4, 335-351.
Swan, K., 2004a, “Relationships between Interactions and Learning in Online
Environments,” http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/interactions.pdf, accessed
on May 10, 2011.
Swan, K., 2004b, “Learning Online: Current Research on Issues of Interface, Teaching
Presence and Learner Characteristics” in Bourne, J. and Moore, J. C. (eds.),
Elements of Quality Online Education, Into the Mainstream, First Edition,
Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 63-79.
Tiger, L., 2008, The Pursuit of Pleasure, 4th, Fredericton, CA: Transaction Publishers.
Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., and Head, M., 2008, “Who Is Responsible for E-learning
Success in Higher Education? A Stakeholders’ Analysis,” Educational Technology
& Society, Vol. 11, No. 3, 26-36.
Yang, Z. and Liu, Q., 2007, “Research and Development of Web-based Virtual Online
Classroom,” Computers & Education, Vol. 48, No. 2, 171-184.