本研究旨於探討及比較虛擬教具與實體教具在智能障礙學生之時間概念應用上的學習成效。研究對象為三名國小五六年級之輕中度智障學生。研究方法採單一受試研究法之交替處理設計,自變項為虛擬教具—萬用揭示板和實體教具之教學環境,依變項為時間概念應用之學習成效以及學習接受度。經過十九節的教學實驗,運用視覺分析與C統計探究和比較學生的學習表現,並分析調查結果以瞭解學生對兩種教具之接受度差異情形。 研究結果發現在經過教學後,使用兩種教具之學習成效差異程度在三個單元中有所不同。在「時間量的計算」單元教學中,三位參與者使用虛擬教具之成效均明顯優於實體教具;在「時刻判讀」單元中,甲乙使用虛擬教具之成效明顯高於實體教具,丙在虛擬教具之學習成效僅有略高的優勢;而在「時間單位的換算」單元中,僅有乙生使用虛擬教具之學習成效大幅高於實體教具,甲丙二者雖使用虛擬教具之學習成效較高,但其與實體教具的成效差距不大。再者,比較兩種教具的學習接受度,三名參與者均對虛擬教具有較高的接受度。
The purpose of this study was to explore and compare the differences of the time-concept learning effects between virtual manipulatives and physical manipulatives on the elementary school students with intellectual disabilities. The study participants were three elementary school students with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities. This study method adopted the alternating treatments design of the single subject research. The independent variables were the teaching environments of virtual manipulatives and physical manipulatives. The dependent variables were the learning effects of time-concept applications and the acceptance of two manipulatives. After the 19-period teaching experiment, the learning effects were analyzed by visual analysis and C statistic. And the differences of the learning acceptance between two manipulatives were analyzed by questionnaire results. The results of this study showed that the learning effects of two manipulatives varied in three units after teaching. In the unit of time-interval calculation, three participants all indicated obviously significant learning effects with virtual manipulatives better than the results of physical manipulatives. As to the time-telling unit, the participant A and B both clearly showed better results with virtual manipulatives than the results of physical manipulatives. And the participant C only showed slightly better results in the learning effects with virtual manipulatives. While in the unit of time-unit conversion, only the participant B showed significant learning effects with virtual manipulatives greater than the results of physical manipulatives. Although the participant A and C had better learning effects with virtual manipulatives, their results had not indicated much differences compared with the results of physical manipulatives. In addition, in comparison of the learning acceptance of two manipulatives, all three participants had higher acceptance of virtual manipulatives than physical manipulatives.