题名

應用Petri-Net建構知識構圖強化適性學習診斷與學習推薦之研究

并列篇名

Applying Petri-Net to Construct Knowledge Graphs for Adaptive Learning Diagnostics and Learning Recommendations

DOI

10.6209/JORIES.202109_66(3).0003

作者

戴建耘(Jiann-Yun Dai)；葉國良(Kuo-Liang Yeh)；高曼婷(Man-Ting Kao)；袁宇熙(Yu-Hsi Yuan)；張明文(Min-Wen Chang)

关键词

知識構圖 ； 派翠西網路 ； 基本電學 ； 學習推薦 ； 學習診斷 ； knowledge graph ； Petri-Net ； foundational electricity ； learning recommendation ； learning diagnostic

期刊名称

教育科學研究期刊

卷期/出版年月

66卷3期（2021 / 09 / 01）

页次

61 - 105

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

電機電子領域專業知識概念間存在錯綜複雜的關係，具有相同學習成效的學生可能存在不同的迷思概念與結構，然多數既有學習導引機制缺乏推薦學習者適性學習內容與途徑的規劃，因此，技職專業人才的培育面臨極大的障礙與困境。由於科技的進步，知識構圖被廣為應用於推薦系統，找出符合使用者需求的新訊息。本研究由五位高職電機電子群專業科目知識概念專家、八位試題發展專家及五位電機電子群業界專家與資深教師，運用三回合修正式德菲法剖析電機電子領域核心基礎：「基本電學」12個主題的58個專業概念與95個對應相關性，再利用具有圖形特性的派翠西網路（Petri-Net）技術，建構出其Petri-Net知識構圖，並發現對後續學習影響最巨的概念依序為電路型態與特性、電的單位、向量運算及電壓。此外，本研究以初探性導入建立三種不同學習類型個案學生的Petri-Net知識構圖，並剖析他們個別的學習歷程與狀態，結果顯示Petri-Net知識構圖的應用得以：一、提供視覺化學習鷹架增強初學者的認知結構；二、適性診斷不同類型學習者的迷思概念；三、推估後續概念的學習效果；四、推薦個人化學習內容與路徑助益自主學習與補救教學。據此，本研究提出相關的討論與建議，作為發展測評系統及擬定教學策略參考。
英文摘要

Because of the increasing heterogeneity among students in classes and schools, determining a student's basic learning status and ability in each subject and tailoring instruction or adapting remedial teaching to a student's needs and characteristics have become challenging, especially for those students with learning disadvantages. According to Skinner's behavioral learning theory (as cited in Gregory, 1987), differences in a student's learning experiences (such as in understanding concepts) lead to considerable disparities in future learning. Drastic differences in internal cognition and concept structure may exist even among students with the same traditional learning achievements (i.e., scores) (Yu & Yu, 2006). Furthermore, the differences in concept cognition structure between experts and novices may be discoverable by analyzing similarities in students' conceptual understandings, relationships, or psychological metrics (Brand-Gruwel et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 2012). Cognitive diagnostic models, such as the knowledge map, are useful for assessing a student's conceptual knowledge structures and misconceptions to improve differentiated teaching, learning diagnosis, and remedial teaching (Chu et al., 2014; Hwang, Shi et al., 2011; Hwang, Wu et al., 2011; Ku et al., 2014; Lou et al., 2007; Lwo et al., 2013; Ting & Kuo, 2016). However, most such models have been constructed using only vertical hierarchical structures, wherein spotting multilateral correlations or influences between subjects or concepts proves difficult. Unlike an expert, a student cannot intuitively identify the multilateral correlations between the concepts involved a learning pathway, and analyzing novice learning is challenging and requires considerable time and effort. An adaptive mechanism for diagnosing and analyzing students' dynamic learning behaviors and learning pathways could improve autonomous learning and remedial teaching. However, most existing mechanisms cannot offer adaptive or personalized learning content or pathways to the learner (Singhal, 2012; Ting & Kuo, 2016; Wang et al., 2019). With the advantages provided by information technologies such as big data analytics and artificial intelligence, large-scale heterogeneous data analysis, cloud computing, and Knowledge Graphs (KGs) with directionally linked data structures have been widely applied in recommendation systems to facilitate the representation of knowledge structures and to mine for new knowledge that helps to meets users' needs (Deng et al., 2019; Fensel et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2019; Jia et al., 2018; Nickel et al., 2016; Noy et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2020). Similar to tree-structured knowledge maps, KGs are based on directional or nondirectional ontological graphs composed of concept nodes and relationship edges and employ the consensus opinions of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to generate consolidated KGs or generate KGs automatically from large mined data sets or text. The associated reasoning mechanism is used to make inferences based on the existing concepts and relationships among them. Among all the graph-building options, Petri-Net possess the most robust capabilities for graphical workflow presentation and pathway analysis (Peterson, 1981; Tan & Zhou, 2013). They have long been widely applied in adaptive learning and learning pathway recommendation. According to information published by the Taiwan Bureau of Foreign Trade and Taiwan Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers' Association in 2020, the electrical and electronics industry accounted for 50.59% of Taiwan's total export value in 2019. The foundational electricity course is an important core course for future electrical and Electronic Engineering (EE) study and can be the first obstacle for novices because of the intricate relationships among its knowledge concepts. Also, significant differences may exist in individual understandings of concept structures (Dai, 2015). To address the aforementioned challenges in learning diagnostics and remedial teaching, this study was based on learning theories such as the conditions of learning, constructivism, and scaffolding theory and utilized Petri-Net to achieve the following goals: 1. Use a Petri-Net to construct a KG visualizing a foundational electricity course. 2. Conduct a pilot study to identify personal learning pathways, interrelationships among foundational electricity concepts, and misconceptions regarding novices' learning types. 3. Use students' learning history to predict their learning effectiveness when studying future concepts and maximize their learning outcomes. 4. Recommend an adaptive, calibrated, personalized learning pathway for further remedial teaching and learning. In this study, we employed a three-round modified Delphi technique with 18 SMEs to identify 12 subjects, 58 concepts, and 95 corresponding interrelationships within a core foundational electricity course in EE. We utilized a Petri-Net with graphic features to construct a KG we called a Petri-Net KG. After the third round of the modified Delphi technique, all eight SMEs' Content Validity Indexes (CVI) were 1.00. Cronbach'sαwas .75. The SMEs' opinions regarding the interrelationships of concepts exhibited good internal consistency and reliability, according to 95% confidence intervals. The correlations between concept weights were .83-.96 (p ＜ .01). Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) were used to confirm the consistency of SMEs' opinions on the weights of the interrelationships between concepts. ICC (1) was .072, and ICC (2) was .75. All the SMEs' opinions exhibited significant and strong correlations and good consistency. Using 947 students' assessment records, learning portfolios, and learning status data (e.g. conditions of learning performance, scores), the reasoning engine was used to employ the KGs for learning transfer analysis. Preliminary exploration case studies were conducted to create Petri-Net KGs personalized for students with three different learning types (insufficiently hardworking, inadequate learning, and abnormal learning) and to determine their learning progress and status. Sato's student-problem chart was used to classify students' learning types. The major results and findings of this study are as follows: 1. The most important concept was circuit patterns and characteristics, affecting the learning of the subsequent 12 concepts, and the total impact was 6. Units, vector operations, and voltage-in that order-were the next most important concepts. 2. The proposed Petri-Net KG provided students with visualized learning scaffoldings that indicate the experts' consensus cognitive structure. It also clarified any prior concepts requisite for understanding each concept. 3. By utilizing the weights of the interrelationships between concepts and their prior concepts, the reasoning engine could adaptively diagnose misconceptions and further predict students' effectiveness in learning subsequent concepts. 4. Each learning type was associated with a unique cognitive structure. Integrating students' learning portfolio data into the proposed Petri-Net KG enabled the reasoning engine to recommend an adaptive and personalized learning pathway. The aforementioned results have the following implications for future applications and research: 1. The visualized Petri-Net KG for the foundational electricity course could clearly depict learning types, experts' consensus knowledge structure, and students' personal cognitive structures. Additionally, most influential concepts were observable at a glance. Such KGs could be useful for guiding concept recognition and effectively diagnosing misconceptions. 2. The personalized learning pathways and content recommended by the Petri-Net KG and reasoning engine can be used in a self-tutoring platform. The weighted concept intercorrelations and student learning data can be analyzed to determine students' cognitive conditions according to an expert KG. Thus, a model or student learning effectiveness can be established to strengthen the effectiveness of autonomous learning or remedial teaching. The framework of this course-level Petri-Net KG can be extended and applied to other curricula, disciplines, or educational levels to develop appropriate recommendation systems for competency development.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 余民寧, M.-N.(2011).教育測驗與評量—成就測驗與教學評量.心理=Psychological.
    連結：
  2. 林蓓伶, P.-L.,潘昌志, C.-C.,蘇少祖, S.-Z.,陳柏熹, P.-H.(2018)。十二年國教國中階段自然科學領域素養導向評量試題之開發與初探。教育科學研究期刊，63(4)，295-337。
    連結：
  3. 許天維, T.-W.,蔡清斌, C.-P.,鄭百成, B.-C.,曾建維, J.-W.,俞克斌, K.-P.,永井正武, M.(2013)。部分給分S-P表分析法擴張提案及其在數學測驗上的應用。測驗統計年刊，21(上=1)，13-40。
    連結：
  4. 陳志文, C.-W.,朱蕙君, H.-C.(2015)。以流程概念構圖為鷹架之學習策略建立技職院校旅運管理資訊系統之專業技能學習模式。數位學習科技期刊，7(1)，59-72。
    連結：
  5. 廖梨伶, L.-L.,劉潔心, C.-H.,施淑芳, S.-F.,鄭其嘉, C.-C.,張子超, T.-C.(2019)。青少年健康素養：由健康促進觀點建構定義與能力指標。教育科學研究期刊，64(1)，25-51。
    連結：
  6. 蔡清斌, C.-P.,許天維, T.-W.,曾建維, J.-W.,永井正武, M.(2014)。結合學習迷思學生區與迷思次序演算法的提案。測驗學刊，61(2)，183-211。
    連結：
  7. 謝政達, C. T(2008)。國小藝術教科書與九年一貫課程能力指標的校準研究。課程與教學，11(4)，109-136。
    連結：
  8. 羅希哲, S.-J.,溫漢儒, H.-R.,曾國鴻, K.-H.(2007)。概念構圖融入電腦輔助教學法應用於綜合高中學生化學科之學習成效及態度之研究。科學教育學刊，15(2)，169-194。
    連結：
  9. 羅綸新, L.-S.,張正杰, C.-C.,童元品, Y.-P.,楊文正, W.-C.(2013)。高中生海洋科學素養及迷思概念評量分析。教育科學研究期刊，58(3)，51-83。
    連結：
  10. 羅綸新, L.-S.,張正杰, C.-C.,童元品, Y.-P.,楊文正, W.-C.(2013)。高中生海洋科學素養及迷思概念評量分析。教育科學研究期刊，58(3)，51-83。
    連結：
  11. Amatriain, X., & Basilico, J. (2013, March 27). System architectures for personalization and recommendation. https://netflixtechblog.com/system-architectures-for-personalization-and-recommendation-e081aa94b5d8
  12. Ausubel, D. P.(1968).Educational psychology: A cognitive view.Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  13. Basu, S.,Biswas, G.,Kinnebrew, J. S.(2017).Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a computational thinking-based science learning environment.User Modeling and User- Adapted Interaction,27(1),5-53.
  14. Bishop, M.,Burley, D.,Futcher, L. A.(2019).Cybersecurity curricular guidelines.Cybersecurity education for awareness and compliance
  15. Bloom, B. S.,Englehart, M. D.,Furst, E. J.,Hill, W. H.,Krathwohl, D. R.(1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.Green.
  16. Brand-Gruwel, S.,Wopereis, I.,Vermetten, Y.(2005).Information problem solving by experts and novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill.Computers in Human Behavior,21(3),487-508.
  17. Brown, A. L.(1987).Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms.Metacognition, motivation, and understanding
  18. Brusilovsky, P.,Millán, E.(2007).User models for adaptive hypermedia and adaptive educational systems.The adaptive web
  19. Brusilovsky, P.,Peylo, C.(2003).Adaptive and intelligent web-based educational systems.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,13,156-169.
  20. Chang, C.-Y.,Yeh, T.-K.,Barufaldi, J. P.(2010).The positive and negative effects of science concept tests on student conceptual understanding.International Journal of Science Education,32(2),265-282.
  21. Chang, J.-C.,Li, S.-C.,Chang, M.,Heh, J.-S.(2006).Monitoring the experiment process and diagnosing the experiment mistakes made by students with Petri Net modeling.Technologies for E-learning and digital entertainment. Edutainment 2006
  22. Chang, Y.-C.,Chu, C.-P.(2010).Applying learning behavioral Petri-Nets to the analysis of learning behavior in web-based learning environments.Information Sciences,180(6),995-1009.
  23. Chen, S.-M.,Ke, J.-S.,Chang, J.-F.(1990).Knowledge representation using fuzzy Petri Nets.IEEE Transection on Knowledge Data Engineering,2(3),311-319.
  24. Chi, M. T. H.(Ed.),Glaser, R.(Ed.),Farr, M. J.(Ed.)(1988).The nature of expertise.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  25. Chu, H.-C.,Hwang, G.-J.,Liang, Y.-R.(2014).A cooperative computerized concept-mapping approach to improving students’ learning performance in web-based information-seeking activities.Journal of Computers in Education,1(1),19-33.
  26. Dalkey, N.(1969).An experimental study of group opinion.Futures,1(5),408-426.
  27. Delbecq, A. L.,Van de Ven, A. H.,Gustafson, D. H.(1975).Group techniques for program planning: A guide to Nominal Groups and Delphi Process.Scott, Foresman Co..
  28. Deng, Y.,Lu, D.,Huang, D.,Chung, C.-J.,Lin, F.(2019).Knowledge graph based learning guidance for cybersecurity hands-on labs.2019 ACM Global Computing Education Conference, CompEd 2019,Chengdu, Sichuan, China:
  29. Duque, R.,Bollen, L.,Anjewierden, A.,Bravo, C.(2012).Automating the analysis of problem-solving activities in learning environments: The co-lab case study.Journal of Universal Computer Science,18(10),1279-1307.
  30. Ehrlinger, L.,Wöß, W.(2016).Towards a definition of knowledge graphs.12th International Conference on Semantic Systems-SEMANTiCS2016 and 1st International Workshop on Semantic Change & Evolving Semantics,Leipzig, Germany:
  31. Farmer, E. I.(1998).A Delphi study of research priorities in tech prep.Journal of Vocational and Technical Education,15(1),42-49.
  32. Fensel, D.,Şimşek, U.,Angele, K.,Huaman, E.,Kärle, E.,Panasiuk, O.,Toma, I.,Umbrich, J.,Wahler, A.(2020).Introduction: What is a knowledge graph?.Knowledge graphs: Methodology, tools and selected use cases
  33. Ferry, B.,Hedberg, J.,Harper, B.(1998).How do preservice teachers use concept maps to organize their curriculum content knowledge?.Journal of Interactive Learning Research,9(1),83-104.
  34. Gagné, R. M.(1984).Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of human performance.American Psychologist,39(4),377-385.
  35. Gagné, R. M.(1985).The conditions of learning and theory of instruction.Rinehart & Winston.
  36. Glick, W. H.(1985).Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research.The Academy of Management Review,10(3),601-616.
  37. Goldsmith, T. E.,Davenport, D. M.(1995).Similarity, structure, and knowledge: A representational approach to assessment.Cognitive diagnostic assessment
  38. Gregory, R. L.(1987).The Oxford companion to the mind.Oxford University Press.
  39. Guan, N.,Song, D.,Liao, L.(2019).Knowledge graph embedding with concepts.KnowledgeBased Systems,164(15),38-44.
  40. Guilford, J. P.(1965).Fundamental statistics in psychology and education.McGraw-Hill.
  41. Harris, D.(1989).Comparison of 1-, 2-, and 3-parameter IRT models.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,8(1),35-41.
  42. Hewson, P. W.,Hewson, M. G.(1988).An appropriate conception of teaching science: A view from studies of science learning.Science Education,72(5),597-614.
  43. Hsu, Y.-S.,Lin, L.-F.,Wu, H.-K.,Lee, D.-Y.,Hwang, F.-K.(2012).A novice-expert study of modeling skills and knowledge structures about air quality.Journal of Science Education & Technology,21(5),588-606.
  44. Hwang, G.-J.,Kuo, F.-R.,Chen, N.-S.,Ho, H.-J.(2014).Effects of an integrated concept mapping and web-based problem-solving approach on students’ learning achievements, perceptions and cognitive loads.Computers & Education,71,77-86.
  45. Hwang, G.-J.,Shi, Y.-R.,Chu, H.-C.(2011).A concept map approach to developing collaborative mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning.British Journal of Educational Technology,42(5),778-789.
  46. Hwang, G.-J.,Wu, P.-H.,Ke, H.-R.(2011).An interactive concept map approach to supporting mobile learning activities for natural science courses.Computers & Education,57(4),2272-2280.
  47. James, L. R.(1982).Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement.Journal of Applied Psychology,67(2),219-229.
  48. Jia, B.,Huang, X.,Jiao, S.(2018).Application of semantic similarity calculation based on knowledge graph for personalized study recommendation service.Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice,18(6),2958-2966.
  49. Ku, T. D.,Shih, J.-L.,Hung, S.-H.(2014).The integration of concept mapping in a dynamic assessment model for teaching and learning accounting.Educational Technology & Society,17(1),141-153.
  50. Kuo, R.,Chang, M.,Dong, D.-X.,Yang, K.-Y.,Heh, J.-S.(2002).Applying knowledge map to intelligent agents in problem solving systems.World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications,Denver, Colorado:
  51. Latif, R. A.,Mohamed, R.,Dahlan, A.,Mat Nor, M. Z.(2016).Using Delphi technique making sense of consensus in concept mapping structure and multiple choice questions (MCQ).Education in Medicine Journal,8(3),89-98.
  52. Lim, K. Y.,Lee, H. W.,Grabowski, B.(2009).Does concept mapping strategy work for everyone? The levels of generativity and learners’ self-regulated learning skills.British Journal of Educational Technology,40(4),606-618.
  53. Ludwig, B.(1997).Predicting the future: Have you considered using the Delphi methodology?.Journal of Extension,35(5),1-4.
  54. Malikowski, S. R.,Thompson, M. E.,Theis, J. G.(2007).A model for research into course management systems: Bridging technology and learning theory.Journal of Educational Computing Research,36(2),149-173.
  55. Mitrovic, A.(2012).Fifteen years of constraint-based tutors: What we have achieved and where we are going.User Modeling & User-Adapted Interaction,22,39-72.
  56. Nichols, P. D.(Ed.),Chipman, S.(Ed.),Brennan, R.(Ed.)(1995).Cognitively diagnostic assessment.Erlbaum.
  57. Nickel, M.,Murphy, K.,Tresp, V.,Gabrilovich, E.(2016).A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs.Proceedings of the IEEE,104(1),11-33.
  58. Novak, J. D.(1990).Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,27(10),937-949.
  59. Noy, N.,Gao, Y.,Jain, A.,Narayanan, A.,Patterson, A.,Taylor, J.(2019).Industry-scale knowledge graphs: Lessons and challenges.Communications of the ACM,62(8),36-43.
  60. Nunnally, J. C.(1978).Psychometric theory.McGraw-Hill.
  61. Palincsar, A. S.,Brown, A. L.(1984).Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction,1(2),117-175.
  62. Peterson, J. L.(1981).Petri-Net theory and the modeling of systems.Prentice-Hall.
  63. Piaget, J.(1970).Structuralism.Harper & Row.
  64. Sato, T.(1969).A method of analyzing data gathered by the response analyzer for diagnosis of student performance and the quality of instructional sequence.IECE of Japan Annual Conference,Tokyo, Japan:
  65. Schunk, D. H.(2012).Learning theories, an educational perspective.Pearson Education.
  66. Schvaneveldt, R. W.(Ed.)(1990).Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization.Ablex.
  67. Shen, V. R. L.(2006).Knowledge representation using high-level fuzzy Petri Nets.IEEE Transactions on Systems Cybernetics- Part A: Systems and Humans,36(16),1220-1227.
  68. Shen, V. R. L.(2003).Reinforcement learning for high-level fuzzy Petri Nets.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics- Part B: Cybernetics,33(2),351-362.
  69. Shen, V. R. L.,Wang, Y.-Y.,Yang, C.-Y.,Yeh, S.-T.(2012).Verification of problem-based learning systems using modified Petri Nets.Expert Systems with Applications,39(16),12636-12649.
  70. Sheu, T.-W.,Chen, T.-L.,Tsai, C.-P.,Tzeng, J.-W.,Deng, C.-P.,Nagai, M.(2013).Analysis of students’ misconception based on rough set theory.Journal of Intelligent Learning Systems and Applications,5(2),67-83.
  71. Singhal, A. (2012). Introducing the knowledge graph: Things, not strings. https://blog.google/products/search/introducing-knowledge-graph-things-not/
  72. Skulmoski, G. J.,Hartamn, F. T.,Krahn, J.(2007).The Delphi method for graduate research.Journal of Information Technology Education,6,1-21.
  73. Sowa, J. F.(1995).Top-level ontological categories.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,43(5-6),669-685.
  74. Tan, W.,Zhou, M. C.(2013).Business and scientific workflows: A web service-oriented approach.IEEE Press/Wiley.
  75. Taylor, J.,Sharples, M.,O’Malley, C.,Vavoula, G.,Waycott, J.(2006).Towards a task model for mobile learning: A dialectical approach.International Journal of Learning Technology,2(2/3),138-158.
  76. Ting, M.-Y.,Kuo, B.-C.(2016).A knowledge-structure-based adaptive dynamic assessment system for calculus learning.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,32(2),105-119.
  77. Turns, J.,Atman, C. J.,Adams, R.(2000).Concept maps for engineering education: A cognitively motivated tool supporting varied assessment functions.IEEE Transactions on Education,43(2),164-173.
  78. Vygotsky, L. S.,Hanfmann, E.(Trans.),Vaker, G.(Trans.)(1962).Thought and language.MIT Press.
  79. Waltz, C. F.,Strickland, O. L.,Lenz, E. R.(1991).Measurement in nursing research.A. Davis.
  80. Wang, H.,Zhang, F.,Wang, J.,Zhao, M.,Li, W.,Xie, X.,Guo, M.(2019).Exploring high-order user preference on the knowledge graph for recommender systems.ACM Transactions on Information Systems,37(3),1-26.
  81. Wertsch, J. V.(Ed.)(1981).The concept of activity in soviet psychology.M. E. Sharpe.
  82. Wu, H.-K.(2010).Modelling a complex system: Using novice-expert analysis for developing an effective technology-enhanced learning environment.International Journal of Science Education,32(2),195-219.
  83. Xie, Y.,Lin, S.-Y.(2019).Using word clouds to support students’ knowledge integration from online inquiry: An investigation of the process and outcome.Interactive Learning Environments,27(4),478-496.
  84. Yu, H.,Li, H.,Mao, D.,Cai, Q.(2020).A relationship extraction method for domain knowledge graph construction.World Wide Web,23,735-753.
  85. Yu, S.-K.(1995).Knowledge representation and reasoning using fuzzy Pr/T net-systems.Fuzzy Sets and Systems,75(1),33-45.
  86. Zhou, M. C.,Venkatesh, K.(1999).Modeling, simulation, and control of flexible manufacturing systems: A Petri Net approach.World Scientific.
  87. 朱則剛, T.-K.(1994).教育工學的發展與派典演化.師大書苑=Lucky Bookstore.
  88. 余民寧, M.-N.(2006)。影響學習成就因素的探討。教育資料與研究，73，11-24。
  89. 邱富源, F.-Y.(2016)。從英國2016 BETT教育與科技訓練博覽會看行動學習發展趨勢。臺灣教育評論月刊，5(12)，35-36。
  90. 徐琍沂, L.-I.,徐遠雄, Y.-H.(2020)。整合鷹架理論和翻轉教學模式融入專題式學習課程。教學實踐與創新，3(1)，129-163。
  91. 國家教育研究院（2000）。科學過程取向（美國）Science - A process approach, SAPA（USA）。雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1307708/【National Academy for Educational Research. (2000). Science - A process approach, SAPA (USA). Bilingual Vocabulary, Academic Terms and Dictionary. http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1307708/】
  92. 教育部（2009）。職業學校群科課程綱要暨設備基準—電機與電子群職校課程綱要。作者。http://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/userfiles/_3_電機與電子群-職校課程綱要.pdf 【Ministry of Education. (2009). Electrical engineering and electronic engineering group- Curriculum guidelines for vocational senior high school. Author. http://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/userfiles/_3_電機與電子群-職校課程綱要.pdf】
  93. 教育部國民及學前教育署（2018）。十二年國民基本教育技術型高級中等學校群科課程綱要—電機與電子群。作者。https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/files/class_schema/課綱/22-電機與電子群/十二年國民基本教育技術型高級中等學校群科課程綱要—電機與電子群.pdf 【K-12 Education Administration, Ministry of Education. (2018). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education for technical senior high school- Electrical engineering and electronic engineering group. Author. https://www. k12ea.gov.tw/files/class_schema/課綱/22-電機與電子群/十二年國民基本教育技術型高級中等學校群科課程綱要—電機與電子群.pdf】
  94. 游森期, S.-C.,余民寧, M.-N.(2006)。知識結構診斷評量與S-P表之關連性研究。教育與心理研究，29(1)，183-208。
  95. 經濟部國際貿易局（2020）。進出口值表。作者。https://cuswebo.trade.gov.tw/FSC3210F/FSC3210S 【Bureau of Foreign Trade. (2020). Value of imports and exports. Author. https://cuswebo.trade.gov.tw/FSC3210F/FSC3210S】
  96. 臺灣區電機電子工業同業公會（2020）。進出口統計。作者。http://www.teema.org.tw/industrialperformance.aspx 【Taiwan Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers’ Association. (2020). Statistics of imports and exports. Author. http://www.teema.org.tw/industrial-performance.aspx】
  97. 潘文福, W.-F.(2010)。建構互為主體性的教室觀察指標─詮釋的觀點。教育資料與研究，96，95-116。
  98. 蔡秉燁, P.-Y.,鍾靜蓉, C.-J.(2003)。詮釋結構模式運用於結構化教學設計之研究。教育研究資訊，11(2)，1-39。
  99. 戴建耘, C.-Y.(2015)。,科技部=Ministry of Science and Technology。
被引用次数
  1. (2024)。筆記撰寫結合學生出題策略對國小生社會領域筆記品質與學習成效之研究。教育科學研究期刊，69(2)，173-208。
print cancel