臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究的目的在於探討教師對開放式家庭作業回饋方式的差異，對學生學習成效的影響。在家庭作業形式方面，研究者選擇台灣地區國民中學較不常見的開放式題型作為家庭作業的形式，原因為選擇題答對並不見得對該題的解題概念完全掌握，有可能只了解其中一部分概念即猜中選擇題答案。此外，研究者提出開放式家庭作業的格式，以協助學生有根據的完成作業。
研究內容以牛頓三大運動定律為例，採用準實驗研究設計，研究對象為國中三年級的學生，取樣的方式為方便取樣，將研究者教導的三個國三班級分派為客製化書面回饋組、課堂口頭回饋組以及齊頭式書面回饋組(控制組)，三組學生皆於牛頓三大運動定律課程與開放式作業的前、後，進行牛頓三大運動定律的前、後測(封閉式與開放式)及學習動機前、後測，以了解學生的學習成效有何差異；另外，以學生自我檢核表了解各組學生對課程、作業、回饋內容、回饋方式所抱持的態度。最後，以開放式家庭作業觀感量表及半結構式晤談了解學生的想法。
研究結果顯示:(1)牛頓運動定律的學習成效，書面客製化回饋組在前、(開放式)後測的進步幅度最大，課堂口頭回饋組次之，控制組最少；(2)三組學生的學習動機前、後測無顯著差異；(3)客製組學生普遍認為教師客製化回饋對其在學習上有相當大的幫助，雖然在信心方面的提昇不是很大，但仍具有正面意義。
最後，建議在開放式家庭作業的回饋方面，以研究者提出的客製化書面回饋方式搭配教師課堂口頭的講解，除確實讓每一位學生了解自己概念錯誤的原因外，也能讓學生觀摩了解同儕的錯誤，期使家庭作業徹底發揮幫助學生學習的功能。

The purpose of this research was to explore the impact of different ways of teachers’ feedback on the students’ learning achievement. Researcher choose open-ended type as homework question type, because it’s hard to confirm what students really understand and the type used hardly with homework or test in Taiwan. Additionally, researcher used special written homework form to help student express what he (or she) thought.
With Newton’s Three Laws of Motion as the learning material, quasi experimental research design was applied to the students in the third grade of a junior high school, who were selected through convenient sampling. The three classes in the third grade of a junior high school taught by the researchers were sorted into three groups: the customized written feedback group, the in-class oral feedback group and block format written feedback group - the control group. In order to detect the difference in students’ learning achievement, pretest and post test on the master level of the learning material were given to all three groups before and after the lesson on Newton’s Laws of Motion with a written homework, so were the pretest and post test on the study motives. In addition, a self-examination survey was employed to the students of each group to measure their attitude towards the lesson, the homework, the contents, and the methods of feedback. In the end, a written homework questionnaire and semi-structured interview were conducted to learn about the students’ thoughts.
The study results are as follows: (1) According to the pretest and post test on the learning achievement on Newton’s Three Laws of Motion, the customized written feedback group showed the biggest progress, followed by the in-class oral feedback group, while the block format written feedback group showed the slightest progress or even a setback; (2)There was no apparent difference in the pretest and post test on the study motives of the students from each group; (3)almost all of the customized written feedback group thought that teacher’s feedback is really helpful, though it didn’t higher student’s confidence very much, it still play a positive role to student’s learning.
Researcher suggested that written homework feedback should include customized feedback and in-class oral feedback, therefore every student could understand why the answer is wrong and learn from the mistake of others. The main purpose is to bring homework into full play, in other word it’s to supporting students’ learning.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與背景 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究問題 5
第四節 名詞釋義 6
第五節 研究範圍與限制 8
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 家庭作業 9
第二節 教師的回饋 22
第三節 客製化概念 28
第四節 小結 30
第三章 研究方法 31
第一節 研究設計 31
第二節 研究對象 33
第三節 開放式家庭作業的設計 35
第四節 各組回饋方式的設計 46
第五節 研究工具 55
第六節 研究過程 82
第七節 資料處理 84
第四章 資料分析 85
第一節 學生整體表現 86
第二節 牛頓運動定律各向度整體分析 101
第三節 細部分析 112
第四節 訪談資料分析 131
第五節 學習動機分析 140
第六節 情意問卷分析 142
第五章 結論與建議 153
第一節 研究結論 153
第二節 研究建議 156
參考文獻 160
 
附件 167
附件一 家庭作業需知暨牛頓第一運動定律家庭作業 167
附件二 牛頓第二運動定律家庭作業 171
附件三 牛頓第三運動定律家庭作業 173
附件四 各小節額外的練習題 175
附件五 牛頓三大運動定律前測試題 178
附件六 牛頓三大運動定律封閉式後測試題 181
附件七 牛頓三大運動定律開放式後測試題 184
附件八 牛頓運動定律開放式後測給分說明表 187
附件九 牛頓三大運動定律-學習檢核表 189
附件十 家庭作業觀感量表 192
附件十一 訪談問題表 193

中文部分
方炳林（1969）。普通教學法。臺北：三民。
方茹蕙（1999）。如何協助孩子做好家庭作業。父母親月刊，172，49-55。
吳清山（1989）。國小高年級學生家庭作業現況之調查研究。臺北市立師範學院學報，20，105-142。
李芬珍(2009)。客製化家庭作業研究-提昇國中英語科學習成效之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立東華大學，花蓮縣。
李郁然(2002)。台北市國小學生家庭作業現況之研究。未出版之碩士論文，台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，臺北市。
李祖壽（1980）。教學原理與教法。臺北市：大洋。
李嘉齡、陳盈足、洪照明、孔俊傑、鄭志宗(2007)。Vygotsky近側發展區（ZPD）的理論意涵及其在教學研究上的啟示。第 105 期國小主任儲訓班專題研究集(頁307-318)。新北市:國立教育研究院籌備處。
林尚俞(2004)。桃園縣國民小學家庭作業實施現況之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，新竹縣。
林燕文、洪振方（2007）。對話論證的探究對促進學童科學概念理解之探討。花蓮教育大學學報，24，139-180。
林錦昭（2009）。客製化家庭作業在國小二年級數學科應用之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立東華大學教育研究所碩士論文，花蓮縣。
林寶山（1988）。教學原理。臺北市：五南。
段曉林、靳知勤、謝祥宏(2001)。科學學習動機的效化研究。中華民國第十七屆科學教育學術研討會。高雄市:國立高雄師範大學。
胡鍊輝（1983）。生動活潑的家庭作業。師友，191，17-20。
徐嘉怡(2001)。花蓮縣國民小家庭作業施行狀況之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，花蓮縣。
高廣孚（1988）。教學原理。臺北市：五南。
張春興(1994)。教育心理學。臺北市：東華書局。
游輝耀（2009）。客製化家庭作業在國小三年級數學科實施歷程之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立東華大學教育研究所碩士論文，花蓮縣。
黃政傑主編（1997）。教學原理。臺北市：師大書苑。
楊景堯（1979）。國民教育階段國小學童家庭課業負擔調查。今日教育，36，87-109。
蔡世明(2003)。近百年來我國中學國文教學的發展。未出版之碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學國文教學碩士班，高雄市。
鄭依琳(2003)。國小教師教學創意與家庭作業安排創意之相關研究。(碩士論文，政治大學，2003)。政大機構典藏，G0911520051。

 
英文部分
Albertson, L. M. (1986). Personalized feedback and cognitive achievement in computer assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 13(2), 55–57.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer- based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 111–127.
Baechle, C. L., & Lian, M. J. (1990). The effects of direct feedback and practice on metaphor performance in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(7), 451-456.
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. ( 2007). What makes education research “educational"? Educational Researcher, 36, 529 - 540.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.
Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1987). Effects of “on-line” test feedback on the seriousness of subsequent errors. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(2), 145–155.
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. J. (1996). Tools of mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.
Brophy, J. E. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51(1), 5–32.
Bruner, J. S. (1973). Beyond the information given. New York: Norton Press.
Chen & Harold, W. S. (1989). Homework: A cross-cultual examination. Chid Development, 60, 551-561.
Cheng, S. Y., Lin, C. S., Chen, H. S., & Heh, J. S. (2005). Learning and diagnosis of individual and class conceptual perspectives: An intelligent systems approach using clustering techniques. Computers & Education, 44(3), 257–283.
Cohen, V. B. (1985). A reexamination of feedback in computer-based instruction: Implications for instructional design. Educational Technology, 25(1), 33–37.
Connors, N. A. (1991). Homework : A new direction. Westerville, Ohio: National Middle School Association.
Cooper, H. (1994). The battle over homework : An administrator’s guide to setting sound and effective policies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Cooper, H. (2007). The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Feedback timing and student control in the LISP intelligent tutoring system. In D. Bierman, J. Brueker, & J. Sandberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (pp. 64–72). Springfield, VA: IOS.
Corno, L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 529-548.
Davis, S. M. (1987). Future perfect. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Epstein, M. L., Lazarus, A. D., Calvano, T. B., Matthews, K. A., Hendel, R. A., Epstein, B. B., & Brosvic, G. M. (2002). Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. The Psychological Record, 52, 187–201.
Evertson, C., Aderson, C., Aderson, L. M., Brophy, J. (1980). Relationships between classroom behaviors and student outcomes in jounior high mathematics and english classes. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 43-60.
Farrow, S. ( 1999 ). Homework and attainment in primary school. British Educational Research Journal , 25(3), 323-341.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp.175-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilman, D. A. (1969). Comparison of several feedback methods for correcting errors by computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(6), 503–508.
Grant, L., McAvoy, R., & Keenan, J. B. (1982). Prompting and feedback variables in concept programming. Teaching of Psychology, 9, 173–177.
Hannafin, M. J. (1983). The effects of systemized feedback on learning in natural classroom setting. Educational Research Quarterly, 7, 22–29.
Hattie, J.A.C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
Herschell, A. D., Greco, L. A., Filcheck, H. A., ＆ McNeil, C. B. (2002).Who is testing whom? Ten suggestions for managing the disruptive behavior of young children during testing. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 140-148.
Hodes, C. L. (1985). Relative effectiveness of corrective and noncorrective feedback in computer assisted instruction on learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 13(4), 249–254.
Konold, K. E., Miller, S. P., & Konold, K. B. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36( 6), 64-69.
Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47, 211–232.
Kulhavy, R. W., White, M. T., Topp, B. W., Chan, A. L., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(3), 285–291.
LaConte, R. T. (1981). Homework as a learning experience. What research says to the teacher. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Lau, S. M. (1995). Mass customization: The next industrial revolution. Industrial Management, 37(5), 18-20.
Lenz, B. K., Ellis, E. S., & Scanlon, D. (1996). Teaching learning strategies to adolescents and adults with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Conflicting views on the role of motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 217–230.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (1994). Effective instruction for special education. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
McLaughlin, T. F. (1992). Effects of written feedback on reading with behaviorally disordered students. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 312-316.
Merrill, J. (1987). Levels of questioning and forms of feedback: Instructional factors in courseware design. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, 18–22.
Merrill, M. D. (1984). What is learner control? Instructional development: The state of the art, Ⅱ. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298 905).
Miller, S. P. (2002). Using effective teaching behaviors. In S. P. Miller (Ed.), Validated practices for teaching with diverse needs and abilities (pp.189-233). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.
Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181–195). Munster, New York: Waxmann.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). The principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Pine, B. J. (1993). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1995). Control of practice and level of feedback in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 444–450.
Roper, W. J. (1977). Feedback in computer assisted instruction. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 14(1), 43–49.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock. (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 376-391). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Sales, G. C. (1993). Adapted and adaptive feedback in technology-based instruction. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interpretive instruction and feedback. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Schwartz, F., & White, K. (2000). Making sense of it all: Giving and getting online course feedback. In K. W. White & B. H. Weight (Eds.), The online teaching guide: A handbook of attitudes, strategies, and techniques for the virtual classroom (pp. 57–72). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Shute, V. J. (2006). Assessments for learning: Great idea, but do they work? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research 78(1), 153-189.
Silverman, S., Tyson, L., & Krampitz, J. (1992). Teacher feedback and achievement in physical education: Interaction with student practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8(4), 333-344.
Sleeman, D. H., Kelly, A. E., Martinak, R., Ward, R. D., & Moore, J. L. (1989). Studies of diagnosis and remediation with high school algebra students. Cognitive Science, 13, 551–568.
Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sullivan, M. H., & Sequeira, P. V. (1996). The impact of purposeful homework on learning. Clearing House, 69, 346-348.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89-100.