本研究使用問卷調查法，探討桃園縣八年級學生是否會因經驗的生物實驗頻率不同，而在生物學習成就上造成差異。研究為量化研究，研究對象為桃園縣的八年級學生，研究工具為「桃園縣99年度國中科學奧林匹亞競賽」的學生問卷與生物測驗成績。
研究結果發現：一、接受高生物實驗頻率的學生之生物學習成就，會顯著的高於接受低實驗頻率的學生。二、接受高生物實驗頻率的學生在回答不同認知類型(知識、理解和分析)的測驗題，其正確率皆會顯著的高於接受低實驗頻率的學生。三、越是同意做實驗有助於了解課本內容的學生，其學習成就會顯著的高於不同意做實驗有助於了解課本內容的學生。四、喜歡同一科目的學生中，接受高生物實驗頻率的學生，其生物學習成就會顯著的高於接受低實驗頻率的學生。
本研究建議，生物教師應善用學校的人力、財務和教育資本來提升學生進行實驗操作的機會，而教育當局應正視並慎思落實實驗教學的重要性。將來的研究方向可針對「教師特質」、「學校資源」對生物實驗教學的影響，做更進一步的深入分析。

The questionnaire investigation method was utilized in this study to survey the correlation between eight grade students’ biological achievements and biological experimental teaching in Taoyuan County. The study was a quantitative research, which based on the student questionnaire and biological test results from Junior Science Olympiad in Taoyuan County, 2010.
The major findings of this research were described as follows: (1) The students had high-frequency of biological experiments, their biological achievements would significantly higher than the students had low-frequency of biological experiments; (2) The students had high-frequency of biological experiments, their accuracy would significantly higher than the students had low-frequency of biological experiments, when they answered the different types of cognitive problems(knowledge, comprehension and application); (3) The students agreed to do biological experiments would contribute they to understand more textbook content, their biological achievements would significantly higher than the students whom disagreed that. (4) The students liked the same subject who had high-frequency of biological experiments, his/her biological achievements would significantly higher than the students had low-frequency of biological experiments.
There were some suggestions after this research that may offer to current and future education systems and researchers. Biological teachers should properly utilize human, financial and educational capitals in the school to enhance students’ opportunity to learn by experiment. Current board of education should carefully consider the importance of implementing experiment teaching. As for future researchers, the aims or the objectives of research could focus on the characteristics of teachers and school resources analysis how they affect the teaching of biological experiments.

一、中文文獻
王以德 (1992)：我國國中生邏輯思考與科學過程技能之研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
林陳涌、童麗珠 (2000)：生物實驗教學能力重要性評估比較研究。師大學報：科學教育類，45(2)，21-38。
邱皓政 (2005)：量化研究法(二)-統計原理與分析技術。台北：雙葉書廊有限公司。
洪信德 (2001)：國小五、六年級學童統整科學過程技能心智模式之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
傅粹馨 (1996)：事後比較的方法。教育學刊，12，149-174。
楊寶山 (2008)：科學課程學業成就調查的核心內容。亞太科學教育論壇，第九期，第一冊，前言。
鄭湧涇、楊坤原 (1995b)：對生物學的態度量表之發展與效化。科學教育學刊：3(2)，189-212。
蕭次融 (1998)：簡易減壓過濾法。科學教育月刊，第208期，40-41。
蘇育任 (1996)：探討PAC模式 ─ 自然科學實驗評量新方法。測驗統計年刊，第四輯，179-194。
鐘建坪 (2009)：實驗教學及其策略。北縣教育，第68期，90-92。
二、英文文獻
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). Ataxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY:Longman, Green.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, HandbookⅠ: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman, Green.
Boud, D.(1995). Assessment and learning: contradicting or complementary. In: Knight, P. (Ed.) Assessment for learning in higher education. London. Kogan Page, 35-48.
Brookhart, S. M. (2001). Successful students’ formative and summative uses of assessment information. Assessment in Education, 8, 153-169.
Brown, M. B., & Forsythe, A. B. (1974). Robust tests for equality of variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 364-367.
Burns, J. C. et al. (1983). Teaching science through discovery. (6th ed.) London: Merrill Publishing Company.
Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction style. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 543-547.
Faraday, M. (1974). Chemical Manipulation, Appliance Science Publishers. Ltd., London.
Ganiel, U. & Hofstein, A. (1982). Objective and continuous assessment of students performative in the physics laboratory. Science Education, 66(4), 581-591.
Gardner, H. (1991). The useschool mind. Basic book, a division of Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
Gronlund, N. E. (1982). Constructing achievement tests. (3rded.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.
Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201-217.
Hofstein, A., Levy Nahum, T., & Shore, R. (2001). Assessement of the learning environment of inquiry-type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environmemts Research, 4, 193-207.
Jenkins, E. W. (1999). Practical work in School Science. In: Leach, J. & Paulsen, A. (Eds). Practical Work in Science Education: Recent Research Studies. Roskilde. Roskilde University Press.
Johnstone, A. H. & Letton, K. M. (1989). Why do paractical work? A Reseacher’s point of view. Kemie – Kemi, 16(2).
Johnstone, A. H. & Wham, A. J. B. (1982). The demands of practical work, Education in Chemistry, 19(3), 71-73.
Kruskal, W.H., & Wallis W. A. (1952). Use of Ranks in One-Criterian Variance Analysis. Journal of the America Statistical Association, 47, 583-621.
Lazarowiz, R. & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In: Gabel D. (Ed.). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. NY. Macmillan, 94-128.
Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and centers for contemporary teaching. In: Fraser, B. J. & Tobin, K. G. (Eds). International handbook of science education. Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mattheis, F. E. & Nakayama, G. (1988). Development of the performace of process skills(POPS) test for middle grades students. ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO.ED305252.
NSTA, Nation Science Teachers Association (2006). NSTA position statement – The Integral Role of Laboratory Investigations in Science Instruction Retrieved March 8, 2009, from http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=16
Ottander, C. & grelsson, G. (2005). Teachers’ view of learning outcome and assessment of laboratory work in Swedish upper secondary biology classes. In: Ergazaki, M., Lewis, J. & Zogza, V. (Eds). Trends in biology education research in the new biology era. Patras. Patras University Press. 287-301.
Ottander, C. & Grelsson, G. (2006). Laboratory work: the teachers’ perspective. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 113-118.
Padilla, M. J., Okey, J. R. & Dillashaw, F. G. (1983). The relationships between science process skill and formal thinking abilities. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 17, 185-190.
Psillos, D. & Niedderer, H. (2002). Issues and questions regarding the effectiveness of labwork. In: Psillos, D. & Niedderer, H.(Eds). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publ, 21-30.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G. & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29, 4-14.
Tamir, P. (1976). The role of the laboratory in science teaching. Technical Report, Science Education Center, The University of lowa.
Tamir, P. (1977). How are the laboratories used. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 311-316.
Tamir, P. (1989). Training teachers to teach effectively in the laboratory. Science Education, 73, 59-69.
Tobin, K. G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better question and answers to improve learning. School science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403-418.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D. & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational research, 84(1), 30-43.
Welch, W. W. (1985). Research in science education: review and recommendation. Science Education, 69(3), 421-448.
Yager, R. E. (1990). The Science/Technology/Society Movement in the United States: Its Origin, Evolution, Rationale. Social Education, 54, 198-201.