請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/70575
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 劉奇璋 | |
dc.contributor.author | HSUAN-MENG TSENG | en |
dc.contributor.author | 曾宣夢 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T04:31:30Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-08-14 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-14 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-08-10 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文部分
John H. Falk, Lynn D. Dierking著,林盈潔等譯,2001。博物館經驗,臺北市:五觀藝術管理。(原著出版年:1992 年) Kathleen McLean著,徐純譯,2001。如何為民眾規劃博物館展覽,屏東縣:國立海洋生物博物館。 王鑫(1989)。自然資源與保育。環境教育季刊,1:18-28。 安奎(1989)。美國博物館之教育活動研究。台灣省立博物館年刊。 何健鎔(2002a)。台灣賞螢地圖。臺中市:晨星。 何健鎔(2002b)。螢光水影 : 水生螢火蟲的保育與復育。南投縣集集鎮 : 農委會特有生物中心。 吳明隆、涂金堂(2005)。SPSS與統計應用分析。臺北市:五南。 吳統雄(1985)。態度與行為研究的信度與效度。臺北:聯經。 汪靜明(1995)。自然保育與社會環境教育。自然保育教育研討會專集(頁137-190)。臺北市:行政院農委會。 徐純(2000)。如何實施博物館教育評量。行政院文化建設委員會。 張莉慧(1995)。由認識階層評量學習。博物館學季刊,9(1),49-51。 教育部國民及學前教育署(2003)。重大議題。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。(取自:https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/ap/sid17_92law.aspx) 許美雲(2010)。在博物館展示場域中學習。歷史臺灣,1,154-166。 陳燦榮(2003)。 台灣螢火蟲生態導覽。臺北市 : 田野影像。 黃茂在、曾鈺琪(2015)。壹、戶外教育的意涵與教育價值。戶外教育實施指引(頁8-25)。臺北市:國家教育研究院籌備處。 楊平世(1998)。火金姑:螢火蟲。臺北市:自然生態。 楊冠政(1992)。環境教育發展簡史。博物館學季刊,6(3),3-9。 楊冠政(1993)。環境素養。環境教育季刊,19,2-13。 楊國樞(1989)。社會及行為科學研究法(上冊)(下冊)。臺北:東華。 楊惠卿(2009)。以學習者為中心的「館校合作」課程設計模式與案例:以國立台灣美術館「台灣當代藝術特展」為例。國立新竹教育大學九十八學年度藝術與設計學系暑期美勞教學碩士班研究生論文合集(頁13-37)。新竹:國立新竹教育大學。 漢寶德(1988)。評量就是工作檢討。博物館學季刊,2(3):1。 劉幸真譯(1995)。博物館展示的形成性評量。博物館學季刊,9(1):9-18。 劉婉珍(2005)。把博物館變小又變大-在國小實踐博物館教育的嘗試與省思。美育雙月刊,第145期 ,44-65。 簡茂發(1990)。教學評量與方法。教學原理(黃光雄主編)。臺北市:師大書院。 二、英文部分 Allman, S. A. (1972). Identification of environmental concepts for inclusion in an elementary school curriculum. Dissertation Abstracts International. 33, 2137B. (University Microfilm No.72-27, 378, 121) American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA). (2004). Retrieved December 11, 2004, from http://www.aza.org Bandura, A., & Walters, R. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Barker, R. G., & Wright, H. F. (1955). Midwest and its children. New York: Harper & Row. Bell, P. A., Fisher, J. D., & Loomis, R. D. (1978). Environmental psychology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Bitgood, S. & Shettel, H. (1999). The classification of exhibit evaluation: A rationale for remedial evaluation. In: Minda Borun & Randi Korn (Eds.), Introduction to Museum Evaluation, pp. 69-73. Washington, D.C.: AAM. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of education goals. Handbook Ⅰ: The cognitive domain. New York: David Mckay. Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (Eds.). (1971). Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Borun, M & Korn, R. (Eds.). (1999). Introduction to Museum Evaluation. Bransford, J. D. (1979). Human cognition: Learning, understanding and remembering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Brown, J. S. (1989). Situated learning. Paper presented at the Smithsonian Resident Associates Program, Washington, D.C. Brown, R. (1964). Conservation Education. University Microfilms International. Canadian Environmental Grantmakers’ Network. (2006). Environmental Education in Canada, pp. 2. Canada, Toronto: CEGN. Chambers, M. (1990). Beyond “aha!” : Motivating visitors. In B. Serrell (Ed.), What research says about science learning in informal settings. Washington, DC: Association of Science and Technology Centers. Chase, R. A. (1977). Cognition consequences of traditional apprenticeship training in West Africa. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 8, 177-180. Chen, H. T. (2004). The roots of theorydriven evaluation: Current views and origins. In: Marvin C. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists, Views and Influences, pp. 132-152. London: SAGE Publications. David, T. G., & Wright B. D. (Eds.). (1975). Learning environments. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dierking, L. D. & Pollock, W. (1998). Questioning Assumptions: An Introduction to Front-end Studies in Museums. Washington, D.C.: Association of Science-Technology Centers. Dierking, L. D. (2002). The Role of Context in Children’s Learning from Objects and Experiences. In S. G.. Paris (ed.), Perspectives on Objects-centered Learning in Museums. pp.3~18. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Doug, K., & Raymond. P. (2001). A qualitative analysis of the immediate and short-term impact of an environmental interpretive program. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 55-65. Fakatseli, O. (2008). What is visitor studies? Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.visitors.org.uk/node/6 Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (2000b). Learning from Museums: Visitors Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Falk, J. H. (1998). Visitors: Who does, who doesn’t and why. Museum News, 77(2), 38-43. Falk, J. H. (2001). Free-choice science learning: Framing the discussion. In Falk JH (Ed) Free-choice science education: How we learn science outside of school. Teachers College Press. New York. pp.1-20. Falk, J. H. (2006). An identity-centered approach to understanding museum learning. Curator, 49(2),151-166. Falk, J. H. (2008). Calling all spiritual pilgrims: Identity in the museum experience. Museum News, January/February, 62-67. Falk, J. H., & Balling, J. D. (1982). The field trip milieu: Learning and behavior as a function of contextual events. Journal of Educational Research, 76(1), 22-28. Falk, J. H., Koran, J. J., Jr. & Dierking, L. D. (1986). The things of science: Assessing the learning potential of science museums. Science Education, 70(5), 503-508. Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L. D. (2000a). Lessons without Limits: How free choice learning transforming education in America. AltaMira Press. Walnut Creek, CA. Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L. D. (2002). Lessons Without Limit: How Free-choice. Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application. New York: Macmillan. Gennaro, E. & Heller, P. (1983). Parent and child learning: A model for programs at informal science centers. Roundtable Reports, 8, 4-5. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Graetz, L. (1984). Meaning-making and art. Houston Art Scene, 5(2), 3. Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D. C. & Sparks, P. (2013). Identifying motivations and Barriers to minimizing household food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 84(2014), 15-23 Hein, G. (1998). Learning in the Museum. London and New York: Routledge. Hood, M. G. (1983). Staying away: Why people choose not to visit museums. Museum News, 61(4), 50-57. Hood, M. G. (1989). Leisure criteria of family participation and nonparticipation in museums. Marriage and Family Review, 13(4), 151-169. Hooper-Greenhill, E. et al. (2003). Measuring the outcomes and impact of learning in museums, archives and libraries: The learning impact research project paper. Leicester: Research Centre for Museums and Galleries. Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. (1985). Science Methods for the Elementary School. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co. Johnson, C. (2005). Science centers as learning environments: Defining our impact. Dimensions, November/December, 3-5. Kazdin, A. E., & Bass, D. (1989). Power to detect differences between treatments in comparative psychotherapy outcome research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, pp.138-147. Kelly, J. R. & Powell-Mikel, A. (2002). Science adventures at the local museum. Science and Children, 39(7), 46-48. Kelly, J. R. (1977). Leisure socialization: Replication and extension. Journal of Leisure Research, 9, 121-132. Knapp, D. (2000). Memorable experiences of a science field trip. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 65-72 Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D. A., & Smith, D. M. (1986). User’s guide for the learning Style Inventory: A manual for teachers and trainers (pp. 33-37). Boston: McBer. Krathwohl, P. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook Ⅱ: Affective domain. New York: David Mckay. Leinhardt, G., & Knutson, K. (2004). Listening in on museum conversion. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Loomis, R. J. (1993). Planning for the visitor: The challenge of visitor studies. In Sandra Bicknell and Graham Farmelo (Eds.), Museum visitor studies in the 90s (pp. 13-23). London: Science Museum. Maehr, M. (1989). The role of motivation in learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA. Marcinkowski, T. J., & Rehring. L. (1995). The Secondary School Report: A Report on the Development, Pilot Testing, Validation, and Field Testing of-The Secondary School Environmental Literacy Assessment Instrument. Research funded by the Office of Research and Development and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. McCabe, S. E., Boyd, C. J., Young, A., Crawford, S., & Pope, D. (2005). Mode effects for collecting alcohol and tobacco data among 3rd and 4th grade students: A randomized pilot study of web-form versus paper-form surveys. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 663-671. McCarthy, B. (1980). The 4MAT system: Teaching to learning styles with right/left mode techniques, Chicago: Excel. Miles, R. (1986). Museum audiences. The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 5, 73-80. Miles, R. (1993). Grasping the greased pig: Evaluation of educational exhibits. In: Sandra Bicknell & Graham Farmelo (Eds.), Museum Visitor Studies in the 90s, pp. 24-33. London: Science Museum. Miller, E. T., Neal, D. J., Roberts, L. J., Baer, J. S., Cressler, S. O., Metrik, J., & Marlatt, G. A. (2002). Test-retest reliability of alcohol measures: Is there a difference between internet-based assessment and traditional methods? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16(1), 56-63. North American Association for Environmental Education. (2004). Nonformal Environmental Education Programs: Guidelines for Excellence. Washington, DC: NAAEE. Owen, S. O. (1971). Natural Resource Conservation: an ecological approach. The Macmillian Company, 593pp. P. Patrick, C. Matthews, D. Ayers, S. Tunnicliffe. (2007). 'Conservation and education: Prominent themes in zoo mission statements', Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 38, 53 - 60. Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. A. (2005). The effect of schooling on students' out-of-school experience. Educational Researcher, 34(9), 15-23. Robert E. Slavin. (2000).Education Psychology: Theory and Practice. Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered theraphy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Roth, R. E. (1969). Fundamental concepts for environmental management education (k-16). (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 82A. Screven, C. G. (1990). Uses of evaluation before, during, and after exhibit evaluation. ILVS Review, 1(2): 36-66. Screven, C. G. (1993). United States: A science in the making, Museum International, 178, 6-12. Sork, Y. J. & Caffarella, R. S. (1989). Planning programs for adults. In S. B. Merriam & P. M. Cunningham (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers. Wellington, J. (1990). Formal and informal learning in science: The role of the interactive science centres. Physics Education, 25, 247-52. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/70575 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究嘗試翻轉以往由推廣者決定要如何教,教甚麼之教學導向環境教育,轉向由參與者決定如何學,學甚麼之學習導向環境教育。以金門地區螢火蟲保育教育展示為研究主體,以成人觀眾學習成效為研究內容,藉由前置性評量、形成性評量及總結性評量之結果作依據,探討參觀金門地區螢火蟲保育教育展示之成人觀眾學習成效。研究前期,在金門實施前置性評量,以探討一般大眾對於螢火蟲的知識,感興趣的螢火蟲保育教育內容,以及溝通與展示方式,作為設計及規劃展示內容之依據。展示發展過程,將初步完成的展示樣品,進行預展,同時利用形成性評量,以了解展示內容是否符合參訪者之學習及溝通方式,並針對形成性評估的結果,重新設計展示。展覽正式開始後,進行總結性評估,以了解參訪者的學習成效,是否達到我們保育教育目標。
本研究採用質量並重的方法,利用「前置性評量問卷」、「形成性訪談大綱」、「總結性評量問卷」等三份研究工具。前置性評量與總結性評量採用問卷調查;形成性評量採用半結構式訪談。研究結果顯示:在前置性評量方面,受測民眾對於螢火蟲的了解程度偏低,對於螢火蟲之食性、棲地以及發光機制等相關問題答對率較低。民眾感興趣之螢火蟲相關議題,則分別以生活習性、棲地、生態、發光機制以及保育方面獲得較多受測者青睞。民眾喜歡的溝通與展示方式,則以體驗式隧道、虛擬實境、螢火蟲圖畫/攝影照片/藝術品、解說人員為主。在形成性評量方面,大部分受測者提出的建議為海報字體放大、海報圖片放大、暗箱加大,製作材質可改為木箱、海報加大,甚至可以整面牆的大小、調整海報擺放位置、將放置在海報前的一排休閒椅移除、增加海報內容豐富度、不使用綠黏土固定,改其他更牢固的固定方式、模型可使用不易斷裂材質。在總結性評量方面,受測者在環境素養前後測成績有顯著差異,且在環境素養5大目標(概念知識、覺知與敏感度、態度與價值觀、行動技能、行動意圖)各組間前後測成績亦均有顯著差異。 本研究綜合量化、質化資料分析結果提出結論與建議,對於以學習導向的展覽設計和所有三項評量的研究,期盼可以應用於未來相關的自由選擇學習計畫。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this study is to assess participants’ learning outcomes of learning-centered firefly exhibition in Kinmen. In this study, there are 3 research tools, such as front-end evaluation, formative evaluation, and summative evaluation. Questionnaire surveys were used for front-end evaluation and summative evaluation; semi-structured interviews were used for formative evaluation. In the early stages of the study, we conducted a front-end evaluation to explore general public’s conversation awareness, attitude and behavior, as well as their understanding of and interest in firefly conservation. We then designed and modified the exhibits, invited public to visit and conducted formative evaluation, which allows us to understand participants’ learning about the subject to modify the exhibit to facilitate visitors’ learning. After the exhibit was formally on, a summative evaluation carried out to access participants’ learning outcomes and saw whether our educational objectives achieved.
The results showed that in the front-end evaluation, the participants had a low level of understanding of fireflies. Firefly-related topics of interest to the public are living habits, habitats, ecology, illuminating mechanisms, and conservation. The approach of communication and display is based on experiential tunnels, virtual reality, firefly pictures/photographs/artworks, and docents. In formative evaluation, most of the participants recommend enlarging poster font, poster image, and black box. Furthermore, the material of the black box can be replaced with a wooden box. In summative evaluation, the results showed that learning-centered firefly exhibition in Kinmen contributed significantly to participants’ environmental conceptual knowledge, awareness and sensitivity, values and attitudes, action skills, and actions intentions. The study of learner-centered exhibit design and all three evaluations could hopefully be considered to apply in such free-choice learning program in the future. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T04:31:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R05625017-1.pdf: 3456459 bytes, checksum: ac30301eec160a34c28a4fbacddf57bb (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書………………………………………………………………………i
謝辭………………………………………………………………………………….......ii 摘要……………………………………………………………………………………..iii Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..v 目錄…………………………………………………………………………………….vii 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與背景 1 第二節 研究目的與研究問題 4 第三節 名詞釋義 5 第四節 研究範圍與限制 7 第二章 文獻回顧 8 第一節 保育教育與自由選擇學習 8 第二節 以學習者為導向之展覽設計與評量 14 第三章 材料與方法 24 第一節 研究架構與流程 24 第二節 研究場域 27 第三節 研究樣本 27 第四節 研究工具 29 第五節 資料分析 32 第六節 研究時程 33 第四章 結果與討論 34 第一節 前置性評量 34 第二節 形成性預展 40 第三節 形成性評量 43 第四節 正式展 53 第五節 總結性評量 57 第六節 綜合討論 72 第五章 結論與建議 74 第一節 結論 74 第二節 建議 75 參考文獻 77 附錄一:前置性評量正式問卷 86 附錄二:形成性評量訪談大綱 89 附錄三:形成性評量受訪同意書 90 附錄四:總結性評量正式前測問卷 91 附錄五:總結性評量正式後測問卷 93 附錄六:形成性評量訪談內容整理 95 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 學習導向保育教育展示設計:以金門地區螢火蟲展為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Designing a Learning Oriented Firefly Exhibition in Kinmen | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張子超,陳建志 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 保育教育,螢火蟲保育,學習導向展示設計,前置性評量,形成性評量,總結性評量,學習成效, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Conservation education,firefly conservation,learner-centered exhibit design,front-end evaluation,formative evaluation,summative evaluation,learning outcomes, | en |
dc.relation.page | 108 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201803030 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-08-13 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 森林環境暨資源學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 森林環境暨資源學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 3.38 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。