跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(35.168.110.128) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/16 06:23
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:賴皇觀
論文名稱:高中電腦教科書「中央處理單元」概念呈現之分析
指導教授:吳正己吳正己引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:資訊教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:專業科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:72
中文關鍵詞:教科書分析概念圖精緻化
外文關鍵詞:textbook analysisconcept mapelaboration
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:4
  • 點閱點閱:218
  • 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:2
本研究針對三本通過國立編譯館審定高中電腦教科書,分析其在介紹中央處理單元(CPU)概念時,所涵括的範圍、概念呈現的架構、概念精緻化的情形、及內容正確性。研究採內容分析法,以三本通過國立編譯館審查之高中電腦教科書做為研究樣本,並發展「概念圖繪製原則」與「精緻化分析表」做為本研究之分析工具。為提高研究信度,分析工作係由研究者與另一分析者共同進行。
研究結果發現,在概念涵括範圍部份:三本教科書所涵蓋的概念多屬於CPU內部結構概念,但其內容未盡符合課程標準規定;其中兩本教科書所涵蓋的概念偏多,另一本教科書則略顯不足。在概念呈現架構部份:三本教科書呈現中央處理單元概念順序大多由內部結構切入;其中有一本教科書概念架構過於鬆散。在概念的精緻化部份:三本教科書在介紹中央處理單元相關概念時,最常使用重申、舉例的方式精緻化,較少使用類比與輕微離題的精緻化;其中,重申精緻化常用於內部結構概念,而舉例精緻化則常用於執行效率與指令集架構的概念。此外,在內容正確性方面,三本教科書中仍有少許的錯誤。
In this research we examined the CPU concept presented in three MOE (Ministry Of Education) endorsed high school computer textbooks. The presentation of CPU concept was analyzed from four perspectives: its scope, its conceptual structure, its use of elaborations, and its correctness. Concept map and a self-developed elaboration check table were the primary tools used in the analysis. To ensure the reliability of the analysis, two raters first rated the concept presentation independently, and then discussed on their differences to reach final agreement. Our findings revealed that two of the textbooks covered too many ideas on presenting the concept; while as one covered too few ideas, compared to the high school computer curriculum outlines set by MOE. All three textbooks presented CPU concept starting with its hardware components, that is CU (Control Unit), ALU (Arithmetic/Logic Unit), registers, and etc. One textbook scattered the concept over different chapters and did not organize it in a cohesive way. With respect to the elaborations used in elaborating the concept, most fell into the categories of restatement and examples, but few in analogy or slight digression category. All the textbooks presented the CPU concept without major deficiencies, although a few errors were existed in each of them.
表目錄……………………………………………………………………iii
圖目錄………………………………………………………………… iv
第一章 緒論…………………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究動機……………………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的……………………………………………………………1
第三節 研究範圍……………………………………………………………4
第四節 名詞釋義……………………………………………………………4
第二章 文獻探討……………………………………………………………5
第一節 概念圖………………………………………………………………5
第二節 精緻化………………………………………………………………13
第三節 教科書分析…………………………………………………………16
第三章 研究方法……………………………………………………………20
第一節 研究設計……………………………………………………………20
第二節 研究樣本……………………………………………………………21
第三節 研究工具……………………………………………………………22
第四節 研究步驟……………………………………………………………26
第四章 結果與討論…………………………………………………………32
第一節 甲教科書分析結果…………………………………………………32
第二節 乙教科書分析結果…………………………………………………40
第三節 丙教科書分析結果…………………………………………………47
第四節 綜合討論……………………………………………………………53
第五章 結論與建議………………………………………………………62
第一節 結論………………………………………………………………62
第二節 未來研究的建議…………………………………………………66
參考文獻………………………………………………………………………67
附錄一 精緻化分析表…………………………………………………72
表一 1992-1999教科書分析文獻的摘要……………………………17
表二 分析教科書基本資料……………………………………………21
表三 概念圖繪製原則…………………………………………………22
表四 「指令集架構」概念……………………………………………22
表五 「指令集架構」之主要概念與次要概念………………………23
表六 中央處理單元分析範圍…………………………………………27
表七 「中央處理單元」的重要概念…………………………………29
表八 教科書甲概念涵蓋範圍與精緻化類型…………………………33
表九 教科書乙概念涵蓋範圍與精緻化類型…………………………41
表十 教科書丙概念涵蓋範圍與精緻化類型…………………………48
表十一 三本教科書概念涵蓋總表………………………………………54
表十二 教科書概念架構子樹個數與階層數……………………………58
表十三 類比精緻化………………………………………………………59
圖一 命題………………………………………………………………5
圖二 概念圖……………………………………………………………6
圖三 概念圖草稿………………………………………………………24
圖四 研究步驟…………………………………………………………26
圖五 甲教科書概念架構圖(一)………………………………………35
圖六 甲教科書概念架構圖(二)………………………………………36
圖七 乙教科書概念架構圖(一)………………………………………43
圖八 乙教科書概念架構圖(二)………………………………………44
圖九 丙教科書概念架構圖……………………………………………50
圖十 三本教科書概念架構圖…………………………………………57
何榮桂、吳正己、李忠謀 (1995):我國高級中學電子計算機簡介課程實施現況調查研究。教育部。
吳正己 (2000):高中電腦科教科書編撰建議。國立編譯館通訊,13(2),11-17。
吳正己、何榮桂 (1998):高級中學新訂電腦課程的內涵與特色。科學教育月刊,208期,26-32。
吳正己、林凱胤 (1996):類比在電腦教學上的應用-以For-Next 巢狀迴圈為例。科學教育月刊,193期,35-42。
吳正己、龐能一 (1995):類比在高中職計算機概論教科書的應用分析。國立台灣師範大學學報,40期,157-185。
李秀娟、張永達、黃達三 (1998):概念圖應用於國中生物教材之分析與評論─以神經系統為例。科學月刊,213期,14-26。
李雅如、郭重吉、耿正屏 (1996):高中教科書內能源教育之內容分析。科學教育(彰化師大),7期,39-59。
耿筱曾 (1997):為什麼概念構圖是一種有效的教學策略。科學教育研究與發展,9期,76-79。
陳嘉成 (1998):合作學習式概念構圖在國小自然科教學之成效研究。國立政治大學教育與心理研究,21期,107-128。
陳嘉成、余民寧 (1998):以概念構圖為學習策略之教學對自然科學習的促進效果之研究。國立政治大學學報報,77期,201-235。
張子超、楊冠政 (1997):學生環境知識概念結構發展的研究。師大學報:科學教育類,42期,31-48。
教育部 (1974):高級中學課程標準。台北:正中書局。
教育部 (1996):高級中學課程標準。台北:作者。
常雅珍 (1997):國語注音符號「精緻化教學法」與「傳統綜合教學法」之比較研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
湯清二 (1993):我國學生生物細胞概念發展研究迷思概念之晤談與概念圖。彰化師範大學學報,141-147。
黃瓊瑱 (1996):我國國小自然科教科書之分析研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
郭嘉琪 (2001):國中電腦課程實施現況調查。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
Anderson, J. R. (1983a). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261-295.
Anderson, J. R. (1983b). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blystone, R. V. (1989). Biology learning based on illustrations. In W.G.. Rosen (Ed;), High school biology today and tomorrow (pp.155-164). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brookshear, J. G. (1997). Computer Scoence: An Overview. (5th) Harlow, England :Addison-Wesley
Calhoun, R. S., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). An examination of the conceptual structure and reading level of six sixth-grade science textbooks. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5, 21-36.
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., DeSena, A. T., & Squires, D. A. (1978). Content Structure in Science Instructional Materials and Knowledge Structure in Science Instructional Materials and Knowledge Structure in Students’ Memories (Report No. LRD-1978/22). Pittsburgh, PA:Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
Chiang-Soong, B., & Yager, R. E. (1993). The inclusion of STS material in the most frequentaly used secondary science textbooks in the U.S. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (4), 339-349.
Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H. & Fillman, D. A. (1991). A quantitative analysis of high school chemistry textbooks for scientific literacy themes and expository learning aids. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (10), 939-951.
Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, g. H. & Fillman, D. A. (1993). Do middle school life science textbooks provide a balance of scientific literacy themes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (7), 787-797.
Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 387-427.
Erduran, Sibel (1996). Analysis of physical science textbooks for conceptual frameworks on acids, bases and neutralization: Implications for students’ conceptual understanding. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Farrokh, K., & Krause, G. (1996). The relatioinship of concept-mapping and course grade in cell biology. Meaningful Learning Forum. Retrieved January 30, 2002 from http://www2.ucsc.edu/mlrg
Gangosa, Z. (1996). Meaningful learning based instructional design. Meaningful Learning Forum. Retrieved January 30, 2002 from http://www2.ucsc.edu/mlrg
Good, R. (1993). EDITIORIAL: Science textbook analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), pp.619.
Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 356-365.
Hyde, T. S., & Jenkins, J. J. (1973). Recall for words as a function of semantic, graphic, and syntactic orienting tasks. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 471-480.
Iding, M. K. (1993). Instructional analogies and elaborations in science text: Effects on recall and transfer performance. Reading Psychology, 14(1), 33-55.
Jeffery, K. R., & Raoch, L. E. (1994). A study of the presence of evolutionaly protoconcepts in pre-high school textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 507-518.
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge. Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Khan, K. M. (1993). Concept mapping as a strategy for teaching and developing the caribbean examinations council (CXC) mathematics curriculum in a secondary schools. Paper presented at Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Ithaca, NY.
Kim Sung-Il, & Van Dusen, L. M. (1998). The role of prior knowledge and elaboration in text comprehension and memory: A comparison of self-generated elaboration and text-provided elaboration. American Journal of Psychology, 111(3), 353-378.
Lloyd, C. V. (1990). The elaboration of concepts in three biology textbooks: facilitating student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1019-1032.
Lumpe, A. T., & Beck, J. (1996). A profile of high school biology textbooks using scientific literacy recommendations. The American Biology Teacher, 58, 147-153.
Malone, J. & Dekkers, J. (1984). The concept map as an aid to instruction in science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 27, 937-949.
Markow, P. G., & Lonning, R. A. (1998). Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: students’ perceptions and effects on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1015-1029.
Maurer, W. D. (1996). Attitudes toward the go-to statement ( or, Hydrogen considered harmful). Computers Education, 26(4), 207-213.
Mayer, R. E. (1980). Elaboration techniques that increase the meaningfulness of technical text: An experimental test of the learning strategy hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 770-784.
McClure, J. R., Sonak, Brian, & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 , 475-492.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus-or-minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Moreira, M. A., & Greca, I. (1996). Concept mapping and mental models. Meaningful Learning Forum. Retrieved January 30, 2002 from http://www2.ucsc.edu/mlrg
Moreira, M. A., & Motta, A. M. B. (1993). Concept mapping in 7th grade mathematics: an exploratory study. Paper presented at Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Ithaca, NY.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Mrajcik, J. S. (1991). The effect of level of information as presented by different technology on students’ understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for the Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. R. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge Press.
Reder, L. M., Charney, D. H., & Morgan, K. I. (1986). The role of elaborations in learning a skill from an instructional text. Memory & Cognition, 14(1), 64-78.
Rice, D. C., Ryan, J. M., & Samson, S. M. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1103-1127.
Ruis, S. P. (1988). Something’s wrong with chemistry textbooks. Journal of Chemical Education, 65, 720-721.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 , 569-600.
Soyibo, Kola (1995). Using concept maps to analyze textbook presentations of respiration. The American Biology Teacher, 57, 344-351.
Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case studies in science education. Urbana: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois
Staver, J. R., & Lumpe, A. T. (1993). A content analysis of the presentation of the mole concept in chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 321-337.
Tan, S. C. (2000). The effects of incorporating concept mapping into computer assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23 , 113-131.
Trowbridge, J. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1994). Identifying critical junctures in learning in a college course on evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 459-473.
Weiss, I. R., Nelson, B.H., Boyd, S. E. & Hudson, S. B. (1989). Science and mathematics education briefing book. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: Falmer Press.
Wilson, J. M. (1994). Network representations of knowledge about chemical equilibrium: Variations with achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 , 1133-1147.
Wu, C. H., Lin, M. C & Lin, K. Y. (1999). A content Analysis of Programming Examples in High School Computer Textbooks in Taiwan. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18(3), 225-244.
Yager, R. E. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 577-588.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top