:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:PISA科學素養之試題認知成份分析
書刊名:課程與教學
作者:張銘秋謝秀月徐秋月
作者(外文):Chang, Ming-chiuHsieh, Hsiu-yuehShyu, Chiou-yueh
出版日期:2010
卷期:13:1
頁次:頁1-20
主題關鍵詞:科學素養認知成份國際評量Science literacyCognitive componentInternational assessment
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(6) 博士論文(3) 專書(1) 專書論文(1)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:6
  • 共同引用共同引用:8
  • 點閱點閱:87
認知取向的試題難度分析對教學與評量均有實質上的參考價值,本文整合素養架構與文獻,提出科學素養測驗之試題認知成份架構,描述科學素養測驗的試題難度與認知成份特徵,同時藉由不同國家的試題答對比率的差異討論,提供教學與評量的具體參考資訊。研究中所使用的資料庫是PISA 2006國際評量計畫中施測的103題科學試題。研究中以知識類別的數量、知識層次、科學能力與字數四個成份預測科學素養試題難度,此認知成份模式可預測約52%的臺灣試題難度參數變異。在臺灣表現不佳的試題中,研究者提出不熟悉題型、不會使用題目給定的資料或證據形成推論、無法掌握變因以及無法從圖表中掌握答題的關鍵資訊等四項因素。此四項因素大多是因爲學生沒有機會接觸,不熟悉此種類型的試題。因此建議日後教師們可以增強這方面的教學。
The item difficulty cognitive component analysis is useful for the development of curriculum and assessment. This study integrates the framework and the literature perspectives to propose and interpret the item cognitive component model for an assessment of science literacy. The 103 items of The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)-Science Literacy were used for this analysis. Four cognitive components were proposed to predict the item difficulty parameters: the number of knowledge category, knowledge level, science competencies, and number of words. The results suggest that cognitive components can predict about 52% of item difficulty variance. The implications of these results for items that students did not perform well and for teaching strategies were also discussed.
期刊論文
1.Dimitrov, D. M.、Raykov, T.(2003)。Validation of Cognitive Structures: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach。Multivariate Behavioral Research,38(1),1-23。  new window
2.Embretson, S. E.、Daniel, R. C.(2008)。Understanding and quantifying cognitive complexity level in mathematical problem solving items。Psychology Science Quarterly,50(3),328-344。  new window
3.Embretson, S. E.、Gorin, J.(2001)。Improving construct validity with cognitive psychology principles。Journal of Educational Measurement,38(4),343-368。  new window
4.劉子鍵、林世華、梁仁楷(19980200)。二度空間視覺化測驗之試題產生算則的驗證與修正。教育心理學報,30(1),177-193。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.林世華、葉嘉惠(19990700)。數字系列完成測驗試題認知成分分析之研究。教育心理學報,31(1),139-165。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.丁振豐(19970600)。認知分析與心理計量分析對解平衡桿問題認知發展層次與解題運作成份測量之比較。初等教育學報,10,81-125。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.Gorin, J. S.(2005)。Manipulating processing difficulty of reading comprehension questions: The feasibility of verbal item generation。Journal of Educational Measurement,42(4),351-373。  new window
8.Gorin, J. S.、Embretson, S. E.(2006)。Item difficulty modeling of paragraph comprehension items。Applied Psychological Measurement,30(5),394-411。  new window
會議論文
1.凃柏原、梁恩琪、翁大德、楊毅立(2004)。國中生基本學力測驗自然科試題分析研究。臺南。  延伸查詢new window
2.Yepes-Baraya, M.(1996)。A cognitive study on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science assessment。New York。  new window
3.Yepes-Baraya, M.(1997)。Lessons learned from the coding of item attributes for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science assessment: Grade 4 results。Chicago。  new window
研究報告
1.林煥祥、周進洋、李暉、劉聖忠、林素微(2008)。臺灣參加PISA 2006 成果報告 (計畫編號:NSC95-2522-S-026-002)。花蓮:國立東華大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.Enright, M. K., Allen, N. L.,、Kim, M.(1993)。A complexity analysis of items from a survey of academic achievement in the life sciences。Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service。  new window
3.Breland, H., Lee, T., Najarian, M.,、Muraki, E.(2004)。An analysis of TOEFL CBT writing prompt difficulty and comparability for different gender groups。Princeton, NJ。  new window
4.Emmerich, W.(1989)。Appraising the cognitive features of subject tests。Princeton, NJ。  new window
5.Graf, E. A.、Lawless, R.、Peterson, S.、Steffen, M.(2005)。Psychometric and cognitive analysis as a basic for the design and revision of quantitative item models (計畫編號:ETS-RR-05-25)。Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service。  new window
6.Katz, I. R., Lipps, A. W.,、Trafton, J. G.(2002)。Factor affecting difficulty in the generating examples item type。Princeton, NJ。  new window
7.Scheumeman, J., Gerritz, K.,、Embretson, S. E.(1991)。Effect of prose complexity achievement test item difficulty。Princeton, NJ。  new window
學位論文
1.Rosca, C. V.(2004)。What makes a science item difficulty? A study of TIMSS-R items using regression and the linear logistic test model,Boston。  new window
圖書
1.邱皓政(2002)。量化研究統計分析:SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。臺北:五南。  延伸查詢new window
2.Embretson, S. E.(1993)。Psychometric model for learning and cognitive process。Test theory for a new generation of tests。Hillsdale, NJ。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE