一般生與在職生合作型問題解決模式之實證研究:以資電學院實作課程為例

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：26

、訪客IP：18.219.236.62

姓名

洪明瑄(Ming-Hsuan Hung) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

一般生與在職生合作型問題解決模式之實證研究:以資電學院實作課程為例
(A Study of Collaborative Problem Solving of Full-time Students and In-Service Students: The case of hands-on Course at the College of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science)

相關論文

★ 服務學習融入師資培育: 以線上課輔活動為例	★ 閱讀教學與國民小學學童閱讀動機及行為的關係—以2005年PIRLS資料為例
★ 大學工科教師對成果導向認證制度之態度研究	★ 大學新進教師工作壓力與專業發展之探究~以北部某國立大學為例
★ 探究國內大一新生解決問題歷程與思考風格之關係-以機械系為例	★ 經驗的聆聽、凝視與回觀─我在沈昭良的攝影課上
★ 生命與教學之舞道─從雲門舞集2駐校課程看見自己	★ 工程及科技教育認證制度實施之研究：大學教師之觀點
★ 課堂教學對於培養工學院與資電學院大ㄧ學生核心能力的影響	★ 以成果導向教學探討大一國文課程
★ 以核心能力探討大一國文之學習成效	★ 國中機率課程：設計與實驗
★ 臺灣與香港中學階段機率與統計主題的教科書研究	★ 團隊合作與個人轉化之歷程探究

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)

近年來，國際逐漸重視合作型問題解決能力的發展，學生需與不同的人進行合作，以解決實際發生的問題。再者，臺灣高等教育逐漸普及，但卻較少實證研究討論研究生與在職專班生的學習情形。因此，本研究將以合作型問題解決模式之學生實作設計行為研究為主軸，針對一般生與在職生合作型問題解決能力與實作歷程進行探究，同時也進一步分析學生在實作過程中的分工策略與合作特徵。本研究之研究問題為以下三項：
1. 一般生與在職生的合作型問題解決能力是否具有差異？
2. 在合作問題解決模式下，一般生與在職生展現哪些相似與相異之處？
3. 一般生與在職生的實作成品有何差異？
本研究以北部某國立大學資電學院課程為例，研究對象為26位一般生與32位在職生，運用量化與質性的研究方式進行三角檢證。量化研究採用美國萊斯大學心理系的Salas教授與其研究團隊研發及編製的團隊合作能力量表( Teamwork Competency Test，簡稱TWCT )，質性研究則運用半結構式深度訪談學生學習歷程、分析實作成品並進行專家訪談。問卷結果顯示，一般生與在職生的「解決衝突」、「進行決策」及「監督評估」三項能力具有顯著差異，而訪談也進一步驗證此結果。此外從學生與專家訪談結果可知兩類學生在合作分工、非正式溝通、提供意見回饋、反思與修正等方面亦具有差異。在實作成品方面，一般生製作的遊戲具備不同難易度及主題式關卡設計，適用各種年齡層的玩家；而在職生的遊戲則具備記錄學習或掌握成效的機制，方便教師應用於教學現場。
本研究依據文獻探討、TWCT量表、師生訪談與實作成品相互比對後，歸納出以下八項結論：(1)小組的溝通協調對於衝突解決相當重要、(2)時間與進度的壓力會影響進行決策的能力、(3)時間分配會影響小組彼此監督的成效、(4)小組的組成人數影響分工內容、(5)相處時間的多寡影響非正式溝通能力、(6)思考角度的差異影響反思與修正的能力、(7)批判能力的差異造成同儕互評的標準不一、(8)對於實作成品的態度影響其後續的發展。
本研究根據結論提出未來課程改善，第一，將在職生實作遊戲的形式改為重新設計現成遊戲的學習內容。第二，鼓勵在職生設計更貼近使用者需求之實作成品。第三，為一般生塑造教學的情境，達到實作之目的。最後提出3項未來研究之建議，第一，根據不同研究掌握學生分組人數的變數。第二，將TWCT量表的施測改為前後測，以了解兩類學生在合作型問題解決模式中的進步幅度。第三，將一般生與在職生進行異質分組，互相學習優點與補足劣勢。

摘要(英)

In recent years, an increasing emphasis on the development of collaborative problem-solving ability has been placed internationally. Students need to learn to collaborate with people from other disciplines to solve issues in practical contexts. However, despite the increasing universalization of higher education in Taiwan, researches addressing the learning of full-time students and in-service students have been relatively few. This study will focus on students’ design behavior in the collaborative problem-solving approach, and investigate in the collaborative hands-on learning process of full-time students and in-service students. Furthermore, it analyzes the characteristics of collaborative strategies during the process. Hence, three research questions were examined:
1. Is there any difference between full-time students and in-service students in terms of collaborative problem-solving ability?
2. What similarities and differences between full-time students and in-service students are shown in the collaborative problem-solving model?
3. What are the differences between full-time students and in-service students in terms of completed work?
This study provides a case study of the course offered by the College of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science in a national university in northern Taiwan. The subjects were 26 full-time students and 32 in-service students. Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were used to conduct triangulation. For quantitative analysis, this study adopted the Teamwork Competency Test (TWCT) developed and prepared by Prof. Eduardo Salas and his team at the Department Psychological Sciences, Rice University in the United States. For qualitative analysis, semi-structured in-depth interviews are employed to understand students’ learning processes, analyze finished products and conduct interviews with experts. First of all, questionnaire survey results show that the difference between full-time and in-service students is significant in TWCT categories including “conflict resolution,” “decision making,” and “monitoring and assessing.” Secondly, results of interviews with students and experts reveal that differences between these two types of students are found in four aspects including collaboration and work division, informal communication, comment and feedback, and reflection and correction. Regarding finished products, the games produced by full-time students feature designs of themed levels with varying difficulties, and are thus fit for players of all ages; while those produced by in-service students have mechanisms of recording learning process or tracking learning effect, thus facilitating the teachers’ in-class demonstrations.
Based on the results of TWCT questionnaire, the comparison between teacher/student interviews and the teachers’ evaluation of finished products, this study has made the following eight conclusions: (1) Group communication and coordination are extremely important in resolving conflicts; (2) time pressures affect students’ decision-making ability; (3) time allocation is a factor of the effectiveness of inter-group mutual supervision; (4) the size of group members is a factor of work division within the teams; (5) the teammates’ informal communication ability sometimes do affect their collaborative process ; (6) differences in various perspectives is a factor of reflection ability; (7) difference in critical ability leads to disparate criteria in peer review; (8) attitudes towards finished products influence further developments of their finished products.
This study hereby provides directions for future course improvement. First, for in-service student, it would be better to re-designing available games to become more user-friendly, rather than start designing games from the scratch. Secondly, it might be crucial to create real-life teaching scenarios for full-time students in order to make their products more practical. Finally, this study offers 3 suggestions for future studies. First, control the factor of the group size between full-time students and in-service students. Secondly, change the assessment of TWCT questionnaire to pre-text and post-text in order to understand the progresses of the two types of students before and after adopting the collaborative problem-solving approach. Thirdly, conduct heterogeneous grouping for full-time and in-service students to allow them to benefit from each other’s strengths and learn from each other’s shortcomings.

關鍵字(中)

★ 合作型問題解決能力
★ 實作課程
★ 一般生
★ 在職生

關鍵字(英)

★ collaborative problem-solving
★ hands-on course
★ full-time student
★ in-service student

論文目次

第一章緒論 1
第一節研究背景與動機 1
第二節研究目的與研究問題 3
第三節名詞釋義 4
第四節研究範圍與限制 5

第二章文獻探討 7
第一節合作型問題解決能力之內涵 7
第二節合作型問題解決能力之評量工具 10
第三節一般生與在職生的學習特徵 13

第三章研究方法 17
第一節研究設計與流程 17
第二節研究對象與課程說明 20
第三節研究工具 24
第四節資料處理與分析 28

第四章研究結果 31
第一節一般生與在職生TWCT分數之差異 31
第二節一般生與在職生在合作過程中的相似與相異處 37
第三節一般生與在職生實作成品的分析 44

第五章結論與建議 55
第一節結論 55
第二節建議 59

參考文獻 62
一、中文部分 62
二、西文部分 63

附錄 66
附錄一 TWCT中文版問卷 66
附錄二 TWCT英文版問卷 69
附錄三學生訪談大綱 73
附錄四教師訪談大綱 74

參考文獻

一、中文部分
1. 林永豐（2013）。從量變到質變研究所教育的普及與轉型。臺灣教育評論月刊，2(3)，14-17。
2. 林妙真（2014）。工程及科技教育認證制度實施之研究：大學教師之觀點（博士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。
3. 林宜儂（2016）。探索科學情境合作問題解決行為模式（碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，台中市。
4. 張芬芬（2010）。質性資料分析的五步驟：在抽象階梯上爬升。初等教育學刊，35，87-120。
5. 張國保（2013）。中小學教師進修研究所的需求性與價值。臺灣教育評論月刊，2(3)，44-46。
6. 陳明雅（2006）。網路合作式問題解決教學法與服裝設計系學生創造力表現之行動研究。人類發展與家庭學報，(8)，69-84。
7. 彭妮絲（2014）。以實作為取向之互助式華文教師研習情境探究。僑教與海外華人研究學報，(3)，57-72。
8. 黃文定（2019）。從2018PISA全球素養評量問卷論國際教育的實踐。臺灣教育評論月刊，8(6)，6-11。
9. 楊國賜（2014）。終身學習的新思維與新方向。台灣教育，689，2-7。
10. 潘玉龍（2017）。從終身學習談學校教育人員在職進修之紮根理論研究。臺灣教育評論月刊，6(9)，276-280。
11. 蘇進棻（2013年09月1日）。高等教育政策必須與產業需求相互配合。國家教育研究院電子報。2013年9月1日，取自https://epaper.naer.edu.tw/index.php?edm_no=71&content_no=1858

二、西文部分
1. Aguado, D., Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & Salas, E. (2014). Teamwork competency test (TWCT): A step forward on measuring teamwork competencies. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, And Practice, 18(2), 101-121.
2. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436.
3. Chang, C., Chang, M., Liu, C., Chiu, B., Fan Chiang, S., & Wen, C. et al. (2017). An analysis of collaborative problem-solving activities mediated by individual-based and collaborative computer simulations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(6), 649-662.
4. Colvin, R. L., & Edwards, V. (2018). Teaching for global competence in a rapidly changing eorld. OECD Publishing.
5. Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multimodal collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121-151.
6. Dondlinger, M. J., & McLeod, J. K. (2015). Solving real world problems with alternate reality gaming: Student experiences in the global village playground capstone course design. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 9(2), 3-28.
7. Fiore, S. M., Rosen, M. A., Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., Letsky, M., & Warner, N. (2010). Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: Predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts. Human Factors, 52(2), 203-224.
8. Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the science of collaborative problem solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(2), 59-92.
9. Griffin, P., & Care, E. (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. (pp. 3-33). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
10. Hart Research Associates. (2015). Falling short? college learning and career success. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
11. Herborn, K., Stadler, M., Mustafić, M., & Greiff, S. (2018). The assessment of collaborative problem solving in PISA 2015: Can computer agents replace humans? Computers in Human Behavior (in press).
12. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Liu, L., & Chernobilsky, E. (2011). Representational tools for understanding complex computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In Analyzing interactions in CSCL (pp. 83-106). doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7710-6_4, Springer.
13. Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435-449.
14. Lang, K. B. (2012). The similarities and differences between working and non-working students at a mid-sized american public university. College Student Journal, 46(2), 243-255.
15. Lencioni, P. (2006). The five dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16. Lin, P. C., Chiu, Y. L., Banerjee, S., Park, K., Mosquera, J. M., Giannopoulou, E., . . . Rubin, M. A. (2013). Epigenetic repression of miR-31 disrupts androgen receptor homeostasis and contributes to prostate cancer progression. Cancer Research, 73(3), 1232-1244.
17. Lin, P. C., Hou, H. T., Wu, S. Y., & Chang, K. E. (2014). Exploring college students′ cognitive processing patterns during a collaborative problem-solving teaching activity integrating Facebook discussion and simulation tools. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 51-56.
18. Mano-Israeli, S., & Gero, A. (2017). What drives teachers to teach electronics at a two-year technical college? A self-determination theory perspective. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(6), 1892-1899.
19. Marques, M., Ochoa, S. F., Bastarrica, M. C., & Gutierrez, F. J. (2017). Enhancing the student learning experience in software engineering project courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 61(1), 63-73.
20. Mounsey, R., Vandehey, M., & Diekhoff, G. (2013). Working and non-working university students: Anxiety, depression, and grade point average. College Student Journal, 47(2), 379-389.
21. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving (Vol. 104, No. 9). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22. Oliveri, M., Lawless, R., & Molloy, H. (2017). A literature review on collaborative problem solving for college and workforce readiness. ETS Research Report Series, 2017(1), 1-27.
23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). Education at a glance 2010: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD.
24. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). Education at a glance 2017: OECD indicators. OECD.
25. Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20(2), 503-530.
26. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
27. Ting, L., Morris, K. J., McFeaters, S. J., & Eustice, L. (2006). Multiple roles, stressors, and needs among baccalaureate social work students: An exploratory study. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 12(1), 39-55.

指導教授

張佩芬(Pei-Fen Chang)

審核日期

2019-8-20

推文