跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(100.26.196.222) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/02/29 23:19
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:黃淑雅
論文名稱:透過中文版VOSTS1與VOSTS9之工具了解國小自然與生活科技領域教師科學本質觀之研究
論文名稱(外文):A Study of Using Chinese Version VOSTS1 and VOSTS9 to Investigate Elementary Science Teachers’ Views of the Nature of Science
指導教授:巫俊明巫俊明引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立新竹教育大學
系所名稱:應用科學系碩士班
學門:民生學門
學類:美容學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2006
畢業學年度:94
語文別:中文
論文頁數:203
中文關鍵詞:VOSTS問卷重測信度科學本質科學與技學科學知識的本質
外文關鍵詞:VOSTS questionnairetest/retest reliabilitynature of sciencescience and technologynature of scientific knowledge
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:369
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:49
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
透過中文版VOSTS1與VOSTS9之工具了解國小自然與生活科技
領域教師科學本質觀之研究

摘要

  本研究旨在確認中文版VOSTS1與VOSTS9的重測信度,並以它們為研究工具了解在職國小自然與生活科技領域教師的科學本質觀。在重測信度確認階段,36位在職國小自然與生活科技領域教師於研究開始及研究開始後一個月,各填寫一次中文版VOSTS1與VOSTS9,隨後以列聯表(cross-tabulation)及皮爾森卡方值(Pearson chi-square value)確認中文版VOSTS1與VOSTS9的重測信度。在正式施測階段,共有106位(未參與重測信度確認)在職國小自然與生活科技領域教師填寫中文版VOSTS1與VOSTS9,並以每個題目的各個選項之教師選答百分比,探討受測在職國小自然與生活科技領域教師的科學本質觀。
研究結果顯示:(1)中文版VOSTS1與中文版VOSTS9的重測信度在可接受的範圍(VOSTS1:0.82;VOSTS9:0.70),表示受測者在兩次測驗中的觀點具有一定程度的穩定性;(2)多數受測教師對於科學的定義相當傳統(主要是知識與過程)。對於技學的定義,選擇較多元意涵(包括社會面向)的觀點之教師則不到三成。此外,對於科學與技學的交互作用受測教師並未有一致調合的看法;(3)多數受測教師認科學觀察是理論蘊涵的、科學與技學知識具有暫時性及不確定性,但大部份的受測教師並不瞭解科學假說、定理及定律的定義與功能,對於科學探究的方法,也只有極少數教師的看法與當代觀點一致。此外,多數受測教師認為超自然事物可以改變自然世界,這樣的看法顯然與科學認識論相衝突。最後針對這些結果提出建議,供後續研究、在職教師與相關單位做為科學教育改革之參考。

關鍵字:VOSTS問卷、重測信度、科學本質、科學與技學、科學知識的本質
A Study of Using Chinese Version VOSTS1 and VOSTS9 to Investigate Elementary Science Teachers’ Views of the Nature of Science

Abstract

  The purpose of this study was two fold: (1) to test the reliability of Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS) section 1 and section 9 items (i.e. Chinese Version VOSTS1 and VOSTS9), and (2) to use Chinese Version VOSTS1 and VOSTS9 to investigate elementary science teachers’ views of the nature of science. In the reliability testing stage, the Chinese Version VOSTS1 and VOSTS9 were administered to a group of 36 elementary science teachers, and the reliability was determined by a cross-tabulation procedure and Pearson chi-square value following a retest (after one month of the initial administration). In the formal testing stage, the Chinese Version VOSTS1 and VOSTS9 were administered to another group of 106 elementary science teachers, and all the items were analyzed in percentage to discuss elementary science teachers’ views of the nature of science.
The results are concluded as follows: (1) both of the Chinese Version VOSTS1 and VOSTS9 had acceptable reliability (VOSTS1: 0.82; VOSTS9: 0.70), indicating some stability with respect to teachers’ opinion; (2) most elementary science teachers’ conceptions of science follow traditional lines (mainly a body of knowledge and a process of exploring the unknown), and less than thirty percent of the teachers chose a more informed response dealing with several facets of technology, including its social dimension. Furthermore, most elementary science teachers had not acquired a uniform view of the mutual interaction between science and technology; (3) most elementary science teachers believed that observations are theory-laden, and would seem to agree that scientific and technological knowledge are tentative and never uncertain, but most of them also revealed a considerable misunderstanding of hypotheses, theories and laws. As regard the scientific method, only a negligibly small proportion of these teachers embraced the pragmatic view that scientists use any method that might get results. Furthermore, most elementary science teachers subscribed to a view that a supernatural being could alter the natural world, a view in direct conflict with the tenets of the epistemology of science. Base on the conclusions above, implications and suggestions for further study, elementary science teachers, and teacher education are discussed.

Key words: VOSTS questionnaire, test/retest reliability, nature of science, science and technology, nature of scientific knowledge
目   次

第壹章 緒論1
 第一節 研究背景與重要性1
 第二節 研究目的與待答問題3
 第三節 名詞解釋4
 第四節 研究範圍與限制4

第貳章 文獻探討7
 第一節 科學本質觀在科學哲學派別上的演變7
 第二節 科學本質的重要性與內涵9
 第三節 科學本質相關研究17
 第四節 科學本質評量工具25
 第五節 使用VOSTS問卷的相關研究31

第參章 研究方法35
 第一節 研究設計35
 第二節 研究流程36
 第三節 研究對象38
 第四節 研究工具39
 第五節 資料蒐集與分析42

第肆章 結果與討論45
 第一節 研究對象的基本資料45
 第二節 中文版VOSTS1與VOSTS9的重測信度48
 第三節 在職國小自然與生活科技領域教師對於科學與技學的觀點54
 第四節 在職國小自然與生活科技領域教師對於科學知識的本質之觀點62

第伍章 結論與建議87
 第一節 結論87
 第二節 建議89

參考文獻91
 中文部分91
 英文部分92

附錄99
 附錄一 問卷送專家審查格式99
 附錄二 中文版VOSTS1與VOSTS9專家審查意見整合表138
 附錄三 中文版VOSTS1與VOSTS9預試問卷171
 附錄四 中文版VOSTS1與VOSTS9正式問卷187
 附錄五 教師基本資料表203
參考文獻

一、中文部分
丁嘉琦(1999)。花蓮縣國小教師科學本質觀點之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
江維信(2000)。科學本質課程對師院研究生科學本質觀影響之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
李悅美(2002)。國民小學高年級學童科學本質觀之研究。台北市立師範學院科學教育研究所自然科學教學碩士論文,未出版。
巫俊明(1997)。歷史導向物理課程對學生之科學本質的瞭解、科學態度、及物理學科成績之影響。物理教育,1(2),64-84。
林陳涌(1996)。「瞭解科學本質量表」之發展與效化。科學教育學刊,4(1),1-58。
柯玉婷(2000)。台中地區國小職前與在職教師對科學本質之理解及其教學態度的研究。國立台中師範學院自然科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
柳信榮(2002):高學業成就之高中學生科學本質瞭解之探討。國立高雄師範大學化學系碩士論文,未出版。
翁秀玉、段曉琳(1997)。科學史對國小六年級學生理解科學本質之成效。科學教育與研究發展季刊,8,26-41。
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),548-570。
郭重吉、許玫理(1992)。從科學哲學觀點的演變探討科學教育的過去與未來。彰化師範大學學報,3,531-560。
郭博嵐(2005)。國小在職教師對九年一貫科學本質能力指標瞭解之詮釋性研究。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
莊嘉坤(1999)。從認同的觀點分析學童對科學本質的瞭解與科學生涯的知覺。科學教育學刊,7(4),343-366。
許玫理(1992)。我國國民中學自然科學教師科學哲學觀點之調查研究。彰化師大科教研究所碩士論文,未出版。
許春峰(1998)。師院普通化學實驗STS教學模組。新竹師院學報,11,157-186。
教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北:教育部。
張兆芳(2005)。職前教師對國小「科學本質能力指標」瞭解之研究。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
張鳳琴(1994)。高雄地區公立高中學生對科學知識的本質之看法。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
張靜儀(1998)。初任教師國小自然科教學之個案研究-以〔地球運動〕單元為例。屏東師院學報,11,233-264。
賈馥名、楊深坑(1995)。教育學方法論。台北:五南。
蔣宗哲(2002)。職前國小自然科教師科學哲學與科學史的知識與態度研究。國立新竹師範學院數理研究所碩士論文,未出版。
鄭淑妃(1999)。國小自然科教師科學本質觀之詮釋性研究。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
鄭湧涇(1989):職前與在職生物教師對科學的本質的瞭解。中華民國第四屆科學教育學術研討會論文彙編,257-283。台北:國科會。


二、英文部分
AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York and Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1973). The measurement of high school students' knowledge about science and scientists. Science Education, 57(4), 539-549.
Aikenhead, G. (1979). Science:A way of knowing. The Science Teacher, 46(6), 23-25.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1988). An analysis of four ways of assessing student beliefs about STS topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 607-629.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The Development of a New Instrument:"Views on Science-Technology-Society"(VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477-491.
Aikenhead, G. S., Ryan, A. G., & Fleming, R. W. (1989). Views on science-technology-
society (form CDN.mc.5). Saskatoon, Canada, S7N 0W0:Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Saskatchewan.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans, summary, Project 2061. In 2061 Today. Washington, DC:AAAS.
Ben-Chaim D. & Zoller, U. (1991). The STS outlook profiles of Israeli high-school students and their teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 447-458.
Bloom, J. W. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of science:Scinece,theories and evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 11(4), 401-415.
Botton, C., & Brown, C. (1998). The Reliability of Some VOSTS Items When Used with Preservice Secondary Science Teachers in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 53-71.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1989). The teaching of the philosophy of science in secondary classrooms:Case studies of teachers’ personal theories. International Journal of Science Education, 11(4), 437-449.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62.
Carey, R. L., & Stauss, N. G. (1970). An analysis of the relationship between prospective science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and certain academic variables. Georgia Academy of Science, 148-158.
Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). “An experiment is when you try it and see if it works”:A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514-529.
Cleminson, A. (1990). Establishing an epistemological base for science teaching in the light of contemporary notions of the nature science and of how children learn science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 429-445.
Collette, A. T., & Chiapetta, E. C. (1994). Science instruction in the middle and science school (3nd , pp. 27-47). Columbas U.S.A.:Merrill.
Cooley, W. W., & Klopfer, L. E. (1961). TOUS-Test on Understanding Science, Form W:Manual for Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Scores, Princeton:Educational Testing Service.
Driver et al.(2000). Young people’s images of science, Open University Press, Buckingham, Philadelphia.
Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decision making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467-501
Ellington, H. (1983). The nature of scientific method. In Nature of science (p. 8-17). London:The Association for Science Education.
Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and Practicing Secondary School Science Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs about the Philosophy of Science. Science Education, 75(1), 121-133.
Haidar, A. H., & Balfakih, N. M. (1999). United Arab Emirates Science Students' Views about the Epistemology of Science. ED444843.
Jungwirth, E. (1970). An evaluation of the attained development of the intellectual skills needed for ‘understanding of the mature of scientific enquiry’ by BSCS pupils in Israel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7(2), 141-151.
Kimball, M. E. (1967-68). Understanding the nature of science:a comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110-120.
King, B. B. (1991). Beginning teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward history and philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 135-141.
Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1961). Test on understanding science, Form W. Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.
Klopfer, L. E. & Cooley, W. W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research for science teaching, 1, 33-47.
Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1989). Philosophy of science:an empirical study of teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 173-184.
Lederman, N. G., & Ziedler, D. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science:Do they really influence teacher behavior? Science Education, 71(5), 721-734.
Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science:Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225-239.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and Teachers' Conceptions of The Nature of Science:A Review of the Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G. (1996). The influence of teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science on classroom practice:The story of five teachers. In Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, Volume 1, 656-663.
McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of nature of science in science education. The Nature of Science in Science Education, 3-39.Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McComas, W., & Olson, J. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. McComas (ed.):Kluwer, The Netherlands, Dordrecht, 41-52.
National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society:Science education of the 1980’s (a National Science Teachers Association position statement). Washington, DC:NSTA.
National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National Science Education Standards.(Washington, DC:National Academic Press).
Popper, K. R. (1968). Conjectures and refutations in the growth of scientific knowledge. New York:Harper Torchbooks.
Roid G. H., & Haladyna, T. M. (1981). A technology for test-item writing. New York:Academic Press.
Rubba, P. A., & Andersen, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458.
Rubba, P. A., Schoneweg, C., & Harkness, W. L. (1996). A new scoring procedure for the Views on Science-Technology-Society instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 387-400.
Rubinson, J. T. (1969). Philosophy of science:Implications for teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(1), 340-348.
Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76, 559-580.
Scientific Literacy Center, (1967). Wisconsin Inventory of Science Processes. Madison, Wisconsin:The Regents of the University of Wisconsin.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Welch, W. W., Wayne, W., & Pella, M. O. (1968). The development of an instrument for inventorying knowledge of the processes of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 64-68.
Yager, R. E. (1966). Teacher effects upon the outcomes of science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(4), 236-242.
Zeidler, D. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1989). The effects of teachers’ language on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(9), 771-783.
Zoller, U., Ebenezer, J., Morley, K., Paras, S., Sandberg, V., West, C., Walthers, T., & Tan, S. H. (1990). Goals’ attainment in science-technology-society(S/T/S) education and reality. The case of British Columbia. Science Education, 74(1), 19-36.
Zoller, U., Donn, S., Wild, R., & Beckett, P. (1991). Students’ versus their teachers’ beliefs and positions on science/technology/society-oriented issues. International Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 25-36.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top