政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/37205
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 113318/144297 (79%)
造访人次 : 50953425      在线人数 : 978
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻
    政大機構典藏 > 教育學院 > 教育學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/37205


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37205


    题名: 不同電腦支援合作學習環境對師培生在教育理論、教師專業與教學實務等概念學習上之影響
    Effects of different CSCL environments on teacher-education students’ conceptual understanding of theories, expertise and practices in teaching
    作者: 詹雯靜
    Chan, Wen Ching
    贡献者: 洪煌堯
    詹雯靜
    Chan, Wen Ching
    关键词: 電腦支援合作式學習
    師培生
    知識論壇平台
    黑板數位學習平台
    知識建構
    computer-supported collaborative learning
    teacher-education students
    Knowledge Forum
    Blackboard
    knowledge building
    日期: 2008
    上传时间: 2009-09-19 12:41:42 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本研究旨在探究兩個不同電腦支援合作學習環境，知識論壇平台（Knowledge Forum, KF）與黑板數位學習平台（Blackboard, BB），在支援師培生學習教育理論、教師專業與教學實務等概念過程中之影響。BB的設計主要以一般的學習理論為基礎，KF的設計則是以知識建構（knowledge building）理論為中心。研究設計採混合研究法之橫斷取向策略，研究對象為某國立大學修習一師培必修課程「教育理念與實際之整合」之49位學生。於學期初將研究對象分成二組，其中BB組25人，KF組24人。課程目標主要希望學生在修課後能對自己即將投入之事業，以及對於教學理論、教師專業與教學實務間的關係，能有更深入的瞭解，並進一步反思自己在未來實習階段需要加強之處。
    研究資料主要來自兩個數位學習平台上自動存取的紀錄(例如：建立文章次數、對他人文章回覆次數等)、以及學生於兩平台上所發表的文章內容。資料分析主要為推論統計之單因子變異數分析及質性的內容分析法。根據分析結果，本研究提出以下三點結論：
    一、兩組學生在相同教師及相同課程設計下，在兩個學習平台上的活動量大致相同，但是於KF環境下學習的學生則表現出較多的成員互動。根據本研究結果推論，會產生此現象是因為BB的平台設計僅提供單一回文機制，供學生對他人的文章做回饋。而KF平台的設計則提供較多元的互動機制，除了可以對他人文章做回應(build-on)外，還可以對別人的文章做註解(annotation)、引用他人文章(reference)、以及統整文章(rise-above)等功能。
    二、在學生於教育理論與教學實務間關係概念的理解上，首先，於低層次的理解面向上（主要包含教師要能「知道且理解教學理論」和「應用教學理論」）兩組學生沒有顯著差異。但是，在高層次的理解上（主要為教師要能「分析理論和實務上的關係」），KF組則比BB組表現好。根據本研究結果推論，KF的學習環境可以幫助學生發展更高層次的思考。
    三、在學生對教師專業與教學實務間關係概念的理解上，首先，在低層次的理解面向上（主要包含教師要「理解並應用專業於實務」和「從實務中歸納專業為多面向的整合」），兩組學生沒有顯著差異。然而，在較高層次的理解上（主要包含教師要能「分析專業和實務上的關係」和「評鑑、反思自己在專業上的表現」），KF組的表現比BB組好。研究推論KF環境較能幫助提昇學生的概念學習至較成熟的理解層次。

    根據上述結論，本研究提出下列四點建議：（1）電腦支援合作式學習環境應發展更多元的文章互動機制；（2）師培教育應更重視師培生對教學理論、教師專業與教學實務間關係的理解；（3）教師選擇使用電腦支援合作式學習環境時，應將是否能幫助學生產生深層理解做為其中考量；以及（4）教師應幫助學生發展知識創新概念。
    This study investigated the effects of two different computer-supported collaborative learning environments, Knowledge Forum (KF) and Blackboard (BB), on teacher-education students’ conceptual understanding of theories, expertise, and practices in teaching. Blackboard is designed generally based on conventional learning theories. In contrast, Knowledge Forum is designed particularly based on knowledge building theory and pedagogy. Participants were 49 students who took a course titled “Integrating Instructional Theory and Practice,” which was offered by a teacher-education program in a national university, Taiwan. The study employed a mixed-method design, with the participants being divided into a BB group (N=25) and a KF group (N=24), with the later serving as an experimental group. The main instructional goal was to help students deepen their understanding of the relationships between theories, expertise and practices in teaching and to become more reflective on their future teaching practice.
    Data primarily came from students’ online discourse posted in the form of notes and were recorded in the aforementioned two BB and KF databases. To analyze, one-way ANOVA was employed to describe students’ online activities (e.g., number of notes posted) and an open-coding procedure were adapted to content-analyze student notes. There were three main findings as follows:
    (1) It was found there was no significant difference observed between the two groups in terms of the number of notes posted online in each database. But in terms of interactivity, there were more note linking actives in the KF group than in the BB group. It is suggested that this might be due to the design mechanism of the BB environment being less supportive for discourse interaction among students. In contrast, the KF environment has more design features such as annotations, references, and rise-above to support student interactions.
    (2) In terms of students’ conceptual understanding of the relationships between theories and practices in teaching, it was found that there were no significant differences between the two groups at the two lower conceptual levels (including teachers should “know and understand most teaching theories” and “be able to put theories into practices”.) But in contrast, it was found that there was a significant difference between the two groups at a higher level of understanding (i.e., teachers should be able to “analyze the relationship between theory and practice”). The findings suggest that as compared with Blackboard, Knowledge Forum seemed to be a more supportive environment that tended to help students achieve a deeper conceptual understanding of the relationships between theories and practices in teaching.
    (3) In terms of students’ conceptual understanding of the relationships between expertise and practices in teaching, it was found that there were no significant differences between the two groups at the two lower levels (including teachers should “understand the practice and the application of teacher expertise” and be able to “integrate practice into the multifaceted teaching expertise.”) But in contrast, it was found that there was a significant difference between the two groups at a higher level (i.e., teachers should be able to “analyze the relationships between teacher expertise and teaching practice” and “evaluate, reflect on their own professional performance.”) The findings suggest that Knowledge Forum seemed to be a more supportive environment capable of helping students achieve a higher level of conceptual understanding of the relationships between teacher expertise and practices in teaching.

    Building on the above results, this study made the following four suggestions: (1) a good computer-supported collaborative learning environment should include necessary design features that support multiple interactive mechanisms; (2) teacher education program should help its students develop deeper conceptual understanding of educational theories, teacher expertise, and teaching practices; (3) teachers should be equipped with the necessary knowledge in order to choose a good computer-supported collaborative learning environment to support teaching; and (4) Teacher education program should help its students develop more knowledge building oriented concepts towards teaching and learning.
    參考文獻: 于富雲（2001）。從理論基礎探究合作學習的教學效益。教育資料與研究，38，22-28。
    王秋絨（1987）。我國國中師資培育學程之建構。台北：師大書苑。
    王瑞壎（2008）。人口結構變遷下我國師資培育現況之分析。台東大學教育學報，19(2)，143-182。
    行政院教育改革審議委員會（1996）。總諮議報告書。台北。
    宋佩芬（2003）。培養「帶得走的能力」——再思統整與學科知識。教育研究月刊，115，123-136。
    宋如瑜（2008）。反思性模擬教學－銜接理論與實踐的華語師資培育策略。中原華語文學報，2，179-203。
    林秀玉（2006）。小組合作學習達到真正成功必備的要點。科學教育，295，23-32。
    林曉萍（2002）。師資培育理念之追求－一所大學國小教育學程之實例研究。國立台東師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
    邱素青（2005）。師資培育制度的理論與實際。台灣教育，631，54-62。
    吳清山（2006）。師資培育的理念與實踐。教育研究與發展期刊，2(1)，1-32。
    高強華（2004）。當前師資培育的問題與改進。現代教育論壇，11，154-160。
    姚如芬、郭重吉、柳賢（2001）。科學教育學刊，9(1)，1-13。
    莊哲男（2007）。中華民國科技年鑑。台北：國家實驗研究院。
    孫敏芝（2006）。實習教師學科教學知識之探討：教學設計與教學實務。教育研究與發展期刊，2(2)，67-92。
    孫志麟（1999）。教師自我效能：有效教學的關鍵。教育研究資訊，7(6)，170-187。
    孫志麟（2002）。專業發展學校：理念、實務與啟示。國立臺北師範學院學報，15，557-584。
    教育部（2002）。創造力教育白皮書。台北。
    教育部（2002）。教育改革之檢討與改進會議紀錄。未出版。
    教育部（2005）。師資培育素質提升方案。台北。
    教育部（2008）。教育部中小學資訊教育白皮書（2008～2011）。台北：教育部。
    張春興（1994）。教育心理學。臺北：臺灣東華。
    張 興（1998）。從實證研究看加強高師教育實習的重要性。高等師範教育，3。
    陳美玉（1999）。教師專業發展途徑之探討──以教師專業經驗合作反省為例。
    教育研究資訊，7(2)，88-99。
    陳美玉（2000）。師生合作反省教學在師資培育上運用之研究。教育研究資訊，
    8(1)，120-133。
    陳國泰（1986）威斯康辛大學批判反省導向的小學師資實習計劃之適用性探討。教育資料文摘，37(2)，149-161。
    陳慧芬（2006）。南部師資培育生幽默感、任教內在動機與創意教學態度之相關研究。屏東國立屏東教育大學教育行政研究所碩士論文。
    陽百世（2001）。師資培育的理念與實際。高雄︰復文。
    祝惠珍、陳斐卿、李郁薇與江火明（2005）。網路學習社群中的流失學員：投入
    後的疏離參與。夏威夷楊百翰大學主辦：全球華人教育資訊科技學術研討
    會（GCCCE 2005）。
    葉玉珠（2007）。數位學習融入大學生批判思考教學之策略。教育資料與研究，78，91-112。
    葉連祺（2003）。Bloom 認知領域教育目標分類修訂版之探討。教育研究月刊，105，94-106。
    蔡鳳芝（2005）。職前教師在教學實習課程中教學信念與教學反省行為之探究。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文。
    饒見維（1987）。師資培育的理念取向與典範之評析。教育集刊，22，55-84。
    Anderson, L. W., & Sosniak, L. A. (Eds.) (1994). Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective. Chicago, IL: The National Society for the Study of Education.
    Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for Learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
    Barab, S., Scheckler, R., & MaKinster, J. (2001). Designing System Dualities:
    Building Online Community. Paper presented at the American Educational
    Research Association, Seattle, WA.
    Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2002). Preparing pre-service teachers:
    Developing an empirical account of a community of practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 489-542.
    Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
    Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, Socioculturalism, and Popper`s World 3. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 21-23.
    Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Kirschner, P. (2004, April). Computer support for
    knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. In P. A.
    Kirschner (Chair), Learning in innovative learning environments. Symposium
    conducted at the AERA, San Diego, California, USA.
    Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. NY: Longman, Green.
    Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2002). Preparing pre-service teachers:
    Developing an empirical account of a community of practice. The Journal of the
    Learning Sciences, 11(4), 489-542.
    Burden, P. R. (1990). Teacher development. in W. R. Houston. (Ed.). Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the association of teacher education. NY: Macmillan.
    Brown, A. L. & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly ( Ed.), Classroom lesson: Integrating cognitive theory and Classroom practice(pp 229-272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Bradford Books.
    Brown, A.L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), 399-413.
    Cartwright, S.(1993). Cooperative learning can occur in any kind of program.Young Child, Jan, 12-14.
    Castel, F. & Souder, K. O. (2006). Do professional development schools (PDSs) Make a difference? A comparative study of PDS and non-PDS teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 65-80.
    Clark, D., & Linn, M. C. (2003). Designing for Knowledge Integration: The Impact of
    Instructional Time. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451-494.
    Campbell, L. Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (1996) 多元智慧的教與學.(Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences.) 郭俊賢、陳淑惠譯(2001)。台北：遠流出版社。
    Deway, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking go the educative process. Chicago: Henry Regnery.
    Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152.
    Drucker, P. F. (1986). Innovation and entrepreneurship - Practice and principles. NY: Harper Business.
    Duke, D. L. (1990). Setting goals for professional development. Educational Leadership,47(8), 71-76.
    ETS (2002). Poll: Americans Willing to Pay for Teacher Quality, Still Demand Standards and Accountability. News & Media.2003, November, 10, retrieved from:http://www.ets.org/news/02061301.html
    Flexner, A. (1910). Medical Education in the United States & Canada. New York: Heritage Press. Kneller. G.F. (1968) Education and economic growth. New York: John Wiley.
    Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
    Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jos-sey- Bass.
    Hascher, T., Cocard, Y., Moser, P. (2004). Forget about theory—practice is all? Student teachers learning in practicum. Teachers & Teaching, 10(6), 623-637.
    Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., & Zhang, J. (2007). Knowledge Society Network: Toward a dynamic, sustained network for building knowledge. Paper presented at the annual conference of AERA, Chicago.
    Hong, H. Y., & Scardamalia, M. (2008). Using key terms to measure community knowledge. Paper presented at the annual conference of American Educational Research Association (AERA), New York.
    Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., & Teo, C. L. (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, Vol. 1 (pp. 374-381). Utrecht, the Netherlands:
    International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.
    Hewitt, J.(2004). An exploration of community in a knowledge forum classroom: an
    activity system analysis. In Sasha Barab, Rob Kling and James Gray
    (2004).Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning.
    Howey R., Nancy Zimpher L.（1989）. Profiles of Preservice Teacher Education. NY: Suny Press.
    Itmazi, J.A.S.( 2005). Flexible System of gestation LED e-learning Para supporter el aprendizaje in mow universities traditionalism there acierates. PhD Thesis. University of Granada, Spain.
    Jaworski, B. (2001). Making sense of mathematics teacher education: Developing mathematics teaching: Teacher, teacher educators, and research as co-learners. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Dublishers.
    Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
    Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning Together and Alone. cooperative, competitive, and individualistic earning. (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1996). The role of cooperative learning in assessing and coummunicating student learning. In T. R. Gusky (Ed.) 1996 ASCD yearbook: Coummunicating student learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
    Koschmann, T. (1996). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum.
    Korthagen. (2001). Linking practice and theory. The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah.
    Kirschner, P.A. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed). Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61-91). Heerlen, Open Universiteit Nederland.
    Lasley, T. (1980). Preservice teacher belief about teaching. Journal of Educational Research, 31(4), 38-41.
    Lewin, K.(1951). Field theory in social science : selected theoretical papers. In D. Cartwright. NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
    Licklider (1995) B.L. Licklider, The effects of peer coaching cycles on teacher use of a complex teaching skill and teachers’ sense of efficacy. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 9(1), 55–68.
    Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Teachers’ pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study. Computer & Education, 45(3), 377-356.
    Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, learning, and instruction, 3, 223-253.
    Maslow (1987). Motivation and personality. NY: HarperCollins.
    Mezirow, J.(2003). Transformative Learning as Discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58-63.
    Osterman, K.F. & Kotterkamp, R.B. (1993). Reflective Practice for Educators: Improving Schooling Through Professional Development. Corwin Press, Newbury Park, California.
    Papert, S. (1991). "What`s the Big Idea: Towards a Pedagogy of Idea Power." IBM Systems Journal 39(3-4).
    Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological foundations for
    CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In
    G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Foundations for a
    CSCL community: Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative
    learning 2002 Conference (pp. 24-32). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
    Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557-577.
    Piaget, J. (1948). The moral judgement of the child. Gelence, I1: Free Press.
    Rogers, C. R. (1992). The necessary of sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 827-832.
    Ryan, K. (ed.) (1975). Teacher education: The seventy-fourth year of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
    Rhine, Steve, Bryant, Jill. (2007). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ reflective practice with digital video-based dialogue. Reflective Practice, 8 (3), 345-358.
    Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Schön, D. (1987). A review of Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco︰Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    Slavin, Robert E., Madden, Nancy A.(2002). Roots & Wings: Effects of Whole School Reform on Student Achievement. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 5(1), 109-36.
    Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning:Theory, research and practice. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building
    Communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
    Stahl, G. (2000). A Model of Collaborative Knowledge-Building. In B. Fishman & S.
    Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative
    learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook
    of the learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Sharan, S., Shaulov A. (1990). Cooperative Learning, Motivation to Learning, and Academic Achievement. In S. Sharan(Ed), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research.(pp173-202.) NY: Praeger Publishers.
    Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D.. (2006). Computer-Supported Collaborative
    Learning. In Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.
    409-425).
    Stahl, G. (2007). Meaning making in CSCL: Conditions and preconditions for
    cognitive processes by groups. Paper presented at the international conference
    on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL2007), Brunswick, NJ.
    Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to
    bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilley (Eds.), Classroom lessons:
    Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of
    Education (2nd ed., pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.
    Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In Education and technology:
    An encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and
    technology. In Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.
    97-118).
    Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of
    knowledge. In B.Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp.
    67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
    Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20.
    Sawyer, K. (Ed.). (2006). The Schools of the Future. Cambridge handbook of the
    learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Slavin, R. E. (1978). Students teams and achievement division. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 39-49. Building Online Community. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
    Sfard, A. (1998). On Two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
    Smith, L. M.”An evolving logic of participant observation, educational ethnography and other case studies,”In L. Shuman, (Ed.) Review of Research in Education, Vol. 6, pp 316-377. Peacock, Itasca, IL, 1978.
    Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). 質性研究概論(Basics of Qualitative Research: Ground Theory Procedures and Techniques.)(徐宗國譯.). 台北：巨流.
    Tompson. (1985). Teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and the teaching of problem solving. In E. A. Silver. Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 281-294). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Trilling, B. & Hood, P. (1999). Learning, technology, and educational reform in
    the knowledge age or “We’re wired, webbed, and windowed, now what?”.
    Educational Technology, 39(3), 5-18.
    UNESCO. (2005). Towards knowledge societies. New York: UNESCO Publishing.
    US Department of Education (2005). Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers To Use
    Technology Program(TP3). Retried Mar 4, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/techertech/index.html
    Vygotsky. (1978). Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
    Wallace. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. Cambridge University Press.
    Weinstein, C. S. (1990). Prospective elementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and teacher Education, 6(3), 279-290.
    Whitehead, A. N. (1970). Science and the modern world. Free Press
    Waston, J.B.(1913). Psychology as the behaviorist view it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177.
    Yin, R. K. (1998). The abridged version of case study research: Design and method. In Bickman, L. & Rog, D. (Eds.). Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, 229-259. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    教育研究所
    96152020
    97
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096152020
    数据类型: thesis
    显示于类别:[教育學系] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 描述 大小格式浏览次数
    202001.pdf109KbAdobe PDF21170检视/开启
    202002.pdf176KbAdobe PDF21402检视/开启
    202003.pdf158KbAdobe PDF21297检视/开启
    202004.pdf124KbAdobe PDF21154检视/开启
    202005.pdf1346KbAdobe PDF22225检视/开启
    202006.pdf229KbAdobe PDF21793检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈