:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:國小六年級學生科學生涯選擇模式之探討與STEM教育對學生科學生涯選擇模式的影響
作者:馬宜平
作者(外文):MA, I-PING
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:工業科技教育學系
指導教授:荊溪昱
王仁俊
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2020
主題關鍵詞:社會認知生涯理論生涯選擇模式STEM教育結構方程式模型模糊德懷術
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:0
本研究以社會認知生涯理論為基礎,第一部分旨在透過PISA 2006學生問卷中有關「科學自我效能」、「科學結果期待」、「科學興趣」與「科學生涯意向」的相關題目組成問卷,進行資料分析,企圖建構一套國小學生科學生涯選擇的因素結構模型,並進一步探究科學學業成就與科學生涯意向的相關性與不同性別學生在科學生涯選擇上的差異;第二部分則嘗試發展符合STEM教育精神之教學設計,以在國小階段落實十二年課程綱要中的生活科技課程精神,希望能讓STEM教育發揮成效,以符合學生學習需求。本研究發展的教學設計經選取與各部份內容相對應的領域核心素養具體內涵後,再透過14位諮詢委員進行模糊德懷術問卷調查,依據收集之資料進行統計分析;第三部分則對學生進行STEM教育,以了解STEM教育對國小六年級學生科學生涯選擇的影響,並進一步探究不同性別學生的差異。
根據上述,本研究發現,國小六年級學生科學生涯選擇模式與社會認知生涯理論中的生涯選擇模式略有不同,科學自我效能對科學生涯意向的迴歸係數不顯著,但科學自我效能仍能透過科學結果期待與科學興趣對科學生涯意向產生間接影響,且在校科學成績僅和科學自我效能相關,和文獻探討指出個人的學業成就也會對結果期待產生直接影響相悖。另外,影響國小六年級學生未來是否選擇以科學作為生涯發展方向的因素,彼此間的相關程度並未呈現性別差異的存在,唯女學生在此階段已出現負向的科學生涯意向表現,是值得注意的現象。
而本研究自編STEM教學設計經評估,獲致研究結論如下:一、囊括STEM四大學科領域及10項核心素養具體內涵,且皆具適切性;二、「自然科學領域」為自編STEM教學設計中契合度最高之教學領域,並以「符號運用與溝通表達」為該領域整體與相應學習內容符合程度最高之核心素養;三、「科技領域」與「工程領域」為自編STEM教學設計中契合度次高之教學領域;四、「數學領域」為自編STEM教學設計中契合度仍有努力空間之教學領域。
在STEM教育的影響方面,發現STEM教育能促進國小六年級學生的「科學結果期待」與「科學生涯意向」,間接印證了社會認知生涯理論中生涯選擇模式所呈現出的「結果期待」能影響「生涯意向」的立論。進一步分析不同性別的差異,發現STEM教育對兩性學生「科學自我效能」的影響皆有限,但能有效促進男學生的「科學興趣」,且對不同性別學生的「科學結果期待」與「科學生涯意向」皆有促進效果,唯就「科學生涯意向」的得分情形來看,STEM教育實施後,對以科學做為未來生涯選擇方向的角度來看,男生的意願依舊高於女生。
最後,綜合文獻分析、研究結果與結論,分別就教育實務與未來研究提出建議,以提供參考。
(本研究內容部分引用研究者已發表於臺灣教育評論月刊2020年第九卷第二期名為「國小六年級學生科學生涯選擇之探討」一文與第七期名為「實施STEM教育的困難與解決策略」一文,以及科技與人力教育季刊第七卷第一期名為「STEM教育對學生科學生涯選擇的影響」一文與將刊登於人文社會科學研究第十五卷第二期名為「國小STEM教學設計─以手搖式手電筒的設計、製作為例」一文。)
 Based on social cognitivecareer theory, the aims of this study could be divided into three parts.
First, this study aimed todevelop and examine a set of elementary school students’ science-related careerchoice structural equation modeling by analyzing datas from 2006 PISAquestionnaires which contained questions of science self-efficacy, science outcome expectation, science interest, and sciencecareer-choice intentions. In addition, this study also centered oninvestigating how gender and science performance level effects elementary school students’ science-related career choice.
Second, This study aimed to develop ateaching design in line with S.T.E.M education and implement living technologyeducation of 12-year basic education curricula in elementary school educationalstage. The expectation of this study was to make the S.T.E.M education moreeffective to meet elementary school students’ learning needs. The S.T.E.Mteaching design in this study was first selected in correspondence with corecompetencies and inspected by 14 advisory consultants via a fuzzy Delphi methodsurvey.
 
 
Third,by implementing S.T.E.M education in class, this study aimed to discover how S.T.E.Meducation affected six grader’s science-realatedcareer choice and how differently the effects did on different genders.
The major findings of this study are summarized as follows:
First, the findings of this study revealed that elementary school sixgraders’ science-realated career choice modeling is slightly different fromcareer-choice modeling of social cognitive career theory in twoways. On one hand, the standardized regression of science self-efficacy onscience-related career-choice intentions is not significantly different.Science self-efficacy only has indirect influence on science-relatedcareer-choice intentions through science outcome expectation and scienceinterest. On the other hand, science performance level is significantly relatedto science self-efficacy but not significantly realated to outcome expectation.Furthermore, in terms of the effect on elementary school six graders’science-realated career choice, gender shows no significant difference.However, it’s noteworthy that negative attitude toward science-related careerchoice is already appeared on six-grade female students in elementary school.
Second, after thorough evalution, the S.T.E.M teaching design developedby the researcher of this study comes to four conclusions as follows: 1.This S.T.E.M teaching design includes fourdomains of S.T.E.M and 10 core competencies and is suitable for elementaryschool students.; 2.With regard to four domains of S.T.E.M, this teachingdesign is most compatible with “Science” domain. With regard to corecompetencies, this learning material is most compatible with “Semiotics andExpression”.; 3.This teaching design is compatible with “Technology” and “Engineering”domain for the second place.; 4.This learning material is least compatible with“Math” domain.
Third, withregards of the effects of S.T.E.Meducation, this study reveals that STEM education enhances elementaryschool six graders’ science outcome expectation and science career-choiceintentions. This finding echoes the proposition in social cognitive careertheory that outcome expectation affects career-choice intentions. After furtheranalysis on genders, the findings are as followed: 1. STEM education haslimited effects on students’ science self-efficacy of both genders.;2.STEMeducation has positive effects on both male students’ science interest.;3.STEMeducation has positive effects on science outcome expectation and science-relatedcareer-choice intentions of both genders.; 4. Based on scores of science-relatedcareer-choice intentions, male students have higher intention to choose science-relatedcareer in the future than female students.Finally, according to the findings, some suggestions for futureapplications were proposed on the basis of the discussions provided in thisstudy.
壹、中文部分
于泳红(2010)。大學生的職業生涯選擇─職業生涯選擇影響因素的路徑分析。寧波大學學報,32(5),90-93。
田秀蘭(2003)。社會認知生涯理論之興趣模式驗證研究。教育心理學報,34(2),247-266。
田秀蘭(2015)。生涯諮商與輔導: 理論與實務。台北市:學富文化。
朱耀明(2011)。「動手做」的學習意涵分析—杜威的經驗學習觀點。生活科技教育月刊,44(2),32-43。
余民寧、趙珮晴(2010)。選擇科學職業意圖的性別差異分析-以TIMSS 2003台灣八年級學生為例。諮商輔導學報,22,1-29。
余民寧、趙珮晴、陳嘉成(2010)。以社會認知生涯理論探討影響選擇數學職業意圖的因素。教育科學研究期刊,55(3),177-201。
余民寧、韓珮華(2009)。教學方式對數學學習興趣與數學成就之影響:以TIMSS 2003 台灣資料為例。測驗學刊,56(1),19-48。
阮炳嵐、陳昱志(2004)。我國科技人力資源培育的相關研究。「新環境、新課題、新策略、2004年人力資源之創新與蛻變---教育訓練、中小企業、公共政策研討會」發表之論文,中華人力資源發展學會。
呂祖琛(1971)。台北市高中文理組學生性向與選組關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。
李俊偉(2017)。應用習慣領域和美塔學雙理論的STEM科普閱讀模式。習慣領域期刊,8(2),109-126。


邵國平、王水珍(2007)。擇業期間貧困大學生生涯自我效能、焦慮的變化─浙江師範大學貧困生的調查研究。浙江師範大學學報,32(1), 93-97。
林怡廷(2015):探討STEM 課程以科學探究教學法在課外社團實施之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺北市,臺北市立大學。
林坤誼(2014)。STEM科際整合教育培養整合理論與實務的科技人才。科技與人力教育季刊,1(1),2-17。
林蔚芳、賴協志、林秀勤(2012)。社會認知生涯理論模式之文獻回顧。輔導季刊,48(3),50-63。
周恆奇(2015):STEM 教育在國小高年級都市強降雨議題教學之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺北市,臺北市立大學。
范斯淳、游光昭(2016)。科技教育融入STEM課程的核心價值與實踐。教育科學研究期刊,61(2),153-183。
范斯淳、楊錦心(2012)。美日科技教育課程及其啟示。教育資料集刊,55,71-102。
姚經政、林呈彥(2016)。STEM教育應用於機器人教學—以6E教學模式結合差異化教學。科技與人力教育季刊,3(1),53-75。
洪蘭(譯)(2006)。腦內乾坤─男女有別,其來有自(原作者:AnneMoir & David Jessel)。臺北市:遠流。
袁利平、張欣鑫(2017)。論STEAM教育與核心素養的對接。陝西師範大學學報,46(5),164-169。
馬宜平、荊溪昱(2020)。國小六年級學生科學生涯選擇之探討。臺灣教育評論月刊,9(2),156-184。
陳小紅、包宗和、章仁香(2016)。據審計部103年度中央政府總決算審核報告,我國潛藏科技人才流失與高等研發人力分布失衡,不利厚植國內產業研發能量等情案之報告。監察院(編號:105教調0017),未出版。

陳文詠(2017)。青少年科學產業就職意願─社會認知生涯理論修正模式之驗證(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺中教育大學,臺中市。
陳柏豪(2007)。STEM整合式教學法在國中自然與生活科技領域物理教學之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立屏東科技大學,屏東縣。
陳家騏、古建國(2017)。STEM教學應用於高中探究與實作課程之行動研究—以摩擦力為例。物理教育期刊,18(2),17-38。
張仁家、林癸妙(2019)。美國STEM教育的發展沿革與經驗─以俄亥俄州為例。科技與人力教育季刊,5(4),1-25。
張玉山、楊雅茹(2014)。STEM教學設計之探討:以液壓手臂單元為例。科技與人力教育季刊,1(1),2-17。
張守中(2008)。團體凝聚力的變化機制與影響因素。人文及社會科學集刊,20(6),141-172。
張俊彥、李哲迪、任宗浩、林碧珍、張美玉、曹博盛、楊文金、張瑋寧(2018)。國際數學與科學教育成就趨勢調查2015 (TIMSS2015):臺灣精簡國家成果報告。臺北市:國立臺灣師範大學科學教育中心。
張裕經、李至霓、黃清信、楊梓青(2001)。資訊軟體進階班人才培訓配合計畫。經濟部工業局委託計畫(補助編號:9001020144),未出版。
國立臺北教育大學(2014)。活化教學~分組合作學習的理念與實踐方案。取自http://www.coop.ntue.edu.tw/file/20140216174113.pdf
教育部統計處(2009)。我國與 OECD 各國女性高等教育之學科領域暨性別差異分析【原始數據】。未出版之統計數據。取自http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/analysis/oecd_higher.pdf
教育部統計處(2013)。我國高等教育女性學生概況【原始數據】。未出版之統計數據。http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/analysis/102higher_studentw.pdf

教育部統計處(2016)。大專校院各等級男女結構及就讀系所概況【原始數據】。未出版之統計數據。http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/analysis/%E5%A4%A7%E5%B0%88%E6%A0%A1%E9%99%A2%E5%90%84%E7%AD%89%E7%B4%%E7%94%B7%E5%A5%B3%E7%B5%90%E6%A7%8B%E5%%%E5%B0%B1%E8%AE%80%E7%B3%BB%E6%89%80%E6%A6%82%E6%B3%81.pdf
教育部統計處(2018a)。大學生、碩士生、博士生就讀類科之比率【原始數據】。未出版之統計數據。http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/important/OVERVIEW_U04~6.pdf
教育部統計處(2018b)。大專校院學生人數分析【原始數據】。未出版之統計數據。取自http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/brief/%E5%A4%A7%E5%B0%88%E6%A0%A1%E9%99%A2%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F%E4%BA%BA%E6%95%B8%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90.pdf
教育部統計處(2018c)。高級中等學校男女結構及選讀概況【原始數據】。未出版之統計數據。取自http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/brief/%E9%AB%98%E7%B4%9A%E4%B8%AD%E7%AD%89%E5%AD%B8%E6%A0%A1%E7%94%B7%E5%A5%B3%E7%B5%90%E6%A7%8B%E5%8F%8A%E9%81%B8%E8%AE%80%E6%A6%82%E6%B3%81.pdf
君(2007)。任務主題及性別分組對國中生網路即時討論做決策之言談模式的影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立成功大學,臺南市。
黃子榕、林坤誼(2014)。職前教師於STEM實作課程的知識整合行為研究。科技與人力教育季刊,1(1),18-39。
游光昭、林坤誼(2007)。數學、科學、科技統整課程對不同學習風格學習者在學習成效上之影響。教育研究學報,41(1),1-16。
葉蓉樺(2008)。操作式科學展示對「電與磁」相關概念學習輔助探討:中小學教師的觀點。物理教育學刊,9(2),35-56。
趙珩宇(2015)。自造者運動對生活科技的啟示。科技與人力教育季刊,1(3), 1-20。
劉一慧(2012)。STEM 專案學習對自我效能與工程專業承諾之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。高雄市, 國立高雄師範大學。
劉鳳(2009)。職業自我效能理論與大學生就業生。青海師範大學學報,132,153-156。
蔡佩殷(2011)。分組方式在合作學習法中對國中學生英語學習與動機影響之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。私立淡江大學,新北市。
蔡蕙文(2007)。STEM 教學模式應用於國中自然與生活科技領域教學之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。屏東縣,屏東科技大學。
蔡麗玲(2003)。科學學習與科學知識是 中立的嗎?兩性平等教育季刊,23,91- 97。
樹熊(2015)。風靡美國的STEM教育。取自http://master-insight.com/content/article/5516
戰寶華、侯欣彤(2017)。從社會認知生涯理論探究高中學習歷程檔案之運用模式。臺灣教育評論月刊,6(3),201-208。
戰寶華、陳惠珍、余怡芳(2015)。自我效能理論於提升教育行政人員工作績效之應用。中華行政學報,17,45-64。
戰寶華、董芳均(2018)。從社會認知生涯理論分析臺灣人才流失問題。師友月刊,607,29-34。
簡君倫、連廷嘉(2009)。大學生性格類型、生涯自我效能與生涯決定之相關研究。高師輔導所刊,21,39-69。
簡晉龍、任宗浩(2010)。邁向科學之路?臺灣中學生性別對科學生涯選擇意向之影響。科學教育學刊,19(5),461-481。


簡晉龍、任宗浩、張淑婷(2008)。跨學科間自我概念與學業成就路徑模式之檢驗─整合模式在數學和科學領域的適用性。教育心理學報,40(1),107-126。
羅希哲、陳柏豪、石儒居、蔡華齡、蔡慧音(2009)。STEM整合式教學法在國民中學自然與生活技術領域之研究。人文社會科學研究,3(3),42-66。
羅希哲、蔡慧音、陳錦慧、詹為淵(2015)。STEM。高雄師大學報,39,63-84。
羅希哲、蔡慧音、曾國鴻(2011)。高中女生STEM網路專題式合作學習之研究。高雄師大學報,30,41-61。


















貳、英文部分
Ashton, R. (2008). Improving the transfer tosecondary school: How every child's voice can matter. Support for Learning,23, 176-182.
Asunda, P. A. (2012). Standards for technological literacy and STEMeducation delivery through areer and technical education programs. Journal of Technology Education, 23(2),44-60.
Bandura, A . (1986). Socialfoundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barry, N. B. (2014). The ITEEA 6E learning ByDeSIGN TM model: Maximizinginformed design and inquiry in the integrative STEH classroom. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(6),14-19.
Basalyga, S. (2003). Student interest in engineering is on decline. Retrieved from http://djcoregon.com/news/2003/06/11/student-interest-in-engineering-is-on-decline/.
Boesdorfer, S.,& S. Greenhalgh. (2014). Make room for engineering. The Science Teacher 81 (9): 51–55.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges andopportunities. Arlington, VA:NSTA Press.
Bifulco, R., Ladd, H. F., & Ross, S. L. (2009). The effects of publicschool choice on those left behind: Evidence from Ddurham, North Carolina. PeabodyJournal of Education, 84, 130-149.
Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez‐Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules onstudent learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 301-309.doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00905.x

Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teachingand learning matrix. Journal of EngineeringEducation,101(4),738-797.doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
Cunningham, G. B., Bruening, J., Sartore, M. L., Sagas,M., & Fink, J. S. (2005). The application of social cognitive career theoryto sport and leisure career choices.Journal of Career Development, 32,122–138. doi: 10.1177/0894845305279164
Dalgety, J., & Coll, R. K. (2006). Theinfluence of first-year chemistry students'learning experiences on theireducational choices. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31,303.
Dalkey, G.B.(1969). The Delphi method: an experimental study of groupopinion, Rand Corp, Research Paper RM-5888-PR.
Dayton Regional STEM Center. (2011).STEM education quality framework. Retrieved fromhttp://daytonregionalstemcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Final-Framework-copyrighted.pdf
Dickinson, J. (2007). An examination of the applicabilityof social cognitive career theory for African American college.
Dixon, R. A., & Brown, R. A. (2012). Transfer of learning: Connectingconcepts during problem solving. Journalof Technology Education, 24(1), 2-16.
Doll, W. J.,Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of theend-user computing satisfaction instrument. MisQuarterly , 453-461.
Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. Paperpresented at the 6th Biennial International Conference on TechnologyEducation Research, Gold Coast, Queensland,Australia.

Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61-65.
Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1996). A test of a social cognitivemodel for middle school students: Math and science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(3), 338-346.
Fouad, N. A., Smith, P. L., & Zao, K. E.(2002). Across academicdomains: Extensions of the social-cognitive career model. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 49(2),164-171.
Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M.,Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004).Predicting high school students’cognitive engagement and achievement:Contributions of classroom perceptions andmotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462-482.
Herschbach, D.R. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and challenges. Journal of sTEm Teacher Education, 48(1),96-122.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: Atheory of vocational personalities and work environments (3th ed.). Odessa, Fla.: Psychological Assessment Resources
Kelley, T. R. (2008). Cognitive processes of students participating inengineering-focused design instruction. Journalof Technology Education, 19(2), 50-64.
Kelley, T. R. (2010). Staking the claim for the ‘T’ in STEM. The Journal of Technology Studies,36(1),2-11.
Kline, R. B.(2005). Principles and practice ofstructural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (1996). Social cognitive approach tocareer development:An overview. The Career Development Quarterly,44(4), 310-321.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G.(1994). Toward a unifyingsocial cognitive theory of career and academic interest,choice, andperformance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79-122.
Lent,R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4thed., pp. 255-3 11). San Francisco,CA:Wiley.
Lent, R.W., Lopez, A. M., Lopez, F.G., &Sheu H.-B.(2008). Social cognitive career theory and the prediction of interests andchoice goals in the computing disciplines. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 73 (1), 52-62.doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.002
Lewis, T. (2004). A turn to engineering: The continuing struggle oftechnology education for legitimization as a school subject. Journal of Technology Education, 16(1),21-39.
Massachusetts Department of Education.(2001).Science and tchnology/engineering framework.RetrievedJuly 17 ,2009,from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2001/
Massachusetts Department of Education.(2006). Massachusetts Science and Technology /Engineering Curriculum Framework.RetrievedMay 4,2007,from http://www.doe.mass.edu/ Frameworks/current.html
McComas, W. F., & McComas, K. K. (2009). The contributions of scienceand mathematics to STEM education: A view from beyond the disciplines oftechnology and engineering. InInternational Technology and Engineering Educators Association (Ed.), Theoverlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering (pp. 26-35).Reston, VA: Editor.


Moore, T. J., Miller, R. L., Lesh, R. A., Stohlmann, M. S., & Kim, Y.R. (2013). Modeling in engineering: The role of representational fluency instudents’ conceptual understanding. Journalof Engineering Education, 102(1), 141-178. doi:10.1002/jee.20004
Moye, J. J., Dugger, W. E., & Starkweather, K. N. (2012). The statusof technology and engineering education in the United States: A fourth reportof the findings from the States (2011-12).Technologyand Engineering Teacher, 71(8), 25-31.
National Academy of Engineering, & National Research Council. (2014).STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda forresearch. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council(1996). National Science EducationStandards(pp.23). Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press.
Navarro, R. L., Flores, L. Y., & , R. L.(2007). Mexican American middle school students’ goalintentions in mathematics and science: A test of social cognitive careertheory.Journal of Counseling Psychology,54(3), 320-335.
Nugent, G.,Barker, B., Welch, G., Grandgenett, N., Wu, C., & Nelson, C. (2015). Amodel of factors contributing to STEM learning and career orientation. International Journal of Science Education,37(7), 1067-1088.
Ortiz, A. M. (2015). Examining students’ proportional reasoning strategylevels as evidence of the impact of an integrated LEGO robotics and mathematicslearning experience. Journal ofTechnology Education, 26(2), 46-69.
Schmakel, P. O. (2008). Early adolescents'perspectives on motivation and achievement in academics. Urban Education, 43,723.
Schnittka, C. G., & Bell, R. L. (2011). Engineering design andconceptual change in science:Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer ineighth grade. International Journal ofScience Education, 33(13), 1861-1887. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.529177
Schutz, G., West, M. R., & Wobmann, L. (2007). Schoolaccountability,autonomy, choice, and the equity of student achievement:International evidence from PISA 2003. OECD education working papers, No.14.
Sharf, R. S. (2010). Applying career development theory to counseling (5th ed.).Belmont,California: Thomson, Brooks/Cole.
Tang, K. S., and P. J. Williams. 2019. "STEM literacy orliteracies? Examining the empirical basis of these constructs." Review of Education 7 (3), 675-697.
Wobmann, L., Ludemann, E., Schutz, G., & West, M. R. (2007). Schoolaccountability, autonomy, choice, and the level of studentachievement:International evidence from PISA 2003. OECD education workingpapers,No. 13.
Wong, G. K. W. & Fung, C. (2016). Handbook for flipped classroom inprimary school .(小學翻轉教室實用手冊). Hong Kong:Quality Education Fund. Retrieved from:https://sites.google.com/site/projectflipped/xiao-xue-fan-zhuan-jiao-shi-shi-yong-shou-ce
Wu, H. K. & Hsieh, C. N.(2006). Developing sixth grader’s inquiryskills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environmens. InternationalJournal of Science Education,28(11), 1289-1313.
Yu, A.-B.(1996). Ultimate life concerns, self, and Chinese achievement motivation. In M.H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinesepsychology (pp. 227-246). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE