查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- Exploring University Students' Group and Individual Socioscientific Decision Making with Web-Based Instruction
- 高中學生決策能力與氣候變遷調適素養改變之教學研究
- 社會性科學議題線上教學模組對高中生多元面向決策的影響
- 提問鷹架設計對學生社會性科學議題決策能力表現的影響
- 社會性科學議題決策學習模組的成效
- 高中生在社會性科學議題決策中的反思與評估
- 教育人員如何培養決策能力
- 決策能力是行政改革的重點
- 以護理人員角度,評價護理長決策能力
- 論證教學模式之建構及其運用於環境倫理相關研究之分析:以博碩士論文為例
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | Exploring University Students' Group and Individual Socioscientific Decision Making with Web-Based Instruction=探討大學生在社會性科學議題情境中個人與集體決策能力之展現 |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 方素琦; 許瑛玿; | 書刊名 | 科學教育學刊 |
卷期 | 25:4 2017.12[民106.12] |
頁次 | 頁391-412 |
分類號 | 303 |
關鍵詞 | 決策能力; 社會性科學議題; 線上學習環境; Decision making; Socioscientific issues; Web-based learning environments; |
語文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 本研究根據決策框架發展以水資源為主題的線上教學模組以培養大學生社會性科學議題個人和集體決策能力。本研旨在探究並比較大學生在社會性科學議題中「個人」與「小組」層次之間多面向思考以及應用決策策略的異同。學生個別完成水資源線上教學模組,根據教學情境中提供的資料進行思考判斷,並決定一個合適的地點建水庫。課堂中學生先分組進行討論,最後需達成共識完成一個集體的決策。本研究中社會性科學議題多面向思考依據SEE-SEP架構進行質性分析,決策能力則依文獻分成不同精熟程度。研究發現,學生在小組討論中較常使用道德方面的論述並連結個人的經驗於論點中。部分學生進行個別決策時可展現較高層次的決策能力。然而,小組集體決策時缺乏系統性優缺點比較,也未使用較高層次的決策方法。本研究結果所指出小組決策過程中的不足恰反應了教學引導在提升小組決策能力的重要性。建議未來社會性科學議題教學可提供小組進行討論和集體決策的結構性教學框架,以提升學生集體決策能力與決策品質。 |
英文摘要 | In this study, we designed a web-based learning environment about water resources to support students' socioscientific decision making. The purposes of the study were to analyze and compare undergraduate students' interdisciplinary thinking and decision making at the individual and collective levels. Individual students first completed the web-based learning unit at home, in which they needed to decide on a suitable location for building a dam. Then, they worked in groups, discussing, debating, and negotiating to reach a group decision. Individual interdisciplinary thinking and decision making were recorded by the web-based platform. Group discussions were audio- and video-taped. Interdisciplinary thinking was analyzed qualitatively based on the SEE-SEP framework. Decision-making approaches were examined and categorized into different proficiency levels. The results show that, compared to individual decision making, the students used more moral or ethical considerations and made more links to personal experiences when engaged in group discussion. Despite wider aspects being considered at the group level, some facets such as their beliefs, values, and experiences regarding science were not adopted in the arguments at either the individual or the group level. Although a few students were able to use compensatory strategies when making individual decisions, none of the groups employed compensatory strategies to reach a group decision. The comparison between individual and collective levels manifests that group discussions can facilitate interdisciplinary thinking. The deficiencies in the group decision making identified in the study such as lack of deep reflection and not using a refined decision-making strategy underscore the need to provide scaffolds for collective decision making. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。