光合作用在生物科學上有其重要性，因此，一直被視為生物課程中的主要議題之一，以我國九年一貫課程為例，其亦被列入相關的課程綱要中。然而，光合作用因其所具備的概念面向相當地多，且囊括許多與日常生活經驗不同的概念，因此，學童往往僅將之直接納入既有的概念體系中而非去理解它，因而產生許多迷思概念，故光合作用一直以來被認為是學生最困難學習的主題之一，且為科學教育研究者長期關注探究的焦點。本研究以文獻所提及之學童普遍存有的光合作用迷思概念為依據，並參考Mikkilä-Erdmann ( 2001)設計概念改變文本的論點以及動態評量的理論為基礎，來發展出一個概念改變教材設計模式(Conceptual Change Material Development Model, CCMD Model)，並實際應用該模式來發展數位學習教材，用以輔助國小六年級學童於光合作用概念上的學習。

本研究為考驗CCMD Model所發展之光合作用數位教材的效益，採用準實驗設計，將四所公立國民小學八個班級共232位六年級學童，以班為單位，隨機編派到四個研究組別—「概念改變教材設計含動態評量組(CCM+D組)」、「傳統教材設計含動態評量組(TM+D組)」、「概念改變教材設計但不含動態評量組(CCM組)」與「傳統教材設計但不含動態評量組(CCM組)」。在進行為期兩週的自由學習之後，比較四組不同數位學習教材設計模式學童之學習效益、概念改變與學習感受的情形。此外，也將從先備知識的角度，來探究學童之先備知識對其在不同數位教材設計模式下的學習影響。

本研究的具體發現如下：
1.採用CCMD Model—概念改變教材含動態評量的設計模式來開發數位教材，有助於國小六年級學童進行光合作用概念的學習。數位教材採用概念改變之設計模式的學習效益較傳統設計模式佳，且數位教材中若包含動態評量的設計將具有更好的學習效益。
2.數位學習環境中融入概念改變數位教材的設計，對於學童在「光合作用的必要條件」與「光合作用在生態上的意義」概念上的學習較有助益，但若能同時融入動態評量的策略，則能達到更好的學習效益；而動態評量的設計則對「光合作用的意義」、「光合作用的場所」、「光合作用的原料」與「光合作用的產物」概念上的學習幫助較大。
3.學童在進行光合作用單元的學習之前即持有相當多的迷思概念，經過教學之後，以CCMD Model所開發之數位教材較能協助學童改善其迷思概念，傳統數位教材含動態評量之設計模式與僅含概念改變數位教材之設計模式，雖也能協助學童改善部分迷思概念，但效益不如前者，而僅含傳統數位教材之設計模式的學童，經學習後於光合作用之迷思概念上的改善狀況最差。概念改變數位教材對於「光合作用的意義」、「光合作用的場所」與「光合作用的產物」之迷思概念的改善較有幫助，而動態評量則對於「光合作用的必要條件」與「光合作用的原料」之迷思概念的改善較有幫助。
4.CCMD Model所開發之數位學習環境包含概念改變數位教材與動態評量兩大部分。透過學童們在動態評量上的作答表現可以發現到，相較於傳統數位教材設計而言，本研究所設計之光合作用的概念改變數位教材，對於學童進行光合作用概念的學習具有良好之輔助成效。同時，動態評量所提供之漸進式提示也能協助學童學習光合作用的概念並修正錯誤的想法。
5.學童之先備知識與其學習效益間具有顯著正相關(r=0.633, p<0.01)；先備知識成績屬於高分群者與中分群者學童之學習效益，顯著優於先備知識屬於低分群者，因此，學童的先備知識對其概念學習具有重要影響。
6.從數位教材設計模式的角度來探討其對於不同先備知識學童之學習影響，則可以發現，數位學習環境中融入動態評量的設計，對於先備知識屬於高分群的學童而言，較能輔助其學習效益；對於先備知識屬於低分群的學童而言，動態評量雖能輔助其學習效益，但仍需要搭配上概念改變教材的設計，方能達到較佳的學習成效。另外，相較於傳統教材設計模式的數位學習環境中，具有概念改變教材設計模式的數位學習環境，較能提供不同先備知識層次學童有較多的學習機會。
7.不同數位教材設計模式的學童，多對於採用電腦學習自然與生活科技課程持有正向的態度；利用電腦上課的方式，不但讓學童更具正向的學習態度、更重視於完成課堂上的活動外，教材中的各項設計與表徵也更能促進學童的學習。另外，CCM+D組與TM+D組學童多對於數位教材設計模式中所包含之網路動態評量的漸進式提示設計具有正向的態度，且認為該設計猶如隨侍在旁的家教老師，在其做錯時給予適切的輔助與指引，促進更主動地進行光合作用概念的學習。

In Biological Science, the concept of photosynthesis is very important and therefore has long been regarded as a main topic in biological courses. In the Nine-Year Compulsory Curriculum of Taiwan, it is also included in the related course scheme. However, since the concept of photosynthesis involves various other concepts and many of them are different from daily life experiences, students tend to incorporate it into the current concept system, instead of trying to comprehend it. This leads to many misconceptions and makes photosynthesis viewed as one of the topics most difficult for students to learn. This problem receives continuous attention of science education researchers. Based on the related literature about students’ common misconceptions of photosynthesis, this study devises a Conceptual Change Material Development model (CCMD Model) and applies it to develop digital learning materials. The development of the CCMD model takes as main reference Mikkilä-Erdmann’s (2001) design theory about changing texts and dynamic assessment. The learning materials developed are used to assist elementary school sixth graders’ learning of the concept about photosynthesis.

To examine the effectiveness of the digital learning materials developed under the CCMD model, this study conducts quasi-experiments. 232 sixth graders from six different classes in four public elementary schools are randomly divided into four groups. Each class is taken as a unit, which means students from the same class always belong to the same group. The four groups are: “Conceptual Change Material with Dynamic Assessment (CCM+D) group,” “Traditional Material with Dynamic Assessment (TM+D) group,” “Conceptual Change Material without Dynamic Assessment (CCM) group” and “Traditional Material without Dynamic Assessment (TM) group.” After two weeks of free learning, it is examined how the different development models of digital learning materials influence the four groups of students’ learning effectiveness, conceptual changes and learning feelings. Moreover, how students’ prior knowledge influences their learning under different development models of digital learning materials is also investigated.
The research results are as the following:
1. Using CCMD model to develop digital learning materials can effectively assist elementary school sixth graders’ learning about the concept of photosynthesis the most. The digital learning materials developed under the CCM model also lead to better learning effectiveness than those developed under the traditional development model. However, the incorporation of dynamic assessment leads to even better effectiveness.
2. When digital learning environment incorporates the learning materials developed under the conceptual change models, students learn more effectively about the concepts of “the prerequisites of photosynthesis” and “the ecological significance of photosynthesis.” If the strategy of dynamic assessment is also included in, students’ learning effectiveness can be further improved. The design of dynamic assessment is especially effective in assisting students’ learning of “the significance of photosynthesis,” “the locations of photosynthesis,” “the raw materials of photosynthesis,” and “the productions of photosynthesis.”
3. Before students learn about photosynthesis, they are equipped with many misconceptions. After learning, the digital learning materials developed under the CCMD model can better assist them to change these misconceptions. Although the TM+D model and CCM model can also assist students to change part of the misconceptions, their effectiveness is not as good as the CCMD model. The digital learning materials developed under the TM model is the least effective. The conceptual change learning materials are more effective in changing students’ misconceptions about “the significance of photosynthesis,” “the locations of photosynthesis,” and “the productions of photosynthesis,” while dynamic assessment is more effective in changing the misconceptions about “the prerequisites of photosynthesis” and “the raw materials of photosynthesis.”
4. The digital learning environment developed under the CCMD model includes two main elements: conceptual change digital learning materials and dynamic assessment. Students’ performance in dynamic assessment prove that in comparison with the traditional digital leaning material design, the conceptual digital learning materials developed in this study can better assist students to learn effectively the concept about photosynthesis. Moreover, the progressive hints provided in the dynamic assessment can assist students to learn the concept about photosynthesis and modify their original misconceptions.
5. The relation between students’ prior knowledge and their learning effectiveness is positive (r=0.633, p<0.01). The learning effectiveness of the students who score high and who score middle in the prior knowledge test is better than that of those who score low. In short, students’ prior knowledge is closely related to their concept learning.
6. When the digital learning environment includes the design of dynamic assessment, it can better assist the learning of the students who score high in the prior knowledge test. Although it can also assist the learning of the students who score low in the prior knowledge test, better learning effectiveness can only be achieved when the design of conceptual change learning materials is also incorporated. Moreover, compared with the traditional learning material design, the design of conceptual change learning material can provide students of different prior knowledge levels with more learning opportunities when included in the digital learning environment.
7. Most students in the four groups hold positive attitudes towards the computer-assisted learning in Science and Life Technology course. Computer-assisted learning can help students cultivate more positive learning attitudes and motivate them to finish the in-class activities. The various designs in the learning materials can also improve their learning. The students of CCM+D group and TM+D group tend to hold positive attitudes towards the design of progressive hints in the online dynamic assessment. They think this design resembles a tutor always by their side, offering proper assistance and guidance when they answer wrongly and prompting them to be more actively engaged in the learning.

一、中文文獻
王子華(2005)。建構網路評量系統發展生物科職前教師評量素養。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，彰化縣。
李金泉(2001)。非同步式網路輔助教學之研究—以技職校院工業安全課程為例。國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系博士論文，未出版，彰化縣。
邱美虹(2000)。概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊，8卷，1期，頁1-34。
吳沂木(2004)。資訊科技融入「自然與生活科技」的3D 虛擬實境教學之探究—以電與磁教學為例。國立台南大學自然科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
吳麗娟(2002)。國小五年級學童光合作用迷思概念之探討。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東縣。
余淑君(2001)。以動態評量探究國小五年級學童酸鹼概念的概念改變機制。國立臺北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
林勇成(2002)。網路虛擬實驗室在國小自然領域較學之學習成效影響研究。國立台南師範學院教師在職進修資訊碩士學位班碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
林家平(2001)。國小學童光合作用概念之分析研究。國立臺北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
林菁、鍾如雅和陳雅萍(2006)。網路教學中學生特質與選課動機和學習成效之研究。教育資料與圖書館學。43卷，4期，頁413-433。
林獻升、顧文欣、薛靜瑩、林陳涌(1999)。國一學生對植物行呼吸作用之了解個案研究。科學教育。216期，頁48-55。
耿筱曾和陳淑蓉(2005)。以後設認知為基礎之動態評量（MBDA）探究國小三年級學童空氣概念的概念改變機制。國立臺北教育大學學報，18卷，2期，123-156。
耿筱曾和蕭建嘉(2002)。以概念構圖的動態評量(CMDA)探討國小高年級學童「地球運動」的概念改變。國立臺北師範學院學報，15卷，2期，123-156。
郭玉純(2005)。電腦化動態評量在國小六年級學童的梯形學習之應用與比較研究。國立台中師範學院教育測驗統計研究所教學碩士論文，未出版，台中市。
郭惠芳（2003）。國小四年級學童光合作用的概念及其概念改變情形之個案研究。臺中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。
許家驊、邱上真和張新仁 (2003)。多階段動態評量對國小學生數學學習促進與補救效益之分析研究。教育心理學報，35卷，2期，141-166。
教育部全球資訊網(2007)。TESEC國教社群網—九年一貫課程生活與自然科技學習領域。來源：http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC/fields/2003/natureScience-source.php
陳嘉成(2001)。以動態評量AIMS模式探究國小學童光合作用概念的改變。國立臺北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
陳銹陵(2007)。鷹架類型與先備知識對高職生乙級電腦軟體應用檢定課程之成效探討。資訊教育學系在職進修碩士班碩士論文，未出版：台北市。
莊麗娟(2003)。動態評量理論與教學應用。張新仁主編，學習與教學新趨勢。台北市：心理出版社。
黃佳杏(2007)。從突現過程本體面向探討生物恆定性概念改變－以七年級學生為例。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所在職進修碩士班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
湯幸娟(2007)。教學模式與認知風格對國小學童網路學習之成效分析。彰化師範大學生物學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版，彰化縣。
賈本惠(2001)。國小五年級學童光合作用概念改變教學策略之研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東縣。
裘維鈺(1995)。國小學童植物概念極其相關迷思概念之探究。國立臺中師範學院初等教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。
經濟部工業局(2007)。各國數位學習產業推動政策研究報告。數位學習產業推動與發展計畫產業政策與人才培育分項計畫。來源：http://www.elearn.org.tw/eLearn/download/sp7/ResearchRpt_SP7_921110_2.pdf
葉艷靜(2003)。網路學習（e-Learning）環境對國中生學習生物之成效分析─以生物界。彰化師範大學生物學系碩士班碩士論文，彰化縣。
熊召弟、王美芬、段曉林和熊同鑫譯(S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton著) (1996)。科學學習心理學。台北市：心理出版社。
劉家成(2002)。以動態評量探究國中學生浮力概念的心智模式及概念改變之歷程。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
蔡清文(2006)。先備知識與不同程度線索對於程式語言陣列結構之學習成效探討。資訊教育學系在職進修碩士班碩士論文，未出版：台北市。
顏麗娟(2003)。國小學童植物概念之研究。國立臺北市立師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。

二、英文文獻
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science).(1998). Blueprints for reform: science, mathematics, and technology education. Oxford University Press. NY.
Andersson B.R., (1990), Pupils’ conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12-16). Studies in Science Education, 18, 53-85.
Arnon, D. I. (1982). Sunlight, earth life the grand design of photosynthesis, The Science, 22(7), 22-27.
Bayraktar, S. (2001). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 173-188.
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A.L. (1985). Dynamic assessment: One approach and some initial data. Technical report No.361. Nation Inst. of Child Health and Human Development, Washington, DC.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED26973).
Campbell, N. A. & Reece, J. B. (2005). Biology(7th ed.). San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings.
Cañal, P.(1999). Photosynthesis and ‘inverse respiration’ in plants: an inevitable misconception?, International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 363-371.
Çepni, S., Taş, E., & Köse, S.(2006). The effects of computer-assisted material on students’ cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science, Computers & Education, 46, 192-205.
Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive Models of Science: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, (pp. 129-186). University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN.
Chi, M. T. H.(2005). Commonsense Conceptuals of Emergent Processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199.
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M. and Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design, Computers & Education, 43 (1-2), 17-33.
Egbert, J. & Thomas, M. (2001). The new frontier: A case study in applying instructional design for distance teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 391-405.
Eisen, Y., & Stavy, R. (1988). Students’ understanding of photosynthesis. The American Biology Teacher, 50, 208–212.
Flake, J. L. (2001). Teacher Education and the World Wide Web. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 43-61.
Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E. and Glass, G. V.(1992). Promoting conceptual change in science: Can texts be used effectively? Journal of Reading, 35(8), 642-649.
Hailikari, T., Nevgi, A., & Komulainen, E.(2008). Academic self-beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of student achievement in Mathematics: a structural model. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 59-71.
Haslam, F. & Treagust, D.F. (1987)。Diagnosing secondary students’ misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education, 21 (3), 203-211.
Hewson, M. G. (1985) The role of intellectual environment in the origin of conceptions: an exploratory study, Chapter 10 in West, Leo H. T., and Pines, A. Leon (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp.153-161). London: Academic Press Inc.
Marmaroti, P. & Galanopoulou, D. (2006). Pupils’ Understanding of Photosynthesis: A questionnaire for the simultaneous assessment of all aspects, International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 383–403.
Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2001). Improving conceptual change concerning photosynthesis through text design, Learning and Instruction, 11, 241-257.
Liao, Y-k, C. (2007). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on students’ achievement in Taiwan: A meta-analysis, Computers & Education, 48, 216-233.
Lockyer, L., Patterson, J., & Harper, B. (1999). Measuring Effectiveness of Health Education in a Web-based Learning Environment: a preliminary report. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(2), 233-247.
Özay, E. & Öztaş, H. (2003). Secondary students’ interpretations of photosynthesis and plant nutrition, Journal of Biological Education, 37(2), 68-70.
Ross, P., Tronson, D., & Ritchie, R. J. (2005). Modelling Photosynthesis to Increase Conceptual Uderstanding, Journal of Biological Education, 40(2), 84-88.
Ryan, M., Carlton, K. H., & Ali, N.S. (1999). Evaluation of Traditional Classroom Teaching Methods versus Course Delivery via the World Wide Web. Journal of Nursing Education, 38(6), 272-277.
Sibel, B., Jale, C., & Ceren, T. (2006). Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Extension, and Evaluation (5E) Learning Cycle and Conceptual Change Text as Learning Tools, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Education, 34(3), 199-203.
Smith, E. L. and Anderson, C. W. (1984). Plants as producers: a case study of elementary science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21 (7), 685-698.
Slotta, J. D. & Chi, M.T. H. (2006). The impact of ontology training on conceptual change: Helping students understand the challenging topics in science. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 261-289.
Solomon, J. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Constructivism. Studies in Science Education, 23, 1-19.
Stavy, R., Eisen, Y., & Yaakobi, D. (1987). How students aged 13-15 understand photosynthesis. International Journal of Science Education, 9(1), 105-115.
Thornton, M., A. Jefferies, I. Jones, J. Alltree and E. Leinonen（2004）. Changing pedagogy: Does the introduction of networked learning have an impact on teaching? Networed Learning Conference 2004, Symposium 8, April 5-7, Lancaster University, UK.
Treagust, D. F. & Haslam, F. (1986). Evaluating Secondary Students’Misconceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration in Plants Using aTwo-Tier Diagnostic Instrument.59th Annual Meeting of the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, California,March 28-31. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283713)
Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of student’s science knowledge. In S. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning Science in the Schools: Research Reforming Practice (pp.327-346). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction Quarterly, 4, 45-69.
Wood-Robinson, C. (1991). Young people’s ideas about plants. Studies in Science Education, 19, 119–135.
Wandersee, J. H. (1985). Can the History of Science Help Science Educators Anticipate Students’ Misconceptions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23 (7), 581-597.
Wang, T. & Andre, T. (1991). Conceptual change text and application questions versus no questions in learning about electricity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16 (2), 103-116.