簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 蔡文嘉
Tsai Wen-Chia
論文名稱: 應用極限編程之實務作法於高職程式設計教學之成效
The Efficiency of Applying eXtreme Programming Practices to Learning Programming at Vocational High School
指導教授: 張國恩
Chang, Kuo-En
宋曜廷
Sung, Yao-Ting
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 資訊教育研究所
Graduate Institute of Information and Computer Education
論文出版年: 2009
畢業學年度: 97
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 86
中文關鍵詞: 程式語言學習問題解決歷程極限編程雙人搭檔編程
英文關鍵詞: Programming learning, Progress of problem solving, eXtreme Programming, Pair Programming
論文種類: 學術論文
相關次數: 點閱:169下載:1
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 本研究根據程式語言學習之問題解決歷程理論,提出之五個問題解決步驟,結合極限編程中適合於程式設計教學環境的數項關於程式開發的實務作法,設計一Visual Basic課堂教學輔助系統;另外將有關於學生之間合作學習的雙人搭檔編程這項實務作法獨立出來,探討VB課堂教學輔助系統與雙人搭檔編程搭各自獨立或互相搭配來輔助高職學生學習程式設計,是否能有效提升其對於程式設計學習之成效。
    研究方法採準實驗研究法,實驗研究的自變項為教學方法(VB課堂教學輔助系統+雙人搭檔編程、VB課堂教學輔助系統、雙人搭檔編程、傳統VB程式設計教學),依變項為VB程式語言成就測驗得分,對測驗結果以第一次段考程式語言之成績為共變數,進行共變數分析,了解VB課堂教學輔助系統及雙人搭檔編程對學生學習成效的影響。以台北市某高工一年級136學生作為研究樣本,分為控制組(傳統程式語言教學)共31人、實驗組1(使用VB課堂教學輔助系統)共39人、實驗組2(使用雙人搭檔編程)共32人、實驗組3(同時使用VB課堂教學輔助系統及雙人搭檔編程)共34人;並藉由問卷調查,了解學生對程式設計的看法、興趣及信心,以及實驗結束後,對實驗之教學方法的想法。
    研究結果發現,(1)VB課堂教學輔助系統及雙人搭檔編程同時使用可以顯著提升學生學習程式之成效;(2)單獨採用雙人搭檔編程,在遇到較複雜的程式理解題時,成績會顯著低於VB課堂教學輔助系統組;(3)單獨採用雙人搭檔編程,在遇到課堂未曾練習過之程式設計題時,成績會顯著低於其他三組;(4)單獨採用雙人搭檔編程,在指令的理解、程式設計的信心以及對程式的構思能力三方面,皆顯著低於其他三組。

    An instruction system based on the five problem solving processes of solving program problem theorem and combining some practices of eXtreme Programming suitable for programming courses was designed in this study.
    This study investigated the effects of using this instruction system to help vocational high school students learn programming. A quasi-experiment design was implemented in order to compare the effects of using this instruction system. Four classes, with a total of one hundred thirty-six, first-year vocational high school students enrolled in an introductory programming course participated in this study. One class of thirty-one students served as the control group who just used the VB integrated development environment; another class of thirty-nine students served as the experiment group one who used this instruction system; another class of thirty-two students served as the experiment group two who used pair programming; the other class of thirty-four students served as the experiment group three who used this instruction system and pair programming. Students’ performance on post-experiment achievement tests, and answers on questionnaires, were collected and analyzed.The findings show that: (1) This instruction system and pair programming used together got significantly higher achievement than control group. (2) Pair programming used alone in solving more complex program concept problems got significantly lower achievement than this instruction system used alone. (3) Pair programming used alone in solving program design problems never practiced in class got significantly lower achievement than the other three groups. (4) Pair programming used alone in comprehension of programs, confidence of program design and mental models of program execution got significantly lower achievement than the other three groups.

    附表目錄 VI 附圖目錄 VIII 第一章 緒論 1                     第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的 3 第三節 研究範圍與限制 4    第二章 文獻探討 5 第一節  程式設計教學的問題 5 第二節 程式語言學習的問題解決歷程 7 第三節 程式語言的知識區分 9 第四節 極限編程 10 第五節 極限編程之實務作法在程式設計教學的應用 13 第三章 研究方法與步驟 17 第一節  研究設計 17 第二節  研究樣本 17 第三節  應用XP實務作法之程式語言教學輔助系統 18 第四節 研究工具 29 第五節 實施程序 31 第六節 資料分析 33      第四章 結果與討論 34 第一節 實驗組與控制組學習成就比較 34 第二節 實驗組與控制組學習情形比較 47 第三節 課堂教學輔助系統及雙人搭檔編程組之VB程式設計學習結果 56 第四節 結果與討論 62 第五章 結論與建議 66 第一節  結論 66 第二節  建議 70 附錄一 課程講義一 71 附錄二 課程講義二 73 附錄三 課程講義三 74 附錄四 雙人搭檔編程學習單 76 附錄五 VB成就測驗 77 附錄六 VB問卷(實驗組3) 81 附錄七 VB問卷(控制組) 83 附錄八 VB問卷(實驗組1) 84 附錄九 VB問卷(實驗組2) 86 參考文獻 87 附表目錄 表3-1 實驗組與控制組參與學生統計表 18 表4-1 實驗組與控制組成就測驗總分之敘述統計量數 35 表4-2 受試者間效應項檢定表(學習整體成就) 35 表4-3 共變數分析檢定摘要表(學習整體成就) 36 表4-4 事後比較表(學習整體成就) 37 表4-5 教學方法各水準調整後之邊緣平均數表(學習整體成就) 37 表4-6 實驗組與控制組程式理解能力總分之敘述統計量數 38 表4-7 受試者間效應項檢定表(程式理解能力總分) 38 表4-8 共變數分析檢定摘要表(程式理解能力總分) 39 表4-9 事後比較表(程式理解能力總分) 40 表4-10教學方法各水準調整後之邊緣平均數表 (程式理解能力總分) 40 表4-11程式理解能力各題共變述分析摘要表 41 表4-12事後比較表(條件及重複結構混合得分) 42 表4-13教學方法各水準調整後之邊緣平均數表條件及重複結構混合得分) 42表4-14實驗組與控制組程式設計能力總分之敘述統計量數 43 表4-15受試者間效應項檢定表(程式設計能力總分 44 表4-16受試者間效應項檢定表(程式設計能力總分) 44 表4-17共變數分析檢定摘要表(程式設計能力總分) 45 表4-18事後比較表(條件結構得分) 46 表4-19教學方法各水準調整後之邊緣平均數表(條件結構得分) 46 表4-20四組學生對程式撰寫的作答情形 48 表4-21程式撰寫各題共變數分析摘要表 48 表4-22事後比較表(問卷第一題) 49 表4-23四組學生對撰寫VB程式態度與興趣的作答情形 51 表4-24共變數分析檢定摘要表(撰寫VB程式態度與興趣) 51 表4-25事後比較表(問卷第三題) 52 表4-26四組學生對學習反思的作答情形 53 表4-27共變數分析檢定摘要表(學習反思) 53 表4-28事後比較表(問卷第七題) 54 表4-29實驗組3程式理解部份得分之描述統計量 56 表4-30實驗組3程式理解部份得分統計 57 表4-31實驗組3程式設計部份得分之描述統計量 57 表4-32實驗組3程式設計部份得分統計 58 表4-33實驗組3對學習活動的反思 60 附圖目錄 圖2-1 TDD概念圖 15 圖3-1 系統登入 20 圖3-2 題目 21 圖3-3 闡釋題意 22 圖3-4 物件命名 23 圖3-5 撰寫測試案例 24 圖3-6 撰寫程式、進行測試 25 圖3-7 重整 26 圖3-8 加入測試案例當註解之完整程式碼展示 27 圖3-9 完成作業訊息畫面 27 圖3-10 實施程序 31

    教育部(2005):職業學校群科課程暫行綱要暨設備標準。

    沈碧麗,吳正己(2006):高職電腦教師教學信念之個案研究。中華民國第22 屆科學教育學術研討會。

    沈碧麗(2006):高職電腦教師教學信念之個案研究。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育教育學系碩士論文。

    Keefe, K., Sheard, J., & Dick, M. (2006). Adopting XP practices for teaching object oriented programming. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 165, 91-100.

    Beck, K. and Andres, C. (1999). Extreme Programming Explained : Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Professional.

    Beck, K. and Andres, C. (2004). Extreme Programming Explained : Embrace Change (2nd Edition). Addison-Wesley Professional.

    Perkins, D. N., Hancock, C., Hobbs, R., Martin, F. & Simmons, R. (1988). Conditions of learning in novice programmers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 37-55.

    Bevan, J., Werner, L., and Mcdowell, C. (2002). Guidelines for the use of pair programming in a freshman programming class. In CSEET '02: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society.

    Deek, F. P., Turoff, M. & McHugh, J. A. (1999). A common model for problem solving and program development. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(4), 331-336.

    Deek, F. P., Kimmel, H. & McHugh, J. A. (1998). Pedagogical changes in the delivery of the first course in computer science: Problem solving then programming.
    Journal of Engineering Education, 87(3), 313-320.

    Jones, C. G.. (2004). Test-driven development goes to school. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(1), 220-231.

    Miller, K. W. (2004). Test Driven Development On The Cheap: Text Files And Explicit Scaffolding. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(2), 181­189.

    Linn, M.C., & Dalbey, J. (1989). Cognitive consequences of programming instruction. In Soloway E. & Spohrer J.C. (Eds.), Studying the novice programmer 57-81. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Beaubouef, T., & Mason, J. (2005). Why the high attrition rate for computer science students: some thoughts and observations. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(2), 103-106.

    Brusilovsky, P., Calabrese, E. J., Kouchnirenko, A., & Miller, P. (1997). Mini language: a way to learn programming principles. Education and Information Technologies, 2 (1), 65-83.

    Jenkins, T. (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, pp. 12-18, Loughborough.

    Xinogalos, S. (2003). objectKarel: a didactic microworld for teaching object-oriented programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(3), 233-233.

    Yazici, S., Boyle, T., & Khan, T. (2001). Towards a multimedia learning environment for object oriented design. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Science, pp. 1-2, London.

    Mcdowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H. E., and Fernald, J. (2006). Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Commun. ACM, 49(8):90-95.

    Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Rubinstein, M. (1975). Patterns of problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Solso, R. L. (1991). Cognitive psychology (3nd ed). Needham Heights, MA Allyn and Bacon.

    Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.

    Etter, D. M. (1995). Engineering problem solving with ANSIC: Fundamental concepts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Press, 1945.

    Meier, S. L., Hovde, R. L. & Meier, R. L. (1996). Problem solving: Teachers’ perception, content area models, and interdisciplinary connections. Journal of School Science and Mathmatics, 96(5), 230-237.

    Rayner-Canham, G. W. & Rayner-Canham, M. F. (1990). Teaching chemistry problem solving techniques by microcomputer. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 9(4), 17-23.
    Keefe, K., Sheard, J., & Dick, M. (2006). Adopting XP practices for teaching object oriented programming. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 165, 91-100.

    Beck, K. and Andres, C. (1999). Extreme Programming Explained : Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Professional.

    Beck, K. and Andres, C. (2004). Extreme Programming Explained : Embrace Change (2nd Edition). Addison-Wesley Professional.

    Perkins, D. N., Hancock, C., Hobbs, R., Martin, F. & Simmons, R. (1988). Conditions of learning in novice programmers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 37-55.

    Bevan, J., Werner, L., and Mcdowell, C. (2002). Guidelines for the use of pair programming in a freshman programming class. In CSEET '02: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society.

    Deek, F. P., Turoff, M. & McHugh, J. A. (1999). A common model for problem solving and program development. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(4), 331-336.

    Deek, F. P., Kimmel, H. & McHugh, J. A. (1998). Pedagogical changes in the delivery of the first course in computer science: Problem solving then programming.
    Journal of Engineering Education, 87(3), 313-320.

    Jones, C. G.. (2004). Test-driven development goes to school. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(1), 220-231.

    Miller, K. W. (2004). Test Driven Development On The Cheap: Text Files And Explicit Scaffolding. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(2), 181­189.

    Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.

    Etter, D. M. (1995). Engineering problem solving with ANSIC: Fundamental concepts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Press, 1945.

    Meier, S. L., Hovde, R. L. & Meier, R. L. (1996). Problem solving: Teachers’ perception, content area models, and interdisciplinary connections. Journal of School Science and Mathmatics, 96(5), 230-237.

    Rayner-Canham, G. W. & Rayner-Canham, M. F. (1990). Teaching chemistry problem solving techniques by microcomputer. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 9(4), 17-23.

    Edwards, S. H. (2003). Rethinking Computer Science Education from a Test-First Perspective. Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, 148-155.

    Edwards, S. H. (2004). Using Software Testing to Move Students from Trial-and-Error to Reflection-in-Action. Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 36(1), 26-30.

    Olan, M. (2003). Unit Testing: Test Early, Test Often. Journal of Computer
    Sciences in Colleges. 10(2). 319-328.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE