本研究為一跨年齡學生基因相關概念之研究，目的為探究國中、
高中、大學學生對基因相關概念之瞭解，比較不同年齡學生基因相關
概念之異同，探究學生之基因相關概念的縱向發展，以及學生在整合
基因相關概念時產生的困境。基因相關概念既多重複雜又緊密相關，
為深入瞭解學生之概念，本研究將與基因相關的概念區分為下列四個
項目：「一般基因概念」、「基因物質」、「基因與表現」、「基因決定論」。
並針對上述四個項目分別設計問題，以十名國中八年級學生、十一名
高中二年級學生、十一名高中三年級自然組學生、十一名大學生物相
關科系學生為研究對象，進行半結構型晤談，以期能夠探究不同年齡
學生對基因相關概念的瞭解。晤談結果採用質性研究的分析方式，並
進行跨年齡分析比較。獲得之結果呈現出學生的部份基因相關概念隨
著年齡增長而成長，變得越來越豐富；部份基因相關概念隨著年齡增
長而增加，從無到有增加了與分子遺傳學相關的概念；部份基因相關
概念隨著年齡增長而有所改變，從接近古典遺傳學的概念逐漸轉變為
接近分子遺傳學的概念；部份基因相關概念固著而穩定，並不隨著年
齡增長而有所改變；以及同時擁有古典遺傳學的基因相關概念與分子
遺傳學的基因相關概念的學生，難以區別釐清兩邊的基因相關概念，
因而可能造成其學習上的困難。整體看來學生的基因相關概念隨著年
II
齡增長而逐漸變化，增加了分子遺傳學的概念，但古典遺傳學的概念
並未消失，因此概念變得更加豐富，然而因為無法清楚區別兩種遺傳
學的概念，也會因此而產生概念學習上的困難。

This cross-age study is carried to analyze high school and college students’ understanding of gene-related concepts, to unravel and compare relevant conceptual developments throughout high school education. Difficulties encountered during conceptual coordination are also discussed. Our research focuses on probing into students’ core concepts about genes, i.e. understanding of genes and other associated notions. To clarify the complexity of genetic abstractions, four divisions are made to examine students’ understanding: 1. General knowledge; 2. Genetic materials; 3. Genes expressions; 4. Genetic determinism. Questionnaires are designed according to the divisions, and 10 eighth-grade, 11 11th-grade, 11 12th-grade, 11 college students majoring in biology are
interviewed in a semi-structural style. Results of interviews are analyzed with qualitative research methods and compared cross-agedly. Analysis reveals that some concepts develop and expand into partial mixture with
molecular genetics, some modify from pro-classical to pro-molecular, and some remain fixed. Some students have simultaneous classic-genetic and molecular-biological genetic conceptions but cannot seem to differ between two sides, and thus experience difficulty integrating their
conceptual framework. Overall, students’ gene-relevant concepts develop with time, adding molecular genetics to classic notions that are not replaced, thus building up a bigger genetic lexicon. However, difficulty in
differentiation of the two disciplines may obstruct learning.

參考文獻
一、中文文獻
Skemp, R. R. (1987)著，The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. 陳澤民譯(1995)：數學學習心理學。台北：九章。
Skemp, R. R. (1989)著，Mathematics in the Primary School. 許國輝譯(1995)：智性學習。香港：公開進修學院出版社。
Kuhn, T. S. (1970)著，The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 程樹德、傅大為、王道還、錢永祥譯(1994)：科學革命的結構。台北，遠流。
南一書局(2007)：高級中學生命科學下冊。台北：南一。
南一書局(2007)：普通高級中學生物下冊。台北：南一。
教育百科辭典編審委員(1994)：教育百科辭典。台北：五南。
康軒文教事業(2006)：國中自然與生活科技1 下。台北：康軒。
康軒文教事業(2007)：國中自然與生活科技1 下。台北：康軒。
陳向明(2002)：社會科學質的研究。台北：五南。
陳向明(2007)：社會科學質的研究。台北：五南。
陳世輝(1994)：兒童遺傳概念之研究。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告
(NSC-83-0111-S-026-004)。
黃台珠(1990)：中學生遺傳相關概念錯誤類型的探討。《科學教育月
刊》，133，34-53。
黃台珠(1993)：中學生遺傳學習的現況及問題。《高雄師大學報》，4，
269-300。
湯清二(1990)：迷思概念與科學教學改進研究(I)「以遺傳學為例」。《彰
化師範大學學報》，1，367-397。
楊坤原、陳進利(1990)：中學生認知能力與遺傳學概念學習之相關研
究。《科學教育》，1，61-75。
楊坤原、張賴妙理(2004)：發展和應用二段式診斷工具來偵測國中一
年級學生之遺傳學另有概念。《科學教育學刊》，12(1)，107-131。
楊坤原、張賴妙理(2004)：遺傳學迷思概念之文獻探討及其在教學上
的啟示。《科學教育學刊》，12(3)，365-398。
張筱莉、林陳涌(2001)：學童眼中的科學專有名詞。《科學教育學刊》，
9(3)，219-234。
劉誠宗(2003)：學生對物種起源的解釋架構一貫性之探析。《台北市：
國立台灣師範大學碩士論文》，未出版。
翰林出版(2006)：國民中學1 下自然與生活科技。台南：翰林。
薛靜瑩(1998)：國小、國中學生的遺傳先前概念。《台北市：國立台灣
師範大學生物研究所碩士論文》，未出版。
鐘聖校(1997)：認知心理學。台北：心理。
二、英文文獻
Bahar, M. B., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84-86.
Bahar, M. B., Johnstone, A. H., & Sutcliffe, R. G. (1999). Investigation of students＇ cognitive structure in elementary genetics through word association tests. Journal of Biological Education, 33(3), 134-141.
Baker, E., & Taylor, P. C.S., (1995). The effect of culture on the learning of science in non-Western countries: The results of an integrated research review. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 695-704.
Banet, E., & Ayuso, E. (1999). Teaching genetics at secondary school: A strategy for teaching the location of inheritance information. Science Education, 84, 313-351.
Bernard, H. R. (1988). Unstructured and Semistructured Interviewing. Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology. Newbury Park: Sage.
Browning, M. E., & Lehman, J. D. (1988). Identification of student misconceptions in genetics problem solving via computer program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(9), 747-761.
Campbell, N. A., Reece, J. B., & Mitchell, L. G. (2005). Biology (7th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley.
Carlson, E. A. (1991). Defining the Gene: An Evolving Concept, Am J Hum Genet, 49(2), 475-487.
Carlson, E. A. (2004). Mendel's Legacy: The Origin of Classical Genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.
Chi, M. T. H. & Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics, Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 249-260.
Confrey, J. (1989). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3-56.
Deadman, J. A., & Kelly, P. J. (1978). What do secondary school boys understand about evolution and heredity before they are taught the topics? Journal of Biological Education, 12(1), 7-15.
Donovan, M. P. (1997). The vocabulary of biology and problem of semantics. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(6), 381-382.
Dreyfus, A., & Jungwirth, E. (1989). The pupil and the living cell: A taxonomy of dysfunctional ideas about an abstract idea. Journal of Biological Education, 23(1), 49-55.
Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Eylon, B-S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251-301.
Falk, R. (1986). What is a gene? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 17(2). 133-173.
Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspectives. Science Education, 89, 335-347.
Finkel, E. A. (1996). Making sense of genetics: Students＇ knowledge use during problem solving in a high school genetics class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 345-368.
Fisher, K. M., & Moody, D. E. (2000). Student misconceptions in biology. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Klu-wer Academic Publishers.
Fisher, K. M., Lipson, J. I., Hildebrand, A. C., Miguel, L., Schoenberg, N., & Porter, N. (1986). Student misconceptions and teacher assumptions in college biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 15(2), 276-280.
Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The Art of Science. In N.K.Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln（Eds.）Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fox-Keller, E. (2000). The century of the gene. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gericke, N. M. & Hagberg, M. (2007). Definition of historical models of gene function and their relation to students＇ understanding of genetics. Science and Education, 16, 849-881.
Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). A constructive view of learning science. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates, Publishers.
Hackling, M. (1982). An examination of secondary students＇ understanding of inheritance concepts. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 28(1), 13-20.
Hackling, M. W. & Treagust, D. F. (1982). What lower secondary students should understand about the mechanisms of inheritance and what they do understand following instruction. Research in Science Education, 12,78-88.
Hendrix, J. R., Mertens, T. R., & Baumgartner, R. S. (1981). Individualizing instruction through concept assessment. The American Biology Teacher, 43(5), 246-253.
Herron, J. D., Cantu, L. L., Ward, R. & Srinivasan, V. (1977). Problems associated with concept analysis. Science Education, 61(2), 185-199.
Johnstone, A. H. & Mahmoud, N. A. (1980) Isolating topics of high perceived difficulty in school biology, Journal of Biological Education, 12(2), 163-166.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
Kargob, D. B., Hobbs, E. D., & Erickson, G. L. (1980). Children＇s beliefs about inherited characteristics. Journal of Biological Education, 14(2), 137-146.
Kindfield, A. C. H. (1991a). Confusing chromosome number and structure: A common student error. Journal of Biological Education, 25(3), 193-200.
Kinnear, J. F., & Martin, M. D. (1987). Symbol use and concept development in genetic engineering. Paper presented at the Second International Seminar: Misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics. Ithaca, NY, July 26-29, 1987.
Kitcher, P. (1982). Gene, Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 33, 337-359.
Lawson, A. E. (1986). Integrating research on isconception, Reasoning patterns and three types of learning cycles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 278 567).
Lazarowitz, R., & Penso, S. (1992). High school students＇ difficulties in learning biology concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 26(3), 215-223.
Lewis, J. (2004). Traits, genes, particles, and information: re-visiting students＇ understandings of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 195-206.
Maddock, M. N. (1981). Science education: An anthropological viewpoint. Studies in Science Education, 8, 1-26.
Marantz Hening, R. (2000). The monk in the garden: The lost and found genius of Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics. Boston: Mariner Books.
Mbajiorgu, N. M., Ezechi, N. G. & Idoko, E. C. (2007). Addressing Nonscientific Presuppositions in Genetics Using a Conceptual Change Strategy. Science Education, 91(3), 419-438.
Merrill, M. D., Tennyson, R. D., & Posey, L. O. (1992). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Mertens, T. R., & Hendrix, J. R. (1990). The popular press, scientific literacy in human genetics, and bioethical decision-making. School Science and Mathematics, 90(4), 317-322.
Moll, M. B., & Allen, R. D. (1987). Student difficulties with Mendelian genetics problem. The American Biology Teacher, 49(4), 229-233.
Morange, M. (2001). THE MISUNDERSTOOD GENE. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mysliwiec, T. H. (2003). The genetic blues: Understanding genetic principles using a practical approach and a historical perspective. The American Biology Teacher, 65(1), 41-46.
Novak, J. D. (1997). An alternative to Piagetian psychology for science and mathematics education. Science Education, 61(4), 453-477.
Pearson, J. T., & Hughes, W. J. (1988). Problems with the use of terminology in genetics education: A literature review and classification scheme.
Journal of Biological Education, 22(3), 178-182.
Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. (1991). Bibliography: Students alternative frameworks and science education. Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel Institute for Science Education.
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(2), 211-227.
Radford, A. & Bird-Steward, J. A. (1982). Teaching genetics in schools. Journal of Biological Education, 16(3), 177-180.
Southerland, S. A., Smith, M. U. & Cummins, C. L. (2000). “What do you mean by that?＂ Using structured interviews to assess science understanding. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak, (Eds.),
Teaching science for understanding-A human constructivist view. London: Academic Press.
Sterelny, K. & Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Stewart, J. H. (1982). Difficulties experienced by high school students when learning basic Mendelian genetics. The American Biology Teacher, 44(2), 80-84, 89.
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tolman, P. R. (1982). Difficulties in genetics problem solving. The American Biology Teacher, 44(9), 525-527.
Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33, 111-135.
Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2004). Conceptual change in learning genetics: an ontological perspective. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22(2), 185-202.
Tudge, C. (1993). In Mendel＇s footnotes: An introduction to the science and technologies of the genes and genetics from the 19th century to the 20nd. London: Jonathan Cape.
Venville, G. & Donovan, J. (2005). Searching for clarity to teach the complexity of the gene concept, Teaching Science, 51(3), 20-24.
Venville, G. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031-1055.
Venville, G. J. & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Teaching about the Gene in the Genetics Information Age, Australian Science Teachers Journal,48(2), 20-24.
Wandersee, J. H., Fisher, K. M., & Moody, D. E. (2000). The nature of biology knowledge. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge. Dordrecht the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.