臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

網路化檔案評量系統可視為新一代輔助反思的工具，因此本研究已成功發展了網路化檔案評量系統內反思機制之線上環境，反思機制包含了撰寫、編輯、引導、瀏覽、回饋及評估六項機制，此為本研究重要成果之一。後續實證之研究方法採用「準實驗研究設計之不等組前測-後測對照組設計」，研究對象為中部某技術學院附設學校71位高職生(實驗組35位；控制組36位)，進行為期10週的教學實驗之「網頁設計」課程，兩組反思活動各計7次。實驗組使用本研究自行發展的網路化檔案評量系統之反思機制反思；控制組使用紙本式檔案之學習單反思，兩組並採用相同的反思策略、主題來探討不同的實驗介入，及透過反思內容分析，評估學生反思表現的差異情形，來探究使用反思機制後對自我調整學習之影響。本研究具體研究成果分述如下：
一、線上六項反思機制的整體滿意度良好且易用性優於有用性，其中觀摩機制的易用性、有用性及整體滿意度最後受實驗組學生信賴。

二、使用反思機制的自我調整學習整體表現優於紙本式檔案反思，向度中影響效果最好的是學科價值，其餘依序為自我判斷、自我效能皆顯著優於紙本式檔案反思，而使用反思機制之反思品質也顯著優於紙本式檔案。

三、使用反思機制後的自我調整學習整體表現優於反思前，顯示透過反思機制在自我調整學習有顯著正面促進作用，各向度中影響效果最好的是自我觀察，其餘依序為自我判斷、學科價值、自我反應皆顯著優於反思前，而使用反思機制後易促進反思內容的掌握。

四、使用反思機制在自設目標參照及教師參照的自我判斷上顯著優於紙本式檔案反思，且使用反思機制後的自設目標參照的自我判斷影響最好，自我反應則是呈現適應性學習且有顯著促進的作用。

五、使用反思機制後的學生，在反思表現層次越高越易促進自我調整學習整體表現，其中深入反思的學生在整體向度中，自我觀察的影響效果最好，其餘依序為自我判斷、考試焦慮及自我反應，皆顯著正面影響且優於反思表現之有反思學生及無反思學生。

六、反思表現之深入反思學生促進自我整體學習的關鍵在於自我觀察、自我判斷的提升，且深入反思學生的教師參照與自設目標參照的自我判斷皆優於有反思與無反思學生。

七、反思表現之深入反思學生易產生考試焦慮，無反思學生易產生防衛性學習，而反思機制之高滿意度學生則易促進學科價值。

八、整體反思機制之高滿意度的學生在自我調整學習優於低滿意度學生，顯示反思機制對自我調整學習有正面幫助，而影響效果最好的是自我判斷，其餘依序為學科價值、自我觀察及自我效能。

九、六項反思機制滿意度對自我調整學習都有正面幫助。而反思機制滿意度促進自我調整學習的關鍵，會隨著反思表現影響而影響。

The Web-Based Portfolio Assessment System could be deemed as the new-generation instrument to assist the reflection. For this reason, this research has successfully developed the online circumstance of the reflective mechanisms within the Web-Based Portfolio Assessment System. The reflective mechanisms include 6 mechanisms: Composing, editing, guiding, browsing, feedbacking and assessing. This is one of the important outcomes of this research. Persons concerned adopt “The Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent-Group Design of Quasi-Experimental Research Design” for research technique of the follow-up solid evidence. The subjects investigated are 71 students of vocational high school from the affiliated school of one technical vocational high school in the middle part of the country (35 persons in the experimental group; 36 persons in the control group). A teaching experiment on the course of “Webpage Design” which lasts for 10 weeks is carried out. There are totally 7 times of reflective activities in both groups. The experimental group uses the reflection of reflective mechanisms of the Web-Based Portfolio Assessment System which is independently developed by this research; the control group uses the reflection of study sheet of the paper-type portfolil. Both groups adopt the same reflective strategies and subjects to discuss different experimental intervention. In addition, through analysis of content of the reflection, both groups assess the difference of reflective behave of students, so as to probe into the influence of using reflective mechanisms on self-regulated learning. Specific research outcomes of this research are as follows:
1.The overall degree of satisfaction of the 6 online reflective mechanisms is satisfactory and the ease of use is better than the usefulness. Among them, the ease of use, usefulness and overall degree of satisfaction of the observation and study mechanisms finally win the trusts of students from the experimental group.

2.The overall performance of self-regulated learning which uses reflective mechanisms is better than that of reflection of paper-type portfolio. Among the dimensions, task value has the best influence effect. Others are self-judgment and self-efficacy (according to the sequence). These are all significantly better than reflection of the paper-type portfolio. The quality of reflection which uses reflective mechanisms is also significantly better than that of the paper-type portfolio.

3.After using the reflective mechanisms, the students'' overall performance of self-regulated learning is better than that before using the reflective mechanisms. This shows that the reflective mechanisms have significant and positive facilitating effects on self-regulated learning. Among the dimensions, the self-observation has the best influence effect. Others are self-judgment, task value and self-reaction (according to the sequence). All these are significantly better than that before the reflection. The using of reflective mechanisms can facilitate students'' grasp of content of the reflection.

4.Reflections which use reflective mechanisms are significantly better than the reflection of the paper-type portfolio in terms of the self-judgment of the self-established objective reference and teacher’s reference. In addition, after using reflective mechanisms, concerned persons’ self-judgment of self-established objective reference has the best influence. The self-reaction demonstrates study with flexibility and has significant facilitating effects.

5.After using the reflective mechanisms, students'' overall performance of self-regulated learning can be facilitated more easily when the demonstration level of the reflection is higher. Among the overall dimension, students with in-depth reflection have the best influence effect of self-observation. Others are self-judgment, test anxiety and self-reaction (according to the sequence). These all have significant and positive influence and are better than the reflection performance of students with reflection and without reflection.

6.The key points for facilitating the self overall study of students with in-depth reflection of the reflective demonstration are the promotions of self-observation and self-judgment. In addition, the self-judgment of teacher’s reference and self-established objective reference of students with in-depth reflection is better than that of students with reflection and without reflection.

7.Students with in-depth reflection of the reflective demonstration can easily come across test anxiety. Students without reflection can easily come across defensive study. Students with high degree of satisfaction of the reflective mechanisms can easily facilitate the task value.

8.Students with high degree of satisfaction of the overall reflective mechanisms are better than students with low degree of satisfaction in terms of self-regulated learning. This shows that the reflective mechanisms have positive helps on self-regulated learning. Self-judgment has the best influence effect. Others are task value, self-observation and self-efficacy.

9.The degree of satisfaction of the 6 reflective mechanisms has positive helps to the self-regulated learning. The degree of satisfaction of reflective mechanisms is the key for facilitating the self-regulated learning and could be influenced by the reflective behave.

中文摘要 i
ABSTRACT iii
目 錄 vii
表 次 ix
圖 次 xiii
第一章　緒論 1
第一節　研究背景與動機 1
第二節　研究目的 2
第三節　研究問題 3
第四節　研究之重要性與預期貢獻 4
第五節　名詞解釋 4
第二章　文獻探討 5
第一節　網路化檔案評量與反思機制 5
第二節　反思表現的評估 11
第三節　自我調整學習理論 14
第三章　研究設計 29
第一節　研究方法 29
第二節 研究工具與信效度 37
第三節 實驗流程與步驟 49
第四章　研究結果與討論 53
第一節　網路化檔案評量系統之反思機制與建構遭遇之困難（研究問題1.1、2.1） 53
第二節　學習者先備條件比較 62
第三節　兩組反思與內容分析後的意義編碼 63
第四節　網路化檔案評量系統反思機制之滿意度（研究問題2.2） 87
第五節　實驗組與控制組在對自我調整學習上的差異（研究問題3.1） 90
第六節　實驗組反思前後在自我調整學習上的差異（研究問題3.2） 110
第七節　實驗組反思表現對自我調整學習的差異（研究問題3.3） 122
第八節　反思機制滿意度在自我調整學習上的差異（研究問題3.4） 136
第九節　綜合討論 140
第五章　研究結論與建議 145
第一節　研究結論 145
第二節　研究建議 152
參考文獻 159
附錄 169
附錄一：量表使用同意書 171
附錄二：自我調整學習量表 173
附錄三：網路化檔案評量之反思機制滿意度問卷 177
附錄四：作者簡介 179

中文部份
王文科、王智弘（2005）。教育研究法(第9版)。臺北：五南。
石維婷、陳育亮、林立傑（2006）。研究e-portfolio系統應用在資管所專案管理課程。載於「2006知識社群與數位學習研討會」論文集光碟，(05A)，台北：中國文化大學。
石貴平、高台茜、張志勇、陳弘璋、洪振榮（2007）。以自律學習屬性為基礎設計之行動學習平台以支援自律學習。載於「第二屆數位內容管理與應用學術研討會」論文集。(pp.1-24)台南：國立台南大學。
高台茜（2003）。非同步網路教學中自律學習的鷹架輔助研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告，NSC91-2520-S259-001。
吳哲旭、蕭顯勝、張國恩、宋曜廷、趙美聲（2006）。自律式模擬教學系統之建置。載於「第十屆全球華人計算機教育應用會議(GCCCE2006)」論文集(pp.631-641)。中國清華大學。
吳明芳(2007)。網路化檔案評量標準與信、效度之建立。臺北科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士計畫審查論文初稿，未出版。
巫博瀚（2005）。由自我調整學習理論探討教師之教學輔導策略。研習資訊，22，57-65。
李坤崇（2006）。教學評量。臺北：心理。
黃國禎、朱蕙君、陳佐霖、王姿婷、曾秋蓉、黃國豪（2007）。線上自律學習輔助系統之研究與實證。科學教育學刊，15，3，317-334。
吳明隆（2008）。SPSS操作與應用變異數分析實務。臺北：五南。
林維倩（2007）。數位化學習歷程檔案內涵與架構分析之研究。國立臺北科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
林秀娟（2004）。國小三年級學童自然學習日誌反思特徵之研究。臺南師範學院自然科學教育學系碩士論文，未出版。
張基成（2007）。電腦化測驗與評量-數位化檔案評量。國科會科教處九十五年度「資訊教育學門專題研究計畫」成果研討會之電腦化測驗與評量SIG，引言人報告講義，未出版，亞洲大學。
張基成、陳政川（2007）。網路化檔案評量中自我反思行為對學習成效影響之研究。載於「台灣教育傳播暨科技學會2007年學術研討會」論文集光碟，(A12)，台北：國立臺北教育大學。
張基成、吳明芳、彭星瑞（2008）。結構式網路化檔案評量系統之建構-兼論數位化學習歷程檔案之分類法。全球華人計算機教育學報，5，105-132。
許又勻（2007）。應用網路化歷程檔案反思模式對增進學前融合班普通教師解決教學困難反思效益之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育系所博士論文，未出版。
蘇國瑋、徐聖堡、郭珮慈、鍾勝旭、郭朝易（2007）。運用介面設計原則建立行動式英語學習系統之研究。第二屆數位內容管理與應用學術研討會論文集。國立台南大學。
薛雅明、徐玉瓊（2006）。影響案例式網路學習系統學習成效之研究。國立台南大學教育研究學報。40，1，173-194。
楊亨利、應鳴雄（2006）。線上測驗系統的評分機制及回饋方式對測驗成績、評分效力、測驗系統滿意度之影響研究。淡江資訊管理展望，8，1-24。
葉麗新、蘇小兵（2007）。電腦與寫作－中小學資訊技術應用的教育學反思例談。課程、教材、教法月刊，3，29-33。
董大偉（2007）。ASP.NET AJAX應用剖析立即上手。臺北：博碩。
蔡淑薇（2004）。高中職學生學習風格、自我調整學習與學業成就之關係。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系碩士論文，未出版。
賴怡如(2006)。工業設計系學生的學習風格與自我反思能力之關係。大同大學工業設計學系碩士論文，未出版。
鄭國志（2005）。提供反思機制於網路學習歷程檔案中對學習行為影響之研究。國立臺南大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
鄭淑君（2007）。運用學習歷程檔案評量培養學童自然科學習動機與後設認知能力之行動研究。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
顏榮泉（2007）。行動化數位學習環境中學習反思與回饋對資訊技能問題解決成效之影響。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所博士論文，未出版。

英文部分
Aslan, O., Schmid, R.F. & Abrami, P.C. (2009). Using an electronic portfolio to develop SRL and writing skills in at risk students. Paper presented at the International Conference on Multimedia and Information and Communication Technologies in Education (m-ICTE), Lisbon, Portugal.
Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G.., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2006). Using computers as metacognitive tools to foster students’ self-regulated learning. Cognition and Learning, 3, 97-104.
Banyard, P., Underwood, J., & Twiner, A. (2006). Do enhanced communication technologies inhibit or facilitate self-regulated learning? European Journal of Education. 41(3-4), 473-489.
Barker, K. C. (2006). Environmental scan: Overview of the eportfolio in general and in the workplace specifically. Retrieved on October 20, 2007, from http://www.FuturEd.com.
Barrett, H. C. (2004). Electronic portfolios as digital stories of deep learning. Retrieved on October 30, 2007, from http://electronicportfolios.com/digistory/epstory.html.
Barrett, H. C. (2006). Authentic Assessment with Electronic Portfolios using Common Software and Web 2.0 Tools. Retrieved July 20, 2007, form http://electronicportfolios.com/myportfolio/versions.html.
Bartlett, A., & Sherry, A. (2006). Tow views of electronic portfolios in teacher education: Non-technology undergraduates and technology graduate students. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(3), 245-253.
Barrett, H. C. (2008). Reflection in ePortfolios. Retrieved July 21, 2008, form http://electronicportfolios.com/reflection/index.html
Beishuizen, J., van Boxel, P., Banyard, P., Twiner, A., Vermeij, H., & Underwood, J. (2006). The introduction of portfolios in higher education: a comparative study in the UK and the netherlands. European Journal of Education, 41, 491-508.
Berrill, D. P., & Whalen, C. (2007). Where are the children? Personal integrity and reflective teaching portfolios. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 868-884.
Bong, M. (2004). Academic ｍotivation in self-efficacy, task value, achievement goal orientations, and attributional beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 287-297.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1997). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS for Windows. Loudon: Routledge.
Chang, C.-C. (2002). Assessing and analyzing the effects of WBLP on learning processes and achievements: Using the electronic portfolio for authentic assessment on university students’ learning. Paper presented at the 14th World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2002 (pp.265-270), June 24-29, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Chang, C. C. (2007). Enhancing self-perceived effects using web-based portfolio assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 197-216.
Chang, C. C., & Tseng, K. H. (2008). E -portfolios: A review of an innovative tool for reflection and assessment. Educational Technology, 48(6), 23-16.
Chapman, M. (2006). Preschool through elementary writing. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Research on composition: multiple perspectives on two decades of change.5-47. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cole, J. S., Bergin, D. A., and Whittaker, T. A.(2008) “Predicting Student Achievement for Low Stakes Tests with Effort and Task Value”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, In Press, Available online 28 January.
David, N., & Debra, M. D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education. 31(2), 199-218.
De Rijdt, C., Tiquet, E., Dochy, F., & Devolder, M. (2006). Teaching Portfolios in higher education and their effects: An explorative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1084-1093.
Donche, V., Vanhoof, J., & Petegem, V. P. (2003). Beliefs about learning environments: How do student teachers think, reflect and act concerning self-regulated and cooperative learning in Flanders (Belgium).(pp.21-25) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association , Seattle:Chicaho.
Dysthe, O., Engelsen, K. S., & Lima, I. (2007). Variations in portfolio assessment in higher education: Discussion of quality issues based on a Norwegian survey across institutions and disciplines. Assessing Writing, 12, 129-148.
Folkesson, A. M., & Swalander, L. (2007). Self-regulated learning through writing on computers: Consequences for reading comprehension. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2488–2508.
Forneris, S. G., & Peden-McAlpine, C. (2007). Evaluation of a reflective learning intervention to improve critical thinking in novice nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 57(4), 410–421.
Gama, C., & Idan, E. (2007). Electronic portfolios and self-regulated learning in the classroom. Paper presented at 30th McGraw-Hill Ryerson National Teaching Learning and Technology Conference, Montreal: Concordia University.
Garis, J., W. (2007). e-Portfolios: Concepts, Designs, and Integration Within Student Affairs. New directions for student services, 119, 3-16.
Grossman, R. (2009).Structures for Facilitating Student Reflection. College Teaching. Washington: Winter 2009. 57(1), 1-15.
Hadwin, A. F., Wozney, L., & Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: A socio-cultural analysis of changes in teacher-student discourse about a graduate research portfolio. Instructional Science, 33, 413-450.
Hirvela, A., & Sweetland, Y. S. (2005). Two casa studies of L2 writers’ experiences across learning-directed portfolio contexts. Assessing Writing, 10, 192-213.
Hsieh, P. H. (2009). The role of computer self-efficacy in managing information systems and technologies. Paper presented at the 2009 International Conference on e-Commerce, e-Administration, e-Society, and e-Education (p. 2106-2124), Singapore.
Kember, D., Jones, A., Loke, A., Mckay, J., Sinclair, K., & Tse, H., et al. (1999). Determining the level of reflective thinking form students? written journals using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(1), 18-30.
Kember, D., Leung, D., Jones, A., Loke, A. Y., Mckay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H., Web, C., Wong, F. K. Y., Wong, M., & Yeung, E. et al. (2000). Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 381-395.
Kay, J., Li, L., & Fekete, A. (2007). Learner Reflection in Student Self-assessment. In Mann, S., & Simon, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth Australasian Computing Education Conference. 66 (pp.89-95). Australia: Ballarat.
Leung, D. Y. P., & Kember, D. (2003). The relationship between Approaches to learning and reflection upon practice. Educational Psychology, 23, 63-71.
Linn, R. L., & Miller, M. D. (2005). Measurement and Assessment in teaching(7th. Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
MacArthur, C. A. (2006). The effects of new technologies on writing and writing processes. In C. A. MacArthur, S. G. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (248-262). New York: The Guilford Press.
Mansvelder-Longayroux, D. D., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The portfolio as a tool for stimulating reflection by student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 47-62.
Masui, C., & Corte, E. D. (2005). Learning to reflect and to attribute constructively as basic components of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 351-372.
McCready, T. (2007). Portfolios and the assessment of competence in nursing: A literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44, 143-151.
McMullan, M. (2006). Student’ perceptions on the use of portfolios in per-registration nursing education nursing education: A questionnaire surbey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43, 333-343.
Morin, A. (2006). Levels of consciousness and self-awareness: A comparison and integration of various neurocognitive views. Consciousness and Cognition, 15(2), 358-371.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing programme outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 120-138.
Richards, C. (2005). Activity-reflection e-portfolios: An approach to the problem of effectively integrating ICTs in teaching and learning. In The Reflective Practitioner. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2005. Perth: Murdoch University.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Educational Psychology at the Millennium: A look back and a look forward.Educational Psychologist, 35, 221-227.
Silvia, P. J., Eichstaedt, J., & Phillips, A. G. (2005). Are rumination and reflection types of self-focused attention? Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 871-881.
Strijbos, J., Meeus W., & Libotton A. (2007). Portfolio Assignments in teacher education: A tool for self-regulating the learning process? .International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1-16.
Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2007). Portfolio appraisal: In search of criteria. Teaching and Teacher Education 23, 442-456.
Saito, H., & Miwa, K. (2007). Construction of a learning environment supporting learners’ reflection: A case of information seefing on the Web. Computer & Education, 49(2), 214-229.
Simpson, E. & Courtney, M. (2007). A framework guiding critical thinking through reflective journal documentation: A Middle Eastern experience. International Journal of Nursing Practice , 13, 203–208
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Schelfhout, W., & Gielen, S. (2006). The overall effects of end-of-course assessment on student performance: A comparison between multiple choice testing, peer assessment, case-based assessment and portfolio assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 202-222.
Sweetland, Y. L., & Hirvela, A. (2005). Two case studies of L2 writer’ experiences across learning-directed portfolio context. Assessing Writing, 10, 192-213.
Shih, K. P., Kao, T. C., Chang, C. Y., Chen, H. C., Wang, S. S. (2007). Development and Evaluation of a Self-Regulatory-Learning-Cycle-Based System for Self-Regulated e/m-Learning. Paper presented at The 7th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning (IEEE ICALT 2007), Niigata, Japan.
Tang, C. & Tiwari, A. (2003). Form process to outcome: the effect of portfolio assessment on student learning. Nurse Education Today, 23, 269-277.
Tsai, Y. F., & Chen, K. J. (2003). Context-rule model for pos tagging. Proceedings of Paclic, 17, 146-151.
Tsai, Y. F., & Chen, K. J. (2004). Reliable and cost-effective pos-tagging. International Journal of Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing, 9, 83-96.
Van, D. B., Pass, F. J., & Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2007). Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 17, 532-548.
Wade A., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Using electronic portfolios to help students become self-regulated learners. The Canadian Resource for School-Based Leadership. 14(2), 23-25.
Wade, A., Abrami, P.C., Meyer, E. & White, B. (2008). ePEARL: Supporting learning using electronic portfolios. In F. Costa & M. Laranjeiro (Eds.), e-Portfolio in educaton. Practices and reflections (pp.83-93). Portugal: Assoçiao de Professores de Sintra.
Witherspoon, A., Azevedo, R., & Baker, S. (2007). Learners’ Use of various types of representations during self-regulated learning and externally-regulated learning pisodes. Paper presented at the Workshop on Metacognition and SRL. (pp.28-36) California: Marina.
Yen, J. C., & Chen, M. P. (2008). The Nature of Reflections on Problem-Solving in Mobile Learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Computer Science (ACOS''08), (pp.388-393). HangZhou, China.
Yen, J. C., & Chen, M. P. (2008). Patterns of reflection for problem-solving in a mobile learning environment. International Journal of Education and Informations Technologie, 2(1), 13-17.
Yost, D. S. (2006). Reflection and self-efficacy:enhancing the retention of qualified teachers from a teacher education perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(4), 59-76.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–71.