以鷹架為基礎之科展探究系統平台之開發與評估

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：76

、訪客IP：18.116.8.41

姓名

鄭茜羽(Chien-yu Cheng) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

以鷹架為基礎之科展探究系統平台之開發與評估
(Development and evaluation of the Online Science Fair Inquiry System based on scaffolding design)

相關論文

★ 支援國小科展探究教與學之網路科展探究系統的開發與評估	★ 教師科展專業知識分享社群平台系統開發與評估
★ 科學小論文寫作平台的建置與評估	★ 「探究教學線上教師社群平台」之建置與評估:以知識管理理論為基礎
★ 科學閱讀平台之發展與評估	★ Improving Novice Teachers’ Instructional Practice Through Online Multilevel Reflection: The Role of Novice Teachers’ Beliefs
★ The Effect s of Video-based Reflection on Preservice Teachers′ Micro Teaching Focusing on Meaningful Learning with ICT	★ Examining Teachers’ Online Video-Based Reflective Practice for Professional Development Regarding Guided-Discovery Learning Instruction
★ 數位教育遊戲之開發與評估：以「Mr.道耳頓的奇幻歷險」為例	★ 應用自然語言處理技術開發基於知識翻新理論之線上非同步合作論證平台與平台初步評估
★ 同步討論與反思系統（SDRS）對小學生知識建構學習環境感知和學習成果的影響	★ 具有集成設計框架的同步在線論證系統用戶界面：重新設計和評估
★ 科學探究學習系統之開發與評估	★ 支援科學專題學習之線上學習平台開發與評估
★ 線上合作共同備課平台：開發與評估	★ 歷史影音學習平台之開發與評估

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]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

探究（inquiry）是現代科學教育的重要核心，而探究學習活動會隨著開放程度有所不同，目標希望學習者有能力進行「開放式探究」（open inquiry）。科學展覽（Science Fair）是探究學習活動中最常見的開放式探究活動。然而，科展活動在台灣的教育現場面臨許多困難與挑戰，沒有經驗的教師無法有效引導學生進行探究活動，而且專業知能不足的教師無法建立學生對於科學展覽的概念。為了幫助科展探究的教與學，本研究主要的目有兩個，一為進行「網路科展探究系統」（Online Science Fair Inquiry System，OSFIS）的改版，以提供教師進行科展探究教學、學生進行科展探究所需要的各種鷹架；二為評估OSFIS是否能符合科展教師的需求。本研究研究對象為61名國小教師，採用調查研究法的問卷調查法，評估國小教師對於OSFIS的感知。研究結果發現現場國小教師對於OSFIS的「使用意願」、「整體知覺有用性」、「整體知覺易用性」、「探究歷程架構之有用性」、「鷹架功能之有用性」都是給予正面回饋；此外更進一步分析，發現在不同專業背景、不同網路教學經驗、在網路教學環境中的自我效能程度與對學生表現的信心程度可能會有影響科展教師對於OSFIS的感知。

摘要(英)

Science fair inquiry (i.e., doing science fair projects) is one of the most common open inquiry learning activities in schools. By doing science fair projects, learners can develop their ability necessary to do scientific inquiry as well as understanding about scientific inquiry. However, there are a great deal of difficulties and challenges for the elementary teachers in Taiwan, such as they may not have sufficient professional ability in guiding learners to conduct science fair inquiry activities effectively. To scaffold teachers’ instruction and students’ learning in science fair inquiry, the “Online Science Fair Inquiry System” (OSFIS) was developed in this study. After the development of the OSFIS, a series of system evaluations on it was conducted with questionnaire survey. The participants of the system evaluation in this study were 61 elementary school teachers. In general, the participant teachers expressed satisfactory perceived usefulness and ease of use of the OSFIS, and were highly tended to use the OSFIS in their science fair instruction. Also, they recognized the usefulness of both the instructional and learning scaffoldings provided in the OSFIS. Moreover, this study revealed that the teachers’ academic backgrounds, experience on using the Internet for teaching, and their self-efficacy may play roles in their perceptions of using the OSFIS. Suggestions and implications for educational practices, system design, and future research are also discussed in this study.

關鍵字(中)

★ 科學展覽
★ 探究
★ 網路科展探究系統
★ 科技增進工具
★ 鷹架

關鍵字(英)

★ Science fair
★ Science fair inquiry
★ Online Science Fair Inquiry System
★ Technology-enhanced inquiry tools
★ Scaffolding

論文目次

摘要 I
Abstract II
致謝詞 III
目錄 IV
表目錄 VIII
圖目錄 X
第一章緒論 1
第一節研究背景與動機 1
第二節研究目的 3
第三節研究問題 4
第四節名詞釋義 5
第五節研究限制 7
第二章文獻探討 8
第一節探究與科展活動 8
壹、什麼是「探究」? 8
貳、探究在科學教育上的意涵 9
參、探究的歷程與開放程度 10
肆、科學展覽活動教與學之現況 13
伍、小結 14
第二節資訊科技輔助探究教學 15
壹、科技增進探究工具 15
貳、支援探究教與學之鷹架工具 16
參、小結 17
第三節相關系統分析與比較 19
壹、相關系統介紹 19
貳、相關系統比較 23
第四節綜合探討 24
第三章系統設計與實作 25
第一節系統開發方式 25
壹、系統開發人員架構 25
貳、系統開發流程 26
第二節系統設計規劃 27
壹、系統設計之特色 27
貳、探究架構設計 27
參、系統流程設計 30
肆、系統鷹架功能設計 32
第三節系統架構與系統功能模組 38
壹、系統架構 38
貳、系統功能模組 40
參、系統模組與鷹架功能對應關係 46
第四節系統配置 49
壹、硬體設施 49
貳、軟體設施 49
參、使用環境建議 49
第五節系統介面與角色功能畫面 50
壹、系統介面設計 50
貳、系統流程畫面說明 52
參、學生端功能畫面說明 59
肆、教師端功能畫面說明 68
第四章研究方法 80
第一節研究對象 80
壹、教師基本資料 80
貳、教師之科展教學經驗 82
參、教師之網路輔助教學相關經驗 83
第二節研究流程 84
第三節系統評估流程 85
第四節研究工具 86
壹、教師對於「網路科展探究系統」之科技接受度量表 86
貳、教師對於「網路科展探究系統」探究歷程架構之知覺有用性量表 86
參、教師對於「網路科展探究系統」鷹架功能之知覺有用性量表 87
第五節資料處理與分析 90
第五章結果與討論 91
第一節國小教師對於OSFIS之整體知覺有用性與整體知覺易用性 91
壹、整體知覺有用性 91
貳、整體知覺易用性 92
參、小結 93
第二節國小教師對於OSFIS之支持探究教與學的知覺有用性 94
壹、探究架構知覺有用性之學生探究學習 94
貳、探究架構知覺有用性之老師探究教學 95
參、小結 96
第三節國小教師對於OSFIS之鷹架功能的知覺有用性 97
壹、鷹架功能知覺有用性之學生探究學習 97
貳、鷹架功能知覺有用性之教師探究教學 101
參、小結 105
第四節國小教師對於OSFIS之整體使用意願及可能影響的原因 106
壹、系統整體使用意願 106
貳、影響教師使用意願之原因探討 106
參、小結 109
第五節不同背景變項的國小教師對於OSFIS之感知差異 110
壹、不同性別之國小教師對於OSFIS的感知差異 110
貳、不同學歷之國小教師對於OSFIS的感知差異 111
參、不同自然科教學年資之國小教師對於OSFIS的感知差異 112
肆、不同專業背景之國小教師對於OSFIS的感知差異 113
伍、不同科展指導經驗之國小教師對於OSFIS的感知差異 115
陸、不同網路教學經驗之國小教師對與OSFIS的感知差異 116
柒、使用網路教學具備不同自信程度之國小教師對於OSFIS的感知差異 118
捌、對於學生在網路學習中的表現具不同信心程度之對於OSFIS的感知差異 119
玖、小結 121
第六節國小教師對於OSFIS之系統改進建議 124
第六章結論與建議 126
第一節結論 126
壹、對參與本研究教師的觀點，覺得OSFIS支援科展探究的教與學是有用的 126
貳、對參與本研究教師的觀點，覺得OSFIS是容易學習與使用的 126
參、對參與本研究教師的觀點，覺得OSFIS提供的探究架構對於老師與學生是有用的 126
肆、對參與本研究教師的觀點，覺得OSFIS提供的鷹架功能對於學生和老師是有用的 126
伍、對參與本研究教師的觀點，覺得國小教師普遍願意使用OSFIS指導科展 127
陸、不同背景變項的國小教師，對於OSFIS的感知差異 127
第二節建議 129
壹、教學實務建議 129
貳、系統設計與改良建議 129
參、未來研究建議 130
參考文獻 131
附錄 136
附錄一教師背景問卷 136
附錄二教師對於「網路科展探究系統」之科技接受度問卷 137
附錄三「網路科展探究系統」探究架構之知覺有用性問卷 138
附錄四「網路科展探究系統」學生鷹架功能之知覺有用性問卷 139
附錄五「網路科展探究系統」老師鷹架功能之知覺有用性問卷 141
附錄六其他回饋問卷 143

參考文獻

王克先（1989）。學習心理學。台北市：桂冠圖書股份有限公司。
沈惠淳（2010）。高雄市國小教師指導科展現況、困難與需求之研究。高雄師範大學工業科技教育學系研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
沈惠淳（2010）。高雄市國小教師指導科展現況、困難與需求之研究。高雄師範大學工業科技教育學研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
洪振方 (2003)。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。國立高雄師範大學高雄師大學報，15，641-662。
張玉成（2000）。思考技巧與教學。台北：心理出版社股份有限公司。
教育部（2003），科學教育白皮書。台北：教育部。
黃鴻博（1999）。以STS教育理念改進國民小學團體活動教學之研究。中師數理學刊，第二卷第一期，第88-110頁.
鐘一華（2012）。支援國小科展探究教與學之網路科展探究系統的開發與評估（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。
Abd El Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15-42.
Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok‐Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science education, 88(3), 397-419.
Abernethy, K., Gabbert, P. & Treu, K. (1998). Inquiry-Based Computer Science Instruction : Some Initial Experiences. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education and on 6th Annual Conference on the Teaching of Computing, pp.14-17. Ireland.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
An, Y.-J. (2010). Scaffolding wiki-based, ill-structured problem solving in an online environment. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6, 723-734. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/Vol6_No4.htm
Anderson, R.D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1-12.
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.
Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition – implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science,33(5-6), 367–379.
Banchi, H. & Bell, R. (2008). The Many Levels of Inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26-29.
Beers, P., Boshuizen, H., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2007). The analysis of negotiation of common ground in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 427-435.
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
Bencze, J.L., & Bowen, G.M. (2009). A national science fair: Exhibiting support for the knowledge economy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(18), 2459-2483.
Bybee, J. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI, 65-85.
Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, G. (1993). Goals for the Science Curriculum. In Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Champagne, A.B., Kouba, V.L., and Hurley, M. (2000). Assessing inquiry. In J. Minstrell and E.H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp.447-470). Washington, DC: American for the Advancement of Science.
Chen, W., Looi, C.K., & Tan, S. (2010). What do Students do in a F2F CSCL Classroom? The Optimization of Multiple Communications Modes. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1159-1170.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175 – 218.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916 – 937.
de Jong, T. (2006). Computer simulations - Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533.
Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 39 – 60.
Hamelin, D. (2004), Searching the Web to Develop Inquiry and Collaborative Skills. Annual Joint Conference Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education. Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education, United Kingdom.
Hill, J. R. & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(3), 37-52.
Justi, R. & Gilbert, J.K. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369–387.
Kim, M. C. & Hannaﬁn, M. J. (in press b). Foundations and practice for Web-enhanced science learning environments: grounded design perspectives. In Trends in Distance Education, 2nd ed., edited by R. Luppicini. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology‐enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science education, 91(6), 1010-1030.
Krajcik, J. S., P. Blumenfeld, et al. (1998). “Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3 & 4), 313-350.
Kyriazi, E., & Constantinou, C. (2004). The Science Fair as a Means for Developing Investigative Skills in Elementary School.
Kyza, E. A., Constantinou, C. P., & Spanoudis, G. (2011). Sixth graders’ co-construction of explanations of a disturbance in an ecosystem: Exploring relationships between grouping, reﬂective scaffolding, and evidence based explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 2489–2525. doi: 10(1080/09500693),2010,550951.
Land, S. M., & Greene, B. A. (2000). Project-based learning with the World Wide Web: a qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 45–67.
Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., & LeRoy, K. (2006). Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difﬁculties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 607–636.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge.
Luft, J. A., Roehrig, G. H., & Patterson, N. C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary science teachers’ practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 77 – 97.
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional science, 26(1), 49-63.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students′ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
Mettas, A. C., & Constantinou, C. C. (2008). The Technology Fair: a project-based learning approach for enhancing problem solving skills and interest in design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(1), 79-100.
Morgan, K., & Brooks, D. (2012). Investigating a Method of Scaffolding Student-Designed Experiments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 513–522.
Morris, R., Hadwin, A. F., Gress, C. L. Z., Miller, M., Fior, M., Church, H., et al. (2010). Designing roles, scripts, and prompts to support CSCL in Study.Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 815–824.
National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2011). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences: 13(3), 273-304.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273 – 304.
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004).Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88. 345-372.
Sharpe, T. (2006). ′Unpacking′ Scaffolding: Identifying Disourse and Multimodal Strategies that Support Learning. Language and Education, 20(3), 211-231.
Slotta, J.D. (2004). The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE): Scaffolding Knowledge Integration in the Science Classroom. In M.C. Linn, P. Bell and E. Davis (Eds). Internet Environments for Science Education. 203-232. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments with cooperation scripts. In R. Bromme, Hesse, F.W., & Spada, H. (Ed.), Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated knowledge communication and how they may be overcome (5 ed., pp. 15-38). New York: Springer.
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211-223.
White, B., Shimoda, T., & Frederiksen, J. (1999). Enabling Students to Construct Theories of Collaborative Inquiry and Reflective Learning: Computer Support for Metacognitive Development. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2), 151-182.
Windschit, M. (2004). Folk theories of inquiry: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yuen, AHK & Ma, WWK (2008). Exploring teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3): 229–243.

指導教授

吳穎沺(Ying-tien Wu)

審核日期

2014-7-18

推文