第五章 結論與建議
第二節 在教學上的應用
不同的學生有不同的個性，學習特性也是如此，沒有一套完美、適合每一 位學生的教學情境模式，只有靠老師們日常生活中對學生的觀察與瞭解進行
「最適當」的安排，本檢核表可幫助教育第一現場中，經驗較為不足的老師們 在教學後，透過學生面對老師所安排的教學內容與活動時所產生的反應，與回 推至文獻理論與「課室觀察記錄」間的關係，藉由學生不同種類投入的狀況，
來自己所設計的課程安排進行檢驗，若學生各方面的檢核結果是正向的，那證 明老師的教學安排是適合學生的，若學生在某些投入類型的狀況，檢核結果不 佳，可以針對該投入類型的相關活動環節進行調整，以改善學生學習投入狀 態；此外，也可用於個別輔導前對學生的瞭解，找到最符合該生特性的輔導方 式，透過客製化教學方式，能使輔導能更順利的進行。
第三節 未來研究建議
在往後的研究中，可繼續將「學生學習投入課室觀察檢核表」的兩項不足 繼續補強、完善。其一，計分方式與學生學習投入分析，在本檢核表中，只有 較為粗糙的方式去說明學生的投入程度檢核的結果，在檢核表中並沒有明確標 釋出學生在學習時各個投入類型的程度為何，在未來可透過此研究之基礎，繼 續完善；其二，工具信度與效度，本研究並未完成檢核表之信效度檢測，在未 來檢測時可增加不同的教學情境與模式，在這些情境模式下測試得到更多的學 生樣本，以完善「學生學習投入課室觀察檢核表」之信、效度檢測，使其更具 公信力。
92
參考文獻
中文部分
宋承穎 (2016)。專注與放鬆腦波辨識之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺北科 技大學，台北市。
陳惠珍（2010）。國中生對任課教師自主支持知覺.自主動機與學習投入之關係 研究--以數學科為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商 學系所，彰化。
張春興（2007）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北市：東華。
劉允中（2018）。石門國小夏日樂學科學營與學童的學習專注力。屏東大學科學 教育，4，36-45。
英文部分
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory. A proposed system and its control processes. In K. Spence & J. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning
and motivation (pp.89-195). New York: Academic Press.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short-erm memory.
Scientific America, 225, 82-90.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427–445.
Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. America Psychologist, 19, 1-15.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development (pp.43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
93
Erlbaum.
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–108.
Davidson, A. L., & Phelan, P. (1999). Students’ multiple worlds: An anthropological approach to understanding students’ engagement with school. In T. Urdan (Ed.),
Advances in motivation and achievement (pp.233–273). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psycology of Learning for Instruction (3th ed.). Florita: Florita State University.
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, 59-109.
Finn, J.D. （1989）. Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.
Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Voelkl, K. E. (1995). Disruptive and
inattentivewithdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders.
Elementary School Journal, 95, 421–454.
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221–234.
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.97-132). New York, NY: Springer.
Hafen, C. A., Hamre, B. K., Allen, J. P., Bell, C. A., Gitomer, D. H., & Pianta, R.C.
(2015). Teaching Through Interactions in Secondary School Classrooms:
Revisiting the Factor Structure and Practical Application of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System–Secondary. J Early Adolesc, 35, 651-680.
James W (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt.
94
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24-32.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5–20.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 514–523.
Pelletier, L. G., Seguin-Levesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 186–196.
Pelletier, L. G., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Supervisors’ beliefs and subordinates’
intrinsic motivation: A behavioral confirmation analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 331–340.
Rumberger, R. W., & Lim, S. A. (2008). Why students drop out of school: A review of
25 years of research. Retrieved from
https://www.issuelab.org/resources/11658/11658.pdf
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257-267.
Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2012). Teachers’ estimates of their students’ motivation and engagement: being in synch with students. Educational Psychology, 32(6), 727-747.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.
95
Steadman, M., & Svinicki, M. (1998). CATs: A student’s gateway to better learning.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 75, 13-20.
Schwarm, S., & VanDeGrift, T. (2002). Using classroom assessment to detect
students’ misunderstanding and promote metacognitive thinking. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e3a/12f6a992b02540a2c8c81fbc7278736d1aa3 .pdfTurner, J., Thorpe, P., & Mayer, D. (1998). Students’ reports of motivation and negative affect: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 758–771.
Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with school. American Journal of Education, 105, 204–319.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.),
The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp.144-188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA:
Hard University Press.