研究生: |
吳庭萱 Wu, Ting-Hsuan |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
國中生活科技教師教授十二年國教新課綱所需之教學專業能力 Living Technology Teachers' Teaching Professional Ability in Junior High School under the 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum |
指導教授: |
林弘昌
Lin, Hung-Chang |
口試委員: |
林弘昌
Lin, Hung-Chang 游光昭 Yu, Kuang-Chao 侯世光 Hou, Shih-Kuang |
口試日期: | 2024/06/20 |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
科技應用與人力資源發展學系 Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development |
論文出版年: | 2024 |
畢業學年度: | 112 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 182 |
中文關鍵詞: | 十二年國教 、科技領域 、生活科技 、教學專業能力 、TPACK |
英文關鍵詞: | 12-year basic education curriculum, Technology education, Living technology, Teaching professional ability, TPACK |
研究方法: | 德爾菲法 |
DOI URL: | http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202400840 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:79 下載:1 |
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 |
本研究的主旨在於探討十二年國教下國中生活科技教師所需具備的教學專業能力,將以科技教學內容知識(Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge, TPACK)為基礎架構發展之。為達研究目的,本研究實施三回合的修正式德懷術(Modified Delphi Method, MDM)問卷調查,邀請十二年國教科技領域生活科技專業領域的大專院校教授及專家學者、全臺現職國中生活科技科之校長與正式教師等13位研究對象組成專家小組,以確認我國國中生活科技教師在十二年國教下所應具備的教學專業能力。第一回合的問卷由文獻整理與專家確認後發展而來,第二、三回合問卷則是透過蒐集並統整專家小組之意見發展之。
根據研究結果,本研究提出了三項研究結論:(1)國中生活科技教師教授十二年國教所需之教學專業能力包含六大構面、26個項目及12個子項目;(2)十二年國教國中生活科技教師應具備:專業教學策略與評量、動手實作、規劃生活科技教室之環境與設備、管理生活科技教室之環境與設備、蒐集並能運用適當的教學科技與媒體於教學、設計適當實作教學活動等六項重要核心知識;(3)因應十二年國教,國中生活科技教師需要新具備應用新興科技、實踐科技問題解決與設計製作、教授高層次思考與跨學科整合、執行計畫與專案、規畫與管理生活科技教室等知識。此外,本研究亦針對甄選國中生活科技教師提出相關建議,包括:(1)應重點評估教學策略、動手實作、教室管理及教學科技應用等能力,(2)結合試教觀察和專業問答,開設「實作活動」、「課程設計」、「生活科技教室管理」三個方向的課程以提升教師教學專業能力。
The purpose of this research is to explore the teaching professional abilities required by junior high school living technology teachers under the 12-year basic education curriculum, which will be developed based on Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). To achieve the purpose of the research, this research implemented a three-round questionnaire survey using the Modified Delphi Method (MDM) and invited university professors experts, and scholars in the field of living technology, as well as current living technology teachers in Taiwan. A group of 13 experts was formed to confirm the teaching professional abilities required for junior high school living technology teachers under the 12-year basic education curriculum. The first-round questionnaire was developed through literature review and expert confirmation, while the second-round and third-round questionnaires were developed by collecting and integrating the opinions of the expert group.
According to the research purpose of this study, there are three main conclusions: (1) The teaching professional abilities required by junior high school living technology teachers to teach 12-year basic education curriculum include six major aspects, 26 items and 12 sub-items; (2) Junior high school living technology teachers under the 12-year basic education curriculum should possess six important core competencies: professional teaching strategies and assessment, hands-on practice, planning the environment and equipment of technology classrooms, managing the environment and equipment of technology classrooms, collecting and utilizing appropriate teaching technologies and media, and designing suitable hands-on teaching activities; (3) Under the 12-year basic education curriculum, junior high school living technology teachers need to acquire new knowledge in applying emerging technologies, practical problem-solving and design in technology, teaching high-level thinking and interdisciplinary integration, executing plans and projects, and planning and managing technology classrooms. In addition, this study provides relevant recommendations for the selection of junior high school living technology teachers, including (1) focusing on evaluating abilities in teaching strategies, hands-on practice, classroom management, and the application of educational technology; (2) combining teaching demonstrations and professional interviews, and offering courses in three areas, which are “hands-on activities”, “curriculum design”, and “living technology classroom management”, to enhance teachers' professional teaching competencies.
上官百祥(2010)。生活科技創新教學思維。生活科技教育月刊,43(1),1-56。
王文科、王智弘(2014)。教育研究法。五南。
王書賢(2012)。國中生科技學習現況與偏好之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
吳木崑(2009)。杜威經驗哲學對課程與教學之啟示。臺北市立教育大學學報,40(1),35-54。
吳雅玲(2001)。德懷術及其在課程研究上的應用。國立高雄師範大學教育學系教育研究,9,297-306。
吳麗珍、鄭碧雲、郭重吉(2018)。國小數理教師教學專業能力類型之探討。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊,11(2),27-61。
李易穎(2017)。十二年國教科技領域教師教學專業能力調查研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
李博宏、王薰巧(2004)。科技教育教學評量問題之探討。生活科技教育月刊,37(3),72-84。
李隆盛(1988)。德爾非預測術在技職教育上的應用。工業教育雙月刊,7(1),34-60。
周家卉(2008)。實作評量在生活科技課程實施之探討。生活科技教育,41(7),51-83。
林坤誼、游光昭、洪國峰(2011)。操作技能對思考與實作表現影響之研究。課程與教學,14(4),161-185。
林振春(1992)。德惠法。民意月刊,169,82-101。
林清章、陳啟東(2006)。幼稚園教師專業能力指標發展之探討。Asian Journal of Management and Humanity Sciences,1(2),320-335。
林銘烽(2015)。探討科技學科教學知識(TPACK)於十二年國教的重要性。中等教育,66(3),88-101。
邱于閔、詹惠雪(2015)。國民小學職前教師教學能力檢定評分量表建構之研究—以國立新竹教育大學教育學系為例。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊,8(3),1-28。
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,61(2),153-183。
孫仲山、鄧佳茜(2006)。創造思考教學與問題解決模式之教學活動設計-以“刷刷車”為例。生活科技教育,39(3),175-188。
桑顯舜、林淑梤(2019)。運用德懷術建立國小教師基本科學能力之評量要項。師資培育與教師專業發展,12(1),29-58。
國家教育研究院(2019)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要 國民中學暨普通型高級中等學校 科技領域課程手冊。取自 https://reurl.cc/956XmX
張劭勳、林秀娟(1996)。SPSS For Windows統計分析-初等統計與高等統計。松崗。
教育部(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。取自 https://reurl.cc/Gb5r63
教育部(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中學暨普通型高級中等學校─科技領域。取自https://reurl.cc/Q653qo
教育部(2020)。中華民國師資培育統計年報。教育部。
陳彥綸(2020)。我國北部偏遠地區國中生活科技教師教學專業能力現況調查研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
陳美玉(1999)。實現成為教師的夢想:專業學習與發展。師大書苑。
陳國泰(2010)。非本科系畢業教師的學科教學知識之內涵及其發展的影響因素之個案研究:以一位國小自然科專家教師為例。科學教育學刊,18(5),469-492。
陳雅慧、王韻齡、陳秀如(2018)。二○一八《親子天下》縣市教育力調查:新課綱上路前夕,行政減量、課綱準備 還需努力。親子天下,102,50-59。
單文經(2012)。對教學科技與媒體運用的一些思考-賀《教學科技與媒體》出刊百期。教學科技與媒體,100,4-14。
游光昭(2020)。中學生活科技教材教法。五南。
游光昭、林坤誼、洪國峰(2010)。從反思與實踐看國中生在科技實作活動中的學習歷程表現。課程與教學,13(3),219-250。
游家政(1996)。得懷術及其在課程研究上的應用。花蓮師院學報,6,1-24。
黃千慈、林建安(2017)。國小體育教師體育教學專業能力之研究。運動知識學報,14,87-97。
黃俊英(2000)。企業研究方法。東華。
黃政傑(1987)。課程評鑑。師大書苑。
楊智穎(2019)。回應新課程政策變革的師資培育課程發展。臺灣教育評論月刊,8(4),51-57。
楊雅茹(2017)。生活科技實作教學中的概念性與程序性知識:以機構玩具為例。科技與人力教育季刊,4(2),49-68。
劉沛晴(2003)。我國數位內容加值服務拓展方向之研究-以有線電視內容提供者為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
劉協成(2006)。德懷術之理論與實務初探。教師之友,47(4),91-99。
潘慧玲、王麗雲、簡茂發、孫志麟、張素貞、張錫勳、陳順和、陳淑敏、蔡濱如(2004)。國民中小學教師教學專業能力指標之發展。教育研究資訊,12(4),129-168。
鄭琇仁(2015)。TPACK 華語師資培訓成效之研究。高雄師大學報:人文與藝術類,38,95-122。
賴志樫(2000)。生活科技教師因應國教九年一貫課程之道。生活科技教育月刋,33(7),2-9。
賴志樫(2020)。生活科技課程實作教學的理論探究與教師訪談。課程與教學季刊,23(4),1-26。
謝文全(1978)。德懷術在教育研究上的應用。今日教育,34,35-38。
謝甫佩、洪振方(2005)。國小學童對自然科教師學科教學之知覺調查研究。科學教育研究與發展季刊,38,1-16。
鍾昌宏(2019)。以教師專業發展縮小十二年國教新課綱課程轉化落差。臺灣教育評論月刊,8(8),13-21。
Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281-300.
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.
Awad, E. M., & Ghaziri, H. (2006). Knowledge Management. Prentice Hall.
Ball, D. L. (1999). Crossing boundaries to examine the mathematics entailed in elementary teaching. Contemporary Mathematics, 243, 15-36.
Baran, E., Chuang, H.-H., & Thompson, A. (2011). TPACK: An emerging research and development tool for teacher educators. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 370-377.
Baran, E., & Uygun, E. (2016). Putting technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) in action: An integrated TPACK-design-based learning (DBL) approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 47-63.
Boberg, A. L., & Morris-Khoo, S. A. (1992). The Delphi method: A review of methodology and an application in the evaluation of a higher education program. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 7, 37-39.
Brooks, K. W. (1979). Delphi Technique: Expanding Applications. North Central Association Quarterly, 53(3), 377-385.
Dalkey, N. (1969). The delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. Rand.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467.
De Meyrick, J. (2003). The Delphi method and health research. Health Educational, 103(1), 7-16.
Faherty, V. (1979). Continuing social work education: Results of a Delphi survey. Journal of Education for Social Work, 15(1), 12-19.
Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643-658.
Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229.
Hartman, A. (1981). Reaching consensus using the Delphi technique. Educational Leadership, 38(6), 495-497.
Hill, K. O., & Fowles, J. (1975). The method ological worth of the Delphi forecasting technique. Technological Forecasting and Socail Change, 7, 179-192.
Holden, M. C., & Wedman, J. F. (1993). Future issues of computer-mediated communication: The results of a Delphi study. Educational Technology research and development, 4(1), 5-24.
Iqbal, S., & Pipon-Young, L. (2009). Methods-The Delphi method--A guide from Susanne Iqbal and Laura Pipon-Young. Psychologist, 22(7), 598-601.
ISTE. (2000). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. International Society for Technology in Education.
Jang, S.-J., & Tsai, M.-F. (2013). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese secondary school science teachers using a new contextualized TPACK model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4).
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Benjamin, W., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and design thinking: A framework to support ICT lesson design for 21st century learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 535-543.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Murry Jr, J. W., & Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research. The Review of Higher Education, 18(4), 423-436.
Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., Browning, C., Özgün-Koca, S. A., & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4-24.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.