臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

根據多數的研究顯示，問題導向學習和發現學習都能對學生的學習成效有正向的影響，但是它們之間還是有著不一樣的差異。本研究將目標定位於教材設計，針對Java物件導向程式語言的初學者，設計一份Design Patterns的數位教材，並且評估使用問題導向學習和發現學習兩種學習方式對於學生學習成效的影響。這兩種學習方式都是基於完成策略去設計實作教材，所以學習者可以由淺入深的漸進學習。差異點在於問題導向學習的實作教材比發現學習多了「問題分析」，主要是利用問題分析幫助學生更容易了解題目需求，減少學生練習的負擔。為了分析兩種學習方式對學習成效的影響，所以將修習雲林科技大學四技部二年級程式語言課程的學生依期中考成績區分為：問題導向學習組和發現學習組。每組考慮學生的能力，更進一步的細分為高程度組和中低程度組。之後對學習方式和能力進行雙因子變異數分析，統計結果發現，上述兩種不同的學習方式對學習成效是沒有影響的。但是以平均數的角度來看的話，問題導向學習方式是優於發現學習方式。

Many research results have shown that both Problem-Based Learning and Discovery Learning can improve learners’ learning outcome. However, the two methods still have many differences. This study aims to design and develop learning material for Object-Oriented Java programming with Design Patterns for beginning learners, and evaluate differences of learning outcomes between Problem-Based Learning and Discovery Learning. The exercises designed for these two learning methods are both designed according to the completion theory, so that learners’ can learn it gradually. The difference between the two methods is that Problem-Based Learning has another stage called problem analysis. Its purpose is to help learners to understand problem requirement, and decrease confusion. In order to analyze differences between Problem-Based Learning and Discovery Learning, this study divided students taking the Java programming course at National Yunlin University of Science Technology into two groups: the Problem-Based group and Discovery Learning group according to a pre-test conducted for the evaluation. Each group is further divided into high-performance group and low-performance group according to their scores in to pre-test. After using two-way ANOVA to analyze the evaluation result, we discover that neither method is significantly better than the other. However, focusing on the average grade of the evaluation, Problem-Based Learning performs better than Discovery Learning.

中文摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
目錄 III
表目錄 V
圖目錄 VI
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 2
1.3 研究目的 3
1.4 研究步驟 4
第二章 文獻及相關技術探討 5
2.1電腦輔助教學 5
2.2 教學理論 6
2.2.1 問題導向學習 6
2.2.2 發現學習 7
2.2.3 完成策略 8
2.3 程式設計輔助工具 9
2.3.1 統一塑模語言 9
2.3.2 設計模式 10
2.4 程式語言的學習障礙 14
第三章 教材內容的設計 16
3.1 平台選擇與介紹 16
3.2 課程內容編排 17
3.3 教材設計對象 18
3.4 教材設計規劃 18
3.4.1 線上教材 18
3.4.2 問題導向實作教材 20
3.4.3 發現學習實作教材 23
3.4.4 教學流程差異與優缺點 24
第四章 研究方法 26
4.1 研究對象 26
4.2 研究架構 26
4.3 研究設計 27
4.4 研究假說 27
4.5 研究變數定義 28
4.5.1 自變數 28
4.5.2 依變數 28
4.5.3 控制變數 28
4.6資料分析工具 28
4.7 研究程序 29
第五章 研究結果與討論 31
5.1 實驗分析 31
5.1.1實驗基本資料分析 31
5.1.2實驗前分析 31
5.1.3實驗後假設驗證 33
5.2 假設檢定 35
第六章 結論與未來方向 37
6.1 結論 37
6.2 未來方向 37
參考文獻 39
附錄一 學習成效測驗 42
附錄二 學生作答考卷 49

中文文獻
李進寶（1983）。電腦輔助教學。科學月刊，14(8)，592-595。
陳明溥（2007）。程式語言課程之教學模式與學習工具對初學者學習成效與學習 態度之影響。師大學報，52，1-21。
陳錦章、王興芳（2006）。混成學習：一種舊瓶裝新酒的學習環境。教育資料與研究雙月刊，69，284。
董少桓、林宗德、沈維倫、錢傳明、沈勇嘉（民94）。支援教師分身的智慧型程式語言教學平台。「全國計算機會議」發表之論文，台南。
楊書銘（2008）。Scratch 程式設計對六年 級學生邏輯推理能力、問題解決能力及創造力的影響。臺北市立教育大學數學資訊教育，碩士論文，未出版，台北。
鐘靜宜（2003），教學策略與學習工具對高中程式語言學習之影響。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所，碩士論文，台北。
經濟部工業局(民102)。2013~2015年資訊服務產業專業人才供需調查報告。取自： http://itriexpress.blogspot.tw/2013/07/2013-2015_1449.html

英文文獻
Boud, D., & Feletti, G. I. (1991). The challenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan Page.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. New York：Vintage Books.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York：W. W. Norton.
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
Brusilovsky, Eduardo Calabrese, Jozef Hvorecky, Anatoly Kouchnirenko, Philip Miller (1997) "Mini-languages: a way to learn programming principles."
Delisle, R. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
E. Gamma, R. H., R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides (1995). "Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software."
Jeroen J. G. Van Merriënboer. (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. program generation. J. Educational Computing Research, 6(3), 265–285.
Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83-137.
Kuo-En Chang, Bea-Chu Chiao, Sei-Wang Chen, & Rong-Shue Hsiao. (2000). A Programming Learning System for Beginners－A Completion Strategy Approach. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(2), 211-220.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316.
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction.Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357–371.
McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y. B., Laxer, C., et al. (2001). A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. In Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education, 125-180.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skill context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25.
Tung, S.H., Lin, T.T., and Lin, Y.H. (2013).An Exercise Management System for Teaching Programming.To appear inJournal of Software.
Sweller, J., Jeroen J. G. van Merrienboer, & Fred G. W. C. Paas (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Xinogalos (2003). "objectKarel:A Didactic Microworld for Teaching Object-Oriented Programming". University of Macedonia.