(3.236.118.225) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/17 09:55
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

: 
twitterline
研究生:余福享
研究生(外文):Yu Fu Hsiang
論文名稱:國小語文教師運用互動式電子白板融入教學暨TPACK素養之現況研究-以桃園縣為例
論文名稱(外文):A Study of the Status of Integrating Interactive Electronic Whiteboards into Teaching and TPACK Literacy of Elementary Language Teachers in Taoyuan County
指導教授:黃素惠黃素惠引用關係張靜文張靜文引用關係
指導教授(外文):Huang, Su-HuiChang, Jing-Wen
口試委員:林貝珊江勁毅
口試委員(外文):Lin, Bei-ShanChiang, Chin-I
口試日期:2014-05-27
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:玄奘大學
系所名稱:企業管理學系碩士在職專班
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2014
畢業學年度:102
語文別:中文
論文頁數:116
中文關鍵詞:互動式電子白板TPACK教育科技
外文關鍵詞:Interactive WhiteboardTPACKEducational Technology
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:1229
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:31
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
互動白板無疑是近年來最引人注目的教育科技,由於它的機動性、互動性、多功能性極為傑出,市場反應頗佳。不少廠商紛紛投入研發更人性化、功能更多樣化的新型互動白板,而且將觸角延伸到教育界,進而引發許多學者投入互動白板與教育相關的研究。
本研究旨在檢視桃園縣國小語文教師使用互動式電子白板之現況、有與未使用互動式電子白板教師的TPACK 素養差異以及個人背景變項與學校背景變項對教師的TPACK素養差異是否有顯著關係。
研究者參考Graham et al.(2009)設計的「分析教師知能之TPACK框架模型」、Schmidty et al.(2009)發展的「TPACK:職前教師發展與驗證之評估工具」以及楊婷婷(2012)「國小數理教師TPACK素養問卷設計」,以問卷調查法探討「國小語文教師運用互動式電子白板融入教學暨TPACK素養之現況研究」,並採用描述性統計獨立樣本t 考驗和單因子變異數分析等統計工具分析量化資料,所得研究結果如下:
有使用互動白板之語文教師,其TPACK素養顯著高於未使用者;不同性別的國小語文教師在TPACK素養上有部分顯著差異;不同任教科目之國小語文教師在TPACK素養上有部分顯著差異;不同服務學校地理背景國小語文教師之TPACK素養上有部分顯著差異。此外服務學校規模、國小語文教師學歷與服務年資與教師TPACK素養並沒有顯著差異。
研究者提供相關單位建議如下:編列經費促進全面性建置IWB e化教室、落實互動白板等相關教育科技之教育訓練、訂定國小教師TPACK素養提升之方案、與互動白板建置廠商訂定售後服務條款、鼓勵校內專業教育科技教師做成長分享、成立教育科技專業社群;教師本身應與互動白板建置廠商的專業技師建立良好溝通橋樑、自我探究和積極參加研習提升教育科技知能、積極使用互動白板融入教學。

Interactive Electronic Whiteboard (IWB) has been undoubtedly the most compelling educational technology in the past decade. Due to its outstanding mobility, interactivity and versatility, the market acceptance of IWB has been remarkablly good. Therefore, quite a few companies have invested a lot trying to design more humane, diverse and multi-functional IWB. Besides, they have been getting increasingly involved in education resulting in more and more educational studies related to IWB.
This study aims to examine the status of integrating IWB into teaching by elementary school language teachers in Taoyuan County, the TPACK literacy difference between users and non-users of IWB, the relationship between the TPACK literacy and personal and school background variables of teachers’.
Referring to "Elaborated Model of the TPACK Framework to Analyze and Depict Teacher Knowledge" designed by Graham et al.(2009), "TPACK: The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers" designed by Schmidty et al.(2009) and Yang Ting-Ting’s TPACK Literacy questionnaire for Elementary Math & Science Teachers (2012), researcher applied Survey Method to probe into "The Status of Integrating Interactive Electronic Whiteboards into Teaching and TPACK Literacy of Elementary Language Teachers in Taoyuan County."
Researcher used descriptive statistics, t-test, and one-way AVONA to analyze quantified data and assess statistical significance between factors. The findings indicate that language teachers using interactive electronic whiteboards have significantly higher TPACK literacy than non-users; other three types of teachers’ background including elementary language teachers of different genders, of different subjects and of different geographical school background, have partially significant differences in the TPACK literacy. Whereas teachers of different school size, of different majors and of different years of service don’t affect their TPACK literacy in a significant way.
The suggestions offered for the related authority by the researcher are as followed: Provide expense for promoting comprehensive installation of IWB e-classroom county-wide, implement the training related to educational technology such as interactive whiteboards, formulate proprams to improve the TPACK literacy of elementary school teachers, have IWB contractors sign the after-sale terms of service with each individual school, encourage teachers specialized in educational technology to share their expertise and establish professional educational technology community; meanwhile, teachers should build up good relationship with professional engineers from IWB contractors, actively self-explore technological knowledge and participate in educational technology seminors to consolidate their technology knowledge as well as integrate IWB into teaching.

摘要 i
目錄 iv
表目錄 vi
圖目錄 viii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 名詞釋義 4
第四節 研究範圍與限制 6
第二章 文獻探討 8
第一節 教育科技之意涵 8
第二節 科技知能、教學知能與學科知能框架 12
第三節 教育科技融入教學之相關研究 19
第四節 互動式電子白板之功能與相關研究 29
第三章 研究設計與實施 44
第一節 研究方法與架構 44
第二節 研究對象 46
第三節 研究假設 49
第四節 研究工具 51
第五節 研究程序 56
第六節 資料處理與分析 60
第四章 研究結果與討論 61
第一節 國小語文教師使用互動式電子白板的現況分析 61
第二節 國小語文教師TPACK素養的現況分析 69
第三節 國小語文教師TPACK素養之差異分析 82
第五章 結論與建議 91
第一節 結論 91
第二節 建議 93
參考文獻 97
壹、中文參考文獻 97
貳、英文參考文獻 101
附錄 107
附錄一:專家效度問卷 107
附錄二:預試問卷 110
附錄三:正式問卷 112
附錄四:問卷修正說明 116

壹、中文參考文獻
王全世(2000),「資訊科技融入教學之意義與內涵」,資訊與教育,80期,23-31。
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」,教育學刊,6(4),363-381。
佘曉清(1999),「生物教師的教學信念、教學與師生互動-個案研究」,科學教育學刊,7(1),35-47。
吳易靜(2006),資訊科技融入教學對國中教師創新教學能力之影響—以臺北縣、市為例,國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文。
吳雅各(2009),「互動式電子白板在課堂教學的應用心得,2010/12/18取自:http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!OZ.Q6cWVFxp WFvB4 szMmfA--/article?mid=382
林俊宏(2011),影響中小學教師使用互動式電子白板之關鍵因素,亞洲大學經營管理學系碩士論文。
林秋先(2004),「資訊科技融入教學面臨的困境與契機」,師說,180期,4-6。
林儀惠(2008),互動式電子白板在國小數學教學之探討—以國小數學領域五年級面積單元為例,亞洲大學資訊工程學系碩士論文。
邱瓊慧(2002),中小學資訊科技融入教學之實踐,資訊與教育,88期,3-9。
洪燕竹(2004),「資訊科技在教育上應用的新趨勢」。2013/12/14取自:http://www.haes.cy.edu.tw/cy-sa/pro/pro/p1/page1.htm
徐章華(2011),運用電子白板註記與摘要對國小學生社會科學習之影響。國立臺北教育大學教育傳播與科技研究所碩士論文。
徐新逸、林燕珍(2004),「中小學教師資訊融入教學發展模式及檢核工具之研究」,教育研究集刊,50(1), 175-203。
高嘉汝(2011),運用互動式電子白板融入教學來探討國小教師創新接受度、科技接受度與使用滿意度之相關研究—以雲林縣為例,虎尾科技大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
張明慧(2009),電子白板融入教學創新推廣歷程之研究—以台北市某私立高級中學為例,淡江大學教育科技學系碩士論文。
梁宗賀、黃雅貴、杜叔娟、陳煥彬、陳雅麗(2007),以互動式電子白板為基礎之 ICT 教學環境建置,國立台南大學數位學習科技學系碩士論文。
莊雪芳、鄭湧涇(2003),「國中學生對生物學的態度度與學習環境之研究」,科學教育學刊,11(2), 171-194。
郭閔然(2002),中等學校教師資訊素養與資訊融入教學之研究-以大高雄地區為例,義守大學資訊工程學系碩士論文。
陳秀雯(2009),運用互動式電子白板於國小四年級數學領域教學之研究,淡江大學教育科技學系碩士論文。
陳神勇(2003),澎湖縣國小教師應用網路教學現況及其意願之研究,臺南師範學院教師課程與教學研究所碩士論文。
陳惠邦(2006),「互動白板導入教室教學的現況與思考」,載於全球華人資訊教育創新論壇中發表,台北市主辦。
陳義汶(2005),「資訊融入教學—應用EXCEL試算表軟體融入國中數學課程」,研習資訊,23(4),104-113。
陳韻雯(2009),桃園縣國民小學教師使用互動式電子白板之調查研究,國立臺北教育大學國民教育學系碩士論文。
楊婷婷 (2012) ,國小數理教師有無使用電子白板與其TPACK 之調查研究-以桃園縣為例,中原大學教育研究所碩士論文。
董松喬(2011),運用互動式電子白板進行社會領域問題導向學習之研究,國立臺北教育大學教育傳播與科技研究所碩士論文。
劉芷源(2010),運用教師社群發展國小數學教師TPCK 之行動硏究,數理學科教學知能,2期,24-44。
劉桂君(2007),未來教室的建制與應用-以英語教學結合電子白板為例中正大學資訊工程所,嘉義縣。
劉遠禎(2004),「淺談資訊科技融入教學」,國民教育,44(6),pp 2-6
劉麗娟、許春峰(2010),國小教師使用互動式電子白板的意願及影響因素之研究—以新竹市國小為例,國立新竹教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文。
謝甫佩、洪振方(2004),「國小學生科學探究活動的課程設計及實施成果之個案研究」,師大學報:科學教育類,49(2),61-86。
謝佳容、王子華, 沈怡秀(2009),以科技接受模式理論探討國民小學教師使用互動式電子白板之接受度調查研究,新竹教育大學教育系研究所碩士論文。
顏菀廷(2008),應用互動式電子白板融入國小數學教學成效之探究,國立臺北教育大學教育傳播與科技研究所碩士論文。
曾淑娟(2013),互動式電子白板融入幼兒園語文教學之行動研究,國立臺北教育大學數位科技設計學系 (含玩具與遊戲設計碩士班) 碩士論文。
黃郁婷(2010),「運用互動電子白板與小組合作學習策略輔助國小四年級摘寫國語課文大意之成效研究」, 師資培育與教師專業發展期刊, 3(2), 17-48。
蔡文榮、蔡佩君(2012),「互動式電子白板在英語教學過程中對學習成就與學習態度之影響」, 教育科學期刊,11(2), 69-91。
李亭萱(2010),運用 ADDIE 模式發展互動式電子白板成語教學之研究,國立臺北教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文。
高震峰、吳維慈(2012),「互動式電子白板融入國小高年級視覺藝術教學之實驗研究」,藝術教育研究,24期,1-42。
楊維軒、李信良(2012),運用互動式電子白板於英語教學對提升國小學童英語學習動機與學習成就之探究-以臺中市為例,東海大學教育研究所碩士論文。
蘇宜姍(2012),運用互動式電子白板融入合作學習法於提升中年級學生英語聽說能力之行動研究,淡江大學教育科技學系碩士論文。

貳、英文參考文獻
Barbour, M. K., Reiber, L. P., Thomas, G., & Rauscher, D. (2009), Homemade PowerPoint games: Constructionist alternative to WebQuest. Tech Trends, 53(5), 54-59.
Brookfield, S. (1986), Understand and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2009), Strategies for preparing preservice social studies teachers to integrate technology effectively: Models and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1).
Castro, A. P. (2001), Learning in a digital age: Current and future trends in educational technology. http://www.geocities.com/apcastro111/conteduc/edutech.htm (closed)
Choi, S., & Ramsey, J. (2010), Constructing elementary teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge through an inquiry-based elementary science course. School Science and Mathematics, 109(6), 313-324.
Clark, K D. (2002), Urban middle schools' use of instructional technology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(2), 178-194.
Coffee, P. Mathematica 5.1's Web Services Add Up; Mathematica 5.1 delivers improvements over Version 5.0. eWeek
Cronje, J. (2006), Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Educational Technology Research & Development, 95(2), 110-185.
Deboard, K. A., Aruguete, M. S., & Muhlig, J. (2004), Are computer-assisted teaching methods effective? Teaching of Psychology, 31(1), 65-68.
Fitzpatrick, S. B., & Fauz, R. (2002), An exploratory study of the implementation of an interactive learning system in two eighth grade mathematics classes. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (p. 56). New Orleans, LA:
Fred D. Davis, Richard P. Bagozzi, Paul R. Warshaw (1992), Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Volume 22, Issue 14, pages 1111–1132.
Fred Davis (1989), Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 319-340
Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. G. (2005), A year in the life: Two seventh grade teachers implement one-to-one computing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 361-377.
Gatlin, M. (2004), Interactive whiteboard system creates 'active classrooms' for rural Georgia school system. The Journal, 31(6), 50-52.
Georgina, D., & Hosford, C. (2009), Higher education faculty perceptions on technology integration and training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 690-696.
Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. (1977), A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research Journal, 14(3), 263-276.
Harris, J. (2008), TPCK in in-service education: Assisting experienced teachers’ “planned improvisations.” In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for teaching and teacher educators (pp. 251-271). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, October 2011, Vol. 1, No. 3 pp.88-89, ISSN: 2222-6990
Januszewski, M Molenda (2008), Educational technology: A definition with commentary. In Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group (Eds.)
Jason S Beach (2012), Interactive Whiteboard Transition: A Case Study. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Kirkpatrick, H., Peck, C. and Cuban L. (2001), High Access and Low Use of Technologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox, American Educational Research Journal December 21, 2001 38: 813-834,
Kitchenham, A. (2006), Teachers and technology: A transformative journey. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(3), 202-225.
Knowles, M. (1980), The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge Books
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004), With a little help from your students: A new model for faculty development and online course design. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25-55.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006), Teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-based classrooms: A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 157-181.
Levy, P. (2002), Interactive Whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: a developmental study. Unpublished Master dissertation at DIS of University of Sheffield, 2000-2001. A developmental study. Unpublished Master dissertation at DIS of University of
Lowenthal, P., & Wilson, B. (2010). Labels DO Matter! A critique of AECT's redefinition of the Field. Tech Trends, 54(1), 38.
Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., & Kottkamp, R. (1999), West Virginia story: Achievement gains from a statewide comprehensive instructional technology program. Beverly Hills, CA: West Virginia State Dept. of Education.
Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., & Kottkamp, R. (1999), West Virginia story: Achievement gains from a statewide comprehensive instructional technology program. Beverly Hills, CA: West Virginia State Dept. of Education.
Marc Prensky (2001), Digital natives, digital immigrants part. On the Horizon MCB University Press, Vol. 9.
Mcdiarmid, G. W., & Ball, D. L. (1988), Many Moons: Understanding teacher knowledge from a teacher education perspective. The Journal, 2(2), 23-37.
Mercer, N., Warwick, P., Kershner, R. & Staarman, J.K. (2010a), Can the interactive whiteboard help to provide ‘dialogic space’ for children’s collaborative activity? Language & Education, 24(5), 367-384. doi: 10.1080/09500781003642460
Mercer, N., Warwick, P., Kershner, R. & Staarman, J.K. (2010b), In the mind and in the technology: The vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 55(1), 350-362.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006), Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Nellie, Deutsch, Future Trends in Educational Technology, April 21, 2004, University of Phoenix.
Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskel, S. O., Harper, S. R., & Johnston, C. (2009), Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1, 4-24.
Parkerson, D. H., & Parkerson, J. A. (2001), Transitions in American education: A social history of teaching. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Promethean World (2010), Promethean planet support and locations. Retrieved December 18, 2010, from http://www.prometheanworld.com/server.php?show=nav.21201.
Ravitz, J., Becker, H. J., & Wong, Y. (2000, June), Constructivist-compatible beliefs and practices among U.S. teachers (1998 national survey report #4). Irvine, CA: Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.
Schmid, E. C. (2006), Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the English language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62. Sheffield, 2000-2001.
Shulman, L. (1986), Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(4).
Shulman, L. S. (1987), “Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.” Harvard Educational Review Feb. 1987: 1-22.
Silvernail, D. L., & Gritter, A. (2007), Maine's middle school laptop program: Creating better writers. Gorham, ME:
Silvernail, D. L., & Lane, D. M. (2004), The impact of Maine's one-to-one laptop program on middle school teachers and students: Phase one summary evidence.
Taylor, M., Harlow, A. & Forret, M. (2010), Using a computer programming environment and an interactive whiteboard to investigate some mathematical thinking. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 561-570.
Vanatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004), Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 56(3), 253-271.
Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005), ‘The visual helps me understand the complicatedthings’: pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Education Technology, 36(5), 851-867.Weglinsky, H. (2005). Technology and achievement: The bottom line. Educational Leadership, 29-32.
Weglinsky, H. (2005), Technology and achievement: The bottom line. Educational Leadership, 29-32.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2005), Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165-205.
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006), Implementing computer technologies: Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173-207.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top