以概念圖與專題方式學習程式語言－高職程式設計課程之實驗研究

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：15

、訪客IP：52.15.174.159

姓名

翁清麟(Qing-lin Weng) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊管理學系

論文名稱

以概念圖與專題方式學習程式語言－高職程式設計課程之實驗研究
(Learning Programming Language Based on Concept Map and Project - The Experiment of Programming Course of Vocational High School)

相關論文

★ 應用結構行動理論探討跨國企業導入供應鏈管理之個案研究-以資訊電子業為例	★ 應用調適性結構行動理論探討ERP卅MES系統導入、轉移和整合之個案研究
★ 技術商品銷售之技術人員關鍵職能探討	★ 資訊委外之承包商能力、信任及溝通與委外成效關係之個案研究
★ 兵工技術軍官職能需求分析-以某軍事工廠為例	★ 不同楷模學習模式對VB程式語言學習之影響
★ 影響採購「網路資料中心產品」因素之探討	★ LCD面板製造廠資訊系統商業價值之個案研究
★ 資訊人員績效評估之研究—以陸軍某資訊單位為例	★ 應用調適性結構行動理論探討CIM系統的導入 -以TFT-LCD產業為例
★ 高職資料處理科學生網路成癮相關因素及其影響之探討	★ 資訊服務委外對資訊部門及人員之衝擊-某大型外商公司之個案研究
★ 二次導入ERP系統之研究-以某個案公司為例	★ 資料倉儲於證券產業應用之個案研究
★ ERP系統品質Enhancement的實徵研究	★ 影響消費者採用創新數位產品之因素---以整合式手機為例

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]

至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

高職的程式設計課程備受重視，其教學的主要目標為培養學生解決問題的能力，但課程內容較少涉及解題規劃與撰寫程式，且對於初學者的困難度高。概念圖讓學習者能運用圖形呈現對該程式概念的理解，而專題式學習可以增加學習者實際上機的時間，並增加解決問題能力的磨練。因此本研究透過實地實驗法，來探討概念圖與專題方式學習程式設計對學習成效的影響。
研究對象為台中市某國立高中資訊應用學程的高職生，二、三年級各選一班，共85人，依班級分為獨立學習與合作學習兩組。實驗採用Visual Basic 6.0作為教學使用的軟體，共持續7週（含前、後測），由任課教師負責教學與學習單的制定，實驗後有效的參與者為79 人。實驗數據透過問卷與測驗收集，並以統計分析方法進行資料分析。
經統計分析後，本研究結果發現在學習後程式設計測驗上，合作學習組的平均數高於獨立學習。在先備知識程度方面，以整體樣本而言，中、高先備知識學習者的學習成效有較好的結果。以獨立學習組而言，高先備知識學習者的學習成效比較低。在合作學習組的學習成效，由高至低，依序為高先備知識、低先備知識、中先備知識學習者。
根據以上結果，本研究最後提出教學設計應注意的事項與未來方向及建議，以提供學術界或實務界參考。

摘要(英)

Many vocational high schools attach great importance to programming courses, which were designed to develop students’ problem solving skills. However, programming courses hardly mention the planning of problem solving and programming practices, and this make beginners having difficulties on learning programming. By using concept map, learners can use graphical representation to show their conceptual understanding of the program. On the other hand, project-based learning increases learner’s actual programming practice time, and thus sharpens their problem-solving skill. This research use field experiment to explore the effect of using concept map and project-based approach on learning performance.
The participants were recruited from a vocational high school in Taichung city; we randomly chose one class from the second grade and another from the third grade, a total of eighty-five students as our experiment participants. The participants were divided into two groups (independent learning and cooperative learning) based on classes. This research used Visual Basic 6.0 as the teaching software, and conducted a seven weeks field experiment including pre-test and post-test. In the experiment, a course teacher was responsible for teaching and designing course worksheet. Of the eighty-five participants, all but six successfully completed the experiment. By the end of the experiment, we used questionnaires and experiment test to collect experimental data; and used statistical analysis methods to conduct further data analysis.
The results showed that the average programming test score of cooperative learning group is higher than independent learning group. In terms of the overall samples, learners with moderate or high prior knowledge have greater testing scores. In the independent learning group, learners possessing higher level of prior knowledge have lower learning performance. In the cooperative learning group, the learning performance from high to low, are high prior knowledge learners, low prior knowledge learners, and moderate prior knowledge learners.
This study provided implications and directions for future research according to the above results.

關鍵字(中)

★ 程式設計學習
★ 概念圖
★ 專題式學習
★ 學習成效

關鍵字(英)

★ Programming Learning
★ Concept Map
★ Poject-Based Learning
★ Learning Performance

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 vi
表目錄 vii
一、緒論 1
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究問題 2
1-3 研究流程 2
二、文獻探討 4
2-1 程式設計學習 4
2-2 概念圖 6
2-3 專題式學習 10
2-4 合作學習 12
2-5 學習成效 13
三、研究方法 15
3-1 研究架構 15
3-2 實驗規劃 17
3-3 研究問卷設計 19
3-4 實驗流程規劃 20
3-5 資料分析方法 23
四、資料分析 24
4-1 問卷之信度與效度檢驗 24
4-2 研究樣本資料分析 26
4-3 實驗資料分析 28
4-4 訪談任課教師的發現 31
4-5 研究發現與討論 32
五、研究結論與建議 34
5-1 研究結論 34
5-2 實務意涵 35
5-3 研究限制與未來研究方向建議 36
參考文獻 38
附錄一計算機程式的概念圖 46
附錄二教師課後訪問單 48
附錄三研究問卷 49
附錄四程式設計能力測驗─先備知識 51
附錄五程式設計能力測驗─延後測 56

參考文獻

西文部分
Ala-Mutka, K., Uimonen, T., & Jarvinen, H.-M. (2004). Supporting students in C++ programming courses with automatic program style assessment. Journal of Information Technology Education, 3, 245-262.
Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS quarterly, 18(2), 159-174.
Alexander, P. A. (1996). The past, present, and future of knowledge research: A reexamination of the role of knowledge in learning and instruction. Educational psychologist, 31(2), 89-92.
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practices over primary and secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1), 9-34.
Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 271-311.
Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), 45-73.
Bevan, J., Werner, L., & McDowell, C. (2002). Guidelines for the use of pair programming in a freshman programming class. Paper presented at the 15th Software Engineering Education and Training, Covington, KY.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives book 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398.
Bouton, C., & Garth, R. Y. (1983). Students in learning groups: Active learning through conversation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1983(14), 73-82.
Bravo, C., Marcelino, M. J., Gomes, A., Esteves, M., & Mendes, A. J. (2005). Integrating educational tools for collaborative computer programming learning. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 11(9), 1505-1517.
Chen, S. Y., Fan, J.-P., & Macredie, R. D. (2006). Navigation in hypermedia learning systems: experts vs. novices. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 251-266.
Chiu, C. H., Wu, W. S., & Huang, C. C. (2000). Collaborative concept mapping processes mediated by computer. Paper presented at the WebNet World Conference on the WWW and Internet, Chesapeake, VA.
Clancy, M. J., & Linn, M. C. (1992). Case studies in the classroom. Paper presented at the 23rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, New York, NY.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of educational research, 64(1), 1-35.
Cooke, N. J., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1988). Effects of computer programming experience on network representations of abstract programming concepts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 29(4), 407-427.
Davidovic, A., Warren, J., & Trichina, E. (2003). Learning benefits of structural example-based adaptive tutoring systems. Ieee Transactions on Education, 46(2), 241-251.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 39-50.
Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D., & Pell, T. (1999). Changes in patterns of teacher interaction in primary classrooms: 1976‐96. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 23-37.
Gillies, R. M. (2003a). The behaviors, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. Journal of educational psychology, 95(1), 137.
Gillies, R. M. (2003b). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1), 35-49.
Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small‐group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 271-287.
Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of educational psychology, 90(4), 746.
Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 356-364.
Gupta, M. L. (2004). Enhancing student performance through cooperative learning in physical sciences. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 63-73.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis prentice (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Han, J., & Fu, Y. (1994). Dynamic generation and refinement of concept hierarchies for knowledge discovery in databases. AAAI Workshop on Knowledge Discovery in Databases (Vol. 94, pp. 157-168). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.
Hwang, W.-Y., Wang, C.-Y., Hwang, G.-J., Huang, Y.-M., & Huang, S. (2008). A web-based programming learning environment to support cognitive development. Interacting with Computers, 20(6), 524-534.
Jenkins, T. (2001). The motivation of students of programming. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, New York, NY.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999a). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999b). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67-73.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. Theory and research on small groups, 4, 9-35.
Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (2000). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kommers, P., & Lanzing, J. (1997). Students’ concept mapping for hypermedia design: Navigation through world wide web (WWW) space and self-assessment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3), 421-455.
Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill College.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1999). Taxonomy of educational objectives book 2: Affective domain (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Krol, K., Janssen, J., Veenman, S., & Linden, J. v. d. (2004). Effects of a cooperative learning program on the elaborations of students working in dyads. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(3), 205-237.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 158-163.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 71(3), 449-521.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 66(4), 423-458.
Macías-Guarasa, J., Montero, J. M., San-Segundo, R., Araujo, Á., & Nieto-Taladriz, O. (2006). A project-based learning approach to design electronic systems curricula. Ieee Transactions on Education, 49(3), 389-397.
Markow, P. G., & Lonning, R. A. (1998). Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: Students’ perceptions and effects on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1015-1029.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
McClure, J. R., & Bell, P. E. (1990). Effects of an environmental education-related STS approach instruction on cognitive structures of preservice science teachers (pp. 24). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475-492.
McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., & Fernald, J. (2002). The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. Paper presented at the 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, New York, NY.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (1997). Meaningful learning in science: The human constructivist perspective. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Learning: Construction of Knowledge (Educational Psychology) (pp. 405-447). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mitchell, D., & Hutchinson, C. J. (2003). Using graphic organizers to develop the cognitive domain in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 74(9), 42-47.
Mohageg, M. F. (1992). The influence of hypertext linking structures on the efficiency of information retrieval. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 34(3), 351-367.
Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching at Its best: A research-based resource for college instructors (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nosek, J. T. (1998). The case for collaborative programming. Communications of the ACM, 41, 105-108.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, R. (1993). Measuring hierarchical levels of programming knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(3), 299-312.
Papert, S., & Resnick, M. (1993). Technological fluency and the representation of knowledge, proposal to the national science foundation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.
Pea, R. D. (1987). Logo programming and problem solving. Technical Report (Vol. 12). New York, NY: Bankstreet College of Education.
Regis, A., Albertazzi, P. G., & Roletto, E. (1996). Concept maps in chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(11), 1084.
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137-172.
Roth, W. M. (1994). Student views of collaborative concept mapping: An emancipatory research project. Science Education, 78(1), 1-34.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569-600.
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89-99.
Schmid, R. F., & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84(2), 78-85.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of educational research, 50(2), 241-271.
Shin, E. C., Schallert, D. L., & Savenye, W. C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students’ learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 33-46.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43-69.
Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Spontaneous concept maps aiding the understanding of scientific concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 515-531.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Solomon, G. (2003). Project-based learning: A primer. Technology and Learning, 23(6), 20-20.
Soloway, E. (1993). Should we teach students to program? Communications of the ACM, 36, 21-24.
Staff, J., & Kreager, D. A. (2008). Too cool for school? Violence, peer status and high school dropout. Social Forces, 87(1), 445-471.
Tarquin, P., & Walker, S. (1997). Creating success in the classroom: Visual organizers and how to use them. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.
Todd, R. J., & Kirk, J. (1995). Concept mapping in information science. Education for Information, 13(4), 333-347.
Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). “Mapping to know”: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86(2), 264-286.
Truong, N., Bancroft, P., & Roe, P. (2003). A web based environment for learning to program. Paper presented at the 26th Australasian computer science conference, New South Wales, Australia.
Turns, J., Atman, C. J., & Adams, R. (2000). Concept maps for engineering education: A cognitively motivated tool supporting varied assessment functions. Ieee Transactions on Education, 43(2), 164-173.
Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Designing automated adaptive support to improve student helping behaviors in a peer tutoring activity. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 279-306.
Webb, N. M. (1995). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (Vol. 102, pp. 119). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1), 73-97.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9(6), 493-516.
West, C. K., Farmer, J. A., & Wolff, P. M. (1991). Instructional design: Implications from cognitive science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall College Div.
West, M., & Ross, S. (2002). Retaining females in computer science: A new look at a persistent problem. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 17(5), 1-7.
Williams, L., & Upchurch, R. L. (2001). In support of student pair-programming. Paper presented at the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, New York, NY.
Zakaria, E., & Iksan, Z. (2007). Promoting cooperative learning in science and mathematics education: A Malaysian perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 35-39.
Zuckerman, G. A., Chudinova, E. V., & Khavkin, E. E. (1998). Inquiry as a pivotal element of knowledge acquisition within the vygotskian paradigm: Building a science curriculum for the elementary. Cognition and instruction, 16(2), 201-233.
中文文獻
王子玲 (2003)。運用合作學習於程式設計專題教學之行動研究，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
李慶森 (2009)。專題導向學習應用於國小高年級社會學習領域之行動研究，國立臺北教育大學社會科教育學研究所碩士論文。
沈碧麗 (2006)。高職電腦教師教學信念之個案研究，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學研究所碩士論文。
林美玲 (2002)，教學原理，高雄市：高雄複文圖書出版社。
邵瑞珍，皮連生 (1999)，教育心理學，台北市：五南圖書出版公司。
陳宏煒 (2002)。高中電腦課程實施現況調查，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
陳麗紅 (2004)。資訊科技融入社會科教學學習成效之研究，屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
網路文獻
Briggs, B. (2012). The dimensions of color. Retrieved May 6th, 2013, from http://www.huevaluechroma.com/041.php
Gordon, A. (2012). Instruction objectives and tests. Retrieved November 4th, 2012, from http://instructionaldesign.gordoncomputer.com/Objectives.html
Stephenson, C. (2000). A report on high school computer science education in five US states. Retrieved August, 11, 2012, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
10.1.1.195.2415&rep=rep1&type=pdf
教育部 (2011)。職業學校群科課程綱要暨設備基準。2013年1月26日，取自教育部技術及職業教育司，網址 http://www.edu.tw/downLoad/detail.aspx?Node=1123&
Page=13960&Index=2&WID=560d2ade-378e-4cb6-8cb4-c2ce2b227759

指導教授

周惠文、何靖遠
(Huey-Wen Chou、Chin-Yuan Ho)

審核日期

2013-7-22

推文