簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 鍾仁貴
Chung Jen Kuei
論文名稱： 楷模類型對電腦技能學習的影響
The Effect of Modeling on Computer Skills Learning
指導教授： 陳明溥
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 資訊教育研究所
Graduate Institute of Information and Computer Education
論文出版年： 2000
畢業學年度： 88
語文別： 中文
論文頁數： 100
中文關鍵詞： 楷模學習 、Logo 、程式設計 、嘗試法 、次目標法 、認知型態
英文關鍵詞： modeling, Logo, programming, trial-and-error, sub-goal, cognitive style
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：376  下載：3 
分享至:
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
  •  上一筆

    • 本研究旨在探討楷模類型(教師vs.同儕)及示範方法(次目標vs.嘗試法)對Logo程式設計學習成效、Logo問題解決策略在數學應用問題解題之轉移效果、及學習態度的影響。研究方法採用準實驗研究法，並以楷模類型、示範方法、性別及認知型態為獨立變數，Logo程式設計成就及數學應用問題解題成就為相依變數。資料之分析在Logo程式設計成就方面採變異數分析(ANOVA)，而在數學應用問題解題成就方面則採共變數分析(ANCOVA)，並以數學應用問題解題前測為共變數。
    研究結果發現：(1)在Logo程式設計學習方面：就楷模類型而言，同儕楷模組比教師楷模組有更好的效果；就示範方法而言，嘗試法比次目標法有效；就性別而言，男生比女生有更好的表現；就認知型態而言，場地獨立組優於場地依賴組。(2) Logo問題解決策略在數學應用問題解題之轉移效果方面：不同的楷模類型與示範方法之間並無差異存在。(3)在學習態度方面：同儕楷模組比教師楷模組有更高的自我效能和學習動機。

    This study examined the effect of type of model (expert model vs. peer model) and demonstrative method (sub-goal vs. trial-and-error) on students’ performance in Logo programming, learning transfer of Logo problem-solving strategies to mathematical word problems, and attitude toward learning. A quasi-experiment method was used with type of model, demonstrative method, gender, and cognitive style as independent variables for this study. ANOVAs were employed to analyze the differences between groups for Logo programming performance and ANCOVAs were conducted for analyzing the learning transfer performance of mathematical word problems with the pretest as covariant.
    The results showed that (1) in Logo programming performance, peer-modeling group outperformed expert-model group, trial-and-error group outperformed sub-goal group, male outperformed female, and field-independent learners outperformed field-dependent learners, (2) in learning transfer of Logo problem-solving strategies to mathematical word problems, no difference was found for type of model and demonstrative method, and (3) in attitude toward learning, peer-model group showed higher self-efficacy and motivation than expert-model group.

    第一章　緒論...................................1 第一節 研究背景.............................1 第二節 研究目的.............................4 第三節 研究範圍與限制........................5 第四節 名詞釋義.............................6 第二章 文獻探討...............................7 第一節 社會學習理論.........................7 第二節 Logo語言在教育上的應用...............17 第三節 同儕楷模學習的應用...................23 第四節 同儕楷模示範方法.....................25 第三章 研究方法..............................32 第一節 實驗對象............................33 第二節 研究工具............................34 第三節 研究設計............................41 第四節 實驗程序............................43 第四章 結果與討論............................45 第一節 Logo程式設計成就分析.................45 第二節 數學應用問題解題成就分析.............51 第三節 楷模學習態度問卷分析.................54 第四節 討論................................63 第五章 結論與建議............................70 第一節 結論................................70 第二節 建議................................72 參考文獻......................................75 附錄一 數學應用問題解題評量甲卷..............79 附錄二 數學應用問題解題評量乙卷..............80 附錄三 教師楷模學習態度問卷..................81 附錄四 同儕楷模學習態度問卷..................82 附錄五 Logo程式設計－次目標法示範之一........83 附錄六 Logo程式設計－次目標法示範之二........ 85 附錄七 Logo程式設計－嘗試法示範之一..........87 附錄八 Logo程式設計－嘗試法示範之二..........89 附錄九 Logo程式設計練習.....................91 附錄十 Logo程式設計評量.....................92 圖 次 圖一 Gerlabua中文小海龜之操作介面.......................40 圖二 實驗程序..........................................44 圖三 楷模類型與性別在Logo程式設計成就上的交互作用........48 圖四 楷模類型與認知型態在Logo程式設計成就上的交互作用....49 圖五 認知型態與示範方法在Logo程式設計成就上的交互作用.... 50 圖六 問卷第6題與示範方法在Logo程式設計成就上的交互作用... 62 表 次 表一 國小高年級數學科應用問題評量分析.....................36 表二 Logo幾何圖形之程式設計難度分析.......................37 表三 Logo程序難度指數....................................38 表四 Logo程式設計評鑑分析................................39 表五 楷模學習態度問卷試題分析.............................39 表六 楷模類型示範方法之分組人數.........................41 表七 楷模類型認知型態之分組人數.........................42 表八 示範方法認知型態之分組人數.........................42 表九 楷模類型各組之Logo程式設計成就平均數及標準差..........45 表十 示範方法各組之Logo程式設計成就平均數及標準差..........45 表十一 性別各組之Logo程式設計成就平均數及標準差..............46 表十二 認知型態各組之Logo程式設計成就平均數及標準差...........46 表十三 Logo程式設計成就之變異數分析摘要......................47 表十四 楷模類型與性別之Logo程式設計成就平均數及標準差.........48 表十五 楷模類型與認知型態之Logo程式設計成就平均數及標準差.....49 表十六 認知型態與示範方法之Logo程式設計成就平均數及標準差.....50 表十七 楷模類型各組之數學應用問題前後測平均數及標準差.........51 表十八 示範方法各組之數學應用問題前後測平均數及標準差.........51 表十九 性別各組之數學應用問題前後測平均數及標準差.............52 表二十 認知型態各組之數學應用問題前後測平均數及標準差.........52 表二十一 數學應用問題解題成就之共變數分析摘要..................53 表二十二 楷模類型各組之自我效能平均數及標準差..................54 表二十三 示範方法各組之自我效能平均數及標準差..................54 表二十四 自我效能之變異數分析摘要.............................55 表二十五 楷模類型各組之學習習慣平均數及標準差..................56 表二十六 示範方法各組之學習習慣平均數及標準差............ ......56 表二十七 學習習慣之變異數分析摘要..............................57 表二十八 楷模類型各組之學習動機平均數及標準差..................58 表二十九 示範方法各組動機之平均數及標準差......................58 表三十 學習動機之變異數分析摘要.............................59 表三十一 問卷第6題各組之Logo程式設計成就平均數及標準差..........60 表三十二 楷模學習態度問卷第6題之Logo程式設計成就變異數分析摘要..60 表三十三 問卷第6題與示範方法之Logo程式設計成就變異數分析摘要....61 表三十四 問卷第6題與示範方法之Logo程式設計成就平均數與標準差....62

    吳裕益 (民76)：認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。教育學刊，7，51-98。
    Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
    Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
    Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning theory and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    Burns, B., & Hagerman, A. (1989). Computer experience, self-concept and problem-solving: The effects of logo on children’s ideas of themselves as learners. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(2), 199-212.
    Carver, S. M. (1986). Transfer of Logo debugging skills: Analysis, instruction, and assessment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 282B.
    Carver, S. M. (1987). Transfer of Logo debugging skill: Analysis, Instruction, and assessment. Computer Systems Group Bulletin, 14(1), 4-8.
    Carver, S. M. and Klahr, D. (1986). Assessing children’s Logo debugging skills with a formal model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(4), 487-525.
    Catrambone, R. (1989). The effects of labels on learning subgoals for solving problems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED330727)
    Dowrick, P. W. (1983). Self-modeling. In P. W. Dowrick & S. J. Biggs (Eds.), Using video: Psychological and social applications (pp. 105-124). Chichester, England: Wiley.
    Elias, B. P. (1985). Programming and Problem solving (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED263194)
    Fay, A. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1994). Benefits of teaching design skills before teaching Logo computer programming: Evidence for syntax-independent learning, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11(3), 187-210.
    Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
    Fish, M. C., & Pervan, R. (1985). Self-instruction training: A potential tool for school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 83-92.
    Gredler, M. E. (1991). Learning and instruction: Theory into Practice (2nd ed.). Macmillan: U. S. A.
    Guckin, A., & Morrison, D. (1991). Math Logo: A project to develop proportional reasoning in college freshmen. School Science and Mathematics, 91(2), 77-81.
    Howe, J., O’Shea, T., & Plane, F. (1980). Teaching mathematics through Logo programming: An evaluation study. In R. Lewis & E. D. Tagg (Eds.), Computer-assissted learning: Scope, progress, and limits (pp. 85-101). Amsterdam, Holland: North Holland Publishing Co.
    Jensen, R. J. (1987). Stuck? Don’t give up! Subgoal-generation strategies in problem solving. Mathematics Teacher, 80(8), 614-621.
    Kazdin, A. E. (1974). Covert modeling, model similarity, and reduction of avoidance behavior. Behavior Therapy, 5, 325-340.
    Kazdin, A. E. (1978). Covert modeling: The therapeutic application of imagined rehearsal. In J. L. Singer & K. S. Pope (Eds.), The power of human imagination: New methods in psychotherapy (pp. 255-278). New York: Plenum Press.
    Kornhaber, R. C., & Schroeder, H. E. (1975). Importance of model similarity on extinction of avoidance behavior in children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 601-607.
    Lee, M., (1990). Effects of guided Logo programming instruction on the development of cognitive monitoring strategies among college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.
    Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
    Mayer, R. E., & Fay A. L. (1987). A chain of cognitive changes with learning to program in Logo. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 269-279.
    Meichenbaum, D. (1971). Examination of model characteristics in reducing avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 298-307.
    Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy belicacy beliefs in academic setting. Review of Education Research, 66(4), 543-578.
    Polya, G. (1973). How To Solve It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Pressley, M., Woloshyn, L. M., Martin, V., Wood, E., & Willoughby, T. (1990). A primer of research on cognitive strategy instruction: The important issues and how to address them. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 1-58.
    Resnick, L. B. (1985). Cognition and instruction: Recent theories of human competence. In B. L. Hammonds (Ed.), Psychology and learning: The master lecture series (Vol. 4. pp. 127-186). Washington. DC: American Psychologist Association.
    Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning theory and cognition. New york: Academic.
    Schroeder, T. L. (1993). Mathematical connections: Two cases from an evaluation of students’ mathematical problem solving. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED370763)
    Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105.
    Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychologist, 19, 48-58.
    Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 848-856.
    Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149-174.
    Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-modeling and children’s cognitive skill learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 155-163.
    Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 71-86.
    Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories: An educational perspective (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Schunk, D. H. (1998). Peer modeling. In K. J. Topping, & S. W. Ehly, (Eds.), Peer-assisted learning (pp. 185-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children’s self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 313-322.
    Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R. & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer model attributes and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 431-434.
    Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. Journal of Special Education, 27, 257-276.
    Strain, P. S., Kerr, M. M., & Ragland, E. U. (1981). The use of peer social initiations in the treatment of social withdrawal. In P. S. Strain (Ed.), The utilization of classroom pers as behavior change agents, (pp. 101-128). New York: Plenum.
    Swan, K. (1989). Programming objects to think with: Logo and teaching and learning of problem solving (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED309762)
    Thelen, M. H., Fry, R. A., Fehrenbach, P. A., & Frautschi, N. M. (1979). Therapeutic videotape and film modeling: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 701-720.
    Walsh, W. T. (1994). Facilitating Logo’s potential using teacher-mediated delivery of instruction: A literature review. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 322-335
    Wickelgren, W. A. (1974). Subgoals. In W. A. Wickelgren (Ed.), How to solve problems: Elements of a theory of problems and problem solving (pp. 91-108). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
    Wurtele, S. K. (1986). Self-efficacy and athletic performance: A review. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 290-301.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE