進階搜尋


下載電子全文  
系統識別號 U0026-1707201123452000
論文名稱(中文) 國中生概念關聯認知型態與能力信念關係之研究
論文名稱(英文) Relationships between Cognitive Styles of Conceptual Relevance and Competence Beliefs for Junior High School Students
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 教育研究所
系所名稱(英) Graduate Institute of Education
學年度 99
學期 2
出版年 100
研究生(中文) 鄭蕙佳
研究生(英文) Hui-Chia Cheng
學號 u3697123
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 116頁
口試委員 指導教授-趙梅如
口試委員-楊雅婷
口試委員-黃建中
中文關鍵字 概念關聯認知型態  能力信念 
英文關鍵字 cognitive style of conceptual relevance  competence beliefs 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本研究之研究目的為:(一)驗證台灣地區國中生概念關聯認知型態之內涵建構。(二)探討台灣地區國中生概念關聯認知型態的性別差異。(三)探討台灣地區國中生概念關聯認知型態的年級差異。(四)探討台灣地區國中生概念關聯認知型態在五大學科之能力信念的差異情形。
本研究之參與對象為台灣地區一至三年級國中生共813人,進行一階之驗證性因素分析,並同時比較其性別、年級及國文科、英文科、數學科、社會科及自然科五大學科之能力信念的差異分析。研究工具包括「圖畫關聯測驗」及「能力信念自陳問卷」。本研究以驗證性因素分析、單因子重複量數變異數分析、單因子多變項變異數分析等統計方法進行資料分析工作。
本研究的發現如下:
一、經驗證性因素分析的結果,一階模式與觀察資料皆有良好之適配,意即國中生之概念關聯認知型態具有「類屬關聯認知型態」、「功能關聯認知型態」、「聯想關聯認知型態」及「區辨關聯認知型態」之意涵。
二、在四種概念關聯認知型態上,不論男生或女生,都最傾向於運用功能關聯認知,其次為類屬關聯認知型態、聯想關聯認知型態,最後為區辨關聯認知型態。
三、在四種概念關聯認知型態之性別差異上,僅功能關聯認知型態有差異,女生較男生更傾向於功能關聯認知型態,亦即以新舊刺激的相同功能性組織資訊的認知傾向上,女生高於男生。
四、在概念關聯認知型態之年級差異上,一至三年級國中生並無差異存在,亦即一至三年級國中生在運用四種概念關聯認知型態傾向上,有著相同的傾向,不因年級而有不同。
五、就國中生國文科、英文科、數學科、社會科及自然科五大學科能力信念而言,在四種運用概念關聯認知型態上,都一致最傾向於運用功能關聯認知型態,其次為類屬關聯認知型態、聯想關聯認知型態,最後為區辨關聯認知型態。
六、就國中生國文科、英文科、數學科、社會科及自然科五大學科能力信念而言,在運用概念關聯認知型態之差異上,僅國文科有差異,高能力信念的學習者較低能力信念的學習者更傾向於運用功能關聯認知型態,亦即以新舊刺激的相同功能性組織資訊的認知傾向上,在國文科具有高能力信念的學習者高於具有低能力信念的學習者。
英文摘要 The purposes of this study were to: (1) verify the construction of intension of Taiwanese junior high school students’ cognitive style of conceptual relevance, (2) explore the gender differences in Taiwanese junior high school students’ cognitive style of conceptual relevance, (3) explore the differences in grades in Taiwanese junior high school students’ cognitive style of conceptual relevance, and (4) investigate the differences in five main subjects in Taiwanese junior high school students’ cognitive style of conceptual relevance.
The participants in this study were 813 junior high school students in Taiwan who were from first and third grade. They were used in the first-order exploratory factor analysis and in the difference analysis by comparing gender, grade, and competence beliefs in Chinese, English, Mathematics, sociology, and Science subject. The instruments used in this study included “Pictorial relevance test” and “Student Self-esteem Questionnaire for competence beliefs”. The statistical methods used to analyze the data were confirmatory factor analysis, one-way repeated measures ANOVA and one-way MANOVA.
  The results of this study were summarized in the following: (1) the result of the exploratory analysis shows the first-order structure model fitted criteria, which means that cognition style of category relevance, cognition style of functional relevance, cognition style of associated relevance, and cognition style of differentiation relevance are included in junior high school students’ cognitive style of conceptual relevance, (2) in terms of the four cognitive style of conceptual relevance, both males and females tended to use cognition style of functional relevance firstly, and then cognition style of category relevance, cognition style of associated relevance, and cognition style of differentiation relevance were followed, respectively, (3) in terms of the differences in four cognitive style of conceptual relevance, there were only differences in cognition of functional relevance. Females tended to use cognition style of functional relevance than males, which means that females show more cognition style of combining information by using new and old stimulus, (4) in terms of the differences in grades of cognitive style of conceptual relevance, there was no significant difference among students from first to third grade, which means that students from first to third grade tended to behave the same by using these four cognitive style of conceptual relevance. It further implied that there was no significant difference in students’ grade, (5) in terms of junior high school students’ competence beliefs in Chinese, English, Mathematics, Sociology, and Science subject, students tended to use cognition style of functional relevance more and the following were cognition style of category relevance, cognition style of associated relevance, and cognition style of differentiation relevance, respectively, (6) in terms of junior high school students’ competence beliefs in Chinese, English, Mathematics, Sociology, and Science subject, there was only significant difference in Chinese subject. Students with higher competence beliefs tended to use cognition of functional relevance more than those with lower competence beliefs, which, means students with higher competence beliefs showed higher tendency to combine information by using new and old stimulus than those with lower competence beliefs.
論文目次 目次
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究問題 5
第四節 重要名詞釋義 7
第二章 文獻探討 10
第一節 認知型態的意涵與相關研究 10
第二節 能力信念與認知型態之間的關係 17
第三章 研究方法 24
第一節 研究設計與架構 24
第二節 研究假設 25
第三節 研究對象 27
第四節 研究工具 28
第五節 實施程序 37
第六節 資料處理與統計方法 39
第四章 研究結果 42
第一節 概念關聯認知型態之驗證分析 42
第二節 概念關聯認知型態之性別差異分析 53
第三節 概念關聯認知型態之年級差異分析 56
第四節 概念關聯認知型態之能力信念差異分析 60
第五章 討論、結論與建議 72
第一節 討論 72
第二節 結論 81
第三節 建議 85
參考資料 89
中文部分 89
英文部分 92
附錄一 圖畫關聯測驗A版本 98
附錄二 圖畫關聯測驗答案紙 A版 (國中) 113
參考文獻 中文部分
毛國楠、劉政宏、彭淑玲、李維光與陳慧娟(2008)。能力信念、學業自我價值後效與學業成就對國小學生學習動機與學習情緒之影響。教育心理學報,39(4),569-588。
吳裕益(1987)。認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。教育學刊,7,51- 98。
吳靜吉(1974)。藏圖測驗。台北:遠流出版社。
李茂能(2006)。結構方程模式軟體Amos 之簡介及其在測驗編製上之應用。台北:心理。
沈如瑩(2003)。國中小學生自尊與自我概念、生活適應關係之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立成功大學,台南市。
沈德如(2008)。高雄縣市國小高年級學童認知型態、自我概念與數學學業成就關係之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立中山大學,高雄市。
林生傳(1984)。「形地辨析型」與「形地混同型」之認知式態及其與教育、興 趣成就的關係。教育學刊,5,255-286。
林沛穎(2005)。直接教學法在國小中度智能障礙學生實用數學之應用。花蓮教育大學特教通訊,34,7-13。
林清山(1985)。魏肯氏心理分化理論相關問題之實徵性研究。師大教育心理學 報,18,39-56。
孫志麟(1991)。國民小學教師自我效能及其相關因素之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立政治大學,台北市。

高淑芳、林麗惠(2001)。國小學童的認知型態差異及其推理與問題解決表現之關係研究-以就讀桃園縣平地國小之原住民與非原住民學童為例。新竹師院學報,14,87-126。
張春興(2002)。教育心理學—三化取向的理論與實踐。台北:東華。
康雅芳(2006)。國小五年級學童認知風格、數學態度與數學解題表現之關係研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。
張韶瑩(2003)。高雄地區國二學生數學認知型態與數學學習成就相關研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。
教育部(2003)。九年一貫數學學習領域課程綱要。台北:教育部。
教育廣播電臺(2008)。TIMSS 2007結果公布臺灣國二生數學國際第1。2010年12月20日,取自http://web.ner.gov.tw/culturenews/culture/culture-detail.asp?id=95654
陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(2005)。多變量分析方法:統計軟體應用(四版)。台北:五南。
陳耀豐(2002)。國小學童認知型態、批判思考能力與自然科學業成就之相關研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立台中師範學院,台中市。
黃信樽(2008)。從文化觀點驗證數學學習需求內涵以及數學學習需求與學生自尊之關係(未出版碩士論文)。國立成功大學,台南市。
黃國清(2008)。數學學習成就之性別差異研究—以九年一貫課程七年級數學綱要為例。中等教育,59(4),40-56。
楊坤原(1996)。認知型態與科學學習成就的關係。科學教育月刊,195,2-23。
楊淑娟(1997)。國小教師場地獨立、批判思考與對教學論題知道的推理關係(未出版碩士論文)。國立屏東師範學院,屏東市。
溫世頌(1997)。教育心理學。台北:三民。
趙梅如(2009)。數學學習概念化認知型態與數學學業成就之跨階段比較及性別差異研究(九十九學年度國科會研究計畫申請)。
劉信雄(1992)。國小學生認知風格、學習策略、自我效能與學業成就關係之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學,台北市。
蔡天民、王美芬(2002)。概念構圖對國小學童自然科學習成就、學習態度及概念改變之研究。科學教育研究與發展專刊,2002專刊,119-138。
鄭雅鈴(2004)。數學討論活動對國小六年級學童解題表現及數學學習態度影響之實驗研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學,新竹市。
盧筱萍(2006)。資訊融入國小社會領域教學對不同認知型態學生學習成效之影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學,新竹市。
蕭素玲(2002)。高中生課業求助行為之相關研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立成功大學,台南市。
羅珮華(2004)。從「第三次國際科學與數學教育成就研究後續調查」(TIMSS1999)」結果探討國中學生學習成就與學生特質的關係:七個國家之比較(未出版博士論文)。國立台灣師範大學,台北市。
羅豪章(2005)。模糊理論在心理衡鑑上的應用:以認知型態分析為例。教育與心理研究,28 (3),527-549 。

英文部分
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The Cognitive Style Index: A measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 119-135.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (1978). Cognitive styles: Some information and implications for instructional design. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 26, 337-354.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 45-87.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state selfesteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 35-67.
Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and Intrinsic Interest Through Proximal Self-Motivation. Journal of Personality and Socail Psychology, 41(3), 586-589.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 805-814.
Berndt, T. J., & Miller, K. E. (1990). Expectancies, value, and achievement in junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 319-326.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, application, and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cattell, R. B., & Burdsal, C. A. (1975). The radial parcel double factoring design: A solution to the item-vs-parcel controversy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10(2), 165-179.
Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young children’s reading selfconcepts: An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 154-167.
Collins, K. M. T., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003). Study coping and examination-taking coping strategies: The role of learning modalities among female graduate students. Personality and Individual Difference, 35(5), 1021-1032.
Davis, J. K. (1967). Concept identification as a function of cognitive style, complexity,and training procedures (Tech. Rep. 32). Madison: WI. University of Wisconsin, Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.
DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, R. M. (1999). Variations on an expectancy-value model of motivation in science.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 71-94.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Dwyer, F. M., & Moore, D. M. (2001). The effect of gender, field dependence and color-coding on student achievement of different educational objectives. International. Journal of Instructional Media, 28, 309-18.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescent’s achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215-225.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex difference in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26-43.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., & Meece, J. L. et al.(1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation ,75-146. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational practices in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 104-113.
Guildford, J, P. (1980). Cognitive Styles: What are they? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(3), 715-735.
Hannula, M. S., Maijala, H. & Pehkonen E. (2004). Development of understanding and selfconfidence in mathematics; grades 5–8. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the InternationalGroup for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, l3,17–24.
Harwood, C., Spray, C. M., & Keegan, R. (2008). Achievement goal theories in sport. In T. S. Horn (Ed.). Advances in sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 157-185). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Holt J. K. (2004). Item parceling in structural equation models for optimal solutions. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Columbus.

Holzman, P. S., & Klein, G. S. (1954). Cognitive system-principles of leveling and sharpening: Individual differences in visual time-error assimilation effects. Journal of Psychology, 37,105-122.
Kagan, J., Moss, H. A., & Sigel, I. E. (1963). Psychological significance of styles of conceptualization, In J. C. Wright & J. Kagan (Eds.), Basic cognitive process in children (pp. 73-112). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kagan, J., Rosman, B. L., Day, D., Albert, J., & Philips, W. (1964). Informationprocessing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 78(1), whole issue.
Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning style theory and practice. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Keefe, J. W., & Monk, J. S. (1987). National Association of Secondary School Principles Learning Style Profile. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 757-765.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guiford Press.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(2), 181-220.

Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 60-70.
Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S. Messick (Ed.), Individuality in Learning (pp. 4-22). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.
Mill, A. (1991). Personality types, learning styles and educational goals. Educational Psychology, 11, 217-238.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Exploration in personality: A clinical and expenimental study of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nickerson, R. S. (1985). An introduction. In Nickerson, R. S. Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (Eds.), The Teaching of Thinking (pp.3-8). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193-215.
Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., & Tebb, S. S. (2001). Using structural equation modeling to test for multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(4), 613-626.
Saracho, O. N., & Dayton, C. M. (1980). The relationship of teachers cognitive styles to pupils academic achievement gain. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 544-549.

Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Kastens, C., & Köller, O.(2006). Effort on homework in grades 5-9: Development,motivational antecedents, and the association with effort on classwork. Child Development, 77, 1094-1111.
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A.(2006). Predicting homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 438-456.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V. (1991). Multitrait-multimethod validation of the satisfaction with my supervisor scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 203-212.
Weaver, S. E., & Ganong, L. H. (2004). The factor structure of the Romantic Beliefs Scale for African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 171-185.
Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading motivation: A domain specific approach to motivation.Educational Psychologist, 32, 59-68.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: Atheoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievementmotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. New York : International Universities Press.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C.,Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977) . Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications .Review of Educational Research, 47,1-46.
Yuan, K. H., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1997). On average variables in a confirmatory factor analysis model. Behaviormetrika, 24(1), 71-83.

論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2011-07-26起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2011-07-26起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw