臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

概念構圖是一種利用繪製概念圖來表示關於一主題的知識結構，幫助學習者認知主題知識內容的技術。藉由概念圖的分析，教師可針對學生的學習情形進行判斷，以瞭解學生的學習成果。同時根據此結果給予回饋（feedback），矯正學生錯誤的觀念。本研究希望能利用將概念圖轉換成命題圖的技術，發展評量概念圖的分析方法，同時設計一概念構圖活動，蒐集學生的概念圖，並針對本研究所提之分析學生概念圖方法的有效性進行評估。本研究結果發現以命題圖結構分析來評量概念圖之結果和Novak and Gowin評量概念圖結果，其Pearson相關值達到r=.873的高度相關，且此相關值較Goldsmith 等人的Closeness評量方法與Novak and Gowin評量概念圖結果的Pearson相關值r=.752為高。亦即利用命題圖結構分析來評量概念圖其結果是有效的，且其效果比Goldsmith等人的Closeness評量方法來的合理。

Concept mapping is a kind of knowledge structure to deal with a given topic by mapping out the related ideas. It is a useful skill for helping a learner to get a full picture of the thematic materials. With the analysis of the concept map, a teacher can assess the learning process of students and better understand the result of their learning. By converting concept maps into proposition maps, this research develops an analytical method to evaluate the concept maps. At the same time, a concept mapping activity is created to collect students'' concept maps, thus assessing the validity of the analytical method employed therein. Based on the findings in this research, the result of evaluating a concept map through proposition mapping is highly related to that of Novak and Gowin''s evaluation of a concept map. Its Pearson related value reaches r=.873. Such a correlated value is higher than that of Goldsmith''s closeness assessment and Novak and Gowin''s evaluation of concept maps (r=.702). Accordingly, the result is more reasonable than Goldsmith''s closeness evaluation.

第一章 研究背景及目的
第一節 研究背景 …………………………………………………………………. 1
第二節 研究目的 …………………………………………………………………. 3
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 概念圖的界定 ……………………………………………………………. 4
第二節 概念圖評分方法的介紹 ………………………………………………… 6
第三節 圖形結構相似性………………………………………………………….. 12
第四節 針對文獻探討章節進行結論……………………………………………. 13
第三章 概念圖結構分析方法之設計
第一節 圖形結構相鄰區域之測量………………………………………………. 14
第二節 以「命題節點」為分析單位…………………………………………….. 14
第三節 計算兩概念圖的相似值PS………………………………………………. 18
第四節 計算學生概念圖和專家概念圖的相似值PS…………………………... 20
第四章 概念圖結構分析方法之評估
第一節 概念構圖活動…………………………………………………………….. 22
第二節 概念構圖環境……...……………………………………………………... 24
第三節 概念圖評分機制………………………………………………………….. 26
第四節 專家概念圖……………………………………………………………….. 30
第五節 資料處理………………………………………………………………….. 32
第六節 資料分析………………………………………………………………….. 33
第五章 結果與討論
第一節 結果 ………………………………………………………………………. 34
第二節 討論 ………………………………………………………………………. 36
第六章 結論與建議
第一節 結論 ………………………………………………………………………. 41
第二節 建議 ………………………………………………………………………. 41
參考文獻
壹、 中文部份 ………………………………………………………………………. 43
貳、 英文部份 ………………………………………………………………………. 44
附錄
壹、 附錄一 …………………………………………………………………………. 48

中文部份
宋德忠、張國恩、陳淑芬 (1997)。電腦化概念構圖系統在知識結構測量上的應用。發表於第三屆峽兩岸測驗學術研討會。台北。
宋德忠、陳淑芬、張國恩（1998）。電腦化概念構圖系統在知識結構測量上的應用。測驗年刊，45輯2期，37-56頁。
吳偉碩（民90）。網路合作概念構圖系統之發展。國立台南師範虛學院碩士論文。
邱上真（民78）。知識結構的評量：概念構圖技巧的發展與試用。特殊教育學報，4，215-254。
邱瓊慧、許智超、吳偉碩、莊巧華（accepted）：COME：網路概念構圖系統。6th Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education（第六屆全球華人計算機教育應用大會）。
黃台珠（民83）。概念圖在國中生物教學上的成效研究（I）。 國科會計劃：NSC83-0111-S-017-015。
黃台珠（民84）。概念圖在國中生物教學上的成效研究（II）。國科會計劃：NSC84-2511-S-017-003。
楊冠政、周儒(民83)。國二學生環境知識的概念結構。國科會計劃：NSC83-0111-S003-059-Z。
英文部份
Acton, W. H., Johnson , P. J., & Goldsmith , T.E. (1994). Structural knowledge assessment: comparison of referent structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 303-311
Anderson, J. R. (1983). Cognitive psychology and its implication (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Freeman.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, T. H. & Huang, S. C. C. (1989). On using concept mapsto assess the comprehension effects of reading expository text. Technical Report No. 483.
GA.
Chang, K. E., Lin, S.C., Pan, H. M., & Chen, S.W. (1998). Fuzzy Assessment of attributed concept maps. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 6(1), 81-94.
Chard, S. C. (1992). The project approach: A practical guide for teachers. Alberta: Edmonton, University of Alberta Printing Services.
Chiu, C. H., Huang, C. C., & Chang, W. T. (in press). The evaluation andinfluence of interaction in network supported collaborative concept mapping. Computers and Education.
Chiu, C. H., Huang, C. C., Chang, W. T., & Liang, T. H. (1999). Interaction processes in network supported collaborative concept mapping. The 4th ACM SIGCSE/SIGCUE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’99), Cracow, Poland, June 28-30.
Diekhoff, G. M. & Diekhoff, K. B. (1982). Cognitive maps as a tool in communicating structual knowledge. Educational Technology, 22(4), 28-30.
Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Designing environment for constructive learning. NATO ASI series. New York: Spring-verlag.
Goldman, S., & Newman, D. (1992). Electronic interactions: How students and teachers organize schooling over the wires. Interactive Learning Environments, 2(1), 31-45.
Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 88-96
Laffey, J. M., & Singer, J. (1997). Using mapping for cognitive assessment in project-based science. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3-4), 363-87.
Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association, Tempe, Arizona.
Lian, M. W. S. (1998). An investigation into high-achiever and low-achiever knowledge organisation and knowledge processing in concept mapping: A case study. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 337-352.
Markham, K. M., Mintes, J. J., & Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 91-101.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moreira, M. (1979). Concept maps as tools for teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 8, 283-286.
Moreira, M. (1985). Concept mapping: An alternative strategy for evaluation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 10, 159-168.
Novak, J. D. (1984). Application of advances in learning theory and philosophy of science to the improvement of chemistry teaching. The Journal of Chemical Education, 61(7), 607-12.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, London:Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science Concept learning. American Education Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153
Roth, W. M. (1994). Student views of collaborative concept mapping: An emancipatory research project. Science Education, 78, 1-34.
Roth, W. M. & Roychoudhury, A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76, 531-557.
Roth, W. M. & Roychoudhury, A. (1993a). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 503-534.
Roth, W. M. & Roychoudhury, A. (1993b). About knowing and learning physic: The perspectives of four students. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 27-44.
Roth, W. M. & Roychoudhury, A. (1993c). Using vee and concept maps in collaborative settings: Elementary education majors construct meaning in physical science courses. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 237-244.
Roth, W. M. & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Science discourse through collaborative concept mapping: New Perspectives for the teacher: International Journal of Science Education, 16, 437-455.
Roychoudhury, A. & Roth, W. M. (1992). Student involvement in learning: Collaboration in science for pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3, 47-52.
Schmid, R. F., & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 78-85.