期刊專區/ Periodical Section

分布認知觀點的教師認知歷程：以教師自編評量為分析焦點（英文稿）

Teachers’ Cognitive Processes from the Perspective of Distributed Cognition: An Analysis Focused on Teachers-Made Assessments

所屬期刊：	第13卷第4期 「教育心理，輔導與測評」 主編：國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系兼任教授 林世華
系統編號：	vol051_04
主題：	測驗與評量
出版年份：	2017
作者：	梁金都
作者(英文)：	Chin-Tu Liang
論文名稱：	分布認知觀點的教師認知歷程：以教師自編評量為分析焦點（英文稿）
論文名稱(英文)：	Teachers’ Cognitive Processes from the Perspective of Distributed Cognition: An Analysis Focused on Teachers-Made Assessments
共同作者：
最高學歷：
校院名稱：
系所名稱：
語文別：	中文
論文頁數：	34
中文關鍵字：	人造物; 認知過程; 分布認知; 教師自編評量; 雙向細目表
英文關鍵字：	artifact; cognitive process; distributed cognition; teachers-made assessment; Two-Way Specification Table
服務單位：
稿件字數：	9681
作者專長：	教育行政; 教師專業發展; 學校集體智慧
投稿日期：	2017/12/18
論文下載：
摘要(中文)：	本研究主要是採取個案研究法，並選取「西西」國小（化名）為研究個案， 且以該校實施「雙向細目表」的教師自編評量為中介物，透過了觀察和訪談與文 件分析等方法，蒐集11 位研究參與者與該表持續交互影響的實地資料，以了解教 師們的認知歷程。最後本研究獲致了以下結論：一、西西國小實施雙向細目表後， 教師們分別產生了十三種認知系統。二、雙向細目表的歷程，教師們漸次呈現質 疑、反思、轉向、創新等不同的認知階段。三、持續地討論與分享、需要專家 協助、科技系統引入、校長積極推動的態度等，乃是發揮雙向細目表功能的關鍵 因素。四、西西國小實施雙向細目表，教師們的認知系統大致呈現朝向上升方向 發展。
摘要(英文)：	Few studies deal with how the gap between artifacts and task in terms of members’ cognition distributed (Halverson & Clifford, 2006) in the field of teaching practice. The present study explored how the teachers’ cognition evolved with a close look at the artifact, and the processes adopted by “Two-Way Specifi cation Table” (TWST) for teachers-made assessments as an artifact designed for nine students’ tests in “SiSi” Elementary School. Participatory observation, interviews, and documents were employed. The following conclusions were drawn: Firstly, after the implementation of TWST in SiSi Elementary School, teachers had produced 13 kinds of cognitive systems respectively. Secondly, during the process of implementing TWST, teachers gradually presented different stages of cognitive systems such as questioning, reflection, transformation, and creativity. Moreover, continuous discussions and sharing, the need for experts’ assistance, developing the technological systems, and the positive attitude of principal were key elements in the functioning of the TWST. Lastly, after the implementation of TWST in SiSi Elementary School, it was found that teachers’ cognitive systems were slightly improved.
參考文獻：	Allison, D. J. (1996). Problem finding, classification and interpretation: In search of a theory of administrative problem processing. In K. A. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 477-549). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Anderson, W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and accessing: A revision of Blooms’ educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman. Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2006). What are principals expected to do? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standard. NASSP Bulletin, 9(3), 221- 237. Chen, H. J. (2007). The dialectical relationship between organizational structure and teachers’ agency: A case study in a Taiwanese primary school. Changhua University of Education: Journal of Education, 12, 103-128. Chen, P. Y., & Chiao, C. C. (2009). Distributed leadership and professional learning community: A case study of innovative teaching in a high school. Journal of Research in Education science, 54(1), 55-86. Cheng, Y. L. (2006). The Establishment of Chinese General Proficiency Indicator. Journal of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, 2, 115-136. Chien, F. M. (2009). A study on teaching assessment develops and designs for social studies in elementary school. Social Studies of Education, 14, 129-149. Cook, S. D., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 430-459. Firestone, W. A., & Riehl, C. (2005). Conclusion. In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 171-184). New York, NY: Teachers College. Gagliardi, P. (1990). Symbols and artifacts: Views of the corporate landscape. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Gan, Y., & Zhu, Z. (2007). A learning framework for knowledge building and collective wisdom advancement in virtual learning communities. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 206-226. Hands, C. M. (2010). Why collaborate? The differing reasons for secondary school educations’ establishment of school-community partnerships. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(2), 189-207. Halverson, R. R., & Clifford, M. A. (2006). Evaluation in the wild: A distributed cognition perspective on teacher assessment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 578-619. Hargreaves, A. (2001). The emotional geographies of teachers’ relations with colleagues. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 503-527. Hutchins, E. (1990). The social organization of distributed cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasey (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 283-307). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speed. Cognitive Science, 19, 265- 288. Kolikant, Y. B., McKenna, A., & Yalvac, B. (2006). The emergence of a community of practice in engineer education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 108, 7-16. Kupers, W. M. (2007). Phenomenology and integral pheno-practice of wisdom in leadership and organization. Social Epistemology, 21(2), 169-193. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Lee, K. C. (2011). The designs and examples on “Two-Way Specifi cation Table” of paper tests. Journal of Education Research, 208, 95-109. Liang, C. T. (2011). The development and formation of a school’s collective wisdom in an elementary school: From the perspective of distributed cognition. Chung Cheng Educational studies, 10(2), 97-139. Liang, C. T., & Hung, C. C. (2011).Analysis of cognitive process of a principal’s instructional leadership from a distributed cognition perspective. Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly, 19(2), 41-80. Liang, C. T., & Lin, M. D. (2013). An analysis of the developmental process of school’s collective wisdom from the perspective of organization learning: Taking “the plan of reading brand certifi cation” as an investigative focal point. Educational policy Forum, 16(1), 103-137. DOI:10.3966/156082982013021601004 Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in American education. Teachers College Record, 98(1), 7-45. Lima, J. A. (2008). Department networks and distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership and Management, 28(2), 159-187. Lin, M. D., & Liang, C. T. (2014). An analysis of distributed leadership practice in an elementary school. Educational Review, 43, 1-43. DOI: 10.3966/ 156335272014120043001 Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575. Lu, I. J., & Wu, G. I. (2011). “Two-Way Specifi cation Table” as mathematics. In-service Education Bulletin, 28(5), 97-104. Meyer, A. D. (2007). Strategic epistemology: Innovation and organizational wisdom. In E. H. Kessler & J. R. Bailey (Eds.), Handbook of organizational and managerial wisdom (pp. 357-374). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Pea, R. D. (1993). Distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). New York, NY: Cambridge University. Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88-110). New York, NY: Cambridge University. Salomon, G. (1993). No distributed without individuals’ cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations (pp.111-138). New York, NY: Cambridge University. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Seaman, M. (2011). Bloom’s taxonomy: Its evolution, revision, and use in the field of education. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 13(1 & 2), 29-43. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(1), 3-34. Spindler, M., & Tech, V. (2015). Collaborative analysis and revision of learning objects. North American Colleges and Teachers Agriculture Journal, 59(2), 111-115. van der Meij, H., & Boersma, K. (2002). Email use in elementary school: An analysis of exchange patterns and content. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 189-200. Wang, T. H., Wang, W. L., Wang, K. H., & Huang, S. C. (2003). Study a web-based assessment system as teacher’s training program evaluation technique. Journal of Internet Technology, 4(2), 71-78. Yen, L. C., & Lin, S. P. (2003).The explore on revised edition of Blooms’ cognitive domain categories. Journal of Education Research, 105, 94-106. Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.