(3.238.174.50) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/20 22:56
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:王世文
研究生(外文):Wang, Shih-Wen
論文名稱:數位學習計畫之模糊評估
論文名稱(外文):Fuzzy Assessment of Digital Learning Program
指導教授:吳柏林吳柏林引用關係吳京玲吳京玲引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ber-Lin WuChing-Ling Wu
口試委員:張鈿富邱皓政林原宏游森期
口試委員(外文):Dian-Fu ChangHaw-Jeng ChiouYuan-Horng LinSen-Chi Yu
口試日期:2013-06-18
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立暨南國際大學
系所名稱:教育政策與行政學系
學門:教育學門
學類:教育行政學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:英文
論文頁數:79
中文關鍵詞:數位學習效益評估教育計畫模糊統計分析
外文關鍵詞:Digital learningEffectiveness evaluationEducation programFuzzy statistical analysis
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:317
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:111
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
研究目的:
這篇論文是分析評估數位教育計畫,用不同的研究方式瞭解執行教育計畫的複雜因素與過程。運用模糊方式分析數位學習教育計畫及認知發展的實證評估資料,研究結果用以論證計畫的效益與優點。
研究方法:
文章以探討模糊類別和隸屬度為開始,對模糊數、模糊模式、模糊中位數及其相關屬性的定義,並用3個結構式問卷和調查蒐集資料數據。在論文中探討3個主題:
1.運用模糊統計分析評估學生的運用電腦情況。
2.建構數位學習教育計畫評估指標。
3.數位學習教育計畫預期效益的評估。
研究結果:
研究發現學生使用電腦的時間大部分花在遊戲、交友與生活資訊,較少用於課業學習,這和國外的研究是一樣的。專家建構評估指標認為家長管理學生使用電腦最為重要。學生對於計畫預期效益的使用自由軟體感受差異性最大。
研究價值:
專案計畫評估系統的建構應包含現況調查、基層人員的認知與計畫目標,本研究多方面角度探討專案計畫的執行情況,未來可持續追蹤研究學生電腦設備應用情況,作為推動政策的參考資料。

Purpose:
This paper proposes an analytical method in assessment of Digital Learning Education Program. The different methods are better able to capture the intricacies and complexities of the nature and processes in acquiring education program than the traditional analysis. Empirical data on assessment of digital learning education policy and cognitive development are analyzed using the traditional and fuzzy analysis. The results are compared to demonstrate the effectiveness and advantages of the program.
Design:
Fuzzy categories and degree of membership are introduced first, followed by the definitions of fuzzy numbers, fuzzy mode, fuzzy median, and their relevant properties. Data were by collected by means of several structured questionnaires and field survey.
In this thesis, this study investigate three topics:
1. Fuzzy statistical analysis using computers.
2. Construct the Digital Learning Education Program evaluation indicators.
3. Assess the expected benefits of the government program text.
Findings:
Students who used the computer spent most of their time on games, personals and living information. Only a few used it for academic learning. This studying finding coincides with findings of foreign research papers. The experts who constructed the assessment indicators believe that parental management is the most important for managing students’ computer use. The students’ perceptions toward the expected benefits of Free Software use shows the greatest variations.
Value:
The Construction of the project program evaluation system should contain the status survey, the perceptions of the basic personnel, and the program objectives. Multi-faceted discussions of the project implementation situation were done. In the future, the students’ computer applications should continue to be tracked in order to serve as a reference for the promotion of policies.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Motivation and Purposes 4
1.3 Research Framework 8
1.4 Research Process 9
2. Literature Review 11
2.1 Digital Divide 11
2.1.1 Digital Divide Meaning and Causes 11
2.1.2 The Current Status of The Digital Divide Research 13
2.2 Performance Evaluation 15
2.2.1 Types of Evaluation Indicators 15
2.2.2 The Digital Divide Evaluation Indicators 15
2.3 Approaches on Statistical Analysis with Fuzzy Data 17
2.3.1 Overview of Fuzzy Theory 17
2.3.2 Apply Fuzzy Statistical for Evaluation Program Effectiveness 18
2.4 Commentary 22
3. Does the Digital Natives Technologies Really Help? 24
3.1 Method 24
3.1.1 Conceptual Framework 24
3.1.2 Study Object 25
3.1.3 Research Instrument 25
3.1.4 Measurements 26
3.1.5 Analytical Methods 26
3.2 Results 29
3.2.1 Usage type 30
3.2.2 Computer application 31
3.2.3 Computer equipment 32
3.3 Discussion 33
4. A Systematic Investigation on Efficiency for the Financial Support of Disadvantaged Education 35
4.1 Method 35
4.1.1 Conceptual Framework 35
4.1.2 Study Object 36
4.1.3 Research Instrument 37
4.1.4 Measurements 38
4.1.5 Analytical Methods 39
4.2 Results 41
4.2.1 The Relatively Fuzzy Numbers of Fuzzy Linguistic Measuring Scale 41
4.2.2 The Experts’ Judgment Opinion on Assessment Dimensions and Indicators 41
4.2.3 The Average Membership Functions, Defuzzification Values, and Weight Values of Various Dimensions and Indicators of Assessment Systems 43
4.3 Discussion 44
5. On Effectiveness Assessment of Reducing the Digital Divide Program Objectives 46
5.1 Method 46
5.1.1 Conceptual Framework 46
5.1.2 Study Object 47
5.1.3 Research Instrument 47
5.1.4 Measurements 48
5.1.5 Analytical Methods 49
5.2 Results 49
5.2.1 The Perceptions of Computer and Internet Equipment 50
5.2.2 Perception to the improvement of information literacy 52
5.2.3 Perception to using information for enhancing academic learning 53
5.2.4 Perception on using free software 54
5.3 Discussion 56
6. Conclusion and Suggestion 58
6.1 Conclusion 58
6.2 Suggestion 60
Reference 63
Appendix 69

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 A framework of research 8
Figure 1.2 The flowchart of research 10
Figure 3.1 Research framework to determine the help of digital natives 25
Figure 4.1 Assessment indicator structure 36
Figure 4.2 The Triangular membership functions diagram 1
Figure 4.3 Diagram of the distribution of the five scale triangular fuzzy membership functions of linguistic variables 40
Figure 5.1 Assessment indicator structure 47

List of Tables
Table 3.1 Descriptive statistics of samples 30
Table 3.2 Frequency analysis on school children using computer in a week 30
Table 3.3 Analysis on the activities school children often engage online 31
Table 3.4 Analysis on the statistics of gender regarding the activities student engage
online 31
Table 3.5 Analysis on the statistics of grades regarding the activities student engage
online 32
Table 3.6 Analysis on the statistics of parent’s interference regarding the activities 32
student engage online 32
Table 3.7 Analysis on the statistics of parent using computer regarding the activities
school children engage online 32
Table 3.8 Conditions of equipment with problems and fault 33
Table 4.1 Background of the eight experts 37
Table 4.2 The judgment opinion of the eight experts on converting the fuzzy 41
semantics into a triangular fuzzy value 41
Table 4.3 The eight experts’ judgment opinion on the degree of importance of the 42
four dimensions 42
Table 4.4 The eight experts’ judgment opinion on the twelve assessment indicators 43
Table 4.5 The eight experts’ judgment opinion on the degree of importance of performance assessment indicators 44
Table 5.1 Are you satisfied with the government-subsidized set of computer and Internet equipment? 48
Table 5.2 Descriptive statistics of samples 50
Table 5.3 The Perceptions of Computer and Internet Equipment 51
Table 5.4 Perception to the improvement of information literacy 52
Table 5.5 Perception to using information for enhancing academic learning 54
Table 5.6 Perception on using free software 55

Abdullah, L., & Jamal, N. J. (2010). Centroid-point of ranking fuzzy numbers and its application to health related quality of life indicators. International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, 2(8), 2773-2777.
Ahn, J. (2011). Digital divides and social network sites : Which students participate in social media? Journal of Educational Computing Research. 45(2), 147-163.
Andy, C. (2000). Mind the gap : The digital divide as the civil rights issue of the new millennium. MultiMedia Schools, 7(1), 56-58.
Bruno, G., Esposito, E., Genovese, A., & Gwebu, K. L. (2011). A critical analysis of current indexes for digital divide measurement. The Information Society, 27(1), 16-28.
Chang, D. f., Wu, J. L., Wu, H. Z., Ye, L. Q., & Zhou, W. J. (2008). Research of relevant international and regional organizations of education policy. Taipei, National Academy for Educational Research.
Chang, T. M. (2010). The impact of three-stage influence theory of technical factors on the success of social intervention: A case study of ICT-based poverty alleviation. Journal of Toko University, 5(1), 242-252.
Chen, C. H. (2011). A study on constructing performance evaluation indicators for the education bureau of county (city) government in Taiwan. Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development, 4(1), 1-24.
Chen, C. T., & Lin, C. S. (2008). A model for evaluation of employee performance based on computing with linguistic variables. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(1), 33-46.
Chen, W. C. (2007). A study on information education and digital divide in Taiwan. Journal of Cyber Culture and Information Society, 13, 193-228.
Cheng, J. W. (2008). The research of digital divide and its responses of education. School Administration, 56, 80-94.
Cheng, M. H. (2009). The study of performance indicators for Taipei’s community colleges: A bottom-up approach. Journal of Public Administration, 32, 105-142.
Chiou Wei, S. Z., & Chen, J. J.(2004). Re-exploring the phenomenon of digital divide a cross-cooutry comparison. communication and management research, 3(2), 1-29.
Chiu, Y. H., Jheng, Y. M., & Hsieh, T. Y. (2012) Using fuzzy delphi method and analytic network process in the development assessment of the cultural and creative industries park. Journal of Architecture, 80, 85-109.
Chong, H. Y., Adnan, H., & Zin, R. M. (2012). A feasible means of methodological advance from delphi methods : A case study. International Journal of Academic Research, 4(2), 247-253.
Chuang, Y. R., Hung, C. W., & Tsai, H. C. (2008). Developing digital divide indicators for elementary and secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration and Evaluation, 6, 1-26。
Chung, R. G., & Yang, P. W. (2006). To develop the evaluation indicators for effectiveness of corporate e-learning. Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(1), 123 -140.
Dijk, J. V. (2006). The network society: Social aspects of new media (sec ed.). CA: Sage.
Dijk, J. V., & Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19(4), 315-326.
Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1978). Operations on fuzzy numbers. International Journal of Systems Science, 9(6), 613-626.
Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1991). Fuzzy sets in approximate reasoning, part 1: Inference with possibility distributions, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 40, 143-202.
Executive Yuan Republic of China (2011). The survey report of 2011 individuals and households of the digital opportunity to. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from http://www.rdec.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=4074755&CtNode=12062&mp=100
Freeman, H. E., & Marian A. S. (1981). Evaluating and the uncertain ’80s. Evaluation Studies Review, 6, 1-23.
Gudmundsdottir, G. B. (2010). From digital divide to digital equity : Learners’ ICT competence in four primary schools in Cape Town, South Africa. International Journal of Education & Development using Information & Communication Technology, 6(2), 1-22.
Gunduz, H. B. (2010). Digital divide in Turkish primary schools : Sakarya sample. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology , 9 (1), 43-53.
Haan, J. d. (2004). A multifaceted dynamic model of the digital divide, IT & Society, 1(7), 66-88.
Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide : Differences in people’s online skill, First Monday 7(4). Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/links/pdf/introduction/0.26c.pdf
Huang, Y. F.(2003). Structuring performance evaluation indicators for government : An example of DOH. Journal of research and Evaluation , 27(5), 33-44.
Hung, C. L. (2005). Revelation for bridging the digital divide: Technology, community, and public policy by Lisa Servon. Mass Communication Research, 85, 191-197。
James, J. (2011). Are changes in the digital divide consistent with global equality or inequality? Information Society, 27(2), 121-128.
Juang, W. J. (2008). Performance measurement and indicator design: A methodological note. Journal of Public Administration, 29, 61-91.
Kastsinas, S. G., & Moeck, P. (2002). The digital divide and rural community colleges: Problems and prospects. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(3), 207-224.
Li, M. H., & Tseng, S. F. (2005). Redefining the digital divide and its measurement. Journal of Cyber Culture and Information Society, 9, 89-124.
Li, Y. B., & He, R. G. (2011). The use of internet to reduce the digital divide : Case study of e-learning partner, Taiwan Education Review, 670, 2-11.
Lin, C. H., & Lee, T. T. (2010). Promoting nursing competitiveness : Introduction to the digital divide. The Journal of Nursing, 57(1), 95-99.
Lin, Y. C., Lin Y. C., & Chao, H. C. (2011). The study of the influences of DOC in Remote Schools on students parents’ digital applications. International Journal on Digital Learning Technology, 3(3), 17-37.
Lin, Y. H., & Lin, S. J. (2009). Digital divides revisited : A process view of the acquisitions of information and communication technology (ICT) skills by the elderly. Journal of library and Information Science Research, 3(2), 75-102.
Lin, Y. H. (2002). The construction of fuzzy linguistic numbers for questionnaire and its empirical study for questionnaire and its empirical Study. Survey Research— Method and Application, 11, 31-71.
Lin, Y. L. (2005). School children’s internet use and gendered peer culture. Mass Communication Research, 82, 87-131.
Liou, C. D., & Lee, H. H. (2010). A study on the information literacy and digital divide of the teachers of compulsory education. School Administration, 66, 61-83.
Lowen, R. (1990). A fuzzy language interpolation theorem. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 34, 33-38.
Lycke, K. H. (2004). Perspective on quality assurance in higher education in Norway. Quality in Hingher Education, 10(3), 220-229.
Macrae, D. J. (1985). Policy indicators: links between social science and public debate. Chapel Hill, NC : University of North Carolina.
McClure, C. R. (1994). Network literacy : A role for libraries? Information Technology and Libraries 13(2), 115-125.
Meyer, M. W. (2002). Rethinking performance measurement : Beyond the balanced scorecard. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Modarres, A. (2011). Beyond the digital divide. National Civic Review, 100(3), 4-7.
Morris, J. P. (2011). A case study review of the implementation of the computers for pupils programme in a Birmingham secondary school. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 17-31.
Murrary, T. J., Pipino, L. L., & Gigch, J. P. (1985). A pilot study of fuzzy set modification of Delphi. Human Systems Management, 5, 76-80.
Nguyen, H. T., & Wu, B. (2006). Fundamentals of statistics with fuzzy data. New York: Springer.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. Cambridge University.
NTIA(1999). Falling through the net : Defining the digital divide. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/data
NTIA(2010). 21st century American’s progress towards universal broad and internet access. Retrieved February 17, 2011, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/data
NTIA(2011). Exploring the digital nation - computer and internet use at home. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/data
Odden, A., & Busch, C. (1998). Financing schools for high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oladokun, O., & Aina, L. (2011). ODL and the impact of digital divide on information access in Botswana. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6), 157-177.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001). Understanding the digital divide. Retrieved March 6, 2012, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/57/1888451.pdf
Pan, J. G., Tseng, S. F., & Lin, Y. F. (2009). Extensions of digital gini coefficient : Digital divides in Taiwan. Journal of Cyber Culture and Information Society, 16, 1-32.
Patrick, N., Mhlukanisi, S., & Athol, L. (2009). Exploring network literacy among students of St. Joseph’s theological institute in south africa. South African Journal of Library & Information Science, 75(1), 58-69.
Reinhart, J. M., Thomas, E., & Toriskie, J. M. (2011). K-12 teachers: Technology use and the second level digital divide. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(3), 181-193.
Ruspini, E. (1991). Approximate reasoning : Past, present, future. Information Sciences, 57, 297-317.
Sun, J. C.-Y., & Metros, S. E. (2011). The digital divide and its impact on academic performance. US-China Education Review A, 2a, 153-161.
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 159-170.
Tseng, S. F., & Wu, C. I.(2002). A study of digital divide in Taiwan. Report of research, development and evaluation commission, Executive Yuan. Retrieved March 31, 2012, from http://www.rdec.gov.tw/mp100.htm
U.S. Department of Commerce (2002). A nation online : How americans are expanding their use of the internet. Retrieved February 18, 2012, from http://www.digitale-chancen.de/transfer/downloads/MD222.pdf
UNESCO (2006). Global monitoring report, Summary. Paris : The Author.
Wang, G. Z., Ke, B. S., & Cheng, L. H. (2012). Construction of equitable digital opportunity, Journal of research and Evaluation, 36(6), 80-89.
Wang, S. W., Chang, D. f., & Wu, B. (2010). Does the digital natives technologies really help? A fuzzy statistical analysis and evaluation with students’ learning achievement. International Journal of Innovative Management, Information & Production, 1(1), 18-30.
Wei, W. L., & Chang, W. C. (2005). A study on selecting optimal product design solution using fuzzy delphi method and analytic. Journal of Design, 10(3), 59-79.
Wholly, J. S. (1981). Using evaluation to improve program performance. Evaluation Studies Review, 6, 55-69.
Wu, B. L. (2000). Modern statistics. Taipei City : Chien Chen.
Wu, B. L. (2005). An introduction to fuzzy statistics. Taipei City : Wu Nan.
Wu, B. L., & Hsieh, M. C. (2012). Practice of market survey-questionnaire design and analysis of the research. Taipei City: Shin Lou.
Yeh, C. C., Weng, S. L., & Wu J. H. (2007) A study comparing the Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method. Survey Research- Method and Application, 21, 031-058.
Yeh, J. R. (2006). Digital divide in Taiwan : Challenges, opportunities, and strategies. Journal of research and Evaluation, 30(1), 3-16.
Yu, P. T., & Lai, Y. S. (2010). Bridging the digital divide in Rural Area. International Journal on Digital Learning Technology, 2(3), 61-82.
Zadeh, L. A. (1999). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338-353.
Zeng, F. (2011). College Students perception of the second-level digital divide : An empirical analysis. Asian Social Science, 7(6), 42-50.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔