從實作評量探討小組解構問題發展程序性知識與新課綱核心素養

Developing Performance Assessment of Procedural Knowledge From Deconstruct the Problem and New Course Outline Core Literacy

10.6173/CJSE.202012/SP_28.0004

戴建耘(Chien-Yun Dai)；丁淑觀(Shu-Kuan Ting)；劉銘恩(Ming-En Liu)；黃敦煌(Duen-Huang Huang)

協同教學 ； 程序性知識 ； 解構問題 ； 實作評量 ； Collaborative Teaching ； Procedural Knowledge ； Deconstruct the Problem ； Performance Evaluation

科學教育學刊

28卷S期（2020 / 12 / 01）

483 - 507

繁體中文

本文主要從學生實作評量歷程，探討解構問題發展程序性知識，與實作歷程小組成員之間自發互動共好的情況。課程以國中跨領域協同教學設計，研究對象為國中152位學生分40小組，透過五個教學活動來探索學生對問題的解構想法及小組間核心素養形成。不同領域教師協同教學共同備課時討論出實作評量，用座標位置強弱區分發展程序性知識優劣，範圍以III區（優秀）＞ II區（基本、良好）＞ I區（不足、落後），期望學生透過解構問題實作學習表現至少能夠進入座標第II區範圍以上。評量結果進入I區有四組占10.0%；進入II區、III區共有36組占90.0%，學習表現未達教學目標有10.0%。經實作前、後測量發現成績高分群差異性高於成績低分群，男生略高於女生，顯見實作學習力與成績高低有相關，與性別也有差異。另外草圖設計評量，大致具有花燈結構與造形外觀完整以上有97.5%，顯見國中生在圖案設計表現沒有問題。問卷內容以小組之間自發（主動探究、解構問題）、互動（團隊合作、知識分享）與共好（實作歷程、創意設計）相關性，三次徑路迴歸分析，皆達顯著，最後依研究結果提出課程設計與評量形式相互搭配等三項建議。

This study explored the students' practical evaluation process they develop during their use of procedural knowledge during the deconstruction of problems and teamwork. One-hundred fifty-two junior high students volunteered to participate in this investigation. Investigators explored students' problem solving strategies and the construction of procedural knowledge through actual operations. Teachers involved in this study had two goals when preparing lessons: (1) to develop students' procedural knowledge from deconstruct the problems and (2) to engage students in spontaneous self-driven, interactive, and mutually beneficial teamwork. In accordance with the development of procedural knowledge, coordinated assessment levels were defined as zone III ＞ zone II ＞ zone I. Throughout the course of instruction, students' learning objectives were to achieve at least assessment level II or above. Results showed that 10.0% of the participants achieved zone II and 90.0% of the participants achieved zone III. Before and after implementation, the high-score groups had higher discrepancy of scores before and after the actual operation as compared with scores from the low-score groups. Males had higher discrepancy than females. There was a correlation between the learning ability from actual operation and achievement scores. Difference in test scores existed between males and females. Cubic path analysis results showed that the procedure of the actual operations and creative design were significantly positive and correlated with spontaneous initiative, interactive, and mutual benefit. Two suggestions from the mutual match between course design and type of assessment are also put forward.

1. 仰威融, W.-R.,林淑梤, S.-F.(2020)。運用PISA科學素養評量架構探討國中生物教科書中問題的特徵。教科書研究，13(1)，75-106。
   連結：
2. 林淑梤, S.-F.(2019)。探討學生科學能力與教師探究教學實務的關係。科學教育學刊，27(4)，251-274。
   連結：
3. 洪如玉, R.-Y.(2016)。Derrida解構思想之探析及其教育蘊義。教育實踐與研究，29(1)，173-198。
   連結：
4. 洪如玉, R.-Y.,陳惠青, H.-C.(2016)。解構哲學之探討及其對審美教育學之啟示。教育科學研究期刊，61(1)，115-137。
   連結：
5. 張珮珊, P.-S.,賴吉永, C.-Y.,溫媺純, M.-C. L.(2017)。科學探究與實作課程的發展、實施與評量：以實驗室中的科學論證為核心之研究。科學教育學刊，25(4)，355-389。
   連結：
6. 陳美如, M.-J.,郭昭佑, C.-Y.(2019)。非學校型態實驗教育之活化教學個案研究：學會學習的系統觀點。課程與教學季刊，22(1)，39-70。
   連結：
7. 曾文鑑, W.-J.,黃秀雯, H.-W.(2019)。適性、合作與對話：學研議教學模式的理論基礎與教學策略。學校行政，122，123-140。
   連結：
8. 楊俊鴻, C.-H.(2018)。世界各國國定課程中的核心素養：以日本、韓國與新加坡為例。中等教育，69(2)，21-39。
   連結：
9. 顧炳宏, B.-H.,陳瓊森, C.-S.,溫媺純, M.-C. L.(2014)。以實作評量方式探討引導發現式教學模式之學習成效—以「聲音」概念為例。科學教育學刊，21(1)，57-86。
   連結：
10. Azevedo, R.,Aleven, V.(2013).International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies.New York, NY:Springer Science & Business Media Press.
11. Calado, F. M.,Scharfenberg, F.-J.,Bogner, F. X.(2015).To what extent do biology text-books contribute to scientific literacy? Criteria for analysing science-technology-society-envi-ronment issues.Education Sciences,5(4),255-280.
12. Cracolice, M. S.,Deming, J. C.,Ehlert, B.(2008).Concept learning versus problem solv-ing: A cognitive difference.Journal of Chemical Education,85(6),873-878.
13. Davies, R. S.,Dean, D. L.,Ball, N.(2013).Flipping the classroom and instructional tech-nology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course.Educational Technology Research and Development,61(4),563-580.
14. De Backer, L.,Van Keer, H.,Valcke, M.(2012).Exploring the potential impact of recip-rocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitive knowledge and regulation.Instructional Science,40(3),559-588.
15. Frederiksen, N.(1984).The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning.American Psychologist,39(3),193-202.
16. Haláková, Z.,Prokša, M.(2007).Two kinds of conceptual problems in chemistry teaching.Journal of Chemical Education,84(1),172-174.
17. Honigsfeld, A.,Dove, M. G.(2016).Co-teaching ELLs: Riding a tandem bike.Educational Leadership,73(4),56-60.
18. Interprofessional Education Collaborative. (2011). Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: Report of an expert panel. Retrieved May 2, 2020, from https://www. pcpcc.org/resource/core-competencies-interprofessional-collaborative-practice
19. Jeon, I.-J.(2010).Exploring the co-teaching practice of native and non-native English teachers in Korea.English Teaching,65(3),43-67.
20. Jonassen. D. H.(2004).Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide.San Fran-cisco, CA:Wiley.
21. Kang, H.-S.,Lee, J.-E.(2016).Inquiry on narrative’s application to subject matter educa-tion: Focused on the 2015 revised national curriculum.Asia-Pacific Journal of Educational Management Research,1(1),1109-114.
22. Katz, P. M.(2015).,Washington, DC:Council of Independent Colleges.
23. Klein, J. T.(2013).The transdisciplinary moment(um).Integral Review,9(2),189-199.
24. Lawlor, L. (2006). Jacques Derrida. Retrieved February 5, 2020, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida
25. McCormick, R.(2004).Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education.International Journal of Technology and Design Education,14(1),21-44.
26. McGregor, D.(2007).Developing thinking, developing learning. A guide to thinking skills in education.Berkshire, UK:Open University Press.
27. Messick, S.(1995).Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance as-sessment.Educational Measurement: Issue and Practice,14(4),5-8.
28. Michalsky, T.(2012).Shaping self-regulation in science teachers’ professional growth: Inquiry skills.Science Education,96(6),1106-1133.
29. Pellegrino, J. W.(2017).Teaching, learning and assessing 21st century skills.Pedagogical knowledge and the changing nature of the teaching profession,Paris, France:
30. Robinson, W. R.(2003).Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process as-pects.Journal of Chemical Education,80(9),978-979.
31. Sandholtz, J. H.(2000).Interdisciplinary team teaching as a form of professional development.Teacher Education Quarterly,27(3),39-54.
32. Schlag, P.(2005).A brief survey of deconstruction.Cardozo Law Review,27(2),741-752.
33. Taconis, R.,Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M.,Broekkamp, H.(2001).Teaching science problem solving: An overview of experimental work.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(4),442-468.
34. Williams, P. J.(2000).Design: The only methodology of technology?.Journal of Technology Education,11(2),48-60.
35. Xiaoxia, A. N.,Edward, P. T., Jr.(2020).Building undergraduate STEM majors’ capacity for delivering inquiry-based mathematics and science lessons: An exploratory evaluation study.Studies in Educational Evaluation,64
36. Young, A.,Fry, J. D.(2008).Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students.Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,8(2),1-10.
37. Zoupidis, A.,Pnevmatikos, D.,Spyrtou, A.,Kariotoglou, P.(2016).The impact of proce-dural and epistemological knowledge on conceptual understanding: The case of density and floating-sinking phenomena.Instructional Science,44(4),315-334.
38. 王文中, W.-C.呂金燮, C.-H.,吳毓瑩, Y.-Y.,張郁雯, Y.-W.,張淑慧, S.-H.(2008).教育測驗與評量—教室學習觀點.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wu Nan.
39. 史美瑤, M.-Y.(2013)。評量也是學習。評鑑雙月刊，43，34-36。
40. 余民寧, M.-N.(2011).教育測驗與評量：成就測驗與教學評量.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychologi-cal.
41. 吳挺鋒(2011年4月25日)。臺灣孩子八成不想當科學家。查詢日期：2020年5月20日，檢自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5011939。[Wu, T.-F. (2011, April 25). Taiwan haizi bacheng buxiang dang kexuejia. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5011939]
42. 佘曉清, H.-C.,林煥祥, H.-S.(2017).PISA 2015臺灣學生的表現.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological.
43. 林人龍, R.-L.(2003)。生活科技課程中設計與製作的學習歷程。教育研究資訊，11(4)，3-24。
44. 林彥佑(2020年5月21日)。談會考之「素養」大爆發。查詢日期：2020年5月21日，檢自https://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1374176。[Lin, Y.-Y. (2020, May 21). Tan huikao zhi “suyang” dabaofa. Retrieved May 21, 2020, from https://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1374176]
45. 林進財, J.-C.(2018)。教學設計與教學方法之應用。T&D飛訊，243
46. 林萬億, W.-Y.(2006).當代社會工作：理論與方法.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wu Nan.
47. 祝若穎, J.-Y.,邱詩詠, S.-Y.(2019)。怎麼跨？跨領域學位學生的多樣性經驗對跨域整合能力之影響。教育與心理研究，42(4)，65-98。
48. 國立臺灣師範大學心理與教育測驗研究發展中心(n.d.)。十二年國教課綱國民中小學素養導向標準本位評量計畫。查詢日期：2020年4月24日，檢自https://www.sbasa.ntnu.edu.tw/SBASA/Assessment/assessment1.aspx。[Research Center for Psychological and Educational Testing, National Taiwan Normal Univer-sity. (n.d.). Standard-based assessment of student achievement for elementary and junior high school students. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from https://www.sbasa.ntnu.edu.tw/SBASA/As-sessment/assessment1.aspx]
49. 國家教育研究院(2014年11月28日)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要：總綱。查詢日期：2020年4月24日，檢自https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%95%99%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81%E7%B8%BD%E7%B6%B1.pdf。[National Academy for Educational Research. (2014, November 28). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education: General guidelines. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%95%99%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81%E7%B8%BD%E7%B6%B1.pdf]
50. 教育部(2018年1月9日)。教育部公布「國民中學及國民小學實施跨領域或跨科目協同教學參考原則」。查詢日期：2020年4月21日，檢自https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=1A3C3F7BC29B1BD1。[Ministry of Education. (2018, January 9). Ministry of Education gongbu “Guomin zhongxue ji guomin xiaoxue shishi kualingyu huo kuakemu xietong jiaoxue cankao yuanze.” Retrieved April 21, 2020, from https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=1A3C3F7BC29B1BD1]
51. 莊佩玲, P.-L.(2002)。發展孩子的真實能力—實作評量的施行與設計。師友月刊，417，38-42。
52. 湯誌龍, Z.-L.(2019)。推動實作評量的意涵與因應。臺灣教育評論月刊，8(9)，46-50。
53. 楊雅茹, Y.-R.(2017)。整合概念性與程序性科技知識的實作教學之初探—以機構玩具為例。工程與科技教育學術研討會論文集
54. 詹志禹（編）, Z. Y.(Ed.)(2002).建構論：理論基礎與教育應用.新北市=New Taipei, Taiwan:正中=Cheng Chung.
55. 廖炳惠, P.-H.(2003).關鍵詞200：文學與批評研究的通用辭彙編.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:麥田=Rye Field.
56. 歐滄和, C.-H.(2002).教育測驗與評量.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological.
57. 蔡清田, C.-T.(2012).課程發展與設計的關鍵DNA：核心素養.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wu Nan.
58. 盧秀琴, C.-C.,洪榮昭, J.-C.,陳芬芳, F.-F.(2019)。設計STEAM課程的協同教學—以「感控式綠建築」為例。教育學報，47(1)，113-133。

1. 王嬿茵(2022)。科技實作思考歷程研究：詮釋現象學與滯後序列分析取徑。科學教育學刊，30(1)，49-71。