臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

建構主義是關於知識和學習的理論，而其所主張的學習觀點對於當今科學教育的課程發展或教學實踐有深遠的影響。本研究旨在探討建構主義式的科學學習活動對於國小高年級學生認知結構及對科學態度的影響，並進一步探討建構主義式的科學學習活動對於不同學業成就學生認知結構及對科學態度的影響。
本研究首先從哲學、認知心理學及社會心理學的面向探討建構主義的理論基礎，再歸結出建構主義在科學學習上的重大意涵及主張，以作為本研究的理論依據，最後再根據許多基於建構主義理論的教學策略或模式，設計出本研究中所採用的建構主義式的科學學習活動。
本研究採用實驗研究法之準實驗設計，研究對象為兩班國小五年級學生，其中一班為實驗組共三十五人，另外一班為對照組共三十四人。本研究分別對兩班實施一學期共六個單元的建構主義式科學學習活動與傳統科學學習活動，之後再對兩班學生的認知結構與對科學的態度進行評量。在認知結構的評量方面，本研究主要以錄音訪談方式配合「後設重聽法」收集資料，再以「語意流程圖析法」將訪談內容繪製成語意流程圖，並配合內容分析法以分析學生的訊息處理策略；而在科學的態度的評量方面，研究者在研究處理前後分別以「國小高年級學生對科學的態度量表」進行前後測各一次。
研究結果發現相較於傳統的科學學習活動，國小高年級學生經過建構主義式的科學學習活動後，不論認知結構的「量」與「質」、後設認知能力的使用及訊息處理策略的遷移都能獲致較佳的效果，而且不論是高學業成就或是低學業成就學生都比較能從建構主義式的科學學習活動中受益。然而除了認知結構的「量」之外，高學業成就的學生還會在後設認知能力、高階訊息處理策略的使用或是認知結構的整合性上明顯受益，但是低學業成就的學生大多只在認知結構的「量」受益。本研究也發現相對於傳統的科學學習活動而言，在經過長時間建構主義式的科學學習活動後，實驗組學生在科學學習態度上顯著優於對照組學生，然而在對科學的態度上與對照組學生無顯著差異存在。
最後研究者提出一個四個發展階段的模式以歸結說明研究成果，這四個階段分別為：「概念發展期」、「後設認知增強期」、「認知結構整合期」和「認知結構萃煉期」。以這個模式來看，在本研究進行期間，實驗組的低學業成就學生一直停留在第一個階段，一直沒有進入到第二個階段，因此研究者認為後設認知是影響學生認知學習結果的重大關鍵。
本研究也建議教學者應更重視先備知識與教學內容之間的連結，在課堂分組討論或實作時，可以採混合分組的方式，以提供低學業成就者更多「認知見習」的機會。而且教學者應該採取更多元的教學策略，甚至結合不同的教學策略，以促進學生的科學概念學習與知識建構。

Constructivism is a theory about ‘knowing’ and ‘learning,’ in which its perspectives have profound influences on the ongoing development of science curriculum and sci-ence teaching practice. This study mainly investigated the effects of the constructiv-ist-oriented instruction on elementary school students’ cognitive structures and their at-titudes toward science learning. Moreover, this study also explored the role of previous academic achievement on these effects.
First, the theoretical foundations of philosophy, cognitive psychology, and social psychology about constructivism were carefully reviewed. Then, the important implica-tions and assertions of constructivism in science learning, viewed as the theoretical framework of this study, were summarized. Finally, based upon various constructiv-ist-oriented teaching strategies and models, the constructivist-oriented instructional ac-tivities used in this study were developed.
This study was conducted with a quasi-experimental research design. The subjects were sixty-nine fifth graders. Thirty-five students in one class were assigned to a con-structivist-oriented instruction group, while thirty-four students in another class were assigned to the traditional instruction group. The research treatment was conducted for a semester (six instructional units); and the students’ cognitive structures were probed immediately after each unit’s instruction. In addition, their attitudes toward science and science learning were explored after the research treatment. In exploring students’ cog-nitive structures, the narratives were obtained through interviews coupled with a ‘meta-listening technique.’ Then, all the narratives were transcribed into the format of ‘flow maps.’ And, the information processing strategies were also investigated through a series of content analysis. A survey was also administered to assess students’ attitudes toward science learning both before and after the research treatment.
Research findings revealed that the students in the constructivist-oriented instruction group attained significantly better leaning outcomes no matter in terms of the quality and quantity of their cognitive structures, the usage of metacognition, or the information processing strategies. Moreover, the findings also showed that both high academic achievers and low achievers benefited from constructivist-oriented instructional activi-ties, but in different ways. High academic achievers in the constructivist-oriented in-structional group displayed larger and more integrated cognitive structures, and better usage of metacognition and information processing strategies than those of high achiev-ers in the traditional group. However, low achievers only showed greater extent of the cognitive structures than their counterpartners in the traditional group.
The study also found that students in constructivist-oriented instruction group showed significantly more positive attitudes toward science learning than those in traditional in-struction group after the treatment, but no significant difference was found on students’ attitudes toward science between both groups.
The data gathered from this study likely suggest a four-stage model for the cognitive structure development under the constructivist-oriented science instruction. The stages include ‘cognitive development,’ ‘matacognition enrichment,’ ‘cognitive structure inte-gration,’ ‘cognitive structure refinement.’ Based on the research data in this study, low achievers in the constructivist-oriented instruction group were probably only in the first stage and they did not reach the second stage at the end of this study. However, high achievers may have experienced the four stages, and attained the fourth stage at the end of this study. As a result, it is argued that the usage of metacognition has a profound in-fluence on learner’s cognitive learning outcomes.
This study also suggests that instructors should pay more attention to making the connections between students’ prior knowledge and instructional materials, or opportu-nities of cognitive apprenticeship should be provided for low achievers by mixing vari-ous academic achievers for group work. Moreover, instructors should utilize multiple teaching strategies and combine a variety of instructional activities to promote students’ concept learning and knowledge construction in science classrooms.

致謝詞．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． Ⅰ
中文摘要．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． Ⅲ
英文摘要．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． Ⅴ
目錄．．．．．． ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． Ⅷ
表目錄．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． ⅩⅠ
圖目錄．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． ⅩⅣ
第一章 緒論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 1
第一節 研究背景．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 1
第二節　研究動機與目的．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 3
第三節　研究問題．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 4
第四節　名詞解釋．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 5
第五節　研究範圍與限制．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 7
第二章　文獻探討．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 8
第一節　建構主義．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 8
壹、建構主義的理論基礎．．．．．．．．．．．．． 8
貳、建構主義的派別與基本主張．．．．．．．．．． 11
參、小結．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 14
第二節　建構主義取向的科學學習．．．．．．．．．．．． 15
壹、建構主義下的科學學習觀．．．．．．．．．．． 15
貳、先備知識、另有概念與概念改變對科學學習的意涵 18
參、建構主義式的科學學習模式、策略．．．．．．． 21
肆、小結．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 29
第三節　認知結構的探索．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 30
壹、認知結構的意義．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 30
貳、認知結構的表徵．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 32
參、認知結構的向度與訊息處理模式．．．．．．． 37
肆、小結．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 41
第三章 研究方法．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 43
第一節 研究對象．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 43
第二節 研究設計．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 45
第三節 研究流程．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 48
第四節 研究工具．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 49
壹、「國小高年級學生對自然科學的態度量表」．．． 49
貳、「建構主義式學習環境量表」．．．．．．．．． 50
第五節 資料蒐集．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 51
壹、語意流程圖析法的理論．．．．．．．．．．．． 51
貳、語意流程圖析法的進行流程．．．．．．．．．． 51
第六節 資料處理與分析．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 53
壹、語意流程圖之繪製．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 53
貳、語意流程圖的信度．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 57
參、語意流程圖的資料分析．．．．．．．．．．． 58
第四章 研究結果與討論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 63
第一節 實驗組與對照組在六個單元之學習成果分析．．．． 67
壹、語意流程圖量化資料分析．．．．．．．．．．． 67
貳、訊息處理策略分析．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 81
第二節　兩組的高學業成就學生在各單元之學習成果分析． 89
壹、語意流程圖量化資料分析．．．．．．．．．．． 89
貳、兩組之高學業成就學生訊息處理策略分析．．．． 103
第三節　實驗組與對照組之低學業成就學生在各單元之學習成果 111
壹、語意流程圖量化資料分析．．．．．．．．．． 111
貳、兩組之低成就學生訊息處理策略分析．．．．． 123
第四節　量表資料之分析．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 131
壹、「國小高年級學生對自然科學的態度量表」結果分析 131
貳、「建構主義式學習環境量表」結果分析．．．．． 131
第五節　整理與討論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 134
壹、不同的科學學習活動對學習者認知結構之影響．． 137
貳、兩種科學學習活動對不同學業成就學習者認知結構之影響 146
參、不同的科學學習活動對學習者對自然科學與科學學習態度之影
響． 155
肆、學習者對建構主義式學習環境的偏好與覺知．．． 155
第五章 結論與建議．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 158
第一節 結論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 158
壹、建構主義式的科學學習活動對學習者認知結構之影響 158
貳、建構主義式的科學學習活動對學習者科學學習態度與對科學的 態度之影響．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 159
第二節 在科學教育上的應用．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 160
第三節 建議．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 161
參考文獻．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 163
附錄．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 171
附錄一：「國小高年級學生對自然科學的態度量表」．．．． 171
附錄二：「中文版建構主義學習環境量表」（偏好版）．．． 172
附錄三：建構主義式科學學習活動教案設計．．．．．．．． 174
附錄四：一般傳統科學學習活動教案設計．．．．．．．．． 179
附錄五：第六單元兩組學生之語意流程圖．．．．．．． 185
附錄六：實驗組一號學生之一至六單元語意流程圖．．．．． 254
表目錄
表 2-1-1 建構主義和實證主義知識論之比較表．．．．．． 9
表 2-2-1 建構主義與傳統知識論對於科學學習觀點之比較表 16
表 2-2-2 建構主義三個主要派別的科學學習主張之比較表． 18
表 2-2-3 影響學習者概念改變之因素整理表．．．．．．． 20
表 2-2-4 建構主義的科學學習主張與ICON模式原則之相關表．．．．．．．．．．． 24
表 2-2-5 ICON模式中的原則與概念改變的條件之間的相關表．．．．．．．．．．．． 25
表 2-2-6 「衝突圖」要素與「概念改變的條件」之相關表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 27
表 2-3-1 兩種認知結構向度分類系統之比較表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 39
表 2-3-2 認知結構的向度與變項之相關表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 39
表 2-3-3 五種認知結構表徵方法在認知結構各向度之表現．．．．．．．．．．．．． 41
表 3-1-1 教師之基本資料表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 43
表 3-1-2 實驗組與控制組人數統計表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 43
表 3-1-3 實驗組與控制組四年級自然成績之t考驗摘要表．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 44
表 3-1-4 兩班之自然高、低學業成就學生四年級自然平均成績之t考驗摘要表
表 3-2-1 實驗設計．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 45
表 3-4-1 「國小高年級學生對自然科學的態度量表」向度之題目分配及其
信度值表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 49
表 3-4-2 「建構主義式學習環境問卷」各向度之題目分配與信度值表．．．．．． 50
表 3-6-1 本研究中語意流程圖之主概念相似比例值與概念連結數相似比例
值彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 58
表 3-6-2 本研究中語意流程圖之訊息處理策略分析相似比例值彙整表．．．． 61
表 4-0-1 認知結構分析架構表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 65
表 4-1-1 實驗組與對照組全班學生「語意流程圖量化資料」敘述性統計資料
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 68
表 4-1-2 實驗組與對照組之第一單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗結果及效果
值彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 69
表 4-1-3 實驗組與對照組之第二單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗結果及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 71
表 4-1-4 實驗組與對照組之第三單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗結果及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 73
表 4-1-5 實驗組與對照組之第四單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗結果及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 75
表 4-1-6 實驗組與對照組之第五單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗結果及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 77
表 4-1-7 實驗組與對照組之第六單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗結果及效果
值彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 79
表 4-1-8 實驗組與對照組學生「訊息處理策略」敘述性統計資料彙整表．．． 82
表 4-1-9 兩組學生第一單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗結果及效果值彙整表．．． 83
表 4-1-10 兩組學生第二單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗結果及效果值彙整表．．． 84
表 4-1-11 兩組學生第三單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗結果及效果值彙整表．． 85
表 4-1-12 兩組學生第四單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗結果及效果值彙整表．．． 86
表 4-1-13 兩組學生第五單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗結果及效果值彙整表．．． 87
表 4-1-14 兩組學生第六單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗結果及效果值彙整表．．． 88
表 4-2-1 實驗組與對照組之高學業成就學生「語意流程圖量化資料」敘述性
統計資料彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 90
表 4-2-2 兩組之高學業成就學生第一單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗結果及效果值彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 91
表 4-2-3 兩組之高學業成就學生第二單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗及效果
值彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 93
表 4-2-4 兩組之高學業成就學生第三單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗及效果
值彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 95
表 4-2-5 兩組之高學業成就學生第四單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗及效果
值彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 97
表 4-2-6 兩組之高學業成就學生第五單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗及效果
值彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 99
表 4-2-7 兩組之高學業成就學生第六單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗及效果
值彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 101
表 4-2-8 兩組之高學業成就學生「訊息處理策略」敘述性統計資料表．．．．．． 104
表 4-2-9 兩組之高學業成就學生第一單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 105
表 4-2-10 兩組之高學業成就學生第二單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 106
表 4-2-11 兩組之高學業成就學生第三單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 107
表 4-2-12 兩組之高學業成就學生第四單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗及效果值
整理表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 108
表 4-2-13 兩組之高學業成就學生第五單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 109
表 4-2-14 兩組之高學業成就學生第六單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 109
表 4-3-1 實驗組與對照組之低學業成就學生「語意流程圖量化資料」敘述性統
計資料彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 112
表 4-3-2 兩組之低學業成就學生第一單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 113
表 4-3-3 兩組之低學業成就學生第二單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 115
表 4-3-4 兩組之低學業成就學生第三單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 117
表 4-3-5 兩組之低學業成就學生第四單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 119
表 4-3-6 兩組之低學業成就學生第五單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 120
表 4-3-7 兩組低學業成就學生之第六單元語意流程圖量化資料t考驗及效果值
彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 122
表 4-3-8 兩組之低成就學生「訊息處理策略」敘述性統計資料表．．．．．． 124
表 4-3-9 兩組低學業成就學生第一單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗及效果值整
理表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 125
表 4-3-10 兩組低學業成就學生第二單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗及效果值整
理表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 126
表 4-3-11 兩組低學業成就學生第三單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗及效果值整
理表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 127
表 4-3-12 兩組低學業成就學生第四單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗及效果值整
理表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 128
表 4-3-13 兩組低學業成就學生第五單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗及效果值整
理表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 129
表 4-3-14 兩組低學業成就學生第六單元「訊息處理策略」t考驗及效果值整
理表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 130
表 4-4-1 兩組學生在「國小高年級學生對自然科學的態度量表」之前、後測
結果彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 131
表 4-4-2 兩組學生「建構主義式學習環境量表偏好（prefer）版」結果彙整表 132
表 4-4-3 兩組學生「建構主義式學習環境量表實際（actual）版」前測結果彙整
表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 132
表 4-4-4 兩組學生「建構主義式學習環境量表實際（actual）版」後測結果彙整
表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 133
表 4-5-1 實驗組與對照組認知結構各向度量化資料t考驗結果彙整表．．．．． 135
表 4-5-2 實驗組與對照組認知結構各向度量化資料達顯著差異水準項目之效
果值（Cohen’d值）彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 136
表 4-5-3 兩班高分組認知結構各向度量化資料t考驗結果彙整表．．．．．．．．．． 142
表 4-5-4 兩班高分組認知結構各向度量化資料達顯著差異水準項目效果值
（Cohen’d）彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 143
表 4-5-5 兩班低分組認知結構各向度量化資料t考驗結果彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．． 144
表 4-5-6 兩班低分組認知結構各向度量化資料達顯著差異水準項目效果值
（Cohen’d）彙整表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 145
表 4-5-7 建構主義式科學學習活動下學生之認知結構發展階段．．．．．．．．．． 152
表 4-5-8 「建構主義式科學學習活動下學生認知結構發展過程模式」（A模
式）與「學生認知結構發展過程模式」（B模式）之比較表．．．．． 155
表 4-5-9 兩組學生「國小高年級學生對自然科學的態度量表」結果彙整表．．． 155
表 4-5-10 兩組學生「建構主義式學習環境量表」結果彙整表．．．．．．．． 156
圖目錄
圖 2-1-1 不同派別之建構主義所主張影響學習最重要之情境脈絡的相對位
置圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 12
圖 2-3-1 「岩石與礦物」隨意字義聯想法圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 32
圖 2-3-2 「岩石與礦物」控制字義聯想法圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 33
圖 2-3-3 「岩石與礦物」樹狀圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 34
圖 2-3-4 命題．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 35
圖 2-3-5 「岩石的種類」概念圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 36
圖 3-2-1 研究架構圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 46
圖 3-2-2 研究概念圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 47
圖 3-3-1 研究流程圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 48
圖 3-6-1 第一次訪談直線概念繪製圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 54
圖 3-6-2 第二次訪談直線概念繪製圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 55
圖 3-6-3 迴歸概念繪製圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 56
圖 3-6-4 內容分析法編碼圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 62
圖 4-0-1 研究結果分析流程圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 63
圖 4-5-1 建構主義式的科學學習活動對於認知結構各向度之高實際顯著
效果出現時間圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 141
圖 4-5-2 建構主義式的科學學習活動對於高學業成就學生認知結構各
向度之高實際顯著效果出現時間圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 150
圖 4-5-3 建構主義式的科學學習活動對於低學業成就學生認知結構各向
度之高實際顯著效果出現時間圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 151
圖 4-5-4 建構主義式的科學學習活動下學生認知結構發展階段圖－以
高學業成就學生為例．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 152
圖 4-5-5 本研究中實驗組全班、高學業成就學生與低成就學生之認知結
構發展情況圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 153
圖 A-1 「電與磁的奇妙世界」單元「衝突圖」 174

中文部分：
王如玉（1999）。地球科學問題解決教學模組對高一學生學習影響之初探。國立師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
英文部分：
Anderson, O. R. (1992). Some interrelationships between constructivist model of learning and current neurobiological theory, with implications for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1037-1058.
Anderson, O. R., & Demetrius, O. J. (1993). A flow-map method of representing cognitive structure based on respondents’narrative using science content. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 953-969.
Anderson, O. R., Randle, D., & Covotsos, T. (2001). The role of ideational networks in laboratory inquiry learning and knowledge of evolution among seventh grade students. Science Education, 85(4), 410-425.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive viewpoint. New York: Rinehart & Winston.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive viewpoint. New York: Rinehart & Winston.
Appleton, A. (1993). Using theory to guide practice: Teaching science from a constructivist perspective. School Science and Mathematic, 93, 269-274.
Bettencourt, A. (1993). The construction of knowledge: A radical constructivist view. In K. Tobin (ed.), The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education, (pp. 39-50). Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA .
Bodner, G. M. (1996). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873-878.
Black, J.B., & McClintock, R. O. (1996). An interpretation construction approach to constructivist design. In B. Wilson (ed.), Constructivist Learning Environments. NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Bischoff, P. J., & Anderson, O. R. (1998). A case study analysis of the development of knowledge schema, ideational network, and higher cognitive operations among high school students who studied ecology. School Science and Mathematics, 98(5), 228-237.
Bischoff, P. J., & Anderson, O. R. (2001). Development of knowledge frameworks and higher order cognitive operations among secondary school students who studied a unit on ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(2), 81-88.
Brook, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The Case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Development Psychology, 21(1), 13-19.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 1-40.
Clement, J., Brown, D. E., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconception: Finding ‘anchoring conceptions’ for grounding instruction on students’ intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 554-565.
Cobern, W. W. (1993). Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science. In K. Tobin (ed.), The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education, (pp. 39-50). Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA .
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (ed.), Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA .
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2), 109-128.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J.,Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Driver, R, & Bell, B. (1986). Students’ thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67(240), 443-456.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (ed.), Constructivism: theory, perspectives and practice, (pp. 3-7). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gilbert, J. K., Watts, D. M., & Osborne, R. J. (1985). Eliciting student views using an interview-about-instances technique. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (eds.), Cognitive structures and conceptual change, (pp. 11-26). Orlando: Academic Press.
Glynn, S. M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany & B. K. Britton (eds.), The Psychology of Learning Science, (pp. 220-240). Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA .
Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunston & R. T. White (eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press.
Hodson, D. (1998). Becoming critical about practical work: Changing views and changing practical through action research. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 683-694.
Hodson, D. (1999). Building a case for a sociocultural and inquiry-oriented view of science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(3), 241-249.
Kearney, M., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. G. (2001). Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported predict-observe-explain tasks to probe understanding. Research in Science Education, 31, 589-615.
Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
Matthews, M, R. (1997). Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education. Science & Education, 6, 5-14.
Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121-134.
Mintzes, J. J., Wanderse, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (1998). Teaching Science For Understanding. London: Academic Press
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Concept mapping for meaningful learning. In Learning how to learn, (pp. 15-54). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D. (1993). Human constructivism: A unification of psychological and epistemological phenomena in meaning making. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 6, 167-193.
Ogawa, M. (1989). Beyond the tacit framework of ‘science’ and ‘science education’ among science educators. International Journal of Science Education, 11(3), 1-9.
Ogawa, M. (1998). A culture history of science education in Japan: An epic description. In W. W. Cobern (ed.), Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Science Education, (pp. 121-138). Netherlands: Kluwer.
Osborne, R & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children''''s science. Auckland, N.Z: Heinemann.
Phillips, D, C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Pines, A. L. (1985). Toward a taxonomy of conceptual relations and the implications for the evaluation of cognitive structures. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (eds.), Cognitive structures and conceptual change, (pp. 101-115). Orlando: Academic Press.
Plamer, D. (1995). The POE in the primary school: An Evalution. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 323-332.
Poole, M. W. (1998). Science and science education: A Judeo-Christian perspective. In W. W. Cobern (ed.), Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Science Education, (pp. 121-138). Netherlands: Kluwer.
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.
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.
Rollnick, M. (1998). The influence of language on the second language teaching and learning of science. In W. W. Cobern (ed.), Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Science Education, (pp. 121-138). Netherlands: Kluwer.
Scantlebury, K. (1998). An untold story: Gender, constructivism & science education. In W. W. Cobern (ed.), Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Science Education, (pp. 121-138). Netherlands: Kluwer.
Shull, T. J. (1985). Knowledge presentation, cognitive structure, and school learning: A historical perspective. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (eds.), Cognitive structures and conceptual change, (pp. 117-129). Orlando: Academic Press.
Shaveson, R. J. (1974). Methods for examining representations of a subject-matter structure in a student´s memory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 231-249.
Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils’ understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63-82.
Strike, K.A., & Posner, G.J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (eds.), Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Education Theory and Practice, (pp. 147-176). Albany, NY: SUNY.
Tao, P., & Gunstone, R. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-882.
Taylor, P. C., & Fisher, B. J. (1991,April). CLES: An instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.
Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 549-560.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998a). Science learning and constructivism. Curriculum and Teaching, 13, 31-52.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998b). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientation of Taiwan eighth graders. Science Education, 82, 473-489.
Tsai, C.-C. (1999). ‘Laboratory exercise help me memorize the scientific truths’: A case study of eighth graders’ scientific epistemological views and learning in laboratory activities. Science Education, 83, 654-674
Tsai C.-C. (1999). Content analysis of Taiwanese 14 year olds’ information processing operations following physics instruction, with relations to science attainment and scientific epistemological beliefs. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17, 125-138.
Tsai, C.-C. (2000). Enhancing science instruction: The use of “conflict maps”. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 285-302.
Tsai, C.-C. (2001a). The interpretation construction design model for teaching science and its applications to internet-based instruction in Taiwan. International Journal of Education Development, 21, 401-415.
Tsai, C.-C. (2001b). Probing students’ cognitive structures in science: The use of a flow map method coupled with a metalistening technique. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 257-268.
Tsai, C.-C. & Huang, C.-M. (2001). Development of cognitive structures and information processing strategies of elementary school students learning about biological reproduction. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 21-26.
Tsai, C.-C. & Huang, C.-M. (2002). Exploring students’ cognitive structures in learning science: A review of relevant methods. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 163-169.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D, J. & Gallard,A, J. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel (ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. NY: Macmillan.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (ed.), The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education, (pp. 39-50). Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA .
von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. T. Fosnot (ed.), Constructivism: theory, perspectives and practice, (pp. 3-7). New York: Teachers College Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. E. Hanfmann & G. Vaker (Trans) Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.
Wanderse, J. H., Mintzes, J. J. & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel (eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. NY: Macmillan.
West, L. H. T., & Pines, A. L. (1985). Cognitive structures and conceptual change. Orlando: Academic Press.
West, L. H. T., Fensham, P. J., & Garrard, J. E. (1985). Describing the cognitive structures of learners following instruction in chemistry. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (eds.), Cognitive structures and conceptual change, (pp. 29-48). Orlando: Academic Press.
White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Prediction-observation-explanation. In R. White & R. Gunston (eds.), Probing Understanding, (pp. 44-64). London: The Falmer Press.
White, R. T. (1985). Interview protocols and dimensions of cognitive structure. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (eds.), Cognitive structures and conceptual change, (pp. 51-58). Orlando: Academic Press.