研究生: |
陳郁涵 Chen, Yu-Han |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
6E取向的STEM實作活動對國中生科技態度與能力之影響 The Effects of STEM-based Hands-on Learning Activity with 6E Learning by DesignTM Model in Developing Junior High School Students’ Attitudes toward Technology and Technological Capability |
指導教授: |
林坤誼
Lin, Kuen-Yi |
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: | 2016 |
畢業學年度: | 104 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 164 |
中文關鍵詞: | 6E 、STEM 、科技態度 、科技探究能力 、理論導向設計 |
英文關鍵詞: | 6E, STEM, technology attitude, capability of technology inquiry, theory-based design |
DOI URL: | https://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202204577 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:160 下載:13 |
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 |
本研究旨在探討6E取向的STEM實作活動對國中生科技態度、科技探究能力與理論導向設計能力之影響,以做為日後相關研究之參考。本研究採不等組前後測準實驗設計,以臺北市某高中附設國中部八年級學生為研究對象,共計212位學生;接受為期十週,共計十堂課的實驗課程。實驗組以6E教學模式授課,控制組則以問題解決教學法授課。研究工具為科技態度量表、科技探究能力量表、學習歷程檔案、學生晤談紀錄、小組問卷及教學者之教學省思。STEM實作活動為「關鍵十二碼─鼠夾車PK賽」教學活動。量化資料採單因子共變數分析,質性資料則進行編碼及分析。本研究提出以下結論:(1) 6E教學模式中的「探索」階段對提升科技態度有所助益,並能幫助學生建立具體理論概念,而能夠將理論運用到作品的設計中;(2)以學生實際興趣做為6E教學模式中「參與」階段的主題,更可提升科技的學習態度;(3) 6E教學模式的「探索」與「解釋」階段能幫助學生從資料蒐集、分析與探究中有所學習,進而提升科技探究能力。
This research aimed to discuss the effects of STEM-based hands-on activity with 6E Learning by DesignTM Model in developing junior high school students’ attitudes toward technology, ability of technology inquiry and ability of theory-based design; under the conduct of nonequivalent quasi-experimental research, and 212 junior high subjects participated the assigned groups over ten courses of ten weeks. Respectively, applied the 6E Learning by DesignTM Model and Problem Solving methods to the assigned groups by means of “technology attitude scale,” “technology inquiry scale,” “students’ portfolios,” “participant interview,” “questionnaire,” and “teaching introspection”. The STEM practical activity is “Mousetrap Car and Launching.” The quantitative data adopted one way ANCOVA, and the qualitative data was analyzed accordingly. The main findings feature: (1) The “Explore” step may mutually enhance and establish technology attitude and specific conception of theory; thus students could design upon the theories. (2) The “Engage” step shall apply students’ actual habits as the theme. (3) The “Explore” and “Explain” steps may improve students’ ability of technology inquiry by data collecting, analyzing and inquiring.
一、中文部分
王鼎銘(1998)。小學科技教育及其師資培訓制度。中學工藝教育,31(3),10-16。
王鼎銘(2007)。國小科技教育創造性思考課程設計探討。生活科技教育月刊,40(2),11-17。
王澄霞(1995)。 STS活動中之「學」與「教」。科學教育學刊,3(1),115-137。
余鑑(2003)。工藝教育思想的流變。生活科技教育月刊,36(8),3-11。
吳玲綺(2007)。國小師生對科學探究認知及教師探究教學態度與學童探究學習態度之相關研究。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
吳淑珍(2006)。國小中年級科學探究多元評量的教學設計。國立高雄師範大學科學教育中心線上期刊,95(3)。
周天賜(1988)。情意教學目標的理論及其評量方法。測驗年刊,35,167-180。
林坤誼(2013)。STEM科際整合教學的理念與實施。載於劉美慧、林陳涌、張素貞、張玉山(主編),夥伴協作、主動學習(頁47-59)台北市:國立臺灣師範大學。
林坤誼(2014)。STEM 科際整合教育培養整合理論與實務的科技人才。科技與人力教育季刊,1(1),1。
林建隆、徐順益、侯佳典(2009)。以 5E 探究式學習環設計國二浮力單元教材對概念改變成效之研究。物理教育學刊,10(1),頁27-40。
林清山(2002)。心理與教育統計學。台北市:東華。
林錦足、林民棟(2005)。國小高年級學生科技態度之研究。國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育研究所碩士論文,碩士論文,高雄。
林顯輝(2005)。九年一貫「自然與生活科技」領域科學探究能力之培養研究— 總計畫(Ⅱ)。94 年行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
洪文東(2004)。九年一貫課程「自然與生活科技」學習領域科學探究能力之培養研究—以探究式教學活動設計提升學生科學研究能力。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃期中報告,(NSC 93-2511-S-153-004)。台北,台灣:行政院國家科學委員會。
高慧蓮(2005)。國民小學九年一貫課程「自然與生活科技」領域科學探究能力之培養研究: 科學探究能力之評量(I)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫,NSC93-2511-S-153-006-。
張玉山、楊雅茹(2014)。STEM教學設計之探討:以液壓手臂單元為例。科技與人力教育季刊,1(1),2-17。
張佳琳(2013年3月7日)。美國興起科學科技工程數學STEM教育熱潮。教育部電子報,553。2015年4月1日。取自http://epaper.edu.tw/windows.aspx?windows_sn=12235
張春興(1986)。現代心理學。台北市:東華書局。
張聖麟(2005)。從過去到未來:科技的進化與進步。生活科技教育月刊,38(1),36-46。
教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要,自然與生活科技學習領域。台北市:教育部。
教育部國民及學前教育署(2012)。教室教學的春天~透過分組合作學習,創建學習共同體。2015年12月1日。取自http://www.coop.ntue.edu.tw/qa.php
陳英豪、葉懋坤、李坤崇、李明淑、邱美華(1991)。國小學生科學態度量表及其相關因素之研究。國立臺南師院學報,24,1-26。
陳偉泓(2008)。科學探究式學習的課程發展─以麗山高中為例。論文發表於臺北-上海優質教育學術研討會。
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。教育研究學報,41(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。
黃永和(2013)。合作學習的教學實務議題探析。國民教育,53(5),78-88。
黃詠仁、王美芬(2002)。國小自然科合作學習教學策略之行動研究。科學教育研究與發展季刊,28,1-20。
楊秀停、王國華(2007)。實施引導式探究教學對於國小學童學習成效之影響。科學教育學刊,15(4),439-459。
楊孟麗、謝水南(譯)(2013)。教育研究法──研究設計實務(原作者:Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H.H.)。台北:心理。(原著出版年:2000)
詹秀雯、張芳全(2014)。影響國中生學習成就因素之研究。臺中教育大學學報,28(1),49-76。
熊召弟,王美芬(1995)。國民小學自然科教材教法。台北,心理。
蔡伊帆、吳心昀(2014)。STEM整合教學活動-空投救援物資。科技與人力教育季刊,1(1),40-54。
蔡蕙文(2008)。STEM教學模式應用於國中自然與生活科技領域教學之研究。國立屏東科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東縣。
鍾曉蘭(2014)。探究活動融入學校本位課程之學習效益。台灣化學教育期刊,4。
魏炎順(1999)。英國科技能力標準與課程對我國小學九年一貫「科技」課程改革的啟示。生活科技教育,32(7),20-30。
羅希哲、陳柏豪、石儒居、蔡華齡、蔡慧音(2009)。STEM 整合式教學法在國民中學自然與生活科技領域之研究。人文社會科學研究,3(3),42-66。
二、英文部分
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1985). Project
2061. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from http://www.aaas.org.
Ardies, J., Maeyer, S. D., Gijbels, D.,& Keulen, H.V.(2015). Students Attitudes
towards Technology. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 25,43-65.
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.
Burke, B. N. (2014). The ITEEA 6E learning by design model. Technology and
Engineering Teacher, 73(6), 14-17.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and
opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1987). BSCS 5E INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL. Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://bscs.org/bscs-5e-instructional-model
Berg, C. A., Strough, J., Calderone, K. S., Sansone, C., & Weir, C. (1998). The role of problem definitions in understanding age and context effects on strategies for solving everyday problems. Psychology and Aging, 13(1), 29-44.
Childress, V. W. (1996). Does integrating Technology, Science, and Mathematics
improve technological problem solving? A quasi-experiment. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 16-26.
Chou, P. N. & Chen, H. H. (2008). Engagement in online collaborative learning:
A case study using a web 2.0 tool. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,
4 (4), 574-582.
Center for Science Mathematics and Engineering Education. (2000). Inquiry and
the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and
Learning. Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education,
CSMEE. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
Chippetta, E. L., Koballa, T.R., & Collette, A. T.(1998). Science Instruction in the
Middle and Secondary Schools(4th ed.). Ohio: Merrill.
Davies, R.S.(2011).Understanding Technology Literacy: A Framework for
Evaluating Educational Technology Integration, TechTrends,55,45-52.
DeSoCo.,(2001). DeSeCo Annual Report 2001. From http://www.deseco.admin.ch/bfs/deseco/en/index/01.parsys.70925.downloadList.59988.DownloadFile.tmp/2001annualreport.pdf
Garmire, E.,& Pearson,G.(Eds.). (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Heywood, J. (1998). Pupils’ attitudes to technology: A review of studies which have a bearing on the attitudes which freshmen bring with them to engineering. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://fie-conference.org/fie98/papers/1406.pdf
Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., Hammer, D., & Carberry, A. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education.
International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2009). The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering K-12 education. Reston, VA: Author.
Jarolimek, J., & Foster, C. D. (1993). Teaching and learning in the elementary school. New York: Macmillan.
Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. (1964). A taxonomy of educational
objectives handbook : Affective domainⅡ. New York: David McKay.
Kerlinger, F. N.(1973). Foundations of behavioral research,2nd edition. New York:Holt-Saunders.
Merrill, C. (2001). Integrated technology, mathematics, and science education: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(3), 45-61.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2006). Massachusetts Science and
Technology/Engineering Curriculum Framework. Retrieved May 4, 2007, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current.html
Martin, R., Sexton, C., Wagner, K., & Gerlovich,J.(1994). Teaching science for
all children. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Mahoney, M. P.(2010). Students’ Attitudes Toward STEM: Development of an
Instrument for High School STEM-Based Programs. Journal of
Technology Studies, 36(1) , 24-34. Virginia.: Virginia Tech.
Maltese, A.V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the
association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM
amoung U.S. students. Science Education, 95(5), 877-907.
National Research Concil (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Concil (1996a). The National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Concil (1996b) .The Role of Scientists in the Professional Development of Science Teachers. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. This report is also available online at http://www.nap.edu.
Poth, R., Little, R., Barger, M., & Gilbert, R. A. (2005). Adapting the Engineering
Design Process for Elementary Education. Retrieved May 2, 2015, from
http://www.engineeringk12.org/educators/taking_a_closer_look/readings_conf.htm
Raju, P.K., et al. "Developing Leadership Skills In Introduction To Engineering Courses Through Multi-Media Case Studies." Journal Of STEM Education: Innovations & Research 11.3-4 (2010): 34-60. Academic Search Complete. Web.
Sanders, M. (2006, November). A rationale for new approaches to STEM education and STEM education graduate programs. Paper presented at the 93rd Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference, Nashville, TN.
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
Sanders, M. (2012). Integrative STEM education as “best practice”. Paper presented at the Seventh Biennial International Technology Education Research Conference, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/ostrc/stem/documents/IntegrativeSTEM.pdf
Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M. & Moore, T.(2014). Development of an Instrument to Assess Attitudes Toward Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271-279.
Strough, J., Cheng, S., & Swenson, L. M. (2002). Preferences for collaborative and individual everyday problem solving in later adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(1), 26-35.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Teacher Education
Collaborative. (2000). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Teacher Education Collaborative (STEMTEC) proposal. Retrieved April 8,
2007, from
http://k12s.phast.umass.edu/~stemtec/about/mission/proposal.html
Yu, K. C., Fan, S. C., & Lin, K. Y. (2015). Enhancing students’
Problem-solving skills through context-based learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(6), 1377-1401.
Zarske, M. S., Schwartz, D. K., Sullivan, J. F., & Yowell, J. L. (2005). Creative
Engineering: Helping Ninth-Grade Students Discover Engineering. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from
http://www.engineeringk12.org/educators/taking_a_closer_look/readings_conf.htm