臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究主旨為國中理化科試題分析管理，由台北市北投區某一國中的理化段考測驗中，依據學生的答題情況，利用EXCEL、SPSS 12.0、TestGraf98、TESTER for Windows 2.0等各項軟體進行相關的統計分析，以科學的方法分析試題的質與量，藉此了解試題的優劣，將適宜的題目建檔以建立良好的試題資料庫，並且由此次的測驗發現學生學習上的問題，作為改善教學品質的依據。
綜合本研究結果，歸納出下列幾點結論：
(一)受試者成績分佈，學習表現呈現雙峰現象。
(二)試題的內容效度良好，可測出學生能力。
(三)以SPSS計算內部一致性的信度達0.91，符合優良的教育測驗的難易度標準。
(四)平均難易度0.60屬於難易適中，符合良好試題的難易度。
(五)平均鑑別度0.58，且所有試題鑑別度皆非常優良，能有效鑑別出不同能力學生的差異性。
(六)除了第12題A選項外，其他所有試題都有良好的選項誘答力。
(七)由試題注意係數，有5題試題含有異質性，需要適度修正外，其他皆為優良且適當的試題。
(八)由學生注意係數部份，有六成以上的學生容易發生粗心，準備不足的現象。

This study aims to analyze the items of physics and chemistry examinations for junior high school students. To investigate the answered situation on a periodical achievement test in physics and chemistry of a junior high school in Beitou District, Taipei City, Software Excel2010, SPSS12.0, TestGraf98, and Tester for Windows2.0Keyword:physics and chemistry;item analysis.are used to conduct both qualitative and quantitative analyses for overall content and individual items. After assessing the quality of the items, it is expected that the outcomes can be helpful to build an effective database of examination questions. Furthermore, the findings of the study will provide a better understanding of how the students learn physics and chemistry and what their learning difficulties are for teachers who would like to enhance their teaching quality.
The findings of this study are summarized as follows:
1. There is a bimodal distribution of the testees’ scores as well as their academic performance.
2. This test achieves positive content validity to assess students’ competence.
3. The internal consistency reliability .91, calculated by SPSS, is in line with the difficulty degree of good items in educational examinations.
4. The average item difficulty discrimination index with .60 suggests it is a test with medium difficulty, conforming to proper difficulty of good questions.
5. The average item discrimination index with .58 suggests the good discrimination of the test.
6. Except option A of Item 12, all the other items have good distracting effect.
7. Caution index for Problems shows that there are five heterogeneous items. The modification of these questions is necessary, while the rest are good and appropriate items.
8. The result of Caution Index for Students indicates that more than sixty percent of the testees were not well-prepared or careful enough.

第一章　緒論 1
第一節　研究動機與目的 1
第二節　研究範圍與資料來源 2
第三節　研究方法與流程 3
第二章　文獻回顧 5
第一節　測驗理論文獻 5
第二節　試題分析文獻 13
第三節　測驗分析文獻 17
第四節　學生問題表分析 27
第三章　實證研究設計 35
第一節　研究工具 35
第二節　名詞釋義 36
第三節　資料處理與分析 37
第四章　研究結果與分析 39
第一節　全部學生答題情形分析 39
第二節　試題題本分析 42
第三節　試題個別分析 45
第四節　學生問題表分析 84
第五章　結論與建議 91
第一節　結論 91
第二節　建議 92
參考文獻 94
一、中文部份 94
二、英文部分 96
附錄一 內容效度檢核表 99
附錄二 雙向細目表 100
附錄三 試題檢核表 101
附錄四 段考試題 103
附錄五 各班SP表 106
附錄六 學生注意係數CS表 112

一、中文部份
佘麗玉
2006 高雄縣鳳山地區國二數學科段考試題分析之研究。國立高雄師範大學。數學系教學碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
余民寧
2011 教育測驗與評量：成就測驗與教學評量。臺北市：心理出版社。
林子幼
2002 國小三年級數學科正整數乘法概念之探究—以試題選項特徵曲線為分析基礎。國立台中師範學院教育測驗統計研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中
徐主銘
2010 高雄市國一數學科段考試題分析研究。國立高雄師範大學。數學系教學碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
陳李綢
1997 教育測驗與評量。台北市：五南圖書出版有限公司。
郭生玉
1999 心理與教育測驗。台北：精華書局。
張靖宜
2005 九年一貫數學命題分析研究－以「國二段考試題」為例。國立高雄師範大學數學系碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
傅粹馨
1998 影響機差相關係數與α信度係數之因素。教育學刊，14，193-206。
簡茂發
1991 命題方法與試題分析。國教輔導第31 卷第1 期，2-13。
劉湘川、蔡良庭
2005 成就測驗試題編製概要。測驗統計簡訊，64，1-12
薛梨真
1986 國小教師自編測驗問題之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄

 
二、英文部分
Airasian、Anderson、Cruikshank、Krathwohl、Mayer、Pintrich、Raths、Wittrock
2001 A taxonomy for learning teaching, and assessing:A revision of Bloom'staxonomy of educational objectives
Anastasi, A.
1988 Psychological Testing( 6th ed.). New York: Macmillan
Norman E. Gronlund
2006 Assessment of student achievement. (8th ed).Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2006). Aframework for PISA. Washington DC: OECD
Carmines, E. G. & Zeller, R. A.
1979 Reliability and validity assessment. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.
Chase C.I.
1978 Measurement for educational evaluation. (2nd ed.) Reading, MA:Addsion-Wesley
Cronbach,L.J.
1951 Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,16,297-334.
Cronbach, L. J.
1990 Essentials of psychological testing(5th ed.).New York:Harper& Row.
Ebel, R. L. & Frisbie, D. A.
1991 Essentials of educational measurement (5th ed.)Ennlewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Glaser, R.
1962 Psychology and instructional technology. In T. Glaser(Ed.),Training, research and education(pp. 1-26).pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Gronlund, N. E.
1993 How to make achievement tests and assessments(5th ed.).Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
Guttman, L.
1944 A basis for scaling qualitative data.American SociologicalReview, 9,179-190.
Henson, R.L.
2001 Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates:A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation inCounseling and Devlopment, Vol.34, pp.177-189.
Kevin R. Murphy & Charles O. Davidshofer
2005 Psychology testing: Principlesand applications. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W.
1937 The theory of the estimation of reliability.Psychometrika,2,151-160
Linn, R. L.＆Gronlund, N. E.
2000 Measurement and assessment in teaching(8th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Oosterhof, A.
2001 Classroom applications of educational measurement (3rd ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ：Prentice-Hall.
Ory, J. C.& Ryan, K. E.
1993 Tips for improving testing and grading.NewburyPark,CA:Sage Publications..
Osterlind, S. J.
1998 Constructing test items：Multiple-choice, constructed-response,performance, and other formats( 2nd ed.). Boston：Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sato, T.
1969 A method of analyzing data gathered by the Response Analyzer fordiagnosis of student performance and the quality of instructionalsequence.Proceedings of IECE of Japan annual conference S12-1.(In Japanses)
Sato, T.
1971 Analysis of students’performance score data.In K. Hirata, & T. Sato(Eds.),Response Analyzer (pp.79-96). Tokyo:Kyoiku-Kogakusha. (In Japanses)
Sato, T.
1975 The construction and interpretation of S-P tables.Tokyo:MeijiTosho.(In Japanses)
Sato, T.
1985 Introduction to student-problem curve theory analysis and evaluation.Tokyo:Meiji Tosho.(In Japanses)