發展一延伸性CIPP課程評鑑模式運用於高瞻計畫課程－以高中機器人課程為例

The Development of an Extended CIPP Curriculum Evaluation Model Using in High Scope Program-A Case of High School Robot Curriculum

10.6173/CJSE.2013.2103.01

林建良(Chien-Liang Lin)；黃台珠(Tai-Chu Huang)；莊雪華(Hsueh-Hua Chuang)；趙大衛(David Chao)

背景輸入過程成果模式 ； 課程評鑑 ； 機器人課程 ； CIPP Model ； Curriculum Evaluation ； Robot Course

科學教育學刊

21卷3期（2013 / 09 / 01）

237 - 262

繁體中文

本文呈現一個整體性評鑑的個案研究，在高瞻計畫的支持下，運用Stufflebeam的CIPP（Context, Input, Process and Product）評鑑模式，來進行南臺灣某高中機器人創新課程的評鑑。研究者採取「使用個案圖」進行課程的系統分析，界定出CIPP評鑑模式中背景、輸入、過程及成果四個評鑑層面的範圍，並定義研究資料蒐集的方式及來源，包含相關人員的晤談、教學錄影、會議記錄、問卷回覆、課程作品、課程網站及學生網誌等資料。兩位大專教授及兩位高中教師先就多元的資料記錄分析及編碼，再運用Atlas.ti質性分析軟體獲取一致的編碼。根據個案研究結果修正並發展出一個評鑑高中創新課程的延伸性CIPP課程評鑑模式。從課程發展的核心價值開始，分析課程目標、課程規劃、課程活動及學習產出，並依據不同的資料來源及評鑑措施，進行背景、輸入、過程及成果四個評鑑層面的驗證。延伸性CIPP課程評鑑模式可作為高瞻計畫其他高中發展相關創新課程，改善課程設計、發展及應用的主要指標。

This article presented a case study of a holistic evaluation of the development and implementation of a high school innovative robot curriculum in southern Taiwan with the support of the High Scope Program (HSP) in line with Stufflebeam's context, input, process and product (CIPP) evaluation model. The researchers applied user cased diagram to identify the scopes of context, input, process, and output four evaluation domains of CIPP model systematically, and to categorize the data source, such as interviews, instruction video analysis, records of group meeting, questionnaire responses, course artifacts, the course website, and students' blogs. Two college professors and two high school teachers analyzed and coded the transcripts of multiple resource records, then discussed for coherent codes with Atlas.ti qualitative analysis software supportively. According to the result of this case study, an extended CIPP evaluation model was developed for the implementation of high school innovative curriculum under the analysis framework of the context, input, process, and product. That model is derived from the core value of the curriculum development to analyze the course objectives, curriculum planning, curriculum activities and learning outcomes; then to authenticate the four evaluation levels upon context, input, process and outcome via different data sources and evaluation steps. The extended CIPP evaluation model could serve as principal guides for other similar innovative curriculum affiliated with High Scope Program (HSP) to improve the design, development, and implementation of such curricula.

1. 游家政(2008)。學校本位課程評鑑的回顧與展望。課程與教學季刊，12(1)，25-48。
   連結：
2. 顧瑜君(2008)。我們需要什麼樣的課程評鑑？。課程與教學季刊，12(1)，73-98。
   連結：
3. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2007). CIPP evaluation model checklist (2nd ed.). Retrieved October 8, 2007, from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/archive_checklists/cippchecklist_mar07.pdf.
4. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
5. 國家科學委員會高瞻計畫推動辦公室(2006)。高瞻計畫簡介─95年度計畫概述。查詢日期：2007年6月19日，檢自http://www.highscope.fy.edu.tw/(95)plan-brief-introduction.asp。
6. Doll, W. E., Jr.(1993).A post-modern perspective on curriculum.New York:Teachers College Press.
7. Edström, K.(2008).Doing course evaluation as if learning matters most.Higher Education Research & Development,27(2),95-106.
8. Eseryel, D.(2002).Approach to evaluation of training: Theory & practice.Educational Technology & Society,5(2),93-98.
9. Hakan, K.,Seval, F.(2011).CIPP evaluation model scale: Development, reliability and validity.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,15,592-599.
10. Kogan, J. R.,Shea, J. A.(2007).Course evaluation in medical education.Teaching and Teacher Education,23(3),251-264.
11. Krajcik, J. S.,Czerniak, C. M.,Berger, C. F.(2003).Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach.New York:McGraw-Hill.
12. Larkin, D. B.,Seyforth, S. C.,Lasky, H. J.(2009).Implementing and sustaining science curriculum reform: A Study of leadership practices among teachers within a high school science department.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,46(7),813-835.
13. Levine, T.(2002).Stability and change in curriculum evaluation.Studies in Educational Evaluation,28(1),1-33.
14. Li, Q.,Ni, Y.(2011).Impact of curriculum reform: Evidence of change in classroom practice in mainland China.International Journal of Educational Research,50(2),71-86.
15. Mohebbi, N.,Akhlaghi, F.,Yarmohammadian, M. H.,Khoshgam, M.(2011).Application of CIPP model for evaluating the medical records education course at master of science level at Iranian medical sciences universities.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,15,3286-3290.
16. Ramsden, P.(2003).Learning to teach in higher education.London:Routledge.
17. Rumbaugh, J.,Jacobson, I.,Booch, G.(2004).The unified modeling language reference manual.Boston, MA:Pearson Education.
18. Stufflebeam, D. L.(Ed.),Madaus, G. F.(Ed.),Kellaghan, T.(Ed.)(2002).Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation.Boston, MA:Kluwer Academic.
19. Stufflebeam, D. L.(Ed.),Madaus, G. F.(Ed.),Kellaghan, T.(Ed.)(2000).Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation.Boston, MA:Kluwer Academic.
20. Stufflebeam, D. L.,Shinkfield, A. J.(2007).Evaluation theory, models and applications.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
21. Toba, H.(1962).Curriculum development: Theory and practice.New York:Harcourt, Brace & World.
22. Walker, D. F.(1990).Fundamentals of curriculum.Saddlebrook, NJ:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
23. 曾琦芬(2008)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學英語研究所。
24. 黃光雄、蔡清田(1999)。課程設計：理論與實際。臺北市:五南。
25. 潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究：理論與應用。臺北市:心理。
26. 蔡清田(2005)。課程評鑑之規劃取向與學校課程評鑑之途徑。教育研究與發展期刊，1(1)，79-105。
27. 蔡清田(2008)。課程學。臺北市:五南。

1. 蔡俊彥,林建良(2020)。高中科技課程翻轉教學對學習知覺效果的性別差異。科學教育學刊，28(1)，1-23。
2. 陳怡靜、張基成(2015)。兩岸機器人教育的現況與發展。中等教育，66(3)，37-59。
3. 胡依嘉(2022)。混成課程設計結合機器人創客教育應用於合作學習課程之實踐與成效：學習參與度之中介效果。嶺東通識教育研究學刊，9(3)，103-145。
4. 蘇冠綸,蘇金豆(2021)。以教育性AI科技發展探究學生自然科學導論學習成效。教育傳播與科技研究，125，55-70。
5. 楊桂瓊、陳雅君、洪瑞兒、林煥祥(2015)。新興科技融入探究式教學的成效探討。科學教育學刊，23(2)，111-127。
6. 張宇樑(2014)。運用專業成長活動促進高職教師探究教學知覺轉變之個案研究。科學教育學刊，22(4)，363-388。