開發觀察鷹架輔助學生使用視覺化程式工具進行計算建模之分析

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	周彥丞 Yen-Chen Chou
論文名稱：	開發觀察鷹架輔助學生使用視覺化程式工具進行計算建模之分析 An Analysis of Student Computational Modeling Behaviors Assisted by Observed Scaffolding
指導教授：	劉晨鐘 Chen-Chung Liu
口試委員:
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	資訊電機學院 - 資訊工程學系 Department of Computer Science & Information Engineering
論文出版年：	2021
畢業學年度：	109
語文別：	中文
論文頁數：	80
中文關鍵詞：	計算思維、計算建模、鷹架理論、電腦模擬
外文關鍵詞：	computational thinking, computational modeling, scaffolding instructions, computer simulation
相關次數：	點閱：12 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

計算思維是這個時代不可或缺的能力，而計算建模能夠有效的幫助學生培養計算思維，搭配鷹架輔助的系統或教學設計能幫助學生建立計算模型並使他們成為一個獨立且擁有自我學習能力的人。因此本研究設計了一個具有鷹架輔助功能和視覺化程式設計界面的計算建模系統與計算思維引導課程，蒐集17位高二學生使用本系統進行計算思維活動的學習歷程，並使用質性分析、量化分析和皮爾森積差相關分析釐清在鷹架輔助下學生的對模擬細節的觀察表現和計算思維概念學習成效與建模中的行為特性之間的關聯性，探討具有鷹架輔助的計算建模活動對於學生計算思維概念的影響。
研究結果顯示，具有鷹架輔助的計算建模活動確實能幫助學生理解計算思維概念。此外，學生能否在鷹架輔助下仔細描述模擬細節，會影響到他們在建立計算模型的表現。學生能否建立較為完整的計算模型則與其對於隨時間變化之動態系統的描述、數學與工程概念的轉換、與系統架構的了解程度有關，最後，根據研究結果提出在實驗中所遇到的問題和未來實驗可以改進的地方，像是可以在系統中增加功能標示幫助學生更了解系統架構和一定程度的除錯工具輔助學生，亦可以針對不同程度的學生給予不同等級的鷹架輔助，而教師能夠在初期提供無法在鷹架輔助下仔細描述模擬細節的學生更多的學習協助。

Computational thinking is an indispensable ability in this era, and computational modeling can effectively help students cultivate computational thinking, and the use of scaffolding assisted system or instructional design can also help students build computational models, and make them become an independent person with self-learning ability. Therefore, this study designed a course of computational modeling system and computational thinking guidance with scaffolding assisted and visual-based programming interface, collected the modeling process of 17 sophomores in the computational modeling activity with scaffolding assisted. The quantitative analyses, qualitative analyses, and Pearson Correlation analyses were conducted to answer research questions. Pearson product moment correlation analyses are used to clarify the relationship between the students' observation performance of simulation details and the learning effect of computational thinking concepts with the help of scaffolding and the behavioral characteristics in modeling, and to explore the influence of computational modeling activities with the help of scaffolding on the students' computational thinking concepts.
The results show that the scaffolding assisted computational modeling can help students understand the concept of computational thinking. In addition, whether students can describe the simulation details carefully with scaffolding assisted will affect their performance in building the computational model, and students’ abilities to develop more comprehensive computational models were correlated with the abilities to describe a time-varying dynamic system, the conversion between mathematics and engineering concepts, and the abilities to recognize event patterns. Finally, the problems encountered in the experiment and the improvements that can be made in the future experiment are proposed, such as adding function labels in the system to help students understand the system architecture and a certain degree of error correction tools to assist students, Moreover, different levels of scaffolding assistance can be given to students at different levels, and teachers can also give more help to students who can not describe the simulation details carefully at the initial stage.

摘要................................................................................................................................i
Abstract..........................................................................................................................ii
致謝 ..............................................................................................................................iv
目錄 ..............................................................................................................................vi
圖目錄 ........................................................................................................................viii
表目錄 ..........................................................................................................................ix
壹、緒論 .......................................................................................................................1
1 研究背景與動機 .............................................................................................1
2 研究目的與問題 .............................................................................................2
3 名詞解釋 ..........................................................................................................2
3.1 計算建模（Computational modeling）.......................................................... 2
3.2 電腦模擬（Computer simulation）................................................................ 2
3.3 後設認知（Metacognition） .......................................................................... 3
3.4 計算思維（Computational thinking）............................................................ 3
3.5 鷹架理論（Scaffolding instruction）............................................................. 3
4 論文架構 .........................................................................................................3
貳、文獻探討 ...............................................................................................................4
1 計算思維 .........................................................................................................4
2 計算建模 .........................................................................................................5
3 鷹架理論 .........................................................................................................7
參、系統設計 ...............................................................................................................8
1 系統架構與設計理念 .....................................................................................8
2 系統介紹 .......................................................................................................10
肆、研究方法 .............................................................................................................18
1 研究流程 .......................................................................................................18
2 教學活動設計 ...............................................................................................20
3 實驗設計 .......................................................................................................25
3.1 填寫實驗同意書............................................................................................ 26
3.2 計算思維概念前測試題測驗........................................................................ 26
3.3 教學活動........................................................................................................ 26
3.4 模擬開發任務................................................................................................ 26
3.5 計算思維概念後測試題測驗........................................................................ 26
3.6 自我評估問卷................................................................................................ 26
4 研究對象 .......................................................................................................27
5 研究工具 .......................................................................................................27
5.1 CoSci 平台...................................................................................................... 27
5.2 計算思維概念前後測試題............................................................................ 27
5.3 模擬開發任務行為紀錄檔............................................................................ 28
5.4 自我評估問卷................................................................................................ 29
6 資料蒐集與分析 ...........................................................................................30
6.1 計算模型........................................................................................................ 30
6.2 模擬開發任務表現........................................................................................ 30
6.3 模擬開發任務行為........................................................................................ 31
6.4 計算思維概念學習成效................................................................................ 32
6.5 教學活動筆記內容........................................................................................ 32
伍、研究結果與討論 .................................................................................................34
1 模擬開發任務行為次數分析 .......................................................................34
1.1 模擬開發任務行為次數與分組.................................................................... 34
1.2 模擬開發任務次數質性分析........................................................................ 35
2 教學活動筆記內容分析 ...............................................................................39
2.1 教學活動筆記內容完整度分析.................................................................... 39
2.2 教學活動筆記內容質性分析........................................................................ 40
3 模擬開發任務表現 .......................................................................................44
3.1 模擬開發任務表現分析................................................................................ 44
3.2 各群模擬開發任務質性分析........................................................................ 45
4 計算思維概念學習成效 ...............................................................................48
5 自我評估問卷分析 .......................................................................................49
6 教學活動筆記成績分析 ...............................................................................50
6.1 教學活動筆記成績與模擬開發任務行為次數相關性................................ 50
6.2 教學活動筆記成績與模擬開發任務表現相關性........................................ 51
6.3 教學活動筆記成績與計算思維概念學習成效相關性................................ 51
6.4 教學活動筆記成績與自我評估問卷相關性................................................ 52
陸、結論與未來工作 .................................................................................................53
1 結論 ...............................................................................................................53
2 未來工作 .......................................................................................................55
參考文獻 .....................................................................................................................56
附錄 A 計算思維概念前後測試題............................................................................60
附錄 B 自我評估問卷................................................................................................63

                                

賴柏翰（2021）。學生應用視覺化建模與程式工具進行計算建模之分析。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所碩士論文，桃園市
教育部（2018）。運算思維推動計畫。 Retrieved from http://compthinking.csie.n tnu.edu.tw/index.php/intro
Aksit, O., & Wiebe, E. N. (2019). Exploring force and motion concepts in middle grades using computational modeling: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-18.
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The computer journal, 55(7), 832-835.
Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using agent-based modeling. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(2), 81-119.
Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, I. D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(1), 5-23.
Csizmadia, A., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Computational thinking: A guide for teachers.
diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bransford, J., Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academies Press.
Esquembre, F. (2004). Easy Java Simulations: A software tool to create scientific simulations in Java. Computer physics communications, 156(2), 199-204.
Guzdial, M. (1994). Software‐realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive learning environments, 4(1), 001-044.
Guzdial, M. (2004). Programming environments for novices. Computer science education research, 2004, 127-154.
Grover, S. (2018). The 5th ‘C’ of 21st Century Skills? Try Computational Thinking (Not Coding). from EdSurge: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-02-25-the-5th-c-of-21st-century-skills-try-computational-thinking-not-coding
Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding & cooperative learning. Human learning and instruction, 23-69.
Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 183-187.
Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). What is scaffolding. Teachers’ voices, 8, 8-16.
Henderson, P. B., Cortina, T. J., Hazzan, O., and Wing, J. M. (2007). Computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE ’07, 195-196.
Hill, L. L., Crosier, S. J., Smith, T. R., & Goodchild, M. (2001). A content standard for computational models. D-Lib Magazine, 7(6), 1082-9873.
Hutchins, N. M., Biswas, G., Zhang, N., Snyder, C., Lédeczi, Á., & Maróti, M. (2020). Domain-specific modeling languages in computer-based learning environments: A systematic approach to support science learning through computational modeling. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 30(4), 537-580.
Kynigos, C. (2007). Using half-baked microworlds to challenge teacher educators’ knowing. International journal of computers for mathematical learning, 12(2), 87-111.
Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83-137.
Kurt, S. (2020). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding. Educational Technology, https://educationaltechnology. net/Vygotsky’s-Zoneof-proximal, development-and-scaffolding.
Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An Overview.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12?. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?. American psychologist, 59(1), 14.
National Research Council. (2010). Report of a Workshop on the Scope and Nature of Computational Thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). Report of a Workshop of Pedagogical Aspects of Computational Thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Olson, J. and Platt, J. (2000). The Instructional Cycle. Teaching Children and Adolescents with Special Needs (pp. 170-197). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, ITTRnc.
Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 1-61.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-189.
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142-158.
Tsai, M. J., Liang, J. C., & Hsu, C. Y. (2021). The computational thinking scale for computer literacy education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(4), 579-602.
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127-147.
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and instruction, 24(2), 171-209
Wilensky, U. (2014). Computational thinking through modeling and simulation. Whitepaper presented at the summit on future directions in computer education. Orlando, FL. http://www. stanford. edu/* coopers/2013Summit/WilenskyUriNorthwestern REV. pdf.
Winsberg, E. (2013). Computer Simulations in Science. Retrieved from https://plato.s tanford.edu/entries/simulations-science/?utm_source=feedly
Wing, J. M. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. 40th anniversary blog of social issues in computing. Available at http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu/201 4/01/computational-thinking/

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文