本研究探討不同認知結構改變類型的學生在空氣污染鷹架式建模課程中科學概念學習成效的差異，先分析學生在進行課程之前具有的先備知識與認知結構，再探討學生完成此課程的學習之後，其科學概念及認知結構的改變情形。本研究採個案研究法，對象為台北縣內某國立高中參與社區化數理探索課程計畫的高一學生，有效樣本共32人。研究工具為空污建模課程、概念測驗、探究測驗、晤談單、學習單。資料分析方法在量的方面採用t考驗（t-test）與描述統計；質的方面以基模─概念圖、認知結構診測向度進行認知結構分析。主要的研究結果如下：（一）學生先備知識中關於空氣污染來源與影響、天氣現象以及常見的天氣系統等名詞定義具有較佳的理解，但於運用大氣垂直溫壓結構以及大氣運動來說明天氣現象的成因與天氣系統的過程機制上，學生則多呈現混淆或錯誤的理解。（二）學生在完成課程之後，在空污概念測驗與認知結構三向度得分均有顯著進步，顯示本課程可以幫助學生學習空氣污染相關概念。（三）整體而言，學生在課程後的概念廣度增加，主要概念的類型多由日常生活概念轉變為科學理論概念；概念連結關係多由單次基模內的概念連結轉變為二或三次基模間的概念連結，錯誤且重複的狀況減少；概念解釋模式明顯由直觀敘述的現象模式轉變為綜合敘述、比較與量化的科學模式。（四）學生認知結構三向度的改變情形不同，一般而言，學生具有較多自省學習狀況、探究與他人想法相異原因及主動尋求具價值外在資源等認知投入的後設認知行為時，認知結構進步情形最佳。

This research is to probe into different cognitive structure students whose studying effect of scientific concept in air pollution scaffold-modeling course. At first, we analyze these students’ pre-knowledge and cognitive structure before the course. Then we probe into the study that students finished this course, their changes of scientific concept and cognitive structure. This research adopts case study, and the target participates are senior one students of the course project for one state-run high school in Taipei county. The effective sample amounts to 32 students. The study tools are air pollution course, concept test, inquiry test, interview sheet, working sheet. The analytical method adopts t-test and describing statistical analysis in the respect of quantity; the respect of the quality adopts schema-concept map and cognitive structure analysis. The main result of study is as follows: (1) It has better understanding that students define air pollution source and nouns, such as influencing, weather phenomenon and common weather system, etc. in the pre-knowledge; but on using atmosphere vertical structure and atmosphere movement to prove the cause of weather phenomenon and its mechanism, students appear obscure and wrong understanding more. (2) After finishing course, students test and their scores make apparent progress. It shows that the course can help students to study the relevant concept of the air pollution. (3) As a whole, the students’ scope of concept after course increases, and types of the main concept are changed into the scientific concept from the daily life concept more. Concept link relationships are changed into two or three schema link from single schema’s concept link, and the mistake and repeated states reduce. The concept explaining model is changed obviously into scientific model which combines narration, comparison, and quantification. (4)Generally speaking, student who has more meta-cognitive behaviors including examining oneself state of studying, probing into with others ideas different reason and seeking valued resource actively, etc., the progressive situation of cognitive structure is the best.

一、中文部分
王明泉（1999）。概念形成學習策略在特殊教育上之應用分析。課程與教學，2卷，2期，115-129頁。
王鈺棠（2005）。科學概念認知結構探索。國立台灣師範大學物理研究所碩士論文。
余民寧（1997）。有意義的學習：概念構圖之研究。台北市：商鼎文化。
吳穎沺（2003）。建構主義式的科學學習活動對國小高年級學生認知結構之影響。國立交通大學教育研究所碩士論文。
沈中偉（1994）。魏考斯基理論在認知策略上的運用。教學科技與媒體，12，23-31。
林生傳（2001）。追求成長的教學：飛躍新世紀的教學動向。提昇中等學校教師專業知能研討會：教育改革與教學創新的期許會議手冊暨論文彙編，1，17-18。
林來發（1992）。國民中學教學方法手冊。教育部國民教育司。
林奇賢（1998）。網路學習環境的設計與應用。資訊與教育，67，34-49。
林振霖（1993）。我國學生分子概念發展與診斷教學的研究：(二)我國學生的分子概念發展的研究。彰化師範大學學報，4，337-345。
金吉祥（2004）。提供鷹架對國小學童自然科問題解決能力及概念學習的影響。國立新竹教育大學碩士論文。
施富有（2004）。提供鷹架對不同學習成就學生數位學習成效之探討－以高年級水的三態教學活動為例。國立新竹教育大學碩士論文。
張春興（1994）。教育心理學。台北市：台灣東華。
張惠博（1995）。學習的社會層面觀點：科學教師的基本見解。成人教育，40。
張菀珍（1997）。鷹架理論在成人教學實務之應用。成人教育雙月刊，40，43-52。
教育部（2006）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。2006年7月4日，取自「教育部全球資訊網」：http://www.edu.tw/
教育部（2006）。基礎地球科學暫行課程綱要（高一）。取自「普通高級中學課程基礎地球科學學科中心」：http://163.32.57.18/~kghs_earth/
教育部（2006）。普通高級中學必修科目「基礎化學」課程綱要、普通高級中學必修科目「化學」課程綱要。取自「高中化學學科中心」。
莊世民（2002）。國小高年級學生對「氣壓」概念之研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
許瑛玿、吳心楷、黃福坤、陳正平（2005）。鷹架式建模數位學習環境對學生科學學習影響之研究鷹架式建模數位學習環境對學生科學學習影響之研究—總計畫（2/3）。計畫編號：NSC 95-2511-S-003-007。
郭重吉（1988）。從認知觀點探討自然科學的學習。教育學院學報，13，351-363。
郭重吉（1989）。從認知的觀點探討科學教育的理論與實際。認知與學習基礎研究，第三次研討會。
郭重吉（1990）。學生科學知識認知結構的評估與描述。彰化師範大學學報，1，279-320。
陳埩淑（2000）。課程與教學的關係在教室層面上的探究。教育研究，8，125-135。
黃台珠（1984）。概念的研究及其意義。科學教育月刊，66，44-56。
黃台珠、熊召弟、王美芬、勒知勤、段曉林、熊同鑫譯（2002）。促進理解之科學教學─人本建構取向觀點。台北：心理，69-102。
黃光雄（1993）。教育概論。台北市：師大書苑 。
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。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
董家莒（2001）。多媒體電腦輔助學習歷程對學生地球科學學習成就之影響。師大學報，46（1,2），43-64。
劉俊庚（2001）。迷思概念與概念改變教學策略之文獻分析－以概念構圖和後設分析模式探討其意涵與影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
劉雪華（2004）。國小五年級學童對氣團、鋒面等天氣變化概念之認知研究。臺北市立師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文。
歐陽鍾仁（1992）。科學教育概論。台北市：五南。
盧靖華（2003）。國三學生地球科學「天氣」單元迷思概念之研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
鍾聖校（1990）。認知心理學。台北市：心理。

二、西文部份
Anderson, C. W., Lee, O., & Kappan, P. D.（1997）. Will students take advantage of opportunities for meaningful science learning? Phi Delta Kappan, 8(9), 720.
Anderson, J. R.（1985）. Cognitive psychology and its implication (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Freeman.
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., 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., Novak, J. D. & Hanesian, H.（1978）. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. 2nd Ed. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Bruner, J. S.（1978）. The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding, 65-116. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. D. and Klopfer, L. E.（1985）. Effecting Change in Cognitive Structure Amongst Physics Students. In L. H. T. West, and A. L. Pines. (Eds.), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change. Orlando: Academic Press.
Dixon-Krauss L.（1996）. Vygotsky in the classroom: Mediated literacy instruction and assessment. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman Pub.
Dove, J.（1998）. Alternative conceptions about the weather. School Science Review, 79(289), 65-69
Driver, R., and Erickson, G..（1983）. Theories in Action: Some Theoretical and Empirical Issues in the Science Education, 10, 37-60.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E.（2003）. 教育研究法─研究設計實務（楊孟麗、謝水南）。台北市：心理（原著於1990年出版）。
Fredricks, J. A., Blunenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H.（2004）. School engagement：potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Education in Research, 74(1), 59-100.
Gee, J. P.（1990）. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse. London: The Falmer Press.
Hedegaard, M.（1991）. The zone of proximal development as basis for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology, 59-88. Cambridge University Press.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G..（1992）. The status of student conceptions. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, ＆H. Neidderer(Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies, 59-73. Kiel, Germany: Institute of Science Education.
Linn, M. C.（1987）. Establishing a Research Base for Science Education: Challenges, Trends, and Recommendations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(3), 191-216.
Mervis , C. & Rosch, E.（1981）. Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89-115.
Moates, D. R., & Schumacher, G..M.（1980）. An Introduction to cognitive psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Newmann, F., Wehlage, G..G., & Lamborn, S. D.（1992）. The significance and sources of student engagement. Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools, 11-39.
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B.（1984）. Learning how to learn. Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D.（1979a）. Applying psychology and philosophy to the improvement of laboratory teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 41, 466-470.
Pella, M.O.（1975）. Concept of Concept Model. University of Wisconsin-Medison.
Peterson, P. L. ,Wilkinson, L. C., Spinelli , F. & Swing, S. R.（1984）. Merging the process-product and the sociolingustic paradigm: Research on small-group processes. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson & M. Hallinan (Eds), The social context of instruction, 126-152. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Pines, A. L.（1985）. Toward a taxonomy of conceptual relations and the implications for the evaluation of cognitive structures. In Leo H. T. West & A. Leon Pines (Eds.), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change. Orlando: Academic Press.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C.（1992）.The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-levelcognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26-33.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A.（1988）. Representation in memory. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & Luce, R. D. (Eds.), Stevens’ handbook of experimenttal psychology: Vol. 2. Learning and Cognitive (2nd ed.) , 551-587. New York: Wiley.
Rumelhart, D.（1980）. Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. R. Spiro, B. Bruce and W. Brewer. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shavelson, R. J. and Stanton, G.. C.（1975）. Construct Vaildation: Methodology and Application to Three Measures of Cognitive Structure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12, 67-85.
Shavelson, R. J.（1974）.Methods for Examining Representations of a Subject-matter Structure in a Student’s Memory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10, 101-111.
Skemp, R. R.（1987）. The Psychology of learning mathematics. Hillsdale, N.J.：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stewart, J.（1980）. Techniques for Assessing and Representing Information in Cognitive Structure. Science Education, 64(2), 223-235.
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.
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.
White, R. T.（1985）. Interview protocols and dimensions of cognitive structure. In Leo H. T. West & A. Leon Pines (Eds.), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change. Orlando: Academic Press.
White, R. T.（1988）. Learning Science. New York. Basil Blackwell Inc.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G..（1976）. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.