基於領導能力分組模式之專題導向學習對於學習者的認知層次、創造力與學習成效之影響-以大學工程教育課程為例

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：10

、訪客IP：3.141.164.253

姓名

黃鏡晟(Jing-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

基於領導能力分組模式之專題導向學習對於學習者的認知層次、創造力與學習成效之影響-以大學工程教育課程為例
(The effect of project-based learning based on leadership grouping mode on learners′ cognitive levels, creativity and learning achievement: two studies of university engineering education)

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)

在工程教育的研究中，少有探討學習者在實作上的高層次認知發展，例如創造力與其對學習成效之間的影響。因此，本研究分別探討兩種不同類型的大學工程教育實作課程，研究一為硬體方面的嵌入式系統課程，以傳統實作課程融入專題導向式學習(PBL)的方式，學習活動以四次的小組報告與每週工作日誌進行，探討PBL的教學引導對於學習者高層次的認知發展與學習成效的影響；研究二則是以軟體方面的多媒體網頁程式設計課程，針對該課程使用網頁程式語言學習平台(WPBLS)，並透過五大人格特質量表測驗學習者的領導能力，探討領導能力對於學習成效與認知層次的影響。
　　研究一的研究對象為大學三到四年級學生共16人，以1到4人為一組，分為六個組別，進行為期15週的實驗時間。學習活動分為組內的工作日誌，以及組間的小組報告與小組互評。實驗結果顯示：工作日誌與小組報告藉由PBL引導讓學習者達到更高層次的認知發展(分析與創造)。然而小組互評(理解度、應用度)與小組報告(理解層次)呈顯著負相關，可能是因為各組的專題題目不同，所以導致學習者與老師的評估有所差異。
　　研究二的研究對象為大學三到四年級學生共38人，藉由五大人格特質測驗區分為實驗組(領導分組)與控制組(隨機分組)，進行為期15週的實驗時間。實驗結果顯示：實驗組的學習成效顯著優於控制組，也就是說領導者能引領組員完成回家作業並有較好的學習成效。另外本研究亦探討網頁介面設計的註記。分析結果發現：實驗組在程式與介面註記兩方面均比控制組有較高的認知層次發展(應用、分析、評鑑與創造)。此外實驗組的回家作業中，創造層次與後測成績呈顯著正相關性。最後，多數實驗組的學習者皆認為合作學習與分享作業是有助於學習的。

摘要(英)

In the research of engineering education, there are few researches to discuss the high-level cognitive development of the learners in the practical curriculum, for example, the influence of learns between creativity and learning achievement. Therefore, this research explored two different types of practical courses in engineering education in university. The first study was an embedded system’s course for hardware types, and it was designed to use a traditional practical course in the learning activity which was incorporated the project-based learning (PBL) approach into having four reports and a work diary weekly in each group. In order to exploring the effect of PBL′s instructional guidance on learns’ high-level cognitive development and learning achievement. The second study was a multimedia Web-based programming design course for software types, and it used the Web-based programming learning system (WPBLS) to explore the influence on learning achievement and cognitive leadership.
In the first study, 16 participants of junior and senior were divided into six groups, one to four in a group, for a period of fifteen weeks, and the learning activities including work diary, reports and criticisms each other in a group. The results showed that learners achieved a higher cognitive level (create) through PBL. At the cognitive level of the reports in a group, learners had achieved a higher cognitive level (analyze and create). However, the criticisms of each other in a group (understanding and application) had a negative correlation with cognitive level (understand). The reason is that the project was different in each group, the estimates will different from learners and teachers.
In the second study, the participants were 38 learners from third year to fourth year of university for a period of fifteen weeks, and they were divided into experiment group (leader group) and control group (random group). The results showed that the experiment groups were significantly better than the control groups on learning achievements. It meant that the leaders could not only lead their team to complete homework but also have a good learning achievement. This study explores the programming and web-based interface design annotation. The results showed that the experimental group in the program and interface annotation had a higher cognitive levels (apply, analyze, evaluate and create) than the control group. Finally, most of the learners in experimental group agreed that it is useful in collaborative learning and sharing homework.

關鍵字(中)

★ 專題導向式學習
★ 布魯姆認知層次
★ 創造力
★ 學習成效
★ 領導能力

關鍵字(英)

★ project-based learning (PBL)
★ Bloom′s taxonomy
★ creativity
★ learning achievement
★ leadership

論文目次

中文摘要 i
Abstract ii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 vii
表目錄 viii
第一章緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的與待答問題 5
1.3 研究限制 6
第二章文獻探討 7
2.1 專題導向學習(Project-based learning, PBL)的重要性 7
2.1.1 PBL與工程教育的關係 8
2.1.2 PBL與網頁輔助學習的關係 9
2.2 Bloom認知發展與工程教育的關係 10
2.2.1 創造力跟工程教育之探討 12
2.2.2程式與介面設計對於工程教育的重要性 13
2.3 PBL與領導能力的關係 14
第三章研究方法 16
3.1研究架構與研究變數 16
3.2 研究流程與程序 19
3.3 研究對象 22
3.4 研究工具 22
3.5 研究設計 29
3.5.1 研究一之活動設計 29
3.5.2 研究二之活動設計 30
3.6 資料蒐集與處理 33
第四章結果分析與討論 35
4.1 研究一 35
4.1.1 學習行為之認知層次分析 35
4.1.2 小組報告認知層次與小組互評問卷之相關分析 41
4.1.3 小組互評問卷、工作日誌認知層次與學習成效之相關分析 43
4.2 研究二 44
4.2.1 學習成效之獨立樣本t檢定 44
4.2.2 學習成效之共變數分析(ANCOVA) 45
4.2.3 學習行為之註記數量分析 46
4.2.4 學習行為之註記認知層次分析 47
4.2.5 回家作業註記之認知層次分析 53
4.2.6 學習成效與回家作業認知層次之相關分析 56
4.2.7 學習成效與回家作業認知層次之預測能力分析 56
4.2.8 問卷分析 58
4.3 意涵與建議 67
4.3.1 研究一之意涵與建議 67
4.3.2 研究二之意涵與建議 68
第五章結論 70
5.1 結論 70
5.1.1探討研究一中PBL的教學引導對於學習者的認知發展與學習成效之影響關係為何? 70
5.1.2探討研究一中PBL的教學引導對於學習者的認知發展與學習行為之影響關係為何? 70
5.1.3探討研究二中實驗組在學習成效與學習行為的認知層次是否顯著優於控制組? 71
5.1.4探討研究二中實驗組在回家作業認知層次變化為何? 72
5.1.5探討研究二中實驗組在學習成效與回家作業認知層次之相關性為何? 72
5.1.6探討研究二中實驗組的回家作業認知層次是否能有效預測其學習成效? 73
5.1.7探討研究二中學習者對於使用WBPLS的看法與其動機為何？ 73
5.2 限制與未來工作 74
第六章參考文獻 75
附錄一小組工作日誌紀錄表格 80
附錄二前測試卷-多媒體網頁程式設計學習成效 81
附錄三後測試卷-多媒體網頁程式設計學習成效 83
附錄四科技接受模型問卷 85
附錄五凱勒學習動機問卷 86
附錄六五大人格特質問卷 87

參考文獻

中文部分
于富雲. (2001). 從理論基礎探究合作學習的教學效益. 教育資料與研究, 38, 22-28.
邱皓政. (2005). 創造力的測量與共識衡鑑. 教育集刊 (30), 50-73.
鄭蕙如, & 林世華. (2004). Bloom 認知領域教育目標分類修訂版理論與實務之探討─ 以九年一貫課程數學領域分段能力指標為例. NTTU Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 247-274.
英文部分
Avery, Z., Castillo, M., Guo, H., Guo, J., Warter-Perez, N., Won, D. S., & Dong, J. (2010). Implementing Collaborative Project-Based Learning using the Tablet PC to enhance student learning in engineering and computer science courses. Paper presented at the 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39-43.
Bellanca, J. A. (2011). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn: Solution Tree Press.
Bharadwaj, S., & Menon, A. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: individual creativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both? Journal of product innovation management, 17(6), 424-434.
Bozanta, A., Kutlu, B., Nowlan, N., & Shirmohammadi, S. (2016). Effects of serious games on perceived team cohesiveness in a multi-user virtual environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 380-388.
Byron, K., & Khazanchi, S. (2012). Rewards and creative performance: a meta-analytic test of theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychological bulletin, 138(4), 809.
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: a meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201.
Chang, C.-C., & Tseng, K.-H. (2011). Using a web-based portfolio assessment system to elevate project-based learning performances. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3), 211-230.
ChanLin, L.-J. (2008). Individual differences in computer-mediated communication for web-based learning. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 45(4), 505-524.
Colbert, A. E., Judge, T. A., Choi, D., & Wang, G. (2012). Assessing the trait theory of leadership using self and observer ratings of personality: The mediating role of contributions to group success. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 670-685.
Eskrootchi, R., & Oskrochi, G. R. (2010). A Study of the Efficacy of Project-based Learning Integrated with Computer-based Simulation-STELLA. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 236-245.
Goeser, P. T., Johnson, W. M., Hamza-Lup, F. G., & Schaefer, D. (2011). VIEW: A virtual interactive web-based learning environment for engineering. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(3), 1-24.
Guilford, J. (1982). Cognitive psychology′s ambiguities: Some suggested remedies. Psychological review, 89(1), 48.
Guilford, J. P. (1977). Way Behond the IQ: Guide to Improving Intelligence and Creativity: Creative Education Foundation.
Guzdial, M. (1994). Software‐realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 001-044.
Hadim, H. A., & Esche, S. K. (2002). Enhancing the engineering curriculum through project-based learning. In Frontiers in Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual (Vol. 2, pp. F3F-1). IEEE.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity Handbook of creativity (pp. 53-75): Springer.
Hosseinzadeh, N., & Hesamzadeh, M. R. (2012). Application of project-based learning (PBL) to the teaching of electrical power systems engineering. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(4), 495-501.
Hsu, C.-K., Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, C.-K. (2013). A personalized recommendation-based mobile learning approach to improving the reading performance of EFL students. Computers & Education, 63, 327-336.
Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, H.-F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023-1031.
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.
Guilford, J. P. (1977). Way Behond the IQ: Guide to Improving Intelligence and Creativity. Creative Education Foundation.
Kerr, B., & Gagliardi, C. (2003). Measuring creativity in research and practice.
Kop, R., & Carroll, F. (2011). Cloud computing and creativity: Learning on a massive open online course. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 14(2).
Kubiatko, M., & Vaculová, I. (2011). Project-based learning: characteristic and the experiences with application in the science subjects. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B, 3, 65-74.
Kuo, F.-R., Hwang, G.-J., & Lee, C.-C. (2012). A hybrid approach to promoting students’ web-based problem-solving competence and learning attitude. Computers & Education, 58(1), 351-364.
Lehmann, M., Christensen, P., Du, X., & Thrane, M. (2008). Problem-oriented and project-based learning (POPBL) as an innovative learning strategy for sustainable development in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(3), 283-295.
Lin, C.-S., & Wu, R.-W. (2016). Effects of Web-Based Creative Thinking Teaching on Students’ Creativity and Learning Outcome. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(6), 1675-1684.
Lumsdaine, E., Lumsdaine, M., & Hollander, M. A. (1993). Creative problem solving: Thinking skills for a changing world: McGraw-Hill.
Martínez, F., Herrero, L. C., & De Pablo, S. (2011). Project-based learning and rubrics in the teaching of power supplies and photovoltaic electricity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(1), 87-96.
Mcmahon, M., & Oliver, R. (2003). Teaching metacognitive regulation of reading comprehension in an on-line environment. In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003, 2464-2471.
Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian journal of engineering education, 3(2), 2-16.
Okudan, G. E., & Rzasa, S. E. (2006). A project-based approach to entrepreneurial leadership education. Technovation, 26(2), 195-210.
Rushton, J. P. (1990). Creativity, intelligence, and psychoticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(12), 1291-1298.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2): John Wiley & Sons.
Schulte, P. A., Rinehart, R., Okun, A., Geraci, C. L., & Heidel, D. S. (2008). National prevention through design (PtD) initiative. Journal of safety research, 39(2), 115-121.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning.
Tseng, K.-H., Chang, C.-C., Lou, S.-J., & Chen, W.-P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87-102.
Uther, M., & Banks, A. P. (2016). The influence of affordances on user preferences for multimedia language learning applications. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(4), 277-289.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of management journal, 53(1), 107-128.
Zhou, C., Kolmos, A., & Nielsen, J. F. D. (2012). A problem and project-based learning (PBL) approach to motivate group creativity in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(1), 3-16.

指導教授

黃武元(Wu-Yuin Hwang)

審核日期

2016-12-27

推文