题名

大學生網路出題表現之內容分析與創意指標建立

并列篇名

Content Analysis of Online Undergraduate Student-Generated Questions and the Development of Its Creativity Indicators

作者

于富雲(Fu-Yun Yu)；蘇嘉鈴(Chia-Ling Su)

关键词

有趣性 ； 創意指標 ； 新奇性 ； 適切性 ； 學生網路出題 ； creativity index ； interestingness ； novelty ； online student-generated questions ； usefulness

期刊名称

教育實踐與研究

卷期/出版年月

29卷1期（2016 / 06 / 01）

页次

97 - 137

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

有鑑於目前學生網路出題研究的不足處（學生出題內容分析與創意指標建立之研究多涉及數學學習領域，選定結構性問題類型，採用紙本出題方式，甚少關注學生出題情意層面），本研究目的有二：一、採質化角度，以內容分析法解析大學生網路出題的內容、創意形式與技巧；二、發展大學生網路出題創意品質的評估指標，探討不同創意程度題目在各指標的差異，建立指標效度。研究目的一，以54 名師培生進行網路學生出題活動所編寫的792 道題目進行內容分析；研究目的二，以另一批40 名師培生於共識評量卷之回應資料，進行重複量數變異數分析與事後比較。主要研究發現：一、學生出題內容多能環繞與個人生活相關題材；二、學生多能善用電腦科技特有格式化或多彩圖案功能，達多項用途；三、學生網路出題允許多樣創意形式、技巧的展現；四、三種不同創意程度題目在新奇性與有趣性有顯著差異，此結果支持新奇性與有趣性之分類與定義具效度；然適切性未達顯著差異，此結果支持增加題目新奇、有趣成分無損適切性之論述。文末，根據研究發現，提出學生出題與創意教學以及未來研究之建議。
英文摘要

In light of current research gaps in online student-generated questions (SGQ) (as most studies on the content types, forms, and performance criteria of SGQ are done in math, adopting a structured format, using a paper-and-pencil form, and paying less attention to affective aspects), the purposes of this study are: first, to analyze the content, forms, and techniques of online SGQ via content analysis; second, to develop the creative indicators for online SGQ and establish the validity of the devised indicators. For the first purpose, 792 questions generated by 54 student teachers during online SGQ activities were subjected to content analysis. For the second purpose, another group of 40 student teachers completed a consensus questionnaire, and the data were analyzed via repeated measures, followed by post-hoc comparisons. Four major findings were obtained: 1) with regard to the contents of online SGQ, connections to personal daily life and future personal goals were frequently observed; 2) most participants took advantage of the formatting, color, and graphics features afforded in computer technologies during online SGQ to suit multiple purposes; 3) participants exhibited versatile skills during SGQ; 4) questions with different levels of creativity differed significantly in terms of novelty and interestingness indicators, supporting the validity of the devised indicators. Yet, no significant differences were found in the usefulness indicator, supporting the claim that novelty and interestingness do not necessarily compromise the perceived usefulness of the generated item. Based on the findings, suggestions for SGQ, creative teaching, and future research are provided.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 于富雲、賴奕嬛(2014)。網路多元學生出題策略對國小學生認知策略與學習成就之影響。教育資料與圖書館學，51(4)，525-560。
    連結：
  2. 岳修平、鍾婉莉(2005)。專題式學習小組網路溝通互動之研究。教育學刊，25，1-23。
    連結：
  3. 林原宏、許淑萍(2002)。乘除擬題能力測驗編製及其實徵研究。測驗統計年刊，10，135-171。
    連結：
  4. 邱發忠、陳學志、卓淑玲(2003)。幽默創造訓練之課程設計暨實徵效果評估。教育心理學報，34(2)，179-198。
    連結：
  5. 張鐵懷、陳斐卿(2016)。小學生玩家展現電玩實踐社群知識─以數學自由擬題為例。科學教育學刊，24(1)，31-55。
    連結：
  6. 陳斐卿、江家瑋、張鐵懷、黃佩岑、單維彰(2015)。數學自由擬題之設計與評量─一個合作的取徑。科學教育學刊，23(2)，185-211。
    連結：
  7. Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster
  8. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  9. Owston, R. (1997). The teaching web: A guide to the World Wide Web for all teachers. Retrieved from http://www.edu.yorku.ca/~rowston/chapter.html
  10. Amabile, T.(1983).The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,45(2),357-376.
  11. Amabile, T. M.(1996).Creative in context: Update to the social psychology of creative.Oxford, UK:Westview Press.
  12. Anderson, W.,Krathwohl. D. R.(2001).A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's educational objectives.New York, NY:Longman.
  13. Aspinwall, L. G.(Ed.),Staudinger, U. M.(Eds)(2003).A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology.Washington, DC:American Psychology Association.
  14. Ausubel, D. P.(1968).Educational psychology: A cognitive view.New York, NY:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  15. Bates, S. P.,Galloway, R. K.,McBride, K. L.(2012).Student-generated content: Using PeerWise to enhance engagement and outcomes in introductory physics courses.AIP Conference Proceedings,1413(1),123-126.
  16. Bloom, B. S.,Engelhart, M. D.,Furst, E. J.,Hill, W. H.,Krathwohl, D. R.(1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain.New York, NY:David McKay Co.
  17. Bonotto, C.(2013).Artifacts as sources for problem-posing activities.Educational Studies in Mathematics,83,37-55.
  18. Cai, J.,Moyer, J. C.,Wang, N.,Hwang, S.,Nie, B.,Garber, T.(2013).Mathematical problem posing as a measure of curricular effect on students' learning.Educational Studies in Mathematics,83,57-69.
  19. Chin, C.(2001).Student-generated questions: What they tell us about students' thinking.The annual meeting of the American educational research association,Seattle, USA.:
  20. Chin, C.,Brown, D. E.(2000).Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,37(2),109-138.
  21. Chin, C.,Kayalvizhi, G.(2002).Posing problem for open investigations: What questions do pupils ask?.Research in Science & Technology Education,20(2),269-285.
  22. Chua, Y. P.(2014).The effects of humor cartoons in a series of bestselling academic books.Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,27(3),499-520.
  23. Crespo, S.,Sinclair, N.(2008).What makes a problem mathematically interesting? Inviting prospective teachers to pose better problems.The Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,11,395-415.
  24. Cropley, A. J.(1999).Creativity and cognition: Producing effective novelty.Roeper Review,21(4),253-260.
  25. Denny, P.,Hamer, J.,Luxton-Reilly, A.,Purchase, H.(2008).PeerWise: Students sharing their multiple choice questions.Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research,New York, NY:
  26. Denny, P.,Hanks, B.,Simon, B.(2010).Peerwise: Replication study of a student-collaborative self-testing web service in a U.S. setting.the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education,New York, NY:
  27. Dillon, J. T.(1982).Problem finding and solving.Journal of Creative Behavior,16(2),97-111.
  28. Ellerton, N. F.(1986).Children's made-up mathematics problem: A new perspective on talented mathematicians.Educational Studies in Mathematics,17(3),261-271.
  29. English, L. D.(1997).Promoting a problem-posing classroom.Teaching Children Mathematics,4(3),172-179.
  30. Fredrickson, L. R.(2001).The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and build theory of positive emotions.American Psychologists,56(3),218-332.
  31. Frotson, S. B.,Brown, W. E.(1998).Best and worst university instructors: The opinions of graduate students.College Student Journal,32(4),572-576.
  32. Gaubinger, K.,Rabl, M.,Swan, K. S.,Werani, T.(2015).Innovation and product management: A holistic and practical approach to uncertainty reduction.Berlin, Germany:Springer.
  33. Heinich, R.、Molenda, M.、Russell, J. D.、李文瑞譯、單文經譯、朱則剛譯、吳明德譯、沈中偉譯、黃雅琴譯、楊美雪譯(2002)。教學媒體與教學新科技。臺北=Taipei:心理=Psychological Publishing。
  34. Hickey, D. T.,Petrosino, A.(1992).Effects of generative video on students' scientific problem posing.The annual meeting of the mid-south educational research association,Knoxville, TN:
  35. Hsiao, J. Y.,Hung, C. L.,Lan, Y. F.,Jeng, Y. C.(2013).Integrating worked examples into problem posing in a web-based learning environment.The Turkish Online Journal of educational Technology,12(2),166-176.
  36. Hu, W.,Shi, O. Z.,Han, O.,Wang, X.,Adey, P.(2010).Creative scientific problem finding and its development trend.Creativity Research Journal,22(1),46-52.
  37. Hughes, D. J.,Furnham, A.,Batey, M.(2013).The structure and personality predictors of self-rated creativity.Thinking Skills and Creativity,9,76-84.
  38. Isik, C.,Kar, T.(2012).The analysis of the problems the pre-service teachers experience in posing problems about equations.The Australian Journal of Teacher Education,37(9),93-113.
  39. Keys, C. W.(1998).A study of grade six students generating and plans for open-ended science investigations.Research in Science Education,28(3),301-316.
  40. Kilic, C.(2013).Determining the performance of pre-service primary school teachers in problem posing situations.Education Sciences: Theory & Practice,13(2),1207-1211.
  41. Klein, D. M.,Bryant, J.,Zillmann, D.(1982).Relationship between humor in introductory textbooks and student's evaluations of the text's appeal and effectiveness.Psychological Reports,50(1),235-241.
  42. Koichu, B.,Kontorovich, I.(2013).Dissecting success stories on mathematical problem posing: A case of the Billiard Task.Educational Studies in Mathematics,83,71-86.
  43. Kojima, K.,Miwa, K.(2008).A system that facilitates diverse thinking in problem posing.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,18(2),209-236.
  44. Lavy, I.,Bershadsky, I.(2003).Problem posing via "what if not" strategy in solid geometry: A case study.Journal of Mathematical Behavior,22(4),369-387.
  45. Leung, S. S.(1997).On the role of creative thinking in problem posing.the 8th international congress of mathematics education,Seville, Spain:
  46. Lewis, T.,Petrina, S.,Hill, A. E.(1998).Problem posing-adding a creative increment to technological problem solving.Journal of Industrial Teacher Education,36(1),5-35.
  47. Lomicka, L.(Ed.),Cooke-Plagwitz, J.(Ed.)(2003).Teaching with technology.Boston, MA:Thomson & Heinle.
  48. Lowrie, T.(2002).Young children posing problems: The influence of teacher intervention on the type of problems children pose.Mathematics Education Research Journal,14(2),87-98.
  49. Luxton-Reilly, A.,Denny, P.(2010).Constructive evaluation: A pedagogy of student-contributed assessment.Computer Science Education,20(2),145-167.
  50. Mackworth, N. H.(1965).Originality.American Psychology,20(1),51-66.
  51. Matarazzo, K. L.,Durik A. M.,Delaney, M. L.(2010).The effect of humorous instructional materials on interest in a math task.Motivation and Emotion,34,293-305.
  52. Mayer, R. E.(2002).Multimedia learning.Psychology of Learning and Motivation,41,85-139.
  53. Mehrabian, A.(1981).Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes.Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
  54. Moreno, R.(2005).Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls.Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together,Greenwich, CT:
  55. Moreno, R.,Mayer, R.(2007).Interactive multimodal learning environments.Educational Psychology Review,19,309-326.
  56. Myatt, B.,Carter, J. M.(1979).Picture preferences of children and young adults.Educational Communication and Technology,27,45-53.
  57. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(1989).Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA:Author.
  58. Park, S.,Lin, J.(2007).Promoting positive emotion in multimedia learning using visual illustrations.Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,16(2),141-162.
  59. Paulus, P. B.,Nijstad, B. A.(2003).Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
  60. Pekrun, R.,Goetz, T.,Frenzel, A. C.,Barchfeld, P.,Perry, R. P.(2011).Measuring emotions in students' learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ).Contemporary Educational Psychology,36,36-48.
  61. Pelczer, I.,Rodriguez, F. G.(2011).Creativity assessment in school settings through problem posing tasks.The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast,8(1 & 2),383-398.
  62. Rhind, S. M.,Pettigrew, G. W.(2012).Peer generation of multiple-choice questions: Student engagement and experiences.Journal of Veterinary Medical Education,39(4),375-379.
  63. Rhodes, M.(1961).An analysis of creativity.Phi Delta Kappa,42,305-310.
  64. Runco, M. A.(Ed.)(1997).The creativity research handbook.Cresskill, NJ:Hampton Press.
  65. Silver, E. A.(1997).Fostering creative through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and thinking in problem posing.ZDM Mathematics Education,29(3),75-80.
  66. Silver, E. A.(1994).On mathematical problem posing.For the Learning of Mathematics,14(1),19-28.
  67. Silver, E. A.,Mamona-Downs, J.,Leung, S.,Kenney, P. A.(1996).Posing mathematical problems: An exploratory study.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,27(3),293-309.
  68. Sim, J.,Wright, C. C.(2005).The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements.Physical Therapy,85,257-268.
  69. Siswono, T. Y. E.(2010).Level students' creative thinking in solving and posing mathematical problem.Journal on Mathematics Education,1(1),17-40.
  70. Smith, R. E.,Ascough, J. C.,Ettinger, R. F.,Nelson, D. A.(1971).Humor, anxiety, and task performance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2,243-246.
  71. Sternberg, R. J.(2006).The nature of creativity.Creativity Research Journal,18(1),87-98.
  72. Sternberg, R. J.(Ed.)(1994).Thinking and problem solving.New York, NY:Academic Press.
  73. Sternberg, R. J.(Ed.),Grigorenko, E. L.(Ed.),Singer, J. L.(Ed.)(2004).Creativity: From potential to realization.Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
  74. Sternberg, R.,Lubart, T.(1995).Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity.New York, NY:Free Press.
  75. Stoyanova, E.(2005).Problem-posing strategies used by years 8 and 9 students.Australian Mathematics Teacher,61(3),6-11.
  76. Stoyanova, E.,Ellerton, N. F.(1996).A framework for research into student's problem posing in school mathematics.Technology in mathematics education,Melbourne, Australasia:
  77. Takagi, M.,Kaneko, T.,Mochizuki, M.,Sasaki, J.,Teshigawara, Y.(2010).A survey on educational methods using "Collabtest", a web-based learning system enabling students to create quizzes collaboratively.Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Education and Educational Technology
  78. Torrance, E. P.(1974).Torrance tests of creative thinking.Bensenville, IL:Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
  79. Van Harpen, X. Y.,Sriraman, T.(2013).Creativity and mathematical problem posing: An analysis of high school students' mathematical problem posing in China and the USA.Educational Studies in Mathematics,82,201-211.
  80. von Glasersfeld, E.(Ed.)(1991).Radical constructivism in mathematics education.Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  81. Yu, F. Y.(2012).Learner-centered pedagogy + adaptable and scaffolded learning space design: Online student question-generation.International conference on computers in education 2012,Singapore:
  82. Yu, F. Y.,Liu, Y. H.(2005).Student generated questions as a form of formative evaluation.The 1st international conference on enhancing teaching and learning through assessment,Hong Kong:
  83. Yu, F. Y.,Liu, Y. H.(2008).The comparative effects of student question-posing and question-answering strategies on promoting college students' academic achievement, cognitive and metacognitive strategies use.Journal of Education and Psychology,31(3),25-52.
  84. Yu, F. Y.,Wu, C. P.(2012).Predictive effects of online peer feedback types on performance quality.Educational Technology and Society,16(1),332-341.
  85. Zillmann, D.,Williams, B. R.,Bryant, J.,Boynton, K. R.,Wolf, M. A.(1980).Acquisition of information from educational television programs as a function of differently paced humorous inserts.Journal of Educational Psychology,72,172-180.
  86. 余民寧(2011)。教育測驗與評量：成就測驗與教學評量。臺北=Taipei:心理=Psychological Publishing。
  87. 吳欣諺(2007)。淺談醫護數學課程的創意教學研究。崇仁學報，1，1-12。
  88. 吳紹群(2002)。內容分析法與圖書館學研究。圖書與資訊學刊，40，47-61。
  89. 呂玉琴、吳建榮(2012)。國小六年級學生擬分數四則運算問題的表現。教育資訊交流，52(5)，81-90。
  90. 林德宗(1999)。行政院國家科學委員會大專學生參與專題研究計畫成果報告行政院國家科學委員會大專學生參與專題研究計畫成果報告,行政院國家科學委員會=National science council。
  91. 孫春在、林珊如(2007)。網路合作學習。臺北=Taipei:心理=Psychological Publishing。
  92. 高雄市政府公務人力資源發展中心編(1999)。新典範數學。高雄=Kaohsiung:高雄市政府公務人力資源發展中心=Civil Service Development Institute。
  93. 高瑜璟(2006)。數位學習─學習的新趨勢。網路社會學通訊期刊，57
  94. 張玉燕(1994)。教學媒體。臺北=Taipei:五南=Wu Nan。
  95. 張春興(1994)。教育心理學─三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北=Taipei:東華=Dong Hua。
  96. 張春興(1994)。教育心理學─三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北=Taipei:東華=Tung Hua。
  97. 張慧菊(2005)。臺北=Taipei，國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所=Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National Taiwan Normal University。
  98. 梁淑坤(1994)。「擬題」的研究及其在課程的角色。八十二學年度數學教育研討會論文暨會議實錄彙編，嘉義=Chiayi:
  99. 莊美蘭(2003)。高雄=Kaohsiung，國立中山大學教育研究所=Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-Sen University。
  100. 陳正治(2003)。修辭學。臺北=Taipei:五南=Wu Nan。
  101. 陳年興、楊錦潭(2006)。數位學習理論與實務。臺北=Taipei:博碩=Bo Shuo。
  102. 陳學志、徐芝君(2006)。幽默創意課程對教師幽默感及創造力的影響。師大學報，51，71-93。
  103. 歐用生(1989)。質的研究。臺北=Taipei:師大書苑=Lucky bookstore。
被引用次数
  1. 郭治偉,于富雲(2021)。不同成就小六生社會科選擇題出題表現之比較研究。教育學誌，45，51-98。
print cancel