隨著科技與社會的發展，學生在課堂上面臨的難題不單單只是書本內的既有知識，這些問題難以靠個人的努力進行解決，而是透過小組成員間的協作學習去達到進一步的知識提升。
在近幾年，STEM跨學科教學在教育領域蓬勃發展，也需要有更合適的教學策略與課程設計來進行，將機器人的實作課程融入在STEM的教學當中，內容方面結合了科學、機械、數學、資訊四個面向的相關知識與技術之課程，符合新課綱在科技教育方面，著重培養學生跨領域整合知識運用能力。知識論壇是依據知識翻新理論設計的教學平台，學生能夠在此平台中對知識及想法產生進行合作建構，提昇社群成員集體反思，讓合作學習與知識翻新活動能具有社會學習過程，營造出更有效能的線上學習環境。6E模式為STEM提供教學步驟，而知識翻新的原則也提供了STEM有效的教學策略。過去的教學注重「概念」的培養，著重學生對知識的理解，而知識翻新則是以「想法」為中心的教學，由小組間共同分享與建構知識。知識翻新教學能在STEM中能建立良好的學習環境，鼓勵學生以創新的方式來解決問題並協作建立知識，透過結合6E教學策略能提升學生的探究與思考能力。
本研究對象為56名國中二年級學生，以單一實驗組進行課程規劃，目的為探討國中學生基於知識翻新以想法為中心的教學歷程，教學內容以「知識論壇」（Knowledge Forum, KF）線上平台進行課堂活動了解線上平台的操作和知識翻新原則並讓學生在課堂中進行討論及發想，接著進行STEM掃地機器人實作課程，經由準實驗設計來瞭解課程對於學生學習成效與學習參與度和6E模式實作課程中使用知識翻新原則情況。
研究結果發現到透過知識論壇分析工具依據不同小組的筆記創建情形區分高低參與度組別，高低參與度小組隨著專題課程進行在學習參與度方面和STEM學習成效都有所提昇。並透過實作課程中的錄影帶分析出不論是高或低參與度組別在6E模式不同階段中，特定幾項知識翻新原則是最容易被學生所使用到包含優先看中真實中發生的問題原則、所有概念與想法皆可改進原則、想法有多元的觀點原則和自主追求的學習者原則，相關研究結果可供後續研究6E模式的教學相關研究者作為參考並融入未來教學設計當中。

With the development of technology and society, the problems faced by students in the classroom are not only existing knowledge in books. These problems cannot be solved by individual efforts, but through collaborative learning among group members to achieve further knowledge.
In recent years, STEM teaching has flourished in the field of education, and more appropriate teaching strategies and curriculum design are needed. The practical courses of robotics are integrated into STEM teaching. The curriculum of related knowledge and technology in the four aspects of mathematics and information is in line with the new syllabus. In terms of technology education, it focuses on cultivating students' ability to integrate knowledge across fields. The knowledge forum is a teaching platform designed based on the theory of knowledge building. On this platform, students can cooperate to construct knowledge and ideas, enhance the collective reflection of community members, and enable cooperative learning and knowledge renovation activities to have a social learning process and create a better and effective online learning environment. The 6E model provides teaching steps for STEM, and the knowledge building principle also provides effective teaching strategies for STEM. In the past, teaching focused on the cultivation of "concepts" and students' understanding of knowledge, while knowledge building principle was based on "ideas"-centered teaching, where knowledge was shared and constructed among groups. Knowledge building principle teaching can create a good learning environment in STEM, encourage students to solve problems in an innovative way and build knowledge collaboratively. By combining 6E teaching strategies with knowledge building principle, students can improve inquiry and thinking skills .
The research subjects are 56 middle school students. A single experimental group is used for research. The purpose is to explore the idea-centered teaching process of middle school students based on knowledge building principle. The teaching content is based on the "Knowledge Forum" (KF) online platform. Conduct classroom activities to understand the operation of the online platform and the knowledge building principle, and let students discuss and think in the classroom, and then conduct the STEM cleaning robot hands-on course, through the experimental design to understand the course's effect on students' learning effectiveness and learning participation and 6E the use of knowledge building principles in the pattern implementation course. According to the results, the study found that the knowledge forum analysis tool was used to distinguish high and low participation groups according to the note creation situation of different groups. The high and low participation groups improved their learning participation and STEM learning effectiveness through the courses. And through the videotapes in the hands-on course, the result show that in the different stages of the 6E model, whether it is a high or low participation group, certain knowledge building principles are most likely to be used by students, including real ideas and authentic problems principle, improvable ideas principle, idea diversity principle and epistemic agency principle, the relevant research results can be used as a reference for the further study of the 6E model.

中文部分
李宛瑜（2019）。推STEM、STEAM教育借鏡21世紀社區學習中心。書香遠傳， 123，50-53。
范斯淳、游光昭（2016）。科技教育融入STEM課程的核心價值與實踐。教育科學研究期刊，61(2)，153-183。
國家教育研究院（2015）。十二年國民基本教育科技領域課程綱要草案研修說明。台北:國家教育研究院。
許維純（2019）。實作表現與實作評量。臺灣教育評論月刊， 8(9)，51-53。
餘可馨（2017）。6E教學模式及其在化學教學中的應用。中文科技期刊數據庫-中學化學，12，12-15。
英文部分
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71.
Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365.
Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), 2.
Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289-307.
Barker, B. S., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229-243.
Barry, N. (2014). The ITEEA 6E learning byDeSIGNTM Model. The Technology and Engineering Teacher, March, 14-19.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions, 55-68.
Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 15(3), 158-178.
Burke, B. N. (2014). The ITEEA 6E Learning ByDesignTM Model: maximizing informed design and inquiry in the integrative STEM classroom. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(6), 14-19.
Bybee, R.W. (2019). Using the BSCS 5E instructional model to introduce STEM disciplines. Science & Children, 56(6),8-12.
Chalmers, C., Carter, M. L., Cooper, T., & Nason, R. (2017). Implementing “big ideas” to advance the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 25-43.
Chang, C. W., Lee, J. H., Chao, P. Y., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2010). Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 13-24.
Chang, Y. S., Chien, Y. H., Lin, H. C., Chen, M. Y., & Hsieh, H. H. (2016). Effects of 3D CAD applications on the design creativity of students with different representational abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 107-113.
Chen, G. D., & Wang, C. Y. (2011, September). A survey on storytelling with robots. In International conference on technologies for e-learning and digital entertainment (pp. 450-456). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Cietto, V., Gena, C., Lombardi, I., Mattutino, C., & Vaudano, C. (2018). Co-designing with kids an educational robot. In 2018 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO) (pp. 139-140). IEEE.
Coates, H. (2006). Student engagement in campus-based and online education: University connections. Routledge.
Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity in engineering. In Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Dcience of Creative Thinking (pp. 155-173). Springer Singapore.
Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and education. In The Educational forum (Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 241-252). Taylor & Francis Group.
Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692-699.
Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., & Miller, R. (2014). An investigation of the interrelationships between motivation, engagement, and complex problem solving in game-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 42-53.
Flick, L. B. (1993). The meanings of hands-on science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-8.
Gomoll, A., Šabanović, S., Tolar, E., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Francisco, M., & Lawlor, O. (2018). Between the social and the technical: Negotiation of human-centered robotics design in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(3), 309-324.
Hashim, H., Ali, M. N., & Samsudin, M. A. (2017). Adapting thinking based learning approach and 6E instructional model in implementing green STEM project. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2017.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research (Vol. 500). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
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.
Hong, H. Y., Lin, P. Y., Chen, B., & Chen, N. (2019). Integrated STEM learning in an idea-centered knowledge-building environment. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 63-76
Hsiao, H. S., Lin, Y. W., Lin, K. Y., Lin, C. Y., Chen, J. H., & Chen, J. C. (2019). Using robot-based practices to develop an activity that incorporated the 6E model to improve elementary school students’ learning performances. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-15.
Karalekas, G., Vologiannidis, S., & Kalomiros, J. (2020). Europa: A case study for teaching sensors, data acquisition and robotics via a ROS-based educational robot. Sensors, 20(9), 2469.
Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., & Belpaeme, T. (2015). Comparing robot embodiments in a guided discovery learning interaction with children. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(2), 293-308.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
Konijn, E. A., & Hoorn, J. F. (2020). Robot tutor and pupils’ educational ability: Teaching the times tables. Computers & Education, 157, 103970.
Kusmin, M., Saar, M., & Laanpere, M. (2018, April). Smart schoolhouse—designing IoT study kits for project-based learning in STEM subjects. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1514-1517). IEEE.
Lei, C., & Chan, C. K. (2018). Developing metadiscourse through reflective assessment in knowledge building environments. Computers & Education, 126, 153-169.
Leoste, J., & Heidmets, M. (2019). Bringing an educational robot into a basic education math lesson. In International Conference on Robotics in Education (RiE) (pp. 237-247). Springer, Cham.
Madani, R., Moroz, A., Baines, E., & Makled, B. (2016). Realising a child's imagination through a child-led product design for both two-dimensional and three-dimensional products. International Journal of Materials and Product Technology, 52(1-2), 96-117.
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-16.
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-16.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30-46.
Mondada, F., Bonani, M., Riedo, F., Briod, M., Pereyre, L., Rétornaz, P., & Magnenat, S. (2017). Bringing robotics to formal education: The thymio open-source hardware robot. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 24(1), 77-85.
Mondada, F., Franzi, E., & Ienne, P. (1994). Mobile robot miniaturisation: A tool for investigation in control algorithms. In Experimental robotics III (pp. 501-513). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
NASA (2018). NASA STEM Engagement.
National Science & Technology Council (2018). Charting a Course for Success: America’s Strategy for STEM Education. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Olson, O. E., Novacek, E. J., Whitehead, E. I., & Palmer, I. S. (1970). Investigations on selenium in wheat. Phytochemistry, 9(6), 1181-1188.
Ospennikova, E., Ershov, M., & Iljin, I. (2015). Educational robotics as an inovative educational technology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 18-26.
Salinger, G., & Zuga, K. (2009). Background and history of the STEM movement. The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and Engineering, 4-9. Reston, VA: ITEEA
Sanders, M. &Wells, J. G.(2006). Integrative STEM education. Retrieved from http://www.soe.vt.edu/istemed/.
Sanders, M. (2009). Integrative STEM education: Primer. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-27.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, 97, 67-98.
Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge forum®. Education and Technology: An encyclopedia, 183, 192.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. Encyclopedia of Distributed Learning, 269-272.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building. The Cambridge.
Spolaôr, N., & Benitti, F. B. V. (2017). Robotics applications grounded in learning theories on tertiary education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 112, 97-107.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-51.
Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 105-128.
Techakosit, S., & Nilsook, P. (2018). The development of STEM literacy using the learning process of scientific imagineering through AR. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(1), 230-238.
Tsai, K. C. (2016). Fostering creativity in design education: Using the creative product analysis matrix with chinese undergraduates in Macau. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(4), 1-8.
Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. J., & Chen, W. P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87-102.
Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. J., & Chen, W. P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL)environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87-102.
Vitanza, A., Rossetti, P., Mondada, F., & Trianni, V. (2019). Robot swarms as an educational tool: The Thymio’s way. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 16(1), 1729881418825186.
Whitehead, A. N. (1959). The aims of education. Daedalus, 88(1), 192-205.
Yamashita, S., Ishida, H., Yukawa, H., Yoshida, H., Koizumi, C., Yamauchi, Y., Funaki, M., & Ikuta, S. (2021). School Activities with Educational Robot to Facilitate Student Learning. In Handbook of Research on Using Educational Robotics to Facilitate Student Learning (pp. 209-233).
Yasin, A. I., Prima, E. C., & Sholihin, H. (2018). Learning Electricity Using Arduino-Android Based Game to Improve STEM Literacy. Journal of Science Learning, 1(3), 77-94.