跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.27.215) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/04/24 16:50
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:邱惠柔
研究生(外文):Hui-Jou Chiu
論文名稱:探討電子書設計對機器人組裝成效及手眼協調策略之影響
論文名稱(外文):Effect of E-book design on robotic learning achievement and eye-hand coordination strategy.
指導教授:蔡孟蓉蔡孟蓉引用關係
指導教授(外文):Meng-Jung Tsa
口試委員:邱國力許衷源
口試委員(外文):Guo-Li ChiouChung-Yuan Hsu
口試日期:2017-07-28
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣科技大學
系所名稱:數位學習與教育研究所
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:2017
畢業學年度:105
語文別:中文
論文頁數:66
中文關鍵詞:訊息處理模式視覺注意力手眼協調策略眼球追蹤
外文關鍵詞:information processingvisual attentioneye-hand coordination strategyeye-tracking
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:175
  • 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:1
本研究旨在探討樂高機器人組裝時,不同電子書設計對於組裝成效與手眼協調策略之影響。電子書設計依照訊息處理方向分為由下而上(上行)設計與由上而下(下行)設計。本研究為準實驗設計,將國中生隨機分派為兩組後,分別利用不同版本電子書進行一週樂高機器人教學,兩組皆給予學生一項指定任務、樂高機器人與電子書輔助學生完成任務,以眼動儀器追蹤紀錄每位受試者在組裝時之視覺注意力分布。本研究利用獨立樣本T檢定、相關分析以及序列分析來檢驗各研究問題。研究結果顯示,不同電子書設計分別在不同興趣區塊之不同眼動指標有顯著差異。兩版本之學習成效無顯著差異,卻各別與不同背景變項有顯著相關。在單一版本電子書中,不同的背景變項及不同興趣區塊眼動指標有顯著相關。透過序列分析得知,在不同電子書中,其視覺行為特徵相同,但在試題之難易則有所不同,而在手眼行為中,其易題特徵相同,惟在難題時稍有不同。本研究依照實驗結果與發現分別對研究及教學實務提出具體建議。
This study aimed to explore the effect of E-book design on robotic learning achievement and eye-hand coordination strategy, while assembling Lego robot. The design of E-book, according to the processing direction of information, was bottom up design v.s. top down design. This study used a quasi-experimental design for answering the research questions proposed in this study. The subjects were randomly assigned to two groups. They participated in a Lego curriculum with different version of E-book in one week. Both of the groups were offered with a Lego EV3 and an E-book for a robotics assembling task. Each participant’s visual attention were recorded with a mobile eye tracker. This study used independent t-tests, correlation analyses and lag sequential analyses to examine the research questions proposed in this study. The results of this study revealed that, for different E-book designs, significant differences were shown in different areas of interest regarding different eye-tracking indices. The robotic learning achievement did not show any significant difference from the groups; however, it is correlated with different background variables, especially with different reasoning skills. According to the results of lag sequential analyses, the patterns of their visual behaviors were similar between different versions of E-books; however, visual patterns were significantly different between problems of different difficulty levels The patterns of eye-hand-coordination strategies were similar for easy tasks; but different for hard tasks. Some suggestions were provided for future studies in designs of E-books for robotics learning.
目錄 I
圖目錄 II
表目錄 III
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機與目的 3
第三節 名詞解釋 5
第四節 研究問題 6
第五節 研究架構 7
第貳章 文獻探討 8
第一節 STEM與機器人教育課程 8
第二節 機器人電子書設計 11
第三節 機器人學習與手眼協調 15
第參章 研究方法 19
第一節 研究對象 19
第二節 實驗操弄 19
第三節 研究工具 20
第四節 實驗素材 23
第五節 實驗流程 25
第六節 資料處理 28
第七節 資料分析 33
第肆章 研究結果 34
第一節 獨立樣本T檢定 34
第二節 相關分析 37
第三節 序列分析 42
第四節 小結 52
第伍章 建議與結論 53
第一節 討論與結論 53
第二節 建議 56
參考文獻 58
附錄一 事後訪談紀錄 64
附錄二 實驗同意書 66
李玉琇、蔣文祁(譯)(2005)。Sternberg, R.J.著。認知心理學[Cognitive Psychology (3E)]。台北市:雙葉書廊有限公司。
陳榮華(2004)。國中智力測驗更新版。台北市:中國行為科學出版社。
邱惠柔,林維彥,蔡孟蓉(2013)。樂高機器人課程對於科學學習動機之影響。第九屆臺灣數位學習發展研討會(TWELF2013)。台中。臺灣。
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71.
Anderson, J. R.(2009). Cognitive psychology and its implications. (7th ed). New York:Worth Publishers.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M.(1968). Human memory: Aproposed system and its control process. In The psychology of learning and motivation(89-195). New York: Academic Press.
Barrows, H. S. & Tamblyn, R. N. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to media education. New York: Springer.
Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology,engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM education, 12, 23-37.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
Bodner, G. M., & Guay, R. B. (1997). The Purdue visualization of rotations test. The Chemical Educator, 2(4), 1-17.
Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(12), 539-546.
Bredenfeld, A., Hofmann, A., & Steinbauer, G. (2010). Robotics in education initiatives in europe-status, shortcomings and open questions. In Workshop Proceedings of Intl. Conf. on Simulation, Modeling and Programming for Autonomous Robots (SIMPAR 2010), 568-574.
Burke, B .N. (2014). The ITEEA 6E learning byDeSIGN™ model, maximizing informed design and inquiry in the integrative STEM classroom. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73 (6), 14-19
Buschman, T. J., & Miller, E. K. (2007). Top-down versus bottom-up control of attention in the prefrontal and posterior parietal cortices. Science, 315(5820), 1860-1862.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
Chambliss, M., & Calfee, R. (1998). Textbooks for learning: Nurturing children's minds. Blackwell Publishing.
Chen, Y. C., & Yang, F. Y. (2014). Probing the relationship between process of spatial problems solving and science learning: An eye tracking approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 579-603.
Coxon, S. V. (2012). Innovative Allies Spatial and Creative Abilities. Gifted Child Today, 35(4), 277-284.
Crespi, V., Galstyan, A., & Lerman, K. (2008). Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design. Autonomous Robots, 24(3), 303-313.
Detsikas, N., & Alimisis, D. (2011). Status and trends in educational robotics worldwide with special consideration of educational experiences from Greek schools. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution and Perspectives, 1-12.
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and instruction, 20(2), 111-122.
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual review of neuroscience, 18(1), 193-222.
Eguchi, A. (2010, March). What is Educational Robotics? Theories behind it and practical implementation. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2010, (1), 4006-4014.
Engel, C. (1997). Not just a method but a way of learning. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds), The challenge of problem-based learning (pp.22-33). London: Kogan Page.
Furner, J., & Kumar, D. (2007). The mathematics and science integrationargument: a stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 3(3), 185–189
Gazzaley, A., & Nobre, A. C. (2012). Top-down modulation: Bridging selective attention and working memory. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(2), 129-135.
Huang, L. J., Chou, Y. S., & Tsai, M. J.(2012). Instructional effects on students’ visual attention in game-based science learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education(ICCE2012), Singapore.
Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of LEGO training on pupils' school performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 182-194.
Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., Hammer, D., & Carberry, A. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education.
Hyönä, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 172-176.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological review, 87(4), 329-354.
Kee, D. (2011). Educational Robotics—Primary and Secondary Education [Industrial Activities]. Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE, 18(4), 16-19.
Koch, C., & Ullman, S. (1987). Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry. In Matters of intelligence (pp. 115-141). Springer Netherlands.
Lai, M. L., Tsai, M. J., Yang, F. Y., Hsu, C. Y., Liu, T. C., Lee, S. W. Y., ... & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educational Research Review, 10, 90-115.
Land, M. F. (2009). Vision, eye movements, and natural behavior. Visual neuroscience, 26(1), 51-62.
Larson, L. C. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e‐book reading and response. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 15-22.
Lee, S. (2013). An integrated adoption model for e-books in a mobile environment: Evidence from South Korea. Telematics and Informatics, 30 (2), 165-176.
Lindh, J., Holgersson, T. (2007). Does lego training stimulate pupils' ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1097-1111.
Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A, C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child development, 56(6), 1479-1498.
Liu, S. S., Rawicz, A., Rezaei, S., Ma, T., Zhang, C., Lin, K., & Wu, E. (2012). An eye-gaze tracking and human computer interface system for people with ALS and other locked-in diseases. Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering, 32(2), 37-42.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top