精熟學習教學法運用小組討論之學習成效探討-以高職基本電學為例

Abstract

本研究旨在探討傳統精熟學習教學法與三種不同分組方式(第一種：高學習成就和低學習成就學生同組，中學習成就學生同組。第二種：高、中、低學習成就的學生各自一組。第三種：依學生自己喜好分組。)之討論式精熟學習教學法應用在高職基本電學之學習成效。研究採用準實驗設計方法，研究對象為桃園縣某國立高中資訊科三年級甲、乙兩班學生，共85人，其中實驗組44人，控制組41人。其中實驗組採三種不同分組方式之討論式精熟學習教學法，每種分組方式，實施為期四週、每週三小時的教學實驗，三種不同分組方式共合計十二週、三十六小時，控制組則採傳統式教學之精熟學習教學法，實驗時間和實驗組相同。在進行實驗教學前兩組皆先進行前測評量，實驗教學完結束後，在進行後測評量，所得資料數據以SPSS統計軟體進行作資料分析，以獲得相關重要結論如下： 1. 三種不同分組方式之討論式精熟學習教學法與傳統式精熟學習教學法在「學習成效」方面均呈現顯著進步之學習成就(p<.001)。 2. 第一種分組方式之討論式精熟學習教學法在「學習成效」方面進步分數明顯高於傳統式精熟學習教學法並達顯著差異(p<.001)。 3. 第二種分組方式之討論式精熟學習教學法在「學習成效」方面進步分數和傳統式精熟學習教學法相比並無顯著差異(p>.05)。 4. 第三種分組方式之討論式精熟學習教學法在「學習成效」方面進步分數高 於傳統式精熟學習教學法並達顯著差異(p<.05)。

The thesis aims to investigate the efficiency of mastery teaching theory in the way of group discussion. I adopt quasi-experimental designs, applying to the course of basic electricity in vocational high school. The objects of this research are 85 students in certain high school, Taoyuan County, among which 44 belong to test group and the other 41 control group. The implement of group discussion in the research lasts 12 weeks and three hours on a weekly basis; therefore the total number of this experiment amounts to 36 hours. The test group adopts the strategy of different group division while the control group proceeds with the strategy of traditional teacher-oriented mastery teaching strategy. Both test group and control group initiate a pretest and the posttest before and after the experiment. Analyzed through the SPSS, the data of this research incurs the following important conclusions： 1.Both group discussion method and traditional teaching strategy reveal progressively learning achievement on students’ grades (p<.001). 2.Regarding students’ grades, students of the first discussion group perform a lot greater than those of traditional way of teaching; the discrepancy between the two is apparent (p<.001). 3.Compared with the traditional way of learning strategy, students of the second group discussion do not reveal obvious difference regarding students’ grades (p>.05). 4.Compared with the traditional way of learning strategy, students in the third group discussion perform a lot greater, and the discrepancy between the two is quite apparent (p<.05).