互動式電子白板具有高互動性、結合多媒體素材及提升教學效率等特性，使用者可以直接操作模擬元件或展示內容，因此近年來逐漸使用於我國國小教學課程中。然而國中階段的學習需要具備更高層次的認知思考，尤其是理化課程中的抽象內容，學生往往無法理解其邏輯概念，也由於時空限制無法進行大量實驗操作。本研究以互動式電子白板融入國中理化科教學，並以傳統講授教學作為對照，進行為期兩個月的觀察實驗，藉此探討學生在不同的教學方法下學習成效的差異，並分析學生在長期使用科技產品時學習動機的變化情形。此外，在教學實驗的過程中將記錄學習者與教師的互動行為歷程，以理解適合互動式電子白板教學的互動情境，作為未來設計與修改課程活動的參考依據。
經教學實驗與統計分析後，可獲得以下結果：
1. 使用互動式電子白板進行教學與傳統講授教學對學習者的學習成效提升狀況沒有顯著差異；然而互動式電子白板教學有助於學習者應用整合抽象概念，對於低成就學習者更具顯著效果。
2. 經使用互動式電子白板進行教學後，學習者的工作價值、自我效能與期望成功等動機分項有顯著提升。
3. 使用互動式電子白板進行教學後學習者的內在目標與工作價值提升狀況顯著優於經傳統講授教學的學習者。
4. 在互動式電子白板教學情境中，教師使用自編互動教材教學與講解課本考卷內容為最常出現的互動行為；隨著教師使用自製教材的比例提高，教師抄寫黑板與朗誦課本的時間比例降低，而學習者間的互動行為也有所增加。

The features of interactive whiteboard (IWB) are highly interactive, combining multimedia and improving teaching efficiency. Users can directly manipulate simulation component or display the content on the IWB. Recently, IWBs are common used in elementary schools. However, students need higher cognitive thinking skill in junior high school. Furthermore, students are often unable to understand the abstract concept of science, and unable to operate the experiments because of limitations in time and space.
This study applies IWB into science teaching in junior high school during two-month observation. The purposes of the research are to explore the difference of learning effect and learning motivation between different teaching methods. Through the process of experiment, researcher records the interactions between instructors and learners in order to analyze the situation in classroom with IWB.
After analyzing the results, we provided the conclusions as follows:
1. Teaching with IWB does not promote the learning effect of the learners in science significantly. However, teaching with IWB can facilitate the understanding of abstract concept, especially for underachievers.
2. The learning motivation of students in task value, self-efficacy for learning, and expectancy for success is higher after learning with IWB than traditional teaching method.
3. The learning motivation of students with IWB in intrinsic goal orientation and task value is higher than students with traditional teaching.
4. The most common interactive behaviors in the IWB classroom are teacher teaching with self-made materials and explaining the content of textbooks. With using more self-made teaching materials, teachers can reduce the time of writing on the blackboard and reciting the textbook, and the interaction between students also increased.

王靜媺（2008）。資訊多媒體融入體育教學對國中學生學習動機及學習效果之影響。私立輔仁大學體育學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版，台北縣。
李旻樺（2002）。高中學生之自我效能、成功期望、學習任務價值與課業學習動機調整策略之研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商系碩士論文，未出版，彰化縣。
李宜麟（2005）。國中英語科專任教師兼任導師課室觀察之個案探究。屏東科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東縣。
李美惠（2010）。摸不摸？有關係！互動式電子白板在自然理化科教學經驗分享。台北市：仁愛國中。
吳幸宜（譯）（2001）。M. E. Gredler著。學習理論與教學應用（Learning and Instruction theory into practice）。台北市：心理。
吳淑靜（2003）。國小體育教師師生互動行為及教學決定因素之研究。國立新竹教育大學進修部體育教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
吳靜吉、程炳林（1992）。激勵的學習策略量表之修訂。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，39，59-78。
林儀惠（2008）。互動式電子白板在國小數學教學之探討-以國小數學領域五年級面積單元為例。私立亞洲大學資訊工程學系碩士論文，未出版，台中縣。
周孝俊（2008）。互動式電子白板教學活動和實驗。國立花蓮教育大學學習科技研究所碩士論文，未出版，花蓮縣。
周清壹（2004）。資訊融入自然與生活科技領域教學對國小學生學習動機與學習成就的影響。國立台南大學自然科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
周韻芳（2008）。數位教材之動機設計對網路學習者的動機表現與學習策略運用之影響。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
邱麗綺（2002）。高年級國語科卷宗評量中的師生互動及學生自評與互評之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
高俊豐（2009）。以合作學習應用互動式電子白板在國小高年級數學縮圖與比例尺單元之成效研究。國立屏東教育大學教育科技研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東縣。
高瑩真（2009）。互動式電子白板應用於國小高年級健康課程教學對不同學習風格學習者學習情形影響之研究。國立新竹教育大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
梁宗賀、黃雅貴、杜叔娟、鄭玉雨、鄭兆君（2007）。學校導入互動式電子白板於國小低年級國語教學應用之研究。「TANET2007臺灣網際網路研討會」論文集，台北市。
陳秋麗（2005）。國中生英語學習動機、學習滿意度與學習成就之相關研究—以雲林縣為例。國立雲林科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士班碩士論文，未出版，雲林縣。
陳惠邦（2006）。互動白板導入教室教學的現況與思考。「全球華人資訊教育創新論壇」論文集，宜蘭縣。
陳惠邦（2007）。以互動白板實踐互動教學理想的可能性:教師社群與專業發展觀點。「Interactive Classroom」研討會論文集，北京市。
陳韻雯（2009）。桃園縣國民小學教師使用互動式電子白板之調查研究。國立臺北教育大學國民教育學系教育事業創新經營碩專班碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
張秀澂（2002）。電腦動畫融入教學對國中生電化學學習成就影響之研究。國立臺灣師範大學化學系在職進修碩士學位班碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
張春興（2003）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐（修訂版）。台北市：東華。
郭淑禎（2003）。從建構取向教學的教室環境營造提昇學童科學學習動機之行動研究。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，花蓮縣。
郭慧龍、林建伸（2003）。Flanders互動分析系統輔助軟體介紹。竹縣文教，27，62-69。
莊耀嘉（1990）。馬斯洛。台北市：桂冠。
湯宗益、廖莉芬（2003）。互動形式與使用者態度之研究：以遠距教學系統為例。資訊管理展望，5（1），101-114。
黃鈺雯（2004）。嘉義地區國小高年級教師教學態度、師生互動與學生學習動機之關係研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義市。
黃博聖（2006）。國小六年級學童數學學習動機、知覺班級氣氛、數學態度與數學學業成就之相關性研究。國立台南大學數學教育學習碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
劉正山（2007）。交互白板環境下國小數學領域教學設計的互動研究。國立臺北教育大學教育傳播與科技研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
蔡崇元（2001）。網路教學者教學互動策略之研究─以大學推廣教育教師為例。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
蔣恩芬（2000）。學習動機相關因素探討與學習動機方案成效研究。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學習碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
鄭采玉（2008）。國小學生社會領域學習動機與學習滿意度關係之研究。國立屏東教育大學社會科教育學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版，屏東縣。
賴耐鋼（2006）。國中教師與學生語言互動之研究。國立東華大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，花蓮縣。
顏菀廷（2008）。應用互動式電子白板融入國小數學教學成效之探究。國立臺北教育大學教育傳播與科技研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。

Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457-469.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
Beauchamp, G. & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54, 759–766.
Becta. (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. UK: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta), ICT Research.
Becta. (2005). How can the use of an interactive whiteboard enhance the nature of teaching and learning in secondary mathematics and modern foreign languages? UK: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta), ICT Research Bursaries.
Becta. (2006). Teaching interactively with electronic whiteboards in the primary phase. UK: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta), ICT Advice.
Betcher, C. & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution, Teaching with IWBs. Australia: ACER Press.
Clemens, A., Moore, T., & Nelson, B. (2001). Math Intervention "SMART" Project, Student Mathematical Analysis and Reasoning. Kansas: Mueller Elementary School.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing Teaching Behavior. Reading, Massachusetts : Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Garrison, D. R. (1993). A Cognitive Constructivist View of Distance Education: An Analysis of Teaching-Learning Assumptions. Distance Education, 14(2), 199-211.
Gilbert, C. (2008). Writing Improvement through the Whiteboard. Virginia: Forestville Elementary.
Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. (2008). Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 348-358.
Glover, D. & Miller, D. (2003). Players in the management of change: introducing interactive whiteboards into schools. Management in Education, 17(1), 20–23.
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005). Leadership implications of using interactive whiteboards. Management in Education, 18 (5), 27-30.
Goodison, T. A. (2002). Learning with ICT at primary level: pupils’ perceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 282-295.
Haldane, M. (2007). Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 257-270.
Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 21, 102-117.
Heirigs, K. & Thurmon, H. (2008). Elementary Science Lab Outreach Efforts: Extending Science Lessons to Support Improvements in Students’ Study Skills and Math Performance in Grades 4, 5, and 6. TN: St. Joseph Catholic School.
Hertz-Lazarovits, R. (1992). Understanding interactive behavior: Looking at six matters of the classroom. In R. Hertz-Lazarovits & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups, the theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp.71-101). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hillman, D., Willis., J., & Gunawardena, N. (1994). Learner-Interface Interaction in Distance Education : An Extension of Contemporary Models and Strategies for Practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2).
Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance Education, International Perspectives (pp. 114-122). New York, NY: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status (pp. 383-434). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 61-73.
Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: a developmental study. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm
McCombs, B. L. (2000). Reducing the achievement gap. Society, 37(5), 29-39.
Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2008). Enabling Enhanced Mathematics Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards Final Report for the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics. Staffordshire, UK: Keele University, Keele Interactive Whiteboard Research Group.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., & McKeachie, W. j. (1989). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire(MSLQ) (Technical Report No. 91-B-004). Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Reilly, R. R. ＆ Lewis, E. L. (1983). Educational psychology, Application for classroom learning and instruction. New York: NY: Macmillian Publishing Co.
Schultz, T. (1999). Interactive Options in Online Journalism: A Content Analysis of 100 U.S. Newspapers. JCMC 5 (1). Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/issue1/schultz.html
Schwier, R. A. & Misanchuk, E. R. (1993). Interactive multimedia instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publication.
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive hiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101.
Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milbum, Sharon. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66(1), 209-223.
Taylor, J. C. (1998). Flexible delivery: The globalisation of lifelong learning. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 7(1), 67-78.
Tozcu, A. (2008). The use of interactive whiteboards in teaching non-roman scripts. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 143-166.
Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From Agents to Outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71, 19-26.
Weimer, M. J. (2001). The Influence of Technology Such As a SMART Board Interactive Whiteboard on Student Motivation in the Classroom. Indiana: West Noble Middle School.
Wood, R. & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96.