题名

混成課程設計結合機器人創客教育應用於合作學習課程之實踐與成效：學習參與度之中介效果

并列篇名

The Practice and Effectiveness of Blended-learning Course-design Combined with Robot Maker-Education in a Cooperative-learning Course: Mediating Effect of Learning-engagement

作者

胡依嘉(Yee-Chia Hu)

关键词

混成課程設計 ； 學習參與度 ； 合作力 ； 機器人創客教育 ； 微課程 ； blended-learning course-design ； learning-engagement ； robotic maker-education ； cooperation ； micro-courses

期刊名称

嶺東通識教育研究學刊

卷期/出版年月

9卷3期（2022 / 02 / 01）

页次

103 - 145

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

混成教學發展20年來於今雖被公認是一種以學生為主，強調學習目標的模式，但面對注意力縮短的網路世代學生，此模式也出現了如何促進學習參與及培養情意發展的挑戰，學者進而提出以微課程為可能的改善方案。廣被運用於創客教育的樂高機器人微課程，除有助跨域學習基礎程式語言，以小組做中學的特性更有益團隊合作的養成。為改進學生缺乏混成學習動機的問題，本研究以機器人創客課程融入文科課來改善今日混成教學中的問題，以47名修習合作學習課程之大一學生進行實證研究，並檢視樂高機器人混成課對大學文科生的影響。量化資料分析顯示此強化式混成學習對學生學習參與度及學習成果滿意度皆具顯著正向影響。學習參與度在混成學習與學習成果滿意度之間具有顯著的中介效果，說明混成學習需透過學習參與度來影響學習成果滿意度，學習參與度扮演非常重要的角色。質化資料分析顯示機器人微課程提升學生在混成課中的參與，並培養學生合作力，全員在做中學過程協力完成機器人組裝，也合作完成延伸的校外實作。
英文摘要

The development of blended-learning has been recognized as a student-centered model that emphasizes learning goals over the past 20 years, but this model also presents challenges in how to promote learning participation and cultivate affective-learning in the face of students of the Internet generation. Scholars thus suggested micro-courses as a way of improvement. The Lego-robot micro-course is widely used in maker education, besides helping cross-domain learning of basic programming, its learning-by-doing characteristics are more beneficial to the development of teamwork. In order to examine the impact of Lego-robotics micro-course on liberal-arts students, the researcher recruited 47 freshmen who took a cooperative-learning course to participate a course experiment. Quantitative data analysis showed that blended-learning has a significant positive impact on student learning outcomes. Learning-engagement has a significant mediating effect between blended-learning and learning outcome, indicating the importance of learning-engagement. Qualitative data analysis showed that the robotics micro-course enhances students' participation and cultivates students' cooperative skill. All members worked together to complete the robot assembly in the classroom, and also cooperated to complete off-campus tasks. By applying robotic maker-education, this study intended to improve the issues existing in blended-learning courses.
主题分类 人文學 > 人文學綜合
社會科學 > 社會科學綜合
社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 宋矅廷,潘佩妤(2010)。混合研究在教育研究的應用。教育科學研究期刊，55(4)，97-130。
    連結：
  2. 林建良,黃台珠,莊雪華,趙大衛(2013)。發展一延伸性 CIPP 課程評鑑模式運用於高瞻計畫課程—以高中機器人課程為例。科學教育學刊，21(3)，237-261。
    連結：
  3. 林凱胤(2015)。從學習風格和科技接受模式看混成式評量策略融入教學。中等教育，66(3)，138-156。
    連結：
  4. 洪嘉駿,施昆易,王淑卿,董曜瑜,王國華(2018)。一個混成式案例教學模式應用於非正式科學師資培育之成效：由學習參與和學習感受觀點。科學教育學刊，26(2)，171-196。
    連結：
  5. 許金田,曹文瑜(2014)。海外留學跨文化經驗對自我效能與未來機會展的影響：人格特質的調節效果。人力資源管理學報，14(3)，63-90。
    連結：
  6. 楊朝陽,康仕仲,陳彥甫,林喬茵,王嫊淩,林怡萱(2018)。以「設計導向學習」模式初探智齡設計課程。科學教育學刊，26(S)，399-418。
    連結：
  7. 廖珮妏,黃詩茹(2021)。探討體驗式學習在大專院校課程學習目標設定與導入效益。體驗教育學報，13，32-50。
    連結：
  8. 趙貞怡(2013)。原住民學童在電腦樂高機器人課程中的創造力與團隊合作能力。教育實踐與研究，26(1)，33-62。
    連結：
  9. 戴文雄,王裕德,王瑞,陳嘉苓(2016)。翻轉教學式合作學習對生活科技實作課程學習成效影響之研究。科學教育學刊，24(1)，57-88。
    連結：
  10. Afari, E.,Khine, M. S.(2017).Robotics as an educational tool： Impact of Lego mindstorms.International Journal of Information and Education Technology,7(6),437-442.
  11. Alkhateeb, M. A.,Abdalla, R. A.(2021).Factors influencing student satisfaction towards using learning management system Moodle.International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education,17(1),138-153.
  12. Amora, J. T.,Ochoco, M. S. A.,Anicete, R. C. R.(2016).Student engagement and college experience as the mediators of the relationship between institutional support and academic performance.Digital Journal of Lasallian Research,12,15-30.
  13. Armstrong, T.(2009).Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom.Alexandria, VA:ASCD.
  14. Aslan, S.,Reigeluth, C. M.(2016).Examining the challenges of learner–centered education.Phi Delta Kappan,97(4),63-68.
  15. Balwant, P. T.,Birdi, K.,Stephan, U.,Topakas, A.(2019).Transformational instructor–leadership and academic performance: a moderated mediation model of student engagement and structural distance.Journal of Further and Higher Education,43(7),884-900.
  16. Benlahcene, A.,Lashari, S.,Lashari, T.,Shehzad, M.,Deli, W.(2020).Exploring the perception of students using student–centered learning approach in a Malaysian public university.International Journal of Higher Education,9(1),204-217.
  17. Boelens, R.,Wever, B. D.,Voet, M.(2017).Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review.Educational Research Review,22,1-18.
  18. Caci, B.(2020).The effectiveness of using LEGO® robotics kits as cognitive and social rehabilitative toys.International Journal of Entertainment Technology and Management,1(1),34-42.
  19. Castledine, A. R.,Chalmers, C.(2011).LEGO Robotics： An authentic problem solving tool?.Design and Technology Education,16(3),19-27.
  20. Chambers, J.,Carbonaro, M.(2003).Designing, developing, and implementing a course on LEGO robotics for technology teacher education.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,11(2),209-241.
  21. Chen, Y.,Wang, Y.,Kinshuk.,Chen, N.–S.(2014).Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead?.Computer & Education,79,16-27.
  22. Chikkamath, S.,Shet, R.,Praveen, P.,Nalini C. I.,Kotturshettar, B. B.(2020).Effective utilization of maker space for facilitating product–realization course.Journal of Engineering Education Transformations,33(3),37-42.
  23. Costa, C.,Alvelos, H.,Teixeira, L.(2012).The use of Moodle e–learning platform：A study in a Portuguese university.Procedia Technology,5,334-343.
  24. Duraisingh, L. D.(2021).Promoting engagement, understanding and critical awareness.The Routledge International Handbook of Student–Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education,New York, NY:
  25. Eom, S. B.,Ashill, N.(2016).The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An update.Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education,14(2),185-215.
  26. Fisher, R.,Perényi, A.,Birdthistle, N.(2018).The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction.Active Learning in Higher Education,22(2),97-113.
  27. Fu, Y.(2019).A “maker education + SPOC” teaching model for college political economics courses.International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning,14(3),139-150.
  28. Gao, B. W.,Jiang, J.,Tang, Y.(2020).The effect of blended learning platform and engagement on students’ satisfaction—— the case from the tourism management teaching.Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education,27,1-11.
  29. Gardner, H.(2011).Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.New York, NY:Basic Books.
  30. Halverson, E. R.,Sheridan, K. M.(2014).The maker movement in education.Harvard Educational Review,84(4),495-504.
  31. Hatch, M.(2014).The maker movement manifesto.New York, NY:McGraw–Hill.
  32. Hoidn, S.,Klemenčič, M.(2021).The Routledge International Handbook of Student–Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.New York, NY:Routledge.
  33. Horvat, A.,Dobrota, M.,Krsmanovic, M.,Cudanov, M.(2015).Student perception of Moodle learning management system: a satisfaction and significance analysis.Interactive Learning Environments,23(4),515-527.
  34. Howard, J.,Scott, A.(2017).Any time, any place, flexible pace： Technology–enhanced language learning in a teacher education program.Australian Journal of Teacher Education,42(6),51-68.
  35. Hu, Y.–C.(2018).Developing a FLIPPED–ACTION model in a language–teaching internship program.International Journal of Learning and Teaching,4(1),25-31.
  36. Kaur, M.(2013).Blended learning – Its challenges and future.Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,93,612-617.
  37. Keller, J. M.(2009).Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach.New York, NY:Springer.
  38. Kintu, M. J.,Zhu, C.,Kagambe, E.(2017).Blended learning effectiveness： the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes.International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,14(7),1-20.
  39. Kolb, D. A.(2015).Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education LTD..
  40. Kuh, G. D.(2009).The national survey of student engagement： Conceptual and empirical foundations.New Directions for Institutional Research,141,5-20.
  41. Kuh, G. D.(2016).Making learning meaningful: Engaging students in ways that matter to them.New Directions for Teaching and Learning,145,49-56.
  42. Law, K. M. Y.,Geng, S.,Li, T.(2019).Student enrollment, motivation and learning performance in a blended learning environment: The mediating effects of social, teaching, and cognitive presence.Computers & Education,136,1-12.
  43. López–Pérez, M. V.,Pérez–López, M. C.,Rodríguez–Ariza, L.(2011).Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes.Computers & Education,56(3),818-826.
  44. Martinez, S. L.,Stager, G. S.(2013).Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom.Torrance, CA:Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
  45. Miles, M. B.,Huberman, M.,Saldana, J.(2018).Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook.Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE.
  46. Moodle （2022）. Moodle Statistics. Retrieved from https：//Moodle.net/stats/
  47. Nash, S. S.,Rice, W.(2018).Moodle Course Development: Create highly engaging and interactive e–learning courses with Moodle.Birmingham:Packt Publishing Ltd..
  48. Nelson, L. M.(1999).Collaborative problem solving.Instructional–design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory,Mahwah, NJ:
  49. Nikou, S. A.,Economides, A.(2018).Mobile–based micro–learning and assessment：Impact on learning performance and motivation of high school students.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,34(3),269-278.
  50. NSSE （2020）. National survey of student engagement. Retrieved from https：//nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/index.html
  51. Nunan, D.(2004).Research Methods in language Learning.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
  52. Osguthorpe, R. T.,Graham, C. R.(2003).Blended learning systems: definitions and directions.Quarterly Review of Distance Education,4(3),227-234.
  53. Papert, S.(1990).Introduction: Constructionist learning.Cambridge, MA:MIT Media Laboratory.
  54. Papert, S.(1980).Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas.New York, NY:Basic Books.
  55. Quin, D.(2017).Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher–student relationships and student engagement: A systematic review.Review of Educational Research,87(2),345-387.
  56. Rasheed, R. A.,Kamsin, A.,Abdullah, N. A.(2020).Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review.Computers & Education,144,1-17.
  57. Resnick, M.,江坤山（譯）(2018).學習就像終身幼兒園.臺北市:親子天下.
  58. Rollins, M.(2014).Beginning Lego Mindstorms EV3.New York, NY:Apress.
  59. Serrano, D. R.,Dea‐Ayuela, M. A.,Gonzalez‐Burgos, E.,Serrano‐Gil, A.,Lalatsa, A.(2019).Technology‐enhanced learning in higher education How to enhance student engagement through blended learning.European Journal of Education,54(2),273-286.
  60. Shohel, M. M. C.,Cann, R.,Atherton, S.(2020).Enhancing student engagement using a blended learning approach: Case studies of first–year undergraduate students.International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning,12(4),51-68.
  61. Singh, H.(2021).Building effective blended–learning programs.Challenges and Opportunities for the Global Implementation of E–Learning Frameworks,Hershey, PA:
  62. Souza, I. M. L.,Andrade, W. L.,Sampaio, L. M. R.,Araujo, A. L. S. O.,Araujo, S. O. A.(2018).A systematic review on the use of LEGO® robotics in education.Proceeding 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference （FIE）,San Jose, CA, USA:
  63. Wright, G.B.(2011).Student–centered learning in higher education.International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,23(1),92-97.
  64. Wu, J. H.,Tennyson, R. D.,Hsia, T. L.(2010).A study of student satisfaction in a blended e–learning system environment.Computers & Education,55(1),155-164.
  65. Yin, H. B.,Ke, Z.(2017).Students’ course experience and engagement: An attempt to bridge two lines of research on the quality of undergraduate education.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,42(7),1145-1158.
  66. Zhao, C. M.,Kuh, G. D.(2004).Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement.Research in Higher Education,45,115-138.
  67. 方俊為(2018)。創客教育在學校面的推動～以新北市福營國中推動案例作為分享。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(2)，148-150。
  68. 王同聚(2015)。微課導學”教學模式構建與實踐—以中小學機器人教學為例。中國電化教育，2，112-117。
  69. 王為國(2016)。體驗學習在綜合活動學習領域之運用。臺灣教育評論月刊，5(2)，58-63。
  70. 王娟,胡來林,安麗達(2017)。國外整合 STEM 的教育機器人課程案例研究—以卡耐基梅隆大學機器人學院 ROBOTC 課程為例。現代教育技術，4，33-38。
  71. 田耐青(1999)。由「電腦樂高」談新世紀的學習：一個「科技支援之建構學習環境」實例。教學科技與媒體，44，24-35。
  72. 吳清山,林天祐(2004)。體驗學習。教育研究月刊，126，151-152。
  73. 肖靜,余穎,張道海(2013)。立足機器人競賽促進創新訓練與實踐教學改革。東華理工大學學報：社會科學版，2，189-192。
  74. 周麗華,李曉文(2017)。學習自主性與學業成績的關係：參與度的仲介。杭州師範大學學報，5，470-475。
  75. 林旻融(2016)。高職實習課程實施創客教學之研究以機械科為例。臺灣教育評論月刊，5(4)，143-148。
  76. 林隆儀(2019).論文寫作要領.台北市:五南.
  77. 邱麗家,林淑慧,黃能堂(2012)。內部稽核人員人格特質、成就動機與工作滿意度關係之研究。勞資關係論叢，14(1)，66-98。
  78. 施能木(2009)。樂高組件對國小學童學習生活科技課程「簡單機械」單元之影響研究。生活科技教育月刊，42(2)，3-26。
  79. 張文蘭,劉斌,夏小剛,萬松林(2017)。課程論視域下的創客課程設計：構成要素與實踐案例。現代遠端教育研究，147(3)，76-85。
  80. 張玉山(2018)。STEAM Maker 跨域整合，實踐 12 年國教。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(2)，1-5。
  81. 張堯婷,汪殿杰,吳致娟,黃鈴惠(2017)。108 課綱之系統思考與問題解決核心素養融入於探究實作及創客教育活動。中等教育，68(4)，141-151。
  82. 許育嘉(2021)。高等教育程式設計課程教學之多元化發展與變革。臺灣教育評論月刊，10(1)，68-75。
  83. 郭建鵬,計國君(2019)。大學生學習體驗與學習結果的關係：學生投入的仲介作用。心理科學，42(4)，868-875。
  84. 智齡聯盟（2022，1 月 3 日）。課程模組。取自 http：//www.t–edu.tw/module.html
  85. 黃國禎(2016).翻轉教室:理論、策略與實務.台北市:高等教育.
  86. 黃麗虹(2020)。創客教育理念融入開放大學教學實踐探索—以開放大學高等數學教學為例。創新創業理論研究與實踐，3(4)，3-5。
  87. 楊孟山,林宜玄(2018)。Maker 教育理論與實踐。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(2)，29-38。
  88. 楊現民,李冀紅(2015)。創客教育的價值潛能及其爭議。現代遠端教育研究，134(2)，23-34。
  89. 劉爽,鄭燕林,阮士桂(2015)。ARCS 模型視角下微課程的設計研究。中國電化教育，2，51-56。
  90. 潘淑滿(2003).質性研究:理論與應用.台北市:心理.
print cancel