| Abstract: | 「知識翻新」理論與科技應用於師資培育之教學設計與實施策略在資訊社會及知識經濟的影響下，將「學習」視為「知識創造」與「教學」視為「創新實踐」歷程的觀點也逐漸受到重視(Hong & Sullivan, 2009; Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004; Sawyer, 2006)。然而，有什麼樣的學習理論和教學方法可以有效地支持這種以創新為中心的教與學仍有待進一步探究。面對此一挑戰，「知識翻新」理論與科技也許是一可行方案 (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006)。在「劍橋學習科學參考手冊」(Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences) (Sawyer, 2006)一書中，知識翻新被認為是基礎學習與教學科學(learning and instructional sciences)的六大教育創新方法之一（其他方法包括「建構主義」、「認知學徒制」、「情境學習」、「科學化的學習」…等）；知識翻新也被「維基百科」、「大英百科全書第五版」，以及「教育心理學參考手冊」(Handbook of Educational Psychology)(Alexander & Winne, 2006, 2nd Edition)列為是當代重要教育改革的主要方法之一。基於上述緣因，本研究試圖於三年內將知識翻新理論與科技逐漸地引入一師資培育課程之中。研究方法擬採用「設計本位研究法」(Design-Based Research)，針對三種不同但相互關聯的教學設計模式進行實驗─包括「以想法為中心」、「以社群為基礎」、和「以原則作導引」的三種教學設計模式(詳見 Hong & Sullivan, 2009)。本研究擬於三年內收集兩大類資料：歷程與結果資料。主要的歷程資料將包括：(1) 師培生三年內在知識論壇(知識論壇係一以知識翻新理念所設計的多媒體網路平台) 上的線上討論過程與內容；(2) 教室活動及學生訪談的影音紀錄；以及 (3)教室中所進行的民俗誌研究和參與觀察。主要的結果資料將包括：(1)師培生對自然科學的知識觀調查；(2)師培生對於課室以及線上平台所感受的創造氛圍的調查；以及(3)師培生在實際科學教學演練上的改變歷程調查。資料將同時以質化與量化並呈的混合研究法來分析。在質化分析方面將使用內容分析法(Strauss & Corbin, 1990)、對話分析和語料分析(Chi, 1997)，以及社會網路分析(Scott, 1991)；量化分析方面則將運用敘述統計和推論統計。經由反覆設計與再設計的循環，研究者期望能逐步找出影響知識翻新理論與科技應用在未來師資培育課程中的成功教學設計與實施策略，藉此以期許未來能培育出更多具創造力與適應性的21 世紀優質教師。
Instructional design and implementation strategies of knowledge building theory and technology in a teacher-education program Abstract. While the importance of viewing learning as “knowledge creation” and teaching as “creative practice” is gradually recognized in the information and knowledge societies (Hong & Sullivan, 2009; Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004; Sawyer, 2006), what constitutes an effective theoretical and pedagogical means to support creative learning and teaching remains to be explored. One way to address this challenge is perhaps knowledge building theory and technology (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Knowledge building is represented in the Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (Sawyer, 2006) as one of six breakthroughs in the foundational learning and instructional sciences (alongside constructionism, cognitive apprenticeship, situated learning, the science of learning, etc.). Knowledge building is also represented in Wikipedia, five Encyclopedias, and the Handbook of Educational Psychology (Alexander & Winne, 2006, 2nd Edition) as a promising alternative to education reform. In this proposed research, I intend to progressively introduce knowledge building theory and technology into a teacher-education program within three years. By adopting design based research (DBR) methodology, I will employ and test three different and yet related instructional design models, including idea-centered, community-based, and principle-guided (see Hong & Sullivan, 2009, for detail). There will be two general types of data collected within the three years: process and outcome data. The main process data will include: (1) teacher-education students’ 3-year online discourse recorded in Knowledge Forum (an online multimedia platform developed to support knowledge building); (2) video-taping of class activities and student interviews; and (3) ethnographic and participatory observation in the class settings and in the teaching cites. The major outcome data will include: (1) surveys with regard to teacher-education students’ epistemological views of science learning and teaching; (2) surveys concerning the creative climate of online Knowledge Forum settings and class settings as knowledge building environments; (3) changes in teacher-education students’ actual teaching practices in the domain of natural sciences. Data will be analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively in a mixed manner by using content analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), discourse analysis and verbal data analysis (Chi, 1997), and social network analysis (Scott, 1991), as well as quantitative, descriptive and inferential statistics. Through a repeated design and re-design cycle, I expect to progressively identify key design strategies for successful implementation of knowledge building theory and technology in a new teacher-education program, so that the ultimate goal of cultivating more creative and adaptive future teachers needed for the 21st century education can be more effectively achieved. |
