Spelling suggestions: "subject:"bknowledge forum"" "subject:"bknowledge eorum""
11 |
不同電腦支援合作學習環境對師培生在教育理論、教師專業與教學實務等概念學習上之影響 / Effects of different CSCL environments on teacher-education students’ conceptual understanding of theories, expertise and practices in teaching詹雯靜, Chan, Wen Ching Unknown Date (has links)
本研究旨在探究兩個不同電腦支援合作學習環境,知識論壇平台(Knowledge Forum, KF)與黑板數位學習平台(Blackboard, BB),在支援師培生學習教育理論、教師專業與教學實務等概念過程中之影響。BB的設計主要以一般的學習理論為基礎,KF的設計則是以知識建構(knowledge building)理論為中心。研究設計採混合研究法之橫斷取向策略,研究對象為某國立大學修習一師培必修課程「教育理念與實際之整合」之49位學生。於學期初將研究對象分成二組,其中BB組25人,KF組24人。課程目標主要希望學生在修課後能對自己即將投入之事業,以及對於教學理論、教師專業與教學實務間的關係,能有更深入的瞭解,並進一步反思自己在未來實習階段需要加強之處。
研究資料主要來自兩個數位學習平台上自動存取的紀錄(例如:建立文章次數、對他人文章回覆次數等)、以及學生於兩平台上所發表的文章內容。資料分析主要為推論統計之單因子變異數分析及質性的內容分析法。根據分析結果,本研究提出以下三點結論:
一、兩組學生在相同教師及相同課程設計下,在兩個學習平台上的活動量大致相同,但是於KF環境下學習的學生則表現出較多的成員互動。根據本研究結果推論,會產生此現象是因為BB的平台設計僅提供單一回文機制,供學生對他人的文章做回饋。而KF平台的設計則提供較多元的互動機制,除了可以對他人文章做回應(build-on)外,還可以對別人的文章做註解(annotation)、引用他人文章(reference)、以及統整文章(rise-above)等功能。
二、在學生於教育理論與教學實務間關係概念的理解上,首先,於低層次的理解面向上(主要包含教師要能「知道且理解教學理論」和「應用教學理論」)兩組學生沒有顯著差異。但是,在高層次的理解上(主要為教師要能「分析理論和實務上的關係」),KF組則比BB組表現好。根據本研究結果推論,KF的學習環境可以幫助學生發展更高層次的思考。
三、在學生對教師專業與教學實務間關係概念的理解上,首先,在低層次的理解面向上(主要包含教師要「理解並應用專業於實務」和「從實務中歸納專業為多面向的整合」),兩組學生沒有顯著差異。然而,在較高層次的理解上(主要包含教師要能「分析專業和實務上的關係」和「評鑑、反思自己在專業上的表現」),KF組的表現比BB組好。研究推論KF環境較能幫助提昇學生的概念學習至較成熟的理解層次。
根據上述結論,本研究提出下列四點建議:(1)電腦支援合作式學習環境應發展更多元的文章互動機制;(2)師培教育應更重視師培生對教學理論、教師專業與教學實務間關係的理解;(3)教師選擇使用電腦支援合作式學習環境時,應將是否能幫助學生產生深層理解做為其中考量;以及(4)教師應幫助學生發展知識創新概念。 / This study investigated the effects of two different computer-supported collaborative learning environments, Knowledge Forum (KF) and Blackboard (BB), on teacher-education students’ conceptual understanding of theories, expertise, and practices in teaching. Blackboard is designed generally based on conventional learning theories. In contrast, Knowledge Forum is designed particularly based on knowledge building theory and pedagogy. Participants were 49 students who took a course titled “Integrating Instructional Theory and Practice,” which was offered by a teacher-education program in a national university, Taiwan. The study employed a mixed-method design, with the participants being divided into a BB group (N=25) and a KF group (N=24), with the later serving as an experimental group. The main instructional goal was to help students deepen their understanding of the relationships between theories, expertise and practices in teaching and to become more reflective on their future teaching practice.
Data primarily came from students’ online discourse posted in the form of notes and were recorded in the aforementioned two BB and KF databases. To analyze, one-way ANOVA was employed to describe students’ online activities (e.g., number of notes posted) and an open-coding procedure were adapted to content-analyze student notes. There were three main findings as follows:
(1) It was found there was no significant difference observed between the two groups in terms of the number of notes posted online in each database. But in terms of interactivity, there were more note linking actives in the KF group than in the BB group. It is suggested that this might be due to the design mechanism of the BB environment being less supportive for discourse interaction among students. In contrast, the KF environment has more design features such as annotations, references, and rise-above to support student interactions.
(2) In terms of students’ conceptual understanding of the relationships between theories and practices in teaching, it was found that there were no significant differences between the two groups at the two lower conceptual levels (including teachers should “know and understand most teaching theories” and “be able to put theories into practices”.) But in contrast, it was found that there was a significant difference between the two groups at a higher level of understanding (i.e., teachers should be able to “analyze the relationship between theory and practice”). The findings suggest that as compared with Blackboard, Knowledge Forum seemed to be a more supportive environment that tended to help students achieve a deeper conceptual understanding of the relationships between theories and practices in teaching.
(3) In terms of students’ conceptual understanding of the relationships between expertise and practices in teaching, it was found that there were no significant differences between the two groups at the two lower levels (including teachers should “understand the practice and the application of teacher expertise” and be able to “integrate practice into the multifaceted teaching expertise.”) But in contrast, it was found that there was a significant difference between the two groups at a higher level (i.e., teachers should be able to “analyze the relationships between teacher expertise and teaching practice” and “evaluate, reflect on their own professional performance.”) The findings suggest that Knowledge Forum seemed to be a more supportive environment capable of helping students achieve a higher level of conceptual understanding of the relationships between teacher expertise and practices in teaching.
Building on the above results, this study made the following four suggestions: (1) a good computer-supported collaborative learning environment should include necessary design features that support multiple interactive mechanisms; (2) teacher education program should help its students develop deeper conceptual understanding of educational theories, teacher expertise, and teaching practices; (3) teachers should be equipped with the necessary knowledge in order to choose a good computer-supported collaborative learning environment to support teaching; and (4) Teacher education program should help its students develop more knowledge building oriented concepts towards teaching and learning.
|
12 |
電腦輔助合作學習與知識翻新對大學生科學本質觀之影響 / Effects of computer-supported collaborative learning and knowledge building on college students’ view of nature of science林靜宜 Unknown Date (has links)
本研究的主要目的在幫助學生發展更主動與建構取向的科學本質觀。以42位修習「自然科學概論」通識課程的大學生為對象,採用「知識論壇」(Knowledge Forum, KF)的線上學習帄台,透過集體共構與分享知識讓學生學習自然科學,並在線上進行知識翻新(knowledge-building)。
研究資料主要來自(1)帄台上的貼文--以此分析學生知識建構與合作分享的情形;(2)「科學本質問卷」--以此分析學生在期初與期末對自然科學本質概念的轉變;(3)科學理論開放問卷--以此探討學生在期初與期末對科學理論概念的差異;以及(4)學生自我反思--藉此了解學生科學觀點轉變的過程。資料分析主要為推論統計之單因子變異數分析及質性的內容分析法。根據分析結果,本研究提出以下四點結論:
一、相較於傳統課堂,學生表現出比較多的同儕互動,特別是在知識論壇帄台中的活動。透過分享與想法的連結(每人帄均貼文14.5篇,貼文連結度達26.9%),帄台中呈現出密切的知識建構與互動學習。而隨著時間的增長,同儕之間的互動密集度亦呈現逐步增加的趨勢(期初10.1%,期末16.6%)。此外,除了互動學習,學生也在課室中扮演科學史的探索者,透過自身與同儕資訊分享的力量,建構對科學理論發展的認知。根據研究結果,在知識論壇中的活動顯示出學生合作學習與互動頻繁,並能透過多元的學習模式進行知識翻新。
二、學生的科學本質觀產生轉變。在科學本質中的「暫時性」、「理論蘊涵」、「多元化」、「發明觀」、「想像力使用」、「科學知識檢證」與「主觀性」等陎向,期末呈現顯著的轉變,從比較實證的觀點轉變為比較建構的取向。此結果顯示出學生對於科學本質逐漸具備較多元的
看法,認為科學是多元發展的。
三、學生對科學理論的認識也漸趨「建構取向」。針對科學理論在「科學理論知識」、「科學理論探究方法」、「科學理論來源」、「科學理論與科學事業發展」以及「科學理論價值性」等五個陎向,期末時學生對於科學理論的認識逐漸呈現多元與建構的觀點。研究結果顯示,學生認為科學理論是可以從不同角度去進行探究,藉由不同觀點的研究方法或程序,它是可以被不斷翻新與修正的;每個人也都可以透過集體合作、討論、發想來形成新的科學理論概念。
四、從期末反思中發現學生的科學態度亦產生變化。學生了解到理論與想法的進步是需要經過不斷的修改與翻新。再者,學生也認知到理論與理論之間關係緊密,科學家、科學理論之間的不斷互動是促進科學理論演化的動力;最後,學生也瞭解到科學學習應秉持質疑、創新的態度,適時批判權威理論而不照單全收,並且應培養主動學習、勇敢懷疑的態度,以及應能提出自己的想法與他人激盪等,如此方能真正認識科學理論的本質,並有助於推動科學的進步。
本研究根據研究結果及發現,在科學教學與學習方陎提出下列六點建議:(1)擺脫記憶、背誦的科學學習方式;(2)儘量不給標準答案,強調學習者間腦力激盪;(3)建構式科學學習,融入科學史,讓學習者自我建構並認知科學知識;(4)創造互動與合作的知識建構環境;(5)教師應多引導想法的討論與激盪,刺激學生以多元觀點進行對話與知識翻新;(6)脫離制式、標準的教學程序,營建開放的學習環境並促進多元想法。 / The purpose of this study was to help college students develop more informed and sophisticated scientific epistemological beliefs. Forty-two undergraduates who took a college course titled ―Introduction to Natural Sciences‖ participated in the study. An online collaborative knowledge building environment, enabled by a software program called Knowledge Forum, was provided for students’ knowledge work.
Data primarily came from (1) Students’ online discourse: which was posted in the form of notes, recorded in a Knowledge Forum database, and was used to analyze students’ collaborative learning and knowledge building. (2) A questionnaire—View on Science and Education Questionnaire (VOSE): which was originally designed and validated by Chen (2006) and it was used to analyze the differences of students’ view of nature of science between the beginning and the end of the course. (3) A open-ended survey with regard to the nature of scientific theory: which was employed to triangulate the findings derived from the VOSE and was administered in the beginning and at the end of the course. (4) Students’ self-reflection on what they learned from this course. To analyze, quantitative statistics (e.g., ANOVA) was employed to explore students’ online activities. Additionally, an open-coding procedure was adapted to content-analyze students’ notes. There were four main findings as follows:
(1) Students shared ideas constantly, developed connections among ideas, and worked collaboratively and closely with knowledge in Knowledge Forum (with mean
number of notes posted being 14.5 and percentage of notes linked being 26.9%). Furthermore, there was an gradual increase in students’ online discourse as reflected by the density of network interaction (10.1 % in the beginning of the course vs. 16.6% at the end of the course). In addition, students served as explorers by reconstructing stories of natural science history in Knowledge Forum, in order to develop a deeper understanding of the process of scientific theory development. The findings suggest that students worked closely together in collaborative learning and interaction, and were able to build knowledge using multiple methods in Knowledge Forum.
(2) Students also changed their view of nature of science. It was found that there were significant pre-post change between their view in the beginning and that at the end of the course, in terms of the following seven dimensions: ―tentativeness‖, ―nature of observations‖, ―scientific methods‖, ―theories and laws‖, ―use of imagination‖, ―validation of scientific knowledge‖, and ―subjectivity and objectivity‖. Overall, students’ view shifted from more positivism-oriented to more constructivism-oriented. It was found that towards the end of the course, students started to possess more multiplistic view of nature of science. Students thought that science is advanced by means of multiplistic ways with no standardized methods.
(3) In terms of students’ view of scientific theory, it became more ―constructivism-oriented‖ and more multiplistic towards the end of semester, in terms of the following five dimensions: ―knowledge about scientific theory-building‖, ―method of scientific theory-building‖, ―source of scientific theory‖, ―scientific theory and science as an enterprise‖ and ―value of scientific theory‖. It was found that student thought that scientific theory is developed through inquisition from many perspectives. Scientific theory is falsifiable, rather than fixed knowledge entity, and it should not be associated with pre-determined research procedure and standardized answers. Scientific theory can be improved by collaboration discussion and use of imagination.
(4) In terms of students’ self-reflection on what they learned from this course, it was found that students demonstrated better understanding that theories are improvable, and that it is important to relate one theory to another for the purpose of creating new knowledge. Moreover, students also realized that it is important to possess critical and creative attitude towards studying science.
Building on the above results, this study made the following six suggestions: (1) science learning must go beyond memorization and rote learning; (2) science learning should avoid the pursuit of standardized answers and encourage idea brainstorming; (3) science teachers should promote more constructive way of science learning, try to integrate history of science into science teaching, and help learners construct their own understanding of science; (4) it is important to cultivate a more creative and collaborative learning environment; (5) science teachers should also help students learn how to work with ideas, discuss together, and solve conflicting views; and (6) science teachers should help create an open environment to promote multiple scientific views.
|
Page generated in 0.0298 seconds