跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.210.149.218) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/11/07 20:18
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:劉靜文
研究生(外文):LIU, CHING-WEN
論文名稱:培育在職教師選擇不同探究式教學法進行實驗設計與教學
論文名稱(外文):Cultivate In-Service Teachers to Choose Different Inquiry Teaching Methods for Experimental Design and Teaching
指導教授:盧秀琴盧秀琴引用關係
指導教授(外文):LU, CHOW-CHIN
口試委員:高慧蓮林靜雯
口試委員(外文):KAO, HUEY-LIENLIN, JING-WEN
口試日期:2019-06-21
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北教育大學
系所名稱:自然科學教育學系
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:2019
畢業學年度:107
語文別:中文
論文頁數:155
中文關鍵詞:PO+EPOEST探究式教學法在職教師
外文關鍵詞:PO+EPOESTIn-service TeachersInquiry Teaching Methods
DOI:doi: 10.6344/THE.NTUE.DSE.019.2019.F02
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:342
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:1
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
因應教學現場國小學生在進行POE實驗課程時,在解釋的地方無法完整的表達,沒有辦法運用背後的科學原理或證據來加強自己的科學解釋,只是單純描述結果的現象,因此本研究培育14位在職教師選擇使用PO+E教學法或POEST教學法設計昆蟲相關實驗與微型教學,以強化POE實驗中的科學解釋,期能學得此兩種教學法於實際的實驗教學現場中。本研究採用混合研究法,以質為主,以量為輔,使用「昆蟲生理學特論」課程培育之,包含:教授講授PO+E教學法與POEST教學法的理論並示範教學,在職教師選擇其中之一來設計實驗並微型教學,最後必須選擇一種教學法應用於福山植物園、台大生態池戶外教學的學習單設計。當在職教師進行微型教學時,接受 PO+E 微型教學評量(MTAP)或 POEST 微型教學評量(TAPS)的評量;每個實驗的學習單進行科學解釋(ASE或LAPS)的評量;並於「昆蟲生理學特論」課程的前後接受PISA科學素養評量的前、後測,課程結束前訪談在職教師選擇不同探究式教學法及戶外教學主題的理由。結果顯示:(1)從PO+E微型教學的評量(MTAP)發現:有3組佳,1組較差。 (2)從POEST微型教學的評量(TAPS)發現:有2組佳,1組較差。 (3)在戶外教學學習單設計中,各組都能選擇一種生物並使用PO+E或POEST教學法來進行學習單的設計。在14張實驗學習單中,有10張實驗學習單的設計,探究主題明確、能設計好的預測問題、以及實驗內容的規劃都緊扣著探究主題。 (4)在本課程三次學習單的設計中,有2組三次都選擇使用PO+E教學法進行設計、另有2組三次都選擇POEST教學法進行設計、剩下的3組則PO+E與POEST教學法都有選擇使用,在職教師選擇教學法都有其選擇的理由。 (5)從ASE評量中發現在職教師在「下結論」與「主張」撰寫的情形較差,從ASE與LAPS評量中發現在職教師在「主張」撰寫的情形較差。 (6)PISA科學素養能力達到高度實驗效果量,證明國小在職教師經由此課程的培育,能提升其科學素養能力。
In response to the teaching of the primary school pupils in the POE experimental course, in the place of interpretation can not be fully expressed, there is no way to use the scientific principles or evidence behind to strengthen their interpretation, but simply describe the phenomenon of the result, so this study fosters 14 in-service teachers to use the PO+E teaching method and the POEST teaching method to design insect-related experiments and micro-teaching to strengthen the part explained in the POE experiment, and can learn and use the two teaching methods in the actual experimental teaching. In the field. This study adopts a mixed research method, which is based on quality and supplemented by quantity. It is cultivated by the research course of Insect Physiology Special Theory, including: Professors teach the theory of PO+E teaching method and POEST teaching method and demonstrate teaching. The in-service teachers of the national ministry choose one of them to design experiments and micro-teaching. Finally, the in-service teachers must choose one of the two teaching methods to apply to the learning list design of the outdoor teaching of Fushan Botanical Garden and the University of Taiwan. When the in-service teacher conducts micro-teaching, accept PO+E micro-teaching assessment (MTAP) or POEST micro-teaching assessment (TAPS); after completing the study list for each experiment, conduct scientific interpretation (ASE or LAPS); Before and after the Insect Physiology Special course, the PISA scientific literacy assessment was conducted before and after the course, and the reasons for the in-service teacher's choice of teaching method and outdoor teaching theme were interviewed before the end of the course. The results showed that:(1) From the PO+E micro-teaching assessment (MTAP), it was found that there were 3 groups and 1 group was poor. (2) From the POEST micro-teaching assessment (TAPS), it was found that there were 2 groups were excellent and 1 group was poor. (3) In the design of outdoor teaching and learning sheets, each group can select the organisms in the outdoor teaching environment and use the PO+E or POEST teaching method to design the outdoor teaching learning list. In the 14 study sheets, there are 10 learning books. The single-designed experiment or the subject of the inquiry, the well-designed prediction problem, and the planning of the experimental content are all closely related to the subject of the experiment or inquiry. (4) In the design of the three study forms in this course, two groups of three chose to use the PO+E teaching method for design, and two groups of three selected POEST teaching method for design, and the remaining three groups were PO+E and POEST teaching methods are all optional. The in-service teacher's choice of teaching method has its reasons for choice. (5) From the ASE assessment, it was found that the in-service teachers were in a poor situation in the "conclusion" and "claims". From the ASE and LAPS assessments, it was found that the in-service teachers were poorly written in the "claims". (6) The PISA scientific literacy ability achieves a high degree of experimental effect, which proves that the in-service teachers of the national small school can enhance their scientific literacy ability through the cultivation of this course.
目  次

摘  要---------------------------------------------------------- i
ABSTRACT---------------------------------------------------------- iii
目  次----------------------------------------------------------- v
表  次------------------------------------------------------------ vii
圖  次--------------------------------------------------------- xi
第一章 緒論------------------------------------------------------ 1
第一節 研究背景-------------------------------------------------- 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題--------------------------------------------- 2
第三節 名詞釋義----------------------------------------------------- 3
第四節 研究範圍------------------------------------------------------ 4
第二章 文獻探討------------------------------------------------------ 5
第一節 探究式教學法-------------------------------------------------- 5
第二節 科學解釋能力與論證--------------------------------------------- 10
第三節 POEST教學法與PO+E教學法----------------------------------------- 16
第四節 PISA科學素養評量------------------------------------------------ 21
第三章 研究方法-------------------------------------------------------- 25
第一節 研究設計與架構--------------------------------------------------- 25
第二節 研究流程及規劃-------------------------------------------------- 27
第三節 研究對象與場域-------------------------------------------------- 29
第四節 課程內容------------------------------------------------------- 30
第五節 研究工具-------------------------------------------------------- 34
第六節 資料蒐集與分析--------------------------------------------------- 39
第四章 研究結果與討論--------------------------------------------------- 43
第一節 探討在職教師使用PO+E教學法進行實驗設計與微型教學的情形-------------- 43
第二節 探討國小在職教師使用POEST教學法進行實驗設計與微型教學的情形-- --------63
第三節 探討在職教師使用PO+E或POEST教學法進行戶外教學學習單設計----- --------85
第四節 探討在職教師喜歡的教學法及其理由----------------------------------- 98
第五節 探討在職教師修習課程前後的科學解釋能力以及科學素養能力的變化------ 101
第五章 結論與建議---------------------------------------------------- 123
第一節 結論---------------------------------------------------------- 123
第二節 建議---------------------------------------------------------- 125
參考文獻--------------------------------------------------------------- 127
中文部分--------------------------------------------------------------- 127
英文部分--------------------------------------------------------------- 130
附錄------------------------------------------------------------- 133
附錄一:「PO+E微型教學」評量表(MTAP)------------------------------------- 133
附錄二:「PO+E微型教學」評量標準---------------------------------------- 134
附錄三:POEST微型教學評量表(TAPS)---------------------------------------- 137
附錄四:「POE & 科學解釋文字鷹架微型教學」評量標準------------------------- 138
附錄五:PO+E學習單科學解釋能力評量表(ASE)--------------------------------- 142
附錄六:POEST學習單科學解釋能力評量表(LAPS)------------------------------- 143
附錄七:PISA科學素養試題及其評分標準-------------------------------------- 144


中文部分
李明修(2011)。POE教學策略在國中二年級「氧化還原」(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
林嘉琦(2005)。應用POE 教學策略探討學習「溶解」單元概念改變之情形(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄縣。
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。
林志能、洪振方(2008)。論證模式分析及其評量要素。科學教育月刊,312,2-18。林煥祥、劉聖忠、林素微、李 暉(2008)。臺灣參加 PISA 2006成果報告。國立花蓮教育大學、國立高雄師範大學。
林芯蘭(2008)。以POE教學策略探究國小學童磁鐵概念學習之行動研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學,臺北市。
巫少岑(2007)。以序列性POE探究國小教師之科學解釋的研究-以「大氣壓力與表面張力」為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學,臺中市。
邱彥文、黃世傑、王國華(2002)。國中理化課試行POE教學之個案研究。科學教育,12,53-69。
周偉苓(2014)。以序列性POE探究國小教師之科學解釋的研究-以「重心、平衡」為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學,臺中市。
洪淑凌(2007)。以POE策略探究國小國小自然科教師色光概念及概念改變歷程  (未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學,臺中市。
陳均伊、張惠博、楊巽斐、鄭一亭(2006)。以學校為本位的合作式專業成長:一位資深教師的教學信念與教學改變。科學教育月刊,294,2-14。
陳雅君、洪瑞兒、佘曉清、林煥祥(2016)。臺灣學生科學素養與科學教學者研究成果表現之發展趨勢探討。科學教育學刊,24(4),333-354。
陳淑玲、吳月娥(2015)。以科學遊戲融入POE教學對學童學習成效影響之研究。國教新知,62(2),44-56。
陳嘉蕙(2007)。國中學生之科學解釋及解釋融貫性的研究―以「大氣壓力與表面張力」為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學,臺中市。
教育部(2017)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市:教育部。
張惠博(1993)。邁向科學探究的實驗教學。教師天地,62,12-20。
黃翎斐、胡瑞萍(2006)。論證與科學教育的理論和實務。科學教育月刊,292,15-28。
黃贊樺(2011)。探討科學解釋文字鷹架融合 POE 策略對概念改變與科學解釋能力影響之研究-以光學單元為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立交通大學,新竹市。
彭婷莉(2014)。以序列性 POE 探究國中生之科學解釋的研究-以「重心、平衡」為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學,臺中市。
張淑女(2004)。從認識論的觀點探究大學生論證思考之能力與模式(未出版之博士論文。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
靳知勤、楊惟程、段曉林(2010)。引導式Toulmin論證模式對國小學童在科學讀寫表現上的影響。科學教育學刊,18(5),443-467。
楊凱悌、邱美虹與王子華(2009)。應用數位影音融入POE教學改善國小高年級學童脊椎動物分類另有概念之效益研究。科學教育學刊,17(5),387-407。
劉月智(2007)。以序列性POE探究大學生之科學解釋的研究-以「大氣壓力與表面張力」為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學,臺中市。
歐陽鐘仁(1987)。科學教育概論。臺北市:五南書局。
盧秀琴、徐于婷(2016)。國小師資生在自然領域的專業成長-以探究式教學為例。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊,9(1),115-142。
盧秀琴、李怡嫻(2016)。「昆蟲學」師培課程培育國小師資生開發昆蟲桌遊教具與設計測驗卷。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊,9(3),1-28。
盧秀琴、蔡幸如(2019)。培育國小在職教師使用「POE & 科學解釋文字鷹架」設計實驗以因應十二年國教的改革。國立屏東大學學報,3,145-180。
盧秀琴、谷冰(2019)。比較不同背景的研究生如何設計PO+E實驗與微型教學。 師資培育與教師專業發展期刊,12(1),1-27。
謝州恩、吳心楷(2005)。探究情境中國小學童科學解釋能力成長之研究。師大學報,50(2),55-84。
戴瑭慶(2013)。國小自然科教師科學受教經驗與探究式教學之實踐(未出版碩士論文)。國立東華大學,花蓮縣。

英文部分
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1967). Guide for inservice instruction. Washington: AAAS Miscellaneous Publication.
Driver R., Newton P. & Osborne J.(2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific
Argumentation in Classroom.Science education, 84, 287-312.
Gagne, R. (1963) . The learning requirements for enquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1, 144-153.
Gunstone, R. F. & White, R. T. (1981). Understanding gravity. Science Education, 65(3), 291-299.
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303-323.
Katherine L. McNeill, Leema Kuhn Berland (2009). Using a learning progression to inform science argumentation in talk and writing. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science Conference, June 2009, Iowa City, IA.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom use of multimedia-supported Predict-Observe -Explain tasks in a social constructivist learning environment. Research in Science Education, 34(4), 427-453.
Lott, G. W. (1983). The effect of inquiry teaching and advance organizers upon student outcomes in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 437-451.
Lederman, N. G. (1996). The nature of science: Instructional implications for a process more 70 tentative than products. Paper presented at National Association for Research in Science Teaching. St.Lous, MO.
Lindfors, J. W. (1999). Children's inquiry: using language to make sense of the world. NewYork: Teachers College Press.
Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico- predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.
Lu, C. C. (2018). Strengthen scientific explanation ability: Nurturing the pre-service teachers to design innovative PO+E teaching plan and teaching. Paper presented at International Symposium on Education and Social Sciences, (ISESS, 2018), Okinawa Convention Center, Okinawa island.
National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy - A framework for PISA 2006. Paris, FR: Author.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2013). PISA 2015 draft science framework. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa- 2015draftframeworks.htm.Paul, R. W. (1995). Socratic question androleplaying. Dillon Beach, CA:Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sandoval W. A. (1998). Inquire to Explain: Structuring inquiry around explanation construction in a technology-supported biology curriculum. Ph. D. Dissertation, Northwestern University.
Stherland L. M. (2002). Guidelines for Explanation in Scientific Inquiry. UM andUPS teacher meetings (July).
Sandoval, W. A. (2002). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanation. The Journal of Learning Science, 2(1), 6-7.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. UK: Cambridge University Press.
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne,J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn
and learning to argue: Case studies of howstudents’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London New York:Falmer.
Wells, G. (1995). Language and the inquiry-oriented curriculum. Curriculum inquiry,
25 (3), 233-269.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊