臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

「搜尋」過程就是一個問題解決的歷程。其中，個體的心理運作、及行為操作的差異皆影響搜尋表現；而問題表徵也可能影響個體的搜尋策略。本研究嘗試將搜尋問題以圖像方式呈現，並以個體處理問題時的著眼之處－思考風格幅度做為個別差異的探討因子。另外，個體的抽象推理能力使其能在非文字之圖案中歸納出原則加以推理，與本研究中解決圖像式問題時需進行圖像比對、推論之能力相符，故本研究選用思考風格與抽象推理能力為本研究問題之獨變項，企圖探討不同思考風格群組與高、低抽象推理能力在圖像式問題之搜尋行為與搜尋成效。
本研究以高職二年級學生為研究對象，透過圖像問題之搜尋，讓學生依圖像所提供之線索、特徵進行搜尋。搜尋引擎限用圖像搜尋及網頁搜尋兩項搜尋功能；每一個搜尋任務限時十分鐘。在整個搜尋過程中全程使用螢幕錄影軟體記錄，最後再量化學生搜尋行為、並評估搜尋成效。
研究結果指出思考風格的幅度與抽象推理能力皆會影響搜尋成效。全面型學生在圖像式問題搜尋得分顯著高於詳細型學生。抽象推理能力高分組在圖像式問題搜尋得分顯著高於低分組學生。在搜尋行為上，詳細型學生在使用關鍵字的數目、點選網頁搜尋的次數顯著多於全面型學生。詳細型學生在重複使用關鍵字的總數上顯著多於全面型學生，從關鍵字使用情形分析，全面型學生之關鍵字涵蓋的概念較寬廣；詳細型學生則較侷限於某一特徵概念上。而在瀏覽網頁行為上，全面型學生以瀏覽圖片為主，而詳細型學生除了瀏覽圖片外，也會對無圖片之網頁內容進行了解。詳細型學生在搜尋過程中將大部分時間花在探索及嘗試更換關鍵字，導致無法在時間內完成搜尋。

"Searching" is the process of solving questions. The individual psychological operation and the behavior operational difference both affect searching performance. The question features also affect individual searching strategies. This research attempts to present the questions through the images, and use the thinking styles scope grouping to be the discussed factor of the individual difference when the individual processes the questions. The ability of inducing the principles in the non-writing images for reasoning is called abstract reasoning ability. It corresponds with the images comparison and inference of solving questions in this study. Therefore, it takes thinking styles and abstract reasoning ability to be the single varied item for this research to probe into the influence of different thinking styles and high or low abstract reasoning ability on searching behavior and the searching result in image questions.
It takes the second year students of senior high vocational school to be the objects of this study. Through the searching of images questions, students begin to search according to the clues and the characteristics which are provided by the images. It limits students to use only two types of search engine functions—image search and homepage search. Each task takes ten minutes. The entire search process will be recorded by the automatic screen recorder & monitor software to quantify students searching behavior and to estimate searching result.
The findings point out the thinking styles scope and the abstract reasoning ability both can affect the searching result. The comprehensive students score conspicuously higher than the detailed students in the image questions searching. The high scores group in abstract reasoning ability scores conspicuously higher than the low scores group. In the searching behavior, the detailed students are more than the comprehensive students in the quantities of using keywords and the times of clicking homepage search. Moreover, for the quantities of repeated using keywords, the detailed students are more than the comprehensive students. The keywords which the comprehensive students use cover broader concepts, and the detailed students comparatively limits in a particular characteristic concept. In the browsing homepage behavior, the comprehensive students primarily glance over the pictures, but the detailed students both browse pictures and also try to understand the homepage content with no pictures. The detailed students spend so much time on searching and trying to change keywords in searching process that they are unable to finish the searching task in time.

中文摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌 謝 iv
目 錄 v
表 目 錄 vii
圖 目 錄 ix
第一章、緒論 1
1.1研究背景 1
1.2研究動機 2
1.3研究目的 3
1.4研究問題 4
1.5名詞釋義 4
第二章、文獻探討 6
2.1搜尋 6
2.1.1　問題的定義 6
2.1.2　問題的類型與資訊搜尋任務 7
2.1.3　問題解決歷程與資訊搜尋步驟 9
2.1.4　資訊搜尋行為相關研究 11
2.2思考風格 15
2.3思考與推理 17
2.4問題解決態度 18
第三章、研究方法與設計 20
3.1 研究架構 20
3.2 研究對象 21
3.3 研究工具 21
3.4 研究設計 24
3.4.1　實驗流程 24
3.4.2　搜尋任務設計 25
3.4.3　搜尋任務進行 26
3.5 資料處理分析 27
3.5.1　資料整理 27
3.5.2　統計分析 30
第四章、結果與討論 32
4.1 樣本基本資料分析 32
4.2 思考風格對圖像式問題搜尋的影響 38
4.3 抽象推理對圖像式問題搜尋的影響 48
4.4 問題解決態度對圖像式問題搜尋的影響 49
4.5 思考風格與抽象推理能力對圖像式問題搜尋的影響 54
第五章、結論與建議 55
5.1 結論 55
5.2 建議 56
參考文獻 57
附錄一 思考風格問卷 62
附錄二 搜尋任務學習單 64
附錄三 思考風格問卷授權書 68
附錄四 搜尋任務設計 69

中文部份：

王文科與王智弘（2006），教育研究法，台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
羅勃．史坦伯格Robert J. Sternberg（1997）著，薛絢（1999）譯。活用你的思考風格（Thinking Styles）。台北：天下遠見。
黃晴逸（民93）。國小學童思考風格量表之編制及其創造力之相關研究。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
杜義文(民94)。國二學生的網路搜尋策略與成果：檢視知識觀所扮演的角色。國立交通大學理學院網路學習學程碩士論文。
大衛•申克David Shenk（1997）著，林宜敬、陳美岑（1998）譯。資訊超載╱數位世界的綠色主張（Data smog: surviving the information glut）。台北：商業周刊出版。
洪文東（2000）。從問題解決的過程培養學生的科學創造力。屏師科學教育，11，52-62。
洪榮昭（民87）。問題解決的思考模式。技術問題解決能力發展研究研習會報告資料。台北：台灣師範大學。
黃茂在、陳文典（民93）。問題解決的能力。科學教育月刊，273，21-41。
張玉成（1993）。思考技巧與教學。台北：心理出版社。
張春興、林清山（1995）。教育心理學。台北：東華書局。
路君約、歐滄和、盧欽銘(1994)。多因素性向測驗。臺北：中國行為科學社。
佐藤允一著，詹央如譯（民77）。圖解問題解決入門。台北市：遠流出版社。
王瑪麗（民73）。人際問題解決訓練對國中女生人際問題解決能力、態度與人際適應的影響。國立台灣師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。
李淑媛（民84）。高一學生問題解決態度、生涯不確定源與生涯決定狀態之相關研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導學系碩士論文。
呂素雯（民91）。自然科創造性問題解決教學對國小六年級學童問題解決能力、態度及學習成就之影響研究。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
季永明（民92）。資訊科技融入問題解決教學活動對國小學生問題解決能力及態度的影響。未出版碩士論文。高雄市：國立高雄師範大學。
林寶貴、吳純純、林美秀（1995）。台灣區兒童普通推理能力及其相關因素之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，11，1-18。
作者不詳（無日期）。數位相機的成長。工商時報，A3。2006年7月20日。
無作者（無日期）。06年全球網路普及率成長一成　新興國家發展更神速。台北市：資策會。2007年3月13日，取自http://www.find.org.tw/distribution/trend/aw_news_disp.aspx?all_db_class=news&news_id=4726
無作者（無日期）。台灣上網人口成長狀況。台北市：資策會。2007年3月20日，取自http://www.find.org.tw/0105/howmany/howmany_disp.asp?id=165



英文部份：

Anderson,J.R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York:Freeman.
Bartlett, F. C. (1958). Thinking: An experimental and social study. New York: Basic Books.
Bilal, D. (2001). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine. II. Cognitive and physical behaviors on research tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 52, 118–137.
Bilal, D. & Kirby, J. (2002). Differences and similarities in information seeking: children and adults as Web users. Information Processing and Management , 38, 649–670.
Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking learning and creativity(2th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Dewey, J.(1910). How we think. Boston:Heath.
Drabenstott, K. M. (1984). Subject searching in library catalogs: Before and after the introduction of online catalogs. Dublin, OH: Online Computer Library Center.
Eisenberg, M., & Berkowitz, R. (1998). The Big6 and student achievement:Report of an action research study. The Big6 Newsletter, 2(2), 1-15.
Ford, N., Miller, D., & Moss, N. (2005). Web search strategies and human individual difference: a combined analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(7), 757-764.
Gega, P. C. (1994). Science in elementary education (7th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Hacker M. & Barden, A. R.（1988）. Living with technology. Albany New York：Delmar.
Hill, R. J. & Hannafin J. M. (1997).Cognitive strategies and learning from the WWW. ETR & D, 45(4), 37-64.
Kim, K.S. (2001). Information seeking on the web: effects of user and task variables. Library & Information Science Research, 23, 233-255.
Kim, K. S., & Allen, B. (2002). Cognitive and Task Influences on Web Searching Behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 109-119.
Krulik, S. & Rudnick, J. A. (1993). Reasoning and problem solving: A handbook for elementary school teachers. Boston:Allyn and Bason.
Kuhlthau, C.C. (1991). Inside the search process: information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371.
Lin, C.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2005). A “navigation flow map” method of representing students’ searching strategies on the Web. Paper presented at 2005 World Conference on Educational multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Montreal, Canada.
Marchionini, G. (1989). Information seeking strategies of novices using a full-text electronic encyclopedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40, 54–66.
Marchionini, G., Lin, X., & Dwiggins, S. (1990). Effects of search and subject expertise on information seeking in a hypertext environment. In D. Henderson (Ed.), Information in the year 2000, from research to applications: Proceedings of the 53rd annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science, November 4–8 ( pp. 129–142). Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
Marchionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in the electronic environments. New York: Cambridge University.
Marx, M. H. (1958). Some suggestions for the conceptual and theoretical analysis of complex intervening variables in problem solving behavior. Journal of General Psychology, (53), 115-128.
Matthews, J. R., Lawrence, G. S., & Ferguson, D. K. (1983). Using online catalogs: A nationwide survey. New York: Neal-Schuman.
Mayer, E. R. (1992). Thinking, Problem Solving, Cogniton. New York: Freeman.
Newell, A. & Simon, H. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Polya, G.(1957).How to solve it : A new method of mathematical method. Solved Gifted Child Today.March/April, 61- 63.Princeton, NJ :Princeton.
Qiu, L. (1993a). Analytical searching vs. browsing in hypertext information retrieval systems. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 18, 1–13.
Rosser, R. (1994). Cognitive development: Psychological and biological perspectives. Massachusetts:Allyn and Bacon.
Saskia, B. G., Iwan, W., & Yvonne, V. (2005). Information Problem Solving by Experts and Novices: Analysis of a Complex Cognitive Skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 487-508.
Solso, R. L. (1995). Cognitive Psychology (4t h ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sternberg, R (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
White, M.D., & Iivonen, M. (2001). Questions as a Factor in Web Search Strategy. Information Processing and Management, 37, 721-740