動畫式教學策略對學生創意能力與電腦態度之影響：以物件導向程式設計為例

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：17

、訪客IP：18.224.63.123

姓名

朱君怡(Chun-yi Chu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊工程學系

論文名稱

動畫式教學策略對學生創意能力與電腦態度之影響：以物件導向程式設計為例
(The Influence of Animation-based Instructional Strategy on Students’ Creative Ability and Computer Attitude: A Case Study of OO Programming)

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]

[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)

由於在一般傳統的程式設計教學中，學生缺乏解決問題時的創意思考，在學習意願上也較低落，為了改善學生的學習狀況，我們嘗試使用一個新的教學模式。在本研究中，我們設計一個融入5E學習環概念之動畫式教學策略，經由實際教學從中觀察學生在創意能力的表現及電腦態度上的變化。我們對電腦相關科系的專科學生與電腦程式設計進修班的學生進行實驗，教師運用此動畫式教學策略進行物件導向程式設計的教學，讓學生使用擁有3D動畫環境的Alice軟體製作自己的動畫程式，最後共有44人完成此課程之學習活動及填寫有效之實驗資料，而我們使用創意能力評量與電腦態度量表作為學生之創意能力與電腦態度的評估工具。實驗的結果顯示，學生在Alice程式上之創意能力表現提高，對於電腦態度之焦慮構面有下降的趨勢，而信心、喜歡、有用性等構面則是上升。由實驗結果我們可得知，此動畫式教學策略能啟發學生之創意思考能力，並改善學生的電腦態度，增進程式設計課程的學習成效。

摘要(英)

Due to students’ lack of creative thoughts in problem solving and lower willingness to learn programming in traditional computer programming courses, it is suggested to try a new way to teach computer programming. In this research, an animation-based instructional strategy combining with 5E learning cycle model was proposed and students’ creative ability and computer attitude were also investigated. Teachers used this animation-based instructional strategy to teach object-oriented programming (OO programming). Students were asked to write programs to generate animations by Alice, a 3D graphical programming environment. A total of 44 students from two classes in different educational systems completed all assignments in programming courses. Creative ability and computer attitude were investigated by a creative ability assessment and Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) using quantitative analysis. The results revealed that students who learned computer programming by the animation-based instructional strategy showed better performances of creative ability and had more positive computer attitude toward the programming course. Overall, the animation-based instructional strategy proposed in this research was beneficial to students who were learning computer programming.

關鍵字(中)

★ 教學策略
★ 創意能力
★ 電腦態度
★ 5E學習環
★ 物件導向程式設計

關鍵字(英)

★ Instructional strategy
★ Creative ability
★ Computer attitude
★ Object-oriented programming
★ 5E learning cycle

論文目次

摘要.......................................................i
ABSTRACT..................................................ii
誌謝...................................................iii
Table of Contents.........................................iv
List of Figures...........................................vi
List of Tables...........................................vii
1. Introduction............................................1
2. Literature review.......................................4
2.1. Creative ability and its measurements.................4
2.2. Computer attitude.....................................6
2.3. 5E learning cycle model...............................7
2.4. Computer programming learning and related software tools......................................................9
3. Animation-based instructional strategy.................14
4. Research hypotheses....................................19
4.1. Creative ability.....................................19
4.2. Computer attitude....................................21
5. Methodology............................................23
5.1. Participants.........................................23
5.2. Instruments..........................................23
5.3. Data analysis........................................28
6. Results................................................29
7. Discussion.............................................38
8. Conclusions............................................41
Bibliographies............................................43
Appendix A................................................48

參考文獻

‧Almeida, L. S., Prieto, L. P., Ferrando, M., Oliveira, E., & Ferrandiz, C. (2008). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: The question of its construct validity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(1), 53-58.
‧Balci, S., Cakiroglu, J., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Engagement, exploration, explanation, extension, and evaluation (5E) learning cycle and conceptual change text as learning tools. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 34(3), 199-203.
‧Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins, Effectiveness, and Applications. Colorado Springs: BSCS. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 29, 407-427.
‧Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2003). Teaching Objects-first in introductory computer science. SIGCSE’ 03, 191-195.
‧Ellinger, H. (2003). A natural sense of algorithm: Establishing computer-programming skill for children as a fundamental curriculum element. Retrieved from http://hunter.ellinger.org/education/ANSOA.pdf
‧Francis, L. J., Katz, Y. J. & Jone, S. H. (2000). The reliability and validity of the Hebrew version of the Computer Attitude Scale. Computers & education, 35(2), 149-159.
‧Guilford, J. P.(1966). Measurement and Creativity. Theory into Practice, 5(4), 186-202.
‧Goldston, M. J., Day, J. B., Sundberg, C., & Dantzler, J. (2009). Psychometric analysis of a 5E learning cycle lesson plan assessment instrument. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/p877q18u407w2j7j/fulltext.pdf
‧Govender, I. & Grayson, D. J. (2008) Pre-service and in-service teachers’ experiences of learning to program in an object-oriented language. Computers & Education, 51(2), 874-885.
‧Guilford, J. P. (1966). Measurement and Creativity. Theory into Practice, 5(4), 186-202.
‧Hagan, D., & Markham, S. (2000). Teaching Java with the BlueJ environment. Proceedings of Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference ASCILITE 2000.
‧Hocevar, D. & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53-75). New York: Plenum.
‧Howard, E. V., Evans, D., Courte, J., & Bishop-Clark, C. (2009). A Qualitative Look at Alice and Pair-Programming. Information Systems Education Journal, 7 (80).
‧Jang, S.J. (2009). Exploration of secondary students’ creativity by integrating web-based technology into an innovative science curriculum. Computers & Education, 52(1), 247-255.
‧Kelleher, C. & Pausch, R. (2006). Lessons Learned from Designing a Programming System to Support Middle School Girls Creating Animated Stories. VLHCC’ 06, 165-172.
‧Kouznetsova, S. (2007). Using BlueJ and Blackjack to teach object-oriented design concepts in CS1. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges (presented at CCSC: Central Plains 2007 conference), 22(4).
‧Kölling, M., & Rosenberg, J. (1996). An object-oriented program development environment for the first programming course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(1), 83-87.
‧Kölling, M., Quig, B., Patterson, A., & Rosenberg, J. (2003) The BlueJ system and its pedagogy. Computer Science Education, 13(4).
‧Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to Creative Synergy: Opening the Black Box of Team-Level Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3), 285 – 294.
‧Lee, S.C. (2001), Development of instructional strategy of computer application software for group instruction, Computers and Education, 37 (1), 1-9
‧Maloney, J., Burd, L., Kafai, Y., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Resnick, M. (2004). Scratch: A Sneak Preview. Second International Conference on Creating, Connecting, and Collaborating through Computing, 104-109.
‧Moskal, B., Lurie, D., & Cooper, S. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of a new instructional approach. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 75-79.
‧Nash, J.B. & Moroz, P.A. (1997). An examination of the factor structures of the computer attitude scale. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
‧Nov, O., & Jones, M. (2005).Creativity, Knowledge and IS: A Critical View. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences(HICSS'05), 44b-44b.
‧Palaigeorgiou , G. E., Siozos, P. D., Konstantakis, N. I., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2005). A computer attitude scale for computer science freshmen and its educational implications. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(5), 330–342.
‧Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for All. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67.
‧Rice, R.E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward New Organizational Technology: Network Proximity as a Mechanism for Social Information Processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 219-244.
‧Robbins, T. L., & Kegley, K. (2010). Playing with Thinkertoys to build creative abilities through online instruction. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5 (1), 40-48.
‧Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003) Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137-172.
‧Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361 – 388.
‧Shneiderman, B., & Mayer, R. (1979) Syntactic/semantic interactions in programmer behavior: A model and experimental results. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 8(3), 219-238.
‧Smith, D. C., Cypher, A., & Tesler, L. (2000). Novice programming comes of age. Communications of the ACM, 43(3), 75-81.
‧Soloway, E.(1993). Should we teach students to program? Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 21-24.
‧Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87–98.
‧Sternberg, R. J., & Lubar, T.I. (1993). Investing in Creativity. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 229-232.
‧Tsai, M. J., & Tsai, C.C.(2003). Student computer achievement, attitude, and anxiety: the role of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 47-61.
‧Ünlü, K., Çatak, M., Özdal, J., & Sarı, S. (2006). A Mathematics Lesson Designed Using 5E Learning Cycle Model. International Educational Technology Conference, 19-20-20.
‧Van Haaster, K. & Hagan, D. (2004). Teaching and learning with BlueJ: an Evaluation of a Pedagogical Tool. Information Science and Information Technology Education Joint Conference. Rockhampton, QLD, Australia.
‧Van Rossum, G.(1999). Computer Programming for Everybody(Revised Proposal): A Scouting Expedition for the Programmers of Tomorrow. Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI Proposal #90120-1a). Retrieved from http://www.python.org/doc/essays/cp4e.html
‧Wilder, M., & Shuttleworth, P. (2005). Cell Inquiry: A 5E Learning Cycle Lesson. Science Activities, 41(4), 37-43.
‧Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3), 17-22.

指導教授

楊鎮華(Jenn-hwa Yang)

審核日期

2010-6-24

推文