跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.210.21.70) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/15 09:45
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

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:潘子欣
論文名稱:國小自然科教科書分析---以概念改變為架構
論文名稱(外文):Content Analysis of Elementary Science Textbooks---Using Conceptual Change Model as Framework
指導教授:陳龍川陳龍川引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立花蓮師範學院
系所名稱:國小科學教育研究所
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:165
中文關鍵詞:內容分析概念改變模式自然科教科書
外文關鍵詞:Content AnalysisConceptual Change ModelScience Textbook
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:21
  • 點閱點閱:708
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:9
本研究的目的為依據Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982)的概念改變模式發展分析架構以及分析方法,並以此架構來分析國小自然科教科書,以瞭解各版本之教科書內容符合概念改變的情形。
本研究的分析架構分為不滿足、理解、合理以及適用範圍較廣等四個類目,本研究利用此分析架構來分析82年版四個版本之國小自然科教科書,並從中挑選出「光的色散與組合」、「金屬氧化」、「光合作用」以及「晝夜和四季」此四個單元來分析,結果發現:
1.本研究所發展之分析方法具體可行,而分析架構亦通過信度檢定。
2.沒有一個版本的教科書能在四個單元以及四個類目均表現良好。
3.由於「光的色散與組合」、「金屬氧化」、「光合作用」是日常生活上所常見的現象,因此表現較好,「晝夜和四季」的概念較抽象,因此表現較差。
4.在「不滿足」、「合理」以及「適用範圍較廣」類目中,教學指引符合的次數大約佔總和的 ,而課本、習作則佔總和的 ,教學指引的比例大於課本、習作的比例,而且前者大約為後者的兩倍,但是教學指引通常為教師所閱讀,課本、習作才是學生所閱讀,因此教師應能善用教學指引,幫助學生達成概念改變。
5.教科書在「理解」類目表現與其他三個類目以及是否為課本、習作、教學指引沒有強烈的關係,「理解」表現的好壞與教科書的編排及文字敘述有很大的關係,因此在不同版本間將會產生差異。
6.各版本教科書對於文獻中常被探討的兒童迷思概念,均有一定程度的呈現與處理。
This study intends to develop a framework and methodology based on conceptual change model (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982) for analyzing elementary science textbooks (including teachers'' guide, text, and students'' work sheets). In order to understand whether the content of current elementary science textbooks fitting in with the conceptual change model, this study also performed a content analysis by using this framework.
Categories of the framework this study developed are dissatisfaction, intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness. This study selected four units (including “chromatic dispersion and combination”, “oxidation of metal”, “photosynthesis”, and “day and night; the four seasons”) as samples from four editions of the current elementary science textbooks and used the framework to perform content analysis. The results are as follows:
1.The methodology that this study developed is specific and practicable, and the framework has passed through reliability assessment.
2.Not any edition of textbooks can perform best in all four units and categories.
3.Because “chromatic dispersion and combination”, “oxidation of metal”, and “photosynthesis” are the common events in everyday life, the content in these units performed better. The concept of “day and night; the four seasons” is more abstract, therefore the content in this unit performed worse.
4.In “dissatisfaction”, “plausibility”, and “fruitfulness” categories, the frequencies of fitting in teachers'' guides are 2/3 of total frequencies. The frequencies of fitting in texts and students'' work sheets are only 1/3 of total frequencies. These results imply that teachers should carefully read the teachers'' guide in preparing their teaching task.
5.The goodness of fitting in “intelligibility” category does not related to that of other categories. It has no difference among teachers'' guides, texts, and students'' work sheets. However, the goodness of fitting in “intelligibility” category is related to layout, organization, and character description of textbooks. It has difference among different editions of elementary science textbooks.
6.All four editions of elementary science textbooks have handled the misconceptions found in literature of science education to some extent.
中文摘要………………………………………………………………….………….Ⅰ
英文摘要……………………………………...………………...……………………Ⅱ
目錄……………………………...…………………………………………………...Ⅲ
表目次………………………………………………………………………………..Ⅴ
圖目次………………………………………………………………………………..Ⅶ
第一章 緒論……………………………………………………………..1
第一節 研究動機………………………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的………………………………………………………………4
第三節 待答問題………………………………………………………………5
第四節 研究範圍與限制………………………………………………………6
第五節 名詞解釋………………………………………………………………8
第二章 文獻探討………………..………………………………………9
第一節 Posner等人的概念改變模式……………………………………….…9
第二節 概念改變與科學教科書……………………………………………..14
第三節 科學教科書內容分析的相關研究…………………………………..19
第三章 研究方法………………………………………………………29
第一節 研究流程與設計……………………………………………………..29
第二節 樣本資料……………………………………………………………..34
第三節 分析架構……………………………………………………………..36
第四節 信度與效度…………………………………………………………..38
第四章 結果與討論…………………………………………………….43
第一節 國小自然科教科書概念改變分析架構與實施方法………………..43
第二節 「不滿足」類目之分析結果…………………………………………49
第三節 「理解」類目之分析結果……………………………………………62
第四節 「合理」類目之分析結果……………………………………………73
第五節 「適用範圍較廣」類目之分析結果…………………………………86
第六節 總結…………………………………………………………………..96
第五章 結論與建議………………………………………………...…101
第一節 結論…………………………………………………………………101
第二節 建議…………………………………………………………………105
參考文獻………………………………………………………………109
一、 中文部分……………………………………………………………109
二、 英文部分……………………………………………………………111
附錄……………………………………………………………………119
附錄一、國小自然科教科書概念改變分析表……………………………….119
附錄二、兒童常見的迷思概念……………………………………………….123
附錄三、國小自然科教科書概念改變分析之訓練手冊……………………127
附錄四、研究者第一次分析之結果………………………………………….134
附錄五、評分員甲分析之結果……………………………………………….142
附錄六、評分員乙分析之結果……………………………………………….150
附錄七、研究者第二次分析之結果…………………………………………158
王美芬(1998)。兒童科學觀的理論與研究。台北:心理出版社。
孔恩(2000)。科學革命的結構(程樹德、傅大為、王道還、錢永祥譯)。臺北:遠流。(原著出版年﹕1962年)
吳明清(1991)。教育研究:基本觀念與方法之分析。台北:五南出版社。
吳國盛(1998)。科學的歷程(上)。新竹:理藝出版社。
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。
官翰德(1999)。結合電腦模擬的概念改變教學策略對兒童密度相關概念學習成就之影響。花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
陳振威(2000)。學生概念生態組成因子之研究-以密度/浮沉概念為例。花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
陳甲辰(2001)。我國國小中年級自然科教科書內容分析之比較研究。屏東師範學院數理教育研究所。
許國忠(1997)。國小自然科教科書評鑑參照標準之研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
黃台珠(1984)。概念的研究及其意義。科學教育月刊,66,44-56 。
黃瓊瑱(1996)。我國國小自然科教科書之分析研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
楊孝爃(1989)。內容分析。載於楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦園等編:社會及行為科學研究法下冊。台北,東華。
熊召弟、王美芬(1996)。國民小學自然科評鑑重點。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會(主編)國民小學教科書評鑑標準(53~6 1頁)。台北:中華民國教材研究發展學會。
熊召弟(1997)。談國民小學自然科教科書「開放」議題。國民教育,37,24-32。
盧莉敏、王國華(1999)。國中生物科施行概念改變教學策略之研究。科學教育,9,127-139。
歐用生(1994)。內容分析法。載於黃光雄、簡茂發主編:教育研究法。台北:師大書苑。
Yager, R., E.(1991)。美國愛荷華大學Robert E. Yager教授訪華講學專輯(姜蓓蒂編)。台北:國立台灣師範大學科學教育中心。
*Barrow, L. H. (1990). Elementary science textbooks and potential magnet misconceptions. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 716-720.
*Bazler, J. A., & Simonis, D. A. (1991). Are high school chemistry textbooks gender fair? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 353-362.
*Borger, B. (1990). An evaluation of science and geography documents and texts in Ontario schools from an environmental perspective. Master’s Thesis, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada.
*Chiang-Soong, B., & Yager, R. E. (1993). The inclusion of STS material in the most frequently used secondary science textbooks in the U.S. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 339-349.
*Chiappetta, E. L., Fillamn, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991a). Procedures for conducting content analysis of science textbooks. Texas: University of Houston.
*Chiappetta, E.L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1991b). A quantitative analysis of high school chemistry textbooks for scientific literacy themes and expository learning aids. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 939-951.
*Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1993). Do middle school life science textbooks provide a balance of scientific literacy themes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 787-797.
Collette, A. T. & Chippetta, E. L. (1989). Science Instruction in the Middle and Secondary Schools in the United States. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Science Education Center, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
*DeBerg, K. C. (1989). The emergence of quantification in the pressure-volume relationship for gases: A textbook analysis. Science Education, 73, 15-35.
*DeBerg, K. C., & Treagust, D. F. (1993). The presentation of gas properties in chemistry textbooks and as reported by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 871-882.
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
*Eltinge, E. M., & Roberts, C. W. (1993). Linguistic content analysis: A method to measure science as inquiry in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 65-83.
*Erik, K. (2001). Ideologies in school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 319-329.
*Evans, R. H. (1989). Profiling elementary science teacher’s manuals from different perspectives. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA. ED 306088.
*Fillman, D. A. (1989). Biology textbook coverage of selected aspects of scientific literacy with implications for student interest and recall of text information (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 1618-A.
Fisher, K. M. (1985). A misconception in biology: Aminoacids and translation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 53-62.
*Gabel, D. L. (1983). What high school chemistry texts do well and what they do poorly. Journal of Chemical Education, 60, 839-895.
Gakk, M. D. (1981). Handbook for evaluating and selecting curriculum materials. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Garcia, T. D. (1985). An analysis of earth science textbooks. Science Education, 76(3), 313-316.
*Glenn, W. H. (1990). Treatment of selected concepts of organic evolution and the history of life on earth in three series of high school earth science textbook, 1960-1989. Science Education, 74(1), 37-52.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn (London and New York: Routledge).
*Hamm, M., & Adams, D. (1989). An analysis of global problem issues in sixth and seventh-grade textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 445-452.
Harms, H., & Yager, R. E. (1981). What research says to Science Teaching, 3. Washington, D. C.: NSTA.
Head, J. (1986). Research into ‘alternative framework’: Promise and problems. Science & Technological Education, 4(2), 203-211.
*Hehr, T. J. H. (1989). Content validation of Texas State-Adopted life, earth, physical, and biological science textbooks. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, 1988). Dissertation Abstract International, 49, 3247-A.
Hershey, D. R. (1996). Random samples not always best. The American Biology Teacher, 58(6), 328.
Hennessey, M. G. (1991). Analysis of conceptual changes and status change in sixth-graders’ concepts of force and motion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(4), 383-396.
Hewson, P. W. (1982). A case study of conceptual change in special relativity: The influence of prior knowledge in learning. European Journal of Science Education, 4(1), 61-78.
Hewson, P. W. & Thorley, R. H. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 541-553.
*Jeffery, K. R., & Roach, L. E. (1994). A Study of the presence of evolutionary protoconcepts in pre-high school textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 507-518.
Jones, B. L., Lynch, P. P. & Reesink, C. (1987). Primary school teacher education and alternative conceptions in science. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of Second International Seminar on Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics, Ⅲ, pp.26-29. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
Keith, S. (1981). Politics of textbook selection. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED327427)
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lawson, A. E. (1986). Integration research on misconception, reasoning patterns and three types of learning cycles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 278567).
*Lloyd, C. V. (1990). The Elaboration of concepts in three biology textbooks: Facilitating student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1019-1032.
Luke, A. (1989). Open and closed texts: the ideological/semantic analysis of textbook narratives, Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 53-80.
*Lumpe, A. T., Scharmann, L. C. (1991). Meeting contemporary goals for lab instruction: A content of two secondary biology textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 91(6), 231-235.
*Lumpe, A. T., & Beck, J. (1996). A profile of high school biology textbooks using scientific literacy recommendations. The American Biology teacher, 58, 147-153.
*Mansoor, N. (2001). A rational reconstruction of the origin of the covalent bond and its implications for general chemistry textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 623-641.
Mintzes, J. J., Trowbridge, J. E. & Amaudin, M. W. (1993). Children’s Biology. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany (Eds.), The Psychology Learning Science (Chapter 8). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Nussbaum, J. (1979). Children’s conception of the earth as a cosmic body: A cross-age study. Science Education, 63(1), 83-93.
*Otero, J. C., & Campanario, J. M. (1990). Comprehension evaluation and regulation in learning from science texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 447-460.
Osborne, R. J., Bell, B. F., & Gilbert, J. K. (1983). Science teaching and children’s view of the world. European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 1-14.
Osborne, R. J. & Writtrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67, 489-508.
Peter, N. (2000). Representations of indigenous knowledge in scecondary school science textbooks in Australia and Canada. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 603-617.
Pfundt, F. & Duit, R. (1991). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. (3rd ed.). Keil, West Germany: IPN.
Posner, G. J. (1992). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill.
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 Education, 66, 211-277.
Roth, K. J. (1991). Reading science texts for conceptual change. In C. M. Santa & D. E. Alvemann (Eds.), Science Learning: processes and applications, 48-63. International Reading Association.
Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., & Raizin, S. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. London: Kluwer Academic.
Schoon, K. J. (1989). Misconceptions in the earth science: A cross-age study. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco: CA.
*Selden, S. (1991). Selective traditions and the science curriculum:Eugenics and school science textbooks and their implications for learning textual information. Science education, 75(5), 493-512.
*Shepardson, D. P., & Pizzini, E. L. (1991). Questioning Level of junior high school science textbooks and their implications for learning textual information. Science Education, 75(6), 673-682.
Shiland, T. W. (1997). Quantum mechanics and conceptual change in high school chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 535-545.
Shore, L. S. & Kilbum, R. (1992). The effect of astronomy teaching experience on the astronomy interest and conceptions of elementary school teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching. Boston:MA.
Simpson, M. & Arnold, B. (1982). The inappropriate use of subsumes in biology learning. European Journal of Science Education, 4(2), 173-183.
Smith, E. L. & Anderson, C. W. (1984). Plants as producer: A case study of elementary science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(7), 685-698.
Sosniak, L. A. (1992). Textbook. In M. C. Alkin, (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research. (6th Eds, Vol. 4, pp.1420-1421). New York: Maxwell Macmillan Company.
*Staver, J. R. & Bay, M. (1987)Analysis of the Project Synthesis goal cluster orientation and inquiry emphasis of elementary science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 629-643.
*Staver, J. R., & Lumpe, A. T. (1993). A content analysis of the mole concept in chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 321-337.
Stinner, A. (1995). Science Textbooks: their present role and future form. In Glynn, S. M., Duit, R. & Glynn, S. M. (Eds), Learning science in the schools: research reforming practice. (pp.275-296). N. J.: Erlbaum Associate Press.
Strike, K. A. & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds), Cognitive structure and conceptual change. (pp.211-231). Orlando: Academic Press.
*Strube, P. (1989). The notion of style in physics textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 291-376.
Sutton, C., & West, L. (1982). Investigating children’s existing ideas about science. Collected works-Conference proceedings.
Taber, K. S. (2000). Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 399-417.
Thorley, N. R. (1990). The role of the conceptual change model in the interpretation of classroom interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., & Venville, G. F. (1996). Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(2), 213-229.
*Vachon, M. K., & Haney, R. E. (1991). A procedure for determining the level of abstraction of science reading material. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 343-352.
Wang, H. A. (1998). Science Textbook Studies Reanalysis: Teachers “Friendly” Content Analysis Methods? Paper presented in the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego.
Weiss, I. R. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey of science, mathematics and social studies education, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 577-586.
Woodward, A. (1994). Textbooks. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite, (Eds.), The international Encyclopedia of Education. (2nd. Ed., Vol. 11, pp6366-6370). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top