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：後設認知融入問題解決數位課程對國小學生科學概念建構與問題解決之影響
作者：莊明樺
作者(外文)：Chuang, Ming-Hua
校院名稱：國立交通大學
系所名稱：教育研究所
指導教授：佘曉清
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2017
主題關鍵詞：數位化問題解決學習課程；後設認知；模擬實驗；problem solving digital learning content；metacognition；simulation experiment
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(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:6
本研究企圖探討將後設認知融入科學問題解決數位學習課程，對國小學生的科學問題解決能力與科學概念建構之影響。本研究採用準實驗設計，研究對象為新北市某國小六年級的學生，以便利抽樣的方式，採用了四個常態編班的班級，總共118位學生。依研究設計分為兩組學習模式，其中後設認知融入問題解決組（N=59人）接受後設認知融入數位化問題解決課程，而問題解決組（N=59人）則接受數位化問題解決課程。兩組的課程內容均相同，由四個單元所組成，每個單元各包括兩個主題（共八個主題）：太陽與影子、太陽與四季；氧氣、二氧化碳；繡球花花色、酸鹼指示劑；彈力、摩擦力，分布在一整個學期課程中的八個星期。在學習前、後與學習後五星期，接受科學概念、科學主題相依推理、科學問題解決三種測驗。研究結果除了分析與比較兩組學生在學習前後的差異，同時針對兩組學生在進行數位化問題解決課程學習時，其問題解決學習歷程、後設認知學習歷程、操作模擬實驗歷程，進行質性分析與量化統計，藉此以深入瞭解學生在學習過程中的變化情形。
研究結果顯示，後設認知融入數位化問題解決課程的學習，無論在科學概念建構成效、科學主題相關推理能力，還是提升科學問題解決能力的表現上，都較數位化問題解決課程來的優異。在問題解決學習歷程中，兩組學生問題解決能力的表現均有顯著的成長，而且後設認知融入問題解決組的學生，在定義問題與發展解決方法能力的表現上，皆較問題解決組的學生優異。另外，在後設認知學習歷程中，後設認知融入問題解決組學生後設認知能力的表現也有顯著的成長。
同時群集分析的結果顯示，後設認知融入問題解決組中，屬於高學習表現群組的人數較問題解決組多，而屬於低學習表現群組的人數則較問題解決組少。由此可見，後設認知融入數位化問題解決課程的設計，在提升學生的整體學習表現上，較數位化問題解決課程擁有較佳的成效與優勢。另外，從學習表現群組在科學問題解決測驗的結果來看，在後設認知融入問題解決組方面，三個學習表現群組在後測與追蹤測的成績差距，呈現逐漸縮小的趨勢；而在問題解決組方面，低學習表現群組在後測與追蹤測的成績，相較於高學習表現群組與中學習表現群組的成績，仍皆具有明顯的差距存在。相較於數位化問題解決課程，後設認知融入數位化問題解決課程在促進學生的問題解決能力之優勢上顯而易見。
This study explored the impact of metacognition embedded problem solving digital learning content on 6th grade students’ scientific concepts construction and problem solving. A total of 118 sixth grade students from four classes of an elementary school at New Taipei City were recruited to participate in this study. Students were randomly assigned into two different groups who received metacognition embedded problem solving digital learning content (metacognition embedded problem solving group, MPS, N=59) and problem solving digital learning content (problem solving group, PS, N=59) for eight weeks across a semester, respectively. Both groups received the same scientific problem solving content which covers eight topics for four units: Sun and shadow, Sun and season; Oxygen, Carbon dioxide; Color variety of hydrangea, Acid-base indicator; Elasticity, Friction. All students received scientific conception test, scientific content dependent reasoning test and scientific problem solving tests before, directly after, and five weeks later to learning. In addition, students’ online problem solving process was recorded and analyzed for further comparisons between two groups regarding to the aspects of problem solving abilities. Results indicated that metacognition embedded problem solving (MPS) group significantly outperformed than to the problem solving (PS) group in scientific concepts’ construction, scientific content dependent reasoning ability and scientific problem solving ability. Regarding to the learning process of problem solving, both groups all made significantly progress in their problem solving ability had a significant growth, and MPS group performed even better in the defining problem and developing solution than to PS group. For MPS group, students also made significantally progress in their metacognition ability.
For the clustering results, MPS group has greater number of students who were classifying as higher learning performance than to the PS group, whereas MPS group has smaller amount of students who were classifying as lower learning performance than to thte PS groups. Our findings demonstrated MPS students who indeed made better performance than to the PS students, regardless of problem solving, scientific concepts, and scientific concept dependent reasoning. Furthermore, metacognition embedded problem solving learning indeed minimize the gap among high, medium and low learning performance groups than to the problem solving learning. To summary, the use of metacognition embedded problem solving learning indeed do have its uniqueness and advantage which problem solving learning hardly reached.
ㄧ、中文部份
教育部（2007)。國民教育九年一貫課程綱要。台北：教育部。
游文楓、佘曉清（2006）。網路化問題解決教學策略對學生生物學習成效的影響。科學教育學刊，14(4)，381-400。new window

二、英文部分
Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short term memory. Scientific American, 225(2), 82-90.
Baird, J. R. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: A classroom study. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 263-282.
Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Faculty of Education, Monash University.
Berge, Z. L., Collins, M., & Dougherty, K. (2000). Design guidelines for web-based courses. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education (pp. 32-40). Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.
Borsook, T. K., & Higginbotham-Wheat, N. (1991). Interactivity: What is it and what can it do for computer-based instruction? Educational Technology, 31(10), 11-17.
Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking learning and creativity (2nd Ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mtsterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert, & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Classroom management (pp.144-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. M., Glaser, R., & Glaser, R. (1985). The Nature of Expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chou, C., & Tsai, C. C. (2002). Developing web-based curricula: Issues and challenges. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(6), 623-636.
Chuang, M. H., & She, H. C. (2013). Fostering 5th grade students’ understanding of science via salience analogical reasoning in on-line and classroom learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 102-118.
Coles, M. J., & Robinson, W. D. (1989). Teaching thinking. Bristol: The Bristol Press.
Cornell, R., & Martin, B. L. (1997). The role of motivation in web-based instruction. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based Instruction (pp. 93-100). Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Educational Technology Publication.
Cubukcu, F. (2009). Metacognition in the classroom. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 559-563.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath.
Fisher, R. (1990). Teaching children think. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive- Development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90, 453-467.
Georghiades, P. (2004). Making pupils’ conceptions of electricity more durable by means of situated metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 85-99.
Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone, & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press.
Hacker. M., & Barden, A. R. (1988). Living with technology. Albany, New York: Delmar.
Hannafin, M. J. (1989). Interaction strategies and emerging instructional technologies: Psychological perspectives. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 18(3), 167-179.
Hedarty-Hazel, E. (1986). Lab work SET: Research information for teachers, number one. Canberra: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Ruthven, K. (2006). Situated expertise in integrating use of multimedia simulation into secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7), 701-732.
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review, 79(2), 171-212.
Horgan, D. (1990). Students’ predictions of test grades: Calibration and Metacognition. Accepted by the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.new window
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996a). Learning from, learning about, and learning with computing: A rationale for mindtools. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking (pp. 3-22). Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996b). Using mindtools to develop critical thinking and foster collaboration in schools. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking (pp. 23-40). Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen. D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94.
Kapa, E. (2007). Transfer from structured to open-ended problem solving in a computerized metacognitive environment. Learning and Instruction, 17, 688-707.
Karplus, R., & Their, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science: Science curriculum improvement study. Chicago, Rand Mcnally & Company.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science, 39, 255-282.
Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developing students’ understanding of chemical concepts. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp.117-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krange, I., & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). What does it mean? Students’ procedural and conceptual problem solving in a CSCL environment designed within the field of science education. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 25-51.
Liao, Y. W., & She, H. C. (2009). Enhancing eight grade students’ scientific conceptual change and scientific reasoning through a web-based learning program. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 228-240.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
Lucas, L. (1992). Interactivity: What is it and how do you use it? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1(1), 7-10.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Multimedia learning (pp.1-20). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87-99.
Miller, S. M., & Miller, K. L. (2000). Theoretical and practical constructions in the design of web-based instruction. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education (pp. 156-177). Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.
National Research Council (NRC) (2000). How people learn: Brian, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentics-Hall.
Parnes, S. J. (1966). Programming creative behavior. Buffalo: State University of New York.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of child. New York: Basic Books.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new method of mathematical method. Solved Gifted Child Today. March/April, 61-63.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab, & P. F. Brand (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schwier, R. A., & Misanchuk, E. R. (1993a). Definition of interactive multimedia instruction. In R. A. Schwier, & E. R. Misanchuk (Eds.), Interactive multimedia instruction (pp. 3-17). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Schwier, R. A., & Misanchuk, E. R. (1993b). Multimedia instruction environments. In R. A. Schwier, & E. R. Misanchuk (Eds.), Interactive multimedia instruction (pp. 19-33). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
She, H. C. (2004). Facilitating students’ learning of difficult science concepts through integrating a metacognitive approach into a web-based multimedia science learning program. Accepted by the International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education (CATE), Kaiwai, Hawaii.
She, H. C., & Chen, Y. Z. (2009). The impact of multimedia effect on science learning: Evidence from eye movements. Computer & Education, 53, 1297-1307.
She, H. C., & Fisher, D. L. (2003).Web-based e-learning environments in Taiwan: The impact of the online science flash program on students’ learning. In M. S. Khine, & D. L. Fisher (Eds.), Technology-rich learning environment: A future perspective (pp. 343-368). Singapore: World Scientific.
She, H. C., & Lee, C. Q. (2008). SCCR digital learning system for scientific conceptual change and scientific reasoning. Computers & Education, 51, 724-742.
Smith, E. (1991). A conceptual change model of learning science. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp.65-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spence, D. J., Yore, L. D., & Williams, R. L. (1999) The effects of explicit science reading instruction on selected grade 7 students’ metacognition and comprehension of specific science text. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 15-30.
Staer, H., Goodrum, D., & Hacling, M. (1998). High school laboratory work in Western Australia: Openness to inquiry. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 219-228.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Cognitive psychology (3rd Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson press.
Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 306-314.
Trowbridge, L. W., ＆ Bybee, R. W. (1990). Models for effective science teaching: Becoming a secondary school science teacher (5th Ed.). Toronto, London: Merrill Publishing Company press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weiss, R. E., Knowlton, D. S., & Morrison, G. R. (2002). Principles for using animation in computer-based instruction: Theoretical heuristics for effective design. Computer in Human Behavior, 18, 465-477.
Wolfinger, D. M. (1984). Teaching Science in the elementary school. Boston: Little Brown.
Yore, L. D., Craig, M. T., & Maguire, T. O. (1998) Index of science reading awareness: An interactive-constructive model, test verification, and grades 4-8 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 27-51.new window
Yu, W. F., She, H. C., & Lee, Y. M. (2010). The effects of a web-based/non web-based problem solving instruction and high/low achievement on students’ problem solving ability and biology achievement. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(2), 187-199.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
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：1055（臺灣：1046，外國：9） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2071125 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67876692
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