臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究目的為：一、探討WebQuest教學策略對於國小學生在問題解決、英語學習成就及學習動機之影響；二、調查學生及教師對於WebQuest之觀點。本研究採準實驗設計。研究對象為96位國小六年級學生，分別就讀於一所資訊教育種子學校的三個班級，每班32人。實驗時間為21週。本研究自變項為教學策略，分成三個層次—WebQuest傳統講述教學〈實驗組I〉、WebQuest提供資源〈實驗組II〉及WebQuest提供資源而後不提供資源〈實驗組III〉，依變項為問題解決能力、英語學習成就與學習動機。針對研究目的，以二因子混合設計變異數分析考驗各項假設。
主要研究結果發現如下：
一、在問題解決方面：
1. 組內：(1)三組的中測、後測及延後測表現均顯著高於前測。(2)實驗組II及實驗組III的後測及延後測表現亦顯著高於中測。(3)實驗組II在延後測顯著低於後測。
2. 組間：(1)實驗組III在中測上表現顯著高於實驗組I。(2)實驗組II和實驗組III在後測上表現顯著高於實驗組I。(3)實驗組II和實驗III在延後測上表現顯著高於實驗組I。
總括來說，三組的問題解決皆有所提升。而實驗組II和實驗組III的表現比實驗組I還要好。
二、在英語學習成就方面：
1. 組內：(1)三組的中測、後測及延後測表現均顯著高於前測。(2)實驗組I的延後測表現亦顯著高於中測及後測。(3)實驗組III的後測及延後測表現亦顯著高於中測。
2. 組間：(1)實驗III在後測上表現顯著高於實驗組I和實驗組II。(2)實驗組III在延後測上表現顯著高於實驗組II。
總括來說，三組的英語學習成就皆有所提升。而實驗組III的表現比實驗組I及實驗組II還要好，且具有學習延宕性。
三、在學習動機方面：三組在組間及組內都沒有顯著差異。
四、WebQuest的影響因素及助益：資訊科技、合作學習、時間管理和提供資源或不提供資源都是會影響WebQuest的成效。另外，WebQuest有助於學生在網路搜尋技巧、學習內容、英語學習、電腦技能及上台報告技巧的發展。
本研究依據研究結果提出建議，以提供國小學童問題解決、英語教學及未來研究之參考。

The goals of the study were (a) to explore the effectiveness of WebQuest on elementary school students’ problem solving, English learning achievement, and learning motivation; (b) to investigate students’ and teacher’s perspectives on WebQuest lessons. To accomplish the above research goals, a quasi-experimental design with three experimental groups was used in this study. The participants were 96 sixth-grade students enrolled in three classes at an elementary school. The experiment lasted 21 weeks. The independent variable was the instructional strategy, including three levels: WebQuest—traditional lectured style (Treatment I), WebQuest—with resources (Treatment II), and WebQuest—with resources and then without resources (Treatment III). The dependent variables were problem solving skills, English learning achievement and learning motivation. Two-way mixed design ANOVA was conducted to analyze the dependent variables. The results of this study are summarized as follows:
1. Problem solving:
(1) Within groups: (a) In Treatments I, II, and III, the midtest, posttest and delayed posttest scores were significantly higher than the pretest scores. (b) In Treatments II and III, the posttest and delayed posttest scores were significantly higher than the midtest scores. (c) Unlike Treatments I and III, in Treatment II, the delayed posttest scores were significantly lower than the posttest scores.
(2) Among groups: (a) Treatment III performed significantly better than Treatment I in midtest scores. (b) Treatments II and III performed significantly better than Treatment I in posttest scores and delayed posttest scores.
(3) In sum, Treatments I, II and III all improved their problem solving. Treatments II and III outperformed Treatment I.
2. English learning achievement:
(1) Within groups: (a) In Treatments I, II, and III, the midtest, posttest and delayed posttest scores were significantly higher than the pretest scores. (b) In Treatment I, the delayed posttest score was significantly higher than the midtest and posttest scores. (c) In Treatment III, the posttest and delayed posttest scores were significantly higher than its midtest.
(2) Among groups: (a) Treatment III performed significantly better than Treatments I and II in posttest scores. (b) Treatment III performed significantly better than Treatment II in delayed posttest scores.
(3) In sum, Treatments I, II and III all improved their English learning achievement. Treatment III outperformed Treatments I and II in posttest, and maintained its improvement after one month.
3. Learning motivation: No significant difference among and within the three instructional treatments was found.
4. Influence elements and benefit of WebQuest: Some elements influenced the effectiveness of WebQuest, including the information and communication technology, cooperative learning, time management, and with or without resources web pages. In addition, students improved their searching skills on the Internet, learning content, English proficiency, computer skills, and presentation skills.
Based on the findings of this study, applications and suggestions for teaching students problem solving, English learning, and further research were discussed.

ABSTRCT I
TABLE OF CONTENTS VI
LIST OF TABLES IX
LIST OF FIGURES XI
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Overview of the Chapters 1
Research Motivation 1
Problem Solving and WebQuest 2
English Learning and WebQuest 4
Learning Motivation and WebQuest 6
Levels of WebQuest Scaffolding 6
Students’ and Teacher’s Perspectives on WebQuest 8
Purpose and Research Questions 8
Definition of Key Terms 9
Instructional Strategy 9
Problem Solving 11
English Learning Achievement 11
Learning Motivation 12
Significance of the Study 12
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 14
WebQuest 14
Development of WebQuest 14
Components of WebQuest 15
Related Theories of WebQuest 17
Social Constructivism 18
ARCS Motivation Model 24
Researches on WebQuest 25
English Learning and WebQuest 32
Problem Solving and WebQuest 33
CHAPTER THREE METHOD 36
Research Hypotheses 36
Participants 37
Research Design 37
Independent Variable 37
Dependent Variables 38
Procedure 39
Learning Content and Web Pages 44
Data Collection Instruments 51
Demographics Survey 51
New Problem Solving Test 52
English Learning Achievement Test 53
Awareness of ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) Model Motivation Inventory 54
In-Depth Interview 54
Data Analysis 55
Quantitative Analysis 55
Qualitative Analysis 56
CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS 57
Results 57
Descriptive Statistics of Participants 57
Problem Solving 59
English Learning Achievement 66
Learning Motivation 72
Data Analyses of In-Depth Interview 74
Summary of Data Analyses 79
Descriptive Statistics of Participants 79
Problem Solving 80
English Learning Achievement 81
Learning Motivation 83
In-Depth Interview 83
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 84
Discussions 84
Effectiveness of WebQuest on Problem Solving 85
Effectiveness of WebQuest on English Learning Achievement 89
Effectiveness of WebQuest on Learning Motivation 91
Influence Elements and Benefit of WebQuest 93
Pedagogical Implications 97
Levels of Scaffolding 97
Discussion Board 98
Design of Topics 98
Heterogeneous Group 98
Teachers’ Team Work 99
Suggestion for Future Research 99
English Proficiency 99
Thinking Style 100
Creative Thinking 100
Conclusions 101
LIST OF REFERENCES 103
Appendix A Learning Content of Topic I 112
Appendix B Learning Content of Topic II 116
Appendix C Demographics Survey 123
Appendix D Letter of Consent 124
Appendix E English Learning Achievement Test 125
Appendix F Item-Total Statistics (N=108) 127
Appendix G Reliability Statistics (N=108) 128
Appendix H Awareness of ARCS Motivation Model Inventory 129
Appendix I Manuscript of Interview 130

I. English Part:
Agran, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1999). Teaching problem solving to students with mental