探索學生的學習認知與學習成效於翻轉式數學課程

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：17

、訪客IP：18.116.63.174

姓名

陳守晟(So-chen Chen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊工程學系

論文名稱

探索學生的學習認知與學習成效於翻轉式數學課程
(Exploring students’ perceptions and learning outcome in flipped mathematic course)

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]

至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

翻轉式學習為當前教育所矚目的教學模式。然而，在回顧目前翻轉試教學相關研究後，少有研究探究台灣學生在翻轉式教學過程中，其對於翻轉式學習的經驗，並了解學生對學習認知與學習成效之間的關係，尤其對於台灣而言，翻轉式教學仍然是一個相對新的教學策略。針對此研究缺口，本研究為了進一步研究，嘗試利用一個混合式研究方法，增加教育界對翻轉式教學模式在教育領域的了解。本研究主要調查學生在翻轉式數學課程中的兩項認知，也就是情境興趣與課程滿意度。本研究首先藉由探索性因數分析，分析這兩項認知，並進一步將情境興趣分析出包括感覺、價值性與主題興趣等三項因素，而課程滿意度則分析出包括課程設計、系統品質、課程內容安排與網路評量四個因素。另外，為了指出這兩個認知與學習成效的關係，我們也將檢視這些因素間之預測關係(量化分析)。最後，利用學生的學習經驗的回饋作為評估考量(質性分析)。結果顯示課程設計與主題興趣顯著影響學習成效。而透過學生學習經驗的回饋，本研究也提供了關於實作翻轉式教學模式有用的建議。而研究意涵方面，本研究結果則提供教學者在實行翻轉式學習課程時一個參考的依據。最後，本研究結論認為學生的學習認知能在翻轉式教學過程中作為一個驅動學習策略，以藉此牽引學生學術活動的進行，進而影響學習成效的發展。

摘要(英)

Flipped classroom approach has recently gained prominence in education. However, a review of previous studies shows that the relationship associated with student perceptions and learning outcomes is still remained unexplored and rare discussion was stated regarding flipped classroom environment. To fill this gap, this study tends to provide a further study by developing an empirical study, extending perspectives of research for flipped classroom in education. This study was conducted to respond investigate two main student perceptions in a flipped pre-calculus course, namely, situational interest and course satisfaction. By the self-developed perception measures, situational interest contained feeling, value, and topic interest three factors while course satisfaction contained course design, system quality, course arrangement, and online assessment four factors. To respect the figure out factors on final grades, we assessed the predicting power among those factors. Students’ feedback, perceptions and learning outcomes were also evaluated to provide a holistic profile of this flipped course. Results showed topic interest in situational interest predict the final grades while course design in course satisfaction predicting the final grades (Quantitative). Moreover, some suggestions to effectively implement a flipped course were also provided from students’ learning feedback (Qualitative). The implications of the results were provided for instructors’ guidance in implementing flipped classroom. Finally, the study concluded that students’ perceptions may be considered as motivational strategies in teaching and learning process to involve students in academic activities for affecting their grades in flipped course.

關鍵字(中)

★ 翻轉教室
★ 個人興趣
★ 情境興趣
★ 課程滿意度
★ 混合式學習

關鍵字(英)

★ flipped classroom
★ personal interest
★ situational interest
★ course satisfaction
★ blended learning

論文目次

Table of Contents

Chinese Abstract................................................................................................... i
English Abstract............................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents......................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................... vi
List of Tables....................................................................................................... vii

1. Introduction...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background……………………………………………………………….. 2
1.2 Motivation……………………………………………………………….... 3

2. Literature Review............................................................................................. 4
2.1 Review of flipped classroom........................................................................ 4
2.2 Situational interest and learning outcome.................................................... 6
2.3 Course satisfaction and learning outcome.................................................... 8

3. Flipped Learning environmt............................................................................ 9
3.1 Implementation of the flipped classroom using NCUx................................ 9
3.2. The flipped learning in the course activity........................................................... 12

4. Method............................................................................................................... 17
4.1 Research context setting and Participants.................................................... 17
4.2 Procedure...................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Measures....................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Data collection and analysis.......................................................................... 20

5. Results................................................................................................................. 21
5.1 Factor analysis……………………………………………………………... 21
5.2 Regression analysis……………………………………………………….... 23
5.3 Students’ feedback…………………………………………………… …..... 24
5.1.1. Online lecturing…………………………………………………….... 25
5.1.2. Online Assessment…………………………………………………… 26
5.1.3. Face to face instruction………………………………………………. 26
5.1.4. System quality………………………………………………………... 27
5.1.5. Online interaction…………………………………………………….. 27

6. Discussions............................................................................................................ 28
6.1 Predicting learning outcome with student perceptions.................................... 28
6.1.1 The relationship between situational interest and learning outcome….. 28
6.1.2 The relationship between course satisfaction and learning outcome….. 29
6.2 Students’ feedback............................................................................................ 30

7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................…... 32

Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 33
Appendix A................................................................................................................ 39

參考文獻

Bibliography

Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13, 153–166.
Anderson, R. C., L. Shirey, P. T. Wilson, and L. G. Fielding. (1987). Interestingness of Children′s Reading Material. In Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction. Vol. 3: Conative and Affective Process Analyses, edited by R. Snow and M. Farr. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Awodeyi, A. F., Akpan, E. T & Udo, I .J (2014). Enhancing Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: Adoption of Blended Learning pedagogy in University of Uyo. International Journal of Science and Research, 3(11), 40-45.
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It′s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227-236.
Beleche, T., Fairris, D., & Marks, M. (2012). Do course evaluations truly reflect student learning? Evidence from an objectively graded post-test. Economics of Education Review, 31(5), 709-719.
Benigno, V., & Trentin, G. (2000). The evaluation of online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(3), 259-270.
Bergin, D. A. (1999). Inﬂuences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 87-98.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip Your Classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA.
Buccheri, G., Gürber, N. A., & Brühwiler, C. (2011). The impact of gender on interest in science topics and the choice of scientific and technical vocations. International journal of science education, 33(1), 159-178.
Butt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: evidence from Australia. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 33-44.
Chang, S., & Smith, R. (2008). Effectiveness of personal interaction in a learner-centered paradigm distance education class based on student satisfaction. Journal of Research On Technology In Education, 40(4), 407-426.
Chua, J. S. M., & Lateef, F. A. (2014). The Flipped Classroom: Viewpoints in Asian Universities. Education in Medicine Journal, 6(4). 20- 26.
Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead?. Computers & Education, 79, 16-27.
Chen, A., & Darst, P. W. (2002). Individual and situational interest: The role of gender and skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 250-269.
Clayson, D. E. (2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students learn? A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(1), 16–30.
Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563-580.
Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of management information systems, 19(4), 9-30.
Devey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press.
Fischer, F., Schult, J., & Hell, B. (2012). Sex differences in secondary school success: why female students perform better. European Journal of Psychology Education, 28(2), 529-543.
Flumerfelt, S., & Green, G. (2013). Using lean in the ﬂipped classroom for at risk students. Educational Technology and Society, 16(1), 356-366.
Forsey, M., Low, M., & Glance, D. (2013). Flipping the sociology classroom: Towards a practice of online pedagogy. Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 471-485.
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Watt, H. M. G. (2010). Development of Mathematics Interest in Adolescence: Influences of Gender, Family, and School Context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 507-537.
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007a). Girls and mathematics—A “hopeless” issue? A control-value approach to gender differences in emotions towards mathematics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 497-514.
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007b). Perceived learning environment and students′ emotional experiences: A multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 478-493.
Fulton, K. (2012). Upside Down and Inside Out: Flip Your Classroom to Improve Student Learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12–17.
Gonzalez-Gomez, F., Guardiola, J., Martín Rodríguez, Ó., & Montero Alonso, M. Á. (2012). Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 283-290.
Gulbahar, Y., & Madran, R. O. (2009). Communication and Collaboration, Satisfaction, Equity, and Autonomy in Blended Learning Environments: A Case from Turkey. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(2), 1-18.
Hair, J. F. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education International.
Hamdan, N., McKnight, P.E., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K.M.(2013). The flipped learning model: A Review of Flipped Learning, Flipped Learning Network, 2-20.
Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness—A Neglected Variable in Discourse Processing. Cognitive Science, 10(2), 179-194.
Hidi, S., & Ann Renninger, K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
Heinze, A., Reiss, K & Franziska, R. (2005). Mathematics achievement and interest in mathematics from a differential perspective. ZDM, 37(3), 212-220.
Hidi, S., and Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Education & Educational Research. 70(2), 151–179.
Hidi, S.(2001). Interest, Reading, and Learning: Theoretical and Practical Considerations, Educational Psychology Review, 13(3),191-209.
Huang, W., Hood, D., & Yoo, S. (2013). Gender divide and acceptance of collaborative Web 2.0 applications for learning in higher education. Internet & Higher Education, 16, 57-65.
Huang, H. M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S. S. (2010). Investigating learners′ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1171-1182.
Huffman, A., Whetten, J., & Huffman, W. (2013). Using technology in higher education: The influence of gender roles on technology self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1779-1786.
Hughes, H. (2012). Introduction to Flipping the College Classroom. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 1, 2434-2438.
Kazua, I. Y., & Demirkolb, M. (2014). Effect of blended learning environment model on high school students’academic achivement. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1). 78-87.
Kim, M.K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman J (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: an exploration of design principles. Internet and High Education, 22, 37–50.
Kiran, D., & Sungur, S. (2012). Middle school students’ science self-efficacy and its sources: examination of gender difference. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 619-630.
Koohang, A., Behling, R & Behling, S. (2008). Adding a new dimension to education: students′ perceptions toward hybrid/blended course delivery. International Association for Computer Information Systems, 11(1), 1-5.
Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education, 78, 160-173.
Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 494-509.
Lage, M. J., & Platt, G. (2000). The Internet and the Inverted Classroom. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 11-11.
Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43.
Liao, P. W., & Hsieh, J. Y. (2011). What influences internet-based learning? Social Behavior and Personality, 39(7), 887-896.
Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New Trends in Gender and Mathematics Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1123-1135.
Greene, J., & Caracelli, V. (1997). Deﬁning and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 74, 5–17.
Gillham, B. (2000). Developing a questionnaire. New York: Continuum.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Durik, A. M., Conley, A. M. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Karabenick, S. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 647-671.
López-Pérez, M., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56(3), 818-826.
Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., & Swift, A. W. (2014). Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(3), 317-324.
Lu, H. P., & Chiou, M. J. (2010). The impact of individual differences on e‐learning system satisfaction: A contingency approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 307-323.
Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430-435.
McKeachie, W. J. (1979) Student ratings of faculty: A reprise. Academe, 65, 384-397.
Missildine, K., Fountain, R., Summers, L., & Gosselin, K. (2013). Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education, 52(10), 597-599.
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational Interest: Its Multifaceted Structure in the Secondary School Mathematics Classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424-436.
Missildine, K., Fountain, R., Summers, L., & Gosselin, K. (2013). Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education, 52(10), 597-599.
Naaj, M., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012). Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 11(1), 185-200.
O′Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95.
Pierce, R., & Fox, J. (2012). Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 76(10).
Pulkka, A. T., & Niemivirta, M. (2013). Predictive relationships between adult students′ achievement goal orientations, course evaluations, and performance. International Journal of Educational Research, 61, 26-37.
Ross, D. N., & Rosenbloom, A. (2011). Reflections on building and teaching an undergraduate strategic management course in a blended format. Journal of Management Education, 35(3), 351-376.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011a). Situational interest and academic achievement in the active-learning classroom. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 58-67.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011b). The role of teachers in facilitating situational interest in an active-learning classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 37-42.
Samuelsson, J. (2010). The impact of teaching approaches on students’ mathematical proficiency in Sweden. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 5(2), 61-78.
So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318-336.
Shen, B., Chen, A., Scrabis, K. A., & Toller, H. (2003). Gender and interest-based motivation in learning dance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 396-410.
Shin, N., Sutherland, L. M., Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2012). Effects of game technology on elementary student learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 540-560.
Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2012). Linking online course design and implementation to learning outcomes: A design experiment. Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 81-88.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational Interest: A Review of the Literature and Directions for Future Research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52.
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193.
Smit, R., & Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1152-1162.
Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191-204.
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K. & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), 119-145.
Thompson, M. M. (1998). Distance learners in higher education. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes (pp. 9–24). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Köller, O., Marsh, H. W., & Baumert, J. (2006). Tracking, grading, and student motivation: Using group composition and status to predict self-concept and interest in ninth-grade mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 788-806.
Vandecandelaere, M., Speybroeck, S., Vanlaar, G., De Fraine, B., & Van Damme, J. (2012). Learning environment and students′ mathematics attitude. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(3-4), 107-120.
Wehrwein, E. A., Lujan, H. L. & DiCarlo, S. E. (2007). Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(2), 153–157.
Winheller, S., Hattie, J. A., & Brown, G. T. (2013). Factors influencing early adolescents’ mathematics achievement: High-quality teaching rather than relationships. Learning Environments Research, 16(1), 49-69.
Xiong, J. M., Gong, S. Y., & Frenzel, A. C. (2011). The Relationship among Senior High School students′ academic emotions in mathematics, learning strategies and mathematics achievement. Educational Research and Experiment, 6, 89-92.
Yarbro, J., Arfstrom, K. M., McKnight, K & McKnight, P. (2014). Extension of a review of flipped learning, Flipped Learning Network, 1-21.
Yau, H. K., & Cheng, A. L. F. (2012). Gender difference of confidence in using technology for learning. Journal of Technology Studies, 38(2), 74-79.
Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2009). Gender differences in self-regulated online learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 12-22.

指導教授

楊鎮華(Stephen J.H. Yang)

審核日期

2015-7-21

推文