本研究的目的是探討台灣網站瀏覽量排名前三的資訊科技網站，教學內容是著重在知識分類的哪些部分，以及在教法上如何設計。本研究以T客邦、iThome與重灌狂人三間資訊科技網站作為研究樣本，抽樣2017年至2019年4月期間的教學文章進行內容分析，並將各類目進行相關性分析。
研究結果顯示，三間網站都是以呈現技術性知識為主。學習者對於知識的追求較注重學習實際操作的方式。重灌狂人網站呈現的事實性知識與原理性知識比重高於其他網站，達到與其他網站的市場區隔。T客邦與iThome網站注重呈現技術性知識，兩者是較相似的網站。從教法上來看，抽樣的三間網站都是以科技的教學方式為主要教學模式。資訊科技網站的教學者，目前偏向以教導單一學科的方式進行教學。iThome網站在教法上的比例與其他網站有區隔，T客邦與重灌狂人網站在教法上注重以科技為單一學科的教學方式。
雖然研究結果統計出，資訊科技網站在教法上，大多以科技和科學為主，雖然無法將每個學科都做跨學科式教學，但是可以朝向將兩個或三個學科的教法做深入結合。教學者必須注意的是，設計教材時應該要設計跨學科式的教材內容，讓學習者學習到跨學科的知識如何去運用。平台管理者可以注意現今著重在呈現技術性知識，以及教法上以科技為主要教學方法，這種方式是否妥當。也可以檢視網站的教學風格與風氣，是否有基本的教學方式去滿足大多數學習者的需求。在知識的呈現和教法上，能不能找到屬於自己特有的市場定位。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the IT websites, which e-learning websites were top three in Taiwan. Furthermore, their teaching contents focused on the knowledge presentation and subjects of the learning material. In this study, the content analysis and the correlation analysis were used to analyze teaching contents on techbang.com, iThome.com and briian.com from Jan.1, 2017 to Apr.30, 2019.
The results from this study showed that the three e-learning websites were mainly based on the know-how. Learners paid more attention to learn the way they actually operated for the practices. Both techbang.com and iThome.com focused on the know-how, and the above two websites were similar. The proportions of both know-what and know-why sentences in briian.com were higher than the other websites and that was helpful to identify their unique value by their learners or build their brand in the e-leaning websites. From the perspective of learning subjects, the three websites were based on the “science” and “technology.” The teachers on the e-learning websites only focused on the “science” and “technology.” Both techbang.com and briian.com were mainly based on the “technology” but iThome.com was different from the other websites.    
Although the results showed that the e-learning websites were mostly based on science subject and technology subject, it seemed that e-learning websites were seldom to deliver STEM teaching material, even instructor would try to design inter-subject teaching material. Teachers had to design the interdisciplinary contents as teaching materials. Then, learners could catch how to apply the interdisciplinary knowledge in life. Website managers had to focus on know-how which they provided and make sure if it was appropriate or not. Also, Website managers need to check the learning subjects of the websites to meet the needs of the target learners. Based on these results, understanding what kind of knowledge was needed and what subjects were appropriated for their users were critical to manage the unique, attractive and useful e-learning website.

目錄
第一章　緒論 1
第二章　文獻探討 5
2.1 數位學習 5
2.2 STEM教育 7
2.3 知識 11
第三章　研究方法 16
3.1 資料收集程序 16
3.2 樣本 17
3.3 內容分析 19
3.3.1 編碼 19
3.3.2 信度 22
第四章　研究結果 24
4.1 知識類目分析 24
4.2 STEM類目分析 27
4.3 總體類目分析 30
4.4 相關性分析 32
第五章　結論 35
5.1 研究發現的意義 35
5.2 總結 37
5.3 研究貢獻 39
5.4 研究限制 40
參考文獻 41
附錄 46

表目錄
表 2‑1：知識的分類 12
表 3‑1：線上教學網站特色與介紹 18
表 4‑1：T客邦網站知識類目及STEM類目的相關性分析 32
表 4‑2：iThome網站知識類目及STEM類目的相關性分析 33
表 4‑3：重灌狂人網站知識類目及STEM類目的相關性分析 34

圖目錄
圖 4‑1：T客邦網站的知識類目，其四個類別百分比 24
圖 4‑2：iThome網站的知識類目，其四個類別百分比 25
圖 4‑3：重灌狂人網站的知識類目，其四個類別百分比 26
圖 4‑4：T客邦網站的STEM類目，其四個類別百分比 27
圖 4‑5：iThome網站的STEM類目，其四個類別百分比 28
圖 4‑6：重灌狂人網站的STEM類目，其四個類別百分比 29
圖 4‑7：三間教學網站的知識類目比較 30
圖 4‑8：三間教學網站的STEM類目比較 31

1. 王石番。(1989)。傳播內容分析法－理論與實證。臺北市: 幼獅文化。
2. 朱立群。(2017)。108國教課綱的創新設計 用STEM翻轉台灣教育。未來Family，25。取自https://gfamily.cwgv.com.tw/content/index/8125
3. 余勝泉、胡翔。(2015)。STEM 教育理念與跨學科整合模式。開放教育研究，4，13-22。
4. 林奇賢。(1998)。網路學習環境的設計與應用。資訊與教育，67，34-50。
5. 邱美虹。(2016)。科學模型與建模：科學素養中的模型認知與建模能力。臺灣化學教育，11。 
6. 林吟霞、王彥方。(2009)。情境學習在課程與教學中的運用。北縣教育，69，69-72。
7. 范斯淳、游光昭。(2016)。科技教育融入 STEM 課程的核心價值與實踐。教育科學研究期刊，61(2)，153-183。
8. 陳志祥。(2006)。網路教學之探討。網路社會學通訊期刊，58。取自http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/58/58-15.htm
9. 張振亨、陳思亮。(2014)。數位學習 (E-Learning) 的認識與應用。
10. 彭安麗。(2004)。組織知識管理能力之研究--社會資本的觀點。國立政治大學公共行政研究所博士論文，台北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/j6z9hm
11. 曾家宏、邱鈺雅。(2017)。智慧學習產業產值調查報告。經濟部工業局。
12. 數位學習國家型科技計畫。(2002)。取自https://reurl.cc/dYN02
13. 劉清華。(2004)。教師知識的模型建構研究。中國社會科學出版社。
14. 應方淦、高志敏。(2007)。情境學習理論視野中的成人學習。開放教育研究，13(3)，10-13。
15. 顏春煌。(2015)。數位學習(第三版)--觀念、方法、實務、設計與實作。碁峰資訊。
16. 蘇以青、柯薰貴、劉雅瑛。(2008)。課室教學與數位學習兩種學習模式的比較-學習者之主觀經驗。高雄護理雜誌，25(1)，8-21。 doi:10.6692/KJN-2008-25-1-2

1. Avery, Z. K., & Reeve, E. M. (2013). Developing effective STEM professional development programs. Journal of Technology Education, 25(1), 55-69. 
2. Bartholomew, S. (2015). who teaches the" STE" in STEM?. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(2), 14-19. 
3. Beckman, T. (1997). A methodology for knowledge management. IASTED, Canada： Banff.
4. Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. The Technology Teacher, 64(1), 6-8.
5. Conley, M., Douglass, L., & Trinkley, R. (2014). Using inquiry principles of art to explore mathematical practice standards. Middle Grades Research Journal, 9(3), 89-101.
6. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Press.
7. Devlin, K. (2003). Mathematics: The Science of Patterns. New York: Scientific American Library.
8. Enying, L., Yushan, Z., & Jianhua, W. (2012). Developing students' engineering concepts with learning module aids. In 2nd International STEM in Education Conference.
9. Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127-141.
10. Grubbs, M., & Strimel, G. (2015). Engineering design: The great integrator. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 50(1), 77-90. doi: doi.org/10.30707/JSTE50.1Grubbs
11. Guha, A. S., & Maji, S. (2008). E-learning: the latest spectrum in open and distance learning. Social Responsibility Journal, 4(3), 297-305. 
12. Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM Initiative: Constraints and Challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(1), 96-122. 
13. International Technology and Engineering Education Association (ITEEA). (2007). Standards for technological literacy (STL): Content for the study of Technology (3rd ed.). Reston; VA: Author.
14. Jackson, J., Charleston, L., & Gilbert, J. (2014). The use of regional data collection to inform university led initiatives: The case of a STEM education SWOT analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 15(1), 11-19.
15. Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 151-185.
16. Kanninen, E. (2008). Learning styles and e-learning. Tampere: Tampere University of Technology, 1, 5-29. 
17. Kelley, T. R. (2010). Staking the Claim for the 'T' in STEM. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 2-11.
18. Kelley, T. R. (2012). Voices from the Past: Messages for a STEM Future. Journal of Technology Studies, 38(1), 34-42. 
19. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1).
20. Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioural research (3rd), New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
21. Lamberg, T., & Trzynadlowski, N. (2015). How STEM academy teachers conceptualize and implement STEM education. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 1(1), 45-58.
22. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
23. Li, B. (2009). The use of e-learning in pre-service teacher education. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(2), 132-136. 
24. Lin, J. Y., Lee, A. S., Chen, C. W., & Hooper, H. H. J. (2010). A Study on Cognition Design in Interface Usability of E-Learning Websites. The International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 3(1), 72-90.
25. Little, B. (2012). The rise and rise of do-it-yourself e-learning. Training & Management Development Methods, 26(3), 13-18. 
26. Lundvall, B.-Å. (2011). From the economics of knowledge to the learning economy. New York, NY: Anthem Press.
27. Martin, E. R., & Webb, D. (2001). Is e-learning good learning? In B. Brook & A. Gilding (Eds.). The ethics and equity of e-learning in higher education (pp. 49–60). Melbourne Australia: Victoria University.
28. McNeil, J.D. (1990). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. Glenview, Ill: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education.
29. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
30. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
31. Nickols, F. (2000). What is ‘in the world of work and working’? Some implications of the shift to knowledge work. In Cortada, J. W., & Woods, J. A.(Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook (pp. 3-11). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
32. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford university press.
33. OECD(1996). The knowledge-based economy. General distribution OECD/GD(96)102. Paris: Author.
34. Ong, C. S., Lai, J. Y., & Wang, Y. S. (2004). Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information & management, 41(6), 795-804.
35. Quinn, J. B. (1992). Intelligent enterprise. New York: Free Press.
36. Rosenberg, M. J., & Foshay, R. (2002). E‐learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. Performance Improvement, 41(5), 50-51. 
37. Smith, G., & Ferguson, D. (2005). Student attrition in mathematics e-learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 323-334. 
38. Standards, N. G. S. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
39. Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (2004). Hitotsubashi on knowledge management. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons (Asia).
40. Turban, E., King, D., Viehland, D., & Lee, J. (2006). Electronic commerce 2006: a managerial perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
41. Williams, D. L. (2007). The What, Why, and How of Contextual Teaching in a Mathematics Classroom. Mathematics Teacher, 100(8), 572-575.
42. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (1994). An introduction to mass media research. California: Wadsworth.