Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: 以布魯姆認知分類修訂版分析大學學科能力測驗及指定科目考試英文閱讀測驗
Other Titles: Using Revised Bloom's Taxonomy to Analyze Reading Comprehension Questions on the SAET and the DRET
Authors: 藍偉華
Wei-Hua Lan
Chiou-Lan Chern
Issue Date: Sep-2010
Publisher: 教育研究與評鑑中心
Center for Educational Research and Evaluation
Abstract: 本研究旨在以布魯姆認知分類(修訂版)與內容分析法,將臺灣地區近五年( 2002-2006年)大學學科能力測驗與指定科目考試中,英文閱讀測驗試題中的欲測試認知層次與知識型態進行分類,並利用描述統計探討兩種考試之試題的異同,以協助教師及受試者了解兩種考試中之英文閱讀測驗的內涵,進而提供教師在進行閱讀教學時,培養學生建立閱讀和應試應真備的基礎認知技巧之參考。研究結果顯示,試題的認知層次可分為四種(即知識、理解、應用、分析)及八種次層次,而內容則分為三種知識類型(即事實、概念、程序)及三種次類型,共可歸納出五種主要題型及九種次要題型。在這兩種考試中,最常考的是「記憶事實性知識」及「理解事實性知識」這兩類低階認知層次的試題,只有少數題目的認知歷程達「應用」和「分析」兩高層次。此二種考試最大的差異在於次要題型的出現頻率和分布。學科能力測驗含括較多的「執行」(或稱為「應用」) 試題,指定科目考試則包含較多的「推論」問題。
Based on the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy, this study aimed to investigate the cognitive process levels and knowledge types measured on the English reading comprehension tests of college entrance examinations administered from 2002 to 2006 in Taiwan. A descriptive analysis was conducted to examine the similarities and differences of the content and cognitive skills intended to be assessed between the two tests, hoping to serve as a reference for English teachers while helping learners develop the needed cognitive skills in reading and test preparation. Results showed that for both tests, four major levels in the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (Remember, Understand, Apply, and Analyze) along with eight sub-levels, and three types of knowledge (Factual, Conceptual, and Procedural) along with three subtypes were identified, with a total of five major question types and nine subtypes of questions. Items on Remember Factual Knowledge and Understand Factual Knowledge, which belong to lower cognitive levels, were the majority in the two tests. Few items were found at higher levels of Apply and Analyze. The major differences between the SAET and the DRET were the frequency, occurrence, and distribution of items testing different cognitive sub-skills and knowledge subtypes. It was found that Executing!Apply items were more favored in the SAET, whereas the DRET had more items on Inferring (a subtype under Understand category).
Other Identifiers: 1AF47D97-8664-4AB5-CBBD-50356D67CC8B
Appears in Collections:當代教育研究

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.