本研究探討教授阿基米得原理與引導式發現教學法對學生學習浮力概念的成效。共有兩個學校6個國二班級193位學生參與研究，一間學校在台北縣市區、一間學校在桃園縣郊區。由兩位教師分別只教授課本教材（對照組）、以慣常使用的教學法但加入阿基米得原理教材（實驗A組）、使用引導式發現教學法且加入阿基米得原理教材（實驗B組）。每個班級均施以前測、後測，並蒐集學生的理化學期成績。前後測工具為研究者自行開發，經一位科學教育專家和三位國中理化科教師審查修正，前測信度α=.53，後測信度α=.71。所得資料除做描述統計，並做卡方考驗、變異數分析。研究發現學生有如下的七個迷思概念：1）單向誤用學到的浮力概念；2）只利用物體密度、體積、質量（重量）大小來判斷浮力大小，而忽略其它因素；3）只要同樣是沈體或浮體，不管物體在水中體積、液體密度如何變化，浮力就都一樣；4）沈體不受浮力；5）只注意到題目中的變化量來判斷浮力；6）物質的性質使浮力改變；7）浮力和物體與水的接觸面積有關。引導式發現教學法與融入阿基米得原理的教材對桃園縣的國中生學習浮力概念有顯著影響；但對台北縣的國中生無顯著影響。以後測成績分群，高、中、低分群學生經過教材與教法的改變後有較佳的進步。以理化學期成績分群，中、低分群學生經過教材與教法的改變後有較佳的進步。

Investigated were effects of teaching Archimedes principle and employing guided discovery pedagogy during teaching of buoyancy. One hundred and ninety-three students from six classes of two schools participated in this study. Two schools are located at Taipei county and Touyuan suburban area respectively. Six classes were assigned into three groups. For the controlled group the teaching materials within textbook were taught through didactic teaching method; for the experimental group A the Archimedes principle was taught additionally however, didactic teaching method was still applied; and for the experimental group B Archimedes principle was taught through guided discovery pedagogy. There were two teachers responsible for teaching of the three groups. All subjects completed pre- and post-test. The reliability (α) of pre- and post-test are .53 and .71 respectively. The results indicated that students had seven misconceptions as the following: 1) applied the buoyancy formula in a wrong way; 2) only thought of density, volume, and mass when judging the buoyancy; 3) no matter how liquid density and the volume of object within liquid were changed, the buoyancy of floating objects were always the same, so was the sinking object; 4) no buoyancy imposed on the sinking objects; 5) only pay attention to the variants listed in the item when estimating the buoyancy; 6) the property of objects could change buoyancy, just like salt could make buoyancy stronger or weaker; 7) the amount of area contact with liquid would change buoyancy. There was a significant difference (p<.05) in students’ understanding the buoyancy among three groups in Touyan school, however, not for students in Taipei school. Based on the post-test, all students in the experimental group B, no matter belonging to the high , middle, or low scores, had more improvement than other groups. When the grouping criteria was based on students’ physical science final scores of the semester, only middle and low scores’ students made more progress in the post-test.

江新合、許榮富、林寶山(1991)。我國學生自然科概念發展與診斷教學之研究;(1)中學生浮力相關概念發展及其相關迷思概念的分析研究。國科會專題研究報告:NSC 79-0111-S-017-07-D。
李秋萍（1999）。高雄市高中生學習新版數學教科書的成效探討。國立中山大學應用數學研究所碩士論文。
林福榮（2001）。高雄市國二學生浮力的另有概念研究。國立高學師範大學科學教育教育研究所碩士論文。
邱美虹（2000）。概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊, 8(1), 1-34。
張春興（1994）。教育心理學:三化取向的理論與實踐。台北市：臺灣東華出版社。
教學心理學-學習的認知基礎（岳修平譯）（2000）。台北市：遠流。（原著出版年1993）
莊麗娟（1999）。系統化多元評量模式之發展研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
許自由（2000）。澎湖地區國二學生對壓力的認知概念架構之分析研究。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
許良榮（1997）。科學課文結構對於科學學習的影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
許嘉玲(1997)。浮力學習之概念改變。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
郭重吉（1996）。從建構主義談數理師資培育的革新。科學發展, 24(7) , 555-562。
陳振威(1988)。學生概念生態組成因子之研究－以密度/浮沈概念為例。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文。
黃湘武、黃寶鈿(1986)。學生推理能力與概念發展之研究。認知與學習研討會專集。台北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
楊坤堂、陳錦雪（1998）。發現教學法在國小自然科原理原則學習上的應用。國教學報, 10, 197-216。
廖麗惠（2001）。以建構取向教學策略發展國小學生之科學推理。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
劉昭宏、郭重吉（1995）。教科書在國中理化教學中的應用之個案研究。科學教育（彰師大）, 6, 89-112。
蔡有財(1994)。從現象學本質建構學生建構浮力理解的心智模型。國立台灣師範大學物理研究所碩士論文。
蔡瑞琴（1998）。高中生物建構取向教學與學生參與情形之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
鍾聖校（1999）。自然與科技課程教材教法。台北市：五南圖書出版公司。
Arthur, A. C. & Robert, B. S. (1975). Teaching modern science. (2nd ed.) Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Arthur, A. C. & Robert, B. S. (1980). Discovery activities for elementary science. Columbus, Ohio : C. E. Merrill Publishers.
Arthur, A. C. (1997). Teaching science through discovery. Columbus, Ohio : C. E. Merrill Publishers.
Autran, D. M. & Rodrigues, V. P.(1980). Notion of Physical Laws in Childhood. Science Education, 64(1), 59-84.
Driver, R., Guesne, E. &Tiberghien ,A. （1985）. Children’s Ideas in Science. Milton Keynes Philadelphia : Open University Press.
Garry, R. H. & Marvin, N, T. (1999). Discovering elementary science method, content, and problem-solving activities. Boston : Allyn & Bacon.
Harlen, W. (1996). The teaching of science in primary schools. London : D. Fulton Publishers.
Head, J. (1986). Research into ‘alternative frameworks’: promise and problem. Research in Science & Technological Education, 4(2), 203-211.
Hewson, M. G. A’B. & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effects of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 731-743.
Hewson, M. G. A’B. (1986). The acquisition of scientific knowledge: Analysis and representation of student conceptions concerning density. Science Education, 70(2), 159-170.
Mullet, E.,& Montcouquiol, A. (1988). Archimedes’ effect, information integration and individual differences. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 285-301.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227
Raghavan, K , Sartoris, M. L.; & Glaser, R. (1998). Why Does It Go Up?The Impact of the MARS Curriculum as Revealed through Changes in Student Explanations of a Helium Balloon.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 547-567.
Rowell, J. A., & Dawson, C. J. (1977a). Teaching about floating and sinking: an attempt to link cognitive psychology with classroom practice. Science Education, 61, 243-251.
Rowell, J. A., & Dawson, C. J. (1977b). Teaching about floating and sinking: Further studies toward closing the gap between cognitive psychology and classroom practice. Science Education, 61, 527-540.
Treagust, D.F., Duit. R,& Fraser, B.J.(1996). Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics.New York : Teachers College Press.
Wandersee, J. H.,Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D.(1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science.In D. L. Gabel(Ed.), Handbook of research on science teahing and learning (pp. 177-204).Macmillan Publishing Company.