臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

中文摘要
本研究目的在設計一系列情境問題解決教學課程取代傳統實驗教學(食譜式實驗)，並探討不同教學課程對八年級學生的科學學習成就測驗、科學概念建構測驗、科學情境問題解決能力測驗的影響。
參與實驗計畫的班級共有四個班級 (126名學生)，分成實驗組 (61人) 與對照組 (65人)。實驗組學生先接受講述式教學，再接受情境問題解決教學課程，講述式教學的教學時間共28節課，實驗課程部分一共有6次，每週一次，總共有12節課。對照組的學生則先接受講述式教學，再接受傳統的實驗教學課程 (食譜式實驗) 。講述式教學的教學時間共34節課，實驗課程部分一共有6次，每週一次，總共有6節課。實驗組與對照組的上課總時數均為40節課。整個研究的教學時間為期兩個月。
研究結果顯示，在科學學習成就測驗、科學概念建構測驗、科學情境問題解決能力測驗方面，情境問題解決教學組學生在三種測驗後測、追蹤測的表現均優於傳統實驗教學組，且差異達顯著。此結果顯示情境問題解決教學對促進學習成效與學習的保留效果，都比傳統實驗教學來的好。
在問題解決測驗質性資料的分析結果顯示，實驗組學生在後測與追蹤測提出方法完整與解釋正確的次數與百分比率明顯高於對照組，此結果顯示情境問題解決教學對促進科學解釋與提昇問題解決能力兩方面均有助益，且實驗組的學習成效與保留效果均優於傳統實驗教學。除此之外，實驗組學生提出方法部份完整、解釋不完全正確的次數也明顯高於對照組，此結果顯示，實驗組學生雖然無法提出完整的方法與正確的解釋，但實驗組學生具備較多關於解決問題有關的知識。
在實驗組學生學習單質性資料分析結果顯示，學生平均成績的變化情形在「方法」與「解釋」兩個向度上相似，都是單元一、三、五成績較佳，單元二、四、六成績最差。學生平均成績的變化情形在「實驗設計」與「評估」兩個項度上相似，都是單元一、三、五成績較佳，單元二、四較差，單元六和單元一、三、五之間無顯著差異。學生平均成績的變化情形在「已知」和「評量」兩個向度之間較無完全一致的趨勢。

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of contextualized scientific problem solving on students learning of science in terms of their problem solving ability and scientific concept construction. This study used a quasi-experiment with one factorial design of instructional approaches (problem-solving experiment and traditional experiment). There were 126 junior high school students involved in this study from four intact classes in north part of Taiwan. There were sixty-one students received problem-solving experiment while there were sixty-five students received traditional experiment. All students were given three tests: scientific achievement test, scientific conception two tier test, and contextualized problem-solving test before, after and after six weeks of instruction. The group students who receiving contextualized problem-solving experiment were also collected their problem solving worksheet.
Results indicate that problem-solving experiment group significantly outperformed than to the control group in scientific achievement test, scientific conception two tier test, and contextualized problem-solving test, regardless of immediate effect and retaining effect. Students contextualized problem solving test also were further analyzed through qualitative method which clearly indicated that experimental group students provided greater frequency of higher level problem solutions and scientific explanations across questions.
Regarding to the lab problem solving data, it clearly indicated that students performance for the scales of known knowledge, solutions, explanations, design experiment, evaluation, and assessment do vary across topics, however, we do see pattern of increasing their performance across topics in general.

中文摘要 ……………………………………………………………………… i
英文摘要 ……………………………………………………………………… ii
誌謝 ……………………………………………………………………… iii
目錄 ……………………………………………………………………… iv
表目錄 ……………………………………………………………………… vi
圖目錄 ……………………………………………………………………… viii
第一章 緒論………………………………………………………………… 1
第一節 研究背景與研究動機………………………………………… 1
第二節 研究目的……………………………………………………… 5
第三節 研究問題與假說……………………………………………… 5
第四節 名詞釋義……………………………………………………… 6
第五節 研究範圍與限制……………………………………………… 7
第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………………… 8
第一節 問題解決……………………………………………………… 8
第二節 問題解決的認知歷程………………………………………… 14
第三節 情境認知理論………………………………………………… 21
第四節 問題解決相關教學理論……………………………………… 21
第五節 科學問題解決相關研究……………………………………… 22
第三章 研究方法…………………………………………………………… 25
第一節 研究對象……………………………………………………… 25
第二節 研究設計……………………………………………………… 27
第三節 研究流程……………………………………………………… 28
第四節 研究工具設計………………………………………………… 30
第五節 教學設計……………………………………………………… 36
第六節 資料分析……………………………………………………… 42
第四章 研究結果與討論…………………………………………………… 44
第一節 學習成就測驗成效分析……………………………………… 44
第二節 概念建構測驗成效分析……………………………………… 46
第三節 問題解決測驗成效分析……………………………………… 47
第四節 學習歷程分析………………………………………………… 71
第五章 結論與建議………………………………………………………… 76
第一節 結論…………………………………………………………… 76
第二節 建議…………………………………………………………… 79
參考文獻 ……………………………………………………………………… 81
附錄 ……………………………………………………………………… 86
附錄一 科學學習成就測驗題本……………………………………… 86
附錄二 科學概念建構測驗題本……………………………………… 90
附錄三 科學情境問題解決測驗題本………………………………… 98
附錄四 情境問題解決課程學習單…………………………………… 112
附錄五 科學情境問題解決實驗與傳統實驗教學內容對照表……… 137

參考文獻
一、中文部分
王春展 (1997)：專家與生手間問題解決能力的差異及其在教學上的啟示。教育研究資訊, 5, 80-92。
教育部 (2000)：國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要：自然與生活科技。台北：教育部。
教育部 (2002)：全國第一次科學教育會議資料。台北：教育部。
張俊彥和翁玉華(2000)：我國高一學生的問題解決能力與科學過程技能之相關性研究。科學教育學刊, 8 (1),35-55。
楊坤原 (1999)：問題解決在科學學習成就評量上的應用。科學教育月刊, 216, 3-16。
二、英文部分
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view .New York: Holt , Rinehart & Winston.
Beyer, B. (1987). Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for iimproving thinking learning and creativity(2th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Brown, S. J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989).Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 322-342.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1988).Situated cognition and the culture of learning.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED342 357).
Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Champagne, A. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1981).Problem solving as outcome and method in science teaching: Insights from 60 years of experience. School Science and Mathematics,81(1), 3-8.
Chi,M.T.M.,Glaser,R.& Glaser,R..( 1985) .The Nature of Expertise.Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Coles, M. J. & Robinson, W. D. (Eds) (1989).Teaching Thinking. Bristol: The Bristol Press.
Costa, J. E. (1984). Physical geomorphology of debris flow. In J. E. Costa & P. J. Fleischer, (Eds.),Developments and applications of geomorphology,268-317. Berlin：Springer-Verlag.
Detterman, D. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (1993). Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex..
Dewey, J.(1910).How we think.Boston:Heath.
Driver, R. and Bell, B. (1986). Students’ thinking and the learning of science: a constructivist view. The School Science Review, 67(240), 443-456.
D’Zurilla,T. J.,＆Goldfried, M.R.(1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78(1), 107- 126.
Fisher, R. (1990). Teaching children think. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Flavell, J. H (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In: Weiner, F. E. & R. H. Kluwe (Eds). Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognition aspects of problem-soving. In: Resnick L. B. (Eds). The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ：LawrenceErlbaum, pp231- 235.
Fosnot, C.T. (1996). (Ed.). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fosnot, C.T. (1989). Enquiring Teachers, Enquiring Learners: A Constructivist Approach for Teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gagne′ E.D.(1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston：Lettle, Brown and Company.
Gangne, R. M. (1980). Preparing the learner for new learning. Theory into Practice, 19(1), 6-9.
Gick, M. L. & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogy transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
Hacker M.;&Barden,A.R.(1988).Living with technology.Albany New York：Delmar.
Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989a). A computational model of analogical problem solving. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 242-266). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989b). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13, 295-355.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 63-85.
Johnson, S.D. (1987). Teaching problem solving. School Shop, 15-17.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 45,65-94.
Kahney, Hank. (1986). Problem solving - A cognitive approach. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J.R., & Simon, H.A. (1985). Why Are Some Problems Hard?
Evidence From the Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology (17),284-294.
Kuhn, Thomas S. ( 1996 ), The Structure of Scintific Revolutions. ( 3rd edition )
Mayer, E. R. (1992). Thinking, Problem Solving, Cogniton. NewYork:Freeman.
Mayer, E. R. (1989). Human nonadversary problem solving. In K. J. Gilhooly (Eds.),Human and Machine Problem Solving. New York: Plenum Press.
Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2),121-134.
Matthews, M, R. (1997). Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education. Science & Education, 6(1-2), 5-14.
Niedelman, M. S. (1990). An investigation of transfer to mathematics of a problem-solving strategy learned in earth science. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(11), 3622.
Newell, Alan and Herbert A. Simon(1972). Human Problem Solving.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Osborne, J. F. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science education, 80(1), 53-82.
Papert, S. (1996). The Connected Family. Atlanta: Longstreet Publishing.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Parnes, S. J. (1966). Programming creative behavior. Buffalo: State University of New York.
Phillips, D, C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Polya G. (1981). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning and teaching problem solving (2 vols.; combined ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Polya,G.(1957).How to solve it : A new method of mathematical method. Solved Gifted Child Today.March/April, 61- 63.Princeton, NJ :Princeton.
Reitman, W. R. (1965). Cognition and Thought: An Information-Processing Approach.New York: Wiley.
Schoenfeld, A. (1989). Explorations of students’ mathematical beliefs and behavior. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 338-355.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic.
Shepardson, D. P. (1991). Relationships among problem solving, student Interactions, andthinking Skills. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Researchin Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.
Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003).Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation.Journal of research in science teaching, 40(1),6-33.
Smith, M.U. (1991).Toward a unified theory of problem solving. New Jerscy：LEA Publishers.
Stanish, B. ＆ Fberle, B.(1997). Be a problem- Solver：A resource book for teaching creative problem -solving.Waco, TX：Prufrock Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Cognitive Psychology, (3rd ed.) Wadsworth: United States of
America.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Cognitive psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt teaching creative problem solving.Waco, TX： Prufrock Press. BraceCollege Publishers.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The Triachic Mind: A new theory of Human Intelligence. New York：Penguin Books.
Sternberg, R. J. (1982).Who’s intelligent? Psychology Today,Aprial,30-39.
Sternberg,R(1977). Intelligence, informationprocessing, andanalogicalreasoning: Thecomponentialanalysisofhumanabilities.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Swanson, H. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (2), 306-314.
Suchmon (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of
human-machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Treffinger, D. J., Isaken, S. G. & Dorval, K. B (1994). Creative problem solving: An overview. In M.A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, creativity. New Jersey: Ablex.
Tsai, C.-C. (2003). The interplay between philosophy of science and the practice of science education. Curriculum and Teaching, 18(1), 9-36.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998). Science learning and constructivism.Curriculum and Teaching, 13, 31-52.
Von Glasersfeld, E.(1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Washington, D. C. :The Falmer Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallas,G.(1926).The Art of thought.NewYork:Har court Brace world.
Wayne K. Hoy & Cecil G. Miskel(2001). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Welch, W. W. (1985). Research in science education: Review and recommendations. Science Education, 69(3), 421-448.
Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on Science and Mathematics learning. Science Education, 75 (1), 9-21.
Wolfinger, D. M. (1984). Teaching Science in the elementary school. Boston: Little Brown.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Zion, M., Michalsky, T. & Mevarech, Z. (2005). The effects of metacognitive instruction embedded within an asynchronous learning network on scientific inquiry skills. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 957-983.