請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/16000完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 楊宏智(Hong-Tsu Young) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hsuan-Han Chen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳宣翰 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-07T17:57:39Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2020-08-07 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2020-07-31 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 王佳琪, 宋世祥. (2019). 設計思考融入職前師資培育課程之實施與成效：以適性教學為例. 教育科學研究期刊，第六十四卷第四期，64（4）, 頁 145-173. 王淑玲, 蔡今中. (2004). 社會認知論中自我調制學習在網路合作設計之應用與評估. 呂昕樺. (2016年5月20日). 服務不是愈多愈好！設計思考5步驟，創造顧客「最有感」的服務. 擷取自 https://www.managertoday.com.tw/glossary/view/197. 林延諭, 鄭夢慈. (2016). 融入設計思考於嚴肅教育遊戲的設計歷程及對科技學科教學知識的影響：以職前教師為例. 數位學習科技期刊，第8 卷第1 期, 頁 71-94. 林倍伊, 林顯達, 李佩蓉, 詹雯靜, 洪國財, 洪煌堯. (2016). 在不同模式的電腦支持協作學習環境下，師培生理解教學理論層次之差異－以Blackboard和Knowledge Forum為例. 資訊社會研究 ISSN 1680-8428. 洪煌堯, 蔡佩真, 林倍伊. (2014). 透過知識創新教學理念與學習平台以培養國小學生自然課合作學習與翻新想法的習慣. 科學教育學刊，第二十二卷第四期, 頁 413-439. 張惠玲, 陳冠儒, 吳佳蓉, 汪琮, 洪景山, 楊舒芝. (2018年3月). 臺灣地區WRF颱風系集降雨機率預報之評估、校正與經濟價值分析-第一部分：預報評估. 大氣科學期刊 第四十六期第一號, 頁 69-104. 教育部. (2014). 十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱. 教育部. (2018). 十二年國民基本教育技術型高級中等學校群科課程綱要─機械群. 教育部. (2020). 107學年度《高級中等學校應屆畢業生升學就業概況調查》. 設計思考：從使用者的角度出發. (2012年10月11日). 擷取自 https://www.inside.com.tw/article/1749-design-thinking. 親子天下，黃偉翔. (2019年05月31日). 【108課綱高職篇2】高職拚證照3亂象：左右升學、影響學習、只問證照不問學力. 擷取自 https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/5421. Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science volume 16, pp. 74-94. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), pp. 191-215. Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. Social cognitive development frontiers and possible futures, pp. 200-239. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to Work Creatively with Knowledge. Unravelling Basic Components and Dimensions of Powerful Learning Environments. Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centered models of teaching and instruction. Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2, pp. 695-713. Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: One concept, two hills to climb. Knowledge creation in education, pp. 35–52. Berry, J., Karlan, D., Pradhan, M. (2018). The Impact of Financial Education for Youth in Ghana. World Development 102, pp. 71-89. Biggs, J. (1994). Approaches to Learning: Nature and Measurement of. The International Encyclopedia of Education. Biggs, J.-B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(3), pp. 266-279. Biggs, J.-B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Research Monograph. Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd. Radford House, Frederick St., Hawthorn 3122, Australia. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), pp. 84-92. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design issues, 8(2), pp. 5-21. Chan, C.-K., Lam, I.-C., Leung, R.-W. (2012). Can collaborative knowledge building promote both scientific processes and science achievement? International Journal of Educational Psychology (IJEP), 1(3), pp. 199-277. Chan, C.-K.-K. (2012). Co-regulation of learning in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), pp. 63-73. Chen, B., Hong, H.-Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), pp. 266-288. Chen, N., Hong, H.-Y., Chai, C.-S., Liang, J., Lin, P.-Y. (2019). Developing a Scale for Preschool Teachers’ Design Thinking Engagement. American Educational Research Association. American. Chiou, G.-L., Liang, J.-C. (2012). Exploring the structure of science self-effcacy: A model built on high school students’ conceptions of learning and approaches to learning in science. The Asia-Paciffic Education Researcher, 21(1), pp. 83-91. Chiou, G.-L., Lee, M.-H., Tsai, C.-C. (2013). High school students’ approaches to learning physics with relationship to epistemic views on physics and conceptions of learning physics. Research in Science Technological Education, 31(1), pp. 1-15. Chiou, G.-L., Liang, J.-C., Tsai, C.-C. (2012). Undergraduate Students’ Conceptions of and Approaches to Learning in Biology: A Study of their Structural Models and Gender Differences. International Journal of Science Education 34 (2), pp. 167-95. Dart, B.-C., Burnett, P.-C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., Smith, D. (2000). Students’ conceptions of learning, the classroom environment, and approaches to learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), pp. 262-270. DiDonato, N.-C. (2013). Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instr Sci 41, pp. 25-47. Dym, C.-L., Agogino, A.-M., Eris, O., Frey, D.-D., Leifer, L.-J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), pp. 103-120. Fornell, C., Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res, 18 (1), pp. 39-50. Fredricks, J.-A., Blumenfeld, P.-C., Paris, A.-H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), pp. 59-109. Fredricks, J.-A., Wang, M.-T., Schall Linn, J., Hofkens, T.-L., Sung, H.-C., Parr, A.-K., Allerton, J.-J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction. Goldman, S., Kabayadondo, Z. (2016). Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. New York: Taylor Francis. Gravill, J.-I., Compeau, D.-R., Marcolin, B.-L. (2002). Metacognition and IT: the influence of self-efficacy and self-awareness. Paper presented in the meeting of eighth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Dallas, TX. Grindal, T., Bowne, J.-B., Yoshikawa, H., Schindler, H.-S., Duncan, G.-J., Magnuson, K., Shonkoff, J. (2016). The added impact of parenting education in early childhood education programs: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review 70, pp. 238-249. Hadwin, A., Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), pp. 240-264. Hadwin, A.-F., Järvelä, S., Miller, M. (2017). Self-regulation, co-regulation and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, pp. 83-106. Hair Jr., J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. Maxwell Macmillan International Editions. Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 2. Hair, J.-F., Hult, G.-T.-M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M. (2016). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, California 91320: Sage Publications. Hair, J.-F., Risher, J.-J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.-M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24. Hampton, N.-Z., Mason, E. (2003). Learning disabilities, gender, sources of efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement in high school’s students. Journal of School Psychology, 41, pp. 101-112. Henrie, C., Halverson, L., Graham, C. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers Education 90, pp. 36-53. Hong, H.-Y. (2011). Beyond group collaboration: Facilitating an idea-centered view of collaboration through knowledge building in a science class of fifth-graders. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(2), pp. 248-262. Hong, H.-Y., Lin, S.-P. (2010). Teacher-education students' epistemological belief change through collaborative knowledge building. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), pp. 99-110. Hong, H.-Y., Chen, B., Chai, C.-S. (2016). Exploring the development of college students' epistemic views during their knowledge building activities. Computers Education 98 (2016), pp. 1-13. Hong, H.-Y., Chen, F.-C., Chai, C.-S., Chan, W.-C. (2011). Teacher-education students’ views about knowledge building theory and practice. Instructional Science, 39(4), pp. 467-482. Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., Teo, C. (2008). Principle-based design to foster adaptive use of technology for building community knowledge. In G. Kanselaar, V. Jonker, P. A. Kirschner, F. J. Prins (Eds.). International. Perspectives in the learning sciences: Cre8ing a learning world: Proceedings of the eighth international conference for the learning sciences -- ICLS 2008, pp. 374-381. Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., Teo, C.-L. (2015). Fostering sustained idea improvement with principle-based knowledge building analytic tools. Computers Education, 89, pp. 91-12. Hughes, J.-N., Luo, W., Kwok, O.-M., Loyd, L.-K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: a 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), pp. 1-14. Hwang, G.-J., Shi, Y.-R., Chu, H.-C. (2011). A concept map approach to developing collaborative Mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), pp. 778-789. Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Veermans, M. (2008). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47 (2), pp. 122-135. Järvelä, S., Volet, S., Järvenoja, H. (2010). Research on motivation in collaborative learning: Moving beyond the cognitive–situative divide and combining individual and social processes. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), pp. 15-27. Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Hakkarainen, K. (2013a). Design expert’s participation in elementary students’ collaborative design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), pp. 161-178. Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Hakkarainen, K. (2013b). Figuring the world of designing: Expert participation in elementary classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2),, pp. 425-442. Kember, D., Biggs, J., Leung, D.-Y. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), pp. 261–279. Kempler, T.-M., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2007). Exploring self-regulation in group contexts. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens, S. Puntambekar (Eds.). Proceedings of the 8th Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, pp. 357-360. Kiefer, S.-M., Ryan, A.-M. (2011). What characteristics are associated with social success? Changes in students' perceptions of social success during early adolescence. Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, pp. 218-226. Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), pp. 285–306. Koh, J., Chai, C.-S., Wong, B., Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Kuh, G.-D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J.-A., Bridges, B.-K., Hayek, J.-C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(5), pp. 1-182. Ladd, G.-W., Dinella, L.-M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement: predictive of children's achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), pp. 190-206. Lajoie, S.-P., Lu, J. (2012). Supporting collaboration with technology: Does shared cognition lead to co-regulation in medicine? Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), pp. 45-62. Lee, L., Lajoie, S.-P., Poitras, E.-G., Nkangu, M., Doleck, T. (2016). Co-regulation and knowledge construction in an online synchronous problem based learning setting. Educ Inf Technol 22, pp. 1623-1650. Lee, M.-H., Johanson, R.-E., Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92, pp. 191-220. Li, W.-T., Liang, J.-C., Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Relational analysis of college chemistry-major students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), pp. 555-565. Liang, J.-C., Su, Y.-C., Tsai, C.-C. (2015). The assessment of Taiwanese college students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning computer science and their relationships. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(4), pp. 557-567. Lin, H.-M., Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Conceptions of Learning Management among Undergraduate Students in Taiwan. Management Learning 39 (5), pp. 561-78. Lin, K.-Y., Hong, H.-Y., Chai, C.-S. (2013). Development and validation of the knowledge-building environment scale. Learning and Individual Differences 30 (2014) 124–132. Lin, P. Y., Hong, H. Y., Chai, C.-S. (2019). Fostering college students’ design thinking in a knowledge building environment. Education Tech Research Dev. Lloyd, P. (2013). Embedded creativity: Teaching design thinking via distance education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), pp. 749–765. Martin, R.-L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. McCaslin, M. (2009). Co-regulation of student motivation and emergent identity. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), pp. 137-146. Noweski, C., Scheer, A., Büttner, N., von Thienen, J., Erdmann, J., Meinel, C. (2012). Towards a paradigm shift in education practice: Developing twenty-first century skills with design thinking. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, L. Leifer (Eds.). Design thinking research, pp. 71–94. Olakanmi, E.-E. (2016). Development of a questionnaire to measure co-regulated learning strategies during collaborative science learning. Journal of Baltic Science Education, pp. 68-78. Owen, C. (2006). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 1(2), pp. 16-27. Paavola, S. (2004). Abduction as a logic and methodology of discovery: The importance of strategies. Foundations of Science, 9(3), pp. 267-283. Paavola, S., Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor—An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science Education, 14(6), pp. 535–557. Pekrun, R., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, C. Wylie (Eds.),. Handbook of research on student engagement, pp. 259-282. Phan, H.-P. (2011). Interrelations between self-efficacy and learning approaches: A developmental approach. Educational Psychology, 31(2), pp. 225-246. Plattner, H. (2010). Bootcamp bootleg. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Institute of Design. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford. Razzouk, R., Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), pp. 330-348. Reichertz, J. (2009). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(1). Reschly, A.-L., Christenson, S.-L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, C. Wylie (Eds.). Handbook of research on student engagement, pp. 3-20. Richardson, J.-T. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), pp. 53-82. Rubin, A., Babbie, E.-R. (2009). Research Methods for Social Work. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective Cognitive Responsibility for the Advancement of Knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.). Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, pp. 67–98. Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In A Kovalchick K.Dawson (Eds.). Education and Technology: An encyclopedia, pp. 183–192. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge Building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Education, pp. 1370-1373. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.). Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, pp. 97-118. Scheer, A., Noweski, C., Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education, 17(3), pp. 8–19. Shen, K.-M., Lee, M.-H., Tsai, C.-C., Chang, C.-Y. (2016). Undergraduate students’ earth science learning: relationships among conceptions, approaches, and learning self-efficacy in Taiwan. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION, pp. 1527-1547. Skinner, E.-A., Pitzer, J.-R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, C. Wylie (Eds.). Handbook of research on student engagement, pp. 21-44. Taheri, M., Meinel, C. (2015). Pedagogical evaluation of the design thinking MOOCs. Proceedings from the 3rd international conference for design education researchers, pp. 469-481. Tsai, C.-C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: a phenomenographic analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26, pp. 1733-1750. Tsai, C.-C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: A phenomenographic analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26, pp. 1733-1750. Tsai, C.-C., Ho, H., Liang, J.-C., Lin, H.-M. (2011). Scientific epistemic beliefs, conceptions of learning science and self-efficacy of learning science among high school students. Learning and Instruction 21, pp. 757-769. Tsai, M.-J., Liang, J.-C., Hou, H.-T., Tsai, C.-C. (2015). Males are not as active as females in online discussion: Gender differences in face-to-face and online discussion strategies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), pp. 263-277. Tschimmel, K. (2012). Design Thinking as an effective Toolkit for Innovation. Proceedings of the XXIII ISPIM Conference: Action for Innovation: Innovating from Experience. Vauras, M., Iiskala, T., Kajamies, A., Kinnunen, R., Lehtinen, E. (2003). Shared-regulation and motivation of collaborating peers: A case analysis. An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 46, pp. 19-37. Veenman, M., Van Hout-Wolters, B., Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning 1, pp. 3-14. Volet, S., Summers, M., Thurman, J. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 19(2), pp. 128-143. von Thienen, J., Royalty, A., Meinel, C. (2017). Design Thinking in Higher Education: How Students become Dedicated Creative Problem Solvers. Handbook of research on creative problem-solving skill development in higher education, pp. 306–328. Vygotsky, L.-S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wang, C.-Y., Tsai, C.-C. (2018). Understanding Students’ Conceptions of and Approaches to Learning Design. The International Journal of Design Education, pp. 31-45. Wang, M.-T., Eccles, J.-S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: a longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, pp. 12-23. Wang, M.-T., Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents' perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47, pp. 633-642. Wang, M.-T., Fredricks, J., Ye, F., Hofkens, T., Linn, J. (2016). The Math and Science Engagement Scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction 43, pp. 16-26. Wang, Y.-L., Liang, J.-C., Tsai, C.-C. (2018). Cross-cultural comparisons of university students’ science learning self-efficacy: structural relationships among factors within science learning self-efficacy. International Journal of Science Education, pp. 579-594. Wang, Y.-L., Liang, J.-C., Lin, C.-Y., Tsai, C.-C. (2017). Identifying Taiwanese junior-high school students' mathematics learning profiles and their roles in mathematics learning self-efficacy and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences 54, pp. 92-101. Yang, Y.-F., Tsai., C.-C. (2010). Conceptions of and Approaches to Learning through Online Peer Assessment. Learning and Instruction 20 (1), pp. 72-83. Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C., Morley, E. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), pp. 262-307. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/16000 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究旨在探討知識建構環境中，設計思維能力對技術型高中生在機械工程學習表現之影響，並了解技術型高中機械科學生之學習概念、學習方法與學習工程自我效能之關聯性，以及合作調控學習與學習投入度之關聯性。研究對象為嘉義市某技術型高中機械科三年級學生，共30人。研究方法採用準實驗研究設計，將研究對象分為兩組進行實驗教學，實驗組共18人，實施知識建構環境（知識論壇平台）課程佐以設計思維教學；控制組共12人，實施知識建構環境課程。實驗教學為期8週，每週3小時，並於課程第一週施測問卷前測、課程最後一週施測問卷後測。研究工具主要包含問卷量表：學習概念、學習方法、自我效能、合作調控學習、學習投入度、設計思維、知識建構環境、討論策略，以及知識論壇平台所記錄之數據。資料分析方法主要包含PLS-SEM結構方程模型分析與Mann-Whitney U檢定。研究結果顯示：技術型高中機械科學生之低階學習概念能負預測其教師評量之學期成績，而學生之高階學習概念能預測其深層學習方法與表層動機，此外學生之深層學習方法能預測其學習工程自我效能；合作調控學習中，學生傾向計畫能預測其認知投入度、傾向努力調節能預測其行為投入度與情緒投入度、傾向給予幫助與尋求幫助能預測其學期成績、傾向自我評估能負預測其學期成績；在設計思維教學介入方面，研究結果發現實驗組學生較控制組學生對於知識建構社群中「同儕的想法或意見是重要的」有更高的認同，而實驗組學生在面對面的討論中對自我焦慮認知顯著低於控制組學生，而在理解與互動之認知顯著高於控制組學生，且實驗組學生在所有學習投入度之認同度面向皆高於控制組學生。在社會網路分析中，實驗組學生之程度中心性 (degree centrality)與接近中心性 (closeness centrality)顯著高於控制組。最後，在108課綱正式上路的時空背景，本研究針對課程設計與規劃提出具體建議，希冀能在技術型高中機械科教學現場更有效率地執行核心素養之教學實行。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The study aims to explore the effects of applying design thinking on vocational students’ mechanical engineering learning performance in a knowledge building environment. Purposes of the study are also to understand the relationship among students’ conceptions of learning, approaches to learning, and self-efficacy for learning mechanical engineering; and the relationship between their co-regulated learning and learning engagement. The participants in this study were 30 vocational students who major in mechanical engineering. Adopting quasi-experimental design for research method, the participants were separated into experimental group (n = 18) and control group (n = 12). The experimental group was applied design thinking teaching in a knowledge building environment (knowledge forum platform) course; while the control group was applied only a knowledge building environment course. The duration of the teaching experiment was 3 hours a week for 8 weeks. First week and the last week during the course respectively measured for pre-test and post-test questionnaires. The main instruments of research include questionnaires: conceptions of learning, approaches to learning, learning self-efficacy, co-regulated learning, learning engagement, design thinking, preference of knowledge building environment, discussion strategy. PLS-SEM and Mann-Whitney U test were used as the main data analysis methods in this study. The results show that vocational students’ lower learning conceptions negatively predicted their learning performance, students’ higher learning conceptions positively predicted their deep strategy, deep motivation, and surface motivation, and students’ deep motivation and deep strategy positively predicted their self-efficacy for learning mechanical engineering. In co-regulated learning, students’ “planning regulation” positively predicted their cognitive engagement, students’ “effort regulation” positively predicted both of their behavioral engagement and emotional engagement, students’ “help-giving and help-seeking regulation” positively predicted their learning performance, however, students’ “evaluation regulation” negatively predicted their learning performance. As for the differences between applying design thinking teaching or not, experimental group more recognized that peers’ ideas are important than control group did in knowledge building environment. The experimental group’s perception of anxiety during face-to-face discussion was significantly lower than the control group. The experimental group’s perceptions of comprehension and interaction during face-to-face discussion were significantly higher than the control group. In addition, the experimental group tended to have more cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and social learning engagement than the control group did. Moreover, the social network analysis indicated that degree centrality and closeness centrality of experimental group were significantly higher than control group. Finally, as the 12-year basic education curriculum guidelines were officially implemented in Taiwan, this study proposed some suggestions for the instruction design, and hopefully implemented the teaching of core competencies in vocational high school. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-07T17:57:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-3107202015065100.pdf: 6092862 bytes, checksum: e40594729907101b3db3ca8ca970bf39 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要 i Abstract iii 目錄 vi 圖目錄 viii 表目錄 ix 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 研究背景 1 1.2 研究動機 3 1.3 研究目的 4 1.4 研究範圍與限制 5 第二章 文獻回顧 7 2.1 知識建構 (Knowledge Building) 7 2.2 知識論壇 (Knowledge Forum) 10 2.3 設計思維 (Design Thinking) 11 2.4 學習概念、學習方法與自我效能 (Conceptions of Learning, Approaches to Learning, and Self-Efficacy) 15 2.5 合作調控學習 (Co-Regulated Learning) 19 2.6 學習投入度 (Learning Engagement) 20 第三章 研究方法 22 3.1 簡介 22 3.2 研究架構與流程 22 3.3 研究對象 25 3.4 實驗設計 26 3.5 研究工具 30 3.6 資料收集與分析 43 第四章 研究結果 46 4.1 簡介 46 4.2 學習概念、學習方法、自我效能與學期成績之關聯性 46 4.3 合作調控學習與其學習投入度及學期成績之關聯性 58 4.4 設計思維能力融入知識建構環境教學之影響 68 4.5 質性資料分析 76 第五章 結論與建議 79 5.1 從技職教育到知識建構 79 5.2 學習感知與學習表現 80 5.3 合作調控學習與學習行為和學習成就 81 5.4 設計思維能力與知識建構 83 參考文獻 85 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 探討設計思維能力對技術型高中生在機械工程學習表現之影響：以知識建構環境為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Exploring the Effects of Applying Design Thinking on Vocational Students' Mechanical Engineering Learning Performance in a Knowledge Building Environment | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | 梁至中(Jyh-Chong Liang) | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李貫銘(Kuan-Ming Li),張欣怡(Hsin-Yi Chang) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 知識建構,設計思維,學習概念,學習方法,自我效能,合作調控學習,學習投入度, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Knowledge Building,Design Thinking,Conceptions of Learning,Approaches to Learning,Self-Efficacy,Co-Regulated Learning,Learning Engagement, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 93 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202002161 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2020-08-03 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 工學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 機械工程學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 機械工程學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-3107202015065100.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 5.95 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。