學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 基於知識翻新原則之小組問題解決歷程與成效之個案研究
A case study of group problem solving processes and outcomes supported by knowledge building principles作者 林雅婷
Lin, Ya Ting貢獻者 洪煌堯
Hong, Huang Yao
林雅婷
Lin, Ya Ting關鍵詞 知識翻新
問題解決
knowledge building
problem solving日期 2014 上傳時間 1-Jul-2015 15:01:39 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究旨在探討基於知識翻新原則之小組問題解決歷程與成效。研究方法採個案研究。研究對象為48名修習「生活科技概論」課程的大學生，以小組為單位進行課程，共分為十組，一組四至五人。教學設計是以知識翻新為原則、以知識論壇（Knowledge Forum）為學習平台（用以提供學生一提出想法、討論想法、並進而培養解決問題能力的線上學習環境）。資料來源包括：(1)各組創意產品成果、(2)平台討論內容、(3)平台活動紀錄（例如：討論文章之數量）。資料分析兼採質性與量化方法，分析過程如下：首先、針對各組創意成品進行評分；第二、評量各組團體動力表現，並進一步將創意產品分數與團體動力分數進行相關的統計分析；第三、針對平台活動紀錄（例如：貼文數量）進行分析；第四、分析學生於平台上之想法品質，並使用「時間序列分析」探討學生想法演變歷程；第五、探討不同小組間在創意成品與問題解決歷程中表現之差異情形。研究結果如下：(1)學生歷經14周之知識翻新活動之後，確實能提出創意想法並設計各組創意產品成果。各個小組針對生活中不同之實際問題進行發想、翻新知識，最後產出有別於既有產品之生活科技產品；(2) 團體動力（問題解決歷程的表現面向之一）與創意產品表現具有正向相關─若小組團體動力表現較優，則在該組之創意產品表現也有較佳的表現；(3)各組所經歷的創造性問題解決歷程，並非循序漸進由階段一（搜尋目標、問題）發展至階段六（實踐設計）；(4)知識翻新能幫助學生發展較高層次的認知活動，特別是關於「想法深化與澄清」之活動；(5)問題解決歷程表現較好之組別也較易產出較好之創意產品成果。反之，如果小組探究的主題已存在既有產品，或如果小組成員參與有限、或所探究的主題聚焦時間太晚，或主要參與成員並非良好的領導者時，則較無法產出較佳之創意產品成果。本研究建議教師在教學上可以融合知識翻新原則。此外，教師應適時了解學生之團體動力與互動之情形；教師應重視學生想法品質的討論，鼓勵學生深入思考、提升想法層次。
The purpose of this case study was to investigate group problem solving processes and outcomes in an online environment that were supported by knowledge building principles. Participants in this study were 48 undergraduate students who engaged in a course concerning with living technologies. They were divided into ten groups, with each group consisting of four or five students. This course employed Knowledge Forum as a tool to provide a collaborative learning space to help cultivate students’ ability to work creatively with ideas and solve problems.Data sources included: (1) group’s creative product design (in concept); (2) the content of students’ online discussion; (3) students’ online interaction logs (e.g., number of notes discussed). The study adopted both qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. The process of data analysis was as follows: First, group’s creative product design was assessed by a self-developed evaluation form. Second, using another self-developed rubrics, group dynamics was assessed by means of three dimensions. Additionally, the relationships between group’s creative product design and group dynamics were computed. Third, the quantity of students’ online discussion (e.g., number of notes posted) were calculated. Fourth, open coding was performed to assess the quality of students’ ideas posted in the online forum. Moreover, time series analysis was conducted to find out if students’ idea development process followed a certain pattern. Fifth, different groups’ learning outcomes and problem solving performance were compared to understand the performance differences between different groups. The main findings were as follows: (1) students could generate creative ideas and design creative products after fourteen weeks of knowledge building activities. Each group focused on a particular problem that happened in real life, and tried to solve their technology problems by means of knowledge building, in order to finally design a creative product ; (2) group’s product design and their social dynamics were found to be positively co-related, meaning that if a group had better social dynamics, this group would more likely to produce more creative product; (3) each groups’ creative problem solving process was non-linear, meaning that the process did not usually go through the six steps of creative problem solving, that is, starting from stage one (searching goals or problems) and ending with stage six (design); (4) engaging students in knowledge building was able to help them improve their ideas while developing higher-level cognitive thinking skills (e.g., how to elaborate ideas); (5) groups that have better performance in terms of problem-solving process also tended to result in better overall group learning outcomes. In contrary, when a group’s final product is similar to an existing product, or when a group’s members could not fully participate in their group’s discussion, or when a group could not develop a clear theme for design at an early problem-solving stage, or when a group’s major participants could not lead the whole team well, that group was less likely to achieve better learning outcome.Building on the findings, it is suggested that teachers should refer to some knowledge building principles as guidance for their teaching. Moreover, it is important for teachers to help monitor a group’s social dynamics during its problem-solving process. It is also equally important that teachers should pay attention to the quality of ideas discussed in the online forum and accordingly try to encourage students to think deeply, in order to improve their ideas while using higher-level thinking skills.參考文獻 王淑芬（2009）。國小學童知覺教師教學領導與班級團體動力關係之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立屏東教育大學，屏東市。邱仁佑（2008）。創造性問題解決策略之科技教學活動設計－「框」不住的絕妙創意。生活科技教育月刊，41(5)，49-60。洪文東（2003）。創造性問題解決化學單元教學活動設計與評估。科學教育學刊，11(4)，407-430。洪文東（2006）。以創造性問題解決教學活動設計提升學生解決問題能力。科學教育研究與發展季刊，43，26-42。翁昇宏（2008）。國小高年級創造性問題解決教學活動設計∼以「自製簡易樂器」為例。生活科技教育月刊，41(5)，91-110。許傳方、許銘津（2006）。應用創意教學策略與網路輔助教學以促進國小學童科學創造力。中華民國第22屆科學教育學術研討會論文彙編，203-209。張俊彥、翁玉華（2000）。我國高一學生的問題解決能力與其科學過程技能之相關性研究。科學教育學刊，8(1)，35-55。教育部（2003）。創造力教育白皮書。民國103年12月10日，取自http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/url/20120920154709/92.03%E5%89%B5%E9%80%A0%E5%8A%9B%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8.pdf教育部（2006）。中小學資訊教育白皮書。民國103年12月10日，取自http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/url/20120920154137/97.08%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E9%83%A8%E4%B8%AD%E5%B0%8F%E5%AD%B8%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%8A%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8.pdf教育部（2013）。教育部人才培育白皮書。民國103年12月10日，取自http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/url/20131209094223/%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E9%83%A8%E4%BA%BA%E6%89%8D%E5%9F%B9%E8%82%B2%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B81.pdf湯偉君、邱美虹（1999）。創造性問題解決(CPS)模式的沿革與應用。科學教育月刊，223，2-20。黃家溱、鄭彩鳳（2011）。團體動力學在安寧療護的應用。高雄師大學報，31， 99-118。久德電子─三階段型溫度貼紙。民103年12月3日。取自http://jetec.com.tw/pdf/1/english/ThermoLabel_E_data.pdf台北市立圖書館。民103年12月3日。取自http://www.tpml.edu.tw/ct.asp?mp=104021&xItem=1140688&CtNode=33629多用途感溫貼片--駿達電通。民103年12月3日。取自http://www.log-ic.asia/ati/金旺聖有限公司─雨傘架雨傘桶系列。民103年12月3日。取自http://www.jws.url.tw/product_cg63257.html政治大學「宿舍硬體設備」莊敬宿舍。民103年12月3日。取自http://osa.nccu.edu.tw/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=98155悠室屋居家生活─立鏡。民103年12月3日。取自https://tw.mall.yahoo.com/item/p029661563188嘉義BRT─公車捷運系統。民103年12月3日。取自http://wwm.cibus.com.tw/images/brt_pic/s5000480.jpg綠色魔法學校。民103年12月3日。取自http://www.msgt.org.tw/about.php?Type=1&menu=about_class&pic_dir_list=1韓國帆布環保筷組2入組。民103年12月3日。取自https://tw.buy.yahoo.com/gdsale/gdsale.asp?act=gdsearch&gdid=4770768寶島眼鏡。民103年12月3日。取自http://www.formosa-optical.com.tw/upload/images/1_Agnesb_b05.jpg【灣灣愛你愛到想把你掰直part4】—台北觀感篇。民103年12月3日。取自http://www.mafengwo.cn/photo/12684/scenery_744755/2618371.htmlpchome雨傘王。民103年12月3日。取自http://24h.pchome.com.tw/prod/DEAR5V-A9005I8TO?q=/S/DEAR5VYAHOO奇摩購物中心─SWATCH幾米設計悠遊錶。民103年12月3日。取自https://tw.buy.yahoo.com/gdsale/gdsale.asp?gdid=5367398Zakka雜貨網: 二代原箸環保筷-黑色。民103年12月3日。取自http://territurne8830.blogspot.tw/2013/08/zakka-hw.htmlZakka雜貨網: 二代原箸環保筷-粉紅。民103年12月3日。取自http://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/samanthabal3809/post/1324002261Barber, W., Taylor, S., & Buchanan, S. (2014). Empowering Knowledge-Building Pedagogy in Online Environments: Creating Digital Moments to Transform Practice. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12(2), 128-137. Besemer, S. (1998). Creative Product Analysis Matrix: Testing the Model Structure and a Comparison among Products-Three Novel Chairs. Creativity Research Journal. 11(4), 333 -346.Cheng, K. W. (2011). When Creative Problem Solving Strategy Meets Web-Based Cooperative Learning Environment in Accounting Education. New Horizons in Education, 59(1), 106-118. Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Prinsen, F., Resendes, M., Messina, R., Hunsburger, W., Teplovs, C., & Chow, A. (2010). Understanding the nature of science and scientific progress: A theory-building approach. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1), 1-21. Darner, R. (2014). Influences on students’ environmental self determination and implications for science curricula. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9, 21-39.Forsyth, D. R. (1998). Methodoldgical advances in the study of group dynamics. Group dynamics: theory, research, and practice, 2(4), 211-212.Freeman, K. A., & Gahungu, A. (2013). Small group dynamics in cross-cultural collaborative field research: voices from the field. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(2), 77-94.Greenlee, B. J., & Karanxha, Z. (2010). A Study of Group Dynamics in Educational Leadership Cohort and Non-Cohort Groups. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(11), 357-382. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. Hong, H. Y. (2010). An idea-centered view of representing and assessing community knowledge. Paper presented in 2010 Knowledge Building Summer Institute, Toronto. Retrieved October, 15, 2014, from: http://ikit.org/SummerInstitute2010/doc/25-NF-Hong.pdfHong, H.-Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(5), 613-627.John, M. L., & Eliot, R. S. (2013). Group Cognition: Collective Information Search and Distribution. Retrieved November, 18, 2014, from: http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/BOV/documents/Levine_Group%20Cognition.pdfKandemir, M. A., & Gur, H. (2007). Creativity Training in Problem Solving: A Model of Creativity in Mathematics Teacher Education. New Horizons in Education, 55(3), 107-122. Lamm, A. J., Shoulders, C., Roberts, T. G., Irani, T. A., Unruh-Snyder, L. J., & Brendemuhl, J. (2012). The influence of cognitive diversity on group problem solving strategy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(1), 18-30.Lavonen, J., Autio, O., & Meisalo, V. (2004). Creative and Collaborative Problem Solving in Technology Education: A Case Study in Primary School Teacher Education. Journal of Technology Studies, 30(2), 107-115. Moss, J., & Beatty, R. (2010). Knowledge Building and Mathematics: Shifting the Responsibility for Knowledge Advancement and Engagement. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1), 1-33. Phan, L. T., Torres Rivera, E., Volker, M. A., Garrett, M. T. (2004). Measuring group dynamics: An exploratory trial. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 38(4), 234-245. Phipps, M. (1984). Group Dynamics in the Outdoors: A Model for reaching Outdoor Leaders. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED356 935) Retrieved October, 19, 2014, from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED356935.pdfPhilip, D. (2010). Social Network Analysis to Examine Interaction Patterns in Knowledge Building Communities. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1), 1-20.Philip, D. (2012). Pilgrims’ Progress: The jouuney towards a knowledge building community in a university undergraduate class. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(1), 1-19. Phyllis, C. B., Ronald, W. M., Elliot, S., & Joseph, K. (1996). Learning with Peers: From Small Group Cooperation to Collaborative. Educational Researcher, 25 (8), pp. 37-40.Santa Rita, E., Misick, J. (1996). An Adaptation of Group Dynamics Technique to Conversation Workshops for ESL Students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393 526) Retrieved October, 19, 2014, from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED393526.pdfScardamalia, M. (2002). Collective Cognitive Responsibility for the Advancement of Knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.). Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, 67-98.Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 97-118. Sha, L., Teplovs, C., & van Aalst, J. (2010). A Visualization of Group Cognition: Semantic Network Analysis of A CSCL Community. International Society of the Learning Sciences, 1, 929-936. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 79-90.Stahl, G. (2006a). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Stahl, G. (2006b). Sustaining Group Cognition in a Math Chat Environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 85-133. Stahl, G. (2009). Studying Virtual Math Teams. New York, NY: Springer. (pp. 555, 573, 574) Retrieved November, 18, 2014, from: https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=QViOCXS0vV8C&pg=PA604&lpg=PA604&dq=Social+practices+of+group+cognition+in+virtual+math+teams&source=bl&ots=vzPyCcNDiH&sig=QSToQauYUTQvhrvv73WSswDFRjk&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ei=uJysVO3dKdjt8AXt_IEQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Social%20practices%20of%20group%20cognition%20in%20virtual%20math%20teams&f=falseStahl, G. (2010). Group cognition as a foundation for the new science of learning. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 23-44). New York, NY: Springer. Retrived November, 18, 2014, from: http://gerrystahl.net/pub/scienceoflearning.pdfStahl, G. (2013). The philosophy of group cognition. Presented at the NAPLES course. Retrived November, 18, 2014, from: http://gerrystahl.net/pub/naples.pdfTheiner, G., Allen, C., & Goldstone, R. L. (2010). Recognizing group cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 11, 378-395. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (2003). Creative problem solving (CPS Version 6.1 ™) a contemporary framework for managing change. Retrieved January, 28, 2015, from: http://www.creativelearning.com/images/freePDFs/CPSVersion61.pdfTreffinger, D. J. & Isaksen, S. G. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 1-27. Treffinger, D. J. & Isaksen, S. G. (2005). Creative problem solving: The history, development, and implications for gifted education and talent development. Gifted child quarterly, 49(4), 342-353. Trilling, B., & Hood, P. (1999). Learning technology and education reform in the knowledge age or "We`re wired, webbed and windowed, now what?" Educational Technology, 39(3), 5-18. Verdejo, M. F., Barros, B., & Abad, M. T. (1998). Supporting Distance Learners for Collaborative Problem. Published in ED_MEDIA & ED_TELECOM 98 (Edited by Thomas Ottman & Ivan TomeK), AACE, Freiburg, Germany, June 20-25 (1998) 1407-1412 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 732)Next Big Future. Retrieved December, 3, 2014, from:http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/china-will-start-building-186.html 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
教育研究所
102152008
103資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102152008 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 洪煌堯 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hong, Huang Yao en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 林雅婷 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lin, Ya Ting en_US dc.creator (作者) 林雅婷 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lin, Ya Ting en_US dc.date (日期) 2014 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2015 15:01:39 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Jul-2015 15:01:39 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2015 15:01:39 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0102152008 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/76252 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 教育研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 102152008 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 103 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在探討基於知識翻新原則之小組問題解決歷程與成效。研究方法採個案研究。研究對象為48名修習「生活科技概論」課程的大學生，以小組為單位進行課程，共分為十組，一組四至五人。教學設計是以知識翻新為原則、以知識論壇（Knowledge Forum）為學習平台（用以提供學生一提出想法、討論想法、並進而培養解決問題能力的線上學習環境）。資料來源包括：(1)各組創意產品成果、(2)平台討論內容、(3)平台活動紀錄（例如：討論文章之數量）。資料分析兼採質性與量化方法，分析過程如下：首先、針對各組創意成品進行評分；第二、評量各組團體動力表現，並進一步將創意產品分數與團體動力分數進行相關的統計分析；第三、針對平台活動紀錄（例如：貼文數量）進行分析；第四、分析學生於平台上之想法品質，並使用「時間序列分析」探討學生想法演變歷程；第五、探討不同小組間在創意成品與問題解決歷程中表現之差異情形。研究結果如下：(1)學生歷經14周之知識翻新活動之後，確實能提出創意想法並設計各組創意產品成果。各個小組針對生活中不同之實際問題進行發想、翻新知識，最後產出有別於既有產品之生活科技產品；(2) 團體動力（問題解決歷程的表現面向之一）與創意產品表現具有正向相關─若小組團體動力表現較優，則在該組之創意產品表現也有較佳的表現；(3)各組所經歷的創造性問題解決歷程，並非循序漸進由階段一（搜尋目標、問題）發展至階段六（實踐設計）；(4)知識翻新能幫助學生發展較高層次的認知活動，特別是關於「想法深化與澄清」之活動；(5)問題解決歷程表現較好之組別也較易產出較好之創意產品成果。反之，如果小組探究的主題已存在既有產品，或如果小組成員參與有限、或所探究的主題聚焦時間太晚，或主要參與成員並非良好的領導者時，則較無法產出較佳之創意產品成果。本研究建議教師在教學上可以融合知識翻新原則。此外，教師應適時了解學生之團體動力與互動之情形；教師應重視學生想法品質的討論，鼓勵學生深入思考、提升想法層次。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of this case study was to investigate group problem solving processes and outcomes in an online environment that were supported by knowledge building principles. Participants in this study were 48 undergraduate students who engaged in a course concerning with living technologies. They were divided into ten groups, with each group consisting of four or five students. This course employed Knowledge Forum as a tool to provide a collaborative learning space to help cultivate students’ ability to work creatively with ideas and solve problems.Data sources included: (1) group’s creative product design (in concept); (2) the content of students’ online discussion; (3) students’ online interaction logs (e.g., number of notes discussed). The study adopted both qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. The process of data analysis was as follows: First, group’s creative product design was assessed by a self-developed evaluation form. Second, using another self-developed rubrics, group dynamics was assessed by means of three dimensions. Additionally, the relationships between group’s creative product design and group dynamics were computed. Third, the quantity of students’ online discussion (e.g., number of notes posted) were calculated. Fourth, open coding was performed to assess the quality of students’ ideas posted in the online forum. Moreover, time series analysis was conducted to find out if students’ idea development process followed a certain pattern. Fifth, different groups’ learning outcomes and problem solving performance were compared to understand the performance differences between different groups. The main findings were as follows: (1) students could generate creative ideas and design creative products after fourteen weeks of knowledge building activities. Each group focused on a particular problem that happened in real life, and tried to solve their technology problems by means of knowledge building, in order to finally design a creative product ; (2) group’s product design and their social dynamics were found to be positively co-related, meaning that if a group had better social dynamics, this group would more likely to produce more creative product; (3) each groups’ creative problem solving process was non-linear, meaning that the process did not usually go through the six steps of creative problem solving, that is, starting from stage one (searching goals or problems) and ending with stage six (design); (4) engaging students in knowledge building was able to help them improve their ideas while developing higher-level cognitive thinking skills (e.g., how to elaborate ideas); (5) groups that have better performance in terms of problem-solving process also tended to result in better overall group learning outcomes. In contrary, when a group’s final product is similar to an existing product, or when a group’s members could not fully participate in their group’s discussion, or when a group could not develop a clear theme for design at an early problem-solving stage, or when a group’s major participants could not lead the whole team well, that group was less likely to achieve better learning outcome.Building on the findings, it is suggested that teachers should refer to some knowledge building principles as guidance for their teaching. Moreover, it is important for teachers to help monitor a group’s social dynamics during its problem-solving process. It is also equally important that teachers should pay attention to the quality of ideas discussed in the online forum and accordingly try to encourage students to think deeply, in order to improve their ideas while using higher-level thinking skills. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機 1第二節 研究目的與待答問題 3第三節 名詞釋義 4第四節 研究範圍與限制 6第二章 文獻探討 7第一節 知識翻新 7第二節 問題解決 12第三節 團體認知 19第四節 團體動力 23第三章 研究設計與實施 28第一節 研究架構 28第二節 研究對象 29第三節 教學設計 29第四節 實施程序 39第五節 資料蒐集與分析 40第四章 研究結果與分析 47第一節 小組創意產品成果評估 47第二節 問題解決歷程與成品之相關分析 58第三節 小組問題解決歷程之想法數量分析 62第四節 小組問題解決歷程之想法品質分析 78第五節 小組之差異分析 86第五章 結論與建議 106第一節 結論 106第二節 建議 109參考文獻 112 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2573037 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102152008 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識翻新 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 問題解決 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) knowledge building en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) problem solving en_US dc.title (題名) 基於知識翻新原則之小組問題解決歷程與成效之個案研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) A case study of group problem solving processes and outcomes supported by knowledge building principles en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王淑芬（2009）。國小學童知覺教師教學領導與班級團體動力關係之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立屏東教育大學，屏東市。邱仁佑（2008）。創造性問題解決策略之科技教學活動設計－「框」不住的絕妙創意。生活科技教育月刊，41(5)，49-60。洪文東（2003）。創造性問題解決化學單元教學活動設計與評估。科學教育學刊，11(4)，407-430。洪文東（2006）。以創造性問題解決教學活動設計提升學生解決問題能力。科學教育研究與發展季刊，43，26-42。翁昇宏（2008）。國小高年級創造性問題解決教學活動設計∼以「自製簡易樂器」為例。生活科技教育月刊，41(5)，91-110。許傳方、許銘津（2006）。應用創意教學策略與網路輔助教學以促進國小學童科學創造力。中華民國第22屆科學教育學術研討會論文彙編，203-209。張俊彥、翁玉華（2000）。我國高一學生的問題解決能力與其科學過程技能之相關性研究。科學教育學刊，8(1)，35-55。教育部（2003）。創造力教育白皮書。民國103年12月10日，取自http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/url/20120920154709/92.03%E5%89%B5%E9%80%A0%E5%8A%9B%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8.pdf教育部（2006）。中小學資訊教育白皮書。民國103年12月10日，取自http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/url/20120920154137/97.08%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E9%83%A8%E4%B8%AD%E5%B0%8F%E5%AD%B8%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%8A%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8.pdf教育部（2013）。教育部人才培育白皮書。民國103年12月10日，取自http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/url/20131209094223/%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E9%83%A8%E4%BA%BA%E6%89%8D%E5%9F%B9%E8%82%B2%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B81.pdf湯偉君、邱美虹（1999）。創造性問題解決(CPS)模式的沿革與應用。科學教育月刊，223，2-20。黃家溱、鄭彩鳳（2011）。團體動力學在安寧療護的應用。高雄師大學報，31， 99-118。久德電子─三階段型溫度貼紙。民103年12月3日。取自http://jetec.com.tw/pdf/1/english/ThermoLabel_E_data.pdf台北市立圖書館。民103年12月3日。取自http://www.tpml.edu.tw/ct.asp?mp=104021&xItem=1140688&CtNode=33629多用途感溫貼片--駿達電通。民103年12月3日。取自http://www.log-ic.asia/ati/金旺聖有限公司─雨傘架雨傘桶系列。民103年12月3日。取自http://www.jws.url.tw/product_cg63257.html政治大學「宿舍硬體設備」莊敬宿舍。民103年12月3日。取自http://osa.nccu.edu.tw/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=98155悠室屋居家生活─立鏡。民103年12月3日。取自https://tw.mall.yahoo.com/item/p029661563188嘉義BRT─公車捷運系統。民103年12月3日。取自http://wwm.cibus.com.tw/images/brt_pic/s5000480.jpg綠色魔法學校。民103年12月3日。取自http://www.msgt.org.tw/about.php?Type=1&menu=about_class&pic_dir_list=1韓國帆布環保筷組2入組。民103年12月3日。取自https://tw.buy.yahoo.com/gdsale/gdsale.asp?act=gdsearch&gdid=4770768寶島眼鏡。民103年12月3日。取自http://www.formosa-optical.com.tw/upload/images/1_Agnesb_b05.jpg【灣灣愛你愛到想把你掰直part4】—台北觀感篇。民103年12月3日。取自http://www.mafengwo.cn/photo/12684/scenery_744755/2618371.htmlpchome雨傘王。民103年12月3日。取自http://24h.pchome.com.tw/prod/DEAR5V-A9005I8TO?q=/S/DEAR5VYAHOO奇摩購物中心─SWATCH幾米設計悠遊錶。民103年12月3日。取自https://tw.buy.yahoo.com/gdsale/gdsale.asp?gdid=5367398Zakka雜貨網: 二代原箸環保筷-黑色。民103年12月3日。取自http://territurne8830.blogspot.tw/2013/08/zakka-hw.htmlZakka雜貨網: 二代原箸環保筷-粉紅。民103年12月3日。取自http://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/samanthabal3809/post/1324002261Barber, W., Taylor, S., & Buchanan, S. (2014). Empowering Knowledge-Building Pedagogy in Online Environments: Creating Digital Moments to Transform Practice. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12(2), 128-137. Besemer, S. (1998). Creative Product Analysis Matrix: Testing the Model Structure and a Comparison among Products-Three Novel Chairs. Creativity Research Journal. 11(4), 333 -346.Cheng, K. W. (2011). When Creative Problem Solving Strategy Meets Web-Based Cooperative Learning Environment in Accounting Education. New Horizons in Education, 59(1), 106-118. Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Prinsen, F., Resendes, M., Messina, R., Hunsburger, W., Teplovs, C., & Chow, A. (2010). Understanding the nature of science and scientific progress: A theory-building approach. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1), 1-21. Darner, R. (2014). Influences on students’ environmental self determination and implications for science curricula. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9, 21-39.Forsyth, D. R. (1998). Methodoldgical advances in the study of group dynamics. Group dynamics: theory, research, and practice, 2(4), 211-212.Freeman, K. A., & Gahungu, A. (2013). Small group dynamics in cross-cultural collaborative field research: voices from the field. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(2), 77-94.Greenlee, B. J., & Karanxha, Z. (2010). A Study of Group Dynamics in Educational Leadership Cohort and Non-Cohort Groups. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(11), 357-382. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. Hong, H. Y. (2010). An idea-centered view of representing and assessing community knowledge. Paper presented in 2010 Knowledge Building Summer Institute, Toronto. Retrieved October, 15, 2014, from: http://ikit.org/SummerInstitute2010/doc/25-NF-Hong.pdfHong, H.-Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(5), 613-627.John, M. L., & Eliot, R. S. (2013). Group Cognition: Collective Information Search and Distribution. Retrieved November, 18, 2014, from: http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/BOV/documents/Levine_Group%20Cognition.pdfKandemir, M. A., & Gur, H. (2007). Creativity Training in Problem Solving: A Model of Creativity in Mathematics Teacher Education. New Horizons in Education, 55(3), 107-122. Lamm, A. J., Shoulders, C., Roberts, T. G., Irani, T. A., Unruh-Snyder, L. J., & Brendemuhl, J. (2012). The influence of cognitive diversity on group problem solving strategy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(1), 18-30.Lavonen, J., Autio, O., & Meisalo, V. (2004). Creative and Collaborative Problem Solving in Technology Education: A Case Study in Primary School Teacher Education. Journal of Technology Studies, 30(2), 107-115. Moss, J., & Beatty, R. (2010). Knowledge Building and Mathematics: Shifting the Responsibility for Knowledge Advancement and Engagement. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1), 1-33. Phan, L. T., Torres Rivera, E., Volker, M. A., Garrett, M. T. (2004). Measuring group dynamics: An exploratory trial. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 38(4), 234-245. Phipps, M. (1984). Group Dynamics in the Outdoors: A Model for reaching Outdoor Leaders. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED356 935) Retrieved October, 19, 2014, from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED356935.pdfPhilip, D. (2010). Social Network Analysis to Examine Interaction Patterns in Knowledge Building Communities. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1), 1-20.Philip, D. (2012). Pilgrims’ Progress: The jouuney towards a knowledge building community in a university undergraduate class. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(1), 1-19. Phyllis, C. B., Ronald, W. M., Elliot, S., & Joseph, K. (1996). Learning with Peers: From Small Group Cooperation to Collaborative. Educational Researcher, 25 (8), pp. 37-40.Santa Rita, E., Misick, J. (1996). An Adaptation of Group Dynamics Technique to Conversation Workshops for ESL Students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393 526) Retrieved October, 19, 2014, from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED393526.pdfScardamalia, M. (2002). Collective Cognitive Responsibility for the Advancement of Knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.). Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, 67-98.Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 97-118. Sha, L., Teplovs, C., & van Aalst, J. (2010). A Visualization of Group Cognition: Semantic Network Analysis of A CSCL Community. International Society of the Learning Sciences, 1, 929-936. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 79-90.Stahl, G. (2006a). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Stahl, G. (2006b). Sustaining Group Cognition in a Math Chat Environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 85-133. Stahl, G. (2009). Studying Virtual Math Teams. New York, NY: Springer. (pp. 555, 573, 574) Retrieved November, 18, 2014, from: https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=QViOCXS0vV8C&pg=PA604&lpg=PA604&dq=Social+practices+of+group+cognition+in+virtual+math+teams&source=bl&ots=vzPyCcNDiH&sig=QSToQauYUTQvhrvv73WSswDFRjk&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ei=uJysVO3dKdjt8AXt_IEQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Social%20practices%20of%20group%20cognition%20in%20virtual%20math%20teams&f=falseStahl, G. (2010). Group cognition as a foundation for the new science of learning. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 23-44). New York, NY: Springer. Retrived November, 18, 2014, from: http://gerrystahl.net/pub/scienceoflearning.pdfStahl, G. (2013). The philosophy of group cognition. Presented at the NAPLES course. Retrived November, 18, 2014, from: http://gerrystahl.net/pub/naples.pdfTheiner, G., Allen, C., & Goldstone, R. L. (2010). Recognizing group cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 11, 378-395. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (2003). Creative problem solving (CPS Version 6.1 ™) a contemporary framework for managing change. Retrieved January, 28, 2015, from: http://www.creativelearning.com/images/freePDFs/CPSVersion61.pdfTreffinger, D. J. & Isaksen, S. G. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 1-27. Treffinger, D. J. & Isaksen, S. G. (2005). Creative problem solving: The history, development, and implications for gifted education and talent development. Gifted child quarterly, 49(4), 342-353. Trilling, B., & Hood, P. (1999). Learning technology and education reform in the knowledge age or "We`re wired, webbed and windowed, now what?" Educational Technology, 39(3), 5-18. Verdejo, M. F., Barros, B., & Abad, M. T. (1998). Supporting Distance Learners for Collaborative Problem. Published in ED_MEDIA & ED_TELECOM 98 (Edited by Thomas Ottman & Ivan TomeK), AACE, Freiburg, Germany, June 20-25 (1998) 1407-1412 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 732)Next Big Future. Retrieved December, 3, 2014, from:http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/china-will-start-building-186.html zh_TW
