因應十二年國民基本教育的推行，科技教育的教學重點有所改變，科技教師在教學時所需具備的能力也產生了變化。本研究欲透過IPA問卷調查現職生活科技教師，對於教師核心能力中的科技教學能力的看法與感受，探討重要度與表現程度的落差，以了解生活科技實施的現況。本研究針對生活科技教師專業核心能力的其中一個面向—「科技教學能力」進行調查。問卷具有良好的信度及效度，發放的方式採用便利抽樣，透過與科技中心相關的活動進行發放，共收回70份有效問卷。問卷的分析方法採用描述性統計、單因子變異數分析、重要性-表現程度分析等。根據研究結果顯示，教師認為為最重要且表現程度最佳的能力為「具備規劃、管理及維護科技教室的能力」，而重要性及表現程度最低分地為「具備發展課程與教材、有效運用各項教學策略的能力」。剖析教師對專業核心能力指標的重要性與表現程度之落差，可以發現教師最需要加強的為「引導學生進行整合思考，執行專題式或問題解決導向課程」的能力。依據前述建議，可作為未來提升生活科技教師專業核心能力之重要參考依據。

In response to the implementation of the Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education, the focus of technology education has changed, and the competencies required for technology teachers in their teaching have also evolved. This study aims to investigate the views and perceptions of current Technology teachers regarding their technological teaching abilities through an Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) questionnaire. The study explores the gap between the importance and performance levels to understand the current state of technology education implementation. This research specifically examines one aspect of the core professional competencies of Technology teachers: “technological teaching abilities.”
The questionnaire, which has good reliability and validity, was distributed using purposive sampling through activities related to the technology center, resulting in 70 valid responses. The methods used for questionnaire analysis include descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and IPA analysis. According to the research findings, teachers consider "the ability to plan, manage, and maintain technology classrooms" as the most important and best-performing competency. In contrast, "the ability to develop curriculum and teaching materials, and effectively utilize various teaching strategies" received the lowest scores in both importance and performance. Analyzing the gap between the importance and performance levels of the core professional competencies indicators, it shows that the ability teachers most need to improve is "guiding students in integrated thinking and conducting project-based learning or problem-based learning." Based on the aforementioned results, it can serve as an important reference for enhancing the professional competencies of living technology teachers in the future.

林坤誼(2018)。STEM教育在台灣推行的現況與省思。青年研究學報, 21(1), 1-9。
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。
國中小教育組（2023年5月2號）。培養科技素養！國教署持續擴充生科教室設備。教育部國民及學前教育署及時新聞。https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/Tw/News/K12eaNewsDetail?filter=9F92BBB7-0251-4CB7-BF06-82385FD996A0&id=580b8973-85ee-47e0-a0a1-1871346a547b
國家教育研究院(2019)。科技領域課程手冊。https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/2024/科技領域課程手冊(定稿版).pdf
教育部(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/十二年國教課程綱要總綱.pdf
教育部(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要：科技領域。https://stv.naer.edu.tw/classic/data/course_outline/121476552.pdf
教育部(2021)。中華民國教師專業素養指引-師資職前教育階段暨師資職前教育課程基準。https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/Download.ashx?FileID=144064
張美珍(2020)。你今天動手做了嗎？生活科技課程的「教」與「學」。科技與人力教育季刊，SP_7(2)，37-41。
游光昭、吳正己、林坤誼、林育慈、范斯淳(2016)。科技領域師資職前教育專門課程規劃計畫結案報告。教育部師資培育及藝術教育司委託之研究成果報告。
游光昭、林坤誼、范斯淳、楊雅茹（2020）。素養導向系列叢書：中學生科技教材教法。台北市，五南。
游光昭(1998)。科技教室規劃的需求評估與檢核。中學工藝教育，31(1)，10-14。https://doi.org/10.6232/IAD.1998.31(1).3
王光復(2011)。科技教育界應重視如何塑造良好的學習環境。生活科技教育月刊，44(3)，1-22。
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
Caena, F. (2011). Literature review Quality in Teachers’ continuing professional development. European Commission, 2, 20.
DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337-1352. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.495400
Doyle, A., Seery, N., Gumaelius, L., Canty, D., & Hartell, E. (2019). Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: proposing a methodological framework to investigate enacted practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 473-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9456-1
Fahrman, B., Norström, P., Gumaelius, L., & Skogh, I. B. (2020). Experienced technology teachers’ teaching practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(1), 163-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09494-9
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
Ferrando, I., Albarracín, L., & Diago, P. D. (2023). Where Is It Best to Sit in Class? Description of an Experience Based on STEM Problem Solving in a School Context. Education sciences, 13(4), 417. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040417
Gu, J., Xu, M., & Hong, J. (2019). Development and validation of a technological literacy survey. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 109-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09971-6
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2018). Why context matters: A comparative perspective on education reform and policy implementation. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 17(3), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-018-9231-9
Hartell, E., Gumaelius, L., & Svärdh, J. (2015). Investigating technology teachers’ self-efficacy on assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25, 321-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9285-9
Hasni, A., Bousadra, F., Belletête, V., Benabdallah, A., Nicole, M. C., & Dumais, N. (2016). Trends in research on project-based science and technology teaching and learning at K–12 levels: a systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1226573
Horng, J. S., Hong, J. C., ChanLin, L. J., Chang, S. H., & Chu, H. C. (2005). Creative teachers and creative teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(4), 352-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00445.x
Jones, A., Buntting, C., & de Vries, M. J. (2013). The developing field of technology education: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 191-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9174-4
Jones, W. M., Smith, S., & Cohen, J. (2017). Preservice teachers' beliefs about using maker activities in formal K-12 educational settings: A multi-institutional study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3-4), 134-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1318097
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving schools, 19(3), 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
Lai, I. K. W., & Hitchcock, M. (2015). Importance–performance analysis in tourism: A framework for researchers. Tourism Management, 48, 242–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.11.008
Lin, K. Y., Chang, L. T., Tsai, F. H., & Kao, C. P. (2015). Examining the gaps between teaching and learning in the technology curriculum within Taiwan’s 9-year articulated curriculum reform from the perspective of curriculum implementation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25, 363-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9286-8
Love, T. S., & Roy, K. R. (2017). Tools and equipment in nontraditional spaces: Safety and liability issues. Technology and Engineering Teacher,76(8), 26.
Love, T. S., & Hughes, A. J. (2022). Engineering pedagogical content knowledge: examining correlations with formal and informal preparation experiences. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00345-z
Love, T. S., Roy, K. R., & Sirinides, P. (2023). A national study examining safety factors and training associated with STEM education and CTE laboratory accidents in the United States. Safety science, 160, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.106058
Malicky, D., Huang, M., & Lord, S. (2006). Problem, project, inquiry, or subject based pedagogies: What to do?. American Society for Engineering Education
Markula, A., & Aksela, M. (2022). The key characteristics of project-based learning: how teachers implement projects in K-12 science education. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 4(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-021-00042-x
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207038501300405
McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 21-44. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITDE.0000007359.81781.7c
McGarr, O., & Lynch, R. (2017). Monopolising the STEM agenda in second-level schools: Exploring power relations and subject subcultures. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9333-0
Nordlöf, C., Norström, P., Höst, G., & Hallström, J. (2022). Towards a three-part heuristic framework for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(3), 1583-1604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09664-8
Petrina, S. (Ed.). (2006). Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. IGI Global.
Pool, J., Reitsma, G., & Mentz, E. (2013). An evaluation of Technology teacher training in South Africa: shortcomings and recommendations. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 455-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9198-9
Rauscher, W., & Badenhorst, H. (2021). Thinking critically about critical thinking dispositions in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 465-488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09564-3
Rose, M. A., Shumway, S., Carter, V., & Brown, J. (2015). Identifying Characteristics of Technology and Engineering Teachers Striving for Excellence Using a Mod-ified Delphi. Journal of Technology Education, 26(2), 2-21. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v26i2.a.1
Šafhalter, A., Glodež, S., Šorgo, A., & Ploj Virtič, M. (2020). Development of spatial thinking abilities in engineering 3D modeling course aimed at lower secondary students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09597-8
Sever, I. (2015). Importance–performance analysis: a valid management tool? Tourism Management, 48, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.022
Sherman, T. M., Sanders, M., & Kwon, H. (2010). Teaching in middle school technology education: A review of recent practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20, 367-379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-009-9090-z
Üçgül, M., & Altıok, S. (2023). The perceptions of prospective ICT teachers towards the integration of 3D printing into education and their views on the 3D modeling and printing course. Education and Information Technologies, 28(8), 10151-10181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11593-z
Vossen, T. E., Henze, I., De Vries, M. J., & Van Driel, J. H. (2020). Finding the connection between research and design: the knowledge development of STEM teachers in a professional learning community. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30, 295-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09507-7
Xu, M., Williams, P. J., & Gu, J. (2022). Developing an instrument for assessing technology teachers’ understandings of the nature of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(5), 2611-2629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09698-y