( 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  


研究生(外文):Ia-Ming Ching
論文名稱(外文):Learning for Teaching by Preparing Tutorial Notes
指導教授(外文):Tak-Wai Chan
外文關鍵詞:computer-supported collaborative learningcomputer-supported peer tutoringlearning for teachingpeer tutoringstudent-designed tutorial notes
  • 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
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
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.
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top