以概念關係作為聯想題之提示的研究

死記硬背並不是個好的學習方式。多年來，教學研究者試著提供一個較好的學習策略，讓學生在學習知識概念時，除了記憶之外，也能整合相關的先備知識並理解內容，同時也分析統整相關概念之間的關係，進而做到創新。本研究的目的是幫助學生整合對於課程概念的理解、了解概念與概念之間的關係。在做法上參考了前人的研究與成果、並統整與改善系統所提供的學習幫助。在做法上，本研究開發了遊戲式學習系統「SP Story」，經由使用此系統，學生或是以「概念圖式選擇題」作答(學習策略一)、或是以「聯想式推理題」作答(學習策略二)。為了比較哪種學習策略對於學生學習的幫助較大 ─ 哪種學習策略較能幫助學生真正的吸收完整的課程概念、而非零碎的記憶片段知識，本研究使用隨機分組方式將學生分為「聯想式推理作答組」與「概念圖式選擇題作答組」，然後讓兩組學生在課後使用「SP Story」進行複習，以了解兩組學生在透過此二種不一樣的作答方式進行課後複習之後，其學習成就、學習狀態以及學習保持力的差異。實驗結果顯示，兩組學生在使用不同學習策略進行遊戲式學習之後，在學習成就上都有顯著進步，而ANCOVA的檢定結果也顯示「聯想式推理作答組」在學習成就上顯著勝過「概念圖式選擇題作答組」。不過學習策略二在學習成就上的優勢並未維持很久，一個月後的學習保持力測驗顯示、「聯想式推理作答組」雖然在學習成就上依舊勝過「概念圖式選擇題作答組」、但信心水準已由原先的(立即後測的)99.2%降為(延遲後測的)91.8%。進一步分析不同知識程度的學生，發現如果低先備知識的學生沒參與讀書會、其使用學習策略二進行課後複習會(在學習成就方面)顯著優於以學習策略一進行課後複習。由學生的反應回饋內容可知，「聯想式推理作答組」的學生覺得這種學習方式能夠有效的幫助他們了解各個主題重點間概念與概念的關係，並且讓他們能夠更清楚的統整出所有課程概念上的連結。

關鍵字

聯想式推理作答；概念圖式選擇題；長期記憶；學習保持力

並列摘要

Rote learning is not a good way to learn. For many years, teaching researchers have tried to provide a better learning strategy, so that when students learn knowledge concepts, in addition to memory, they can also integrate relevant prior knowledge and understand the content, and also analyze the relationships between related concepts and concepts, unify them to achieve innovation. The purpose of this research is to help students integrate their understanding of course concepts and understand the relationship between concepts and concepts. In practice, it refers to previous research and achievements, and integrates and improves the learning assistance provided by the system. In practice, this research has developed a game-based learning system "SP Story". By using this system, students can answer with either "multiple choice concept map questions" (learning strategy one) or "associative reasoning questions" (Learning Strategy Two). In order to compare which learning strategy is more helpful for students' learning-which learning strategy can help students truly absorb the complete curriculum concepts rather than piecemeal memory fragment knowledge, this study uses random grouping to classify students into "Associative Reasoning Answering group" and "Multiple choice Concept Map answering group", and then let the two groups of students use "SP Story" to review after class to understand the differences in learning achievement, learning status, and learning retention between two groups of students after reviewing in these two different ways of answering. Experimental results show that after two groups of students use different learning strategies for game-based learning, they have made significant progress in their learning achievements. The ANCOVA test results also show that the "associative reasoning answering group" is significantly better than the " multiple choice concept map answering group" in learning achievement. However, the advantage of learning strategy 2 in learning achievement has not been maintained for a long time. A month later, the learning retention test showed that the "associative reasoning answering group" still outperforms the "multiple choice concept map answering group" in learning achievement, However, the level of confidence has dropped from 99.2% (post-test immediately) to 91.8% (post-test delayed). Further analysis of students with different levels of knowledge revealed that if students with low prior knowledge did not participate in the reading club, their use of learning strategy two for after-school review sessions (in terms of learning achievement) was significantly better than learning strategy one for after-school reviews. According to the content of the students ’feedback, the students of the“ associative reasoning group ”feel that this learning method can effectively help them understand the relationship between concepts and concepts in each topic and allow them to unify all courses conceptual link.