邱貴發 博士康瑜芳2019-08-292008-7-242019-08-292008http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22GN0693080100%22.&%22.id.&http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/92904　　本研究從社會網路分析（Social Network Analysis）角度研究台北市國中資訊組長之資訊科技實務分享網路及資訊科技融入教學諮詢網路。每一個網路有「獲得」及「回饋」兩個面向，從七個社會網路分析指標進行分析，包括密度、可達性、相互性、中心性、中介者角色、結構洞、子群組。 　　本研究訪談台北市39位國中資訊組長，使用UCINET 6及Pajek 1.19進行資料分析。結論如下： 1.資訊組長之資訊科技實務分享網路明顯大於資訊科技融入教學諮詢網路。 2.在資訊科技實務分享網路與資訊科技融入教學諮詢網路中，「獲得」網路明顯大於「回饋」網路。 3.資訊科技實務回饋網路密度越高，資訊組長學校任教年資越高。 4.教育網路中心於資訊科技實務分享網路與資訊科技融入教學諮詢網路中的中介功能不多。The aim of this research is to analyze the technology practice-sharing networks and ICT integration-consulting networks of technology coordinators at junior high school in Taipei using Social Network Analysis. Each network has two dimensions – the receiving dimension and the giving dimension. Seven social network indexes, density, reachability, reciprocity, centrality, brokerage roles, structural holes and sub-groups were applied to understand the social networks among technology coordinators.. This research interviewed 39 technology coordinators of junior high school in Taipei. Data were analyzed by UCINET 6 and Pajek 1.19. 1.Technology practice-sharing network is obviously larger than ICT integration-consulting network in seven social network indexes. 2.Receiving network is larger than giving network in both technology practice-sharing network and ICT integration-consulting network. 3.The higher the technology practice-giving network density, the higher the school seniority of technology coordinators. 4.The local education network center did not play a significant brokerage role in both technology practice-sharing network and ICT integration-consulting network.社會網路分析資訊組長資訊科技融入教學資訊科技實務經驗Social Network AnalysisTechnology CoordinatorsICT IntegrationTechnology Practice