本研究的目的在於了解國中教師資訊科技融入教學的情形，並探討教師教學信念、科技學科教學知識(Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, TPACK)和知識創新學習環境間的關係；同時並分析教師背景變項對TPACK表現造成的影響。 本研究的問題主要如下：(1)了解教師在不同背景變項下其TPACK表現是否有所不同？(2)探討教師的教學信念、TPACK和學生知識創新學習環境之間是否具有相關？(3)教師的教學信念是否對教師的TPACK表現具有預測力？(4)教師的TPACK表現是否對知識創新學習環境具有預測力？ 本研究改編外語教師TPCK調查研究問卷(Chai et al., 2011)和知識創新學習環境(Lin et al., 2014)之問卷，形成本研究資訊融入教學的問卷，對桃園市國中老師390位進行施測，統計方法上使用一般描述性統計、皮爾遜積差相關、單因子多變異數分析、多元迴歸分析以驗證假設問題。 研究發現如下：(1)教學年資較淺、任教術科教師、有使用教學平台及每周上網時間較長的教師在TPACK表現較佳。(2)學習者中心的教師信念、TPACK和知識創新學習環境之間具有顯著關係存在。(3)學習者中心的教學信念對TPACK的表現具最佳預測力。(4)教師的TPACK能力對知識創新學習環境也具預測力。本研究並根據上述研究發現提出相關的結論與建議以供教師或教育機關參考。 / The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship among technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), teaching belief, and knowledge building environment, in order to understand how teachers may integrate information technologies into their instruction. This study attempts to answer the following research questions: (1) what are some major demographic variables that may influence middle school teachers’ TPACK level? (2) How are teaching belief, TPACK level, and knowledge building environment related to one another? (3) Can teaching belief help predict middle-school teachers’ TPACK level? (4) Can higher TPACK level help teachers to cultivate more creative knowledge building environment? Data from 390 samples were obtained from middle school teachers in Taoyuan, Taiwan, through an adapted survey. The statistics employed for data analysis include descriptive statistics , Pearson's correlation analysis, one-way ANOVA, and multiple regression. The major findings were as follow：(1) Teachers who had less years of teaching experiences, or taught non-examination-oriented subjects, or had experiences of using teaching platforms or used Internet more often, tended to have higher TPACK level. (2)There were significant correlations among teaching belief, TPACK level, and knowledge building environment. (3)Student-centered teaching belief was found to predict teachers’ TPACK level. (4) Higher TPACK level was also found to predict teachers’ capacity to foster more creative knowledge building environment. Based on the findings, relevant conclusions and suggestions were also made for teachers and educational policy-makers.

本研究探討設計導向的知識翻新學習對師培生的學習有何影響，包括探討其學習結果與學習歷程，同時本研究也分析各學習分組間的差異。研究對象為修習教學媒體與操作課程之44位師培生，以小組為單位進行課程，每組4至5人，共分為10組，採個案研究法。 資料來源包括：(1)師培生三次教案設計；(2)師培生三次教案設計之組內討論；(3)師培生三次教案設計後同儕回饋。資料分析方式說明如下：其一、將三次教案設計根據改編的教案評量表進行教案品質評分，透過相依樣本無母數檢定，比較其成果是否有所改變。其二、根據Mishra和Koehler（2006）所提出之七項教學知識架構，將三次基於教案設計的小組討論及同儕回饋進行編碼，以了解各組想法及回饋中所包含的教學知識有何改變；並以想法類別編碼分析各組師培生討論之想法有何差異。其三、利用集群分析各學習小組，比較不同集群之間學習成果與學習歷程之異同，並藉由質性分析探討各小組如何討論及設計教案，並剖析差異原因。 主要研究結果如下：(1)師培生整體教案設計品質提升，其中又在教學創新及創意表現向度（Z= 2.87，p < .01）與教學架構向度（Z=2.55，p < .05）上有顯著成長。(2)在各組教案設計討論過程中，發現包含一項教學知識的想法數量有顯著減少趨勢（Z=-2.81，P<.01）；在各組收到的回饋中也發現，回饋包含兩項教學知識者於期末則有明顯成長趨勢（Z= 2.19，p < .05）。(3)利用集群分析將各組師培生教案設計所討論的想法進行分類，結果得到兩大集群，其一在認知及後設認知類型想法中產出較多，命名為想法高產出組；另一群則相反，命名為想法低產出組。此外研究還發現，想法高產出組在教案設計之創新及創意面向（t=2.33，p<.05）、教學媒體及科技面向（t=2.80，p<.05）顯著高於低想法產出組，也較低產出組能產出更多認知及後設認知類型討論想法。 綜上述而言，本研究發現設計導向的知識翻新學習歷程有助於師培生教學媒體教案設計之翻新，並提升師培生在討論及回饋中融合運用教學知識之能力。此外亦發現，能提出較多高階類型想法組別，其教案設計之創新程度、科技使用品質及給予他組回饋的表現上，相較之下也較佳。本研究建議教師在教學上應同時兼顧師培生討論數量及品質，鼓勵學生不斷提升討論的想法層次，並適時介入低產出組學生討論之中，協助學生不斷改進其教案設計的想法，以提升其教案設計所需的相關教學知識。 / The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of design-based knowledge building on pre-service teachers’ teaching knowledge. This research adopted a case study design. Participants were 44 undergraduate pre-service teachers who engaged in a course pertaining to the design of instructional media. They were divided into 10 learning groups. Data sources included: (1) pre-service teachers’ design of three lesson plans; (2) pre-service teachers’ discussion within groups; and (3) peer feedback after presentation of each group’s lesson plan. The process of data analysis is as follows: First, lesson plans were assessed by an evaluation form, and then analyzed by using nonparametric tests to see if there was any change in the design of lesson plans. Second, the three discussion and peer-feedback activities within each group were analyzed by open coding using two different coding schemes: “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge—TPACK” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), and quality of ideas. Third, using cluster analysis to divide 10 groups into different clusters, this study further compared students’ learning processes and outcomes between groups. The findings were as follows: (1) It was found that the design quality of lesson plans were enhanced, especially in terms of the innovative and creative teaching performance dimension (Z = 2.87, p <.01) and the design framework dimension (Z = 2.55, p <.05); (2) In the course of group discussion, teaching ideas that contained only one type of teaching knowledge (e.g., content knowledge) had decreased significantly (Z=-2.81，P<.01). Teaching feedback (received from other groups) regarding two types of teaching knowledge (e.g., pedagogical content knowledge) increased significantly (Z= 2.19，p < .05). (3) Using cluster analysis, this study classified 10 groups into 2 clusters based on groups’ discussion about teaching ideas. One cluster outperformed in both cognitive and meta-cognitive types of teaching ideas was named high-productive cluster; the other cluster was named less-productive cluster. High-productive cluster was superior to low-productive cluster in terms of the “Innovative and Creative Teaching” and “Instructional Media and Technology Use” dimensions for lesson plans, and in terms of the quality of feedback they provided to their peer groups. The main findings were as follows: (1) Design-based knowledge building helps pre-service teachers’ to design more innovatively their lesson plans and to enhance their teaching knowledge; (2) It was found that the groups who could work more creatively with ideas could also produce more innovative lesson plans, and were also more likely to give away quality feedback to other peer groups. Based on the findings, it is suggested that teachers should not just pay attention to the quantity of discussion posts, but also the quality of idea discussed. It is also important to encourage student to work innovatively and collaboratively with ideas during discussion. Teachers should also try to intervene and help provide necessary scaffolds to the low-productive groups so as to encourage them to continuously improve their teaching ideas.