融入反思活動之運算思維課程對於國小高年級學生運算思維概念與能力之影響

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：118

、訪客IP：3.22.27.77

姓名

林楷芸(Kai-Yun Lin) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

融入反思活動之運算思維課程對於國小高年級學生運算思維概念與能力之影響
(The Effects of Reflection Activities on Elementary School Students learning regard Computational Thinking Courses)

相關論文

★ 支援國小科展探究教與學之網路科展探究系統的開發與評估	★ 教師科展專業知識分享社群平台系統開發與評估
★ 科學小論文寫作平台的建置與評估	★ 「探究教學線上教師社群平台」之建置與評估:以知識管理理論為基礎
★ 科學閱讀平台之發展與評估	★ 以鷹架為基礎之科展探究系統平台之開發與評估
★ Improving Novice Teachers’ Instructional Practice Through Online Multilevel Reflection: The Role of Novice Teachers’ Beliefs	★ The Effect s of Video-based Reflection on Preservice Teachers′ Micro Teaching Focusing on Meaningful Learning with ICT
★ Examining Teachers’ Online Video-Based Reflective Practice for Professional Development Regarding Guided-Discovery Learning Instruction	★ 數位教育遊戲之開發與評估：以「Mr.道耳頓的奇幻歷險」為例
★ 應用自然語言處理技術開發基於知識翻新理論之線上非同步合作論證平台與平台初步評估	★ 同步討論與反思系統（SDRS）對小學生知識建構學習環境感知和學習成果的影響
★ 具有集成設計框架的同步在線論證系統用戶界面：重新設計和評估	★ 科學探究學習系統之開發與評估
★ 支援科學專題學習之線上學習平台開發與評估	★ 線上合作共同備課平台：開發與評估

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)

世界各先進國家都已於小學階段推動相關資訊程式語言課程，可見程式設計及「運算思維」（Computational thinking, CT）在資訊領域學習之重要性，我國也不落人後，越來越重視「運算思維」，而且目前已有許多研究者都在設計相關課程來探討如何有效促進學生「運算思維」的發展，因此研究者嘗試於國小高年級資訊課程中規劃運算思維課程。
本研究目的在探討將反思活動融入「運算思維課程」對學生學習「運算思維」的影響，研究者除了透過運算思維課程瞭解是否提升學生「運算思維之概念」及「能力」之外，也將分析融入反思的「運算思維課程」對學生學習「運算思維」的影響。
本課程以「做中學」的理念出發，並以運算思維概念為課程設計目標，搭配不插電活動、團隊筆記、Scratch專案設計等循序漸進進行，培養學生運算思維能力，研究對象分為兩班，共36位國小六年級學生，融入反思活動的為實驗組（17人）及無反思的對照組（19人），課程每週2堂課，共進行6週，計12節課。研究資料包含質性及量化資料，分為教學前及教學後實施的「Scratch程式能力及運算思維概念之測驗（自編測驗）」、課堂中團隊筆記、程式設計專案成果，以及課堂後反思單等。研究資料經處理與分析後，得研究結果如下：
一、透過本運算思維課程教學，學生運算思維概念顯著提升。
二、本研究所設計之運算思維課程能使學生運算思維能力顯著成長。
三、相較於無融入反思之運算思維課程，融入反思更有效幫助提升學生運算思維的概念廣度，對學生運算思維概念與能力的培養有正向影響。
最後，研究者亦依據研究結果對未來之相關研究提出建議。

摘要(英)

In recent years, programing education for elementary school learners has been highlighted. The crucial and central role of computational thinking has also been widely recognized. However, still not much research focusing on instructional design for computational thinking (CT) has been conducted. To address this issue, this study has two major purposes. Firstly, this study aims to develop a programming course highlighting computational thinking for six graders. In this study, a CT course was designed based on the concept of “learning by doing”, project-based learning, and group-note taking strategy. Besides, a CT with reflection course in which reflection activities were integrated for students to reflect on their own learning was also designed. After finishing the course design, this study also examined and compared the effectiveness of the two courses on students’ CT learning. The participants of this study were 36 six graders from two classes. One class of 17 students were assigned as experimental group, while the other class of 19 students were assigned as comparison group. In experimental group, the CT with reflection course was implemented, while the CT course was implemented in the comparison group. The duration of the two courses were 12 classes (six weeks, two hours per week). The participants’ CT concept and competencies were assessed before and after the instruction. Also, for both experimental and comparison groups, students’ group notes and the result of programming projects were collected. Besides, after-class reflection sheets were also collected. It was revealed that both students of the experimental and comparison groups had significant improvement on their CT concept as well as on their CT competencies. More importantly, the students attending the CT with reflection course significantly outperformed their counterparts on CT concept as well as on their CT competencies, implying the significance role of reflection activities on elementary school students’ CT learning. Based the findings above, implications for directions for future research and teaching practices are also discussed.

關鍵字(中)

★ 運算思維
★ 運算思維概念
★ 運算思維能力
★ 運算思維課程
★ 反思活動

關鍵字(英)

★ Computational Thinking
★ Computational Thinking Concept
★ Computational Thinking competency
★ Computational Thinking Course
★ Reflection Activity

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
目錄 v
表目錄 vii
圖目錄 ix
第一章緒論 1
第一節　研究背景與動機 1
第二節　研究目的與問題 3
第三節　研究範圍與限制 4
第四節　名詞解釋 5
第二章　文獻探討 7
第一節　運算思維 7
壹、運算思維的定義 7
貳、運算思維的核心概念 16
參、運算思維的相關研究 18
第二節　反思 23
壹、反思的意義 23
貳、反思對學習的影響 25
第三章　研究方法 27
第一節　研究對象 27
第二節　研究流程 29
第三節　研究工具 41
第四節資料蒐集 49
第五節　資料處理與分析 51
第四章　研究結果與討論 56
第一節　運算思維課程教學成效分析 56
第二節　學生運算思維概念與能力分析 58
壹、團隊筆記分析學生學習歷程 58
貳、Scratch專案設計分析學生運算思維能力 68
第三節　課後反思中學生運算思維概念分析 84
第四節　課後反思對學生學習的影響 88
第五章　結論與建議 93
第一節　結論 93
壹、透過本運算思維課程能有效提升學生運算思維概念與能力 93
貳、融入反思之運算思維課程對學生運算思維概念與能力的學習有顯著的影響 94
第二節　建議 95
參考文獻 97
附錄 107
附錄一　課程分析歷程 107
附錄二　課程投影片 110
附錄三　自編測驗（前測） 121
附錄四　自編測驗（後測） 130
附錄五　團隊筆記 138
附錄六　反思單 139
附錄七　反思向度彙整表 140

參考文獻

中文部分
王勝忠（2015年11月）。反思的力量。親子天下，取自：https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/1787
吳傑（2006）。淺談管理理論的「反思性學習」方法。中國：澳門。
吳舒民（2017）。採用鷹架導引系統提升國小學童運算思維能力之研究（碩士論文）。國立臺南大學，台南市。Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/hq3944
李俊輝（2018）。國小四年級情境式運算思維教學之行動研究（碩士論文）。國立屏東大學，屏東縣。 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/jb7vce
林美娟（2008）。國中小實施程式設計教學之適切性探究。中等教育，59(4)，58-77。
林琨越（2019）。以E-game平台進行運算思維教學─對國小五年級學生學習成效與態度影響（碩士論文）。國立清華大學，新竹市。Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/sb7m96
香港賽馬會（2016）。運算思維教育計畫。取自https://www.coolthink.hk/ct/
科學版（1997）。張春興。現代心理學。In:上海人民出版社.
張同廟（2019）。那一型最像你? Kolb 經驗學習與反思之探究─ 以大學生參與社團服務學習活動為例。華醫學報，（50）， 37-61
張基成與陳政川（2010）。網路化檔案評量中學習者反思行為對學習成效之影響。科學教育學刊, 18(2), 85-106.
張輝誠（2018）。學思達增能：張輝誠的創新教學心法。臺灣：親子天下。

張嘉倫（2019）。國際運算思維挑戰賽測驗結果與國小五年級學生Scratch程式設計學習成效相關性之研究。萬能科技大學資訊管理研究所在職專班碩士論文，桃園縣。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/yee79p
陳沛均（2019）。國中小學生運算思維與程式設計能力之研究（碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ym8ahc
陳育賢（2019）。國小學童程式運算思維能力分析：以mBot機器人為例（碩士論文）。國立臺南大學，台南市。Retrieved from　https://hdl.handle.net/11296/u5qvpe
陳佩萱（2017）。美感素養與英語STEAM課程對國小學生運算思維與英語學習之影響（碩士論文）。臺北市立大學，臺北市。Retrieved from
https://hdl.handle.net/11296/7rsjjf
陳政佑（2019）。 micro:bit程式設計課程教學對於國小五年級兒童運算思維之影響（碩士論文）。臺北市立大學，臺北市。Retrieved from
https://hdl.handle.net/11296/jvbge4
陳美玉(2000)。師生合作反省教學在師資培育上運用之研究。In: 教育研究資訊.
陳新轉（2012年11月）。從課程規劃與教學精進的觀點區辨「素養」與「能力」概念。通識在線，43。取自
http://www.chinesege.org.tw/geonline/html/page4/publish_pub.php?Pub_Sn=16&Sn=1424
國家教育研究院（2015）。十二年國教科技領域「資訊科技」科目課程綱要草案。未出版。
教育部，運算思維推動計畫網站。取自　http://compthinking.csie.ntnu.edu.tw/

教育部（2018）十二年國民基本教育課程綱要科技領域。取自https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/files/class_schema/%E8%AA%B2%E7%B6%B1/13-%E7%A7%91%E6%8A%80/13-1/%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%B0%91%E5%9F%BA%E6%9C%AC%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81%E5%9C%8B%E6%B0%91%E4%B8%AD%E5%AD%B8%E6%9A%A8%E6%99%AE%E9%80%9A%E5%9E%8B%E9%AB%98%E7%B4%9A%E4%B8%AD%E7%AD%89%E5%AD%B8%E6%A0%A1%E2%94%80%E7%A7%91%E6%8A%80%E9%A0%98%E5%9F%9F.pdf
曾鈺惠（2019）。國小三年級學生運算思維融入數學領域之統計表教學成效及態度研究。樹德科技大學資訊管理系碩士班碩士論文，高雄市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/s86u25
彭雯嫈（2018）。運算思維對國小六年級學生社會學習領域學習之影響（碩士論文）。國立清華大學，新竹市。Retrieved from
https://hdl.handle.net/11296/nnmsgn
劉佳琦（2018）。輔助國小高年級學生學習運算思維之遊戲式App設計與評鑑。國立交通大學教育研究所碩士論文，新竹市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/34fade
蔡佩勳（2019）。問題導向式學習應用在國小程式學習對學生運算思維能力提升成效之研究（碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，台中市。Retrieved from
https://hdl.handle.net/11296/zx67rj
鄭國明、林群峰與溫嘉榮（2017）。Kodu遊戲設計教學對國小學童運算思維提昇成效之研究。TANET2017臺灣網際網路研討會。1566-1572.

盧思羽（2019）。運算思維與批判性思考整合策略對國小基礎程式設計學習成效之影響。國立中山大學資訊管理學系研究所碩士論文，高雄市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/qw7nv7
戴心禹（2018）。融入運算思維於數位說故事教學以提升表達能力（碩士論文）。國立臺南大學，台南市。Retrieved from
https://hdl.handle.net/11296/nhyc62
簡梅瑩（2010）。反思教學應用於培養大學生批判思考與多元文化學習之探討。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊， 3(1)，21-40。

英文部分
Adams, R. S., Turns, J., & Atman, C. J. （2003）. Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice. Design studies, 24（3）, 275-294.
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-835.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013). Draft Australian Curriculum: Technologies Foundation to Year 10 Consult Report, Retrieved from
https://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/Draft_Australian_Curriculum_Technologies_-_Consultation_Report_-_August_2013.pdf.
Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20-23.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.
BBC. (n. d. ). Introduction to computational thinking. Retrieved July 13, 2020. from
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zp92mp3/revision/1.
Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition.
Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 628-647.
Bebras國際運算思維挑戰賽（2018）。挑戰賽介紹。取自http://bebras.csie.ntnu.edu.tw/about
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 1, p. 25).
Burke, K. (1999). The Mindful School: How to Assess Authentic Learning. Sky Light Training and Publishing, USA.
Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J. M. (2010). Demystifying computational thinking for non-computer scientists. Unpublished manuscript in progress, referenced in
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf.
Computer Science Teachers Association (2017). CSTA K-12 Computer Science Standards, Revised 2017. Retrieved from
http://www.csteachers.org/standards.
Dagiene, V., & Stupuriene, G., Bebras International Contest on Informatics and Computer Literacy: Criteria for Good Tasks. ISSEP, 2008.
Denning, P. J. (2009). The profession of IT Beyond computational　thinking. Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 28-30.
Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33-39.

Department for Education. (2013). National curriculum in England: computing programmes of study, Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study.
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process Vol. 8.
Eyler, J., & Giles Jr, D. E. (1999). Where′s the Learning in Service-Learning? Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series: ERIC.
Google for Education. (n. d. ). Computational Thinking Concepts Guide. Retrieved July 7, 2020. from
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i0wg-BMG3TdwsShAyH_0Z1xpFnpVcMvpYJceHGWex_c/edit#heading=h.ld02iaxpskpn.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
Henderson, J. G. （1992）. Reflective teaching:becoming an inquiring educator. New　York: Macmillan.

Ishii, N., & Miwa, K.（2005, April）. Supporting reflective practice in creativity education. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Creativity & cognition（pp. 150-157）.
ISTE. (2015). CT leadership toolkit. Retrieved fromhttps://id.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ct-leadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles, 1(8), 227-247.
Korkmaz, Ö., Cakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558-569.
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., . . . Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 32-37.
Matthews, S. J., Sul, S.-J., & Williams, T. L. (2010). A novel approach for compressing phylogenetic trees. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Bioinformatics Research and Applications.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstonns. New York: Basic Rooks, 607.
Donald A. Schön. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
Society, R. (2012). Shut down or restart?: The way forward for computing in UK schools: Royal Society.

Wade, R. C.（1997）. Reflection.In R.C.Wade(Ed.). Communith Service - Learning : A guide to Including Service in the Public School Curriculum(p.94-112).Albany, NY : State university of New York Press.
Wang, D., Wang, T., & Liu, Z. (2014). A tangible programming tool for children to cultivate computational thinking. The Scientific World Journal, 2014.
Whitney, B. C., & Clayton, P. H. (2011). Research on and through reflection in international service learning. International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research, 145-187.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.
Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why. The link magazine, 6.
Wing, J. (2017). Computational thinking’s influence on research and education for all. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 7-14.
Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1-16.

Yangyang, R. Y., Makhni, M. C., Tabrizi, S., Rozental, T. D., Mundanthanam, G., & Day, C. S. (2011). Complications of low-profile dorsal versus volar locking plates in the distal radius: a comparative study. The Journal of hand surgery, 36(7), 1135-1141.
Zhong, B., Wang, Q., Chen, J., & Li, Y. (2016). An exploration of three-dimensional integrated assessment for computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(4), 562-590

指導教授

吳穎沺(Ying-Tien Wu)

審核日期

2020-7-24

推文