How Science Museum Can Support Science Teacher Professional Development for the New Science Curriculum

科學博物館如何在新課綱下支援科學教師的專業發展

10.6686/MuseQ.202007_34(3).0002

劉德祥(Tak-Cheung Lau)

Science education ； science literacy ； science case study ； new science curriculum ； teacher professional development ； 科學教育 ； 科學素養 ； 科學個案 ； 108課綱 ； 教師專業發展

博物館學季刊

34卷3期（2020 / 07 / 01）

19 - 33

英文

In August 2019, Taiwan released a new curriculum for the 12-year compulsory education. One of the key features of the new curriculum is the emphasis of skills or literacy rather than just the dissemination of content knowledge of specific discipline. The objectives of this study are to examine the role of science museum in supporting the new curriculum, in particular by organizing science teacher professional development workshops and evaluate science teachers' perception of the importance and teaching feasibility of the science literacy related lesson plans at the end of the workshops. Museum educators adopted case study approach in developing a series of lesson plans and each lesson plan represents one of the three scientific literacy developed by the museum curators. The study was conducted in the summer of 2014, 2018 and 2019. During a two-day workshop session, museum educators demonstrated the three lesson plans: Mathematics and plant forms (2014), genetic modified food controversies (2018), and the crisis of the Swedish warship VASA (2019) to teachers. At the beginning and the end of each session, teachers were asked to complete a survey about the perception of these lesson plans. Among the survey items are the importance of the literacy skills and teaching feasibility of these skills in the school setting. Pair t-test analysis revealed that, for the two indicators of all three lesson plans, post-participating perception of importance and teaching feasibility are significantly higher than the perception before participating the workshop, indicating that the design of these lesson plans may have an effect of changing teachers' perception of the teaching of literacy-based lessons. Additional analysis on teachers' opinion for the questions ＂I think students can learn literacy skills from this lesson＂ and ＂I will adopt this lesson in my future teaching＂ was very positive, indicating that teachers found the lessons from the workshop is useful for their students as well as have some impacts on teacher's future practice. This report will also discuss some directions for future research.

2019年8月，臺灣的12年義務教育正式推出108新課綱。新課綱的特色之一是強調學生的素養能力，而非只是傳授各學科的領域知識。本研究目標是探討科學博物館如何支援新課綱，特別是透過教師專業發展工作坊介紹有關科學素養的教案，並針對老師在參加工作坊後，對這些教案在科學素養的重要性和教學現埸的教學可行性進行評量。博物館教育人員採用科學個案發展一系列的教案，每個教案的規劃都依照由博物館研究人員所發展的3個科學素養中的其中一項進行設計。本研究是在2014、2018和2019年夏天進行。在兩天的工作坊中，博物館教育人員分別向老師示範3個教案，包括：數學與植物型態的費伯那奇系數（2014）、基改食物爭議（2018）和瑞典古戰艦VASA的保存危機等（2019）。在工作坊開始和結束時，會請老師填寫一份有關這些教案想法的問卷。問卷的題目眾多，但本研究只分析其中兩個指標：老師認為教案所提及的科學素養的重要性和未來在學校教學的可行性。成對t檢定分析發現，針對這兩個指標，老師在參加工作坊後的評量分數都顯著高於參加工作坊前的分數，顯示這些教案的設計有助於老師教授以素養為基礎的課程。此外，關於「我認為學生能從本教案獲得科學學習技能」和「我願意使用本教案作為日後教學的內容」這兩個題目，老師的回應也都十分支持，顯示老師認為工作坊的教案對學生學習科學素養是有幫助的，並且對老師未來的教學實踐也有正面影響。本研究最後也會探討一些未來的研究方向。

1. AAM, 2018. STEM Education. Retrieved 2020/03/04 https://www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/BRIEF-STEM-EDUCATION.pdf .
2. Ball, P.(1999).The Self-Made Tapestry.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
3. Bell, P.(Ed.),Lewenstein, B.(Ed.),Shouse, A. W.(Ed.),Feder, M. A.(Ed.)(2009).Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places and Pursuits.Washington, D.C.:The National Academies Press.
4. CADRE, 2012. Connecting informal and formal STEM education. STEM Smart Brief. http://www.cadrek12.org/sites/default/files/STEM%20Informal_FINAL.pdf .
5. Choi, K.,Lee, H.,Shin, N.,Kim, S.-W.,Krajcik, J.(2011).Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,48(6),670-697.
6. Demircioglu, T.,Ucar, S.(2012).The effect of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service science teachers’ attitudes and argumentation skills.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,46,5035-5039.
7. Gillon, J.(2002).Acid attack.Nature,415,847.
8. Hamer, M.(2002).Ships wrecked.New Scientist,176(2363),38-41.
9. Herreid, C. F.(Ed.),Schiller, N. A.(Ed.),Herreid, K. F.(Ed.)(2012).Sciene Stories: Using Case Studies to Teach Critical Thinking.Virginia:NSTA Press.
10. Herreid, F.,Schiller, N. A.,Herreid, K. F.(2014).Science Stories You Can Count on: 51 Case Studies with Quantitative Reasoning in Biology.Arlington:NSTA Press.
11. Herreid, F.,Schiller, N. A.,Herreid, K. F.(2012).Science Stories: Using Case Studies to Teach Critical Thinking.Arlington, Virginia:NSTA Press.
12. Hillocks, G., Jr.(2010).Teaching argument for critical thinking and writing: An introduction.English Journal,99(6),24-32.
13. Ingram, A., 2013. Science museums as partners in STEM education: Providing impactful programs that improve science engagement. Retrieved 2020/03/04 https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Andrea.J.Ingram_Testimony_House_SS%26T_Committee_3.13.13.pdf .
14. Kuhn, D.(2010).Teaching and learning science as argument.Science Education,94(5),810-824.
15. Llewellyn, D.(2005).Teaching High School Science through Inquiry: A Case Study Approach.Arlington, Virginia:NSTA.
16. Losey, J. E.,Rayor, L. S.,Carter, M. E.(1999).Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae.Nature,399,214.
17. Nagle, B.(2013).Preparing high school students for the interdisciplinary nature of modern biology.CBE-Life Science Education,12,144-147.
18. Ng-He, C.(2015).Common goals, common core, museums and schools work together.Journal of Museum Education,40(3),220-226.
19. O’Rourke, J. S., 2000. Analyzing a case study. Retrieved 2020/03/02 https://www.academia.edu/7948890/Analyzing_a_Case_Study .
20. Osborne, J.(2007).Science education for the twenty first century.Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,3(3),173-184.
21. Rex, L. A.,Thomas, E. E.,Engel, S.(2010).Applying toulmin: Teaching logical reasoning and argumentative writing.English Journal,99(6),56-62.
22. Richmond, J., 2017. Argumentation in the High School Science Classroom: Underutilized and Misunderstood. http://utdr.utoledo.edu/learningtoteach/vol6/iss1/11 .
23. Ritchhart, R.,Church, M.,Morrison, K.(2011).Making Thinking Visible: How to Promote Engagement, Understanding, and Independence for All Learners.San Francisco, CA:JosseyBass.
24. Sampson, V.,Enderle, P.,Grooms, J.(2013).Argumentation in science education.The Science Teachers,80(5),30-33.
25. Sandstrom, M.,Jalilehvand, F.,Persson, I.,Gelius, U.,Frank, P.,Hall-Roth, I.(2002).Deterioration of the seventeenth-century warship Vasa by internal formation of sulphuri acid.Nature,415,893-897.
26. Short, J., 2014. How can museums help teachers with the Next Generation Science Standards? Retrieved 2020/03/04 https://www.astc.org/astc-dimensions/can-museums-help-teachers-nextgeneration-science-standards/ .
27. Simon, S.,Erduran, S.,Osborne, J.(2006).Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom.International Journal of Science Education,28(2-3),235-260.
28. Steward, I.(1999).Life’s Other Secret: The New Mathematics of the Living World.New York:Wiley.
29. Tran, L. U.(2008).The professionlization of educators in science museums and centers.Journal of Science Communication,7(4),1-6.
30. Vogel, G.(2003).Sweden launches a desperate bid to save famous warship.Science,301,1459.

1. 陳宗偉,張美珍(2023)。科學博物館輔助國小自然科學與科技教育議題教學資源之內容分析。科技博物，27(2)，69-103。