臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

俗民分類法（Folksonomy）跟隨著Web2.0社群網站概念所興起，為一種將內容以標籤方式註記，並以此為分類依據的方法。於2001年出版之布魯姆認知分類修訂版，修訂布魯姆建立的認知分類系統，提供教學內容的分析工具及描述標準，讓依此方式設計的課程能完整實行。

本研究提出在教學設計上，對教學目標、教學活動及教學評量三者一致性探討的新思維及實踐案例。主要在採用布魯姆認知分類修訂版表格進行課程規劃時，配合俗民分類法讓學生以標籤方式呈現內隱的知識，建構出在課程學習上的群體概念。用此標籤知識本體，與教師設計的課程知識本體比較差異，並與教學評量的內涵再進行整合比對。並探討學生對課程內容分析方式，是否合於布魯姆認知分類修訂版認知歷程向度之分析技能。而對教學目標、教學活動及教學評量三者做一致性探討的方式，是利用標籤知識本體及標籤集觀念，進行概念集合之間的相似性統計，以及與教學評量成績的相關分析來進行討論。綜合而言，本研究的初步結果反映出俗民分類法應用於教學設計的策略，可以為教學活動及評量的檢視輔助。

With the rapid development of Web2.0 and social networking sites, using tagging to tag the content of the web resource become a way for social classification. This trend also causes the rise of Folksonomy. The revision of Bloom’s taxonomy in 2001 has revised the system of Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning domain. The taxonomy established as an analytical tools for instructional content and its description. Moreover, this revision of taxonomy facilitates the establishment of relevant courses accordingly.

This study proposed a case on the design of instruction that explore the new thinking of the revision of Bloom’s taxonomy which integrates the three stages, namely, teaching objectives, teaching activities and assessment of teaching. The case study investigates the consistency of the three stages with a practical implementation of Folksonomy. By incorporating Bloom’s Taxonomy and Folksonomy, students requested to apply knowledge in this course and construct the concept of the course with group activities. We analyze the TagOntology from these activities and the course Ontology design by instructors. The results of the analysis are drawn from comparison of the consistency of the three stages. We also explore the relation between student’s analysis of the course content and the analytical skills in the revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy. The evaluation is through exploring the similarity between concepts in the TagOntology established from the set of students’ tags and course ontology design by instructors. Finally, the assessment of teaching is also employed for the discussion of the relation of various results. In summary, our study reflects the positive outcome to the feasibility of applying Folksonomy to the instruction design with the strategy of using the revision of Bloom’s taxonomy.

1. 緒論............................................ 1
1.1 研究背景...................................... 1
1.2 研究動機與目的................................ 2
1.3 研究限制...................................... 3
1.4 名詞釋義...................................... 4
2. 文獻探討........................................ 5
2.1 社會性分類.................................... 5
2.1.1 俗民分類法................................. 5
2.1.2 社會性標籤................................. 6
2.1.3 社會性分類比較............................. 7
2.1.4 廣義及狹義俗民分類法....................... 7
2.1.5 現有俗民分類法相關研究..................... 8
2.1.6 常見俗民分類法網站及應用................... 9
2.1.7 小結...................................... 12
2.2 布魯姆認知分類............................... 12
2.2.1 布魯姆認知分類修訂版...................... 13
2.2.2 布魯姆認知分類修訂版內容.................. 14
2.2.2.1 知識向度............................... 14
2.2.2.2 認知歷程向度........................... 18
2.2.3 布魯姆認知分類原版與修訂版比較............ 23
2.2.4 一致性檢驗評估............................ 26
2.2.5 布魯姆認知分類修訂版在計算機概論課程應用之探討. 26
2.3 知識本體..................................... 29
2.3.1 知識本體源起與運用........................ 29
2.3.2 標籤知識本體.............................. 31
2.3.3 以標籤知識本體建構教學概念................ 32
2.4 檢驗分析工具探討............................. 33
2.4.1 試題分析之探討............................ 33
2.4.2 相似性比較之探討.......................... 34
3. 研究方法....................................... 36
3.1 研究流程..................................... 36
3.2 研究對象..................................... 39
3.3 參與者....................................... 39
3.4 教材規劃..................................... 40
3.4.1 單元教學活動規劃表........................ 40
3.4.2 標籤知識本體建構.......................... 44
3.4.3 標籤收集及評量方式........................ 46
3.5 資料分析方式................................. 47
3.5.1 標籤整理.................................. 47
3.5.2 以標籤集檢驗一致性........................ 47
3.5.3 試題分析.................................. 48
3.5.4 相關係數及統計分析........................ 48
4. 資料分析與討論................................. 49
4.1 應用布魯姆認知分類修訂版於課程設計之發展..... 49
4.1.1 初始構想之發展............................ 49
4.1.2 分析課程教材歷程.......................... 49
4.1.3 教學活動設計歷程.......................... 50
4.1.4 設計評量歷程.............................. 50
4.2 標籤及評量資料整理........................... 51
4.2.1 標籤知識本體詞彙修正...................... 51
4.2.2 標籤比對分析.............................. 55
4.3 以標籤集檢驗教學設計一致性................... 55
4.4 各項研究統計................................. 62
4.4.1 試題分析.................................. 64
4.4.2 標籤分析.................................. 71
4.4.2.1 標籤數量............................... 71
4.4.2.2 標籤種類............................... 74
4.4.3 評量成績分析.............................. 75
4.4.4 相似係數分析.............................. 79
4.4.5 相關係數分析.............................. 83
4.5 討論......................................... 85
5. 結果與後續研究建議............................. 86
5.1 結果......................................... 86
5.2 後續研究與建議............................... 89
5.2.1 教學後的省思.............................. 89
5.2.2 後續研究建議.............................. 90
6. 參考文獻....................................... 91
附錄1 教學活動設計................................ 97
附錄2 學後評量試題A 卷............................ 98
附錄3 學後評量試題B 卷........................... 101
附錄4 教學目標一標籤填寫表....................... 104
附錄5 教學目標二標籤填寫表....................... 105
附錄6 教學目標一標籤次數分配表................... 106
附錄7 教學目標二標籤次數分配表....................116

英文部份
Al-Khalifa, H. S., & Davis, H. C. (2006). FolksAnnotation: A Semantic Metadata Tool for Annotating Learning Resources Using Folksonomies and Domain Ontologies. Paper presented at the Second International IEEE Conference on Innovations in Information Technology. Retrieved 2008-4-21,
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom''s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Allyn & Bacon.
Binkowski, P. J. (2006). The effect of social proof on tag selection in social bookmarking applications. School of Information and Library Science.
Buck, D., & Stucki, D. J. (2001). JKarelRobot: A Case Study in Supporting Levels of Cognitive Development in the Computer Science Curriculum. Paper presented at the SIGCSE.
Chyung, S.-Y., & Stepich, D. (2003). Applying the "Congruence" Principle of Bloom''s Taxonomy to Designing Online Instruction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 317-330.
Coutinho, & Pereira, C. (2008). Using social bookmarking to enhance cooperation/collaboration in a Teacher Education Program. Paper presented at the CIEd - Volume de Actas / Proceedings.
Dahl, D., & Vossen, G. (2008). Evolution of learning folksonomies: social tagging in e-learning repositories. Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., 1(1/2), 35-46.
Digby, P. G. N., & Kempton, R. A. (1987). Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Communities: Chapman and Hall, London
Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of Educational Measurement: Prentice Hall College Div.92
Grossman, D. A., & Frieder, O. (1998). Information retrieval: algorithms and heuristics: Springer.
Gruber, T. (2007). Ontology of Folksonomy: A Mash-up of Apples and Oranges. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems.
Jäschke, R., Hotho, A., Schmitz, C., Ganter, B., & Stumme, G. (2008). Discovering shared conceptualizations in folksonomies. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 6(1), 38-53.
Jason Morrison, P. (2008). Tagging and searching: Search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web. Information Processing & Management, 44(4), 1562-1579.
Liccardi, I., Ounnas, A., Pau, R., Massey, E., Kinnunen, P., Lewthwaite, S., et al. (2007). The role of social networks in students'' learning experiences. Paper presented at the Working group reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education.
Lister, R., & Leaney, J. (2003). Introductory programming, criterion-referencing, and bloom. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education.
Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata. Computer Mediated Communication.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). A taxonomy for computer-based assessment of problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(6), 623-632.
Mika, P. (2007). Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 5(1), 5-15.
Parham, J., Chinn, D., & Stevenson, D. E. (2009). Using Bloom''s taxonomy to code verbal protocols of students solving a data structure problem. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 47th Annual Southeast Regional Conference.
Passant, A. (2007). Using Ontologies to Strengthen Folksonomies and Enrich Information Retrieval in Weblogs. Paper presented at the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Retrieved 2008-4-21, 93
Scott, T. (2003). Bloom''s taxonomy applied to testing in computer science classes. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19(1), 267 - 274.
Seldow, A. (2006). Social Tagging in K-12 Education: Folksonomies for Student Folk. Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Shih, W.-C., & Tseng, S.-S. (2008). Folksonomy-Based Indexing for Location-Aware Retrieval of Learning Contents. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technology in Education.
Starr, C. W., Manaris, B., & Stalvey, R. H. (2008). Bloom''s taxonomy revisited: specifying assessable learning objectives in computer science. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education.
Thompson, E., Luxton-Reilly, A., Whalley, J. L., Hu, M., & Robbins, P. (2008). Bloom''s taxonomy for CS assessment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the tenth conference on Australasian computing education - Volume 78.
Tyran, C. K. (2009). Designing the spreadsheet-based decision support systems course: An application of Bloom''s taxonomy. Journal of Business Research, In Press, Corrected Proof.
van Velsen, L., & Melenhorst, M. (2009). Incorporating user motivations to design for video tagging. Interacting with Computers, 21(3), 221-232.
Wu, W., Xiong, H., & Shekhar, S. (2004). Clustering and information retrieval: Kluwer Academic Pub.

中文部份
卜小蝶 (2007). Folksonomy 的發展與應用. 國立成功大學圖書館館刊, 16, 7.
方炳林 (1996). 教學原理 (12 ed.): 教育文物出版社有限公司.
王文中, 呂金燮, 吳毓瑩, 張郁雯, & 張淑慧 (2008). 教育測驗與評量－教室學習觀點: 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
李有傑 (2004). 以Ontology 為基礎的線上題庫系統之探究. 國立中正大學資訊工程所碩士論文.94
李坤崇 (2004). 修訂Bloom 認知分類及命題實例教育研究月刊 122, 98-127
李坤崇 (2008a). 修訂Bloom 認知歷程向度命題實例教育研究月刊 174, 107-124
李坤崇 (2008b). 修訂Bloom 認知歷程向度命題實例教育研究月刊 173, 105-120
李宜玫, 王逸慧, & 林世華 (2004). 社會學習領域分段能力指標之解讀─由 Bloom 教育目標分類系統(修訂版)析之. 國立臺北師範學院學報, 17(2).
林士能 (2004). 專利文件語意之擷取與比對. 國立清華大學資訊工程學系碩士論文.
林生傳 (1994). 教育心理學: 五南圖書出版有限公司.
孫春在, & 林珊如 (2007). 網路合作學習. 台北市: 心理出版社股份有限公司.
張文齊 (2006). 以Ontology 建構補救教學教材之研究. 國立中正大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文.
張春興, & 林清山 (1989). 教育心理學: 臺灣東華書局股份有限公司.
張騉翔 (2007). Semantic MediaWiki 簡介. 台灣中等學校資訊管理人學會期刊,2007-6.
莊凱喬, & 許永洲 (2008). 利用俗民分類法在校園網路社群互動探討. Paper presented at the 第四屆台灣數位學習發展研討會.
陳煥文 (2008). 導入布魯姆認知分類及量尺定錨法之適性化評量系統. 南台科技大學資訊管理系碩士論文.
陳筱菁 (2004). 以布魯姆認知分類修正版為基礎之計算機概論試題分析. 國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文.
游士緯 (2008). 以分眾分類法為基礎建造國小數學應用問題. 國立交通大學資訊科學與工程研究所碩士論文.
黃居仁 (2003). 語意網、詞網與知識本體：淺談未來網路上的知識運籌. Paper presented at the 佛教知識組織管理研討會.
葉連祺, & 林淑萍 (2003). 布魯姆認知領域教育目標分類修訂版之探討. 教育研究月刊, 105.
劉佳芸 (2004). 以布魯姆認知分類修正版分析高中電腦教科書之研究. 國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文.95
鍾生官 (2003). 口頭對話在美術鑑賞教學之應用. 美育雙月刊, 131.
魏世杰, & 羅欣瑜 (2008). 應用資訊檢索技術於論文評閱者推薦模式之評估. 教育資料與圖書館學, 45, 409-431.

網頁部份
Churches, A. (2008, April 1, 2008). Bloom''s Taxonomy Blooms Digitally, 2009, from http://www.techlearning.com/article/8670
Gruber, T. (2005, October, 29, 2005). TagOntology - a way to agree on the semantics of tagging data, from http://tomgruber.org/writing/tagontology.htm
Kim, H. L., Scerri, S., Breslin, J. G., Decker, S., & Kim, H. G. (2008). The state of the art in tag ontologies: a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications. from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1503431#
Manola, F., & Miller, E. (2004). RDF Primer, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/
Smythe, K., & Halonen, J. (2002). Using the New Bloom''s Taxonomy to Design Meaningful Learning Assessments. The Assessment CyberGuide for Learning Goals and Outcomes in the Undergraduate Psychology Major Retrieved 2009-11-15, 2009, from http://www.apa.org/ed/new_blooms.html#
Tucker, C. (2008 April 17, 2008 ). Social Bookmarking to Support Professional Practice Retrieved 2009-9-15, 2009, from http://christytucker.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/tcc08-social-bookmarking-to-su pport-professional-practice/
Vander Wal , T. (2005, 2005-2-21). Explaining and Showing Broad and Narrow Folksonomies Retrieved 11-3, 2007, from http://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=1635
Vander Wal, T. (2005, 2005-2-21). Explaining and Showing Broad and Narrow Folksonomies Retrieved 11-3, 2007, fromhttp://www.personalinfocloud.com/2005/02/explaining_and_.html 96
Vander Wal, T. (2007, February 2, 2007). Folksonomy Retrieved 2008-4-28, 2008, from http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html
WikiPedia (2007, 2007-10-10). Folksonomy Retrieved 2007-10-10, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy
Wikipedia (2009a). Delicious (website) Retrieved 2009-12-18, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicious_%28website%29
Wikipedia (2009b). Flickr Retrieved 2009-12-18, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr
Wikipedia (2009c). Google Retrieved 2009-6-16, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
Wikipedia (2009d). YouTube Retrieved 2009-12-18, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youtube
王文君 (2004). 初探Ontology. 20. Retrieved from http://web.bp.ntu.edu.tw/WebUsers/ftlin/course/phisci/Ontology%E5%88%9D%E6%8E%A2040727.pdf