國中地理科Google Earth應用評量設計之研究 ~以「位置與範圍」和「地形」兩單元為例

Abstract

本研究之主要目的為發展國中地理科Google Earth應用評量設計，並且實施評鑑。本研究以Google Earth為主要工具，分析國中階段重要地理概念與核心地理技能，選定「位置與範圍」與「地形」這兩個單元做為研究範疇。 在評量設計部分，本研究探索Google Earth可應用於地理評量設計之功能，接著從地理課程與教學相關之文獻與國中地理教科書中界定重要地理概念與核心地理技能，據此編製雙向細目表與評量設計說明表。接著發展評量內容，包含選擇題、是非題、配合題、填充題與釋義題，以及具有實作評量特色之操作題、作圖題與限制反應式申論題，並且設計相對應之評分規準。本研究發展之評量乃依據Google Earth功能分成靜態地圖、動態地圖、多重地圖、3D立體地圖、地形剖面圖、動態影像、靜態圖片與查詢功能等八大類題目。除此之外，本研究更發展Google Earth操作與衛星影像判讀教材，以協助學生學習與作答。 在評量評鑑部分，本研究透過專家審題、小規模預試與正式施測等方式驗證本研究評量題目之信度與效度。審題專家認為本研究之評量題目在「認知層次」、「地理概念」與「地理技能」這三個部分的符合程度均高，具有一定程度之內容效度。小規模預試結果確認施測流程，並修改部分評量題目與學生反應問卷填答選項。針對正式施測結果，本研究利用KR-20驗證二元計分題型之內部一致性，顯示此類題目具有良好信度；多點計分題型則利用Spearman's rho做評分者信度之檢驗，結果亦顯示評分者信度良好；本研究並且利用皮爾森相關係數驗證受試學生之地理期中評量成績與本研究答題結果間的相關性，結果為.585(p<.01)，顯示本研究之評量題目具有一定程度之內容效度。學生反應問卷與教師省思札記也顯示大部分學生對於將Google Earth應用於地理評量表示興趣且持正向學習態度，並且認為Google Earth有助地理學習，但有半數學生認為本研究之評量題目比傳統紙筆測驗困難，另外對於自陳其電腦能力較差與中途缺課學生而言，Google Earth功能的複雜性會對答題造成影響。 最後本研究亦針對評量的設計方法與施測環境提出具體建議，供教師與研究者參考。

The study purposes are to conduct a design of applying Google Earth to the junior-high-school geography assessment and to evaluate the assessment design. In this study, Google Earth is a major assessment instrument and, after analyzing the important geographic concepts and skills of junior-high-school geography, the author chose the two units “location and scope” and “terrain” as the main content. To conduct the assessment design, the author investigated functions of Google Earth suitable for the geography assessment and defined important geographic concepts and skills by reviewing literature about curriculum and instruction of geography and junior-high-school geography textbooks. According to the review results, the author completed a two-way specification table and a description table for the assessment design. Then, the author designed the assessment content including question types such as multiple choice, true/false answers, matching questions, fill-in questions, and essay questions. Additionally, the assessment contains performance assessment which requires students to operate Google Earth, to draw graphs, and to give responses to open-ended questions, and the author developed grading criteria for the performance assessment. The assessment can also be divided into eight types of Google Earth application including static maps, dynamic maps, multiple maps, 3D maps, terrain profiles, dynamic videos, static pictures, and inquiry. The author also created teaching materials for Google Earth operation and satellite-image interpretation to support students’ learning and assessment. To evaluate the validity and reliability of the assessment, this study conducted an expert review, a small-group test, and a field trial. The three experts all agreed on the consistency of the questions’ cognitive levels, geographical concepts, and geographical skills, and this result indicates that the assessment has a satisfactory level of content validity. The small-group test helped the author to confirm the evaluation procedure of the field trial and to revise the assessment design and the student-reaction survey questions. To analyze the data collected from the field trial, the author employed the KR-20 to test the internal consistency of the binary-scoring questions, and the result indicated good reliability of these questions. For the multiple-scoring questions, the Spearman's rho was used to test the reliability of inter-graders, and the result also indicated good inter-grader reliability. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to find the relationship between the students’ midterm geography test scores and their performance on this assessment, and the correlation value is .585 (p<.01) which implies this assessment possesses adequate content validity. The students’ responses to the survey questions and the teacher’s reflection-journal entries showed that most students were interested in and held positive attitudes toward this assessment formant. Most students believed that Google Earth was beneficial to their geography learning, but near a half of the students thought that this assessment was more difficult compared with traditional paper-and-pencil tests. For those who reported low computer literacy and were absent from some classes, the complexity of Google Earth operation could affect their performance on the assessment. Finally, the author provides educators and researchers with suggestions about the assessment design and implementation.