:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:引出知識的方式對數學課室學習中概念構圖評量的信、效度之影響
書刊名:測驗年刊
作者:林冠群吳裕益 引用關係
作者(外文):Lin, Guan-chyunWu, Yuh-yih
出版日期:2001
卷期:48:2
頁次:頁87-107
主題關鍵詞:信度效度評量測驗概念圖數學類推性理論AssessmentConcept mapGeneralizability theoryMathematicsReliabilityTestValidity
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:37
     任何評量工具在使用前都應建立信、效度,故若要找出數學課室學習中具有優點的概念再圖評量,便需大量有關信、效度問題的實徵研究。本文利用Goldsmith, Johnson, & Acton (1991)與Jonassen, beissner, & Yacci (1993)對於知識結構評量步驟的分類,探討在「引出知識」此一步驟覆所採方式對數學課室學習中概念圖評量常用計分方式之信、效度的影響,而引出知識的方式包括評量者所疌供概念數的多寡以及概念構圖中是否需要受評者另外產生概念的技術。本究先針對南部某技術學院專科部四個班共200位學生進行概念構圖的訓練,評量者再將所提供的概念數分成5、10、15、20等四種,每種皆隨機分配給一個班。每班學生皆指數及其運算和指數函數這兩個單元進行概念構圖,並由兩位評分者進行評分。結果顯示評量者所提供概念數的多寡對概念構圖信度的影響,大部不正單純的線性關係,而且不僅概念數的多寡會影響得分的變異成分的大小,所供概念的內容或品質也正重要的影響因素。評量者若是提供足夠多的概念,概念構圖的信度都不差。是否需要受評者另外產生概念對概念構圖信度的影響程度和評量者所提供概念有關,概念數較少時,其影響很大;概念數較多時,影響不多。在效度方面,不論提供概念數為何,關係計分法及結構計分法都有不錯的聚斂效度。提供概念數變多時,概念構圖評量的內容效度才會變佳。而需要受評者另外產生概念的技術,可以改善概念構圖評量的聚斂效度,此時內容效度也較佳。
      Because of reliability and validity of any assessment method must be constructed before being used, we need many empirical studies about the reliability and validity of concept map assessment in methematics classroom learning if we want to find an advantaged concept-mapping assessment. In this article we employ the assessment steps about the structure of knowledge in the arguments of Doldsmith, Johnson, & Acton (19910 and Jonassen, Beissner, & Yacci (1993) to probe into the effects of knowledge elicitation method on the reliability and validity of common scoring method of concept-mapping assessment in mathematics classroom learning. And the knowledge elicitation method we proposed including the number of concepts provided by assessor and the technique in which the students are asked to draw beyond the number of provided concepts or not. At first, 200students of 4 classes in a technical institute of the southern Taiwan were drilled in the concept mapping. E assign test various number of concepts, such as 5、10、15、20, provided by the assessor to each class randomly and then all the students carried out concept mapping for the two units, "exponent & exponential operation" and "exponential function". Two raters evaluated all maps respectively. Results indicated that the reliability of concept-mapping assessment is fine if the number of concepts provided by the assessor are sufficiently large but not effected linearly by the number of concepts. The amount of variance component of the map score was affected not only by the number of concepts but also by the content or quality of concepts. The effect of the asked drawing technique on the reliability of concept-mapping assessment depends on the number of concepts provided. It has enough effect to the reliability when the assessor provides less concepts, whereas hasn't when provides more. In the aspect of validity, no matter what the number of concepts is, the convergent validity of relational scoring method and structural scoring method are both fine. The content validity of concept-mapping assessment becomes finer as the number of concepts becomes larger. The technique in which the students are asked to draw beyond the number of provided concepts can improve both convergent validity and content validity in the same time.
期刊論文
1.Rice, D. C.、Ryan, J. M.、Samson, S. M.(1998)。Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: must different methods compete。Journal of Research in Science Teaching,35(10),1103-1127。  new window
2.Williams, C. G.(1998)。Using concept maps to assess conceptual knowledge of function。Journal of Research in Mathematics Education,29(4),414-422。  new window
3.Wallace, J. D.、Mintzes, J. J.(1990)。The Concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology。Journal of Research in Science Teaching,27(10),1033-1052。  new window
4.Pearsall, N. R.、Skipper, J. E. J.、Mintzes, J. J.(1997)。Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences: A longitudinal study of conceptual change in Biology。Science Education,81(2),193-215。  new window
5.McClure, J. R.、Sonak, B.、Suen, H. K.(1999)。Concept Map Assessment of Classroom Learning: Reliability, Validity, and Logistical Practicality。Journal Research in Science Teaching,36(4),475-492。  new window
6.Ruiz-Primo, M. A.、Schultz, S. E.、Li, M.、Shavelson, R. J.(2001)。Comparison of the Reliability and Validity of Sores from Two Concept-mapping Techniques。Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(2),260-278。  new window
7.Driver, R.(1989)。Students' conceptions and the learning of science。International journal of science education,11(5),481-490。  new window
8.Goldsmith, T. E.、Johnson, P. J.、Acton, W. H.(1991)。Assessing structural knowledge。Journal of Educational Psychology,83(1),88-96。  new window
9.Acton, W. H.、Johnson, P. J.、Goldsmith, T. E.(1994)。Structural knowledge assessment: comparison of referent structures。Journal of Educational Psychology,86(2),303-311。  new window
10.Ruiz-Primo, Maria Araceli、Shavelson, Richard J.(1996)。Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment。Journal of Research in Science Teaching,33(6),569-600。  new window
11.Mansfield, H.、Happs, J.(1991)。Concept maps。Australian Mathematics Teacher,47(3),30-33。  new window
12.Wandersee, J. H.(1990)。Concept mapping and the cartography of cognition。Journal of Research in Science Teaching,27(10),923-936。  new window
13.Novak, Joseph D.、Bob Gowin, D.、Johansen, Gerard T.(1983)。The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students。Science Education,67(5),625-645。  new window
14.Malone, John、Dekkers, John(1984)。The concept map as an aid to instruction in science and mathematics。School science and mathematics,84(3),220-231。  new window
15.Bartels, B. H.(1995)。Promoting Mathematics Connections with Concept Mapping。Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School,1(7),542-549。  new window
16.Bolte, L. A.(1999)。Using Concept Maps and Interpretive Essays for Assessment in Mathematics。School Science & Mathematics,99(1),19-30。  new window
17.Bolte, L. A.(1999)。Enhancing and Assessing Preservice Teachers' Integration and Expression of Mathematical Knowledge。Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,2(2),167-185。  new window
18.Geeslin, W.、Shavelson, R.(1975)。An exploratory analysis of the representation of a mathematical structure in students' cognitive structures。American Educational Research Journal,12(1),21-39。  new window
19.Johnson, S.、Thomas, R.(1992)。Technology education and the cognitive revolution。The Technology Teacher,51,7-12。  new window
20.Hasemann, K.、Mansfield, H.(1995)。Concept Mapping in Research on Mathematical Knowledge Development: Background, Methods, Findings and Conclusions。Educational Studies in Mathematics,29(1),45-72。  new window
21.Jonassen, D.、Marra, R.(1994)。Concept mapping and other formalisms as mindtools for representing knowledge。Association for Learning Technology Journal,2,50-56。  new window
會議論文
1.Liu, X.、Hinchey, M.(1993)。Validity and reliability of concept mapping as an alternative science assessment。Ithaca, NY:Department of Education, Cornell University。  new window
2.Novak, J.(1992)。A view on the current status of Ausubel's assimilation theory of learning。San Francisco, CA。  new window
圖書
1.Benjafield, J. G.(1992)。Cognition。Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall。  new window
2.Jonassen, D. H.、Beissner, K.、Yacci, M.(1993)。Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge。Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.。  new window
3.Jonassen, D. H.(1996)。Computers in the classroom. Mind tools for critical thinking。Eaglewoods, NJ:Merill/Prentice Hall。  new window
4.Ausubel, David P.、Novak, Joseph D.、Hanesian, Helen(1978)。Educational psychology: A cognitive view。New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston。  new window
5.Edmondson, K. M.(2000)。Assessing Science Understanding through Concept Maps。Assessing Science Understanding - A Human Constructivist View。San Diego:Academic Press。  new window
6.Novak, J.(1985)。Metalearning and metaknowledge strategies to help students learn how to learn。Cognitive structure and conceptual change。Orlando, FL:Academic Press。  new window
7.Novak, J.(1998)。The pursuit of a dream: education can be improved。Teaching science for understanding - A human constructivist view。San Diego:Academic Press。  new window
8.Reichgelt, H.(1990)。Knowledge representation: An AI perspective。Knowledge representation: An AI perspective。Norwood, NJ:Ablex。  new window
9.Shavelson, R.、Lang, H.、Lewin, B.(1993)。On concept maps as potential 'authentic' assessments in science。On concept maps as potential 'authentic' assessments in science。Los Angeles, CA:National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing。  new window
10.Shavelson, R.、Ruiz-Primo, M.(2000)。On the psychometrics of assessing science understanding。Assessing science understanding - A human constructivist view。San Diego:Academic Press。  new window
11.Tergan, S. O.(1988)。Qualitative Wissensanalyse, Methodologische Grundlage。Wissenspsychologie, Psychologie Verlages Union。München, Germany:Weinheim。  new window
12.West, C.、Farmer, J.、Wolff, P.(1991)。Instruction design: Implications from cognitive science。Instruction design: Implications from cognitive science。Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall。  new window
13.(2000)。Students' knowledge of linear relationship as represented in concept maps。Using Assessment to Reshape Mathematics Teaching - A casebook for teachers and teacher educators, curriculum and staff development specialists。New York, NY:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates。  new window
圖書論文
1.Trowbridge, J. E.、Wandersee, J. H.(1998)。Theory-driven graphic organizer。Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view。San Diego, CA:Academic Press。  new window
2.Quillian, M. R.(1968)。Semantic memory。Semantic information processing。Cambridge, MA:MIT Press。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE