(3.238.173.209) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/16 20:05
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:::

: 
twitterline
研究生:卿亞明
研究生(外文):Ia-Ming Ching
論文名稱:從準備教學中學習--電腦輔助學生設計教材互相教學之設計與應用
論文名稱(外文):Learning for Teaching by Preparing Tutorial Notes
指導教授:陳德懷陳德懷引用關係
指導教授(外文):Tak-Wai Chan
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中央大學
系所名稱:網路學習科技研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:教育科技學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2005
畢業學年度:93
語文別:英文
論文頁數:74
中文關鍵詞:電腦輔助合作學習同儕互教學生設計教材為教而學電腦輔助同儕相互教學
外文關鍵詞:computer-supported collaborative learningcomputer-supported peer tutoringlearning for teachingpeer tutoringstudent-designed tutorial notes
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:207
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:36
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
過去的實證研究發現,將學生置於為了要教別人而學習的情境中,可以引發學生想理解知識的內在動機,同時也能讓學生從事較高層次的思考。但目前一些教室內的學生互教活動,並沒有或不強調教學的準備階段以及其中的學習活動。因此,本論文提出一個簡稱PPT的教育設計並以電腦系統支援該設計,目的在讓學生從準備教學的過程中學習。現階段PPT的設計重點在於促使學生在為準備去教而學習的過程中,將要教的知識「學得好」或學得深入,而非在於協助學生如何教或「教的好」,是故該方面的輔助設計並未在本研究考量之內。
PPT的學習流程包括五個環節:一、研讀要教學的材料,二、找出並詮釋關鍵字,以及發展教學計畫,三、寫教學講義並自我評量該講義,四、匿名評量一位同儕的講義,五、和一位同儕將兩人的講義合併成一份。雖然學生的實際教學活動並不在本研究範圍中,但第五步驟結束後學生必須要執行「教」的動作,才算完成PPT活動。
為了解PPT如何激勵學生學習、學生投入的程度、設計上的合理性、以及系統的使用滿意度,本研究執行了兩次評估活動。本論文將說明研究背景、動機、目的、以及各學習環節的設計邏輯,描述電腦輔助系統的設計及介面,以及報告評估活動的發現結果,並提出一些對未來研究工作的建議。
Several researches have found that having students study for teaching others can elicit their intrinsic motivations to understand the target knowledge to be taught and engage them in higher level thinking activities. However, existed intra-class peer tutoring programs do not involve student tutors in preparing to teach or emphasis the learning process of the preparation for peer tutoring. Therefore, this thesis proposes a pedagogic design called PPT, standing for learning by Preparing for Peer Tutoring, and a system design to support PPT. Currently, the PPT learning activities and system designs to support them are for tutors to learn the target knowledge better and deeper via preparation for teaching, whereas how to support tutors to teach is not under consideration in this research.
The PPT learning flow includes five episodes: (1) learning about the material, (2) identifying and interpreting keywords then developing a lesson plan, (3) constructing tutorial notes then doing self-assessment, (4) assessing a peer’s tutorial notes, and (5) integrating tutorial notes with a peer. Students have to work individually during episodes one to four, and collaborate with a partner in the fifth episode. Although the act of tutoring is not the focus in this research, it has to be executed after the fifth episode in order to complete the whole PPT activity.
Two evaluation activities were conducted to investigate how PPT designs can motivate and engage student tutors to learn, the reasonableness of each PPT design, and the user satisfactions. This thesis gives accounts for the research background, motivation, purposes and the rationales of each episode, describes the system designs and interfaces, and reports results of the two evaluation activities described above. Recommendations for further study are addressed in the final part of this thesis.
I. Introduction 1
A. Background 1
B. Motivation and research purpose 2
C. Research questions and methodology 4
II. Literature Review 6
A. Effects of learning by teaching 6
1. Preparing for teaching vs. performing teaching 6
2. Possible reasons for the tutors gains during preparation for teaching 8
B. Intra-class Peer tutoring models 10
1. ClassWide Peer Tutoring (CWPT) 10
2. Reciprocal Peer Tutoring (RPT) 11
3. ASK to THINK-TEL WHY 11
4. Reciprocal Teaching 12
C. Cooperative learning models related to preparing to teach peers 12
1. Jigsaw 13
2. Distributive expertise 13
III. PPT Learning Flow 14
A. Original version: learning by designing teaching materials 14
1. Individual reading 15
2. Tutorial notes construction 15
3. Self-assessment of tutorial notes 16
4. Anonymous peer assessment 17
5. Tutorial notes integration 18
B. Experimental trials 18
1. First experimental trial 19
2. Second experimental trial 20
C. Review of the current version 21
1. Refinements 22
2. Teaching flow and learning flow 24
IV. System Design and Application 26
A. Tutoring preparation guider 27
1. Lesson plan 27
2. Keywords identification and interpretation 29
B. Collaborative and reflective learning facilitator 31
1. Listing all other peers’ lesson plans and keyword lists 31
2. Comparison of self-assessment results and peer assessment results 32
C. Student knowledge level reflector 33
D. Activity management simplifier 34
1. Activity flow management 35
2. Learning material management 36
3. Student progress monitoring 38
V. System Evaluation and Discussion 40
A. Evaluation methods 40
1. The first activity 40
2. The second activity 42
B. Evaluation results and discussion 44
1. How did PPT motivate students to learn? 44
2. How did PPT better engage students in pre-class reading? 50
3. Is each design or function in PPT perceived a necessity by participants? 55
4. How well do the system interfaces satisfy the users? 61
VI. Conclusions and Future Works 62
References 67
Appendix 69
Adler, M. J. & Van Doren, C. (1972). How to Read a Book. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J.,&Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw
classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bargh J. A., & Schul Y. ( 1980) On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 5, 593-604
Benware, C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivation set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755-766.
Biswas, G., Schwartz, D., Bransford, J., & TAG-V. (2001). Technology Support for Complex Problem Solving: From SAD Environments to AI. In Forbus & Feltovich (eds.), Smart Machines in Education, Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 71-98.
Brown, A. L. (1988). Motivation to learn and understand: On taking charge of one’s own learning. Cognition and Instruction, 5 (4), 311-321.
Brown, A. L. & Campione J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills, 21, 108-126.
Bruner, J. (1963). The Process of Education. New York: Vintage Books.
Chan, T. W. (2004). Computer supported learning by teaching. Unpublished article.
Clancey, W. J. (1992). Guidon-manage revisited: A socio-technical systems approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 4, 5-34.
Chang, L. J., Yang, J. C., Deng, Y. C., & Chan, T. W. (2003) EduXs: multilayer educational services platforms. Computers & Education, 41, 1, 1-18.
Ching, E., Chen, C. T. , Chou, C. Y., & Deng, Y. C. (2005). A pilot study of computer supported learning by constructing instruction notes and peer expository instruction. The proceedings of the 10th anniversary of the conference of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2005).
Cohen, Peter A., James A. Kulik and Chen-Lin C. Kulik. (1982). Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Meta-analysis of Findings. American Educational Research Journal 19, 2, 237-248.
Coleman, E. B., Brown, A. L., & Rivkin, I. D. (1997). The effect of instructional explanations on learning from scientific texts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 347-365.
Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C. R., Stretton, K., & Hall, R. V. (1983). The peer tutoring game: A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spelling performance. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 225-239.
Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Fantuzzo, J. W., King, J. A., & Heller, L. R. (1992). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics and school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 331-339.
Gartner, A. J. & Riessman F. (1994). Tutoring helps those who give, those who receive. Educational Leadership, November issue of 1994, 58-60.
Goodlad, S. and Hirst, B. (1989). Peer Tutoring: A Guide to Learning by Teaching. London: Kogan Page; New York: Nickols Publishing, 1989.
Greenwood, C. R. & Delquadri, J. (1995). ClassWide Peer Tutoring and the prevention of school failure. Preventing School Failure, 39 (4), 21-25.
King, A. (1997) ASK to THINK-TEL WHY: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychology, 32, 4, 221-235
Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984) Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Pask, G. (1975). Conversation, Cognition, and Learning. New York: Elsevier
Ploetzner, R., Dillenbourg, P., Praier, M. & Traum, D. (1999). Learning by explaining to oneself and to others. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, Oxford: Elsevier, 103-121.
Renkl, A. (1995). Learning for later teaching: An exploration of mediational links between teaching expectancy and learning results. Learning and Instruction, 5, 21-36.
Sharples, M., Jeffery, N., du Boulay, J.B.H., Teather, D., Teather, B., and du Boulay, G.H. (2002) Socio-cognitive engineering: a methodology for the design of human-centred technology. European Journal of Operational Research, 136, 2, pp. 310-323.
Theory into Practice, (1999). Conversation theory. Retrieved from http://tip.psychology.org/pask.html
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 297-314). New York: Macmillan.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top