由於資訊科技日新月異和網際網路的發達，使人類學習新知識的方式也產生了改變，透過數位學習，學習者可以不受時間、空間的限制，隨時隨地上網進行學習。因此，本研究以Q方法為研究方法，蒐集過去所有學者所提出的數位學習關鍵成功因素，整理出三十四個Q直述句，想要了解從事數位學習的教師，對於數位學習關鍵成功因素的主觀看法有何不同，研究結果發現九位受測的教師可分成三類：
    第一類的教師注重「教材呈現方式」，認為數位學習的教材必須以生動活潑的方式呈現，這樣才能引起學生的學習動機去進行學習。除了教材設計之外，他們也很注重師生間的互動，其認為藉由師生間的頻繁互動，教師可以了解學生的學習情形並適時的調整教材內容。
    第二類的教師則是注重教材的內容，其認為要有好的教材才能使數位學習成功，因此他們強調教師需精心編製教材，並且根據教學內容設計相關的討論問題，學生學習完教材內容後，針對討論議題做回應，了解自身對於所學知識的理解程度。
    第三類的教師注重「學習平台的穩定性」以及「易於使用性」，由於所有的教學活動都是在平台上進行，因此其認為平台必須要非常穩定，這樣學生才能擁有良好的學習環境；除此之外，學習平台也必須容易使用，這樣才可以避免學生因為不熟悉平台的操作而影響其學習。

Thanks to the technology advancement and the rapid growth of internet, people have changed their methods of learning. Students can learn through internet in any time without time and locational limitation by taking e-learning courses. Therefore, this study uses Q methodology as the main research method, reviewing the relevant literature of e-learning critical success factors, developing 34 Q statements. The main intention of this study is to investigate teachers’ subjective view of e-learning critical success factors. The research result shows that nine teachers can be separated by three categories:
    Type one’s teachers focus on the ways of course materials displayed; In order to inspire students’ motivation for learning, they think course materials must be displayed in an animation way. In addition to the attractive course content, they also keep an eye on the interaction between students and teachers. Teachers not only can know the students’ learning outcome but also can adjust the course content by interacting with students frequently.
    Type two’s teachers focus on the course content; they consider that well-designed course content can make e-learning courses success. Therefore, they emphasize the delicacy course content and design relevant discussing questions. After students finished the course content, they can answer the discussing questions and understand how well they absorb the knowledge of course materials.
    Type three’s teachers focus on the steadiness of learning platform and ease of use. Thanks to all of teaching activities conduct on the learning platform; they think stability is very important for providing great learning environment. Moreover, learning platform also must be ease of use. It can decrease the negative effects of learning outcome.

第1章	緒論1
1.1	研究背景與動機1
1.2  研究目的3
1.3  研究流程3
第2章	文獻探討5
2.1  數位學習5
2.2  數位學習關鍵成功因素12
2.3  教學風格18
第3章	研究方法21
3.1  Q方法簡介21
3.2  研究流程：24
3.3  Q方法的進行步驟：25
3.4  Q直述句與P樣本27
3.5  教學風格量表33
3.6  WEBQ網站操作38
3.7  PQMETHOD分析工具40
第4章	資料分析44
4.1 教學風格分析44
4.2  Q類型分析46
第5章	結論與建議56
5.1  研究結論56
5.2  研究限制59
5.3  未來建議60
參考文獻	61

表目錄
表2-1數位學習的定義5
表2-2同步與非同步優缺點比較表10
表2-3數位學習與傳統學習方式比較10
表2-4數位學習與傳統學習方式比較11
表2-5數位學習關鍵成功因素構面與變數16
表2-6教學風格定義18
表3-1 Q排序表22
表3-2 Q方法與R方法比較表23
表3-3 Q直述句的發展-教師面29
表3-4 Q直述句的發展-學生面30
表3-5 Q直述句的發展-科技面31
表3-6 Q直述句的發展-學校支援面32
表3-7 成人學習量表34
表4-1 主成分因素分析44
表4-2 因素負荷量與背景資料45
表4-3類型一 最佳化排列46
表4-4 類型一 最重要與最不重要Q直述句47
表4-5 類型一與其他類型分歧句48
表4-6 類型二 最佳化排列49
表4-7 類型二 最重要與最不重要Q直述句50
表4-8 類型二與其他類型分歧句51
表4-9 類型三 最佳化排列52
表4-10 類型三 最重要與最不重要Q直述句53
表4-11 類型三與其他類型分歧句54
表4-12 三個類型的共識句55

圖目錄
圖1-1研究流程圖4
圖2-1數位學習演進圖7
圖2-2數位學習發展歷程9
圖3-1 研究流程圖24
圖3-2 WEBQ畫面38
圖3-3 Q直述句-分類39
圖3-4 Q直述句-排序40
圖3-5 PQMETHOD進入畫面41
圖3-6 Q直述句輸入41
圖3-7 Q排序結果輸入42
圖3-8 因素分析43
圖3-9 因素轉軸43

中文部分
資策會講師群 (民92)。數位學習最佳指引。台北市：資策會教育處。
游光昭 (民92)。電子化學習與企業教育之關係探討。T&D飛訊 (7)，1-8。
岳修平(民93)。數位學習的教學形式與學習平台。
陳年興、楊錦潭 (民95)。數位學習理論與實務。博碩文化。
張明敏 (民90)。網路教學網站之營運策略與關鍵因素之探討。國立彰化師範大學商業教育學系碩士論文。
許淑華 (民91)。國民小學級任教師教學風格與班級氣氛之相關研究。臺中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
數位學習國家型計畫 http://teldap.tw/Introduction/introduction_2_6.php
英文部分
Arbaugh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with Web-based courses: An exploratory study of two MBA programs. Management Learning, 33, 231–247.
Aitkin, M., & Zuzovsky, R. (1994). Multilevel interaction models and their use in the analysis of large-scale school effectiveness studies. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 45–73.
Anderson, H. H., & Brewer, H. M. (1945). Studies of teachers' classroom personalities. Applied Psychology Monographs. Stanford University.
Brouwer, M. (1999). Q is accounting for tastes. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(2), 35-39.
Benigno, V., & Trentin, G. (2000). The evaluation of online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 259–270.
Bower, B. L., & Donovan, N. C. (2007). Teaching Styles of Community College Instructors. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, 21(1), 37–49.
Brown, S. R. (1993). A Primer on Q Methodology, Operant Subjectivity, 16(3), 91-138.
Brown, S. R. (1980). Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brown, S. R., D. Durning, & S. C. Selden. (1998). Q Methodology. In Handbook of Data Analysis and Quantitative Methods in Public Administration, edited by G. J.
Miller and M. L. Whicker. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Chanchaem, N. ( 2001). The transformation of teaching approach from a face-to-face classroom to an online classroom. Ph.D. diss., University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Conti, G. J. (1978). Principles of adult learning scale: An instrument for measuring teacher behavior related to the collaborative teachinglearning mode. Ed.D. diss., Northern Illinois University, Dekalb.
———(1979). Principles of Adult Learning Scale. ERIC, ED 179 713.
——— (1983a). Analysis of scores on Principles Of Adult Learning Scale for part-time faculty and recommendations for staff development activities. ERIC, ED 235355.
——— (1983b). Principles of Adult Learning Scale: Follow-up and factor analysis. ERIC, ED 228424.
———( 1985). The relationship between teaching style and adult student learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(4), 220–228.
———(1989). Assessing teaching style in continuing education. New Directions for Continuing Education, 43, 3–16.
Dillon, C. L., & Guawardena, C. N. (1995). A framework for the evaluation of telecommunications-based distance education. Paper presented at the 17th Congress of the International Council for Distance Education, Open University, Milton Keynes.
Darkenwald, G. G., & S. B. Merriam. (1998). Adult education: Foundations of effective practice. New York: Harper and Row.
Dupin-Bryant, P. (2000). Identifying teaching styles of interactive television instructors and variables related to distance education teaching style. Ph.D. diss., University of Wyoming, Laramie.
Dennis, K. E. (1986). Q methodology: Relevance and application to nursing research. Advances in Nursing Sciences, 8(3), 6-17.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: should they ... can they ... be matched? Educational Leadership, 36, 238-244.
Ebenezer, J. V., & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward science teaching and school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 175–186.
Fan, W., & Ye,S. (2007).Teaching Styles among Shanghai Teachers in Primary and Secondary Schools. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 255–272
Flanders, N. A. (1960) Teacher influence, pupil attitudes, and achievement.
Fischer, B. B. & Fischer, L. (1979). Styles in teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 36, 245-254.
Freund, Y. P. (1988). Critical success factors. Planning Review, 16(4), 20–25.
Gregorc, A. F. (1979b). Learning/teaching styles: Their mature and effects. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.)
Ingram, H., Biermann, K., Cannon, J., Neil, J., & Waddle, C. (2000). Internalizing action learning: a company perspective. Establishing critical success factors for action learning courses. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(2), 107–113.
Job, V. E., & Gjalt, d. G. (2005). Q methodology: A sneak preview.
Kendall, J. E., & Kendall, K. E. (1993). Metaphors and Methodologies: Living Beyond the Systems Machine, MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 149-171.
Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1993). The information age confronts education: case studies on electronic classroom. Information Systems Research, 4(1), 24–54.
Lewin,K., Lippit,R., & White,R.K.(1939). Patterns of Agressive Behaviour in Experimen-tally created social climates, Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (2006).Teacher characteristics and teaching styles as effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practice .Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1–21.
Papp, R. (2000). Critical success factors for distance learning. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA. 
Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age.
Rozalia, G. M. (2008). Practical examples concerning application of the Q factor analysis for marketing data.
Schlinger, M. J. (1969). Cues on Q-technique. Journal of Advertising Research, 9(3),  53-60.
Stephenson, W. (1974). "Methodology of single case studies.," Journal of Operational Psychiatry, 2, 3-16.
Stephen, T. D. (1985). Q-methodology in communication science: An introduction. Communication Quaterly, 33, 193-208.
Selim, H. M., (2007) Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance:Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49, 396–413.
Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & education, 50(4), 1183-1202.
Soong, M. H. B., Chan, H. C., Chua, B. C., & Loh, K. F. (2001). Critical success factors for on-line course resources. Computers & Education, 36, 101-120.
Stephenson, W. (1935). "Technique of Factor Analysis," Nature, 136, 297.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, D. M., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Q-SORTING AND MIS RESEARCH: A PRIMER. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 141-156.
Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. The International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216–223.
Webster, J., & Hackley, P. (1997). Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated distance learning. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1282–1309.
Wentzel, K. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73, 287 – 301.
Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute.
Wu, J., Tsai, R. J., Chen, C. C., & Wu, Y. (2006). An integrative model to predict the continuance use of electronic learning systems: Hints for teaching. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(2), 287-302.