臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：網際網路合作學習環境中學習互動型態與認知風格對學習效果之影響--以二次函數之教學為例
作者：黃淑玲 引用關係
作者(外文)：Shu-Ling Huang
校院名稱：國立政治大學
系所名稱：教育學系
指導教授：秦夢群
鄭晉昌
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2000
主題關鍵詞：網際網路合作學習環境；合作學習；數學教育；二次函數；認知風格；內外控信念；學習型態；國民中學；internet collaborative learning environment；collaborative learning；mathematics education；quadratic functions；cognitive style；internal-external locus of control；learning style；junior high school
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(2) 博士論文(6) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:59
本研究旨在探討如何設計以建構主義為基礎的網際網路合作學習環境，以研發二次函數網際網路課程，並藉由實驗研究法分析在網際網路合作學習情境中，不同的學習型態與認知風格對於學習成效之影響，最後以質性研究法探討學生合作互動歷程之認知模式及相關影響因素，並分析學生學習二次函數易犯之錯誤類型。
本研究使用之研究方法包括學習軟體研發、實驗研究法、問卷調查法、晤談法、及內容分析法。研究者首先研發及評量「二次函數網際網路課程」，並隨機選擇國民中學二年級學生60名為研究對象，依學習型態及學生認知風格分成內控單獨組、外控單獨組、內控合作組、外控合作組、內外控混合合作組等五組進行教學實驗。俟教學實驗後進行紙筆測驗、問卷調查、及晤談，研究者並搜集學生在電子白板上的對話進行內容分析。根據研究結果分析，本研究主要之結論如下：
一、網際網路合作學習環境有助於學生學習數學二次函數概念
在網際網路合作學習環境中，提供合作的視覺學習環境，協助學習者多重轉化代數表徵成為幾何表徵的動態網頁，使學習者在不同條件脈絡中進行比較、反思，以了解二次函數中代數與幾何的關係，已有具體的教學成效。
二、 在網路學習環中，不同認知風格的學生在個別學習效果上有差異存在
在網際網路個別學習環境中，內控組的學習成效顯著優於外控組。即在網際網路學習環境中，採用個別學習策略，具外控取向特質的學習者，學習成效不佳；而具內控取向特質的學習者，有較佳的學習成效。
三、在網路學習環境中，不同認知風格的學生在合作學習效果上未有顯著差異存在
在網際網路合作學習環境中，內控合作組、外控合作組、及內外控混合合作組的學習成效無顯著差異。研究顯示透過合作學習可提升外控取向學習者的學習成效，淡化認知風格對學習者的影響。
四、 網際網路合作學習互動歷程為個人建構、群體澄清、知識重構、群體重構的認知改變模式
在網際網路合作學習互動歷程中，個人先形成自我的知識概念，並將個人建構的基模公開呈現與他人分享，當個體的認知概念間產生差異時，合作群體間即產生質疑，並提出澄清，經澄清後合作群體彼此協商，重構知識、統合意見並產生共識，即成為合作小組的認知概念。
五、 同儕模式的網際網路合作學習方式缺少高支持性鷹架結構
以同儕為基礎的網際網路合作學習環境中，因學生的先備知識不足及溝通技巧的缺乏，容易產生錯誤概念的學習及習得片斷的知識。是以，針對年齡小或能力低的學習者所設計的網際網路合作學習課程，教師的參與討論與互動是必要的，以能提供學習者高支持性鷹架結構。
六、 在網際網路合作學習環境的互動歷程中，外控取向學習者佈題的行為多於內控取向學習者
研究中發現外控取向學習者佈題的行為多於內控取向學習者，內控取向學習者解題的行為多於外控取向學習者。
根據研究結果，本研究提出下列建議，以供教學者、教學媒體設計者、教育行政單位、及後續研究者之參考：
一、應整合學科專家、教育專家、電腦網路程式設計師、美術專業人士以研發更符合學習者需求的網路課程。
二、宜針對學習者特性提供不同的網路教學策略，使建構的網際網路課程更符合學習者的需求。
三、在網際網路合作學習環境中，課程設計應以討論情境、分享知識、及解決問題為主，始能提升合作成效。
四、宜訂定網路界面設計標準及評鑑指標，以做為網路課程發展的依據。
五、在網際網路合作學習環境中，教師應適度參與學生的討論活動，提供鷹架支持的功能。
六、應加強國家整體網路基礎建設，使能改善網路教學品質，提高學習成效。
The Purpose of this study is threefold. One is to explore how to design a quadratic function internet curriculum in the internet computer-based collaborative learning environment, based on constructivism. Second, learning effects of different learning styles and cognitive styles in the internet collaborative learning context are analyzed through empirical research methods. Third, the students'''' cognitive modes and other relative factors in the collaborative learning interaction process, as well as the students'''' frequent error types in learning quadratic functions, are identified and analyzed through qualitative research methods.
The research methods adopted in this study include the development of learning software, empirical research methods, questionnaires, interviews, and content analysis. The researcher first developed and assessed the "internet curriculum of quadratic functions", and selected 60 second graders of a junior high school as research subjects, according to the students'''' learning and cognitive styles, and categorizing them into the group of internal locus of control with individual learning, the group of external locus of control with individual learning, the group of internal locus of control collaborative learning, the group of external locus of control with collaborative learning, and the group of mixing internal-external locus of control with collaborative learning to implement teaching experiments. After the experiments were finished, the research conducted a written test, questionnaire surveys, and interviews. Besides, the students'''' dialogue data on Bulletin Board System was collected and analyzed. Based on the analysis results of this study, the main conclusions are as follows:
1. Internet collaborative learning environment facilitates students learning the concepts of quadratic functions.
In the environment of the internet collaborative learning, interactive web pages provide visualized collaborative learning context, assist learners to transform algebraic representation into geometric representation, and give learners opportunities to compare and rethink in different conditions about the relations of algebra and geometry in quadratic functions. All of which have been proved to have concrete learning effects.
2. In the environment of the internet learning, individual learning effect differences exist among students of different cognitive learning styles.
In the environment of the internet individual learning, learning effects of the external control group are better than those of the internal control group. In other words, learners with external locus of control, using individual learning strategies do not have good learning effects. However, learners with internal locus of control have better learning effects.
3. In the environment of the internet learning, there is no significant differences among students with different cognitive styles.
In the environment of the internet collaborative learning, the learning effects among the group of internal locus of control collaborative learning, the group of external locus of control with collaborative learning, and the group of mixing internal-external locus of control with collaborative learning show no significant differences. This study shows collaborative learning help improve the learning effects of learners with external locus of control, and ease the impacts of cognitive styles on learners.
4. The interaction process of the internet collaborative learning is a cognitive revolution of individual construction, group clarification, knowledge reconstruction, and group reconstruction.
In the interaction process of the internet collaborative learning, individuals form self knowledge concepts, and shares their self-constructed sckema with other people. When individual cognitive differences occur, there will be questioning, clarifying, negotiating, reconstructing the knowledge, integrating opinions, and reaching common agreements, which will become the cognitive concepts of the collaborative group.
5. Peer collaborative learning on the internet lacks highly-supportive scaffolding structures.
In the context of peer collaborative internet learning, it is easy for students to learn incorrect concepts and incomplete knowledge content, owning to their insufficient prior knowledge and communication skills. Therefore, in designing the internet collaborative learning curriculum for young or incompetent learners, it is a must to involve the teachers to join the discussion and interaction, in order to provide learners highly-supportive scaffolding structures.
6. In the interaction process of the internet collaborative learning, learners with external locus of control have more problem posing behaviors than those with internal locus of control.
The study finds that learners with external locus of control have more problem posing behaviors than those with internal locus of control. On the other hand, learners with internal locus of control have more problem solving behaviors than those with external locus of control.
Based on the research results, this study proposes the following suggestion for the reference of teachers, educational media designers, education admonitions, and future researchers:
1. Discipline experts, education experts, internet engineers, computer programmers, art designers should cooperate to develop the internet curricula which meet learners'''' needs more perfectly.
2. Different internet teaching strategies should be provided based on learners'''' characteristics, in order to make the constructed internet curricula meet learners'''' needs more perfectly.
3. In the environment of internet collaborative learning, syllabus design should be mainly on discussing situations, sharing knowledge, and solving problems, in order to facilitate collaboration effects.
4. It is better to set the internet interface design standards and evaluation indexes to provide a basis for the internet curricular development.
5. In the environment of the internet collaborative learning, teachers should attend students'''' discussions when needed, functioning as scaffolding support.
6. National Information Infrastructure should be improved to have higher internet learning quality and thus to enhance learning effects.
壹、中文部分
王康宇(民87)。遞迴式之蘇格拉式合作學習系統。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
吳武典(民65)。制握信念與學業成就、自我概念、社會互動之關係及其改變技術。國立師大教育研究所集，19，163-178。
吳靜吉(民64)。性別差異和內外控取向對語文流暢性之影響。政大學報，31，131-141。
李美瑜(民83)。情境學習環境與去情境學習環境對國二學生物理壓力概念學習成效影響之研究。淡江大學教育資料科學研究所碩士論文。
李淑芬(民86)。超文本網路合作學習環境中互動之研究。國立交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文。
周倩(民84)。智慧型距合作學習環境中教材呈現模式之研究(報告編號NSC84-2511--S-009-008CL)。台北:行政院國家科學發展委員會。
周倩、孫春在(民85)。遠距合作學環境之設計與建立。教學科技與媒體，26，13-21。new window
林邦傑(民68)。國中學生的歸因特質與生活適應。中華心理學刊，21，61-74.。new window
林紀慧(民87)。個別差異和學習路徑策略與電腦超文本學習成效研究。新竹師院學報，11，1-14。new window
洪有義(民63)。社會文化環境與內外制握的關係。師大教育心理學報，15，187-198。new window
洪有義(民64)。大學生之內外制握與其適應問題的關係。師大教育心理學報，8，81-94。
洪啟元(民84)。建構主義取向的電腦輔助合作學習設計之研究。國立交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文。
孫春在(民85)。超媒體網路與遠距合作式電腦輔助學習。教學科技與媒體，21，29-37。new window
國立編譯館(民87) 。國民中學數學教科書第四冊(八十七年版)。台北：國立編譯館。
國立編譯館(民87) 。國民中學數學教師手冊第四冊(八十七年版)。台北: 國立編譯館。
張春興(民77)。心理學辭典。台北：東華書局。
張景媛(民83)。國中生數學學習歷程統整模式的驗證及應用:學生建構數學概念的分析及數學文字題教學策略的研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。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。
教育部(民83)。國民中學數學課程標準。台北:教育部。
莊慧珍(民73)。國中教師教導方式及學生內外控信念與學生生活適應之關係。國立師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
郭重吉(民76)。評介學習風格之有關研究。資優教育月刊，23，7-16。
陳志維(民84)。不同電腦輔助合作學習型態之比較研究。淡江大學教育資料科學研究所碩士論文。
陳李綢(民67)。師生制握信念之配合與學生學習的關係。測驗與輔導，7(5)，12。
陳李綢(民81)。認知發展與輔導。台北：心理出出版社‧
陳啟明(民81)。發展紙筆測驗以探究高一學生對直流電路的迷思概念。科學教育，3，21-70.
陳淑敏(民85)。從社會互動看皮亞傑與維高斯基的理論及對幼教之示。發表於台北市立師範學院主辦：皮亞傑與維高斯基的對話研討會。
陳惠美(民87)。建構論之超文本教學設計研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳煥彬(民88)。網路合作系統之規劃、建置與評估。國立台南師範學院資訊教育研究所。
曾元琦(民88)。認知風格對使用者介面設計的影響-以掃描器為例。國立成功大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。
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。
黃政傑、林佩璇(民85)。合作學習。台北：五南。
黃堅厚(民68)。國小及國中學生內外控信念之研究。師大教育心理學報，12，1-14。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
楊坤原(民85)。高一學生認知風格、認知策略、遺傳學知識與遺傳學解題之研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。new window
趙金祁、許榮富、黃芳裕(出版中)。建構論在科學教育研究的典範類型與應用。出版中。new window
趙金婷(民88)。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。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。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。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
蔡碧璉(民70)。場地獨立、內外控取向與人際關係之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
鄭晉昌(出版中)。建構主義與電腦支援合作學習環境的設計與發展。new window
鄭晉昌、施郁芬(民83)。交談模式在社會學習環境下之研究(I)(報告編號NSC82-0111-s-032-005)。台北:行政院國家科學發展委員會。
鄭湧涇(民83)。科學教育指標之研究：科學進展指標合作研究計畫規劃及推動。科學發展月刊，22(5)，480-493。
鄭湧涇、楊坤原(民84)。生物認知偏好與學業成就的關係。科學教育月刊，3(1)，11-25。new window
謝佩珩(民88)。網路合作學習能力訓練課程對國小學童學習成效之影響。國立台南師範學院資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
鍾邦友(民83)。情境式電腦輔助數學學習軟體製作研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
鍾聖校(民84)。國小自然科課程教學研究。台北：五南。
鍾樹椽(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。
鍾樹橡、林菁(民83)。問題引導式電腦合作學習在槓桿學習成就上之研究。嘉義師院學報，8，57-92。
魏丕信(民84)。不同的介面表現形式及人認知型態差異使用超媒體資訊系統搜尋效果的影響。第四屆國際電腦輔助教學研討會論文。
饒達欽(民80)。CAI課程軟體腳本評估參考標準之研究。台北:教育部電子計算中心。
貳、英文部分
Adams, H. E. (1972). Psychology of adjustment. New. York: The Ronal Press.
Alexander, G. (1992). Designing human interface for collaborative learning. In A. R. Kaye(Eds.) ,Collaborative learning through computer conferencing(pp.201-210). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 374-397.
Bell, P., Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (1995). The knowledge integration environment: Theory and design. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 1995 Conference.
Booth, P. (1989). An introduction to human-computer interaction. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learns. In K. McGilly(Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice(pp.229-272). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bull, K. S., Kimball, S. L., & Stansberry, S. (1998). Developing interaction in computer mediated learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 721).
Butterfield, E. C. (1974). Locus of control, test anxiety, reaction to frustration, and achievement attitudes. Journal of Personality, 32,355-370.new window
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 & Development, 44(1), 71-84.
Chiu, C. H., Chen, H. P., Wei, L. C., & Hu, H. W. (1999). Approaching effective network cooperative learning .Proceedings of International Conference on Mathematics/Science Education and Technology (M/SET 99 Proceedings).San Antonio,Taxas,USA.
Clement, J. (1989). The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing . Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(2), 77-87.
Cobb, P. (1990). Multiple perspectives. In L. P. Steffe & R. Wood(Eds.), Transforming children''''s mathematics education: International perspectives(pp.200-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
CoVis. Learning through collaborative visualization. Available at http://www.covis.nwu.edu.
CTGV (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Research, 19(6), 2-10.
CTGV (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction , assessment ,and professional development. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cunnigham,D. J., Duffy, T. M., & Knuth, R. A. (1993). The textbook of future. In C. Mcknight(Ed.), Hypertext: A psychological perspective. England: Ellis Horwood.
Dalton, D. W., Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989). Effects of individual and cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes. Educational Technology Research & Development, 37(2), 15-24.
Danjels, R.L. & Stevens, J. P. (1976). The interaction between the internal -external locus of control and two methods of college instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 13, 103-113.
Davidson, N., & Kroll, D. L. (1991). An overview of research on cooperative Learning related mathematics. Journal for Research on Mathematic Education, 22, 362-365.
Docter,R. M. (1971). Locus of control of reinforcement and resposiveness to social influence. Journal of Personality, 39, 542-551.
Eddins, S. K., Maxwell, E. O., & Stanislaus, F. (1994). Geometric transformations-Part 2. The Mathematics Teacher, 87(4), 258-261.
Edelson, D., Pea, R., & Gomez, L. (1996). Constructivism in the Collaboratory. In B. G. Wilson(Ed.),Constructivism learning environments: Case studies in instructional design(pp.151-164). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational technology Publication.
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.
Gaine, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1986). From timesharing to the sixth generation: The development of human-computer interaction. Part 1. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24, 1-27 .
Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills primary school children in classroom-base work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6(3), 187-299.
Goldenberg, E. P. (1988). Mathematics, metaphors, and human factor: Mathematical ,technical and pedagogical challenges in the educational use of graphical representation of functions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7, 135-173.
Graddol, D. (1989). Some CMC discourse properties and their educational significance. In R. Mason & A Kaye(Eds.), Mind weave (pp.236-241). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Harasim, L. M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. M. Harasim(Ed.), Online Education: Perspectives on a new environment(pp.39-64). New York: Praeger Press.
Harasim, L. M.(1989). Online education: An new doman. In R. Mason & A Kaye(Eds.), Mind weave (pp.236-241). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Head, J. (1986). Research into ''''alternative frameworks'''': Promise and problems. Research in Science and Technological education, 4(2), 203-211.
Heh, J. S. (in press). Evaluation model of problem solving. In press.
Hiltz, S. R. (1995). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood,NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Hinsley, D. A., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1977). From words to equations: Meaning and representation in algebra word problems. In M. A. Just, & P. A. Carpenter(Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehencion(pp.89-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hooper, S. (1992). Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction. Education Technology Research & Development, 39(3), 27-40.
Hooper, S., & Hannafin,M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concept. Journal of educational Computing Research, 4, 413-424.
Hozaaki, N. (1987). The effects of field dependence/independence and visualized instruction in a lesson of origami, paper-folding upon performance and comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Hsu , T. E. (1994). Effects of learning cognitive styles and metacognitive tools on information acquisition paths and learning in hyperspace environment. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 721).
Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environment, cognitive flexibility ,and the transfer of complex knowledge: An Empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301-333.
Janvier, C. (1978). The interpretation of complex Cartesian graphs representing situations-studies and teaching experiments.
Janvier, C. (Ed.).(1987). Problems of Representation in Mathematics Learning and Problem Solving. Hilisdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Jehen, J. C. (1997). The psycho-social presses and cognitive effects of peer-based collaborative interactions with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 19-46.
Joassen, D. H. (1988). Designing structured hypertext and structuring access to hypertext. Education Technology, 28(11), 13-16.
Joe, V. C. (1971). Review of internal-external control construct as a personality variable. Psychological Reports, 28, 619-640.
Johnson , D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan(Ed.),Cooperative learning: Theory and research(pp.23-27). New York: Praeger Pubishers.
Johnson , D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Johson, E. &Roy, P. (1993). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Jonson, T., Nelson, D., & Skon , L. (1981). Effects of cooperative ,and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,89,47-62.
Johnson, R. T. , Johnson , D. W., & Stanne, M. B. (1986). Comparison Of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. American Education Research Journal, 23(3), 382-392.
Johnson, R. T. , Johnson , D. W., & Stanne, M. B. (1986). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), 668-677.
Jonassen, D. H.(1988). Designing structured hypertext and structuring access to hypertext. Educational Technology, 28(11), 13-16
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associal.
Kaput, J. J. (1985). Representation and problem solving: Methodological issues related to modeling. In E. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Mathematical Problem Solving: Multiple Research Perspectives (pp. 381-398). Hilisdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Karplus, R. (1979). Continuous functions: Students'''' viewpoints. European Journal of Science Education. 7(4), 397-413.
Kass, R. & Finin, T. (1991). General user modeling: A facility to support intelligent interaction. In J. W. Sullivan, & S. W. Tyer(Eds.) , Intelligent user interface (pp.111-128). New York: ACM Press.
Kelly, G. A. (1995). The psychology of personal constructs.(Vol.2 ).New York Nork: Norton.
Kerslake, D. (1977). The understanding of graphs. Mathematics in School, 6(2), 56-63.
Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children''''s Understanding of Mathematics Concepts:11-16(pp.120-136). Oxford, England: Alden Press.
KIE(1997). Knowledge Integration Environment. Available at http://www.kie.berkeley.edu.
Kogan, N. (1973). Creativity and cognitive style: A life-span perspective. In P. B. Baltes & K. W. Schaie(Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Personality and socialization. New York: Academic Press.
Laurel, B., Oren, T., & Don, A. (1990). Issues in multimedia interface design: Media integration and interface agents. In J. C. Chew, & J. Whiteside(Eds.), Proceedings of CAI''''90 human factors in computing systems(pp.133-139 ). New York: ACM.
Leader, L. F., & Klern, J. D. (1994). The effects of search tool and cognitive style on performance in hypermedia database searches. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 729)
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, 0., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research,60(1), 1-64.
Lenk, C. (1992). The network science experience : Learning from three major projects. In R. Tinker, & P. Kapisovsky(Eds.), Prospects for educational telecomputing: Selected readings(pp.51-60). Cambridge, MA: Technical Education Research Center(TERC).(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 992).
Lin, Chi-Hui & Davidson, G. (1994). Effects of linking structure and cognitive style on students'''' performance and aptitude in a computer-based hyper-based hypertext environment. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 734).
Linn, M. (1999). The designed curriculum: Using cognitive research to create effective technology-enhanced instruction. The 8th international conference on computer-assisted instruction.
Lovell. K. (1971). Some aspects of the growth of the concept of a function. In M.F. Rosskopt, L. P. Steffe, & S. Taback (Eds.), Piagetian Cognitive Development Research and Mathematical Education (pp. 12-33). Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Maldonado-Granodos, L. F. (1989). Effect on Performance and learner-sequencing decisions instructional curriculum maps in a hypertext environment. Doctoral dissertation, the Florida State University.
Markovits, Z., Eylon, B. S., & Bruckheimer, M. (1983). Functions - linearity unconstrained. In R. Hershkovitz (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh lnternational Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 271-277). Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science.
Matz, M. (1982). Towards a process model for high school algebra errors. In D. Sleeman, & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 25-50).London: Academic Press.
Mayes, J. T. (1994).Hypermedia and cognitive tools. http://137.195.128.40/ctl/msc/cerb/task/p9/paper9.html.
McConnel, D. (1994). Implementing computer-supported cooperative learning . London : Kogan Page.
Mcrobbi,C. J. (1991). Cognitive style and cognitive structure. Science Education, 75(2), 231-242.
Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S. Messick(Ed.), Individuality in Learning(pp.4-22).San Francisco: Jossey_Bass.
Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practices. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 59-74.
Messick, S. (1994). The matter of style: Manifestation of personality in cognition, learning , and teaching. Educational Psychologist, 29(3), 121-136.
Mevarech, Z. R. (1993). Who benefits from cooperative computer-assisted instruction? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(4), 451-464.
Mevarech, Z. R. Stern, D. & Levita, I. (1987). To cooperate or not to cooperate in CAI: That is the question. Journal of Educational Research, 80(3), 164-167.
Okada,T. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 109-146.
Oliver, R. , Omari, A.,& Herrington, J. (1998). Exploring student interactions in collaborative Word Wide Web computer-based learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and hypermedia, 7(2/3), 263-287.
O''''Malley, C. E. & Scanlon, E. (1990). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Problem solving and distance education. Computer Education, 15(1-3), 127-136.
Osbrme, R. J., Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67(4), 498-509.
Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. (1992). Learning through collaborative visualization: Shared technology learning environments for science. Proceedings of SPIE''''92: Enabling Technologies for High-Bandwidth Application, 1785, 235-264.
Perkins, D. N. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a Marriage? In T. M. Duffy et al. (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction : A conversation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Piaget, J. (1978). Success and understanding. London: Poutledge Kegan Poul.
Polman, J., Fishman,B. (1995). Electronic communication tools in the classroom: Student and environmental characteristics as predictors of adoption. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, New Jersy: Princeton University Press.
Repman, J. (1993). Collaborative, computer-based learning: Cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(2), 149-163.
Rich, H. L. & Bush, A. J. (1978). An investigation of the joint influence of faculty control and student locus of control of reinforcement on instructional evaluation. Journal of Educational Research,17(4), 194-917.
Riecken, R. D. (1992). Human-machine interaction and perception. In M.M. Blattner, & R. B. Dannenberg(Eds.), Multimedia interface design(pp.319-338). New York: ACM Press.
Riel, M. M. (1989). Four models of educational telecommunications: Connections to the future. Education & Computing , 5(3), 261-274.
Roberston,I. T. (1982). Individual differences in information processing strategy and style. Proceedings of the International Conference on Man/Machine Systems(pp.85-88). London: IEE.
Rocklin,T., O''''Donnell, A., Dansereau,D. F., Lambiottee, J. G., Hythecker, V., & Larson, C. (1985). Training learning strategies with computer-aided cooperative learning. Computers in Education, 9(1), 67-71.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Rysavy S. D. M., Sales G. C. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(2), 70-79.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). On having and using geometric knowledge. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics (pp. 225-264). Hilisdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Sharan, S. (Ed.) (1980). Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research. New York: Praeger.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching(3rd ed.)(pp.1-36). New York: Macmillan.
Singapore MOE(1996). Masterplan for IT in education. Ministry of Education, Singapore.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative Learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315-342.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative Learning .New York: Longman.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). When dose cooperative learning increase student achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 94(3),429-445.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Learning to cooperate , Cooperating to learning. New York: Plenum.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning : Theory, research, practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stainberg, R. M., Sleeman, D. H., & Ktorza, D. (1990). Algebra students'''' knowledge of equivalence of equations. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 12-121.
Stanton, N. A., & Baber, C.(1992). An investigation of styles and strategies in self-directed learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(3/3), 235-249.
Stanton, N. A., & Stammers, R. B. (1990). Learning styles in a non-linear training environment. In R. McAlesse, & C. Green(Eds.), Hypertext: State of the Art(PP.114-120). Oxford: Intellect.
Steeples, C. (1993). A computer-mediated learning environment for adult learners: Supporting collaboration and self-direction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 2(4), 443-454.
Stone, M. E. (1994). Teaching relationship between area and perimeter with the geometry ''''s sketchpad. The Mathematics Teacher, 87(8), 590-594.
Strickland, B. R. (1970). Individual differences on verbal conditioning, extinction, and awareness. Journal of Personality, 38, 364-378.
Sutton, C. & West, L. (1982). Investigating children''''s existing ideas about science. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 230 424).
Tennant, M.(1988). Psychology and adult learning. London:Routledge.
Thovtrup, H., & Nielsen, J. (1991). Assessing the usability of a user interface standard. In S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson, & J. S. Olson(Eds.), Proceedings of CAI''''91 human factors in computing systems(pp.335-341). New York: ACM.
Trowbridge, D., & Durnim, R. (1984). Results from an investigation of groups working at the computer. Washington, DC: The National Science Foundation.
Tudge, J. R. H. (1992). Processes and consequences of per collaboration: A Vygotsky''''s analysis. Child development, 63, 1364-1379.
U.S. Department of Education(1997). U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan, 1998-2002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1980). Adaptation and viability. American Psychologist, 35(11),970-974.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1994). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London : Falmer Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watabe, J. B. (1995). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Webb, N. M. (1984). Microcomputer learning on small groups: Cognitive requirements and group processes. Journal of educational Psychology, 75, 1075-1088.
Webb, N. M., Ender, P. & Lewis, W. S. (1988). Problem-solving strategies and group processes in small groups learning computer programming. American Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 243-261.
Whithead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education . New York: MacMillan.
Wilkinson, S., Crerar, A., & Falchikov, N. (1997a). Book versus hypertext: Exploring the association between usability and cognitive style.http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~ssimon/remon/results/abstract.html
Wilkinson, S., Crerar, A., & Falchikov, N. (1997b). Media, individual differences and the learning process. http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~ssimon/hci97/poster.html.
Witkin, H. A & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive style :Essence and origins. New York: International University Press..
Witkin, H. A. (1976). Comnitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student relations. In S. Messick(Ed.), Individuality in learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wolcott, J. R., & Robertson, J. E. (1997). The world wide web as an environment for collaborative research: An experiment in graduate education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunication, 3(2/3), 219-236.
Yerushalmy, M., & Gafni, R. (1992). Syntactic manipulations and semantic interpretation in algebra: The effect of graphic representation. Learning and Instruction, 2, 303-319.
Yeuh, J., &Alessi, S. M. (1988). The effects of reward structure and group ability composition on cooperative computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15, 18-22.
Yussen, S. R. & Santroc, J. W. (1982). Child development. Dubuque: Brown.
Zaslavsky, O. (1997). Conceptual Obstacles in the learning of quadratic functions. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 19(1), 20-42.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1031（臺灣：1007，外國：24） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2133566 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67935761
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上