大學學科能力測驗及指定科目考試英文閱讀測驗之評析：以布魯姆認知分類(修訂版)析之

An Analysis of Reading Comprehension Questions on the SAET and the DRET Using Revised Bloom's Taxonomy

藍偉華(Wei-Hua Lan)

指導教授 ： 陳秋蘭

國立臺灣師範大學/文學院/英語學系/碩士(2006年)

摘要

摘要
本研究使用布魯姆認知分類修正版來探討近五年(2002-2006年)大學學科能力測驗及指定科目考試英文閱讀測驗試題中欲測試的認知層次與知識型態，以及歷年考生在各類題型的表現。
本研究採質化與量化分析法。質的分析採內容分析法，將一百四十個考題各自分類於一個主要及次要認知層次和一個主要及次要知識類別。量化分析則使用電腦統計軟體SPSS 14.0，以交叉分析來檢測由認知及知識類型所共同組成的問題類型出現的頻率及分布，雙因子變異數分析則用來個別檢測兩考試中各類題型之答對率間有無顯著差距及其差距是否每年相同，單因子變異數分析則用來檢測各類題型的鑑別度，以了解高分組與低分組學生於各類題型上表現的差距。
本研究結果摘要如下:
第一，兩種考試中，試題的認知層次可分為四種 (知識、理解、應用、分析)及其八種次層次，內容分為三種知識類型(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。
第二，「記憶事實性知識」及「理解事實性知識」在兩種考試中為最常被考的問題類型。只有少數題目的認知歷程達「應用」和「分析」兩高層次。此兩種考試最大的差異在於次要問題類型的頻率、出現、和分布。學科能力測驗含較多的「執行」(或稱為「應用」)問題；指定科目考試則包含較多的「推論」問題。
第三，在學科能力測驗中，並未發現一個共同模式可顯示五年來不同題型之答對率間有顯著差距；但在指定科目考試中則存在此共同模式，亦即在指定科目考試中，學生在「理解概念性知識」問題表現顯著較佳，然而，在「推論細節」方面的閱讀問題較差。
最後，在高低分組學生的表現方面，不管是哪種問題類型，高低分組的答對率差距大概都達五十左右。然而，在指定科目考試中，高分組學生在「推論細節」的問題表現很差，以致於此類問題的鑑別度不佳。
本研究結果建議英語教師應幫助學生建立閱讀或準備閱讀考試時所需的四種基礎認知技巧，尤其是理解技巧中的推論。

關鍵字

試題分析 ； 閱讀測驗 ； 布魯姆認知分類修訂版 ； 大學學科能力英語測驗 ； 大學指定科目英語科考試

並列摘要

ABSTRACT
This study aimed to investigate the cognitive process levels and knowledge types in the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy tested on the reading comprehension items on the SAET (Scholastic Achievement English Test) and the DRET (Department Required English Test) administered from 2002 to 2006, and to explore how test takers (all examinees, high scorers, and low scorers) performed on different types of items.
Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were adopted. The qualitative analysis was conducted by categorizing each of the 140 comprehension items into a major and a sub cognitive process and a major and a sub knowledge type in the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. SPSS 14.0 statistical package was used to do the quantitative analysis. The frequency distribution of the question types (i.e., combinations of the cognitive levels and knowledge types identified) was done by the Crosstabulation analysis. The two-way ANOVA test was applied to the SAET and the DRET to investigate whether there were significant differences among the passing rates of various question types and to examine whether these differences were consistent through years. Moreover, to see how the high and low scorers differed while answering different types of questions each year, the discrimination indexes were analyzed via the one-way ANOVA test.
The results of this study are summarized as follows:
First, in both test item analyses, four lowest 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, together comprising five major question types and nine subtypes of questions.
Second, items on Remember Factual Knowledge and Understand Factual Knowledge 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).
Third, in the SAET, no general pattern was found in the significant discrepancy among the passing rates of various question types in these years; whereas a general pattern emerged in the DRET, with Understand Conceptual Knowledge items being significantly best performed. However, examinees performed extremely poor on sub question type of inferring unstated details.
Finally, a gap around 50 was found between the passing rates of the high and low scorers regardless of the question types in the SAET and the DRET. Yet, it was found that, in the DRET, the high scorers performed worst in answering questions on Inferring specific details, making this type of question obtain unsatisfactory discriminatory power.
It is suggested that English teacher should help learners develop the four needed cognitive skills, especially the inferring sub-skills of understanding, in reading or test preparing.

並列關鍵字

item analysis ； reading comprehension tests ； Revised Bloom's Taxonomy ； Scholastic Ability English Test (SAET) ； Department Required English Test (DRET)

參考文獻

Airasian, P. & Miranda, H. (2002). The role of assessment in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 255-259.

Anderson, R.C., Reynolds, R.E., Schallert, D.L. & Goetz, E.T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14(4), 367-381.

Anderson, L.W. (2002). Curricular alignment: A re-examination. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 255-259.

retrospective. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17(1), 1-27.