:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:系統化多元評量模式之發展研究
作者:莊麗娟
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:教育學系
指導教授:邱上真
謝季宏
學位類別:博士
出版日期:1999
主題關鍵詞:評量多媒體教學教材浮力概念動態評量
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(7) 博士論文(8) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:6
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:45
摘 要
本研究目的旨在:一、建構符合學科需求之多元評量模式,並具體考驗其區辨、助益及預測效益;二、檢視「浮力概念」解題之錯誤類型,並探討低獲益學生之認知缺陷及基本障礙;三、根據效益分析及錯誤類型檢視,進行具體設計及理論模式之後置評核,以整體評估多元評量模式之獨特性、適切性及功能性。茲依據研究結果摘述如下:
一、多元評量模式之效益分析
本研究之多元評量模式,係從概念學習的角度,調整動態評量在理論模式及實用性上的疏失,並呼應當前教學評量之統合化、歷程化、適性化、脈絡化及科技化等發展趨勢加以設計。該模式在本質上,著重知識學習取向(有別於當前多元評量的實作取向),其評量方式單一,卻融合多種評量精神(結合課程本位、情境取向、電腦化評量三者);其評量設計單一,卻兼具多元性質(教材、教學、評量);其評量程序單一,卻可同步進行多項評量(起始性-形成性-診斷性-總結性)。
為具體考驗本模式應用在學科領域的區辨、助益及預測等三項效益,研究者以「浮力概念」為主題進行設計,並以90名五年級學生為受試樣本,其中含高、中、低成就者各30名,隨機分派成實驗組及控制組,前者接受多元評量,而後者則接受傳統靜態評量。研究結果顯示:(一)多元評量模式能有效區辨不同程度的受試者在「學習能力」及「遷移能力」上的差異。(二)多元評量比傳統靜態評量更具有區辨力。(三)實驗組接受各階段多元評量後,其解題能力優於控制組。(四)實驗組接受各階段多元評量後,其學習情意優於控制組。(五)「多元評量模式之提示量」可增加「五年級自然科成就測驗成績」對前、後測成績的預測力。(六) 「多元評量模式之提示量」可增加「五年級自然科成就測驗成績」對近期學業成就的預測力。綜言之,本評量模式除兼具多元性質外,亦同步開展區辨、助益及預測等多元效益。
二、浮力概念解題之錯誤類型檢視
全體受試者在「浮力迷思概念類群」中,最常出現的錯誤類型就是以「質量」作為判斷浮沈現象的主要依據,而此迷思在多元評量的歷程中,呈現出起伏、不易修正的現象。此外,當物質的狀況發生改變時,受試者將產生更多的迷思,其中包含「以籠統的方式隨意猜測密度的大小」、「誤判物質變化時,其質量及體積的變化情形」及「無法根據質量及體積的狀況,來判斷密度的變化」等。而在11項「系列解題成分」中,以「不明題意」、「粗心」、「液體浮力」及「連鎖比較」的錯誤率最高,以「比大小」、「浮沈層次」、「排層次」及「溫度變化」的錯誤率最低。
若進一步檢視多元評量下無法有效獲益的受試者(低獲益者)的認知缺陷,可發現:在概念上,該類受試者缺乏熱脹冷縮下的「質量保留」概念;在思考上則常有錯誤的直覺思考、矛盾思考、片面思考、非系統性思考等現象,從解題狀況中可知,該類受試者「工作記憶」較為不足、粗心成分偏高,其學習型態較為僵化,對於已習得的解題策略常缺乏「自發性的遷移能力」,因此,結構化思考的引導、工作記提負荷的減輕及適量多層面的練習,是有效教學不可或缺的一環。
三、理論模式與具體設計之後置評核
研究者以「學科評量訪談問卷」訪談高雄市15名自然科教師,針對目前學科評量的試題設計取向進行分析,以評估多元評量模式的獨特性。訪談結果顯示:多元評量模式無論在「概念主題分析」及「試題內涵」上,均與目前學科評量的設計取向有別,頗具獨特性。
此外,研究者延請理論及實務專家共6名(含教學、心理學、測驗、物理教育、科學教育哲學學者4人及實務工作者2人),針對多元評量理論模式及具體設計,進行適切性及功能性的評鑑。結果顯示:不論是「概念主題分析」、「試題建構」、「提示系統設計」或「實施及計分」,全體評核者均認為「浮力概念多元評量」的具體設計能符合理論模式的規範原則,並肯定多元評量理論模式在「概念主題分析」上能「促發認知調整及概念發展」、在「試題建構」上具有「教材的結構性」、在「提示系統設計」上能激發學習、而其「實施與計分」的方式能「擴展評量的多元效果」。
綜言之,本研究所發展的評量模式,經過具體實證(效益分析、錯誤類型檢視)及後置評核的結果,支持其「構念取向」的獨特性、「具體設計」的適切性及「理論模式」的功能性,為符合學科需求的評量模式。
參考文獻
一、中文部分
丁振豐、林清山(民82)。心理計量分析與Siegler認知分析對天平槓桿平衡問題測量之比較。測驗年刊, 40, 215-234。new window
王龍錫(民80)。我國學生自然科概念發展與診斷教學之研究(一):小學生浮力概念發展之結構圖研究。國科會專題研究報告:NSC 79-0111-S-153-007-D。
江新合、許榮富、林寶山(民80)。我國學生自然科概念發展與診斷教學之研究:(1)中學生浮力相關概念發展及其相關迷思概念的分析研究。國科會專題研究報告:NSC 79-0111-S-017-07-D。new window
江文慈(民82)。槓桿認知能力發展的評量與學遷移歷程的分析─動態評量的應用。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
江秋坪(民84)。動態評量對國語資源班學童鑑別與協助效益之探討。國立台南師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文。new window
邱上真(民85)。動態評量-教學評量的新嘗試。高雄師範大學主辦:中小學教學革新研討會大會手冊, 33-49.
邱上真(民88)。認知取向的教育診斷:多元評量觀。發表於學習落後學生的補救教學與輔導研討會。
邱上真, 王惠川, 朱婉艷, 沈明錦 (民81)。國小中年級數學科解題歷程導向之評量。特殊教育與復健學報, 2, 235-271。new window
何榮桂(民86)。從「測驗電腦化與電腦化測驗」再看網路化測驗。測驗與輔導雙月刊, 144, 2972-2974。
林秀娟(民82)。動態評量結合試題反應理論在空間視覺學習潛能評量之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。new window
林柏恒(民86)。電腦化數位邏輯技能教學之評量工具研究。國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文。
林素微(民85)。國小六年級學童數學解題彈性思考動態測量之研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
林敏慧(民81)。國小輕度智障兒童學習潛能評量之研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。new window
吳裕益(民84)。電腦在測驗上的應用。教育實習輔導季刊,1(5), 10-13。
吳國銘(民83)。國小學童在動態評量中數學解題學習歷程與遷移效益之探討。國立台南師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文。new window
吳國銘、洪碧霞、邱上真(民84)。國小學童在動態評量中數學解題學習歷程與遷移效益之探討。中國測驗學會測驗年刊, 42, 61-84。new window
吳鐵雄、洪碧霞(民87)。實作評量問與答。測驗與輔導雙月刊, 149, 3102-3103。
胡永崇(民82)。動態性評量及其對特殊教育的啟示。初等教育研究, 5, 24-63。
徐芳立(民87)。提示系統對增進國中一年級學生自問自答策略與閱讀理解能力之成效分析。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。
徐順益(民85)。類比解題策略之研究:國中物理力學(II)。NSC85-2511-S018-007。
桂怡芬(民85)。紙筆與實作的互補 : 我的實作評量經驗。教育資料與研究, 13, 24-35。new window
莊雅茹(民86)。不同學生特質在探究式CAL環境中對動畫研究II:CAL軟體動畫界面設計學習成效與情意效用研究。國科會專題研究報告:NSC86-2511-030-002-CL。
莊麗娟(民85)。國小六年級浮力概念動態評量的效益分析。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文。new window
許家吉(民83)。電腦化動態圖形歸類測驗發展之研究。國立台南師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文。new window
許擇基(民87)。適性測驗的適用性。文教新潮,3(4), 17-23。
溫明正(民88)。電腦在未來教學評量上的應用。教師天地, 99, 54-60.
溫玲玉、洪銘建(民85)。商業職業教育季刊, 66, 38-42。
陳玉玲、周宣光、井敏珠(民87)。虛擬實境在建構教學上的應用。教育研究雙月刊, 61, 65-71。new window
陳易芬(民82)。教育測量電腦化。測驗與輔導, 116, 2371-2374。
陳進福(民86)。國小輕度智障學童數學解題動態評量之研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
黃國禎(民86)。遠距學習環境中智慧型學習測驗及評估系統之研製。國科會專題研究報告:NSC 86-2511-S260-001-ICL。
黃湘武、黃寶鈿(民75)。學生推理能力與概念發展之研究。認知與學習研討會專集。台北巿:行政院國家科學委員會。
程麗蓉(民86)。超媒體智慧型電腦輔助教學系統之建構與應用研究。國立政治大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
歐瑞賢(民86)。國小學生比例推理能力動態評量之效益分析。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
歐滄和(民85)。微電腦在現代測驗上的應用。測驗統計簡訊雙月刊, 9, 1-13。
劉瀅清, 蔡浚松 (民85)。認識多媒體。全欣訊圖書。
鄭富森(民88)。目前教學評量之省思與改進之道。教師天地, 99, 18-24。
簡月梅(民87)。互動式提示多點計分電腦化適性測驗。國立台灣師範資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
簡茂發(民88)。多元評量之理念與方法。教師天地, 99, 11-17.new window
簡榮宏(民86)。智慧型遠距合作學習環境中測驗管理系統之研究。國科會專題研究報告:NSC 86-2511-009-007-ICL。
二、英文部分
Balazic, Josef(1997). Dunamic assessment of reading abilities. [CD-ROM]. Abstract from: ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts Item: MQ28697.
Baron, J. B.(1991). Strategies for the development of effective performance exercises. Applied Measurment in Eduction, 4(4),305-318.
Bethge, H. J., Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H.(1982). The effects of dynamic assessment procedures on raven matrices performance,visual search behavior, test anxiety and test orientation. Intelligence, 6(1), 89-97.new window
Bolig, E. E., & Day, J. D.(1993). Dynamic assessment and giftedness: The promise of assessing training responsiveness. Report Review, 16(2), 110-13.
Bryant, N. R.(1982). Preschool children‘s learning and transfer of matrices problems: A study of proximal development. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinosis.
Bryant, N. R., Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C.(1983). Preschool children‘s learning and transfer of matrices problems: Potential for improvement. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development.
Buchanan, T.(1998). Using the world wide web for formative assessment. J. Educational Technology Systems, 27(1), 71-79.
Budoff, M., & Corman, L.(1974). Demographic and psychometric factors related to improved performance on the Kohs learning potential procedure. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 578-585.
Budoff, M.(1987). The validity of learning potential assessment. In C. S. Lidz(Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluation learning potential(pp. 52-81). New York: Guilford Press.
Bunderson, C. V., Inouye D. I., & Olsen, J. B.(1989). The four generations of computerized educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (ED.) Educational measurement(3rd ed., pp.369-407). New York : American Council on Education.
Burns, M. S. et al.(1987). Static and dynamic measures of learning in young handicapped children. Diagnostique, 12(2), 59-73.
Campione, J. C.(1989). Assisted assessment: A taxonomy of approaches and an outline of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(3), 151-65.
Campione, J. C. et al.(1985). Breakdowns in flexible use of information: Intelligence-related differences in transfer following equivalent learning performance. Intelligence, 9(4), 294-315.
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L.(1985). Dynamic assessment: One approach and some initial data. Technical report No.361. Nation Inst. of Child Health and Human Development, Washington, DC.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 26973).
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L.(1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz(Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluation learning potential(pp. 82-115). New York: Guilford Press.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H.(1978). Use of testing-the-limits procedures in the assessment of intellectual capabilities in children with learning difficulties. American Journal of Deficiency, 82, 559-564.
Carlson, J. S., &Wiedl, K. H.(1979). Toward a differential testing approach: Testing-the-limits employing the Raven matrices. Intelligence, 3, 323-344.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H.(1992). The dynamic assessment of intelligence. In H. C. Haywood, &D. Tzuriel(Eds.), Interactive assessment. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Chletsos, P. N.(1988). An application of Vygotsky‘s theory to understanding formal operational strategies on Piaget’s balance beam task [CD-ROM]. Abstract from: ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts Item: 8827339
Coniam, D.(1999). Subjects’ reactions to computer-based tests. Journal Educational Technology Systems, 27(3), 195-206.
Chronic Illness, and Job Matching, 2, see EC 303 150. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED372519).
Delclos, V. R. et al.(1992). Improving the quality of instruction: Roles for dynamic assessment. In H. C. Haywood, &D. Tzuriel(Eds.), Interactive assessment(pp. 317-331). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V.(1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
Embretson, S. E.(1987a). Toward development of a psychometric approach. In C. S. Lidz(Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluation learning potential(pp. 141-170). New York: Guilford Press.
Embretson, S. E.(1987b). Improving the measurement of spatial aptitude by dynamic testing. Intelligence, 11, 333-358.
Ferrara, R. A.(1987). Learning mathematics in the zone of proximal development : The importance of flexible use of knowledge [CD-ROM]. Abstract from: ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts Item: 8803037
Ferrara, R. A., Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C.(1986). Children‘s learning and transfer of inductive reasoning rules: Studies of proximal development. Child Development, 57, 1087-1099.
Ferretiti, R. P., & Butterfield, E. C.(1992). Intelligence-related differences in the learning, maintenance, and transfer of problem-solving strategies. Intelligence, 16, 207-224.
Feuerstein, R.(1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instrument, and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B.(1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore, MD : University Park Press.
Feuerstein, R. et. al.(1986). Learning potential assessment. Special Services in the Schools, 2(2-3), 85-106.
Frisby C. L. & Braden J. p.(1992). Feuerstein’s dynamic assessment : A semantic logical, and empirical critique. The Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 281-301.
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D.(1986). Effects of systematic formative formative evaluation : A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208.
Gallomore, R. & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and Education. (pp. 175-205). Cambridge University Press.
Greenspan S. I. et al.(1995). A new vision for Assessment. Exceptional Parent, 25, 23-25.
Gerber, M. M., Semmel, D. S., & Semmel, M. I.(1994). Computer-based dynamic assessment of multidigit multiplication. Exceptional Children, 61(2), 114-125.
Goodwin, L. A.(1997). Assessment for equity and inclusion : Embracing all our children. New York : Routledge.
Hall, L., & Day, J. D.(1982). Comparison of the zone of proximal development in learning disabled, mentally retarded and normal children. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED218829).
Harth, R.(1982). The Feuerstein perspective on the modification of cognitive performance. Focus on Exceptional Children, 15(3), 1-12.
Hasselbring T. S. et al.(1989).Using Microcomputers for Assessment and Error Analysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED353745).
Haywood, H. C. et al.(1990). Dynamic approaches to psychoeducational assessment. School Psychology Review, 19(4), 411-22.
Heal, L. W.(1992). Current assessment practices in the United States : Norm referenced, criterion referenced, and dynamic assessment. 載於國立彰化師範大學主辦 : 國際特殊兒童評量研討會論文集, 316-32。
Hewson, M. G. A’B.(1986). The acquisition of scientific knowledge: Analysis and representation of student conceptions concerning density. Science Education, 70(2), 159-170.
Jensen, M. R., & Feuerstein, R.(1987). The learning potential assessment device: From philosophy to practice. In C. S. Lidz(Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluation learning potential. New York: Guilford Press.
Jitendra, A. K., & Kameenui, E. J.(1993a). Dynamic assessment as a compensatory assessment approach: A description and analysis. Remedial and Special Education (RASE), 14(5), 6-18.
Jitendra, A. K., & Kameenui, E. J.(1993b). An exploratory study of dynamic assessment involving two instructional strategies on experts and novices‘ performance in solving part-whole mathematical word problems. Diagnostique, 18(4), 305-25.
Jitendra, A. K., Kameenui, E. J.(1996). Experts’ and novices’ patterns in solving part-whole mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Research, 90,42-51.
Knodel, Monika C.(1997). Dynamic assessment of written language (learning disabilities). [CD-ROM]. Abstract from: ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts Item: MQ20833.
Kovalik, C. L., & Dalton, D. W.(1999). The process/outcome evaluation model : A conceptual framework for assessment. J. Educational Technology Systems, 27(3), 183-94.
Kragler, S.(1986). Dynamic versus static testing: Impact on reading placement of reading underachievers [CD-ROM]. Abstract from: ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts Item: 8618648
Laughon, P.(1990). The dynamic assessment of intelligence: A review of three approaches. School Psychology Review, 19(4), 459-70.
Lazear, D. (1999). Multiple Intelligences approaches to Assessment. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.
Lidz, C. S.(1991). Practitioner‘s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
Lidz, C. S.(1992). The extent of incorporation of dynamic assessment into cognitive assessment courses: A national survey of school psychology trainers. Journal of Special Education, 1, 325-31.
Linn, M. C.(1977). Scientific reasoning: Influences on task performance and response categorization. Science Education, 61, 357-65.
Linn, R. L. & Gronlund, N. E.(1995). Measurement and assessment in teaching. London : Prentice Hall.
National Research Council(1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press.
Ochoa,T. A., Vaspuez, L. R., & Gerber, M. M.(1999). New generation of computer-assisted learning tools for students with disabilities. Intervention in School & Clinic, 34, 251-54.
Osborne, R.(1980). Children’s dynamic. The Physics Teacher, 22(8), 504-08.
Parameswaran, G.(1993). Dynamic assessment of sex differences in spatial ability (horizontality) [CD-ROM]. Abstract from: ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts Item: 9328925
Pena et al.(1992). The application of dynamic methods to language assessment : A nonbiased procedure. Jounal of Special Education, 26, 269-280.
Puckett, Margaret B., & Black, Janet K.(1994). Authentic Assessment of the young child. New York: MacMillan College Publishing Company.
Salvia, J. S., & Hughes, C.(1990). Curriculum-based assessment : Testing what if taught. New York : MacMillan Publishing Company.
Samuels, M., Tzuriel, D., & Malloy-Miller, T.(1989). Dynamic assessment of children with learning difficulties. In R. T. Brown & M. Chazan(Eds.). Learning difficulties and emotional problems(pp.145-165). Calgary: Detselig Enterprises.
Seiverd, K. D.(1994). Dynamic assessment vs. traditional intelligence assessment in low-achieving minority and nonminority children [CD-ROM]. Abstract from: ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts Item: 9327910
Siegler, R. S.(1983). Five generalizations about cognitive development. American Psychologist, 38, 263-277.
Skuy, M. et al(1988). Dynamic assessment of intellectually superior Israeli children in a low socio-economic status community. Gifted Education International, 5(2), 90-96.
Solano-Floares, G., Shavelson R. T., & Bachman, M.(1999). On the development and evaluation of a shell for generating science performance assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 293-315.
Spector, J. E.(1992). Predicting progress in beginning reading: Dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology , 84, 353-363.
Speece, D. L., Cooper, D. H., & Kibler, J. M.(1990). Dynamic assessment, individual differences, and academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 2(1), 113-127.
Stanley, N. V.(1993). Gifted and the “zone of proximal development .” Gifted Education Internation, 9(2), 78-81.
Stanley, N. V., Siegel, J., Cooper, L., & Marshall, K.(1995). Identification of gifted with the dynamic assessment procedure. Gifted Education Internation, 10, 85-87.
Stepans, J.I. et al.(1986). Misconceptions die hard. Science Teacher, 53(6), 65-69.
Supancheck, S. P.(1989). Effects of dynamic assessment approach with developmentally delayed children. Doctor of Philosophy in Special Education, CSULA-UCLA University of California(microform). Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI.
Swanson, H. L.(1995). Using the cognitive processing test to assess ability : Development of a dynamic assessment. School Psychology Review, 24, 672-693.new window
Swanson, H. L.(1996). Classification and dynamic assessment of children with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional children, 28, 1-19.
Thorpe, Pamela K.(1999). A hierarchical linear modeling approach towards the dynamic assessment of mathematical conceptual learning. [CD-ROM]. Abstract from: ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts Item: 9835543.
Tzuriel, D., & Feuerstein, R.(1992). Dynamic group assessment for prescriptive teaching: Differential effects of treatments. In H. C. Haywood, &D. Tzuriel(Eds.), Interactive assessment(pp. 187-206). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Vanderbilt, Univ.(1983). Learning potential assessment for preschool children. Final Report. Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 249 667).
Vye, N. J. et al.(1987). A comprehensive approach to assessing intellectually handicapped children. In C. S. Lidz(Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluation learning potential(pp. 327-359). New York: Guilford Press.
Vygotsky, L. S.(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
 
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE