| dc.contributor.advisor | 江振東 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | 王姿宜 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | 王姿宜 | zh_TW |
| dc.date (日期) | 2010 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 4-Sep-2013 15:15:46 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 4-Sep-2013 15:15:46 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 4-Sep-2013 15:15:46 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) | G0097972007 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60083 | - |
| dc.description (描述) | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 應用數學系數學教學碩士在職專班 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 97972007 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 99 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 本研究的目的為研究國中九年級學生在學習機率單元前後，對於機率概念的了解與代表性偏誤、可利用性偏誤Kahneman&Tversky(1974)）及結果取向判斷偏誤(Konold1989)的異同。主要採量的分析，以自訂的問卷評量工具對受試者進行筆試。研究之樣本為學過國小簡單機率的國中九年級學生，問卷實施的方式為筆試，研究過程設計了前測、後測兩份試卷，並在施測前進行預試來評估試題信度、效度。前測問卷施測目的在探討學生在教學前利用常識、直觀來解題所可能造成的機率偏誤。教學過後也進行後測問卷的施測，並利用前後兩次施測的結果，探討國中生在教學前後機率判斷偏誤上的差異性。本研究之對象為中學九年級學生，共148位學生來進行施測，研究者依學生數學分組教學之成績，分為高分群、中間群、低分群，依據性別和分群兩個變項來進行分析。分析結果發現：1.性別變項無顯著差異，故教學過程中不用特別考慮性別差異。2.分群分析結果如下：(1)結果取向 在一次投擲問題中，前、後測問卷分析結果發現，中、高分群前後測整體表現皆無偏誤的比例較低分群來的少。(2)代表性偏誤 在代表性偏誤中的正時近效應與負時近效應的問題中，低分群在前、後測仍犯有偏誤比中、高分群前後測都犯有偏誤的比例來的高。而改變樣本空間問題中，中、高分群在前、後測皆沒有偏誤的比比例較低分群高。複合樣本問題中探討代表性偏誤，低分群在前、後測仍然有偏誤的比例較中、高分群前、後測犯有偏誤高。(3)可利用性偏誤 三群在前、後測的綜合表現並無顯著差異。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | The study aims to explore the differences of judgmental heuristic and biases on representativeness, availability (Kahneman &Tversky, 1974) and outcome approach (Konold, 1989) in terms of comprehension of probability concepts by ninth graders before and after studying the subject. The results are based on a quantitative analysis of the data collected from two sets of paper-and-pencil self-designed questionnaires. Pre-test questionnaire is meant to explore students’ potential probability biases when they work out the problems based on their previous knowledge and intuition prior to any instruction, while post-test questionnaire is conducted after instruction. The subjects in our experiment are composed of one hundred and forty-eight ninth graders who have only learned some basic probability concepts in primary school, and are classified into high-, mid- and low-scorer groups based on their previous academic performance. The findings suggest that:1. Gender effect is not significantly different, so there is no need to pay attention to the gender difference in teaching process. 2. The results of analyses for different groups are listed in what follows. (1) Outcome approach:In the problem of tossing a coin, the results of pre-test and post-test indicate that the proportion of subjects who are without biases is higher in mid- and high-scorers than that of low-scorers. (2) Representativeness bias:In the problem of positive recency effect and negative recency effect, the proportion of committing biases is higher in low-scorers than that of mid- and high-scorers in both pre- and post-tests.In the problem of changes in sample spaces, the proportion of lack of biases is higher in mid- and high-scorers than that of low-scorers. In the composite-event problem that deals with representative biases, the proportion of committing biases among low-scorers is higher than that of mid- and high-scorers in both pre- and post-tests.(3) Availability bias:There is no significant difference in the overall performance of pre- and post-tests among the three groups. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 i英文摘要 ii表目錄 v第一章 緒論 1第一節、研究動機 1第二節、研究目的 3第三節、研究問題 3第四節、名詞解釋 3第二章 文獻探討 6第三章 研究方法 9第一節、研究目的與設計 9第二節、研究對象 9第三節、評量工具編制 9第四節、試卷信度分析 22第五節、統計方法 22第四章 統計分析結果 25第一節、前測分析 25第二節、後測分析 30第三節、前後測分析 34第五章 結論 49第一節、結論 49第二節、結論與建議 51第三節、未來研究方向 51參考文獻 52一、英文部分 52二、中文部分 54附錄 55附錄1-1 前測性別統計分析 55附錄1-2前測分群統計分析 65附錄2-1後測性別統計分析 75附錄2-2後測分群統計分析 85附錄3、前後測機率偏誤與性別差異分析結果 95附錄4-1前測問卷 104附錄4-2後測問卷 106 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 608230 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 116975 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.source.uri (資料來源) | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097972007 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 機率 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 判斷偏誤 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 可利用性捷思法則 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 代表性捷思法則 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 結果取向 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | probability | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | judgmental heuristics and biases | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | availability heuristics | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | representativeness heuristics | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | outcome approach | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 九年級學生在機率教學前後誤用機率判斷偏誤之差異探討 | zh_TW |
| dc.title (題名) | Judgmental heuristic and biases among ninth graders before and after studying the subject probability | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | thesis | en |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 一、英文部分Falk, R. (1989). Conditional probabilities： Insight and difficulties. In R. Davidson and J. Swift(Eds.), The Proceedings of the Second International Conference on teaching Statistics. Victoria, B. C.：University of Victoria.Fischbein, E. (1975). The intuitive sources of probabilistic thinking in children. Dordrecht：Reidel.Fischbein, E. (1991). Factors affecting probabilistic judgments in children and adolescents. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(6), 523-549.Fischbein, E., & Gazit, A. (1984). Does the teaching of probability improve probabilistic intuition? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 1-24.Fischbein, E., Nello, M. S.,& Marino, M. S. (1991). Factors affecting probabilitic judgments in children and adolescents. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 523-549.Fischbein, E., & Schnarch, D. (1997). The evolution with age of probabilistic, intuitively based misconceptions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 98-105.Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430-453.Konold, C. (1983). Conceptions about probability: Reality between a rock and a hard place. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, B4179.Konold, C. (1989). Informal conceptions of probability. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 59-98.Konold, C. (1991). Understanding students’ beliefs about probability. In E. von Glasersfeld(Ed.). Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education, 139-156.Tversky,A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.Tversky,A. & Kahneman, D. (1983).Extensional versus intuitive reasoning:The conjuntion fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293-315.二、中文部分王安蘭(2004)：一個重構高中生機率概念的行動研究。台北市：國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。陳芷羚(2002)：探討中學生機率概念與判斷偏誤關係之研究。台北市：國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文 | zh_TW |
