本研究目的在於探討高中教師如何參與、開發與實施融入行動科技的自然科學探究課程。第一部分討論課程發展與實施所遭遇之困境與解決，並從師生觀點探討其對行動學習之看法；第二部分以一行動科技課程為例，說明課程開發之歷程，並從學生學習過程中，以活動理論討論智慧行動裝置與探究學習活動的關聯性，此外進行問卷調查以了解學生探究能力、對雲端科技能力表現之自我認同。
本研究以台灣北部一所公立高中的七位高中教師、一位初中教師及十二名高一學生、七十一名高二學生為研究對象，採取以質性為主的個案研究方法。
　　
　　本研究的第一部分發現，行動學習大幅改變師生對於行動科技之看法，多數師生認為行動學習有助於提升學習專注、增加學習興趣、提高學習成效。第二部分詳述個案教師開發行動科技融入科學課程之歷程，提供可行的課程開發範本，並以活動理論對學習小組的探究行為與科技互動作更進一步的分析與討論。此外也發現此課程對學生探究能力中的先前知識與經驗之連結、資料蒐集與分析、及科學推理與論證有大幅度的成長；以及雲端科技的使用有助於同儕之間的溝通與合作，並使學生更願意參與課程。結果肯定課程開發教師所開發之新興課程及其價值，可提供同類課程開發之具體參考。

　　The purpose of this study was to investigate how high school teachers participate, develop and implement inquire-based curriculum infused with mobile technology.
The first part of the current research is a discussion on the difficulties and solutions that emerged in curriculum development and its implementation. The views of teachers and students on mobile learning were also explored. The second part of the study explained curriculum development through the example of mobile technology curriculum and through students’ learning, discussed the relationship between smart mobile devices and inquiry-based learning activities based on activity theory. In addition, students’ abilities in inquiry and cloud technology were also investigated through questionnaire.The current study is a qualitative research. Participants included eight high school teachers, 12 students from Grades 10, and 71 students from Grades 11.

　　The first part of the study found that mobile learning dramatically changed teachers’ and students’ perceptions of mobile technology. The majorities of the teachers as well as students also believed that mobile learning helped in retaining students’ attention during learning, increasing student interest, and improving learning achievement.The second part of the study was a case study that described the process through which a teacher developed a mobile technology infused science curriculum. The case can serve as a reference for curriculum development, and further discussions were conducted on students' inquiry-based learning activities and their interaction with mobile technology in accordance to activity theory.The results also showed that this curriculum has greatly enhanced students’ abilities in linking ones’ prior knowledge and experiences, conducting data collection and analysis, and making scientific arguments.Moreover, it was shown that the use of cloud technology helped communication and cooperation among peers and enabled students to be more willing to participate in the course.In sum, the current study has affirmed the value of teacher developed mobile technology curriculum and believes that this can serve as an example for future curricula.

丁珮元（2005)。另一種終身學習和自我發展的方法-行動學習法介紹。T&D飛訊第33期，Vol.0，No.0 p.1-19。
王全世（2000）。資訊科技融入教學之意義與內涵。資訊與教育，80，23-31。
李昆璉（2007）。國小教師專業發展評鑑歷程之個案研究～石頭坑的故事。國立新竹教育大學人力資源教育處學校行政碩士學位在職進修專班碩士論文，未出版，新竹。
朱曜明（2003）。自我導向學習在行動學習設計上的啟示。WISCS 2003 網路教學系統平台與內容標準化研討會，136-141。
邱美虹（2012）。臺北市萬芳高中高瞻計畫：以行動科技及雲端科技為主軸之科學探究課程開發與評鑑(1/3)。國科會計畫。
邱美虹（2013）。臺北市萬芳高中高瞻計畫：行動科技融入科學課程之課程開發與評鑑(2/3)。國科會計畫。
周麗華（2008）。臺北市國民小學教師專業發展評鑑實施效應之研究。臺北：臺北市教師研習中心。
洪振方（2003）。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。高雄師大學報，15，641-662。
宮作民主編(2004)。現代地理教學基本理論，澳門：科教文出版社。
陳彥明（2006）全球定位系統融入行動學習之研究與應用。私立銘傳大學資訊傳播工程研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳美葉 (2009年1月)。網路環境與資訊素養對於無線網路教學意願之影響以高雄巿國中藝文領域教育為例。未出版之碩士論文。高雄市：中山大學傳播管理研究所。
陳祺祐、林弘昌（2007）。行動學習在教育上的應用與分析。生活科技教育月刊，40（5），31-38。
教育部（2009）。中小學教師專業發展評鑑人員參考手冊。臺北：教育部。
教育部（2010）。教育部補助辦理教師專業發展評鑑實施要點。臺北：教育部。
張春興（1994）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北市：東華。
張德銳、周麗華、李俊達（2009）。國小形成性教師評鑑實施歷程與成效之個案研究。課程與教學季刊，12（3），265-290。
葉成林，徐福蔭（2004）。移動學習及其理論基礎。開放教育研究，23-26。
鄭淑惠（2007）。探究評鑑如何影響教師的專業成長：以個案研究為例。載於中華民國師範教育學會（主編），教師評鑑與專業成長（頁93-125）。臺北：心理。
鄭淑惠（2009）。教育評鑑的效用性：促進組織學習的觀點。國立新竹教育大學教育學報，26（2），57-88。
潘慧玲（2004，5月）。邁向下一代的教育評鑑：回顧與前瞻。載於國立臺灣師範大學教育研究中心舉辦之「教育評鑑回顧與展望學術研討會」會議論文集（頁11-23），臺北市。
潘威明（2007），行動學習環境中實施探究式實驗活動之教學設計與活動歷程分析，國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所碩士論文。

AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science , mathematics and technology. Washington, DC: AAAS.
Barab, A. S., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K. , & Keating. T. (1999). Using activity theory to understanding the contradictions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association 1999 annual meeting, Montréal.
Brink, J. (2011). M-Learning: The Future of Training Technology. Training + Development, 65(2), 27-29.
Brown, J. S. , Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18:1, 32-42.
Chang, C. Y., Chen, Y. S., Kao, T. C., Hwang, W. Y., Chou, L. D., Chen, Y. W., Sheu, J. P., & Chan, T. W. (2005). Some Studies and Lessons Learned from Mobile Outside Classroom Learning. submitted to Computers & Education, Oct. 2005.
Cherin, D., & Meezan, W. （1998）. Evaluation as a means of organizational learning. Administration in Social Work, 22 （2）, 1-21.
Chen, J. H.; Wang, T. H.; Chang, W. H.; Chao, L.R.(2008). Developing the historical culture course by using the ubiquitous game-based learning environment. Advances in Web Based Learning - ICWL 2008. 7th International Conference, Jinhua, China, 20-22 August 2008.
Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C. & Tseng, J. C. R. (2010). A two-tier test approach to developing
Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 4, 471–500.
Cousins, J. B. (1998). Organizational consequences of participatory evaluation: School district case study. In K. Leithwood, & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Organizational learning in schools (pp. 127-148). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Creswell (1994) Research design: Qualitative & quantitative. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage
Danesh, A., Inkpen, K., Lau, F., Shu, K. and Booth, K. (2001) ‘Geney™: designing a collaborative activity for the palm handheld computer’, Paper presented at the Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference, 31 March–1 April 2001, Seattle, USA. In proceedings.
Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.
Engestrom, Y. (1987) Learning by Expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (Helsinki, Orienta-Konsultit).
Gay, G., Rieger, R., & Bennington, T. (2002). Using mobile computing to enhance field study. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 507-528). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harris, B. M., & Hill, J. (1982). The DeTEK handbook. National Educational Laboratory Publishers, Inc.
Harris, P. (2001). Goin Mobile. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from the WorldWide Web: http://www.learningcircuits.com/2001/jul;2001/harris.html
Hill, F.H., Glenda, G. & Newman, G. (1997), Professional portfolios: A catalyst for a collaborative work culture, Roundtable paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, March.
Hofer, B. (2006). Motivation in the college classroom. In W. J. McKeachie & M. Svinicki, Eds.McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Iwanicki, E. F. (1990). Teacher evaluation for school improvement. In J. Millman & Darling-Hammond. L.(Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (158-174). Newbury park, California: Sage Publications.
Johnson, T. D. (1996). Evaluation-based teacher development: A case study of horizontal teacher evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa .
Keegan, D. (2002). The future of learning: From eLearning to mLearning, ZIFF　papiere 119. Retrieved from ERIC ED472435 database.
Kim, G. -M., & Ong, S. M. (2005). An exploratory study of factors influencing m-learning success. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(1), 9297.
Kleiman, G, M.(2004). Myths and realities about technology in K-12 schools：Five years later. Contemporary Issues in technology and teacher education,4(2),11-12.
Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental Detectives: the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 203-228.
Kong, S.C., Lam, S. Y., Kwok, L. F. (2005). A Cognitive Tool in Handheld Devices for Collaborative Learning: Comprehending Procedural Knowledge of the Addition of Common Fractions. In procedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! .Taipei, Taiwan.
Koole, M. L. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp. 25-47). Edmonton, AB: AU Press, Athabasca University.
Kukulska-Hulme, A.,& Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers. London: Routledge.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007). Mobile usability in educational context: What have we learnt?International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1-16.
Kutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In Nardi, B. A. (Ed.) Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Krajcik, J., & Sutherland, L. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328, 456-459.
Lehner, F. and Nosekabel, H. (2002). The Role Of Mobile Devices In E-Learning-First Experiences With A Wireless E-Learning Enviroment, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Mobile and Wireless Technologies in Education, Vaxjo, Sweden, Auguest 2002.
Leung, C.H. and Chan, Y.Y.(2003), “Mobile learning: A new paradigm in electronic　learning,” 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced LearningTechnologies(ICALT’03), pp.76-80.
Looi, C.K., Seow, P., Zhang, B.H., So, H.J., Chen, W., Wong, L.H. (2009). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: a research agenda. British
McColskey, W.& Egelson, P.（1993） .Designing teacher evaluation systems that support professional growth. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.（ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367 662）
Mc Conatha, D., Praul, M., & Lynch, M.J. (2008). Mobile learning in higher education: An empirical assessment of a new educational tool. Turkish Online Journal of Educational, 7(3), 15-21.
Mikic, F., Anido, L., Valero, E., & Picos, J. (2007, April). Accessibility and mobile learning standardization. In Systems, 2007. ICONS'07. Second International Conference on (pp. 32-32). IEEE.
Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581 - 596.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2005) Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning. A Report for NESTA Futurelab. Available from NESTA FutureLab website.
Nyiri, K (2002). Towards a philosophy of mlearning. Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE 2002), Vaxjo, Sweden
Okokok Report (2004). ‘2005 Market Report of China’s Educational Technology Development and IT　Application Trends’. Retrieved August 23, 2007, from http://www.okokok.com.cn/Shop/　Class41/200411/167.html
Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 12(2), 78-102.
Pea, R., & Maldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing devices anytime, anywhere. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 427-441). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peters, K. (2007). m-Learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future. International Journal Of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1-17.
Pinkwart, N., Hoope, H., Milrad, M. and Perez. J. (2003). ‘Educational scenarios forcooperative use of Personal Digital Assistants,’ Journal of Computer Assisted　Learning, 19, 383-391.
Preskill, H. （2008）. Evaluation’s second act: A spotlight on learning. American Journal of Evaluation, 29（2）, 127-138.
Quinn, C. (2000) mLearning: Mobile, Wireless and In-Your-Pocket Learning. Line Zine Magazine. http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm
Roblyer, M. D. (2003). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (3rd Edition). Columbus, Oh.: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Roschelle, J. (2003). Keynote paper: unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 3, 260–272.
Roth, W. M.（1994）. Experimenting in a Constructivist high school Physical Laboratory. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 31(2), 197-213.
Revans, R. (1980). Action Learning: new techniques for management London. Blond and Briggs
Seppälä, P. & Alamäki, H. (2003). Mobile learning in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 330-335.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R.（1998）. Supervision: Human perspective. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learnin,Computers and Education, 34, 177-193.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. Proceedings of mLearn 2005, 1(1), 1-9.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). Institutionalizing evaluation in schools. In T. Kellaghan, D. L. Stufflebeam, & L. A. Wingate (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation: Part Two: Practice (pp.775-805). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Squire, K. & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 3, 371–413. Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00912.x
Tinker, R. & Vahey, P. (2002). CILT2000: Ubiquitous Computing - Spanningthe Digital Divide. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(3).
Tobin, M. & Kumar, S. (1990). Design of experiment is the best way to optimize a process atminimal cost. In procedings of Electronic Manufacturing Technology Symposium, 'Competitive Manufacturing for the Next Decade'. Washington, DC.
Torres, R. T., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, present, and future. American Journal of Evaluation, 22 （3）, 387-395.
Tough, A. (2002). The iceberg of informal adult learning. The Research Network for New Approaches to Lifelong Learning: NALL Working Paper No. 49. Paper presented at the NALL annual meeting, Toronto. Retrieved January 22, 2007, from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/csew/nall/res/49AllenTough.pdf
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing, and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having write... International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1-12.
Trifonova, A. and Ronchetti, M.(2003),“Where is mobile learning going?,” Retrieved　June 6, 2006.
Tuner, G.., &Clift, P. S.（1988）.Studies in teacher appraisal. London:Falmer.
Uden, L. (2007). Activity Theory for Designing Mobile Learning. Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 1 (1), 81-102.
U.S. Department of Education (1996). Getting America’s students ready for the 21st century: meeting the technology literacy challenge. Washington, DC (ERIC ED 398899).
U.S. Department of Education (2000). E-learning: putting a world-class education at the fingertips of all children. Washington, DC (ERIC ED 444604).
van't Hooft, M., Swan, K., Cook, D., & Lin, Y. (2007). What is ubiquitous computing? In M. van't Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Venkatesh, V., & Ramesh, V. (2006). Web and wireless site usability: Understanding differences and modeling use. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 181-205.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale, Constructivism in education (pp. 3-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vygotskiĭ, L. L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
Wanger, N.C. & Hill, M.S. (1996), Linking teacher evaluation, professional growth and motivation: A muItiple-site case study, Paper presented at the SRCEA Annual Conference, GA:Savannah, November.
Waycott, J., Jones, A., & Scanlon, E. (2005). PDAs as lifelong learning tools: an activity theory based analysis. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 107-130.
Weinstein, K. (1999). Action learning: A practical book. Gower Publishing, Ltd..
Whyte, J. B. (1986). Teacher assessment: A review of the performance appraisal literature with special reference to the implications for teacher appraisal. Research Paper in Education, 1(2), 137-163.
Wragg, E. C. (1987). Teacher appraisal: practical guide. London: Macmillian Education.