機器人教師資格檢定機制發展之研究

Abstract

本研究旨在建立機器人教師資格檢定機制之內容架構、檢定之出題程序與標準、考試之程序與標準作業流程，以提供未來檢定研究與實施之參考。 本研究的主要研究方法為焦點團體座談法、文獻探討和訪談法。研究對象包含5位樂高學者專家、7位機器人教學實務之教師。從焦點團體座談的過程中，調查機器人教師應具備相關能力及檢定架構，以制訂檢定機制，從文獻探討歸納出檢定之出題程序與標準、考試之程序與標準作業流程，並透過實施檢定驗證機制之可行性。實施檢定由9位考生進行筆試、實作、試教、口試，試後對考生進行訪談，了解考生對檢定機制內容與執行的相關意見。 研究結果發現，(1)機器人教師應具備教育學素養、機器人專業知識、教學方法、教室及器材管理等四種能力，並採兩階段檢定，初試為筆試與實作，複試為試教與口試。(2)筆試分為「教育專業素養」與「機器人專業能力」兩大領域；實作採三題機器人任務解題實作測驗施測。教學演示評測部份，採考生抽籤或由主考官指定機器人課程中某一單元進行試教，並依試教評分表評量；而工作熱忱態度、教學理念等態度則透過口試來評量。(3)本研究所發展的機器人教師資格檢定機制在實施檢定之可行性高，可供未來研究之參考。This research aimed to establish the mechanism structure of the robotic teacher certification system to determine the procedure and standard of test question design, the procedure of the assessment, and the standard operation process to provide references for future research on assessment and implementation.

The research adopted focus group interviews, literature review, and interviews as primary research methods. The research targets included 5 Lego experts and 7 robotic teachers. The required skills of robotic teachers and the assessment structure were studied during the focus group interview and an assessment mechanism was outlined that consisted of a summary of procedure and standard of question design, the exam procedure and standard operation process using literature review, thereby determining the feasibility of the mechanism by implementing the assessment method. The assessment required 9 candidates to take a written test, a practical test, and an oral test, followed by an interview that probed the candidates’ opinions about the content and implementation of the assessment mechanism.

The research revealed that (1) robotic teachers should demonstrate a good attitude toward teaching and possess robotic expertise, effective teaching methods, as well as classroom and equipment management skills. The assessment included two stages wherein the first part was comprised of a written and a practical test; and the second part was comprised of a teaching trial and an oral test. (2) The written test was separated into two fields, namely, “education profession” and “robotic expertise,” whereas the practical part was comprised of three test questions that required candidates to perform certain tasks using robots. For the teaching trial, a certain topic in the robotic curriculum was either drawn by the candidate from the question bank or specified by the examiner. The performance was then rated according to the teaching trial evaluation chart. On the other hand, the work ethics and passion, and teaching philosophy of the candidates were assessed in the oral test. (3) The assessment mechanism developed based on this research result was highly feasible and could serve as a reference for future research.