| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立新竹教育大學 === 數位學習科技研究所 === 97 === The purpose of this study is to discuss if there’s a significant difference on learning result, learning retention, concept mapping score, commutative pattern and learning experience by using one-on-one E-learning on collaborative concept mapping while teaching social studies to two sets of students. The object of this study is the grade six students from a school in Ching-shui township, Taichung county. This study is based on experimental research method coordinated with SRI Group Scribbles software, and comprised with two mapping models. In model one, every student has his/her own Tablet PC as the learning device (one-on-one PC ) while the students in model two share the PC with their group numbers ( group-on-one PC); mainly, it is to discuss the variations between the two sets.
The findings are the followings:
1.Statistics find that both concept mapping models help students elevate their social studies learning achievement. There’s no significant difference between the grades from both groups, which indicates these two models have the same effectiveness of elevating learning achievement.
2.Statistics finds that both concept mapping models have the right effectiveness on learning retention. There’s no significant difference on the scores between these two, which indicates these two models have the equal effectiveness on learning retention.
3.After analyzing the concept mapping scores, both models show a close score, however, the scoring gap is larger in one-on-one PC set attributed to small group collaboration influence; group-on-one PC has a team discussion before mapping which helps to gain a better score.
4.After analyzing the survey, it is found that under the concept mapping, students from one-on one PC are better with initiating their opinions; furthermore, they obtain a better cooperative learning experience, and a better chance to use the software and learning experience on concept mapping.
5.After analyzing the teaching video, the researcher found that the communicative patterns in one-on-one PC are “ideal type”, “leadership type”, “private talking type”, and “fragment type”; the “ideal type” has the largest numbers. The interactive patterns in the group-on-one PC are “leadership type” and “fragment type”; the “fragment type” has larger numbers. In whole, the one-on-one PC group has a better communication and interaction than the group-on-on PC does.
|
|---|
