國中生活科技教師甄試筆試試題分析研究

Abstract

本研究旨在分析國中教師甄試中生活科技科的筆試題目。研究目的有三：(1)「國中生活科技課程綱要」中各主題的命題比率；(2)歷屆試題所測驗之「知識向度」與「認知歷程向度」；(3)歷屆試題之「難度」與「鑑別度」。研究範圍包括91學年度到99學年度國中教師甄試聯招生活科技科筆試試題14份，共735題。為達研究目的，本研究採用內容分析法，以「國中生活科技課程綱要」、「布魯姆認知領域目標分類」、「難度與鑑別度」三個面向作為分析的類目，從量化的角度做分析；並歸納出三點研究結論： 一、「國中生活科技課程綱要」各主題的出題比率於歷屆試題中的分布狀況並不平均，但與課本內容相接近。出現比例最高為「材料」及「訊息與傳播」等兩項；出現比例最低為「天然災害與防治」及「食品與生物科技」等兩項，各主題之出題數未隨出題縣市或年分有改變趨勢。另歷屆試題在篩選適任教師之功能上，其內容足以篩選具備完整國中生活科技課程知識之人員。 二、歷屆試題於布魯姆認知分類知識向度與認知歷程向度分佈不平均。 (一) 知識向度中出題數最多者為事實知識類，佔58.6%；出題數最少者為後設認知知識，佔1.1%。 (二) 認知歷程向度中出題數最多者為記憶類，佔44.4%；出題數最少者為創造類，佔0.1%。 (三) 綜合而言，出題數最高者為「A1記憶型的事實知識」佔41.3%；另有5類題型未出題，分別為「A1創造類的事實知識」、「B6創造類的概念知識」、「D1記憶類的後設認知知識」、「D3應用類的後設認知知識」、「D6創造類的後設認知知識」。 (四) 國中生活科技筆試試題在認知各項領域學習目標中，對於高層次知識與認知歷程之測試效果不佳。 三、試題於難度與鑑別度之分布狀況而言，生活科技教師甄試歷屆筆試試題符合命題難度之合理區間；亦符合命題鑑別度之合理區間、但略為偏低。 最後，研究根據結論對於國中生活科技科教師甄試相關人員提出相關建議： 一、 對於參加教師甄試之人員：可針對命題比率較高的「材料」及「訊息與傳播」此兩項主題多做準備；並需加強有關記憶型的事實知識類別題目練習。 二、 對於教師甄試評審人員：可針對筆試試題中較少出現的分析、創造、評鑑類的相關概念，與後設認知類的知識，利用口試及試教的機會對於檢視受試者之相關能力。 三、 對於筆試試題命題者：對於各主題之數量分佈，可斟酌參考各主題於課文出現之比例分配。另可增加論述題之題型，以測驗受試者之高層次之認知能力。This thesis aims to analyze test items of written examinations in the living technology subject of junior high school teacher-recruiting process. In this thesis, I will examine 14 copies of written examinations, 735 test items in total, in the living technology subject of junior high-school teacher-recruiting process from academic year 2002 to 2010. There are three research purposes: (1) The distribution of different test items based on the lesson guideline of junior high school living technology subject; (2) Knowledge dimension and cognitive process dimension tested in the previous exams (3) Difficulty and discrimination of previous exams. The analyses will be carried out on the basis of quantified logic. Data is collected, sorted, and presented in the form of tables. Three conclusions are as follows: First, the distribution of test items is not balanced from the perspective of the live technology subject lesson guideline. Two themes that mark the highest frequency of appearance are “materials” and “message and communication.” By contrast, “natural disasters and prevention” and “food and biological technology” are the least frequentthemes. Moreover, the discussion will show that the number of questions of each theme is similar year by year and this also happens in exams of different cities. Second, the distribution of the content of test items is not balanced in the context of knowledge dimension and cognitive process dimension in the taxonomy for educational objectives. Results of written exams of living technology subject cannot reflect candidates’ higher-level knowledge or cognitive process. Third, as for the distribution of difficulty and discrimination in test items, the distribution of difficulty in exam questions in junior high school teacher-recruiting process qualifies the standard of test item; however, the distribution of discrimination tends to be a little lower but acceptable. Finally, this study offers the following suggestions: (1) To candidates who participate teacher-recruiting process, they can prepare more on two major themes, “materials” and “message and communication.” (2) To examiners of the teacher-recruiting process, they can look into candidates’ competence in categories of analysis, creation, evaluation, and meta-cognition via oral examinations and teaching demonstrations. (3) To those who create test items, they can look into candidates’ high-level cognitive competence by expanding categorical content in essay questions.