臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究的目的在探討職前教師和在職教師「氣體粒子模型」和「氣體基本性質」的迷思概念及對於「氣體粒子模型」和「氣體基本性質」概念本體樹分類情形。
本研究採紙筆測驗和晤談方式進行。在紙筆測驗階段，共選取151位樣本分成四組，以百分比統計分析樣本各題答題狀況外，亦將以 t-test檢視各類樣本的差異性。研究結果發現，在氣體模型上，許多受試者仍以連續模型來描述氣體，或是雖以粒子模型來描述氣體，但對其特性卻不瞭解，且不一定會使用粒子概念來解釋氣體的行為。各組樣本得分依序為職前教師、在職教師，經t-test考驗後，達到顯著性差異(P＜.05)。
在晤談階段，則是從紙筆測驗分數前2.5﹪和後2.5﹪中，各挑選5位為晤談對象，以進一步檢視受訪者的氣體概念在Chi本體樹類別概念分類情形。研究結果顯示，高分組的受試者在訪談時使用了較多平衡類別述詞(58.62﹪)，低分組的受試者則使用較多的物質類別述詞(56.92﹪)，經過U-Test考驗後，兩組述詞使用的情形達顯著差異(P＜.05)。這顯示高分組的受試者比低分組的受試者更能掌握氣體化學中微觀、動態和隨機的特質，而低分組的受試者傾向以巨觀、連續的觀點解釋氣體的性質。
紙筆測驗和晤談結果比較，發現有些受試者在紙筆測驗選擇了正確的答案，但在晤談時卻給錯誤的解釋。這顯示受試者並非不瞭解氣體概念的一些基本陳述，而是於概念本體樹中將某些概念置放於有別於專家概念的類別，這可能是造成樣本迷思概念原因之一。

The purposes of this study were to investigate and to assess ontological commitment of in-service and pre-service teachers’ particulate concepts of gas.
A paper-pencil test and interview survey were adopted to collect the subjects’ conceptions in the study. The sample included 30 in-service and 121 pre-service teachers were selected for paper-pencil test. An examination of the proportion of responses for the various test questions was made. Results showed that some subjects still used the continuous model to describe gas concepts, or some subjects could use the particulate model to describe gas concepts, nevertheless, they did not understand its properties. Not all subjects who could use the particulate model could explain the behavior of gas by particulate theory. The average score of pre-service teachers is higher than in-service teachers, and a t-test showed that is statistically significant (p<.05).
The interview subjects included 10 teachers who account for in top and bottom 2.5﹪of the former performance. In this study “Verbal Content Analysis Technique” was utilized to analyze the samples’ ontological commitment. Comparing the number of verbal predicates in all three categories showed that the subjects in high-score group made more use of EP predicates(58.62﹪), nevertheless, the subjects in low-score group made more use of substance predicates(56.92﹪), and a nonparametric test of U-Test between them was significant different( p<.05). Results showed that the subjects in high-score group perceived more microscopic, mobile, random processes of gas concepts and the subjects in low-score group inclined to macroscopic, continuous views on concepts of gas.
Comparing the results of paper-pencil test and interview survey showed that, although some subjects of the answer can be correct, nevertheless, the overall framework in which the explanation is embedded is still incorrect. Results showed that subjects did understand basic principles of gas to some degree, but they do assign some concepts to the wrong category that is ontologically distinct from the expert category to which it belongs.

目次
中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………..Ⅰ
英文摘要……………………………………………………………………………..Ⅲ
目次………………………………………………………………………………… Ⅴ
表次……………………………………………………………………..………….. Ⅶ
圖次………………………………………………………………………………… Ⅸ
第一章緒論………………………………………………………………………..…1
第一節研究動機…………………………………………………………………..1
第二節研究目的與待答問題……………………………………………..………4
第三節名詞釋義…………………………………………………………..………5
第四節研究範圍與限制…………………………………………………..………7
第二章理論基礎與相關文獻探討……………………………………….………….8
第一節 學生「空氣概念」相關研究與實證………………………………………..8
第二節 化學史中一段被忽略的插曲：氣體的晶格理論………………………..32
第三節 Chi的本體論概念改變理論……………………………………..……....43
第四節 以Chi的本體論來分類學生的迷思概念…………………...…………..68
第三章研究方法……………………………………………………...…………….78
第一節 研究樣本…………………………………………………..……………..78
第二節 研究工具…………………………………………………………………79第三節 實施程序…………………………………………………………………80
第四節 資料分析…………………………………………………………………85
第四章研究結果與討論……………………………………..……………………..91
第一節 試驗性紙筆測驗和晤談結果……………………………………...…….91
第二節 紙筆測驗………………………………………………………………..105
第三節 晤談結果與分析………………………………………………………..135
第五章 結果與建議……………………………………………………..…………193
參考書目……………………………………………………………………………203
中文部分……………………………………………………………………………203
英文部分…………………………………………………………………………....203
附錄…………………………………………………………………………..……..208
附錄一 紙筆測驗試題………………..……………………………………………208
附錄二 晤談問題綱要及編號………..……………………………………………213
附錄三 高分組屬性頻率表…………..……………………………………………215
附錄四 低分組屬性頻率表…………..……………………………………………216
表目次
表 2-1 物質類別和過程類別的特徵…….……………..……………………...….58
表 2-2 事件概念與條件滿足限制概念所具有的特質…..……………….……....59
表 3-1 封閉式紙筆測驗的受測學生資料….……...………...…..………………..78
表 3-2 正式紙筆測驗的受測樣本資料………..…………...……………………..79
表 3-3 事件本體類屬性屬性分類代號說明………..…...…….………………….88
表 3-4 過程本體類屬性屬性分類代號說明………..….…….…………..……….88
表 3-5 物質本體類屬性屬性分類代號說明…...….……………………………...89
表 3-6 某樣本晤談資料之概念屬性次數表…..…..…….…...…….……………..89
表 3-7 某樣本晤談資料之概念屬性頻率..…….………………….…………...…90
表 4-1 預試紙筆測驗各選項的百分比與難度鑑別度…...………………………92
表 4-2 試題分析…....……………………………………………………………...93
表 4-3 學生的整體表現的敘述統計結果...…….………………….…………….106
表 4-4 高分組與低分組得分狀況.…....…………………………………………109
表 4-5 第1題各組答題狀況..…….……………………………………………...111
表 4-6 第2題各組答題狀況..…………………………………………………....113
表 4-7 第5題各組答題狀況……..………………………………..……………..114
表 4-8 第6題各組答題狀況……..…….………………………………………...115
表 4-9 第7題各組的答題狀況..……….………………………………………...116
表 4-10 粒子均勻分佈概念答題狀況表…..………………………………………118
表 4-11 第3題各組的答題狀況..………….………………………………………119
表 4-12 第4題各組的答題狀況..…………….……..…………………………….120
表 4-13 氣體平衡概念中的重要錯誤概念..………...………...………………….121
表 4-14 第8題各組的答題狀況.……………………………………………….…123
表 4-15 第9題各組的答題狀況..………..……………………………………….125
表 4-16 氣體各項性質的錯誤概念….…………………………..………………..126
表 4-17 第10題各組的答題狀況…….…..……………………………………….127
表 4-18 第11題各組的答題狀況..……..………………………………………...129
表 4-19 第12題各組的答題狀況..…………..……………………...……………130
表 4-20 第17題各組的答題狀況..……………..…..………………………….…130
表 4-21 氣體基本概念中的重要錯誤概念表..…………………………...………131
表 4-22 第18題各組的答題狀況…..………..…………………………………...132
表 4-23 氣體性質與其計算能力的t考驗..…………...………….………………132
表 4-24 不同背景變項樣本在「氣體概念」的平均得分.……………...…….…134
表 4-25 不同背景變項樣本在「氣體概念」得分的單因子變異數分析……….…134
表 4-26 不同背景變項樣本在「氣體概念」得分的比較.……………...…….…134
表 4-27 事件本體類屬性屬性分類代號說明..……….………………………..…137
表 4-28 過程本體類屬性屬性分類代號說明..………….……………………..…137
表 4-29 物質本體類屬性屬性分類代號說明...……….……………...…………..138
表 4-30 紙筆測驗第1題各組的答題狀況…………..……………………….…..139
表 4-31 第1-1題各組的答題狀況…………..……………………………………139
表 4-32 紙筆測驗第4題各組的答題狀況……………..………………………...142
表 4-33 第1-2題各組的答題狀況..…………...……………………………….…142
表 4-34 紙筆測驗第2題各組的答題狀況………………..……………………...146
表 4-35 第2題各組的答題狀況..…..…………………………………………….146
表 4-36 紙筆測驗第5題各組的答題狀況………...……………………………..150
表 4-37 第3-1題各組的答題狀況..……………….…………..…….……………150
表 4-38 紙筆測驗第7題各組的答題狀況..…….………………………………...154
表 4-39 第3-2題各組的答題狀況..…………...………………………………….154
表 4-40 第3-3題各組的答題狀況..…………...…………………………….……158
表 4-41 紙筆測驗第6題各組的答題狀況..………..…………………………….161
表 4-42 第3-4題各組的答題狀況...…………..………………………………….161
表 4-43 紙筆測驗第8題各組的答題狀況..……………………………………...165
表 4-44 第4-1題各組的答題狀況..………………………...…………………….165
表 4-45 紙筆測驗第9題各組的答題狀況………..……………………………...169
表 4-46 第4-2題各組的答題狀況..……..…………………………………….….169
表 4-47 紙筆測驗第10題各組的答題狀況..……..……………………………...173
表 4-48 第5題各組的答題狀況………..………………………………………...173
表 4-49 紙筆測驗第11題各組的答題狀況..……………………………………..176
表 4-50 第6題各組的答題狀況……….………………………………………….176
表 4-51 紙筆測驗第12題各組的答題狀況………..…………………………….179
表 4-52 第7題各組的答題狀況..……..………………………………………….179
表 4-53 紙筆測驗第17題各組的答題狀況..……..…………...…………….…...182
表 4-54 第8題各組的答題狀況………..………………….….………………….182
表 4-55 紙筆測驗第18題各組的答題狀況.………………..….…………………184
表 4-56 第9-1題各組的答題狀況………..…………………..…………………..185
表 4-57 第9-2題各組的答題狀況..……...……………………………………….187
表 4-58 高分組與低分組物質述詞頻率分析..……...……………………………190
表 4-59 高分組與低分組事件述詞頻率分析...…………………………..……....190
表 4-60 高分組與低分組平衡述詞頻率分析...…………………………………..190
表 4-61 平衡過程述詞頻率與紙筆測驗成績的相關性...………………………..191
表 4-62 事件述詞頻率與紙筆測驗成績的相關性..……...………………………191
表 4-63 物質述詞頻率與紙筆測驗成績的相關性...……………………………..192
圖目次
圖 2-1 表示容器內裝有氫氣…………...…………………………………………28
圖 2-2 氫分子的分布圖…………………...………………………………………29
圖 2-3 氣體粒子在高壓下(ABCD)和低壓下(EFGH)……………………………34
圖 2-4 兩種氣體混合在一起………………………………...……………………35
圖 2-5 原子在固態、液態和氣態。陰影部份代表熱質…………………………36
圖 2-6 氧氣和氮氣的分子圖形………………………………...…………………38
圖 2-7 道耳吞對於氣體原子的描述…………………………….………………..38
圖 2-8 氣體分子－都具有相同的體積…………………………...………………39
圖 2-9 亞佛加厥自己所畫的氣體分子圖………………………….……………..39
圖 2-10 本體樹的組織架構…………………………………………...……………52
圖 2-11 同一本體樹內概念改變……………………………………….…………..56
圖 3-1 研究流程……………………………………………………….…………..81
圖 4-1 受測學生答題得分狀況…………………………….…………...….…….107
圖 4-2 高分組與低分組三個屬性述詞使用頻率比較圖………………..
........189

中文部分
王美芬、熊召弟（1995）：國民小學自然科教材教法，台北。心理。
吳國盛(民87)：科學的歷程。新竹市：理藝。
邱美虹(2000)：概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊, 8(1), 1-34.
邱美虹, 劉家茹, 周金城, 梁家祺（1999）：認知師徒制對學生化學概念改變的影響。第十五屆科學教育學術研討會論文彙編。
洪振方(民89)：近代科學的發展。北市：台灣書局
黃湘武和黃寶細(1985)：學生空氣概念：粒子性質及動力平衡。七十四年科學教育學術研討會論文彙編。台北市：國科會。
張靜宜(審稿中)：大台北地區國小學童對空氣相關概念認知的研究：＜科學教育月刊＞
英文部分
Andersson, B. (1990). Pupils’ conception of matter and its transformation(age 12-16). Studies in Science Education, 18, 53-85.
Brush, S. G. Kinetic Theory；Pergamon：Oxford, 1965；Vol.1, pp43－56.
Brush, S. G. The Kind of Motion We Call Heat；North Holland：New
York., 1976；Vol.1, pp.160－176.
Carey, S. (1985a). Conceptual change in childhood. The MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: examples from learning and discovery in science. In R.Giere(Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp.129-186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
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, 27-43.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Creativity: Shifting across ontological categories flexibly. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and process (pp.209-234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Chi, M. T. H. & others(1991). Learning in non-physical science domain: The human circulatory system. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 342 629).
Driver, R., Guesne, R & Andrée, T. (1985) Children’s ideas and the learning of science. In R. Driver, E. Guesne and A. Tiberghien (eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp1.-9). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
diSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and instruction, 10(2ſ), 105-225.
Ferrari, M. & Chi, M. T. H. (1998) The nature of naïve explanations of natural selection, International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1231-1256.
Griffiths, A. K, ＆ Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611-628.
Grossman, P.L. (1989). A Study in Contrast: Sources of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Secondary English. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 24-32.
Hwang, B. T. (1995). Student’ conceptual representations of gas volume in relation to particulate model of matter. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Keil, F. (1979). Conceptual change. In R. A. Wilson & F. C, Keil (1999). The MIT encyclopedia of the Cognitive Science, 179-182. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kuhn, T. (1962).The Structure of scientific Revolution , Chicago :University of Chicago Press.
Mendoza, E. (1990).‘The Lattice Theory of Gases：A Neglected Episode in the History of Chemistry’, Journal of Chemical Education 67, 1040－1042.
Nakhleh, B. M. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191-196.
Nakhleh, M. & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 190-192.
Niaz, M. ＆ Robinson, W.R. (1992). From“Algorithmic Mode”to“Conceptual Gestalt”in understanding the Behavior of Gases: An Epistemological Perspective , Research in Science and Technological Education, 10, 53-64.
Niaz, M. (1994b). From Quantitative to Qualitative: A Better Understanding of the Behavior of Gases？School Science Review, 76, 87-88.
Niaz, M. (2000). Gases as Idealized Lattices: A Rational Reconstruction of students’ Understanding of the Behavior of Gases. Science and Education, 9, 279-287.
Noh, T. & Scharmann, L, C. (1997). Instructional influence of molecular-level pictorial presentation of matter on student’ conception and problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 199-217.
Novick, S. & Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study. Science Education, 62(3), 273-281.
Novick, S. & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross age study. Science Education, 65(2), 187-196.
Nussbaum, J. (1985). The particulate nature of matter in the gaseous phase. In R. Driver, E. Guesne and A. Tiberghien (eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp.124-144). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Pfundt, H. (1981) The Atom - The Final Link in the Division Process or the First Building Block? Pre-Instructional Conceptions about the Structure of Substances. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 229 281).
Posner, G. J.,Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W. & Gertzog, W.A.(1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of a conceptual change. Science education, 66(2), 211-227.
Reiner, M., Slotta, J.D., Chi, M .T. H. & Resnick, L.B. (2000). Naive Physics Reasoning: A commitment to Substance-Based Conception, Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1-34.
Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D. A.(1981). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three nodes of learning. In R. Klatsky & J. W. Cotton(Eds), semantic factors in cognition. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrece Erlbaum Associates.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Stavy. R. (1988). Children’s conception of gas. International Journal of Science Education, 10(5), 553-560.
Stavy, R. (1990). Children’s conception of changes in the state of matter: From liquid (or solid) to gas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 246-266.
Séré, M. G. (1982). A study of some frameworks of the field of mechanics, used by children (aged 11 to 13) when they interpret experiment about air pressure. European Journal of Science Education 4(3), 299-309.
Séré, M. G. (1986). Children’s conceptions of the gaseous state, prior to teaching. European Journal of Science Education 8(4), 413-425.
Slotta, J.D., Chi, M. T. H., & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing Student’ Misclassifications of physics Concepts: A Ontological basis for Conceptual change, Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 373-400.
Slotta, J.D. & Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Understanding constraint-based processes: a precursor to conceptual change in physics. In G. W. Cottrell (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 301-311.