利用Web-based環境與學習活動探討程式設計的認知層次及其對學習的影響

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：53

、訪客IP：18.219.189.247

姓名

黃舒聖(Sue-Sheng Huang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

利用Web-based環境與學習活動探討程式設計的認知層次及其對學習的影響
(A Study on Cognitive Levels of Programming and its Effect on Learning with a Web-based Environment and Learning Activities)

相關論文

★ 同步表演機器人之建構與成效評估	★ 探討國小學童使用電子書多媒體註記系統結合註記分享機制對其學習行為與時間之影響
★ 先備知識對註記式多媒體電子書的影響研究：從個別環境到分享環境	★ Facilitating EFL speaking and writing with peer-tutoring and storytelling strategies in authentic learning context
★ An investigation into CKEL-supported EFL learning with TPR to reveal the importance of pronunciation and interactive sentence making	★ Investigation of Facilitating Physics Learning using Ubiquitous-Physics APP with Learning Map and Discussion Board in Authentic Contexts
★ 智慧互動SmartVpen在真實情境對於英文學習之影響	★ 利用合作虛擬化的網絡設計輔助計算機網路學習
★ 探討擴展合作式多媒體認知理論和其對EFL聽力與口語能力之影響 - 結合動覺辨識和學習者設計內容之猜謎遊戲	★ 在真實情境中利用智慧機制提升國小學生之外語口說及對話能力之評估
★ 探討在真實情境下教師回饋對學習認知與學習持續性之影響	★ 註釋、對話代理和協作概念圖支持大學生議論文寫作和後設認知的培養
★ Developing and Validating the Questionnaire and Its Model for Sustainable and Scalable Authentic Contextual Learning Supported by Mobile Apps	★ 探討個人化、情境化及社會化的智慧機制輔助真實情境國小幾何學習與其對學習成效之影響
★ Investigation of smart mechanisms for authentic contextual learning with sensor and recognition technologies	★ 探討智慧回饋如何影響學習時眼動和觸控操作的表現-以 Covid-19 快篩模擬為例

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)

傳統的程式設計授課，著重在概念講授與程式解題(Problem Solving)，但是學生程式設計的學習效果卻有限，原因是因為程式設計從理論到應用以及學習活動深淺落差很大，學生容易感受到挫折感。本研究設計一個網頁程式設計輔助學習環境(WPLE)，並以Bloom認知領域教育目標(Bloom’s taxonomy)認知層次的理論為基礎，設計由淺入深的五種程式設計學習活動：程式觀念簡答、程式填空練習、程式除錯練習、程式問題解決與同儕互評活動，來幫助學生學習程式設計，並實際於課堂上進行實驗。本論文將探討「深淺不同認知層次」的程式設計學習活動之相關性與其對學習成效的影響，以及檢視學習成效較高與學習成效較低的同學在五個程式設計學習活動的表現情形。接著透過問卷瞭解學生對WPLE學習環境及五種深淺不同認知層次的程式設計學習活動對學習影響之看法，並訪談學習成效較高與較低或是在學習活動中有特殊表現的學生。最後我們提出結論與建議，以幫助老師與學生在程式設計上的教學與學習。

摘要(英)

There were much emphasis on concepts teaching and complex problem solving in language programming learning. But it does not have good effectiveness on learning performance because of the gaps are very large between the two programming activities, conceptual teaching and complex problem programming. It will easily make students feel frustrated in the learning process. Thus, this research tried to propose a Web-based programming learning environment (WPLE) and five programming learning activities were designed based on the cognitive levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. The five programming learning activities were programming concepts testing, program block filling , program debugging, coding to solve problem and peer assessment, which were derived from Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy and went from simple to complicated. After some experiments were conducted, we studied the relationship between the programming learning activities and their effect on students’ learning achievement. Moreover, this research also investigated performances of high achievement group and low achievement group in the five programming learning activities. We found that the two programming activities, program block filling and program debugging were very important and played a critical role to get high achievement so that they might fill the gap between concepts learning and complex problem programming. Besides, we also investigated students’ perceived viewpoints about WPLE and five programming learning activities by questionnaires. At the end of the course, the researchers held in-depth interview to some students who performed extremely contrarily in the class or had special behavior in the programming learning activities. Finally, we gave some conclusions and suggestions in order to help teaching and learning in programming courses.

關鍵字(中)

★ Web-based 環境
★ 布魯姆認知領域教育目標
★ 程式設計
★ 網頁程式設計
★ 認知層次

關鍵字(英)

★ Programming
★ Bloom’s Taxonomy
★ Cognitive levels
★ Web-based Environment
★ Web Programming

論文目次

1. Introduction..............................................................1
1.1 Background ............................................................1
1.2 Motivation ............................................................3
1.3 Purpose of research ...................................................4
2. Literature Review ........................................................6
2.1 The importance of practice to learning programming ....................6
2.2 Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives ...........................7
2.3 Applying Bloom’s taxonomy in programming course ......................10
2.4 Programming learning activities .......................................12
2.5 Technology Acceptance Model: TAM ......................................13
3. Research Method ..........................................................15
3.1 Subjects ..............................................................15
3.2 Instructional design and the programming learning activities...........16
3.3 Reseach structure and research variables ..............................20
3.4 Research tools ........................................................22
3.5 Research procedure ....................................................28
3.6 Data collection and the criteria of programming learning activities....30
4. System design and application ............................................35
4.1 The overview of WPLE ..................................................35
4.2 The functionalities of WPLE ...........................................36
5. Results and Discussion ...................................................41
5.1 Correlation between each programming learning activity and the next
one .......................................................................41
5.2 The Relationship between the five programming learning activities and
learning achievements .....................................................44
5.2.1 The analysis of correlation .....................................44
5.2.2 The analysis of simple regression ...............................45
5.3 Multiple regressions between the five programming learning activities
and learning achievements .................................................47
5.4 The results of independent samples T-test: performance of high and low
achievement group in the five programming learning activities .............50
5.5 Analysis of the questionnaire .........................................54
5.5.1 Reliability and validity of the questionnaire ...................55
5.5.2 Results of questionnaire analysis ...............................55
5.6 The result of in-depth interview ......................................61
6. Conclusions and Future work ..............................................64
References ..................................................................68
Appendix ....................................................................72

參考文獻

Affleck, G., & Smith, T. (1999). Identifying a need for web-based course support. Proc. Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Brisbane, Australia, Online.
Ballantyne, R., & Hughes, K., and Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing Procedures for Implementing Peer Assessment in Large Classes Using and Action Research Process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 427-441.
Ben-Ari, M., (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in Mathe-matics and Science Teaching, 20 (1), 45–73.
Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E., (2004). Teaching Object-Oriented Programming
– Towards Teaching a Systematic Programming Process. 18th European Conference On Object-Oriented Programming.
Bennedsen, J., & Michael, E. C. (2005). Revealing the Programming Process, SIGCSE, Volume 37 , 186-190.
Bloom, B.S. et al. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, Longmans. America: Green and Company.
Carmines, E. G. & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage University Paper 17, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Chiou, H. j. (2003). Quantitative research and statistical analysis. Taiwan: Wunan publishing house.
Daily, C., & Horgan J. M., An automated learning system for Java programming. IEEE TRANSACTION ON EDUCATION, VOL.47(1)
Davis, F. D. (1986). A Technology Acceptance Model of Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results, Doctoral Dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology”, MIS Quarterly, September, 319-340.
Depradine, C., & Gay, G. (2004). Active participation of integrated development environments in the teaching of object-oriented programming, Computers & Education, 43, 291–298.
Fallows, S., & Chandramohan, B. (2001). Multiple Approaches to Assessment: reflections on use of tutor, peer and self assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 229-246.
Hwang, W. Y., & Wang, C. Y. & Sharples, M. (2006). A Study of Multimedia Annotation of Web-Based Material. Computers & Education, in press.
Hwang, W. Y., & Wang, C. Y. (2004). A study on Application of Annotation System in Web-Based Materials. The 8th Global Chinese Conference of Computers in Education
Jackson, D., (1996). A Software System For Grading Student Computer Programs. Computers & Education, 27, 171-180.
Kurnia, A., & Lim, A. & Cheang, B. (2001). Online Judge, Computers & Education, 36, 299–315.
Lee, G. C., & Wu, J. C. (1999). Debug It - A debugging practicing system. Computer & Education, 32, 165-179.
Lieberman, H. (1986). An Example Based Environment for beginning programmers. Journal of Instructional Science, 14(3), 277-292.
Lister, R., (2000). On blooming first year programming and it’s blooming assessment. Proceedings of Australasian conference on Computing education, (Dec. 2000), 158-162.
Lister, R., (2001). Objectives and objective assessment in CS1. Proceedings of SIGCSE2001(Feb. 2001), ACM press, 292-296.
Lister, R., & Leaney, J. (2003). First Year Programming: Let All the Flowers Bloom. 5th Australasian Computer Education Conference(ACE2003).
Masaki, Nakagawa., & Taro, Ohara. & Jin, Kanda. Hirokazu. Bandoh. & Naoki, Kato. (2001). Programming Education on an Electronic Whiteboard. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training.
Neter, J. & Wasserman, W & Kutner, M. K. (1985). Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of Variance, andExperimental Designs. America: Richard D Irwin.
Ramadhan, H. A., (2000). Programming by discovery. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, (2000). 83-93.
Segers, M., & Dochy, F. (2001). New Assessment Forms in Problembased Learning: the value-added of the students perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 327-343.
Sitthiworachart, J., & Joy, M. (2004). Effective Peer Assessment for Learning Computer Programming. Proceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference, Innovation and technology in computer science education, 122-126.
Timothy, J. H., & Langton, J. & and Alterman, R. (2004). Enhancing CS Programming LAB Courses Using Collaborative Editors. JOUNAL Of Computing Science In Colleges. 20, 157-165.
Truong, N., & Bancroft, P. Roe, P. (2003). A Web Based Environment for Learning to Program. ACM International Conference Proceeding, Series Vol. 35, 255-264.
Whatley, J., (2004). An Agent System to Support Student Teams Working Online. Journal of Information Technology Education. 2004(Volume 3), 53-63.
Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1990). Automation and Schema Acquisition in Learning Elementary Computer Programming: Implications for the Design of Practice. Journal of Computers in Human Behavior, 6(3), 273-289.

指導教授

黃武元(Wu-Yuin Hwang)

審核日期

2006-7-19

推文