1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Education
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 知識翻新對師資生想法發展之影響—以永續發展協作教案為例
Effects of knowledge building on teacher education students’ idea development: a case study of collaborative lesson design for sustainable development
作者 卜一峰
Feng, Pock Yi
貢獻者 洪煌堯
Hong, Huang-Yao
卜一峰
Pock Yi Feng
關鍵詞 知識翻新
知識論壇
協作教案
永續發展
PISA創意思考
Knowledge building
Knowledge forum
Collaborative lesson plan
Sustainable development
PISA creative thinking
日期 2023
上傳時間 6-Jul-2023 16:38:01 (UTC+8)
摘要 21世紀的教育趨勢除了倡導素養學習及終身學習，同時也關注永續議題的發展及學習者的想法發展。本研究旨在探究知識翻新對師資生想法發展之影響，協助師資生理解想法的本質、提升師資生的創意思考能力、同時關注師資生在教案設計的想法及對永續發展議題的認識。

本研究採個案研究，研究對象為某國立大學教育系大學部的32名（8組）師資生，課程內容為教學媒體與運用，研究時間為期一學期。研究的自變數為知識翻新活動，依變數為想法本質的理解、想法發展的結果、想法發展的歷程、想法能力的變化。研究採質化及量化的分析，資料來源主要有：有關想法本質的問題、小組協作教案設計、PISA創意思考模擬題答卷、知識論壇的討論貼文。資料分析的方式包括：想法編碼框架、教案評量指標、PISA 2022 創意思考評量規準、知識論壇分析工具、描述性統計及獨立樣本t檢定等。

經過知識翻新活動後，研究的結果有：（1）師資生認為想法可以是抽象和具體的、主觀和客觀的、獨立和群體產出的；（2）師資生在協作教案具有更多元的設計想法；（3）知識論壇促進師資生的想法互動；（4）師資生在PISA創意思考的多元想法上表現良好，唯創意想法及評價與改良想法仍需加強。
The educational trend in the 21st century not only advocates for competency-based learning and lifelong learning but also focuses on the development of sustainable issues and learners` ideation development. This study aims to explore the influence of knowledge building on the development of pre-service teachers` ideation, assist them in understanding the nature of ideation, enhance their creative thinking ability, and pay attention to their ideas on lesson planning and understanding of sustainable development issues.

The case study subjects of this study were 32 (8 groups) pre-service teachers in the Education Department of a national university in Taiwan. The course content was Teaching Media and Application, and the research lasted for one semester. The independent variable was knowledge building activities, and the dependent variables were the understanding of the nature of ideation, the results of ideation development, the process of ideation development, and changes in ideation ability. The study adopted qualitative and quantitative analyses, and the data sources mainly included: (1) questions about the nature of ideation; (2) collaborative lesson plan designs; (3) PISA creative thinking simulation test papers; (4) discussion posts on the knowledge forum. The data analysis methods included ideation coding framework, lesson plan evaluation indicators, PISA 2022 creative thinking assessment criteria, knowledge forum analysis tools, descriptive statistics, and independent samples t-tests.

After the knowledge building activities, the results of the study showed that: (1) pre-service teachers believed that ideation could be abstract and concrete, subjective and objective, and produced independently or collaboratively; (2) pre-service teachers had more diverse design ideas in their collaborative lesson plans; (3) knowledge forum facilitates the exchange of ideas among pre-service teacher; (4) pre-service teachers performed well in generating diverse ideation in PISA creative thinking, but there is still room for improvement in generating innovative ideas and evaluating and improving ideas.
參考文獻 台灣PISA國家研究中心（2021）。取自https://pisa.irels.ntnu.edu.tw/
林奎宇（2012）。知識創新學習環境量表之編製。國立政治大學[未出版碩士論文]。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要—總綱。臺北市：作者。
彭開琼、胡榮員(2017)。OECD國家教育績效研究:以PISA為例。績效與策略研究，14(1)，47-68。
楊琬琳、蔡天怡（2018）。合作學習情境中師資培育生教案發展之協作資訊行為。圖書資訊學刊，16(1)，109-139。

Alonso, F., Manrique, D., & Martinez, L. (2015). Study of the influence of social relationships among students on knowledge building using a moderately constructivist learning model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(4), 417-439.
Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper`s world 3. Educational researcher, 23(7), 21–23.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy 2nd Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goggins, S. P. & Lewis, U. A. (2010). Collaborative information behavior: The case of an interdisciplinary Charrette. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1-2.
Grant, M. M., & Branch, R. M. (2005). Project-based learning in a middle school: Tracing abilities through student artifacts. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 65-98.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching 4th Edition. Harlow: England Pearson Education.
Hertzum, M. (2008). Collaborative information seeking: The combined activity of information seeking and collaborative grounding. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 957-962.
Hong, H. Y., Chen, F. C., Chang, H. M., Liao, C. C. Y., & Chan, W. C. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an idea-centered design to foster a computer-supported knowledge building environment. In C. O`Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL2009 Conference proceedings, 142-150. Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.
Hong, H.Y. & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Toward an idea-centered, princeple-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Reseacrch and Development, 57(5), 613-627.
Hong, H.Y., Chen, B., & Chai, C. S. (2016). Exploring the development of college students` epistemic views during their knowledge building activities. Computers & Education, 98, 1-13.
Hung, W. (2015). Designing a knowledge-building classroom using knowledge building and design thinking principles. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 8(1), 1-14.
Kerr, D. S., & Murthy, U. S. (2004). Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams: A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(4), 381-399.
Lee, E.Y.C., Chan, C.K.K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 1(1). 58-87.
Leicht, A., Heiss, J., & Byun, W. J. (2018). Issues and trends in education for sustainable development (Vol. 5). UNESCO publishing.
Moon, J. (2000). Children Learning English. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
OECD (2010). The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow. Paris: OECD Publishing, 1-8.
OECD (2019). PISA 2021 Creative Thinking Framwork (Third Draft). Paris: OECD Publishing, 4-42.
Oshima, J., Oshima, R., Murayama, I., Inagaki, S., Takenaka, M., Nakayama, H., et al. (2004). Design experiments in Japanese elementary science education with computer support for collaborative learning: Hypothesis testing and collaborative construction. International Journal of Science Education, 26(10), 1199-1221.
Papert, S. (1991). "What`s the Big Idea: Towards a Pedagogy of Idea Power."IBM Systems Journal,39, 3-4.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ransom, S. (2016). The Left Brain Speaks, the Right Brain Laughs. Simon and Schuster. ISBN: 1632280477.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual review of psychology, 55(1), 657-687.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67-98.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of education (2ed., 1370-1373). New York: MacMillan Reference, USA.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K.E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In A. Kovalchick, & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education and technology: An encyclopedia, 183-192. Santa Barbara, CA.
Schleicher, A. (2018). World Class: How to build a 21st-century school system. OECD Publishing.
Sesiorina, S. (2014). The analysis of teachers’ lesson plans in implementing theme-based instruction for teaching English to young learners. Journal of English and Education, 2(1), 84-95.
Shah, C. (2014). Collaborative information seeking. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 215-236.
UNESCO (2022). Retrived from: https://www.unesco.org/en/education/sustainable-development
United Nations (2018). The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals: An opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean (LC/G. 2681-P/Rev. 3), Santiago.
Woodward, T. (2001). Planning Lessons and Courses: Designing Consequences of Work for the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, M. & Jonathan, F. (2009). Exploring factors for Collaborative Group Investigation. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences. 47(2). 123-146.
Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C., & Morley, E. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262-307.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
教育學系
108152012
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108152012
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 洪煌堯zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Hong, Huang-Yaoen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 卜一峰zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Pock Yi Fengen_US
dc.creator (作者) 卜一峰zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Feng, Pock Yien_US
dc.date (日期) 2023en_US
dc.date.accessioned 6-Jul-2023 16:38:01 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 6-Jul-2023 16:38:01 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 6-Jul-2023 16:38:01 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0108152012en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/145822-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 教育學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 108152012zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 21世紀的教育趨勢除了倡導素養學習及終身學習，同時也關注永續議題的發展及學習者的想法發展。本研究旨在探究知識翻新對師資生想法發展之影響，協助師資生理解想法的本質、提升師資生的創意思考能力、同時關注師資生在教案設計的想法及對永續發展議題的認識。

本研究採個案研究，研究對象為某國立大學教育系大學部的32名（8組）師資生，課程內容為教學媒體與運用，研究時間為期一學期。研究的自變數為知識翻新活動，依變數為想法本質的理解、想法發展的結果、想法發展的歷程、想法能力的變化。研究採質化及量化的分析，資料來源主要有：有關想法本質的問題、小組協作教案設計、PISA創意思考模擬題答卷、知識論壇的討論貼文。資料分析的方式包括：想法編碼框架、教案評量指標、PISA 2022 創意思考評量規準、知識論壇分析工具、描述性統計及獨立樣本t檢定等。

經過知識翻新活動後，研究的結果有：（1）師資生認為想法可以是抽象和具體的、主觀和客觀的、獨立和群體產出的；（2）師資生在協作教案具有更多元的設計想法；（3）知識論壇促進師資生的想法互動；（4）師資生在PISA創意思考的多元想法上表現良好，唯創意想法及評價與改良想法仍需加強。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The educational trend in the 21st century not only advocates for competency-based learning and lifelong learning but also focuses on the development of sustainable issues and learners` ideation development. This study aims to explore the influence of knowledge building on the development of pre-service teachers` ideation, assist them in understanding the nature of ideation, enhance their creative thinking ability, and pay attention to their ideas on lesson planning and understanding of sustainable development issues.

The case study subjects of this study were 32 (8 groups) pre-service teachers in the Education Department of a national university in Taiwan. The course content was Teaching Media and Application, and the research lasted for one semester. The independent variable was knowledge building activities, and the dependent variables were the understanding of the nature of ideation, the results of ideation development, the process of ideation development, and changes in ideation ability. The study adopted qualitative and quantitative analyses, and the data sources mainly included: (1) questions about the nature of ideation; (2) collaborative lesson plan designs; (3) PISA creative thinking simulation test papers; (4) discussion posts on the knowledge forum. The data analysis methods included ideation coding framework, lesson plan evaluation indicators, PISA 2022 creative thinking assessment criteria, knowledge forum analysis tools, descriptive statistics, and independent samples t-tests.

After the knowledge building activities, the results of the study showed that: (1) pre-service teachers believed that ideation could be abstract and concrete, subjective and objective, and produced independently or collaboratively; (2) pre-service teachers had more diverse design ideas in their collaborative lesson plans; (3) knowledge forum facilitates the exchange of ideas among pre-service teacher; (4) pre-service teachers performed well in generating diverse ideation in PISA creative thinking, but there is still room for improvement in generating innovative ideas and evaluating and improving ideas.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題 4
第三節 名詞解釋 5
第四節 研究範圍與限制 7
第二章 文獻探討 8
第一節 知識翻新 8
第二節 想法發展 16
第三節 永續發展與協作教案 22
第四節 PISA的創意思考 27
第三章 研究方法 32
第一節 研究設計 32
第二節 活動設計與實施 34
第三節 研究流程 37
第四節 資料蒐集與分析 38
第四章 研究結果與討論 46
第一節 師資生對想法本質理解之轉變 46
第二節 師資生對協作教案設計成果之變化 54
第三節 協作教案設計的想法歷程分析 62
第四節 師資生想法能力之變化 69
第五章 結論與建議 74
第一節 結論 74
第二節 建議 79
參考文獻 81
附錄 84		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2541801 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108152012en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識翻新zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識論壇zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 協作教案zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 永續發展zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) PISA創意思考zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Knowledge buildingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Knowledge forumen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Collaborative lesson planen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Sustainable developmenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) PISA creative thinkingen_US
dc.title (題名) 知識翻新對師資生想法發展之影響—以永續發展協作教案為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Effects of knowledge building on teacher education students’ idea development: a case study of collaborative lesson design for sustainable developmenten_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 台灣PISA國家研究中心（2021）。取自https://pisa.irels.ntnu.edu.tw/
林奎宇（2012）。知識創新學習環境量表之編製。國立政治大學[未出版碩士論文]。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要—總綱。臺北市：作者。
彭開琼、胡榮員(2017)。OECD國家教育績效研究:以PISA為例。績效與策略研究，14(1)，47-68。
楊琬琳、蔡天怡（2018）。合作學習情境中師資培育生教案發展之協作資訊行為。圖書資訊學刊，16(1)，109-139。

Alonso, F., Manrique, D., & Martinez, L. (2015). Study of the influence of social relationships among students on knowledge building using a moderately constructivist learning model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(4), 417-439.
Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper`s world 3. Educational researcher, 23(7), 21–23.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy 2nd Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goggins, S. P. & Lewis, U. A. (2010). Collaborative information behavior: The case of an interdisciplinary Charrette. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1-2.
Grant, M. M., & Branch, R. M. (2005). Project-based learning in a middle school: Tracing abilities through student artifacts. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 65-98.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching 4th Edition. Harlow: England Pearson Education.
Hertzum, M. (2008). Collaborative information seeking: The combined activity of information seeking and collaborative grounding. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 957-962.
Hong, H. Y., Chen, F. C., Chang, H. M., Liao, C. C. Y., & Chan, W. C. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an idea-centered design to foster a computer-supported knowledge building environment. In C. O`Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL2009 Conference proceedings, 142-150. Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.
Hong, H.Y. & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Toward an idea-centered, princeple-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Reseacrch and Development, 57(5), 613-627.
Hong, H.Y., Chen, B., & Chai, C. S. (2016). Exploring the development of college students` epistemic views during their knowledge building activities. Computers & Education, 98, 1-13.
Hung, W. (2015). Designing a knowledge-building classroom using knowledge building and design thinking principles. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 8(1), 1-14.
Kerr, D. S., & Murthy, U. S. (2004). Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams: A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(4), 381-399.
Lee, E.Y.C., Chan, C.K.K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 1(1). 58-87.
Leicht, A., Heiss, J., & Byun, W. J. (2018). Issues and trends in education for sustainable development (Vol. 5). UNESCO publishing.
Moon, J. (2000). Children Learning English. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
OECD (2010). The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow. Paris: OECD Publishing, 1-8.
OECD (2019). PISA 2021 Creative Thinking Framwork (Third Draft). Paris: OECD Publishing, 4-42.
Oshima, J., Oshima, R., Murayama, I., Inagaki, S., Takenaka, M., Nakayama, H., et al. (2004). Design experiments in Japanese elementary science education with computer support for collaborative learning: Hypothesis testing and collaborative construction. International Journal of Science Education, 26(10), 1199-1221.
Papert, S. (1991). "What`s the Big Idea: Towards a Pedagogy of Idea Power."IBM Systems Journal,39, 3-4.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ransom, S. (2016). The Left Brain Speaks, the Right Brain Laughs. Simon and Schuster. ISBN: 1632280477.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual review of psychology, 55(1), 657-687.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67-98.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of education (2ed., 1370-1373). New York: MacMillan Reference, USA.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K.E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In A. Kovalchick, & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education and technology: An encyclopedia, 183-192. Santa Barbara, CA.
Schleicher, A. (2018). World Class: How to build a 21st-century school system. OECD Publishing.
Sesiorina, S. (2014). The analysis of teachers’ lesson plans in implementing theme-based instruction for teaching English to young learners. Journal of English and Education, 2(1), 84-95.
Shah, C. (2014). Collaborative information seeking. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 215-236.
UNESCO (2022). Retrived from: https://www.unesco.org/en/education/sustainable-development
United Nations (2018). The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals: An opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean (LC/G. 2681-P/Rev. 3), Santiago.
Woodward, T. (2001). Planning Lessons and Courses: Designing Consequences of Work for the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, M. & Jonathan, F. (2009). Exploring factors for Collaborative Group Investigation. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences. 47(2). 123-146.
Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C., & Morley, E. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262-307.		zh_TW