臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

研究目的在於瞭解國民中學科學教室師生語言互動的情形、描繪學生的科學概念發展過程，探討師生語言互動與科學概念發展的關係，以及認知技能的使用與科學概念發展的關係。據此本研究的問題有：1.個案班級師生語言互動的情形為何？2.個案班級學生的科學概念發展過程為何？3.個案班級師生語言互動與科學概念發展過程有何關係？4.認知技能的使用與科學概念發展過程有何關係？研究採取質性研究法。由語意的觀點切入分析語言的內涵，探討師生互動的過程中，語言所蘊含的科學概念與認知技能的使用。研究對象是一個國三的個案班級。針對個案班級國三上學期的自然科教學，進行相關的資料收集。收集資料的種類有現場觀察錄影、師生訪談、以及相關文件。採用語言的語意及認知技能層面將收集到的資料加以分析、詮釋。研究的主要發現揭露了師生語言互動其實就是概念的互動、認知技能的互動；並得知概念與概念之間是靠認知技能來連結，俾使學生科學概念得以發展，達成有意義的學習。這個結論可以分述為以下6 點： 1.個案班 級的科學教室中教學活動的慣律建立以教師引導為主，而教師及學生則同 時扮演著遵循者的角色。 2.教師堅持有系統的教學與學習。 3.學生的科 學概念發展過程是由科學知識相互連結而成，存在著相互合作與競爭的關 係，並且是由質性理解發展至量化理解的。 4. 師生的語言內容中存在有 若干的術語，可以組成科學概念的命題知識陳述，也就是科學的知識內 容；學生的科學知識建構過程，是藉由師生語言互動、相互合作，逐漸修 正原有的命題知識陳述，進而形成正確的科學概念。 5.教師在教學中十分 重視學生是否對科學概念達到真正理解，據此隨時調整個案班級的語言互 動方式。 6.師生語言互動過程中，學生會應用不同的認知技能幫助概念與 概念之間每個階段的連結，達成有意義的學習。

The purposes of this study were to understand the teacher-student language interactions in the junior high school science classroom, to describe students’ science conceptual development, to explore the relationship between teacher-student language interactions and science conceptual development, and to understand the relationship between the usage of cognitive skills and the development of science concepts. According to the purposes, this study has three questions as follows: 1. How are the teacher-student language interactions in the case class? 2. What is the process of students’ science conceptual development in the case class? 3. What is the relationship between teacher-student language interactions and science conceptual development in the case class? 4. What is the relationship between the usage of cognitive skills and the development of science concepts? The qualitative method was applied in this study. Semantic analysis approach was implemented in the data analysis to get the content of teacher-student interactions, in which the science concepts and the usage of cognitive skills were contained. The case class was a 9th grade class, and the relevant data were collected in the science class in the fall semester. The collected data include live recording, interviews with teacher and student, and relevant documents. Both Semantic analysis and cognitive skills of the language were employed in the data analysis and interpretation. The major findings of this study uncover that the teacher-student language interactions are conceptual interactions and cognitive skills’ interactions, concluding that cognitive skills could link concepts together, thus, students’ science concepts were developed and meaningful learning was achieved. This conclusion could be divided into six points as follows: 1. The teaching activities/rule of the science class in this case class were still controlled mainly by the teacher, and both teacher and students follow this rule. 2. The teacher insists systematic teaching and learning. 3. The process of students’ science conceptual development was formed because of the linking of the science knowledge, both cooperative and competitive relationships existed, and developed from qualitative comprehension to quantitative comprehension. 4. Jargons exist in teacher-student dialogues which formed the science conceptual presentment of knowledge proposition, i.e. the content of science knowledge. Because of the teacher-student language interactions and cooperation, the constructional process of students’ science knowledge gradually modified the previous presentment of knowledge proposition, finally the correct science concepts formed. 5. During the teaching, teacher highly valued if students were thoroughly comprehended toward science concept, thus, the ways of language interactions were modified at any time. 6. During the process of teacher-student language interactions, cognitive skills link each single tiny phases between the science concepts, and meaningful learning was achieved.

目 錄 摘要………………………..………………………………..…………….. I 英文摘要………………………..………………………………..……….. II 目錄………………………..………………………………..…………….. IV 表次………………………..………………………………..…………….. V 圖次…………………………..……………………………..…………….. VIII 附錄次………………………..………………………………..………….. IX 第壹章 緒論…………………………..……………………………..…... 1 第一節 研究背景與動機………………..…………………………. 2 第二節 研究的重要性……….…………………..………………... 4 第三節 研究目的與問題…………………..………………………. 5 第四節 研究的限制與範圍…………………..……………………. 6 第五節 名詞釋義…………………..……………………..………... 7 第貳章 文獻探討………………………….……………………………. 9 第一節 語言互動的意義………………..……………………..…... 9 第二節 科學概念學習的相關研究……………..…………………. 15 第三節 認知技能與概念學習…………..……………………..….. 19 第四節 語言互動與概念學習……………...………………..…….. 36 第參章 研究方法………………………..………………………………. 39 第一節 研究架構………………………………………………….. 39 第二節 研究流程………………………………………………….. 41 第三節 研究對象………………………………………………….. 43 第四節 研究者的角色……….…………………………………….. 45 第五節 資料收集………….……………………………………….. 46 第六節 資料分析……….………………………………………….. 49 第七節 研究的信賴度…………………………………………….. 54 第肆章 研究結果與討論…………………………..…………………… 55 第一節 科學教室中語言的意義與目的…………………………... 55 第二節 學生的科學概念發展過程……………………………….. 75 第三節 師生語言互動與學生科學概念發展過程的關係………... 86 第四節 學生科學概念發展與認知技能的關係…………………... 103 第伍章 結論與建議………………………..……………………………. 131 第一節 結論………………………………………………………... 131 第二節 建議………………………………………………………... 135 參考文獻………………………..………………………………..………... 138 附錄………………………..………………………………..……………... 147

（一）中文部分Kneller, G. F. 張銀富譯 (1989)：當代教育思潮。台北市：五南書局出版。 Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H. & Novak, J. D. (Eds.) 丁信中、王雅亮、江世 豪、林冠群、洪振方、唐偉成、陳榮祥、葉明達、葉倩亨、簡聿成、 羅豪章、蘇明俊等譯 (2004)：促進理解之科學評量：人本取向觀點。 台北市：心理出版社。 宋志雄 (1992)：探究國三學生酸與鹼的迷失概念並應用以發展教學診斷 工具。彰化：彰化師範大學科教研究所碩士論文（未出版）。 宋志雄、林曦和徐順益 (1993)：探究國三學生酸與鹼的迷思概念並應用以 發展教學診斷工具。彰化市：國立彰化師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。 余翎瑋 (2004)：從語言符號交互作用探討小四學生之科學概念建構。高 雄市：國立高雄師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。 吳明清 (1998)：教學活動設計的基本規準。中華民國教材研究發展學會八 十七年度獻禮之專題講座。台灣：台北市。 邱美虹和翁雪琴 (1995)：國三學生四季成因之心智模式與推論歷程之探 討。科學教育學刊, 3(1), 23-68. 周甘逢、徐西森、襲心怡、連延嘉和黃明娟 (2003)：輔導原理與實務。高 雄市：高雄復文。 周進洋 (2003)：從概念知識連結看科學教室符號互動。論文發表於科教處 學術研討會-2003 數學與科學的對話：概念學習。高雄市：國立高雄 師範大學科學教育研究所。 郭生玉 (1985)：心理與教育測驗。台北市：精華書局。 郭重吉 (2003)：科學概念學習研究-總協調計畫(3/4)。論文發表於科教處學 術研討會-2003 數學與科學的對話：概念學習。高雄市：國立高雄師 範大學科學教育研究所。 教育部（2003）：課程目標。九年一貫。國教專業社群網。2005 年5 月25 日，取自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC/brief/brief3.php。 張正平和陳文典 (2004)：「傳達溝通」的能力。自然與生活科技學習領域- 科學素養的內涵與解析。台北市：教育部。 張世忠 (1998)：社會建構教學與科學概念。教育資料與研究, 24, 30-36。 曾千虹和耿正屏 (1993) ：國小、國中及高中學生之細胞概念發展。彰化 市：國立彰化師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。 黃文美和蘇育任 (2001)：日常用語對國小六年級學童自然科學學習的影 響。第十七屆科學教育研討會論文彙編, 壁報展示, F11。 黃瑞琴 (1991)：質的教育研究方法。台北市：心理出版社。 黃萬居 (1997) ：談建構主義的自然科教學。教育資料與研究雙月刊, 18, 35-37。 黃萬居、陳佩雯和蘇明勇 (2004)：批判思考智能的意涵及其教學。自然與 生活科技學習領域-科學素養的內涵與解析。台北市：教育部。 孫仲山和李碧娟 (1997)：國民中學教學情境中師生語言行為的分析。教育 研究資訊, 5(4), 89-100。 楊榮祥 (1998) ：改善學術研究和教室實務的關係。科學教育學刊, 6(4), 321-323。 楊其安和郭重吉 (1990) ：利用臨床晤談探究國中學生對力學概念的另有 架構。彰化市：國立彰化師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。 楊坤原和陳進利（1989）：中學生認知能力與遺傳學概念學習之相關研究。 科學教育, 1, 61-57. 詹耀宗 (1995)：科學教學中之語言行為：一位國民中學理化教師之詮釋性 研究。高雄市：國立高雄師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。 歐陽教 (1986)：教學的觀念分析。載於中國教學會主編：有效教學研究。 台北市：台灣書店。 熊召弟 (1996) ：科學學習心理學。台北市：心理出版社。 羅啟源和劉端旭（2001）：知識管理：價值網之協同關係模式概念研究。 KM 研究計畫。2005 年5 月25 日，取自 http://km.iem.ntut.edu.tw/KM%AC%E3%A8s%ADp%B5e.htm。 劉文雄 (2001)：國三學生化學反應速率的另有架構之研究。高雄市：國立 高雄師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。 劉宏文和張惠博 (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, 9(2), 169-196. 蔡智文 (2001)：國三學生質量守恆相關概念另有架構之研究。高雄市：國 立高雄師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。 謝志仁和郭重吉 (1993)：國中學生化學變化相關概念另有架構之探究。彰 化市：國立彰化師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。 羅維恩 (2005)：淺談思考技能。2005 年1 月14 日，取自 http://www.cmi.hku.hk/material/Workshet/history/thinking.PDF。 （二）英文部分 Amabile, T. M. (1982). Conversation I: The gap between teachers and researchers. In T. M. Amabile & M. L. Stubbs (Eds.), Psychological research in the classroom: Issues for educators and researchers (pp.9-20). New York: Pergamon Press. Amidon, E. J., & Hunter, E. H. (1966). Improving Teaching: The analysis ofclassroom verbal interaction. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. & Bloom, B. S. (2000). Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing, A: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Complete Edition. London: Longman Press. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Beevers. C. E. & Paterson, J. S. (2001). Automatic Assessment of Problem Solving Skills in Mathematics. Paper presented at Interational Conference on Communication, Problem Solving and Learning, Strathclyde University. To appear 2003. Active Learning in Higher Education, ILT, London: Sage Publications Press. Beevers. C. E. & Paterson, J. S. (2002). Assessment in mathematics. In Kahn, P. & Kyle, J. (Eds.), Effective learning and teaching in mathematics and its applications. London: Kogan Page Press. Beyer, B. K. (1991). Teaching thinking skills, A handbook for elementary school teachers. Boston MA: Allyn and Bacon Press. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furat, E. J., Hill W. H. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification o f educational goals handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman. Brown, P. (1977). Introduction. In C. E. Snow, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children : Language input and acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chipman, S. F., Glaser, R. & Segal, J. W. (1985) (Eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills, v.1 (pp.7). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Press. Copper, C. R. (1981). An Ethnographic Study of Teaching Style. (Midwest Regional Conference on Qualitative Research in Education.), (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED209213). CUE Assessment system (2002) Heriot-Watt University. http://www.scrolla.hw.ac.uk (22 Apr 2002) Driver, R. (1988). Theory into practice II: A constructivist approach to constructism. In P. Frensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp.133-149). London: Falmer Press. Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Gallas, K. (1994). Talking Their Way into Science: Hearing Children’s Questions and Theories, responding with Curricula. New York: Teachers College Press. Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer. Girod, M. & Wong, D. (2002). An aesthetic perspective on science learning: Case studies of three fourth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 199. Glaser, R. (1985). In Chipman, S. F., Glaser, R. & Segal, J. W. (Eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills, v.1 (pp.7). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Press. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152. Hargreaves, D. H. (1972). Interpersonal Relationships and Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Press. King, T. & Duke-William, E. (2001). Using Computer-Aided Assessment to Test Higher Level Learning Outcomes. Proceedings of 5th International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference, Loughborough. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the languages of science: words, symbols, images, and actions. Conference paper, [On-line]. Available on web: http://academic.Brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htm Lipman, M. (1987). Critical thinking - what can it be. Educationa Leadership, 9, 38 - 43. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in Education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Liu, M. (2003). Enhancing learners’ cognitive skills through multimedia design. Interactive Learning Environments, Vol. 11, No. 1. pp.23-39. Marzano, R.J., Brandt, R.S., Hughes, C.S., Jones, B.F., Presseisen, B.Z., Rankin, S.C. & Suhor, C. (1988). Dimensions of Thinking: A Framework for Curriculum and Instruction. USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Press. McCormick, C. & Pressley, M. (1997). Educational Psychology, Learning, Instruction, Assessment. New York: Longman Press. O’Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a scoiocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 791-820. Polya, G. (1957). How to Solve It. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Posner, C. 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. Prophet, B. & Towse, P. (1999). Pupils' understanding of some non-technical words in science. School Science Review, 81(295), 79-86. Roth, W-M. (1995). Authentic school science: knowledge and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. The Netherlands: Dordrecht, Kluwer. Rowe, M.B. (1986). Wait time: slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (1), 43-50. Schoenfeld, A. (1985) Mathematical Problem Solving. San Diego: Academic Press. Schön, D. (1985). The Design Studio. London: RIBA Press. Scott, P. H. (1998). Learning about science teaching: perspectives from an action research project. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.67-80). Britain: Kluwer Academic Press. Segal, J. W., Chipman, S. F.,＆ Glaser, R. (1985). Thinking and learning skills: Relating instruction to research. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shymansky, J. A., & Kyle, W. C., Jr. (1992). Establishing a research agenda: Critical issues of science curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 749-778. Sternberg, R. (1998). Thinking and problem solving, Handbook of perception and cognition (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Scholastic Testing Service Press. Strike, K. A. & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp.147-176). New York: SUNY Press. Tobin, K.(1996).Cultural perspectives on the teaching and learning of science. In Traditional Culture, Science and Technology and Development- Toward a new Literacy for Science and Technology. Mito City, Japan: Ibaraka University Press. Tyler, R. W. (1949). The Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. London: Chicago University Press. Victor, E. (1989). Science for the Elementary School (6rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.