跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.14.86) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/15 08:40
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:徐章華
研究生(外文):Hsu, Changhwa
論文名稱:運用電子白板註記與摘要對國小學生社會科學習之影響
論文名稱(外文):The use of annotation functions of interactive whiteboards and abstract text effect on learning of the social sphere for elementary school students.
指導教授:劉遠楨劉遠楨引用關係
指導教授(外文):Liu, Yuanchen
口試委員:何榮桂崔夢萍
口試委員(外文):Ho, RonggueyTsuei, Mengping
口試日期:2011-06-24
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北教育大學
系所名稱:教育傳播與科技研究所
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:2011
畢業學年度:99
語文別:中文
論文頁數:77
中文關鍵詞:電子白板螢幕註記摘要大意閱讀理解閱讀記憶
外文關鍵詞:interactive whiteboardsannotation functionsabstract effectreading comprehensionreading memory
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:24
  • 點閱點閱:803
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:301
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:4
本研究旨在瞭解由老師或是學生操作電子白板螢幕註記功或是摘要課文大意能對學生學習動機、閱讀理解、閱讀記憶及學習成效之影響。並根據研究結果提出具體建議,以供教學及研究參考。
本研究採取準實驗研究法,參與學生為國小三年級四個班級,研究者即教學者。控制組教學方式由老師操作電子白板註功能及摘要課文大意;實驗一、二組改由學生操作電子白板註記功能,或改由學生摘要課文大意;第三組均由學生操作白板註記及摘要大意的課程設計。教學科目為社會科,實驗期程三週內每週安排三節課。實驗前後均做評量以觀察學生學習變化。評量後進行二因子共變量分析。

研究結論如下:

一、由學生摘要課文大意在學習動機表現上會優於由老師摘要。
二、由學生摘要課文大意、老師操作螢幕註記組對學習閱讀理解表現最佳。
三、由老師或學生操作電子白板螢幕註記功能或是摘要大意對閱讀記憶均有正向影響。
四、由老師或學生操作電子白板螢幕註記功能或是摘要大意對學習成效均有正向影響。

關鍵詞:電子白板、螢幕註記、摘要大意、閱讀理解、閱讀記憶
This study aimed to understand the use of annotation functions of interactive whiteboards and abstract text effect on learning of the social sphere for elementary school students. Based on the findings to make specific recommendations for teaching and research references.
This study adopted a quasi-experimental research method. There were four classes students in third grade in this study. Their teacher was the researcher. The teaching method of control group was operating the annotation functions of interactive whiteboards and abstract text effect both by the teacher. The first experimental groups was operating annotation functions of interactive whiteboards by students. The second experimental groups was operating abstract text effect by students. The third experimental groups was operating the annotation functions of interactive whiteboards and abstract text effect both by the students. In this case researcher observed the effect of experimental. There were three lessons every week at the three-week experimental period. Assessments were done before and after the experiment to observe the change in the learning motivation, reading comprehension, reading memory and learning effect. Collect data and then to two-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).Concludes with recommendations for teaching and reference for future research directions.

Conclusion of the study were as follows:
1.Abstract text effect by students group performed better than by the teacher.
2.Abstract text effect by students and the operation annotation feature by teacher group for learning to read comprehension got the best performance.
3.No matter the use of annotation functions of interactive whiteboards or abstract text effect by the teacher or student both had positive effects in reading memory, but below the significant difference.
4.No matter the use of annotation functions of interactive whiteboards or abstract text effect by the teacher or student both had positive effects in learning effect, but below the significant difference.

Keywords: interactive whiteboards, annotation functions,
abstract effect, reading comprehension, reading memory

摘要 i
Abstract ii
目錄 iv
圖次 ii
表次 vii

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 3
第三節 研究流程 4
第四節 名詞解釋 6
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 電子白板註記與摘要 7
第二節 電子白板註記、摘要與學習動機 10
第三節 電子白板註記、摘要與閱讀理解 13
第四節 電子白板註記、摘要與閱讀記憶 16
第三章 研究方法 19
第一節 研究架構與流程 19
第二節 研究設計與方法 22
第三節 研究工具 24
第四節 教案編寫與課程設計 30
第五節 研究統計方法 31
第四章 研究結果與討論 32
第一節 研究限制 32
第二節 電子白板註記與摘要對學生學習動機之影響 33
第三節 電子白板註記與摘要對學生閱讀理解之影響 36
第四節 電子白板註記與摘要對學生閱讀記憶之影響 40
第五節 電子白板註記與摘要對學生學習成效之影響 43
第五章 結論與建議 47
第一節 結論 47
第二節 建議 48

參考文獻 51
附錄一 學習動機評量表使用同意書 61
附錄二 閱讀理解與閱讀記憶評量使用同意書 63
附錄三 學習成效前測評量 64
附錄四 學習成效後測評量 66
附錄五 實驗課程教案設計 68


李素卿(譯)(2000)。當代教育心理學。(原作者:Good, T. L.& Brophy, J.)。臺北:五南。(原著出版年:1995)
吳靜吉、程炳林(1992)。激勵的學習策略量表之修訂。測驗年刊,39。
林傑斌、劉明德(編著)(2002)。SPSS11.0與統計模式建構。臺北:文魁。
林寶山(1998)。教學原理與技巧。臺北:五南。
陳惠邦(2006)。互動白板導入教室教學的現況與思考【全球華人資訊教育創新論壇】取自: http://2006forum.zlsh.tp.edu.tw/
高樹潘、王修明(1998)。正中形音義綜合大字典,臺北:正中。
程于玲(2008)。心智圖法對國小二年級學童閱讀理解及記憶力之影響-以進步國小為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立花蓮教育大學,花蓮。
張文哲(譯)(2005)教育心理學-理論與實際。(原作者:Slavin.R.E.)。臺北市:學富文化。(原著年出版2003)
張春興(1997)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北:東華。
張春興(2005)。現代心理學。臺北:東華。
黃嶸生(2002)。整合式閱讀理解策略輔助系統對國小學生閱讀能力和策略運用的效果(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北。
葉玉珠、高源令、修慧蘭、曾慧敏、王佩玲、陳惠萍(2003)。教育心理學。臺北:心理。
雷利軍、丁興富,李敬東(2005)。交互白板的教學功能分析及建議-交互板教學應用實驗研究項目總結報告(概要)。中小學資訊技中小學信息技術教育,5。
鄭紹薰(1982)。怎樣指導學生摘取課文大意。中國語文,50(5),45-47。
劉遠楨、黃思華(2010)。互動式電子白板與教學。國民教育月刊,50(4)。
魏靜雯(2003)。心智繪圖與摘要教學對國小五年級學生閱讀理解與摘要能力之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北。
羅秋昭(2001)。創思的閱讀教學,全國兒童閱讀種子教師研習會研習資料。


Anderson, V., & Hidi, S. (1989). Teaching students to summarize. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 26-28.
Becta (2004). Background to the NGfL. Retrieved from http://www.
ngfl.gov.uk/about_ngfl/background.jsp
Brophy, J. (1987). Socialization students motivation to learn. advances in motivation and achievement: Enhancing Motivation,5, 181-210.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: the development of expertise. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 22, 1-14.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G.G, Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D.(1991). Moving from the old to the new : Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239-264.
Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practice for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.) What research has to say about reading instruction (pp.205-242). Newark, DE : International Reading Association.
Ehri, L. C.(1982). Learning to read and spell. Paper presented at the  American Psychological Association annual meeting, Washington, D. C.
Fass, W., & Schumacher, G. M. (1978). Effects of motivation, subject activity, and readability on the retention of prose materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 803-807.
Fowler, R. L., & Barker, A. S. (1974). Effectiveness of highlighting for retention of text material. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 358-364.
Friend, R. (2000). Teaching summarization as a content area reading strategy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 320-329.
Gajria, M., & Salvia, J. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 508-516.
Gagné , E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). Cognitive psychology of school learning. Harper Collins College Publishers.
Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarization: Costs and benefits. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 275-279.
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D. & Door, V. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: a literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2), 155-170.
Hare, V. C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of snmmarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 62-78.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing writing summaries: task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of educational research, 56(4), 473-493.
Irwin, J. W. (1991). Teaching reading comprehension processes. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, N. (1983). What do you do if you can’t tell the whole story? The development of summarization skills. In K. E. Nelson (ED.), Children’s language (Vol. 4) (pp. 315-383). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Kintsch, E. (1990). Macroprocesses and microprocesses in the development of summarization skill. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 161-195.
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal., 29, 303-323.
Kiryakov, A. (2005), Semantic annotation, indexing, and retrieval, Journal of Web Semantics, 20, 26-41.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational: Technology Research and Development, 42(2).
Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: a developmental study [Sheffield, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield]. Retrieved from http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm.
Mayer, R. E. (1981). The Psychology of How Novices Learn Computer Programming. Computing Surveys, 13(1), 121-141
McNeil, J. D. (1984). Reading comprehension: New directions for classroom practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Moreland, J. L., Dansereau, D. F., & Chmielewski, T. L. (1997). Recall of descriptive information: The roles of presentation format, annotation strategy, and individual differences. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 521-533.
O’Hara, K. & Sellen, A. (1997). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. CHI97. Atlanta, GA: ACM Press.
Ovsiannikov, I. A., Arbib, M. A., & Mcneill, T. H. (1999). Annotation technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 329-362.
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429-434.
Patricia, A. Chalmers, 2003. The role of cognitive theory in human–computer interface. Computers in Human Behavior 19, 593–607.
Pintrich, P. R. (1989) The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In C.Ames, & M. Maehr (Eds), Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivation enhancing environments, 6 , 117-160. CT : JAI Press.
Rau, P.-L. P., Chen S.-H., & Chin, Y.-T. (2004). Developing web annotation tools for learners and instructors. Interacting with Computers, 16, 163-181.
Rinehart, S. D., Stahl, S. A., & Erickson, L. G. (1986). Some effects of summarization training on reading and studying. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 422-438.
Ross, S. M., & Di Vesta, F. J. (1976). Oral summary as a review strategy for enhancing recall of textual material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 689-695.
Shaughnessy, M. F., & Baker, B. (1988). Learning strategies: Teaching  students how to learn. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 300 357).
Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (1990). Textbook annotation: An effective and efficient study strategy for college students. Journal of Reading, 34, 122-129.
Smith P. L. & Ragan T. (1999). Instructional Design. New York:John Wiley & Sons.
Sternberg R. J. & Williams W. M. (2008). Educational Psycholog.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
Taylor, B. M. (1982). Text structure and children’s comprehension and memory for expository material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 323-340.
Wade, S. & Trathen, W. (1989). Effect of self-selected study methods on learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 40-47.
Wolfe, J. (2002). Annotation technologies: A software and research review. Computers and Composition, 19, 471-491.
Wong, B.Y.L.,& Jones,W.(1982). Increasing metacomprehension in reading learning-disabled and normally-achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly,5,228-240.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top