探究九年級學生在電腦模擬的不同環境中，概念學習與投入行為之研究─以力與運動為例

黃雅鈴(Ya-Ling Huang)

指導教授 ： 吳心楷

國立臺灣師範大學/理學院/科學教育研究所/碩士(2004年)

摘要

摘要
本研究探討透過資訊科技的不同使用方式─教師引導學習與學生自控學習─學生概念的發展以及投入行為的差異。本研究以九年級學生54人為研究對象，共分兩組教學。教師引導學習班級29人，教師以單槍將電腦模擬投射於大螢幕，透過討論及提問引導學生觀看模擬內容，完成學習單上的問題；學生自控班級25人，依高中低成就同質分組，兩人共同使用一部電腦，學生必須輪流操控電腦，自行完成學習單上的任務，教師為協助者。
本研究的量化分析結果，包括成就與電腦態度測驗。兩個班級(組間)分別在前、後、延宕測驗皆未達顯著差異，但兩班(組內)的後測與延宕測驗皆有顯著的進步( t(57)= - 9.234，p＜.05，t(49) = - 7.634，p＜.05)。後測部分，教師引導班級以低成就學生進步最多，學生自控班級以中、高成就學生進步分數較多。延宕分數，兩個班級的高、中、低成就學生彼此進步幅度皆相當，且以高成就進步最多，中成就其次，低成就進步最少，顯示高成就學生經過教學後長期記憶的保留程度最佳。電腦態度測驗中，兩個班級學生其電腦態度與後測分數皆屬低度相關，此部分結果顯示學生可能對電腦有高度興趣，但是不保證對學習科學概念有高度的理解。
本研究的質性資料是紀錄學生在使用電腦模擬過程的對話，加以分析後發現兩個班級的學生認知投入的比例最高，其次是行為投入；教師引導班級以問答形式互動最多，學生自控班級多以陳述方式互動；教師引導班級中學生提問多是非學習單的概念問題，學生自控班級中教師的提問多是任務性的問題。由學生自控班級的高中低成就學生的對話可知，低成就學生非投入的比例較高，高成就學生出現較多評估正確性的對話步驟，低成就學生較多覆誦。
綜合量化與質化分析結果顯示，電腦模擬的不同使用方式皆能促進學生的概念發展，但高中低成就的學生，在不同情境獲益程度也就不同。本研究詳細紀錄學生使用電腦模擬概念學習的過程，可供未來相關研究之參考。

關鍵字

力學概念 ； 電腦模擬 ； 教師引導學習 ； 學生自控學習 ； 認知投入

並列摘要

Although previous studies in technology-based instruction has shown that students learn better with the use of technology, few of them explored how different teaching approaches (teacher-centered and student-centered) in technology-integrated classrooms influence student science learning. The study is addressed this issue by comparing ninth graders’ cognitive engagement and conceptual development in teacher-centered and student-centered technology integrated classrooms.
Fifty-four students (29 in the teacher-centered class and 25 in the student-centered class) from a public junior high school in Taiwan participated in this study. In the teacher-centered class, students learned concepts about force and motion through the teacher’s demonstration of computer simulations and classroom discussions, while in the student-centered class, students worked in pairs and learned the concepts through manipulating variables provided by computer simulations. Multiple sources of data were collected (e.g., achievement pre-, post-, and retention tests, computer attitude questionnaires and classroom observation) during a twelve-hour instructional unit.
The results appeared no significant differences between the two classes in the pre-, post-, and retention tests. Yet, the gain scores (posttest-pretest) showed different patterns across achievement groups in the two classes. In the teacher-centered class, students in the low achievement group gained the most, while in the student-centered class, medium and high achievement students improved the most. Students’ attitude toward computer was not correlated with their conceptual development. In addition, the analyses of classroom observation showed that students in both classes were cognitively engaged. Students in the student-centered class usually interacted through describing ideas, while students in the teacher-centered frequently interacted by teacher questioning. In the student-centered class a majority of questions students had were related to the worksheets and learning tasks, but in the teacher-centered class, questions asked by students were mostly genuine and conceptual and not relevant to the questions on the worksheets. The findings suggest that both teaching approaches promoted students’ conceptual development and provided students with different opportunities to cognitively engage in science learning.