1 9834 2 1-26

1

2 3 31

9 7 2 6 2 3 1 7 4 3

2

2002 No Child Left Behind Act, U.S. Department of Edu-cation, 2002

2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, U.S. Department of Education, 2004

1998

2001200120012001

2001 2003 2002

200220062004

2005

Educational Resource CenterInstructional Resource CenterLearning CenterSchool Library Media Center

Loertscher1988

1998

1835

3

1960 1969

Standards of School Media Program

American As-sociation of School Librarians & Association for Educational Communications and Technology, AASL & AECT, 1998

19901998

Prostano Prostano1987

2001

Myerberg 2002

2003

199919961999AASL & AECT, 1988, 1998

1998

2000

1999

Special Education Regional Resource Centers, SERRCFederal Resource Center for Special Education,

FRC

1.

4

2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.

1.

16

2.

2006

2008Holzer & Kim, 2007 2000 200 West, 2008

3.

International standards organization, ISO SC36 2005 ISO19796

American Society of Training and De-velopment, ASTD, 2003 E-Learning Courseware Certification, ECC

V3.0

2007

2003

content interface design

accuracyobjectivity purpose/applicability scope/coverage authority/redibi-litycurrency

aesthetics multimedia effect structureaccessibilityinteractivitytransmissionlink/navigation

West, 2008 200 20022004 2005

96%82%77%75%18%24%50%

30%17%

5

/

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1999 v v v v v v v v v v v

1999 v v v v v v v v v

2000 v v v v v v v v v v v v

2001 v v v v v v v v v v v

2001 v v v v v v v v v v v

2001 v v v v v v v v v v v v

2001 v v v v v v v v v v

2001 v v v v v v v v v v v

2001 v v v v v v v

2002 v v v v v v v v v

2002 v v v v v v v v v

2002 v v v v v v v v v v

Dragulanescu 2002 v v v v v v v v v v

Turner 2002 v v v v v v v v v v v v

2003 v v v v

2003 v v v v v v v

2003 v v v v v v

ASTD 2003 v v v v v v v v v v

Kent & Taylor 2003 v v v v v v v v

2005 v v v v v v v v v v v

2007 v v v v v v v v v v v v

Bykzkan & Ruan 2007 v v v v v v v v v

Holzer & Kim 2007 v v v v v v

West 2008 v v v v v v v

2008 v v v v v v

25 11 9 16 14 21 19 20 21 21 21 19 15 23

44 36 64 56 84 76 80 84 84 84 76 60 92

6

57%16%4%

99%88%42%54%

Email 32%

14%

Holzer & Kim, 2007 11.95 207.58

5.8 /4.49 3.55

Usability

Content

Service

/ Privacy & Security

Citizen Par-

ticipation

OECD OECD Member Countries

13.64 10.15 8.33 7.74 5.14

Overall Average Scores

11.95 7.58 5.8 4.49 3.55

OECD Non-OECD Member Countries

11.08 6.27 4.51 2.84 2.74

Holzer & Kim (2007). Digital governance in municipalities worldwide 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007,

from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ASPA/UNPAN022839.pdf, p40.

31

2008 2 2008 8

7

1

10 52 2 6 26 3 7

39

2

18 2 21 1

12 34% 0.83~0.85 0.80

General-izability Theory

G-study

12 22 2

p ir G 0.79Nunnally, 1978 20 Webb, Rowley, & Shavelson, 1988D-study34 22 1 G 0.73 0.72 0.70

1.G-study

2T

2s2m2e 11.2%

22.6%

31.9%26.2%

0.0%

6.4%1.7%

2.D-study

0.79

8

12 0.1573 234 0.26630.34630.4075 4 56 0.45580.4950 5

1234 1 2 0.4558 0.5311 3 4 0.5620 0.5789

34 22 0.80G 0.8333 0.8226

SERC G

p 11 0.0990260 0.0990260 0.0492209 11.2% i 21 0.2003804 0.2003804 0.0781331 22.6% r 1 0.0 0.0 0.0013234 0.0% pi 231 0.2832054 0.2832054 0.0385209 31.9% pr 11 0.0151515 0.0151515 0.0101281 1.7% ir 21 0.0566870 0.0566870 0.0224910 6.4% pir 231 0.2320937 0.2320937 0.0215031 26.2%

SERC D

p i r G

12 1 1 0.15731 0.11170 12 2 1 0.26632 0.19791 12 3 1 0.34631 0.26646 12 4 1 0.40751 0.32228 12 5 1 0.45584 0.36860 12 5 2 0.53111 0.42647 12 5 3 0.56204 0.45002 12 5 4 0.57890 0.46280 12 6 1 0.49498 0.40767 12 22 2 0.79380 0.73273 20 22 1 0.70848 0.69446 20 22 2 0.80576 0.78885

20 22 3 0.84440 0.82628 34 22 1 0.73609 0.72712

34 22 2 0.83330 0.82257 34 22 3 0.87167 0.86022 34 22 4 0.89221 0.88036

20 G 0.80 4 G 2 G 34 22 2 G 0.83 0.82

9

2002

1.

9 47

1

2 3 4

2.

6 33

1 2 3 4 6

3.

7 48

1 2 3 4 7

SPSS 12.0

1.

2.

3.

GENOVACrick & Brennan, 1983

1.

2.

1.0

2.7

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2.6 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.7 3.3 2.7

0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9

6 8 7 3 2 3 8 3 1

1.0~1.4 1.5~2.4 2.5~3.4 3.5~4.0

2.6

87.1%16.1%

1.61.3%

2.29.0%

3.61.3%

4.71.0%

67.7%

6.4% 5.87.1%

6.48.4%

38.7%16.1%

7.16.1%

9.7% 12.9% 3.2%

2.4

90.3%

16.1% 1.32.3%

2.90.3%

3.54.8%

4.29.0%

5.16.1%

6.29.0%

7.45.2%

11

8.9.7%

2.5

54.8%29.0% 1.1

1.41.9%

2.54.8%

3.29.0%

4.29.0%

2.7

51.6% 32.3% 1.1

1.51.6%

2.32.3%

3.38.7% 4.45.2%

2.8

67.7%

54.8% 41.9% 19.4%

1.2 1.67.7%

2.61.3% 3.54.8%

2.7

83.9% 9.7%

1.83.9%

2.48.4%

12

3.48.4% 4.9.7%

Q & A

5.67.7%

6.67.7%

7.61.3%

8.3.2%

2.4

74.2%

9.7% 1.64.5%

2.61.3%

29.0% 25.8% 16.1%

3.61.3%

4.25.8%

5.74.2%

6.9.7%

2.7

90.3% 9.7% 38.7%

32.3% 9.7% 1.1

1.71.0%

2.90.3%

3.58.1% 4.32.3%

5.9.7%

6.51.6%

7.25.8%

3.3

87.1%

13

41.9% 1.87.1%

2.80.6%

3.41.9%

4.80.6%

5.65.4%

1.0

3.2

1 2 3 4 5 6

4.0 4.0 2.4 3.0 3.1 2.7 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.1 1 1 6 4 3 5 1.0~1.4 1.5~2.4 2.5~3.4 3.5~4.0

1.2.3. 100%

100% 1.2.3.

4.

2.4

96.8%

1.

71.0%

2.96.8%

3.

71.0% 4.

14

0%

3.0

100%

58.1% 1.

100% 2.

74.2% 10

3.58.1%

4.

64.5%

3.1

100% 61.3%

51.6% 16.1% 1.2

1.61.3%

2.100%

3.74.2%

4.

74.2% Google Yahoo

2.7 80.6%

19.4%1.1

1. 51.6%

2.

80.6%

3.58.1%

4.

58.1%

5.

19.4%

6.67.7%

15

7. 32.3%

8.3.2%

1.0 3.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4.0 2.3 3.9 2.3 1.7 3.6 3.5 3.0

0.0 1.1 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.7

1 5 2 5 7 3 4

1.0~1.4 1.5~2.4 2.5~3.4 3.5~4.0

4.0

77.4% 1.

100% 2.100%

3~7

3.96.8% 4.96.8% 5.

77.4%

6.96.8%

2.3

96.8%

9.7%

38.7% 1.1

1.96.8%

16

2.

29.0%

3.

51.6%

4.

9.7%

5. 15 41.9%

3.9 100%

2~5

58.1% 1.

100.0%

2.64.5%

3.100.0% 4. 2~5

100.0% 2~5

losing in hyperlink 5.

90.3%

6.

58.1%

7.22.6%

2.3 100%

0% 1.

100% 2.

74.2%

3.

35.5%

4.

93.5% Windows Office PDF

17

5./6.5%

/ 6.

0.0%

7.16.1%

1.7

32.3% 6.5%

1. 32.3%

2.25.8%

3.

25.8% 4.

22.6% 5.

6.5%

3.6

10 100%

51.6% 1.

10 100.0% 1M/64K

10 2.93.5%

3.45.2%

4.

93.5%

5.

51.6%

6.3.2%

3.5 96.8%

38.7%

1.87.1%

Yahoo!Google

2. 67.7% tpmr School of Taipei Mental Retardation

18

3.87.1%

4.

90.3%

5.

38.7% 6.

96.8%

7.9.7%

G

22.6%11.2%

West2008 Holzer & Kim2007

1.

100%

100%12

71% 64%4 63%

1

358%667%

75% 2.

100%77%

19

62~81%29%9%18~24%

100%64%54~82%100%6%57~62%

16%16~18%32%21~42%

100%90%82%38%

West, 2008

Holzer & Kim, 2007

1. 100%

2. 100% 96%

3.

(3)

71%

(4)

0%

14%

63% 13% 26% 64% 21%

4.

(1)

100%

96%

(1)

5.

(1) 61%

(2) 100%

2002

77% 2002

77%

(2)

6.

(3) 58%

(5) 19%

(6) 67%

Email 32% 2005 75%

1.

(1) 100%

(2) 100%

(5)

77%

/2005

81%, 62%

(1) (2)

2.

(1) 29%

(2) 9%

18% 24%

20

3. (1) 100% (2) 64% (3) 100% (4)2~5

100%

75% 2002

54%

52% 82% 70%

(1) (3) (4)

4. (1) 100% (5) 6% (6) 0% (7)

16%

17% 99% 57% 30% 16%

20% 26% 62% / 47% 18% TDD Phone11%

(1)

5. (1) 32% (5) 6.5%

Email 88% 42%

34% 21%

6. (1) 100%

50%

(1)

7. (1) 90% (5) 38%

2002

82%

West (2008): Global E-government 2008, pp.3-10

Holzer & Kim (2007): Digital governance in municipalities worldwide 2007, p56, 63, 72, 79, 88

21

G-stydy

22.6%

11.2%

D-study

34 22 2 G 0.83 0.82

2.9

3.2 3.0

2.7

31 5

16.1%20 64.5%6 19.4%

22

/

9.7%

23

200240(2)186-197

2002 2005

20082009

2008 6 23 http://cyberfair.taiwan schoolnet.org/rubrics.asp

1999

1990

31(4)25-29

2003

20062007 8 13 http://www.a-site.nat.gov. tw/knowledge94.html

1999

1835-48

1999

4344-50 1996

110-116

2001

1998

383-13 1999

43

33-43 2003

16(1)

413-440 2001

2001

1998

2002

1999

2007

V3.02009 3

24

8 http://www.elq.org.tw/ in-dex.aspx

2003Kano's model

2002

2006

2004

2003

10(2)245-262 2003

6325-34

2001e 15C

2008 6 4 http://mol.mcu. edu.tw/show.php?nid=113#

2001

2000

13219-238 2005

2001

American Association of School Librarians &

Association for Educational Communica-tions and Technology (1988). Information power: Guidelines for school library media programs. Chicago: American Library Asso-ciation.

American Association of School Librarians & Association for Educational Communica-tions and Technology (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago: American Library Association.

American Society of Training and Development (2003). E-learning courseware certification. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from http://www. astd.org/.

Bykzkan, G., & Ruan, D. (2007). Evaluating government websites based on a fuzzy mul-tiple criteria decision-making approach. In-ternational Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 15(3), 321-343.

Crick, J. E., & Brennan, R. L. (1983). Manual for GENOVA: A generalized analysis of vari-ance system. Iowa: American College Test-ing Program.

Dragulanescu, N. G. (2002). Website quality evaluations: criteria and tools. International Information & Library Review, 34(2), 247-254.

Holzer, M., & Kim, S. T. (2007). Digital govern-ance in municipalities worldwide (2007)- A longitudinal assessment of municipal web-sites throughout the world. New York: United Nations Public Administration Net-work.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Retrieved October 30, 2007, from http://frwebgate. ac-

25

cess.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108 cong public laws&docid=f:publ446. 108.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2003). Maximizing media relations: A Web site checklist. Public Relations Quarterly, 48(1), 14-18.

Loertscher, D. V. (1988). Taxonomies of the School Library Media Program. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Myerberg, H. (2002). School libraries: A design recipe for the future. Knowledge Quest, 31(1), 11-13.

No Child Left Behind Act, U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Retrieved October 25, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/ leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: Mc Graw Hill.

Prostano, S., & Prostano, J. S. (1987). The school library media center. Littleton, CO: Libraries

Unlimited. Turner, S. (2002). The HEP test for grading web

site usability. Computers in Libraries, 22(10), 37-39.

Webb, N. M., Rowley, G. L., & Shavelson, R. J. (1988). Using generalizability theory in counseling and development. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Develop-ment, 21, 81-90.

West, D. (2008). Improving Technology Utilization in Electronic Government around the World, 2008. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/re-ports/2008/0817_egovernment_west/0817_e

government_west.pdf.

2008.12.21 2009.06.02

26

Bulletin of Special Education 2009, 34(2), 1-26

An Evaluation of the Website Quality of Special Education Resource Centers in Taiwan

Chou Yen-Chun Teacher, Hu-Shan Elementary School

Lin Chien-Hui Professor, Dept. of Special Education,

National Changhua University of Education

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the website quality of Special Education Resource Centers (SERC) in Taiwan. Three dimensions were included in the evaluation checklist: (1) enrichment of the website, (2) quality of the content, and (3) quality of the design. This study selected 31 SERC websites from different counties and cities as evaluation targets. A self-developed Special Education Resource Centers Website Qual-ity Checklist was used to evaluate Taiwans SERC website quality. The results of this study were as follows: (1) Enrichment of website (a total of 9 items): The websites previewing, related services, interaction, laws, training programs, downloading and up-loading, and resource linkage were deemed sufficient. Its information and materials were deemed insufficient. (2) Quality of website content (a total of 6 items): The websites ,accuracy and objectivity were deemed excellent; its authority, scope, and currency were deemed satisfactory. Its purpose was rated as fair. (3) Quality of website interface design (a total of 7 items): The websites aesthetics, structure, transmis-sion, and linking were deemed excellent; its multimedia effects, accessibility, and in-teractivity were deemed fair. The overall website quality of Taiwans SERC was found to be satisfactory. Keywords: Special Education Resource Centers, website content, website evaluation,

website interface design, website quality

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False

/Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice