Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/138397
題名: 繪圖工具對國小學童之學習動機與繪畫表現的影響
The Influence of Drawing Tools on Elementary School Students’ Learning Motivation and Painting Performance
作者: 李宜蓁
Lee, I-Chen
貢獻者: 鄭霈絨<br>廖峻鋒
Cheng, Pei-Jung<br>Liao, Chun-Feng
李宜蓁
Lee, I-Chen
關鍵詞: 繪圖工具
繪圖行為
色彩認知
學習動機
實體使用者介面
Drawing tools
Drawing behaviors
Color cognition
Learning motivation
Tangible User Interface
日期: 2021
上傳時間: 3-一月-2022
摘要: 科技產品應用於教育中已逐漸成為趨勢,其中在藝術教育的層面上,平板電腦與電子繪圖筆等數位工具的運用讓學童能更自由的創作,強化其對於真實物體的觀察與色彩的認識。其中,根據Piaget(1964)的認知發展理論及Lowenfeld與Brittain(1987)的兒童繪畫發展理論,10歲左右的兒童屬於具體運思期和寫實萌芽期的階段,此階段的兒童已能透過具體物來理解抽象的概念,且繪畫上開始以寫實為目標。\n\n因此,本研究目的旨在探究此階段的兒童使用不同繪圖工具對其色彩認知與學習動機的影響,採用具TUI概念且能擷取物體色彩的「互動式電子繪圖筆」,並納入「一般觸控筆」與「傳統繪圖工具」進行比較,以組內設計之形式邀集27位國小四年級的學童進行四階段的繪圖實驗,比較其分別使用不同繪圖工具後在色彩認知、繪圖行為、繪圖成果與學習動機上之影響。\n\n研究結果顯示:(1)運用互動式電子繪圖筆有助於提升學童的色彩認知,其中,學童在認知測試前後測,在每項物體的「色彩」選擇數量結果皆達顯著差異,而在「色調」選擇數量上則是在兩項物體達到顯著差異;(2)學童在使用一般觸控筆時,修改(RV)的次數較多、時間較長。使用互動式電子繪圖筆時,則是測試色彩(TOTC)、選擇色彩(SAC)和與物體互動(IWTO)等行為的次數較多、時間較長。而使用傳統繪圖工具時,移動畫布(MTC)的次數較多、時間較長;(3)學童使用「傳統繪圖工具」在構圖、造型和完整性的面向上表現較佳;但操作「互動式電子繪圖筆」繪圖的成果則是在「色彩」的面向上表現較佳,顯著優於使用「一般觸控筆」與「傳統繪圖工具」的繪圖成果。由此可見,學童操作傳統繪圖工具雖然比數位工具更易上手,但在色彩的運用上較有限制;(4)數位工具的設計需審慎考量使用者的操作需求,尤其在工具的持握造型設計與色彩擷取功能的缺失,不只容易導致操作不良,也會對繪圖成果產生負面的影響。(5)互動式電子繪圖筆有助於激發學童的色彩學習動機。其中,85%的學童認為運用「互動式電子繪圖筆」學習色彩較有趣;且有63%的學童認為「互動式電子繪圖筆」可激發其對色彩的好奇心並增進其學習動機。
Applying scientific and technological products to the domain of education has gradually become a trend. In the area of art education, using digital tools such as tablets and stylus not only help students freely create their imagination, but strengthen their ability to understand the colors of the real objects. According to Piaget’s (1964) cognitive development theory and Lowenfeld and Brittain’s (1987) children’s drawing development theory, children around 10 years old belong to the concrete operational stage and the dawning realism. At this stage, children have been able to understand abstract concepts through physical objects and begin to pursue realism in their drawings.\n\nTherefore, this research explored the effects of different drawing tools used by children in this age on their color cognition and learning motivation. In order to compare the subjects’ color cognition, drawing behavior, the impact on drawing outcomes and learning motivation after using different drawing tools, 27 students in the fourth grade of elementary school were invited to conduct a four-staged drawing experiment in a within-subject design, in which the children adopted the “interactive electronic drawing pen” with TUI concept and capable of capturing object colors to compare with the “stylus” and the “traditional drawing tool”.\n\nThe result shows that: (1) Using the interactive electronic drawing pen can enhance students’ awareness and cognition of colors. The amount of “color” selected by children has a significant difference between pre-test and post-test in each object, but the amount of “tone” they selected between pre-test and post-test has a significant difference only in two objects; (2) While the students were using the stylus, they revised (RV) the drawing more and took longer; while the students were using the interactive electronic drawing pen, they did “trying out the color” (TOTC), “selecting a color” (SAC), and “interacting with the objects” (IWTO) more often and for more time. While the students were using traditional drawing tools, they moved the canvas (MTC) more and took longer; (3) The works drawn by “traditional drawing tools” performed better in the aspects of composition, styling and completeness; while the works drawn by “interactive electronic drawing pen” performed better in color aspect. It shows that although traditional drawing tool is easier to use than digital tool, the colors that can be used in traditional drawing tool are quite limited; (4) Designing a digital tool needs to deeply consider the demands of users, as the lack of considering of tool grip shape design and color capture function not only led to poor operation, but also negatively affected the students’ drawing results; (5) The interactive electronic drawing pen can stimulate students’ motivation for learning color. Among them, 85% of the students think that using the “interactive electronic drawing pen” to learn colors is quite interesting; and 63% of the students believe that the “interactive electronic drawing pen” can stimulate their curiosity about color and enhance their learning motivation.
參考文獻: 中文部分\nMalchiodi, C. A.(2003)。兒童繪畫治療-繪畫:兒童的心靈之窗〔吳武烈譯〕。五南。(原著出版年:1998)\nRead, H.(2007)。透過藝術的教育〔呂廷和譯〕。藝術家出版社。(原著出版年:1943)\nSiegler, R. S.(2004)。兒童認知發展 : 概念與應用〔林美珍譯〕。心理。(原著出版年:1978)\nZimbardo, P. G.(1990)。心理學〔游恆山譯,第13版〕。五南。(原著出版年:1992)\n大智浩(2000)。設計的色彩計劃〔陳曉冏譯〕。大陸。(原著出版年:1962)\n山中俊夫(2003)。色彩學的基礎〔黃書倩譯〕。六合出版社。(原著出版年:1997)\n巴巧詩(2019)。排灣族學童族群認同與族語學習動機相關研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立屏東大學教育心理與輔導學系。\n王文純(1998)。色彩的美感發展階段之研究--相關文獻的回顧。美育,94,23-32。\n王全世(2000)。資訊科技融入教學之意義與內涵。資訊與教育,80,23-31。\n王秋燕(2005)。資訊融入教學以提昇國小學童天文學習效能之研究---以「星星」單元為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所。\n王聖文(2010)。國小高年級學童以電腦軟體進行繪畫與設計之學習態度研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺中教育大學美術學系碩士班。\n古信鳳(2005)。電腦繪圖應用於視覺藝術繪畫教學之行動研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育學系。\n朱介英(2001)。色彩學—色彩計畫&配色。美工科技有限公司。\n朱敬先(1997)。教育心理學:教學取向。五南。\n吳仁芳(1992)。色彩的理論與實際。中華色研出版社。\n吳仁芳(1993a)。兒童色彩世界的探討。國教月刊,39(7,8),5-16。\n吳仁芳(1993b)。兒童繪畫造型與色彩表現特徵。國教月刊,40(1,2),9-17。\n吳思穎(2010)。實體化遊戲互動介面之協同設計〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立交通大學電控工程研究所。\n吳鴻松(2008)。科技大學成人學生學習動機與學習滿意度關係之研究─以南部某科技大學為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立高雄師範大學成人教育研究所。\n呂燕卿(1996)。兒童繪畫發展之認識與實際。美育,69,11-26。\n李咏吟、單文經(1997)。教學原理。遠流。\n李孟穎(2013)。兒童與成人在非詞複誦的練習效果之比較〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立高雄師範大學聽力學與語言治療研究所。\n李岱樺(2017)。兒童數位畫筆之直覺操作設計與評估〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立成功大學工業設計學系。\n李勇輝(2017)。學習動機、學習策略與學習成效關係之研究-以數位學習為例。經營管理學刊,(14),68-86。\n李致遠(2008)。數位發表空間:在空間模擬器中的可觸式架構〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立交通大學建築研究所。\n李珮瑜、連采宜(2014)。資訊科技融入教學的契機及再思。臺灣教育評論月刊,3(7),13-16。\n李曼曲(2014)。學習困難學生內在動機之策略初探。特殊教育發展期刊,(58),23-40。\n沈家進、王藍亭(2015)。自行車車架塗裝之色調意象評價研究。美學與視覺藝術學刊,(7),109-124。\n沈慶衍(2004)。資訊科技融入教學之概念、應用與活動設計。教育資料與圖書館學,42(1),139-155。\n周家賢、佘永吉(2016)。字母拼讀法結合平板電腦對國中學習障礙學生學習英語字彙之成效。特殊教育季刊,(140),1-10。\n周桂香(2016)。智慧教室應用於國小視覺藝術教學之行動研究—以台中市大甲區華龍國小四年級為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立新竹教育大學藝術與設計學系美勞教師碩士在職專班。\n林文昌(2003)。色彩計劃。藝術圖書公司。\n林玉山(1990)。皮亞傑認知發展理論與兒童繪畫發展之探討〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學美術研究所。\n林生傳(1994)。教育心理學。五南。\n林含諭(2017)。提升學生學習動機的關鍵因素與策略探討。臺灣教育評論月刊,6(3),187-190。\n林怡資(2014)。以ARCS動機模式與資訊科技融入國中地理科教學對國中生的學習動機與學習成就之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺中教育大學教育學系課程與教學碩士班。\n林昆範(2013)。色彩原論。全華圖書。\n林美珍(1996)。兒童認知發展。心理。\n林哲宇(2010)。ARCS融入體驗式學習之學習活動中目標導向與教學策略對國小生電腦技能學習之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系。\n林霈岑(2007)。臺中市國民小學教師資訊科技融入教學的現況、態度與影響因素之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中正大學教育研究所。\n邱純玉(2020)。自由開放的年代—數位學習的未來。臺灣教育評論月刊,9(9),105-111。\n邱惠芬(2003)。多媒體介面對國小學童學習動機、學習成就及學習保留的影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立屏東師範學院教育科技研究所。\n侯禎塘(2002)。兒童美術發展與特殊兒童美術教育。特殊教育文集(四),67-117。\n柯智翔(2013)。應用ARCS動機模式於App漢字遊戲創作-以漢字遊~動物篇~為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北科技大學互動媒體設計研究所。\n洪士程、洪翊平(2014)。互動式虛擬電子白板融入國小二年級數學之教學成效研究。資訊科技國際期刊,8(1),1-9。\n洪翠霞(2009)。美術資優班美術作品實作評量實施與應用。資優教育季刊,(111),8-17。\n紀秋雲、蔡明貴(2016)。資訊科技融入教學策略對國小高年級學童學習成效之研究。學校行政雙月刊,103,34-60。\n范曉慧(2006)。兒童色彩知覺之應用研究與圖畫書創作〔未出版之碩士論文〕。銘傳大學設計創作研究所碩士班。\n夏勳(1997)。兒童美術之開拓。世界文物出版社。\n孫琇瑩(2000)。不同程度動機提升策略對國小學童網頁教材學習動機之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所。\n高淑玲(2004)。色彩認知和配色感覺之研究─以改變配色形狀和面積比對色彩意象影響為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立雲林科技大學視覺傳達設計系碩士班。\n高震峰(2010)。數位學習機制與藝術教育:互動式電子白板應用於視覺藝術教學之初探。國教新知,57(3),2-12。\n張春興(2007)。教育心理學:三化取向的理論與實踐。臺灣東華。\n張春興、林清山(1975)。教育心理學。文景書局。\n張春興、林清山(1989)。教育心理學。臺灣東華。\n張靜儀(2005)。國小自然科教學個案研究-以ARCS動機模式解析。科學教育學刊,13(2),191-216。\n許一珍(2018)。學童使用擴增實境之學習動機與學習成效研究-以八大行星學習為例。國際數位媒體設計學刊,10(1),35-41。\n陳玫琳(2019)。運用Google Earth於國小四年級社會領域地形單元教學之行動研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺中教育大學教師專業碩士學位學程。\n陳勁甫、蔡郁芬、蕭玉華(2005)。台中地區市民農園參與者動機、參與頻率與滿意度關係之研究。旅遊管理研究,5(2),157-171。\n陳勇仁(1999)。以美術鑑賞教學增進國小學童繪畫表現中色彩運用能力之實驗研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。臺中師範學院國民教育研究所。\n陳品華(2006)。技職大學生自我調整學習的動機困境與調整策略之研究。教育心理學報,38(1),37-50。\n陳美伶(2019)。臺中市屯區公立國民小學六年級學童英語學習動機、學習態度及學習成效之相關研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺中教育大學區域與社會發展學系國民小學教師在職進修教學碩士學位班。\n陳啓明、邱政鋒(2009)。成人參與高等回流教育學習動機之量表建構與現況之研究。國立虎尾科技大學學報,28(3),93-110。\n陳榮清(2002)。資訊科技融入國小視覺藝術教學之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北師範學院課程與教學研究所。\n陳慶福(1987)。幫群期兒童畫特徵之探討。國教世紀,22(6),61-64。\n陳麗秋、陳志洪、曾偲齊(2013)。傳統與數位插畫媒材對視覺藝術創造思考之影響探究。藝術學報,(93),185-198。\n陸雅青(1998)。兒童畫中用色現象之探討。「色彩與人生」學術研討會論文集,129-142。國立臺灣藝術教育館。\n曾健評(2003)。國小學童電腦繪圖教學設計之行動研究─以高雄市坪頂國小為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立屏東師範學院視覺藝術教育研究所。\n游雅婷、劉遠楨、黃思華(2016)。中小學行動學習準備度探究與分析。教育科學研究期刊,61(4),89-120。\n黃冠達 (2003)。 資訊科技融入社會領域教學之設計與實施研究-以六年級「世界的地理環境」單元為例。市師社教學報(2),147-164。\n黃淑琳、邵淑萍(2017)。服裝色彩對情緒之影響-以台灣國小學童為例。紡織綜合研究期刊,27(1),65-79。\n黃淑靜(2002)。高中職商科教師應用資訊科技於教學之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系。\n黃朝曦、王貞雅、楊明玉、陳昱彤(2019)。行動擴增實境融入教學對幼兒認知學習成效影響之研究。管理與資訊學報,(24),107-148。\n黃詩珮(2016)。電子書設計製作與教學研究—以「發現色彩」為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北教育大學教育傳播與科技研究所。\n黃瓊儀(2002)。國小學童運用電腦與傳統媒材進行彩畫的表現形式與態度之比較研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立屏東師範學院視覺藝術教育研究所。\n黃瓊儀、李堅萍(2003)。國小學生運用電腦滑鼠繪圖與美術畫筆繪圖之線條形式比較研究。國立臺北師範學院學報,16(2),67-90。\n楊忠斌(2015)。Piaget「基模」理論的哲學基礎—從Kant到Hegel。教育科學期刊,14(1),1-17。\n楊芳宜(2020)。國小中年級學童色彩偏好與人格特質相關性之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北教育大學藝術與造形設計學系碩士班。\n楊清田、魏碩廷(2007)。數位色彩之設計與應用。全華圖書股份有限公司。\n溫世頌(1997)。教育心理學。三民書局。\n葉炳煙(2013)。學習動機定義與相關理論之研究。屏東教大體育,(16),285-293。\n趙雲(1997)。兒童繪畫與心智發展。藝術家出版社。\n劉政勳(2003)。資訊科技融入國小美勞教學之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立屏東師範學院視覺藝術教育研究所。\n蔡汶錡(2005)。國小學童色彩混色辨識能力之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立新竹教育大學人資處美勞教學碩士班。\n蔡明諺(2013)。資訊融入國小視覺藝術鑑賞教學之行動研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺中教育大學數位內容科技學系碩士在職專班。\n鄧瓊慧(2018)。ARCS動機模式融入個案國小高年級美感教育之研究─以長福國小為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。嶺東科技大學視覺傳達設計系碩士班。\n鄭采玉(2008)。國小學生社會領域學習動機與學習滿意度關係之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立屏東教育大學社會科教育學系碩士班。\n鄭國裕、林磐聳(1987)。色彩計劃。藝風堂出版社。\n魯哲瑋(2015)。基於ARCS學習動機理論之情境化行動英語學習系統〔未出版之碩士論文〕。淡江大學資訊管理學系碩士班。\n盧俊宏、葉吉城(2003)。以電腦科技行為輔助色彩學教學之分析研究。美育(133), 76-83。\n賴瓊琦(1997)。設計的色彩心理—色彩的意象與色彩文化。視傳文化事業有限公司。\n霍淑湄(2008)。平板電腦在台灣國中英語單字教學的應用〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學英語學系在職進修碩士班。\n戴杏玲(2006)。台灣植物色彩資料庫建立與應用之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立成功大學工業設計學系碩博士班。\n謝士英、古信鳳、蔡宗穆(2006)。電腦繪圖應用於國小視覺藝術教學之行動研究。科技教育課程改革與發展學術研討會論文集,(2005),331-337。\n謝佩寰(2009)。國小智能障礙兒童運用電腦繪圖與傳統媒材繪畫表現之比較研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺中教育大學特殊教育學系碩士在職專班。\n謝宜君、紀文章(2003)。從學習動機、學習傾向及學習滿意度來探討遠距教學的學習支持--以網路教學為例。隔空教育論叢,15,39-54。\n簡穩容(2013)。色彩調和理論於網頁自動配色應用之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學圖文傳播學系。\n顏龍源(2000)。主題化的電腦融入課程概念。資訊與教育,80,32-40。\n顏鎮榮(1997)。色彩的認知及直覺之探討。嶺東學報,8,209-222。\n鐘兆慧(2002)。國小兒童色彩排序能力之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立新竹師範學院美勞教育研究所。\n\n外文部分\n野村順一(2015)。色の秘密—色彩學入門。文藝春秋。\nAboalgasm, A., & Ward, R. (2014). Can Digital Drawing Tools Significantly Develop Children’s Artistic Ability and Creative Activity? International Journal of Computational Engineering Research (IJCER), 4(9), 45-50.\nBandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.\nBruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044160\nBurt, C. (1922). Mental and scholastic tests. P. S. King and Son.\nButcher, J. (2016). Can tablet computers enhance learning in further education? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(2), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.938267\nColor Site. com (n.d.). PCCS Tone Map. Retrieved August 20, 2020, from https://www.color-site.com/pccs_tones\nCuendet, S., Dehler-Zufferey, J., Ortoleva, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2015). An integrated way of using a tangible user interface in a classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(2), 183-208.\nDavidovitch, N., & Yavich, R. (2018). The impact of mobile tablet use on students` perception of learning processes. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 76(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/18.76.29\nDeci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7\nDevi, S., & Deb, S. (2017). Exploring the potential of tangible user interface in classroom teaching—Learning. 2017 3rd International Conference on Computational Intelligence & Communication Technology (CICT), 1-7. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CIACT.2017.7977368\nEisner, E. W. (1972). Educating artistic vision. Macmillan.\nFan, M., Antle, A. N., Hoskyn, M., & Neustaedter, C. (2018). A design case study of a tangible system supporting young English language learners. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 18, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.08.001\nFitzmaurice, G. W., Ishii, H., & Buxton, W. A. (1995, May 7-11). Bricks: laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Denver, Colorado, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223964\nFrancesconi, J. I., Larrea, M. L., & Manresa-Yee, C. (2013). Tangible music composer for children. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 13(2), 84-90.\nGardner, H. (1980). Artful scribbles: The significance of children`s drawings. Basic Books.\nGasparini, A., & Culén, A. L. (2011, June 20-23). Children`s Journey with iPads in the Classroom. Opportunities and Challenges when Designing and Developing with Kids@ School at the Interaction Design for Children Conference (IDC 2011), Ann Arbor, Michigan.\nHorn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379-389.\nIshii, H. (2008, February 18-20). Tangible bits: beyond pixels. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/1347390.1347392\nIshii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997, March 22-27). Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits, and Atoms. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258715\nJapan Color Enterprise Co., Ltd. (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from http://www.sikiken.co.jp/home.html\nJapan Color Enterprise Co., Ltd. (n.d.). PCCS tone. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from http://www.sikiken.co.jp/pccs/pccs04.html\nKeller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\nKeller, J. M. (1987a). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of instructional development, 10(3), 2-10.\nKeller, J. M. (1987b). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction, 26(8), 1-7.\nKerschensteiner, G. (1905). Die entwickelung der zeichnerischen begabung. Рипол Классик.\nKnaus, T. (2017). The Potential of Digital Media: Theoretical Observations on the Educational and Didactic Potential of Tablets-And a Conceptual Outline of Using Them in Schools. Teachers` Work, 14(1), 40-49.\nLowenfeld, V. & Brittain, W. L. (1987): Creative and Mental Growth (8th ed.). Macmillan.\nLuquet, G. H. (1927). Le dessin enfantin. Alcan.\nMaehr, M. L. & Archer, J. (1987). Motivation and school achievement. In L. G. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education, 85-107, Ablex.\nMarkova, M. S., Wilson, S., & Stumpf, S. (2012). Tangible user interfaces for learning. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(3-4), 139-155.\nMaslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). Harper & Row.\nMcClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. Appleton-Century-Crofts.\nMcEwen, R. N., & Dubé, A. K. (2015). Engaging or distracting: Children`s tablet computer use in education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 9-23.\nMeans, T. B., Jonassen, D. H., & Dwyer, F. M. (1997). Enhancing relevance: Embedded ARCS strategies vs. purpose. Educational technology research and development, 45(1), 5-17.\nMoersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(3), 40-42.\nMorita, Y., & Setozaki, N. (2017). Learning by tangible learning system in science class. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 341-352, Springer, Cham.\nMulet, J., Van De Leemput, C., & Amadieu, F. (2019). A critical literature review of perceptions of tablets for learning in primary and secondary schools. Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 631-662.\nMurray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. Oxford University Press.\nNozawa2you (n.d.). PCCS. Retrieved August 22, 2020, from https://sites.google.com/site/nozawa2you/colors/pccs\nNichols, S. J. V. (2007). New interfaces at the touch of a fingertip. Computer, 40(8), 12-15.\nPenpower Technology Ltd. (2017, December 15). ColorPen Sketch. App Store. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/colorpen-sketch/id1227358622\nPiaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence (Piercy, M., & Berlyne, D. E., Trans.). London Routledge & Kegan Paul (Original work published 1947)\nPiaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: Piaget. Journal of research in science teaching, 2(3), 176-186.\nRehman, A., Bilal, H., Sheikh, A., Bibi, N., & Nawaz, A. (2014). The role of motivation in learning English language for Pakistani learners. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(1), 254-258.\nReigeluth, C. M., & Beatty, B. J. (2003). Why children are left behind and what we can do about it. Educational Technology, 43(5), 24-32.\nRevelle, G., Zuckerman, O., Druin, A., & Bolas, M. (2005). Tangible user interfaces for children. CHI`05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2051-2052.\nRikala, J., Vesisenaho, M. & Mylläri, J. (2013). Actual and Potential Pedagogical Use of Tablets in Schools. Human Technology, 9(2), 113-131.\nRyokai, K., Marti, S., & Ishii, H. (2004, April 24-29). I/O brush: drawing with everyday objects as ink. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Vienna, Austria. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985731\nSchmidgall, S. P., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2020). Can we further improve tablet-based drawing to enhance learning? An empirical test of two types of support. Instructional Science, 48, 453-474.\nSiegle, D. (2013). iPads: Intuitive technology for 21st-century students. Gifted Child Today, 36(2), 146-150.\nSylla, C., Branco, P., Coutinho, C., & Coquet, E. (2012). TUIs vs. GUIs: comparing the learning potential with preschoolers. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 421-432.\nTOM`s Web Site (n.d.). PCCS Color Code Table。PCCS tone. Retrieved August 22, 2020, from https://tomari.org/main/java/color/pccs.html\nUllmer, B., & Ishii, H. (2000). Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM systems journal, 39(3-4), 915-931.\nUllmer, B., Ishii, H., & Jacob, R. J. (2005). Token + constraint systems for tangible interaction with digital information. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 12(1), 81-118.\nUrrutia, F. Z., Loyola, C. C., & Marín, M. H. (2019). A tangible user interface to facilitate learning of trigonometry. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(23), 152-164.\nUfro Inc. (n.d.). ColorPillar. Mozbii ColorPillar. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://colorpillar.mystrikingly.com/\nWang, T. W. (2015). Does iPad technology bolster art teaching and learning?. Visual Inquiry, 4(3), 153-167.\nWang, T. W. (2018). Empowering art teaching and learning with iPads. Art Education, 71(3), 51-55.\nWeiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process. Review of educational research, 42(2), 203-215.\nZito, L., Cross, J. L., Brewer, B., Speer, S., Tasota, M., Hamner, E., ... & Nourbakhsh, I. (2021). Leveraging tangible interfaces in primary school math: Pilot testing of the Owlet math program. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 27, 1-14.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
數位內容碩士學位學程
108462004
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108462004
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文
學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
200401.pdf12.74 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.