師大學報 - 教育科學研究期刊 - 期刊目錄列表 - 67卷(2022) - 【教育科學研究期刊】67(4)十二月刊

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》「社會情緒學習｣專題徵稿(截稿日至2024/10/31) 《教育科學研究期刊》「高齡教育」專題徵稿(截稿日至2024/12/31) 《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)

期刊目錄列表 - 67卷(2022) - 【教育科學研究期刊】67(4)十二月刊

回上一頁

探討科學探究文創工作坊提升高中職學生科學探究自我效能之差異與預測力作者:高雄醫學大學校務研究暨企劃辦公室魯盈讌、國立中山大學西灣學院林煥祥、國立臺灣師範大學數學系林福來、高雄醫學大學人文與藝術教育中心洪瑞兒

卷期：67卷第4期
日期：2022年12月
頁碼：177-219
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202212_67(4).0006

摘要：
本研究目的在探討高中職學生參與科學探究文創工作坊後，科學探究自我效能之差異性與中介效果表現。科學探究文創工作坊於臺灣北、中、南三區辦理，藉以培養高中職學生對於自然科學具備好奇心與想像力，並能用文字、影像、漫畫表達出科學探究的創作能力。科學探究文創工作坊包含兩階段課程，第一階段為2小時「科學探究能力培養課程」，第二階段為3小時「科學探究文創實作課程」。共計有480位高中職學生參與本次工作坊，並於課程結束後填寫信、效度良好的「科學探究自我效能問卷」線上版。本研究發現：一、南區高中職學生的科學探究自我效能顯著高於中區學生；二、男學生科學探究自我效能顯著高於女學生；三、主動參與工作坊之高中職學生的科學探究自我效能顯著高於其他被動參與的學生；四、高中職學生的科學探究自我效能總分與「探究力」以及「科學表現」分向度有高度顯著正關聯；五、高中職學生之「參與度」與「興趣好奇」對於「探究力」及「科學表現」具有顯著的預測力。本研究為辦理科學探究文創工作坊之初探，未來將根據研究結果作為規劃非制式科學探究課程及相關研究之參考。

關鍵詞：科學探究文創工作坊、科學探究自我效能、高中職學生、結構方程模式、臺灣

《詳全文》

參考文獻：

何仕仁、黃台珠、吳裕益（2007）。科學自我效能量表之發展。科學教育學刊，15（6），613-626。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2007.1506.01【Ho, S.-J., Huang, I. T.-C., & Wu, Y.-Y. (2007). Development of the science self-efficacy inventory. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 613-626. https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2007.1506.01】
李文獻、林美君、張俊彥、賴信志、林慧敏（2020）。運用數位科技於戶外教育場域之科學繪本教學設計—從教學者觀點探討。科學教育月刊，428，11-31。https://doi.org/10.6216/SEM.202005_(428).0002【Lee, W.-S., Lin, M.-C., Chang, C.-Y., Lai, H.-C., & Lin, H.-M. (2020). Design of science picture books for the application of digital technology in outdoor education: The viewpoint from educators. Science Education Monthly, 428, 11-31. https://doi.org/10.6216/SEM.202005_(428).0002】
林小慧、郭哲宇、吳心楷（2021）。學生學習投入、好奇心、教師集體層級變項與科學探究能力的關係：跨層級調節式中介效果之探討。教育科學研究期刊，66（2），75-110。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202106_66(2).0003【Lin, H.-H., Kuo, C.-Y., & Wu, H.-K. (2021). Relationship among engagement and curiosity of individual level variables of students, group level variables of teachers, and scientific inquiry abilities: Conference of cross-level moderated mediation. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 66(2), 75-110. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202106_66(2).0003】
林煥祥、洪瑞兒、洪振方（2007）。智育理念與實踐。載於教育部（主編），德智體群美五育理念與實踐（頁55-104）。教育部。【Lin, H.-S., Hong, Z.-R., & Hung, J.-F. (2007). Intellectual education concept and practice. In Ministry of Education (Ed.), Concepts and practices of moral, intellectual, physical, group, and aesthetic education (pp. 55-104). Ministry of Education.】
洪瑞兒、王薪惠、魯盈讌（2017）。學生問卷分析結果。載於佘曉清、林煥祥（主編），PISA 2015台灣學生的表現（頁201-285）。心理。【Hong, Z.-R., Wang, H.-H., & Lu, Y.-Y. (2017). Student questionnaire analysis results. In H.-C. She & H.-S. Lin (Eds.), Performance of Taiwanese students at PISA 2015 (pp. 201-285). Psychological.】

» 展開更多

何仕仁、黃台珠、吳裕益（2007）。科學自我效能量表之發展。科學教育學刊，15（6），613-626。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2007.1506.01【Ho, S.-J., Huang, I. T.-C., & Wu, Y.-Y. (2007). Development of the science self-efficacy inventory. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 613-626. https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2007.1506.01】
李文獻、林美君、張俊彥、賴信志、林慧敏（2020）。運用數位科技於戶外教育場域之科學繪本教學設計—從教學者觀點探討。科學教育月刊，428，11-31。https://doi.org/10.6216/SEM.202005_(428).0002【Lee, W.-S., Lin, M.-C., Chang, C.-Y., Lai, H.-C., & Lin, H.-M. (2020). Design of science picture books for the application of digital technology in outdoor education: The viewpoint from educators. Science Education Monthly, 428, 11-31. https://doi.org/10.6216/SEM.202005_(428).0002】
林小慧、郭哲宇、吳心楷（2021）。學生學習投入、好奇心、教師集體層級變項與科學探究能力的關係：跨層級調節式中介效果之探討。教育科學研究期刊，66（2），75-110。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202106_66(2).0003【Lin, H.-H., Kuo, C.-Y., & Wu, H.-K. (2021). Relationship among engagement and curiosity of individual level variables of students, group level variables of teachers, and scientific inquiry abilities: Conference of cross-level moderated mediation. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 66(2), 75-110. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202106_66(2).0003】
林煥祥、洪瑞兒、洪振方（2007）。智育理念與實踐。載於教育部（主編），德智體群美五育理念與實踐（頁55-104）。教育部。【Lin, H.-S., Hong, Z.-R., & Hung, J.-F. (2007). Intellectual education concept and practice. In Ministry of Education (Ed.), Concepts and practices of moral, intellectual, physical, group, and aesthetic education (pp. 55-104). Ministry of Education.】
洪瑞兒、王薪惠、魯盈讌（2017）。學生問卷分析結果。載於佘曉清、林煥祥（主編），PISA 2015台灣學生的表現（頁201-285）。心理。【Hong, Z.-R., Wang, H.-H., & Lu, Y.-Y. (2017). Student questionnaire analysis results. In H.-C. She & H.-S. Lin (Eds.), Performance of Taiwanese students at PISA 2015 (pp. 201-285). Psychological.】
洪振方（2003）。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。高雄師大學報，15，641-662。【Hung, J.-F. (2003). The historical review of inquiry teaching and preliminary exploration of creative inquiry model. Kaohsiung Normal University Journal, 15, 641-662.】
洪榮昭、王志美、葉貞妮、吳鳳姝（2020）。遊戲自我效能、遊戲興趣、認知負荷與地理桌遊的遊玩自信心提升之相關研究。教育科學研究期刊，65（3），225-250。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202009_65(3).0008【Hong, J.-C., Wang, C.-M., Ye, J.-N., & Wu, F.-S. (2020). The relationship among gameplay self-efficacy, gameplay interest, cognitive load, and self-confidence enhancement in geography board games. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 65(3), 225-250. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202009_65(3).0008】
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。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(2).06【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. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(2).06】
張仁和、陳學志、徐芝君、林耀南（2009）。高中職創意競賽之團隊歷程研究─成員歧異度與團隊氣氛對團隊創造力的影響。教育與心理研究，32（4），73-97。【Chang, J.-H., Chen, H.-C., Hsu, C.-C., & Lin, Y.-N. (2009). A study of team creativity process of high school students in Taiwan－The impact of the team climate and team diversity on team creativity. Journal of Education & Psychology, 32(4), 73-97.】
張碧如（2013）。臺灣南部對另類教育的需求初探。教育理論與實踐學刊，28，33-53。https://doi.org/10.7038/JETP.201312_(28).0002【Chang, B.-R. (2013). The need of alternative education in the south of Taiwan. Journal of Educational Theory and Practice, 28, 33-53. https://doi.org/10.7038/JETP.201312_(28).0002】
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%95%99%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81%E7%B8%BD%E7%B6%B1.pdf【Ministry of Education. (2014). General guidelines of curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education. https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%95%99%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81%E7%B8%BD%E7%B6%B1.pdf】
教育部（2010）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要：自然與生活科技學習領域（二版）。作者。【Ministry of Education. (2010). National primary and secondary school nine-year consistent curriculum outline: Nature and technology learning areas (2nd ed.). Author.】
教育部（2021）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱（修訂版）。https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/Website/11/WebContent/35922/RFile/35922/96144.pdf【Ministry of Education. (2021). General guidelines of curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education (revised ed.). https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/Website/11/WebContent/35922/RFile/35922/96144.pdf】
靳知勤（2007）。科學教育應如何提升學生的科學素養─台灣學術精英的看法。科學教育學刊，15（6），627-646。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2007.1506.02【Chin, C.-C. (2007). A reflection on the science education of Taiwan-The voice from the elites in Taiwan. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 627-646. https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2007.1506.02】
黃芳銘（2009）。結構方程模式理論與應用（五版）。五南。【Hwang, F.-M. (2009). Structural equation modeling theory and applications (5th ed.). Wu-Nan.】
鄭瑞洲、洪振方、黃台珠（2011）。情境興趣─制式與非正式課程科學學習的交會點。科學教學月刊，340，2-10。https://doi.org/10.6216/SEM.201107_(340).0001【Cheng, J.-C., Hung, J.-F., & Huang, T.-C. (2011). Situational interests: Intersection point of scientific learning in formal and informal courses. Science Education Monthly, 340, 2-10. https://doi.org/10.6216/SEM.201107_(340).0001】
蔡執仲、段曉林（2005）。探究式實驗教學對國二學生理化學習動機之影響。科學教育學刊，13（3），289-315。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2005.1303.03【Tsai, C.-C., & Tuan, H.-L. (2005). The influence of inquiry-based laboratory teaching on 8th graders’ motivation toward learning physical science. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 289-315. https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2005.1303.03】
蔡執仲、段曉林、靳知勤（2007）。巢狀探究教學模式對國二學生理化學習動機影響之探討。科學教育學刊，15（2），119-144。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.200907.0129【Tsai, C.-C., Tuan, H.-L., & Chin, C.-C. (2007). Investigating the 8th graders’ changes of perception of teachers’ communication behavior of nested inquiry-based instruction. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 15(2), 119-144. https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.200907.0129】
Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545-561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545
Allen, S., & Peterman, K. (2019). Evaluating informal STEM education: Issues and challenges in context. In A. C. Fu, A. Kannan, & R. J. Shavelson (Eds.), Evaluation in informal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education (pp. 17-33). American Evaluation Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20354
Andrew, S. (1998). Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27(3), 596-603. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00550.x
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 16(1), 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 589-595. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022070
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
Barmby, P., Kind, P. M., & Jones, K. (2008). Examining changing attitudes in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1075-1093. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701344966
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Why flipped classrooms are here to stay. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2012/06/12/fp_bergmann_sams.html?tkn=WPCC1Rxu4%2FbCFsj3iEU3%2Bqk97aMS3xc0jkgq&cmp=clp-sb-edtech
Bischoff, P. J., Castendyk, D., Gallagher, H., Schaumloffel, J., & Labroo, S. (2008). A science summer camp as an effective way to recruit high school students to major in the physical sciences and science education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 3(3),131-141.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school science. Journal of women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(4), 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v7.i4.10
Chen, H.-T., Wang, H.-H., Lu, Y.-Y., Lin, H.-S., & Hong, Z. R. (2016). Using a modified argument-driven inquiry to promote elementary school students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 170-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1134849
Chen, H.-T., Wang, H.-H., Lu, Y.-Y., & Hong, Z.-R. (2019). Bridging the gender gap of children’s engagement in learning science and argumentation through a modified argument-driven inquiry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(4), 635-655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9896-9
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & sons.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conner, L. D. C., & Danielson, J. (2016). Scientist role models in the classroom: How important is gender matching? International Journal of Science Education, 38(15), 2414-2430. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1246780
Crane, N., Zusho, A., Ding, Y., & Cancelli, A. (2017). Domain-specific metacognitive calibration in children with learning disabilities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 50, 72-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.09.006
D’Mello, S. (2013). A selective meta-analysis on the relative incidence of discrete affective states during learning with technology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1082-1099. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032674
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2010). The 95 percent solution. American Scientist, 98(6), 486-493. https://doi.org/10.1511/2010.87.486
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131). Springer.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Gettings, M. (2016). Putting it all together: STEAM, PBL, scientific method, and the studio habits of mind. Art Education, 69(4), 10-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1176472
Ghanbari, S. (2015). Learning across disciplines: A collective case study of two university programs that integrate the arts with STEM. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 16(7), 1-21.
Godding, P. R., & Glasgow, R. E. (1985). Self-efficacy and outcome expectations as predictors of controlled smoking status. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9(5), 583-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173011
Hajian, S. (2019). Transfer of learning and teaching: A review of transfer theories and effective instructional practices. IAFOR Journal of Education, 7(1), 93-111. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.7.1.06
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 191-209. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016667621114
Hong, Z.-R. (2010). Effects of a collaborative science intervention on high achieving students’ learning anxiety and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 1971-1988. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903229304
Hong, Z.-R., Lin, H.-S., & McCarthy Veach, P. (2008). Effects of an extracurricular science intervention on science performance, self-worth, social skills, and sexist attitudes of Taiwanese adolescents from single-parent families. Sex Roles, 59(7-8), 555-567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9453-z
Hong, Z.-R., & Lin, H.-S. (2013). Boys’ and girls’ involvement in science learning and their self-efficacy in Taiwan. International Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 272-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.628673
Hong, Z.-R., Lin, H.-S., Wang, H.-H., Chen, H.-T., & Yang, K.-K. (2013). Promoting and scaffolding elementary school students’ attitudes toward science and argumentation through a science and society intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1625-1648. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.734935
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hunter-Doniger, T. (2018). Art infusion: Ideal conditions for STEAM. Art Education, 71(2), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2018.1414534
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Kaplan-Sayı, A. (2017). Students’ views about enriched summer camp for high school students. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7161-7177. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/79042
Ketelhut, D. J. (2010). Assessing gaming, computer and scientific inquiry self-efficacy in a virtual environment. In L. Annetta & S. C. Bronack (Eds.), Serious educational game assessment: Practical methods and models for educational games, simulations and virtual worlds (pp. 1-18). Sense.
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631-645. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1023
Kuo, Y. R., Tuan, H. L., & Chin, C. C. (2019). Examining low and non-low achievers’ motivation towards science learning under inquiry-based instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 845-862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9908-9
Kupermintz, H. (2002). Affective and conative factors as aptitude resources in high school science achievement. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326977EA0802_03
Lamb, R. L., Vallett, D., & Annetta, L. (2014). Development of a short-form measure of science and technology self-efficacy using Rasch analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(5), 641-657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9491-y
Land, M. H. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 547-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317
Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184-196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.184
Liao, C. (2016). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to STEAM education. Art Education, 69(6), 44-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1224873
Lin, H.-S., Lawrenz, F., Lin, S.-F., & Hong, Z.-R. (2013). Relationships among affective factors and preferred engagement in science related activities. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 941-954. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511429412
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308223
Lin, T.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2018). Differentiating the sources of Taiwanese high school students’ multidimensional science learning self-efficacy: An examination of gender differences. Research in Science Education, 48(3), 575-596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9579-x
Liu, A. S., & Schunn, C. D. (2020). Predicting pathways to optional summer science experiences by socioeconomic status and the impact on science attitudes and skills. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00247-y
Liu, S.-J., Zhang, J., Pan, J.-S., & Weng, C.-J. (2018). A novel information embedding and recovering method for QR code based on module subdivision. Journal of Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing, 9(2), 515-522.
Lloyd, R., Neilson, R., King, S., & Dyball, M. (2012). Review of informal science learning. Wellcome Trust.
Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: An introduction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research and application (pp. 3-33). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6868-5_1
Martin-Hansen, L. M. (2002). Defining inquiry Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 41, 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004
Meissner, B., & Bogner, F. (2013). Towards cognitive load theory as guideline for instructional design in science education. World Journal of Education, 3(2), 24-37. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v3n2p24
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 3-53. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1019
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). PISA 2015 results in focus. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf
Park, B., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2014). Cognitive and affective processes in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 125-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.005
Rahmat, I., & Chanunan, S. (2018). Open inquiry in facilitating metacognitive skills on high school biology learning: An inquiry on low and high academic ability. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 593-606. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11437a
Ren, F., Li, X., Zhang, H., & Wang, L. (2012). Progression of Chinese students’ creative imagination from elementary through high school. International Journal of Science Education, 34(13), 2043-2059. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.709334
Rennie, L. J. (2014). Learning science outside of school. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 120-144). Routledge.
Renninger, K. A. (2017). Interest and motivation in informal science learning. National Research Council.
Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., Cavalcanti, M., Schroeder, D. C., Delaney, A., Putnam, L., & Cremeans, C. (2018). Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0133-4
Rolling, J. H., Jr. (2016). Reinventing the STEAM engine for art + design education. Art Education, 69(4), 4-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1176848
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). University of Rochester Press.
Schmidt, J. A., Kafkas, S. S., Maier, K. S., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. Z. (2019). Why are we learning this? Using mixed methods to understand teachers’ relevance statements and how they shape middle school students’ perceptions of science utility. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57, 9-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.08.005
Silverman, I., & Shulman, A. D. (1970). A conceptual model of artifact in attitude change studies. Sociometry, 33(1), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786274
So, W. W. M., Chen, Y., & Wan, Z. H. (2019). Multimedia e-learning and self-regulated science learning: A study of primary school learners’ experiences and perceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(5), 508-522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09782-y
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014) The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria.
Trujillo, G., & Tanner, K. D. (2014). Considering the role of affect in learning: Monitoring students’ self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and science identity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0241
Tsai, P.-Y., Chen, S., Chang, H.-P., & Chang, W.-H. (2013). Effects of prompting critical reading of science news on seventh graders’ cognitive achievement. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8(1), 85-107.
Upton, G., & Cook, I. (2008). A dictionary of statistics. Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wang, H.-H., Lin, H.-S., Chen, Y.-C., Pan, Y.-T., & Hong, Z.-R. (2021). Modeling relationships between students’ inquiry-related learning activities and their choice of future STEM career. International Journal of Science Education, 43(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1860266
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process. Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203-215. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543042002203
Yang, K.-K., Lee, L., Hong, Z.-R., & Lin, H.-S. (2016). The investigation of effective strategies for developing creative science thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), 2133-2151. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1230685
Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 45(9), 1036-1058. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20195
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016

中文APA引文格式	魯盈讌、林煥祥、林福來、洪瑞兒（2022）。探討科學探究文創工作坊提升高中職學生科學探究自我效能之差異與預測力。教育科學研究期刊，67（4），177-219。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202212_67(4).0006
APA Format	Lu, Y.-Y., Lin, H.-S., Lin, F.-L., & Hong, Z.-R. (2022). Exploring the Effectiveness of a Scientific Inquiry Creative Workshop in Promoting Senior and Vocational High School Students’ Scientific Inquiry Self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 67(4), 177-219. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202212_67(4).0006

Journal directory listing - Volume 67 (2022) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【67(4)】December

Top

Exploring the Effectiveness of a Scientific Inquiry Creative Workshop in Promoting Senior and Vocational High School Students’ Scientific Inquiry Self-efficacy Author: Ying-Yan Lu (Office of Institutional Research & Planning, Kaohsiung Medical University), Huann-Shyang Lin (Center for General Education, National Sun Yat-sen University), Fou-Lai Lin (Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University) , Zuway-R Hong (Center for General Education, Kaohsiung Medical University)

Vol.&No.：Vol. 67, No. 4
Date：December 2022
Pages：177-219
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202212_67(4).0006

Abstract：
Background and Purpose
The Ministry of Education in Taiwan officially launched the 12-year National Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines in 2019. The core purpose of the 12-year national education curriculum is to cultivate people-oriented lifelong learners. Specifically, learning is no longer limited by subject knowledge and skills; instead, it should cultivate student competency to solve problems, conduct inquiries, analyze data, and critically examine findings to solve problems and achieve self-growth (Ministry of Education, 2021). To cultivate student scientific inquiry literacy, this study hosted a 1-day scientific inquiry creative workshop (SICW) in northern, central, and southern Taiwan on October 17 and 18, 2020. The main purposes of this study were to improve student scientific inquiry self-efficacy through the SICW, to determine the differential performance of students with different backgrounds, and to explore the key factors related to student scientific inquiry self-efficacy.
Literature Review
The PISA 2015 results revealed no significant differences in the scientific self-efficacy of 15-year-old male and female students in Taiwan (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2015). However, clear gender differences were noted in the choice of higher education academic fields between male and female students (Lin & Tsai, 2018). Accordingly, gender influences student scientific inquiry self-efficacy. In addition, Chang (2013) reported that the uneven distribution of educational resources between the north and the south of Taiwan also exerts a considerable effect on student learning motivation and learning self-efficacy. Therefore, to understand the scientific inquiry self-efficacy of students with different background variables after participating in the SICW, we proposed the following research hypothesis (H1): Significant regional, gender, and motivation differences exist in student scientific inquiry self-efficacy after participating in the SICW.
Studies on scientific self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Trujillo & Tanner, 2014) have reported that students’ beliefs about their ability to succeed in science activities significantly affect their willingness to engage in science-related activities. In addition, Kupermintz (2002) observed that students’ scientific inquiry self-efficacy was significantly correlated with their interest in science learning and academic performance in middle school, high school, and university. Accordingly, to understand the factors affecting student scientific inquiry self-efficacy after participating in the SICW, we proposed the following research hypothesis (H2): Significant correlations exist between gender, learning motivation, and scientific inquiry self-efficacy variables.
In Taiwan, Hong et al. (2020) found that students’ high learning motivation exerted a significant mediating effect on the relationships between learning interest and scientific inquiry self-efficacy. Furthermore, Hong and Lin (2013) indicated that the scientific self-efficacy scores of senior and vocational high school male students were significantly higher than those of female students, especially for male students with a high level of interest in scientific activities. This thus implies that gender would have a mediating effect on student scientific inquiry self-efficacy. Accordingly, we proposed the following hypothesis (H3): Learning motivations and gender have a significant mediating effect on the relationship between science participation and curiosity as a predictor of scientific inquiry ability and scientific performance.
Methods
The SICW was a 1-day workshop divided into two parts. The first part involved a Scientific Inquiry Ability Training course, and the second part involved a Scientific Inquiry Creative Practice course, consisting of science writing, science video production, and science comics drawing. The SICW was held in northern, central, and southern Taiwan, with a total of 480 senior and vocational high school students participating in it. All participating students completed a structured scientific inquiry self-efficacy questionnaire after the 1-day SICW. Regarding the data analysis process, this study first used multivariate analysis of variance to analyze the effects of region, gender, and learning motivation differences on student scientific inquiry self-efficacy. Subsequently, the Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient and structural equation modeling were used to explore the relationships between the variables related to student scientific inquiry self-efficacy.
Results
1. Students with different backgrounds exhibited significant differences in scientific inquiry self-efficacy after participating in the SICW.
(1) Students from southern Taiwan presented significantly higher scores on scientific inquiry self-efficacy than did those from central Taiwan.
(2) Male students exhibited significantly higher scientific inquiry self-efficacy than did female students.
(3) Actively engaged students had higher scientific inquiry self-efficacy than did their passively engaged counterparts.
2. The students’ total scientific inquiry self-efficacy score had a significant and positive correlation with their inquiry ability and scientific performance.
3. The students’ scientific engagement, scientific interest, and curiosity scores had significant predictive power on their inquiry ability and scientific performance.
4. The student gender and learning motivation exerted a mediating effect on their scientific inquiry self-efficacy.
Discussion and Suggestions
According to the theory proposed by Clark and Mayer (2016), when meaningful learning images are used in the learning process, students’ positive emotions toward learning and learning motivation are improved. The present study observed that combining the Scientific Inquiry Ability Training course with the Scientific Inquiry Creative Practice course in the SICW exerted a significant effect on secondary school students. The SICW also combined multiple strategies, such as cross-disciplinary scientific innovation themes, professional innovative teaching, and multimedia teaching, which could effectively improve learning motivation and scientific inquiry self-efficacy (Park et al., 2014).
This study has two essential findings: First, students’ scientific engagement and scientific interest and curiosity can significantly predict their inquiry ability and scientific performance. This study combined scientific inquiry theory with three different creative practice courses (science writing, science video production, and science comics drawing) to cultivate student scientific inquiry self-efficacy in a 1-day workshop (Falk & Dierking, 2010). The study findings demonstrate the educational value of the SICW and reveal the differences and relationships among participants’ scientific inquiry self-efficacy variables. Second, this study verified the mediating effect of gender and learning motivation on students’ inquiry ability and scientific performance. Accordingly, teachers should consider how to integrate the cross-domain STEAM curriculum design with effective teaching methods to eliminate gender differences and help those who have low learning motivation to improve their learning interest; this may influence their inquiry ability and scientific performance. In conclusion, the present study explored the effectiveness of an SICW in promoting senior and vocational high school students’ scientific inquiry self-efficacy. The study findings are expected to stimulate further discussion on informal science education and provide more beneficial empirical evidence to strengthen the development of student scientific inquiry self-efficacy.

Keywords：science inquiry creative workshop, scientific inquiry self-efficacy, senior and vocational high school students, structural equation modeling, Taiwan

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 - 67卷(2022) - 【教育科學研究期刊】67(4)十二月刊 回上一頁

Journal directory listing - Volume 67 (2022) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【67(4)】December Top

CONTRIBUTORS
NOTICE

期刊目錄列表 - 67卷(2022) - 【教育科學研究期刊】67(4)十二月刊

回上一頁

Journal directory listing - Volume 67 (2022) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【67(4)】December

Top