國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	鐘敏綺 Chung, Min-Chi
論文名稱：	以擴增實境表徵學習數學分數概念對學生學習理解之影響 The Effects of learning through Augmented Reality Representations on Students’ Understanding of Fraction
指導教授：	王健華 Wang, Chien-Hwa
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	圖文傳播學系 Department of Graphic Arts and Communications
論文出版年：	2019
畢業學年度：	107
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	71
中文關鍵詞：	數位學習、表徵、擴增實境、分數學習
英文關鍵詞：	e-learning, representations, augmented reality, fraction learning
DOI URL：	http://doi.org/10.6345/THE.NTNU.DGAC.006.2019.F05
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：207 下載：32
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

表徵（Representations）常見於STEM教學當中，教師在教學中常以圖示、操作物等表徵，將學生難以理解的抽象概念予以具體化。然而，應用表徵進行學習，學生並非能自然而然習得其對應的抽象概念，甚至應用至真實情境當中。此外，大多數低先備知識學生，因無法掌握所學數學概念與生活間之關聯，導致缺乏學習數學的動機，甚至也傾向只注意表徵表層資訊，而無法更深入注意到關鍵資訊。本研究提出以擴增實境技術所創造的表徵 (AR Representations)，將數學概念以不同於常見具體或抽象的方式呈現，導引學生從真實情境中出發注意關鍵表徵資訊，來解決以上之問題。為檢測此教具之教學效果，本研究採用準實驗法，並有來自北台灣共101位國小三年級學生參與本次實驗。學生的前後測試卷分數為學生理解之量化數據，高低先備知識則以前測分數進行區別，同時亦採集質性的訪談資料。研究結果顯示，實驗組學生在使用擴增實境表徵學習後，高低先備知識學生之後測成績並不顯著。總結而言，藉由擴增實境表徵學習，低先備知識學生之理解與高先備知識學生之間的差異呈現彌平的趨勢。此外，透過質化訪談討論，更發現這一群學生比起其他組別能將所學應用至更多元的例子中。本研究亦根據結論，提出教育意涵及未來研究建議。

Representations are widely used in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) fields. Teachers often make use of representations, such as pictures, manipulatives, to demonstrate abstract concepts, which students find hard to understand, in more concrete and tangible ways. However, it is not automatically that students can pick up the target abstract concepts with those representations. Moreover, learning with pictures in textbooks, students have difficulty in translating from pictures to real-life situations. Nevertheless, most low prior knowledge students are lack of learning motivation in face with the mathematics concepts because they are not able to relate what they learned with their own real-life situations, and vice versa; also tend to pay attention to the task-irrelevant information. With the technique of augmented reality, the present study proposed “AR Representations” instructions, which are different from the well-used concrete or abstract concepts. By redirecting students’ attention to the most relevant information, the instructions aimed to solve the above problems. Thus, quasi-experiments were performed to verify the effectiveness of AR Representations instructions. 101 3rd-grade elementary students in northern Taiwan have participated. Pretest and posttest scores were collected as quantitative data of understanding. Levels of prior knowledge were also derived from pretest scores. Results of this study showed there was no significant difference on students’ understanding between high and low level of prior knowledge after learning with AR Representations. In conclusion, With the aid of AR representations, (1) low prior knowledge students’ understanding would equate with the higher ones’, and (2) low prior knowledge students could identify more novel examples other than textbooks provide. Pedagogical implications and future research are also discussed.

Chinese Abstract   1
Abstract   2
Table of Content    3
List of Tables    6
List of Figures   7

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION    8
1 Background    8
1.1 Representations in STEM education    8
1.2 Students’ learning difficulty in mathematics    9
1.3 The effectiveness of AR in mathematics education    9
2 Research purposes and questions    10
2.1 Assumption of solution to the problems    10
2.2 The process of validating the assumption    11
3 Limitations    13
4 Definition of terms    13
4.1 AR Representations    13
4.2 Prior Knowledge    13
4.3 Understanding    13

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW    14
1 Learning mediated with representations    14
1.1 The effectiveness of representations    14
1.2 The mechanism of linking representations    15
1.3 External and internal representations    17
2 Prior Knowledge    18
2.1 The impact of prior knowledge on students’ learning mediated with representations    18
2.2 The role of prior knowledge in multimedia intervention    19
3 Understanding    19
3.1 Procedural and conceptual understanding    19
3.2 The impacts of attention on understanding in learning    20
4 Learning with AR instruments    20
4.1 The benefits of mixed reality    20
4.2 AR applications in math    22
5 Learning Fractions    24
5.1 Common difficulties in learning fraction    24
5.2 Fraction teaching applications    24
5.3 Learning fractions mediated with representations    25
6 Summary    25

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHOD    27
1 Research Framework    27
2 Participants    28
3 Instruments    29
3.1 Fraction Understanding Test    29
3.2 Interview Questions    31
4 Instructional Design for AR Representations    31
4.1 Design principles    31
4.2 Development of AR Representations    33
5 Procedure    37
6 Data analysis    39

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION    40
1 Results    40
1.1 RQ1: Overall, do instruction treatments (picture/ AR) affect students’ understanding?    40
1.2 RQ2: Is there a significant difference between learning with pictures and AR representations on students’ understanding?    41
1.3 RQ3: Is there a significant difference between high and low prior knowledge on students’ understanding?    43
1.4 RQ4: Whether the level of prior knowledge has an interaction effect with representations on students’ understanding?    43
1.5 RQ A1: Is there a significant difference between high and low prior knowledge on understanding in picture representation group?    43
1.6 RQ A2: Is there a significant difference between high and low prior knowledge on understanding in AR representation group?    45
1.7 Interview data    46
2 Discussion    47
2.1 Multiple representations facilitated by AR Representations    47
2.2 "Concrete-Pictorial-Abstract" sequences of AR Representations    48
2.3 High and low level of prior knowledge students’ perception to AR Representations    49
2.4 Enhancement of analogical thinking with personal experiences    51

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS    52
1 Conclusion    52
1.1 With the aid of AR Representations, low prior knowledge students’ understanding would equate with the higher ones’    52
1.2 With the aid of AR representations, low prior knowledge students could identify more novel examples other than textbooks provide    53
2 Contributions of the study    53
2.1 Creation of real-life representations by integrating CPA transition and AR technique    53
2.2 Non-3D mathematics AR overlay    54
3 Limitations of the study    54
4 Suggestions for Future Research    55
4.1 The applicable scope of non-3D AR Representations    55
4.2 Discovery learning with AR Representations    55
4.3 Graphical analogical thinking    56

REFERENCES    57
APPENDICES    64
Appendix A: Understanding pretest    64
Appendix B: Understanding posttest    67
Appendix C: Pictures treatment instructions    70
                                

Abrahamson, D., & Trninic, D. (2011, June 20-23). Toward an embodied-interaction design framework for mathematical concepts. In T. Moher, C. Quintana, & S. Price (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 1-10), Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Agrawal, J., & Morin, L. L. (2016). Evidence‐Based Practices: Applications of Concrete Representational Abstract Framework across Math Concepts for Students with Mathematics Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(1), 34-44.
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 131-152.
Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 25-61.
Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 215-241.
Arslan‐Ari, I. (2018). Learning from instructional animations: H ow does prior knowledge mediate the effect of visual cues? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(2), 140-149.
Barraza Castillo, R. I., Cruz Sánchez, V. G., & Vergara Villegas, O. O. (2015). A pilot study on the use of mobile augmented reality for interactive experimentation in quadratic equations. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, 1-13.
Billinghurst, M. (2002). Augmented reality in education [New Horizons for Learning]. Retrieved from http://www.solomonalexis.com/downloads/ar_edu.pdf.
Bujak, K. R., Radu, I., Catrambone, R., Macintyre, B., Zheng, R., & Golubski, G. (2013). A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 536-544.
Byrnes, J. P. (1992). The conceptual basis of procedural learning. Cognitive Development, 7(2), 235-257.
Chahine, I. (2011). The role of translations between and within representations on the conceptual understanding of fraction knowledge: A trans-cultural study. Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(1), 47-59.
Chang, H. Y., Wu, H. K., & Hsu, Y. S. (2013). Integrating a mobile augmented reality activity to contextualize student learning of a socioscientific issue. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), E95-E99.
Charness, N., Reingold, E. M., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001). The perceptual aspect of skilled performance in chess: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1146-1152.
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive science, 5(2), 121-152.
Clements, D. H. (1999). ‘Concrete’manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 45-60.
Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92(5), 848-867.
Cuendet, S., Bonnard, Q., Do-Lenh, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Designing augmented reality for the classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 557-569.
Davis, J. D. (2007). Real-world contexts, multiple representations, student-invented terminology, and y-intercept. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(4), 387-418.
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding?. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 111-122.
DeLoache, J. S. (2000). Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. Child development, 71(2), 329-338.
Fennema, E. H. (1972). The relative effectiveness of a symbolic and a concrete model in learning a selected mathematical principle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3(4), 233-238.
Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representations and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. Cuoco & F. Curcio (Eds.), Roles of Representation in School Mathematics, 63rd Yearbook (2001) (pp.1-23). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual–spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 684-689.
Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2014). Supporting multimedia learning with visual signalling and animated pedagogical agent: Moderating effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(2), 97-115.
Jones, S. R. (2018). Prototype images in mathematics education: the case of the graphical representation of the definite integral. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 97(3), 215-234.
Kaput, J. J. (1986). Information technology and mathematics: Opening new representational windows. In J.J.Kaput (Ed.) Information technology and mathematics: Opening new representational windows (pp. 1-25). MA: Educational Technology Center, Cambridge.
Kaufmann, H., & Schmalstieg, D. (2003). Mathematics and geometry education with collaborative augmented reality. Computers & Graphics, 27(3), 339-345.
Leong, Y. H., Ho, W. K., & Cheng, L. P. (2015). Concrete-Pictorial-Abstract: Surveying its origins and charting its future. The Mathematics Educator, 16(1), 1-18.
Lesh, R. (1981). Applied mathematical problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 235-264.
MacDonald, A. (2013). Using children's representations to investigate meaning-making in mathematics. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(2), 65-73.
Martin, T. (2009). A theory of physically distributed learning: How external environments and internal states interact in mathematics learning. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 140-144.
Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587-625.
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484-490.
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444-452.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
McNeil, N. M., & Fyfe, E. R. (2012). “Concreteness fading” promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 440-448.
Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321-1329.
Montola, M. (2011). A ludological view on the pervasive mixed-reality game research paradigm. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15(1), 3-12.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 215-248.
Moyer-Packenham, P., & Suh, J. (2012). Learning mathematics with technology: The influence of virtual manipulatives on different achievement groups. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 31(1), 39-59.
Ni, Y., & Zhou, Y. D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 27-52.
Ninaus, M., Kiili, K., McMullen, J., & Moeller, K. (2017). Assessing fraction knowledge by a digital game. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 197-206.
Quarles, J., Lampotang, S., Fischler, I., Fishwick, P., & Lok, B. (2009). Scaffolded learning with mixed reality. Computers & Graphics, 33(1), 34-46.
Radu, I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1533-1543.
Radu, I., & Antle, A. (2017, March 19). Embodied learning mechanics and their relationship to usability of handheld augmented reality. In I. Radu, E. Southgate, F. Ortega, & S. Smith(Eds.), 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality Workshop on K-12 Embodied Learning through Virtual & Augmented Reality (KELVAR) (2017) (pp. 1-5), Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Radu, I., McCarthy, B., & Kao, Y. (2016, March 19-23). Discovering educational augmented reality math applications by prototyping with elementary-school teachers. In T. Höllerer, V. Interrante, A. Lécuyer, E. Suma (Eds.), Virtual Reality (VR) (pp. 271-272), Greenville, SC, USA.
Rau, M. A. (2018). Making connections among multiple visual representations: how do sense-making skills and perceptual fluency relate to learning of chemistry knowledge? Instructional Science, 46(2), 209-243.
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2017). Supporting students in making sense of connections and in becoming perceptually fluent in making connections among multiple graphical representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 355.
Rau, M. A., Rummel, N., Aleven, V., Pacilio, L., & Tunc-Pekkan, Z. (2012). How to schedule multiple graphical representations? A classroom experiment with an intelligent tutoring system for fractions. In J. V. Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2012) (Vol. 1, pp. 64–71). Sydney: ISLS.
Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5-25.
Richter, J., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2016). Signaling text-picture relations in multimedia learning: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 17, 19-36.
Salinas, P., & Pulido, R. (2017). Understanding the Conics through Augmented Reality. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13(2), 341-354.
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). “Concrete” computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 145-150.
Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498-505.
Stoyle, K. L., & Morris, B. J. (2017). Blogging mathematics: Using technology to support mathematical explanations for learning fractions. Computers & Education, 111, 114-127.
Suh, J., Moyer, P. S., & Heo, H. J. (2005). Examining technology uses in the classroom: Developing fraction sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(4), 1-21.
Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353-1368.
Uttal, D. H., & O’Doherty, K. (2008). Comprehending and learning from ‘visualizations’: A developmental perspective. In J.K. Gilbert et al. (eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 53-72). Springer, Dordrecht.
Uttal, D. H., O’Doherty, K., Newland, R., Hand, L. L., & DeLoache, J. (2009). Dual representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 156-159.
Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 37-54.
Wearne, D., & Hiebert, J. (1988). A cognitive approach to meaningful mathematics instruction: Testing a local theory using decimal numbers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(5), 371-384.
Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & education, 62, 41-49.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文