根據研究結果，本研究從實務面以及研究面提出以下建議，以作為教師或未 來相關研究欲進行 M-T CDBL 活動的參考或依據。
一、實務面的建議
本研究所提出的模式可作為教師實施 M-T CDBL 活動之依據，以協助師生順 利的進行活動，另一方面，經本研究所擴充與調整後的「多點觸控密鋪系統」也 可供數學科教師於以密鋪為主題的 M-T CDBL 活動中使用。
二、研究面的建議
關於參與者：由於本研究以具備相關經驗為條件，較難避免參與者同質 性較高的情況，本研究建議未來的研究者可嘗試邀請更多較為異質的參 與者來進行研究。
關於 M-T CDBL 模式：由於本研究所蒐集的教案數量較為有限，加上撰 寫者的同質性較高，使教案的母體代表性較低，建議未來的研究者可以 蒐集更多的教案來建立模式，或者進一步檢驗本研究的 M-T CDBL 模式
之實際成效。
關於評 3 分的理由：在方格表評比步驟中，關於評 3 分的理由本研究建 議未來的研究者能以提供選項的方式請受訪者選擇，例如以 A 選項表示 中等符合程度、以 B 選項表示不符合兩極敘述、以 C 選項表示其它理由，
請受訪者在評 3 分時選擇上述其中一個選項作為理由，倘若受訪者選擇 C 選項，研究者可事後詢問受訪者的看法。此方式可避免受訪者選擇不 評 3 分的情形，且可增加評分的代表性。
關於系統建置：本研究建議未來的研究者能以不同作業系統作為軟體的 建置環境，或嘗試以跨作業系統為目標進行軟體建置。
參考文獻 中文部分
王佑鎂、李璐（2009）。設計型學習──一種正在興起的學習範式。中國電化教 育，10，12-16。
吳百興、吳心楷（2010）。八年級原住民學生在設計導向活動的科學學習。科學 教育學刊，18（4），277-304。
林清山（1988）。多變項分析統計法（5 版）。臺北市：臺灣東華。
邱瓊慧、黃森山、楊凱翔（2013）。多點觸控增進合作設計式創新學習模式之發 展與評估：以平面幾何為主題（1/3）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 期中成果報告（NSC 101-2511-S-003-033-MY3）。臺北：行政院國家科學委 員會。
陳佳惠、阮明淑（2010）。壽險顧問銷售流程的隱性知識之研究─方格技術運用。
圖書館學與資訊科學，36（2），52-70。
陳啟亮（2010）。以凱利方格法探索書後索引編製行為。圖書館學與資訊科學，
36（2），35-51。
楊坤原、張賴妙理（2005）。問題本位學習的理論基礎與教學歷程。中原學報，
33（2），215-235。
英文部分
Agostini, A., Di Biase, E., & Loregian, M. (2010). Stimulating cooperative and participative learning to match digital natives’ needs. In Proceedings of 8th IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (pp. 274-279). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Apedoe, X., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454-465.
Barnett, M. (2005). Engaging inner city students in learning through designing remote operated vehicles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 87-100.
Battocchi, A., Esposito, G., Ben-Sasson, A., Gal, E., Pianesi, F., Venuti, P., et al. (2008).
Collaborative puzzle game - an interface for studying collaboration and social interaction for children who are typically developed or who have autistic spectrum disorder. In P. Sharkey (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference Series on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies, Maia, Portugal. Reading University Press.
Beail, N. (1985). An introduction to repertory grid technique. In N. Beail (Ed.), Repertory grid technique and personal constructs: Applications in clinical and educational settings (pp. 1-24). London, United Kingdom: Croom Helm.
Cammock, P., Nilakant, V., & Dakin, S. (1995). Developing a lay model of managerial effectiveness: A social constructionist perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 32(4), 443-474.
Curtis, A. M., Wells, T. M., Higbee, T., & Lowry, P. B. (2008). An overview and tutorial of the repertory grid technique in information systems research.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 23(3), 37-62.
Custer, R. L., & Wright, R. T. (2009). Restructuring the technology teacher education curriculum. In C. Y. P. Committee (Ed.), Standards for technological literacy:
Content for the study of technology (pp. 150-172). Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
D'Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78(1), 107-126.
Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A. H., Stage, E. K., Zimmerman, T. D., … Tilson, J. L. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
de Bono, E. (1986). The practical teaching of thinking using the cort method. Special Services in the Schools, 3(1-2), 33-47.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education (1st Free Press Paperback ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan Company.
Dietz, P., & Leigh, D. (2001). Diamondtouch: A multi-user touch technology. In J.
Marks & E. D. Mynatt (Eds.), Proceedings of 14th annual ACM symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 219-226). Association for Computing Machinery.
Donaghue, H. (2003). An instrument to elicit teachers' beliefs and assumptions. ELT journal, 57(4), 344-351.
Doppelt, Y. (2005). Assessment of project-based learning in a mechatronics context.
Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 7-24.
Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 55-65.
Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008).
Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 22-39.
Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. (2008). Identifying students’ perceptions of the important classroom features affecting learning aspects of a design-based learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 11(3), 195-209.
Ellefson, M. R., Brinker, R. A., Vernacchio, V. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2008).
Design-based learning for biology: Genetic engineering experience improves understanding of gene expression. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 292-298.
Elliott, J., & Bruckman, A. (2002). Design of a 3d interactive math learning environment. In B. Verplank, A. Sutcliffe, W. Mackay, J. Amowitz & W. Gaver (Eds.), Proceedings of 4th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems:
Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (pp. 64-74). ACM.
Epting, F. R., Suchman, D. I., & Nickeson, C. J. (1971). An evaluation of elicitation procedures for personal constructs. British Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 513-517.
Fessakis, G., Tatsis, K., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2008). Supporting “learning by design”
activities using group blogs. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 199-212.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004).
Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110.
Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2005).
Design‐based science and real‐world problem‐solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879.
Foster, J. J., Barkus, E., & Yavorsky, C. (2006). Understanding and using advanced statistics: A practical guide for students (1 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2011). Towards characterising design-based learning in engineering education: A review of the literature.
European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(2), 137-149.
Hagans, C. L., Neimeyer, G. J., & Robert Goodholm, C. (2000). The effect of elicitation methods on personal construct differentiation and valence. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 13(2), 155-173.
Han, S., & Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, learning by design, and project based learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Hankinson, G. (2004). Repertory grid analysis: An application to the measurement of destination images. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(2), 145-153.
Harris, A., Rick, J., Bonnett, V., Yuill, N., Fleck, R., Marshall, P., et al. (2009). Around the table: Are multiple-touch surfaces better than single-touch for children's collaborative interactions? In C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann & A.
Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Proceedings of Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Computer supported collaborative learning - Volume 1 (pp.
335-344). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247-298.
Hsu, C.-K., Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, C.-K. (2010). Development of a reading material recommendation system based on a knowledge engineering approach. Computers
& Education, 55(1), 76-83.
Hwang, G.-J. (1994). Knowledge elicitation and integration from multiple experts.
Journal of Inforamtion Science and Engineering, 10(1), 99-109.
Jankowicz, D. (2004). The easy guide to repertory grids (1 ed.). Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of teaching (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (1 ed. Vol. 1). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Kelly, G. A. (1991). The psychology of personal constructs (reprint ed. Vol. 1). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kharrufa, A., Leat, D., & Olivier, P. (2010). Digital mysteries: Designing for learning at the tabletop. Paper presented at the 5th ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. Saarbrücken, Germany.
Kobourov, S., Pavlou, K., Cappos, J., Stepp, M., Miles, M., & Wixted, A. (2005).
Collaboration with diamondtouch. In M. Costabile & F. Paternò (Eds.), Human-computer interaction - interact 2005 (Vol. 3585, pp. 986-989): Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
Kolodner, J. L. (2002a). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9-40.
Kolodner, J. L. (2002b). Learning by design: Iterations of design challenges for better learning of science skills. Cognitive Studies, 9(3), 338-350.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al.
(2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547.
Kolodner, J. L., & Gray, J. (2002). Understanding the affordances of ritualized activity structures for project-based classrooms. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 222-228). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J. T., & Fasse, B. B. (2003). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning-by-design classrooms.
Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 119-170.
Kreber, C. (2000). How university teaching award winners conceptualise academic work: Some further thoughts on the meaning of scholarship. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 61-78.
Mamlok, R., Dershimer, C., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2001). Learning science by designing artifacts (lsda) - a case study of the development of a design-based science curriculum. Paper presented at the 2001 NARST Annual International Conference. St. Louis, MO.
Marsden, D., & Littler, D. (2000). Repertory grid technique – an interpretive research framework. European Journal of Marketing, 34(7), 816-834.
Marshall, P., Hornecker, E., Morris, R., Sheep Dalton, N., & Rogers, Y. (2008). When the fingers do the talking: A study of group participation with varying constraints to a tabletop interface. In Proceedings of 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems (pp. 33-40). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Martínez Maldonado, R., Kay, J., & Yacef, K. (2010). Collaborative concept mapping at the tabletop. Paper presented at the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. Saarbrücken, Germany.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71-85.
Mehalik, M. M., & Schunn, C. (2006). What constitutes good design? A review of empirical studies of design processes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 519-532.
Neimeyer, G., Bowman, J., & Saferstein, J. (2005). The effects of elicitation techniques on repertory grid outcomes: Difference, opposite, and contrast methods. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18(3), 237-252.
Neimeyer, G. J., & Hagans, C. L. (2002). More madness in our method?: The effects of repertory grid variations on construct differentiation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 15(2), 139-160.
Papert, S. (1990). Introduction. In I. Harel (Ed.), Constructionist learning (pp. 1-8).
Boston, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (1998). Distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn in a ‘learning by design’ environment. In A. Bruckman, M. Guzdial, J.
Kolodner & A. Ram (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 1998 (pp. 35-41). AACE.
Puddifoot, J. E. (1996). A methodological note on the application of the generalized
grid technique in the measurement of perceived intercultural distance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), 433-441.
Reger, R. K. (1990). The repertory grid technique for eliciting the content and structure of cognitive constructive systems. In A. S. Huff (Ed.), Mapping Strategic Thought (pp. 301-309). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Rick, J., Rogers, Y., Haig, C., & Yuill, N. (2009). Learning by doing with shareable interfaces. Children, Youth and Environments, 19(1), 321-342.
Shaw, M. L. G., & Thomas, L. F. (1978). Focus on education—an interactive computer system for the development and analysis of repertory grids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 10(2), 139-173.
Shen, C., Everitt, K., & Ryall, K. (2003). {ubitable}: Impromptu face-to-face collaboration on horizontal interactive surfaces. In A. Dey, A. Schmidt & J.
McCarthy (Eds.), Ubicomp 2003: Ubiquitous computing (Vol. 2864, pp. 281-288):
Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
Silk, E., Schunn, C., & Strand Cary, M. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209-223.
Stanton, D., Neale, H., & Bayon, V. (2002). Interfaces to support children's co-present collaboration: Multiple mice and tangible technologies. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning:
Foundations for a CSCL Community (pp. 342-351). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Stewart, J., Bederson, B., & Druin, A. (1999). Single display groupware: A model for co-present collaboration. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Sultanum, N., Sharlin, E., Sousa, M. C., Miranda-Filho, D. N., & Eastick, R. (2010).
Touching the depths: Introducing tabletop interaction to reservoir engineering.
Paper presented at the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. Saarbrücken, Germany.
Tan, F. B., & Hunter, M. G. (2002). The repertory grid technique: A method for the study of cognition in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 26(1), 39-57.
Tio, J., LaCaze, A., & Cottrell, W. N. (2007). Ascertaining consumer perspectives of medication information sources using a modified repertory grid technique.
Pharmacy World & Science, 29(2), 73-80.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills : Learning for life in our times (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vattam, S. S., Kramer, C. W., Kim, H., & Kolodner, J. L. (2007). Effects of technology-based support for explanation construction on learners' discourse
during design-based learning in science. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens & S.
Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 741-750). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Yorke, D. M. (1978). Repertory grids in educational research: Some methodological considerations. British Educational Research Journal, 4(2), 63-74
Yorke, D. M. (1985). Administration, analysis and assumption: Some aspects of validity. In N. Beail (Ed.), Repertory grid technique and personal constructs:
Applications in clinical and educational settings (pp. 383-399). London, United Kingdom: Croom Helm.
Yorke, M. (2001). Bipolarity… or not? Some conceptual problems relating to bipolar rating scales. British Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 171-186.
Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Roche, V. (2004). A constructivist model for evaluating postgraduate supervision: A case study. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(2), 82-93.
附錄一 納入合併之構念
（續）
（續）
（續）
編碼 構念外顯極 構念相對極 合併構念
S6-16 學生進行作品發表後依照回饋意
見再進行修正 學生作品發表後未再進行修正 C8-1
S7-07 都有展示作品並再度修正（偏重 設計的完美）
側重並維持其創意跟想法（偏重 問題的解決，分享解決問題的方 式）
C8-1
S8-22 完成設計作品後會再修正設計作 品
完成後的作品即為最終之設計作
品 C8-1
S1-13 修正後會再次進行成果發表 修正完作品後不再次發表 C8-2 S3-10 學生於再修改作品後繳交作品 學生修改作品後無須再做繳交 C8-2
S4-10 有總結性報告 沒有總結性報告 C8-2
S5-13 修正後再發表 修正後直接繳交作品未發表 C8-2 S4-07 有總結報告、也有過程性的報告 僅有過程性報告 C7-1 & C8-2 S4-08 僅有過程性的報告 僅有總結性報告 C7-1 & C8-2 S1-10 老師在活動最後會給意見回饋 老師不給意見回饋 C9-1 S7-14 老師在活動尾聲有引導 完全尊重學生的設計跟創意，維
持學生的設計未加入教師的指導 C9-1 a編碼：S1-01 表示該構念為受訪者 S1 所提出的第 1 項個人構念。
b合併構念：C1-1 表示該項構念被合併於「構念 C1-1」，C2-1 & C2-2 表示該項構念可被「構念 C2-1」與「構念 C2-2」包含。
附錄二 被刪除之構念
（續）
（續）
（續）