:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:專題導向式電腦輔助學習策略在國小自然科教學上的應用
作者:趙金婷
作者(外文):Chao-Jing-Ting
校院名稱:國立政治大學
系所名稱:教育學系
指導教授:鄭晉昌
周宣光
學位類別:博士
出版日期:1999
主題關鍵詞:虛擬實境國小自然科教學教學設計專題導向式學習virtual realityelementary science educationinstructional designproject-based learning
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(6) 博士論文(4) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:6
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:163
本研究旨在探討如何設計以建構主義為基礎的專題導向式VR學習環境,並進一步藉由教學實驗探討運用此VR學習環境能否提升學童的學習效果,以及配合「配對合作」、「引導輔助」策略之應用,是否能提升VR學習環境輔助學習之效果。最後,則藉由晤談之分析,瞭解學童經過教學後仍存在哪些錯誤概念,並藉由不同學習環境及不同學習成就學童心理模式之比較,進一步推論影響學童概念之因素,期能提供教學者及後續研究者之參考。
本研究兼採發展學習軟體、準實驗研究法、問卷調查法及晤談法。首先設計並製作「地球的運動VR學習環境」。並選取台南市進學國小三個班級125名學童為對象,進行兩週之教學實驗。隨後進行紙筆測驗立即後測,並於四週後進行延宕後測。此外,在教學後依據學習成就及學習環境,分別選取12名學童參與晤談,以瞭解其心理模式。根據研究所獲得的資料,本研究之主要結論如下:
1. 本研究之VR學習環境有助於學童地球的運動相關概念之學習,然而仍有部分設計未達理想。整體而言,建構式虛擬實境學習環境之設計是值得發展的方向。
2. VR學習環境配合引導策略之應用,有助於學童之立即學習,對於問題層次較為抽象的專題報告,也有較好的效果。但在保留學習以及問題架構較明顯的專題報告中,是否給予輔助則無明顯差異。
3. 在地球的運動VR學習環境中,配對學習的效果並未優於個別學習。同時也沒有證據顯示配對學習的過程中,產生增進學習效果的互動過程。
4. 在VR學習環境中,採自由探索方式的學童有較正向的「學習經驗」和「互動經驗」。
5. 不同學習成就的學童其地球的運動相關概念有著極大的差異,一些容易受到直覺觀念影響的錯誤觀念,即使經過教學也很難改變。
6. 課本平面教材在傳達具有空間性質的概念時,易使學童誤解,有必要發展3D空間性質的教材。
根據研究結果,本研究提出建議,以供教育行政單位、國小自然科教師、電腦輔助教學軟體發展者以及未來相關研究之參考。
The purposes of this dissertation were (1) to design and develop an innovative VR-based learning environment to teach "the motion of the earth" for the 6th grade students, (2) to investigate the effects after two weeks’ instruction of VR-based learning environment on students’ learning achievements, which include different cognitive levels and different content areas, (3) to investigate the effects of cooperative dyads and provide guidance within the VR-based learning environment, (4) to analyze what factors may influence on the conceptual knowledge about the earth for sixth graders through interviews.
Research approaches of this study included designing a computer-based learning environment, quasi-experiment, questionnaire survey and structured interview. The VR-based learning environment was designed through the processes of literature review, objective analysis, and content analysis. The evaluation of the VR learning environment was conducted through questionnaire surveying 12 experts and 76 students of the 6th grade to elicit their general opinions.
This study employed quasi-experimental design to experiment on 3 classes of 125 students from Tainan Jying-Shyue elementary school. Two classes participated in VR learning environment. The members of the two classes were grouped by heterogeneous mixed-ability dyads or individual learning. The members of one of the VR groups learned through the guidance of worksheets; the students of the other VR group explored the environment by themselves. The third class was a control group whose members learned in traditional model-based learning environment. After two weeks'' instruction, all subjects accepted the test of the unit of "the motion of the earth" and retest after 4 weeks. 12 subjects attending interviews were selected from 125 students by different test achievements and different groups for the analytic framework.
Through the design and evaluation of the VR world and the results from quantitative measure and interview data, the results were as follows:
1. We were gaining insights into the virtual reality''s potential and limitations for learning. Constructivist VR-based learning environment is a new direction in the future.
2. Students learning by VR learning environment through guidance performed significantly better on the posttest than the other groups. Whether provided guidance or not, students learning by VR outperformed on test after 4 weeks than traditional learning environment.
3. There were no interaction effects between cooperative dyads and other factors. Cooperative dyads had no effect on test achievement in this study.
4. Students exploring the VR environment by themselves had more positive "learning experience" and "interactive experience" toward the environment than those learned through guidance.
5. Students with different achievement levels held extremely different mental models of the earth. The native conceptual knowledge of the earth was difficult to replace even after instruction.
6. The incorrect mental models concerned 3D concepts held by students were ineffectively corrected by the 2D textbooks.
Based on the results of the study, recommendations are then made for related educational administration institution, researchers, instructional designers and elementary teachers.
一﹑中文部分
毛松霖(民85)。中小學生「傳達」及「解釋資料」能力與其天文概念架構 之關係研究。行政院國家科學委員會印行。
王秋絨(民85)。後現代社會中的成人教學﹐1996年國際學術研討會﹕教育
改革-從傳統到後現代。中華民國比較教育學會主辦。
田耐青(民85)。建構論的教與學。教學科技與媒體﹐29,41-47。new window
朱則剛(民85)。建構主義對教學設計的意義。教學科技與媒體,26,3-12。new window
江芳盛(民79)。高雄市國民小學教師批判思考教學行為之研究。台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
西垣通著,何月華譯(民84)。資訊高速公路-多媒體革命。台北:正中書局。
吳毓瑩(民85)。評量的蛻變與突破-從哲學思潮與效度理論思考起。教育new window
資料與研究,13,2-15。
吳璧純(民85)。七歲或四歲?- 第二認知階層攀升的年齡研究。皮亞傑與維高斯基的對話研討會。台北市立師範學院主辦,頁105-152。
林王椅(民84)。國小六年級學生「地球運動」概念之探討。國立台南師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文。
林秀鳳(民85)。國小學童「地球運動」概念之研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
林政宏(民86)。深入虛擬實境VR。台北﹕碁峰資訊。
林顯輝(民80)。Science-Technology-Society (S/T/S) issues as a major new focus for elementary and secondary science education in Taiwan. 屏東師院學報,第四期,頁1-15。
邱貴發(民85)。情境學習理念與電腦輔助學習-學習社群理念探討。台北﹕師大書苑。
侯志欽(民81)。教學設計的哲學省思-由客觀主義到建構主義。教育資料集刊,17,221-230。new window
侯政宏(民85)。探究式教學法與講述式教學法在國中地球科學「太陽視運動」單元中學生學習成效之比較。國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
姜滿(民83)。國小學童對地球形狀及地心引力之另有概念研究。國科會專題研究(NSC 82-011-S-024-002-N)。
姚裕勝(民85)。虛擬實境學習環境之研究-以結構力學之學習為例。國立交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文。
洪志成(民79)。建構主義初探:兼論其在教育上的應用。台灣省第一屆教育學術論文發表會論文集﹐1-14。
唐國詩(民85)。探究式教學法與講述式教學法在國中地球科學「星象」單元中學生學習成效之比較。臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
徐光台(民85)。皮亞傑對孔恩(結構)之影響。皮亞傑與維高斯基的對話研討會。台北市立師範學院主辦﹐頁61-104。new window
徐新逸(民84)。「錨式情境教學法」教材設計、發展與應用。視聽教育雙月刊,37(1),14-24。
桂怡芬(民85)。自然科實作評量的效度探討。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。new window
周宣光、趙金婷(民87)。虛擬實境學習環境設計之研究-以國小自然科天文課程為例。第七屆電腦輔助學習研討會論文,頁257-264。
翁雪琴(民83)。探討國三學生對於「畫夜及四季」成因之心智模式及其概念改變歷程。國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
郝靜明(民85)。合作學習中小組性質之研究-以錨式情境教學法教材為例。淡江大學教育資料科學研究所碩士論文。
高宣揚(民79)。哲學人類學。台北:遠流。
國立編譯館(民84)。國民小學第十一冊自然科學教學指引。台北﹕作者。
張文華、郭重吉(民84)。科教革新中評量理念的重建。教育研究,45,23-30。new window
張雅芳、謝佩翰、張景豪、楊昭儀(民85)。合作學習與個別學習對於兩種不同認知層次的CAI學習成效影響之研究。第六屆電腦輔助學習研討會論文,頁1-6。
張新仁(民86)。認知教學革新。教育研究﹐58﹐64-77。new window
莊福泰(民84)。國民中學學生地球形狀概念之研究。國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
郭重吉(民85)。建構論:科學哲學的省思。教育研究雙月刊,49, 16-24。new window
陳志維(民84)。不同電腦輔助合作學習型態之比較研究。淡江大學教育資料研究所碩士論文。
陳政瑜(民83)。由球體透視概念探討學生學習月相成因之困難。臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
陳淑敏(民85)。從社會互動看皮亞傑與維高斯基的理論及其對幼教之啟示。皮亞傑與維高斯基的對話研討會。台北市立師範學院主辦,頁185-207。
曾志朗、林福來、邱貴發、陳德懷、陳瓊森、陳一平、郭允文(民85)。美日「電腦輔助學習」訪問重點報告。科學發展月刊,24(7),563-578。
曾志華(民86)。以建構論為基礎的科學教育理念。教育資料與研究,14,74-80。new window
馮朝霖(民85)。建構主義的哲學觀點與啟示。教育研究雙月刊,49,7-12。
黃芳裕(民85)。建構論在科學教育研究的典範類型與應用(二)-當今科學哲學對建構論的評析。科學教育月刊,188,2-14。new window
甯自強(民82)。「建構式教學法」之教學觀-由根本建構主義的觀點來看。國教學報,5,33-41。new window
詹志禹(民85)。認識與知識:建構論VS. 接受觀,教育研究,49, 25-38。
廖川仁(民85)。虛擬實境在國小高年級教學課程開發之研究-以自然科學天文教學為例。國立政治大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
臺灣省國民教師研習會(民77)。國民小學科學教育環境調查研究報告﹐第二期 , 教育部中等教育司。
趙金祁、許榮富、黃芳裕(民84)。建構論在科學教育研究的典範類型與應用(一)-建構論的典範與評析。科學教育月刊,180,2-15。new window
蔡國智(民86)。多媒體電腦輔助教學在企業新進人員訓練之應用-以銀行信用卡為例。中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
潘素滿(民84)。錨式情境教學法對問題解決策略運用之實證研究。淡江大學教育資料科學研究所碩士論文。
鄭志偉(民85)。設計和製作一個角色扮演多媒體電腦輔助學習軟體﹕以國小自然科天文星象方面的課程為例。交通大學資訊科學研究所碩士論文。
鄭晉昌(民85)。建構主義與合作學習-CYBERSPACE中的合作學習。教育研究,49,13-15。
謝馥圭(民85)。PC虛擬實境。台北﹕儒林。
鍾邦友(民83)。情境式電腦輔助數學學習軟體製作研究。國立台灣大學教育研究所碩士論文。
鐘樹椽(民85)。國小學生電腦合作學習之研究-小組友誼、獎勵結構和學生因素之探討。第六屆電腦輔助學習研討會論文,頁7-14。
饒達欽(民80)。CAI課程軟體腳本評估參考標準之研究。教育部電子計算中心。
二﹑英文部分
Abrami, P., & Bures, C. C. (1995). Classroom connections: Understanding and using cooperative learning. Toronto. Ontario: Harcourt-Brace.
Anderson, R. D. (1983). A consolidation and appraisal of science education meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 497-509.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
Baxter, J. (1989). Children''s understanding of familiar astronomical events. International Journal of Science Education, 11(3), 502-513.
Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (1996). Designing as activity in the Knowledge Integration Environment. Paper presented at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Bell, P., Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (1995). The knowledge integration environment: Theory and design. Paper presented at he Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 1995 Conference.
Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3-12.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1991). Two models of classroom learning using a communal database. In S. Dijkstra, H. P. M. Krammer, J. J. G. van Merrienboer(Eds.), Instructional models in computer-based learning environments(pp. 229-242). NY: Springer-Verlag.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway E. (1994). Lessons learned: How collaboration helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 539-551.
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.
Bricken, M., & Byrne, C. M. (1992). Summer students in virtual reality: A pilot study on educational applications of virtual reality technology. In A. Wexelblat(Ed.), Virtual reality applications and explorations. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press Professional.
Braden, R. A. (1996). The case for linear instructional design and development: A commentary on models, challenges, and myths. Educational technology, 36(2), 5-23.
Brown, J. S. (1990). Toward a new epistemology for learning. In C. Frassor & G. Garthier(Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems at the crossroad of AI & education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly(Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice(pp.229-272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/ Bradford Books.
Byrne, C. M. (1996). Water on tap: The use of virtual reality as an educational tool. Unpublished P.H.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, College of Engineering.
Carrier, C. A., & Sales, G. C. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acquisition of concepts in a computer-based instructional lesson. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 14, 11-17.
Casey, C.(1996). Incorporating cognitive apprenticeship in multi-media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(1), 71-84.
Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C.(1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 1-40.
Chiou, G. F. (1995). Learning rationales and virtual reality technology in education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 23(44), 327-336.
Choi, Jeong-Im, & Hannafin, M.(1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53-69.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt(1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt(1991). Technology and the design of generative learning environment, Educational Technology, 31, 34-40.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt(1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt(1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52-70.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1994). From visual word problems to learning communities: Changing conceptions of cognitive conceptions of cognitive research. In K. McGilly(Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice(pp. 157-200). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt(1996a). Multimedia environments for enhancing learning in mathematics. In S. Vosniadou, E. D. Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl(Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments(pp. 285-306). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt(1996b). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology(pp. 807-840). NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Collins, A. (1990). Reforning testing to measure learning and thinking. In N. Frederiksen, R. Glaser, A. Lesgold, & M. G. Shafto (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 75-87.
Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. D. Corte, R. Glaser & H. Mandl(Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments. NJ: Lawrence Associates.
Collins, A., & Bielaczyc, K. (1997). Dreams of technology-supported learning communities. 第六屆國際電腦輔助教學研討會論文集,keynote1-9。
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E.(1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick(Eds.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cosden, M. A., & English, J. P. (1987). The effects of grouping, self esteem, and locus of control on microcomputer performance and help seeking by mildly handicapped students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 443-460.
Cosden, M. A., & Liber, J. (1986). Grouping students on the microcomputer. Academic Therapy, 22(2), 165-173.
Crews, W. E. (1990). Development of a paper-and pencil instrument to elicit student concepts concerning the earth as a planet. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 324 191)
Davis, E. (1996). Metacognitive scaffolding to foster scientific explanations. Paper presented at he Computer Support at AERA, New York, NY.
Dede, C. (1995). The evolution of constructivist learning environment : world. Educational Technology, (9/10), 46-52.
Dede, C., Salzman, M., & Loftin, R. B. (1996). Early research results from using virtual reality to enhance science education. Presented at the 1996 National Conference of the American Educational Research Association.
Dede, C., Salzman, M., Loftin, B., & Sprague, D. (1999). Multisensory immersion as a modeling environment for learning complex scientific concepts. In Nancy Roberts, Wallace Feurzeig, and Beverly Hunter, Computer modeling and simulation in science education. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Dennen, V. P., & Branch, R. C. (1995). Considerations for designing instructional virtual environments. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 391 489)
Doran, M. S., & Klein, J. D. (1996). The effect of learning structures on student achievement and attitude using a computer simulation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 788)
Dwyer, F. M. (1988). Examining the symbiotic relationship between verbal and visual literacy in terms of facilitating student achievement. Reading Psychology, 9, 365-380.
Edelson, D. C., Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. M. (1996). The collaboratory notebook. Communications of the ACM, 39(1), 32-33.
Edelson, D., & O‘Neill, D. K. (1994). The CoVis collaboratory notebook: Supporting collaborative scientific inquiry. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396 676)
Fishman, B. J., & D‘Amico, L. M. (1994). Which way will the wind blow? Networked computer tools for studying the weather. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 245)
Gabbert, B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986). Cooperative learning, group-to-individual transfer, process gain, and the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies, The Journal of Psychology, 120(3), 265-278.
Gagne'' R. M., & Brown, L. T. (1961). Some factors in the programming of conceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 313-321.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hahman(Eds), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and application, 9-46. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Goldman, S. R., Pertrosino, A. J., Sherwood, R. D., Garrison, S., Hichey, D., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J.W.(1996). Anchoring science instruction in multimedia learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. D. Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl(Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments(pp. 257-284). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goodson, E. F., & Mangan, M. (1996). Exploring alternative perspectives in educational research. Interchange, 27(1), 41-59.
Gruender, C. D. (1996). Constructivism and learning: A philosophical appraisal. Educational Technology, 36(3), 21-29.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage Publications.
Hawkins, S., Sheingold, K., Gearhart, M., & Berger, C. (1982). Microcomputers in schools: Impact on the social life of elementary classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3, 361-373.
Hoadley, C. M., & Bell, P. (1996, September). Web for your head: The design of digital resources to enhance lifelong learning. D-Lib Magazine.
Hoffman, H. C. (1998). Physically touching virtual objects using tactile augmentation enhances the realism of virtual environments. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium ’98, Atlanta GA, p. 59-63. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California.
Hooper, S. (1992). Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 21-38.
Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 413-424.
Jehng, J. C (1997). The psycho-social processes and cognitive effects of peer-based collaborative interactions with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 19-46.
Johnson D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. New Jersey: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. B. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), 668-677.
Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. B. (1986). Comparison of computer assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 382-392.
Justen, J. E., Adams, T. M., & Waldrop, P. B. (1988). Effects of small group versus individual computer-assisted instruction on student achievement. Educational Technology, February, 50-52.
Kamen, M. (1996). A teacher‘s implementation of authentic assessment in an elementary science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 859-877.
Kelly, G. J. (1997). Research traditions in comparative context: A philosophical challenge to radical constructivism. Science Education, 81, 355-375.
Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1996). Students‘ interaction with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 693-707.
Kenney, P. J. (1993). Instructional design and technical development of a virtual reality environment for solar system instruction and exploration. Unpublished M. S. thesis, University of Houston-Clear Lake.
KIE Research Group (1997a). A KIE project walkthrough: Overview. (Accessible at http://www.kie.berkeley.edu/hitd-walkthrough/hitd2.html)
KIE Research Group (1997b). The KIE curriculum. (Accessible at http://www.kie.berkeley.edu/KIE/curriculum/curriculum.html#library)
Klein, C. A. (1982). Children''s concepts of the earth and the sun: A cross cultural study. Science Education, 65(1), 95-107.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E.(1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483-497.
Kurland, D. M., & Pea, R. D. (1985). Children''s mental models for recursive Logo programs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 235-244.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lerman, S. (1994). Articulating theories of mathematics learning. In P. Ernest(Ed). Constructing mathematical knowledge: Epistemology and mathematics education. (pp. 41-49). London: Falmer Press.
Linn, M. C. (1996). Key to the information highway. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 34-35.
Linn, R. L., Bader, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher,20(11) , 15-21.
Messick, S. (1992). Validity of test interpretation and use. In M. C. Alkin(Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research(6th ed., pp. 1487-1495). New York: Macmillan.new window
Mevarech, Z. R., Stern, D., & Levita, E. (1987). To cooperate or not to cooperate in CAI: That is the question. Journal of Educational Research, 80(3), 164-167.
Moore, G. R. (1994). Revisiting science concepts. Science and Children, 32(3), 31-32, 60.
Moss, P. A. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 5-12.
Nason, R., Lloyd, P., & Ginns, I. (1996). Format free databases and the construction of knowledge in primary school science project. Research in Science Education, 26(3), 353-373.
Naussbam, J. (1979). Children''s conceptions of the earth as a cosmic body: A cross age study. Science Education, 63(1), 83-93.
Nelson-Legall, S., & Decooke, P. (1987). Same-sex and cross-sex help exchange in classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 67-71.
Newman, D., & Torzs, F. (1991). A world in the classroom: Making sense of seasonal change through talk and technology. Technical Report No. 11, Center for Technology in Education, New York.
Neimeyer, G. J., & Neimeyer, R. A. (1993). Defining the boundaries of constructivist assessment. In G. J. Neimeyer(Ed.), Constuctivist assessment: A casebook. London: Sage Publications.
Okada, T. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 109-146.
O‘Neill, D. K., & Gomez, L. M. (1994). The collaboratory notebook: A networked knowledge-building environment for project learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 279)
Osberg, K. M. (1997). Spatial cognition in the virtual environment. HIT Lab Technical Report R-97-18. Seattle: Human Interface Technology Laboratory.
Osberg, K., Rose, H., Winn, W., Hollander, A., Hoffman, H., & Char, P. (1997). The effect of having grade seven students construct virtual environment on their comprehension of science. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March 1997.
Oshima, J. (1995). Differences in knowledge-building between two versions of CSILE: An information flow analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA, April 18-22.
Pantelidis, V. S. (1993). Virtual reality in the classroom. Educational Technology, 33(4), 23-27.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Book.
Park, I., & Hannafin, M. J.(1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 63-85.
Pea, R. D. (1992). Augmenting the discourse of learning with computer-based learning environments. In E. D. Coute, M. C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel(Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving(pp. 313-343). NY: Springer-Verlag.
Pea, R. D. (1993). The collaborative visulization project. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 60-63.
Philips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Prawat, R. S. (1996). Constructivisms, modern and postmodern. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 215-225.
Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 37-48.
Rastovac, J. J., & Slavsky, D. B. (1986). The use of paradoxes as an instructional strategy. Journal of College Science Teaching, 16(2), 113-118.
Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 115-121.
Rieber, L. P.(1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development. 40(1), 93-106.
Rohwer, D., & Bean, J. P. (1973). Sentences effects and noun-pair learning: A developmental interaction during adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 15, 521-533.
Rose, H. (1995). Assessing learning in VR: Towards developing a paradigm virtual reality roving vehicles(VRRV) project. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 392 826)
Rose, H. & Billinghurst, M. (1995). Zengo Sayu: An immersive educational environment for learning Japanese (Technical R-95-4). Seattle, WA: Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University of Washington.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J.(1996). Rhetoric and reality in science performance assessments: An update. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1045-1063.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE