師大學報 - 教育科學研究期刊 - 期刊目錄列表 - 64卷(2019) - 【教育科學研究期刊】64(3)九月刊（本期專題：創造力、STEAM與自造教育）

以作者名、篇名、關鍵字或DOI查詢

CONTRIBUTORS
NOTICE

[Guide for Submission]

稿約

[Style for Thesis Writing]

論文撰寫體例

[Review of Research Papers]

論文審查要點

[The Copyright]

著作權處理要點

[Flow of Review System]

審查制度流程

[Regulations Governing]

編審委員會設置要點

[Editorial Board]

本年度編審委員

[Advisory Board]

本年度諮詢委員

[Form Download]

相關表單下載

《教育科學研究期刊》「高等教育的教學卓越」專題徵稿(截稿日至2025/09/30) 《教育科學研究期刊》「社會情緒學習｣專題徵稿(截稿日至2024/10/31) 《教育科學研究期刊》「高齡教育」專題徵稿(截稿日至2024/12/31)

期刊目錄列表 - 64卷(2019) - 【教育科學研究期刊】64(3)九月刊（本期專題：創造力、STEAM與自造教育）

回上一頁

（專題）QR圖碼應用於汽車修護課程翻轉學習模式差異之研究作者:國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系暨車輛與能源工程學士學位學程張俊興、國立臺灣師範大學學習科學跨國頂尖研究中心暨國立東華大學教育與潛能開發學系蔡其瑞

卷期：64卷第3期
日期：2019年9月
頁碼：119-141
DOI：10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0005

摘要：
本研究之研究目的為於汽車修護技能課程中融入QR圖碼進行翻轉學習，並探討製作翻轉課程學習內容的學習者及使用翻轉課程的學習者，兩組學習者學習成效的差異。在學習前後，將利用前、後測瞭解兩組學習者學習狀況的差異，並就前測成績將學習者分為高、低分組。而在實驗過程中，學習者自行應用智慧型裝置讀取QR圖碼，以獲得相關資訊自主學習，因此本研究將量測學習者的探究型及興趣型求知性好奇心。研究結果顯示，製作學習內容組的學習表現較使用學習內容組的學習表現來得好，且製作學習內容組的探究型求知性好奇心亦較高，但兩組在興趣型求知性好奇心並沒有顯著差異。研究結果支持教師應用QR圖碼於汽車修護翻轉學習課程中，能有助於學習者在汽車修護專業之學習。

關鍵詞：數位學習、求知性好奇心、學習表現、QR圖碼、汽車修護

《詳全文》

參考文獻：

Akben, N. (2018). Effects of the problem-posing approach on students’ problem solving skills and metacognitive awareness in science education. Research in Science Education. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11165-018-9726-7
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Brandenburg, D. C., & Ellinger, A. D. (2003). The future: Just-in-time learning expectations and potential implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(3), 308-320. doi:10.1177/1523422303254629
Brouwer, A.-M., Hogervorst, M. A., Holewijn, M., & van Erp, J. B. F. (2014). Evidence for effects of task difficulty but not learning on neurophysiological variables associated with effort. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 93(2), 242-252. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.05.004
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116

» 展開更多

Akben, N. (2018). Effects of the problem-posing approach on students’ problem solving skills and metacognitive awareness in science education. Research in Science Education. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11165-018-9726-7
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Brandenburg, D. C., & Ellinger, A. D. (2003). The future: Just-in-time learning expectations and potential implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(3), 308-320. doi:10.1177/1523422303254629
Brouwer, A.-M., Hogervorst, M. A., Holewijn, M., & van Erp, J. B. F. (2014). Evidence for effects of task difficulty but not learning on neurophysiological variables associated with effort. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 93(2), 242-252. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.05.004
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1080/00140139508925174
Chan, T.-W., Liao, C. C.-Y., Cheng, H. N.-H., Chang, W.-C., & Chien, T.-C. (2017). Practice and prospect of digital schools. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 62(2), 1-30. doi:10. 6209/JORIES.2017.62(2).01
Chen, N.-S., Kinshuk, Wei, C.-W., & Liu, C.-C. (2011). Effects of matching teaching strategy to thinking style on learner’s quality of reflection in an online learning environment. Computers & Education, 56(1), 53-64. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.021
Chien, Y.-H. (2019). Technology-enhanced learning: An optimal CPS learning application. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(16). doi:10.3390/su11164415
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. doi:10.2307/249008
Deng, L., & Yuen, A. H.-K. (2012). Understanding student perceptions and motivation towards academic blogs: An exploratory study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 48-66. doi:10.14742/ajet.883
Disterer, G., & Kleiner, C. (2013). BYOD bring your own device. Procedia Technology, 9, 43-53.
Dökme, İ., & Koyunlu Ünlü, Z. (2019). The challenge of quantum physics problems with self- metacognitive questioning. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 1-18. doi:10.1007/s11165-019-9821-4
Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1986). Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fabricius, W. V., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1994). The older child’s theory of mind. In A. Demetriou & A. Efklides (Eds.), Advances in psychology, vol. 106. Intelligence, mind, and reasoning: Structure and development (pp. 111-132). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62754-5
Falk, J. H. (2011). Contextualizing Falk’s identity-related visitor motivation model. Visitor Studies, 14(2), 141-157. doi:10.1080/10645578.2011.608002
Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2014). Learning progress assessment and goal setting: Effects on reading achievement, reading motivation and reading self-concept. Learning and Instruction, 32, 91-100. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.02.002
Gray, D. L., Chang, Y., & Anderman, E. M. (2015). Conditional effects of mastery goal structure on changes in students’ motivational beliefs: Need for cognition matters. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 9-21. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.025
Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2004). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (Eds.). (2013). Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Hung, I.-C., Yang, X.-J., Fang, W.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Chen, N.-S. (2014). A context-aware video prompt approach to improving students’ in-field reflection levels. Computers & Education, 70, 80-91. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.007
Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, H.-F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023-1031. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.002
Jamu, J. T., Lowi-Jones, H., & Mitchell, C. (2016). Just in time? Using QR codes for multi-professional learning in clinical practice. Nurse Education in Practice, 19, 107-112. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2016.03.007
Kao, G. Y.-M., Lei, P.-L., & Sun, C.-T. (2008). Thinking style impacts on Web search strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1330-1341. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.009
Kashdan, T. B., Stiksma, M. C., Disabato, D. J., McKnight, P. E., Bekier, J., Kaji, J., & Lazarus, R. (2018). The five-dimensional curiosity scale: Capturing the bandwidth of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 130-149. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.011
Kaynar, O., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2008). The effects of need for cognition on Internet use revisited. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 361-371. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.033
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Baumer, A. (2001). Just-in-time information presentation and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(4), 373-391. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00011-5
Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37-50. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003
Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26(4), 222-232. doi:10.1159/000272885
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Koo, D. M., & Choi, Y. Y. (2010). Knowledge search and people with high epistemic curiosity. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 12-22. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.013
Liaw, S.-S., Hatala, M., & Huang, H.-M. (2010). Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist individual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach. Computers & Education, 54(2), 446-454. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.029
Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1585-1595. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.014
Litman, J. A. (2010). Relationships between measures of I- and D-type curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and need for closure: An initial test of the wanting-liking model of information-seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 397-402. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.005
Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 147-157. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8202_3
Litman, J. A., & Mussel, P. (2013). Validity of the interest-and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity model in Germany. Journal of Individual Differences, 34(2), 59-68. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000100
Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 75-86. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_16
Litman, J. A., Robert, P. C., & Spielberger, C. D. (2005). The nature and measurement of sensory curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6), 1123-1133. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.001
Liu, Y., & Wickens, C. D. (1994). Mental workload and cognitive task automaticity: An evaluation of subjective and time estimation metrics. Ergonomics, 37(11), 1843-1854. doi:10.1080/ 00140139408964953
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75-98. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75
Lord, F. M. (1952). The relation of the reliability of multiple-choice tests to the distribution of item difficulties. Psychometrika, 17(2), 181-194. doi:10.1007/BF02288781
Matrai, R., Kosztyan, Z. T., & Sik-Lanyi, C. (2008). Navigation methods of special needs users in multimedia systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1418-1433. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007. 07.015
Mussel, P. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 506-510. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.014
Nelson, T. O., Kruglanski, A. W., & Jost, J. T. (1998). Knowing thyself and others: Progress in metacognitive social psychology. In V. Y. Yzerbyt, G. Lories, & B. Dardenne (Eds.), Metacognition: Cognitive and social dimensions (pp. 69-89). London, UK: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446279212.n5
O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002
Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Alario-Hoyos, C., Soldani, X., & Kloos, C. D. (2015). Lessons learned from the design of situated learning environments to support collaborative knowledge construction. Computers & Education, 87, 70-82. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015. 03.019
Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic it skills training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401-426. doi:10.2307/3250989
Piotrowski, J. T., Litman, J. A., & Valkenburg, P. (2014). Measuring epistemic curiosity in young children. Infant and Child Development, 23(5), 542-553. doi:10.1002/icd.1847
Quinton, S., & Smallbone, T. (2010). Feeding forward: Using feedback to promote student reflection and learning − A teaching model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 125-135. doi:10.1080/14703290903525911
Richards, J. B., Litman, J. A., & Roberts, D. H. (2013). Performance characteristics of measurement instruments of epistemic curiosity in third-year medical students. Medical Science Educator, 23(3), 355-363. doi:10.1007/BF03341647
Sago, B. (2011). The usage level and effectiveness of quick response (QR) codes for integrated marketing communication purposes among college students. International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 3(2), 7-17.
Sansone, C., Fraughton, T., Zachary, J. L., Butner, J., & Heiner, C. (2011). Self-regulation of motivation when learning online: The importance of who, why and how. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 199-212. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9193-6
Schneider, A., von Krogh, G., & Jäger, P. (2013). “What’s coming next?” Epistemic curiosity and lurking behavior in online communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 293-303. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.008
Seel, N. M., & Dijkstra, S. (2004). Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design: International perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shin, D.-H., Jung, J., & Chang, B.-H. (2012). The psychology behind QR codes: User experience perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1417-1426. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.004
Song, Y. (2014). “Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)” for seamless science inquiry in a primary school. Computers & Education, 74, 50-60. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.005
Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Reasoning, problem solving, and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 225-307). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.008
Tan, A.-L., Tan, S.-C., & Wettasinghe, M. (2011). Learning to be a science teacher: Reflections and lessons from video-based instruction. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 446-462. doi:10.14742/ajet.954

中文APA引文格式	張俊興、蔡其瑞（2019）。QR圖碼應用於汽車修護課程翻轉學習模式差異之研究。教育科學研究期刊，64（3），119-141。doi: 10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0005
APA Format	Chang, C.-H. & Tsai, C.-R. (2019). Comparing the Learning Progress of Creating and Using QR Codes in a Vehicle Maintenance Course. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(3), 119-141. doi: 10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0005

Journal directory listing - Volume 64 (2019) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【64(3)】September (Special Issue: Creativity, STEAM and Maker Education)

Top

(Special Issue) Comparing the Learning Progress of Creating and Using QR Codes in a Vehicle Maintenance Course Author: Chun-Hsin Chang (Department of Industrial Education and Undergraduate Program of Vehicle and Energy Engineering, National Taiwan Normal University), Chi-Ruei Tsai (Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University Department of Education and Human Potentials Development, National Dong Hwa University)

Vol.&No.：Vol. 64, No.3
Date：September 2019
Pages：119-141
DOI：10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0005

Abstract：
To understand how QR code technology can be integrated into an engineering course and affects learning outcomes in a vehicle maintenance course, this study divided students into two groups: one that created QR-code content (hereafter “creating-QR code”) and another that used QR-code content (hereafter “using-QR code”). This study then examined which approach was more beneficial for learning outcomes. The students were required to either search for or scan information and would thus exhibit two types of epistemic curiosity (EC), namely “deprivation-type EC” and “interest-type EC,” in relation to information seeking. Teachers administered pretests to identify participants’ abilities, and students were segmented into either a high- or low-level ability group. Results revealed that with respect to learning progress, the creating-QR code group outperformed the using-QR code group in learning about vehicle maintenance. In addition, comparison of the results of the two types of EC indicated that students in the creating-QR code group employed a higher degree of “deprivation-type EC” than those in the using-QR code group. However, there were no differences between the two groups with regard to “interest-type EC.” These results suggest that as one form of flipped learning, teachers can assign students the task of creating QR codes. This can enable knowledge consolidation and improve student learning outcomes in a vehicle maintenance course.

Keywords：e-learning, epistemic curiosity, learning outcomes, QR code, vehicle maintenance

本網站獲「科技部人文社會科學研究中心」補助

地址：臺北市大安區和平東路一段162號國立臺灣師範大學圖書館出版中心

電話：(02)7749-5279

CONTRIBUTORSNOTICE

期刊目錄列表 - 64卷(2019) - 【教育科學研究期刊】64(3)九月刊（本期專題：創造力、STEAM與自造教育） 回上一頁

Journal directory listing - Volume 64 (2019) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【64(3)】September (Special Issue: Creativity, STEAM and Maker Education) Top

CONTRIBUTORS
NOTICE

期刊目錄列表 - 64卷(2019) - 【教育科學研究期刊】64(3)九月刊（本期專題：創造力、STEAM與自造教育）

回上一頁

Journal directory listing - Volume 64 (2019) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【64(3)】September (Special Issue: Creativity, STEAM and Maker Education)

Top