(44.192.112.123) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/02/28 06:42
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:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:徐素君
研究生(外文):Su-Jyun Syu
論文名稱:結合資訊融入與後設認知策略的自然科科學寫作之行動研究
論文名稱(外文):An Action Research of Integrating Information Technology and Metacognitive Strategy into Scientific Writing in Science Teaching
指導教授:許銘津許銘津引用關係
指導教授(外文):Min-Jin H.Lin
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立花蓮教育大學
系所名稱:科學教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2008
畢業學年度:96
語文別:中文
論文頁數:157
中文關鍵詞:資訊融入後設認知策略科學寫作行動研究
外文關鍵詞:Integrating Information TechnologyMetacognitive StrategyScientific WritingAction Research
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:8
  • 點閱點閱:591
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:174
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:13
本研究是以行動研究的方式探討結合資訊融入與後設認知策略的自然科科學寫作教學。希望藉由教學方案的規劃與實施,培養學生的科學寫作與後設認知能力,並強化自然科學習態度。研究者以教學錄影、訪談、學生學習日誌、後設認知自評表、學習態度自評表、教師省思日誌等方式,從中蒐集課程相關文件及資料,進行資料的整理及分析。經過為期五個月的研究歷程,期能結合理論與教學實務,提升科學寫作教學的能力。研究結果獲得如下結論:

一、透過結合資訊融入與後設認知策略的科學寫作教學,可以促進學生對科學知識的瞭解,以及有助於提升科學寫作能力。

二、學童的後設認知策略應用能力方面無顯著增長,但學習成就高之學生其在目標設定、自我監控自我評鑑等三面的能力表現略有進步,但在自我修正的
能力上進步有限,而學習成就低落的學生其在此四方面能力的成長更不顯
著,但師生互動若能較頻繁,其自我監控方面進步的空間會更大。

三、以關心、鼓勵、引導、立即回饋策略能提升學生自然科學習態度。

最後分別對自然科教學及未來研究提出建議,以做為將來結合資訊融入與後設認知策略的自然科科學寫作教學之行動研究的參考。
This study aimed to integrate information technology and metacognitive strategy into scientific writing in science teaching. The researcher planned and implemented the science teaching of the action research to help students cultivate scientific writing ability and metacognitive ability . Through five months of action research, the author collected data through classroom observation, video, interviews, students’ worksheets, self-evaluation questionnaires of meta-cognition and attitudes towards science.

Thus, there were three important findings in this study described as follows:

1. Scientific Writing by guided writing course could enhance students’ comprehension of science knowledge and to improve students’ scientific writing ability.

2. There was no significant difference in students’ meta-cognitive behaviors. The learning outcomes of students with high linguistic abilities had made better progresses in self-planning, self-control and self-evaluation, while the improvement in self-amendment was not obvious. The learning outcomes of students with lower linguistic abilities had made progresses more in self-control, and very few students showed improvement in self-planning, self-control, self-evaluation, and self-amendment.

3. There are four teaching strategies to promote students’ attitudes to science: (a) showing concern. (b) encouragement . (c) guidance from experts. (d) immediate feedback.

Finally, conclusions were drawn from the findings, implications and suggestions for future research were discussed according to the findings.
第一章 緒論………………………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究背景與動機…………………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題……………………………………………………3
第三節 名詞解釋…………………………………………………………………3
第四節 研究範圍與限制…………………………………………………………5
第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………………………8
第一節 科學寫作…………………………………………………………………8
第二節 後設認知理論……………………………………………………………23
第三節 支援後設認知之網路學習環境…………………………………………30
第三章 研究方法…………………………………………………………………33
第一節 研究設計…………………………………………………………………33
第二節 教學實施…………………………………………………………………37
第三節 研究場欲與對象…………………………………………………………40
第四節 教學實踐…………………………………………………………………41
第五節 研究工具…………………………………………………………………44
第六節 資料分析…………………………………………………………………48
第四章 研究結果與討論…………………………………………………………50
第一節 課程設計理念、實施與省思……………………………………………50
第二節 學生之學習成長…………………………………………………………86
第三節 教師之專業成長…………………………………………………………121
第五章 結論與建議………………………………………………………………130
第一節 研究結論…………………………………………………………………130
第二節 研究建議思………………………………………………………………133
參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………136
中文部分…………………………………………………………………………136
英文部分…………………………………………………………………………138
附 錄…………………………………………………………………………141
附錄1、課程架構圖………………………………………………………………144
附錄2、颱風與地震團體問題引導寫作活動單…………………………………147
附錄3、水溶液的性質問題引導寫作活動單……………………………………149
附錄4、動物問題引導寫作活動單………………………………………………151
附錄5、半結構是晤談題綱………………………………………………………153
附錄6、後設認知自評表…………………………………………………………154
附錄7、科學寫作指導語…………………………………………………………155
附錄8、自然科學習態度問卷……………………………………………………156
附錄9、科學寫作自評表…………………………………………………………157
表 目 錄
表2-1 科學寫作作品評量表……………………………………………………16
表2-2 科學寫作提高學生學習成效的相關研究………………………………19
表2-3 科學寫作幫助學生學習科學的相關研究………………………………20
表2-4 科學寫作對學生自然科學習態度方面的相關研究……………………22
表2-5 後設認知評量方法之優缺點……………………………………………28
表3-1 教學實施計畫表…………………………………………………………41
表3-2 待答問題與研究工具對應表……………………………………………45
表3-3 科學寫作評量表單………………………………………………………47
表3-4 資料代碼…………………………………………………………………49
表4-1 預試階段教學活動實施…………………………………………………54
表4-2 第一階段教學活動實施…………………………………………………68
表4-3 第二階段教學活動實施…………………………………………………79
表4-4 後設認知自評統計表--第一階段………………………………………91
表4-5 後設認知自評統計表--第二階段………………………………………92
表4-6 第一、二階段後設認知自評統計表之比較……………………………94
表4-7 自然科學習態度問卷統計表--第一階段………………………………115
表4-8 自然科學習態度問卷統計表--第二階段………………………………117
表4-9 第一、二階段自然科學習態度問卷統計表情形比較…………………118

圖 目 錄
圖3-1 研究架構圖………………………………………………………………34
圖3-2 研究流程圖………………………………………………………………39
中文部分:
王信智(2001)。應用資訊檢索技術於科學寫作作品評量之探究。臺南師範學院資訊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
田麗娟(2001)。國小自然科評量方式之行動研究-以學習歷程檔案評量為例。國立台北師範學院碩士論文,未出版。
邱志峰(2006)。以TINS網路工作室融入後設認知取向自然科主題探索教學之行動研究。國立國立花蓮教育大學碩士論文,未出版。
林頌恩(1995)。國中物理解題之後設認知研究。高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
胡永崇(1995)。後設認知策略教學對國小閱讀障礙學童閱讀理解成效之研究。彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
涂金堂(1995)。國小學生後設認知、數學焦慮與數學解題表現之相關研究。國立師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
許原嘉(2002)。以科學寫作方式探究國小學童科學迷失概念之研究—以空氣概念為例。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
張淑娟(1997)。高一學生後設認知能力與數學解題能力關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
張昇鵬(1995)。資賦優異學生後設認知與創造思考能力關係之研究。國立台灣示範大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版。
郭金美(2004)。提升國小學童批判思考能力之教學研究。郭重吉 (主持人),科學課程的教學。93年自然與生活科技課程研討會,國立台灣師範大學。
郭靜姿(1994)。不同閱讀能力學生成敗歸因方式、策略運用與後設認知能力之差異比較。師大學報,39,284-325。
郭靜芳(1997)。國小資優生後設認知與推理思考能力相關之研究。嘉義師院國教所碩士論文。
陳文典(2000)。自然與生活科技學習領域。九年一貫課程系列研討會研習手冊。南一書局。
陳慧娟(1998)。科學寫作有效促進概念改變的教學策略。中等教育,49 (6),123-131。
陳李綢(1992)。國小男女生後設認知能力與數學作業表現的關係研究。教育
心理學報,25,97-109。
曾陳密桃(1990)。國民中小學生的後設認知及其與閱讀理解之相關研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
黃月平(2004)。國小學童分數乘除文字題表徵轉換能力與後設認知之研究。國立臺中師範學院教育測驗統計研究所碩士論文。
楊明家(1997)。國小六年級不同解題能力學生在數學解題歷程後設任之行為之比較研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
楊宗仁(1991)。後設認知的源起及其理論。資優教育季刊,38,16-25。
葉雪枝(1998)。後設認知寫作策略對國小四年級記敘文寫作能力提昇之影響研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
劉祥通、周立勳(1997)。數學寫作活動--國小數學教學的溝通工具。國民教育研究學報,3,239-262。
劉國權(2001)。STS 及科學寫作活動對學童科學概念及科學相關態度之影響研究。台北市立師範學院自然科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
蔡志賢(2002)。科學寫作融入國小自然科教學的行動研究。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
謝祥宏、段曉林(2001)。教學與評量-- 一種互為鏡像(mirror image)關係。科學 教育月刊,241,2-13。

英文部分:
Anderson, C. W., & Roth, K. J. (1989). Teaching for meaningful and self-regulated learning of science. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 1. Teaching for meaningful understanding and self-regulated learning. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Applebee, A. N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54,577-596.
Breger, D. C. (1995). The inquiry paper. Science Scope, 19(2), 27-32.
Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H.(1975). The 116 development of writing abilities. London: Macmillan.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other moremysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Wwiner and R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Cates, W.M. (1992). Considerations in evaluating metacognition in interactive hypermedia/multimedia instruction, ERIC Document ED349966.
Costa, A. L. (1984). Mediating the metacognitive. Educational Leadership, 42(3), 57-62.
Dyson, A. H. (1989). "Once upon a time" reconsidered: The developmental dialectic between function and form. Written Communication, 6(4), 436-462. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 310 404).
Elbow, P. (1971). Writing Without Teachers.N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication,28, 122-128.
Englert, C. S., & Raphael, T. E. (1988).Constructing well-formed prose: Process, structure, and metacognitive knowledge.Exceptional Children, 54, 513-520.
Fellows, N. J. (1994). A window into thinking:Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning.Journal of Research in Science Education,31(9), 985-1001.
Flavell, J.H. (1971). First discussant’s comments: What is memory development the development of ? Human Development,14,272-278.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognition aspects of problem-solving. In L. B. Resnick (Eds.), The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H., and Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In Robert V. Kail, Jr., and John W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. New York:John Wiley and Sons.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental Inquiry. In T. O. Nelson (Ed.), Metacognition: core reading (pp. 3-8). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive Monitoring. In W. Patrick Dickson, Children’s oral communication skills. New York:Academic Press.
Foster, G. (1984, March). Technical writing and science writing. Is there a difference and what does it matter? Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication 35th, New York City, USA, 29-31.
Fulwiler, T. (1985). Writing and learning, grade three. Language Arts, 65(1), 55-59.
Gant, P. (1990). To learn or to memorize: That is the question. In The science and writing connection (Clearinghouse No. SE052005) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 342 611).
Gordon, J. (1996). Tracks for learning: Metacognition and learning technologies.Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 46-55.http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/gen/aset/ajet/ajet12/wi96p46.html.
Governor, D.(1999). Cognitive Styles and Metacognition in Web Based Instruction. Available: www.pcola.gulf.net/~dulci/THESIS.html
Graves, D.H.(1983). Writing : teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Education Books, Inc.
Guzdial, M. (1998). Technological support for project-based learning. Retrieved 12/18/2003 from http://www-ic2.univ-lemans.fr/ ~george/publications/george_ECSCL01.pdf
Haury, D. L. (1993). Assessing student performance in science. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education Columbus OH. Retrieved March 25, 2003 from the world wide web: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed359068.html.
Hill, Janette R. and Hannafin, Michael J. (1996). Cognitive Strageties and the Use of a Hypermedia Information System: An Exploratory Study, ERIC Document No: ED397799.
Hill, J. R. and Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the world wide web. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4),37-64
Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877-893.
Horton, P. R., & Walton, R. (1985). The effect of writing assignments on achievement in college chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(6), 533-541.
Hsiao, Y. (1997). The Effects of Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies in a Hypermedia Environment: A Review of Literature. Available: www.edb.utexas.edu/mmresearch/Students97/Hsiao/
Huang, Y. C. (1999). A study of reformulation relations in scientific reports. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Tsing Hua, Hsinchu, Taiwan, ROC.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Cognitive Tools for Learning. Ed by P. A. M. Kommers et al,NATO.
Keys, C. W. (1994). The development of scientific reasoning skill in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: An interpretive study of six ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 31(9), 1003-1012.
Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130.
Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690.
Keys, C.W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.
Markman, E. G. (1977). Realizing that you don’t understand : A preliminary investigation. Child Development, 48, 986-992.
Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: a classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11(4), 305-329.
Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. what changes? Instructional Science, 28(3), 199-226.
Michal Z., Gavriel S., Tamar G., Hanna G. (1991). Enhancing writing- related metacognitions through a computerized writing partner. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 373-391.
Miller, L. D. (1991). Writing to learn mathematics. Mathematic Teacher, 84(7), 516-521.
Newell, G. E. (1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/ protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(3), 265-287.
NRC. (1997). Introducing the National Science Education Standards. National Research Council, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, Washington, DC
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083-2093.
Pearce, D. J., & Davis, M. D. (1988). Teacher use of writing in the junior high mathematics classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 88(1), 8-10.
Peasley, K. L., Rosean, C. L., & Roth, K. J. (1992). Writing-to-learn in a conceptual change science unit. Elementary Subjects Center Series No. 54. East Lansing, MI: Center for the Learning and teaching of Elementary Subject. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 356 143).
Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Student’s perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83(2), 151-162.
Reid, J. (1966). Learning to think about reading. Education Research, 9,56-62.
Rigney, J. (1978). Learning strategies: a theoretical perspective. In H. G. O'Neil (Ed.), Learning strategies (pp. 165-205). New York: Academic Press.
Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983.
Rillero, P., Cleland, J., & Zambo, R. (1995). Write from the Start: Writing-to-Learn Science and Mathematics. Paper presented at the National Association of Biology Teachers National Convention. Arizona State. (ERIC Document Reproduction Series No. 390 708).
Roid, G. H. (1994). Patterns of writing skills derived from cluster analysis of direct-writing assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 159-170.
Rudd II, J. A., Greenbowe, T. J., Hand, B. M., & Legg, M. J. (2001). Using the science writing heuristic to move toward an inquiry-based laboratory curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 78 (12), 1680-1685.
Shelley, A. C. (1998). The write approach. Science Scope, 22(1), 36-39.
Shih, C., Ingebritsen, T., Pleasants, J., Flickinger, K and Brown, G. (1998). Learning strategies and other factors influencing achievement via web courses, ERIC Document ED422876.
Trice, A. D. (2000). A Handbook of Classroom Assessment. London: Longman Pubs.
Tucknott, J. M., & Yore, L. D. (1999). The effects of writing activities on grade 4 children's understanding of simple machines, inventions, and inventors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Yockey, J.A. (2001). A key to science learning. Science and Children, 38(7), 36-41.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔