數位化補救教學對學生學習成效影響之後設分析
122
0
0
全文
(2) !. ! !. !!!!. ! !!!!. ! !!!!. ! !!!!!. ! !!!!. ! !. ! 2012.07!. !. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
(3) !.
(4) !. ! ! !!!!. meta-analysis. 38. 15 Effect Size. ! !. 0.3223. 0.3178. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! i!. !.
(5) !. Effects of Digital-based Remedial Instruction on Students’ Learning Achievement: A Meta-analysis Abstract ! ! ! A meta-analysis was performed to synthesize existing research comparing the effects of Digital-based remedial instruction with traditional remedial instruction on students’ congnitive and affective achievement. The studies were located from four sources. For cognitive outcomes, there were 38 studies collected, and 15 studies on affective outcomes. The quantitative data of the collected studies were transformed into Effect Size. ES. . In addition, 21 studied. variables were selected and each studied variable was analyzed by homogeneity test. The main findings of this study were summarized as follows: 1.. The whole effects suggest that Digital-based remedial instruction is more effective than traditional remedial instruction on both cognitive and affective learning. Their weighted ES were 0.3223 and 0.3178, respectively.. 2.. One variable, tool reliability had a statistically significant impact on the mean ES of cognitive achievement.. 3.. One variable, occasion of treatment had a statistically significant impact on the mean ES of affective achievement.. Based on these findings, some implications for future studies were suggested.. Keywords: Digital-based, remedial instruction, learning achievement, Meta-analysis. ! ii!. !.
(6) !. ............................................................................................ 1! !!. !.......................................................................................!1!. !!. !...............................................................................!5!. !!. !...................................................................................................!6!. !!. !.......................................................................................!8!. ................................................................................... 9! !!. !...................................................................................!9!. !!. !.............................................................................!17!. !!. !.....................................................................................!25!. !!. !.........................................................!33!. !!. !.................................................................................................!48!. ................................................................................. 55! !!. !.................................................................................................!55!. !!. !.................................................................................................!57!. .................................................................... 67! !!. !.............................................................................................!67!. !!. !.............................................................................................!74!. !!. !.........................................................................................!80!. !!. !.........................................................................................!82!. ............................................................................. 93! !!. !.........................................................................................................!93!. !!. !.........................................................................................................!95!. ................................................................................................ 98! !........................................................................................................!98! !......................................................................................................!107!. ................................................................................................... 110!. ! iii!. !.
(7) !. 2-1. .............................................................................25. 2-2. ...........................................................28. 2-3. .......................................................................................33. 2-4. ...................................................................................43. 3-1. ...................................................................................................62. 4-1. .......................................................68. 4-2. .......................................................71. 4-3. .......................................................75. 4-4. .......................................................77. ! !. ! ! ! !. ! iv!. !.
(8) !. ! 2-1. ....................................................................................18. 2-2. ................................................................................31. 3-1. ................................................................................................56. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !. ! v!. !.
(9) !. !. !. !!. !. ! 1998 1998. 2008 2002. 107-110. No Child Left Behind. Act. 2012b. 2008. 86. 87. 2001. 2004. 2003. 2005. 2006 ! 1!. !.
(10) ! 2009. 25%. 35%. 2011a. 100. 2012a 2011 96. 99. 80. 20 86 92. 82 91. 78 89. ! 2003. 2005 2004 2003. 2005 2006. 1986 2003. 2006. 1983 2006. 2005. Boggs, Shore & Shore 2004. 2001. ! 2!. !.
(11) !. WiFi. 2011 e. 22. 7,875 e. 2011b. 2010. 2010. ! !. ─. ─ 2003 ! 3!. Bloom !.
(12) !. Carroll 1998. 1988. 1994. 2000. 2009. Brants & Struyen. 2009. McMillan-Culp, Hawkins, & Honey（1999）. 2009. 2009. 2003. 190 431 GRB http://www.grb.gov.tw. 132. 82. 40 ! 4!. !.
(13) !. 2003. 2004. 1986. 2010. 2006. 2009. 2004. 1983. CAI 2009. 2011. 2003. 2006. 2006. 1990. 1998. 2001. meta-analysis. !!. !. ! !!!!. ! !. ! ! ! 5!. !.
(14) !. !. !!. !. ! !!!!. ! !!!!. ! 6!. !.
(15) ! 25%. 35%. !. !. …. ! 7!. !.
(16) !. !!. !. effect size. 1983. ! 8!. 2012. 4. !.
(17) !. !. !. !!. !. ! ! !!!!. 2001 430. 1988. 2003. 25%. 2011 a 2012a. 35%. 2012. 100. 2012a. ! 9!. !.
(18) ! !!!!. ! !!!! 2001 87. 2001 90. 1982 1975. 2001. 399 20%. 25%. 25%. 35% ! 10!. !.
(19) !. 2011a 2012a. 25% 35%. 2001. 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5.. 6.. 1.. 2.. 3.. 4. 5.. 6.. 7.. 8.. ! 11!. !.
(20) ! 2001. …. 2002. 2008. ! 12!. !.
(21) !. 1982 ( ( Mandel. ( ). (. ). Marcus. (. ). ) (. ). ). 1988. 2001 2000. 2006. 1997. 2001. ! 13!. !.
(22) !. ! 14!. !.
(23) !. 2007. 2003 1986. 2006. 2005. 1999. (CAI). (CAL). 2007. IBM. 1988. K-6. ! 15!. !.
(24) !. 1993 2001. 2001. 2002. ! 16!. !.
(25) !. !!. !. ! 1935-1953. 1953-1970. 1970-1985. 1986-1993. 1994. e-learning. Clark. 2009. Mayer (2008). e learning. 2003. 2005. 2007. 2007. e 2-1. ! 17!. !.
(26) !. CAI!/. !. !. !. ! !. !. !. !. !. 2- 1 2007. Clark. Mayer (2008). 2007. 327. 2003. 2007. 2000 2007. 2007. Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Guri-Rosenblit, 2005; Laurillard, 2005. ! 18!. !.
(27) !. e-learning. ! 19!. !.
(28) !. 2007. 2004. :. Kinect. 1998. 1999. CAI. ! 20!. !.
(29) !. 2009. 2004. 2012. 1998 Mandel & Marcus, 1988 ; Woolfolk, 2010. Skinner. Skinner 1980. Bruner. 2012 11 ! 21!. !.
(30) !. 2007. (. 2009. ). Winn, 2002. 2004 1994. 2007. 2003. ! 22!. !.
(31) !. 2008. 1998. 2005. 2003. 1995. Sung Chang Hou & Chen 2010. ! 23!. !.
(32) !. 2004. 2008. (. ). ! 24!. !.
(33) !. !!. !. ! !. !! !. 2-1. 2-1. 1983. 2003. 2003. 2004. ! 25!. !.
(34) ! 2- 1. 2006. 2005. 2004. 2009. 2009. 2010. 2010. Wise & 2000 Olson. ! 26!. !.
(35) ! 2- 1. Rientie,. 2006. Tempelaar, Waterval,Rehmand Gijselaers Spence & Usher. 2007. Brants & Struyen. 2009. Macaruso. 2009. & Rodman. …. 2001 1998. 1995. 2009 2010. 1999 2-2. ! 27!. !.
(36) ! 2- 2 ! !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. ! !. ! !. !. !. !. !. ! !. !. ! !. ! ! !. !!!!. 2- 2. ! 28!. !.
(37) !. 1998. 1983 1998. 2010. 2011 2008. 1990 1999. 2006. 1995 1986. 2003. 2009. 2004. ! 29!. !.
(38) ! 2009. 2007 (2010). 2006. 2009. 2007. 2004. 2010 2008. 2009. 2009. 2010. 2007. 2008. 2006. 2001. 2006. ! 30!. !.
(39) ! 2-2. ! !. ! CAI!. CAI!. !. !. !. !. 2- 2. 1994. 443. 2006. 107. ! 31!. !.
(40) !. 2010. 1999. 1999 2010 1996. 1999. 2006. ! 32!. !.
(41) !. !!. !. !!!! 190 431 GRB http://www.grb.gov.tw. 132. 82 2012. 4 40 2-3. 2- 3. 2. CAI. 1983 C A I. 40 4. C. 1986 C A I. 60. CAI. 4. C. 1990 C A I. 77. ! 33!. !.
(42) !. 6 1995) C A I. 75. 2 C A I. 1998 48 4. CAI. 1999 C A I. 60. 5 2001. 50. 8 2003 C A I. 90. ! 34!. !.
(43) !. 12 2003 C A I. 55. 4 2004 C A I. 60. 2004. 116. 2004 60. ! 35!. !.
(44) !. 4 0. 2006 318. 8 2006 C A I. -. 60 1 2. 2006. 68. 3 2006. 19. 3 2006 -. 835. ! 36!. !.
(45) !. 5 2006. GSP C A I. GSP 30. 1 2006. 403 1 1. 2006. C A I. 86 1 5. 2006. 16 7 2007. 24. ! 37!. !.
(46) !. 1 0. 2008 70. 3 C A I 55. 58 2008 1 0. 2008 33. C A I. 4 C A I. 2008. 20 2 C A I. 2009 168 8 2009 —. 35. ! 38!. !.
(47) !. 1 2009. 35 2 2009 C A I 26 2 2009. 15. C A I. 47. 2009 1 2. 2010. C A I. 90. ! 39!. !.
(48) !. 8 2010. 33 8 2010. 20. 1 6. 2010. 54. 4 2010 C A I. 9. 1 2. 2010. 10. ! 40!. !.
(49) !. 6 2011 C A I. 40. 1 2. 2011. C A I. 69. 2- 3. 40. 32. 80%. 1. 7 1983. 2010. 6. 2011. 2006. 17.5% 2006. 9. 2009. 2010. 29. 72.5% 17 14. 35%. 22 27.5%. 42.5%. 55 6. 11 15%. ! 41!. 1. !.
(50) ! 1 1~2. 2~3. 22 11. 4. 55%. 27.5%. 13. 32.5%. CAI CAI. 11. 5. 29 17.5%. 72.5%. 10%. 40. 31 9 2009. 2006. 1983. 2011. 2006. 1990. 2003 1998. 2001. Effect Size. ! 42!. !.
(51) !. 2- 4. Excel. Excel 1. 2003. 2004. 6. CAI. CAI. GSP 2004. 3. CAI. Excel 3. 2004. CAI. 2006. 25. ! 43!. !.
(52) ! 2- 4 2006 -. 2006 3. Excel 2006 3. GSP 2007. GSP 3. CAI. 2008 11. GSP 2008 3. ! 44!. !.
(53) ! 2- 4 2008 2. 2009. 3. CAI. 2009. 4. CAI. (2010). 2010. 5. 2010. 8. ! 45!. !.
(54) ! 2- 4 2011. 4. 3. 2011. 3D. 3D 7. 2012. 2012. ARCS ARCS 12. ! 46!. !.
(55) !. 2004. 2008. 2009. 2006. 2003. 2007. 2006. 2009. 2006. 2010. ! 47!. !.
(56) !. !!. !. Rosenthal,1991. 2002. 1976. Glass. 1970 1976. Glass Meta-analysis 2009. 2010. Glass. Cooper. Hedges and Olkin. Hunter, Schmidt, and Jackson. Jackson. Light and. Pillemer Rosenthal 2009. 422. meta. meta-analysis Glass. 2012 ! 48!. !.
(57) ! 2011. 1987. 2009. 2009 (. ). (. ). Glass, McGaw& Smith. ! 49!. 1981. !.
(58) ! (. ). 2009. 2012. Hedges. Olkin. 1985. Effect Size, ES homogeneity test. ! 50!. !.
(59) !. 1988. 2009. ! 51!. !.
(60) !. 2009 2012. 2011. Rosenthal,1995. ! 52!. !.
(61) ! 2003 22. 2003. 2005 2006. 2005. 47. 2006. 2009 31. 2011 11 0.25. 1993. 16%. 2004. ! 53!. !.
(62) ! 2009. 24. ! 54!. !.
(63) !. !. !. !!!. !!. !. ! Hedges. Olkin 1985. 2009. ! 55!. !.
(64) !. (Effect!Size,!ES). (homogeneity!test)!. 33!1. !. ! ! ! 56!. !.
(65) !. !!. !. effect size. ! 57!. !.
(66) !. 190 431 GRB http://www.grb.gov.tw 132. 82 40 7. 32. 1. Rosenthal 1991. Fail-safe. Number (N fs.05 ). k. (∑ Zi )2 i=1. N fs.05 =. 2.706. p = .05. di σ (di ). Zi = k. −k. Z ! 58!. Z !.
(67) ! Fail-safe Number. 5k+10 Tolerance level Rosenthal 1991. 31 15. 5k+10. 37. 19. Number. Fail-safe. 1078. Tolerance level = 195 k=37 5×37+10=195. Tolerance level. 1078 >195. Tolerance level = 105. Fail-safe Number. Fail-safe Number. k=19 5×19+10=105. Fail-safe Number. 165. Tolerance. level 165 >105 Fail-safe Number. Tolerance level. !!!!. ! ! effect size ES. 2009. 2007. 2010 ! 59!. !.
(68) !. !. !. !. !. ! 60!. !.
(69) !. ! 61!. !.
(70) !. 5.. ! 3-1. ! 62!. !.
(71) !. effect size ES. Hedges. gi = X1. Oklin. 1985. X1 − X 2 s S. X2. (n1 −1)s12 + (n2 −1)s22 S= n1 + n2 − 2 n!. n!. S!. ! 63!. S!. !.
(72) !. d! = (1 −. ! )g !"!! !. N = n! + n!. n1 + n2 n1n2. gi = t. n1 + n2 n1n2. gi = F. n1 + n2 di2 σ = + n1n2 2(n1 + n2 ) 2. di − Cα σ (di ) ≤ δ ≤ di + Cα σ (di ) 2. !!!. 2. σ (d2 + ) k. d+ =. di. ∑σ i=1 k. ∑σ i=1. ! 64!. 2 (di ). 1 2 (di ). !.
(73) !. σ (d2 + ) =. 1 k. ∑σ. 1. i=1. !!. =. 1 TW. 2 (di ). σ (d2 + ). d+ − Cα σ (d+ ) ≤ δ ≤ d+ + Cα σ (d+ ) 2. 2. !!. !! 95. homogeneity test. !!. 95%. ES. !!. !. !! − !! ! !(! !). != !!!. !. Q-Statistics !!. !! =. ( !"#$)! !"##$% − !" ! 65!. !.
(74) ! wesj. ES. wessqj. ES. !! =. !!. !! = !! − !! !! !!. !!. Qwithin. !!. Qtotal !!. Qbetween !!. MetaWin2.1. ! 66!. !.
(75) !. !. !. !!!!. ! !!!!. !. !!. !. ! ! !. 40. 38. 45. ES !!. 95%. 4-1. 8. ES. 37. 38 0.3223. 2009. ES= −2.3532. 2008 ES=2.5587. 2009 ES=2.5925. 2003 ES=14.593. 2008 ES=4.391. 2006 ES=3.670. 2010 ES=2.9452. 2010 ES=2.2907 ES. 2. 31. −2. 8. 37. 4-1 37. 29. ES. 78%. ES. ES −0.8503. ES. 8 1.8117. 22%. ES ES. 78% 22% ! 67!. !.
(76) ! !!!!. 4-1. ES. 0.3223 95%. 0.2464~ 0.3983. 0 PR=50. PR=63. 13. Cohen (1997). ES ES. medium. ES. ES. 0.2. 0.5. 0.8. large ES. 0.3223. 4-1. !!. Var d. 1. 2006. 0.5855. 0.0275. 2. 2003. 1.8117. 0.0954. 2010. 0.0597. 0.0667. -0.0677. 0.0667. 3. a. 4. 2007. 0.5233. 0.1724. 5. 2009. 1.5471. 0.0838. 6. 2004. 0.4713. 0.0685. 7. 2006. -0.1428. 0.0668. 8. 2006. 0.7166. 0.1120. 9. 2009. -0.8503. 0.0753. 2007. 0.1779. 0.0077. 0.1172. 0.0077. 10. a. 11. 2003. -0.0942. 0.0734. 12. 2010. 1.1801. 0.1540. 13. 2006. 0.2351. 0.2517. 14. 2011. 0.5535. 0.1038 !. ! ! 68!. !.
(77) ! 4-1. !!. Var d. 15. 2004. 0.4992. 0.0356. 16. 2006. 0.7297. 0.0630. 17. 2011. 0.8511. 0.0632. 18. 1983. 1.6661. 0.1347. 19. 2009. 0.4776. 0.0247. 20. 1995. 0.4519. 0.0859. 1998. -0.3098. 0.1687. 0.4206. 0.1704. -0.2624. 0.1681. 0.3274. 0.0679. 0.3325. 0.0676. a. 21. a. 22. 1986. 23. 2009. 0.3336. 0.0871. 24. 1990. 0.2101. 0.0528. -0.1005. 0.1028. -0.4152. 0.1048. a. 25. 1999. 26. 2010. 0.1937. 0.2009. 27. 2001. 0.0356. 0.1032. 28. 2009. 0.9480. 0.1711. 29. 2008. 0.4740. 0.0587. 30. 2010. 0.5270. 0.0767. 31. 2009. 1.2419. 0.1593. 0.3223 95% CI. 0.2464 ~ 0.3983 31 37 129.850*. ( Qt ) a. 2. * p <.05!. ! 69!. !.
(78) ! ! !!!!. !. 4-1. Qt 129.850* p <.05 4-2 !! !!. ES ES. 0.739. ES=0.236 0.147. 95%. 0.325. 95%. ES=0.284. 0.530. 0.948. ES -0.166. 0.734. 95% !! !!. ES. ES=0.739. ES=0.236. ! 70!. !.
(79) !. Qb. !!. K. 95% CI. !!. 11.334 15. 0.521. 0.344. 0.699. 86.784*. 11. 0.251. 0.047. 0.455. 19.931*. 4. 0.212. 0.030. 0.394. 7.514. 2. 0.392. -1.256. 2.041. 0.923. 5. 0.429. 0.125. 0.734. 3.363. 6. 0.425. 0.055. 0.795. 17.551*. 30. 0.339. 0.258. 0.419. 93.355*. 1983-1990. 4. 0.467. 0.041. 0.893. 12.479*. 1991-2000. 6. -0.013. -0.381. 0.356. 6.130. 2001-2005. 5. 0.509. 0.191. 0.827. 24.941*. 2006-2010. 20. 0.289. 0.196. 0.382. 71.515*. 2011. 2. 0.739. -1.780. 3.257. 0.530. 1-2. 5. -0.249. -0.707. 0.208. 10.916*. 3-4. 4. 0.434. -0.074. 0.943. 0.654. 5-6. 11. 0.241. 0.128. 0.355. 23.464*. 9. 0.490. 0.286. 0.693. 47.180*. 7. 0.425. 0.195. 0.656. 9.910. 29. 0.395. 0.281. 0.509. 113.266*. 8. 0.262. 0.143. 0.382. 13.494. 17. 0.189. 0.086. 0.292. 53.034*. 9. 0.582. 0.371. 0.794. 23.867*. 11. 0.474. 0.303. 0.645. 33.472*. 0.337. 14.255. 19.521. 3.089. 19.477. ! 71!. !.
(80) ! 4-2 !!. K. !!. 17. 0.251. 0.151. 0.351. 56.634*. 6. 0.239. -0.160. 0.638. 5.035. 5. 0.353. 0.058. 0.648. 11.064*. 8. 0.636. 0.418. 0.855. 41.892*. 15. 0.371. 0.198. 0.544. 43.540*. 17. 0.259. 0.161. 0.357. 76.374*. 5. 0.574. 0.279. 0.870. 2.086. 4. 0.284. -0.166. 0.734. 36.561*. 23. 0.236. 0.147. 0.325. 54.452*. 10. 0.739. 0.530. 0.948. 14.311. 28. 0.312. 0.231. 0.393. 112.391*. 9. 0.425. 0.141. 0.708. 16.699*. 5. 0.513. 0.139. 0.888. 41.174*. 7. 0.346. 0.061. 0.631. 20.726*. 25. 0.301. 0.216. 0.387. 65.644*. 0-2. 8. 0.302. 0.179. 0.424. 32.370*. 2-4. 7. 0.221. -0.016. 0.459. 10.288. 1-2. 12. 0.653. 0.424. 0.882. 42.688*. 2-3. 7. 0.192. -0.056. 0.440. 30.737*. 2. 0.339. -1.908. 2.586. 0.776. 34. 0.337. 0.259. 0.414. 122.427*. 3. -0.143. -1.074. 0.788. 2.656. 95% CI. !!. 14.169. 7.850. 24.526*. 0.761. 2.305. 12.990. 3 4.767. ! 72!. !.
(81) ! 4-2 !!. K. !!. 5. 0.686. 0.379. 0.993. 15.952*. 22. 0.274. 0.185. 0.364. 81.391*. 9. 0.324. 0.062. 0.585. 19.381*. 5. 0.513. 0.139. 0.888. 41.174*. 32. 0.306. 0.227. 0.386. 86.499*. 4. 0.137. -0.054. 0.328. 1.035. 25. 0.345. 0.223. 0.468. 88.005*. 7. 0.591. 0.382. 0.801. 16.862*. 14. 0.293. 0.122. 0.465. 64.964*. 6. 0.381. 0.135. 0.627. 11.464*. 5. 0.738. 0.401. 1.074. 10.404*. 9. 0.266. 0.144. 0.390. 22.370*. 3. -0.143. -1.074. 0.79. 2.660. 3. 0.454. -0.273. 1.180. 0.414. 26. 0.310. 0.226. 0.390. 112.852*. 8. 0.356. 0.092. 0.620. 15.795*. 95% CI. !!. 12.070. 2.176. 19.423. 17.994. 0.789. *p<.05!. ! ! ! !. ! ! ! ! ! 73!. !.
(82) !. !. !. ! !. !! 15. 19. ES !!. 95%. 18. 95%. ES. 4-3 ES. −0.5324. 1 1.2456. 5%. 19. ES. ES. ES. ES 95% 5% 4-3. ES. 0.3178 95%. 0.1696 0.4660. 0 PR=50. PR=62. 12. Cohen (1997). ES small. medium. ES. ES. 0.8. ES. 0.2. 0.5 large. ES. 0.3178. ! ! 74!. !.
(83) ! 4-3. ES. !! a. 1. 2010. Var d. 0.1343. 0.0668. -0.5324. 0.0690. 2. 2006. 0.0988. 0.0667. 3. 2006. 0.2910. 0.1070. 2009. 0.8295. 0.0805. 0.0668. 0.0716. a. 4 5. 2003. 0.3003. 0.0742. 6. 2006. 0.6949. 0.1414. 7. 2011. 0.3836. 0.1018. 8. 2004. 0.1808. 0.0347. 9. 1995. 0.0542. 0.0800. 1998. 0.3969. 0.1702. 0.2284. 0.1694. 0.7036. 0.1786. a. 10. 11. 2010. 1.2456. 0.2388. 12. 2009. 0.9685. 0.1719. 13. 2010. 0.9600. 0.0826. 14. 2004. 1.1316. 0.6048. 15. 2006. 0.4497. 0.1282. 0.3178 95% CI. 0.1696. 0.4660. 15 19 31.5090*. Qt a. 2. * p <.05!. ! ! ! ! 75!. !.
(84) ! ! !!. !. 4-3. Qt = 31.5090* p <.05 4-4 !! !! ES. ES 0.726. ES= 0.449. ES= 0.188. ES= −0.194. 95%. 0.184. 1.205. 0.715. 95%. 0.248 ES. −0.450~0.826 −2.535~2.148. 95%. !!. ES ES. ES=0.449. ES= −0.194. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 76!. !.
(85) ! 4-4. ─ !!. !!. K. !!. 95% CI. 0.275 11. 0.339. 0.123. 0.555. 24.709*. 6. 0.336. -0.009. 0.681. 6.137. 5. 0.312. -0.143. 0.767. 1.914. 12. 0.298. 0.110. 0.486. 25.397*. 2. 0.426. -2.048. 2.900. 3.8244. 1991-2000. 4. 0.278. -0.305. 0.860. 1.737. 2001-2005. 3. 0.253. -0.396. 0.902. 1.457. 2006-2010. 11. 0.346. 0.140. 0.553. 27.931*. 1-2. 4. 0.601. 0.018. 1.185. 1.772. 3-4. 4. 0.537. 0.035. 1.040. 7.589. 5-6. 3. 0.327. -0.492. 1.145. 3.336. 5. 0.048. -0.333. 0.429. 9.931*. 2. 0.219. -1.734. 2.172. 0.131. 16. 0.364. 0.204. 0.525. 18.539. 3. -0.040. -0.933. 0.853. 9.602*. 7. 0.443. 0.114. 0.773. 5.316. 5. 0.499. 0.105. 0.893. 6.677. 7. 0.150. -0.100. 0.401. 14.323*. 8. 0.449. 0.184. 0.715. 6.410. 5. 0.726. 0.248. 1.205. 3.895. 3. 0.188. -0.450. 0.826. 1.593. 2. -0.194. -2.535. 2.148. 3.272. 0.360. 0.325. 8.601. 3.355. 5.180. 15.402*. ! ! 77!. ! !.
(86) ! 4-4 !!. !!. K. 95% CI. !!. 3.560 10. 0.434. 0.193. 0.675. 8.487. 7. 0.149. -0.112. 0.411. 13.472*. 3. 0.439. -0.594. 1.471. 0.664. 12. 0.268. 0.080. 0.456. 23.497*. 4. 0.419. -0.048. 0.887. 6.262. 14. 0.261. 0.097. 0.425. 23.954*. 5. 0.675. 0.144~1.205. 4. 0.401. -0.084. 0.885. 3.971. 14. 0.316. 0.136. 0.495. 26.360*. 2-4. 2. 0.153. -1.767. 2.072. 0.066. 1-2. 7. 0.436. 0.093. 0.778. 5.732. 2-3. 6. 0.156. -0.134. 0.446. 13.066*. 2. 0.766. -2.108. 3.640. 1.201. 17. 0.309. 0.155. 0.463. 30.600*. 2. 0.460. -3.287. 4.206. 0.649. 2. 1.033. -2.114. 4.181. 0.254. 12. 0.243. 0.053. 0.432. 20.746*. 4. 0.351. -0.192. 0.894. 0.853. 4. 0.401. -0.084~0.885. 3.971. 15. 0.296. 0.124~0.466. 27.145*. 1.073. 4.041. 3.501. 0.247. 7.734. 3 0.247. 9.100. 0.380. !!! ! ! 78!. ! !.
(87) ! 4-4 !!. K. !!. 2. 0.436. -2.366~3.238. 0.722. 17. 0.304. 0.146~0.462. 30.452*. 10. 0.247. 0.019. 0.475. 19.869*. 3. 0.243. -0.453. 0.938. 0.545. 2. 0.586. -2.867. 4.040. 2.636. 4. 0.441. -0.009. 0.891. 6.003. 2. 1.033. -2.114. 4.181. 0.254. 12. 0.239. 0.048. 0.430. 19.547. 5. 0.294. -0.093. 0.681. 2.495. 95% CI. !!. 0.322. 2.438. 9.200. *p<.05!. ! ! ! ! !. ! 79!. !.
(88) !. !. !. !. ! ES. Cohen. ES. 1977. ES. 0.2. ES. ES. 0.5. 0.8. 0.3223 ES 29. 78%. ES. 8. 22%. ES. 0.3178 ES 95%. 1. 5%. 18. ES. 15. 2009 2011 2009. 2003 Liao 1999. 2005 2004. Liao 2007. ! 80!. 2006 2003. Liao, Chang & Chen. 1993 2007. !.
(89) !. Christmann, Badgett & Lucking. 1997. Kulik, Bangert & Williams. Ryan 1991. 1983. Means et al.. 2009. Li & Ma 2010 K-12 Lou, Bernard & Abrami 2006. ! 81!. !.
(90) !. e. !. !. !. !. 41% 30%. ES ES. ES. 0.521. 0.251. 0.521 ES. 0.429. 58% ES. 0.339 ES. 32% 0.336 ES. ! 82!. !.
(91) !. ES. 30 81%. 6. 16%. 1. ES. 3%. ES=0.425. ES=0.339 12. 80%. 2. 13%. 1. ES=0.426. 1. 7% 2. ES=0.312. 40. 1983 1983. 2000. 2006~2011 5. ES=0.298. 2011 5. 2001~2005. 6. 29. 6 ! 83!. !.
(92) ! 2011. ES. 0.739 2001~2005. 2001~2005. ES. 2006~2010 1991~2000. ES. ES. 0.278. 2001~2005. 0.425. ES. 0.253. 9. 0.490. ES. ES −0.249. 5 4. −0.013. 30%. ES. 0.509. 0.346. 11 24%. ES. 26%. 21%. ES. 0.601. ES. 0.537. ES. 0.048 ES=0.434. ES=0.537 ! 84!. !.
(93) !. 2003. 88%. ES. 0.395. ES. 0.262 ES. 0.364. ES. −0.040. 42%. ES ES. 0.474. 0582 ES. 0.189. 2003 2006. 2005. ES. 0.499. ES=0.443. ES=0.150 ! 85!. !.
(94) !. 47% ES. 22%. ES=0.636 ES=0.353. ES=0.239 ES 44% ES. 0.726. 28% ES=0.449. ES=−0.194. ES. 0.188. ! 86!. !.
(95) !. F. ES=0.574 ES=0.371 ES=0.259 ES. ES=0.434. ES=0.149. ES ES. 0.739 63%. ES=0.236. ES=0.284 ES=0.439 ES=0.419 ES. 0.268 ! 87!. !.
(96) !. 15 15. ES ES. 0.312 ES. ES. 0.425 ES. 0.675. 0.261. ES ES=0.513 ES=0.346. ES=0.301 ES=0.401. ES=0.316. ES ES ES ES. ! 88!. !.
(97) !. 1-2 ES. 1-2. 32%. 0-2. 22%. ES=0.653. 3. ES=0.339 2-3. ES=0.192. 2005 2006. 0-1. 4 2004. 3-4. 1-2 3. 37%. ES=0.436. ES=0.766. 1-2. ES=0.436. 2-3. ES=0.156. 1-2. 2005. 2006. 2. ES. ES= 0.337 ES= −0.143 ! 89!. !.
(98) !. ES= 0.460 ES= 0.309. ES. ES= 0.686 ES=0.324. ES=0.274. ES=1.033 ES=0.351 ES=0.243. 2004. ES ES. ES=0.513. ES=0.401. ! 90!. !.
(99) !. ES. 0.591 ES. ES. ES. 0.345. 0.137. ES. 0.436. 0.304. 38% 24% ES. 8. ES. 0.738. ES. 0.293. ES. 0.381. ES. 0.266. ES= − 0.143 Liao 2007 Chen. 2011. 0.499. 2007. Liao Chang. 0.55. 2003 Lou, Bernard, & Abrami. 2003 2006. 53% 11%. ES ! 91!. ES. 0.586 !.
(100) !. ES. 0.441 ES. ES. 0.247. 0.243. 2004. 1993 Liao,. 1999; Li & Ma 2010. ES ES. ES 0.356. ES. ES. ES. 0.454 0.310. 1.033. 0.239. 0.294. ! 92!. !.
(101) !. !. !. ! !. !. !. 78% +0.3223. 95% +0.3178. 1 ES Qw. Qw. ES. 1 ES. Qw ! 93!. !.
(102) !. ES. 2006~2011. 1-2. 3. 3. ! 94!. !.
(103) !. !!!. !. !! ! ! !!!!. ! ! 95!. !.
(104) ! ! !!!!. ! !. !! ! ! !!!!. !. ! ! !!!. ! !. ! 96!. !.
(105) ! !!!!. ! ! ! ! !!!!. ! ! !!!!. ! ! !. ! 97!. !.
(106) !. ! *. !. ! 2010. 27. 26. 1999. *. -. 2003. 2010. *. 2009. 1. 4. 326-346 2009 59-90 *. 2004. 2004. 2009 49-73 2000 *. 2011. 2012 2-38. *. 2006 5. 223-239. ! 98!. !.
(107) ! 2003. 116. 159. 2005 *. 1983. 16 61-70. 2011. 2004. 1999 161-166 2001. ─ 2004 49. 1. 65-80. 2008. 2001 2004. GSP. 1993. 425-472. 2003 1998 1997 *. ─. 2004. 2009. 69. 69-72 *. 2010. !!!!. ! 1987. 10. 1-38 ! 99!. !.
(108) ! *. 2009. *. 2010. 2011. *. 2010 -. 2007. 78. 227-248. 2001. 1199-1202 *. 2006. 2004 2005. 138 86-94. 2002 2007 40 2. 32-41. *. 2007. *. 2011. GSP. 2006. !100!. !.
(109) ! 2009. 2006. *. 2009. 1988 2007 78. 21-40. 2009. 1995 37 1. 14-24. 2003 *. 116. 15-30. 2003. 2009 4. 26. 43-50 1975. *. 2007. -. 2010. *. 2006. 2007 2003. Excel. !101!. !.
(110) ! *. 2005. 2004. 2012. *. 3D. 2009. -. 2005. 2008 19 1. 1-32. *. 2009. 2005. 1994 *. ─. 1990. CAI. 2000 16. 163-191 .. 2001 17. 85-106. 2003 2003. 1999. 72 2-9 1998 !102!. !.
(111) ! *. 2006. -. 2009 32. 139-168. 1998 2008 2009. 2011. 4. 2. http://www.edu.tw/secretary/itemize_list.aspx?site_content_sn=19512 2011a 2011. 3. 100 28. http://asap.moe.gov.tw/modules/tinyd0/index.php?id. =21 2011b. 2011. 4. 2. http://www.. edu.tw/secretary/content.aspx?site_content_sn=906 2012a ]. 2012. [ 5. 18. http://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=. FL047648 2012b. 2012. 5. 27. http://12basic.du.tw/sub_04.php 2008. 2010. 2010. 2008 *. 27. 1995 1. *. 25-29. 345-383. 2006. 2011. !103!. !.
(112) ! 2006. -. 2012. ARCS. 2009. 67 68-71. 2008. 1982. :. 2008. 2002 34. 1. 21-22. 1988 *. 26. 1-15. 1998 6. *. 4. 307-347. 2007. 2010. *. 2010. 2007. GSP. 2009. *. 2009. !104!. !.
(113) ! 1993. 6. 213-239 2003 1. 161-182. 2009 421-462 2012 110-136 2009. *. 2008. *. 2010. 2006. *. 2006. *. 2008. *. 2009. *. 2009. *. (2008). !105!. !.
(114) ! 2008 ─. 50. 1-20 2006. 2010 44(2). 133-156. 2011 58 *. 2. 391-422. 2001. 2010. 661. 13-17. 2005 43. 2. 249-266. 2003. *. 2004. *. 1986. *. (1999). 2006. (. ). ! !106!. !.
(115) !. ! Boggs, S., Shore, M. & Shore, J. (2004). Using e-learning platforms for mastery learning in developmental mathematics courses. Mathematics and Computer Education, 38, 213-219. Brants, L., & Struyen, K. (2009). Literature review on online remedial education: A European Perspective. Industery and Higher Education, 23.4, 269-276. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco. CA: John Wiley & Sons. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavior science (revised edition). New York: Academic Press. Christmann, E., Badgett, J., & Lucking, R. (1997). Progressive comparison of the effects of computer-assisted instruction on the academic achievement of secondary students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(4), 325-337. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London:Routledge/Falmer. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-Analysis in Social Research. Beverly Hills.CA: Sage. Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). 'Distance Education' and 'e-Learning': Not the same thing. Higher Education, 49(4), 467-493. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Kulik, J. A., Bangert, R. L., & Williams, G. W. (1983). Effects of computer-based teaching on secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 19-26. Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. L. C., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 1(1), 59-74. Laurillard, D. (2005). E-Learning in Higher Education. In P. Ashwin (Ed.), Changing HigherEducation. London: Routledge. Liao, Y. K. C. (1999). Effects of hypermedia on students’ achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 255- 277. !107!. !.
(116) ! Liao, Y. C. (2007). Effects of computer assisted instruction on students’ achievement in Taiwan: A meta-analysis. Computers and Education, 48(2), 216-233 . Liao, Y. C., Chang, H., & Chen, Y. (2007). Effects of computer applications on elementary school students’ achievement: A meta-analysis of studies in Taiwan.Computers in the Schools, 24(3/4), 43-64. Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 215-243. Lou, Y., Bernard, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate distance education:A theory-based meta-analysis of empirical literature. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 141-176. Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2009). Benefits of computer-assisted instruction for struggling readers in middle school. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(1), 103-113. Mandel, H. P., & Marcus, S. I. (1988). The psychology of underachievement. New York: John Wiley and Sons. McMillan-Culp, K., Hawkins, J., & Honey, M. (1999). Review paper on educational technology research and development. New York: Center for Children and Technology. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A metaanalysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Decelopment. ModRitscher, F. (2006). E-Learning Theories in practice: A comparison of three Methods. Journal of Universal Science and Technology of Learning, 0(0),3-18. Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D. T., Waterval, D., Rehm, M., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2006). Remedial online teaching on a summer course. Industry and Higher Education, 20(5), 327-336. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–192.. !108!. !.
(117) ! Ryan, A. W. (1991). Meta-analysis of achievement effects in microcomputer applications in elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 161-184. Spence, D., & Usher, E. (2007). “Engagement with mathematics courseware in traditional and online remedial learning environments: Relationship to self-efficacy and achievement”. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(3), 267-288. Sung, Y. T., Chang K. E., Hou, H. T., & Chen, P. F. (2010). Designing an Electronic Guidebook for Learning Engagement in a Museum of History. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1, 74-83. Winn, W. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 15(4), 331-351. Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, Nj Education. Wise, B. W., Ring, J., & Olson, R. K. (2000). Individual differences in gains from computer-assisted remedialreading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 197-235.. !109!. !.
(118) !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !110!. !.
(119) !. ! !111!. !.
(120) !. !112!. !.
(121) !. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !113!. !.
(122) ! !. !. !. ! !. !114!. !.
(123)
相關文件
3.師培生修習教育課程期間，學期成績不及 格學分達該學期修習學分數 1/2、操行成績 未達 80 分或記 2
With regards to the questionnaire and interview aspects, we employed those made up by ourselves "The Questionnaire of trigonometry study present situation
Most of teachers agree with positive effects of the 99 curriculum on practical instruction in school, however, they seem to concern inequalities of content between volumes and
Analysis Based on Xia Jing Shan’s Seven Sages of Bamboo Grove: Comparing the sacred and the profane, by using symbols as a connector, profane occurrences and things could then
• The SHL (shift left) instruction performs a logical left shift on the destination operand, filling the lowest bit with
Instruction Teachers systematically guide students to understand how the writing of life stories could help them apply knowledge of different life stages
By University students of the Chung Hua University for objects, to make use of the descriptive statistics, the reliability analysis, and the factor analysis, considers the
The second purpose of this research was to develop a theoretically choosing model of university students when choosing a dormitory based upon thorough familiarity with
