







































 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation of the Development Level of 

Information and Communications Technology 

in Education Based on the Entire-Array-

Polygon Indicator Method: Taking the 

Questionnaire Survey Data of 13 Cities in 

Province W as an Example

Danxia Xing, Chun Lu 

 
Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, Hubei, China

Abstract. The objective assessment of the development level of infor-

mation and communications technology (ICT) in education can support 
the government in formulating and implement ICT policies. The article 

first introduced the Entire-Array-Polygon (EAP) indicator method and 

then designed an evaluation indicator system which containing five first 
indicators and 31 secondary indicators. Finally, using the questionnaire 

survey data of 13 cities in Province W as an example, the EAP indicator 
method was used to carry out on the evaluation of ICT development lev-

el. The study drew the following conclusions: EAP indicator method can 

objectively assess the development level of ICT; the overall development 

level of ICT in the 13 cities in Province W is average and above, and 

most of them are level II. When using the EAP indicator method to as-
sess the development level of ICT, experts do not need to determine the 

indicator's weight. Also, this method presents the evaluation results 

more concisely and intuitively, so it can be promoted as an essential 
method of evaluating on the development level of ICT in education. 

Best Evidence in Chinese Education 2021; 7(2):987-997. 

Doi: 10.15354/bece.21.ar013. 

How to Cite: Xing, D. & Lu, C. (2021). Evaluation of the development level of in-

formation and communications technology in education based on the entire-array-

polygon indicator method: Taking the questionnaire survey data of 13 cities in prov-

ince W as an example. Best Evidence in Chinese Education, 7(2):987-997. 

Keywords: Information and Communications Technology; ICT in Education; De-

velopment Level; Entire-Array-Polygon Indicator Method



Xing & Lu. Development Level of Information and Communications Technology in Education. 

Vol.7, No.2, 2021 988 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

About the Authors: Danxia Xing, Ph.D. candidate, National Engineering Research Center for E-Learning, Central 

China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, Hubei, China. Email: xingdanxia613@163.com. 

Correspondence to: Chun Lu, Associate Professor, Educational Informationization Strategy Research Base Minis-
try of Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, Hubei, China. Email: luchun_et@163.com. 

Funding: This work was supported by the National Educational Science "13th Five-Year Plan" key project "Artifi-
cial Intelligence and Future Education Development Research" (project number: ACA190006). 
Conflict of Interests: None. 
 

© 2021 Insights Publisher. All rights reserved. 

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea-

tive Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-

nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided 

the original work is attributed by the Insights Publisher. 



Xing & Lu. Development Level of Information and Communications Technology in Education. 

Vol.7, No. 2, 2021 989 

Introduction 

HE evaluation of ICT is an important of the development of ICT in Education, 

runs through the entire its construction process and is an essential guarantee for 

its healthy and orderly development (Xu et al., 2018). Through the evaluation, 

the implementation of related planning and policies can be clarified, and then the prob-

lems in the process can be found, which provides a basis for its formulation of the next 

stage of planning and resource allocation (Wu et al., 2017). The evaluation of its devel-

opment level is a multi-attribute comprehensive assessment. Its purpose is to assess the 

status quo of ICT development, clarify development needs, and provide a basis for de-

veloping development plans or goals for the next stage. The evaluation process is com-

plicated, and the objects involve educational administrative departments, schools, 

teachers, and students (Wu et al., 2018). 

The main methods for its evaluating on the development level include the Ana-

lytic Hierarchy Process and the Delphi method (Lv & Ke, 2020; Yin et al., 2020). How-

ever, in using these methods to evaluate on its development level, the determination of 

indicator weights is subjectively arbitrary, which leads to deviations between the evalu-

ation results and the actual situation. This study introduces the EAP indicator method 

into the ICT development level evaluation in response to the above problems. 

Entire-array-polygon (EAP) indicator method is an objective, comprehensive 

evaluation method. There is no need to subjectively determine each indicator’s weight 

value in the evaluation process, which can reduce subjective factors’ influence on the 

evaluation results and make the evaluation results more objective and accurate (Wu et 

al., 2005). Also, this method presents the evaluation results more concisely and intui-

tively. There are both single index value and comprehensive index value, which is con-

venient to reflect the evaluation object’s comprehensive status objectively. This study 

uses the questionnaire survey data of 13 cities in Province W as an example and uses 

this method to evaluate the development level of ICT. It is expected to reference Prov-

ince W’s relevant departments to formulate ICT development plans or goals. 

EAP Indicator Method 

The EAP indicator method is a comprehensive evaluation of the object evaluated based 

on the relationship between the upper limit, critical value, and lower limit of the evalua-

tion index value. And then realize the vertical and horizontal comparison of the same 

index or dimension (Kosajan et al., 2018). The basic idea is as follows: Suppose there 

are a total of n indicators (standardized values), and use the upper limit value of these 

indicators as the radius to construct a central n-sided polygon whose vertices are a full 

array of n indicators connected end to end. There are a total of n indicators that can 

form (n-1)!/2 irregular central n-sided polygons. The comprehensive index is defined as 

the ratio of the mean value of the area of all irregular polygons to the area of the central 

polygon. 

T 



Xing & Lu. Development Level of Information and Communications Technology in Education. 

Vol.7, No. 2, 2021 990 

Standardization of Indicators 

The standardization of the indicators can be realized by the hyperbolic function f(x), as 

shown in formula (1). Among them, a, b, and c are the parameters of f(x). 

 

     
      

   
         (1) 

 

According to the above conditions, the hyperbolic standardized function F(x) 

can be obtained, as shown in formula (2). Among them, U represents the upper limit of 

indicator x, L represents the lower limit of indicator x, T represents the critical value of 

indicator x (usually the mean value), F(x) satisfies F(L) = -1, F(T) = 0, F (U) = 1. F(x) 

maps the index value between L-U to between -1 and 1. The growth rate after the map-

ping has changed: when it is lower than the critical value, the standardized growth rate 

gradually decreases; when it is higher than the critical value, the standardized growth 

rate gradually increases. 

 

     
          

                   
         (2) 

 

According to the EAP indicator method’s basic idea, each indicator needs to be 

standardized before calculating the comprehensive index. The standardization process 

of indicator xi is shown in formula (3). Si is a standardized value of the indicator, and Ui, 

Li, and Ti are the maximum, minimum, and average values of the indicator xi, respec-

tively. 

 

   
              

                             
  (3) 

 

Comprehensive Index Calculation 

After the indicators are standardized, the total index S value can be calculated by the 

formula (4). Si is the i-th indicator value, Sj is the j-th indicator value (i ≠ j), and n is 

the number of indicators. According to the basic idea of the EAP indicator method, S’s 

value is between [0, 1], and the larger the value of S, the better. 

 

  
             

   
   

       
 (4) 

 

Based on the EAP indicator method’s quartile classification standard, the ICT 

development level can be divided into four levels: I, II, III, and IV, which represent ex-

cellent, good, fair, and poor, respectively in Table 1. 

 



Xing & Lu. Development Level of Information and Communications Technology in Education. 

Vol.7, No. 2, 2021 991 

Table 1. ICT in Education Development Level Classification. 

Level I II III IV 

S Value [0.75, 1.00] [0.50, 0.75) [0.25, 0.50) [0.00, 0.25) 

Qualification Excellent  Good Fair Poor 

 

 

 

 

Design of ICT in Education Development Level Eval-

uation Indicator System 

This research follows scalability, accessibility, and comprehensiveness and has de-

signed an evaluation indicator system of ICT development level. The formation process 

is as follows: 

(i) Construction of Core Indicator System. Based on the development strategy needs 

of China’s “ICT Ten-Year Development Plan (2011-2020)”, “ICT 13th Five-Year 

Plan” and other documents and its exact requirements for core indicators, it refers 

to the typical foreign School Technology and Readiness Chart (STaR) , the Self-

Review Framework (SRF) and ICT application maturity model (Texas Education 

Agency, 2006; BECTA, 2009; Solar et al., 2013). This study proposed a core indi-

cator system of ICT with 32 indicators in five dimensions: ICT infrastructure, digi-

tal resources, ICT usage, ICT management, and guarantee mechanisms (Wu, et al., 

2014). 

(ii) This study supplemented ICT development level evaluation’s scalability indicators 

based on this ICT core indicator system, combined with the current research status 

of ICT development level evaluation in domestic and overseas. Taking the eastern 

Province S as an example, research on ICT performance evaluation at the district 

and county level was carried out (Lu et al., 2015). 

(iii) According to the development requirements of the ICT 2.0 stage, the core indicator 

system will be further improved. Based on the expanded core indicator system, 

combined with the requirements of Province W’s 2019 related policy documents, 

this research organizes experts, education management leaders, school ICT man-

agers, and frontline teachers to focus on the availability and comprehensiveness of 

individual indicators discussion. 

This study has constructed an evaluation indicator system of its development 

level with five primary indicators and 31 secondary indicators through the above steps. 

It is used to evaluate the development level of ICT in Province W (Wu et al., 2020), as 

shown in Table 2. 

The Evaluation Case of ICT in Education Develop-

ment Level Based on EAP Indicator Method 



Xing & Lu. Development Level of Information and Communications Technology in Education. 

Vol.7, No. 2, 2021 992 

Table 2. ICT in Education Development Level Evaluation Index System. 

First-Level 
Index 

Secondary 
Indicators 

Infrastructure 1. Proportion of multimedia classrooms 

2. Proportion of schools with innovative laboratories 

3. Average number of terminals per 100 students 

4. Number of teaching information terminals held by teachers 

5. Percentage of schools connected to the Internet 

6. Proportion of schools with full coverage of wireless networks in schools 

Digital 
Resources 

7. Proportion of schools with digital resources supporting disciplines 

8. Proportion of schools with a school-based resource database 

9. Proportion of schools with online space 

10. Percentage of students who have opened a student online learning space 

11. Percentage of teachers who have opened teacher online learning space 

12. Proportion of schools connected to the public service platform of provincial education 
resources 

Teaching 
Application 

13. Proportion of schools with normalized application of school cyberspace 

14. Proportion of schools with all classes able to use digital education resources 

15. Proportion of schools that can use information technology to teach and achieve daily 
routines 

16. The proportion of teachers who frequently use multimedia teaching resources in teach-
ing 

17. Average utilization rate of multimedia classrooms 

18. The average number of lessons per teacher in the past year 

Management 
Informatization 

19. Proportion of schools with normalized application of management information system 

20. Proportion of schools carrying out the application of basic data of management infor-
mation 

21. Proportion of schools that use school-level public service platforms to release infor-
mation 

22. Proportion of schools with cyber security systems 

23. Proportion of schools with full coverage of the campus by the security monitoring system 

24. have a school proportion cartoon 

25. School informatization funds accounted for the proportion of education funds in the 
same period 

Guarantee 
Mechanism 

26. Proportion of schools with school-level leaders in charge of informatization construction 

27. The proportion of teachers who participated in school-based information training in the 
past year 

28. Proportion of schools where school leaders participate in informatization training at or 
above the provincial level 

29. Percentage of schools with full-time teachers of information technology courses 

30. Proportion of schools with full-time informatization personnel 

31. Proportion of schools implementing measures to improve teachers’ information technol-
ogy application capabilities 

 

 

 

 

The ICT development level is mainly characterized by the dimension index and the 

comprehensive index. The EAP indicator method is used to measure and calculate the 

index value. It is derived based on the upper limit, lower limit, the critical value of each 

indicator, and the relationship between them, so that horizontal or vertical comparison 

between indexes can be realized. For the multi-dimensional, multi-level, and relatively 

complex systematic assessment of the development level of ICT, the EAP indicator 

method can be used to realize the assessment object’s mapping from high-dimensional 



Xing & Lu. Development Level of Information and Communications Technology in Education. 

Vol.7, No. 2, 2021 993 

Table 3. Evaluation Results of ICT in Education Development Level 
and Its Classification. 

City 
Code 

ICT Dimension Index (Level) 

ICT 
Comprehensive 
Index (Level) Infrastructure 

Digital 
Education 
Resources 

Teaching 
Application 

Management 
Information 

Guarantee 
Mechanism 

W1 0.74 (II) 0.85 (I) 0.64 (II) 0.56 (II) 0.74 (II) 0.74 (II) 

W2 0.45 (III) 0.24 (IV) 0.49 (III) 0.74 (II) 0.26 (III) 0.43 (III) 

W3 0.73 (II) 0.42 (III) 0.80 (I) 0.37 (III) 0.33 (III) 0.54 (II) 

W4 0.67 (II) 0.61 (II) 0.65 (II) 0.82 (I) 0.74 (II) 0.72 (II) 

W5 0.55 (II) 0.81 (I) 0.64 (II) 0.77 (I) 0.96 (I) 0.74 (II) 

W6 0.30 (III) 0.58 (II) 0.42 (III) 0.23 (IV) 0.16 (IV) 0.34 (III) 

W7 0.44 (III) 0.20 (IV) 0.32 (III) 0.46 (III) 0.72 (II) 0.46 (III) 

W8 0.15 (IV) 0.80 (I) 0.56 (II) 0.17 (IV) 0.30 (III) 0.36 (III) 

W9 0.19 (IV) 0.37 (III) 0.39 (III) 0.23 (IV) 0.46 (III) 0.34 (III) 

W10 0.23 (IV) 0.28 (III) 0.30 (III) 0.27 (III) 0.21 (IV) 0.27 (III) 

W11 0.66 (II) 0.59 (II) 0.50 (II) 0.81 (I) 0.68 (II) 0.67 (II) 

W12 0.63 (II) 0.59 (II) 0.47 (III) 0.65 (II) 0.64 (II) 0.61 (II) 

W13 0.47 (III) 0.43 (III) 0.36 (III) 0.86 (I) 0.33 (III) 0.49 (III) 

Average 0.48 (III) 0.52 (II) 0.50 (II) 0.53 (II) 0.50 (II) 0.52 (II) 

 

 

 

 

to low-dimensional space. Map 31 second-level indicators to 5 first-level indicators, 

map from 5 first-level indicators to a comprehensive index, and obtain the classification 

and ranking information of the evaluation object in the low-dimensional space. In the 

entire development level evaluation process, there was no need to subjectively deter-

mine the weights of the 31 secondary indicators to make the evaluation results more 

objective, scientific, and reasonable. 

This study used the questionnaire survey data of 13 cities in Province W as an 

example, using the EAP indicator method to evaluate its development level of Province 

W comprehensively. By comparing and analyzing its development level and classifica-

tion of 13 cities in Province W, it is possible to fully grasp the ICT development status 

of Province W. This provides a reference for the formulation and implementation of 

ICT policy plans in the next phase. 

Data Sources 

This research has compiled the “elementary and middle school ICT development status 

survey questionnaire based on this index system.” The content includes necessary in-

formation, ICT infrastructure, digital resources, ICT teaching application, ICT man-

agement informatization, and guarantee mechanism. To objectively reflect the devel-

opment status of elementary and middle school ICT construction and application, each 

item is set as an objective question, and the question types are fill-in-the-blank, single-



Xing & Lu. Development Level of Information and Communications Technology in Education. 

Vol.7, No. 2, 2021 994 

answer, and multi-answer multiple-choice. In October 2019, this study adopted the 

stratified random sampling method and carried out a one-month questionnaire survey 

through the online questionnaire. The questionnaire was filled out by the person in 

charge of the elementary and middle school ICT work in 13 cities in Province W (such 

as principals, directors of ICT centers). After the survey, the study received 5,968 ques-

tionnaires, of which 5,285 were valid, and the effective rate was 88.56%. 

Evaluation Results and Analysis 

This study’s operation process to evaluate its development level of Province W was as 

follows: (i) According to the related evaluation indicator system, the original values of 

31 secondary indicators were calculated using Excel. (ii) Regarding the maximum, min-

imum, and average values of each secondary indicator as to the upper limit, lower limit, 

and critical value, respectively, using the R Software, standardize each secondary indi-

cator according to formula (3), and calculate each secondary indicator’s standardized 

value. (iii) Calculate the ICT dimension index value and the comprehensive index value 

of 13 cities in Province W according to the standardized value of each secondary indi-

cator, using the R software and formula (4); and according to the value range of S in 

Table 1, the ICT development level of 13 cities in Province W was classified. 

The specific development level assessment results and their classification are 

shown in Table 3. It shows that the ICT development level of the 13 cities in Province 

W is generally average or above. Among them, W1 has the highest level of ICT devel-

opment. The main reason is that W1 is a provincial capital city with a relatively good 

level of economic development. Chen et al. showed that the regional economy is the 

necessary foundation for its development (Chen & Zhi, 2018). Therefore, the right eco-

nomic conditions provide adequate support for W1’s development. 

Among the five first-level indicators, the dimension index of ICT infrastructure 

was relatively low. It is the supporting condition for the development and provides a 

fundamental guarantee for schools to carry out ICT teaching and management. The de-

velopment of infrastructure in Province W is relatively low, with mobile terminals ac-

counting for only 7.34% of students’ ICT terminals, and the average number of termi-

nals per 100 students is only 6.77. This can only meet some students’ needs to use ICT 

to carry out learning activities, and to a certain extent, hinder the school’s ICT applica-

tion level. 

In terms of digital resources, Province W has developed well. Among them, 

W1 has the highest level of development of digital resources. The main reason is that 

W1 is a national education cloud pilot city, and its convenient education cloud services 

provide support for the construction and application of digital resources. ICT usage is 

the focus of ICT construction and a necessary means to improve teachers’ and students’ 

information literacy. Province W has developed well in terms of teaching application. 

At present, 90.21% of elementary and middle schools in Province W can realize the 

normalized application of ICT to assist teaching of Chinese, mathematics, and English 

in classroom Some cities have even reached 98.89%. 



Xing & Lu. Development Level of Information and Communications Technology in Education. 

Vol.7, No. 2, 2021 995 

ICT management is a crucial way to promote the modernization of the school 

governance system and governance capabilities. The average value of the ICT man-

agement index of 13 cities in Province W is the highest (up to 0.53), indicating that 

Province W has developed well in school ICT management such as management data 

applications, campus all-in-one cards, and network security systems. The survey data 

also shows that 7.29% of elementary and middle schools in Province W use campus all-

in-one cards, and 77.04% of elementary and middle schools have achieved full cover-

age of the campus network through the application of security monitoring systems (such 

as school gates, teaching buildings, and office areas). 

The guarantee mechanism is the foundation of its development and the key to 

the implementation of ICT-related plans. Province W has developed well in terms of 

guarantee mechanisms. Over 92.86% of elementary and middle schools are supervised 

by school-level leaders in the construction of ICT in schools, which has promoted ICT 

in teaching and management to a certain extent. In turn, the overall level of ICT in 

schools development has been improved. 

Conclusions 

This study introduced the EAP indicator method into the evaluation of its development 

level. Based on the questionnaire survey data of the ICT development status of and 

middle schools in 13 cities in Province W, the ICT development level of Province W 

was comprehensively evaluated. Furthermore, each city’s evaluation results were grad-

ed, and the development status of ICT in each city was compared and analyzed. The 

main conclusions obtained are as follows: 

The EAP indicator method can objectively assess the development level of ICT. 

The EAP indicator method is a quantitative comprehensive evaluation method whose 

evaluation results are less affected by subjective factors. When using this method to 

evaluate the development level of ICT, experts are not needed to determine the weights 

of indicators; only the upper limit, lower limit, and critical value related to decision-

making should be determined. This reduces the subjectivity in the evaluation process to 

a certain extent to reflect the current development of ICT more objectively. Simultane-

ously, the EAP indicator method presents the evaluation results of the ICT development 

level only and intuitively. It has both a single indicator value and a total indicator value, 

which provides convenience for problem diagnosis and policy guidance. Meanwhile, 

the EAP indicator method is simple and easy to understand, and the calculation process 

is simple. The EAP indicator method is also convenient to use a computer for pro-

gramming to realize the participating factors’ quantitative processing. 

The overall development level of ICT in 13 cities in Province W is average and 

above, and most of them are at level II. Among them, the digital resources dimension 

and the ICT management dimension have developed well, the ICT usage dimension and 

the guarantee mechanism dimension have developed generally, and the ICT infrastruc-

ture dimension has developed relatively weakly. To further improve ICT development, 

an elementary and middle school in Province W should focus on constructing school 

ICT infrastructure. This ensures that the school has a good ICT teaching and manage-



Xing & Lu. Development Level of Information and Communications Technology in Education. 

Vol.7, No. 2, 2021 996 

ment environment and supports teachers and students to use ICT to carry out teaching 

and management activities. Simultaneously, it is also necessary to carry out certain tar-

geted and practical teacher ICT training activities to comprehensively improve the ele-

mentary primary and middle school teachers’ ability to use ICT to carry out teaching. 

Besides, various forms of ICT training activities such as “school-based training” and 

“short-term concentrated training” can also be carried out to focus on improving ele-

mentary and middle school teachers’ ICT teaching design and curriculum resource inte-

gration capabilities. 

The above conclusions show that the use of the EAP indicator method can ob-

jectively and comprehensively evaluate the development of ICT in Province W and can 

achieve the purpose of horizontal and vertical comparison of the ICT development level 

of 13 cities in Province W. Besides, the EAP indicator method also reduces the subjec-

tivity in the evaluation process to a certain extent, making the evaluation results concise 

and intuitive. However, due to the limited survey time, the questionnaire survey data 

was discontinuous in time. This study did not research time series, so the dynamic as-

sessment of ICT development level from a time perspective will focus on subsequent 

research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

BECTA. (2009). Self-review framework for 

small schools. 

http://archive.teachfind.com/becta/publicatio

ns.becta.org.uk/displayf724.html?resID=401

97  

Chen, C., & Zhi, T. (2018). The balanced devel-

opment trend and trend of essential Chinese 

ICT. Educational Research, 39(8):129-140. 

[Chinese] 

https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal

-JYYJ201808020.htm  

Kosajan, V., Chang, M., Xiong, X., Feng, Y., & 

Wang, S. (2018). The design and application 

of a government environmental in-formation 

disclosure index in China. Journal of Clean-

er Production, 2018(34):1192-1201. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.056  

Lu, C., Li, C., Zhou, W., & Wu, D. (2015). An 

empirical study on ICT performance evalua-

tion and its influencing factors at the district 

and county level: A case study of eastern 

city S. China Educational Technology, 

2015(3):67-74. [Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-

9860.2015.03.011  

Lv, X., & Ke, Q.. (2020). Research on the per-

formance evaluation of digital educational 

resource supply based on 3E theory. Modern 

Educational Technology, 30(8):49-56. [Chi-

nese] 

http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-

XJJS202008008.htm  

Solar, M., Sabattin, J., & Parada, V. (2013). A 

maturity model for assessing the use of ICT 

in school education. Educational Technology 

& Society, 16(1):206-218. DOI: 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechso

ci.16.1.206.pdf  

http://archive.teachfind.com/becta/publications.becta.org.uk/displayf724.html?resID=40197
http://archive.teachfind.com/becta/publications.becta.org.uk/displayf724.html?resID=40197
http://archive.teachfind.com/becta/publications.becta.org.uk/displayf724.html?resID=40197
https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JYYJ201808020.htm
https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JYYJ201808020.htm
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.056
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2015.03.011
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2015.03.011
http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-XJJS202008008.htm
http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-XJJS202008008.htm
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.16.1.206.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.16.1.206.pdf


Xing & Lu. Development Level of Information and Communications Technology in Education. 

Vol.7, No. 2, 2021 997 

Texas Education Agency (TEA). (2006). Texas 

campus STaR chart: A tool for planning and 

assessing school technology and readiness. 

https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/Texas

_Campus_STaR_Chart.pdf  

Wu, D., Lu, C., & Xu, J. (2018). Evaluation of 

ICT development level. Higher Education 

Press, pp146-pp147. [Chinese] ISBN 978-7-

04-049687. 

Wu, D., Xing, D., Yang, X., & Lu, C. (2020). 

Research on the construction and application 

of ICT index. e-Education Research, 

41(1):53-59. [Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2020.01.0

07  

Wu, D., Yu, L., Li, C., & Yu, X. (2017). The 

promotion path and enlightenment of ICT 

policies in developed countries. e-Education 

Research, 38(09):5-13+28. [Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.09.0

01  

Wu, D., Yu, X., Lu, C., & Shi, Y. (2014). Re-

search on ICT development index system. 

Open Education Research, 20(1): 92-99. 

[Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2014.0

1.006  

Wu, Q., Wang, R., Li, H., & Xu, X. (2005). Eco-

city index system and evaluation method. 

Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2005(8):2090-2095. 

[Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-

0933.2005.08.037  

Xu, J., Wu, D., Chen, M., & Wu, L. (2018). 

Design and implementation of regional ICT 

development level evaluation system. Mod-

ern Educational Technology, 28(2):120-126. 

[Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-

8097.2018.02.018  

Yin, H., Yu, Z., & Yi, Q. (2020). The construc-

tion of an evaluation index system for smart 

classrooms. Modern Educational Technolo-

gy, 30(3):80-87. [Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-

8097.2020.03.012 .

Received: 27 January 2021 

Revised: 18 March 2021 

Accepted: 22 March 2021 

 

 

 

The Chinese version of this article has been published in Modern Educational Technology 2020, 

30(11):70-76. The English version has been authorized for being publication in BECE by the author(s) 

and the Chinese journal. 

邢单霞, 卢春. (2020). 基于全排列多边形图示指标法的教育信息化发展水平评估—以 W 省 13 个
地市的问卷调研数据为例. 现代教育技术, 30(11):70-76. 

 

 

 

https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/Texas_Campus_STaR_Chart.pdf
https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/Texas_Campus_STaR_Chart.pdf
https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2020.01.007
https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2020.01.007
https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.09.001
https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.09.001
https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2014.01.006
https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2014.01.006
https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2005.08.037
https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2005.08.037
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2018.02.018
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2018.02.018
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2020.03.012
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2020.03.012

	OriginalArticle-DanxiaXing-BECE_title_March2021
	OriginalArticleArticle-DanxiaXing-BECE_MaintextMarch2021

