دانلود رایگان مقاله آموزش تایپ لمسی: باورها و عملکرد معلمان ابتدایی

Abstract

Writers have a limited number of cognitive resources to allocate to the task. Consequently, searching for keyboard letters restricts them from fully engaging in the writing process. High expectations for writing across all levels of education suggest the need for touch typing skills. This mixed methods study examined the beliefs and practices of elementary teachers related to teaching students touch typing skills. Participants included third through sixth grade teachers from eight California counties. A survey completed by 268 teachers was followed by interviews with 12 participants. Results indicated teachers felt touch typing skills were important and that a lack of touch typing proficiency would negatively impact student performance on standardized tests. Teacher perceptions of the impact of student touch typing skills on their writing was divided. Few respondents indicated they or other school personnel offered touch typing instruction. Discussion centers on how these findings were likely influenced by amount of time for instruction, general beliefs about writing instruction, student access to technology, and teacher awareness of how touch typing skills may influence the writing process. Implications for practice are offered.

5. Conclusion and future study

The current study extended our previous studies to examine the effect of GBL on vocational middle school students' learning in science (Chen & Law, 2016; Chen, Wang, & Lin, 2015), particularly when different question prompts and feedback were built in the game. The results showed that knowledge prompts significantly enhance students learning when comparing with application prompts. While KCR or ER did not make significantly differences on students' learning, the current study found that types of question prompts and the types of feedback had an interaction effect on students' learning. Students with ER performed better than those with KCR when knowledge prompts were given. Students with KCR performed better than those with ER when application prompts were given. While the results provided some interesting insights in GBL, limitations exist in the design of our experiment. First, we only compared the effects of two types of question prompts. There was no control group that received no question prompts. As a result, the experiment did not answer whether these kinds of questions prompts would have a positive effect of gamebased learning or not. Some educational game researchers argued that external scaffold may negatively influence game flow (e.g., Tsai et al., 2013). However, other educational game literature suggested that external scaffold can enhance learning (e.g., Neulight et al., 2006). Future research should make a comparison between the scaffold and no-scaffold conditions in GBL and examine the differences on the feedback that is based on gameplay decisions instead of to the external scaffolds. In addition, we may collect and analyze game log data to gauge complete pictures of how students interact with or react to different scaffolds, and how those external scaffolds influence learning. Other research efforts may involve examining the transfer effect of question prompts and feedback on students' understanding of complex science concepts and how game performance influence students' learning. Finally, future studies may investigate the effect of question prompts and feedback using a sample of students with different characteristics and a larger number of sample size.