| 摘要(英) |
In this study, we focused on how we can cultivate student’s abilities of discussion, co-editing, sharing, teamwork, and expression in collaboration activity. We incorporated flipped classroom and reciprocal teaching along with google classroom. Furthermore, this study takes place within a smart classroom environment built with the IoT technology and has the support of the robot. A flipped classroom is an instructional strategy and a type of blended learning that reverses the traditional learning environment by delivering instructional content, often online, outside of the classroom. This study is divided into three main phases: stage-1, stage-2, and stage-3. stage-1 is the discussions about course work, sessions to facilitate the system use (GC, Robot, how to co-edit). stage-3 is all about mid-term, final term & surveys. Our main focus is on the stage-2 and this stage has three phases pre-class, in-class, post-class. These three phases are supported by the flipped classroom. Moreover, here we facilitated the In-class session with reciprocal teaching. We treated the flipped classroom as a type of macroscopic guidance focussed on the whole class for collaboration among groups and reciprocal teaching as a type of microscopic guidance to facilitate discussions, co-editing, teamwork within groups. During microscopic guidance (In-class) session the reciprocal strategy is applied and is focused on two things. The first consists of the use of reciprocal teaching (SQCP) dialogue as a vehicle for co-editing, discussion, teamwork, and sharing. The second is how SQCP strategies correlate separately with the Q&A, co-edit, discussion, teamwork, SQCP-Sharing and presentation. We use Google Classroom as a facilitation tool and to get the best of this tool we focussed on the co-edit in particular and in general version control, grouping, instant feedback, grade statistics, spontaneous notifications. Furthermore, we used Zenbo Robot as another tool to facilitate student’s classroom activities like slide sharing, presentations, controlling classroom environment including the use of projector through the robot. During the data analysis different results were found 1) There were significant positive correlations between the variables SQCP and Q&A (r = .741, p < .01). The features like co-editing (SQCP) & Q&A teach them that it is not just about content; it is about cultivating habits of mind that are the underpinnings of deeper contexts. 2)“Presentation and mid-term” are positive but significance level is low (r = .347, p>.05) & when the same process of learning gets more time then “Presentation and final-term” correlations show positive and significant results (r = .418, p < .05). With this, we concluded that understanding of subject matter is a process of maintaining consistency for longer times. Also, students are not only gaining conceptual understanding but also learn how they can collaborate, co-edit, team-work and share in a better and efficient way. 3) SQCP-Sharing and mid-term (r = .555, p < .01) and SQCP-Sharing and final-term (r = .542, p < .01) concludes encouraging students to share knowledge not only builds collaboration skills, but it also leads to deeper learning and understanding. With time, students learn to look at their colleagues as a resource, which helps them in their mutual growth. The instant feedback about their content helps them to better understand where they need to further enhance and how they should increase their learning growth. These kinds of strategies promote a sense of shared responsibility among the students. This shared responsibility leads to broadening their conceptual understanding beyond the context in which they learned it and they no longer skim material. |
| 參考文獻 |
Baker, J. W. (2000). The ′classroom flip’: Using web course management tools to become the guide by the side. 11th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning, (pp. 12-15). Jacksonville florida united states.
Barkley. (2009). Student engagement techniques.
Butt, A. (2014). STUDENT VIEWS ON THE USE OF A FLIPPED CLASSROOM APPROACH: EVIDENCE FROM AUSTRALIA. EBA BUSINESS EDUCATION & ACCREDITATION, 33-43.
Carter, C. (1997). Why reciprocal teaching? Educational Leadership. 54 (6), 64.
Cheng, Y.-W., Sun, P.-C., & Chen, N.-S. (2018). The essential applications of educational robot: Requirement analysis from the perspectives of experts, researchers and instructors. Computers & Education, 399-416.
Christine Hockings, S. C. (2009). ‘I′m neither entertaining nor charismatic …’ negotiating university teacher identity within diverse student groups. Teaching in Higher Education, 14:5, 483-494.
Coates, H. (2006). Student Engagement in Campus-Based and Online Education. london.
Devlin, T. J., R, C., Feldhaus, & Bentrem, K. M. (2013). The Evolving Classroom: A Study of Traditional and Technology-Based Instruction in a STEM Classroom. JTE - Journal of Technology Education.
Dunlap, J. C., & Grabinger, S. (2003). Preparing Students for Lifelong Learning: A Review of Instructional Features and Teaching Methodologies. willey online library, 6-25.
Edwards, O. (2007, march 9). High tech high: A learning environment steeped in technology. edutopia.
Finch, G. (2018). Classroom design then and now. Retrieved from:. https://www.viewsonic.com/library/education/classroom-design-trends-layout.
Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip Your Classroom to Improve Student Learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 12-17.
Grabinger, J. C. (2003). Preparing Students for Lifelong Learning: A Review of Instructional Features and Teaching Methodologies. performane improvment quality, 6-25.
Gulek, J., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment.
Hacker, D., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom:Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational psychology, 699 –718.
Hand, Bryson, C., & Len. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44:4, 349-362.
Hashey, M., & Connors, D. (2003). Learn from our journey: Reciprocal teaching action research. The Reading Teacher, , 224 – 232.
Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. (2013). Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom. Journal of college science teaching, 62-66.
Iftikhar. (2016). GOOGLE CLASSROOM: WHAT WORKS AND HOW? Journal of Education and Social Sciences.
Janzen, M. (2014). Hot Team: Google Classroom.
JunFeng, Pan, Y. H., Zhou, W., & Huang, R. (2018). Evaluation of smart classroom from the perspective of infusing technology into pedagogy.
Kim, C. M., Kim, D., Yuan, J. m., B.Hill, R., Doshi, P., & N.Thai, C. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers′ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. computers and education, 14-31.
L.Neumann, K., & J.Kopcha, T. (2019). Using Google Docs for Peer-then-Teacher Review on Middle School Students’ Writing. Computers and Composition, 102524.
Lage, M. P. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 30-43.
Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., & Mahmud, A. A. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technology for Education and Learning.
Palincsar. (1988). Teaching and Practicing Thinking Skills to Promote Comprehension in the Context of Group Problem Solving. Sage journals, 53-59.
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 211–225, 229.
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities. Cognition and Instruction, 117-175.
Paul Black, R. M. (2006). Learning How to Learn and Assessment for Learning: a theoretical inquiry. Research papers in education, 119-132.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of the Research. sage journals, 479-530.
Slater, W. H., & Horstman, F. R. (2002). Teaching reading and writing to struggling: Middle school and high school students: The case for reciprocal teaching. Preventing School Failure, 163-166.
Song, S., Zhong, X., Li, H., Du, J., & Nie, F. (2014). Smart classroom: From conceptualization to construction . International Conference on Intelligent Environments, 330–332.
Spires, Lee, H. A., Turner, J. K., & Johnson, J. (2008). Having our say: Middle school perspectives on school, technology, and academic engagement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 497–515.
Strayer, J. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environment Research, 171-193.
Taylor, & Frye. ( (1992).). Comprehension strategy instruction in the intermediate grades. Reading Research and Instruction, 39 – 48.
Trostle, J. (2014). Co-Writing, Peer Editing, and Publishing in the Cloud,” in Web Writing: Why and How for Liberal Arts Teaching and Learning. ed. Jack Dougherty and Tennyson O’Donnell (University of Michigan Press/Trinity College ePress edition,).
Walsh, B. (2013). Writing Out Loud: Google Docs for Live Writing, Revision, and Discussion.
|
[Endnote RIS 格式]
[相關文章]
[文章引用]
[完整記錄]
[館藏目錄]
至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)
plurk
funp
live
udn
HD
myshare
netvibes
friend
youpush
delicious
baidu
Google bookmarks
del.icio.us
hemidemi
facebook
twitter
google
reddit