在行動科技輔助學習下探討學生個人特質對學習方法與學習成果的影響

康明詠(Ming-yong Kang)

指導教授 ： 李憶萱

國立中央大學/管理學院/企業管理學系/碩士(2014年)

摘要

本研究旨在探討高等教育學生在行動科技輔助的學習環境中，個人特徵對個人學習方法與學習成效之影響。在個人特徵方面，以學習風格(Learning style)四構面、認知負荷(Cognitive load)兩構面與成就目標(Achievement goal)四構面進行探討。除此之外，本研究更進一步的比較行動科技輔助的環境與一般傳統教學環境之間的差異，藉以了解行動裝置在學生學習過程中的效果。
本研究之對象為國立交通大學在103年所開設的管理學課程之學生，採用實驗設計之「靜態組比較設計」將學生分為實驗組及控制組，兩組的差別在於實驗組課程中使用行動裝置上的學習平台(iNCTU)與通訊軟體Line，而控制組則沒有。研究回收135份有效樣本，並透過SPSS 21與AMOS 21進行個人資料與信效度分析，利用路徑分析（Path Analysis）探討本研究之理論架構與路徑因果關係，研究發現說明如下：
(一) 學生的學習風格對於學習方法、學習滿意度與成績皆沒有顯著影響。
(二) 在一般傳統環境中，內在認知負荷對學習方法的影響並不顯著;而在行動科技的輔助下，內在認知負荷會反向影響深層、正向影響表層學習方法。
(三) 在一般傳統環境中，內在認知負荷只會反向影響滿意度;而在行動科技的輔助下，內在認知負荷對滿意度及成績皆無顯著影響。
(四) 一般傳統環境下，外在認知負荷對深層/表層學習方法並無顯著影響;而在行動科技輔助下，外在認知負荷會正向影響深層學習方法。
(五) 一般傳統環境下，外在認知負荷對滿意度及成績並無顯著影響;而在行動科技輔助下，外在認知負荷會正向影響滿意度及成績。
(六) 不論在何種環境下，成就目標皆會影響學生的學習方法、學習滿意度及成績。
(七) 一般傳統環境下，學習方法並不影響學習滿意度及成績;而在行動科技輔助下，表層學習方法易導致較差的成績。

本研究更進一步利用多群組分析探討實驗組與控制組，在模型各路徑的差異，藉以了解在學習中引進行動裝置的效果，研究結果說明如下：
(一) 在認知負荷中，內在負荷→深層、內在負荷→表層、外在負荷→滿意度此三條路徑有顯著差異。
(二) 在成就目標中，趨向表現→表層、逃避精熟→表層、趨向精熟→表層、逃避表現→深層、逃避精熟→滿意、趨向精熟→滿意、趨向表現→成績此七條路徑有顯著差異。

關鍵字

學習風格 ； 成就目標 ； 認知負荷 ； Biggs 3P 模型 ； 路徑分析 ； 多組分析 ； 多變量變異數分析 ； 行動學習

並列摘要

This research attempted to determine whether individual differences will influence learning approaches and learning outcomes in a blended learning environment (mobile learning as well as traditional learning). Individual differences will include learning style (convergent, divergent, assimilation, accommodative), cognitive load (intrinsic cognitive load, extraneous cognitive load) , and achievement goal (performance-approach, master-avoidance, master-approach, performance-avoidance).
Furthermore, the research compared the differences between blended learning and traditional learning to investigate the effects of applying mobile devices and handheld devices.
The subjects of this study were 135 students in a management class in the National Chiao Tung University. The research adopted the static group comparison of experimental design. The students were assigned to a control group, and an experimental group. Students in the experimental group had used the m-learning systems (iNCTU) and Line but students in the control group had not. The Path Analysis was conducted to analyze the data and investigate the causalities among all parameters constructed in the research. The results were summarized as follows:

I. Learning style didn’t affect learning approach, learning achievement and satisfaction.
II. In the traditional environment,Intrinsic cognitive load didn’t affect learning approach;in the blended learning environment intrinsic cognitive load had a negative effect on deep approach but a positive effect on surface approach.
III. In the traditional environment, intrinsic cognitive load had a negative effect on satisfaction; in the blended learning environment, intrinsic cognitive load wouldn’t affect learning achievement and satisfaction.
IV. In the traditional environment, extraneous cognitive load wouldn’t affect deep/surface approach;in the blended learning environment, extraneous cognitive load had a positive effect on deep approach.
V. In the traditional environment, extraneous cognitive load wouldn’t affect satisfaction and learning achievement;in the blended learning environment, extraneous cognitive load had a positive effect on satisfaction and learning achievement.
VI. Achievement goal would affect learning approach 、satisfaction and learning achievement.
VII. In the traditional environment, learning approach wouldn’t affect satisfaction and learning achievement;in the blended learning environment, surface approach had a negative effect on learning achievement.

The Multi-group analysis was conducted to explore the difference of the two groups. The results showed that the two groups were significantly difference in dimensions of the proposed research model. The results of the study were summarized as follows:

I. In terms of cognitive load, Intrinsic cognitive load→deep approach、Intrinsic cognitive load→surface approach and extraneous cognitive load->satisfaction have significantly differences in two groups.
II. In terms of achievement goal, performance-approach→surface approach、mastery- avoidance→surface approach、mastery-approach→surface approach 、performance- avoidance→deep approach、mastery-avoidance→satisfaction and Mastery-approach→satisfaction、Performance-approach→learning achievement have significantly differences in two groups

並列關鍵字

Learning styl ； Achievement goal ； Cognitive load ； Biggs 3P Model ； Path analysis ； Multi-group analysis ； MANOVA ； Mobile learning

參考文獻

余泰魁. (2007). 科技媒介學習環境之學習成效比較研究. 教育心理學報, 39(1), 69-90.

侯玫如, 程炳林, & 于富雲. (2004). 國中生多重目標導向與其自我調整學習之關係. 教育心理學報, 35(3), 221-247.

Al‐Qahtani, A. A., & Higgins, S. (2013). Effects of traditional, blended and e‐learning on students' achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 220-234.

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS quarterly, 159-174.

Alavi, M., Marakas, G. M., & Yoo, Y. (2002). A comparative study of distributed learning environments on learning outcomes. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 404-415.