我國教育部於國中自然與生活科技領域及高中地球科學課程大綱分別訂定：「學生能應用所學於當前或未來的生活」、「學生能瞭解並初步應用地球科學的概念與法則」，而學生能有效應用所學於新情境中則賴於學習遷移，故學生的學習遷移表現為研究者所關心，依此本研究設計地球科學遷移測驗，並探討哪些為遷移測驗重要的影響因子？又阻礙遷移測驗表現的因子為何？其衍生的目的為：(一)探究影響高一學生在地球科學遷移測驗表現的相關因子。(二)依遷移測驗的表現將學生分群，用以探討各因子在不同類型學生間的差異。(三)觀察機械學習(記誦式的學習方式)是否為阻礙遷移發生的因素。

依研究目的自行發展三項測驗工具與使用兩項測驗工具，分別為「先備知識測驗」、「一般情境測驗」、「遷移情境測驗」、「地球科學段考」與「瑞文氏高級圖形推理測驗」，其中「一般情境測驗」之試題情境與我國中學地球科學教材內容類似(如月球對地表海水之引潮力>太陽對地表海水之引潮力)，「遷移情境測驗」則與教材情境迥異(如太陽對地表海水之引潮力>月球對地表海水之引潮力)。研究對象為台南市某公立高中一年級學生(n=186)，以Pearson相關、多元迴歸及魏氏考驗為分析方法，並以「遷移情境測驗」得分為依變項，另四項測驗得分為「自變項」，研究結果如下：

(一)研究發現「一般情境測驗」最能影響學生於「遷移情境測驗」的表現且達高度效果量。

(二)「一般情境測驗」與「遷移情境測驗」得分皆高於全體平均分數的學生，其另三項測驗的表現皆最佳；而相反的另一群學生在另三項測驗表現皆最差。

(三)研究發現部分學生於已習過相關概念的試題中，因機械學習而阻礙了遷移的發生，而尚未學習過相關概念的試題則無此現象。

In Taiwan, Ministry of Education provided the two curriculum guidelines for high school as "students will be able to apply what they have learned to current life or future" and "students will be able to understand and apply the concepts and principles of Earth Science." However, it depends on "transfer of learning" that students can apply what they have learned effectively in new contexts. Therefore, this study developed an Earth science transfer test for three purposes: (1) Exploring factors behind 10th grade students’ performance on an Earth Science transfer test. (2) Categorizing the students in accordance with their performance on an Earth Science transfer test for discussing the differences between each factor in different types. (3) Studying whether rote learning is a factor obstructing the generation of transfer.

According to the purposes as mentioned above, three test tools were developed, and two other test tools were used. They are the Prior Knowledge Test, the General Situation Test, the Transfer Situation Test, the Earth Science Periodical Exam and Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM). The test context of the General Situation Test, which we gave, is the same as the context of Earth Science teaching materials in Taiwan at high school level. (For example, the moon’s tide-generating force is greater than the sun’s tide-generating force.) In contrast, the test context of the Transfer Situation Test is different from the context of the teaching materials. (For example, the sun’s tide-generating force is greater than the moon’s tide generating force.)

In this study, participants are the 10th grade students of a national senior high school in Tainan (n=186). The Pearson product-moment correlation, multiple linear regression and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test have been used. The scores on the Transfer Situation Test was identified with a dependent variable in this study, and the scores on the other four tests were identified with independent variables. The research results are as follows:

(1) This study discovered that the General Situation Test has the greatest influence on students’ performance on the Transfer Situation Test, and a large effect size was reached.

(2) The students who get scores respectively on the General Situation Test and on the Transfer Situation test both higher than the mean scores get the best performance on the other three tests. The opposite group gets the lowest scores on the three tests.

(3) This study discovered that when part of students answered the questions which contain the main concepts they had ever learned, transfer was obstructed because of rote learning. However, when they answered the other question which contains the main concept they had not learned, there was no such a phenomenon.

1. Raven, J., Raven, J. C. & Court J. H. 原著，俞筱鈞 譯(1993)。瑞文氏圖形推理測驗系列指導手冊。台北市：中國行為科學社。
2. 吳佳玲(2001)。影響高一學生地球科學問題解決能力之相關變項探討。國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
3. 吳佳玲、張俊彥(2002)。高一學生地球科學問題解決能力與其先備知識及推理能力關係的初探研究。科學教育學刊，10(2)，135-156。
4. 吳明隆(2007)。SPSS統計應用學習實務-問卷分析與應用統計(第三版)。台北市：知城。
5. 林生傳(1999)。教育心理學。台北：五南。
6. 邱美虹、翁雪琴(1995)。國三學生「四季成因」之心智模式與推論歷程之探討。科學教育學刊，3(1)，23-68。
7. 教育部(2008)。97年國民中小學課程綱要。
8. 教育部(2009)。普通高級中學必修科目「基礎地球科學」課程綱要。
9. 張俊彥、翁玉華(2000)。我國高一學生的問題解決能力與其科學過程技能之相關研究。科學教育學刊，8，35-56。
10. 張俊彥、程上修(2000)。在地球科學課融入創造性問題解決及合作學習策略之初探研究。科學教育學刊，8，251-272。
11. 張俊彥、董家莒(2000)。「問題解決」或「無問題解決」？電腦輔助教學成效的比較研究。科學教育學刊，8(4)，357-377。
12. 張春興(1989)。張氏心理學辭典。台北市：東華書局。
13. 張春興(1991)。現代心理學。台北市：東華書局。
14. 張春興(1999)。教育心理學—三化取向的理論與實踐。台北市：東華書局。
15. 黃永和(1998)。遷移理論及其影響因素之探討。人文及社會學科教學通訊，9(2)，165-178。
16. 黃志雄(2006)。從學習遷移理論談障礙學生的類化能力與學習策略。特殊教育叢書9502－特殊教育現在與未來，91-102。國立台中教育大學特殊教育中心。
17. 黃茂在、陳文典(2004)。「問題解決」的能力。科學素養的內涵與解析。台北市：教育部。
18. 蔡福興、游光昭、蕭顯勝(2010)。影響數位遊戲式學習行為與學習遷移成效之因素探討。教育科學研究期刊，55(2)，167-206。
19. 蕭文峰、張德民、鍾靖良(2010)。程式語言背景知識之語法與用途對學習新程式語言之影響。資訊管理學報，17(3)，1-18。
20. 謝甫佩、洪振方(2003)。反思的學習策略對電磁改唸學習遷移的成效。師大學報科學教育類，48(2)，141-164。
21. 鍾聖校(1990)。科學教育研究。台北市：師大書苑。
22. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Aryal, B., & Zollman, D. (2007, August 1-2). Investigating Peer Scaffolding in Learning and Transfer of Learning Using Teaching Interviews. Paper presented at Physics Education Research Conference 2007, Greensboro, NC.
24. Barba, R. H. (1990). A comparison of expert and novice earth and space science teachers' problem solving abilities. Dissertation: The Pennsylvania State University.
25. Billing, D. (2007). Teaching for Transfer of Core/Key Skills in Higher Education: Cognitive Skills. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 53(4), 483-516.
26. Brainerd, C. T. (1983). Varieties of strategy training in Piagetian concept learning. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds. ), Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications. New York: Springer.
27. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Chang, C. Y.* (2010). Does Problem solving = prior knowledge + reasoning skills in Earth science? An exploratory study. Research in Science Education, 40, 103-116.
29. Chu, M., & Kita, S. (2011). The Nature of Gestures' Beneficial Role in Spatial Problem Solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 102-116.
30. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Cormier, S. M., & Hagman, J. D.(1987). Transfer of learning：Contemporary research and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
32. Cree, V. E., & Macaulay, C. (eds). (2000). Transfer of Learning in Professional and Vocational Education. London: Routledge.
33. De Corte, E. (1999). On the road to transfer: An introduction. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 555-559.
34. Detterman, D. K. (1993). The case for prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg, Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1-24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
35. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath.
36. Ebel, R. L. (1965), Confidence weighting and test reliability, Jourral of Educational Measurement, (2), 49-57.
37. Fierros, E. G. (1999, April). Examining Gender Differences in Mathematics Achievement on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Montreal, Quebec, Canada).
38. Gage, B. A. (1986). An analysis of problem solving processes used in college chemistry quantitative equilibrium problem. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Maryland.
39. Gagne, R. M. (1970). The conditions of learning. London: Holt-Saunders.
40. Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction ( 4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
41. Gallagher, A. M., & De Lisi, R. (1994). Gender Differences in Scholastic Aptitude Test--Mathematics Problem Solving among High-Ability Students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 204-11.
42. Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 99-120.
43. Graff, N. (2010). Teaching Rhetorical Analysis to Promote Transfer of Learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(5), 376-385.
44. Haseltine, E. (2000). Presents two experiments to test gender differences in spatial and verbal problem- solving. Discover, 21, 104.
45. Helfenstein, S. (2005). Transfer: review, reconstruction, and resolution. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä). Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/
46. Hower, D. C., 1987, Statistical Methods for Psychology, 2nd ed, Duxbury Press, Boston.
47. Iskandar, S. M. (1991). An evaluation of science-technology-society approach to science teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
48. Klausmeier, H. J. (1985). Educational psychology (5th edition). New York: Harper & Row.
49. Lin, M. C., Chang, C. Y.*, Barufaldi, J. P., Chen, Y. C., & Jhan, J. Y. (2005, June). Evaluating students’ problem solving ability on the earthquake related topics through Web-based testing. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 2005-World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Montreal, Canada (June 27-July 2 2005).
50. Manjengwa, J. M. (1998). Environmental education for sustainable development in secondary schools in Zimbabwe: A focus on gender differences. International Journal of Environmental Education and Information, 17, 17-26.
51. Mayer, R. E. & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47-62). New York: Macmillan.
52. Newton, K., Star, J. R., & Lynch, K. (2010). Understanding the Development of Flexibility in Struggling Algebra Students. Mathematical Thinking and Learning: An International Journal, 12(4), 282-305.
53. Niedelman, M. (1991). Problem solving and transfer. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 322-329.
54. Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson.
55. Penn, C., Shelley, S., & Zaininger, L. (1998, May 1). Enhancing Transfer of Learning among Seventh Graders. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
56. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22-32.
57. Polya,G.(1957).How to solve it : A new method of mathematical method. Solved Gifted Child Today.March/April, 61- 63.Princeton, NJ :Princeton.
58. Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. & Durkin, K. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge when comparing examples: Influences on conceptual and procedural knowledge of equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (4), 836-852.
59. Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., & Sholar, B. (2010). Tests Enhance the Transfer of Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 233-239.
60. Rudmann, D. S. (2002). Solving Astronomy Problems Can Be Limited by Intuited Knowledge, Spatial Ability, or Both. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
61. Ruggiero, V.R. (1988). Teaching thinking across the curriculum. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
62. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1987). Transfer of cognitive skills from programming: When and how? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(2), 149-169.
63. Schunk, D. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson.
64. Scott, S., & Koch, D. (2010). Teaching University-Level Technology Students via the Learning Preferences and Problem-Solving Approach. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 16-23.
65. Shih, Y. F., Shyu, H. Y., & Chen, R. S. (1997). Effects of knowledge abstraction with anchored instruction on learning transfer. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 19th 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 453-460). Albuquerque, NM, February 14-18, 1997. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED409877.pdf
66. Slife, B. D., & Cook, R. E. (1985). Developing Problem-Solving Skills. Academic Therapy, 21(1), 5-13.
67. Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J., & Heckler, A. F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 508-513.
68. Smith, M. U. (Eds.) (1991). Toward a unified theory of problem solving. Hillsdale, New Jersey Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
69. Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. P., Schmitz, J. G., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. E. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. K. Gritton & S. M. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading (pp. 177-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
70. Stanish, B., & Fberle, B. (1997), Be a problem-solver: A resource book for teaching creative problem-solving, Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
71. Terwel, J., van Oers, B., van Dijk, I., & van den Eeden, P. (2009). Are Representations to Be Provided or Generated in Primary Mathematics Education? Effects on Transfer. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(1), 25-44.
72. Thomas, R., Anderson, L., Getahun, L., & Cooke, B. (1992). Teaching for transfer of learning. Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
73. Yu, W. F., She, H. C., & Lee, Y. M. (2010). The effects of a web-based/non web-based problem solving instruction and high/low achievement on students’ problem solving ability and biology achievement.Innovations in Education and Teaching International (IETI), 47(2), 187-199.
74. Zollman, A. (2009). Students Use Graphic Organizers to Improve Mathematical Problem-Solving Communications. Middle School Journal, 41(2), 4-12.