電子化學習意指藉由資訊科技的協助，讓使用者可以隨時隨地進行學習。由於此議題在研究上是一個嶄新的領域，過去在此方面的研究較為欠缺，因此本研究利用Triangulation法，結合質化與量化，透過深度訪談20位實務專家，並且針對394位目前正在使用電子化學習系統的使用者做實證，來探索目前推行電子化學習的關鍵成功因素。研究結果發現推行電子化學習之關鍵成功因素共六項（提升學習成效、提供課後服務、維持環境品質、建立互動機制、提供彈性學習、與滿足使用者需求）與成功電子化學習的衡量因素共四項（資訊即時完整、介面個人化、介面親和性、娛樂與互動）。
本研究並透過典型相關分析，發現當電子化學習愈能提升使用者的學習成效、提供課後服務與維持環境品質，與使用者認為該系統可成功提供即時完整的資訊、介面親和性、和娛樂與互動有相關的結果。另一方面，研究也指出當電子化學習愈能提供課後服務、建立互動機制與提供彈性學習，與學習者認為該系統具備介面親和性、和娛樂與互動的功能呈現相關。

Electronic learning (e-learning), through the use of information technology, facilitates users’ learning activities and allows them to learn anytime, from anywhere. Since this topic represents a brand-new field of research, existing studies are scarce. Accordingly, this study explores the critical success factors (CSFs) related to the current promotion of e-learning by making use of the Triangulation method, which combines both qualitative and quantitative methods, in-depth interviews with 20 practitioners, and empirical verification with 394 users currently enrolled in e-learning programs. The research results reveal a total of six e-learning CSFs (enhancement of learning performance, provision of after-class services, maintenance of environmental quality, establishment of an interactive mechanism, provision of flexible learning, and satisfaction of user needs) and a total of four measurement factors related to successful e-learning (real-time and complete information, personalized interface, interface friendliness, and entertaining and interactive functions).
By conducting canonical correlation analysis, this study discovers that when e-learning can better enhance users’ learning performance, provide after-class services and maintain environmental quality, there is a correlation with users who think the e-learning system can successfully provide real-time and complete information, interface friendliness, and entertaining and interactive functions. Similarly, the study also points out that when e-learning can better provide after-class services, establish an interactive mechanism and provide flexible learning, there is a correlation with learners who think the system possesses interface friendliness and entertaining and interactive functions.

1. Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., and Stair, R.M. (2000), “Research report: the evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy—an empirical assessment,” Information Systems Research, 11 (4), 418–430.
2. Alexander, S. (2001), “E-learning developments and experiences,” Education + Training, 43 (4/5), 240-248.
3. Assael, H. and Keon, J. (1982), “Nonsampling vs. Sampling Errors in Survey Research,” Journal of Marketing, 46 Spring, 114-123.
4. Boyd, H. W. Jr., WestFall, R. and Stasch S. F. (1989), Marketing Research: Text and Cases, 7th ed., Irwin, Homewood, Illinois.
5. Brinck, D. G. and Wood, S. D. (2002), Designing Web sites that work: Usability for the Web, Morgan Kaufmann Publishing, San Francisco.
6. Bryman, A. (1992), Quantity and Quality in Social Research, Routledge, London.
7. Burgess, R. G. (1993), Research Methods, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., London.
8. Cano-Garcia, F. and Hughes, E. H. (2000), “Learning and thinking styles: an analysis of their interrelationship and influence on academic achievement,” Educational Psychology, 20 (4), 413-430.
9. Churchill, G. A. Jr, Neil, M. F. and Orville, C. W. Jr (1974), “Measuring the job satisfaction of industrial salesmen,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11, August, 254-260.
10. Chyung, Y., Winiecki, D. J., and Fenner, J. A. (1998), A case study: Increase enrollment by reducing dropout rates in adult distance education, In Proceedings of the annual conference on distance teaching & learning, Madison, WI.
11. Compeau, D. R., and Higgins, C. A. (1995), “Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test,” MIS Quarterly, 19 (2), pp. 189–211.
12. Cook, J. and Smith, M. (2004), “Beyond formal learning: Informal community eLearning,” Computers & Education, 43 (1-2), 35-47.
13. Cresswell, J. W. (1994), Research design: qualitative & quantitative approaches, SAGE Publications, Inc.
14. Daniel, D. R. (1961), “Management information crisis,” Harvard Business Review, 39 (5), September-October, 111-121.
15. DeLone, W. H. and McLean, E. R. (2003), “The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 9-30.
16. Desanctis, G., Fayard, A.L., Roach, M., and Jiang, L. (2003), “Learning in Online Forums,” European Management Journal, 21 (5), 565–577.
17. Deshpande, R. (1982), “‘Paradigms lost’: On theory and method in research in marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (4), 101–110.
18. Downey, S., Wentling, R.M., Wentling, T., and Wadsworth, A. (2005), “The relationship between national culture and the usability of an e-learning system,” Human Resource Development International, 8 (1), 47-64.
19. Easingwood, C. J. and Storey, C. D. (1991), “Success factors for new consumer financial services,” International Journal of Bank Marketing, 9 (1), 3-10.
20. Easingwood, C. J. and Storey, C. D. (1993), “Marketplace success factors for new financial services,” Journal of Service Marketing, 7 (1), 41-54.
21. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research,” Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532–550.
22. Elly, L. R., and Jansak, K. E. (2000), Ten keys to quality assurance and assessment in online learning, Available at: World Class Strategies.com.
23. Emory, C. W. (1980), Business Research Methods, Revised Edition, Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
24. Forrester, G., Motteram, G., and Bangxiang, L. (2006), “Transforming Chinese teachers' thinking, learning and understanding via e‐learning,” Journal of Education for Teaching, 32 (2), 197-212.
25. Frank, M., Reichb, N., and Humphreysc, K. (2003), “Respecting the human needs of students in the development of e-learning,” Computers & Education, 40, 57–70.
26. Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W. and Swan, K. (2000), “Student satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses: principles and examples from the SUNY learning network,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4 (2), September available at: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol4_issue2/le/Fredericksen/LEfredericksen.htm. Accessed 6 April 2001.
27. Govindasamy, T. (2002), “Successful implementation of e-learning pedagogical considerations,” Internet and Higher Education, 4 (3/4), 287–299.
28. Hamid, A.A. (2001). e-Learning: Is it the “e” or the learning that matters?. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3-4), 311-316.
29. Henning, E. and Van der Westhuizen, D. (2004), “Crossing the digital divide safely and trustingly: how ecologies of learning scaffold the journey,” Computers & Education, 42 (4), 333-352.
30. Honey, P. (2001), “E-learning: a performance appraisal and some suggestions for improvement,” The Learning Organization, 8 (5), 200-202.
31. Horton, W. (2000), Designing web-based training: how to teach anyone, anywhere, anytime, NY: Wiley Computer Publications.
32. Ismail, J. (2002), “The design of an e-learning system beyond the hype,” Internet and Higher Education, 4 (3/4), 329–336.
33. Jonassen, D. H. (1995), Constructivism: implication for designs and delivery of instruction, NY: Scholastics.
34. Jones, N., and O'Shea, J. (2004), “Challenging hierarchies: The impact of e-learning,” Higher Education, 48 (3), 379-395.
35. Khine, M. S. and Lourdusamy, A. (2003), “Blended learning approach to teacher education: combining face-to-face instruction, multimedia viewing and online discussion,” British Journal of Educational Technology, 34 (5), 671–675.
36. Laurillard, D. (1996), “The educational challenges for teachers and learners,” Paper presented at Virtual University Conference, 24 May 1996, University of London, England.
37. Lee, J. K., and Lee, W. K. (2008), “The relationship of e-Learner’s self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-Learning environmental quality,” Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (1), 32-47.
38. Levy, Y. (2007), “Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses,” Computers & Education, 48 (2), 185-204.
39. Littlejohn, A. and Pegler, C. (2007), Preparing for Blended E-Learning: Understanding Blended and Online Learning, Routledge.
40. Mackey, T. P. and Ho, J. (2008), “Exploring the relationships between Web usability and students’ perceived learning in Web-based multimedia (WBMM) tutorials,” Computers & Education, 50(1), 386-409.
41. Maddux, C., Johnson, D., and Willis, J. (2001), Educational computing: Learning with tomorrow’s technologies, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn Bacon.
42. Martinez, R. A., Maria, M. del B. Herrero, M. H. P., and Nuno, A. S. (2007), “Psychopedagogical components and processes in e-learning. Lessons from an unsuccessful on-line course,” Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (1), 146-161.
43. Mason, R. (2001), “Time is the New Distance?,” An Inaugural Lecture, The Open University, Milton Keynes, 14 February. Webcast available at: http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/stadium/live/berrill/robin_mason.html
44. Menon, A. l, Bharadwaj, S. G., Adidam, P. T., and Edison, S. W. (1999), “Antecedents and consequences of marketing strategy making: A model and a test,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (2), 18–40.
45. Nielsen, J. (1993), Usability engineering, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
46. Nunnally, J. C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, NY: McGraw-Hill.
47. Olliver, J. (2004), “Twelve maxims for creating and sustaining a successful e-learning enterprise,” New Directions for Community Colleges, 2004 (128), 13-21.
48. Ong, C. S., Lai, J. Y., and Wang, Y. S. (2004), “Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies,” Information and Management, 41 (6), 795-804.
49. Pituch, K. A., and Lee, Y. K. (2006), “The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use,” Computers & Education, 47 (2), 222-244.
50. Porter, M. E. (1979), “How competitive forces shape strategy,” Harvard Business Review, 57 (2), 137-145.
51. Powers, S. M. and Mitchell, J. (1997), “Student perceptions and performance in a virtual classroom environment,” paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
52. Reaves, C. C. (1992), Quantitative Research for the Behavioral Science, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
53. Rockart, J. (1979), “Chief executives define their own information needs,” In: Harvard Business Review, March/April, 81-92.
54. Rosenberg, M. J. (2001), E-learning：Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age, NY: McGraw-Hill.
55. Rossman, M. H. (1999), “Successful online teaching using an asynchronous learner discussion forum,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3 (2), available at: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol3_issue2/Rossman.htm
56. Saade, R. G., He, X., and Kira, D. (2007), “Exploring dimensions to online learning,” Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (4), 1721-1739.
57. Schul, P.L.; Pride, W. M., and Little, T. L. (1983), “The Impact of Channel Leadership Behavior on Intrachannel Conflict,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (3), Summer, 21-34.
58. Selim, H. M. (2007), “Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models,” Computers & Education, 49 (2), 396-413.
59. Stern, P. C. (1979), Evaluating Social Science Research, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
60. Sulčič, V. and Lesjak, D. (2009), “E-Learning and Study Effectiveness,” Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49 (3), 40-47.
61. Trentin, G. (2004), “E-learning and the third age,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 21-30.
62. Trigwell, K. (1995), “Increasing faculty understanding of teaching,” in Wright, W.A. (Ed.), Successful Faculty Development Strategies , MA: Anker Publishing, Bolton, pp. 76-100.
63. Tsai, C. C. (2008), “The preferences toward constructivist Internet-based learning environments among university students in Taiwan,” Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (1), 16-31.
64. Tsai, C.C., and Kuo, P.C. (2008), Cram School Students' Conceptions of Learning and Learning Science in Taiwan,” International Journal of Science Education, 30 (3), 351-373.
65. Tull, D. S., and Hawkins, D. I. (1990), Marketing Research: Measurement and Method, 5th ed., Macmillan, New York.
66. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F.D. (1996), “A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test,” Decision Sciences, 27 (3), 451–481.
67. Wang, Y. S. (2003), “Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems,” Information & Management, 41, 75–86.
68. Wang, Y. S., Wang, H. Y., and Shee, D. Y. (2007), “Measuring e-learning systems success in an organizational context: Scale development and validation,” Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (4), 1792-1808.
69. Weller, M. J. and Mason, R. D. (2000), “Evaluating an open university Web course: issues and innovations,” in Asensio, M., Foster, J., Hodgson, V. and McConnell, D. (Eds), Proceedings of Networked Learning 2000, Lancaster, April, available: http://www-tec.open.ac.uk/tel/people/weller/martin/lancs.html
70. White, S. (2007), “Critical success factors for e-learning and institutional change—some organisational perspectives on campus-wide e-learning,” British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (5), 840-850.
71. Wu, J.H., Tennyson, R.D., Hsia, T.L., and Liao, Y.W. (2008), “Analysis of E-learning innovation and core capability using a hypercube model,” Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5), 1851-1866.
72. Zaltman, G. (1997), “Rethinking Market Research: Putting People Back In,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (4), 424–437.
73. Zaltman, K. L., and Heffring, M. (1982), Theory Construction in Marketing, N. Y.: John Wiley & Sons.
74. Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R.O., and Nunamaker, J.F. (2006), “Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness,” Information & Management, 43 (1), 15-27.