本研究針對台灣數位學習相關領域，對於數位學習使用效能測試實驗室之功能需求進行調查評估，旨在探討各大學相關系所、單位，數位學習產業以及政府相關單位等數位學習領域，對於使用效能評鑑之需求以及評鑑功能需求程度。
本研究以全台數位學習領域共189名研究對象進行問卷調查，並邀請兩位使用效能領域以及數位學習領域之專家進行訪談，歸納出數位學習相關領域與數位學習使用效能測試實驗室所能提供之評鑑功能的需求關係，以及各項評鑑方法的適合性，作為未來實驗室運作之建議。「數位學習使用效能測試實驗室功能需求評估問卷」共發放189份，有效回收61份，回收率32.28%。
本研究結果顯示：
一、依據評鑑對象、目的、需求的不同，數位學習使用效能評鑑之評鑑功能及評鑑方法皆會視需求差異有所不同。
二、本實驗室應依據各個發展階段進行之數位學習使用效能評鑑功能，包括：學習者分析、學習內容分析、資源環境分析、競爭者分析、產品模型檢視、學習平台設計評鑑、學習者介面滿意度評鑑、互動性檢視與評鑑、介面易用性檢視與評鑑等九項功能。
三、根據問卷調查以及專家訪談之結果，對於評鑑功能之需求，就前期部分需求程度依序為(1)學習者分析；(2)學習內容分析；(3)資源環境分析；(4)競爭者分析。中期部份，需求程度依序為(1)介面設計撿視；(2)互動性檢視；(3)產品模型檢視；(4)競爭者分析。後期部份，需求程度依序為(1)介面易用性評鑑；(2)學習者介面滿意度評鑑；(3)互動性評鑑；(4)學習平台設計檢視；(5)競爭者分析。各領域分別之需求未產生明顯差異，唯一與專家意見有所差異處，認為「學習者介面使用效能評鑑」評鑑功能不適合用於此階段。
四、根據專家訪談結果的分析，數位學習產品發展前期適合進行專家檢視，以及目標對象之焦點團體、紙本雛型瀏覽等評鑑方法。中期以品雛型執行啟發式評鑑以及使用者測試，以放聲思考、焦點團體等評鑑方法收集資料。後期執行啟發式評鑑檢視成品，使用者測試與使用效能調查則綜合運用放聲思考、使用記錄、焦點團體、訪談、觀察、問卷、使用者回饋等評鑑方法。進行產品的修改時，則以使用者測試為主，透過使用記錄資料的分析以及使用者回饋，進行使用效能問題的發現與改善。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the needs of the functions of e-learning usability testing laboratory for the field of e-learning, e.g. related department and unit of university, and the appropriate evaluation methods.
189 questionnaires were sent to all the field of e-learning in Taiwan. There were 61returned and valid rate of return is 32.28%. This study also invited two experts who have a specialty in e-learning and usability research to have an interview. According to the result of the questionnaires and experts interview, the researcher generalized the needs relation of the field of e-learning and e-learning usability testing laboratory.
The conclusions of the research were summarized as follow:
1. To stand on the different targets, objectives or needs, the functions of e-learning usability evaluation will be variable depending on the needs.
2. The e-learning usability testing laboratory should implement the functions of usability evaluation base on different developing stages, including learner analysis, learning content analysis, resources and environments analysis, competitions analysis, prototype survey, evaluating the design of learning platform, learner evaluation for the satisfaction of the interface, interactions survey and evaluation, and, the survey and evaluation of the usability of interface.
3. According to the result of questionnaires and experts interviews, the needs of evaluative functions in earlier stage were ranked by importance as learner analysis, learning content analysis, resources and environments analysis, and competitions analysis. In middle stage, the functions were ranked by importance as interface design survey, interactions survey, prototype survey, and competitions analysis. In final stage, the functions were ranked by importance as evaluation of the usability of interface, learner evaluation for the satisfaction of the interface, interactions evaluation, learning platform design survey, and competitions analysis. All fields in e-learning have no obvious variation about the needs of functions. Only learner evaluation for the satisfaction of the interface arises different opinion between the experts and questionnaires. The experts suggested this function is not suitable in this stage.
4. According to the analysis of the result of experts interviews, in the earlier stage of the development of e-learning products suited the evaluation methods like “expert review”, and “focus group”, “paper walkthrough” for target user. In the middle stage, the suit evaluation methods will be “heuristic evaluation” and user testing based on “think aloud” and “focus group”. In the final stage, the suit evaluation methods will be “heuristic evaluation” and user testing based on “think aloud”, “logging actual use”, “focus group”, “interview”, “observation”, “questionnaires”, and “user feedback”. When the products need to be modified, the main evaluation methods will base on user testing, using “logging actual use” and “user feedback” to discover the usability problems and make advices.

第一章 緒論	1
第一節 研究背景與動機	1
第二節 研究目的與問題	3
第三節 名詞解釋	4
第四節 研究範圍與限制	5
第五節 研究預期貢獻	7
第二章 文獻探討	8
第一節 使用效能評鑑	8
第二節 數位學習之使用效能評鑑	33
第三節 使用效能測試實驗室	39
第四節 需求評估	48
第三章 研究方法	56
第一節 研究架構與流程	56
第二節 研究設計	58
第三節 研究對象	59
第四節 研究工具	61
第五節 研究資料處理與分析	63
第四章 研究結果	64
第一節 問卷調查結果分析	64
第二節 專家訪談結果分析	71
第三節 綜合分析	76
第五章 結論與建議	80
第一節 研究結論	80
第二節 研究建議	82
參考文獻	85
附錄一	數位學習使用效能測試實驗室功能需求評估問卷	90
附錄二	專家訪談大綱	95

表目錄
表 2-1-1 評鑑方法之區別與特質以及優缺點分析	13
表 2-1-2 使用效能評鑑方法	14
表 2-1-3 使用效能評鑑規劃以及支出列表	17
表 2-1-4 使用效能評鑑案例綜合整理	31
表 2-1-5 個案研究整理	32
表 2-2-1 數位學習課程發展流程	36
表 2-2-2 本實驗室數位學習使用效能評鑑功能	36
表 2-3-1 國外教育組織使用效能測試單位現況	42
表 2-3-2 國外一般組織使用效能測試單位現況	44
表 2-4-1 需求評估資料蒐集方式	53
表 2-4-2 需求評估資料蒐集方法整理比較	54
表 3-3-1 專家訪談資料	59
表 3-3-2 問卷調查列表	60
表 3-4-1 問卷效度考核專家名單	62
表 4-1-1 性別、年齡、工作年資、教育程度分佈情況	65
表 4-1-2 研究方向/工作業務內容分布情況	66
表 4-1-3 對「使用效能」的了解程度自評分析	67
表 4-1-4 對使用效能評鑑進行數位學習產品評鑑的需求程度分析	67
表 4-1-5 使用效能評鑑功能需求程度結果分析-數位學習產品設計發展「前期」階段	68
表 4-1-6 使用效能評鑑功能需求程度結果分析-數位學習產品設計發展「中期」階段	69
表 4-1-7 使用效能評鑑功能需求程度結果分析-數位學習產品設計發展「後期」階段	70
表 4-1-8 其他功能需求評估結果分析	70
表 4-2-1 專家訪談對象基本資料	71
表 4-2-2 前期階段使用效能評鑑功能需求程度分析	73
表 4-2-3 中期階段使用效能評鑑功能需求程度分析	73
表 4-2-4 後期階段使用效能評鑑功能需求程度分析	74
表 4-3-1 評鑑功能需求及差異情況	77
表 4-3-2 評鑑功能需求程度與評鑑方法整理	78

圖目錄
圖 2-1-1 學習曲線圖	9
圖 2-1-2 系統可接受度模型	11
圖 2-4-1 需求評估七階段	52

中文部份
何青蓉（1995）。需求評估概念的澄清與分析，成人教育雙月刊，23，41-46。
吳立雅、張文山、姜郁美（2005）。台灣大型醫院醫令資訊系統介面使用性評鑑之研究，醫療資訊雜誌，14(2)，37-50。
岳修平、呂姿儀、黃若詒（2008）。故宮E學園英文版數位學習網站之可使用性研究，臺灣圖書館管理季刊，4(2)，24-40。
徐新逸、施郁芬 (2004) 。數位學習課程發展作業流程參考手冊-專業版。教育部電子計算機中心發行。台北市: 教育部。
陳俊瑋（2006）。數位學習系統之設計原則研究-以故宮為例，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹。
黃如足（2002）。美術館網頁設計及使用性之研究，南華大學美學與藝術管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。
黃靜純（2003）。旅遊網站介面設計與使用性之研究─以「易遊網」為例，國立雲林科技大學視覺傳達設計研究所碩士論文，未出版，雲林。
楊美雪（1996）。由教學設計觀點論需求評估的模式與內涵。教學科技與媒體，26，29-35。
葉蕙蘭（1999）。淡江大學教師專業成長之需求評估研究。私立淡江大學教育資料科學學教學科技組碩士論文，未出版，台北。
管倖生、汪加麗（2002）。成功大學圖書館電子資源檢索介面使用性評估，國立成功大學圖書館館刊，9，12-32。
數位產業內容推動辦公室（2007）。2007台灣數位產業內容年鑑。2008年7月10日，取自http://www.digitalcontent.org.tw/dc_p5_2007.php#Scene_1
簡建忠（1994）。績效需求評估。台北：五南圖書出版公司。

西文部份
Ardito, C., Costabile, M. F., Marsico, M. D., & Lanzilotti, R. (2006). An approach to usability evaluation of e-learning applications. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(3), 270-283.
Axup, J. (1999). Usability frequently asked questions. Retrieved 08/18, 2008, from http://www.userdesign.com/docs/usability_faq.html
Bias, R. G., & Mayhew, D, J. (1991). Cost Justifying Usability. Academic Press, Inc.  Orlando, FL, USA
Burton, J.K. & Merrill, P.F. (1991). Need assessment: Goals, needs and Priorities. In Briggs, L. J., Guestafaon, K.,& Tillman, M. H.(eds.) Instructional design: Principles and applications(17-44). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publication.
Caplan, S. (1990). Using focus group methodology for ergonomic design. Ergonomics, 33(5) , 527–533.
Carroll, J. M., & Rosson ,M. B. (1987). Paradox of the active user. In Carroll, J. M. (Ed.), Interfacing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction.( 80-111). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cobus, L., Dent, V, F., & Ondrusek, A. (2005). How twenty-eight users helped redesign an academic library web site. Reference & User Service Quarterly, 44(3), 232-243.
Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., & Beale, R. (2004). Human-Computer Interaction (third ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Donald, E. J., Meiller, L. R., Lorna, C. M., & Gene, F. S. (1987). Needs assessment: theory and methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Univ. Press.
eLearn Magazine staff. (2001). Conference review: Notes from e-learning Special Interest Group (SIG) discussion at CHI 2001: Seattle, Washington, April 3, 2001. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/570000/566948/p3-staff.html?key1=566948&key2=8247643221&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=5622530&CFTOKEN=99244471
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology, Research and Development,47(4),47-86.
Fernando, I. S. (1995). Conducting needs assessments: a multidisciplinary approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Frydenberg, J. (2002). Quality Standards in eLearning: A matrix of analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(2). Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/109/189
Gaber, J. (2000). Meta-needs assessment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23(2),. 139-147.
Hayes, R. (1999). Exploring discount usability methods to assess the suitability of online course delivery products. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2),  119-134.
Henneman, R. L. (1999). Design for Usability: Process, Skills, and Tools. Information, Knowledge, Systems Management, 1(2), 133-144.
ISO 9241-11 (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT)s – Part 11 Guidance on usability.
ISO/IEC TR 9126 (2001). Software engineering –Product quality.
Janie, P. S. (1996). Needs assessments in public policy. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.
Jeffriess, R., Miller, J., Wharton, C., & Uyeda, K. M. (1991). User interface evaluation in the real world: a comparison of four techniques. In ACM(ed.), Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors and Computing Systems (CHI’91) (119-124). New Orleans, LA: ACM Press.
Jeng, J. (2005). What is the usability in the context of the digital library and how can it be measured? Information Technology and Libraries, 24(2), 47-56.
Karuppan, C.M. (2001). Web-based teaching materials: a user's profile. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy. 11,(2), 138-149.
Kaufman, R.A., Rojas, A.M. & Mayer, H.(1993). Needs assessment: a user’s guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Kim, S., Brock, D. M., Orkand, A., & Astion, M. L. (2002). Design implications from a usability study of GramStain-TutorTM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 595-605.
Krug, S. (2000). Don't Make Me Think! A common Sense Approach to Web Usability. Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN: Que.
Kruse, K. (May, 2000). Web rules: effective user interface design. Retrieved 08/12, 2008, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/may2000/may2000_webrules.html
Kukulska-Hulme, A. & Shield, L. (2004). Usability and Pedagogical Design: are Language Learning Websites Special?. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004 (4235-4242). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Macleod, M. (1996). Performance measurement and ecological validity. In P. W.　Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability　Evaluation in Industry (227-235). London, UK: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Manzari, L., & Trinidad-Christensen, J. (2006). User-centered design of a web site for library and information science students: heuristic evaluation and usability testing. Information Technology and Libraries, 25(3), 163-169.
Matera, M., Costabile, M. F., Garzotto, F., & Paolini, P. (2002). SUE inspection: an effective method for systematic usabilityevaluation of hypermedia. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A, IEEE Transactions on, 32(1), 93-103.
Mayhew, D. J. (1999). The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: A Practitioner's Handbook for User Interface Design. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
Nielsen, J. & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Empowering people (249-256). New York, NY: ACM.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Cambridge, MA: AP Professional.
Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability Laboratories: A 1994 Survey. Retrieved 07/08, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/papers/uselabs.html
Notess, M. (2001). Usability, user experience, and learner experience. Retrieved 07/28, 2008, from http://www.elearnmag.org
Parlangeli, O., Marchigiani, E., & Bagnara, S. (1999). Multimedia systems in distance education: effects of usability on learning. Interacting with Computers, 12(1), 37-49.
Preece, J. (1994). Human-computer interaction. Wokingham, UK: Addison Wesley, 
Preece, J. (2003). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interactive. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rossett, A. (1987). Training Needs Assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Education Technology Publication.
Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Shackel, B. (1990). Human factors and usability. In J. Preece & L. Keller (Eds.), Human-computer interaction (27-41). Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall.
Shackel, B. (1991). Usability－context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. In B. Shackel & S. Richardson (Eds.). Human factors for informatics usability (21-37). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Shneiderman, B. (2003). Designing the User Interface, Wokingham, UK: Addison Wesley.
Squires, D., & Preece, J. (1999). Predicting quality in educational software: evaluating for learning, usability, and the synergy between them. Int Comput 11(5), 467–483.
Stanton, N., & Baber, C. (1996). Factors affecting the selection of methods and techniques prior to conducting a usability evaluation. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability Evaluation in Industry (39-48). London, UK: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Stoltz-Loike, M., Morrell, R, W., & Loike, J D. (2005). Usability testing of BusinessthinkTM e-learning CD-ROMs with older adults. Educational Gerontology, 31(10), 765 – 786.
Tselios, N., Avouris, N., Dimitracopoulou, A.,& Daskalaki, S. (2001). Evaluation of Distance-learning Environments: Impact of Usability on Student Performance. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(4), 355-378.
Wentling, T, L. (2005). The relationship between computer attitudes, usability, and transfer of training in e-learning settings. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ,Champaign, IL.
Wong, B., Nguyen, T, T., Chang, E., & Jayaratna, N. (2003). Usability metrics for e-learning. Workshop on human computer interface for semantic web and web applications, Catania, Sicily, Italy, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, Germany, LNCS No: 2889, 235–252.
Zaharias, P. (2004). Usability and e-learning: the road towards integration. eLearn Magazine, 2004(6). Retrieved 09/19, 2008, from http://www.elearnmag.org