跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.204.56.185) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/14 01:37
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:金葉葦
研究生(外文):Chin, Yeh-Wei
論文名稱:高中化學教學實施「開放性探究實驗」之探討
論文名稱(外文):The investigation of using「 inquiry-based experiments」 in chemistry teaching of senior high school
指導教授:林煥祥林煥祥引用關係
指導教授(外文):Lin, Huann-Shyang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:化學系
學門:自然科學學門
學類:化學學類
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:116
中文關鍵詞:開放性探究實驗設計實驗應用概念能力
外文關鍵詞:inquiry-based experimentsdesigning experimental proceduresability of using concepts
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:17
  • 點閱點閱:658
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:101
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:5
本研究的主要目的是建構一個高開放性的探究實驗模組,探討學生在進行開放性探究實驗時的感受,以及會有哪些困難,且分析不同學習成就及創造力的學生,在開放性探究實驗之進行過程中,其「設計實驗」及「應用概念能力」方面的能力是否會有所差異。研究對象為高中二年級一個班,共四十一位學生。在進行探究式實驗之前,先進行威廉斯創造力評量。然後,給予鷹架的學習單做為支持,並實施三次探究式實驗,再施以研究者自行設計的開放式感受問卷。
研究結果發現,有較多學生覺得探究式實驗的最主要優點是促進思考;最主要的缺點為需要時間較多;88%的學生明顯表示喜歡做探究實驗,7%則表示不喜歡。學生認為探究實驗最困難的地方是開頭設計實驗時,不知該如何著手設計。
當以「形成假說」得分為依變項進行變異數分析時,結果得知兩次實驗中不同學習成就的學生,在「應用概念能力」的能力上都沒有顯著差異。以「設計實驗」得分為依變項的變異數分析結果得知,有一次實驗中不同學習成就的學生在「設計實驗」的能力上具有顯著差異,另一次則無。
當以創造力得分高低為自變項,「應用概念能力」或「設計實驗」得分為依變項的變異數分析結果得知,每次實驗中不同創造力的學生在「應用概念能力」或「設計實驗」的能力上都具有顯著差異。
比較最後兩次探究實驗的得分百分比可知,不同學習成就的學生無論是在「應用概念能力」或「設計實驗」的能力上都呈現進步的情形。
由以上研究結果可以看出,探究實驗似乎能夠促進學生在「應用概念能力」及「設計實驗」的能力,此外學生喜歡做探究實驗,因此可以引起學生的學習興趣。
The purpose of this study is to construct an inquiry-based teaching model, and to explore students'' perceptions of carrying out inquiry-based chemistry experiments. In addition, the students'' ability of "designing experimental procedures" and "using concepts" were examined based on their learning achievement and creativity.
Forty one sophomores of senior high school students participated in this study. They were asked to take the William''s creativity test in the beginning of the study. Scaffording activities were provided for them to practice the procedure of conducting three inquiry-based experiments. Finally, a survey was used to assess students'' perceptions.
It was found that the most often perceived advantages of inquiry-based experiment is its potential of promoting criticial thinking. However, it is time consuming. Eighty eight percent of the students expressed that they like this kind of experiment while seven percent disliked it. The most difficult part of inquiry-based experiment is that students don''t know how to design the experimental procedures.
When the ability of "using concepts" was used as the dependent variable, it appeared that there was no significant difference among the students of high, medium, and low learning achievement. In the comparison of "designing experimental procedures" ability, a significant difference was found among the three group students in one of the two inquiry-based experiments.
Using student creativity as the independent variable, the Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that there was a significant difference among the high, medium, and low achievement students both on the ability of "using concepts" and "designing experimental procedures".
It should be noticed that the students have progress on the ability of "using concepts " and "designing experimental procedures" in the three subsequent experiments. It seems that the students like the inquiry-based experiments and were benefited from the execution of the experiments.
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·····························································3
第三節 名詞解釋·····························································5
第四節 研究範圍與研究限制··········································7
第二章 文獻探討·······································································8
第一節 探究式實驗教學的重要性····································8
第二節 探究式實驗的理論依據及層次····························13
第三節 創造力的評量·······················································17
第四節 鷹架對學生學習之影響········································22
第三章 研究方法······································································25
第一節 研究對象·······························································25
第二節 研究工具·······························································26
第三節 研究過程·······························································41
第四節 資料的收集與分析················································45
第四章 研究結果·······································································49
一、探討開放性探究實驗教學模組實施之困難與學生之反應··················································································49
二、高、中、低成就的學生在開放性探究實驗教學過程中「設計實驗」及「應用概念能力」之探討···························56
三、學生的創造力高低在開放性探究實驗教學過程中「設計實驗」及「應用概念能力」之探討································62
四、探討學生經由探究式實驗教學後,「設計實驗」及「應用概念能力」的變化情形···············································70
五、探討學生在小組討論前後「設計實驗」及「應用概念能力」的品質之差異及改變原因·······································71
第五章 結果討論與建議···························································76
第一節 重要研究結果與討論·············································76
第二節 影響本研究結果的可能因素··································93
第三節 在科學教育中的意義及對未來研究的建議···········95
參考文獻····················································································98
中文部分·············································································98
英文部分···········································································100
附錄·························································································105
一、 中文部分
王木榮 (1985):威廉斯創造力測驗修訂研究。台灣教育學院輔導研究所碩士論文。
江武雄(1984):國民中學化學科教師教學困難及問題之調查研究。國科會報告NSC75-0111-S018-04。
江武雄(1986):國民中學化學科教師教學困難及問題之調查研究。國科會報告NSC75-0111-S018-06。
江新合(1994):國中理化教師群體信念及心態特質的調查研究。高雄師大學報,第五期,頁159-184。
沈中偉(1994):魏考斯基理論在認知策略上的應用。教學科技與媒體,2期,頁23-31。
林幸台、王木榮修訂(1994):威廉斯創造力測驗。台北:心理出版社。
林秀蓁(1995):一位國中理化教師實驗室之教學與經營。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
吳玉明(1998):建構式教學策略中不同學習型態學生學習的探討。新竹師院國民教育研究所論文集,第3集,頁19-41。
洪文東、楊寶旺(1990):高中學生化學概念在解釋資料與形成假設上的應用研究。國立編譯館館刊,第十九卷,第2期,頁139-167。
教育部編印(1998):國民教育九年一貫課程綱要(草案):自然與科技學習領域。
許建夫(1975):創造力的訓練與培養。師友月刊,第97期,頁20-24。
陳昭儀(1991):二十位傑出發明家的生涯路。資優教育季刊,第44期,頁12-17。
陳雪瑜(1996):教師改變與自我評量:一位國中理化教師的詮釋性研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
張修維(1999):CoRT廣度思考教材對國小資優班與普通班學生創造思考教學效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。
張世彗(1988):創造性問題解決方案對國小資優班與普通班學生創造性問題解決能力、創造力和問題解決能力之影響。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
張玉成(1983):教師發問技巧及其對學生創造思考能力影響之研究。教育部教育計畫小組編印。
熊召弟、王美芬、段曉林、熊同鑫(1996):科學學習心理學。台北:心理出版社。
詹志禹(1996):認識與知識:建構論VS.接受觀。教育研究雙月刊,第49期,頁25-38。
劉宏文、張惠博(1997):建構主義的教學觀與概念改變的教學。中華民國第十三屆科學教育學術研討會論文彙編,頁515-522。
劉宏文、張惠博(2001):高中學生進行開放式探究活動之個案研究-問題的形成與解決。科學教育學刊,第九卷,第2期,頁169-196。
劉錫麒(1991):合作反省思考的數學解題模式及其實徵研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
蔡瑞琴(1998):高中生物建構取向教學與學生參與情形之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
龍騰文化編印(1998):高級中學化學科新課程標準。
簡惠燕(2000):國小學童在科學問題解決過程中創造力與後設認知之相關研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
簡茂發(1982):我國資賦優異兒童創造思考能力之研究。師大教育心理學報,第15期,97-110。
蘇懿生、黃台珠(1999):實驗室氣氛與學生對科學的的態度之關係研究。科學教育學刊,第七卷,第四期,頁393-410。
二、英文部分
Ausubel, D. P.(1968). Educational psychology:A Cognitive view. New York:Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Bloom, B.S. ,Hastings, J.H. & Masaus, G.F.(1971). Handbook on formative and summative education of student learning. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bloom, B. S.(1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Friend,H., & Caifa, J.(1983). Effects of increased laboratory time on selected students'' attitudes toward science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science teaching.
Friedler, Y., & Tamir. P. (1984). Teaching and learning in highschool laboratory classes in Iarael. Research on Science Education,15,86-96.
Friedler, Y., & Tamir. P. (1990). The student laboratory and the science currirulum. Hegarty-Hazel, E. (Ed.). Routledge:London. Chapter 6.2.
Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J.,& Hackling, M.W. (1995). Refocussing the chemistry lab: A case for laboratory-based investigations. Australian Scienec Teacher Journal, 41(2), 26-32.
Greenfield, P. M.(1984). A theoryof the teacher in the development of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Ed.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Hackling, M.W.,& Garnett, P. J.(1991). Primary and secondary students'' attainment of science investigation skills. Research in Science Education, 21,161-170.
Hagarty-Hazel, E.(1986).Lab work SET:Research information for teachers, number one. Canberra: Australian Council for Education Research.
Hackling, M.W.& Fairbrother R.W.(1996). Helping student to do open investigations in science. Australian Scienec Teacher Journal, 42(4), 26-33.
Hackling, M.W.& Garnett, P. J.(1995). The development of expertise in science investigation skills. Australian Scienec Teacher Journal, 41(4), 80-86.
Helen Staer , Denis Goodrum & Mark Hackling (1998). High school laboratory work in western Australia:Openness to inquiry. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 219-228.
Hofstein, A .,& Lunetta, V.N.(1982). The role of laboratory in science teaching:Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2),201-217.
Hofstein, A ., Cohen, I.,& Lazarowitz, R.(1996). The learning environment of high school students in chemistry and biology laboratories. Research in Science and Technological Education, 14(1),103-116.
Hunsaker, S. L.& Callahan C. M.(1995). Creativity and giftedness:Published instrument uses and abuses. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2),110-114.
Jakubowski, E.(1993). Constructing potential learning opportunities in middle grades mathematics. In K. Tobin(Ed.). The Practice of Constructivism in science Education. N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P.(1994). Research on using laboratory instruction:in D.W. Gabel.(Ed.) Handbook of Science Teaching and Learning, New York, Macmillan.
National Academy of Sciences & National Research Council.(1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
Palincsar, A. S.(1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1?),73-98.
Roth, W. M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2),197-223.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C.(1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7),26-33.
Tobin,K.G.(1990). Research on science laboratory activities:In pursuit of better question and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5),403-418.
Tobin,K., & Tippins, D.(1993).Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin(Ed.). The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Watson, R.& Fairbrother, B.(1993). Open-ended work in science( OPENS) project:managing investigations in the laboratory. SSR,75(271),31-38.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top