學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就；認知與後設認知策略使用之影響

全文

(1)25. 國立政治大學「教育與心理研究」 2008 年 9 月，31 卷 3 期，頁 25-52. 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響于富雲*. 摘. 劉祐興**. 要. 本研究探討「學生出題」策略與「題目練習」對學生學業成就、認知策略與後設認知策略的影響。研究採取準實驗法，由同一位老師教導的兩班土木工程學系學生（共69位），以不同策略進行六禮拜的課程，之後比較兩班級的學業成就，並比較不同策略學習前、後對認知策略及後設認知策略的影響。研究結果顯示，相較於傳統「題目練習」策略，「學生出題」策略較能引發學生於聽課歷程中運用不同之認知與後設認知策略，但不同策略並未造成學業成就上的差異。根據本研究發現及相關理論根基，建議教師可於課堂中嘗試使用學生出題策略，以輔助學生認知與後設認知策略之發展。. 關鍵詞：後設認知策略、認知策略、練習、學生出題. *. 于富雲：國立成功大學教育研究所教授劉祐興：國立暨南國際大學土木工程學系副教授電子郵件：fuyun@mail.ncku.edu.tw. **. 收件日期：2007.8.31；修改日期：2007.12.11；接受日期：2007.12.12.

(2) 26. Journal of Education & Psychology September, 2008, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 25-52. The Comparative Effects of Student QuestionPosing and Question-Answering Strategies on Promoting College Students’ Academic Achievement, Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies Use Fu-Yun Yu*. Yu-Hsin Liu**. Abstract. The study examined the comparative effects of student multiple-choice questionposing and question-answering strategies on promoting students’ academic achievement, cognitive and metacognitive strategies use in a lecture-mode instructional setting. In total, 69 civil engineering undergraduates enrolled in two sessions of a required course participated in the study. Statistical analysis found that student multiple-choice questionposing strategy is a more productive strategy for inducing and engaging students in mobilizing cognitive and metacognitive strategies as compared to the traditional questionanswering arrangement. In terms of students’ academic performance, student multiplechoice question-posing is as effective a strategy as question-answering. Based on the present study, it is suggested that instructors who were accustomed to in-class practice. *. Fu-Yun Yu: Professor, Institute of Education, National Cheng Kung University Yu-Hsin Liu: Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Chi Nan University E-mail: fuyun@mail.ncku.edu.tw. **. Manuscript recieved: 2007.8.31; Revised: 2007.12.11; Accepted: 2007.12.12.

(3) 27. sessions might consider a student question-posing approach for an amiable change to promote students’ cognitive and metacognitive strategies use without worrying about its less favorable impact on students’ performance.. Keywords: cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, question-answering, student question-posing.

(4) 28 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. Introduction. undeniable, considering that source of questions or problems are primarily from. At the present time lecturing is still. textbooks or teachers (Brown & Walters,. one of the most prevailing instructional. 2005), whether there are other productive. methods at elementary, secondary and. ways to induce and engage students dur-. undergraduate educational levels world-. ing the process with just a slight twist. wide. As students receive much of their. drives this investigation.. information at schools via this delivery. To elaborate, students have tradi-. mode, encouraging students to take an ac-. tionally solved teacher-generated ques-. tive role in regulating their cognitive. tions—questions that teachers think will. processes while attending to lectures is. be of relevance, importance and interest. critical to their academic success.. (English, 1998). While educators as well. Of the various “external events” pre-. as students seem to be conditioned to ac-. sent in normal classrooms (e.g., gaining. cept a pedagogy that places question-. attention, informing learners of objective,. posing exclusively in the hands of instruc-. stimulating recall of prerequisite knowl-. tors, the phenomena of students unilater-. edge, presenting stimulus material, guid-. ally receiving information conveyed by. ing learning, eliciting performance, pro-. teachers and responding to questions. viding feedback, assessing performance,. handed down by teachers impose tradi-. and enhancing retention & transfer in. tional values of a hierarchal relationship. Gagne’s term), practice sessions and in-. between teachers and students (with. class quiz are some of the few instruc-. teachers assuming authoritative status).. tional events that students literally need to. The importance of diversifying the. respond to (Gagne, 1985; Gagne, Briggs,. sources of questions (Silver, 1994), and. & Wager, 1992). Such events are usually. the potential of student-generated ques-. arranged by instructors in an attempt to. tions has attracted researchers’ attention. induce students to engage in on-the-spot. since the seminal work of the first edition. information processing of incoming mes-. of Brown and Walter published in 1983—. sages while in class and to assess stu-. The Art of Problem Posing (Brown &. dents’ level of understanding. Though its. Walter, 1983). How student-generated. functional roles and associated effects are. questions might affect learning can be.

(5) 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響 29. conceptualized by examining their impact. ence in the mean academic achievement. on students’ cognitive processes. Briefly. posttest score between students exposed. illustrated, student-generated problems. to the multiple-choice question-posing. tend to engage students in the process of. condition and those exposed the multiple-. reflecting on the information received,. choice question-answering condition.. and elaborating and transforming received. 2. There will be a significant differ-. information into personally meaningful. ence in the sub-scales of the questionnaire. forms (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wil-. measuring students’ cognitive strategies. kinson, 2004). While engaging in a ques-. use between the two different conditions.. tion-generating learning task, students. 3. There will be a significant differ-. seem to be induced into a habitual state of. ence in the sub-scale of the questionnaire. constructing personal knowledge and stra-. measuring students’ metacognitive strate-. tegic capabilities through the employment. gies use between the two conditions.. of cognitive and metacognitive learning. Questions such as the following are. strategies, which, in the view of informa-. examined: during lectures would multi-. tion-processing theory and metacognition,. ple-choice question-posing approach, as. promote learning (Yu & Liu, 2005).. compared to multiple-choice question-. In an attempt to induce and engage. answering, induce more frequent use of. students in a state that accentuates inter-. cognitive strategies, like highlighting im-. pretation and reflection of personal un-. portant points, relating new information. derstanding and thinking when attending. to prior knowledge, and rehearsing por-. lectures, the potential of a student ques-. tions of incoming messages on the learn-. tion-posing approach was examined in. ers’ part; during lectures would multiple-. this study. Contrasting with the conven-. choice question-posing in comparison to. tional arrangement where students re-. question-answering induce learners to. spond to questions provided by teachers,. more regularly activate comprehension-. the effects of directing students to gener-. fostering. ate. multiple-. would multiple-choice question-posing. choice questions, in class were examined.. and question-answering solicit and mobi-. The research hypotheses are:. lize various levels of uses of cognitive. questions,. specifically,. 1. There will be a significant differ-. and. monitoring. behaviors;. and metacognitive strategies during lec-.

(6) 30 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. ture, and result in differential academic performance.. Researchers in cognitive psychology have long held that if information is to be. In the following sections, an over-. retained and related to information al-. view and analysis of the theoretical basis. ready stored in memory, the learner must. underpinning a student-generated ques-. engage in some sort of information-. tions approach was briefly provided, fol-. processing, such as rehearsal, organiza-. lowed by a summary of literature support-. tion and elaboration (Gagne, 1985; Gagne. ing the value of a student question-posing. et al., 1992). In addition to helping learn-. strategy before moving on to the descrip-. ers consolidate knowledge better and. tion of the study undertaken.. longer, cognitivists believe that such. Theoretical Basis Underpinning Student QuestionPosing Strategy. processing techniques can help cognitive structuring or re-constructing (Reigeluth, 1983; Wittrock, 1978). When engaging in the task of gener-. have. ating a multiple-choice question, students. been depicted as a promising strategy to. need to construct a question-stem, the. facilitate students’ cognitive elaboration,. correct answer, and three additional alter-. achieve meaningful learning and reinforce. natives. During the process, students must. higher-order thinking skills (Chin &. figure out which parts of the learning ma-. Kayalvizhi, 2002; English, 1998). Two. terials are important and worth testing,. theories that could help explain why a. and which are not. Then, they need to tac-. student question-posing strategy (specifi-. tically phrase the question and come up. cally, multiple-choice question—the focus. with the correct answer, if not already. of the present study) would be conducive. provided in the materials. In other words,. to performance, cognitive and metacogni-. question-posers at times need to go. tive performance are introduced briefly:. through. information-processing theory and meta-. Moreover, they need to ponder three dis-. cognition.. tractors that can effectively discriminate. Student. generated-questions. Information-Processing Theory. the. questions-solving. stage.. those who have learned the materials from those who have not. To accomplish these tasks, students would, presumably,.

(7) 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響 31. constantly re-examine instructional mate-. metacognitive strategies) (Flavell, 1979).. rials so as to point out distinctive features. While cognitive strategies are used to. and differences among closely related. help an individual achieve a particular. categories, clarify relationships among. goal, metacognitive strategies are the me-. pieces of information, and compare newly. diator processes that one uses to control. acquired concepts to previously learned. cognitive activities to ensure that a cogni-. concepts. All in all involves the cognitive. tive goal has been met (Livingston, 2003).. processes of rehearsal, organization and. Executive processes involve planning,. elaboration, which, in light of informa-. monitoring, evaluating and revising ones’. tion-processing theory, should be benefi-. cognitive processes while learning. Ac-. cial to understanding and cognitive devel-. tivities like setting up learning goals, se-. opment.. lecting learning strategies matched with task demands, continuous assessment of. Metacognition. one’s understanding and the attainment of Metacognition can be simply defined. the pre-determined learning goal/sub-. as “thinking about thinking.” Briefly. goals, and adjusting strategic plans of ap-. stated, metacognition refers to higher or-. proaching learning tasks so as to maxi-. der thinking that involves active control. mize one’s learning are metacognitive in. over the cognitive processes engaged in. nature (Livingston, 2003; Pintrich, Smith,. learning, and emphasizes the role of ex-. Garcia, & McKeachie, 1989).. ecutive processes in the overseeing and. As stated, when confronted with the. processes. task of generating multiple-choice ques-. (Brown, 1987; Livingston, 2003). The. tions, several sub-tasks are involved.. term “metacognition” is most often asso-. Completing these sub-tasks usually de-. ciated with John Flavell, who offered an. mands the recurring use of various meta-. early commonly accepted definition of. cognitive strategies. Briefly illustrated, to. metacognition.. Flavell,. generate multiple-choice questions stu-. metacognition consists of metacognitive. dents need to make sure that they under-. knowledge (person variables, task vari-. stand the materials. If that is not the case,. ables and strategy variables) and meta-. they must determine what needs to be. cognitive experience (involving the use of. done to ensure that they meet the cogni-. controlling. of. cognitive. According. to.

(8) 32 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. tive goal of understanding the text. In this. idea of engaging students in the question-. instance,. comprehension. posing activity to induce and engage stu-. may be called in first, accompanied by. dents to more active control of their cog-. “evaluating” whether the cognitive goal. nitive states and minds.. of understanding has been met, which. Literature Support the Potential of Student Question-Posing Strategy. “monitoring”. may be followed by “planning” and “revising” to bring out the planned outcomes. As can be seen, a mixture of metacognitive. strategies,. including. A number of observations have been. “monitoring,” “evaluating” “planning”. made about how questions that students. and “revising“ may be activated at differ-. compose can be of value. For students’. ent points during the process. Similarly,. own sake, question-formation helps them-. when faced with the tasks of providing. selves focus their attention and reflect on. correct answer to the posed questions,. received materials, which ends not only in. finding plausible alternatives, and the. improved information processing and lec-. like, students would need to pull in vari-. ture comprehension, but also elicits infer-. ous metacognitive strategies to attain the. ences, explanations and other high-level. task at hand. In view of metacognition,. cognitive processes (Biddulph, Syming-. when learners engage in question-posing. ton, & Osborne, 1986). The documented. activity, monitoring one’s understanding. benefits gained by students from ques-. of the presented materials and the associa-. tion-posing activities include: developing. tive activities of regulating one’s cogni-. a deeper understanding of the subject con-. tive process (e.g., triggering strategic ac-. tent learned, shifting from acquiring to. tions like reviewing notes to remedy in-. using knowledge, giving students a sense. sufficient comprehension, relating new. of ownership of the subject content as. materials to prior knowledge, integrating. well. incoming pieces of information into a. developing higher-order thinking skills,. consolidated form, etc.) should be fre-. generating more diverse and flexible. quently observed.. thinking, encouraging students to be more. In a nutshell, information-processing theory and metacognition all support the. as. their. learning. experience,. involved in and in control of their learning,. facilitating. communication. about. small the. group. interacting.

(9) 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響 33. the interacting topic, building up students’. been trained in self-questioning during. confidence about the subject matter, and. reading generally showed comprehension. sparking students’ interest and ability in. superior to that of those who used re-read. the follow-up problem-solving activity.. or self-review strategies. Rosenshine et. (Abramovich & Cho, 2006; Barlow &. al.’s (1996) review of intervention studies. Cates, 2006; Brown & Walter, 2005;. in which students were taught to generate. Whitin, 2004; Yu & Liu, 2005). On the. questions as a means of improving their. other hand, from the perspective of the. comprehension. teacher, problem-posing holds benefits for. generation strategy resulted in gains in. the implementing teachers as well, par-. comprehension.. ticularly, in its assessment value—by re-. (1999) conducted research on scientific. vealing insight into students’ abilities in. question-posing capabilities among 10th-. the subject content and providing an accu-. grade students who were studying case. rate assessment of what their students are. studies. Analysis of the questions students. capable of accomplishing (Whiten, 2004).. posed showed that a significant increase. Evidence from empirical studies fur-. in the number and complexity of ques-. ther support the teaching and inclusion of. tions posed after the activity as well as. student question-posing in the instruc-. considerable improvement of their ability. tional process for the enhancement of stu-. to analyze a related case study and to seek. dents’ reading comprehension, academic. practical solutions to a given problem. On. performance, question-generation ability,. the basis of these findings, the researchers. problem-solving ability, etc. (Davey &. suggested that integrating question-posing. McBride, 1986a, 1986b; Dori & Hersco-. into a case-study teaching approach is an. vitz, 1999; King, 1992; Koch & Eckstein,. effective strategy for improving problem-. 1991; Leung & Silver, 1997; Perez, 1985;. solving ability. Rather than focusing on. Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996;. text-processing, King extended the use of. Silver, 1994; Weiner, 1978; Wong, 1985).. student-questioning to the context of oral. For instance, based on her review of re-. lecture and found that a question-posing. search on the use of self-questioning,. strategy significantly improved ninth-. Wong (1985) concluded that students of. graders’ lecture comprehension (King,. various grades and ability levels who had. 1991, 1992). Yu and Liu (2005) in their. found. Dori. that. and. question-. Herscovitz.

(10) 34 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. study focused on examining the potential. asked to respond to in regular classroom. of multiple-choice question-construction. settings, on performance as well as cogni-. for students’ learning of physics experi-. tive and metacognitive strategies use are. ments. Results found that the influences. not known. Accordingly, this study set out. of question-construction were evident in. to examine the effects of multiple-choice. several significant ways: promoting con-. question-posing on students’ academic. structive and productive studying habits,. achievement, cognitive and metacognitive. reflecting and previewing course related. strategies use while attending lectures as. materials, increasing in-group communi-. compared to the traditional question-. cation and interaction, and breaking pas-. answering approach.. sive learning style and habits. Analysis. Methodology. with one-group t-tests further found that students’ satisfaction toward past learning experience, and perceptions toward this. Participants and Learning Context. strategy’s potentials for promoting learn-. Participants in the study were civil. ing were statistically significant while. engineering undergraduates (ages 19~21). learning anxiety was not statistically sig-. who enrolled in two sessions of a “Trans-. nificant.. portation Engineering” course at one uni-. Even though past research generally. versity in the central part of Taiwan. The. provided encouraging evidence support-. course was listed as a 3-credit hour re-. ing the application of student question-. quired course to be taken in the sopho-. posing for promoting comprehension, ex-. more year at the participating department.. isting studies mostly compared question-. This course is the first course related to. posing learning activity to re-read or self-. transportation at the undergraduate level.. review study strategies, were conducted. In total, 69 students registered for the. in primary or secondary school contexts,. course.. and examined its effects on the comprehension of presented materials. The ef-. Experimental Design and Treatment Conditions. fects of question-posing as opposed to question-answering activity—one of the. To examine the differential effects of. few events that students are frequently. question-posing and question-answering.

(11) 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響 35. on academic performance, a posttest-only. and constitute 20% of their final grade.. experimental design was adopted where. Bearing in mind that providing feedback. effects on their cognitive and metacogni-. on the overall quality of students’ ques-. tive strategies use were examined via a. tions was important, as a whole group the. 2x2 mixed-design. To ensure that students. instructor would purposively select three. from both classes started out similarly in. students’ work and use them as exemplars. term of their academic performance, t-. in the next class session, while a grading. tests on their calculus and physics. system of plus (very good), check (good),. (courses regarded as fundamental by en-. and minus (you can do better) would be. gineering majors) taken in their freshman. given as individual feedback.. year were performed and proved not to be. As for the MC question-answering. statistically significant, t=0.06 (p > .05),. group, emphasis was placed on students. t= 0.37 (p > .05).. individually responding to ten multiple-. For the purpose of the study, two. choice questions matched with the current. devised—. content. Students were informed that they. Treatment A: multiple-choice student. would independently answer ten ques-. question-posing group (namely, MC ques-. tions immediately after the information. tion-posing group) versus Treatment B:. presentation session in class, and that. multiple-choice. their. treatment. conditions. were. student. question-. performance. on. the. drill-and-. answering group (namely, MC question-. practice exercise would be assessed and. answering group). In the MC question-. would constitute 20% of their final grade.. posing group, emphasis was placed on. The number of questions that students. students individually constructing at least. would respond to in the study was based. three multiple-choice questions from the. on the average time students would need. current week’s content. Students were in-. to compose three multiple-choice ques-. formed that after the presentation of the. tions in a 15-minute time period as ob-. instructional material, they would work. served in a pilot study conducted in the. on their own to pose three questions dur-. previous semester year. Items for use in. ing the post-lecture study session (15. the question-answering sessions were. minutes) in class, and that the overall. drawn from the test bank kept by the par-. quality of this work would be assessed. ticipating instructor. Feedback on stu-.

(12) 36 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. dents’ performance was also given in two. English’s (1998) proposed framework for. forms. As a whole group, the three ques-. question-posing was adopted and ex-. tions with the lowest accurate rate were. panded to guide students in posing ques-. shown and explained in the next class. tions relevant to the present content. Spe-. session, while the number of questions. cifically, question tags, such as what,. answered correctly by each student was. why, which, how, where, under what cir-. marked and returned for individual view-. cumstances, in what way, what if, etc.,. ing.. were introduced. The question-starter ap-. Experimental Procedures. proach is a simple framework and should be easy to internalize by the participants.. Different treatment conditions were. The simplicity feature of the adopted. randomly assigned to two intact classes. framework is essentially pertinent, con-. (with one class integrated with the multi-. sidering Bean’s (1985) warning that stu-. ple-choice question-posing element while. dents frequently abandon the use of strat-. the other class with the multiple-choice. egy when a complex one is introduced.. question-answering component). To es-. Nevertheless, to avoid the possibility that. tablish baseline information on the levels. students in Treatment A merely focused. of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. on memorization-type questions, compre-. use by participants prior to the interven-. hension- and integration-type of questions. tion, the strategies under investigation. in addition to factual questions supporting. was not introduced to their respective. different levels of knowledge construction. groups until the 3rd instructional session.. (i.e., knowledge restating, knowledge as-. This way participating students could re-. similation and knowledge integration), as. spond to questions that inquire about their. proposed by King (1994), were explained. degree of cognitive and metacognitive. and stressed. Examples of multiple-choice. strategies use in the normal context.. questions on recalling, applying, analyz-. To ensure that participants possessed. ing, comparing, evaluating, and making. the fundamental skills of multiple-choice. connections to prior knowledge and per-. question-composing, a fifty-minute train-. sonal experience were provided and fol-. ing session on question-posing techniques. lowed by a practice-and-feedback session.. was arranged for the experimental group.. Finally, in view of researchers’ sugges-.

(13) 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響 37. tions that informing students of the ra-. tion-answering was implemented in the. tionale for adopting a particular strategy. MC. will enhance the effects of the introduced. classes were taught by the same teacher,. strategy and will more likely ensure con-. who covered the same curriculum and. tinued voluntary use of that strategy. used the same teaching materials in the. (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pressley,. same allocated time frame.. question-answering. group,. both. Borkowski, & O’Sullivan, 1984), students. Lastly, as the incorporated strategy. were briefed about the empirical evidence. was being treated as a learning support. supporting question-posing. Specifically,. tool, students in both treatment groups. students were informed that question-. were encouraged to refer to the textbook. posing has been shown to significantly. and their notes during the post-lecture. facilitate learners’ comprehension of lec-. study sessions. The same questionnaire. ture content. Yet, the potential of multi-. was re-administered individually at the. ple-choice question-posing on cognition. end of the experimental period (2nd wave. or metacognition strategies development. of data collection), followed by a posttest,. were intentionally left out to avoid pre-. the performance of which would consti-. testing effects or demand characteristics. tute 20% of students’ final grade.. that might unnecessarily confound the study.. Dependent Measures and Instruments. Following the question-posing strategy training for the experimental group,. Two instruments were used to gauge. as a routine, a sequence of lectures and. the relative effects of MC question-posing. post-lecture study sessions began for six. and question-answering on students’ aca-. consecutive weeks for both treatment. demic achievement, cognitive strategy. conditions. Efforts were made to ascertain. and metacognitive strategies use: a post-. all instructional components were kept es-. test and questionnaire.. sentially the same between the two. Posttest. classes except the incorporated strategy.. A 50-item multiple-choice questions. That is, during the study section except. was used to assess students’ mastery of. that question-posing was exercised in the. the instructional content as conveyed dur-. MC question-posing group whereas ques-. ing the duration of the study. Topics cov-.

(14) 38 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. ered included the following core contents:. was used to investigate the comparative. intelligent transportation systems, traffic. effect of MC question-posing versus. control devices, railway engineering, ur-. question-answering on students’ cognitive. ban transportation systems, airport design. and metacognitive strategies use. The. and planning, air control, etc. Items on the. “Cognition” subscale of Cherng’s (2000). posttest were pooled from past exams. “High School Students’ Self-Regulated. with item difficulty range between 0.35. Learning Inventory” (SRLI), based on the. and 0.85. The internal consistency reli-. self-regulated. ability of the posttest calculated after the. adopted and adapted to make the items. study was .92. Sample items included,. better fit the learning situation at hand. “Pragmatically speaking, which runway. (learning transportation engineering) and. number can be seen at the airport? (5L-. the target population involved (under-. 6R, 9R-27L, 3R-21R, 11L-29L); Which. graduates). The “Cognition” subscale of. of the following description is not the le-. Cherng’s SRLI consisted of two parts:. gitimate reason supporting building rail. “Cognitive Strategies Use Scale” and. transit systems in metropolitan area? (Re-. “Metacognitive Strategies Use Scale.”. serving right-of-way, ensuring passengers. “Cognitive Strategies Use Scale” (18. traveling on time, comfort, overall con-. items) appraises students’ use of re-. struction expenditure); Intelligent trans-. hearsal,. portation systems are said to enhance the. learning strategies (See Appendix A),. quality of life in several significant ways.. whereas “Metacognitive Strategies Use. Which of the following is not likely to be. Scale” (24 items) reveals students’ activa-. true? (Shortening commuting time, im-. tion of metacognitive strategies for cogni-. proving congestion problems in urban ar-. tion regulation, such as planning, moni-. eas, saving money in commuting travel,. toring, revising, and evaluating one’s ac-. efficiently using existing resources of the. tions and reasoning while learning (See. roadway systems).”. Appendix B).. Questionnaire. learning. elaboration. and. theory,. was. organization. All items were rated on a 6-point. A questionnaire administered indi-. Likert scale, with corresponding verbal. vidually at the 3rd week and the end of. descriptions ranging from “no consis-. the implementation session (9th week). tency”. through. “very. inconsistent,”.

(15) 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響 39. “somewhat. instructional strategy by time interaction. consistent,” “very consistent,” to “com-. effect were detected. A .05 level of sig-. plete consistency.” Administration time. nificance was adopted for use in this. for this instrument was 15 minutes. The. study.. internal consistency reliability calculated. Results. “somewhat. inconsistent,”. after the study was .90 and .88 for the “Cognitive Strategies Use Scale” and. Academic Achievement. “Metacognitive Strategies Use Scale,” re-. Mean and standard deviation for the. spectively. Scores for “Cognitive Strate-. posttest appear in Table 1. Though stu-. gies Use Scale” and “Metacognitive. dents assigned to the MC question-posing. Strategies Use Scale” were generated by a. group performed slightly better than their. simple sum of responses to the compo-. counterparts in the other group, ANOVA. nent items under each scale. Higher. found no statistically significant differ-. scores reflected more frequent use of the. ences between the two groups in aca-. measured construct (i.e., cognitive and. demic achievement, F(1, 67) = 0.07, p. metacognitive strategies).. > .05.. Data Analysis Data. on. students’. Table 1. academic. Means and Standard Deviations for Students’ Academic Achievement. analysis of variance technique (ANOVA).. Treatment Groups Question-posing Question-answering. Data on students’ cognitive and metacog-. SD*: standard deviation. achievement were analyzed using the. nitive strategies use were analyzed with a. Mean (SD*) 81.44 (9.63) 81.27 (11.03). N 36 33. Cognitive Strategies Use. repeated measures ANOVA design, in which MC question-posing and MC ques-. Table 2 displays the means and stan-. tion-answering strategy was the between-. dard deviations for the cognitive strate-. subject factor while the repeated measures. gies use across the two waves of data col-. factor was defined by the two waves of. lection of both groups. Figure 1 displays. measurement of students’ cognitive and. the graph of the means over time by the. metacognitive strategies use. Simple main. two treatment groups. For cognitive. effect tests were followed if significant. strategies use, there was a statistically.

(16) 40 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Cognitive Strategy Use by Waves. Treatment Groups. 1st Wave (pretest) Mean (SD*) 70.11 (9.15) 70.10 (9.98). Question-posing Question-answering. 2nd Wave (posttest) Mean (SD*) 75.14 (9.86) 70.33 (9.47). N 36 33. SD*: standard deviation. Instructional Strategy. 100. Question-posing Question-answering. 90 80 75.1 70.11 70.10. 70. 70.33. 60 Pretest Figure 1. Posttest. Means for Cognitive Strategy Use over Time. significant instructional strategy by time. (F=25.74, p<.05) with a statistically sig-. interaction effect, F=10.64, p<.05. A sim-. nificant increase of cognitive strategies. ple main effect test further found that stu-. use after the intervention, but no signifi-. dents in the two groups reported similar. cant differences were detected for the MC. levels of cognitive strategies use before. question-answering. the intervention (F=0.00, p>.05); how-. p>.05), meaning MC question-answering. ever, students in the MC question-posing. group’s cognitive strategies use remained. group reported statistically significant. approximately at the same level between. higher levels of cognitive strategies use. the two wave of data collection.. after the intervention (F= 4.09, p<.05) in comparison with students in the MC ques-. group. (F=0.05,. Metacognitive Strategies Use. tion-answering group. A separate simple main effect again revealed a statistically. Table 3 displays the means and stan-. significant difference between the two. dard deviations for the metacognitive. waves for the MC question-posing group. strategies use at the two time points of.

(17) 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響 41. Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Metacognitive Strategy Use by Waves. Treatment Groups. 1st Wave (pretest) Mean (SD*) 83.56 (12.97) 84.10 (17.13). Question-posing Question-answering. 2nd Wave (posttest) Mean (SD*) 92.89 (13.27) 84.40 (15.26). N 36 33. SD*: standard deviation. data collection for both groups. The two-. group (F=0.02, p>.05), indicating that the. way interaction between instructional. levels of metacognitive strategies use for. strategy and time is graphed in Figure 2.. the MC question-answering group re-. Overall, the findings paralleled those of. mained stable over the two observation. cognitive strategies use. That is, there was. points.. a statistically significant instructional. Discussion. strategy. by. time. interaction. effect,. F=10.85, p<.05. A simple main effect test. Academic Achievement. further confirmed that students in the two. As analyzed earlier, in light of in-. groups started out similarly in terms of. formation-processing theory and meta-. their levels of metacognitive strategies. cognition, a question-posing learning ac-. use before the intervention (F= 0.02,. tivity may have a facilitating effect for. p>.05), but differed significantly after the. students’ comprehension. However,. intervention (F=5.51, p<.05) with stu-. ANOVA results from this study did not. dents in the question-posing group exhib-. find that question-posing as opposed to. iting a statistically significant higher level. question-answering produced better aca-. of metacognitive strategies use. A sepa-. demic performance at the posttest. In. rate simple main effect again revealed a. other words, past studies on student-. statistically significant difference between. questioning that were mainly conducted. the waves of data collection for the MC. in elementary to secondary levels with. question-posing group with a statistically. open-ended question-type, and its effects. significant. metacognitive. mostly compared to that of a re-read or. intervention. review strategy found supportive evi-. (F=25.49, p<.05), but no significant dif-. dence; however, its comparative effect to. ferences for the MC question-answering. question-answering was not substantiated. strategies. increase use. after. of the.

(18) 42 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. Instructional Strategy. 100. Question-posing Question-answering. 92.89. 90 84.10 80. 84.40. 83.56. 70 60 Pretest Figure 2. Posttest. Means for Metacognitive Strategy Use over Time. in this study with undergraduates using. ing exposure to the ideas and practice of. multiple-choice question type.. the multiple-choice question-posing strat-. Despite the fact that the current. egy for six consecutive weeks, students. study did not confirm that the MC ques-. expressed more frequent use of cognitive. tion-posing strategy is better than the. strategies while attending lectures as. conventional approach—in-class practice. compared to their counterparts in the MC. or quiz sessions (i.e., question-answering). question-answering group. These results. that is most frequently adopted by instruc-. supported the beneficial effects of the. tors in normal classrooms for promoting. multiple-choice question-posing strategy. academic achievement, students in both. on students’ cognitive strategies use as. the. compared to the traditional question-. question-posing. and. question-. answering groups did have equivalent. answering strategy.. performance at the posttest. In fact, both. Cognitive strategies use reflected. groups performed satisfactorily on the. students’ active cognitive involvement in. posttests (M=81.44 and 81.27 for Treat-. the task at hand in terms of their use of. ment A and B, respectively), as compared. rehearsal, elaboration and organization. to those in the previous years according to. strategies (Gagne, 1985; Gagne et al.,. the implementing instructor.. 1992). When faced with the task of gen-. Cognitive Strategies Use. erating multiple-choice questions, students would be more likely to resort to. The findings indicated that after hav-. various cognitive strategies in order to.

(19) 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響 43. satisfy the learning tasks assigned. First. more in activating rehearsal, elaboration. and foremost, to search for testable mate-. and organization cognitive strategies. Par-. rials (i.e., important areas worth testing),. ticularly, after the instructor integrated the. presumably students would re-visit the in-. multiple-choice question-posing element. formation. re-. in the class, students’ self-assessment of. examining texts and notes, or by reflect-. their cognitive processes was in more. ing back on what the instructor conveyed. agreement with statements on the cogni-. during the oral presentation. This in es-. tive strategies use scale (See Appendix A. sence entails exercising rehearsal and or-. for reference).. landscape. either. by. ganization strategies. To design plausible. Metacognitive Strategies Use. alternatives, on the other hand, students would need to clarify relationships and critical features differentiating closely re-. The results obtained supported the. lated concepts, principles or theories. To. researchers’ contention that the multiple-. permit comparisons, associations and. choice question-posing strategy had a fa-. linkages among newly acquired concepts,. cilitating effect on students’ metacogni-. personal. previously. tive strategies use. It was found that stu-. learned topics, an elaboration strategy. dents in the multiple-choice question-. would likely be activated for that end.. posing group tended to engage more fre-. experiences. and. From these analyses, it is expected. quently in higher levels of thinking, and. that a multiple-choice question-posing. initiated executive processes more often. learning task would be conducive to stu-. as. dents’ cognitive strategies use and devel-. answering group. More specifically, after. opment. Through re-visiting and re-. being exposed to the multiple-choice. processing the incoming information and. question-posing task for six consecutive. building. between. weeks, students indicated more frequent. pieces of information both within and. activation of the kinds of metacognitive. outside the instructional materials while. acts included in the metacognitive strate-. attending lectures, the present study found. gies use scale (See Appendix B for de-. that students in the MC question-posing. tails).. inter-connectivity. group tended to be induced to engage. compared. to the MC. question-. When being confronted with the task.

(20) 44 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. of constructing multiple-choice questions,. learning atmosphere within which student. the sub-tasks of zooming in on materials. are induced to more actively regulate their. that are testable, phrasing question stems,. thinking process and continuously ma-. finding plausible alternatives, and provid-. nipulate orally presented materials (i.e.,. ing the best answer for the posed ques-. indicators of engaged learners) is an im-. tion, seemed to induce students to mobi-. portant issue for students’ academic suc-. lize various metacognitive strategies in. cess. Student-generated questions, in light. class. In order to accomplish each and. of information-processing theory and. every sub-task involved in multiple-. metacognition, seem to be facilitative of. choice question-posing, monitoring, re-. students’ cognition-regulation behaviors. vising, evaluating, and planning metacog-. and enhance comprehension of the inter-. nitive strategies were called upon and. acting information (King, 1994; Rosen-. utilized in light of metacognition. The sta-. shine et al., 1996).. tistically significant results from the cur-. Data from the present study substan-. rent study supported the researcher’s ex-. tiated the effects of multiple-choice ques-. pectation that multiple-choice question–. tion-posing strategy for the improvement. posing task may entice students to be. of college students’ cognitive and meta-. more cognizant of their learning status. cognitive strategies use as compared to. and become self-regulated learners, who. the traditional drill-and-practice strategy.. were more prone to make changes, more. Specifically, data collected via question-. accustomed to setting up plans, more ef-. naire in the study showed that posing. fective in monitoring their understanding,. multiple-choice questions while attending. and more flexible in evaluating their pro-. lectures helped students take better con-. gress when situations arose that called for. trol of their cognitive and metacognitive. such endeavors.. processes, such as focusing on the lecture. Conclusions. and learning material, discerning the organization and main points of the ideas. Seeing that lecturing is one of the. presented, extending external connections. most frequently used instructional meth-. to pre-existing knowledge and related top-. ods in traditional classrooms at almost all. ics, activating self-evaluation techniques. educational levels, how to cultivate a. to monitor comprehension along the way,.

(21) 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響 45. level of knowledge acquisition, can be. etc. Based on the present study, a student. gradually moved toward that of a student. multiple-choice question-posing strategy. self-initiated knowledge construction and. seems to be a more profitable strategy to. creation model that induces and engages. adopt for inducing and engaging students. students in cognitive-demanding activities. in their higher order thinking processes,. along the process.. specifically, various cognitive and meta-. Before concluding, the researchers. cognitive strategies. On the other hand, in. would like to stress that the present study. terms of students’ academic performance,. focused on one type of question—. student multiple-choice question-posing. multiple-choice. is as effective an instructional strategy as. search on testing effect showed that ques-. question-answering (traditional drill-and-. tion type influences student monitoring of. practice).. learning from text, which was indexed by. question-posing.. Re-. In view of past and the present study,. whether the students choose to study. it is suggested that instructors who were. more after testing (Pressley, Ghatala,. accustomed to reserve parts of their in-. Woloshyn, & Pirie, 1990). With prelimi-. structional time for drill-and-practice ses-. nary results suggested that different types. sions might consider student-generated. of questions have different stimulating ef-. questions for an amiable change to pro-. fects on students’ intent to future study-. mote students’ cognitive and metacogni-. ing, that each question type possess dis-. tive strategies use without worrying about. tinct advantages and limitations, and that. its less favorable impact on students’ per-. individuals revealed statistically differen-. formance. By permitting students to com-. tial preference toward different question-. pose questions they deemed important. posing activities (Yu, 2008), future stud-. and worthwhile, other than simply re-. ies on the associated facilitating effects of. questing them to reply to teacher-. various question types on students’ study. provided questions, hopefully, the tradi-. behaviors, academic performance and. tional interaction model (teacher initiate. motivation will be worth exploring.. →student reply→teacher evaluate), which. Reference. viewed questions as being mainly an assessment mechanism for judging students’. Abramovich, S., & Cho, E. K. (2006). Tech-.

(22) 46 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. nology as a medium for elementary preteachers’ problem-posing experience in mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(4), 309-323. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58. Barlow, A., & Cates, J. M. (2006). The impact of problem posing on elementary teachers' beliefs about mathematics and mathematics teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 106(2), 64-73. Bean, J. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an exploratory model of college student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1), 35-64. Biddulph, F., Symington, D., & Osborne, R. (1986). The place of children’s questions in primary science education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4(1), 77-88. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (1983). The art of problem posing. Philadelphia, PA: Franklin Institute Press. Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (2005). The art of problem posing (3rd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates publish-. ers. Cherng, B. L. (2000). Studies of junior and senior high school students' selfregulated learning. Technical report of National Science Council project (NSC 89-2413-H-006-021). Taipei: Taiwan. Chin, C., & Kayalvizhi, G. (2002). Posing problems for open investigations: What questions do pupils ask? Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 269-287. Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986a). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 256-262. Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986b). Generating self-questions after reading: A comprehension assist for elementary students. Journal of Educational Research, 80(1), 43-46. Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 411430. English, L. D. (1998). Children’s problem posing within formal and informal context. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 83-106. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-development inquiry. American Psychology, 34(10), 906-911. Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional de-.

(23) 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響 47. sign. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. King, A. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(4), 331-346. King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided studentgenerated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111-126. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368 Koch, A., & Eckstein, S. G. (1991). Improvement of reading comprehension of physics texts by students’ question formulation. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 473-485. Leung, S. K., & Silver, E. A. (1997). The role of task format, mathematics knowledge, and creative thinking on the arithmetic problem posing of prospective elementary school teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 5-24. Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An Overview. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 474273) Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175. Perez, J. A. (1985). Effects of studentgenerated problems on problem solving performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., &. McKeachie, W. J. (1989). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, The University of Michigan. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & O’Sullivan, J. T. (1984). Memory strategy instruction is made of this: Metamemory and durable strategy use. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 94-107. Pressley, M., Ghatala, E. S., Woloshyn, V., & Pirie, J. (1990). Sometimes adults miss the main ideas and do not realize it: Confidence in responses to short-answer and multiple choice comprehension questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 232-249. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional-design: Theories and models. Lawrence, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181-221. Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19-28. Weiner, C. J. (1978, March). The effect of training in questioning and student question generation on reading achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 158223) Whiten, D. J. (2004). Exploring the strategy of problem posing. In G. W. Bright & R..

(24) 48 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. N. Rubenstein (Eds.), Professional development guidebook for perspectives on the teaching of mathematics: Companion to the sixty-sixth yearbook (pp. 1-4). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Whitin, P. (2004). Promoting problem-posing explorations. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(4), 180-186. Wittrock, M. C. (1978). The cognitive movement in instruction. Educational Psychology, 13(1), 15-29. Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning in-. structional research: A review. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 227-268. Yu, F. Y., & Liu, Y. H. (2005). Potential values of incorporating multiple-choice question-construction for physics experimentation instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 13191335. Yu, F. Y. (2008, February). Student-generated questions in physics labs: Possibilities and students’ preference. Paper will be presented at the Conference of Asian Science Education, Kaohsiung, Taiwan..

(25) 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響 49. Appendix A. Cognitive Strategies Use Scale. 1. While learning transportation engineering, I would read and re-read the material. 2. While learning transportation engineering, I would copy the main ideas and topic sentences of the material onto paper and recite them again and again. 3. While preparing for upcoming exams on transportation engineering, I would review instructional materials (i.e., textbooks, notes) over and over again 4. Copying important points covered in transportation engineering textbooks was the strategy I usually used for memorization purpose. 5. I would work hard on the main ideas by repetition so as to retain them well in my memory while learning transportation engineering. 6. When learning transportation engineering, I would practice answering questions at the end of each chapter several times. 7. While learning transportation engineering, I would try to associate what I learned in this unit with related concepts covered in other units. 8. While learning transportation engineering, I would try to rephrase what I read in the text using my own words. 9. While learning transportation engineering, I would think of a way to relate what the teacher conveyed in class to my own experience. 10. While learning transportation engineering, I usually used an association strategy, such as thinking about relevant themes or relationships, to help memorization. 11. While learning transportation engineering, I would paraphrase the main ideas in the text using my own words and then read those out to myself. 12. While learning transportation engineering, I would try to draw on what I’ve learned from other classes to help my learning of the current materials. 13. While learning transportation engineering, I would read through the textbook and take notes first, and then pinpoint the important concepts of the material. 14. While learning transportation engineering, I would locate important keywords and sentences in the text. 15. While learning transportation engineering, I tried to write down what the instructor stressed in class and would tidy up my notes afterwards..

(26) 50 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. 16. While learning transportation engineering, I would underline or mark areas that I thought were important. 17. While learning transportation engineering, I would rearrange the materials in the way that seemed most comprehensible to me. 18. After finishing learning each chapter, I would identify the most important ideas..

(27) 學生出題策略與傳統練習策略對大學生學習成就、認知與後設認知策略使用之影響 51. Appendix B. Metacognitive Strategies Use Scale. 1. While learning transportation engineering, I would get a general idea of the content first and then study for details. 2. While learning transportation engineering, I would set goals for myself at every stage of my learning. 3. While learning transportation engineering, I would pay special attention to the beginning and ending of each paragraph. 4. While learning transportation engineering, I would think about the meaning of the heading first and then decide on how to approach this topic. 5. While learning transportation engineering, I would use the headings in the textbook to locate important points. 6. While preparing for exams on transportation engineering, I would reflect back on what the teacher said in class, and then set down my own study plan. 7. While learning transportation engineering, I would stop and reflect on what I just heard or read and then note the most important points along the way. 8. Before transportation engineering exams, I would look for more items so as to assess my level of understanding. 9. While learning transportation engineering, I tried to uncover those areas that I didn’t learn well at the time of the original class. 10. While learning transportation engineering, I tried to pull together questions that I couldn’t answer and then focus on those areas that I didn’t understand. 11. When questions were raised in transportation engineering class, even if not directed at me, I would try to answer them to make sure that I understood the text 12. I would check to see whether I understood what the instructor taught while attending transportation engineering class. 13. Once encountering something that I couldn’t understand while learning transportation engineering, I would re-read the text again in an effort to understand more. 14. After each transportation engineering exam, I would adjust my study strategies based on the experience. 15. If having a hard time understanding the text while learning transportation engineering,.

(28) 52 教育與心理研究 31 卷 3 期. I would modify my study strategies. 16. When my transportation engineering grades went down, I would change to another learning method in an attempt to improve my learning performance. 17. If I couldn’t understand what the teacher taught in transportation engineering class, I would definitely work harder on this topic after class. 18. While learning transportation engineering, I would keep practicing those questions that I frequently answered incorrectly until I could get them right. 19. After reviewing each section in transportation engineering, I would find some questions and try to answer them myself. 20. Prior to a transportation engineering exam, I would try to assess my level of understanding while reviewing transportation engineering texts. 21. While learning transportation engineering, I would refer to other sources that contain test items for self-evaluation to see if I understood the assigned content 22. Before transportation engineering exams, I would take a parallel test to help me review the content. 23. After answering simple questions, I would try to answer more difficult ones to have an idea of my competency with regard to this topic. 24. After answering questions in the textbook, I would look for questions from other sources while learning transportation engineering..

(29)