(3.239.33.139) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/02/26 23:45
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:鄭憲聰
論文名稱:融入論證導向的教學策略對國三學生力與運動單元學習成效影響之研究
指導教授:陳錦章陳錦章引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱:物理學系
學門:自然科學學門
學類:物理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2011
畢業學年度:99
語文別:中文
論文頁數:140
中文關鍵詞:論證導向的教學策略論證能力學習動機學習成就
外文關鍵詞:argumentation instruction strategiesargumentation abilitylearning motivationlearning achievementlearning
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:4
  • 點閱點閱:356
  • 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:132
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
本研究旨在探討融入論證導向的教學歷程中學生論證能力的表現,及學習動機的改變和對學生學習成就之影響。本研究採用準實驗研究法,以兩班常態編班的九年級學生為研究對象,控制組以傳統教學法進行教學,實驗組則進行以Toulmin (1958)的論證架構為基礎,簡化的論證模式「D(data)-W(warrant)-C(claim)」施予融入論證導向的教學課程,共十六堂課。實驗組及控制組分別施以論證能力試題測驗、科學學習動機問卷、力學概念測驗量表的前測及後測,而後進行單因子共變數分析,以比較兩組學生在力與運動的論證能力的表現,學習動機的改變和對學生學習成就差異。另外,研究者分析研究中所收集的資料包括:教學影帶、教師研究日誌、課程學習單、學生回饋日誌,以了解融入論證導向的教學策略對學生學習成效的影響。
研究結果顯示:
一、實施「融入論證導向的教學策略」後,實驗組的「論證能力」進步幅度,明顯優於對照組,達顯著差異。
二、經過「融入論證導向的教學策略」後,因實驗組與對照組在前測成績已有較高的「學習動機」表現,因此雖稍有進步,但未達顯著差異。
三、「融入論證導向的教學策略」後,實驗組的「學科成績」表現明顯優於對照組達顯著差異。

最後,研究者根據「融入論證導向的教學策略」後的研究結論給予未來教學及對於未來相關研究之建議,期望為爾後教學以及相關研究上提供參考意見。

The purpose of this research is to study the influence of
argumentation instruction strategies on students’argumentation ability,learning motivation, and learning achievement. This research utilizes Quasi-experiment method, targeting at two classes of normal-classified grade nine students; the control group taught by traditional teaching method, and the experimental group taught by argumentation instruction strategies through total 16 lessons. The test of argumentation ability, the questionnaire on learning motivation on science, and the Force Concept Inventory were implemented before and after instruction. Analysis of covariance were carried to compare the difference of argumentation ability, change of learning motivation, and learning achievement between two groups. In addition, qualitative data collected through the study were analyzed to help understand
students’performance.
Research result shows:
1. The experimental group is obviously better than the control group on argumentation ability after instruction.
2. There is no significant difference on the change of motivation between experimental group and control group after instruction.
3. The experimental group’s academic achievement on force andmotion is significant better than control group after
instruction.
In the end, according to the result of this study, the researcher made some recommendations on future teachers’ teaching and research.
目錄
第壹章 緒論.......................................1
第一節 研究背景與動機.............................1
第二節 研究目的與問題.............................3
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 論證的意涵與重要性.........................7
第二節 教學模式的類型與策略..................15
第三節 論證促進學習動機與能力................19
第四節 力與運動與力學概念測驗量表................28
第參章 研究方法..................................35
第一節 研究設計與流程............................35
第二節 研究情境..................................39
第三節 教學活動設計..............................41
第四節 研究工具..................................47
第五節資料處理與分析..............................53
第肆章 研究結果..................................57
第一節 對論證能力的影響.........57
第二節 融入論證.....61
第三節 融入論證後對學科成績的提升......68
第四節 融入論證後學生的看法及感受.....71
第伍章 結論與建議................................75
第一節 研究結果討論與反思.........................75
第二節 建議......................................79
參考文獻..........................................81
中文部分..........................................81
英文部分..........................................84
表次
表2-1-1 不同論證模式之使用方式......13
表2-3-1 論證教學促進能力相關文獻整理.................25
表2-3-2 論證教學促進學習動機相關文獻整理.................26
表2-3-3 論證教學促進學習成就相關文獻整理.................27
表2-4-1 國外有關力與運動單元研究相關表...................30
表2-4-2 國內有關力與運動單元研究相關表...................31
表2-4-3 力學概念測驗結構表..................................33
表3-1-1 有關之變項及設計.....35
表3-1-2 實驗設計.......................................36
表3-2-1 為實驗組與對照成就分數.......................40
表3-3-1 牛頓第一運動定律教學活設計表.................43
表3-3-2 慣性學習單.....................................45
表3-4-1 科學習動機量表說明...........................48
表3-4-2 現行國中理化力與運動概念內容題號對照表.....49
表3-4-3 各試題與命題敘述之對照表.......................50
表3-4-4 論證能力評分表.................................51
表3-5-1 編碼代號.......................................53
表3-5-2 工具資料來源與研究問題.........................55
表4-1-1 論證能力測驗試題後測得分之敘述統計...........58
表4-1-2 論證能力測驗試題前、後t檢定分析...............59
表4-1-3 論證能力測驗試題同質性檢定摘要表.................59
表4-1-4 論證能力測驗試題共變數分析摘要表...........60
表4-2-1 學習動機問卷前後測得分之敘述統計學習動機............61
表4-2-2 學習動機問卷試題前、後測...........62
表4-2-3「科學習動機問卷」後測分數同質性......63
表4-2-4「科學習動機問卷」後測分數單因子共變摘要表....63
表4-2-5「自我效能」後測分數迴歸係同質性考驗摘要表......63
表4-2-6「自我效能」後測分數單因子共變析摘要表........64
表4-2-7「主動學習策略」後測分數同質性考驗摘要表..........64
表4-2-8「主動學習策略」後測分數單因子共變析摘要表....64
表4-2-9「科學習價值」後測分數同質性考驗摘要表..........64
表4-2-10「科學習價值」後測...65
表4-2-11「表現目標導向」後測分數同質性考驗摘要..........65
表4-2-12「表現目標導向」後測分數單因子共變析摘要...65
表4-2-13「成就目標」後測分數同質性考驗摘要表.............66
表4-2-14「成就目標」後測分數單因子共變析摘要表.......66
表4-2-15「學習環境誘因」後測分數同質性考驗摘要表...............66
表4-2-16「學習環境誘因」後測分數單子共變析摘要表...67
表4-3-1 學科成績測驗試題前後得分之敘述統計.............68
表4-3-2 學科成績測驗試題前、後...........69
表4-3-3 學習成就後測之同質性考驗摘要表...................69
表4-3-4 力的概念測驗試題之共變數分析摘要表...............70
圖次
圖2-1-1 Browne和Keeley (2004譯)的理論分析架構(羅耀宗譯)
....10
圖2-1-2 Toulmin科學論證架構....11
圖2-1-3 D-W-C 論證結構...................................18
圖3-1-1 研究流程圖..............................38
圖3-3-1 教學活動流程....................................42
圖3-3-2 教導一堂論證的課.............................44
圖4-4-1 教學回饋單統計圖............71
圖4-4-2 學生認為有幫助原始回饋單.........................72
圖4-4-3 學生認為沒有幫助原始回饋單.......................73

附錄一:教學活動設計單................................90
附錄二:教學活動習單...............................111
附錄三:科學習動機量表.............................126
附錄四 力學概念測驗量表.............................128
附錄五:論證能力試題.................................135
附錄六:教師日誌.....................................139
附錄七:學生回饋日誌.................................140
中文部分
王姿瓔(2007): 運用論證取向的教學策略對國三學生學習成效之影響。國立高雄師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
王富民(2008):以資料探勘技術分析學習評量資料-以國中力與運動概念為例。國立台灣師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
林楷植(2002):發展二段式紙筆測驗探討國中學生力與運動之迷思概念。國立彰化師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化縣。
林煥祥、洪振方和洪瑞兒(2007):智育。教育部中教司主編:德智體群,台北市。
林燕文、洪振方(2007):對話論證的探究中學童論述策略對促進科學概念理解之研究。屏東教育大學學報,26,285-324。
林淑芳、郭重吉、陳錦章(2001, 9月):Hestenes 力的概念測驗中譯本適用性之探討。論文發表於中華民國第八屆三軍官校基礎學術研討會,國立海軍官校,高雄市。
吳幸宜(1994):學習理論與教學應用。心理,台北市。
洪振芳和賴羿蓉(1995):從相異哲學觀建構之科學史剖析教師科學探究模式與教材抉擇。國立高雄師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
洪振方(1994):從孔恩異例的認知與論證探討科學知識的重建。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北市。
洪振方(2003):探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。高雄師大學報, 15(3), 641-662。
洪瑟貞(2009):融入論證的教學策略對七年級學生光學單元學習成就與論證能力影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化縣。
施富吉(2009):論證式探究教學對八年級學生浮力概念改變與論證能力影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化縣。
陳美玉(1999):教師專業學習與發展。師大書苑,台北市。
陳倩嫻(2007):探討數位論證學習課程對中學生科學概念建構與論證能力之影響。國立交通大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,新竹市。
陳彥宏(2007):部落格論證對八年級學生學習的影響—以酸鹼鹽單元為例。國立彰化師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化縣。
陳瓊森、汪益譯(1995):超越教化的心靈。台北:遠流出版社。
黃翎斐、胡瑞萍(2006):論證與科學教育的理論和實務。科學教育,292,15-28。
黃幸美(1997):兒童數學討論問答意義性之評量,台灣省國民教師研習會,國民小學數學新課程學習評量方法初探,22-32。
黃雅鈴(2004):探究九年級學生在電腦模擬的不同環境中,概念學習與投入行為之研究─以力與運動為例。國立台灣師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
黃振華(2001):三至八年級兒童牛頓第三運動定律相關概念之研究。國立高雄師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
張春興和林清山(1989):教育心理學。東華書局,台北市。
張妃杏(2008):探討力與運動之閾概念。國立高雄師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
教育部(2008):國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要,教育部。
曾建城(2007):小組論證融入POE教學策略對光學概念改變之研究。國立彰化師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化縣。
楊雪菁(2007):運用辯護與反駁的教學策略提升學生論證能力之研究。國立高雄師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
劉永山(2004):以數位影像輔助高工學生力與運動單元概念學習之研究。國立彰化師範大學研究所碩士班論文,未出版,彰化縣。
葉冠慧(2008):應用網路化論證提昇國中學生論證能力與化學反應概念改變。國立交通大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,新竹市。
蔡執中、段曉林(2005):探究式實驗教學對國二學生理化學習動機之影響。科學教育學刊,13(3), 289-315。
蔡執仲、段曉林和靳知勤(2007):巢狀探究教學模式對國二學生理化學習動機影響之探討。科學教育學刊,15,119-144。
蔡俊彥、楊錦潭和黃台珠(2008):以認知學徒制網路論證系統促進論證能力、概念學習與批判思考成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
蔡佩君(2007):融入競爭理論的論證取向教學提升學生的論證能力、學習動機與自我效能之研究。國立高雄師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
蔡昆諭(2005):國中學生力與運動的迷思概念。國立台灣師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
簡于智(2008):以p-prim探究學生學習『力與運動』的學習路徑。國立台灣師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
簡順永(2000):高二學生力概念的運用調查分析。國立台灣師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
魏子婷(2009):比較論證取向教學與傳統教學對高一學生論證能力學習遷移的影響。國立高雄師範大學研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
羅星凱、周中權(1991):學生頭腦中的前科學概念研究。江西師範大學學報(自然科學版),364-368 。
羅耀宗譯( Browne & Keeley原著 )(2004):問對問題,找答案。商智文化,台北市。


英文部分
Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., Woods, B. S., Duhon, K. E., & Parker, D. (1997). College instruction and concomitant changes in students’ knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 125-146.
Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (1996). The role of importance and interest in the processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8(1), 89-121.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology:A Cognitive View(2nd ed.), New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Baker, M. (1999). Argument and constructive integration. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Esperet, J. Andriessen, & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing, 179-201. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Boulter, C. J., Gilbert, J. K.(1995).Argument and science education. In P. S. M.
Brophy, J. (1987). Socializing students’ motivation to learn. Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Enhancing Motivation, 15, 181-210.
Brophy, J. (1999). Research on motivation in education: Past, present, and future. Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Enhancing Motivation, 11, 1-44.
Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, G. (1993). Goals for the science curriculum. Handbook of Research on science teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., Desena, A. & Squires, D. (1978). Content struct -ure in science instructional materials and knoeledge structure in students’memory. University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center Publication Series.
Champagne, A. B., Klofer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors Influencing the Learning of Classical Mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48, 1074-1079.
Deweck, C. S. (1986).Motivational process affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott. P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadephia: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Brker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Science, 11(1), 63-103.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the Application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children's questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York & London: Teachers College Press.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement verse traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,American Journal of Physics, 66, 64
Halloun, I. A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students, American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043
Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hartman, H. J. (2002). Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H. J. Hartman (Ed), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of science enquiry. School Review, 79, 171-212.
Hestenes, D. (1998). Who needs Physics Education Research? American Journal of Physics, 66, 465
Hogan, K. (1999). Relating students’ personal frameworks for science learning to their cognition in collaborative contexts. Science education, 83, 1-32.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
Kittleson, J. M., & Southerland, S. A. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 267-293.
Kleinginna, P. J., & Kleinginna, A. (1981). A categorized list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 263-291.
Kuhn, D.(1991).The skills of argument. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992).Thinking as argument.Harvard Educational Review,62(2),155-178.
Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Lawson, A. E. (2000). How do humans acquire knowledge? and What does that imply about the nature of knowledge? Science & Education, 9, 577-598.
Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching.International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.
Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessments? Science & Education, 7, 595-615.
Lee, O., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 585-610.
Lee, O., & Brophy, J. (1996). Motivational patterns observed in six-grade science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 303-318.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. A. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31, 313-327.
McDermott, L. C. (1984).Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today. July, 24-32.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Newton, P., Driver, R.& Osborne, J.(1999).The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science.International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Jouranal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10),994-1020.
Ohlsson, S. (1995). Learning to do and learning to understand? A lesson and a challenge for cognitive modeling. In P. Reimann, & H. Spads (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines (pp. 37-62). Oxford: Elsevier.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students,argumentation in decision-making on a socioscientific issue:Implications for teavhing. International Journal of ScienceEducation,21(7),745-754.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibrium of cognitive structures. New York: Viking.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and application (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Posner, G. 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, 211-227.
Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M. & Steinberg, R. N. (1997). The Distribution and Change of Student Expectations in Introductory Physics, American Journal of Physics. 65, 45
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E. L.(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-15.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 23, 23-33.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927
Staer, H., Goodrum, D., & Hacking, M. (1998). High school laboratory work in Western Australia: Openness to inquiry. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 219-228.
Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobins & D. Tippins (Eds.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3-22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Use of Argument. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C., & Shieh, S. H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 639-654.
Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C., Tsai, C. C. & Cheng, S. F. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry-based teaching on the motivation of eighth graders with different learning styles. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 541-566.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watson, J.R., & Fairbrother, R. W. (1993). Open-ended work in science (OPENS) project: Managing investigations in the laboratory. School Science Review, 71(275), 31-38.
Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivation research in education. Journal of Education Psychology, 82, 616-622.
Willard, C. A. (1983). Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Willard, C. A. (1983). Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Zarefsky, D. (1995). Argumentation in the tradition of speech communication studies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Perspectives and approaches: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation (Vol. 1, pp. 32-52). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Zohar A. & Nemet F. (2002). Forstering students’knowledge andargumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics.Journal of research in science teaching, 39, 35-62.


連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
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