跨科概念教學模組的調整與成效評估

The Natural Science Learning Area Framework for the New 12-year Curriculum has been actualized in the School Year 108. The described learning content, suggested pedagogy and assessment modes for the cross-cutting concepts for junior high schools will be challenging for school teachers. The Natural Science Framework and the supplementary Curriculum Guide were officially provided to assist the teachers understand the ideal science curriculum, literacy-oriented teaching goals, rationale and content of cross-cutting concepts, and to support them enacting in their teaching settings. To make the curriculum reform promising, it is critical to facilitate teachers to unpack the Framework and the Guide, adapt the crosscutting concept instructional modules (CCIMs) to satisfy the school context and students’ needs, explore the process the teachers translate the official documents, examine the enactment of the modules, and investigate to what extend the students achieve the learning goals. In this project, we invite seed teachers with experiences in developing instructional modules to adapt, enact, and formatively evaluate the adapted instructional modules via conduct collaborative action researches. Secondly, we hosted workshops for other CCIMs committee science teachers to work with the seed teachers and to revise the adapted modules for their own use. We explored: (1) the process in which the teachers collaboratively adapt the CCIMs. (2) the features of the adapted and revised CCIMs. (3) the students’ patterns of cognitive preferences, as well as the quality of their artifacts from learning the enacted CCIMs. In the research, the seed teachers collaborated with the writers of the CCIMs in the Curriculum Guide. The seed teachers collaborate with more invited teachers to revise the adapted CCIMs via conducting collaborative action research. In terms of the effectiveness of the enacted CCIMs, students’ measures of cognitive preferences, were collected. The artifacts from students with various cognitive preference (i.e. infographics, essays, and/or reports) were collected and coded about how well the students use science content and argumentative thinking. Cross-checking with the classroom observation records and interviews by applying the constant comparative method, we conclude that the five CCIMs have potential to explore heterogenous students’learning performance, moreover, students would benefit with identifying and supporing their arguments with evidence.