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 設計導向的知識翻新學習對師資培育生教學知識之影響
Effects of design-based knowledge building on pre-service teachers’ teaching knowledge
作者 蔡函汝
Tsai, Han Ju
貢獻者 洪煌堯
Hong, Huang Yao
蔡函汝
Tsai, Han Ju
關鍵詞 知識翻新
設計導向學習
教學知識
師資培育生
knowledge building
design-based learning
teaching knowledge
pre-service teachers
日期 2013
上傳時間 29-Jul-2014 16:15:56 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究探討設計導向的知識翻新學習對師培生的學習有何影響，包括探討其學習結果與學習歷程，同時本研究也分析各學習分組間的差異。研究對象為修習教學媒體與操作課程之44位師培生，以小組為單位進行課程，每組4至5人，共分為10組，採個案研究法。
資料來源包括：(1)師培生三次教案設計；(2)師培生三次教案設計之組內討論；(3)師培生三次教案設計後同儕回饋。資料分析方式說明如下：其一、將三次教案設計根據改編的教案評量表進行教案品質評分，透過相依樣本無母數檢定，比較其成果是否有所改變。其二、根據Mishra和Koehler（2006）所提出之七項教學知識架構，將三次基於教案設計的小組討論及同儕回饋進行編碼，以了解各組想法及回饋中所包含的教學知識有何改變；並以想法類別編碼分析各組師培生討論之想法有何差異。其三、利用集群分析各學習小組，比較不同集群之間學習成果與學習歷程之異同，並藉由質性分析探討各小組如何討論及設計教案，並剖析差異原因。
主要研究結果如下：(1)師培生整體教案設計品質提升，其中又在教學創新及創意表現向度（Z= 2.87，p < .01）與教學架構向度（Z=2.55，p < .05）上有顯著成長。(2)在各組教案設計討論過程中，發現包含一項教學知識的想法數量有顯著減少趨勢（Z=-2.81，P<.01）；在各組收到的回饋中也發現，回饋包含兩項教學知識者於期末則有明顯成長趨勢（Z= 2.19，p < .05）。(3)利用集群分析將各組師培生教案設計所討論的想法進行分類，結果得到兩大集群，其一在認知及後設認知類型想法中產出較多，命名為想法高產出組；另一群則相反，命名為想法低產出組。此外研究還發現，想法高產出組在教案設計之創新及創意面向（t=2.33，p<.05）、教學媒體及科技面向（t=2.80，p<.05）顯著高於低想法產出組，也較低產出組能產出更多認知及後設認知類型討論想法。
綜上述而言，本研究發現設計導向的知識翻新學習歷程有助於師培生教學媒體教案設計之翻新，並提升師培生在討論及回饋中融合運用教學知識之能力。此外亦發現，能提出較多高階類型想法組別，其教案設計之創新程度、科技使用品質及給予他組回饋的表現上，相較之下也較佳。本研究建議教師在教學上應同時兼顧師培生討論數量及品質，鼓勵學生不斷提升討論的想法層次，並適時介入低產出組學生討論之中，協助學生不斷改進其教案設計的想法，以提升其教案設計所需的相關教學知識。
The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of design-based knowledge building on pre-service teachers’ teaching knowledge. This research adopted a case study design. Participants were 44 undergraduate pre-service teachers who engaged in a course pertaining to the design of instructional media. They were divided into 10 learning groups. Data sources included: (1) pre-service teachers’ design of three lesson plans; (2) pre-service teachers’ discussion within groups; and (3) peer feedback after presentation of each group’s lesson plan. The process of data analysis is as follows: First, lesson plans were assessed by an evaluation form, and then analyzed by using nonparametric tests to see if there was any change in the design of lesson plans. Second, the three discussion and peer-feedback activities within each group were analyzed by open coding using two different coding schemes: “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge—TPACK” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), and quality of ideas. Third, using cluster analysis to divide 10 groups into different clusters, this study further compared students’ learning processes and outcomes between groups.
The findings were as follows: (1) It was found that the design quality of lesson plans were enhanced, especially in terms of the innovative and creative teaching performance dimension (Z = 2.87, p <.01) and the design framework dimension (Z = 2.55, p <.05); (2) In the course of group discussion, teaching ideas that contained only one type of teaching knowledge (e.g., content knowledge) had decreased significantly (Z=-2.81，P<.01). Teaching feedback (received from other groups) regarding two types of teaching knowledge (e.g., pedagogical content knowledge) increased significantly (Z= 2.19，p < .05). (3) Using cluster analysis, this study classified 10 groups into 2 clusters based on groups’ discussion about teaching ideas. One cluster outperformed in both cognitive and meta-cognitive types of teaching ideas was named high-productive cluster; the other cluster was named less-productive cluster. High-productive cluster was superior to low-productive cluster in terms of the “Innovative and Creative Teaching” and “Instructional Media and Technology Use” dimensions for lesson plans, and in terms of the quality of feedback they provided to their peer groups. The main findings were as follows: (1) Design-based knowledge building helps pre-service teachers’ to design more innovatively their lesson plans and to enhance their teaching knowledge; (2) It was found that the groups who could work more creatively with ideas could also produce more innovative lesson plans, and were also more likely to give away quality feedback to other peer groups. Based on the findings, it is suggested that teachers should not just pay attention to the quantity of discussion posts, but also the quality of idea discussed. It is also important to encourage student to work innovatively and collaboratively with ideas during discussion. Teachers should also try to intervene and help provide necessary scaffolds to the low-productive groups so as to encourage them to continuously improve their teaching ideas.
參考文獻 王保堤、游光昭、王鼎銘（2006）。設計導向課程對學生科技創造力影響之
研究。新竹教育大學學報，22，77-103。
沈中偉（2004）。科技與學習：理論與實務。臺北：心理。
林育沖（2011）。樂高設計教學影響國小學生科技學習成效之實驗研究。臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系博士論文，臺北市。
林祖強（2011）。職前生物教師資訊科技融入學科教學知識(TPCK)發展之研究。國立臺灣師範大學生命科學研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
林偉文（2002）。國民中小學學校組織文化、教師創意教學潛能與創意教學的關係。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
邱皓政（2010）。量化研究與統計分析SPSS（PASW）資料分析範例（第五版）。臺北市：五南。
徐式寬、關秉寅（2011）。國民中小學教師資訊融入教學素養評量表之建構與調查。科學教育學刊，19（4），335-357。
孫敏芝（2006）。實習教師學科教學知識之探討：教學設計與教學實務。教育研究與發展期刊，2（2），67-92。
高文（譯）（2000）。設計與教學設計（原作者：G. Rolamd)。取自http://www.enewage.org/estudy/think/estrc.htm
連思漢、熊召弟(2010)。師資培育機構及小學現場對職前教師科學學科教學知識發展之影響研究。科學教育研究與發展季刊，57，21-54。
教育部（2008）。中小學資訊教育白皮書。取自www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0010/97-100year.pdf
張世忠（2007）。教材教法之實踐-要領、方法、研究。台北：五南。
張添洲（2000）。教材教法—發展與革新。台北：五南圖書。
張建成（譯）（1994）設計方法（原作者：J.C.Jones)。臺北：六合。
黃志豪（2006）。「從設計中學習」與網路學習社群對學習成效關係之研究。國立臺南大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.
Anderson, L. W., &; Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom`s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitive studies, bulletin of the Japanese cognitive science society, 9(3), 321-327.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the Knowledge Age: Design-Centered Models of Teaching and Instruction. In P. A. A. P. H. Winne (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 695-713). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84.
Carver, S. M., Lehrer, R., Connell, T., & Erickson, J. (1992). Learning by hypermedia design: Issues of assessment and implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 385-404.
Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37-53.
Cobb, P. (1995). Mathematical learning and small-group interaction: Four case studies. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures(pp. 25–129).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of computer assisted learning, 26(1), 18-27.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010) Facilitating Preservice Teachers` Development of Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4).
Cheng, K. H., & Hou, H. T. (2013). Exploring students’ behavioural patterns during online peer assessment from the affective, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives: a progressive sequential analysis. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-18.
Dempsey, J. V., Driscoll, M. P., & Swindell, L. K. (1993). Text-based feedback. In J. V. Dempsey, & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive Instruction and Feedback (pp. 21-54). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of technology education,19(2) , 22-39.
Du, X., de Graaff, E., & Kolmos, A. (2009). Research on PBL practice in engineering education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Fulton, K., Glenn, A., & Valdez, G. (2003). Three preservice programs preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology: A study in partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/tech/preservice.pdf.
Gómez Puente, S., Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: A search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 717-732.
Hacker D. J. & Niederhauser, D. S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the online classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom (pp.53–64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32
Hatano, G., &; Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. A. H. Stevenson &; K. Hakuta (Ed.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York: Freeman
Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613-627.
IDEO. (2011). Design Thinking Toolkit for Educators. Retrieved from http://www.designthinkingforeducators.com/
International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: The Author.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well- structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(1), 65–94.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(4), 63–85.
Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a con-text for children’s learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(1).
Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the Learning of Design Practices: Lessons Learned from an Inquiry into Science Education. Journal Of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9-40.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(4), 495-547.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers Learning Technology by Design. Journal of computing in teacher education, 21(3), 94-102.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740-762.
Kwek, S. H. (2011). Innovation in the Classroom: Design Thinking for 21st Century Learning. Stanford University Unpublished Master`s Thesis.
Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers` adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 245-255.
Liu, Y. T. (1996). Is designing one search or two? A model of design thinking involving symbolism and connectionism. Design Studies, 17(4), 435-449.
Margerum-Leys, J,. & Marx, R. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A study of student teacher/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427–462.
Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory, retrieved from http://members.iinet.net.au/~aamcarthur/11_March_2008_files/Learning_Theories_of_Instructional_Design.pdf
Mishra, P., Zhao, Y., & Tan, H. S. (1999). From concept to soft-ware: Unpacking the blackbox of design. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(2), 220–238.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Moreno, L., Gonzalez, C., Castilla, I., Gonzalez, E., & Sigut, J. (2007). Applying a constructivist and collaborative methodological approach in engineering education. Computers & Education, 49(3), 891-915.
Nagai, Y., & Noguchi, H. (2003). An experimental study on the design thinking process started from difficult keywords: modeling the thinking process of creative design. Journal of Engineering Design, 14(4), 429-437.
Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16-27.
Papert, S. (1993). Children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.
Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: an educational model towards creative confidence. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity.
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348.
Rodrigues, S., Marks, A., & Steel, P. (2003). Developing science and ICT pedagogical content knowledge: A model of continuing professional development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 386-394.
Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B.Smith (Ed.), Liberal Education In A Knowledge Society (pp.67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge Society Network (KSN): Toward an expert society for democratizing knowledge. Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 63-66.
Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
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., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences(pp. 97–115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. A. (2006). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1-51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Silk, E., Schunn, C., & Strand Cary, M. (2009). The Impact of an Engineering Design Curriculum on Science Reasoning in an Urban Setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209-223.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 414.
Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams-an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473-496.
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.
Tsai, C. C., & Liang, J. C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views.Instructional Science, 37(3), 293-310.
Wiebe, J. H., & Taylor, H. G. (1997). What should teachers know about technology? A revised look at the ISTE foundations. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(3), 5–9.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
教育研究所
101152001
102
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101152001
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 洪煌堯zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Hong, Huang Yaoen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 蔡函汝zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Tsai, Han Juen_US
dc.creator (作者) 蔡函汝zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Tsai, Han Juen_US
dc.date (日期) 2013en_US
dc.date.accessioned 29-Jul-2014 16:15:56 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 29-Jul-2014 16:15:56 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 29-Jul-2014 16:15:56 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0101152001en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/67924-
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) 101152001zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 102zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究探討設計導向的知識翻新學習對師培生的學習有何影響，包括探討其學習結果與學習歷程，同時本研究也分析各學習分組間的差異。研究對象為修習教學媒體與操作課程之44位師培生，以小組為單位進行課程，每組4至5人，共分為10組，採個案研究法。
資料來源包括：(1)師培生三次教案設計；(2)師培生三次教案設計之組內討論；(3)師培生三次教案設計後同儕回饋。資料分析方式說明如下：其一、將三次教案設計根據改編的教案評量表進行教案品質評分，透過相依樣本無母數檢定，比較其成果是否有所改變。其二、根據Mishra和Koehler（2006）所提出之七項教學知識架構，將三次基於教案設計的小組討論及同儕回饋進行編碼，以了解各組想法及回饋中所包含的教學知識有何改變；並以想法類別編碼分析各組師培生討論之想法有何差異。其三、利用集群分析各學習小組，比較不同集群之間學習成果與學習歷程之異同，並藉由質性分析探討各小組如何討論及設計教案，並剖析差異原因。
主要研究結果如下：(1)師培生整體教案設計品質提升，其中又在教學創新及創意表現向度（Z= 2.87，p < .01）與教學架構向度（Z=2.55，p < .05）上有顯著成長。(2)在各組教案設計討論過程中，發現包含一項教學知識的想法數量有顯著減少趨勢（Z=-2.81，P<.01）；在各組收到的回饋中也發現，回饋包含兩項教學知識者於期末則有明顯成長趨勢（Z= 2.19，p < .05）。(3)利用集群分析將各組師培生教案設計所討論的想法進行分類，結果得到兩大集群，其一在認知及後設認知類型想法中產出較多，命名為想法高產出組；另一群則相反，命名為想法低產出組。此外研究還發現，想法高產出組在教案設計之創新及創意面向（t=2.33，p<.05）、教學媒體及科技面向（t=2.80，p<.05）顯著高於低想法產出組，也較低產出組能產出更多認知及後設認知類型討論想法。
綜上述而言，本研究發現設計導向的知識翻新學習歷程有助於師培生教學媒體教案設計之翻新，並提升師培生在討論及回饋中融合運用教學知識之能力。此外亦發現，能提出較多高階類型想法組別，其教案設計之創新程度、科技使用品質及給予他組回饋的表現上，相較之下也較佳。本研究建議教師在教學上應同時兼顧師培生討論數量及品質，鼓勵學生不斷提升討論的想法層次，並適時介入低產出組學生討論之中，協助學生不斷改進其教案設計的想法，以提升其教案設計所需的相關教學知識。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of design-based knowledge building on pre-service teachers’ teaching knowledge. This research adopted a case study design. Participants were 44 undergraduate pre-service teachers who engaged in a course pertaining to the design of instructional media. They were divided into 10 learning groups. Data sources included: (1) pre-service teachers’ design of three lesson plans; (2) pre-service teachers’ discussion within groups; and (3) peer feedback after presentation of each group’s lesson plan. The process of data analysis is as follows: First, lesson plans were assessed by an evaluation form, and then analyzed by using nonparametric tests to see if there was any change in the design of lesson plans. Second, the three discussion and peer-feedback activities within each group were analyzed by open coding using two different coding schemes: “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge—TPACK” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), and quality of ideas. Third, using cluster analysis to divide 10 groups into different clusters, this study further compared students’ learning processes and outcomes between groups.
The findings were as follows: (1) It was found that the design quality of lesson plans were enhanced, especially in terms of the innovative and creative teaching performance dimension (Z = 2.87, p <.01) and the design framework dimension (Z = 2.55, p <.05); (2) In the course of group discussion, teaching ideas that contained only one type of teaching knowledge (e.g., content knowledge) had decreased significantly (Z=-2.81，P<.01). Teaching feedback (received from other groups) regarding two types of teaching knowledge (e.g., pedagogical content knowledge) increased significantly (Z= 2.19，p < .05). (3) Using cluster analysis, this study classified 10 groups into 2 clusters based on groups’ discussion about teaching ideas. One cluster outperformed in both cognitive and meta-cognitive types of teaching ideas was named high-productive cluster; the other cluster was named less-productive cluster. High-productive cluster was superior to low-productive cluster in terms of the “Innovative and Creative Teaching” and “Instructional Media and Technology Use” dimensions for lesson plans, and in terms of the quality of feedback they provided to their peer groups. The main findings were as follows: (1) Design-based knowledge building helps pre-service teachers’ to design more innovatively their lesson plans and to enhance their teaching knowledge; (2) It was found that the groups who could work more creatively with ideas could also produce more innovative lesson plans, and were also more likely to give away quality feedback to other peer groups. Based on the findings, it is suggested that teachers should not just pay attention to the quantity of discussion posts, but also the quality of idea discussed. It is also important to encourage student to work innovatively and collaboratively with ideas during discussion. Teachers should also try to intervene and help provide necessary scaffolds to the low-productive groups so as to encourage them to continuously improve their teaching 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 研究目的與待答問題 4
第三節 重要名詞釋義 5
第四節 研究範圍與限制 6
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 知識翻新 9
第二節 設計導向的學習 13
第三節 設計導向的知識翻新 20
第四節 教學知識 24
第三章 研究方法與實施 33
第一節 研究設計 33
第二節 研究對象 34
第三節 教學設計 34
第四節 研究實施程序 41
第五節 資料蒐集與分析 42
第四章 結果與分析 51
第一節 學習成果的改變 51
第二節 學習歷程的改變 57
第三節 各小組之間差異 66
第四節 小組個案探討 72
第五章 結論與建議 95
第一節 結論 95
第二節 建議 100
參考書目 105		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1835782 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101152001en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識翻新zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 設計導向學習zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 教學知識zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 師資培育生zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) knowledge buildingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) design-based learningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) teaching knowledgeen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) pre-service teachersen_US
dc.title (題名) 設計導向的知識翻新學習對師資培育生教學知識之影響zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Effects of design-based knowledge building on pre-service teachers’ teaching knowledgeen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王保堤、游光昭、王鼎銘（2006）。設計導向課程對學生科技創造力影響之
研究。新竹教育大學學報，22，77-103。
沈中偉（2004）。科技與學習：理論與實務。臺北：心理。
林育沖（2011）。樂高設計教學影響國小學生科技學習成效之實驗研究。臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系博士論文，臺北市。
林祖強（2011）。職前生物教師資訊科技融入學科教學知識(TPCK)發展之研究。國立臺灣師範大學生命科學研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
林偉文（2002）。國民中小學學校組織文化、教師創意教學潛能與創意教學的關係。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
邱皓政（2010）。量化研究與統計分析SPSS（PASW）資料分析範例（第五版）。臺北市：五南。
徐式寬、關秉寅（2011）。國民中小學教師資訊融入教學素養評量表之建構與調查。科學教育學刊，19（4），335-357。
孫敏芝（2006）。實習教師學科教學知識之探討：教學設計與教學實務。教育研究與發展期刊，2（2），67-92。
高文（譯）（2000）。設計與教學設計（原作者：G. Rolamd)。取自http://www.enewage.org/estudy/think/estrc.htm
連思漢、熊召弟(2010)。師資培育機構及小學現場對職前教師科學學科教學知識發展之影響研究。科學教育研究與發展季刊，57，21-54。
教育部（2008）。中小學資訊教育白皮書。取自www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0010/97-100year.pdf
張世忠（2007）。教材教法之實踐-要領、方法、研究。台北：五南。
張添洲（2000）。教材教法—發展與革新。台北：五南圖書。
張建成（譯）（1994）設計方法（原作者：J.C.Jones)。臺北：六合。
黃志豪（2006）。「從設計中學習」與網路學習社群對學習成效關係之研究。國立臺南大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.
Anderson, L. W., &; Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom`s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitive studies, bulletin of the Japanese cognitive science society, 9(3), 321-327.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the Knowledge Age: Design-Centered Models of Teaching and Instruction. In P. A. A. P. H. Winne (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 695-713). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84.
Carver, S. M., Lehrer, R., Connell, T., & Erickson, J. (1992). Learning by hypermedia design: Issues of assessment and implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 385-404.
Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37-53.
Cobb, P. (1995). Mathematical learning and small-group interaction: Four case studies. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures(pp. 25–129).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of computer assisted learning, 26(1), 18-27.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010) Facilitating Preservice Teachers` Development of Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4).
Cheng, K. H., & Hou, H. T. (2013). Exploring students’ behavioural patterns during online peer assessment from the affective, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives: a progressive sequential analysis. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-18.
Dempsey, J. V., Driscoll, M. P., & Swindell, L. K. (1993). Text-based feedback. In J. V. Dempsey, & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive Instruction and Feedback (pp. 21-54). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of technology education,19(2) , 22-39.
Du, X., de Graaff, E., & Kolmos, A. (2009). Research on PBL practice in engineering education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Fulton, K., Glenn, A., & Valdez, G. (2003). Three preservice programs preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology: A study in partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/tech/preservice.pdf.
Gómez Puente, S., Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: A search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 717-732.
Hacker D. J. & Niederhauser, D. S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the online classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom (pp.53–64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32
Hatano, G., &; Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. A. H. Stevenson &; K. Hakuta (Ed.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York: Freeman
Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613-627.
IDEO. (2011). Design Thinking Toolkit for Educators. Retrieved from http://www.designthinkingforeducators.com/
International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: The Author.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well- structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(1), 65–94.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(4), 63–85.
Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a con-text for children’s learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(1).
Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the Learning of Design Practices: Lessons Learned from an Inquiry into Science Education. Journal Of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9-40.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(4), 495-547.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers Learning Technology by Design. Journal of computing in teacher education, 21(3), 94-102.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740-762.
Kwek, S. H. (2011). Innovation in the Classroom: Design Thinking for 21st Century Learning. Stanford University Unpublished Master`s Thesis.
Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers` adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 245-255.
Liu, Y. T. (1996). Is designing one search or two? A model of design thinking involving symbolism and connectionism. Design Studies, 17(4), 435-449.
Margerum-Leys, J,. & Marx, R. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A study of student teacher/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427–462.
Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory, retrieved from http://members.iinet.net.au/~aamcarthur/11_March_2008_files/Learning_Theories_of_Instructional_Design.pdf
Mishra, P., Zhao, Y., & Tan, H. S. (1999). From concept to soft-ware: Unpacking the blackbox of design. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(2), 220–238.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Moreno, L., Gonzalez, C., Castilla, I., Gonzalez, E., & Sigut, J. (2007). Applying a constructivist and collaborative methodological approach in engineering education. Computers & Education, 49(3), 891-915.
Nagai, Y., & Noguchi, H. (2003). An experimental study on the design thinking process started from difficult keywords: modeling the thinking process of creative design. Journal of Engineering Design, 14(4), 429-437.
Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16-27.
Papert, S. (1993). Children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.
Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: an educational model towards creative confidence. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity.
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348.
Rodrigues, S., Marks, A., & Steel, P. (2003). Developing science and ICT pedagogical content knowledge: A model of continuing professional development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 386-394.
Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B.Smith (Ed.), Liberal Education In A Knowledge Society (pp.67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge Society Network (KSN): Toward an expert society for democratizing knowledge. Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 63-66.
Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
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., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences(pp. 97–115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. A. (2006). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1-51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Silk, E., Schunn, C., & Strand Cary, M. (2009). The Impact of an Engineering Design Curriculum on Science Reasoning in an Urban Setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209-223.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 414.
Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams-an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473-496.
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.
Tsai, C. C., & Liang, J. C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views.Instructional Science, 37(3), 293-310.
Wiebe, J. H., & Taylor, H. G. (1997). What should teachers know about technology? A revised look at the ISTE foundations. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(3), 5–9.		zh_TW