淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-2101201317075700
中文論文名稱 教學設計人才培育之研究:實務工作者的觀點
英文論文名稱 A Study on the Preparation of Instructional Designers: the Perspective of Practitioners
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 教育科技學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Educational Technology
學年度 101
學期 1
出版年 102
研究生中文姓名 壽華民
研究生英文姓名 Hua-Ming Shou
電子信箱 127409@mail.tku.edu.tw
學號 698730164
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2013-01-08
論文頁數 192頁
口試委員 指導教授-高熏芳
委員-白亦方
委員-何俐安
中文關鍵字 教學設計  人才培育  助益程度 
英文關鍵字 instructional design  preparation  degree of usefulness 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學教育學
中文摘要 本研究旨在探討實務工作者對大學教學設計人才培育內容與方式之意見,針對淡江大學教育科技學系畢業校友進行調查,以分析培育內容包含在分析、設計、發展、實施、管理、評鑑、理論等7個面向,以及培育方式共13個項目對實務工作者之助益程度,並分析實務工作者個人背景因素與學習經驗對其所感知之助益程度是否會造成差異影響,以提供教學設計人才培育之規劃、實行與修正之建議。本研究採自編「教學設計人才培育」調查問卷進行調查,助益程度為實務工作者個人感知之受益情形,採李克特式6點量表計分,本問卷培育內容部分之信度α為.972,培育方式部分之信度α為.915。本研究共計發放問卷222份,回收有效問卷127份,有效問卷回收率57.21%。

研究結果顯示:第一,教學設計人才培育內容整體的助益程度平均值4.62,顯示助益程度良好,各構面之助益程度由高至低依序為:設計、分析、評鑑、理論、發展、管理與實施。第二,教學設計人才培育方式整體的助益程度平均值4.78,顯示助益程度良好,各項目依得分高低排序為一對一的師徒制學習、畢業專題、合作學習、工作室情境的學習、主題或專題研究、企業實習、案例教學或研討、密集寫作練習、參與學習社群、多元化的國際學習、服務學習、通識課程的修習與新生入學輔導。第三,不同個人背景之實務工作者在性別、年齡、學制、就業情形、職位層級、產業類別、年資與工作內容等變項上對於培育內容或方式之助益程度皆有不同程度之顯著差異。

本研究對教學設計人才培育提出實務上的建議:
1.持續精進各項人才培育內容,並特別加強實施面向的教學與學習。
2.審視整體課程規劃,藉由不同學制培育不同層級的人才。
3.針對不同就業取向的學生加強所需之培育內容。
4.針對大學部與碩士班的不同特性,實施專業與高影響力的培育方式。
5.著重加強新生入學輔導,並幫助學生了解通識課程的目的。
6.加強實務融入課程的培育方式。
7.加強對即將畢業之學生的總結性學習與就業升學輔導。
8.加強人才培育的軟硬體設施、服務、人脈以及外部等各類資源提供。

本研究對未來研究的建議:
1.進行質化研究以獲得更深入且完整的資料。
2.國內教學設計相關系所可進行類似研究,作為人才培育的參考與修正依據。
3.擴大研究範圍至各校相關系所,以全面了解國內人才培育情形。
4.擴大研究對象至學生、教師、企業與公部門,從不同觀點了解人才培育需求。
5.進行長期的縱貫式調查以追蹤學習與就業情況。
6.運用迴歸與路徑分析建構方程式模型,以探究各項目之間的因果關係。
英文摘要 The purpose of this study is to know the degree of usefulness of the content and practices of the preparation of instructional designers through investigating the opinions of instructional design practitioners who graduated from the Department of Educational Technology at Tamkang University. 44 items of the content of the preparation are included in 7 dimensions: analysis, design, development, implementation, management, evaluation and theories; the practices of the preparation include 13 items. The differences of the background of the alumni are also analyzed. 222 questionnaires were sent to the alumni. There were 127 returned and the valid rate of return is 57.21. The reliability of the questionnaire is .972(the part of content) and .915(the part of practices) of Cronbach α.

The results of the research indicated: (1) The degree of usefulness of the content of preparation is 4.62, which means most of the items of the content are much more than helpful to the practitioners. Among 7 dimensions, the rankings of the degree of usefulness are design, analysis, evaluation, theories, development, management and implementation. (2) The degree of usefulness of the practices of preparation is 4.78, which means most of the items of the practices are much more than helpful to the practitioners. Among 13 items, the rankings of the degree of usefulness are apprenticeship, graduation project, collaborative learning, design studio, undergraduate research, internships, case study instruction, writing-intensive practices, learning communities, diversity and international learning, service learning, common intellectual courses, first-year guidance and assistance. (3) The degree of usefulness varied with different background of practitioners including gender, age, bachelor or master degree, employed or self-employed, basic or management level, industries, work experiences and job content.

Suggestions for the preparation of instructional designer were made as followings:
1.To continuously implement the items of the content and to enhance the dimension of implementation.
2.To re-examine the curriculum and to prepare practitioners of different levels through different programs.
3.To enhance the project management component of students who are willing to be digital instructional designers or managers, and to enhance the system view and content of evaluation and theories for students who are willing to begin an undertaking or work at home.
4.To implement Hi-impact Practices based on different characters of bachelor and master programs.
5.To enhance first-year guidance and assistance and to let students understand the purpose of common intellectual courses.
6.To enhance the practical courses.
7.To enhance the capstone courses and graduate counseling.
8.To enhance software and hardware facilities and service resources, and to develop alumni networks and external resources.

Suggestions for the future research were made as followings:
1.To collect deeper and more complete data through qualitative survey.
2.Other colleges or universities which have similar departments could do similar surveys based on this research.
3.To enlarge the research scope to other colleges and universities.
4.To investigate the opinions of students, teachers, industries and public departments and organizations.
5.To investigate the opinions of practitioners in different stages by using a longitudinal survey.
6.To build the model of causal relationship through regression and path analysis.
論文目次 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 9
第三節 名詞解釋 11
第四節 研究範圍與限制 14

第二章 文獻探討 17
第一節 教學設計的意涵與角色定位 17
第二節 教學設計的人才培育內容 30
第三節 教學設計的人才培育方式 46
第四節 國內外教學設計實務工作者與人才培育相關研究 54

第三章 研究方法與設計 63
第一節 研究架構 63
第二節 實施流程 67
第三節 研究對象與抽樣方法 69
第四節 研究工具之發展 74
第五節 資料處理 81

第四章 研究結果與討論 83
第一節 實務工作者個人背景與學習經驗分析 83
第二節 實務工作者對人才培育內容之助益程度的意見分析 98
第三節 實務工作者對人才培育方式之助益程度的意見分析 105
第四節 實務工作者個人背景變項對培育內容與方式之助益程度的差異比較 108
第五節 開放性問題分析 129

第五章 結論與建議 139
第一節 結論 139
第二節 建議 144

參考文獻 151
一、中文部分 151
二、英文部分 154

附錄一 「教學設計人才培育」調查問卷(初稿) 163
附錄二 「教學設計人才培育」調查問卷(專家意見整理) 167
附錄三 「教學設計人才培育」調查問卷(正式問卷) 175
附錄四 開放性問題分析整理 181


表次
表2-1-1 四種教學設計派典的設計者角色與客戶角色 25
表2-1-2 教學設計人才培育的潛在專業層級與派典 26
表2-1-3 教學設計與教育科技能力與標準 27
表2-2-1 依照ADDIE流程排列之一般教學設計程序 38
表2-2-2 教學設計的範疇 41
表2-2-3 教學設計的主要任務 41
表2-2-4 教學設計的理論範疇 43
表2-2-5 教學設計人才培育內容之構面與項目 44
表2-3-1 教學設計人才培育的方式與面向 53
表2-4-1 國內外相關實證研究整理 60
表3-3-1 淡江大學教育學院教育科技學系大學部修課領域規劃表 70
表3-3-2 抽樣、發放與回收數量統計表 73
表3-4-1 研究工具的構面與題目內容 74
表3-4-2 內容效度審查專家名單 77
表3-4-3 正式問卷第二、第三部分題號對照表 79
表3-4-4 教學設計人才培育問卷信度分析表 80
表4-1-1 研究對象個人背景統計表 87
表4-1-2 人才培育內容各構面平均有學習過人數統計表 90
表4-1-3 人才培育內容各構面平均未學習過人數與學制別交叉表 91
表4-1-4 人才培育內容各項目有學習過人數統計表 93
表4-1-5 人才培育方式各項目有學習過人數統計表 95
表4-1-6 人才培育方式平均未經歷過人數與學制別交叉表 96
表4-2-1 人才培育內容各構面助益程度描述統計表 99
表4-2-2 人才培育內容各項助益程度統計表 99
表4-3-1 人才培育方式各項目助益程度統計表 105
表4-4-1 不同性別對各構面差異分析摘要表 108
表4-4-2 不同性別對各項目差異分析摘要表 109
表4-4-3 性別與年齡別人數交叉對照表 109
表4-4-4 年齡對各部分與構面差異分析摘要表 110
表4-4-5 年齡對各項目變異數分析摘要表 111
表4-4-6 不同學制對各部分與構面差異分析摘要表 112
表4-4-7 不同學制對各項目分析摘要表 112
表4-4-8 就讀大學部與碩士班對各部分與構面差異分析摘要表 113
表4-4-9 就讀大學部與碩士班對各項目差異分析摘要表 114
表4-4-10 不同碩士班別對各部分與構面差異分析摘要表 115
表4-4-11 不同碩士班別對各部分與構面差異分析摘要表 116
表4-4-12 不同就業情形對各部分與構面差異分析摘要表 118
表4-4-13 不同就業情形對各項目差異分析摘要表 118
表4-4-14 職位層級對各構面差異分析摘要表 119
表4-4-15 職位層級對各構面差異分析摘要表 119
表4-4-16 產業類別對各構面差異分析摘要表 120
表4-4-17 產業類別對各項目差異分析摘要表 121
表4-4-18 年資對各構面差異分析摘要表 122
表4-4-19 年資對各構面差異分析摘要表 122
表4-4-20 工作內容對各構面差異分析摘要表 125
表4-4-21 工作內容對各項目差異分析摘要表 126
表4-5-1 課程規劃意見歸納與各項目人數 129
表4-5-2 教學實施意見歸納與各項目人數 131
表4-5-3 學生輔導意見歸納與各項目人數 132
表4-5-4 資源提供意見歸納與各項目人數 133

圖次
圖2-1-1 教育科技派典的演化與變遷 17
圖2-1-2 教學相關術語關係圖 18
圖2-1-3 角色本位設計 23
圖2-2-1 教學科技的範疇 31
圖2-2-2 教學科技的理論與範疇之間的關係 32
圖2-2-3 教學多系統設計觀 34
圖2-2-4 教學設計的流程模式 36
圖2-2-5 教學設計知識基礎範疇 40
圖2-4-1 數位內容教學設計師專業職能模式 59
圖3-1-1 本研究架構圖 64
圖3-2-1 本研究流程圖 68
圖3-3-1 教育學院教育科技學系職涯發展地圖 71
圖3-3-2 淡江教科系碩士班一般生課程學習地圖 72
圖3-3-3 淡江教科系碩士在職專班課程學習地圖 72
參考文獻 一、中文部分
王文科、王智弘(2010)。教育研究法。台北:五南。
行政院主計處(2011)。中華民國行業標準分類(第9次修訂)。2012年4月10日,取自http://www.stat.gov.tw/public/Attachment/14208472171.pdf
朱則剛(2000)。教育傳播與科技。台北:師大書苑。
何俐安、顧大維(2007)。國內外教育科技人才培育之目標與師資初探。教育研究月刊,155,19-31。
李信賢(2007)。數位內容教學設計師專業職能研究。未出版之碩士論文,淡江大學教育科技學系,新北市。
林育如(譯)(2009)。像設計大師一樣思考。台北:商周。(Millman, D., 2007)
計惠卿、鍾乾癸(2004)。數位學習專業人力培訓規劃之研究。教學科技與媒體,69,81-103。
夏林清等(譯)(2004)。反映的實踐者。台北:遠流。(Schon, D. A., 1983)
高熏芳、壽華民(2011)。教學設計美學元素初探。論文發表於2011臺灣教育研究學會國際學術研討會。高雄:中山大學。
高等教育評鑑中心(2009)。評鑑委員應具備的評鑑理念。2012年4月10日,取自http://www.heeact.edu.tw/public/Attachment/93215472491.pdf
高等教育評鑑中心(2010)。100年度大學校院校務評鑑實施計畫。2012年12月7日,取自http://www.heeact.edu.tw/public/Attachment/051111253046.doc
高等教育評鑑中心(2012)。財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會第二週期大學校院系所評鑑教育學門評鑑項目。2012年6月3日,取自
http://www.heeact.edu.tw/public/Data/23281441071.doc
徐立芬(2005)。教學設計師的職場版圖(上)。2012年3月9日,取自
http://mychannel.pchome.com.tw/channels/i/d/ider/content.htm
梁朝雲、許育齡、劉育東、李元榮(2010)。想像力研究對教學發展的啟示。教學科技與媒體,93,95-109。
淡江大學教育科技學系(2012a)。系友成就。2012年3月15日,取自
http://www.et.tku.edu.tw/item_1/1-6.asp
淡江大學教育科技學系(2012b)。教育目標。2012年3月15日,取自
http://www.et.tku.edu.tw/item_1/1-2.asp
淡江大學教育科技學系(2012c)。淡江大學教育學院教育科技學系大學部修課領域規劃表。2012年3月15日,取自http://www.et.tku.edu.tw/item_2/2-1_1.asp
淡江大學教育科技學系(2012d)。教育學院教育科技學系職涯發展地圖。2012年3月15日,取自http://www.et.tku.edu.tw/item_2/2-1_1.asp
淡江大學教育科技學系(2012e)。淡江大學教育科技學系研究所一般生課程學習地圖。2012年3月15日,取自http://www.et.tku.edu.tw/item_2/2-1.asp
淡江大學教育科技學系(2012f)。淡江大學教育科技學系在職專班課程學習地圖。2012年3月15日,取自http://www.et.tku.edu.tw/item_2/2-1.asp
淡江大學教務處(2012)。歷屆畢業生人數統計表。2012年6月30日,取自
http://www.acad.tku.edu.tw/RS/downs4/archive.php?class=303
張新仁、王瓊珠、馮莉雅(2009)。中小學教師專業學習社群手冊。台北市:教育部。
張霄亭(2009)。教育科技理論與實務(上)。台北:學富文化。
陳木金、邱馨儀、蔡易芷、高慧蓉(2005)。從認知學徒制探討中小學師傅校長教導課程的系統建構。海峽兩岸中小學教育發展學術研討會論文集,61-76。取自http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~mujinc/conference/4-23.pdf
陳清溪(2010)。人才培育與國家競爭力初探。研習資訊,27(6),79-86。
陳嘉彌(2002)。師徒式專業成長研究:師徒式教育實習可以促使教師專業成長嗎?教育學刊,18,135-161。高雄:國立高雄師範大學教育學系。
盛群力(2003)。現代教學設計論。台北:五南。
郭雨、桑新民(2008)。教學設計師的崗位職責及其資格認證研究。電化教育研究,12,25-28。甘肅蘭州:中國電化教育研究會。
劉修豪、白亦方(2007)。教育科技研究發展的省思。教學科技與媒體,80,16-25。

AECT (2010). AECT Strategic Plan & Interim Results – July 2010. Retrieved March 15, from
http://aect.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/aect_documents/aect_strategic_plan_update-j.pdf
Armstrong, A. (ed.) (2004). Instructional Design in the Real World: a View from the Trenches. Hershey: Information Science Publishing.
Banathy, B. H. (1994). Creating our future in an age of transformation. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 87-102.
Boling, E. & Smith, K. M. (2012). The changing nature of design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 358-366). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional Design: the ADDIE Approach. Boston, MA : Springer-Verlag US.
Carr, A. A. (1995). Performance technologist preparation: the role of leadership theory. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 59-74.
Cennamo K. & Kalk, D. (2005). Real World Instructional Design. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Chistensen, T. K. & Osguthorpe, R. T.(2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45-65.
Christensen, T. K.(2008). The role of theory in instructional design: some views of an ID practitioner. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 47(4), 25-32.
Clinton, G. & Hokanson, B. (2011). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers: the Design/Creativity Loops model. Education Tech Research Dev., 60, 111-130.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. Technical Report, 403, 2-27.
Campbell, A., McNamara, O. & Gilroy, P. (2004). Practitioner Research and Professional Development in Education. London: Sage Pulications Ltd.
Dean, P. J. (1995). Examining the practice of human performance technology. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(2), 68-94.
Deway, J. (1963). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books.
Dick, W., Carey, L. (1990). The Systematic Design of Instruction. (3rd ed.). London: Harper Collins Publishers.
Dick, W. & Wager, W. (1995). Preparing performance technologists: the role of a university. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 34-42.
Ertmer, P. A. & Cennamo, K. S. (1995). Teaching instructional design: an apprenticeship model. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 43-58.
Ertmer, P. A. & Quinn, J. (2003). The ID Casebook. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
Gagne R. M., Briggs, L. J. & Wager, W. W. (1988). Principles of Instructional Design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gayeski, D. (1995). Changing roles and professional challenges for human performance technology. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(2), 6-16.
Gibbons, A. (2011). Contexts of Instructional Design. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 1(1), 5-12.
Gustafson, K. & Branch, R. (2002). Survey of Instructional Development Models, 4th ed..Syracuse, N.Y.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.
Gustafson, K. & Branch, R. (2007). What is instructional design?. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 10-16). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Hardre, P. L., Ge, X. & Thomas, M. K. (2006). An investigation of development toward instructional design expertise. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(4), 63-90.
Harless, J. (1995) Performance technology skills in business: implications for preparation. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 75-88.
Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48 (2), 157-172.
Hirumi, A. (1995). What performance technologists should know about public education: implications for professional development and training. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 89-114.
Hokanson, B. & Miller, C. (2009). Role-based design: a contemporary framework for innovation and creativity in instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(2), 21-28.
Holcombyq, C., Wedman, J. F. & Tessmer, M. (1996). ID activities and project success: perceptions of practitioners. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(1), 49-61.
Irlbeck, S. A. (2011). Educating for an Instructional Design and Technology future. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 1(2), 19-24.
Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Foreword. In P. A. Ertmer & J. Quinn, The ID casebook. (2nd ed.) (pp. v-vi) Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R. & Ross, S. M. (1994). Designing Effective Instruction. New York: Merrill.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th Ed.). FL: Harcourt College Publishers.
Klein, J. D. & Richey, R. C. (2005). The case for international standards. Performance Improvement, 44(10), 9-14.
Kobayashi, T. (2011). Applied sciences—connecting theories with practice. Applied Science, 1, 12.
Koschmann, T. (2001). Revisiting the paradigms of Instructional Technology. The Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education ASCILITE 2001, 15-22.
Krippendorf, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC–Taylor Francis.
Kuh, G. D.(2008). High-Impact Educational Practices: What they are, Who has access to them, and Why they matter. Washington, DC: AAC&U.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd Ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Ledford, Bruce R. & Sleeman, Phillip J. (2002). Instructional Design: System Strategies. Information Age. Retrieved 27 February 2012, Retrieved March 18 2012 from http://lib.myilibrary.com?ID=138689
Merrill, M. & Wilson, B. (2007). The future of instructional design (point/counterpoint). In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 335-352). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Miller, C. & Hokanson, B. (2009). The artist and architect: creativity and innovation through role-based design. Educational Technology, 49(4), 18-27.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M. & Kemp, J. E. (2004). Designing Effective Instruction. Hoboken: Wiley.
Parker, K.(1999). The Growing Importance of Aesthetics in Instructional Design. from http://www.coedu.usf.edu/itphdsem/eme7938/kp899.pdf
Parrish, P. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16-24.
Parrish, P. (2007). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 511-528.
Pearsall, J. (Ed.) (2001). New Oxford Dictionary of English. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perez, R. S. & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: how novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80-95.
Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing Effective Questionarries. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Pieters, J. M. and Bergman, R. (1995). The empirical basis of designing instruction. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 118-129.
Piskurich, G. M. (2006). Rapid instructional design: learing id fast and right(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Quinn, J. (1995). The education of instructional designers: reflections on the Tripp paper. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 111-117.
Reiser, R. A. (2002). Foreword. In K. L. Gustafson & R. M. Branch, Survey of Instructional Development Models(4th ed.). Syracuse, N.Y.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.
Reiser, R. A. (2012). A history of instructional design and technology. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 17-34). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C. & Foxon, M.(with Roberts, R. C., Spannaus, T., & Spector, J. M.)(2001). Instructional Design Competencies: the Standards (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC.
Richey, C. R., Klein, J. D. & Tracey, M. W.(2011). The Instructional Design Knowledge Base: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65-86.
Rowland, G. (1993). Designing an instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79-91.
Rowland, G & Wilson, G. (1994). Liminal states in designing. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 30-45.
Schiffman, S. S. (1995). Instructional systems design: five views of the field. In G. J. Anglin (Eds.), Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future (2nd ed.) (pp.131-144). Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. USA: Basic Books.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc..
Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making Instructional Design Decisions. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Seels, B. B. & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional Technology: the Definition and Domains of the Field. Washington DC: AECT.
Shrock, S. A. (1995). A brief history of instructional development. In G. J. Anglin (Eds.), Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future (2nd ed.) (pp.11-19). Englewood, Colo.: Libraries nlimited.
Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J.(2005). Instructional Design (3rd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Stolovitch, H. D., Keeps, E. J. & Rodrigue, D. (1995). Skill sets for the Human Performance Technology knowledgebase. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(2), 40-67.
Stolovitch, H. D., Yapi, I. (1997). Use of case study method to increase near and far transfer of learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10(2), 64-82.
Sugar, W., Brown, A., Daniels, L. & Hoard, B. (2011). Instructional Design and Technology professionals in higher education: Multimedia production knowledge and skills identified form a Delphi study. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 1(2), 30-46.
Thompson, S. & Thompson, N. (2008). The Critically Reflective Practitioner. New York: Palcrave Macmillan.
Tripp, S. D. (1994). How should instructional designers be educated?. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 116-126.
Tyler, R. W.(1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Visscher-Voerman, I., Gustafson, K. L. & Plomp, T. (1999). Educational design and development: an overview of paradigms. In J. Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training (pp.15-28). Dordrecht, Nitherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Visscher-Voerman, I. & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69-89.
Wagner, E. (2011). In search of the secret handshakes of ID. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 1(1), 33-39.
Wedman, J. F. & Tessmer, M. (1990). The “Layers of Necessity” ID model. Performance & Instruction, 29(4), 1-8.
Wedman, J. F. & Tessmer, M. (1991). Adapting instructional design to project circumstance: The layers of necessity model. EducationalTechnology, 31(7), 48-52.
Wedman, J. F. & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43-57.
Willis, J. (2011). The cultures of contemporary instructional design scholarship, part one: Developments based on behavioral and cognitive science foundations. Educational Technology, 51(1), 3-20.
Willis, J. (2011). The cultures of contemporary instructional design scholarship, part two: Developments based on constructivist and critical theory foundations. Educational Technology, 51(3), 3-17.
Winer, L. & Vazquez-abad, J. (1995). The present and future of ID practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 55-67.
Young, R. A. (2008). An integrated model of designing to aid understanding of the complexity paradigm in design practice. Future, 40(6), 561-576.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2013-01-24公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2013-01-24起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信