本研究為探討「圖卡操作」學習方式對學習「化學式相關概念」教學單元的影響，因此採準實驗研究法與問卷調查。研究樣本為九十三學年度宜蘭縣某國中學生，共2班60名，並分成二組，實驗組接受「圖卡操作」學習；而對照組則接受「傳統教學」學習，二組都接受前測、後測與延宕測驗，並填寫學習態度問卷以了解學生真正的感受。前測、後測與延宕測驗都用同一份題目（「化學式相關概念成就測驗」），是經研究者自行開發，預試的信度α＝.89，正式施測α＝.93，其準實驗研究結果如下說明：
（一）全體受試者
（1）實驗組的「化學式相關概念成就測驗」在「整份試卷」、「化學式」、「質量守恆與原子不滅」、「化學反應式」、概念與「知識」、「理解」認知層面上之學習成效，顯著高於對照組。
（2）實驗組的「化學式相關概念成就測驗」在「元素的特性與分類」、「莫耳」等概念與「分析」、「應用」、「綜合」等認知層面上之學習成效，與對照組無顯著差異。
（二）不同學習成就群的學生
（1）高學習成就群實驗組的「化學式相關概念成就測驗」在「整份試卷」、「化學式」、「化學反應式」、「理解」、「分析」的概念獲得上之學習成效，顯著高於對照組。
（2）高學習成就群實驗組的「化學式相關概念成就測驗」在「元素的特性與分類」、「質量守恆與原子不滅」、「莫耳」等概念與「知識」、「應用」、「綜合」認知層面上之學習成效，與對照組無顯著差異。
（3）中學習成就群實驗組的「化學式相關概念成就測驗」在「整份試卷」、「化學式」、「質量守恆與原子不滅」、「化學反應式」、「知識」、「理解」的概念獲得上之學習成效，顯著高於對照組。
（4）中學習成就群實驗組的「化學式相關概念成就測驗」在「元素的特性與分
類」、「莫耳」等概念與「分析」、「應用」以及「綜合」認知層面上的學習成效，與對照組無顯著差異。
（5）低學習成就群實驗組的「化學式相關概念成就測驗」在「整份試卷」、「元素的特性與分類」、「化學式」、「質量守恆與原子不滅」、「化學反應式」以及「莫耳」等概念與「知識」、「理解」、「分析」、「應用」以及「綜合」認知層面的學習成效，與對照組無顯著差異。

而問卷研究結果發現，受試者對「圖卡操作」學習的學習方式之喜好比「傳統教學」學習的人數多；不喜好則是對照組較多。覺得這樣的學習方式是有幫助的，是「實作」學習的人數較多；而持反對意見則是「傳統教學」學習較多，因此若能配合需要，以圖卡操作來學習，將能使學生在化學式相關概念的學習獲得更大的助益。實驗組大多數的學生覺得製作化學帝國身分證的過程，能夠讓自己更快進入學習活動中，即幫助學習。半數的學生覺得「圖卡操作」學習的活動方式有助學習，尤其是在元素分類與特性、化學式、平衡方程式。半數以上的學生覺得使用「圖卡操作」學習的活動方式比較有興趣，且希望多使用實際操作來學習其他概念。

上所述，「圖卡操作」學習在對「化學式相關概念」的學習是有幫助的，尤其對中學習成就群的幫助最大，因「圖卡操作」學習剛好能提供一個較相似的學習經驗，使新、舊知識產生關聯，所使用的圖卡除了具有圖像的功效，更有具體實際操作的部份，實際操作讓學生親自動手作，與真實情境最相似，可以提升學生的學習興趣與動機，可見「圖卡操作」學習會提升學生的學習興趣與學習成效。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of card upon the relevant concept of chemical formula. Quasi-experimental design and survey were adapted in the study. The subjects of the study were drawn from the junior high school in I-Lan county and divided into two groups. Sixty students from two classes participated in this study. The experimental group used learning method of card . The controlled group used were taught in traditional teaching. All subjects were conducted pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest. At the same time, all students wrote the questionnaire in order to know how student’s attitude toward different learning methods. The pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest were the same test items designed by investigator. The reliability（α）of pilot and posttest were .89 and .93. The quasi-experimental results were as follow：
（一）For all subjects：
（1）The experimental group was significantly better than controlled group in「test paper grade」、「chemical　formula」、「mass equal and conservation of atomic law」、「chemical reaction formula」、「knowledge」、「comprehension」.
（2）There was no significant differences in「chemistry and classification of element」、「mole」、「analysis」、「application」、「generalization」.
（二）students with different learning achievement：
（1）High performence group had significant differences in「test paper grade」、「chemical formula」、「chemical reaction formula」、「comprehension」、「analysis」and experimental group was better than controlled group.
（2）High performence group had no significant differences in「chemistry and classification of element」、「mass equal and conservation of atomic law」、「mole」、「knowledge」、「application」、「generalization」.
（3）Middle performence group had significant differences in「test paper grade」、「chemical　formula」、「mass equal and conservation of atomic law」、「chemical reaction formula」、「knowledge」、「comprehension」and experimental group was better than controlled group.
（4）Middle performence group had no significant differences in「chemistry and
classification of element」、「mole」、「analysis」、「application」、「generalization」.
（5）Low performence group had no significant differences in「test paper grade」、
「chemistry and classification of element」、「chemical formula」、「mass equal and conservation of atomic law」、「chemical reaction formula」、「mole」、「knowledge」、「comprehension」、「analysis」、「application」、「generalization」.

Survey investigation’s results found more students in the experimental group than the controlled group enjoyed the learning method. Controlled group had more number about not enjoying the learning method. More students in the experimental group than the controlled group thinked the learning method helpful. Controlled group had more number thinking about the learning method not helpful. If students can used card upon the relevant concept of chemical formula, they will have a great assistance about the relevant concept of chemical formula. Most experimental group foud helpful learn by doing teaching aid themselves. Subduple experimental group foud helpful learn by using card, especially in 「chemistry and classification of element」、「chemical formula」、「chemical reaction formula」. Above subduple experimental group foud funnier by using card and hoped usually to use actual practice activities.

In summary, card was helpful in the relevant concept of chemical formula. Especially,
students of middle learning achievement effected significantly. Because card contributed a
more analogous learning experience and new conception was connected with original
conception. Because use cards not only effect of picture but also hand-on. Hand-on could
promot students’ learning motivation and interest. Because student could practice
themselves and it is analogous the real life context. Using card could promot students’
learning achievements and motivation.

中文文獻：
王琬菁(2002)：「原子價」概念融入科學課文對學生學習「化學式」與其相關概
念之成效。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
王碧鴻（1997）：探究高職化工科學生之莫耳概念。國立台灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
李坤崇（2000）：多元化教學評量，臺北市：心理。
李素卿（1999）譯：當代教育心理學(Good, T. J.,& Brophy, J.著)。台北市：五南出版社。
李賢哲（2001）：以動手做（DIY）工藝興趣培養中小學同具科學創造力之人格特質，科學教育月刊，第243期，2~7。
吳明清（1993）：社會變遷中的教學模式與應用。載於中國教育協會、國立中正大學成人教育中心主編：文化變與教育發展。嘉義：國立中正大學。
吳明雄（2002）：國中生活科技課程創造思考教學對學生學習成效之影響，國立
台灣師範大學工業教育系碩士學位論文。（未出版）
邱美虹（2000）。概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊，第8卷第1期，1-34。
唐偉成（1998）：開發科學創造力之教學策略研究—應用於國小自然科。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士學位論文。（未出版）
徐怡詩（2003）：國中自然與生活科技教師試行實作評量之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士學位論文。（未出版）
張世忠（2000）：教學原理：統整與應用。臺北市：五南書局。
張軒毓（2003）：國中學生學習莫耳相關概念困難的探討。國立台灣師範大學化學學系在職進修專班碩士論文。（未出版）
教育部（1975）：國民中學課程標準。教育部編印。
教育部（1983）：國民中學課程標準。教育部編印。
教育部（1995）：國民中學課程標準。教育部編印。
教育部（2000）：九年一貫課程綱要。教育部編印。
陳炳憲（2003）：以類比學習環,ARCS動機策略改進國二學生化學式學習之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
陳淑華（2002）：化學式與平衡方程式創意教學法，科學教育月刊，第248期，38~40。
陳運正（2001）：在國小自然科教學中融入專題導向的科學學習活動-兩個個案之探討。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
陳新豐（1999）：教育改革中的評量機制—談學校實施教學評量策略。國教之友，52(2)，72-79。
許嘉仲（2002）：影響國中學生理化科學習因素之個案研究。國立彰化師範大學物理學系在職進修專班碩士論文。（未出版）
黃寶鈿與李武勳（2002）：抽象概念具體化教學：以莫耳為例。科學教育月刊，第253期，48-50。
溫世頌（1997）：教育心理學。臺北市：三民書局。
廖凌欣（2001）：環境教育融入九年一貫課程生活學習領域之行動研究。國立台灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
劉志榮（2002）：國中自然與生活科技領域教師實行教學模組的歷程與思考之初探。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
劉俊庚（2002）：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
。（未出版）
蔡宗程（2004）：數學符號知識及運算概念與學生學習化學反應式之研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
簡茂發（2002）：多元評量之理論與方法。教育資料與研究，第46期，1-7。

英文文獻：
Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students' Understanding of Chemical Reaction. International Journal of Science Education. 20(3), 305-316.
Al-Kunifed, A., Good, R., & Wandersee, J. (1993). Investigation of High School Chemistry Students' Concepts of Chemical Symbol, Formula, and Equation: Students' Prescientific Conceptions. ERIC Document. No: ED376020.
Anderson. C. W.(1987). Three perspectives on cognition and their implications for science teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington DC.
Anderson. C. W., & Roth, K. J.(1989). Teaching for meaningful and self- regulated learning of science. In J. Brophy（Ed.）, Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 1. Teaching for meaning understanding and self-regulated learning. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D. & Hanesian H. (1978). Education Psychology: A cognitive view. (12nd ed.). N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ben-Zvii, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1982). Students vs. Chemistry: A study of student conceptions of structure and process. Unpublished manuscript, Weizmann Institute of Science, Department of Science Education. Rehovot, Israel.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987, July). Students' visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry. 117-120.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education .Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Crane, S. C. and Liu, R. S. H. (1986). Models for demonstrating organic structures to a large audience. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(6), 516-517.
Dechsri, P., Jones, L. L., & Heikkinen, H. W. (1997). Effect of laboratory manual design incorporating visual information-processing aids on student learning and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 34(9), 891-904.
DiGisi, L. L. & Willett, J. B. (1995). What high school biology teacher say about their
textbook use： A descriptive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(2),
123-142.
Duncan, I. M. & Johnstone, A. H.(1973). The Mole Concept. Education in Chemistry; 10,
6, 213-214, Nov 73.
Donmoyer, R.(1997). This issue : Refocusing on learning... and on how a research community might learn in an era paradigm proliferation. Educational researcher,26(1), 4, 34.
Faw. H. W., & Waller, T. G. (1976). Methemagenic behaviors and efficiency in learning
from prose material: Review, critique and recommendations. Review of Educational Research, 46, pp. 691-720.
Finley. F. N.(1991). Why Students Have Trouble Learning from Texts？Science Learning: Process and Application. I.R.A.
Friedel, A. W. & Maloney D. P.（1992）. An Exploratory, Classroom-Based Investigation of Students’ Difficulties with Subscripts in Chemical Formulas. Science Education, 76(1), 65-78.
Gabel, D. and Sherwood, R. (1980). The effect of student manipulation of molecular models on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 10, 75-81.
Gabel. D. L., Samuel. K. V., & Hunn, D.(1987 ). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695-697.
Gabel. D. L., Samuel. K. V., & Schrader, C. (1987, April). The particle nature of matter approach: Its effectiveness on chemistry achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Washington, DC.
Gabel. D. L., Sherwood, R. D., & Enochs, L. (1984). Problem-solving skills of high school chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 221-233.
Gallowich, K. (1994). Videotaping EST/ESP Student Projects: “Real World”Research Projects for Professional and Academic Preparation. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (28th, Baltimore, MD, March 8-12, 1994).
Gilbert, J. K. Watts, M. & Osborne, R. J. (1982). Students’conceptions of ideas in mechanics. Physical Education, 17 , 62-66.
Glynn, S.M., Yeany, R.H., & Britton, B.K. (1991). The psychology of learning science. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Herron, J. D. (1975). Piaget for chemists. Journal of Chemical Education,52(3), 146-150.
Larkin, D. P. Simon, & Simon, (1980a). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problem. Science, 208, 1335-1342.
Larkin, D. P. Simon, & Simon, ( 1980b). Modes of competence in solving physic problem. Cognitive Science, 4, 317-345.
Lazonby, J. N., Morris, J. E., & Waddington, D. J.(1982). The muddlesome mole. Education in Chemistry, 19, 109-111.
Mayer, R. E. (1978). Advance organizers that compensate for the organization of text, Journal of Education Psychology, 70, 880-886.
Mayer, R. E. (1980). Elaboration techniques that increase the meaningfulness of technical text: An experimental text of learning strategy hypothesis. Journal of Education Psychology, 70, 880-886.
Mager, R. F. (1984). Developing attitudes toward learning. Belmont, CA：Pitman.
Michael, P. F. (1997). Relationship among laboratory Instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 343-357.
Murphy, (1988). Equity as student opportunity to learn. Theory into Practice,27(2),
145-151.
Niaz, M., & Lawson, A. (1985). Balancing chemical equations: the role of developmental
level and mental capacity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(1), 41-51.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University.
Osbone, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. W. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the change of state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 20, 825-838.
Patricia, M. S-H (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 101-109.
Pines, A. L., & West, L. H. T. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An interpretation of research within a sources-of-knowledge framework. Science education, 70(5), 583-604.
Savoy, L. G. (1988). Balancing Chemical Equations. School Science Review, 69(249), 713-720.
Shuell, T. J. (1981). Dimensions of individual differences. In F. H. Farley & N. J. Gordon（Eds.）, Psychology and education: The state of the union. Berkeley, California: McCutchan.
Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic and Molecular Structure in Chemical Education: A Critical Analysis from Various Perspectives of Science Education. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(8), 922-925.
Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 258-275.