跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(75.101.211.110) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/01/26 12:56
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:侯香伶
研究生(外文):Shiang-ling Hou
論文名稱:科學探究活動中的科學本質面貌對國一生科學本質觀之影響
論文名稱(外文):The influence of NOS Embedded in Science Inquiry Activities on 7th Graders’Views of NOS
指導教授:段曉林段曉林引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hsiao-lin Tuan
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱:科學教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:186
中文關鍵詞:科學探究科學本質開放式探究
外文關鍵詞:science inquirynature of scienceopen-ended inquiry
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:66
  • 點閱點閱:1434
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:401
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:18
本研究主旨在藉由了解國一學生開放性科學探究活動中,其探究歷程的特質;教師和學生在探究歷程中呈現的科學本質觀;學生在探究活動前後的科學本質改變情形以及影響改變之間素。本研究採用質為主、量為輔的主-輔設計,以十週的時間觀察兩組學生進行科學探究活動的過程。
研究發現學生多以其先備知識、經驗及模仿教師的研究範例思考研究主題,而實驗器材能否取得為決定研究主題的一大因素。提出問題和質疑是學生精緻化控制變因的主要方式。學生會以質樸概念討論不熟悉的研究主題,並且會影響其研究方向。而在設計研究計畫時,選擇研究主題佔用較多的時間。學生收集文件資料的方式包括閱讀印刷品、媒體、詢問長輩、日常經驗等方式,其中以網路資料使用最多;學生也設計實驗活動收集資料;研究結果部份強調證據支持,並以圖表方式呈現研究結果。而撰寫研究報告內容部份,學生較難完成文獻探討,其次為討論和結論。
教師於探究活動中所呈現的科學本質觀,多符合當今科教學者的科學本質觀,唯有以特定研究報告格式引導學生進行探究活動的流程,呈現出科學研究依據固定的研究步驟進行;且較少強調科學家努力克服研究限制的精神,及科學研究必須考量宗教和倫理的因素。
學生於探究活動中呈現多項科學本質觀,包括:實驗器材和知識缺乏為學生進行科學研究的限制;因為擔憂教師和同儕的質疑,而小心設計研究計畫。小組互動方式的差異,影響研究報告產生的方式。當小組間無法達成共識時,學生依賴教師的協助。當學生發現實驗操作進行錯誤或者質疑研究結果時,會重新進行實驗操作。
學生於探究活動後,其科學本質觀的改變情形包括:更確定和瞭解想像力和創造力在科學研究上的角色、科學知識隱含錯誤、科學研究的方法、以及科學研究報告內容為科學家取自他認為值得報導的部份;認為科學研究按照一定的流程進行,並且認為科學家不會刻意尋找研究主題,而科學家進行研究受到特定因素的限制,以及認為科學家的研究目的之一是為了獲得利益;而不對稱互動型的小組在探究活動後,認為科學家以多數決的方式解決彼此意見不同的事。
而影響學生科學本質觀改變的因素如下:設計研究計畫讓學生深刻體認想像力和創造力在科學研究上的重要性,並且讓學生認為某些因素會限制科學研究的進行。尋找研究主題的活動影響學生對科學家尋找研究主題的方式之印象;撰寫研究報告和上台發表讓學生體認科學研究報告所呈現的內容,受到科學家個人的偏好影響。完整的科學探究活動,讓學生更清楚科學家如何進行科學研究。以特定研究報告順序引導學生進行探究活動,誤導學生認為科學研究具有一定的流程。小組互動方式影響學生對科學家解決問題的方法之認知;因同儕參與探究活動的動機不一,影響學生認為參與科學研究的目的是多元的。活動後,學生認為由實驗產生的研究結果,即可稱為科學知識。
The purposes of this study were to explore the nature of students’ participating science inquiry activities, how teacher and students represent nature of science (NOS) during science inquiry, and the changes of students’ NOS before and after the inquiry activities. Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were used in the study. Two groups of 7th graders were investigated during ten weeks science inquiry activities.
The study indicated that the way students generated their inquiry topics were depended on their previous experience and knowledge, modeling their teacher’s research example. Whether they can have the equipments to conduct inquiry activities dominated their investigation topics. Posing questions and providing criticism were methods to elaborate the control variables in the inquiry activities. Students used their naïve conceptions to discuss unfamiliar issue, which influenced the direction of their inquiry. Among several inquiry stages, students spent the most time in selecting investigation topics. Sources for students to collect information included printing materials, the media, the elder, internet network and their daily life experience. Within these various sources, the internet network was students’ favorite one. And the students also designed experiments to gather the data of the study. In presenting the results, students uses graphs to present their findigns, they also emphasis on providing empirical evidence to support their findings.
The NOS that the teacher presented during inquiry activities mostly coincided with the tenets of the science educators’. Except for the way that the students were guided to science inquiry according to the processes of the particular report, it presented that there is a fixed processes for scientific research. In addition, the teacher did not address on scientists’ endurance in overcoming difficulties and the issue of the ethics and religions.
The NOS that the students presented during their inquiry activities were: the restrictions of equipments and students’ knowledge in conducting science inquiry; they planed inquiry process carefully in order to avoid criticism from the teacher and other students. Group interaction patterns influenced the way group report were generated. When group members could not make consensus during discussion they would depend on the teacher’s assistance. If they made error in conducting the experiment or doubted their experiment results, they would repeat the experiment.
After participating the inquiry activities, students became more sure and aware of the imagination and creativity played in the science research, science knowledge might have inaccuracy, and the methods in conducting science research. They also thought science investigation followed particular procedures. The scientists impromptu searched for their research topics; there were restrictions in conducting the science research. And earning money was one of the reasons for scientists in conducting inquiry. The asymmetric group interaction would influence students’ thought the scientist solved their dissension by majority.
The study summarized factors which influenced the students’ NOS changed as follows: (1) research design made students realized the role of imagination and creativity played in the science research, and also the restriction of conducting science inquiry (2) search research topic changed students’ impression of the way scientists searching for their research topics; (3) writing and reporting research reports made students realize that scientist could put their bias on their research reports; (4) full science inquiry made students appreciate how the scientist carry out their project; (5) the particular way they were guided to inquiry misled themselves that scientists did research in a invariable way; (6) different group interaction patterns influenced students’ perception on how scientist solved their dissension; (8) students had various motivation in participating in the inquiry activities thus they thought scientists also conduct research with diverse motivation; (9) after completing the inquiry activities made students thought that their investigation result were the scientific knowledge itself.
中文摘要 Ⅰ
英文摘要 Ⅲ
目次 Ⅴ
表次 Ⅵ
圖次 Ⅵ
附錄次 Ⅵ
第壹章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 3
第三節 研究限制 4
第四節 名詞釋義 4
第貳章 文獻探討
第一節 科學本質 5
第二節 科學探究活動 15
第三節 國內外相關科學探究與科學本質實徵性研究 23
第參章 研究方法
第一節 研究對象 30
第二節 研究者理念與角色 33
第三節 研究情境介紹 36
第四節 研究流程 38
第五節 研究工具與資料收集 39
第六節 資料分析 41
第肆章 研究結果與討論
第一節 學生在科學探究活動中,其探究歷程的特質 43
第二節 在科學探究活動中,個案教師呈現的科學本質觀為何 64
第三節 在科學探究活動中,個案學生呈現的科學本質觀為何 89
第四節 個案學生科學本質觀改變的情形 112
第伍章 結論與建議
第一節 結論 158
第二節 建議 163
參考文獻 167
表次
表2-1 比較邏輯實證主義和建構主義的科學本質觀 7
表2-2 以哲學為觀點的科學本質觀 10
表2-3 以心理學為觀點的科學本質觀 12
表2-4 以社會學為觀點的科學本質觀 13
表2-5 以歷史為觀點的科學本質觀 14
表3-1 待答問題與資料來源之交互對應表 41
表4-1 個案班級科學探究活動的研究問題 49
表4-2 個案教師在探究歷程上展現的科學本質觀 88
表4-3 個案學生在探究歷程上展現的科學本質觀 111
表4-4 個案班級在科學探究活動前後,科學本質問卷平均分數變化表 113
表4-5 個案班級在科學探究活動前後,科學知識本質平均分數變化 113
表4-6 個案班級在科學探究活動前後,科學方法本質平均分數變化 115
表4-7 個案班級在科學探究活動前後,科學事業本質平均分數變化 117
表4-8 個案組別第一組在科學探究活動前後科學本質問卷平均分數變化表 120
表4-9 個案組別第四組在科學探究活動前後科學本質問卷平均分數變化表 139
圖次
圖3-1 研究流程圖 39
圖4-1個案班級在科學探究活動前後科學本質問卷變化折線圖 112
圖4-2 個案組別第一組在科學探究活動前後科學本質問卷
平均分數變化折線圖 119
圖4-3 個案組別第四組在科學探究活動前後科學本質問卷
平均分數變化折線圖 138
附錄次
附錄一 科學本質問卷 171
附錄二 科學本質晤談問題(實施科學探究活動前後) 173
附錄三 研究問題設計結束後之科學本質晤談題目 174
附錄四 實驗活動結束後之科學本質晤談題目 174
附錄五 研究報告撰寫結束後的科學本質晤談題目 175
附錄六 個案老師介紹科學探究活動的投影片資料 176
附錄七 模擬報告參考講義 178
附錄八 學生在第二週的模擬研究報告的中研究結果部份 179
附錄九 學生的科學研究作品中的研究結果部份 180
附錄十 科學本質問卷三個構面的成對樣本檢定 184
附錄十一 科學本質問卷各子題的成對樣本檢定 185
一、中文文獻
王文科(1999):教育研究法。台北:五南。
林陳涌(1996a):「了解科學本質量表」之發展與效化。科學教育學刊,4(1),31-58。
林陳涌(1996b):從經驗證據和科學理論之間的關係來探討自然科實驗教學的意義。科學教育月刊,184,2-15。
段曉林譯(1996):科學活動.過程技巧和思考(Padilla, M.J.原著)。科學學習心理學,台北市:心理出版社, 頁301-320。
段曉林和靳知勤(1999):提昇國中理化學習動機之行動研究計劃(2/3)。行政院國家科學委員會研究計劃(NSC88-2511-S-018-003)。
段曉林和靳知勤(2000):提昇國中理化學習動機之行動研究計劃(3/3)。
行政院國家科學委員會研究計劃(NSC88-2511-S-018-003)。
胡幼慧(1996):質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。台北:巨流。
翁秀玉(1997):國小自然科學教師傳達科學本質之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
翁秀玉和段曉林(1997):科學本質在科學教育上的啟示與作法。科學教育月刊,201,2-15。
張清濱(2000):探究教學法。師友,395,45-49。
張惠博(1993):邁向科學探究的實驗教學。教師天地,62,12-20。
張惠博、何佩琪和林建隆(2000):國中學生對於科學和科學家的認識之研究。教育研究資訊,8(5),136-152。
張靜儀(1995):自然科學探究教學法。屏師科學教育,1,36-45。
張靜嚳(1995):何謂建構主義。建構與教學,3。
教育部(1968):國民中學暫行課程標準。台北:正中。
教育部(1972):國民中學課程標準。台北:正中。
教育部(1983):國民中學課程標準。台北:正中。
教育部(1994):國民中學課程標準。台北:正中。
教育部(2001):國民教育九年一貫課程網要:「自然與生活科技」學習領域。台北:教育部。
許良榮和李田英(1995):科學史在科學教學的角色與功能。科學教育月刊, 179,15-27。
許玫理(1992):我國國民中學自然科學教師科學哲學觀點之調查研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
郭重吉(1996):建構論:科學哲學的省思。教育研究雙月刊,49,16-23。
郭重吉和許玫理(1992):從科學哲學觀點的演變探討科學教育的過去與未來。彰化師範大學學報第三期,3,531-560。
舒煒光和邱仁宗(1990):當代西方科學哲學述評。台北:水牛,頁16-23。
黃瑞琴(1997):質的教育研究法。台北:心裡出版社。
詹志禹(1996):認識與知識:建構論VS.接受觀。教育研究雙月刊,49,25-37。
詹志禹和吳壁純(1992):邏輯實證論的迷思。思與言,30(1),101-121。
劉宏文(2001):高中學生進行開放式科學探究活動之個案研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
劉宏文和張惠博(2001):高中學生進行開放式科學探究活動之個案研究-問題的形成與解決。科學教育學刊,9(2),169-196。
顏瓊芬(1999):職前生物教師進行開放式科學探究過程之研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
二、西文文獻
Abimbola, I. O. (1983). The relevance of the “new” philosophy of science for the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 83(3), 181-192.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS Press .
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barman, C. R. (1999). Students’ views about scientists and school science: Engaging K-8 teachers in a national study. Journal of Science Teacher Education,10(1), 43-54.
Blosser, P. E., & Helgeson, S. L. (1990). Selected procedures for improving the science curriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. .ED325 303).
Chiappetta, E. J., Koballa, T. R., & Collette, A. T. (1998). Science instruction in the middle and secondary (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Merrill.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
Colburn A., & Bianchini, J. A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through iquiry to prospective elementary teacher: A tale of researchers. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 37(2), 177-209.
Crawford, B. A., Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). The impact of science apprenticeships on student conceptions of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA. March 28-31, 1999.
Domin, D. S. (1999). A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543-547
Finson K. D., Beaver, J. B., & Cramond, B. L. (1995). Development and field test of a Checklist for the Draw-A-Scientist test. School Science and Mathematics, 95(4), 195-205.
Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217-223.
Gunstone, R. F., Loughran, J. J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (1999). Inquiry in science classes--Do we know”how, when, and why”? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430 808).
Haury, D.L. (1993). Teaching Science through Inquiry. ERIC/CSMEE Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED359 048).
Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science & Education. 84(1), 51-70.
Jaoude, S. B. (2001). Scientific inquiry in the Lebanese dcience curriculum. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching National Meeting, St. Louis, MO, March 2001.
Keys, C. W. (1998). A study of grade six students generating questions and plans for open-ended science investigations. Research In Science Education, 28(3), 301-316.
Lederman, N. G. (2000). Problem solving and solving problems: inquiry about inquiry. School Science & Mathematics, 100(3), 113-16.
Lederman, N. G. (2001). The many flavors of scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching National Meeting, St. Louis, MO, March 2001.
Lin, H. S. (2001). The relationship between students'''' problem-solving ability and understanding about the nature of science. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. St. Louis, March.
Mamlok, R., & Hofstein, A. (2001). Inquiry-type laboratories in high school chemistry in Israel. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching National Meeting, St. Louis, MO, March 2001.
McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: dispelling the myths. In W. f. McComas(Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education(pp53-70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McComas, W. F. & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. f. McComas(Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education (pp41-52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards : observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
Nussbaum, J. (1989). Classroom conceptual change: philosophical perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 530-540.
Pappas, M. J. (2000). Managing the inquiry learning environment. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 16(7), 27-30.
Rakow, S. J. (1986). Teaching Science as Inquiry. Fastback 246. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED275 506).
Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’s images of science. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 36(2), 201-219.
Samples, B., Hammond, B., & McCarthy, B. (1985). 4MAT and science : toward wholeness in science education . Barrington, Illinois : EXCEL.
Suchin, V. (1993). Effect of research experience on teachers’ perceptions of the nature science (science training). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Suchting, W. A. (1992). Constructivism deconstructed. Science & Education, 1(3), 223-254.
Tomkins, S. P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Looking for ideas: observation, interpretation and hypothesis-making by 12-year-old pupils undertaking science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 791-813.
Treagust, D. F. (2001). Inquiry in science education: An Australian perspective. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching National Meeting, St. Louis, MO, March 2001.
Tuan, H. L. (2001). Inquiry in the science curriculum: A case from Taiwan. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching National Meeting, St. Louis, MO, March 2001.
Wenk, L. (1999). Developmental measures as evaluation tools for inquiry-based science programs. Paper presented at the NARST, Boston, MA. March 1999.
Wolfer, A. J., Robinson, J. B., Mason, S. L., Heppert, J. A., & Eills, J. D. (2001). Effect of problem-based inquiry laboratory experience on general chemistry students’s understandings of the nature of science. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching National Meeting, St. Louis, MO, March 2001.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top