民國93年台灣微軟委託中華民國資訊管理學會研究調查全國高中職、國中小之資訊通訊設備與資訊教育實施現狀，主要是以個別學校的數據統計分析全國資訊設備與環境情形。有鑑於教育部推動縮短數位落差、資訊教育補助是以地方縣市政府為單位，因此本研究引用前份調查之次級資料以縣市別進行資訊教育資源分析，期望能深入了解全國各縣市間之資訊教育資源落差情形，以作為政府相關單位推動資訊教育政策與經費補助之參考。 本研究之主要目的：(1)依據次級資料分析影響資訊教育資源之重要變數，並建構以全國高中職、國中小資訊教育資源衡量模式；(2)以資訊教育資源衡量模式為基礎，分析縣市別資訊教育資源之落差程度；(3)進行縣市別的資訊教育資源之分群，並與現有相關調查研究，進行資料比較分析，以瞭解國內現況與本研究之異同處，以及可能造成差異之原因，並提出建議。 本研究之結果顯示：(1)由次級資料分析影響資訊教育資源之重要變數除「班級數與電腦教室間數之密度」與縣市別無顯著相關外，其餘22項皆為重要變數；(2)縣市別之資訊教育資源落差分析方面，台北市之資訊教育資源衡量綜合指數排序第一，但是在資訊設備之密度構面排名17，亦即在學生人數與電腦教室之電腦密度、班級數與全校單槍投影設備密度等方面可以再加強。連江縣資訊教育資源衡量綜合指數排序最後，但是在資訊設備之密度構面排名卻是第一與台北市形成強烈對比；(3)資訊教育資源之分群，以台北市、嘉義市為資訊教育資源之優勢區，台中市、高雄市、新竹市、台南市、桃園縣、台北縣為資訊教育資源之次級優勢區，連江縣為資訊教育資源之劣勢區，其餘縣市皆為資訊教育資源之待加強區。最後，本研究再與收集彙整之各縣市資訊教育政策資料比較，顯示資訊教育資源優勢區與次級優勢區之縣市，其資訊教育政策實施項目比資訊教育資源待加強區與劣勢區之縣市較為活躍，亦即各縣市之資訊教育資源的強弱有反應在資訊教育政策實施項目多寡的現象。 期望綜合運用本研究之各縣市資訊教育資源各構面指數與綜合指數、群組構面指數平均值與各縣市資訊教育政策等，能作為未來從事我國資訊教育資源研究，以及教育部與縣市政府對於資訊教育政策與實施方案研擬之參考。

In 2004, Microsoft Co., Taiwan entrusted Chinese Society of Information Management (CSIM) to conduct a research project to investigate the information education environment in Taiwan. The objective of this study is to analyze information education resources in Taiwan. Data was collected using surveys with subjects from elementary schools, junior high schools, senior high schools and vocational schools, and from a previously CSIM-conducted survey study. The Ministry of Education (MOE) of Taiwan has funded the municipal governments at country and city levels to narrow the divide of information education resources. The MOE could base on the findings of this research project to formulate educational policies. This study has multi-fold purposes. The first is to extract key factors found in the previously CSIM-conducted survey findings. A model to evaluate the current information education resources is proposed based on these identified key factors. The second is to quantify the divides of information education resources between countries and cities based on this model. The third is to run a comparative study with the objective of clustering 25 countries and cities into distinctive groups. This research discovers that "the density of number of classes divided by the number of computer classrooms" does not vary significantly across countries and cities. Twenty-two factors related to information education resources are identified and deemed important. Taipei is ranked in the top position with respect to information education resources. However, this city is in the 17th place in the category of the density of information equipment. "The density of number of students divided by the number of computers in computer classrooms" and "the density of number of classes divided by the number of projector" are two weak areas that Taipei needs to further improve. In contrast, the Lianchiang Hsien County is ranked in the lowest place with respect to the information education resources, but in the first place in the density of information equipment. The clustering analysis classifies cities into four categories-"advantage area", "secondary advantage area", "strengthening area", "inferior area". Taipei and Chiayi fall into the "advantage area." Taichung, Kaohsiung, Hsinchu, Tainan, Taoyuan Hsein, Taipei Hsien fall into the "secondary advantage area." Lianchiang Hsien is the only county in the "inferior area." The other counties and cities belong to the "strengthening area." This study also compares the clustering results with the degree of execution of the proposed information education policies at the local governmental levels-counties and cities. The results indicate that local governments in the "advantage" and "secondary advantage" areas have completed more of the proposed policies than local governments in the other two clustering areas. The degree of execution of the proposed information education policies may have contributed to the divide of information education resources in elementary, junior high, senior high, and vocational schools of Taiwan. The MOE Taiwan and the municipal governments at the county and city levels can use the findings of this study as a reference to propose information education policies in the future.