簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 莊惠淇
Chuang, Hui-Chi
論文名稱: 中小學資訊科技課程運算思維內涵規劃
Computational Thinking Curriculum for K-12 Education -- A Delphi Survey
指導教授: 吳正己
Wu, Cheng-Chih
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 資訊教育研究所
Graduate Institute of Information and Computer Education
論文出版年: 2015
畢業學年度: 103
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 114
中文關鍵詞: 資訊科技課程中小學運算思維大慧調查法
英文關鍵詞: Computing Curriculum, K-12 education, Computational Thinking, Delphi Survey
論文種類: 學術論文
相關次數: 點閱:163下載:37
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 電腦科學教育學者認為運算思維(computational thinking)是每個人都應具備的基本能力,電腦課程應能培養學生此方面之能力。本研究透過大慧調查法逐步取得學者專家的共識,界定中小學各學習年段學生應具備之運算思維能力。研究首先由文獻探討歸納運算思維之內涵,並據以發展大慧調查問卷初稿;接著針對13位專家小組進行的三次問卷及一次座談會議,逐步舉得學生應具備能力之共識。專家小組成員包含大專資訊科系教授、中小學資訊科技教師、及資訊相關產業研究員。專家小組提出擬出之運算思維能力包括九個向度,分別為:問題解決、拆解問題、演算法、資料表示、資料分析、模組化及模擬、抽象化、自動化、與其他領域之關係。各學習年段必要具備之運算思維能力共49項,包含國小階段13項,國中階段9項及高中階段27項;另有選備能力8項,分別於國中階段1項及高中階段7項。本研究結果可作為未來12年國民教育資訊科技課程擬定之參考。

    The objective of this study is to design a computational thinking curriculum standard for K-12 education. The Delphi technique was employed to collect different views and derive consensus from a panel of thirteen experts, including computer scientists, computer science educators, K-12 computer teachers, and industry experts.
    The first draft of Delphi survey questionnaire consists of nine themes (problem solving, problem decomposition, algorithms, data representation, data analysis, modeling and simulation, abstraction, automation and others) and 60 competence indicators, was developed based on our investigation of the nature of computational thinking. After three-rounds of survey and a final round-table discussion, the expert panel derived 49 essential competence indicators (13 for grades K to 6, nine of grades 7 to 9 and 27 of grades 10 to 12) and eight optional competence indicators (one for grades 7 to 9 and seven for grade 10 to 12). The results serve as useful references for developing Taiwan’s new K-12 computing curriculum.

    摘要 i Abstract ii 表目錄 v 圖目錄 vi 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 名詞釋義 4 第二章 文獻探討 5 第一節 運算思維 5 第二節 中小學資訊科技課程與運算思維 10 第三節 大慧調查法 15 第四節 應用大慧調查法於課程規劃 17 第三章 研究方法 21 第一節 研究設計 21 第二節 研究參與者 21 第三節 研究工具 23 第四節 實施流程 25 第四章 結果分析與討論 27 第一節 大慧調查結果 27 第二節 結果分析與討論 32 第五章 結論與建議 55 第一節 結論 55 第二節 建議 58 參考文獻 61 附錄一 大慧調查專家名單 65 附錄二 九大內涵定義 66 附錄三 大慧調查問卷一 67 附錄四 大慧調查問卷專家意見 78 附錄五 大慧調查專家會議討論項目 89 附錄六 大慧調查專家座談會議紀錄 101 附錄七 大慧調查彙整結果 105

    方信淵(2005)。台灣地區大專院校運動觀光課程發展研究。體育學報,38(3),23-36。
    吳美宜、黃松元(2007)。大學通識生死學課程規劃、目標與內容之研究。學校衛生,50,59-86。
    吳瓊洳(2008)。多元文化課程評鑑指標之建構-以新台灣之子學校課程為例。花蓮教育大學學報,27,85-106。
    林香河、陳國彥(2013)。國中性別平等教育課程評鑑指標建構之研究。教育學誌,29,1-20。
    姚文隆、谷家恆、楊俊彬、黃明賢、傅兆章、林栢村、郭文豐(2008)。科技大學精密模具設計分析專業學程課程發展之研究。高雄師大學報,24,81-94。
    莊謙本(1997)。Delphi,DACUM,V-TECS在資訊技術分析與課程設計效能之比較研究。台北:文景出版社。
    教育部(2008a)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要重大議題-資訊教育。2013年8月13日,取自:http://www.tpde.edu.tw/97_sid17/3資訊教育議題1000720-ok.doc
    教育部(2008b)。普通高級中學必修科目「資訊科技概論」課程綱要。2013年8月13日,取自:http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/普通高級中學必修科目「資訊科技概論」課程綱要(1).pdf
    教育部(2013)。提升國民素養專案計劃報告書。2013年12月17日,取自http://literacytw.naer.edu.tw/data/cht/20131104/20131104juhon7.pdf
    教育部(2014)。提升國民素養實施方案 102年結案報告-數位素養研究計畫。2014年07月01日,取自 http://literacytw.naer.edu.tw/data/cht/20140430/20140430v0x2d6.pdf
    國家教育研究院(2013)。十二年國民基本教育科技領域綱要內容之前導研究。國家教育研究院專題研究成果報告(編號:NAER-102-06-A-1-02-09-1-18),未出版。
    黃佳媛(2010)。小學奈米科技核心概念之研究。國立臺中教育大學科學應用與推廣系碩士論文。
    黃佳媛、許良榮、陳欣琦(2011)。小學奈米科技核心概念之研究。臺中教育大學學報,25(1),1-22。
    葉重新(2005)。教育研究法(第二版)。台北:心理出版社。
    廖錦龍(2009)。國民小學友善校園指標建構之研究。中臺科技大學文教事業經營研究所碩士論文。
    潘義祥(2011)。高中學校本位體育課程發展評鑑指標之建構。體育學報,44(4),571-592。
    Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-835.
    Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.
    Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843-855.
    CSTA (Computer Science Teachers Association). (2011a). CSTA K–12 computer science standards. The ACM K-12 Education Task Force. Retrieved from http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CSTA_K-12_CSS.pdf
    CSTA (Computer Science Teachers Association). (2011b). Computational thinking teacher resources, second edition. Retrieved from http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/472.11CTTeacherResources_2ed-SP-vF.pdf
    Cuhls K. (2000). Delphi method. Retrieved from http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/import/16959_DelphiMethod.pdf
    Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J. M. (2010). Demystifying computational thinking for non-computer scientists. Unpublished manuscript in progress, reference in http://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why
    Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management science, 9(3), 458-467.
    Dalkey, N. C., Brown, B. B., & Cochran, S. (1969). The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion (Vol. 3). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
    DOE (Department for Education). (2013, September 11). National curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study
    Gill, F. J., Leslie, G. D., Grech, C., & Latour, J. M. (2013). Using a web-based survey tool to undertake a Delphi study: Application for nurse education research. Nurse education today, 33(11), 1322-1328.
    Google. (2010). Exploring Computational Thinking [Web message]. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/edu/computational-thinking/
    Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Weir, C. (2011). Framing the future: A standards-based conceptual framework for research and practice in inclusive higher education. Think College Insight Brief, Issue No, 10.
    Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K–12: A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
    International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2007). National educational technology standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.
    org/standards/standards-for-students/nets-student-standards-2007
    Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., … Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32-37.
    Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. L. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. SIGCSE Bull., 41(1), 260-264. doi: 10.1145/1539024.1508959
    Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Addison Wesly.
    National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Report of a Workshop on the Scope and Nature of Computational Thinking. National Academies Press.
    National Science Foundation (NSF). (2010). Computational Thinking for Youth. Retrieved from http://itestlrc.edc.org/sites/itestlrc.edc.org/files/Computational_
    Thinking_paper.pdf
    O'Neill, S., Scott, M., & Conboy, K. (2011). A Delphi study on collaborative learning in distance education: The faculty perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 939-949.
    Partnership for 21st Century Skills(P21). (2009). P21 Framework Definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf
    Royal Society. (2012). Shut down or restart: The way forward for computing in UK schools. Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/education/policy/computing-in-schools/report/
    Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
    Wing, J. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions on the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.
    Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking— What and why? The Link Magazine, Spring. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-
    what-and-why
    Yeh, Y. F., Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H. K., Hwang, F. K., & Lin, T. C. (2013). Developing and validating technological pedagogical content knowledge‐practical (TPACK‐practical) through the Delphi survey technique. British Journal of Educational Technology.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE