(3.235.108.188) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/02/25 08:12
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:董又愷
論文名稱:應用結構式探究教學強化國小學生對證據概念的認知及論證能力之行動研究
論文名稱(外文):An Action Research on Facilitating Fourth Graders' Understanding of Concept of Evidence and Argumentation Skills through Structured Inquiry Instruction
指導教授:林樹聲林樹聲引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立嘉義大學
系所名稱:數理教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
畢業學年度:103
語文別:中文
中文關鍵詞:行動研究結構式探究教學國小論證能力證據概念
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:240
  • 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:74
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
本研究旨在應用結構式探究教學強化國小學生對證據概念的認知與論證能力,同時也在了解此一教學實踐上的問題與解決之道。研究採行動研究的方式,以研究者任教的四年級三名學生為對象。授課主題為「交通工具、時間的測量」兩個單元,教學時間歷經兩個月,每週三節課,每節課40分鐘。收集的資料包括「證據概念問卷、論證問卷、學習心得單、半結構式訪談資料、課堂師生對話、教師日誌」等。研究結果顯示:三位學生在教學後對「證據從何而來、證據呈現的形式、如何評估證據的信、效度、利用證據作論證」,皆有更多的認識和了解;而在教學過程中,教師面臨到的問題包括學生「不知道收集的資料可作為證據、不知道如何判斷證據的強弱、不會使用證據證成自己的論點」等。教師透過不斷的省思、查閱資料、與學校同儕教師和指導教授討論後,進一步修正教學,問題因而獲得解決。
目次
中文摘要 ………………………………………………………… i
外文摘要 ………………………………………………………… ii
目次 ……………………………………………………………… iv
圖次 ……………………………………………………………… vii
表次 ……………………………………………………………… viii
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機 ……………………………………… 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 ………………………………… 5
第三節 名詞釋義 ……………………………………………… 5
第四節 研究範圍與限制 ……………………………………… 7
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 證據概念的意涵與學習 ……………………………… 8
第二節 探究與探究式教學 …………………………………… 12
第四節 證據概念與探究式教學之實徵性研究回顧 ………… 16
第三章 研究方法
第一節 教師行動研究 ………………………………………… 25
第二節 研究設計與流程 …………………………………… 27
第三節 研究情境與對象 ……………………………………… 30
第四節 教學設計與實施 ……………………………………… 31
第五節 研究工具與資料的收集 ……………………………… 36
第六節 資料處理與分析 ……………………………………… 51
第四章 研究結果與討論
第一節 學生對於證據概念認知的改變情形 ………………… 54
第二節 學生論證能力的改變情形 …………………………… 68
第三節 結構式探究教學的實施歷程 ………………………… 72
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 結論 …………………………………………………… 140
第二節 建議 …………………………………………………… 142
第三節 研究者的反思 ………………………………………… 145

參考文獻
中文部份 ……………………………………………………… 146
外文部份 ……………………………………………………… 146
附錄
附錄一 「交通工具與能源」單元課程設計 ………………… 150
附錄二 「時間的測量」單元課程設計 ……………………… 167
附錄三 證據概念測驗 ………………………………………… 185
附錄四 論證測驗 ……………………………………………… 197
附錄五 學生學習心得單 ……………………………………… 209
附錄六 教師日誌 ……………………………………………… 211
附錄七 課堂中的師生對話 …………………………………… 224
附錄八 半結構式訪談 ………………………………………… 242
參考文獻
中文部份
王文科、王智弘(2011)。教育研究法(第15版)。台北:五南。
李松濤、林煥祥、洪振方(2010)。 探究式教學對學童科學論證能力影響之探究。科學教育月刊,18(3),177-203。
林生傳(2010)。教育研究法。台北:心理。
教育部(2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北:教育部。
楊秀停、王國華(2007)。實施引導式探究教學對於國小學童學習成效之影響。科學教育月刊,15(4),439-459。
Altrichter, H., Posch, P., &; Somekh, B. (1999)。行動研究方法導論:教師動手做研究(夏林清、中華民國基層教師協會譯)。台北:遠流。(原著出版於1993)
外文部份
Aikenhead, G. (2004). Science based occupations and the science curriculum: Concepts of evidence. Science Education, 89(2), 242–275.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for All Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
Atkins, L. J. (2008). The roles of evidence in scientific argument. Physics education research conference, 1064, 63-66.
Banchi, H., &; Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26-29.
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., &; Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., &; Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667-694.
Binkley, R. W. (1995). Argumentation, education and reasoning. Informal Logic, 17(2), 127-143.
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., &; Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided Inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577-616.
Bunterm, T., Lee, K., Kong, J., Srikoon, S.,Vangpoomyai, P., Rattanavongsa, J., &; Rachahoon, G. (2014). Do different levels of inquiry lead to different learning outcomes? A comparison between guided and structured inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 1937-1959.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., &; Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337-357.
Driver, R., Newton, P., &; Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., &; Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils’ evaluation and generation of evidence and explanationin argumentation. British Educational Research Journal, 75(1), 105-118.
Gott, R., Duggan, S., &; Roberts, R. (2003). Understanding and using scientific evidence. London: Sage.
Graebner, I. T., Souza, E. M. T., &; Saito, C. H. (2009). Action research and food and nutrition security: A school experience mediated by conceptual graphic representation tool. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 809-827.
Hansen, L. M. (2002). Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
Herrick, J. A. (2007). Argumentation: Understanding and shaping arguments. State College, PA: Strata.
Hong, Z., Lin, H., Wang, H., Chen, H., &; Yang, K. (2013). Promoting and scaffolding elementary students’ attitudes toward science and argumentation through a science and society intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1625-1648.
Hug, B., &; McNeill, K. L. (2008). Use of first-hand and second-hand data in science: Does data type influence classroom conversations? International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1725-1751.
Inch, E. S., &; Warnick, B. (2010). Critical thinking and communications: The use of reason in argument. Boston: Pearson.
Koksal, E. A., &; Berberoglu, G. (2014). The effect of guided-inquiry instruction on 6th grade Turkish students’ achievement, science process skills, and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 66-78.
Lin, S. S., &; Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017.
Lubben, F., Sadeck, M., Scholtz, Z., &; Braund, M. (2010). Gauging students’ untutored ability in argumentation about experimental data: A south African case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2143-2166.
Maloney, J. (2007). Children’s roles and use of evidence in science: An analysis of decision-making in small groups. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 371-401.
Maloney, J., &; Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.
McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793-823.
McNeill, K. L., &; Krajcik, J. S. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science. Boston: Pearson.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press.
Nicolaidou, I., Kyza, E. A., Terzian, F., Hadjichambis, A., &; Kafouris, D. (2011). A framework for scaffolding students’ assessment of the credibility of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Education, 48(7), 711-744.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., &; Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Ryu, S. &; Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.
Schalk, H., Schee, J., &; Boersma, K. (2013). The development of understanding of evidence in pre-university biology education in the Netherlands. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 551-578.
Tytler, R. &; Peterson, S. (2004). From “try it and see” to strategic explanation: Charactering young children’s scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 94–118.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univesity Press.
Wang, J., Wang, Y., Tai, H., &; Chen, W. (2010). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry-based instruction on students with different prior knowledge and reading abilities. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 801-820.
Warwick, P., &; Siraj-Blatchford, J. (2006). Using data comparison and interpretation to develop procedural understanding in the primary classroom: Case study evidence from action research. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 443-467.
Wu, H. K., &; Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289-1313.

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
無相關期刊
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔