真實學習環境下的真實 “u-fraction”

、線上人數：33

、訪客IP：3.145.163.58

姓名	陸以凡(MUHAMMAD IRFAN LUTHFI) 查詢紙本館藏	畢業系所	網路學習科技研究所
論文名稱	真實學習環境下的真實 “u-fraction” (Authentic U-Fraction in Authentic Learning Environment)
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)	在本研究中，我們開發了一個基於平板的應用程序，即Authentic U-Fraction，以幫助小學生在真實的情境下學習分數。本研究採用Authentic U-Fraction觀察學生學習行為對分數學習成績的影響。分數的三個主題包括分數概念，分數簡化和分數加法/減法。本研究將54名五年級學生分為實驗組和對照組。對照組採用傳統教學方法和紙本作業學習分數，實驗組採用真實情境下的Authentic U-Fraction。實驗結果表明，實驗組在理解分數和分數圖示方面優於對照組。其原因是，通過拍照，從照片中提取對分數的表達，並用白板功能進行標示讓學生更方便使用Authentic U-Fraction來學習分數。Authentic U-Fraction也能幫助學生進行更多的練習，並充分解釋自己的解法，但並不影響他們的學習成績。因為學生除了做更多的練習外，還需要做一個完整的註解，包括三種不同的表示法:語言表示法、邏輯數學表示法和視覺表示法。更多的學生做了完整的註解練習，提高了他們的學習成績。三個鷹架概念在學生同儕評量中的應用也表明，有意義的同儕評量可以與學生的學習成績相關聯，這也益於教師評估分數，該分數與同儕評分中評分方評估的學習成績也有較高的相關性。多元回歸分析結果表明，教師評價得分能較好地預測後測得分。總的來說，學生對Authentic U-Fraction很滿意，因為它易於使用，易於學習，而且它有助於學生在真實的情境中學習分數。最後，本研究的結果對未來的研究有重要的啟示和結論。
摘要(英)	In this study, we developed a tablet-based application,namely Authentic U-Fraction to assist elementary school students in learningfractions with authentic contextual support. In this study,an experiment was carried out to investigate the effects of the students’ learning behavior toward the fraction learning achievements using Authentic U-Fraction. Three topics of fractions included are fractions concept, fraction simplification, and fraction addition/subtraction. Totally 54 fifth-grade students were assigned and divide into two groups, one experimental group,and one control group. The control group learned fraction using traditional teaching method and paper-based assignment, while the experimental group using Authentic U-Fraction in an authentic context. After the experiment, the result showedthat the experimental group performed better than the control group,especially in understanding fraction and fraction representation. The reason was that by taking the picture, making fraction representation from the picture, and making annotation facilitated students to learn fraction using Authentic U-Fraction. Authentic U-Fraction also helped students to do more practice by themselves and fully explain their solutions, but it does not affect their learning achievement. Because besides students did more practice, they also need to make a complete annotation that includesthree different representation: linguistic, logic mathematics, and visual representative. More students did practice with complete annotation higher their learning achievement. Application of three scaffoldings on students’ peer assessment also revealed that meaningful peer assessment couldcorrelate to the students’ learning achievement that also strengthened by the teacher assessment score that also has a higher correlation to the learning achievement from the assessment of assignment side. A Multiple regression result shown that teacher assessment score could strongly predict the posttest score. Overall, students satisfied with Authentic U-Fraction because it is easy to use, easy to learn, and it facilitatesthe students to learn fraction in an authentic context. In the final, the result of this study contributes essentialimplications along with conclusion and suggestion for future research.
關鍵字(中)	★ 真實情境的分數 ★ 真實情境分數的學習 ★ 真實情境 ★ 多重表示 ★ 三個鷹架	關鍵字(英)	★ Authentic U-Fraction ★ Authentic fraction learning ★ authentic context ★ multiple representation ★ the three scaffolding
論文目次	Letter of Authorization for Electronic Theses and Dissertations...............................................ii Advisor’s Recommendation for Graduate Students................................................................iii 論文口試委員審定書...............................................................................................................iv 摘要............................................................................................................................................v Abstract.....................................................................................................................................vi Acknowledgment.....................................................................................................................vii Contents.................................................................................................................................viii List of Appendix....................................................................................................................xiii Chapter 1 Introduction...............................................................................................................1 1.1Background and Motivation............................................................................................1 1.2Purpose............................................................................................................................3 Chapter 2 Literature Review......................................................................................................4 2.1 Fraction Learning in Mathematics...................................................................................4 2.2 Meaningful Learning in Mathematics Learning...............................................................5 2.3 Google Maps in Mathematics Learning...........................................................................6 2.4 OpenCV in Mathematics Learning..................................................................................7 2.5 Multiple Representation in Mathematics Learning..........................................................7 2.6. Mathematics Learning in Authentic Contexts.................................................................9 2.7 USE (Usability, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use)...............................................................9 Chapter 3 System Design and Implementation........................................................................12 3.1 System Design................................................................................................................12 3.1.1 System Architecture................................................................................................12 3.1.2 System Improvements and Features........................................................................16 3.2 Implementation...............................................................................................................22 Chapter 4 Research Method.....................................................................................................23 4.1 Research Structure and Research Variables...................................................................23 4.1.1 Control Variables.....................................................................................................23 4.1.2 Independent Variables.............................................................................................23 4.1.3 Dependent Variables................................................................................................23 4.2 Research Flow and Procedure........................................................................................25 4.3 Research Subject............................................................................................................26 4.4 Research Tool.................................................................................................................26 4.5 Experimental Activities..................................................................................................27 4.6 Data Collecting and Processing......................................................................................30 Chapter 5 Results and Analysis...............................................................................................32 5.1 Analysis of Learning Achievement between Two Groups............................................32 5.2 Analysis of Assignment, Assessment and Learning Achievement................................34 5.2.1 Correlation Analysis between Assignment, Assessment, and Learning Achievement..........................................................................................................................................34 5.2.2Correlation Analysis between Quantityof Assignment and Annotation................36 5.2.3Correlation Analysis between Assignment and Assessment...................................36 5.2.4Comparison between Peer Assessment and Teacher Assessment...........................39 5.2.5Correlation Analysis between Assignment, Assessment, and Learning Achievement..........................................................................................................................................39 5.2.6Analysis ofLocation-based Peer Sharing................................................................40 5.2.7 Regression Analysis for The Predicted Variables for Students Learning Achievements...................................................................................................................41 5.3 Lag Sequential Analysis Toward the Students Behavior...............................................41 5.4 The Analysis of The System’s Usability, Ease of Use, Ease of Learning and User Satisfaction...........................................................................................................................45 5.5 Analysis of The Authentic Learning Questionnaire.......................................................47 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Future Works...............................................................................49 6.1 Conclusion and Suggestion............................................................................................49 6.2 Future Work...................................................................................................................50 References................................................................................................................................51 Appendix..................................................................................................................................56
參考文獻	Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis(2nd ed.). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Beşevli, C., Salman, E., Goksun,T., Urey, H., & Özcan, O. (2019). MaR-T: Designing a Projection-Based Mixed Reality System for Nonsymbolic Math Development of Preschoolers: Guided by Theories of Cognition and Learning. Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ′19)(pp. 280-292). New York: ACM. Booker, G., Swan, P., Bond, D., Sparrow, L., & Swan, P. (2014). Teaching primary mathematics(5th ed.). Melbourne: Pearson Australia. Brizuela, B. M. (2006). Young Children′s Notations for Fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 281-305. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, A. Weerdmeester, & I. L. McClelland (Ed.). (pp. 189-194). London: Taylor & Francis. Cramer, K., Post, T., & DelMas, R. (2002). Initial Fraction Learning by Fourth-and Fifth-Grade Students: A Comparison of the Effects of Using Commercial Curricula with the Effects of Using the Rational Number Project Curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(2), 111-144. David, A. B. (2011). Mobile Application Testing: Best Practices to Ensure Quality. experience success. amdocs. DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and Meta-Affect in Mathematical Problem Solving: a Representational Perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 131–147. Empson, S. B. (2003). Low-Performing Students and Teaching Fraction for Understanding: An Interactional Analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(4), 305-343. Fessakis, G., Karta, P., & Konstantinos, K. (2018). Designing Math Trails for Enhanced by Mobile Learning Realistic Mathematics Education in Primary Education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 8(2), 49-63. Gao, M., Kortum, P., & Frederick, O. (2018). Psychometric Evaluation ofthe USE (Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of use) Questionnaire for Reliability and Validity. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), pp. 1414–1418. Giardini, E. (2016). Mathematical learning with a purpose. Journal of Student Engagement: Education Matters, 6(1), 13-18. Goldin, G. A. (2014). Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (Mathematical Representation).(S. Lerman, Ed.) Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Google LLC. (2019). Google Maps Education. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from Google Maps: https://www.google.com/help/maps/education/learn/ Hall, S. (1997). Representation Curtular Representation and Signifying Practices.London: Sage. Hannich, L. (2009). Why Are Fractions so Important?International Learning Corporation. Hasemann, K. (1981). On difficulties with fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(1), 71–87. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48. Hitt, F. (Ed.). (2002). Representations and Mathematics Visualization. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education North American Chapter and Cinvestav-IPN. Mexico. Horn, M. B. (2018, May 14). Why Google Maps—notNetflix or Amazon—Points to the Future of Education. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from EdSurge: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-05-14-why-google-maps-not-netflix-or-amazon-points-to-the-future-of-education Hornbæk, K. (2006). Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 79-102. Hwang, W. Y., Shadiev, R., Tseng, C. W., & Huang, Y. M. (2015). Exploring Effects of Multi-Touch Tabletop on Collaborative Fraction Learning and the Relationship of Learning Behavior and Interaction with Learning Achievement. Educational, 18(4), 459–473. Hwang, W.-Y., Su, J.-H., Huang, Y.-M., & Dong, J.-J. (2009). A Study of Multi-Representation of Geometry Problem Solving with Virtual Manipulatives and Whiteboard System. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 229-247. Kara, F., & Incikabi, L. (2018). Sixth Grade Students’ Skills of Using Multiple Representations in Addition and Subtraction Operations in Fractions. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(4), 463-474. Kieren, T. E. (1988). Personal knowledge of rational numbers: its intuitive and formal development. In Number concepts and operations in the middle grades.(H. J., & B. M., Eds.) Reston VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Kirakowski, J., & Corbett, M. (1993). SUMI: the Software Usability Measurement Inventory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24(3), 210-212. Koh, N. K., & Low, H. K. (2010). Learning mathematical concepts through authentic learning. 33rd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Incorporated (MERGA 2010) on “Shaping the future of mathematics education”.Western Australia: Fremantle. Kong, S. C., & Kwok, L. F. (2003). A graphical partitioning model for learning common fraction: designing affordances on a web-supported learning environment. Computers & Education, 40(2), 137-155. Kortum, P. T., & Bangor, A. (2013). Usability Ratings for Everyday Products Measured With the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 29(2), 67-76. Lam, T. T. (2014). Meaningful Learning Experience for Problem Solving and Mathematics Competition Questions. Mathematical Medley, 40(2), 1-10. Learning Maths Outside the Classroom. (2008, April 28). Retrieved June 19, 2019, from National Center for Excellence in the Teaching Mathematics: https://www.ncetm.org.uk/resources/9268 Levenberg, I., & Patkin, D. (2014). Promoting meaningful learning-Studying mathematics with traffic signs. International Journal of Learning and Development, 4, 1-8. Lewis, J. R. (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7(1), 57-78. Li, H. C. (2006). A comparative analysis of Taiwanese and English students′ conceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions at ages 12 and 13. Cambridge, University of Cambridge. Lortie-Forgues, H., Tian, J., & Siegler, R. S. (2015). Why is learning fraction and decimal arithmetic so difficult? Developmental Review, 38, 201-221. Lund, A. M. (2001). Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability Interface, 8(2), 3-6. Lund, A. M. (2001). USE Questionnaire: Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of use. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from USE Questionnaire: Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of use: https://garyperlman.com/quest/quest.cgi?form=USE Lutes, K. D., Chang, K., & Baggili, I. M. (2006). Diabetic e-Management System (DEMS). Third International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG′06).IEEE. Marichal, S., Rosales, A., Sansone, G., Pires, C., Bakala, B., Perilli, F. G., & Blat, J. (2017). CETA: open, affordable and portable mixed-reality environment for low-cost tablets. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI ′17).New York: ACM. Maxwell, R. (2015, April 20). Using Google Earth to Teach Math. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from Geolounge: https://www.geolounge.com/using-google-earth-to-teach-math/ (2014). MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IN TAIWAN.MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IN TAIWAN. Nakahara, T. (2007). Cultivating Mathematical Thinking through Representation: Utilizing the Representational System. Retrieved from http://www.criced.tsukuba.ac.jp/math/apec/apec2008/papers/PDF/1.Keynote(Dec.9)_Tadao_Nakahara_Japan.pdf Ni, Y. J. (2001). Semantic domains of rational numbers and the acquisition of fraction equivalence. ontemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 400–417. Novak, J. D. (1994). A view on the current status of Ausubel’s assimilation theory of learning. CADMO: Giornale Italiano di Pedagogia, Sperimentale, Didattica, Docimologia. Tecnologia dell’instruzione, 2(4), 7-23. Ofsted. (2008). Learning outside classroom.London: Alexandra House. OpenCV. (2019). About. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from OpenCV: https://opencv.org/about/ Panko, R. (2018, July 10). The Popularity of Google Maps: Trends in Navigation Apps in 2018. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from THE MANIFEST: https://themanifest.com/app-development/popularity-google-maps-trends-navigation-apps-2018 Pearce, S. (2016). e-teaching:: management strategies for the classroom; Authentic Learning: what, why, how?Retrieved 07 19, 2019, from ACEL: http://www.acel.org.au/acel/ACEL_docs/Publications/e-Teaching/2016/e-Teaching_2016_10.pdf Pohl, M., Wallner, G., & Kriglstein, S. (2016). Using lag-sequential analysis for understanding interaction sequences in visualizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 96, Pages 54-66. Purdue University. (n.d.). Meaningful Learning. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from Meaningful Learning: https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rallrich/learn/mean.html Reddy, L., & Bruyns, J. (2016). THE EFFECT OF AN AUTHENTIC LEARNING ACTIVITY ON THE PERFORMANCE AND GRATIFICATION OF FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS IN MATHEMATICS. (pp. 36-47). SemanticScholar. Relojo, D. (2019, October 9). 5 Ways To Make Learning More Meaningful To Students. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from American Psychological Associations: PSYCH LEARNING CURVE: https://psychlearningcurve.org/learning-more-meaningful/ Relojo-Howell, D. (2017, October 9). 5 Ways To Make Learning More Meaningful To Students. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from American Psychological Association;s: PSYCH LEARNING CURVE: http://psychlearningcurve.org/learning-more-meaningful/ Reys, R. E., & Yang, D. C. (1998). Relationship between computational performance and number sense among sixth-and eighth-grade students in Taiwan. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 225-237. Siegler, R.S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., . . . Meichu, C. (2012). Early Predictors of High School. Psychological Science, 23(7), 691–697. Siegler, R. S., Fazio, L. K., Bailey, D. H., & Zhou, X. (2013). Fractions: The new frontier for theories of numerical development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(1), 13-19. Siegler, R., & Braithwaite, D. W. (2017). Numerical Development. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 187-213. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. (T. M. Duffy, & D. H. Jonassen, Eds.) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation, 57-75. Suh, J. M., & Moyer, P. S. (2008). Scaffolding special needs students’ learning of fraction equivalence using virtual manipulatives. Proceedings of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, pp. 297-304. Taylor, J. (2015, January 22). What is Authentic Context. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from https://prezi.com/hgc6v6bhuidn/what-is-authentic-context/ TechTarget. (2013). Google Maps. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from WhatIs.com: https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Google-Maps U.S. Department of Education. (2008). NATIONAL MATHEMATICS ADVISORY PANEL.U.S. Department of Education. Van de Walle, S. (2008). Comparing the performance of national public sectors: conceptual problems. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(4), 329-338. Van, W., & Folk, S. (2008). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally.Toronto: Pearson. Verschaffel, L., Van Dooren, W., & De Smedt, B. (2012). Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning.(N. M. Seel, Ed.) Boston, MA: Springer. Widhitama, Y. N., Lukito, A., & Khabibah, S. (2008). Problem Solving-based Learning Materials on Fraction for Training Creativity ofElementary School Students. Journal of Physic: Conference Series.
指導教授	黃武元博士(Prof. Wu-Yuin Hwang Dr. Ratna Wardani)	審核日期	2019-7-9
推文	facebook plurk twitter funp google live udn HD myshare reddit netvibes friend youpush delicious baidu
網路書籤	Google bookmarks del.icio.us hemidemi myshare

博碩士論文 107524605 詳細資訊