(3.238.130.97) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/18 11:10
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:吳舒民
研究生(外文):WU,SHU-MIN
論文名稱:採用鷹架導引系統提升國小學童運算思維能力之研究
論文名稱(外文):To Enhance the Computational Thinking Ability of Elementary School Students through the Scaffolding Guidance System
指導教授:李建億李建億引用關係
指導教授(外文):LEE,CHIEN-I
口試委員:張儀興孫光天
口試委員(外文):CHANG,YI-HSINGSUN,KOUN-TEM
口試日期:2017-06-29
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺南大學
系所名稱:數位學習科技學系數位學習科技碩士在職專班
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:2017
畢業學年度:105
語文別:中文
論文頁數:62
中文關鍵詞:國小學童運算思維視覺化程式語言學習成效
外文關鍵詞:Elementary school studentComputational ThinkingVisual Programming LanguageLearning Efficiency
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:9
  • 點閱點閱:351
  • 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:6
將運算思維能力培養納入到國民基本教育課綱中,期藉由運算思維的培養來提升學生解決問題能力,近年來受到許多先進國家的重視,雖然學習程式設計是培養運算思維能力的重要途徑,然而,程式設計包含許多程式語法的抽象概念,學生課堂中的疑問又多元分歧,老師很難在班級課堂中,逐一協助學生解決困難,課後又缺少個別化的指導,導致學習意願低落與學習成效不彰。因此,本論文擬在學生解題過程中,當學生遇到問題時,就能得到學習導引。並探討本機制對於運算思維學習成效的影響。本研究採準實驗設計,研究對象為臺南市某國小兩班共48名學童,實驗組為24人,採鷹架導引系統教學,控制組24人,採一般傳統教學法,進行為期八週實驗教學。兩組在實驗教學後採單因子共變數統計方法進行考驗,以了解不同教學法對於運算思維學習成效的差異。研究結果發現:(1)接受導引機制之實驗組學生在運算思維學習成效有顯著提升;(2)實驗組和控制組不同程度學生在接受不同之實驗教學後,低程度學生的運算思維學習成效有顯著性差異。
Bringing computational thinking ability into the National Basic Curriculums in order to promote the students’ problem solving ability is emphasized by many advanced countries. Although learning programming design is an important way to develop computational thinking. However, learning programming involves many abstract concepts of program syntax. It’s hard for teachers to solve the problems in class one by one and provide individual guide which will result in poor learning aspiration and low learning achievement. Therefore, this study focused on providing learning guide during the process of solving problems and aimed to explore the effect of the system design on computational thinking. The study was bases on quasi-experimental design, and 48 students from two classes in an elementary school in Tainan. The 24 students in the experimental group were taught with the system design,The 24 students in control group were treated by traditional instructions,The experiment lasted for eight weeks and the data were analyzed with ANCOVA statistical method to explore the differences in learning efficiency between the system design and traditional instructions.The results showed that:(1)There were significant differences between the experimental group and the control group in learning efficiency;(2)After receiving the experimental teaching ,the low level of stuent presented the most significantly different on computational thinking learning efficiency.
謝辭 I
中文摘要 II
英文摘要 III
目 次 V
表 次 VIII
圖 次 IX
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 3
1.3 研究問題 4
1.4 研究範圍與限制 4
第二章 文獻探討 6
2.1 何謂運算思維 6
2.2 運算思維能力的培養 10
2.3 運算思維能力的評估方法 12
2.4 程式設計教學的現況 14
2.5 藉由程式設計教學提升運算思維能力之相關研究 15
2.6 小結 17
第三章 研究方法 18
3.1 研究架構 18
3.2 研究對象 19
3.3 研究設計 19
3.4 研究工具 22
3.4.1 個人化學習程式設計鷹架導引系統 22
3.4.2 Scratch程式設計學習任務 28
3.4.3 運算思維遊戲實作情境測驗 29
3.4.4 質性資料 31
3.5 資料處理方法 31
3.5.1 量化資料處理 31
3.5.2 質化資料處理 32
第四章 結果與討論 33
4.1 鷹架導引對運算思維能力的影響 33
4.2 鷹架導引對不同程度學生運算思維能力的影響 34
4.2.1 對高程度學生的影響 34
4.2.2 對中程度學生的影響 35
4.2.3 對低程度學生的影響 36
4.3 鷹架導引對學習歷程的影響 37
4.3.1 學生程度對系統操作和學習表現的影響 38
4.3.2 程式任務情境對舊經驗連結的影響 39
4.3.3 運算實作能力逐步提升 41
第五章 結論與建議 46
5.1 結論 46
5.2 建議 47
參考文獻 50
一、中文部分 50
二、英文部分 51
附錄一鷹架導引程式任務 54
附錄二訪談紀錄 59

呂永鈞(2015)。藉由國小五年級學生學習程式設計探究運算思維能力在 Bebras 測驗上的表現。國立臺灣大學電信工程學研究所碩士論文,未出版。臺北市。
何胤廷(2013)。引導式學習單應用於Scratch程式設計教學之成效分析。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
教育部(2016)。2016-2020資訊教育總藍圖。臺北市:教育部。
Ai, Q., Yang, L., Guo, J., & Croft, W. B. (2016, September). Analysis of the paragraph vector model for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on International Conference on the Theory of Information Retrieval (pp. 133-142). ACM.
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661-670.
Büttcher, S., Clarke, C. L., & Cormack, G. V. (2016). Information retrieval: Implementing and evaluating search engines. Mit Press.
Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20-23.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.
Bauer, A., Butler, E., & Popović, Z. (2015, October). Approaches for teaching computational thinking strategies in an educational game: A position paper. In Blocks and Beyond Workshop (Blocks and Beyond), 2015 IEEE (pp. 121-123). IEEE.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada (pp. 1-25).
Code.org. (2017). Computational Thinking . Retrieved from https://studio.code.org/s/course3/stage/1/puzzle/1
Dasgupta, S., Hale, W., Monroy-Hernández, A., & Hill, B. M. (2016, February). Remixing as a pathway to computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1438-1449). ACM.
Falloon, G. (2015). Building computational thinking through programming in K-6 education: A New Zealand experience. In EDULEARN15 Conference (pp. 882-892). IATED Academy.
Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Education–ICEE.
Google.(2015).Exploring Computational Thinking . Retrieved from https://edu.google.com/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K–12 A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & MacKinnon, L. (2012). Learning programming at the computational thinking level via digital game-play. Procedia Computer Science, 9, 522-531.
Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83-137.
Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Järvinen, H.-M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. Paper presented at the ACM SIGCSE Bulletin.
Lee, G., Lin, Y., & Lin, J. (2014, June). Assessment of computational thinking skill among high school and vocational school students in Taiwan. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications(Vol. 1, pp. 173-180).
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., . . . Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 32-37.
Lee, T. Y., Mauriello, M. L., Ahn, J., & Bederson, B. B. (2014). CTArcade: Computational thinking with games in school age children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(1), 26-33.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61.
Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference.
Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010, March). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 265-269). ACM.
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer science education, 13(2), 137-172.
Román-González, M. (2015). Computational Thinking Test: Design Guidelines and Content Validation. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN 2015)(pp. 2436-2444).
Webb, D. C. (2010). Troubleshooting assessment: an authentic problem solving activity for it education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 903-907.
Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012). The fairy performance assessment: measuring computational thinking in middle school. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education.
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Wing, J. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London A: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.
Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3), 17-22.
Ying, L. (2016, 12-15 Oct. 2016). Teaching programming based on Computational Thinking. Paper presented at the 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

電子全文 電子全文(網際網路公開日期:20220703)
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top