跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.205.2.188) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/03/29 19:44
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:賴怡如
研究生(外文):Yi-Ru Lai
論文名稱:工業設計系學生的學習風格與自我反思能力之關係
論文名稱(外文):The Relationship Between the Learning Style of Industrial Design Students and Their Self-Reflection
指導教授:曹永慶曹永慶引用關係葉雯玓葉雯玓引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yung-Chin TsaoWen-Dih Yeh
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:大同大學
系所名稱:工業設計學系(所)
學門:設計學門
學類:產品設計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:中文
論文頁數:106
中文關鍵詞:學習風格自我反思
外文關鍵詞:learning styleself-reflection
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:23
  • 點閱點閱:523
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:8
設計系學生所接受的教育課程強調的是做中學,然而如果沒有經由反思和觀察,實做所得經驗未必就能增加學習的深度。此外,學生本身的學習風格亦可能影響其自我反思能力,乃至學習成效。
本研究之目的即在透過實際設計教學,探討設計系學生之四種不同學習風格與自我反思能力間之關係。研究共分為兩階段進行:第一階段利用Kolb學習風格量表及Kember et al.所編制的反思量表以瞭解學生學習風格與反思層次之關係。第二階段,以回溯訪談的方法調查學生於設計教學結束後其反思之方式。主要研究成果如下:
1、學習風格為「分散型」、「同化型」及「聚斂型」的學生,反思層次以「批判反思」為主;「調適型」學生則以「理解」為主。
2、不同學習風格學生在學習目標、學習成就、學習態度、觀摩同儕表現、 作品 及回饋的反思項目上呈現出異同之特徵。
(a)學習目標的反思:「調適型」學生無預先設定學習目標;「分散型」以觀察使用族群為主;「聚斂型」以老師講解之優秀作品為主;「同化型」以抽象概念為主。(b)學習成就的反思:四種學習風格學生皆以學習態度和設計表現能力為主。(c)學習態度的反思:四種不同學習風格學生皆認為自己有努力學習,至於會出現學習錯誤行為多歸因於學習過程上時間規劃不當所致。(d)觀摩同儕表現的反思:「調適型」學生觀摩同儕作品的感覺皆認為畫的很好,對自我的期許則希望跟同儕一樣優秀甚至超越他們;「分散型」及「同化型」學生觀摩同儕作品的感覺皆有提到好壞的差別,對自我的期許則是想提升電腦繪圖能力及創意發想部份;「聚斂型」觀摩同儕作品的感覺皆認為畫的很好,對自我的期許則希望跟同儕一樣優秀。(e)作品的反思:「調適型」學生擔憂後續設計會面臨的問題和其對作品的創意發想過程之想法;「分散型」提到其對未來之影響和其對作品的創意發想過程之想法;「聚斂型」和「同化型」提到對作品的結果及製作過程之想法。(f)回饋的反思:四種學習風格學生對於老師所給與之回饋皆認為很切實際且對自己有很大幫助。
3、不同學習風格學生在反思層次與作品的反思項目上呈現出異同之特徵。
「調適型」學生屬於反思層次以「理解」及「反思」中的內容與過程的反思為主;「分散型」屬於「批判反思」及「反思」中的內容的反思為主;「聚斂型」屬於「反思」中的內容的反思為主;「同化型」屬於「反思」中的內容的反思及內容與過程的反思為主。
The educational classes accepted by design department students emphasize learning by doing. However, if not through reflection and observation, the experience from doing may be not increase the depth of learning. Besides, a student’s own learning style can possibly influence his/her self-reflection ability and even learning effect.
The purpose of this study is to, through practical design teaching, explore the relationships between design department students’ 4 different learning styles and self-reflection ability. The study was conducted with 2 stages: In the first stage, we used Kolb’s learning style scale and reflection scale compiled by Kember et al. to understand the relationships between students’ learning styles and reflecting levels. In the second stage, we used dating-back method to survey students’ reflecting method after the end of design teaching. The main results of this study are as follows:
1. For the students with the learning styles as “divergence type”, “assimilation type” and “convergence type”, their reflecting level is mainly “critical reflection”; for the “accommodation type” students, mainly “understanding”.
2. The students with different learning styles display difference and similarity on the items such as learning goal, leaning achievement, learning attitude, watching peer’s performance, works and Reflection towards feedback.
(a)Reflection of learning goal: “accommodation type” students have no pre-set learning goal; “divergence type” students focus on observing the using groups; “convergence type” students focus on the mater pieces proposed by the teachers; “assimilation type” students focus on abstract conceptualization.
(b)Reflection of leaning achievement: The students of 4 learning styles focus on learning attitude and ability of design performance.
(c)Reflection of learning attitude: The students of 4 learning styles all consider they were hard-learning; and attribute the occurrence of learning mistakes to improper time planning in the learning process.
(d)Reflection of watching peer’s performance: As for the feeling about watching peers’ works, “accommodation type” students consider they are doing good and their self-expectation is hoping to be as good as the peers and even better than them; “divergence type” students and “assimilation type” students all mentioned there were the good and the bad and their self-expectation is hoping to upgrade computerized graphic ability and creativities; “convergence type” students consider they are doing good and their self-expectation is hoping to be as good as the peers.
(e)Reflection of works: “Accommodation type” students are worried about the problems faced by the follow-up design and their ideas about the process of creativity of the works; “divergence type” students mentioned the influence on the future and their ideas about the process of creativity of the works; “convergence type” students and “assimilation type” students all mentioned the results towards the works and the ideas about making process.
(f)Reflection towards feedback: The students of 4 learning styles all consider the feedback from teachers are practical and very helpful to themselves.
3. The students with different learning styles display difference and similarity on the reflection items such as reflecting levels and works.
“Accommodation type” students’ reflecting level focus on content & process reflection of “understanding” and “reflection”; “divergence type” students focus on content reflection of “critical reflection” and “reflection”; “convergence type” students focus on content reflection of “reflection”; “convergence type” students focus on content reflection and content & process reflection of “reflection”.
中文摘要I
英文摘要III
謝誌VI
目錄VII
圖目錄IX
表目錄X
第一章 緒論 1
1.1研究動機與目的 1
1.2研究方法與架構 3
1.3研究限制 5
第二章 文獻探討 6
2.1.1學習風格定義 6
2.1.2Kolb學習風格理論 8
2.2工業設計教育的特徵 12
2.3 反思 13
2.3.1反思定義 13
2.3.2反思層次 15
2.3.3反思作用 18
2.3.4反思的方式 19
2.4小結 20
第三章 設計系學生之學習風格與反思層次間之關係 21
3.1學習風格與反思層次之調查 21
3.1.1受測學生之選擇 21
3.1.2學習風格與反思層次調查之問卷設計 23
3.1.3調查實施 25
3.1.4調查結果 26
3.2設計系學生之學習風格類型 27
3.3設計系學生學習後之反思層次 27
3.4設計系學生學習後之學習風格與反思層次 29

第四章 設計系學生之學習風格與反思方式之關係 31
4.1調查實施流程 31
4.2回溯訪談之反思問項 32
4.3 不同學習風格的反思內容之分析 34
4.3.1不同學習風格與學習目標的反思 34
4.3.2不同學習風格與學習成就的反思 36
4.3.3不同學習風格與學習態度的反思 38
4.3.4不同學習風格與觀摩同儕表現的反思 40
4.3.5不同學習風格與針對回饋的反思 42
4.3.6不同學習風格與作品的反思 44
4.4 學生之學習風格與反思層次及反思方式三者間之關係 46
4.4.1作品的反思-調適型 46
4.4.2作品的反思-分散型 47
4.4.3作品的反思-聚斂型 49
4.4.4作品的反思-同化型 50
第五章 結論與建議 51
5.1結論 51
5.2討論與建議 55
參考文獻 57
附錄一 學習風格量表 61
附錄二 中文反思量表 63
附錄三 受測者設計發表圖 64
附錄四 受測者訪談記錄 71
一、中文部分
1.吳百薰,民87,國小學生學習風格相關因素之研究,碩士論文,國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
2. 蔡明翰,民92,自我反思活動對高中生程式設計學習成效與創造力之探討,國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
3. 鄭國志,民94,提供反思機制於網路學習歷程檔案中對學習行為影響之研究,國立台南大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
4. 吳明芳,民94,網路化檔案評量標準與信、效度之建立。國立國立臺北科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文初稿。(未出版)
5.郭重吉,民76,英美等國晚近對學生風格之研究,資優教育季刊,22,頁2-8。
6.郭俊賢、陳淑惠譯(L. Campbell, B. Campbell, & D. Dickinson原著,1999)(民91),多元智慧的教與學。台北:遠流出版公司。
7. 顏明仁(2001)。Bloom認知分類在科技教育的應用。生活科技教育,34(4),2-9。
二、英文部份
1.Bloom, M. (1975). The paradox of helping: Introduction to the philosophy of scientific practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
2.Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000). Assessing and reporting on habits of mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
3.Dewey, J. (1910). How we think . Buffalo, N.Y. : Prometheus Books.
4.Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students'' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819-837.
5.Falls, J. A. (2001). Using a reflective process to implement electronic portfolios. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Blacksburg, VA: The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
6.Irby, B. J., & Brown, G. (1999). A gendered dichotomy in written reflections in professional development portfolios. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
7. Kolb, D. A. (1976), Learning style technical manual. Boston: Mcber and Company.
8.Kolb, D. 1984, Experience learning: experience as the source of learning and development., N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
9.Kember, D., Jones, A., Loke, A., Mckay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H.,et al. (1999). Determining the level of reflective thinking from students’ written journals using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow. International Journal of Lifelong Education,18(1), 18-30.
10.Kember, D. & Leung, D. Y. P. With Jones, A., Loke, A. Y., Mckay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H., Webb, C. et al.(2000).Development of a Questionnaire to Measure the Level of Reflective Thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,25(4),381-395.
11.Miller, 1991, Effects of hands-on, activity-based science and a supportive instructional environment on at-risk sixth-grade students' attitude toward science, achievement in science, goal orientation, and cognitive engagement in science, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Mich..
12.Rama, D. V., & Battistoni, R. (2001). Structuring the reflection process. Service learning Website. Retrieved October 9, 2004, from
13.http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/structuring/decisions.html.
14.Schon, D. (1987),Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco : Josse-Bass.
15.Santos, M. G. (1997). Portfolio assessment and the role of learner reflection. English Teaching Forum online, 35(2), 10. Retrieved October 9, 2004, from http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol35/no2/p10.htm.
16.Sparks-Langer, G. M., Simmons, J. M., Pasch, M., Colton, A. & Starko, A. (1990),”Reflective pedagogical thinking: How can we promote it and measure it? “,Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5),pp. 23-32.
17.Watson, J. W. (2000). Building reflection in second-year teachers by reading and responding to literature. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top