跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.14.81) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/11 00:34
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:謝明清
研究生(外文):Ming-Ching Hsieh
論文名稱:大考地理試題之空間思考和學生解題弱點分析
論文名稱(外文):The Analysis of College Entrance Examination of Geography: Spatial Thinking and Examinees’ Weakness in Problem Solving
指導教授:賴進貴賴進貴引用關係
口試日期:2017-06-19
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:地理環境資源學研究所
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:地理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2017
畢業學年度:105
語文別:中文
論文頁數:75
中文關鍵詞:空間思考試題分析升大學考試地理教育
外文關鍵詞:Spatial ThinkingTest Item AnalysisCollege Entrance ExaminationEducation of Geography
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:338
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
空間思考能力培養是地理教育的核心目標之一。大學入學考試試題對高中教學有一定的引導作用,其試題所涵蓋空間思考的層次與範疇是一項值得探究的議題。本文以101-105年大考中心之學測和指考地理試題為研究對象,並以內容分析法結合文獻回顧,界定適合用以分析大考中心試題的空間概念指標和定義,再以這些指標來檢視試題的空間思考內涵豐富性和層級,最後針對具有空間概念且通過率較低的試題進行學生問卷調查,以瞭解學生的解題弱點環節。經過分析與討論後獲致幾項結論。
首先,整體而言,學測和指考的空間概念豐富性高,空間思考內涵層級以「高層次」的比率為最高;再者,有空間概念且通過率較低的試題,主要落在四類的空間概念,依次為:在哪裡 (座標、區位和分布)、方向、等高線圖或立體模型圖、以及有關邊界的溶解/合併與分割。就比率最高的「在哪裡」題目,筆者觀察到近年來大考試題幾乎不會將「某地物在哪裡?」獨立成試題,而是將其隱含在解題過程中。換言之,山川、鐵路、物產位置等地理事實,從以前考試的「答案」,演變成解題的「線索」,用這些線索來處理更高認知層級的問題。透過地理試題的空間思考分析結合學生解題弱點分析,本研究提出地理科教學提升的建議。
The training of spatial thinking has been the main target in education of geography. The collage entrance examinations have strongly set the direction of teaching in high school in Taiwan. Therefore, how do test items in the college entrance exams measure the spatial thinking abilities is worth exploring. After reviewing literature, spatial concepts and their definitions were systematically organized into different levels. The level and original density of spatial thinking in each test item in 2012-2016 General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT) and Advanced Subjects Test (AST) in Taiwan were analyzed. Test items that contain spatial concepts and with low item difficulty value (i.e. difficult items) were further investigated. Sixty-four senior high school students were surveyed of those difficulty test items to understand which steps of problem solving process were difficult for students to fail the test item.
Some conclusions are made in this study. First, generally speaking, the test items of 2012-2016 GSAT and AST in Taiwan both have high enough original density and the highest ratio in high level spatial thinking. Second, difficult test items fall into 4 types of questions: "Where", "Direction", "Relief" and "Dissolve". Among the four types, the most difficult type is “Where” questions. It can be observed that test items do not directly inquire “where is some geographic feature?” However, the “where” question is implied in the item descriptions. Therefore, this does not mean that students need not to know where some geographic features are. Instead, the act of recitation of the location of mountains or rivers, which may be people''s stereotypes of geography, changes from “the answer to the question" to “the clue to the question". The reason of this change is to use the “where” information to deal with questions with higher cognitive levels. Suggestions are proposed in this study to enhance the teaching in education of Geography by the analysis of test items in view of spatial thinking and difficulties during problem solving process.
目錄
第一章、緒論 1
第一節、研究背景 1
第二節、研究動機與目的 2
第三節、研究問題 5
第二章、文獻回顧 6
第一節、空間思考能力 6
第二節、空間思考能力和試 (問) 題 10
第三節、學生解題過程 13
第三章、研究方法 14
第一節、分析材料 14
第二節、分析方法 14
第二節、研究流程 25
第四章、分析結果與討論 27
第一節、空間概念的篩選與分級及其中文定義釐清 27
第二節、試題的空間思考內涵的豐富性和層級 37
第三節、多數學生的解題弱點、問題和改善方法 40
第五章、結論 59
第一節、結論 59
第二節、討論與後續建議 60
參考資料 61
附錄一 空間概念及其中文操作型定義 65
附錄二 學生解題步驟或要件不知道的比率 68
附錄三 教師訪談大綱 (及附圖):學生解題弱點背後之原因及可能改善方法 71
大學入學考試中心 (2012a) 101學年度學科能力測驗試題分析-社會考科,大學入學考試中心
——— (2012b) 101學年度指考試題分析-地理考科,大學入學考試中心
——— (2013a) 102學年度學科能力測驗試題分析-社會考科,大學入學考試中心
——— (2013b) 102學年度指考試題分析-地理考科,大學入學考試中心
——— (2014a) 103學年度學科能力測驗試題分析-社會考科,大學入學考試中心
——— (2014b) 103學年度指考試題分析-地理考科,大學入學考試中心
——— (2015a) 104學年度學科能力測驗試題分析-社會考科,大學入學考試中心
——— (2015b) 104學年度指考試題分析-地理考科,大學入學考試中心
——— (2016a) 測驗考試,大學入學考試中心 http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AppointExam/AppointExamProfile.htm [2016/3/12]
——— (2016b) 105學年度學科能力測驗試題分析-社會考科,大學入學考試中心
——— (2016c) 105學年度指考試題分析-地理考科,大學入學考試中心
——— (2016d) 105學年度學科能力測驗各科成績標準一覽表,大學入學考試中心
中國地理學會 (2011) 地理奧林匹亞競賽-師生回饋,中國地理學會 http://promotinggeog.geo.ntnu.edu.tw/Senior%20Geo/documents/feedback.pdf [2017/4/23]
李明燕 (2011) 大學入學考試地理科試題結構之研究,考試學刊,9: 1-24。
李明宗 (2010) 歷屆地理科學科能力測驗及指考試題分析,國立臺北教育大學社會與區域發展學研究所學位論文, 1-298
余民寧 (2011) 教育測驗與評量:成就 測驗與教學評量 (第三版)。臺北市:心理
吳慶燁 (2014) 空間思考能力量表評析與編製. 臺灣大學地理環境資源學研究所學位論文, 1-108.

林芳瑜、賴進貴 (2006) 大學入學考試地理資訊試題分析,地圖: 中華民國地圖學會會刊 (16) 167-190.
林重新 (2001) 評分者信度,教育學,臺北:揚智文化
許珊瑜 (2009) 大學入學考試中心試題分析的方法之探討-以地理科為例,考試學刊,7: 59-80。
教育部地理學科中心 (2008) 九九地理課程綱要http://gis.tcgs.tc.edu.tw/policy/99curriculum.asp [2016/12/9]
教育部重編國語辭典 (2015) 剖面,教育部重編國語辭典
http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?ccd=twFavyando=e0andsec=sec1andop=vandview=0-1 [2017/3/21]
廖淑雯 (2012) 從大學考試中心試題探究高中生空間思維能力. 臺灣大學地理環境資源學研究所學位論文, 1-77.
歐用生 (1994) 內容分析法。教育研究法,黃光雄、簡茂發主編,240-242。臺北:師大書苑
黃柔茜 (2014) 大學入學考試地理科試題內容分析-2009年至2013年,國立臺中教育大學教育學系課程與教學研究所學位論文, 1-127
Anthamatten, P. (2010) Spatial Thinking Concept in Early Grade-level Geography Standards. Journal of Geography, 109 (5): 169-180.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airiasian, W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., andand Pintrich, P. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom''s Taxonomy of educational outcomes: Complete edition. NY: Longman.
Arc GIS Resources (2014) Dissolve (Coverage), AGIS Resources
http://resources.esri.com/help/9.3/arcgisdesktop/com/gp_toolref/coverage_tools/dissolve_coverage_.htm [2017/4/21]

Bednarz, S.W., and Kemp, K. (2011) Understanding and Nurturing Spatial Literacy, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 21:18-23.
Costa, A. L. (1991) Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking. Revised Edition, Volume 1.
Dori, Y. J., and Herscovitz, O. (1999) Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 411-430.
Dunn, J. M. (2011) Location knowledge: Assessment, spatial thinking, and new national geography standards. Journal of Geography, 110(2), 81-89.
Gersmehl, P. J., and Gersmehl, C. A. (2007) Spatial thinking by young children: Neurologic evidence for early development and “educability”. Journal of Geography, 106(5), 181-191.
Golledge, R. G. (2002) The Nature of Geographic Knowledge. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92(1), 1-14.
Golledge, R., Marsh, M., and Battersby, S. (2008) A Conceptual Framework for Facilitating Geospatial Thinking. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98(2), 285-308.
Goodchild (2006) The fourth Rethinking GIS Education, ArcNews, Fall, 2006
Janelle, D. G., and Goodchild, M. F. (2009) Location across disciplines: Reflections on the CSISS experience. In Geospatial technology and the role of location in science (pp. 15-29). Springer Netherlands.
Jo, I., and Bednarz, S. W. (2009) Evaluating Geography Textbook Questions From a Spatial Perspective: Using Concept of Space, Tools of Representation, and Cognitive Processes to Evaluate Spatiality. Journal of Geography, 108(1), 4-13.
Jo, I., Bednarz, S., and Metoyer, S. (2010) Selecting and Designing Questions to Facilitate Spatial Thinking. The Geography Teacher, 7(2), 49-55.
Lee, J., and Bednarz, R. (2012) Components of spatial thinking: Evidence from a spatial thinking ability test. Journal of Geography, 111(1), 15-26.
Manson G. (1973) Classroom Questioning for Geography Teachers, Journal of Geography, 72:4, 24-30
Mayhew S. (1997) A dictionary of geography. Oxford England ; New York : Oxford University Press.
National Research Council (2006) Learning To Think Spatially, Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.
Novak, J. D. (2011) A theory of education: Meaningful learning underlies the constructive integration of thinking, feeling, and acting leading to empowerment for commitment and responsibility. Meaningful Learning Review, 1(2), 1-14.
Nystuen, J. D. (1963) Identification of some fundamental spatial concepts. Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, 48, 373-384.
Witherick M. E., Ross S. R. J. and Small R. J. (2001) A modern dictionary of geography. London : Arnold ; New York : Oxford University Press
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top