Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/79255
|
| Title: | 教學網站評估指標建構之研究--模糊層級分析法之應用
A Study of Indicators Construction of Teaching Websites--Applying Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process |
| Authors: | 林于郁
Lin, Yu Yu |
| Contributors: | 吳政達
郭昭佑
Wu, Cheng Ta
Guo, Chao Yu
林于郁
Lin, Yu Yu |
| Keywords: | 教學網站
評估指標
模糊層級分析法
模糊德菲法
Teaching websites
evaluation indicators
Fuzzy Analytics Hierarchy Process
Fuzzy Delphi Method |
| Date: | 2015 |
| Issue Date: | 2015-11-02 15:00:00 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 近年來，教育界廣設各類型教學網站以延伸教育學習環境，惟網站環境良莠參差，本研究期找到一套適宜的教學網站評估標準，協助師生擇選優質網站作為教學或學習之輔助工具，並提供管理者改善網站之參考。
本研究先透過文獻分析，了解網站評估內涵進而討論發展趨勢，而後運用雙向細目分析法綜理適切的評估指標做為後續討論的基礎，再引入網路搜尋使用行為與科技接受模式相關考慮元素，發展出較重要的評估指標計36項；經以適切性評估暨模糊德菲法專家問卷進行指標刪修與確認後，整理出5層面30項指標之評估架構；再透過相對權重專家問卷將評估專家對於各項指標重要性程度每位99次的兩兩比較資料，運用模糊層級分析法的特性，求取出指標的相對權重與順序，在通過一致性檢定的原則下，建構我國教學網站評估層級架構與指標權重。
本研究結果確立教學網站評估架構，包含5大層面與30項指標：
一、「課程教材品質」（權重34.13%）：此層面包含10項指標，按重要性依序為「教材內容正確完整」（6.44%）、「課程範圍明顯區隔」（5.18%）、「教材可擴展移植性」（4.99%）、「教材內容豐富多元」（3.53%）等4項，其餘6項指標權重介於1.65%至2.92%間。
二、「網站系統技術品質」（權重27.05%）：包含7項指標，較重要者依序為「安全機制與個資隱私」（6.18%）、「科技設備相容性」（5.11%）、「傳輸下載回應穩定且快速」（3.75%）、「導航系統明確」（3.40%）等4項，其餘3項指標之權重介於2.66%至3.19%間。
三、「個人化服務功能」（權重16.47%）：此層面包含5項指標，較重要者依序為「提供自主學習工具」（3.86%）及「學習歷程之運用」（3.54%），其餘3項指標之權重介於2.75%至3.25%間。
四、「網站基本資訊內容」（權重13.42%）：此層面包含5項指標，逾平均權重（3.33%）者僅「創意具吸引性」（3.36%）1項，其餘4項指標之權重介於2.01%至3.23%間。
五、「網頁設計」（權重8.93%）：此層面包含3項指標，權重介於2.77%至3.24%間，惟均未逾平均權重。
As a way of expanding the learning environment, the educational sphere has come to incorporate a range of teaching websites in recent years, but the quality of these websites vary. During this study period, an appropriate set of evaluation indicators for teaching websites was identified, which will guide instructors and students in selecting the best websites for supplementing teaching and learning. The indicators can also serve as a reference to help webmasters improve their sites.
This study will use document analysis to understand the basic properties of website evaluation before focusing on its developments and trends. Further discussion will be built upon the suitable set of evaluation indicators identified by the two-way specification table. Consequently, 36 significant evaluation criteria were developed in light of factors such as search patterns and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Through using an appropriate assessment and the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) to survey experts on its accuracy, 30 indicators were structured into 5 dimensions. Additionally, another relatively weighted survey assessed the importance attached to each criterion by experts, and each of their results was compared pairwise to 99 other results. The Fuzzy Analytics Hierarchy Process (FAHP) was used to rank their relative weight and order. Lastly, one more uniform examination was conducted to establish the evaluation indicators and indicative weight of teaching websites in Taiwan.
As a result, this study established an assessment structure that includes 5 dimensions and 30 indicators:
1.Quality of the Teaching Materials (Weight of 34.13%): This dimension includes 10 indicators, of which the top four are Comprehensiveness and Accuracy of Teaching Content (6.44%); Clear Segmentation of Teaching Parameters (5.18%); Expansion and Fluidity of Teaching Materials (4.99%); and Diversity of Teaching Materials (3.53%). The other 6 indicators have weights ranging from 1.65% to 2.92%.
2.Technical Quality of the Website (Weight of 27.05%): Inclusive of 7 indicators, the most important are Security Mechanisms and Privacy of Personal Information (6.18%); Compatibility of Technological Equipment (5.11%); Stability and Speed of the Transmitted Download Response (3.75%); and Clarity of the Navigation System (3.40%). The remaining three weigh between 2.66% to 3.19%.
3.Personalized Functions (Weight of 16.47%): This dimension includes 5 indicators, of which the most important two are Provision of Self-Learning Tools (3.86%) and Application of the Learning Process (3.54%). The remaining 3 indicators weigh 2.75% to 3.25%.
4.Basic Content of the Website (Weight of 13.42%): This dimension has 5 indicators, of which the only to exceed the average weight of 3.33% is Appeal and Creativity (3.36%). The weight of the other four range from 2.01% to 3.23%.
5.Website Design (Weight of 8.93%): The three indicators included in this dimension are all less than the average weight, ranging from 2.77% to 3.24%. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
于富雲（2002）。教育網站的設計。 教育資料與圖書館學， 40（2），186-197。
于富雲、謝孟達、陳引幹、連雅玲（2007）。教育網站評鑑：學習輔助性與功能完備性之差異研究。教育資料與圖書館學，44（4），393-412。
王穎、孫成權（2008）。網站的可用性評估標準淺議。圖書與情報，2008（1），98-102。
朱慶華、杜 佳（2007）。國內外政府網站評價研究綜述。電子政務，31-39。
何祖鳳、陳俊榮、陳銘欽（1998）。網路教學系統評估準則之研究。遠距教育，7， 20-29。
余鑑、于俊傑、余采芳、鄭宇珊、李依凡（2011）。Web2. 0 線上學習網站評鑑指標之研究-以社會技術系統觀點探討。電子商務研究， 9（1），5-34。
吳正己、李忠謀（1999）。從「資訊教育軟體與教材資源中心」之建置談網路教材資源的評鑑。竹縣文教，18，35-48。
吳明隆、涂金堂（2006）。SPSS與統計應用分析。臺北：五南。
吳政達（1999）。國民小學教師評鑑指標體系建構之研究-模糊德菲術，模糊層級分析法與模糊綜合評估法之應用（未出版博士論文）。國立政治大學，台北市。
吳政達（2005）。我國地方政府層級教育課責系統建構之評估：模糊德菲法之應用。教育與心理研究，28（4），645-665。
吳綱立、郭幸萍、趙又嬋（2007）。歷史街區環境改善綜合性評估架構之研究-以台南市府中街歷史街區爲例。建築學報，（62），1-22。
呂智惠、謝建成、蕭潔（2014）。基於層面分類概念建構大學圖書館網站標籤之研究。圖書資訊學研究，8（2），197-237。
宋曜廷、張國恩（2012）。數位學習品質管理。臺北市：高等教育文化事業有限公司。
周彥君、林千惠（2009）。我國特殊教育資源中心網站品質評估之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，34（2），1-26。
林芳志、林麗娟（2006）。兒童使用臺北市立圖書館兒童版網站之研究。臺灣圖書館管理季刊，2（2），65-80。
林雯瑤（1998）。圖書館與WWW網站資源評鑑。教育資料文摘，42（2），84-110。
范惟翔、葉上葆,、張瑞鉉（2009）。運用 Fuzzy AHP 探討台灣出版業書系發展之關鍵成功因素。商管科技季刊，10（2），327-363。
財團法人台灣網路資訊中心（2014）。2014 年台灣寬頻網路使用調查報告。取自http://www.twnic.net.tw/download/200307/20140820e.pdf。
財團法人台灣網路資訊中心（2015）。.tw域名統計查詢結果。取自http://statistics.twnic.net.tw/query/dn-query.cgi。
國家教育研究院（2003）。資訊與通信術語辭典。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1273927/。
張有恆（1998）。運輸計畫評估與決策—模糊理論之探討與應用。臺北：華泰。
張琬翔、尹玫君（2013）。從學習觀點探討教育網站評鑑之內涵。教育學誌，29，71-104。
張琬翔、尹玫君（2014）。以學習策略觀點建構科學教育網站評鑑指標之研究。當代教育研究.季刊，22（2），47-91。
教育基本法（2013年12月11日）。
曹梅（2011）。教育網站評價的網絡計模式初探。開放教育研究，17（5），103-107。
郭昭佑（2001）。教育評鑑指標建構方法探究。國教學報，13，257-285。
郭倉義、沈如鵬、楊梅稜（2009）。兒童網站服務品質。品質月刊，45（12），24-27。
陳向東（2007）。一種新的教育網站評價方法：鏈接分析。中國電化教育，246，64-67。
黃聖凱（2000）。大學評鑑指標選取模式之建構-考慮外部競爭環境與模糊群體決策之情況（未出版論文）。元智大學，桃園市。
黃慕萱、董蕙茹、王俊傑（2013）。數位典藏網站評估—以網路連結與網站紀錄分析。圖書館學與資訊科學，39（2），65-82。
歐陽誾（2000）。網站品質評鑑之初探。初等教育學報，13，219-238。
歐陽誾、林姿妙（2002）。從教師的觀點探討兒童學習網站之評鑑。教育研究集刊，48（1），267-295。
潘文福（2004）。非同步網頁教材編輯原理之研究。「2004 數位學習研討會」發表之論文，國立屏東師範學院。
蔡麗華（2010）。國民小學教師評鑑後設評鑑標準與權重體系建構之研究（未出版論文）。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。
鄧振源、曾國雄（1989a）。層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與應用（上），中國統計學報，27（6），6-22。
鄧振源、曾國雄（1989b）。層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與應用（下），中國統計學報，27（7），1-19。
謝建成、丁依玲、陳慧倫（2011）。大學圖書館網站資訊尋獲度之研究。資訊管理學報，18（3），25-49。
謝建成、林黃瑋（2012）。基於網站廣度與深度之網站尋獲度研究。教育資料與圖書館學，50（2），255-288。
謝建成、楊慧婷（2012）。以知識結構表徵工具建構大學圖書館網站。圖書資訊學研究，7（1），39-83。
謝寶煖、周秉貞（2003）。以顧客導向觀點評估政府網站之資訊架構。圖書與資訊學刊，46，36-89。
謝寶煖、周秉貞（2004）。政府網站資訊架構之評估。管理與系統，11（2），175-198。
鍾瑞國、楊寶華（2006）。發展企業數位學習成效評鑑指標之研究。人力資源管理學報，6（1），123-140。
羅綸新（2004）。教育類網站評鑑規準建構之研究。教學科技與媒體，68，4-22。
羅綸新（2005）。網路上教育資源與教學應用之評估。教育資料與研究雙月刊，67，75-86。
二、外文部分
Aladwani, A. M., & Palvia, P. C. (2002). Developing and validating an instrument for measuring user-perceived web quality. Information & management, 39(6), 467-476.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. The Journal of Marketing, 53-66.
Branch, R., Kim, D., & Koenecke, L. (2000). Evaluating Online Educational Materials for Use in Instruction.
TEACHER LIBRARIAN-SEATTLE, 28, 21-23.
Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems,17(3), 233-247.
Büyüközkan, G., Ruan, D., & Feyzioğlu, O. (2007). Evaluating e‐learning web site quality in a fuzzy environment. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(5), 567-586.
Chang, P. T., Huang, L. C., & Lin, H. J. (2000). The fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy statistics and membership function fitting and an application to the human resources. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 112(3), 511-520.
Chang, S. N., & Tonya, L. S. (2007). Web-Based Learning
Environment: A Theory-Based Design Process for Development and Evaluation. Journal of Information Technology Education,6, 23-43.
Chao, R. J., & Chen, Y. H. (2009).Evaluation of the criteria and effectiveness of distance e-learning with consistent fuzzy preference relations. Expert Systems with
Applications, 36, 10657–10662.
Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods (pp. 289-486). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information systems research, 3(1), 60-95.
Ehlers, U. D., & Pawlowski, J. M. (2006). Handbook on quality and standardisation in e-learning. Springer Science & Business Media.
Fried, A. P. (2007). Reflections on the Implementation of a Course Website Maintained by Multiple Faculty Members: Analysis, Development, Sustainability, and Evaluation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,35(3), 337-345.
Gordon-Murnane, L. (1999). Evaluating Net Evaluators. Searcher, 7(2), 57-66.
Gullikson, S., Blades, R., Bragdon, M., McKibbon, S., Sparling, M., & Toms, E. G. (1999). The impact of information architecture on academic web site usability. The Electronic Library, 17(5), 293-304.
Hasan, L., & Abuelrub, E. (2011). Assessing the quality of web sites. Applied Computing and Informatics, 9(1), 11-29.
Hsu, C.M., Yeh, Y.C., & Yen, J. (2009).Development of design criteria and evaluation scale for web-based learning platforms. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(1), 90–95.
Hwang, G. J., Huang, T. C., & Tseng, J. C. (2004). A group-decision approach for evaluating educational web sites. Computers & Education,42(1), 65-86.
Internet World Stats(2015),World Internet Users and 2015 Population Stats. Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, M., Shiga, T., Tomizawa, G., Tatsuta, R., & Mieno, H. (1993). The max-min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy sets and systems, 55(3), 241-253.
Jones, G., & Sallis, E. (2013). Knowledge management in education: Enhancing learning & education. Routledge.
Kantner, L., & Rosenbaum, S. (1997). Usability studies of WWW sites: heuristic evaluation vs. laboratory testing. In Proceedings of the 15th annual international conference on Computer documentation (pp. 153-160). ACM.
Khorramshahgol, R., & Moustakis, V. S. (1988). Delphic hierarchy process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting derived from the Delphi method and analytical hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 37(3), 347-354.
Kubly, K. (1997). How to evaluate a Web site and the information it delivers.2008—02—05]. http://www. fccj. org/learnin. gresources/topll—. 97. htm.
Light, A. (2006). Adding method to meaning: a technique for exploring peoples` experience with technology. Behaviour & Information Technology,25(2), 175-187.
Liu, G. Z., Liu, Z. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2011). Developing multi-dimensional evaluation criteria for English learning websites with university students and professors. Computers & Education, 56(1), 65-79.
Liu, M. C. (2001). A Systematic Web-Course Development Process: User-Centered Requirements. Educational Technology, 41(6), 15-22.
Loiacono, E. T., Chen, D. Q., & Goodhue, D. L. (2002). WebQual TM Revisited: Predicting the Intent to Reuse a Web Site.
Long, M., & McMellon, C. (2004). Exploring the determinants of retail service quality on the Internet. Journal of services marketing, 18(1), 78-90.
McDermott, I. E. (2000). Internet Instruction: Spreading the Web. Searcher,8(7), 72-76.
Mioduser, D., Nachmiass, R., Lahav, O., & Oren, A.(2000).Web-based learning environments:Current pedagogical and technological state.Journal of Research on Computing in Education,33(1).
Murray, T. J., Pipino, L. L., & van Gigch, J. P. (1985). A pilot study of fuzzy set modification of Delphi. Human Systems Management, 5(1), 76-80.
Navarro, A.,Khan, T.(1998).Effective web design.San Francisco, CA:Sybex.
Netcraft Web Server (2015).Total number of websites(logarithmic scale) . Retrieved from http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2015/04/20/april-2015-web-server-survey.html
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1994).Environmental indicators: OECD core set. na.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988).Servqual. Journal of retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Park, Y. A., & Gretzel, U. (2007). Success factors for destination marketing web sites: A qualitative meta-analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 46-63.
Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in human behavior, 20(2), 201-223.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction.New York, NY: Wiley.
Rosenfeld, L., & Morville, P. (2002). Information architecture for the world wide web. " O`Reilly Media, Inc.".
Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share. Journal of retailing, 69(2), 193-215.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. New York: McGraw.
Sae-Khow, J. (2014). Developing of Indicators of an E-Learning Benchmarking Model for Higher Education Institutions. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 13(2), 35-43.
Sams. A., & Bergmann, J. (2013). Flip Your Students` Learning. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 16-20.
Sarapuu & Adojaan,K.(1998).Evaluation scale of educational web sites.
Schriver, K. (1989). Evaluating text quality: The continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 32(4), 238-255.
Shee, D. Y., & Wang, Y.S. (2008). Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-learning system: A methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Computers & Education, 50(3), 894–905.
Smith, A. G. (1997).Testing the surf: criteria for evaluating Internet information resources. Public Access-Computer Systems Review, 8(3).
Sweeney, M., Maguire, M., & Shackel, B. (1993). Evaluating user-computer interaction: a framework. International journal of man-machine studies,38(4), 689-711.
Tsai, W. H., Chou, W. C., & Lai, C. W. (2010). An effective evaluation model and improvement analysis for national park websites: A case study of Taiwan.Tourism Management, 31(6), 936-952.
Udo, G. J., Bagchi, K.K., & Peeter J. K.(2011). Using SERVQUAL to assess the quality of e-learning experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1272-1283.
Van Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty`s priority theory. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 11(1), 199-227.
Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8(3), 289-308.
Wilkinson, G. L. (1997). Evaluation Criteria and Indicators of Quality for Internet Resources. Educational Technology, 37(3), 52-58.
World Economic Forum (2014). Global Information Technology Report 2014. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR/2014/GITR_OverallRanking_2014.pdf
Wurman, R. S. (1997). Information Architects. New York, NY: Graphis Press Corp.
Yang, Y. T. C., & Chan, C. Y. (2008). Comprehensive evaluation criteria for English learning websites using expert validity surveys. Computers & Education, 51(1), 403-422.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an Internet shopping site (SITEQUAL).
Yuan, Y. (1991). Criteria for evaluating fuzzy ranking methods. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 43(2), 139-157.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(2), 338-353.
Zaharias, P., & Poylymenakou, A. (2009). Developing a usability evaluation method for e-learning applications: Beyond functional usability. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 25(1), 75-98. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
學校行政碩士在職專班
101911016 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101911016 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [學校行政碩士在職專班] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 101601.pdf | 2506Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 422 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
