Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0630113-225915 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0630113-225915
論文名稱
Title
探索大學生知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識、建構主義下的科技支持學習環境與科技態度之相關研究
An investigation on the relationships among college students’ perceptions of faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environments, technology-supported constructivist learning environments, and their perceived attitude towards technology
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
197
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2013-06-21
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2013-07-30
關鍵字
Keywords
科技態度、教師知識、科技支持教室環境、大學生、建構主義學習環境
faculty knowledge, college students, technology-supported class environments, technology attitude, constructivist learning environments
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5726 次,被下載 284
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5726 times, has been downloaded 284 times.
中文摘要
本研究旨在了解台灣大學生「知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識 (SPFK)」、「知覺建構主義下的科技支持學習環境」以及「科技態度」之概況,探討不同個人背景變項大學生「知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識 (SPFK)」、「知覺建構主義下的科技支持學習環境」以及「科技態度」之差異性,並且檢驗三個變項之間的相關性。本研究以分層隨機抽樣方式選取過內北、中、南、東四區,公、私立、一般院校及科技大學等17所院校,共571為大學生為研究對象;使用「知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識 (SPFK) 量表」、「知覺建構主義下的科技支持學習環境量表」以及「科技態度量表」為研究工具;問卷資料以獨立樣本t檢定、單因子變異數分析、皮爾森積差相關以及結構方程模式進行量化資料分析。本研究主要發現如下:

一、 在「知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識 (SPFK)」部分,大學生在「學科
內容知識」層面的平均得分最高;在「科技學科教學內容知識」層面的平均得分最低。
二、 在「知覺建構主義下的科技支持學習環境」部分,大學生在「呼應真實生
活情境」層面的平均得分最高;在「透過調查學習」層面的平均得分最低。
三、 在「科技態度」部分,大學生在「科技與生活」層面的平均得分最高;在「對科技的煩惱」層面的平均得分最低。
四、 大學生「知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識 (SPFK)」與「知覺建構主義
下的科技支持學習環境」呈現顯著中高度正相關。
五、 大學生「知覺建構主義下的科技支持學習環境」與「科技態度」呈現顯著
中高度正相關。
六、 一年級大學生在「知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識 (SPFK)」的得分顯
著高於四年級以上的大學生。
七、 科技、科學領域大學生在「知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識 (SPFK)」
的得分顯著高於社會、人文、藝術領域的大學生以及法律、管理、商業領
域的大學生。
八、 社會、人文、藝術領域大學生在「科技態度」的得分顯著低於科技、科學
領域的大學生與法律、管理、商業領域的大學生以及生命健康、醫療、衛
生領域的大學生。
九、 「大學生知覺建構主義下的科技支持學習環境」可以有效預測「大學生知
覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識 (SPFK)」。
十、 「透過思考學習」可以有效預測「大學生知覺教師在科技支持教室環境
之知識 (SPFK)」。
十一、 「透過溝通學習」可以直接預測「大學生知覺教師在科技支持教室環境
之知識 (SPFK)」。
十二、 「透過調查學習」可以直接預測「大學生知覺教師在科技支持教室環境
之知識 (SPFK)」。
十三、 「對科技的煩惱」可以直接預測「大學生知覺教師在科技支持教室環境
之知識 (SPFK)」,但路徑係數為負值。
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among college students’ perceptions of faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environment, technology-supported constructivist learning environments, and their perceived attitude towards technology. Five hundreds and seventy one college students from Taiwan were selected by stratified sampling. The respondents completed the “Scale of Students’ Perceptions of Faculty Knowledge (SPFK),” “Scale of Students’ Perceptions of Technology-Supported Constructivist Learning Environments” and “Scale of Students’ Perceptions of Attitude Towards Technology.” Descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and Structural Equation Models were conducted to analyze the quantitative data. Findings from the study were summarized as follows:

1. College students’ perceptions of “subject matter knowledge” mean score was
the highest in the“scale of students’ perceptions of faculty knowledge (SPFK)”, while the dimensions of “technology pedagogical content knowledge” mean score was the lowest in the“scale of students’ perceptions of faculty knowledge (SPFK)”.

2. With the respect to “scale of students’ perceptions of technology-supported constructivist learning environments”, college students’ perceptions of “relevance” mean score was the highest while the mean score was the lowest in the dimensions of “learning to investigate”.
3. College students’ perceptions of “consequence” mean score was the highest in the “scale of students’ perceptions of attitude towards technology”, while the dimensions of “difficulty” mean score was the lowest in the “scale of students’ perceptions of attitude towards technology”.
4. College students’ perceptions of “faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environment” (SPFK) was positively correlated with college students’ perceptions of “technology-supported constructivist learning environment”.
5. College students’ perceptions of “technology-supported constructivist learning environment” was positively correlated with college students’ perceptions of “attitude towards technology”.
6. Senior college students held a higher mean score in “perceptions of faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environment” than freshman college students.
7. The mean score of the perceptions of college students who major in science , technology, and engineering were significantly higher than that of those majoring in social science, liberal arts, business, and law in “perceptions of faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environment” (SPFK).
8. The mean scores of the perceptions of college students who major in social science and liberal arts score were significantly lower than those majoring in science and technology, law, business and life science on “perceptions of attitude towards technology ”.

9. College students’ perceptions of “technology-supported constructivist learning environment” can significantly predict college students’ perceptions of “faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environment”(SPFK).
10. “Learning to communicate” can directly predict college students’ perceptions of “faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environment” (SPFK).
11. “Learning to investigate” can directly predict college students’ perceptions of “faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environment” (SPFK).
12. “Learning to think” can directly predict college students’ perceptions of “faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environment” (SPFK).
13. “Difficulty” can directly predict college students’ perceptions of “faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environment” (SPFK).
目次 Table of Contents
目錄
中文摘要…………………………………………………………………………….ii
英文摘要……………………………………………………………………………iv
目錄………………………………………………………………………………...vii
表目錄………………………………………………………………………………ix
圖目錄……………………………………………………………………………...xii
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機…………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的…………………………………………………………6
第三節 研究問題…………………………………………………………7
第四節 重要名詞釋義……………………………………………………10
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 教師科技學科教學知識 (TPACK) 之理論基礎、意涵與相關研究
發現………………………………………………………………12
第二節 建構主義下的科技支持學習環境之意涵與相關研究發現……25
第三節 科技態度之意涵與相關研究發現………………………………32
第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究架構…………………………………………………………39
第二節 研究假設…………………………………………………………41
第三節 研究對象…………………………………………………………44
第四節 研究工具…………………………………………………………45
第五節 實施程序…………………………………………………………68
第六節 資料處理與分析…………………………………………………71
第四章 研究結果與討論
第一節 研究對象分析……………………………………………………74
第二節 大學生「知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識 (SPFK)」、「知覺建構主義下的科技支持學習環境」以及「科技態度」之現況.79
第三節 不同背景變項大學生在「知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識(SPFK)」、「知覺建構主義下的科技支持學習環境」以及「科技態度」之差異性………………………………………………….88
第四節 「大學生知覺建構主義下的科技支持學習環境」以及「大學生科技態度」對「大學生知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識(SPFK)」之統計迴歸分析…………………………………………………100
第五節 「大學生知覺建構主義下的科技支持學習環境」量表、「大學生
科技態度」量表與「大學生知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識(SPFK)」量表之驗證性因素分析………………………………106
第六節 「大學生知覺教師在科技支持教室環境之知識 (SPFK)」量表之結構方程模式……………………………………………………116
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 結論………………………………………………………………122
第二節 研究限制…………………………………………………………128
第三節 研究建議…………………………………………………………130
參考文獻
一、 中文部份………………………………………………………………134
二、 英文部份………………………………………………………………137
附錄
附錄一、 「大學生科技環境知覺量表」內容專家效度意見表…………152
附錄二、 預試題本量表……………………………………………………165
附錄三、 正式題本量表……………………………………………………172
參考文獻 References
參考文獻
一、 中文文獻
中央研究院(2008)。數位學習國家型科技計畫結案報告。台北:中央研究院。
王梅玲(2007)。台灣圖書資訊學數位學習現況與認證初探。擷取自
http://course.shu.edu.tw/~aliep07/A_Wang.html。
王國華、段曉林、張惠博(1998)。國中學生對科學教師學科教學之知覺。科學
教育學刊,6(4),363-381。
王玉蘭 (2012)。國小數學教師科技學科教學知識的展延與再思-以互動式電子
白板融入教學為例。教育科技與媒體,101,40-64。
王叢桂(1993)。三個世代大學畢業工作者的價值觀。本土心理學研究,2,
206-250。
吳明隆(2009)。《SPSS操作與實務問卷統計分析與實務》。台北:五南。
吳明隆 (2000)。SPSS 統計應用實務。臺北:松崗。
吳明隆(2006)。結構方程模式─SIMPLIS 的應用。臺北:五南。
吳正桓 (1992)。態度形成方式對其結構的影響:情感、認知及其測量。中華心理學刊,34,41-55。
李美枝 (1994)。社會心理學—理論研究與應用。臺北:大洋出版社。
林殷如(1999)。國中生物課室教學活動面貌與學生對教學活動的知覺之個案研
究。國立臺灣彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
林美淑(2005)。國中自然科教師學科教學知識成長之行動研究。國立彰化師範
大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化市。
林民棟(2006)。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學系碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
林生傳 (1999)。教育心理學。台北市:五南。
邱美虹、張欣怡(1998)。科學教師學科教學知識之研究-一位國中理化教師之
個案研究。亞太教師教育及發展學報(Asia-PacificJournal of Teacher Education and Development),1(1),93-104。
邱美虹、江玉婷(1997)。初任與資深國中地球科學教師學科教學知識之比較。
科學教育學刊,5(4),419-460。
洪蘭(1997)。心理學。台北:遠流。
孫仲山等(民86):高雄市民之科技態度。
夏宗義(2004)。高雄縣大寮地區國中三年級學生科技態度之研究。高雄師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
翁永進、張惠如、翁永春(民 96)。生活科技教育月刊,40 (1)。
張世忠、羅慧英(2009)。協同教學對國中學生所知覺的科學教師PCK 之影響。
科學教育學刊,17(1),49-68。
張靜儀 (2001)。國小自然科教師教學個案研究-教師背景與教學之探討。屏東師
院學報,14,85-122。
張素貞 ( 2004 )。課程變革與教師專業成長。研習資訊,21 (2),63-72。
張春興與楊國樞(1998)。心理學(15 版)。台北:三民。
張家宜(2000)。大學學生滿意度之實證研究。淡江人文社會學刊,6,1-27。
張玉山(1998)。師院生科技態度之調查—以花蓮師院為例。花蓮師院學報,8,297-315。
教育部 (2011)。大專院校概況。2012年 3月11日,取自
http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/b0013/u.xls
曹仁德、黃毅志、侯松茂(2003)。2003 年台東師院學生對課程教學意見與行政
滿意度之調查研究。台東大學教育學報,14(下),225-252。
陳國泰 (2007)。學科教學知識的內涵與發展歷程:以三位國小自然與生活科技資
深教師為例。新竹教育大學教育學報,24 (1),29-60。
陳淑敏 (1994)。Vygotsky的心理發展理論和教育。屏東師院報,7,121-143。
陳英豪、汪榮才、劉佑星、歐滄和、李坤崇(1988)。工作價值量表指導手冊。
台北:行政院青年輔導委員會。
黃天中、洪英正 (1992)。心理學。臺北:桂冠出版社。
黃毅志、侯松茂(2002)。2001 年台東師院學生對各行政與教學單位滿意度調查
之研究。台東大學教育學報,13(上),243-259。
黃毅志(2002)。林南(Nan Lin)的「社會資本」(Social Capital)理論對於台
灣教育社會學研究之啟發。台灣教育社會學研究,2(2),153-163。
黃芳銘(民93)。社會科學統計方法學—結構方程模式。台北:五南。
游光照(2004)。中部地區國小教師能源認知與能源態度之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系教學碩士班碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
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。
鄭湧涇和楊坤原(1998)。國中學生對生物學的態度。師大學報:科學教育類, 43(2),
37-54。
鄭吉貿(2000)。台北市國中學生科技態度之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
蔡添財 (2003)。國小高年級自然科教師學科教學知識之個案研究。台中師範學院自然科學教育學系碩士論文,未出版,台中。
蔡敏玲、陳正乾 (譯) (2001)。L.S.Vygotsky 著。社會中的心智-高層次心理過程的發展。台北:心理出版社。
劉芷源(2010)。教師社群發展國小數學教師TPCK之行動研究。私立中原大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,桃園縣。
蘇懿生、黃台珠(1999。實驗室氣氛與學生對科學的態度之關係研究。科學教育學刊,7(4), 393-410。



二、 英文文獻
Abell, S. J., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. L., Lankford, D. M., Volkmann, M. J. &
Friedrichsen, P.J. (2009) .Does Teaching Experience Matter? Examining
Biology Teachers’ Prior Knowledge for Teaching in an Alternative
Certification Program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2),
357-383.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Research commentary: technology-mediated
learning-a call for greater depth and breadth of research. Information Systems
Research, 12(1), 1-10.
Alavi, M., Wheeler, B. C., & Valacich, J. S. (1995). Using IT to reengineer business
education: An exploratory investigation of collaborative telelearning. MIS
Quarterly, 19 (3), 293-312.
Angeli C. & Valanides N. (2009) Epistemological and methodological issues
for the conceptualization, development and assessment of
ICT-TPCK: advances in technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education52, 154–168.
Anderson, R. C. (1 984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge.
Educational Researcher, 13(9), 5-10.
Ankiewicz, P., & Van Rensburg, S. (2001). Assessing the attitudinal technology
profile of South African learners: A pilot study. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 11, 93-109.
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).
Barnes, P. (1982), 'Methodological Implications of Non-Normally Distributed
Financial Ratios', Journal of Business Finance and Accounting (Spring 1982),
pp. 51-6.
Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. J. (1996). Computerized molecular modelling as a tool to
improve chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer
Science, 36, 629–636.
Bame, E., Dugger, W., de Vries, M., & McBee, J. (1993). Pupils’ attitudes toward
technology: USA. Journal of Technology Studies, 19(1), 40-48.
Becker, K. H., & Maunsaiyat, S. (2002). Thai students' attitudes and concepts of
technology. Journal of Technology Education, 13(2), 6-20.
Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centred,
constructivist,and sociocultural components of collaborative educational
learning tools.In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators:
Learner-centred technologies for literacy, apprenticeship and discourse (pp.
25–50). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Boser, R., Daugherty, M., & Palmer, J. (1996). The effect of selected instructional
approaches in technology Education on students’ attitude toward technology.
Reston, VA: Council on Technology Teacher Education.
Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical
Education, 63(10), 873-878.
Cochran, K. F., King, R. A., & DeRuiter, J. A. (1991). Pedagogical content
knowledge: A tentative model for teacher preparation. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,
IL. Effects of teacher education.Teacher & Teacher Education, 4(1), 53-62.
Cobern, W. W. (1995). Constructivism for science teachers. Science Education
International, 6(3), 8–12.Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The
classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen J, (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Copporla, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor:
pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169-189.
Cureton, E. E. (1957).“The Upper and Lower Twenty-Seven Per Cent Rule,”
Psychometrika, 22, 293–296.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since
1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Davydov, V. V., & Radzikhovskii, L. A. (1985). Intellectual origins of Vygotsky’s
semiotic analysis. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.
Daniel, P. (1996). Helping beginning teachers link theory to practice: An interactive
multimedia environment for mathematics and science teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 197–209.
Doukakis, S., Psaltidou, A., Stavraki, A., Adamopulos, N., Tsiotakis, P., & Stergou,S.
(2010). Measuring the technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK) of in-service teacher of computer science who teach algorithms and programming in upper secondary education. In K. Fernstrom (Ed.), Readings in technology and education: Proceedings of ICICTE 2010 (pp. 442-452).
Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In Leslie P. Steffe
& Jerry Gale (1995) (eds). Constructivism in education. 386. Hillsdale NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Durndell, A., & Thomson, K. (1997). Gender and computing: a decade of change? Computers and Education,28(1), 1–9.
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology
supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355–385.
Fosnot. C.T. (1993). Preface. In J .G. Brooks & M.G.Brooks.ln search of understandíng The case for constnictívíst classrooms (pp.vii-vii j). Alexandria.VA ASCD.
Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. GabeI (Ed.), Handbook of reseanrh on science teaching and learning (pp. 493-541). New York: Macmillan.
Geddis, A. N., Onslow, B., Beynon, C., & Oesch, J. (1993). Transforming content know ledge:Learning to teach about isotopes. Science Education, 77(6), 575-591.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 Update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Grossman, P. L., & Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teacher of substance:
Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge
base for the beginning teacher (pp. 23-36). Oxford: Pergamon.
Gibson, Ivancevich, & Donnelly (2000). Organizations (10th Ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Graham, C., Cox, S., & Velasquez, A. (2009). Teaching and Measuring TPACK Development in Two Preservice Teacher Preparation Programs. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2009, Charleston, SC, USA.
Hand, B., Treagust, D. F., & Vance, K. ( 1997). Student perceptions of the social constructivist classroom. Science Education, 81, 561–575.
Hand, B., & Prain, V. (1995). Teaching and learning in science: The constructivist classroom. Sydney: Harcourt Brace.
Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology
integrationassessment rubric. In C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I.
Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price & R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society
for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference
2010 (pp. 3833–3840).
Harris, B.J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2007). Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Curriculum-based Technology Integration Reframed. Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.
Haladyna, T., & Shaughnessy, J. (1982).Attitudes toward science: A quantitative synthesis.Science Education, 66(4), 547-563.
Haladyna, T., Olsen, R., & Shaughnessy, J.(1982). Relation of student, teacher, and learning environment variables to attitudes toward science.Science Education, 66(5), 671-687.
Haladyna, T., Olsen, R., & Shaughnessy, J.(1983). Correlated of class attitude toward
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(4), 311-324.
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 June 25, 2003, from http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/ fie98/papers/1406.pdf
Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe.International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1321-1342.
Hiltz, S. R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 44-49.
Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centred, technology-rich learning environments (SCen-
TRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 497–537.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2005). Education goes digital: The evolution of online learning and the revolution in higher education. Communications of the ACM, 48 (10), 59-64.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). London: Sage.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Hurley, N. P., & Vosburg, J. D. (1997). Modern Technology: The relationship between student attitudes toward learning using modern technology in an everyday Setting. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386 171)
Jang, S.-J., Guan, S.-Y., & Hsieh, H.-F. (2009). Developing an instrument for assessing college students’ perceptions of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Procedia –Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 596–606.
Jang, S.-J., & Chen, K.-C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: developing a
transformative model for pre-service science teachers. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 19(6),553–564.
Jang, S.-J. (2011). Assessing college students’ perceptions of a case teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge using a newly developed instrument. Higher Education, 61(6),663–678.
Johnson-Laird, P.N.(1983). Mental model. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University, Press.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Towards a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34, 34–37.
Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–720). New York: Macmillan.
Kaiser, H.F., 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39 (1), 31–36.
Knight, S. L., &Waxman, H. C. (1991). Students’ cognition and classroom instruction. In H. C.Waxman, & H. J.Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 239–255).Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design
educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation & Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical
content knowledge for educators (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge.
Kozulin, Al, (1986). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. American Psychologist 41,264-274.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949–968.
Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, M. (2009). Investigating pre-service teachers' professional growth in self-regulated learning environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101: 161–175.
Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. (1964). A taxonomy of educational objectives handbook : Affective domainⅡ. New York: David McKay.
Krajcik, J. S., Simmons, P. E., & Lunetta, V. N. (1988). A research strategy for the dynamic study of students’ concepts and problem solving strategies using science software. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 147–155.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38, 1-21.
Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38, 1-21.
Lim, D. H., & Kim, H. (2003). Motivation and learner characteristics affecting online learning and learning application. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31 (4), 423-439.
Lin, B.S., & CrawleyⅢ, F.E. (1987). Classroom climate and science-related attitudes of junior high school students in Taiwan. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(6), 579-591.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of
pedagogical content knowledge for science. In J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp.95-132). Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer.
Maor, D., & Taylor, P. C. (1995). Teacher epistemology and scientific inquiry in computerised classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 839–854.
Maor,D.,& Fraser B.J. (2005 ).An online questionnaire for evaluating students’ and
teachers’perceptions of constructivist multimedia learning environments.Research in Science Education, 35, 221–244
Martin. D.J. (1 997). Elementary scíence methods A constructívíst approach. Albany. NY : Delmar Publishers .Muffoletto, R. (1994). Technology and Restructuring Education: Constructing a Context. Educational Technology, 34 (2), 24-28.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitude and attitude change, In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.). The handbook of social psychology (pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.
McFarlane, T. A., Hoffman, E.R., & Green, K. E. (1997). Teachers’ attitudes toward technology: Psychometric evaluation of the technology attitude survey. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 411 279)
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,108(6), 1017-1054.
Murray H (1938).Exploraiions in personality Oxford Umversity Press, New York
Muffoletto, R. (1994). Technology and restructuring education: constructing a context. Educational Technology, 34, 2, 24–28.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Myers, R.E., & Fouts, J.T. (1992). A cluster analysis of high school classroom environments and attitude toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(9), 929-937.
Newcomb, T. M. (1956 ).The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American Psychologist, 11, 575 -586.
Nelson, W. (1994). Efforts to improve computer-based instructions: The role of knowledge representation and knowledge construction in hypermedia systems.Computers in the Schools, 10, 371–399.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with
technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.
Niess, M. L. (2008). Mathematics teachers developing technology, pedagogy and content knowledge (TPACK). In Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Nussbaum, Felicity A. 1989. The Autobiographical Subject. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
O’Connor, M. C. (1998). Can we trace the efficacy of social constructivism? Review
of Educational Research, 23, 25–71.
Orion, N., Dubowski, Y., & Dodick, J. (2000). The educational potential of multimedia authoring as a part of the earth science curriculum – A case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1121–1153.
Parril, A., & Gervay, J. (1997). Fostering curiosity-driven learning through interactive
multimedia representations of biological molecules. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 1141–1142.
Parrill, A. L., & Gervay, J. (1997). Discovery-based stereochemistry tutorials available on the World Wide Web. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 329.
Phillips, D.C. (2000) .An opinionated account of the constructivist landscape. In D.C. Phillips (Ed.) .Constructivist in education: opinions and second opinions of
controversial issues (pp.1-16). Chicago,Illinois:NSSE.
Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Quarterly, 25 (4), 401-426.
Prawat, R.S. (1989).Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: a research synthesis.Review of Educational Research, 59 (1), pp. 1–41
Raat, J. H., & de Vries, M. (1985). What do 13-Year old pupils think about technology? the conception of and the attitude towards technology of 13-year old girls and boys. Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 262 998)
Romberg, T. A., & Carpenter, T. P. (1986). Research on teaching and learning mathematics: Two disciplines of scientific inquiry. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 850-873). New York: Macmillan.
Saettler, P. (1990).The evolution of American educational technology, Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Sandars, J. & Langlois, M. (2005). E-learning and the educator in primary care: Responding to the challenge. Education for Primary Care, 16, 129-133.
Schank, R. C.,& Abelson, A. (1977 ). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. An
inquiry into human knowledge structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Koehler, M. J., Shin, T, & Mishra, P. (2009,
April). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): the
development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice
teachers. Paper presented at the 2009 annual meeting of the American
educational research association. April 13–17.
Schumacher, P., & Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, Internet and computer attitudes and experiences.Computers in Human Behavior, 17(1), 95–110.
She, H., & Fisher, D. (2000). The development of a questionnaire to describe science teacher communication behavior in Taiwan and Australia. Science Education, 84, 706–726
Shulman, L. S. (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4–14
Shrigley, R. L. (1983). The attitude concept and science teaching. Science education, 67(4), 425-442.
Shih & Chuang (2013). The development and validation of an instrument for assessing college students’ perceptions of faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environments. Computers & Education, 63,109-118.
Smith, R., Neisworth, J., & Greer, J. (1978). Evaluating educational environments. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.
Songer, N. B., Lee, H., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban
classroom: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 39, 128–150.
Talton, E.L., & Simpson, R.D. (1986). Relationships of attitudes toward self, family, and school with attitudes toward science among adolescents. Science Education, 70(4), 365-374
Talton, E.L., & Simpson, R.D. (1987).Relationships of attitudes toward classroom
environment with attitudes toward and achievement in science among tenth grade biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(6), 507-525.
Taylor, R. (Ed.). (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York:Teachers College Press.
Taylor, P. C. S., & Fraser, B. J. (1991). CLES: An instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Fontana, WI.
Thompson, A.D. & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38 & 64.
Tobin, K. G., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching
and learning. In K. G. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science
education (pp. 3–23). Washington, DC: AAAS Publications.
Tobin, K. G. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education.
Washington, DC: AAAS Publications.
Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 996–1004.
Tuan, H.-L., Chang, H.-P., Wang, K.-H., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). The development of an instrument for assessing students’ perceptions of teachers’ knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 385–398.
Tuan H.L., Chang H.P., Wang K.H. & Treagust D.F. (2000) The development
of an Instrument for assessing students' perceptions of teachers' knowledge. International Journal of Science Education22, 385–398.
Turley, S. (1994, April). The way teachers teach is, like, totally, whacked: the student voice on classroom practice. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Van Rensburg, S., Ankiewicz, P., & Myburgh, C. (1999). Assessing South Africa learners’ attitudes towards technology by using the PATT (Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology) questionnaire. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 137-151.
Van Driel, J.H., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of
preservice chemistry teachers' PCK. Science Education, 86, 572–590.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical.
In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N.Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist view on the
teaching and learning of mathematics. (19-29). Reston, VA: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics.
Voke, K.S., & Yip, W. M. (1999). Gender and technology in Hong Kong: A study of pupils’ attitudes toward technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 57-71.
Voke, K.S., Yip, W. M., & Lo, T.K. (2003). Hong Kong pupils’ attitudes toward technology: The impact of design and technology programs. Journal of Technology Education, 15(1), 48-63.
Waxman, H. C. (1989). Urban black and Hispanic elementary school students’ perceptions of classroom instruction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 22, 57–61
Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S.-Y. L. (1997). Classroom instruction and learning environment differences between effective and ineffective urban elementary schools for African American students. Urban Education, 32(1), 7–44.
Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. In B. Rogoff & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.),Children's Learning in the 'Zone of Proximal Development': New Directions for Child Development (No. 23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wertsch, J., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom. In L. P. Steffe, & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). (pp. 297–314) New York: Macmillan.
Yucel, A. S. (2006). E-learning approach in teacher training [Electronic version]. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(4). 123-131.
電子全文 Fulltext
本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。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:自定論文開放時間 user define
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code