師大學報 - 教育科學研究期刊 - 期刊目錄列表 - 61卷(2016) - 【教育科學研究期刊】61(2)六月刊（本期專題：師資培育：檢討、成效與前瞻）

以作者名、篇名、關鍵字或DOI查詢

CONTRIBUTORS
NOTICE

[Guide for Submission]

稿約

[Style for Thesis Writing]

論文撰寫體例

[Review of Research Papers]

論文審查要點

[The Copyright]

著作權處理要點

[Flow of Review System]

審查制度流程

[Regulations Governing]

編審委員會設置要點

[Editorial Board]

本年度編審委員

[Advisory Board]

本年度諮詢委員

[Form Download]

相關表單下載

《教育科學研究期刊》「多元視角詮釋J. Bruner跨科際的教育科學研究之傳承」專題徵稿(截稿日至2025/06/30) 《教育科學研究期刊》「體驗與冒險教育」專題徵稿(截稿日至112/12/31) 賀《教育科學研究期刊》榮獲2019-2021年科技部臺灣人文及社會科學期刊評比收錄於第一級核心期刊!

期刊目錄列表 - 61卷(2016) - 【教育科學研究期刊】61(2)六月刊（本期專題：師資培育：檢討、成效與前瞻）

回上一頁

科技教育融入STEM課程的核心價值與實踐作者:范斯淳(國立臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系)、游光昭(國立臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系)

卷期：61卷第2期
日期：2016年6月
頁碼：153-183
DOI：10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(2).06

摘要：
發展STEM（Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics）課程是近年來美國教育界所關注的課題，亦普遍受到先進國家的重視。本研究之目的是從美國科技教育學者的觀點，探討科技教育融入STEM課程的核心價值與實踐方式，並據以提出對臺灣科技教育融入STEM課程的可行性及實施建議。本研究採深度訪談的方式訪談11位美國科技教育學者，以瞭解美國科技教育界如何闡述STEM課程之核心價值，及其課程發展與實踐方式。本研究歸納之結論如下：一、科技教育的STEM課程應是一種整合式的教學與學習途徑；二、科技教育的STEM課程應著重在實作學習（hands-on learning）以及心智學習（minds-on learning）的平衡；三、科技教育的STEM課程應以「科技與工程議題」為核心、「工程設計」歷程為架構，而「科學探究」、「數學分析」及「科技工具」為知識整合與應用的要項。據此，本研究針對臺灣邁向12年國教之科技教育提出三點建議：一、國中的科技教育課程著重設計與製作的內涵，培養學生解決生活問題的能力；高中著重工程設計的內涵，培養學生整合STEM知識以解決實務問題的能力；二、臺灣科技教育的STEM課程應提供學生更多設計、探究、分析、測試與綜合評估的學習機會，以建構更完整的整合與應用能力；三、提升臺灣生活科技教師對STEM課程的理解與教學專業知識的準備，是落實STEM課程理念的關鍵課題。

關鍵詞：STEM課程、科技教育、課程設計

《詳全文》

參考文獻：

李隆盛、吳正己、游光昭、周麗瑞、葉家棟、盧秋珍、沈章平（2013）。十二年國民基本教育生活與科技領域綱要內容之前導研究。國家教育研究院「十二年國民基本教育領域綱要內容前導研究」整合型研究報告（NAER-102-06-A-1-02-09-1-18）。臺北市：教育部國家教育研究院。【Lee, L.-S., Wu, C.-C., Yu, K.-C., Chou, L.-T., Yeh, J.-D., Lu, Q.-Z., & Shen, Z.-P. (2013). A pilot study of the national curriculum guide of technology learning area for 12-year basic education (NAER-102-06-A-1-02- 09-1-18). Taipei, Taiwan: National Academy for Educational Research.】
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。【Fan, S.-C., & Yang, J.-S. (2012). The inspiration from the new technology curriculum in the United States and Japan. Bulletin of Educational Resources and Research, 55, 71-102.】
Asunda, P. A. (2012). Standards for technological literacy and STEM education delivery through career and technical education programs. Journal of Technology Education, 23(2), 44-60.
Barry, N. B. (2014). The ITEEA 6E learning ByDeSIGN^TM model: Maximizing informed design and inquiry in the integrative STEH classroom. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(6), 14-19.
Bayer Corporation. (2010). Planting the seeds for a diverse U.S. STEM pipeline: A compendium of best practice K-12 STEM education programs. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.

» 展開更多

李隆盛、吳正己、游光昭、周麗瑞、葉家棟、盧秋珍、沈章平（2013）。十二年國民基本教育生活與科技領域綱要內容之前導研究。國家教育研究院「十二年國民基本教育領域綱要內容前導研究」整合型研究報告（NAER-102-06-A-1-02-09-1-18）。臺北市：教育部國家教育研究院。【Lee, L.-S., Wu, C.-C., Yu, K.-C., Chou, L.-T., Yeh, J.-D., Lu, Q.-Z., & Shen, Z.-P. (2013). A pilot study of the national curriculum guide of technology learning area for 12-year basic education (NAER-102-06-A-1-02- 09-1-18). Taipei, Taiwan: National Academy for Educational Research.】
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。【Fan, S.-C., & Yang, J.-S. (2012). The inspiration from the new technology curriculum in the United States and Japan. Bulletin of Educational Resources and Research, 55, 71-102.】
Asunda, P. A. (2012). Standards for technological literacy and STEM education delivery through career and technical education programs. Journal of Technology Education, 23(2), 44-60.
Barry, N. B. (2014). The ITEEA 6E learning ByDeSIGN^TM model: Maximizing informed design and inquiry in the integrative STEH classroom. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(6), 14-19.
Bayer Corporation. (2010). Planting the seeds for a diverse U.S. STEM pipeline: A compendium of best practice K-12 STEM education programs. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
Berry, R. Q., III, Reed, P. A., Ritz, J. M., Lin, C. Y., Hsiung, S., & Frazier, W. (2004). Stem initiatives: Stimulating students to improve science and mathematics achievement. The Technology Teacher, 64(4), 23-30.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Bybee, R. W., & McCrae, B. J. (2009). PISA science 2006: Implications for science teachers and teaching. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez‐Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 301-309. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00905.x
Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM standards of the 50 U.S. states: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539-564. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00061.x
Clark, A. C., & Ernst, J. V. (2008). STEM-based computational modeling for technology education. Journal of Technology Studies, 34(1), 20-27.
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738-797. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
Custer, R. L., & Daugherty, J. (2009). Professional development for teachers of engineering: Research and related activities. The Bridge, 39(3), 18-24.
Daugherty, J. L. (2009). Engineering professional development design for secondary school teachers: A multiple case study. Journal of Technology Education, 21(1), 10-24.
Dayton Regional STEM Center. (2011). STEM education quality framework. Retrieved from http://daytonregionalstemcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Final-Framework-copyrighted. pdf
Dixon, R. A., & Brown, R. A. (2012). Transfer of learning: Connecting concepts during problem solving. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 2-16.
Drake, S. M. (1998). Creating integrated curriculum: Proven ways to increase student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Dugger, W. E. (2010, December). Evolution of STEM in the United States. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643-658. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00059-3
Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61-65.
Foster, P. (1994). Must we MST? Journal of Technology Education, 6(1), 76-84.
Gardner, D. P., Larsen, Y. W., Baker, W. O., Campbell, A., Crosby, E. A., Foster, C. A. …Wallace, R. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform (A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education). Washington, DC: The National Commission on Excellence in Education, United States Department of Education.
Havice, W. (2009). The power and promise of a STEM education: Thriving in a complex technological world. In International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (Ed.), The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering (pp. 10-17). Reston, VA: Editor.
Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and challenges. Journal of sTEm Teacher Education, 48(1), 96-122.
Indiana Department of Education. (2012). High school STEM full implementation. Retrieved from http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/ccr/high-school-stem-implementationv2.pdf
International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
Kelley, T. R. (2008). Cognitive processes of students participating in engineering-focused design instruction. Journal of 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.
Kelley, T., Brenner, D. C., & Pieper, J. T. (2010). PLTW and Epics‐High: Curriculum comparisons to support problem solving in the context of engineering design. Utah, UT: National Center for Engineering and Technology Education.
Lantz, H. B., Jr. (2009). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education what form? What function? Retrieved from http://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/1/docs/jep/STEMEducation Article.pdf
Lewis, T. (2004). A turn to engineering: The continuing struggle of technology education for legitimization as a school subject. Journal of Technology Education, 16(1), 21-39.
Lewis, T. (2005). Coming to terms with engineering design as content. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 37-54.
Mativo, J., & Wicklein, R. (2011). Learning effects of design strategies on high school students. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(3), 66-92.
McComas, W. F., & McComas, K. K. (2009). The contributions of science and mathematics to STEM education: A view from beyond the disciplines of technology and engineering. In International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (Ed.), The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering (pp. 26-35). Reston, VA: Editor.
McMullin, K. (2014). Identifying perceptions that contribute to the development of successful project lead the way pre-engineering programs in Utah. Journal of Technology Education, 26(1), 22-46.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71-85. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x
Merrill, C., Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J., Westrick, M., & Zeng, Y. (2009). Delivering core engineering concepts to secondary level students. Journal of Technology Education, 20(1), 48- 64.
Moore, T. J., Miller, R. L., Lesh, R. A., Stohlmann, M. S., & Kim, Y. R. (2013). Modeling in engineering: The role of representational fluency in students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 141-178. doi:10.1002/jee.20004
Morrison, J., & Bartlett, R. (2009). STEM as curriculum: An experiential approach. Education Week, 23, 28-31.
Moye, J. J., Dugger, W. E., & Starkweather, K. N. (2012). The status of technology and engineering education in the United States: A fourth report of the findings from the States (2011-12). Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(8), 25-31.
Moye, J. J., Dugger, W. E., & Starkweather, K. N. (2014). “Learning by doing” research introduction. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 74(1), 24-27.
National Academy of Engineering, & National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Governors Association. (2007). Building a science, technology, engineering and math agenda. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0702INNOVATION STEM.PDF
National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2013). STEM attribute implementation rubric: High school. Retrieved from https://www.ncsmt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/STEMAttri butesRubric_HIGH_v4_Aug2013_v1.pdf
Ortiz, A. M. (2015). Examining students’ proportional reasoning strategy levels as evidence of the impact of an integrated LEGO robotics and mathematics learning experience. Journal of Technology Education, 26(2), 46-69.
Pinelli, T. E., & Haynie, W. J., III. (2010). A case for the nationwide inclusion of engineering in the K-12 curriculum via technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 21(2), 52-68.
Pitt, J. (2009). Blurring the boundaries-STEM education and education for sustainable development. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(1), 37-48.
Project Lead The Way. (2014). Our programs. Retrieved from https://www.pltw.org/our-programs
Ritz, J. M., & Fan, S.-C. (2015). STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 429-451. doi:10.1007/ s10798-014-9290-z
Roberts, A., & Cantu, D. (2012, June). Applying STEM instructional strategies to design and technology curriculum. Paper presented at the PATT 26 Conference, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rosenthal, D. B. (1989). Two approaches to STS education. Science Education, 73(5), 581-589. doi:10.1002/sce.3730730506
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
Schnittka, C. G., & Bell, R. L. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1861-1887. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.529177
Science Foundation Arizona. (2012). The STEM immersion matrix for schools and districts. Retrieved from http://www.paulofreireschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/STEM_Matrix. pdf
Silk, E. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2008, January). Core concepts in engineering as a basis for understanding and improving K-12 engineering education in the United States. Paper presented at the National Academy of Engineering/National Research Council workshop on K-12 Engineering Education, Washington, DC.
Sorenson, B. (2010). Alaska S.T.E.M.: Education and the economy report on the need for improved science, technology, engineering and mathematics education in Alaska. Retrieved from http:// www.jedc.org/forms/STEMEducationJEDCFinal.pdf
Toulmin, C., & Groome, M. (2007). Building a science, technology, engineering, and math agenda. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED496324)
Wells, J. G. (2013). Integrative STEM education at Virginia Tech: Graduate preparation for tomorrow’s leaders. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 72(5), 28-35.
Wendell, K. B., & Rogers, C. B. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513-540. doi:10.1002/jee.20026
Wicklein, R. C., & Schell, J. W. (1995). Case studies of multidisciplinary approaches to integrating mathematics, science and technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 6(2), 59-76.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Williams, P. J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 26-35.
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12-19. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x

中文APA引文格式	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。doi:10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(2).06
APA Format	Fan, S.-C., & Yu, K.-C. (2016). Core Value and Implementation of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Curriculum in Technology Education. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 61(2), 153-183. doi:10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(2).06

Journal directory listing - Volume 61 (2016) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【61(2)】June (Special Issue: Teacher Education: Reflection, Effect, and Prospect)

Top

Core Value and Implementation of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Curriculum in Technology Education Author: Szu-Chun Fan(Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development, National Taiwan Normal University), Kuang-Chao Yu (Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development, National Taiwan Normal University)

Vol.&No.：Vol. 61, No. 2
Date：June 2016
Pages：153-183
DOI：10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(2).06

Abstract：

The integrative science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curriculum has become the primary focus of American education reform, as well as a new curriculum development trend in some developed countries in recent years. This study sought to develop a holistic understanding of the core value of the STEM curriculum and its implementation regarding American technology education. This study employed a qualitative in-depth interview method to explore and describe the educational philosophy and core value, curriculum design models, and instructional approaches involved in implementing the STEM curriculum. Eleven technology education experts from the United States were interviewed individually. The results are summarized as follows: (1) From the perspective of American technology education, the STEM curriculum is an integrative teaching and learning approach. (2) The core value of the STEM curriculum is to provide a balance between hands-on learning and minds-on learning. (3) Technological and engineering concerns should be the driving force of STEM-based projects; specifically, “engineering design” should be the foundation, and “science inquiry” and “mathematics analysis” should be the key capabilities for integrating and applying knowledge. From the results, three recommendations are offered for Taiwanese technology education: (1) The inclusion of “design and make” in the Taiwanese technology education curriculum should be considered as the major content for developing students’ problem-solving abilities, whereas “engineering design” should be the core content used in high school to develop students’ problem-solving abilities with STEM knowledge; (2) Technology education should provide students with more learning experiences in design, inquiry, analysis, testing, and evaluation; (3) The key to successfully implementing the STEM curriculum is to equip technology teachers with an understanding of the curriculum and the involved teaching approaches.

Keywords：STEM curriculum, technology education, curriculum design

本網站獲「科技部人文社會科學研究中心」補助

地址：臺北市大安區和平東路一段162號國立臺灣師範大學圖書館出版中心

電話：(02)7749-5279

CONTRIBUTORSNOTICE

期刊目錄列表 - 61卷(2016) - 【教育科學研究期刊】61(2)六月刊（本期專題：師資培育：檢討、成效與前瞻） 回上一頁

科技教育融入STEM課程的核心價值與實踐 作者:范斯淳(國立臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系)、游光昭(國立臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系)

Journal directory listing - Volume 61 (2016) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【61(2)】June (Special Issue: Teacher Education: Reflection, Effect, and Prospect) Top

CONTRIBUTORS
NOTICE

期刊目錄列表 - 61卷(2016) - 【教育科學研究期刊】61(2)六月刊（本期專題：師資培育：檢討、成效與前瞻）

回上一頁

科技教育融入STEM課程的核心價值與實踐作者:范斯淳(國立臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系)、游光昭(國立臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系)

Journal directory listing - Volume 61 (2016) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【61(2)】June (Special Issue: Teacher Education: Reflection, Effect, and Prospect)

Top