互動觸控顯示器（Interactive flat-panels, IFP）為內建完整系統的科技產品，亦可稱之為大屏，有別於過去的互動式電子白板，無須進行觸控定位校正、螢幕解析度較佳等多種優勢，使大屏近年備受討論。本研究欲調查台灣中學教師使用大屏進行互動教學之現況，亦開發了一套STEM大屏互動課程，開發目的為提供應用大屏之STEM課程範例，同時也為台灣的大屏教學進行推廣，讓更多教師對此工具之應用有更深入的了解。本研究採用問卷調查法，針對台灣中學教師使用大屏進行互動教學之現況進行探討，包含「對於大屏進行互動教學的看法」、「對於學生的影響」、「實施大屏互動教學的挑戰」及「增能課程的意見」四個面向。採用便利取樣方式，在七所學校實施STEM大屏互動課程，課程結束後進行問卷發放，7場課程共發放71份問卷，回收有效問卷49份，另外以網路問卷的方式發放了54份問卷，有效問卷53份，整體的有效問卷為102份，有效回收率為81.6%，以描述性統計、重要－表現程度分析找出優先改進的項目，並用獨立樣本無母數分析確認教師背景特徵對填答項目之差異。同時，記錄了教師在課程中的口語互動、開放式問題的回答、研習後的討論等質性資料，提供針對大屏更全面的意見回饋。結果顯示以下結論：（1）教師普遍支持大屏互動教學帶來的優勢，認為能提升課堂互動性、視覺化效果及促使學生提升學習興趣及動機。（2）學生的學習正面效益須待教師熟悉設備且能活用於教學中（3）「相關設備或資源的支持」是首要改善的項目：教師提到資源分配不均，非所有教師都安裝大屏；同校多種廠牌的操作問題，需要額外花費時間學習使用；行政端未有良好的支持，未能提供大屏相關的研習、培訓課程。（4）不同背景的教師對大屏互動教學看法具有差異：國中組教師對大屏教學的評價普遍高於完全中學組；教學年資21年以上的教師對於大屏互動教學的期待較高；每週授課超過18節的教師易感到相關設備與資源支持之不足；參與課程的教師，對於大屏使用的重視程度較高。透過本研究之結論與建議，期望能提供教學現場的教師及產品開發商參考，對未來大屏教學發展有所貢獻。

Interactive flat panels (IFPs) are advanced technological products with built-in systems. IFPs offer multiple advantages such as eliminating the need for touch calibration and providing better screen resolution, making them increasingly popular in recent years. This study developed a STEM course utilizing IFPs, aiming to provide an example of applying IFPs in STEM education and to promote the use of this tool among Taiwanese educators. A survey method was adopted to explore the current status of interactive teaching using IFPs in Taiwanese secondary schools. The investigation focused on four dimensions: (1) perspectives on interactive teaching with IFPs, (2) impacts on students, (3) challenges in implementing interactive teaching with IFPs, and (4) suggestions for courses. Using convenience sampling, the STEM interactive course was conducted in seven schools. After the courses, 71 questionnaires were distributed, and 49 valid responses were collected. Additionally, 54 online questionnaires were distributed, resulting in 53 valid responses. In total, 102 valid questionnaires were obtained, with a response rate of 81.6%. Descriptive statistics and Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) were used to identify priority areas for improvement. Non-parametric analysis of independent samples was employed to examine differences in responses based on teachers' backgrounds. Qualitative data, including teachers’ verbal interactions, answers to open-ended questions, and post-training discussions, were also recorded to provide comprehensive feedback on the use of IFPs.
　　The results indicated the following conclusions: (1) Teachers generally support the advantages brought by interactive teaching with IFPs, believing it enhances classroom interactivity, improves visualization, and boosts students' interest and motivation in learning. (2) The positive impact on students' learning depends on teachers becoming familiar with the equipment and effectively integrating it into their teaching. (3) "Support for related equipment or resources" was identified as the top priority for improvement: teachers mentioned uneven resource allocation, with not all teachers having IFPs installed; the presence of multiple brands within the same school causes operational issues, requiring additional time to learn how to use them; and there is a lack of adequate administrative support, as no workshops or training courses related to large screens have been provided. (4) Teachers’ perspectives on interactive teaching with IFPs vary based on their backgrounds: Middle school teachers generally rated IFPs teaching more positively than teachers in combined middle and high schools. Teachers with more than 21 years of teaching experience had higher expectations for IFPs teaching. Those teaching more than 18 periods per week were more likely to feel a lack of support for related equipment and resources. Teachers who participated in courses placed greater importance on the IFPs teaching. The findings and recommendations of this study are expected to serve as a reference for educators and product developers, contributing to the advancement of IFP teaching in the future.

行政院（2022）。班班有網路 生生用平板－推動中小學數位學習精進方案執行進度。行政院全球資訊網。https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/448DE008087A1971/e5a4fbf8-995d-4b30-846a-b69e4e714bf9
范斯淳、游光昭（2016）。科技教育融入STEM課程的核心價值與實踐。教育科學研究期刊，61（2），153-183。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(2).06
張奕華（2022）。 從 AI 智慧教室邁向智慧學校: 兼談智慧教育。師友雙月刊，635，13-20。https://doi.org/10.53106/266336712022100635002
張奕華、吳權威（2014）。智慧教育：理念與實踐。網奕資訊。
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育國民中學暨普通型高級中學科技領域課程綱要。 https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/816/十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中學暨普通型高級中等學校-科技領域.pdf
彭慧雯、佘永吉（2021）。互動式電子白板融入國小學習障礙學生數學教學與直接教學法之成效比較。特殊教育季刊，160，15-26。https://doi.org/10.6217/SEQ.202109_(160).15-26
黃思華、劉遠楨、顏菀廷（2011）。互動式電子白板融入創新合作學習模式對國小數學科學習成效與動機之影響。課程與教學，14（1），115-139。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.201101.0116
臺北市政府教育局（2022）。臺北市智慧及資訊科技教育白皮書。臺北市政府教育局。　
蔡文榮、陳雅屏（2016）。互動式電子白板的使用差異對國小生英語學習動機與學習成就之影響。彰化師大教育學報，30，31-58。https://libap.nhu.edu.tw:8081/Ejournal/AB08003002.pdf
蔡文榮、蔡佩君（2012）。互動式電子白板在英語教學過程中對學習成就與學習態度之影響。教育科學期刊，11（2），69-91。https://doi.org/10.6388/JES.201212.0069
羅藝方、楊淑晴、吳妹容（2015）。以科技接受模式理論探究教師對電子白板融入教學的接受與使用情形。教育學報，43（2），145-172。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail/P20181015001-201512-201810180026-201810180026-145-172
Abalo, J., Varela, J., & Manzano, V. (2007). Importance values for Importance–Performance Analysis: A formula for spreading out values derived from preference rankings. Journal of Business Research, 60(2), 115-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.009
Al-Rabaani, A. H. (2018). Social studies teachers’ perspectives on the advantages and challenges of interactive whiteboard application in Oman. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 753-762. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.4.753
Anatürk Tombak, C., & Ateşkan, A. (2019). Science teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards the use of interactive whiteboards in education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(3), 394-414.https://0-www.proquest.com.opac.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/scholarly-journals/science-teachers-beliefs-attitudes-towards-use/docview/2641587131/se-2?accountid=14228
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
Chien, Y. H., & Chang, F. Y. (2023). An importance-performance analysis of teachers’ perception of STEM engineering design education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01653-7
Cladera, M. (2021). An application of importance-performance analysis to students’ evaluation of teaching. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33(4), 701-715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-022-09382-2
Fan, S. C. (2022). An importance–performance analysis (IPA) of teachers’ core competencies for implementing maker education in primary and secondary schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(2), 943-969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09633-7
Fan, S. C., Yu, K. C., & Lou, S. J. (2018). Why do students present different design objectives in engineering design projects?. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28, 1039-1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9420-5
Karsenti, T. (2016). The interactive whiteboard: Uses, benefits, and challenges. A survey of 11,683 students and 1,131 teachers. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 42(5). 1-22. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2WW4J
Kelley, T. (2010). Staking the claim for the ‘T’ in STEM. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 2-11. https://doi.org/10.21061/jots.v36i1.a.1
Kyriakou, A., & Higgins, S. (2016). Systematic review of the studies examining the impact of the interactive whiteboard on teaching and learning: What we do learn and what we do not. Preschool and Primary Education, 4(2), 254-275. https://doi.org/10.12681/ppej.9873
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250495
Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H. H., Renzl, B., & Pichler, J. (2004). The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: a reconsideration of the importance–performance analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(03)00055-5
McLeay, F., Robson, A., & Yusoff, M. (2017). New applications for importance-performance analysis (IPA) in higher education: Understanding student satisfaction. Journal of Management Development, 36(6), 780-800. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2016-0187
Senthamarai, S. (2018). Interactive teaching strategies. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 3(1), 36-38. https://doi.org/10.21839/jaar.2018.v3iS1.166
Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students' self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019
Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers' belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381-394.https://galleries.lakeheadu.ca/uploads/4/0/5/9/4059357/whiteboards.pdf
Yang, K. T., & Wang, T. H. (2012). Interactive white board: Effective interactive teaching strategy designs for biology teaching. Tech, E-Learning-Engineering, On-Job Training and Interactive Teaching, 139-154. https://doi.org/10.5772/31252