學生在國中階段第一次接受正式力學課程。本研究旨在調查接受力學課程後的學生，所具有的「牛頓力學」概念認知情形。並針對學生的迷思概念，探究其背後的概念建構模式。近年來，許多國內外科教研究者針對特定學科深入探討學生們的另有架構，發現他們在「力與運動」方面存在最多的迷思概念，因為學生會以生活中對運動的原有概念作為學習力學的基礎。。
本研究的方法包含紙筆測驗及半結構式晤談。先針對國二至高二的613位學生實施「力學概念評量」（Force Concept Inventory，FCI），觀察不同階段的學生對「牛頓力學」概念的發展情形；並將此FCI評量結果作為本研究中另一份自行研發試題「國中力學概念評量」JMCI（Junior Mechanics Concept Inventory，JMCI）的參考。
JMCI評量試題完全以現行國中力學課程為範圍，參考FCI題目的精神及評量結果設計而成。以學校段考方式實施，對台北市某公立國中國三學後學生394人進行JMCI評量，之後並與當中76位學生進行晤談。將所得評量結果與晤談資料進行量與質的分析，深入了解學生對「力與運動」的想法。
本研究結果顯示：
一、受試者所持有的力學迷思概念與其它的相關研究結果非常類似。最嚴重的迷思情況是(約八成)學生認為「運動中的物體具有一沿運動方向的作用力（impetus）」。本研究中另外發現約七成的學生會以「最大靜摩擦力」的觀念來理解「摩擦力」；約四成的學生認為「靜止在地面上的物體受有摩擦力」；當要推動靜止物體時，外力必須克服此「物體與地面間的摩擦力」，但若要推動物體前進，則所施的外力除需抵銷「物體與地面間的摩擦力」外，還要克服「物體本身的重力」；惟有如此，物體才能移動。
二、藉由JMCI與FCI評量結果配合晤談資料的綜合分析，本研究將學生的力學概念建構模式分為七類，而這七類概念建構模式與概念評量題目的難易度及鑑別度間存在著良好的配合。此分類模式可作為老師們日後在了解學生概念建構與評量概念選題時的一個參考。
三、透過不同階段學生的FCI評量結果發現：普遍來說，愈高年級的學生其力學概念也愈健全，但進步的部份幾乎集中在各階段高分組（評量成績的前27﹪）的學生身上，低分組（評量成績的後27﹪）的學生在力學基本概念的進展上可說是微乎其微。顯示現今的教學方式應更加強了解低分組學生的概念迷思，秉持「有教無類」的精神，達到「因材施教」的效果！
四、本研究將FCI的評量結果與文獻中美國高中與大學生的資料相比較，發現我們中學生在力學基礎概念的表現優於國外的學生。但是否代表未來能有較優異的科學成就? 值得有心者共同來關心這樣議題。

The main purpose of this study is to investigate conceptual development of force and motion for junior high school students after they have learned Newtonian mechanics. Many researches have investigated rather intensively related students’ conceptions development: Students are rather egocentrism, and their concepts structures are quite different from teachers’ and scientists’ structure, especially in mechanics. Because kinematics concepts are basic concepts of “force and motion”, researches found that students have most different alternative frameworks about “force and motion”.
Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is a popular tool to probe student’s concept structure for university or high school students. We also applied it to 613 students, range from 8th to 11th grade, to probe subject’s reasoning on “force and motion” in Newtonian mechanics. With collected data and review articles, we develop Junior Mechanics Concept Inventory (JMCI). JMCI is designed with similar goals as FCI, force students to make choice between Newtonian concepts and commonsense alternatives, but specify for our junior high school students. JMCI post-test was administered to 394 subjects after they have learned Newtonian mechanics, and 76 students were interviewed after right after the test. Data from paper -and-pencil test and interviews were carefully studied to find out students’ misconceptions.
Many of our results support studies from previous research, especially about students’ misconception in “ impetus”, i.e. “There is a force action on an object to keep it in constant motion”. Our new findings are: Almost 70% students treat an object’s friction as “object’s maximum static friction”; About 40% students think “An object remains at rest horizontally is subject to friction”, they consider “A force applied by an external agent to push the object “forward ” must overcome the “friction force” and “gravitation force”.
We categorize our test items into seven styles, in term of students’ concept structure, and found “ difficulty index and discrimination index” for those items fit into the same style almost fit within the same range. Researchers might find it helpful to design or select item problems from test bank according to our category if they want to probe students conceptual understanding in basic mechanics.
Our study have shown that: current instruction in “force and motion” do promote top 27% students substantial progress in conceptual understanding, but almost nothing happened for bottom 27% students. We should do more help those students below average.
Compared with FCI test results for students in the U.S., our students in Taiwan do have much better test score: Our top 27% students’ in high school have higher average score than university physics students in the U.S. However, “Will our students have better science achievements in the future?”, is a good topic for further research..

u 英文部份
1. Adams, J. P. & Slater, T. F. (1997). Student-supplied rationale for multiple-choice responses on the force concept inventory,
http://www.physics.Montana.edu/physed/documents/FCI-rationable.pdf
2. Aderson, R. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise：general dicussion of the conference, In R. Aderson, R. Spiro and W. Montague (eds.), Schooling and Acquisition of Knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology：A Cognitive View(2nd ed.), New York：Holt, Rinehart and Winston
4. Brown, D. E. (1987). Using analogy and example to help students overcome misconceptions in physics：a comparison of two teaching strategies, Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts
5. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education, Cambrige, Mass：Harvard University Press
6. Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M. & Green, B. (1981). Native beliefs in sophisticated subjects：Misconception about Trajectories of objects, Cognition, 9, 117
7. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood, Cambridge：MIT University Press
8. Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E. & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics, Am. J. Phys, 48, 1074
9. Champagne, A. B. & Klopfer, L. E. (1982). A causal model of students’ achievement in a college physics course, J. Res. Sci. Teach, 19, 299
10. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ Preconception in introductory mechanics, Am. J. Phys, 50(1), 66
11. diSessa, A. (1982). Knowledge in pieces. A study of knowledge –based learning, Cognitive Science, 6, 37
12. diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognition and instruction, 10(2ſ), 105
13. Driver, R. (1981). Pupils alternative framework in science, European Journal of Education, 3(1), 93
14. Driver, R. & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action：some theoretical and empirical issues on the study of student’s conceptual frameworks in science, Studies in Science Education, 10, 37
15. Driver, R. (1984). Cognitive psychology and pupils’ alternative framework in mechanics, In Lijnse (ed.), Proceeding of a conference on physics education, Utrech-the Netherland
16. Finegold, M. & Gorsky, P. (1991). Student’s concepts of force as applied to related physical systems：A search for consistency, Int.J.SCI.EDEU,13(1),97
17. Fuschini, et. (1984). The Conditions of Learning (2nd Ed.), New York：Holt, Rinehart, and Winston
http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~tsang/TsangProposal.pdfGagne,R.M.(1970).
18. Gilbert, J. K. (1982).
http://www.clab.edc.uoc.gr/tsag/PUBL/ ESERA%201999%20b071-tsa.pdf
19. Gilbert, J. K. & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconception and alternative framework：changing perspectives in science education, Studies in Science Education, 10, 61
20. Gilber, J. K. & Watts, D. M. (1983). Enhancing Learning Through Conceptual Change Teaching
http://www.educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/research/concept.htm
21. Griffiths, D. (1997). Millikan Lecture 1997:Is there a text in this class? , Am. J. Phys, 65,1141
22. Gunstone, R. & White, R. (1981). Understanding of gravity. Science Education, 65(3), 291
23. Gunstone, R. & Watts, D. M. (1985). Force and Motion, Children’s Ideas in Science, 85
24. Hake, R. R. (1987). Promoting student crossover to the Newtonian world, Am. J. Phys, 55(10), 878, October
25. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement verse traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys, 66(1), 64
26. Halloun, I. A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students, Am. J. Phys, 53, 1043
27. Halloun, I. A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion, Am. J. Phys, 53, 1056
28. Helm, H. (1980). Misconception in physics amongst South African students, Phys. EDUC, 15, 92
29. Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teacher, 30, 141
30. Hestense, D. & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test, Phys. Teacher, 30, 159
31. Hestenes, D. & Halloun, I. A. (1995). Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teacher, 33, 502
32. Hestenes, D. (1998). Who needs Physics Education Research?, Am. J. Phys, 66, 465
33. Huffman, D. & Heller, P. (1995). What Does the Force Concept Inventory Actually Measure? , Phys. Teacher, 33, 138
34. Joel Klammer Teachers College (1998). An Overview of Twachiques for Indertifying, Acknowledging and Overcoming Alternate in Physics Education, Clumbia University 1997/ 98Klingenstein Project Prof. Pearl Rock Kane May 15
35. Kuiper, J. (1994). Student ideas of science concepts: Alternative frameworks? , http://planck.phys.uwosh.edu/lattery/_docs/art_spring.pdf
36. McDermott, L. C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics, Physics Today, 37(7), 24
37. McCloskey, M. , Caramazza, A. & Green, B. (1980).Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces, Science, 210,1139
38. McCloskey, M. (1983). Native theories of motion, In D Gentner and A Stevens (eds) , Mental Models. Hillsdle, NJ : Erlbaum, 299
39. Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the 'At Rest' Condition of an Object, Phys. Teacher, 20,10
40. Neisser, U. (1981)
http://cognition.iig.uni-freiburg.de/teaching/ veranstaltungen/ws00/kw1/kw1-02bho.PDF
41. Nielsen, H.J. & Thomsen, N. (1984). imv. au. dk/smu/hjarvard/8.html
42. Osborne, R. J. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science：A generative process, Science education, 67,489
43. Pella, E. (1975).
http://www.heritage.vic.gov.au/pdfforms/ german_report_Pages_41-6.pdf
44. Peter, P. C. (1982). Even honors students have conceptual difficulties with physics. Am. J. Phys, 50(6), 501
45. Pfundt, F. & Duit, R. (1991). Bibliography：Students’ alternative frameworks and science education.(3ded.), Keil, West Germany: IPN.
46. Piaget, J. (1969). The child's conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, & Co.
47. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientic conception：toward a theory of conceptual change, Science education , 66(2), 211
48. Rebello, N. S. & Zollman, D. A. The Effect of Distracters on Student Performance on the Force Concept Inventory.
49. Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M. & Steinberg, R. N. (1997). The Distribution and Change of Student Expectations in Introductory Physics, Am. J. Phys. 65, 45
50. Sandanand, N. & Kess, J. (1990). Concepts in Force and Motion, Phys. Teacher, 11, 530
51. Saul, J. M., Saul, J. M. & Redish, E. F. (1998). Evaluation of the Workshop Physics Dissemination Project, U. of MD preprint, April 1998
52. Sjoberg, S. & Lie, S. (1981). Ideas about force and movement among Norwegian pupils and students. Report 81, Institute of Physics Report Series, University of Oslo.
53. Steinberg, R. N. & Sabella, M. S. (1997). Performance on Multiple-Choice Diagnostics and Complementary Exam Problems, Phys. Teacher, 35, 105
54. Thagard, P. (1992). Conception revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
55. Trowbrige, D. & McDermott, L. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension, Am. J. Phys, 48(12), 1020
56. Trowbrige, D. & McDermott, L. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension, Am. J. Phys, 49(3), 1020
57. Updated FCI available at: http://modeling.asu.edu.
58. Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics, European Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 205
59. White, et. (1983). http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Ashman2/Ashman81.html
60. Yates, et. (1988).
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/wisc/documents/wisc-prue/18%20scfcp93sv%20vec.txt
u 中文部份
61. 王俊貴(民91)：國中學生力的概念學習狀況分析研究與建議。國立高雄師範大學物理學系研究所碩士論文
62. 王文科（民90）：教育研究法（第六版）。五南出版社
63. 全中平(民83)：師範學院學生對學習物理力學概念之分析研究。台北師院學報,第七期,481
64. 全中平(民90)：國民中小學學童在力學概念學習之研究---運動與力、力矩及能量(1),國科會專案計劃NSC89-2511-S-152-030
65. 任宗浩(民90)：不同階段和不同學習成就的中學生其力學概念組織之研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文
66. 吳相儒(民91)：國小學童學習分數概念時常見的迷思。翰林文教雜誌網路版,第廿四期
67. 吳慧娟(民90)：利用臨床晤談法探究國小二年級及五年級兒童之地心引力另有架構。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文
68. 李芳森(民91)：高職學生物理學科成就與邏輯推理能力相關之研究。省立臺灣民雄高級農工職業學校
69. 杜鴻模(民90)：中小學物理概念發展與個化單元教學的理論與實務研究：力與運動。國科會專案研究NSC89-2511-S-017-039
70. 周承岡(民91)：發展紙筆測驗以探究高中生對牛頓運動定律之迷思概念。彰化師範大學物理學系在職進修專班碩士論文
71. 周啟、洪木利(民83)：我國學生質量及加速度概念發展與變項關係之研究(2)。83學年度科學教育專題研究計劃成果討論會摘要，國科會專題報告NSC82-0111-S110-007
72. 林組明(民91)：桃園地區國民小學六年級學生對有關摩擦力之概念研究。國立台北師範學院授數理教育研究所碩士論文
73. 張川木(民75)：大一、高三學生力學概念錯誤概念之研究。高師教研所碩士論文
74. 張川木(民89)：國中學生力學概念錯誤概念之研究。國科會專案研究NSC88-2511-S-110-002
75. 張文華(民85)：如何協助學生產生概念轉變。中部地區科學教育簡訊,第六期
76. 張世忠(民87)：社會建構教學與科學概念。教育資料與研究, 頁30-36
77. 張春興(民83)：教育心理學—三化取向的理論與實際。東華書局
78. 現行國中理化課本四冊第15、16章。(民87~90) 國立編譯館
79. 許育彰(民88)：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
80. 郭生玉(民74)：心理與教育測驗。精華書局
81. 郭茂男(民81)：力學錯誤概念之研究。嘉女學報,頁513
82. 郭重吉(民77)：從認知觀點探討自然科學的學習。教育學院學報,頁351-379
83. 郭重吉(民87)：概念改變的教學與研究-以數理科為例。國民中學學生概念學習學術研討會論文集
84. 郭重吉、江武雄、陳美玲、王春源(民84)：從建構主義的觀點探討國中理化教學之改進。彰化師大科學教育研究所
85. 郭重吉、吳武雄(民79)：利用晤談方式探查國中學生對重要物理概念的另有架構之研究(II)。
86. 郭重吉(民81)：從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的基礎。科學發展月刊,20(5),548
87. 陳文典(民80)：由物理概的演進看科學思想的本質。科教育月刊,137, 頁7
88. 陳宗彥(民91)：國小三至六年級學生對有關速率概念認知之研究。臺北市立師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文
89. 陳忠志(民76)：大一學生物理錯誤概念之研究(1)---力學錯誤概念。中華民國大學院校普通物理教學及實驗研究會論文集,頁62
90. 陳忠志(民90)：力學錯誤概念與教學成效之關係。翰林文教網,國中自然科學期刊,第三期,http://www.hle.com.tw/bookmark/nature/03/03-02.asp
91. 陳美月(民91)：台北市國民小學中年級兒童對物體運動快慢與力之間的另有概念分析。國立台北師範學院授數理教育研究所碩士論文
92. 陳素蓉(民91)：利用晤談方式探究國小低年級學童對運動與力另有概念之研究。國立台北師範學院授數理教育研究所碩士論文
93. 陳淑筠(民91)：國內學生自然科學迷思概念研究之後設研究。臺東師範學院教育研究所碩士論文
94. 陳瓊森(民87)：從建構主義觀點談概念形成及概念轉變。國民中學學生概念學習學術研討會論文集
95. 黃台珠(民73)：概念的研究及其意義。科學教育月刊,第六十六期,頁44
96. 黃湘武(民76)：學生推理能力與概念發展之研究。認知與學習第一次研討會論文
97. 黃湃翔(民88)：概念改變的教學模式。
98. 楊其安、郭重吉(民78)：利用臨床晤談探究國中學生對力學概念的另有架構。第五屆科學育學術研討會論文彙刊
99. 楊淑嬋(民91)：國民小學高年級學童對有關重力概念認知之分析研究。國立台北師範學院授數理教育研究所碩士論文
100. 劉明智(民79)：應用SAE模型探討國小學生力的概念發展。國立彰化師範大學,科學教育研究所碩士論文
101. 董正玲、郭重吉(民81)：利用晤談方式探究國小兒童運動與力概念的另有架構。科學教育,3,頁93
102. 鄭昭明(民68)：識繁寫簡---論漢字「書體」與「寫體」分開的可能性,華文世界,頁1
103. 鄭湧涇(民87)：概念學習研究對科學教學與師資培育的啟示。國民中學學生概念學習學術研討會論文集
104. 謝青龍(民84)：從迷思概念到另有架構的概念轉變。科學教育月刊,180,頁22
105. 鍾文勳(民91)：國民小學高年級學童對運動速率與力另有概念之研究。國立台北師範學院授數理教育研究所碩士論文
106. 襲充文、黃世琤、游寶達(民87~90)：基本力學概念心智模式發展與改變機制的探討。國科會專題報告NSC88-2511-S194-008