LFT-extended分析法

The Extended Logical Flow Test Analysis Method

10.6773/JRMS.200506.0025

卓樹樣(Shu-Yang Cho)；胡豐榮(Feng-Rung Hu)；許天維(Tian-Wen Sheu)

LFT ； LFT-extended ； 重要度 ； 類似度 ； 到達度 ； LFT ； LFT-extended ； importance index ； similarity measure ； reachability measure

測驗統計年刊

13期_上（2005 / 06 / 01）

25 - 74

繁體中文

竹谷誠和佐佐木整(1997)依據「連結之經由邊集合」及「經由有向邊之連結的起點與終點元素對集合」，提出的LFT分析法於評價結果之解釋上存在不合理之處，劉湘川(2004)以「兩有向圖形之相交與結合」及「邊之不同經由路徑之存在數量及邊之不同位序值」提出「第二種改進類似度指標」，改進其類似度指標之計算方法及鑑別力，然而仍存在不可區辨之同分問題及計分之合理性問題。本文根據HAM與ACT-R理論對知識結構表徵的主張及「有意義的學習」之觀點，以LFT分析法的理論架構為基礎，將LFG中的路徑視為相關命題所組成的複雜命題，考量錯誤命題或錯誤先備知識對整體知識結構的影響，依據「邊之不同經由路徑之存在數量及參照圖形中各邊之位序值」定義重要度、類似度、到達度及差異度指標，提出LFT-extended分析法：研究發現LFT-extended分析法除了保留LFT分析法的特色及其理論所具性質之外，更具有下列特點： 一、相較於LET分析法及「第二種改進類似度指標」，其評價結果較為合理有效且鑑別力更靈敏。 二、在受試者的LFGs都只缺少一個正確有向邊的條件下，每一個圖形的評價結果與其所缺有向邊之重要度成負相關。 三、能依據評價結果，針對不同受試者提供補救教學之實施順序。 四、解決了LFT分析法中，迷思概念所產生之不合理計分問題。

Because the outcomes that are evaluated by LFT analysis method have some unreasonable situations in explanation and the second improving index for similarity measure of LFT analysis method that was proposed by Hsiang-Chuan Liu (2004) can't differentiate some knowledge structures. According to tile views concerning about the representation of knowledge structure, in this study, we regard every connection of the concept map as a complex proposition which is composed of many related propositions. And then we modify the definitions of importance index, similarity measure, reachability measure and discrepancy measure by considering the correctness of paths arid the ranking position of every edge in referent structure. The scoring approach that we provide in this study is called the LFT-extended analysis method which contains the characteristics arid properties of the theory of LFT. Besides, through the results of this study, we find the following properties: 1. The frequency of equivalent evaluation in LFT-extended analysis method is no more than that in LFT analysis method. 2. When the digraph of each testee just lack only one correct edge, there is a negative correlation between the similarity measures of the digraphs arid the importance indices of the edges. 3. The evaluation and the sequence of remedial instruction which both are evaluated by LFT-extended analysis method for each testee are consistent. 4. The unreasonable scores that resulted from misconceptions in LFT analysis method never exist in LFT-extended analysis method again.

1. 張國恩、林水成、潘宏明、陳世旺(1998)。屬性化概念圖的模糊評量。科學教育學刊，6(1)，81-94。
   連結：
2. 劉湘川(2004)。知識結構有向圖形類似度之改進指標。測驗統計年刊，12(下)，153-170。
   連結：
3. 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.
4. Anderson, J. R.(1995).Cognitive psychology and it`s implication.New York:Freeman and company.
5. Anderson, J. R.(1983).The architecture of cognition.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
6. Anderson, J. R.,Bower, G. H.(1973).Recognition and retrieval processes in free recall.Psychological Review,79,97-123.
7. Anderson, J. R.,Schunn, C. D.,R. Glaser (Ed.)(2000).Advances in instructional psychology.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
8. Anderson, J. R.,T. A. Polk,C. M. Seifert (Ed.)(2002).Cognitive Modeling.New York:Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
9. Balakrishnan, R.,Ranganathan, K.(2000).A textbook of graph theory.New York:Springer-Verlag.
10. Chartrand, G.,Lesniak, L.(1986).Graphs & digraphs.California:Wadsworth.
11. Clark, J.,Holton, D. A.(1991).A first look at graph theory.Singapore:World Scientific.
12. Friendly, M. L.(1977).In search of the M-Gram: The structure of organization in free recall.Cognitive Psychology,9,188-249.
13. Goldsmith, T. E.,Davenport, D. M.,R. W. Schvaneveldt (Ed.)(1990).Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization.Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
14. Goldsmith, T. E.,Johnson, P. J.,Action, H. W.(1991).Assessing structural knowledge.Journal of Educational Psychology,83(1),88-96.
15. Lin, S. C.,Chang, K. E.,Sung, Y. T.,Chen, G. D.(2002).A new structural knowledge assessment based on weighted concept maps.Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer in Education(ICCE`02)
16. Novak, J. D.,Gowin, D. B.(1984).Learning how to learn.Cambridge, London:Cambridge University Press.
17. Poindexter, M. T.,Clariana, R. B..The influence of relational and proposition-specific processing on structural knowledge and traditional learning outcomes.To appear in International Journal of Instructional Media,33(2)
18. Rye, J.,Rubba, P.(2002).Scoring concept maps: An expert map-based scheme weighted for relationships.School Science and Mathematics,102(1),33-44.
19. Shavelson, R. J.(1972).Some aspects of the correspondence between content structure and cognitive structure in physics instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology,63(3),225-234.
20. Shyu, H. Y.,Hsieh, S. H.,Chou, Y. H.(2004).Integrating concept map into designing a courseware management system.Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia,13(4),483-506.
21. Solso, R. L.(2001).Cognitive psychology.Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
22. Takeya, M.(1999).Structure analysis methods for instruction: Theory and practice of instructional architecture, design and evaluation.Tokyo:Takushoku university press.
23. van Osselaer, S. M. J.,Janiszewski, C.(2001).Two ways of learning brand associations.Journal of Consumer Research,28,202-223.
24. 竹谷誠、佐佐木整(1997)。學習者描畫の認知マツプによる理解度評價法。電子情報通信學會論文誌，80(1)，336-347。
25. 佐伯卓也(1997)。「數學的構造の學習」の評價法。日本數學教育學會誌，63(1)，31-36。
26. 余民寧(1997)。有意義的學習－概念構圖之研究。台北市:商鼎。
27. 吳森原(1988)。圖形論及其應用。台北市:曉園。
28. 宋德忠、林世華、陳淑芬、張國恩(1998)。知識結構的測量：徑路搜尋法與概念構圖法的比較。教育心理學報，30(2)，123-142。
29. 卓樹樣、胡豐榮、許天維(2004)。邏輯流量測驗計分合理性之探討－從重要度、到達度及差異度的觀點。測驗統計簡訊，62，17-27。
30. 卓樹樣、胡豐榮、許天維(2004)。在LFT計分下之評量理論。測驗統計簡訊，60，1-20。
31. 林端雪、陳佑誠、胡豐榮、許天維(2004)。LFT計分理論在教學上之應用。測驗統計簡訊，59，1-8。
32. 廖寶貴、曾智鈿、胡豐榮、許天維(2004)。LFT計分理論之分析。測驗統計簡訊，58，14-21。

1. 郭輝煌、許天維、胡豐榮、李柏儒、李仲瑜、王瑀(2012)。教學結構圖的課題系列化法研究。測驗統計年刊，20(下)，87-96。