現在位置首頁 > 博碩士論文 > 詳目
  • 同意授權
論文中文名稱:混成學習下之環境建構式學習:印尼在台Kejar Paket C學生觀點 [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
論文英文名稱:A Constructivist Approach to Blended Learning: Perceptions of Indonesian Students in Kejar Paket C in Taiwan [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
院校名稱:臺北科技大學
學院名稱:人文與社會科學學院
系所名稱:技術及職業教育研究所
畢業學年度:106
畢業學期:第一學期
出版年度:107
中文姓名:Dian Taruli Jaya Panjaitan
英文姓名:Dian Taruli Jaya Panjaitan
研究生學號:103498024
學位類別:碩士
語文別:英文
口試日期:2018/01/27
論文頁數:86
指導教授中文名:蔡銘修
指導教授英文名:Ming-Hsiu Tsai
口試委員中文名:賴阿福;蔡森暉
口試委員英文名:A-Fu Lai;Sen-Huei Tsai
中文關鍵詞:PerceptionsConstrutivist LeaningBlended Learning
英文關鍵詞:PerceptionsConstructivist LearningBlended Learning
論文中文摘要:本研究旨在探究臺灣Kejar Paket C學生在混成學習環境下,對於課程是否為建構式學習之實際觀點與理想觀點,共計有36位學生作為受測者並分屬三個不同年級,亦即一年級、二年級與三年級。本研究採Ebrahimi (2015) 所提出之問卷做為研究工具,並以此進行量化資料之蒐集與分析,最終得到受測者對於在混成學習環境下,對於課程是否為建構式學習之實際觀點與理想觀點。在研究資料中受測者背景變項部分,主要受試者為女性、30歲以下、工作時間一天超過12小時、一個月放假2天。本研究發現受測者對於臺灣Kejar Paket C課程是否為建構式學習之實際觀點為:學習內容「有時」會與個人經驗相關、「有時」能讓他們思考知識的不確定性、學生「有時」對教學內容有批判意見、「不常」能控制上課流程與方式、但「有時」會與其他學生討論;而受測者對建構式學習之理想觀點為:應該「有時」會與個人經驗相關、應該「通常」能讓他們思考知識的不確定性、應該「有時」能讓他們對教學內容有批判意見、應該「不常」需要讓他們能控制上課流程與內容、應該「有時」能讓他們與其他學生討論。在對研究資料進行相依樣本t檢定後,受測者實際觀點與理想觀點中之只有與個人經驗相關性具有顯著差異。
論文英文摘要:This study explored students’ perceptions of actual and preferred constructivist learning in blended learning setting at Kejar Paket C in Taiwan. Thirty six students were involved as participants in the study who came from three different grades, namely first grade, second grade, and third grade. A questionnaire adopted from Ebrahimi (2015) was used to collect the data in order to figure out the perceptions of the students toward the actual and preferred constructivist learning in blended learning setting. Data from the demographic section showed that the majority of the respondents’ was female (97.2%), age was under 30 years old (66.7%), work status was more than 12 hours/ day (75%), number of day offs/ month was 2 days (83.3%). It was found that the students’ perception of actual constructivist learning was “sometimes” for personal relevance, “sometimes” for uncertainty, “seldom” for critical voice, “seldom” for shared control, and “seldom” for student negotiation. On the other hand, the partipants’ perceptions of the preferred personal level was “sometimes”, the preferred uncertainty was “sometimes” , the preferred shared control was “seldom”, the preferred critical voice was “seldom”, the preferred student negotiation was “seldom. Result from the Paired Samples Test showed that the students’ perception of actual personal relevance was significantly different than the one. Aparently, the results may indicate that the use of blended learning at Kejar Paket C Program had not been able to promote constructivist learning.
論文目次:English Abstarct i
Mandarin Abstarct ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of Study 1
1.2 Research Motivation 5
1.3 Researh Purposes 8
1.4 Research Questions 9
1.5 Benefit of Research 9
1.6 Term Definition 10
1.6.1 Blended Online Learning 10
1.6.2 Constructivist Learning 10
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 11
2.1 Overview 11
2.2 Blended Learning 11
2.2.1 Definition of Blended Learning 11
2.2.2 The Strenghs of Blended Learning 15
2.3 Construtivist Learning 19

2.3.1 Scale of Constructivist Learning Enviroment 24
2.4 Kejar Paket Program 27
2.4.1 Kejar Paket Program in Indonesia 27
2.4.2 Kejar Paket Program in Taiwan 29
2.5 Conceptual Framework 35
Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 38
3.1 Overview 38
3.2 Research Method and Research Framework 38
3.3 Population 42
3.4 Data Collection and Research Instrument 42
3.5 Validity and Realibity 44
3.6 Data Analysis 44
Chapter 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 45
4.1 Result 45
4.1.1 Demographic characteristics 45
4.2 Discussion 60

Chapter 5 CONCLUSSIONS, SUGGESTIONS,LIMITATION AND
FUTURE RESEARCH 67
5.1 Conclussions 67
5.2 Suggestions 68
5.3 Limitation 69
5.4 Future Research 69
REFERENCES 70
APPENDICES 76
1. Appendix 1 Questionnaire actual and preferred 77
2. Appendix 2 Cover Letter 86
List of Table
Table 2-1 Preliminary Researches on CLES 25
Table 2-2 Learning Modes at Kejar Paket C Taiwan 30
Table 3.1 Sample Items for CLES Scales 43
Table 4.1 Students’ Demographic Characteristics 45
Table 4.2 Students’ perceptions of actual and preferred constructivist learning experiences 49
Table 4-3 Paired Samples Test Score of Students’ Perceptions of Constructivist Learning 58

List of Figure
Figure 2-1 Face-to-face meeting at Indonesian Trade office in Taipei 31
Figure 2-2Class is conducted in the lobby of the office 32
Figure 2-3 Recorded Meeting on YouTube 33
Figure 2-4 YouTube Link on Facebook Group 33
Figure 2-5 An instance of Online Class on Electa 35
Figure 3-1 Research Framework 39
Figure 3-2Research Process 40
Figure 4-1 The comparison between actual and preferred constructivist learning 52
Figure 4-2Individual Responses of Actual and Preferred Personal Relevance 53
Figure 4-3 Students’ Perceptions of actual and preferred uncertainty 54
Figure 4-4Students’ perceptions of actual and preferred critical voice 56
Figure 4-5 Students’Students’ Perceptions of Actual and Preferred Shared Control 57
Figure 4-6 Students’ Perceptions of Actual and Preferred Student Negotiation 58
論文參考文獻:REFERENCES

Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31 (4), 349 – 369.
Creswel, J.W. (2012). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Christano, R.O., & Cummings, W.K. (2007). Schooling in Indonesia. In Postiglione, G.A., & Tan, J. (Eds.). Going to School in East Asia.. Westport, CT.: Greenwood Press.
Ebrahimi, N.A. (2015). Validation and application of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey in English language teacher education classrooms in Iran. Learning Environ Res, 18, 69-93.
Fraser, B.J. (1982). Differences between student and teacher perceptions of actual and preferred classroom learning environment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4(4), 511-519.
Gijbels, D., van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & van den Bossche, P. (2006). New learning environments and constructivism: The students’ perspective. Instructional Science, 34, 213–226.
Graham, C. R. (2005). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham, (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Graham, C.R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2005). Benefits and Challenges of Blended Learning Environments. In Khosrow-Pour, M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (253-259). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Graham, C.R., & Dziuban, C.D. (2008). Core research and issues related to blended learning environments. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J.J.G. Van Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Hendytio, M., Moelyarto, V., Gaduh, A.B., & Feridhanusetyawan, T. (1999). Indonesia: A gender review of globalization, legislation, policies and institutional frameworks. Accessed on November, 28, 2016, from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---ilo-manila/documents/publication/wcms_483130.pdf.
Kintu, M.J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Education Technology in Higher Education, 14(7). Doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4
Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Adams, A.A., Rassool, N., & Williams, S.A. (2014). Blended learning in distance education: Sri Lankan perspective. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 10(1), 55-69.
Luckay, M.B., & Laugksch, R.C. (2015). The development and validation of an instrument to monitor the implementation of social constructivist learning environments in Grade 9 Science Classrooms in South Africa. Retrieved from https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/item/15822/thesis_hum_2010_luckay_melanie_b.pdf?sequence=1
Lutz, S. T. & Huitt, W. G. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 9(1), 67-90.
Maor, D., & Fraser, B.J. (2005). An online questionnaire for evaluating students and teachers perceptions of constructivist multimedia learning environments. Research in Science Education, 35, 221-244. Doi://10.1007/s11165-005-2148-3
Marsh, D. (2012). Blended Learning: Creating learning opportunities for language learners. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, P., & Forer, P. (2010). Blended learning: The perceptions of First-year Geography students. In Journal of Geography Higher Education, 34(1), 77-89.
Moore, J.L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2010). E-learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they same? Internet and Higher Education, 14, 129-135.
Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning : A dangerous idea? Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15-23.
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-Learning, 2 (1), 17-26.
O’Shaughnessy, J-P. (2006). Constructivism, Cognitive Psychology, and The Epistemology of Immanuel Kant (Published Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy). Loyola University Chicago: The Faculty of the Graduate School.
Pérez-Marín, D. & Pascual-Nieto, I. (2012). A Case Study on the Use of Blended Learning to Encourage Computer Science Students to Study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 74-82.
Perkins, D.N. (1991). What constructivism demands of learner. Educational Technology, 31(9), 19-21.
Puacharearn, P., & Fisher, D. (2004). Thai Secondary School Science Classrooms: Constructivist Learning Environment. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12117201.pdf.
Rovai, A.P., Wighting, M.J., Baker, J.D., & Grooms, L.D. (2009). Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classrooms higher education setting. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 7-13. Doi:10.1016/j.jheduc2008.10.002.
Sharma, P. (2010). Blended learning. ELT Journal, 64(4), 456-458. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/64/4/456/390082/Blended-learning
Smart, K.L., & Cappel, J.J. (2006). Students’ perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 201-219.
Sultan, W.H., Woods, P.C., & Koo, A.-C. (2011). A constructivist approach for digital learning: Malaysian schools case study. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 149-163.
Taylor, P.C.S. (1994). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 293-302. Doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(97)90011-2.
Tenebaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: an exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11, 87-111.
The Oxford Group. (2013). Blended Learning: Current Use, Challenges and Best Practices, Report 2013. Retrieved from https://www.kineo.com/m/0/blended-learning-report-202013.pdf
VanDerLinden, K. (2014). Blended Learning as Transformational Institutional Learning. New Directions For Higher Education,2014(165), 75-85. doi:10.1002/he.20085
Varthis, S. (2016). Students’ Perceptions of Blended Learning and its Effectiveness As a Part of Second Year Dental Curriculum (Unpublished Dissertation). Columbia University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.
Winarti, A. (2011, April 1). Days off do wonders for domestic workers. The Jakarta Post. Accessed November 28, 2016, from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/04/01/days-do-wonders-domestic-workers.html
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. (2013). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. (Working Paper No. 54). Retrieved from Community College Research Center hƩp://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publicaƟons/ adaptability‐to‐online‐learning.html
Yildirim, M.C. (2014). Developing a scale for constructivist learning environment management skills. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 54, 1-18.
Zeidan, A. (2013). Constructivist learning environment among Palestinian science students. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1074283
論文全文使用權限:同意授權於2018-02-23起公開