檢視高中學生科技學習態度、知識信念與學業成就之關係

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：14

、訪客IP：13.59.218.147

姓名

郭佩容(Pei-Jung Kuo) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

檢視高中學生科技學習態度、知識信念與學業成就之關係
(Exploring the Relationships among the Learning Attitudes toward Technology, Epistemological Beliefs and Academic Achievement of Senior High School Students in Taiwan)

相關論文

★ 由I/E模式、大魚小池效應與合併模型檢驗學生學業成就與學業自我概念之結構關係-以TIMSS 2011科學與數學為例	★ 探索機器人學習活動之背景和經驗、動機、策略與成就相關性：以國小高年級學生為例
★ The Importance of Context for Adolescents’ Motivational Beliefs in Science Learning and their Relationships with Science Achievement: Results from Taiwanese TIMSS Data

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

本研究的主要目的係在探討台灣高中學生科技學習態度、知識信念以及學業成就之關係。研究對象來自台灣北部三所高中之一年級學生，採隨機抽樣的方式抽取550位學生，其中有效樣本為496份。本研究的研究工具為科技學習態度量表以及知識信念量表，以敘述性統計、多變量變異數分析、皮爾森積差相關以及結構方程模式等統計分析，分別檢視不同背景變項的學生在科技學習態度以及知識信念上的表現是否有所差異，接著探討科技學習態度與知識信念之間的關係，最後，檢視其科技學習態度以及知識信念是否與學業成就有預測作用並檢驗本研究所建立的「科技學習態度、知識信念與學業成就」之假設模式是否適切。研究結果顯示，本研究的高中生傾向積極、正向的科技學習態度表現，在知識信念方面傾向抱持著知識再製信念學習。在檢視不同學生背景變項在科技學習態度以及知識信念上表現之結果顯示出：在科技學習態度方面為男生、以自然組為志向以及父母親職業為科技相關之學生，其科技學習態度的表現較佳；在知識信念方面為女生、以社會組為志向的學生，其知識信念的表現傾向於建構式之知識信念。從研究中亦發現科技學習態度與建構式之知識信念為顯著正向關係，並從結構方程模式的結果進一步發現知識再製信念與學業成就間有顯著的負向預測作用。最後，本研究將根據研究結果提出適當建議，以提供教育工作者以及未來研究之參考。

摘要(英)

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationships among the learning attitudes toward technology, epistemological beliefs, and academic achievements of senior high school students in Taiwan. The subjects are 550 first-grade students randomly selected from three senior high schools in northern Taiwan. The number of valid samples is 496. The instruments used in this study are the “students’ learning attitudes toward technology questionnaire” and the “epistemological beliefs questionnaire.” It was also examined separately whether there was a difference in the learning attitudes toward technology and epistemological beliefs of students from different backgrounds using the descriptive statistics techniques of MANOVA, Pearson’s correlation and Structural equation modeling (SEM). The relationship between learning attitudes toward technology and epistemological beliefs was then explored. Finally, it was examined whether the learning attitudes toward technology and epistemological beliefs can be used to estimate academic achievement, and whether the hypothetical model established in this study for clarifying the relationships among learning attitudes toward technology, epistemological beliefs, and academic achievements is suitable.
The results indicate that the senior high school students in this study tended to have positive attitudes towards learning technology, and exhibited reproductive-oriented epistemological beliefs. As for the factor of students’ background, male students who tended to select a science major and whose parents’ jobs were technology-related had better performance on learning attitudes toward technology. On the other hand, with regard to epistemological beliefs, female students who selected humanities major tended to exhibit constructivist-oriented epistemological beliefs. Moreover, it can also be identified from this study that the relationship between learning attitudes toward technology and constructivist-oriented epistemological beliefs is positively significant, and that there is a significantly negative relationship between reproductive epistemological beliefs and academic achievement based on the SEM analysis results. According to the results, this study provides suggestions for educators and for further research.

關鍵字(中)

★ 科技學習態度
★ 知識信念
★ 學業成就

關鍵字(英)

★ learning attitudes toward technology
★ epistemological beliefs
★ academic achievement

論文目次

目次 i
表目次 iv
圖目次 vi
一、緒論 1
1-1　　研究背景與動機 1
1-2　　研究目的 4
1-3　　研究問題 5
1-4　　研究限制 5
1-5　　名詞釋義 6
二、文獻探討 9
2-1　　科技的定義 9
2-2　　科技學習態度背景與相關研究 11
2-3　　知識信念 22
2-3-1　知識信念之定義 22
2-3-2　科學與科技之關係 27
2-4　　學業成就 28
2-4-1　學業成就與科技學習態度之相關研究 28
2-4-2　學業成就與知識信念之相關研究 30
三、研究方法 31
3-1　　研究設計 32
3-2　　研究對象 34
3-3　　研究假設 35
3-4　　研究工具與資料蒐集 36
3-4-1　科技學習態度量表 36
3-4-2　知識信念量表 40
3-4-3　學業成就指標 41
3-5　　資料分析方法 41
四、研究結果 49
4-1　　科技學習態度與知識信念之基本分析 49
4-1-1　高中學生科技學習態度之表現現況 49
4-1-2　高中學生所持有之知識信念分佈情形 50
4-2　　不同背景變項之高中生在科技學習態度與知識信念量表上的差異分析 50
4-2-1　不同性別學生在科技學習態度量表上的差異性分析 50
4-2-2　不同類組志向學生在科技學習態度量表上的差異性分析 51
4-2-3　學生父親職業與科技相關程度不同在科技學習態度量表上的差異性分析 53
4-2-4　學生母親職業與科技相關程度不同在科技學習態度量表上的差異性分析 54
4-2-5　不同性別學生在知識信念量表上的差異性分析 55
4-2-6　不同類組志向學生在知識信念量表上的差異性分析 56
4-2-7　學生父親學歷不同在知識信念量表上的差異性分析 56
4-2-8　學生母親學歷不同在知識信念量表上的差異性分析 57
4-3　　高中生科技學習態度與知識信念之關係 58
4-4　　科技學習態度、知識信念與學業成就之結構方程模式 60
4-4-1　驗證性因素分析（confirmatory factor analysis, CFA） 61
4-4-2　結構模式 72
五、討論與建議 76
5-1　　討論 76
5-1-1　高中學生科技學習態度與知識信念表現之現況 76
5-1-2　不同背景變項之高中生在科技學習態度以及知識信念表現之差異情形。 77
5-1-3　科技學習態度與知識信念之關係 81
5-1-4　科技學習態度、知識信念與學業成就之結構方程模式 81
5-2　　結論 82
5-2-1　不同背景背項之高中學生在科技學習態度上的表現有顯著差異 82
5-2-2　不同背景變項之高中學生在知識信念的表現有顯著差異 83
5-2-3　高中學生的科技學習態度與知識建構信念有正向相關 84
5-2-4　高中學生的知識再製信念對於學業成就有負向預測作用 84
5-3　　建議 85
5-3-1　對教學的建議 85
5-3-2　對未來研究的建議 87
參考文獻 88
附錄一 99
附錄二 102
附錄三 103

參考文獻

一、英文部份
Alsop, S., & Watts, M. (2003). Science education and affect. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1043-1047.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and commended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Ankiewicz, P., van Rensburg, S., & Myburgh, C. (2001). Assessing the attitudinal technology profile of South African learners: A pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(2), 93-109.
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
Bame, E., Dugger, W., Jr., de Vries, M., & McBee, J. (1993). Pupils’ attitudes toward technology - PATT-USA. Journal of Technology Studies, 19(1), 40-48.
Becker, K. H., & Maunsaiyat, S. (2002). Thai students’ attitudes and concepts of technology. Journal of Technology Education, 12(2), 6-20.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
Boser, R. A., Palmer, J. D., & Daugherty, M. K. (1998). Students’ attitudes toward technology in selected technology education programs. Journal of Technology Education, 10(1), 4-19.
Brooks, J. G. (1990). Teachers and students: Constructivists forging new connections. Educational Leadership, 47(5), 68-71.
Bybee, R. W. (2000). Achieving technological literacy: A national imperative. The Technology Teacher, 60(1), 23-28.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 6.
Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715-729.
Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through secondary school and their influence on academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 203-221.
Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge.　Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235-251.
Chan, C. K. K., & Sachs, J. (2001). Beliefs about learning in children’s understanding of science texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 192-210.
Choresh, C., Mevarech, Z. R., & Frank, M. (2009). Developing argumentation ability as a way to promote technological literacy. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(4), 225-234.
Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 186-204.
Constantinou, C., Hadjilouca, R., & Papadouris, N. (2009). Students’ epistemological awareness concerning the distinction between science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 143-172.
DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 1, 1-16.
Douthwaite, B., de Haan, N. C., Manyong, V., Keatinge, D. (2002). Blending hard and soft science: The “follow-the-technology” approach to catalyzing and evaluating technology change. Conservation Ecology 5(2): 13.
Fahmy, M. F. (2004). Thinking about technology effects on higher education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 30(1), 53-58.
Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 56-83.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Gardner, P. (1997). The roots of technology and science: A philosophical and historical view. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 13-20.
Gardner, P. L. (1999). The representation of science-technology relationships in Canadian physics textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 329-347.
Gilbert, J. K. (1992). The interface between science education and technology education. International Journal of Science Education, 14(5), 563-578.
Gil-Pérez, D., Vilches, A., Fernández, I., Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., Valdés, P., & Salinas, J. (2005). Technology as “applied science”: A serious misconception that reinforces distorted and impoverished views of science. Science & Education, 14(3-5), 309-320.
Griffiths, A. K., & Heath, N. P. (1996). High school students’ views about technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 14(2), 153-162.
Hacker, M., & Barden, R. A (1987). Technology in your world. Albany, NY:Delmar Publishers.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey : Prentice-Hall.
Hanrahan, M. (1998). The effect of learning environment factors on students’ motivation and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 737-753.
Harrison, A. J. (1984). Science, engineering, and technology. Science, 223, 543.
Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 378-405.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353-383.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
Hogan, K. (1999). Relating students’ personal frameworks for science learning to their cognition in collaborative contexts. Science education, 83, 1-32.
Hough, L. W., & Piper, M. K. (1982). The relationship between attitudes toward science and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(1), 33-38.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Huffman, W. H., & Huffman, A. H. (2011). Beyond basic study skills: The use of technology for success in college. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 583-590.
International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
International Technology Education Association. (2006). Technological literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Klatter, E. B., Lodewijks, H. G. L. C., & Aarnoutse, C. A. J. (2001). Learning conceptions of young students in the final year of primary education. Learning and Instruction, 11(6), 485-516.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
Kruse, J. W., & Wilcox, J. L. (2013). Engaging students with the nature of science and the nature of technology by modeling the work of scientists. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 86(3), 109-115.
Kuo, P.-J, & Liou, P.-Y. (2013, April). The development of scales to measure student’ learning attitudes toward technology. Paper presented at 2013 International Symposium on Education and Psychology, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Law, Y. K., Chan, C. K. K., & Sachs, J. (2008). Beliefs about learning, self-regulated strategies and text comprehension among Chinese children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 51-73.
Lin, C.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). A ‘‘navigation flow map” method of representing students’ searching behaviors and strategies on the Web. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 689-695.
Liou, P.-Y. ,& Kuo, P.-J. (submitted). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ concepts of the nature of technology.
Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Zurlo, G. (2006). Epistemological understanding in different judgment domains: Relationships with gender, grade level, and curriculum. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1-2), 43-56.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
National Governors Association (2007). Building a science, technology, engineering and math agenda. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/BIOBOOK07.pdf
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
Ozkal, K., Tekkaya, C., Sungur, S., Cakiroglu, J., & Cakiroglu, E. (2011). Elementary students’ scientific epistemological beliefs in relation to socio-economic status and gender. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(2), 115-127.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory and research on personal epistemology. In P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal Epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 389-414). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Raat, J. H., & de Vries, M. (1985). What do 13-Year old pupils think about technology? The conception of and the attitude towards technology of 13-year old girls and boys. Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 262 998).
Ravindran, B., Greene, B. A., & Debacker, T. K. (2005). Predicting preservice teachers’ cognitive engagement with goals and epistemological beliefs. Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 222-232.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.
Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational psychology, 85(3), 406.
Schommer, M., & Dunnell, P. A. (1994). A comparison of epistemological beliefs between gifted and non-gifted high school students. Roeper Review, 16(3), 207-210.
Schumaker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sinatra, G. M. (2001). Knowledge, beliefs, and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 321-323.
Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323-332.
Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761-784.
The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2007). Preparing STEM teachers: The key to global competitiveness. Retrieved July 27, 2012, from http://aacte.org/index.php?/Government-Relations/Publications/preparing-stem-teachers-day-on-the-hill-2007.html
Tsai, C.-C., & Liu, S.-Y. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemological views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1621-1638.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth graders. Science Education, 82, 473-489.
Tu, Y.-W., Shih, M., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Eighth graders’ web searching strategies and outcomes: The role of task types, web experiences and epistemological beliefs. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1142-1153
Tuan, H.-L., Chin, C.-C., & Shieh, S.-H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639-654.
van Rensburg, S., Ankiewicz, P., & Myburgh, C. (1999). Assessing South Africa learners’ attitudes towards technology by using the PATT (pupils’ attitudes towards technology) questionnaire. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(2), 137-151.
Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. (2011). Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ motivation and self-regulation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2159-2179.
Volk, K. S., & Yip, W. M. (1999). Gender and technology in Hong Kong: A study of pupils’ attitudes toward technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 57-71.
Volk, K. S., Yip, W. M., & Lo, T. K. (2003). Hong Kong pupils’ attitudes toward technology: The impact of design and technology programs. Journal of Technology Education, 15(1), 48-63.
Youn, I., Yang, K. M., & Choi, I. J. (2001). An analysis of the nature of epistemological beliefs: Investigating factors affecting the epistemological development of South Korea high school students. Asia Pacific Education Review, 2(1), 10-21.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
二、中文部份
何宗翰（1998）。主修領域背景對大學生知識信念與學習策略的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，台北市。
余民寧 (2006)。潛在變項模式：SIMPLIS的應用。台北市: 高等教育。
余鑑（2003）。科技與科學關係之探討。生活科技教育月刊，36（7），3-10。
余鑑（2004）。科技素養教育在九年一貫課程「自然與生活科技」領域發展困境之分析。生活科技教育月刊，37（1），3-9。
林民棟（2006）。國小高年級學生科技態度之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。
林建華（2011）。國中學生科技素養與科技態度之相關研究（未出版之碩士論文）。中原大學，桃園縣。
林清煙（2007）。台中縣國中生科技態度之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學，彰化縣。
邱皓政（2011）。結構方程模式: LISREL/SIMPLIS的原理與應用（第二版）。台北：雙葉書廊圖書公司。
洪昆裕、董與國（2006）。從學習理論探討影響網路學習績效因素之研究-以銘傳大學學生為例。Journal of e-Business，3，295-312。
夏宗義（2004）。高雄縣大寮地區國中三年級學生科技態度之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。
徐毅穎（2012）。高中生科技素養與科技態度相關之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
翁秀玉、段曉林（1998）。國小自然科教師傳達科學本質之行動研究。科學教育期刊，8，36-52.
張玉山（1996）。科技知識特性之探討。花蓮師院學報，6，321-350。
張玉山（1998）。師院生科技態度之調查-以花蓮師院為例。花蓮師院學報，8，297-315。
張春興、楊國樞（1998）。心理學（15版）。台北市：三民。
張淑女（2009）。高雄縣國小學童學業成就、科技態度與問題解決能力之相關研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。
教育部（2012）。高級中學課程標準暨綱要之課程綱要令。取自http://www.edu.tw/high-school/content.aspx?site_content_sn=8411
陳萩卿、張景媛（2007）。知識信念影響學習運作模式之驗證。教育心理學報，39（1），23-43。
游光昭、林坤誼（2007）。數學、科學、科技統整課程對不同學習風格學習者在學習成效上之影響。國立臺南大學「教育研究學報」，4（1），1-16。
游光昭、韓豐年、徐毅穎、林坤誼（2005）。國中學生科技態度量表之發展。高雄師大學報，19，69-83。
楊宏仁、何妙桂（2008）。國小學童科技態度與科學態度相關性研究。工業科技教育學刊，2，71-78。
劉佩雲（2009）。課室結構知覺對科學知識信念、學習成效與迷思概念的影響。課程與教學季刊，12（2），135-160。
劉湘瑤、李麗菁、蔡今中（2007）。科學認識觀與社會性科學議題抉擇判斷之相關性探討。科學教育學刊，15（3），335-356。
蔡今中（1998）。STS 教學對高一學生科學認識觀及認知結構之影響。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告（編號：NSC 87-2511-S-009-001），未出版。
蔡執仲、段曉林、靳知勤（2007）。巢狀探究教學模式對國二學生理化學習動機影響之探討。科學教育學刊，15（2），119-114。
蔡華齡、陳振綱（2007）。自然與生活科技的結合。生活科技教育，40（6），2-11。
蔡瓊華（2005）。高中學生知識信念、學習風格與學業成就之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學，彰化縣。
鄭吉貿（2000）。台北市國中學生科技態度之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
謝文斌、耿建興（2003）。從高中課程綱要之修訂脈絡談新生活科技課程：基層教師之觀點。生活科技教育月刊，36（8），12-28。

指導教授

劉佩艷(Pey-Yan Liou)

審核日期

2013-7-30

推文