臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究目的為利用引導式探究教學，採取行動研究探討研究者在實施探究教學時所遭遇的困難與解決策略、學生對物理學科的學習動機、科學探究觀點理解程度與物理概念學習的變化情形。本研究以馬來西亞某小型獨中高中一年級的八位學生為研究對象，進行為期一學年兩個階段的探究教學循環。研究者透過蒐集與分析課室錄音與錄影、教師反思日誌、學生的科學學習動機問卷（SMTSL）、科學探究觀點問卷（VASI）與物理概念概念圖的前後測、學生的晤談記錄等相關資料，獲得以下結論：（一）研究者在實施引導式探究教學過程中所遭遇的問題為學生小組運作方式不適合，研究者利用各司其職以改善某些學生因無所事事而干擾小組運作的進行，其它教學困難的改善包括應用親手操作的實驗取代電腦虛擬實驗的無趣，採用較開放性的題目來替代封閉式題目的學習單。（二）本研究學習動機整體看兩次循環結果，達到顯著的差異有「自我效能」、「科學學習價值」、「表現目標導向」、「成就目標」和「學習環境誘因」。（三）學生對於科學探究觀點經過引導式探究教學後有完全理解的有「科學方法的多元」、「提出的問題引導着探究的步驟」與「實驗結論與實驗數據相對應」。（四）學生在探究教學前後概念改變的類型有五種包括概念保留、概念增加、概念取代、概念重組與概念捨棄。至於物理單元概念圖測驗的前後測結果顯示，引導式探究教學是有助於學生在物理概念的掌握。

　　This study aimed to use action research to carry out guided inquiry instruction in one 10 grader physics class in Malaysia, and explored the difficulties encountered in the implementation of inquiry teaching and the strategies for improvement by means of action research. In addition, researcher wanted to report the changes of students' motivation to physics, the learning of physics concept and understanding of students' view of scientific inquiry. One-year inquiry teaching were implemented in a class with 8 students, which was conducted in three stages. Preparation stage: The stage of pre-research in inquiry teaching (observation period, second stage: the first and second stages of teaching in the development period, the third stage: the stage of data analysis and writing of papers. Data collection included classroom video and sound recording, teachers' diary, SMTSL, scientific inquiry viewpoint questionnaire (VASI) and physics concept map before and after the test, as well as interview and worksheets. Finding indicated that the three problems faced in the action research are: The study object is not suitable for group cooperative learning, simulation experiment cannot arouse students' interest; and inquiry learning is closed only in the initial stage of inquiry teaching. Solutions were: to replace the open questions in the worksheets so that the students can freely play to answer, and to increase the hands-on experimental activities and each student has one’s duty to take to facilitate the cooperative learning. After the study, students' motivation in scientific learning show that their self-efficacy, value of scientific learning, performance goal, achievement goal and learning environment stimulation increased significantly. Students’ view of scientific inquiry increased significantly in the constructs of“There is no single set or sequence of steps followed in all investigations”」、“Inquiry procedures are guided by the question asked”and “Research conclusions must be consistent with the data collected”.Finally students’ concept mapping measurement increased significantly after the inquiry-based instruction.

目錄
摘要 I
Abstract II
目錄 III
表次 V
圖次 VI
附錄次 VII
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 3
第三節 名詞釋義 4
第四節 研究限制 5
第貳章 文獻探討 6
第一節 科學探究 6
第二節 探究式教學 9
第三節 科學探究能力 10
第四節 科學探究觀點 12
第五節 科學學習動機 13
第六節 有意義的學習 16
第參章 研究方法 20
第一節 研究者背景與信念 20
第二節 研究對象 21
第三節 研究工具 22
第四節 研究設計與流程 25
第五節 資料收集與分析 29
第肆章 研究結果與討論 31
第一節 實施引導式程中所遭遇到的困難與採取行動策略 31
第二節 學生學習動機之變化情形 37
第三節 引導式探究教學對學生科學探究觀點的改变情形 46
第四節 探究教學對物理概念改變之情形 51
第伍章 結論與建議 62
第一節 結論 62
第二節 建議 64
參考文獻 66
中文文獻 66
英文文獻 67
附錄 70

參考文獻
中文文獻
王美芬（2002）。科學學習心理學。心理出版社。
余民寧（1997）。有意義的學習 : 概念構圖之研究。臺北市：商鼎文化。
林国安（2016）。为什么“综合科学”？ —— 马来西亚华文独中实施初中综合科学课
程的理论探讨。马来西亚人文与社会科学学报，5（1），15-24。
翁榮源、陳定威和施信宏(2006)：引導發現式學習在「環境化學」網站之應用與研究。
科學教育月刊，292，39-54.
侯政宏(1996)。探究式教學法與講述式教學法在國中地球科學「太陽視運動」單元中學
生學習成效之比較。國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文(未出版，
台北市)。
耿筱曾(2000)。國小學童概念學習之研究。國民教育階段九年一貫課程（自然與科技）
課程發展研究國際研討會論文集，15-16，63-67。台北：國立台北師範學院。
凌蘋（2013）。科學遊戲融入引導式探究教學對國中低成就學生自然科學習成效影響
之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學，彰化縣。
張春興（1989）。教育心理學。東華出版社。
張春興（2007）。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐 重修二版。東華出版社。
張春興（2011）。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐版。東華出版社。
魏明通（1997）科学教育。台北 五南圖書公司。









英文文獻
Adams, T., Bezner, J., & Steinhardt, M. (1997). The conceptualization and measurement of perceived wellness: Integrating balance across and within dimensions. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11(3), 208-218.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Anderson(2002). Reforming Science Teaching: What Research Says About Inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education,13(1), 1-12
Andersen, L. & Cross, T. L. (2014). Are students with high ability in math more motivated in math and science than other students? Roeper Review, 36(4), 221–234.Ausubel, D. P. (1963a). Cognitive structure and the facilitation of meaningful verbal learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 14, 217-222.
Ausubel, D. P. (1969), A cognitive theory of school learning. Psychology in the Schools., 6: 331–335.
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & De Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27-43.
Chei‐Chang Chiou (2008) The effect of concept mapping on students’ learning achievements and interests,Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 375-387.
Costenson, K. & Lawson, A.E. (1986). Why isn’t inquiry used in more classrooms? American Biology Teacher, 48(3), 150- 158.
Dumont M.P. 1989. psychotoxicology:,The return of the mad hatter. Social Science Medicine, 29(9),1077-82.
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
Estelle Gaigher, Norman Lederman & Judith Lederman (2014) .Knowledge about inquiry: A study in South African high schools, International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 3125-3147
Furtak, E. M. (2006).The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science. Edition, 90, 453-467
Gagne, (1969). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of Psychology,20,381-418.
H. Ertepmar& O. Geban(1996). Effect of instruction supplied with the investigative-oriented laboratory approach on achievement in a science course. Educational Research, 38(3):333-341
Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V. N. (2004).The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Edition, 88,28-54
Hogan, K. (1999), Relating students' personal frameworks for science learning to their cognition in collaborative contexts. Science Edition., 83,1–32.
Kleinginna & Kleinginna (1981). A categorized list of motivation definitions, with a suggestion for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5(3), 263-291

Lederman（2014）. Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific
inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 51(1),65-83.

Loving (1997). From the summit of truth to its slippery slopes: Science education's journey yhrough positivist-postmodern territory. American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 421-452
Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and context for contemporary teaching. In B. Fraser & K. G. Tobin. (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp 249–262). Dordrecht, Kluwer
Markham, K. M., Mintzes, J. J. and Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 91-101
Mahler, Hoz, Fischl, Tov-Ly, & Lernau, (1991). Didactic use of concept mapping in higher education: applications in medical education. Instructional Science, 20(1), 25-47.

Marshall D. Herron.(1971).The Nature of Scientific Enquiry. The School Review ,79(2), 171-212.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Novak J. D. & Gowin D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press
Padilla, Michael J. & National Association for Research in Science Teaching. (1986). The science process skills. Research Matters...To the Science Teacher. [Washington, D.C.] : Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Edition, 66, 211-227.
Roth, W.-M. & Roychoudhury, A. (1993), The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 127-152
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. ( 2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177-237

Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C. & Shieh, S. H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6),639-654