合作式知識圖建構與連續刺激對知識圖發展之影響

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	王錦裕 Chin-Yu Wang
論文名稱：	合作式知識圖建構與連續刺激對知識圖發展之影響 The effects of collaborative knowledge mapping with stimulus cascading on knowledge map development
指導教授：	黃武元 Wu-Yuin Hwang
口試委員:
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	資訊電機學院 - 資訊工程學系 Department of Computer Science & Information Engineering
畢業學年度：	95
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	151
中文關鍵詞：	知識圖建構、連鎖反應、連續刺激、概念圖建構
外文關鍵詞：	Concept Mapping, Knowledge Mapping, Stimulus Cascading, Chain
相關次數：	點閱：10 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

電腦輔助合作學習乃近年來熱門的研究方向；如何於合作學習環境激發學生進行主動學習乃成為一個重要的議題。本研究嘗試發展一套連續刺激的合作式知識圖建構系統，並將此系統實際運用於教學環境中。此系統能讓學生整合網際網路資源，將自己對某一主題的知識架構呈現出來，而系統則在此過程對相關學生進行連續刺激，以期促使學習者產生連鎖反應並進而修改既有知識或創造出更多的知識。本研究旨在探討合作式知識圖建構活動與連續刺激對知識圖發展的影響。為達研究目的，本研究分別針對初學程式及有程式設計經驗的大三學生進行實驗。經由學習歷程資料之分析，結果發現：程式初學者受到刺激會產生連鎖反應，但其所為之反應卻無益於知識圖之發展；反之，有經驗的學習者所為之行為與所受刺激之間無顯著相關性，但其所為的行為與知識圖之發展卻有顯著正相關。研究並發現，無論是程式初學者或是有經驗的學習者，刺激
與知識圖之發展、與最後完成之知識圖品質、及與後測成績之間皆具有顯著正相關。除此之外，本研究亦發展樣本學生的學習成就預測模式。本研究最後針對分析之結果進行討論並提供建議，以作為系統設計者、教學者與後續研究者之參考。

Many systems have been proposed to construct collaborative learning environments with computers. Students’ cascading actions, reactions and chain reactions should be promoted in a collaborative learning environment. A knowledge mapping system with stimulus cascading (the SC-KM system) which supports collaborative knowledge activities was developed in this research. The system was carried out in
an authentic learning environment. Through the system, students integrated the Internet resources and visualized their knowledge structure about specific topics. The mainly purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of collaborative knowledge mapping with stimulus cascading on students’ knowledge map development. Based on the research purposes, a collaborative learning activity was arranged and the SC-KM system was adopted in both novice and experienced programmer classes. During the experiment, the students firstly constructed their individual knowledge map for two weeks. Then all knowledge maps were opened for sharing. Students were encouraged to give comments for improving their classmates’ knowledge map. During the collaborative learning activity, stimulus
cascading was activated in the SC-KM system to foster actions, reactions and chain reactions among learners. After the experiment, the collected learning portfolios
were analyzed and some interesting findings were revealed. Finally, pedagogical implications were also discussed.

中文摘要........................................................................................................................... I
Abstract............................................................................................................................II
致謝................................................................................................................................ III
Table of contents ............................................................................................................ IV
List of tables .................................................................................................................VIII
List of figures ...................................................................................................................X
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1 Background............................................................................................................. 2
2 Motivation .............................................................................................................. 3
3 Purposes.................................................................................................................. 5
4 Limitation ............................................................................................................... 7
5 Organization of the dissertation.............................................................................. 7
Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 8
1 The brain science .................................................................................................... 9
2 Concept map..........................................................................................................11
2.1 Concept mapping and meaningful learning .................................................. 12
2.2 Concept mapping in education...................................................................... 13
3 Analysis of concept map....................................................................................... 15
3.1 Pattern analysis ............................................................................................. 15
3.2 Concept map scoring..................................................................................... 16
3.3 Monitor progress ........................................................................................... 18
4 Concept mapping and knowledge conversion...................................................... 20
4.1 Declarative and procedural knowledge......................................................... 21
4.2 Tacit and explicit knowledge.......................................................................... 21
4.3 The SECI model ............................................................................................. 22
5 Concept mapping systems .................................................................................... 25
5.1 Commercial concept mapping tools .............................................................. 25
5.2 Research concept mapping tools ................................................................... 26
6 CSCL systems....................................................................................................... 28
6.1 Strijbos’s methodology................................................................................... 29
6.2 KnowCat ........................................................................................................ 30
6.3 VPen............................................................................................................... 31
6.4 Other systems................................................................................................. 32
7 Summary............................................................................................................... 32
The SC-KM system .................................................................................................... 34
1 Design philosophy: inter-brain interaction ........................................................... 34
2 System requirements ............................................................................................ 36
3 System architecture .............................................................................................. 37
4 Features for learners ............................................................................................. 40
4.1 Categorical nodes.......................................................................................... 42
4.2 Visualized strength of linkage ........................................................................ 44
4.3 Dynamic linking with webpage ..................................................................... 45
4.4 One-to-many linking with webpage............................................................... 47
4.5 Concept descriptor ........................................................................................ 50
4.6 Concept mapping with the Internet ............................................................... 50
4.7 Collaborative knowledge mapping................................................................ 52
4.8 Knowledge map sharing and peer comment ................................................. 53
4.9 Embedded multimedia annotation................................................................. 54
4.10 Knowledge mapping with stimulus cascading............................................. 56
5 Features for teachers............................................................................................. 59
5.1 Content tracking ............................................................................................ 59
5.2 Stimulus-Action tracking ............................................................................... 60
6 Summary............................................................................................................... 62
Research methodology ............................................................................................... 63
1 The participants .................................................................................................... 63
2 Research procedure............................................................................................... 64
3 Data collection...................................................................................................... 68
4 Research tools....................................................................................................... 68
5 Research Variables................................................................................................ 69
5.1 Primitive knowledge map .............................................................................. 71
5.2 Stimulus.......................................................................................................... 72
5.3 Action............................................................................................................. 73
5.4 Knowledge map improvement........................................................................ 74
5.5 The final handed-in knowledge map.............................................................. 75
5.6 Learning achievement.................................................................................... 76
6 Research architecture............................................................................................ 76
Data analysis and the results....................................................................................... 78
1 Descriptive statistics............................................................................................. 78
2 Correlation analysis .............................................................................................. 81
2.1 Stimulus and action........................................................................................ 81
2.2 Stimulus and knowledge map improvement................................................... 89
2.3 Action and knowledge map improvement ...................................................... 93
2.4 Knowledge map improvement and the final handed-in knowledge map ....... 98
2.5 The final handed-in knowledge map and achievements .............................. 100
2.6 Section summary.......................................................................................... 102
3 Achievement prediction...................................................................................... 106
3.1 Prediction model of the novice learner ....................................................... 106
3.2 Prediction model of the experienced learner............................................... 109
4 Questionnaire Analysis........................................................................................111
4.1 Reliability .....................................................................................................112
4.2 Validity ..........................................................................................................113
4.3 Perceived usefulness.....................................................................................113
4.4 Perceived ease of use....................................................................................113
4.5 Learning motivation .....................................................................................114
5 Summary..............................................................................................................118
Conclusion and suggestion ........................................................................................119
1 Findings ...............................................................................................................119
1.1 In the novice programmer class .................................................................. 120
1.2 In the experienced programmer class.......................................................... 122
2 Suggestions......................................................................................................... 125
2.1 For teacher .................................................................................................. 125
2.2 For system developer................................................................................... 126
2.3 For further researcher ................................................................................. 126
3 Pedagogical Implication ..................................................................................... 127
References .................................................................................................................... 129

                                

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical
Evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18(2). pp.150-174.
Anderson, J. R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco:
W.H. Freeman and Company.
Arthur Anderson Business consulting (1999), Knowledge Management: Jissen No
Tame No best practice, Business Weekly.
Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful learning. New York: Greene &
Stratton.
Baird, J. & White, R. (1984). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: A
classroom study. Paper presented at the 68th meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bligh, D.A. (1972). What''s the use of lectures. Karmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Brown, A. L. & Ferrara, R. A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In:
WERTSCH, J. V. (Ed) Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian
Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.273–305.
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive
Domain, Longmans. America: Green and Company.
Cañas, A. J., Hill, G. & Lott, J. (2003). Support for Constructing Knowledge Models in
130
CmapTools, Technical Report CmapTools 93-03, Institute for Human and
Machine Cognition.
Chiu, C. H. (2004). Evaluating system-based strategies for managing conflict in
collaborative concept mapping. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, pp.
124-132.
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2002). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction. San
Francisco : Pfeiffer.
Cobos, R., & Pifarre, M. (2007). Collaborative knowledge construction in the web
supported by the KnowCat system, Computers & Education (In Press).
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika. 16, 297-334.
Dansereau, D.F., (1985), Learning strategy research. Chipman & Glaser (Eds.)
Thinking & Learning Skills: Relating Instruction to Basic Research Vol. 1
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dochy, F. J. R. C. (1992). Assessment of prior knowledge as a determinant for future
learning. The use of prior knowledge state tests and knowledge profiles. Utrecht:
Uitgeverij Lemma B. V.
Hendry, G. D., & King, R. C. (1994). On theory of learning and knowledge:
Educational implications of advances in neuroscience. Science Education, 78(3),
pp.223-253.
Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M.,Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J. & Hamelin, D.
131
(1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an
instructional tool. Science Education, 77, pp.95–111.
Hwang, W. Y., Wang, C. Y. & Mike Sharples (2004). A study on Application of
Annotation System in Web-Based Materials. In Proceedings of the 8th Global
Chinese Conference on Computers in Education (GCCCE 2004). HongKong,
China.
Hwang, W. Y., Wang, C. Y. & Mike Sharples (2007). A Study of Multimedia
Annotation of Web-Based Materials, Computers & Education (SSCI). 48(4),
pp.680-699.
Ian, M. Kinchin & David B. Hay (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map
analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual
development, Educational Research, 42(1), pp.43-57.
Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (1999). An analysis of learner arguments in a collective
learning environment. Proceedings of Computer-Support for Collaborative
Learning (CSCL''99), Stanford, California, pp.265-273.
Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). Learning together in the social studies
classroom. In R. J. Stahl, (Ed.), Cooperative learning in social studies: A
handbook for teachers, pp.51-77. Menlo Park CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.
Johnson, D. W. (1973). Communication in conflict situations: A critical review of the
research, International Journal of Group Tensions, 3, pp.46-67.
132
Johnson, D. W. (1974). Communication and the inducement of cooperative behavior in
conflicts: A critical review. Speech Monographs, 41, pp.64-78.
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques
for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge Hillsdale,
NJ :Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical
Thinking 2nd Edition.
Jong, T., de (1986). Kennis en het oplossen van vakinhoudelijke problemen.
Proefschrift Technische Hogeschool Eindhoven. Helmond: Wibro.
Katia Passerini & Mary J. Granger (2000). A developmental model for distance
learning using the Internet. Computers & Education, 34(1). pp.1-15.
Kelly, M. B. (1977). A review of the observational data-collection and reliability
procedures reported in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis 10, pp.97-101.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social
interaction in computer supported collaborative learning environments: a review
of the research. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19, pp.335-353.
Kort, M. S. (1992). Down from the podium: Preparing faculty for the learner-centered
classroom. In K. Kroll (Ed.), Maintaining faculty excellence (pp. 61-71). New
Directions for Community Colleges, No. 79. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Lawless, C., Smee, P. & O’Shea, T. (1998). Using concept sorting and concept
133
mapping in business and public administration, and in education: an overview,
Educational Research, 40, 2, pp.219–35.
Marshall, C. C. (1997). Annotation: From Paper Books to the Digital Library.
Proceedings of the Second ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, July 23-26.
Messick, S. (1984). The Psychology of educational measurement. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 21 (3), pp.215-237.
Mizue Kayama & Toshio Okamoto (2001). The Knowledge Management for
Collaborative Learning Support in the INTERNET Learning Space. ICALT 2001:
pp.273-278.
Moore, M. G., and Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: a system view. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Mok, M.M.C., & Cheng, Y. C. (2002). A theory of self-learning in a networked human
and IT environment: Implications for education reforms. International Journal of
Educational Management, 15(4), pp.172-186.
Nagel, N. G. (1996). Learning Through Real-World Problems Solving: The Power of
Integrative Teaching. ERIC ED394948.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.
Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Nonaka & Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University
Press.
134
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learn how to learn. Cambridge, London:
Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D. & Cañas A. J. (2006). The Origins of the Concept Mapping Tool and the
Continuing Evolution of the Tool, Information Visualization Journal, 5(3),
pp.175-184.
O''Donnell, A. M. & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A
method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R.
Hertz- Lazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The
theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120-141). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education, Grossman, New
York, N.Y.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Reader, W. & Hammond, N. (1994). Computer based tools to support learning from
hypertext: Concept mapping tools and beyond. Computer and Education, 22(1/2),
pp.99-106.
Repp, A. C., Nieminen, G. S., Olinger, E. & Brusca, R. (1988), Direct observation:
factors affecting the accuracy of observers, Exceptional Children 55, pp.29-36.
Sharan, S. & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn, and
academic achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative Learning (pp.1-22). New
York: Praeger Publishers.
135
Sharan, S. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1982). Effects of an instructional change program
on teacher''s behavior, Attitudes, and Perceptions’. The Journal of Applied
Behavorial Science 18, pp.185-201.
Shian-Shyong Tseng, Pei-Chi Sue, Jun-Ming Su, Jui-Feng Weng, Wen-Nung Tsai
(2007). A new approach for constructing the concept map. Computers &
Education, 49(3), pp.691–707.
Singley, M., Fairweather, P. & Swerling, S. (1999). Team tutoring systems: Reifying
roles in problem solving. Proceedings of Computer-Support for Collaborative
Learning (CSCL''99), Stanford, California, pp.538-548.
Snow, R. E. & D. R Lohman.(1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for
educational measurement. In R.L. Linn(Ed.) Educational Measurement (3rd ed,
pp.263-331).
Soller, A. (2001) Supporting Social Interaction in an Intelligent Collaborative Learning
System. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(1),
pp.40-62.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens R. L. & Jochems W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction:
six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers &
Education, 42(4), pp.403-424.
Sylwester, R. (1995). A Celebration of Neutrinos: An Educator’s Guide to the Human
Brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
136
Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wortzel, R. (1979). New Life Style Determinants of Womens’s food Shopping
Behavior , Journal of Markrting , 43, pp.28-29 .
Yu-Hui Tao, Shin-Ming Guo & Ya-Hui Lu (2006). The design and the formative
evaluation of a web-based course for simulation analysis experiences; Computers
& Education, 47(4), pp.414-432.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文