學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 輪替式分組合作學習應用於國中學生創意思考與運算思維能力之研究
Effects of Rotation-based Group Learning on Students’ Creative Thinking and Computational Thinking Skills作者 黃顯淞
Huang, Hsien-Sung貢獻者 洪煌堯
Hong, Huang-Yao
黃顯淞
Huang, Hsien-Sung關鍵詞 輪替式分組
合作學習
創意思考
運算思維
Rotation-based group learning
Collaborative learning
Creative thinking
Computational thinking日期 2022 上傳時間 2-Sep-2022 15:34:28 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究旨在探討「輪替式分組合作學習」應用於國中資訊科技的程式設計課程，能否提昇學生的創意思考與運算思維能力。研究對象為同校中的6個班級，共156名國中生。本研究採準實驗研究法，並透過二種不同的小組分組方式分別對3個班級的實驗組(輪替式分組)與3個班級的控制組(固定式分組)進行教學。研究資料來源主要包括：創意思考前後測、運算思維前後測，以及線上學習單。資料分析於前測階段採用獨立樣本t檢定或卡方檢定其同質性，後測階段採用ANCOVA共變數分析，前後測之間的學習歷程則採用統計分析解釋控制組與實驗組的表現情形。研究結果發現，輪替式分組合作，相較於傳統的固定式異質分組合作學習方式，更有助於提升國中生的創意思考與運算思維能力。本研究除了驗證輪替式分組合作學習的可行性，也期望可以藉由研究發現來提供有意採用合作學習方法的教師另一種合作學習的教學模式。
The purpose of this research is to investigate whether using "rotation-based group learning" in the teaching of Scratch programming in a junior high school can help students enhance their creative thinking and computational thinking skills. The study design employs a quasi-experimental research method with participants being 156 middle-school students from 6 classes in a same middle school in northern Taiwan. These students were guided to engage in collaborative learning activities (within different small groups of 3-4 people), with the three experimental classes employing rotation-based group learning and the other three control classes adopting the conventional group learning. The main data sources include: creative thinking pre-post test questions, computational thinking pre- post test questions, and student learning sheets. In the pre-test, independent samples t-test and Chi-square test were used to test the homogeneity of the data, and ANCOVA was used in the post-test. The results showed that the rotation-based group learning method (as compared with the conventional group learning) significantly helped middle school students improve their creative thinking and computational thinking ability. By verifying the feasibility of rotation-based group learning, this study provides teachers (who are interested in group learning) an alternative teaching approach for fostering effective collaborative learning.參考文獻 【中文文獻】王文科、王智弘 (2014)。教育研究法(十六版)。五南出版社。吳正己、林育慈、邱瓊芳、陳學志、張鈞法 (2016)。運算思維定義。Computational Thinking for K-12。https://ctfork12.ice.ntnu.edu.tw/conception.html汪慧玲、沈佳生 (2013)。合作學習教學策略對大專學生之學習成效與學習態度之影響：以兒童發展評量與輔導課程某單元為例。臺中教育大學學報，27(1)， 57-76。 洪煌堯、蔡佩真、林倍伊 (2014)。透過知識創新教學理念與學習平臺以培養國小 學生自然課合作學習與翻新想法的習慣。科學教育學刊, 22(4), 413-439。張文華 (2000)。創造性思考。雙關語彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1311020/教育部國中小教學資源研發中心 (2012)。教師裡的春天~透過分組合作學習創建學習共同體。作者。教育部 (2013)。分組合作學習教學手冊。作者。教育部 (2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要。作者。國立臺灣師範大學資訊工程學系 (2018)。國際運算思維挑戰賽試題。Bebras。https://bebras.csie.ntnu.edu.tw/許桂英 (2004)。國小數學領域採合作學習之教學成效。教育學刊, (23)。111-136。陳淑絹 (2000)。合作學習策略。雙關語彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1304597/黃政傑、林佩璇 (2015)。合作學習。五南出版社。楊忠祥、陳鈺芳(2013)。如何從學術論文之統計量數計算效果量: 以 Cohen d, η^ 2 與 ω^ 2 為例。臺灣運動心理學報， 13(2)， 75-90. 臺灣PISA國家研究中心 (2021)。PISA 2021創意思考評量架構。臺灣PISA。https://pisa.irels.ntnu.edu.tw/data.html 蔡清田(2020)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要研修的核心素養，臺灣教育評論月 刊，9(1)，8-12。賴光真 (2016)。分組合作學習歷程學習謬誤之警覺，臺灣教育評論月刊，5(5)，92-96。顏膺修、吳為聖、張惠博 (2012)。教室是平的? 一位國小自然科教師的敘說探究。 科學教育學刊，20(2)，97-118。【English Reference】Akinbobola, A.O. (2009). Enhancing students’ attitude towards Nigerian senior secondary school physics through the use of cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning strategies. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 1-9.Annett, N. (1997). Collaborative learning: definitions, benefits, applications and dangers in the writing center. University of Richmond, Virginia; USA. Retrieved 5 Nov.2011, from: http://writing2.richmond.edu/training/fall97/nanne/collaboration.htmlAustin, J. E. (2000). Principles for Partnership. Journal of Leader to Leader. 18 (Fall), pp. 44-50.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.Benaya, T., & Zur, E. (2007). Collaborative programming projects in an advanced CS course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 22(6), 126-135.Brown, L. & Lara, V. (2011. Oct. 9). Professional Development Module on Collaborative Learning. El Paso Community College, Texas; USA. Retrieved 5 Nov. 2011, from: http://www.texascollaborative.org/Collaborative_Learning_Module.htmBrunink, A. M. (2014). Rotating leadership: the process within organizational improvisation (Bachelor`s thesis, University of Twente).Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of management Journal, 50(5),1217-1234.Davis, J. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 159-201.Eugene Sadler-Smith (2015). Wallas’ Four-Stage Model of the Creative Process: More Than Meets the Eye? , Creativity Research Journal, 27:4, 342-352,DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2015.1087277 Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology education. 7(1), Retrieved 5 Nov. 2011, from: https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html.Google (2015). Exploring Computational Thinking. Retrieved fromhttps://www.google.com/edu/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/Hennessey, B. A. (2010). The creativity—motivation connection.Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27-40.Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296-310.Johnson, D.W. (1971). Effectiveness of role reversal: actor or listener. Journal of Psychological Reports. 28(1), pp. 275-282.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom and school. ASCD.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, and Individualistic Learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Kalelioglu, F., Gulbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 31, 486-490. Lalley, J., & Miller, R. (2007). The learning pyramid: Does it point teachers in the right direction. Education, 128(1), 16.Ma, L., Matsuzawa, Y., & Scardamalia, M. (2016). Rotating leadership and collective responsibility in a grade 4 Knowledge Building classroom. International Journal of Organizational Design and Engineering, 4(1-2), 54-84.OECD (2019). PISA 2022 Creative Thinking Framework (Third Draft). Retrieved fromhttps://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2022-creative-thinking-framework.pdfPeterson, P.L. & Swing, S. R. (1985). Students Cognitions as Mediators of the Effectiveness of Small-group Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. 77(3), pp.299-312.Preston, D. (2005). Pair programming as a model of collaborative learning: a review of the research. Journal of Computing Sciences in colleges, 20(4), 39-45.Randall, V. (1999). Cooperative learning: Abused and overused? . Gifted Child Today, 22(2), 14-16.Sato, M. (2018). Spread and progress of School as Learning Community in Asia. In Lesson study and schools as learning communities (pp. 3-13). Routledge.Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn, and academic achievement. Cooperative learning: Theory and research, 173-202.Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small-group interaction to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 259-274.Webb, N.M. (1982). Group Composition, Group Interaction, and Achievement in small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), pp.475-484.Webb, N. M., & Cullian, L. K. (1983). Group interaction and achievement in small groups: Stability over time. American Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 389-397.Webb, N. M., & Cullian, L. K. (1983). Group interaction and achievement in small groups: Stability over time. American Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 411-423.Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 607-651.Welch, M. (1998). Collaboration: Staying on the bandwagon. Journal of Teacher Education; 49(1), pp. 26–38.Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communication of the ACM, 49 (3), 33–35. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
教育學系
108152009資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108152009 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 洪煌堯 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hong, Huang-Yao en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 黃顯淞 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Huang, Hsien-Sung en_US dc.creator (作者) 黃顯淞 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Huang, Hsien-Sung en_US dc.date (日期) 2022 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2022 15:34:28 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Sep-2022 15:34:28 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2022 15:34:28 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0108152009 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141778 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 教育學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 108152009 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在探討「輪替式分組合作學習」應用於國中資訊科技的程式設計課程，能否提昇學生的創意思考與運算思維能力。研究對象為同校中的6個班級，共156名國中生。本研究採準實驗研究法，並透過二種不同的小組分組方式分別對3個班級的實驗組(輪替式分組)與3個班級的控制組(固定式分組)進行教學。研究資料來源主要包括：創意思考前後測、運算思維前後測，以及線上學習單。資料分析於前測階段採用獨立樣本t檢定或卡方檢定其同質性，後測階段採用ANCOVA共變數分析，前後測之間的學習歷程則採用統計分析解釋控制組與實驗組的表現情形。研究結果發現，輪替式分組合作，相較於傳統的固定式異質分組合作學習方式，更有助於提升國中生的創意思考與運算思維能力。本研究除了驗證輪替式分組合作學習的可行性，也期望可以藉由研究發現來提供有意採用合作學習方法的教師另一種合作學習的教學模式。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of this research is to investigate whether using "rotation-based group learning" in the teaching of Scratch programming in a junior high school can help students enhance their creative thinking and computational thinking skills. The study design employs a quasi-experimental research method with participants being 156 middle-school students from 6 classes in a same middle school in northern Taiwan. These students were guided to engage in collaborative learning activities (within different small groups of 3-4 people), with the three experimental classes employing rotation-based group learning and the other three control classes adopting the conventional group learning. The main data sources include: creative thinking pre-post test questions, computational thinking pre- post test questions, and student learning sheets. In the pre-test, independent samples t-test and Chi-square test were used to test the homogeneity of the data, and ANCOVA was used in the post-test. The results showed that the rotation-based group learning method (as compared with the conventional group learning) significantly helped middle school students improve their creative thinking and computational thinking ability. By verifying the feasibility of rotation-based group learning, this study provides teachers (who are interested in group learning) an alternative teaching approach for fostering effective collaborative learning. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論第一節 研究背景與動機 ..............................1第二節 研究目的與待答問題 ..........................4第三節 重要名詞釋義 ................................5第四節 研究範圍與限制 ..............................7第二章 文獻探討第一節 創意思考與其相關研究 .........................8第二節 運算思維與其相關研究 ........................11第三節 合作學習與其相關研究 ........................13第四節 輪替式分組合作學習與其相關研究 ...............18第三章 研究方法第一節 研究對象 ...................................26第二節 研究設計 ...................................27第三節 學習活動設計 ...............................31第四節 研究工具與資料分析 ..........................37第五節 研究流程 ...................................43第四章 研究結果與分析第一節 對於學生的創意思考能力學習成效之影響 ..........44第二節 學生在關於創意思考之三大認知歷程的表現情況 .....46第三節 對於學生的運算思維能力學習成效之影響 ..........50第四節 學生在關於運算思維之三項核心能力的表現情況 .....52第五章 研究結論與建議第一節 結論 .......................................56第二節 建議 .......................................58參考文獻 .......................................60附錄 ..........................................66 zh_TW dc.format.extent 4647816 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108152009 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 輪替式分組 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合作學習 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 創意思考 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 運算思維 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Rotation-based group learning en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Collaborative learning en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Creative thinking en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Computational thinking en_US dc.title (題名) 輪替式分組合作學習應用於國中學生創意思考與運算思維能力之研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Effects of Rotation-based Group Learning on Students’ Creative Thinking and Computational Thinking Skills en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 【中文文獻】王文科、王智弘 (2014)。教育研究法(十六版)。五南出版社。吳正己、林育慈、邱瓊芳、陳學志、張鈞法 (2016)。運算思維定義。Computational Thinking for K-12。https://ctfork12.ice.ntnu.edu.tw/conception.html汪慧玲、沈佳生 (2013)。合作學習教學策略對大專學生之學習成效與學習態度之影響：以兒童發展評量與輔導課程某單元為例。臺中教育大學學報，27(1)， 57-76。 洪煌堯、蔡佩真、林倍伊 (2014)。透過知識創新教學理念與學習平臺以培養國小 學生自然課合作學習與翻新想法的習慣。科學教育學刊, 22(4), 413-439。張文華 (2000)。創造性思考。雙關語彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1311020/教育部國中小教學資源研發中心 (2012)。教師裡的春天~透過分組合作學習創建學習共同體。作者。教育部 (2013)。分組合作學習教學手冊。作者。教育部 (2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要。作者。國立臺灣師範大學資訊工程學系 (2018)。國際運算思維挑戰賽試題。Bebras。https://bebras.csie.ntnu.edu.tw/許桂英 (2004)。國小數學領域採合作學習之教學成效。教育學刊, (23)。111-136。陳淑絹 (2000)。合作學習策略。雙關語彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1304597/黃政傑、林佩璇 (2015)。合作學習。五南出版社。楊忠祥、陳鈺芳(2013)。如何從學術論文之統計量數計算效果量: 以 Cohen d, η^ 2 與 ω^ 2 為例。臺灣運動心理學報， 13(2)， 75-90. 臺灣PISA國家研究中心 (2021)。PISA 2021創意思考評量架構。臺灣PISA。https://pisa.irels.ntnu.edu.tw/data.html 蔡清田(2020)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要研修的核心素養，臺灣教育評論月 刊，9(1)，8-12。賴光真 (2016)。分組合作學習歷程學習謬誤之警覺，臺灣教育評論月刊，5(5)，92-96。顏膺修、吳為聖、張惠博 (2012)。教室是平的? 一位國小自然科教師的敘說探究。 科學教育學刊，20(2)，97-118。【English Reference】Akinbobola, A.O. (2009). Enhancing students’ attitude towards Nigerian senior secondary school physics through the use of cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning strategies. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 1-9.Annett, N. (1997). Collaborative learning: definitions, benefits, applications and dangers in the writing center. University of Richmond, Virginia; USA. Retrieved 5 Nov.2011, from: http://writing2.richmond.edu/training/fall97/nanne/collaboration.htmlAustin, J. E. (2000). Principles for Partnership. Journal of Leader to Leader. 18 (Fall), pp. 44-50.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.Benaya, T., & Zur, E. (2007). Collaborative programming projects in an advanced CS course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 22(6), 126-135.Brown, L. & Lara, V. (2011. Oct. 9). Professional Development Module on Collaborative Learning. El Paso Community College, Texas; USA. Retrieved 5 Nov. 2011, from: http://www.texascollaborative.org/Collaborative_Learning_Module.htmBrunink, A. M. (2014). Rotating leadership: the process within organizational improvisation (Bachelor`s thesis, University of Twente).Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of management Journal, 50(5),1217-1234.Davis, J. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 159-201.Eugene Sadler-Smith (2015). Wallas’ Four-Stage Model of the Creative Process: More Than Meets the Eye? , Creativity Research Journal, 27:4, 342-352,DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2015.1087277 Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology education. 7(1), Retrieved 5 Nov. 2011, from: https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html.Google (2015). Exploring Computational Thinking. Retrieved fromhttps://www.google.com/edu/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/Hennessey, B. A. (2010). The creativity—motivation connection.Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27-40.Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296-310.Johnson, D.W. (1971). Effectiveness of role reversal: actor or listener. Journal of Psychological Reports. 28(1), pp. 275-282.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom and school. ASCD.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, and Individualistic Learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Kalelioglu, F., Gulbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 31, 486-490. Lalley, J., & Miller, R. (2007). The learning pyramid: Does it point teachers in the right direction. Education, 128(1), 16.Ma, L., Matsuzawa, Y., & Scardamalia, M. (2016). Rotating leadership and collective responsibility in a grade 4 Knowledge Building classroom. International Journal of Organizational Design and Engineering, 4(1-2), 54-84.OECD (2019). PISA 2022 Creative Thinking Framework (Third Draft). Retrieved fromhttps://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2022-creative-thinking-framework.pdfPeterson, P.L. & Swing, S. R. (1985). Students Cognitions as Mediators of the Effectiveness of Small-group Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. 77(3), pp.299-312.Preston, D. (2005). Pair programming as a model of collaborative learning: a review of the research. Journal of Computing Sciences in colleges, 20(4), 39-45.Randall, V. (1999). Cooperative learning: Abused and overused? . Gifted Child Today, 22(2), 14-16.Sato, M. (2018). Spread and progress of School as Learning Community in Asia. In Lesson study and schools as learning communities (pp. 3-13). Routledge.Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn, and academic achievement. Cooperative learning: Theory and research, 173-202.Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small-group interaction to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 259-274.Webb, N.M. (1982). Group Composition, Group Interaction, and Achievement in small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), pp.475-484.Webb, N. M., & Cullian, L. K. (1983). Group interaction and achievement in small groups: Stability over time. American Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 389-397.Webb, N. M., & Cullian, L. K. (1983). Group interaction and achievement in small groups: Stability over time. American Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 411-423.Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 607-651.Welch, M. (1998). Collaboration: Staying on the bandwagon. Journal of Teacher Education; 49(1), pp. 26–38.Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communication of the ACM, 49 (3), 33–35. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202201311 en_US
