| Summary: | 博士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 科學教育研究所 === 100 === In recent years, Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) triggers the innovation of combining the bi-directional interactive operation between whiteboards and computers with multi-media presentation, which makes many countries support and promote the policy of integrating IWB into teaching. Taiwan also launched the policy to promote integrating IWB into teaching in various levels of schools in 2006. This study tries to investigate the effectiveness of integrating IWB into teaching of the ‘cell division’ concept in junior high school Biology. Referring to related literature, this study concludes the suggestions for effective teaching of ‘cell division’ concept. This study also refers to the viewpoints proposed by Richard E. Clark, Robert B. Kozma and Richard E. Mayer to develop two statements as its own theoretical basis: ‘Triadic Determinism of the Effectiveness of Technology-enhanced Science Learning: Attributes of Learning Technology, Teaching Methods and Learner Characteristics’ and ‘Research Methodology Emphasizing Both Quality and Quantity can Help Clarify the Full View of Technology-enhanced Science Learning.’ Based on above, this study develops IWB-based classroom interaction teaching activities and evaluates its effectiveness of integrating IWB into the teaching of ‘cell division’ concept in junior high school.
This study adopts the quasi-experimental design. There are 107 junior high school first-graders participating in this research. They are divided into the ‘integrating traditional technology into teaching group (n=57)’ and the ‘integrating IWB into teaching group (n=50).’ Microsoft PowerPoint is used to teach those in the ‘integrating traditional technology into teaching group’ in traditional classroom. On the other hand, IWB is used to teach students in the ‘integrating IWB into teaching group’ in traditional classroom. Before instruction, quantitative data is collected by administering the pre-test of summative assessment for ‘cell division’, pre-test of two-tier diagnostic test for ‘cell division’ (TDTCD) and ‘Kolb’s Learning Style Scale’. During one-week instruction, qualitative data is collected by recording the classroom teaching activities. After instruction, quantitative data is collected by administering the post-test of summative assessment for ‘cell division’, post-test of TDTCD and ‘Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment Survey (CMLES).’ This study analyzes the collected qualitative and quantitative data and the results are listed below:
1. Compared to the students learning in the environment of integrating traditional technology into teaching, those who learn in the environment of integrating IWB into teaching of the ‘cell division’ concept in junior high school have better effectiveness in learning and conceptual change.
2. Compared to integrating traditional technology into teaching, students think that integrating IWB into teaching of the ‘cell division’ concept in junior high school better fits into the constructivist learning environment.
3. Compared to integrating traditional technology into teaching, reduced teacher instruction and improved student active participation in teaching activities are more commonly observed in teacher-student interaction in the environment of integrating IWB into teaching of the ‘cell division’ concept in junior high school.
4. Students of different learning styles have different effectiveness in learning and conceptual change when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in different types of integrating technology into teaching.
(1). Students who prefer ‘concrete experience’ in grasping learning experience have significantly better effectiveness in learning and conceptual change when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in IWB-integrated teaching environment than in traditional technology-integrated environment.
(2). Students who prefer ‘abstract conception’ in grasping learning experience have similar effectiveness in learning and conceptual change when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in IWB-integrated teaching environment and in traditional technology integrated environment.
(3). Students who prefer ‘active experiencing’ in transforming learning experience have similar effectiveness in learning when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in IWB-integrated teaching environment and in traditional technology integrated environment. However, they have better effectiveness in conceptual change when learning in IWB-integrated teaching environment than in traditional technology integrated environment.
(4). Students who prefer ‘reflective observation’ in transforming learning experience have similar effectiveness in learning and conceptual change when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in IWB-integrated teaching environment and in traditional technology-integrated environment.
5. Students of different learning styles have different attitudes toward learning environment in the CMLES when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in different types of integrating technology into teaching. Students who prefer ‘abstract conception’ in grasping learning experience have significantly more positive attitudes toward IWB-integrated teaching environment, especially for ‘Learning to Investigate,’ ‘Learning to Think,’ ‘Relevance,’ ‘Ease to Use’ and ‘Challenge’ subscales, than toward traditional technology-integrated environment. Students who prefer ‘active experiencing’ in transforming learning experience have more positive attitudes toward IWB-integrated teaching environment in ‘Learning to Investigate,’ ‘Learning to Think’ and ‘Challenge’ subscales than toward traditional technology-integrated environment. Students who prefer ‘concrete experience’ in grasping learning experience and those who prefer ‘reflective observation’ in transforming learning experience have the same positive attitudes toward the two types of integrating technology into teaching.
6. Students of different learning styles have different levels of classroom participation when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in different types of integrating technology into teaching. Students who prefer ‘concrete experience’ in grasping learning experience and those who prefer ‘active experiencing’ in transforming learning experience have higher participation in the IWB-integrated teaching environment. Students who prefer ‘abstract concepts’ in grasping learning experience have high participation in the two types of integrating technology into teaching. Students who prefer ‘reflective observation’ in transforming learning experience also have high participation in the two types of integrating technology into teaching; however when learning the sub-concept of ‘meaning and process of meiosis,’ they have higher participation in the IWB-integrated teaching environment.
|
|---|
