Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||分組方式對國小學生學習 KPL 程式設計之影響|
The Effects of Grouping Methods on Elementary School Students Learning KPL Programming
Lin Tsung Yuan
|Abstract:||本研究將合作學習運用在國小學童的 KPL（Kids’ Programming Language）程式設計教學中，目的在於了解學生是否因為不同的分組方式而產生不同的學習成效，以及學生在不同分組方式下的合作行為。某國小兩班五年級學童（共66名）參與本研究。研究者根據學生的瑞文氏標準推理能力測驗成績，將一班學童進行異質分組，另一班進行同質分組，每組均為3 人。本研究實施了20 週的KPL程式設計教學，其間以學習單、成就測驗卷、學習態度問卷、個別訪談及解題過程實況錄影，收集量化與質性資料並加以分析。研究結果顯示，不同分組方式並未造成兩組學生在學習成效上的明顯差異。分別針對高、中、低三類學習成就學生進行組間比較，亦未發現不同分組方式帶來學習成效上的顯著差異。此結果與過去部份學者的發現略有不同，殆可歸因於教學內容難度偏高、學生的學習積極性不足、以及樣本數過少所致。在合作解題行為上，兩組間較明顯之差異包括︰異質組之低學習成就學生因有高學習成就組員引導，使其得以按照指示執行任務，因而與組員間有著較佳之互動；但異質組在分工時，組員通常只負責固定的工作，而同質組組員則較傾向於輪流負責不同的工作。|
This research aims to investigate if different grouping methods affect student performance in learning to program in KPL (Kids’ Programming Language) and how students collaborate with team members during problem solving. Two intact classes of 66 fifth graders participated in this study. Based on Raven’s SPM test scores, students of one class formed heterogeneous teams, whereas students of the other class formed homogeneous teams. Each team composed of three members. The KPL instruction lasted 20 weeks, during which student worksheets, tests, a questionnaire, video recording, and individual interviews were used to collect quantitative and qualitative data. Analyses of collected data indicated that different grouping methods did not result in statistically significant difference in student performance between the two groups. Separate between-group comparisons of student performance with respect to high achievers, medium achievers, and low achievers did not reveal significant difference either. Such findings were inconsistent with those in several previous studies. Possible reasons may be content difficulty, students’ lack of motivation to learn computer programming, and insufficient sample size. As for collaborative behavior, noticeable differences between the two groups included: the low-achievers in heterogeneous teams interacted more with team members, mostly because they would follow the guidance provided by the high-achieving student in his/her team; however, the roles played by each team member in a heterogeneous team during collaboration tended to be fixed across different projects, whereas members of a homogeneous team were more likely to shift roles during collaboration.
|Appears in Collections:||學位論文|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.