動機因素與鷹架輔助機制對學生圖形化程式語言學習成效之影響

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：13

、訪客IP：3.142.173.227

姓名

林俊閎(Chun-Hung Lin) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

動機因素與鷹架輔助機制對學生圖形化程式語言學習成效之影響
(The influence of motivation and scaffolding on students’ visual programming learning performance)

相關論文

★ 服務學習融入師資培育: 以線上課輔活動為例	★ 以TARGET教學模式設計機器人教學單元課程活動與評量
★ 解題導向式教學融入線上課輔對學習動機與學習成效之影響	★ 探討國小數學概念回推策略對數位學伴學生數學學習成效及學習態度之影響
★ 探索機器人學習活動之背景和經驗、動機、策略與成就相關性：以國小高年級學生為例	★ 線上課輔教學準備度指標之開發與應用:以數位學伴大學伴為例
★ 大學學生多媒體創作歷程研究	★ 書法教學現況及教師書法教學意願之研究—以台北市國小為例
★ 網路理情課程對國小學童網路攻擊與現實攻擊傾向的影響	★ 教師部落格樣貌分析
★ 青少年部落格樣貌之探究─以「無名小站」為例	★ 創意思考螺旋教學模式下師生互動模式之分析-以Topobo機器人為例
★ 無縫隙線上討論環境之建構與評估-序列行為分析與其對學習之影響	★ 越南語為第二外語臺灣學習者學習策略與科技輔助之研究
★ 英語課程融入團康遊戲對國小五年級生英語口說焦慮與英語口說成效之影響

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)

本研究的主要目的將探討動機因素與圖形化程式語言學習表現間的關係以及動機因素與鷹架輔助機制對學生圖形化程式語言學習成效之影響。本研究共有208位中學學生參與此研究。從研究結果發現，學生的內在動機、外在動機、自我效能與學習焦慮其程式語言學習的成效具有顯著正相關，而進一步透過多元回歸分析後更發現，學生的自我效能能夠有效預測其學習成效。研究中並發現不同自我效能的學生在自我調學習策略的使用上有明顯差異。高自我效能的學生比低自我效能的學生更會使用自我調製學習策略來輔助其學習。除此之外，本研究也發現，鷹架機制的使用與學生自我效能的高低會對其程式語言學習產生交互作用。從單純主要效果的分析中發現，對高自我效能的學生而言，鷹架機制的介入並未對其學習成效產生影響，然而，對於低自我效能的學生而言，加入鷹架機制有助於改善其學習成效。

摘要(英)

The main purpose of this dissertation was to investigate the influence of scaffolding and learning motivation on students’ programming learning performance. There were 208 junior high school students participated in the study. The results indicated that intrinsic, extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, learning motivation and learning anxiety were positively correlated with learning performance. The results of regression analysis indicated that self-efficacy is an effective predictor of learning performance. It was also found that students with high self-efficacy would use more self-regulated learning strategies than students with moderate self-efficacy. Furthermore, we found a significant interaction between scaffolding and learning motivation regarding their influence on their learning performance. The introduction of scaffolding did not have a significant effect on the learning performance of students with high self-efficacy; however, scaffolding had pronounced benefits for students with lower self-efficacy. According to the findings, we proposed some suggestions for programming instruction, and some directions for future studies.

關鍵字(中)

★ 圖形化程式語言
★ 學習動機
★ 鷹架機制
★ 程式語言學習

關鍵字(英)

★ motivation
★ graphical programming environment
★ programming learning
★ scaffolding

論文目次

Abstract (in Chinese)………………………………………………………………Ⅰ
Abstract (in English)………………………………………………………………..Ⅱ
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………Ⅲ
Table of Content…………………………………………………………………….Ⅳ
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………..Ⅵ
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………Ⅷ
Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….1
1.1 Background…………………………………………………………………1
1.2 Proposes and Significance of the Study…………………………………...4
1.3 Terminology………………………………………………………………...5
1.4 Dissertation organization……………………………………………………7
Chapter 2 Literature Review…………………………………………………………8
2.1 Learning Motivation ………………………………………………………..9
2.1.1 Motivation in the Study of Programming…………...………………10
2.2 Scaffolding…………….…………………………………………………………12
2.2.1 Scaffolding in Programming Learning……………………………..12
2.3 The Relationship between Motivation and Scaffolding in Programming learning……………………………………………………………………16
Chapter 3 Methodology ……………………………………………………..……….19
3.1 Participants …………………………………………………..……………..19
3.2 Course design ………………………………………………………………20
3.3 Instruments……………………………………………………...…………..20
3.4 Multimedia learning material……………………………..….26
Chapter 4 Results…………………………………………………………………….35
4.1 Relationship between motivation and learning achievement in a Robotics visual learning environment…………………………………………35
4.1.1 Correlation between Students’ Motivation and Learning Performance in Robotics Visual Programming Environment …………...35
4.1.2 Influence of motivation on learning achievement in Robotics Visual Programming Learning………………….………..……36
4.2 The Different Use of Learning Strategies in Robotics Visual Programming Learning.................................................38
4.3 The Different Use of Learning Strategies between Students with Different Learning Motivation ……………………….……40
4.4 The Influence of Motivation and Scaffolding on Learning Performance in Robotics Visual Programming Learning…………………………41
Chapter 5 Conclusion and Future Directions…………………………………48
References…………………………………………………………………………....52
Appendix A. The Learning motivation questionnaire………………………………64
Appendix B. Learning strategy questionnaire……………………………………68
Appendix C. The NXT-G programming test…………………………………………71

參考文獻

Anderson, E. F., & McLoughlin, L. (2007). Critters in the classroom: A 3D computer-game-like tool for teaching programming to computer animation students. Proceedings of Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques: ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 Educators Program, article no. 7.
Apiola, M., Lattu, M., & Pasanen, T. A. (2010). Creativity and intrinsic motivation in computer science education: experimenting with robots. Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, 199-203.
Atmatzidou, S., Markelis, I., & Demetriadis, S. (2008). The use of LEGO Mindstorms in elementary and secondary education: game as a way of triggering learning. Workshop Proceedings of SIMPAR 2008, 22-30.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215
Barak, M., & Zadek, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 19(3), 289-307.
Bergin, S., Reilly, R., & Traynor, D. (2005). Examining the role of self-regulated learning on introductory programming performance. Proceedings of the ACM International Computing Education Research Workshop, 81–86.
Boulay, B. D. (1989). Some difficulties of learning to program. In E. Soloway & J. C. Spohrer (Eds.), Studying the novice programmer (pp. 57-81). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.
Byrnes, M. D. (2001). Cognitive development and learning in instructional context (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, M. A.: Allyn & Bacon.
Cagiltay, K. (2006). Scaffolding strategies in electronic performance support systems: Types and challenges. Innovations in Education and Training International, 43(1), 93-103.
Chang, C. W., Lee, J. H., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2010). Improving the authentic learning experience by integrating robots into the mixed reality environment. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1572-1578.
Chang, C. W., Lee, J. H., Chao, P. Y., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2010). Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school. Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 1-24.
Cliburn, D. C. (2006). A CS0 course for the liberal arts. Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 77-81.
Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2000). Alice: A 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual CCSC Northeastern Conference on the Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 107-116.
Davis, E. A. (1996). Metacognitive scaffolding to foster scientific explanations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Davis, M. T. (2006). Using Procedural Scaffolding to Support Online Learning Experiences. Proceedings of International Professional Communication Conference, 144-147.
de Raadt, M. (2008). Teaching programming strategies explicitly to novice programmers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern Queensland.
Fagin, B., & Merkle, L. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 307-311.
Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2004). The TeachScheme! Project: Computing and Programming for Every Student. Computer Science Education, 14(1), 55-77.
Feng, H. C., Lin, C. H., & Liu, E. Z. F. (2011). Parents’’ perceptions of educational programmable bricks for kids. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), E30-E33.
Garcia, M. A., & McNeill, H. P. (2002). Learning how to develop software using the toy LEGO Mindstorms. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 239.
Guzdial, M. (1994). Software‐realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environment, 4(1), 1-44.
Guzdial, M., Hohmann, L., Konneman, M., Walton, C., & Soloway, E. (1998). Supporting programming and learning-to-program with an integrated CAD and scaffolding workbench. Interactive Learning Environment, 6(1-2), 143-179.
Hannifin, M. J., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (ed.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Volume II, pp.115-140. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoffman, B., & Spatariu, A. (2008). The influence of self-efficacy and metacognitive prompting on math problem-solving efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 875-893.
Hu, M., Winikoff, M., & Cranefield, S. (2012). Teaching novice programming using goals and plans in a visual notation. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference, 43-52.
Huang, W. Y., & Wu, S. Y. (2012). A case study of collaboration with multi-robots and its effect on children’’s interaction. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-15.
Hundhausen, C. D., Farley, S. F., & Brown, J. L. (2009). Can direct manipulation lower the barriers to computer programming and promote transfer of training?: An experimental study. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 16(3), article no. 13.
Jackson, S. L., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). The design of guided learner- adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 187-194.
Jenkins, T. (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. Proceedings of the 3rd annual LTSN-ICS conference, 53-58.
Kato, S., & Tominaga, H. (2010). A style and tool for group exercise of introductory programming with LEGO robot control as pre-education event. Proceedings of International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training, 259-267.
Kauffman, D. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1-2), 139-161.
Kelly, J. F. (2006). LEGO Mindstorms NXT: the Mayan adventure. Apress.
Klassner, F., & Anderson, S. (2003). LEGO MindStorms: Not just for K–12 anymore. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 10(2), 12-18.
Kleinginna, P. R., & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5(3), 263-291.
Kurebayashi, S., Kanemune, S., Kamada, T., & Kuno, Y. (2007). The effect of learning programming with autonomous robots for elementary school students. Paper presented in in 11th European Logo Conference, 1-9.
Lane, H. C., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Teaching the tacit knowledge of programming to novices with natural language tutoring. Computer Science Education, 15(3), 183-201.
Lawhead, P. B., Bland, C. G., Barnes, D. J., Duncan, M. E., Goldweber, M., Hollingsworth, R. G., & Schep, M. (2002). A road map for teaching introductory programming using LEGOc Mindstorms robots. Proceedings of Working Group Reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 191-201.
Lee, O., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 585-610.
Lee, O., & Brophy, J. (1996). Motivational patterns observed in sixth-grade science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 303-318.
Letovsky, S., & Soloway, E. (1986). Delocalized plans and program comprehension. IEEE Software, 3(3), 41-49.
Leutenegger, S., & Edgington, J. (2007). A games first approach to teaching introductory programming. Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 115-118.
Lewis, C. M. (2010). How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: logo vs. scratch. Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, 346-350.
Li, D., Kang, S., Lu, C., Han, I., & Black, J. (2009). Case studies of developing programming skills via embodied experiences in an after-school LEGO robotics program for elementary school students. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2209-2216.
Lin, C. H., Liu, E. Z. F., & Huang, Y. Y. (2012). Exploring parents’ perceptions toward educational robots: Gender and socioeconomic difference. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E31-E34.
Linn, M. C., & Dalbey, J. (1989). Cognitive consequences of programming instruction. In E. Soloway & J.C. Spohrer (Eds.), Studying the novice programmer (pp. 57-81). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Liu, C. C., Cheng, Y. B., & Huang, C. W. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational problem solving. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1907-1918.
Liu, E. Z. F. (2010). Early adolescents’ perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), E44-E47.
Liu, E. Z. F., & Lin, C. H. (2010). The survey study of mathematics motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MMSLQ) for grade 10–12 Taiwanese students. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 221-233.
Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. S. (2010). Student satisfaction and self-efficacy in a cooperative robotics course. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(8), 1135-1146.
Loewen, G., Weston, J., O’Quinn, J., Saad, A., & Sturz, B. (2011). A platform for distributed robotics research. Proceedings of the ACM Southeast Conference, 75-79.
Mahmoud, Q. H., Dobosiewicz, W., & Swayne, D. (2004). Redesigning introductory computer programming with HTML, JavaScript, and Java. Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 104-107.
Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch. Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 367-371.
Mayer, R. E., Dyck, J. L., & Vilberg, W. (1989). Learning to program and learning to think: What’s the connection? In In E. Soloway & J.C. Spohrer (Eds.), Studying the novice programmer (pp. 113-124). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Menegatti, E., & Moro, E. (2010). Educational robotics from high-school to master of science. Proceedings of Simulation, Modeling and Programming for Autonomous Robots, 639-648.
McWhorter, W. I., & O’Connor, B. C. (2009). Do LEGOR MindstormsR motivate students in CS1? Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, 438-442.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Pattis, R., Roberts, J., & Stehlik, M (1994). Karel the robot: a gentle introduction to the art of programming. John Wiley & Sons.
Phelps, A. M., Bierre, K. J., & Parks, D. M. (2003). MUPPETS: Multi-user programming pedagogy for enhancing traditional study. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Information Technology Curriculum, 100-105.
Pinto, M., Moreira, A. P., & Matos, A. (2012). Localization of mobile robots using an extended Kalman filter in a LEGO NXT. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(1), 135-144.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic task. In D. H. Schunk, and J. Meece (Eds.), Student perception in the classroom (pp. 149-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pintrich, P. R., F. Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). National center for research to improve postsecondary teaching and learning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Powers, K., Cooper, S., Goldman, K. J., Carlisle, M. (2006). Tools for teaching introductory programming: What works? Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education.
Powers, K., Ecott, S., & Hirshfield, L. (2007). Through the looking glass: Teaching CS0 with Alice. Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 213-217.
Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., & Silverman, B. (1996). Programmable bricks: toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal, 35, 443-452.
Saad, A., Shuff, T., Loewen, G., & Burton, K. (2012). Supporting undergraduate computer science education using educational robots. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Southeast Regional Conference, 343-344.
Saerbeck,M., Schut, T., Bartneck, C., Janse, M., Campus, H., & Dolech, D. (2010). Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, 1613-1622.
Soloway, E. (1986). Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 850-858.
Spohrer, J. C., Soloway, E., & Pope, E. (1985). A goal/plan analysis of buggy Pascal programs. Human-Computer Interaction, 1(2), 63-207.
Werner, L. L., Campe, S., & Denner, J. (2005). Middle school girls + games programming = information technology fluency. Proceedings of the 6th conference on information technology education, 301-305.
Whitley, K. N. (1996). Visual programming language and the empirical evidence for and against. Journal of Visual Language and Computering, 8(1), 109-142.
Wolz, U. (2001). Teaching design and project management with Lego RCX robots. Proceedings of the Thirty-second SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 95-99.
Wolz, U., Leitner, H. H., Malan, D. J., & Maloney, J. (2009). Starting with scratch in CS 1. Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, 2-3.
Wong, K.W. (2001). Teaching programming with LEGO RCX robots. Proceedings of ISECON, 18.

指導教授

劉旨峰(Eric Zhi-Feng Liu)

審核日期

2012-7-25

推文