题名

高中數理資優學生生物科跑臺測驗表現與學習風格之相關研究

并列篇名

A Study on the Relationship Between Biological Robust Assessment and Learning Style of Senior High School Gifted Students

DOI

10.6218/GEQ.201908_(150).25-44

作者

顏彩婷(Cai-Ting Yan)；賴翠媛(Cui-Yuan Lai)；蔡顯麞(Xian-Zhang Cai)

关键词

高中數理資優班學生 ； 生物科跑臺測驗 ； 學習風格 ； senior high school gifted students ； biological robust assessment ； learning style

期刊名称

資優教育季刊

卷期/出版年月

150期（2019 / 08 / 01）

页次

25 - 44

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

本研究探討高中數理資優班學生的不同學習風格在生物科跑臺測驗（robust assessment）與回饋的情形之差異。採調查研究設計。依據高中數理資優班學生在生物科跑臺測驗、學習風格量表、回饋問卷結果進行獨立樣本t檢定、相關分析，以了解研究對象的情形及不同個人學習風格其生物科跑臺測驗之差異。研究結果如下：1.視覺型資優學生在植物營養、動物消化與循環、整體生物科跑臺測驗的單元內容表現較語言型有顯著差異，視覺型程度與上述單元內容表現呈現正相關。2.感官型資優學生在生物科跑臺測驗中思考智能的探究實作表現較直覺型為高。視覺型資優學生在問題解決生物科跑臺測驗的探究實作表現較語言型有顯著差異，視覺型程度與問題解決表現呈現正相關。
英文摘要

This study aimed to explore the differences in learning style on senior high school gifted students' performance in biological robust assessment. Survey research was adopted in this study. T-test and correlation analysis were applied in data analysis. In addition, feedback questionnaire was also analyzed by qualitative method. Results were as follows: 1. The visual type group performed better than the verbal type group on the plant nutrition, animal digestion and circulation, and overall at the biological robust assessment. There was also a positive relationship between the degree of visual type and aforementioned unit performance. 2. The sensing type group performed better than the intuitive type group on the thinking skill at the biological robust assessment. The visual type group perform better than the verbal type group on the problem-solving skill at the biological robust assessment. There was also a positive relationship between the degree of visual type and the program-solving skill.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 特殊教育法（2014）。中華民國一百零三年六月十八日總統華總一義字第 10300093311 號令修正公布。
  2. Bloom, B. S.,Engelahar, M. D.,Frust, E. J.,Hill, W. H.,Krathwohl, D. R.(1956).Taxonomy of educational objective, handbook 1: Cognitive domain.New York, NY:David McKay.
  3. Chan, D. W.(2001).Learning styles of gifted and nongifted secondary students in Hong Kong.Gifted Child Quarterly,45(1),35-44.
  4. Clark, B.(2008).Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school.Bergen, NJ:Pearson.
  5. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
  6. Felder, R. M.(1996).Matters of style.ASEE Prism,6(4),18-23.
  7. Felder, R. M.,Brent, R.(2005).Understanding student differences.Journal of Engineering Education,94(1),57-72.
  8. Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B. A. (2007). Index of learning styles. North Carolina State University. 11 June, 2007, Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html
  9. Felder, R. M.,Spurlin, J.(2005).Reliability and validity of the index of learning styles.International Journal of Engineering Education,21(1),103-112.
  10. Kolb, D. A.(1984).Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
  11. Lawrence, G.(1993).People types and tiger stripes: A practical guide to learning styles.Gainesville, FL:Center for Applications of Psychological Type.
  12. Rayneri, L. J.,Gerber, B. L.,Wiley, L. P.(2006).The relationship between classroom environment and the learning style preferences of gifted middle school students and the impact on levels of performance.Gifted Child Quarterly,50(2),104-118.
  13. Ruiz Primo, M. A.,Shavelson, R. J.(1996).Rhetoric and reality in science performance assessments: An update.Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,33(10),1045-1063.
  14. Samardzija, N.,Peterson, J. S.(2015).Learning and classroom preferences of gifted eighth graders: A qualitative study.Journal for the Education of the Gifted,38(3),233-256.
  15. Schoeman, S.,Chandratilake, M.(2012).The anatomy competence score: A new marker for anatomical ability.Anatomical Sciences Education,5(1),33-40.
  16. Smith, C. F.,McManus, B.(2015).The integrated anatomy practical paper: A robust assessment method for anatomy education today.Anatomical Sciences Education,8(1),63-73.
  17. Yaqinuddin, A.,Zafar, M.,Ikram, M. F.,Ganguly, P.(2012).What is an objective structured practical examination in anatomy?.Anatomical Sciences Education,6(2),125-133.
  18. Zhang, G.,Fenderson, B. A.,Schmidt, R. R.,Veloski, J. J.(2013).Equivalence of student's scores on timed and untimed anatomy practical examinations.Anatomical Sciences Education,6(5),281-285.
  19. 王夕堯,易曉雯(1993)。國科會專案研究計畫成果報告國科會專案研究計畫成果報告,臺北:國立臺北大學。
  20. 吳武典,蔡崇建(1986)。國中資優學生的認知方式與學習方式之探討。特殊教育研究學刊，2，219-230。
  21. 呂金燮(2001)。資優兒童的學習評量。資優教育季刊，79，4-12。
  22. 呂金燮(2000)。資優兒童問題解決能力實作評量之建構研究。特殊教育研究學刊，19，279-308。
  23. 易紅,閆麗萍(2009)。學習風格研究的現狀與思考。新疆教育學院學報，25(1)，91-95。
  24. 柯麗卿(2005)。獨立研究的教學與評量。資優教育季刊，94，22-25。
  25. 徐俊龍(2012)。臺北，國立臺灣師範大學。
  26. 教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校─自然科學領域。107 年 11 月 2 日， 取自 https://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-14113,c639-1.php?Lang=zh-tw
  27. 郭靜姿(2000)。談資優學生的特殊適應問題與輔導。資優教育季刊，75，1-6。
  28. 陳英豪,吳裕益(1982).測驗的編製與應用.臺北:偉文.
  29. 陳燕,秦愛民,吳靜禕(2013)。當代教育心理學習風格理論和模型。內蒙古師範大學學報，26(2)，38-40。
  30. 黃玉枝(1991)。臺北，國立臺灣師範大學。
  31. 趙毓圻(2010)。PODE 教學模式在資優科學課程設計之應用。資優教育季刊，117，25-32。
print cancel