一套註記工具支援教學策略來改善學童學習程式語言之學習成效

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：75

、訪客IP：3.144.18.252

姓名

李長駿(Chang-chun Lee) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊工程學系

論文名稱

一套註記工具支援教學策略來改善學童學習程式語言之學習成效
(Improving Learning Achievements of Computer Programming through an Annotation Tool Supported Teaching Strategy)

相關論文

★ 應用智慧分類法提升文章發佈效率於一企業之知識分享平台	★ 家庭智能管控之研究與實作
★ 開放式監控影像管理系統之搜尋機制設計及驗證	★ 資料探勘應用於呆滯料預警機制之建立
★ 探討問題解決模式下的學習行為分析	★ 資訊系統與電子簽核流程之總管理資訊系統
★ 製造執行系統應用於半導體機台停機通知分析處理	★ Apple Pay支付於iOS平台上之研究與實作
★ 應用集群分析探究學習模式對學習成效之影響	★ 應用序列探勘分析影片瀏覽模式對學習成效的影響
★ 一個以服務品質為基礎的網際服務選擇最佳化方法	★ 維基百科知識推薦系統對於使用e-Portfolio的學習者滿意度調查
★ 學生的學習動機、網路自我效能與系統滿意度之探討-以e-Portfolio為例	★ 藉由在第二人生內使用自動對話代理人來改善英文學習成效
★ 合作式資訊搜尋對於學生個人網路搜尋能力與策略之影響	★ 數位註記對學習者在線上學習環境中反思等級之影響

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

傳統的程式設計課程是透過老師講解與示範程式範例，學生照著老師示範的步驟來練習，這種教學方式有兩種缺點。第一：許多學生只會目前學習的範例，遇到新的問題卻不知所措：第二：學生在學習過程中常常發問，由於時間的限制老師很難一一解決所有學生的問題，缺乏即時回饋的機制而讓學生遇到問題無法解決就無法繼續學習，且同樣的問題會重複出現。本研究主要目的是探討利用註記工具支援解決問題教學策略來提升學童在在程式學習活動上的學習成效。本研究採用準實驗研究法，以台北市某國小的六年級學生為研究對象，最後以學習測驗、同儕互評、學習態度問卷共三個項度來評估學生的學習成效，並輔以課堂觀察紀錄的質性資料來分析學生的學習過程。根據分析質化與量化的資料所得到的結果，註記工具支援解決問題教學策略能有效地提昇程式設計課程的學習成效，並能減少學生課堂中所提問的數量，減輕老師的教學負擔。

摘要(英)

The traditional course in computer programming depends on explaining and demonstrating program examples by teacher, and the students follow the steps to practice. There are two shortcomings in this pedagogy. First, many students can only finish the program exercises which they are learning, and cannot solve new problems that they never encounter. Second, students often ask questions during the course, but the teacher is hard to answer due to time limitation. The lack of immediate feedback causes students unable to keep learning, and the same asked question will repeat again and again. In this paper, we consider an annotation supported teaching strategy to improving learning achievements of computer programming. Quasi-Experimental Study was used in this study, and the students from the sixth grade of an elementary school of Taipei city were selected. Finally, an achievement test, peer assessment, and attitude questionnaire were used to evaluate the learning achievements. We also collect observation records during the course to analyze the learning process of the student. Analyzing the quantitative and qualitative datum, the results of the study is that an annotation supported teaching strategy can improve learning achievements of computer programming effectively, reduce the asked question ,and alleviate the teaching assignment of the teacher.

關鍵字(中)

★ 註記工具
★ 國小教育
★ 學習成就
★ 電腦程式

關鍵字(英)

★ Learning achievements
★ computer programming
★ annotation tools
★ Elementary education

論文目次

摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
誌謝 III
目錄 IV
圖目錄 VII
表目錄 VIII
第一章緒論 1
1-1研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究問題定義 3
1-3 研究解決方法 3
1-4 實驗範圍與限制 3
1-5 研究貢獻 4
第二章文獻探討 5
2-1 電腦程式教學 5
2-2 解決問題教學策略 7
2-3 註記工具支援解決問題教學策略 8
第三章教學情境 11
3-1程式語言學習教材 11
3-2 教學內容分析 11
3-3 註記工具介紹 13
第四章研究方法 20
4-1 研究變項 20
4-2 研究對象 21
4-3 研究工具 22
4-4 研究步驟 25
4-5 學習成效分析 27
4-5-1 量化收集的資料 28
4-5-2 質性資料 29
第五章結果與討論 30
5-1紙筆測驗學習成效分析 30
5-1-1 紙筆測驗整體學習成效分析 30
5-1-1-1 教學策略之整體學習成效分析 32
5-1-1-2 教學輔助工具之整體學習成效分析 33
5-1-2概念性知識之學習成效分析 34
5-1-2-1 教學策略之概念性知識成效分析 35
5-1-2-2 教學輔助工具之概念性知識成效分析 36
5-1-3策略性知識之學習成效分析 37
5-2學習態度問卷分析 38
5-2-1問卷的信度分析 38
5-2-2態度問卷的效度分析 39
5-2-3 學童對「對課程的接受度」分析 39
5-2-3學童對「老師的滿意度」分析 40
5-2-4學童對「上課方法的態度」分析 42
5-3實作評量分析 43
5-4 TAM問卷統計與分析 45
5-4-1 TAM問卷的信度分析 45
5-4-2 TAM問卷的效度分析 45
5-4-3 問卷分析探討 46
5-5 質性資料分析 48
5-5-1 分析方法 48
5-5-2分析結果 50
第六章結論 59
參考文獻 60
附錄一：SCRATCH學習教材 63
附錄二：學習成就測驗筆試題目 79
附錄三：作品互評表 83
附錄四：學習態度問卷 84
附錄五：科技接受程度問卷 86

參考文獻

[1] Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.
[2] Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching, 20(1), 24-73.
[3] Bolliger, D.U. and Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online course. International Journal on E-Learning, 61-67.
[4] Bishop-Clark, C. (1992). Protocol analysis of a novice programmer. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 24(3).
[5] Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.
[6] Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model of empirically testing new end-userinformation systems: Theory and results. Doctoral dissertation. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[7] Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath.
[8] Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20, 289-299.
[9] Gomes, A. , & Mendes, A.J. (2007). Learning to program - difficulties and solutions. International Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007.
[10] Govender, I., & Grayson, D. (2006). Learning to program and learning to teach programming: A closer look. Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA 2006-World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, 1687-1693.
[11] Graesser, A. C., & Person, N.K. (1994).Question asking during tutoring. American educational research journal, 31(1), 104-137.
[12] Graham, K.(1983). Introduction to Survey Sampling(1st ed.). Sage Publications.
[13] Hwang, W. Y., Wang, C. Y. & Sharples, M. (2007). A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials. Computers & Education,48,680-699.
[14] Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Järvinen, H. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin , Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education ITiCSE '05,37(3), 14-18.
[15] LeJeune, N. F. (2002). Problem-based learning instruction versus traditional instruction on self-directed learning, motivation, and grades of undergraduate computer science students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Denver.
[16] Lin, J.M.-C., Yen, L.-Y., Yang, M.-C. & Chen, C.-F. (2005).Teaching computer programming in elementary school: a pilot study. National Educational Computing Conference.
[17] Maheshwari, P. (1997). Improving the learning environment in first-year programming: integrating lectures, tutorials, and laboratories. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(1), 111-131.
[18] McGill, T., & Hobbs, V. (1996). A supplementary package for distance education
students studying introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(1), 73-77.
[19] Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
[20] Nokelainen P., Kurhila J., Miettinen M., Floreen P., & Tirri H. (2003).Evaluating the role of a shared document-based annotation tool in learner-centered collaborative learning, 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 200-203.
[21] Overbaugh, R. C. (1993). A BASIC programming curriculum for enhancing problem–solving ability . Convention of the Assoc. of Educational Communication and Technology, (ERIC ED 355921).
[22] Ovsiannikov, I.A., Arbib, M.A., & McNeill, T.H. (1999). Annotation Technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 329-362.
[23] Papert, S. (1980).Teaching Children Thinking. Computers in Schools: Tutor,Tool, Tutee. New York: Teachers College Pres.
[24] Pea, R. D. (1983). LOGO programming and problem solving. New York: Bank Street College of Education, Center for Children and Technology.
[25] Perkins D. N., & Martin F. (1986). Fragile Knowledge and Neglected Strategies in Novice Programmers. In E. Soloway, & Iyengar S., (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers. 213-229.
[26] Peter Bancroft ,& Paul Roe (2006). Program Annotations: Feedback for Students Learning to Program, Eighth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2006)
[27] Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
[28] Rensis Likert (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55.
[29] Rist, R. S. (1995). Program structure and design. Cognitive Science, 19, 507-562.
[30] Rist, R. S. (1996). Teaching Eiffel as a first language. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, 9, 30-41.
[31] Pond, K., & Ul-Haq, R., & Wade, W. (1995). Peer review: A precursor to peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 314-323.
[32] Schollmeyer, M. (1996). Computer programming in high school vs. college. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(1), 378-382.
[33] Singh, J. K., & Zwirner, W. (1996). Toward a theoretical framework of problem solving within LOGO programming environments. Journal of research on computing in education, 29(1), 68-96.
[34] Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (2003). Note-taking review-practical value for Learners. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://www.univ-rouen.fr/arobase/bck10.html
[35] Topping, K. J. (1998), Peer Assessments between Colleges and Universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
[36] Volet, S. E., & Lund, C. P. (1994). Meta cognitive instruction in introductory computer programming: A Better explanatory construct for performance than traditional factors. Journal of Education Computing Research, 10(4), 297-328.
[37] Hartmann, W., Nievergelt, J., & Reichert ,R. (2001). Kara, finite state machines, and the case for programming as part of general education. In Proceedings of Symposia on Human Centric Computing 2001.
[38] Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy - A psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28, 17-22.
[39] Yeh, S. W., & Lo, J. J. (2009). Using Online Annotations to Support Error Correction and Corrective Feedback. Computers & Education, 52 , 882-892.

指導教授

楊鎮華(Stephen J.H. Yang)

審核日期

2009-7-22

推文