臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討問題導向網路學習對非生物主修大學生小組互動歷程以及遺傳概念改變的影響。研究對象為彰化師範大學選修普通生物學課程的一個班級，共48位非生物主修的大一學生。研究工具包括生物背景問卷、遺傳成就測驗、概念圖前後測、以及半結構式晤談，並且蒐集各小組在討論室進行問題解決時的對話內容。本研究歷時兩個月。在進行遺傳單元教學前後分別實施成就測驗前後測及概念構圖。根據組員問題解決時的發言頻率與內容，將各小組進行分類，並分析每一種類行小組的問題解決歷程。最後透過半結構式晤談瞭解學生對於ePBL學習的感受。研究結果顯示，小組在互動歷程中呈現出三種類型：（1）分工支持型，（2）單一領導型，以及（3）部分參與型。在「分工支持型」小組中，組員溝通良好，參與機會均等。在「單一領導型」小組中，組員之間亦有良好的互動，但討論是由單一學生所支配。大部分的組別屬於「部分參與型」，在該類型小組中只有部分組員參與討論。雖然問題解決的歷程有所差異，但每一小組皆能成功的達成任務。根據學生參與的程度，從各類型小組中分別選出一位積極參與的學生：S47屬於第一類型，S48屬於第二類型，而S14則是第三類型。三位學生學習前後的遺傳概念在質(概念間的關係、漸進分化、相關概念的拓展、統整)與量(概念、階層、分枝、交叉連結、例子的數目)方面皆產生的變化。遺傳概念改變的相同處在於三位個案學生皆增加十幾個概念；而在（1）概念間關係的正確與否；（2）階層的數目（3）相關概念連結的分枝數目。（4）交叉連結的情形等方面皆有所差異。由這些結果可知，在學習ePBL後學生能有組織有系統的呈現出概念圖，並且能將所學得的知識進行整合與擴展。
在學習感受方面，本研究發現ePBL提供線上討論磋商的互動場所，使學生更能暢所欲言的表達自己的意見，提升學習的參與感。並且藉由解決問題，主動的進行知識建構。藉由解決與生活議題相關的問題，使學生對於課程內容更加深刻。ePBL能夠改變學生的學習習慣，培養學生主動進行解決問題並且進行後設認知。

The aim of the study is to investigate the effect of ePBL (problem-based e-learning) on team process and genetic conceptual change of undergraduate students. The participants are 48 non major biology fresh undergraduate students from a class of National Changhua University of Education that enroll general biology course. The study methods consisted of biology background questionnaire, genetic achievement test, pre- and post-test of concept map, and semi-constructed interview. Also, the conversations of problem solving from each team of the class in chatting room were also collected. The present study totally spent two months. Before and after the implement of genetic ePBL, students were also required to accept an examination of genetic achievement test and draw a concept map. Based on the results of the examination of genetic achievement and the concept map, all of teams of the class were classified. After that, each team was analyzed team process. Finally, the students’ reception about ePBL was realized by implementing semi-constructed interview. The results showed that the team process of the teams from this class had three types as follow: (1) cooperation and support, (2) only one leader, and (3) partial participation. In “cooperation and support” type, the communications between students was well and the opportunity of showing personal opinion was equal. In “only one leader” team, the interaction between students was well, but the conversation was controlled by the leader. In “partially participation” type, only partial students participated the discussion of problems in ePBL. In this class, most of teams belonged to third type, partial participation. However, although the team processes of three types were different, all of them can complete the task successfully. Among them, based on the degree of participation, three students from each type who greatly participate were selected: S47 from type I, S48 from type II, and S14 from type III. The concept maps of these three students changed both in quality (the connection of concepts, progressive differentiation, expansion, and integration) and quantity (the number of concept, hierarchy, branch, cross connection, and example). On the construction of concept map, all of three students increased dozen of concepts. Comparing with the constructing way of concept map among them, the difference were（1）the concept connection；（2）hierarchy;（3）branch; and（4）cross over. From the results of concept maps, the students can organize and systematize their concepts after ePBL. Also, they can also integrate and extend what they have learned. In addition, by using ePBL, students can willfully express their own opinions in student’s reception, actively construct knowledge, and deeply be impression on the content. In short, the students can actively solve problems and do metacognition by ePBL.

謝辭
中文摘要
英文摘要
目錄
表次
圖次
附錄次

第壹章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機
第二節 研究目的與待答問題
第三節 名詞釋義

第貳章 文獻探討
第一節 問題導向學習的內涵
第二節 問題導向學習的理論基礎
第三節 問題導向網路學習舉例
第四節 遺傳概念之探討
第五節 概念改變與概念圖

第參章 研究方法
第一節 研究對象
第二節 研究工具
第三節 研究設計與流程
第四節 問題導向網路學習環境之介紹
第五節 資料處理與分析

第肆章 結果與討論
第一節 小組問題解決的類型
第二節 小組互動的歷程
第三節 遺傳概念改變
第四節 學生對於ePBL的感受

第伍章 結論與建議
第一節 結論
第二節 建議

參考文獻

附錄

一、中文部分
王千倖（1999）。「合作學習」和「問題導向學習」-培養教師及學生的科學創造力。教育研究，28，31-39。
吳幸宜（1994）。學習理論與教學應用。台北：心理出版社。
吳清山（2002）。問題導向學習。科學教育月刊，97，120。
杜建忠（2003）。網路評量系統開發與應用之研究。國立彰化師範大學生物學系碩士論文，彰化。
佘曉清譯（2002）。後設認知與概念改變。載於黃台珠、熊召弟、王美芬、佘曉清、靳知勤、段曉林、熊同鑫譯。促進理解之科學教學-人本建構取向觀點。台北：心理出版社。
林秀珍（2001）。「教育即生活」抑「生活即教育」？-杜威觀點的詮釋。教育研究集刊，7（47），1-16。
林敏慧，陳慶帆（2003）。植基於Web的多媒體線上測驗系統之建置。教育研究月刊，116，50-64。
林國書（2003）。PBL教學在國中理化學習成效之研究。國立交通大學網路學習教學碩士班碩士論文，新竹。
林麗娟（2002）。「問題導向學習」在網路資源式學習之應用。教育科技與媒體，60，42-53。
邱漢東（2003）。以主題導向學習法與問題導向學習法建立學生正確物理概念之比較研究──以電動機為例。國立交通大學網路學習教學碩士班碩士論文，新竹。
洪榮昭（2001）。PBL教學策略。技術及職業教育雙月刊，61，10-12。
孫鈺凱（2001）。網路問題式學習環境建置與學習行為分析之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所，花蓮。
耿筱曾（2000）。國小學童概念學習之研究。國民教育階段九年一貫課程自然與生活科技課程發展研究國際研討會論文集。國立台北師範學院。
涂金堂（1996）。國小學生後設認知與解題表現之相關研究。國教學報，8，133-164。
張靜嚳（1995）。問題中心教學在國中發展之經過、效果及可行性之探討。科學教育學刊，3（2），139-165。
梁曉籣（1996）。大學生分子生物學概念的另有架構。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，彰化。
邱上真（2003）。Bruner發現學習理論與教學應用。張新仁主編。學習與教學新趨勢。台北：心理出版社。
郭秀緞（2003）。後設認知的理論與其在教學上的應用。教育研究，11，149-158。
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，1，279-320。
陳李稠（1999）。認知發展與輔導（第二版）。台北：心理出版社。
陳明溥、顏榮泉 (1999)。 網路化問題導向學習系統建構模式之研究。第八屆電腦輔助教學國際研討會大會論文，臺中，逢甲大學。2003年6月4日，取自http://paper.nt1.isst.edu.tw/data01/acbe/iccai8/49/49.htm.
陳明溥（2003）。網際網路與問題解決學習。2003年12月31日，取自http://edtech.ntu.tw/epaper/921210/prof_1.asp。
葉明達（1998）。高一學生數學合作解題與後設認知行為之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所碩士論文，高雄。
教育部（2002）。挑戰2008：國家發展計畫-e世代人才的培育。2003年6月4日，取自http://www.edu.tw/。
陳慧娟（2003）。情境學習理論的理想與現實。2003年9月30日，資料來源http://www.socialwork.com.hk/artical/educate/gz12.htm
黃琡惠（2002）。問題本位學習的課程設計評析。國民教育研究學報，8，53-73。
湯清二（2000）。我國非主修生物大學生對DNA認知的瞭解與改善學習的策略探討，科學教育學刊，8（1），101-121。
黃台珠（1990）。中學生遺傳相關概念錯誤類型的探討。科學教育月刊，133，34-53。
黃台珠（1993）。中學生遺傳學習的現況及問題。高雄師大學報，4，269-300。
黃台珠、鄭世暖、林明輝、蘇懿生、張學文、趙大衛（1994）。國中生物遺傳教學的改善研究。高雄師大學報，5，113-135。
黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）。合作學習。台北：五南圖書出版公司。
黃善美（2001）。以問題為中心的合作學習策略對國小學童科學學習枝研究。台北市立師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文。
曾志朗（1998）。迎接基因複製新紀元。載於洪蘭譯：基因複製。台北：遠流出　　　
　　版社。
劉俊庚（2002）。迷失概念與概念改變教學策略之文獻分析－以概念圖和後設分析模式探討其意涵與影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，台北。
蔣文蘭、江武雄、張文華、黃世傑（1997）。以問題為中心分組教學策略改進國中生物生態系教學之行動研究。論文發表於中華民國第十三屆科學教育學術研討會。台北：國立台灣師範大學。
輔仁大學醫學系。2004年3月23日，取自http://mails.fju.edu.tw/~fujenmed/PBL/PBL1.htm
蔡育青（2002）。網際網路非同步互動課程對大學生非生物主修學生學習效益影響之研究。行政院國家科學委員會大專生參與專題研究計畫，NSC90-2815-C-018-029-S。
蕭雅慧（1996）。問題中心教學的課前準備及其對高職學生數學學習成就之影響。發表於中華民國第十二屆科學教育學術研討會。彰化：國立彰化師範大學。
謝正宜（1997）。師生對團體互動的認知與問題導向學習。醫學教育，1(2)，92-93。
鍾聖校（1990）。認知心理學。台北：心理出版社。

二、英文部分
Amercam Association for Advancement of Science（1985）. [on-line] Available June 4, 2003, from http://www.aaas.org/project2061
Achilles, C. M. & Hoover, S. P. (1996). Transformimg administrative praxis: The potential of problem-based learning(PBL) as a school-improvement vehicle for middle and high schools.(Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 471)
Albion, P. R. & Gibson, I. W.(2000). Problem-based learning as a multimedia design framework in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 315-326.
Aspy, D. N., Aspy, C. B., & Quimby, P. M. (1993). What doctors can teach teachers about problem-based learning. Educational Leadership,50(7), 22-24.
Biggs, J.(2000) Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Barrows, H. S.& Tamblyn, R. M.(1980). Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Barrows, H. & Kelson, A.(1998). Problem Based Learning: A total Approach to Education. SIU School of Medicine, Department of Medical Education, Springfield, Illinois.
Barrows, H. S. (1998). Essentials of problem-based learning. Journal of Dental Education, 62 (9), 630-633.
Barrows, H. S. (2002).foreword. In Evensen, D.H. & Hmelo, C. E (Eds.), Problem-Based Learning-A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions.(pp. xi -xii) .New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition ,executive control , selfregulation ,and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F.E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding, Hillsdale , New Jersey :Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Burke, C. S., Volpe, C., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1993). So what ids teamwork anyway? A synthesis of the team process literature. Paper presented at the 39th annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.
Chi, M. T. H.（1992）. Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Implication for learning and discovery in sciences. In R. Giere (ED), Cognitive models of sciences: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. 129-186. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press.
Chi, M. T. H., Slott, J. D., & deLeeuw, N.（1994）.From things to process: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts, Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
Cognition & Technology group at Vanderbilt ( 1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, and Professional Development. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Delisle, R. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria, Virginia USA: association for supervision and publication.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P.(1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 84, 486-503.
Faidley, J., Evensen, D. H., Salisbury-Glennon, J., Glenn, J., ＆ Hmelo, C. E.（2000）. How are we doing? Methods of assessing group processing in a problem-based learning context. Problem-Based Learning: a research perspective on learning interaction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T.(eds)(1994). The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press.
Finkel, E. A. (1996). Making sense of genetics: students’ knowledge use during problem solving in a high school genetics class. Journal of research in science teaching, 33 (4), 345-368.
Flavell, J. H.(1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale,（New Jersey：Lawrence Erlbaum）, 231-235.
Gagne, R. M.(1985). The conditions of learning (4 th). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hadwin, A. F. （1996）.Promoting self-regulation: Examining the relationships between problem-based learning in medicine and the strategic content learning approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Association, New York.
Harland, T.(2003). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and Problem-based Learning: linking a theoretical concept with practice through action research. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 263-272.
Hmelo, C. E. & Lin, X. (2002).In Evensen, D.H. & Hmelo, C. E (Eds.), Problem-Based Learning-A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions.(pp. xi -xii) .New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T.(1994).Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning.(4th ed.)Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Lester, F. K. et al.(1989). The role of metacognition in mathematical problem solving: A study of two grade seven classes.（ED314 255）
Maggi, S. B. (2000). Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories. Philadelphia, PA: SRHE & Open University Press.
Mayo, P. , Donnelly, M. B. ,Nash, P. P. ,& Schwartz, R. W. (1993).Students Perceptions of Tutor Effectiveness in problem based surgery clerkship, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 5(4), 227-233.
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D.（1990）. Concept mapping: a useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949.
Peterson, M. (1998). Skills to enhance problem-based learning. [on-line] Available June 4, 2003,from http://www.utmb.edu/meo/f0000009.htm
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W.A.（1982）.Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 221-227.
Ramirez, R., Anne, M., & John, C.（1998）. In search of dissonance: the evolution of dissonance in conceptual change theory. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA, 19-22.
Rhodes, D.G. (1999). A practical approach to problem-based learning: simple technology makes PBL accessible. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 63, 410-414.
Schiller, J. & Ostwald, M. (1994). Staff perceptions of implementing a problem-based learning approach in an external degree course. In Ostwald, M. & Kingsland, A. (eds), Research and Development in Problem Based Learning (pp.219-231).Newcastle, Australia: The University of Newcastle.
Schoenfeld, A. H.（1985）.Mathematical problem solving. New York：Academic.
Selman, R. L., Krupa, M. P., Stone, C. R., & Jaquette, D. S. （1982）. Concrete operational and the emergence of unseen force in children’s theories of electromagnetism and gravity. Science Education, 66(2), 181-194.
Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H.& McGee (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an Astronomy simulation. Journal of research in science teaching, 40(1), 6-33.
Slavin, R. E.（1995）.Cooperative learning theory, research, and practice.（2 th）.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Starr, C. & Starr, L. （2002）. Biology: concepts and applications（5 th.）. NY: Thomson books/cole.
Sternberg, R. J.(1999). Memory: Models and Research Methods. Cognitive Psychology (2 th). TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Suchman, L. A.（1987）. Plans and situated action: The problem of human-machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taplin, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in distance education: practitioner’s belief about an action learning project. Distance education, 21(2), 278-299.
Tipping, J. , Freeman, R.F.,& Rachlis, A.R.（1995）.Using faculty and student perceptions of group dynamics to development recommendations for PBL training. Academic Medicine, 70, 1030-1032.
Torp, L. T. & Sage, S. M. (1998). Problems As Possibilities: Problem-Based Learning For K-12 Education. Virginia, Linda Trop.
Van Dijk, T.A.(1997). Discourse as social interaction. London: SAGE.
Vygotsky, L.,（1978）.Mind in societ.. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, C. S., Tsoi, M. Y., Calkin, j., & Darley, M. (2003).Learning from inquiry-based laboratories in nonmajor biology: an interpretive study of the relationships among inquiry experience, epistemologies, and conceptual growth. Journal of research in science teaching, 40(10), 986-1024.
Wilson, B.& Cole, P.(1992).A critical review of elaboration theory. Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology and Sponsored by Research and Theory Divisions.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348 040)