研究生: |
周金城 Chin-Cheng Chou |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
以孔恩的常態科學探究高中師生科學社群中科學探索活動的歷程—參與科學展覽活動之得獎個案分析 fairs in scientific communities of high school teachers and students—Analyze of the case studies of awarding participants in science fairs |
指導教授: | 邱美虹 |
學位類別: |
博士 Doctor |
系所名稱: |
科學教育研究所 Graduate Institute of Science Education |
論文出版年: | 2002 |
畢業學年度: | 89 |
語文別: | 中文 |
中文關鍵詞: | 孔恩 、常態科學 、高中師生科學社群 、科學探索歷程 、學展覽活動 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:251 下載:103 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究試圖由高中師生製作得獎科展的研究歷程與經驗,來探討科學研究能
夠完成的重要方法與因素,並分析研究個案中概念改變的機制與特質。
科展的科學研究是一種孔恩所說的「常態科學」(normal science),而孔恩
對其所謂常態科學也分成三類:1.決定重要事實;2.使典範與事實相符合;3.精
鍊典範。而本研究以孔恩的常態科學的意涵為基礎,來加以分析科展中科學研究
的動態歷程,並且在這三類的常態科學活動中,分析師生所面臨的困難與解決歷
程。本研究並根據實踐認識論所強調的理論與實作之間來回辯證的過程,作為本
研究探討學生在實作中發生概念改變的動態歷程。
本研究是以高中全國科展前三名得獎的師生為研究對象,在研究方法上採用
質性化的半結構式訪談為主,每一組約有一至二名教師與一至四名學生,共晤談
十一組,所有的受訪者皆是自願的。
經資料分析後,本研究得到以下的結論:
一、科展的研究問題除了孔恩的三類常態科學研究問題,還包含前典範時期
與異例現象的研究。在本研究中,有七組的研究問題是屬於常態科學的研究問
題。對於科展研究中最大的困難處是找出解釋現象的理論,也是學生花最多的時
間。
二、一個好的研究問題最重要的是找出一個有典範指導解題的問題,由本研
究中發現有六個研究問題是由教師所提出,而教師大多是根據科學理論來找出研
究問題;反之,學生則大多是由現象來提出所欲研究的問題。本研究同時也發現
他們的科學研究,其實就是提出問題、設法修改問題與提出不同解釋的理論,使
能在有限的證據中尋找適當的理論來與研究結果相互的吻合。
三、由分析個案中發現,科學探索歷程的核心是一連串的概念改變,且改變
是逐步發生而非孔恩所謂瞬間轉換的。當理論與證據間發生矛盾時,師生常將此
矛盾認為是證據上有問題,而非是理論有問題,直到證據重複出現,才會試圖去
修正理論。而理論與證據間產生矛盾,是提供研究持續進行的動力。
四、良好的外在環境,如家長的支持、團隊的小組合作等,能提供研究者情
意方面的支持,有助於研究者去面對解題困境而不放棄。
五、師生認為目前實驗課能提供練習實驗操作技能的機會,但對科展研究能
力的培養,則需要先引發學生的內在動機,需要有較長的實驗時間讓學生進行思
考。
The purpose of this study is to investigate the important components that
contribute toward the success of student’s science project in a science fair. We also
try to analyze the mechanism of conceptual change and the characteristics in the case
study.
The scie ntific inquiry of science fairs is a kind of Kuhn's Normal Science.
According to Kuhn's Normal Science, there are three class of problem: 1.
determination of significant fact; 2.matching of facts with theory; 3.articulation of
theory. This study based on Kuhn's normal science to analysis the dynamic process of
the scientific inquiry in the science fairs. According the epistemology of practice, it
addresses the process of dialectical between theory and practice; this study is to
investigate the dynamic process of the conceptual change in student practice work.
For the purposes of our study, we designed an interviewing in-depth
semi-structure questionnaire. The study involved eleven teams who got the 41st
national science fairs grand awards in the senior high school of Taiwan. Each team’s
members have 1~2 teachers and 1~4 students, and all volunteered to participate in this
study.
Finding from this study are summarized as follow:
1. The research questions of students’ science fairs have categorized into three
classes of problem of normal science, the pre-paradigm, and anomaly. In this study,
seven research questions belong to the normal science problems.
2. For a good question, the most important is to find a paradigm that can guide
the research. In the study, we find that teachers are posing six research questions.
Teachers pose research questions based on scientific theory. On the contrary, students
pose research questions based on phenomenon. We also find students’ scientific
inquiry that is pose a question, modify the question, and give different kind of
explanatory theory, let the incomplete evidences and theory can match well.
3. The core of scientific inquiry is a series of conceptual change, and the change
is gradually and not as same as kuhn’s Gestalt switch. When the conflict is between
theory and evidence, teachers and students usually consider the conflict coming from
evidence, not the theory. Until the evidence repeatedly appears, the students started to
modify the theory. Solving the conceptual conflict was the central elements of the
power of research.
4. A Well-equipped external environment, such as supports from parents and
corporative teamwork, can provide the students a good research situation for solving
the research puzzles and for persistently doing the experiment.
5. Teachers and students think that lab work can provide an opportunity to
practice experimental skill, but developing the scientific inquiry ability and to
motivate students internal motivation should be promoted.
一、中文部分:
方泰山,劉哲淵(1999): 化學實驗在國際奧林匹亞三十年競賽的回顧與展望。科
學教育月刊,第217 期。
成映鴻(1984):科展與科學教育。國教輔導,23 卷8 期,pp. 12-13 頁。
朱德生(1987):西方認識論史綱。新店市:谷風出版社。
吳天佑(2000):台灣教育探源。臺北市: 教育資料館。
呂溪木(1983):從國際科展看我國今科學教育發展的方向。科學教育,64 期,pp.
13-19 頁。
李偉俊(1996): 未來資優教育的新指標:獨立研究方案(ISP)。國教之聲,30 卷
1 期,pp. 18-29。
林家慶、葉國慈和徐志宏(1993):從初二普化科展談師院非數理系的科學教育。
國教之聲,22 卷1 期pp.13-17。
林陳涌(1995):從經驗證據到科學理論之間的關係來探討自然科實驗教學的意
義。科教月刊,第184 期。
邱玉玲(2000)科學:科學展覽存廢問題之省思。師友,396 期。
邱美虹, 劉嘉茹, 周金城, 梁家祺(1999):認知師徒制對學生化學概念改變的影
響。中華民國第十五屆科學教育學術研討會。
邱美虹,湯偉君(2000):美國新標準(New Standards):科學實作評量之內涵與範
例介紹。科學教育月刊,第233 期。
邱美虹(2000):概念改變的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊,8(1),1-34。
洪志明(2001):我國國二學生課餘學習時間與學習成就之關係。科學教育月刊,
第236 期。
郁慕鏞(1994):科學定律的發現。台北市:淑馨出版社。
夏林清(1996):實踐取向的研究方法。胡幼慧主編。質性研究:理論、方法及本
土女性研究實例。台北市:巨流圖書公司。
徐美蓮、薛秋子(1999):以建構教學編織生命教育統整課程。國教天地,134 期,
pp.84-90。
袁江洋(1998):牛頓革命與近代科學興起的發生學詮釋。二十一世紀評論,第五
十期。
高博銓(1999):透視獨立研究課程。資優教育,70 期,pp.16-19。
教育部(1993):國民中學課程標準。台北:教育部。
教育部(1996):高級中學課程標準。台北:教育部。
許育彰(1999):探討高中生從力學情境中發現問題的能力之研究。國立台灣師範
大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版。
郭文禎,張文華(2000):六年級學生投入實驗活動的方式。科學教育,226 期,
PP. 2-14。
郭正雄(1992):談資優兒童獨立研究能力之培養。資優教育,43 期,pp. 22-25。
郭靜姿(1993):如何指導資優生進行獨立研究。資優教育,48 期,pp. 5-15。
郭靜姿(1994):資優課程與教材教法,資優教育季刊,第五十二期,p29-30。
陳建宏、黃芳裕(2000):台北縣完全中學化學高成就學生實踐表現分析。第1 6 屆
科學教育學術研討會彙編。
陳美芳(1989):獨立研究過程的記錄。資優教育,30 期,pp.1-5。
陳義勳(2000):中小學科學展覽之析論與評論。國教新知,46 卷3 期。
陳錫銘(1998):實踐認識論應用於諮商員專業自我建構之研究。國立台灣師範大
學心理與輔導研究所博士論文,未出版。
彭森明(1997):實作評量理論與實際。教育資料與研究,第九期。
游經祥(1999):學生小論文及科展之輔導與研究。高中教育,4 期,pp.51-56。
舒偉光(1994):科學哲學導論。台北市:五南出版社。
舒偉光、邱仁宗(1991): 當代西方科學哲學述評。台北市:水牛出版社。
馮桂莊(1999):中華民國參加國際科學展覽活動。科學教育月刊,第225 期。
黃光國(1999):建立「學術實踐的主體性」:對心理學門的檢討。大葉學報,第八
卷,第二期。
黃俊儒(2000):從社會互動與認知投入的觀點探討理化實驗課中學習機會之分
佈。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版。
黃萬居(1999): 科學教學活潑化。科學教育研究與發展,17 期。
楊巧如、王沛清(2000):以「合作學習」導向的國中數學教學—行動研究。第1 6
屆科學教育學術研討會。
楊深坑(1988):理論、詮釋與實踐。台北市:師大書苑。
楊慶誠(1993):科展經驗談。花師數理教育季刊,2 期,pp.24-29。
楊曉白(1988):如何指導資優生從事獨立研究。資優教育,28 期,pp.41-43。
詹焜能(2000):兒童科學創意競賽開放問題解決的個案研究。16 屆科學教育學術
研討會。
劉元亮、姚慧華、寇世琪、曾曉萱、曹南燕、高達聲(1990):科學認識論與方法
論。台北市:曉園出版社。
劉知新編,梁蕙珠、鄭長雲著(1996):化學實驗論。中國:廣西出版社。
劉秋燕(1993):資優生獨立研究的理念與做法。資優教育,47 期,pp.10-12。
劉秋燕(1993):資優生獨立研究的理念與做法。資優教育季刊,第47 期,PP10-12。
劉魁(1998):後現代科學觀。台北市:揚智文化。
潘裕豐(1999):路遠距學習模式對資優生獨立研究之可行性探究。資優教育,70
期,pp.7-15。
蔡典謨(1998):培養資優生成為知識的生產者。資優教育,69 期,pp.1-5。
蔡崇建(1982):在漫長的暑假裡如何讓資優學生從事獨立研究。資優教育,7 期
pp.26-28 頁。
蔡崇建(1989):獨立研究之後──如何指導資優學生展現研究成果。資優教育,
29 期,pp.25-30。
鄭木城,顧錦濤,順榮和翁瑞美(1995):科學展覽的指導和製作。科學教育,1
期。
鄭湧涇(1988):適合高中科學才賦優異學生的教學方案。資優教育,27 期,pp.1-6。
鄭瑛珍(2000):物理學家問題發現與問題解決之個案研究。國立台灣師範大學科
學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
盧秀琴(1998):如何設計科學實驗。國民教育,38 卷5 期,pp.48-54。
蕭英勵(1999): 科學實驗引導學生進行思考。師友,381 期。
謝雪貞(2000):高級中學數理資優教育未來發展之導向研究:結論與建議。輔導
通訊,60 期,pp.57-61。
顏啟麟、馮桂莊(1995):國立臺灣科學教育館的國際教育活動:國際科展。臺灣教
育,538 期,pp.37-42。
魏明通(1988):中學生自由研究之道。科學教育,212 期,pp.28-31。
羅蓓(1995)如何指導學生做科學展覽。國民教育,35 卷9、10 期,pp.57-59。
礬雪春、陳慧娟(1997):自然科的教與學。林清山主編:有效的學習方法。台北
市:教育部訓育委員會。
二、英文部分
Allan Franklin(1989). The epistemology of experiment. The Uses of experiment, Edited by
David, Gooding, Trevor Pinch, & Simon Schaffer, Cambridge university press.
Anderson,J. R.(1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications. NY: Carnegie Mellon
University.
Annis Hapkiewicz (1999). Authentic Research within the Grasp of high School Students.
Journal of Chemical Education. 76, 9 ,1212-1215.
Annis Hapkiewicz(1999). Authentic Research with the group of high School Students.
Journal of chemical Education, V76, No9.
Avi Hofstein & Vincent N. Lunetta(1982). The Role of the Laboratory in Science
Teaching:Neglected Aspects of Research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 2,
201-217.
Basadur(1994). Managing the creative process in organizations. In Runco, M. A. (Eds),
Problem finding, Problem Solving, and Creativity. New Jersey:Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
Bellipanni, L. J. & Lilly,J. E. (1999). What have researchers been saying about scienca fair.
Science & Children,36(2),46-50.
Berry, A., Mulnall, P., Loughran, J. J. & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). Helping students learn
from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 45(1), 27-31.
Brookw, H., & Solomon, J. (1998): From playing to investigating: Research in an
interactive science center for primary pupils. International Journal of Science
Education. 20(8), 959-971.
Brown, J. R.(1991). The Laboratory of the Mind: thought experiments in the Natural
Sciences. New York:Routledge.
Churchland, P. M (1994):Matter and Consciousness. 汪益譯:物質與意識-當代心靈
哲學導讀。台北市:遠流出版社。
Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge
acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction.
Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49.
Clough, M. P., & Clark, R. (1994): Cookbooks and Constructivism. The Science
Teacher.61(2).PP.34-37.
Corey, G. (1995): Theory and Practice of Group Counseling. 張景然、吳芝儀譯:團體
諮商的理論與實務。台北市:揚智出版社。
Craig W. Bowen(1998). Item Design Considerations for Computer-Based Testing of
Student Learning in Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education. 75, 9 ,1172-1175.
Czerniak, C. M. & Lumpe, A. T.(1996): Predictors of science fair participation using the
theory of Planned Behavior. School Science & Mathematics. Vol.96, issue 7,
P335-362.
Czerniak, C. M. (1996): predictors of success in a district science fair competition: an
exploratory study. School Science & Mathematics. Vol.96, issue 1, P21-28.
Daniel S. Domin(1999) : A Rewiew of Laboratory instruction Styles. Journal of Chemical
Education. 76, 4 ,543-547.
Dorothy G., (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research:
a look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education. Vol.76, No.4, PP.548-554.
Dunbar, K.(1995). How scientists really reason : scientific reasoning in real-word
laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (Eds), the nature of insight
(pp.65-395). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
Edomondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. (1993): The interplay of science: A perspective from
the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(6),547-559.
Ferry & Ross-Gordon(1998): An Inquiry into Schon’s Epistemology of Practice :
Exploring Links Between Experience and Reflective practice. Adult Education
Quarterly, Vol. 48, Issue 2, P98-113.
Freedman, M. P.(1997):Relationship among laboratory Instruction, Attitude toward
Science, and Achievement in Science Knoeledge. Journal of Research In
ScienceTeaching. Vol.34, No.4, pp.343-357.
Freeman J. Dyson (1991) : “To Teach or not to Teach”, Amer. J. Phys.,June 1991, vol.
59,No.6, p.495.
Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., Yekovich, F. R.(1993): The cognitive psychology of
school learning(2nd). Harper Collins College Publishers.
Gilbert, J. K., & Reiner, M. (2000): Thought experitments in science education: potential
and current realization. International Journal of Science Education. Vol.22, No.3,
pp.265-283.
Hart, C.;Mulnall, P.;Berry, A.;Loughran, J.;Gunstone, R.(2000): What is the purpose
of this Experiment? Or Can Students Learn Something from Doing Experiment?
Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol.37, No.7, PP.655-675.
Henderleiter. J, & Pringle, L. D. (1999):Effect of context-based laboratory experiments on
attitudes of analytical chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education. Vol.76,
No.1, PP.100-106.
Hilosky, A., Sutman, F., & Schmuckler, J (1998): Is Laboratory-based Instruction in
Beginning College-Level Chemistry Worth the Effort and Expense? Journal of
Chemical Education, Vol.75, No.1, pp.100-104.
Ian Hacking(1991). Representation and Intervening. 蕭明慧譯,科學哲學與實驗。台
北市:桂冠出版社。
James N. Spencer(1999) : New Directions in Teaching Chemistry : A Philosophical and
Pedagogical Basis. Journal of Chemical Education. 76, 4 ,566-569.
Josefina Arce; Rosa Betancourt (1997): Student-designed experiments in scientific lab
instruction. Journal of College Science Teaching. Vol.27. PP.114-118.
Kanigel, Robert(1998). Apprentice to genius. 潘震澤、朱業修譯,天才的學徒。台北
市:天下文化。
Keys, C. W. (2000): Investigating the Thinking Process of Eighth Grade Writers during the
Composition of a Scientific Laboratory Report. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching. Vol.37, No.7, PP.676-690.
Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999):Using the science writing heuristic
as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching. Vol.36, 1065-1084. PP.676-690.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions(2nd edition). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions(2nd edition). 程樹德、傅大
為、王道還、錢永祥譯,科學革命的結構,台北市:遠流出版社。
Larochelle, M. & Desautels, J.(1991): “Of course, it’s just obvious”: adolescents’ ideal of
scientific Knowledge. International Journal of Science Education. Vol.13, No.4,
373-389.
Liem, T. L. (1991): Invitations to Science Inquiry. California: Science Inquiry Enterprises.
Locke, E., Latham, G.(1984). Gola setting: A motivational technique that work.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McCann, W. S. (1999): A science fair companion. Eric Digest. ED432455.
National Science Education Standards(1996).National Academy Press:Washington, DC,
P.20。
Northen, H. (1988). Social work with groups (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University
press.
Pirece, W.(1998). Link Learning to Lads. Science Scope. PP.17-19
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of
a Scintific Conception: Toward a Theory of conceptual change. Science Education,
66, PP.211-227.
Priestley, Priestley , and Schmuckler, and Hilosky, Sutman and Wang(1997). Science
laboratory Instruction: Summary of Findings and Implications from Four Companion
Studies .NARST ERIC:ED406164
Priestley, Priestley , and Schmuckler, and Hilosky, Sutman and Wang(2000). Science
Laboratory Instruction : Summary of Findings and Implications from Four
Companion Studies. Paper presented at National Assocation for Research in Science
Teaching, ED406164.
Rath, A. & Brown, D. E. (1996). Modes of engagement in science inquiry: A mcroanalysis
of elementary students’ orientations toward phenomena at a summer science camp.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1083-1097.
Reid, K. E.(1997). Social Work Practice with Groups: A Clinlcal Perspective. 劉曉春、張
意真譯:社會團體工作。台北市:揚智出版社。
Reiner, M. & Gilbert, John (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation
in science learning. International Journal of Science Education. Vol.22, No.5, PP.
489-506.
Reiner, M.(1998). Thought Experiments and collaborative learning in physics.
International Journal of Science Education. Vol.20, , pp.1049-1058
Schmidt,A.(1989). Der Begriff der nature in der lehre von marx. 沈力譯:馬克斯的自
然概念。台北市:結構群文化事業有限公司。
Senge P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline-The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. Bardon-Media Agency. 郭進隆譯:第五項修練- 學習型組織的藝
術與實務。台北市:天下文化。
Shepardson, D. (1997). The Nature of Student Thinking in Life Science laboratories.
School Science and Mathematics,Vol.97(1).
Sorensen, R. (1992): Thought Experiments. N. Y. :Oxford University Press.
Sstrike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In D. A.
Duschl & R.J. Hamiton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, Cognitive psychology and
educational theory and practice(99147-176). Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Syer, C. A. & Shore, B. M. (2001). Science fair :What are the source of help for students
and how prevalent is cheating? School Science and Mathenatics,Vol.101(4),
pp.206-220.
Tyler, R. W.(1949). Principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of
Chicago.
Volkmann, M. J. & Eichinger, D. C. (1999). Habit of Mind: Integrating the Social and
Personal characteristics of Doing Science Into the Science Classroom. School Science
and mathematics. Vol.99(3).
White, R. T. (1996). The Link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of
Science Education. 18(7), PP.761-774.
Wilson, J. T.(1993). Using Three types of Outcomes to design Laboratory Activity. School
Science and Mathematics. Vol.93(8).
Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach(1996). Development Self-Regulated Learners.林心
茹譯,自律學習。台北市:遠流出版社。