1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Liberal Arts
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 問題導向學習之不同合作學習分組策略在學習成效上的比較研究
A Study on the Effects of Different Group-Formation Methods on Learning Performance in a Problem-based Learning Environment
作者 楊炳南
Yang, Ping Nan
貢獻者 陳志銘
Chen, Chih Ming
楊炳南
Yang, Ping Nan
關鍵詞 問題導向學習
基因演算法
合作學習
分組策略
Problem-based learning
Genetic algorithm
Collaborative learning
Group formation
日期 2018
上傳時間 2-May-2018 15:47:40 (UTC+8)
摘要 合作學習的分組策略影響合作學習成效甚巨，過去相關研究均著重在利用基因演算法考量多個學生特性的合作學習分組方式，亦有研究提出考量個人學習者的先備知識水平，以及透過社會網絡分析識別的同伴學習角色和社會互動關係，作為分組考量的因素(Chen, Liu, & Kuo, 2016)，其中有許多研究都已證實能力異質分組之有效性（Jong, Wu, & Chan, 2006; Wang, Lin, & Sun, 2007; Webb, 1982）；再者網絡上之社會互動關係與現實生活的自行分組，或許可成為不同分組之考量；另外，本研究所探究之學習角色，是有別於其他研究之分組考量因素。因此，為了探究合作學習效能較佳的分組學習模式，本研究採用準實驗研究法，以新北市某高中一年級隨機抽選五個班級合計189名學生為研究對象，並將五個班級學生隨機分派為採用基因演算法同時考量先備知識水平、學習角色類型異質互補，以及社會互動關係同質之最佳化分組、社會互動關係同質之最佳化分組以及學習角色類型異質之最佳化分組之實驗組一、實驗組二、實驗組三，以及採用自行分組與隨機分組之控制組一及控制組二，五組學習者皆在問題導向學習系統上進行不同合作學習分組策略學習活動。本研究以學習者在問題導向學習平台上之四階段學習成效評量、每階段課程結束所填寫之滿意度問卷、以及整體活動結束所填答之團體效能與團體凝聚力量表，進行相關數據統計與分析，最後輔以結構式訪談，使整體研究更具客觀性，以驗證五種不同分組策略在學習成效、團體效能與團體凝聚力上的差異。
本研究歸納結論如下：相較於自行分組與隨機分組，本研究所提之三個實驗組分組策略均有助於提升問題導向合作學習成效；採用不同合作學習分組策略在團體效能與團體凝聚力上具有顯著差異，社會互動關係同質分組在整體團體效能表現顯著優於隨機分組；在團體凝聚力方面，社會互動關係同質分組以及自行分組均顯著優於隨機分組，其餘組別則無顯著差異；採用學習角色類型異質最佳化分組之策略，在問題導向合作學習的滿意度接近非常同意的水準。
關鍵字：問題導向學習、基因演算法、合作學習、分組策略
The grouping formation scheme of collaborative learning has a great effect upon collaborative learning. Relevant studies in the past focused much on the way of grouping based on genetic algorithm, which refers to multiple students’ characteristics. Some studies have stated that the prior knowledge of an individual learner and the peer learning roles and social interaction identified through social network are considered as crucial factors for grouping formation(Chen, Liu, & Kuo, 2016). Some of the studies have proved the effectiveness of heterogeneous grouping(Jong, Wu, & Chan, 2006; Wang, Lin & Sun, 2007; Webb, 1982). Moreover, Perhaps the interaction on the social network and grouping in the real life can be taken as different consideration for grouping formation. In this paper, a quasi-experiental research method is employed to make a thorough inquiry into a more effective grouping formation in collaborative learning. One hundred and eighty-nine students in five different 10th grade classes in New Taipei City were randomly selected to participate in the experiment. Students in five classes were randomly divided into 5 groups: three experimental groups which adopt genetic algorithm-based optimized group formation scheme respectively considering the factors associated with heterogeneous complementation of students’ prior knowledge levels and learning roles and the homogeneity of social interaction relationship were simultaneously considered in the genetic algorithm-based optimized group formation scheme and two control groups, one is randomly grouped; while the other allows students group themselves. Learners in these five groups all use collaborative problem-based learning system (CPBL) to perform collaborative problem-based learning activities. In this research, the four-staged learning performance evaluation on a collaborative problem-based learning system, satisfaction questionnaires filled out after class of every stage, interaction efficacy and group cohesion evaluation are applied to compile statistics and analyze the learning process and interaction among learners in these five groups. Finally, a structured interview is supplemented to enhance the objectivity of the overall research and verify the variation of the learning performance, group efficacy and group cohesion between different group formation schemes.
The results of the study are as follows:
1. Compared with the control groups, the grouping formation schemes of the three experimental groups all contribute to promote the efficiency of collaborative problem-based learning.
2. Applying different collaborative grouping formation schemes makes significant difference upon group efficacy and group cohesion. The homogeneous grouping of social interaction provides better group efficacy than random grouping.
3. The homogeneous grouping of social interation and students’ grouping themselves works better on group cohesion than random grouping, while the other groups show no significant difference.
4. The satisfation of learners adopting the heterogeneous optimized group formation scheme of learning roles for collaborative problem-based learning reached a nearly very agreed standard.

Keywords: Problem-based learning, Genetic algorithm, Collaborative learning, Group formation
參考文獻 中文文獻
尹晨（2012）。E-Learning協作學習中分組策略研究。計算機技術與發展，22（12），55-58。
文濤（2002）。論有效的課堂小組合作學習。教育理論與實踐，22（12），53-56。
王千悻（1997）。合作學習。師友月刊，364，34-38。
王坦（2002）。合作學習簡論。中國教育學刊，1，33-35。
吳俊憲、黃政傑（2006）。合作學習：發展與實踐。臺北市：五南。
李大偉、張玉山、何宜軒（2006）。建構取向的網路化問題解決教學活動設計。科技教育課程改革與發展學術研討會論文集，76-83。
李欣憶（2005）。問題導向學習應用於高中地理海岸環境議題教學之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
李晏華（2013）。探討GIS圖層融入問題導向學習在經濟教育之學習成效。未出版碩士論文，國立新竹教育大學數位學習科技研究所，新竹市。
沈映珊（2011）。CSCL協作角色影響因素分析。中國電化教育，295，19-27。
沈映珊、李克東（2010）。基於角色的主題式網絡協作學習方法及其案例分析---應用CSCLEP與CRAT的教學實驗。中國電化教育，285，5-10。
岳修平、鐘婉莉（2005）。專題式學習小組網路溝通互動之研究。教育學刊，25，1-23。
易國良（2005）。網路合作學習對問題導向學習成效的影響-以國中自然科學為 例。未出版碩士論文，國立交通大學理學院網路學習碩士在職專班，新竹 市。
侯政宏、崔夢萍（2013）。發展網路問題導向學習系統應用於國小五年級資訊素養與倫理之研究-以網路著作權單元為例。教育傳播與科技研究，104，17-36。
柯明月（2002）。網路合作學習實施之整體性策略研究。未出版碩士論文，國立交通大學電資學院學程碩士班，新竹市。
洪榮昭（2001）。PBL教學策略。技術與職業雙月刊，61，10-12。
洪慧婷（2008）。網路合作學習之團體信念、合作學習行為與團體表現之關聯性研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣科技大學技術及職業教育研究所，台北市。
范蔚敏（2011）。基於學習社群角色行為特徵之網路合作式學習分組策略及其討論歷程評估研究。未出版碩士論文，國立政大學圖書資訊研究所，臺北市。
馬志強（2014）。基於問題解決的網絡協作學習活動設計研究。集美大學學報，15（1），53-58。
張民杰（2003）。超學科統整模式之一－問題導向學習在國中九年一貫課程的設計與實施。新竹師範學院學報，17，389-424。
張俊彥、翁玉華（2000）。我國高一學生的問題解決能力與其科學過程技能之相關性研究。科學教育月刊，8（1），35-55。
張春興（1992）。張氏心理學辭典。台北：東華。
張春興（2000）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華。
張家成（2008）。探勘合作式學習社會網路支援問題導向學習之學習夥伴推薦。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系，臺北市。
張海霞（2009）。合作學習中的分組策略。恩施職業技術學院學報（綜合版），21（3），20-22。
許芳菊（2013）。12年國教，教學不改，很難成功。天下雜誌，536，276-284。
許獻元（2004）。網路之團體互動對集體效能與團體表現之影響。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣科技大學技術及職業教育研究所，台北市。
郭旗雄（2014）。基於基因演算法發展之最佳化合作學習分組策略：以問題導向學習為例。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班，台北市。
陳清檳（2004）。不同合作學習分組之問題導向學習對技職校院學生電腦輔助設計與製造課程學習成效及創造力影響之研究。未出版博士論文，國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系，彰化市。
陳鼎仁（2004）。不同認知型態分組之問題導向合作學習對技職校院學生電腦網路技術學習成效與問題解決學習成效之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系，彰化市。
陸希平、林妍如、林中生、李孟智、陳家玉（2004）。問題導向式教學中老師學生的角色認知。醫學教育，8（3），358-362。
游文楓、佘曉清（2006）。網路化問解決教學策略對學生生物學習成效的影響。科學教育學刊，14（4），381-400。
湯宗健、梁革英（2012）。協同學習分組策略分析。高教論壇，7，40-43。
黃永和（2013）。合作學習「角色安排」的意義與功能。國民教育，54（1），96-104。
黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）。合作學習。台北市：五南。
黃國信（2011）。利用蜜蜂最佳化演算法建立合作學習自動分組機制。未出版碩士論文，國立成功大學工程科學系專班，台南市。
黃善美（2001）。以問題為中心的合作學習策略對國小學童科學學習之研究。台北市立師範學院科學教育研究所，台北市。
黃榮懷（2001）。基於Web的協作學習系統模型。中國遠程教育，172，42-47。
黃繼緯（2006）。基因演算法應用在合作學習分群問題之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立暨南國際大學資訊管理學系，南投縣。
楊坤原、張賴妙理（2005）。問題本位學習的理論基礎與教學歷程。中原學報，33（2）,215-235。
劉均娥、黃金月（2015）。PBL教學中提高學生合作學習性學習能力的研究。中國護理管理，11，1356-1359。
鄭宇樑（2006）。問題導向學習的課程與教學。致遠管理學院學報，1，177-195。
謝家豪（2007）。網路化問題導向學習對於學生問題解決能力與問題解決態度的影響-以國小五年級自然與生活科技課程為例。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

英文文獻
Alfonseca, E., Carro, R. M., Martín, E., Ortigosa, A., & Paredes, P. (2006). The impact of learning styles on student grouping for collaborative learning: A case study. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 16(3-4), 377-401.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self –efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman.
Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. H. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional Roles of Group Members. A Journal of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, 4(2), 41-49.
Boud, D. (1985). Problem-based learning in perspective. In D. Boud(Ed.), Problem-Based Learning in Education for the Professions. Sydney: HERDSA.
Carron, A. V. & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The Development to assess cohesion in sport teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
Carron, A. V. & Chelladurai, P. (1981). Cohesiveness as a factor in sport performance. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 16(2), 21-43.
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4, 123-138.
Cesareni, D., Cacciamani, S., & Fujita, N. (2016). Role taking and knowledge building in a blended university course. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 9-39.
Chan, T, Chen, C. M., Wu, Y. L., Jong, B. S., Hsia, Y. T., & Lin, T. W. (2010). Applying the genetic encoded conceptual graph to grouping learning. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(6), 4103–4118.
Chen, C. M., Liu C. Y., & Kuo, C. H. (2016). An optimized group formation scheme considering knowledge level, learning roles, and interaction relationship for promoting collaborative problem-based learning performance. International Conference on e-Learning, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia(USIM), pp.238-246.
Chen, R. C., Chen, S. Y., Fan, J. Y., & Chen, Y. T.(2012). Grouping partners for cooperative learning using genetic algorithm and social network analysis. Procedia Engineering, 29, 3888-3893.
Das, M., Mpofu, D.J., Hasan, M. Y. & Stewart, T. S. (2002). Student perceptions of tutor skills in problem-based learning tutorials. Medical Education, 36(3), 272-8.
Duch, B. J. (2001). Models for problem-based instruction in undergraduate courses. In B. J. Duch, S. E. Groh, & D. E. Alen(Eds.), The power of problem-based learning-A practical How to for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Virginia, Sterling:Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Freeman, Linton. (1979). Centrality in social networks` conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
Festinger, L., S. Schachter, and K. Back. (1950). Social pressures informal groups: A study of Human Factors in housing. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Galvin, K. (1997). Cooperative and collaborative learning workshop.The APA Newsletters, 96(2).
George, T. R., & Feltz, D. L.(1995). Motivation in sport from a collective perspective. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26(1), 98-116.
Gill, D.L. (1977). Cohesiveness and performance in sport group. Exercise & Sport Sciences Reviews,5(1), 131-156
Gist, M. E.(1987). Self-Efficacy: Implications for Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. The Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472-485.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: a neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 467–476
Grand, R. R., & Carron, A. V. (1982). Development of a team climate questionnaire. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology, Edmonton, Alberta(pp. 217-229).
Greenlees I.A., Graydon J.K., & Maynard I.W. (1999). The impact of collective efficacy beliefs on effort and persistence in a group task. Journal of sports sciences ,17(2), 151-158.
Gully, S. M., Beaubien, J. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., & Joshi, A. (2002). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between team efficacy, potency, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in group: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychological Society,32, 87-106.
Hilton, S., & Phillips, F. (2010). Instructor-assigned and student-selected groups: A view from the inside. Issues in Accounting Education, 25(1), 15-33.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48-94.
Hodges, L., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Collective efficacy and group performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23(1), 48–59.
Huxland, M., & Land, R. (2000). Assigning students in group work projects: can we do better than random? Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 17–22.
Johnson D. W. & Johnson R.T. (1989). Cooperative and competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning(4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T.(1995). “Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperative.” In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller(Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.174-199.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T & Holubec, E.J. (1990). Circle of learning: Cooperation in the classroom.(3rd ed.). Edina, MN：Interaction.
Jong, B. S., Wu, Y. L., & Chan, T. Y. (2006). Dynamic grouping strategies based on a conceptual graph for cooperative learning. IEEE Transaction on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 18(6), 738–747.
Lee, C. (1983). Self-efficacy and Behavior as Predictors of Research and Therapy, Subsequent Behavior in an Assertiveness Training Program,21, 225-232.
Lei, S. A., Kuestermeyer, Bailey, N., Westmeyer, K. A. (2010) “Group composition affecting student interaction and achievement: Instructors’ perspectives”, Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(4), 317-325.
Lindsley, D., Brass, D., & Thomas, J. (1995). Efficacy-Performance Spirals: A Multilevel Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 645-678. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258790
Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of learning: Teaching with dimensions of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Moreno, J., Ovalle, D. A., Vicari, R. M. (2012). A genetic algorithm approach for group formation in collaborative learning considering multiple student characteristics. Computers &; Education,58(1), 560-569.
Moulton, W. (2007). Emotions of normal people. England: Cooper Press.
Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and
quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis.
Small Group Research, 25(2), 189–204.
Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
Neufeld, V. R. & Barrows H. S. (1974). The McMaster philosophy: An approach to medical education. Medical Education, 49(11), 1040-1050.
Nixon, H.L. (1977).Cohesiveness and team success: A theoretical reformulation. Review of Sport and Leisure,2 ,37-57.
Peterson, E., Mitchell, T. R., Thompson, L., & Burr, R. (2000). Collective efficacy and aspects of shared mental models as predictors of performance over time in work groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 296–316.
Rankin, J. A.(1992). Problem-based medical education: effect on library use. Bulletin of the medical library association, 80(1), 36-43.
Richmond, G., & Striley, J.(1996). Making meaning in classroom: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858.
Schriesheim, J. F.(1980). The social context of leader–subordinate relations: An investigation of the effects of group cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(2), 183-194.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 408-422.
Slavin, R. E.(1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Education Leadership, 48(2), 71-82.
Stepien, W. & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 7(50), 25-29.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L. (2001). Group-based learning: Dynamic interaction in groups, Retrieved 2017.04.16. from https://www.isls.org/cscl/Euro2001/Papers/154.doc
Torp, L. & Sage, S. M. (1998). Problems as Possibilities: Problem-Based Learning for K-12 Education.Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum evelopment.
Tziner, A. (1982). Differential effects of group cohesiveness types: A clarifying overview. Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 227–239.
Tziner, A. (1982). Group cohesiveness: A dynamic perspective. Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 205–211.
Wang, D. Y., Lin, S. S. J., & Sun, C. T. (2007). DIANA: A computer-supported heterogeneous grouping system for teachers to conduct successful small learning groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1997–2010.
Wang, S. L., Hwang, G. H., Chu, J. C., Tsai, P. S. (2009). The role of collective efficacy and collaborative learning behavior in learning computer science through CSCL. Assciation for Computing Machinery, 41(3), 352.
Wang, S. L., Lin, Sunny S. J.(2007). The effects of group composition of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2256-2268.
Webb, N. M. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 475–484.
Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy in self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment. New York, NY: Plenum.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班
100913023
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100913023
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 陳志銘zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chen, Chih Mingen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 楊炳南zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yang, Ping Nanen_US
dc.creator (作者) 楊炳南zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Yang, Ping Nanen_US
dc.date (日期) 2018en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-May-2018 15:47:40 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-May-2018 15:47:40 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-May-2018 15:47:40 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0100913023en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/117022-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100913023zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 合作學習的分組策略影響合作學習成效甚巨，過去相關研究均著重在利用基因演算法考量多個學生特性的合作學習分組方式，亦有研究提出考量個人學習者的先備知識水平，以及透過社會網絡分析識別的同伴學習角色和社會互動關係，作為分組考量的因素(Chen, Liu, & Kuo, 2016)，其中有許多研究都已證實能力異質分組之有效性（Jong, Wu, & Chan, 2006; Wang, Lin, & Sun, 2007; Webb, 1982）；再者網絡上之社會互動關係與現實生活的自行分組，或許可成為不同分組之考量；另外，本研究所探究之學習角色，是有別於其他研究之分組考量因素。因此，為了探究合作學習效能較佳的分組學習模式，本研究採用準實驗研究法，以新北市某高中一年級隨機抽選五個班級合計189名學生為研究對象，並將五個班級學生隨機分派為採用基因演算法同時考量先備知識水平、學習角色類型異質互補，以及社會互動關係同質之最佳化分組、社會互動關係同質之最佳化分組以及學習角色類型異質之最佳化分組之實驗組一、實驗組二、實驗組三，以及採用自行分組與隨機分組之控制組一及控制組二，五組學習者皆在問題導向學習系統上進行不同合作學習分組策略學習活動。本研究以學習者在問題導向學習平台上之四階段學習成效評量、每階段課程結束所填寫之滿意度問卷、以及整體活動結束所填答之團體效能與團體凝聚力量表，進行相關數據統計與分析，最後輔以結構式訪談，使整體研究更具客觀性，以驗證五種不同分組策略在學習成效、團體效能與團體凝聚力上的差異。
本研究歸納結論如下：相較於自行分組與隨機分組，本研究所提之三個實驗組分組策略均有助於提升問題導向合作學習成效；採用不同合作學習分組策略在團體效能與團體凝聚力上具有顯著差異，社會互動關係同質分組在整體團體效能表現顯著優於隨機分組；在團體凝聚力方面，社會互動關係同質分組以及自行分組均顯著優於隨機分組，其餘組別則無顯著差異；採用學習角色類型異質最佳化分組之策略，在問題導向合作學習的滿意度接近非常同意的水準。
關鍵字：問題導向學習、基因演算法、合作學習、分組策略		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The grouping formation scheme of collaborative learning has a great effect upon collaborative learning. Relevant studies in the past focused much on the way of grouping based on genetic algorithm, which refers to multiple students’ characteristics. Some studies have stated that the prior knowledge of an individual learner and the peer learning roles and social interaction identified through social network are considered as crucial factors for grouping formation(Chen, Liu, & Kuo, 2016). Some of the studies have proved the effectiveness of heterogeneous grouping(Jong, Wu, & Chan, 2006; Wang, Lin & Sun, 2007; Webb, 1982). Moreover, Perhaps the interaction on the social network and grouping in the real life can be taken as different consideration for grouping formation. In this paper, a quasi-experiental research method is employed to make a thorough inquiry into a more effective grouping formation in collaborative learning. One hundred and eighty-nine students in five different 10th grade classes in New Taipei City were randomly selected to participate in the experiment. Students in five classes were randomly divided into 5 groups: three experimental groups which adopt genetic algorithm-based optimized group formation scheme respectively considering the factors associated with heterogeneous complementation of students’ prior knowledge levels and learning roles and the homogeneity of social interaction relationship were simultaneously considered in the genetic algorithm-based optimized group formation scheme and two control groups, one is randomly grouped; while the other allows students group themselves. Learners in these five groups all use collaborative problem-based learning system (CPBL) to perform collaborative problem-based learning activities. In this research, the four-staged learning performance evaluation on a collaborative problem-based learning system, satisfaction questionnaires filled out after class of every stage, interaction efficacy and group cohesion evaluation are applied to compile statistics and analyze the learning process and interaction among learners in these five groups. Finally, a structured interview is supplemented to enhance the objectivity of the overall research and verify the variation of the learning performance, group efficacy and group cohesion between different group formation schemes.
The results of the study are as follows:
1. Compared with the control groups, the grouping formation schemes of the three experimental groups all contribute to promote the efficiency of collaborative problem-based learning.
2. Applying different collaborative grouping formation schemes makes significant difference upon group efficacy and group cohesion. The homogeneous grouping of social interaction provides better group efficacy than random grouping.
3. The homogeneous grouping of social interation and students’ grouping themselves works better on group cohesion than random grouping, while the other groups show no significant difference.
4. The satisfation of learners adopting the heterogeneous optimized group formation scheme of learning roles for collaborative problem-based learning reached a nearly very agreed standard.

Keywords: Problem-based learning, Genetic algorithm, Collaborative learning, Group formation		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 目次 i
圖目錄 iii
表目錄 iv
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 4
第三節 研究範圍與限制 5
第四節 名詞解釋 6
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 問題導向學習 9
第二節 合作學習 18
第三節 團體效能與團體凝聚力 26
第三章 研究方法與實驗設計 33
第一節 研究架構 33
第二節 研究方法 34
第三節 研究對象 36
第四節 研究工具 37
第五節 實驗設計 48
第六節 問題導向學習課程設計 49
第七節 資料處理與分析 56
第八節 研究流程 56
第四章 實驗結果分析 61
第一節 不同合作學習分組策略組別之學習成效分析 61
第二節 團體效能與團體凝聚力差異分析 73
第三節 問題導向學習平台合作學習滿意度調查分析 77
第四節 訪談資料分析 80
第五節 綜合討論及結果彙整 82
第五章 結論與建議 87
第一節 結論 87
第二節 建議 88
參考文獻 91
附錄 99
附錄一 團體效能與團體凝聚力調查問卷 99
附錄二 PBL合作學習調查問卷 101
附錄三 不同合作學習分組策略結構訪談題目 105
附錄四 訪談資料節錄 106
附錄五 各階段學習成績評分表 123		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 3508512 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100913023en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 問題導向學習zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 基因演算法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合作學習zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 分組策略zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Problem-based learningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Genetic algorithmen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Collaborative learningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Group formationen_US
dc.title (題名) 問題導向學習之不同合作學習分組策略在學習成效上的比較研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A Study on the Effects of Different Group-Formation Methods on Learning Performance in a Problem-based Learning Environmenten_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻
尹晨（2012）。E-Learning協作學習中分組策略研究。計算機技術與發展，22（12），55-58。
文濤（2002）。論有效的課堂小組合作學習。教育理論與實踐，22（12），53-56。
王千悻（1997）。合作學習。師友月刊，364，34-38。
王坦（2002）。合作學習簡論。中國教育學刊，1，33-35。
吳俊憲、黃政傑（2006）。合作學習：發展與實踐。臺北市：五南。
李大偉、張玉山、何宜軒（2006）。建構取向的網路化問題解決教學活動設計。科技教育課程改革與發展學術研討會論文集，76-83。
李欣憶（2005）。問題導向學習應用於高中地理海岸環境議題教學之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
李晏華（2013）。探討GIS圖層融入問題導向學習在經濟教育之學習成效。未出版碩士論文，國立新竹教育大學數位學習科技研究所，新竹市。
沈映珊（2011）。CSCL協作角色影響因素分析。中國電化教育，295，19-27。
沈映珊、李克東（2010）。基於角色的主題式網絡協作學習方法及其案例分析---應用CSCLEP與CRAT的教學實驗。中國電化教育，285，5-10。
岳修平、鐘婉莉（2005）。專題式學習小組網路溝通互動之研究。教育學刊，25，1-23。
易國良（2005）。網路合作學習對問題導向學習成效的影響-以國中自然科學為 例。未出版碩士論文，國立交通大學理學院網路學習碩士在職專班，新竹 市。
侯政宏、崔夢萍（2013）。發展網路問題導向學習系統應用於國小五年級資訊素養與倫理之研究-以網路著作權單元為例。教育傳播與科技研究，104，17-36。
柯明月（2002）。網路合作學習實施之整體性策略研究。未出版碩士論文，國立交通大學電資學院學程碩士班，新竹市。
洪榮昭（2001）。PBL教學策略。技術與職業雙月刊，61，10-12。
洪慧婷（2008）。網路合作學習之團體信念、合作學習行為與團體表現之關聯性研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣科技大學技術及職業教育研究所，台北市。
范蔚敏（2011）。基於學習社群角色行為特徵之網路合作式學習分組策略及其討論歷程評估研究。未出版碩士論文，國立政大學圖書資訊研究所，臺北市。
馬志強（2014）。基於問題解決的網絡協作學習活動設計研究。集美大學學報，15（1），53-58。
張民杰（2003）。超學科統整模式之一－問題導向學習在國中九年一貫課程的設計與實施。新竹師範學院學報，17，389-424。
張俊彥、翁玉華（2000）。我國高一學生的問題解決能力與其科學過程技能之相關性研究。科學教育月刊，8（1），35-55。
張春興（1992）。張氏心理學辭典。台北：東華。
張春興（2000）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華。
張家成（2008）。探勘合作式學習社會網路支援問題導向學習之學習夥伴推薦。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系，臺北市。
張海霞（2009）。合作學習中的分組策略。恩施職業技術學院學報（綜合版），21（3），20-22。
許芳菊（2013）。12年國教，教學不改，很難成功。天下雜誌，536，276-284。
許獻元（2004）。網路之團體互動對集體效能與團體表現之影響。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣科技大學技術及職業教育研究所，台北市。
郭旗雄（2014）。基於基因演算法發展之最佳化合作學習分組策略：以問題導向學習為例。國立政治大學圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班，台北市。
陳清檳（2004）。不同合作學習分組之問題導向學習對技職校院學生電腦輔助設計與製造課程學習成效及創造力影響之研究。未出版博士論文，國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系，彰化市。
陳鼎仁（2004）。不同認知型態分組之問題導向合作學習對技職校院學生電腦網路技術學習成效與問題解決學習成效之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系，彰化市。
陸希平、林妍如、林中生、李孟智、陳家玉（2004）。問題導向式教學中老師學生的角色認知。醫學教育，8（3），358-362。
游文楓、佘曉清（2006）。網路化問解決教學策略對學生生物學習成效的影響。科學教育學刊，14（4），381-400。
湯宗健、梁革英（2012）。協同學習分組策略分析。高教論壇，7，40-43。
黃永和（2013）。合作學習「角色安排」的意義與功能。國民教育，54（1），96-104。
黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）。合作學習。台北市：五南。
黃國信（2011）。利用蜜蜂最佳化演算法建立合作學習自動分組機制。未出版碩士論文，國立成功大學工程科學系專班，台南市。
黃善美（2001）。以問題為中心的合作學習策略對國小學童科學學習之研究。台北市立師範學院科學教育研究所，台北市。
黃榮懷（2001）。基於Web的協作學習系統模型。中國遠程教育，172，42-47。
黃繼緯（2006）。基因演算法應用在合作學習分群問題之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立暨南國際大學資訊管理學系，南投縣。
楊坤原、張賴妙理（2005）。問題本位學習的理論基礎與教學歷程。中原學報，33（2）,215-235。
劉均娥、黃金月（2015）。PBL教學中提高學生合作學習性學習能力的研究。中國護理管理，11，1356-1359。
鄭宇樑（2006）。問題導向學習的課程與教學。致遠管理學院學報，1，177-195。
謝家豪（2007）。網路化問題導向學習對於學生問題解決能力與問題解決態度的影響-以國小五年級自然與生活科技課程為例。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

英文文獻
Alfonseca, E., Carro, R. M., Martín, E., Ortigosa, A., & Paredes, P. (2006). The impact of learning styles on student grouping for collaborative learning: A case study. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 16(3-4), 377-401.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self –efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman.
Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. H. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional Roles of Group Members. A Journal of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, 4(2), 41-49.
Boud, D. (1985). Problem-based learning in perspective. In D. Boud(Ed.), Problem-Based Learning in Education for the Professions. Sydney: HERDSA.
Carron, A. V. & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The Development to assess cohesion in sport teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
Carron, A. V. & Chelladurai, P. (1981). Cohesiveness as a factor in sport performance. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 16(2), 21-43.
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4, 123-138.
Cesareni, D., Cacciamani, S., & Fujita, N. (2016). Role taking and knowledge building in a blended university course. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 9-39.
Chan, T, Chen, C. M., Wu, Y. L., Jong, B. S., Hsia, Y. T., & Lin, T. W. (2010). Applying the genetic encoded conceptual graph to grouping learning. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(6), 4103–4118.
Chen, C. M., Liu C. Y., & Kuo, C. H. (2016). An optimized group formation scheme considering knowledge level, learning roles, and interaction relationship for promoting collaborative problem-based learning performance. International Conference on e-Learning, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia(USIM), pp.238-246.
Chen, R. C., Chen, S. Y., Fan, J. Y., & Chen, Y. T.(2012). Grouping partners for cooperative learning using genetic algorithm and social network analysis. Procedia Engineering, 29, 3888-3893.
Das, M., Mpofu, D.J., Hasan, M. Y. & Stewart, T. S. (2002). Student perceptions of tutor skills in problem-based learning tutorials. Medical Education, 36(3), 272-8.
Duch, B. J. (2001). Models for problem-based instruction in undergraduate courses. In B. J. Duch, S. E. Groh, & D. E. Alen(Eds.), The power of problem-based learning-A practical How to for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Virginia, Sterling:Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Freeman, Linton. (1979). Centrality in social networks` conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
Festinger, L., S. Schachter, and K. Back. (1950). Social pressures informal groups: A study of Human Factors in housing. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Galvin, K. (1997). Cooperative and collaborative learning workshop.The APA Newsletters, 96(2).
George, T. R., & Feltz, D. L.(1995). Motivation in sport from a collective perspective. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26(1), 98-116.
Gill, D.L. (1977). Cohesiveness and performance in sport group. Exercise & Sport Sciences Reviews,5(1), 131-156
Gist, M. E.(1987). Self-Efficacy: Implications for Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. The Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472-485.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: a neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 467–476
Grand, R. R., & Carron, A. V. (1982). Development of a team climate questionnaire. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology, Edmonton, Alberta(pp. 217-229).
Greenlees I.A., Graydon J.K., & Maynard I.W. (1999). The impact of collective efficacy beliefs on effort and persistence in a group task. Journal of sports sciences ,17(2), 151-158.
Gully, S. M., Beaubien, J. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., & Joshi, A. (2002). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between team efficacy, potency, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in group: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychological Society,32, 87-106.
Hilton, S., & Phillips, F. (2010). Instructor-assigned and student-selected groups: A view from the inside. Issues in Accounting Education, 25(1), 15-33.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48-94.
Hodges, L., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Collective efficacy and group performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23(1), 48–59.
Huxland, M., & Land, R. (2000). Assigning students in group work projects: can we do better than random? Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 17–22.
Johnson D. W. & Johnson R.T. (1989). Cooperative and competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning(4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T.(1995). “Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperative.” In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller(Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.174-199.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T & Holubec, E.J. (1990). Circle of learning: Cooperation in the classroom.(3rd ed.). Edina, MN：Interaction.
Jong, B. S., Wu, Y. L., & Chan, T. Y. (2006). Dynamic grouping strategies based on a conceptual graph for cooperative learning. IEEE Transaction on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 18(6), 738–747.
Lee, C. (1983). Self-efficacy and Behavior as Predictors of Research and Therapy, Subsequent Behavior in an Assertiveness Training Program,21, 225-232.
Lei, S. A., Kuestermeyer, Bailey, N., Westmeyer, K. A. (2010) “Group composition affecting student interaction and achievement: Instructors’ perspectives”, Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(4), 317-325.
Lindsley, D., Brass, D., & Thomas, J. (1995). Efficacy-Performance Spirals: A Multilevel Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 645-678. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258790
Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of learning: Teaching with dimensions of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Moreno, J., Ovalle, D. A., Vicari, R. M. (2012). A genetic algorithm approach for group formation in collaborative learning considering multiple student characteristics. Computers &; Education,58(1), 560-569.
Moulton, W. (2007). Emotions of normal people. England: Cooper Press.
Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and
quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis.
Small Group Research, 25(2), 189–204.
Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
Neufeld, V. R. & Barrows H. S. (1974). The McMaster philosophy: An approach to medical education. Medical Education, 49(11), 1040-1050.
Nixon, H.L. (1977).Cohesiveness and team success: A theoretical reformulation. Review of Sport and Leisure,2 ,37-57.
Peterson, E., Mitchell, T. R., Thompson, L., & Burr, R. (2000). Collective efficacy and aspects of shared mental models as predictors of performance over time in work groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 296–316.
Rankin, J. A.(1992). Problem-based medical education: effect on library use. Bulletin of the medical library association, 80(1), 36-43.
Richmond, G., & Striley, J.(1996). Making meaning in classroom: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858.
Schriesheim, J. F.(1980). The social context of leader–subordinate relations: An investigation of the effects of group cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(2), 183-194.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 408-422.
Slavin, R. E.(1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Education Leadership, 48(2), 71-82.
Stepien, W. & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 7(50), 25-29.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L. (2001). Group-based learning: Dynamic interaction in groups, Retrieved 2017.04.16. from https://www.isls.org/cscl/Euro2001/Papers/154.doc
Torp, L. & Sage, S. M. (1998). Problems as Possibilities: Problem-Based Learning for K-12 Education.Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum evelopment.
Tziner, A. (1982). Differential effects of group cohesiveness types: A clarifying overview. Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 227–239.
Tziner, A. (1982). Group cohesiveness: A dynamic perspective. Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 205–211.
Wang, D. Y., Lin, S. S. J., & Sun, C. T. (2007). DIANA: A computer-supported heterogeneous grouping system for teachers to conduct successful small learning groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1997–2010.
Wang, S. L., Hwang, G. H., Chu, J. C., Tsai, P. S. (2009). The role of collective efficacy and collaborative learning behavior in learning computer science through CSCL. Assciation for Computing Machinery, 41(3), 352.
Wang, S. L., Lin, Sunny S. J.(2007). The effects of group composition of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2256-2268.
Webb, N. M. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 475–484.
Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy in self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment. New York, NY: Plenum.		zh_TW