由於台灣國中階段學生在浮力單元的表現普遍較不理想，因此，本研究採用由哈佛大學教授Eric Mazur提出的同儕教學法進行浮力單元的教學，同儕教學法的流程包括教師精簡講解一個重點概念之後，提出概念題，讓學生單獨思考後進行全班性的回答，接下來讓學生針對概念題進行小組討論，討論後再進行第二次的全班性回答，教師則依據學生回答正確人數比例掌控教學進度。
本研究探討對八年級學生實施Mazur同儕教學法並搭配不同回答方式，對學生在浮力單元的學習是否能夠產生成效。本研究以不等組前後測準實驗研究法進行，教學時間為五節課。研究對象為台北市兩所國中共三個班的八年級學生，人數共104位，其中有一班接受Mazur同儕教學法搭配舉牌回答方式，有一班接受Mazur同儕教學法搭配IRS系統回答方式，還有一班接受傳統講述式教學法為控制組。
研究者利用自行開發的前測概念診斷試題，針對三組受試者進行預試，了解教學進行前，三班學生在力平衡及浮力相關概念的掌握度。本研究另外依據Mazur同儕教學法設計浮力教材，實施Mazur同儕教學法之實驗組進行教學，然後進行後測的施測，並檢視兩組學生的學習成效是否有差異。另一方面本研究又藉由教學後態度問卷中所設計的開放性問題進行質性資料分析，了解實驗組學生學生對於同儕教學法的看法與接受程度。
研究結果顯示：(1)雖然實驗組與控制組在教學後測表現並沒有顯著差異,但從共變數分析之調整後的後測平均來看，舉牌組表現均略優於IRS組及控制組。(2)上課錄音資料與學生在後測試題的回答分析，發現學生經同儕討論學習的內容能夠呈現在後測，以及同儕討論能夠幫助學生在上課時更積極參與思考。(3)根據實驗組與控制組前後測表現作比較，顯示實驗組中的舉牌組學生前後測進步幅度優於IRS組以及控制組。(4)分析實驗組學生態度問卷的結果，喜歡Mazur同儕教學法人數百分比的學生超過不喜歡的學生，以及多數學生也認為同儕教學法能增加上課專注度，顯示Mazur同儕教學法對於上課氣氛以及學生的學習動機均有提升。

Due to the reason that generally Taiwanese junior high school students cannot learn the principle of buoyancy well, this research aimed to adopt the peer instruction, which is proposed by Harvard University professor Eric Mazur. The process of peer instruction includes briefly instructing a main idea by the teacher, proposing a main issue of discuss for students personally and assembly, holding group discussion among students, and proceeding the progress of instruction which depends on the amounts of students’ correct answers.
This study proposes three different treatment conditions on eight grade students, in order to test how Mazur’s peer instruction affects students’ understanding of principle of buoyancy. The nonequivalent pretest-postest quasi-experimental design is used as the study method and the time of lecturing is 5 classes for each condition. The study was set up with three treatment conditions, namely, peer instruction with flashcards, peer instruction with interactive response system, and lecturing out of teacher prepared notes. Three classrooms with total of 104 students were randomly chosen from two junior high schools in Taipei city.
This research pre-tests the three groups with diagnostic questionnaire designed by the researcher to understand students’ knowledge of relative concepts of force balance and buoyancy. Teaching method designed in accordance with Mazur’s peer instruction is put into practice on the treatment groups. Post-tests are held to identify the significant difference between the two treatment groups. Besides, this study uses qualitative data analysis to analyze the data of the open questions in the attitude questionnaire to investigate the opinions and the acceptance level of the peer instruction among the treatment groups.
The results show that, first, although there’s no significant difference between the results of post-tests of the treatment groups and the control group, the average points of post-tests which are amended by the analysis of covariance show that the performance of the group of peer instruction with flashcards is slightly better than that of peer instruction with interactive response system. Second, by analyzing the data of post-tests and the recording of students’ interaction at class, the study shows that the groups of peer instruction can performance better and involve in thinking more. Third, by comparing the post-tests results of the three groups, it proves that the group of peer instruction with flashcards progresses more. Forth, by analyzing attitude the questionnaire, the result suggests that the percentage of students who like Mazur’s peer instruction is more than that of students who dislike it. Since most students agree that the peer instruction can make them focus on the class more, it is reasonable to say that Mazur’s peer instruction can promote a positive atmosphere as well as students’ motivation.

中文資料
吳昆勇(2002)。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影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，臺北市。
吳清源(2002)。討論式教學的特質與成效分析。國立台灣師範大學物理研究所碩士論文，臺北市。
林佩璇、黃政傑(民85)。合作學習。台北市：五南。
林凱胤(2011)。結合自學與數位化同儕教學策略促進護專學生電腦技能學習成效之研究。科學教育與研究發展季刊，60，第35到65頁。
侯佳典(2007)。5E探究式學習環教學對國二學生浮力概念改變成效之研究。國立彰化師範大學物理研究所碩士論文，彰化市。
夏秋蘋(2008)。從力的比較觀點探討學生九年級學生理解浮力概念困難之研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，臺北市。
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，臺北市。
黃俊儒(1999)。從社會互動與認知投入的觀點探討理化實驗課中學習機會之分布。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，臺北市。
黃瑞龍(2002)。電腦輔助學習在國中理化浮力單元教學之研究。國立彰化師範大學物理研究所碩士論文，彰化市。
鄭文彥(2006)。以類比橋融入浮力單元對國中學生迷思概念改變之研究。國立彰化師範大學物理研究所碩士論文，彰化市。
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，臺北市。
藍偉瑩(2001)。小組互動與概念改變機制之探討─以物質狀態與氣體性質概念為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，臺北市。
陳育琳(2007)。數學同儕鷹架理論之發展與驗證。國立臺中教育大學博士論文，臺中市。
郭信宏(2005)。國中生在「壓力」與「浮力」單元學習後之迷思概念對解題之影響。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，高雄市。
劉翠伶(2002)。職前教師的浮力概念及科學教學態度之探討。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。臺北市
西文資料
Brown, A. (1988). Motivation to learn and understand:On taking charge of one own learning. Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 311-321.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995a). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99-120.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R.A. (1995b). Working for equity in the heterogeneous classroom. NY: Teacher College.
Crouch, C. H. , Watkins, J. , Fagen, A. P., & Mazur, E.(2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. In E.F. Redish & P. Cooney (Eds.), Reviews in physics education research. College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers.
Crouch, C. (1998). Peer Instruction: An interactive appraoach for large classes. Optics and Photonics News, 9(9), 37-41.
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Mazur, E. (1997). Getting students to think in the class. In E. F. Redish & J. S. Rigden (Eds.), The changing role of physics departments in modern universities (pp. 981-988). Part Two: Sample Classes, AIP Conference Proceedings.
Mazur, E. (1997). Understanding or memorization: Are we teaching the right thing? In Jack Wilson (Eds.), Conference on the Introductory Physics Course on the occasion of the retirement of Robert Resnick (pp. 113-124). New York: Wiley.
Fisher, K., & Lipson, J. (1985). Information processing interpretation of errors in college science. Learning Instructional Science, 14(1), 49-74.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six -thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
Hewson, M. G., & 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.
Stepans, J., Dyche, S., & Beiswenger, R. (1988). The effect of two instructional models in bringing about a conceptual change in the understanding of science concepts by prospective elementary teachers. Science Education, 72, 185–195.
Jessica, L. Rosenberg , Mercedes Lorenzo & Eric Mazur. (2006). Peer Instruction: Making Science Engaging. In J. Mintzes & W. H. Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of college science teaching (pp. 77-85). Arlington, Virginia: National Science Teachers Association.
Bruffee, K. A., (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College English ,46(7), 635-652.
Kim, E., & Pak, S. J. (2002). Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems. American Journal of Physics, 70, 759-765.
Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2007). Teaching children science elementary and middle school: A project-based approach. New York: Routledge.
Mazur, E., (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McDermott, L. C. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned-closing the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59(4), 301-315.
Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups：a research summary. In R. Salvin & S. Sharan (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 147-172). New York, NY: A Divison of Plenum Publishing Corporation.
Novak, G. M., & Patterson, E.T. (1997). World wide web technology as a new teaching and learning environment. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 8(1), 19-39.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227
Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classroom: social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839-858.
Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1988). Cooperative learning- Two heads learn better than one.Transforming education, 18, 34
Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. J. Thousand, A. Villa and A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning; Baltimore, Brookes Press.
Rowell, J. A., & Dawson, C. J. (1977). Teaching about floating and sinking：Further studies toward closing the gap between cognitive psychology and classroom practice. Science Education, 61, 527-540.
Rowell, J. A., & Dawson, C. J. (1977). Teaching about floating and sinking：an attempt to link cognitive psycholigy with classroom practice. Science Education, 61, 243-251
Nijhof, W., & Kommers, P. (1985). An analysis of cooperation in relation to cognitive controversy. In R. Salvin & S. Sharan (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 125-145). New York, NY: A Divison of Plenum Publishing Corporation.