臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探究國小六年級學童，對於動植物呼吸作用的迷思概念，並勾勒出學童呼吸作用概念架構與迷思關鍵。研究資料的收集方式，以高雄市兩所國小215名六年級學童，進行開放性紙筆測驗，進而從中挑選70名具迷思傾向的學童，進行概念構圖、人體呼吸繪圖與綠色植物呼吸繪圖，最後再從中挑選38名學童，進行個別晤談。
本研究所得到的主要結果有下列二項：
一、學童在呼吸作用概念主要的迷思關鍵有：不清楚呼吸作用的意義、不知道氧氣與二氧化碳的功能與角色、不明瞭生物呼吸器官的的構造與功能、不明白氣體交換的原理、不認為綠色植物進行光合作用是一種「利己」的行為、不曉得呼吸運動的原理。
二、學童對於呼吸作用主要的迷思概念有：動物和植物不一定要呼吸；動物和植物不一定要持續呼吸；空氣不是生物生存最重要條件或必要條件；氧氣只提供生物體內某一部份使用；人類呼吸時呼出的大部分空氣是二氧化碳，是呼吸時吸入的；綠色植物在白天有陽光時，只吸收二氧化碳排出氧氣，在晚上無光照時，吸收氧氣排出二氧化碳；綠色植物隨時都是吸收二氧化碳，排出氧氣；人類呼吸作用只發生在肺、綠色植物呼吸作用只發生在葉子；綠色植物不會使用掉氧氣和二氧化碳；人類呼吸的氧氣大都直接來自於陸地上的樹木；肺臟是主動呼吸；人類的肺臟是中空的像汽球或皮球、是網狀的像過濾網、是長長的像管子、是螺旋型的像標靶、是充滿小洞的像海綿；綠色植物利用葉子上的葉脈或葉緣呼吸空氣；仙人掌利用身上的針呼吸空氣等。

The purpose of this study is to explore elementary school grade student’s misconceptions about animal and plant respiration and to outline student’s conceptual structure about respiration and key to misconception. The study data collection method is based on the open paper-and-pencil tests of 215 grade student’s of two elementary schools in Kaohsiung City and 70 student’s with misconception tendency were selected. The study further conducted concept mapping, drawings of human body respiration, and drawings of green plant respiration. Finally, 38 of these students were selected for individual interviews.
There are two major results of this study as shown below:
1.The Keys to the misconceptions of students in respiration are: Not clear about the meaning of respiration, unaware of the function and role of oxygen and carbon dioxide, not clear about the structure and function of respiratory organs of creatures, not understanding the principle of gaseous exchange, not recognizing the photosynthesis of green plants is a kind of “egoistic” phenomena, and unaware of the principle of respiratory action.
2.The major misconceptions of students about respiration are: Animals and plants are not required to breath; animals and plants are not required to breath continuously; air is not the most important condition or necessary condition to the existence of creatures; oxygen is only used in certain part of a organisms; most of the carbon dioxide exhaled by human are inhaled first; green plants only inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen in day time when there is sunlight, and inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide at night when there is no sunlight; green plants inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen at all times; human respiration only happens in the lungs, green plant respiration only happens in the leaves; green plants will not use up oxygen and carbon dioxide; oxygen breathed by human mostly come directly from plants on land; lung is breathing actively; human lung is hollow like balloon or ball, is a filter like a net, is long like a tube, is helical like a target, and is full of pores like sponge; green plants use veins or margins of leaves to breath air; cactuses use thorn on the body to breath air, etc.

第壹章 緒論...................................................1
第一節 問題背景與研究動機.....................................1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題.....................................4
第三節 名詞釋義...............................................4
第四節 研究範圍與限制.........................................6
第貳章 文獻探討...............................................7
第一節 建構主義與科學學習.....................................7
第二節 迷思概念之探討........................................12
第三節 學生呼吸作用之迷思概念................................17
第四節 迷思概念之診斷........................................22
第五節 文獻小結..............................................27
第參章 研究方法..............................................28
第一節 研究樣本..............................................29
第二節 研究工具..............................................29
第三節 研究步驟..............................................37
第四節 資料分析..............................................39
第肆章 結果與討論............................................42
第一節 研究基本資料..........................................42
第二節 紙筆測驗結果分析......................................46
第三節 學童個案分析..........................................71
第四節 晤談結果與討論........................................87
第伍章 結論與建議...........................................117
第一節 結論.................................................118
第二節 建議.................................................124
參考文獻
一、中文部分.................................................129
二、英文部分.................................................132

一、中文部分
王文科（1999）：教育研究法。台北市：五南圖書出版公司。
王美芬 熊召弟（1995）：國民小學自然科教材教法。台北：心理出版社有限公司。
王國華（1995）：自然科概念改變教學策略之探討。八十三學年度台灣中區國民中學數理學科「概念改變教學策略」研習會，國立彰化師範大學。
王龍錫（1992）：國小兒童光與視覺之概念發展研究（一）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告。NSC-81-01110-s-153-01-N。
江新合（1992）：應用建構式、概念重建和個別教學等理論設計國中浮力相關概念單元教材之實證研究。高雄：文化。
余民寧（1997）：有意義的學習-概念構圖之研究。台北：商鼎文化出版社。
林曉雯（1994）：國中生物教師教學表徵的詮釋性研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
林顯輝（1993）：國小兒童水循環概念之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告。NSC-81-01110-s-153-02。
林獻升、顧文欣、薛靜營、林陳涌（1999）：國一學生對植物行呼吸作用之了解個案研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育第二一六期。
邱美虹(2000)：概念改變研究的省思。第十四屆科學教育學刊。頁1-34。
邱照麟（2000）：國小學童空氣之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
高慧蓮、蘇明洲（2001）：科學的本質與科學哲學觀的演進。屏師科學教育第十二期。
耿正屏、陳瑞鴻、林素華、蔡顯（1991）：我國國中學生生物概念的發展：生物體內物質的運輸。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告。
教育部（1997）：國民小學課程標準（二版）。台北：教育部。
教育部（2001）：國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。台北：教育部。
陳金香（2000）：利用小組討論探究國小學童「植物養分」概念之建構。中華民國第十六屆科學教育學術研討會論文彙編。625-632。
陳啟民（1991）：發展紙筆測驗以探究高一學生對直流電路的迷思概念。國立彰化師範大學科學研究所碩士論文。
莊嘉坤（1995）：認知研究在科學教育上的省思。屏師科學教育創刊號，頁25-29。
郭重吉（1990）：學生科學知識認知結構的評估與描述。彰化師範大學學報，1, 217-319。
郭重吉（1992）：從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。科學發展月刊，20（5）, 548-568。
張惠博（2002）：科學概念學習研究-物理科協調計劃。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告。NSC90-2511-S-018-038。
張凱綸（2002）：國小學童對「水的三態變化」概念之研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
張賴妙理、鄭湧涇(2000)：運用診斷測驗探究國一學生對於光合作用的另有概念。中華民國第十六屆科學教育學術研討會論文彙編, 403-409。
張靜嚳（1996）：傳統教學有何不妥？建構與教學，4，彰師大科研所。
賈本惠(2002)：國小五年級學童光合作用概念改變教學策略之研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
劉嘉茹（2000）：以研究綱領與本體分類論探究概念改變機制之研究。國立師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
蔡玟錦（1991）：發展紙筆測驗以探究高三學生對化學平衡的迷思概念。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
裘維鈺（1995）：國小學童植物概念及其相關概念之研究。國立台中師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文。
熊召弟（1996）：學童的生物觀─植物篇。八十四學年度師範學院教育學術論文發表會論文集, 61-68。
熊召弟、王美芬、段曉林、熊同鑫譯（1996）：科學學習心理學。台北：心理出版社有限公司。
鄭湧涇(2001)：國一學生生物概念學習之研究(I)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告。NSC88-2511-S-003-029。
樊雪春（1999）：學生科學迷思概念的法則分析與建構取向教學法之實驗效果研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
樊雪春、陳慧娟（1996）：自然科學的教與學。有效的學習方法編輯。教育部訓委會。
盧莉閔（1998）：國中生物科施行概念改變教學策略之研究。國立彰化師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
鍾聖校（1995）：國小自然科教學研究。台北：五南圖書出版公司。
二、西文部分
Abimbola, I. O. (1988). The problem of terminology in the study of student conceptions in science. Science Education, 72, 175-184.
American Association for the Advancement of Science(1989). Project 2061：Science for All Americans. Washington, DC：Author.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York：Grune & Stratton Inc.
Blosser, P. E. (1987). Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED272 382.
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow,J.J.,& Austin,G.A.(1956). A Study of Thinking.(Eds.),New york：Wiley.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. New York：Vintage Books.
Cañal, P. (1999). Photosynthesis and ‘inverse respiration’ in plants: An inevitable misconception? International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 363-371.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambrige, MA: MIT Press.
Catherall, R. W. (1981). Children’s beliefs about the human circulatory system:an aid for teachers regarding the role intuitive beliefs play in the development of formal concepts in 7-14 years olds. Report No. 82-16 Educational Research Institute of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Cobern, W. W. (1989). World view theory and science education research: Fundamental epistemological structure as a critical factor in science learning and attitude development. National Association for Ressearch in Science Teaching. 1-55.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.),(1989). Childrens’ Ideas in Science. Milton Keynes：Open University Press.
Duncan, I. M., Johnstone, A. H. (1979). The mole concept. Education in Chemistry, 10, 213-214.
Edmondson, K. M. (2000). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak(Eds.), Assessing science understanding. (15-40). San Diego, California：Academic Press.
Erickson, G. L. (1979). Children’s conceptions of heat and temperature. Science Education,63,221-230.
Finley, F. N., & Stewart, J. & Yarroch, W. L. (1982). Teacher’ perceptions of important and difficult science content. Science Education, 66, 531-538.
Gagne, R. M. (1985). The Condition of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J., (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66, 4.
Gilbert, J. K., & Watts,M. (1983).Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conception：Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education,10,61-98.
Gilbert, J. K., Watts, M., & Osborne, R. (1985). Eliciting student views using an interview — about — instances technique. Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change. Orlando：Academic Press.
Gunstone, R. F. (1990). ‘Children’s science’: A decade of developments in constructivist views of science teaching and learning. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36, 9-19.
Haslam, F., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Diagnosing Secondary Students’ Misconceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration in Plants Using a Two-Tier Multiple Choice Instrument. Journal of Biological Education, 21, 203-211.
Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics among south afrucan students. Physics Education,15, 92-105.
Klausmeier, H. J., Frayer, D. A., & Ghatala, E. S. (1974). Conceptual Learning and Development. New York：Academic.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago University Press.
Kyle, W. C. & Shymansky, J. A. (1989). Enhancing learning through conceptual change teaching. Paper presented at the 1989 National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST).Michigan, U. S. A.
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981).Categorization of natural objects. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Portor (Eds.), Annual review of psychology. 32,899-115.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC：National Academy Press.
Novak, J. D.(1977). A theory of education. Ithaca, NY： Cornell University press.
Novak, J. D., Mintzes, J. J., & Wandersee, J. H. (2000). Learning, Teaching, and Assessment：A Human Constructivist Perspective. In J. J. Mintzes, J. D. Novak & J. H. Wandersee (Eds.), Assessing Science Understanding A Human Constructivist. San Diego, California：Academic Press.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1989). Learning how to learn. Cornell University.
Piaget, J. (1972). Psychology and epistemology : Toward a theory of Knowledge. New York：Viking Press Inc.
Poper, K. R. (1968). Conjectures and refutations in the growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Renner, J. W., Abraham, M. R.,Grzybowki, E., & Marek, E. A. (1990). Understandings and misunderstandings of eighth grader’s of four physics concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching ,27,35-54.
Richard, T. W, and Richard F. G. (1992). Probing Understanding. Philadelphia：The Falmer Press.
Sanders, M. (1993). Erroneous ideas about respiration： The teacher factor. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 819-934.
Seymour, J., & Longden, B. (1991). Respiration : that’s breathing isn’t it? Journal of Biological Education, 25 , 177-183.
Smith, M. U., & Cummins, C. L.(2000). “What Do You Mean By That” Using Structured Interviews to Assess Science Understanding.In J. J. Mintzes, J. D. Novak & J. H. Wandersee (Eds.), Assessing Science Understanding A Human Constructivist View(pp.1-13). San Diego, California：Academic Press.
Songer, C., & Mintezs, J. J.(1994). Understanding cellular respiration： An analysis of conceptual change in college Biology. Joural of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 621-637.
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: the case of ‘more of A─more of B’. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 653-667.
Stewart, J. (1982). Two aspects of meaningful problem solving in science. Science Education，66 (5), 731-749.
Tirosh, D., & Stavy, R. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: the case of ‘everything can be divided by two’. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 669-683.
Tirosh, D., & Stavy, R. (1999). Intuitive rules: a way to explain and predict students’ reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1-3), 55-66.
Tirosh, D., Stavy, R., & Cohen, S. (1998). Cognitive conflict and intuitive rules. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1257-1269.
Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate atudents misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education,10,159-169.
Tregust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic Assessment of Students’ Science Knowledge. Mahwah：New Jersey.
Tregust, D. F., & Haslam, F. (1986). Evaluating Secondary Students’ Misconceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration in Plants Using a Two-Tier Diagnostic Instrument.59 th Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, California, March 28-31. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED283 713.
von Glasersfeld, E.(1987). The Construction of Knowledge, Contributions to Conceptual Semantics . Salinas, CA：Intersystems.
Wandersee, J. H. (1985). Can the history of science help science educators anticipate students’ misconceptions ？Journal of research in science teaching, 23, 581-597.
Westbrook, S. L., & Marek, E. A. (1992). A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of homeostasis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 51-61.