Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/157664
|
| Title: | 基於知識翻新的教案設計活動對設計思考之影響
The Impact of Knowledge Building-Based Lesson Design Activities on Design Thinking |
| Authors: | 伍芳穎
Wu, Fang-Ying |
| Contributors: | 洪煌堯
Hong, Huang-Yao
伍芳穎
Wu, Fang-Ying |
| Keywords: | 知識翻新
教案設計
設計思考
設計思考心態
設計思考歷程
Knowledge building
Lesson design
Design thinking
Design thinking mindset
Design thinking process |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-07-01 14:13:47 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究透過分析參與者在教案設計活動前後的設計思考心態變化、教案設計表現及過程中的設計思考歷程，以深入探討基於知識翻新的教案設計活動對設計思考的影響。
本研究採用個案研究法，研究對象為55位參與由台灣某國立大學與美國知名常春藤名校於2023年共同研發之跨國實作培訓課程的參與者。在培訓過程中，參與者需經歷五輪設計循環，並觀看指定的知識翻新原則影片，深入理解相關理論，同時也需定期於Google表單及知識論壇中發表對原則及教案構想的反思貼文，並對其他成員的貼文提供回饋，以促進社群互動。
在資料收集與分析方面，本研究利用Google表單收集參與者填答的設計思考心態前後測問卷及教案進展反思單內容，並透過知識論壇收集參與者在每輪設計循環中的反思貼文及回覆。質性資料分析則以設計思考的五步驟作為編碼框架進行分析，並進一步採用行為序列分析及單因子相依變異數分析，將質性資料轉化為設計思考歷程的分數，以研究不同設計思考歷程對教案設計的影響。量化資料則使用成對樣本T檢定以進行前後測的比較分析。
最後，研究結果顯示，基於知識翻新的教案設計活動有助於促進設計思考心態的發展，且設計導向的設計歷程亦有助於設計出更貼近知識翻新理念的教案。此外，設計思考歷程的分數與教案設計表現之間亦存在顯著關聯，且設計思考歷程較高的參與者，其設計思考過程與設計思考五步驟的概念大致相符；相較之下，設計思考歷程較低的參與者，其社群投入程度較低，導致設計思考過程較為零散，缺乏連貫性的發展。
This study analyzes changes in participants’ design thinking mindset, lesson design performance, and design thinking process before and after a lesson design activity, to explore the impact of knowledge building-based lesson design.
Using a case study approach, the research involves 55 participants from a 2023 multinational training program co-developed by a national university in Taiwan and an Ivy League university in the United States. During the training, participants completed five design cycles and watched videos on knowledge building principles. They were also required to regularly post reflective notes on the principles and their lesson design ideas in Google Forms and the Knowledge Forum, building on others’ feedback to foster community interaction.
Data were collected through Google Forms for pre- and post-test responses on the design thinking mindset questionnaire and participants’ reflections. Reflective notes and build-ons from each cycle were gathered from the Knowledge Forum. Qualitative data were coded using the five-step design thinking process and analyzed with behavior sequence analysis and repeated measures ANOVA to generate design thinking process scores. Quantitative data were analyzed using paired-sample t-tests.
Findings show that knowledge building-based lesson design fosters the development of design thinking mindsets. The design-oriented process supports lesson plans that better align with knowledge building principles. A significant correlation was found between participants’ process scores and lesson plan quality. Those with higher scores followed a process consistent with the five design thinking stages, while those with lower scores showed limited community engagement and a less coherent process. |
| Reference: | 丁志權（2003）。聯繫教學理論與實務的橋樑：教學活動設計。教師之友，44(1)，30-43。
丁志權（2021）。單元教學活動設計的原理與編寫要領。嘉大教育研究學刊，(47)，23-50。
台灣知識翻新社群(n.d.)。KB教師跨國培訓課程。Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/view/kbctw/kb-%E6%95%99%E5%B8%AB%E8%B7%A8%E5%9C%8B%E5%9F%B9%E8%A8%93
任慶儀（2013）。教案設計：理論與實務。五南。
任慶儀（2022）。教案設計：從教學法出發。五南。
佐藤學（2012）。學習的革命：從教室出發的改變。天下雜誌。
吳惠萍（2016）。運用知識翻新原則培養華語文師資生調適型教學設計取向之個案研究〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立政治大學。
李佩蓉（2013）。電腦支援協作知識翻新教學與提升學生科學理論本質理解之相關研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
李依靜（2020）。基於知識翻新理論的教師共同備課平台之開發與初步評估〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中央大學。
林奎宇（2012）。知識創新學習環境量表之編製〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
林偉文（2002）。國民中小學學校組織文化、教師創意教學潛能與創意教學的關係〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立政治大學。
許菱雅（2020）。知識翻新活動融入達悟族大船文化課程教學之行動研究--以臺東縣蘭嶼鄉朗島國小六年級學生為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
邱婕欣（2011）。知識翻新教學對學生「想法」概念理解之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
張芷瑄（2011）。知識翻新學習對師培生教學信念與實務知識之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
洪煌堯、蔡佩真、林倍伊（2014）。透過知識創新教學理念與學習平臺以培養國小學生自然課合作學習與翻新想法的習慣。科學教育學刊，22(4)，413-439。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2014.2204.04
黃俐婷（2003）。探討青少年接受到的社會支持。社區發展季刊，103，144-156。
黃姿瑋（2014）。融入知識翻新教學對國小學童閱讀理解和閱讀動機之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
蔡函汝（2013）。設計導向的知識翻新學習對師資培育生教學知識之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
蔡以寧（2023）。以知識翻新促進社群設計思考〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立政治大學。
薛智暉（2019）。想法中心的知識翻新活動對職前教師知識整合與設計能力影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
陳美伊（2019）。知識翻新活動對數學師培生在科技內容教學知識之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
陳美如、陳宜嫻（2022）。運用知識翻新社群及電腦支持協作學習促進職前教師之社會情緒能力。教育研究月刊，202207(339)，52-70。https://doi.org/10.53106/168063602022070339004
郭富銘（2021）。基於「知識翻新理論」與「設計思考」的跨領域專題學習平台之開發與初步評估〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中央大學。
Boes, M. (2000). Growing mathematical ideas in kindergarten. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(5), 337-340.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
Dadswell, K., Sambol, S., Yager, Z., Van Dyke, N., Pascoe, M., Dallat, C., & Parker, A. G. (2022). Together we grow: Evaluation of a design thinking professional development workshop for outdoor educators indicates improvements in growth mindset. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 24(3), 400–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2022.2075412
d.school. (2013, June 17). Bootcamp bootleg [PDF]. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57c6b79629687fde090a0fdd/t/58890239db29d6cc6c3338f7/1485374014340/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.
Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1988). Principles of instructional design (3rd ed.). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Guaman-Quintanilla, S., Everaert, P., Chiluiza, K., & Valcke, M. (2022). Impact of design thinking in higher education: A multi-actor perspective on problem-solving and creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33, 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09724-z
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. W. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272).
Hong, H.-Y., Chen, F.-C., Chai, C. S., & Chan, W.-C. (2010a). Teacher-education students’ views about knowledge building theory and practice. Instructional Science, 39(4), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9143-4
Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., & Zhang, J. (2010b). Knowledge society network: Toward a dynamic, sustained network for building knowledge. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1).
Hunter, M. (1984). Knowing, teaching, and supervising. In P. Hosford (Ed.), Using what we know about reading (pp. 169-203). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
IDEO. (2012). Design thinking for educators toolkit. Retrieved from https://alexanderwwhite.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/dttoolkit_excerpts.pdf
Johnson, A. P. (2000). It’s time for Madeline Hunter to go: A new look at lesson plan design. Action in Teacher Education, 22(1), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2000.10462994
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159-174.
Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J. S., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12466
Ozturk, A. (2021). Meeting the challenges of STEM education in K-12 education through design thinking. 26(1), 70–88.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological foundations for CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 24-32). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Razali, N., Ali, N., Safiyuddin, S., & Khalid, F. (2022). Design thinking approaches in education and their challenges: A systematic literature review. Creative Education, 13, 2289-2299. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2022.137145
Rekonen, S., & Hassi, L. (2018). Impediments for experimentation in novice design teams. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 6(3–4), 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1448723
Royalty, A., Oishi, L., & Roth, B. (2012). “I use it every day”: Pathways to adaptive innovation after graduate study in design thinking. In Design Thinking Research (pp. 95-105). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67- 98). Open Court.
Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269–272). Sage Publications.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265-283.
Seet, C. H., Lin, C. S., Chang, Y. H., Chen, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2024, Oct.). Integrating design thinking and knowledge building for teacher professional development. Paper presented at Knowledge Building Summer Institute 2024, Singapore.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. MIT Press.
Tu, J.-C., Liu, L.-X., & Wu, K.-Y. (2018). Study on the learning effectiveness of Stanford Design Thinking in integrated design education. Sustainability, 10(8), 2649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082649
Van Aalst, J., & Truong, M. S. (2010). Promoting knowledge creation discourse in an Asian primary five classroom: Results from an inquiry into life cycles. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 487–515.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003649656
Van Gompel, K. (2019). Cultivating 21st century skills: An exploratory case study of design thinking as a pedagogical strategy for elementary classrooms (Order No. 22582555). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Vignoli, M., Dosi, C., & Balboni, B. (2023). Design thinking mindset: Scale development and validation. Studies in Higher Education, 48(6), 926–940.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2172566
Waidelich, L., Richter, A., Kölmel, B., & Bulander, R. (2018). Design thinking process model review. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2018.8436281
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
教育學系
111152003 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111152003 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [教育學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 200301.pdf | | 3850Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
