臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

現今學習的新潮流，由傳統面對面的教學，逐漸轉型成為由科技輔助的數位學習，為了改善傳統教學模式，提升學生學習能力，達到最佳的學習互動模式。本研究透過學生個人的學習成效、學習行為、學習補救概念。再透過對話式智慧家教教學系統診斷分析，由不同的角度整合學生學習資訊提供給教師作為提升學習品質的參考。
本研究之對話式數學智慧家教教學系統是由臺中教育大學教育資訊與測驗統計研究所郭伯臣教授研究團隊開發建置的平台，進行八年級畢氏定理之延伸應用之單代理人、雙代理人補救教學設計與成效評估，電腦代理教師會根據研究者的教學腳本提出教學問題，再根據學習者的作答反應判斷給予適性的學習路徑，並針對學習者的錯誤類型給予適當的引導回饋，了解單代理人、雙代理人對話式教學的學習效果差異。另參考學習情意面之學習興趣及自我調整編製智慧教學系統使用回饋問卷，針對學生使用智慧教學系統後之接受度、互動性、對於學習的幫助及學習效果等面向進行自我評估與意見回饋，瞭解學習者對使用本系統進行畢氏定理之延伸應用的補救教學之反應與看法。
研究對象為臺中市某八年級學生，分為實驗組與控制組進行補救教學，實驗組採取本研究所設計之單代理人、雙代理人對話式數學智慧家教系統進行學習，控制組則由教師以學習單進行團班教學，三組班級的教材內容相同，進行三節課的畢氏定理之延伸應用的補救教學。
研究結果顯示，對話式數學智慧家教系統及團班教學進行八年級畢氏定理之補救教學均具有良好之學習成效，二者比較下對話式數學智慧家教系統之教學成效顯著優於團班教學。進一步分析發現雙代理人智慧家教系統與單代理人智慧家教系統的學生在「畢氏定理學習成效」採用「詹森-內曼法」(Johnson-Neyman)統計分析；當學生前測成績是47分以下者，雙代理人智慧家教系統對於提升學生學習畢氏定理的成效顯著優於單代理人智慧家教系統。而雙代理人對話式數學智慧家教系統對於實驗組低能力學生的學習興趣也達顯著性，因此對話式數學智慧家教系統進行補救教學能讓學生有立即性的成效回饋，更可提升低能力學生的程度及更積極的學習態度。

Nowadays, the way of learning has gradually changed. In order to improve teaching model and enhance learning ability, we take advantage of Conversational-based Intelligent Tutoring system to analyze students’ learning information we gathered from different perspective and integrate it to teachers as a reference.
This study used Mathematics Conversational-based Intelligent Tutoring System, which is a platform developed by the research team leading by Professor Bor Chen Kuo (National Taichung University of Education, Graduate Institute of Educational Information and Measurement). The system uses its Single and Dual Agent AutoTutor to work on remedial instruction for Pythagorean Theorem and evaluate the effect. The AutoTutor Agent raises questions regarding the teaching materials, and shows proper learning path on the basis of learner’s response. Then the learner can get guidance and feedback from AutoTutor. Therefore, we can understand the difference of teaching effect between Single and Dual Agent AutoTutor. Furthermore, in affection domain, take study interests and self-regulated learning system into consideration, we designed the questionnaire investigating the acceptance and interaction of students using this AutoTutor system to understand learner’s response and perspective.
Participants of the study were eighth graders in Taichung City. They were divided into three groups to go on remedial instruction for Pythagorean Theorem. Group A and B use Single and Dual Agent AutoTutor System separately, and Group C use tradtional class learning model. Same teaching materials were used for the three groups. The instruction hours are three class periods.
The results showed that Group A,Group B and Group C were all doing well. However, the effects of AutoTutor System were superior to traditional class teaching. Moreover, by conducting Johnson-Neyman Procedure to analyze Group A and Group B students, we find out that when the pre-test scores of the student were under 47, the effect of students using Dual Agent AutoTutor System is obviously better than that of Single Agent AutoTutor System. Also, Dual Agent AutoTutor can attract study interests of students who got lower achievement. Therefore, using Dual Agent AutoTutor System to go on remedial instruction is effective to help students learn better.

摘要 I
ABSTRACT III
目錄 V
表目錄 VII
圖目錄 IX
第一章　緒論 1
第一節　研究背景與動機 1
第二節　研究目的與研究問題 5
第三節　名詞解釋 7

第二章　文獻探討 9
第一節　數位學習相關理論 9
第二節　畢氏定理 13
第三節　AUTOTUTOR與相關研究 15
第四節　學習情意面 25

第三章　研究方法 27
第一節　研究架構與流程 27
第二節　研究設計 29
第三節　研究對象 31
第四節　研究工具 32

第四章　研究結果與討論 51
第一節　不同補救教學法在前後測的學習成效 51
第二節　不同補救教學法之組內同質性檢定結果 55
第三節　實驗組學生情意面回饋差異 62
第四節　實驗組低能力學生的情意面分析結果 67
第五節　實驗組學生回饋問卷建議 71

第五章　結論與建議 75
第一節 結論 75
第二節 建議 77

參考文獻 79
中文部分 79
英文部分 81

中文部分
古蕾琪（2011）。臺灣數位學習產業面對雲端運算興起的經營策略研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。
吳聲毅（2008）。數位學習觀念與實作。臺北市：學貫行銷。
林淑敏（2011）。國小高年級學童數位學習的學習效益之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣藝術大學，新北市。
林燕珍、何榮桂（2011）。數位學習服務平台簡介及其應用。臺灣教育，670，12-21。
林育正（2016）。雙代理人智慧教學系統用於數學補救教學之成效探討（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
郭伯臣、曾建銘、吳慧珉（2012）。大型標準化測驗建置流程應用於TASA之研究。新北市：國家教育研究院。
郭伯臣（2016）。總計畫：對話式智慧型家教系統開發－總計畫（含子計畫一）：輔助數學學習之對話式智慧家教系統。科技部專題研究計畫。（編號：MOST 105-2511-S-142 -009 -MY3）。臺中市：國立臺中教育大學。
黃燕茹（2018）。雙代理人智慧家教系統教學成效探討以畢氏定理教學為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
許繼德（2009）。資訊融入同儕教導制英語補救教學之應用。屏東教育大學學報，32，139 - 168。
張新仁、邱上真、李素慧（2000）。國中英語科學習困難學生之補救教學成效研究。教育學刊，16，163-191。
陳穎相（2016）。國語文句型教學之研究—以多代理人互動之AutoTutor介入模式（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
楊小億（2017）。以對話式數學智慧家教教學系統進行八年級畢氏定理之延伸應用的補救教學（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
蔡文榮（2004）。活化教學的錦囊妙計。臺北市：學富文化。
鄒景平（2000）。e-learning 是知識企業致勝的不二法門。資訊人通訊，59，1-4。
劉靖國（2005）。合作學習教學模式融入主題統整課程之教學設計。人文及社會學科教學通訊，15(5)，177-191。
廖碧珠（2006）。合作學習對國中一年級學生的數學態度與學習成就之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學，彰化市。
賴慕回（2009）。「電機電子技術創造力」量表發展之研究─以臺北市高職學校電機電子群學生為對象（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
簡晨卉（2013）。數位遊戲式學習在城鄉國小數學加減法學習成效之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
顏春煌（2010）。線上非同步教學互動剖繪之分析與應用。管理與資訊學報，14，131-148。
謝彩鳳（2012）。數位化補救教學對學生學習成效影響之後設分析（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
英文部分
Braddock, C. H., Eckstrom, E., & Haidet, P. (2004). The “new revolution” in medical education. Journal of general internal medicine, 19(5), 610-611.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi delta kappan, 86(1), 8-21.
Borkowski, J. G., Estrada, M. T., Milstead, M., & Hale, C. A. (1989). General problem-solving skills: Relations between metacognition and strategic processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(1), 57-70.
Chen, C. H., Crockett, M. D., Namikawa, T., Zilimu, J., & Lee, S. H. (2012). EIGHTH GRADE MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT PRACTICES IN SES-DIFFERENT CLASSROOMS: A TAIWAN STUDY. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 553-579.
Crockett, M. D., Chen, C. H., Namikawa, T., & Zilimu, J. (2009). Exploring discourse‐based assessment practice and its role in mathematics professional development. Professional development in education, 35(4), 677-680.
Fagan, T. K. (1994). Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1880‐1990 . New York: Teachers College Press, 359 pp.26.95. Psychology in the Schools, 31(3), 241-242.
Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational studies in mathematics, 24(2), 139-162.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American educational research journal, 31(1), 104-137.
Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., Harter, D. E., & Tutoring Research Group. (2001). Teaching tactics and dialog in autotutor in autotutor int. J. of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 257-279.
Graesser, A. C., Penumatsa, P., Ventura, M., Cai, Z., & Hu, X. (2007). Using LSA in AutoTutor: Learning through mixed initiative dialogue in natural language. Handbook of latent semantic analysis, 243-262.
Graesser, A. C., D’Mello, S., Hu, X., Cai, Z., Olney, A., & Morgan, B. (2012). AutoTutor. In Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation and resolution (pp. 169-187). IGI Global.
Graesser, A. C. (2016). Conversations with AutoTutor help students learn. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 124-132.
Graesser, A. C., Forsyth, C. M., & Lehman, B. A. (2017). Two Heads May Be Better than One: Learning from Computer Agents in Conversational Trialogues. Grantee Submission, 119, 1-20.
Koestner, R., & McClelland, D. C. (1990). Perspectives on competence motivation.
Kim, L. H., Qu, H., & Kim, D. J. (2009). A study of perceived risk and risk reduction of purchasing air‐tickets online. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26(3), 203-224.
Mehan, H. (1979). ‘What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into practice, 18(4), 285-294.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McArthur,D.,Stasz, C., & Zmuidzinas, M. (1990). Tutoring techniques in algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 7(3), 197-244.
McCarthy, P. M. (Ed.). (2011). Applied Natural Language Processing: Identification, Investigation and Resolution: Identification, Investigation and Resolution. IGI Global.
Millis, K., Forsyth, C., Wallace, P., Graesser, A. C., & Timmins, G. (2017). The impact of game-like features on learning from an intelligent tutoring system. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(1), 1-22.
Olney, A. M., D’Mello, S., Person, N., Cade, W., Hays, P., Williams, C., ... & Graesser, A. (2012, June). Guru: A computer tutor that models expert human tutors. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 256-261). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational psychology, 82(1), 33.
Person, N., Gholson, B., Craig, S., Hu, X., Stewart, C., & Toth, J. (2001). HURAA: an interactive web-based agent that optimizes information retrieval in a multi-media environment. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 1476-1481). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In Self-regulated learning and academic achievement(pp. 83-110). Springer, New York, NY.
Sullivan, P., & Clarke, D. (1991). Communication in the classroom: The importance of good questioning. Geelong: Deakin University.
Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. Simon and Schuster.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? A story of research and practice, productively intertwined. Educational researcher, 43(8), 404-412.
Zaphiris, P., & Ioannou, A. (Eds.). (2017). Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Novel Learning Ecosystems: 4th International Conference, LCT 2017, Held as Part of HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9-14, 2017, Proceedings (Vol. 10295). Springer.