Title

高一學生生物演化概念分析與概念改變教學之研究

Translated Titles

A Research on the Concept Analysis of "Biological Evolution" and the Conceptual Change Teaching among the Tenth Grade Students

Authors

茬家續

Key Words

生物演化 ; 變異論 ; 轉型論 ; 概念改變 ; 本體 ; 本體訓練 ; 突現過程 ; biological evolution ; variationism ; transformationism ; conceptual change ; ontology ; ontology training ; emergent process

PublicationName

臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2006年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

邱美虹

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

本研究以概念本體論、生物演化的變異論與轉型論為理論背景與心智模式分類依據,以改編自Shtulman(2006)設計的生物演化概念問卷,首先對120位高一學生進行紙筆測驗,以了解學生的生物演化概念。 紙筆測驗結果顯示,在生物演化概念問卷的紙筆測驗表現上,120位學生具有轉型論、變異論與綜合型三種心智模式。六大題組30題總得分最高者為+28,最低者為-14,平均5.68。顯示就全體學生在整份問卷的表現而言,變異論心智模式傾向多於轉型論心智模式傾向。 研究者根據Chi & Slotta、Geraedts & Boersma、Shtulman的主張,設計一個生物演化教學課程,對教學組的學生進行實際教學補救,並於教學後進行紙筆測驗之後測。最後再對教學組與對照組學生進行生物演化問題之晤談,以其對生物演化問題的解釋架構與邏輯性,佐證教學成效,並比較不同問題情境下的表現差異。 在紙筆測驗上,學生在面對教科書中學過的演化問題時,普遍能有變異論的作答反應,但卻不能遷移至未學過的演化問題情境,遂代之以轉型論的作答。在解釋達爾文理論的物種適應因果機制時,變異論者會選擇具有完整突現過程本體屬性的選擇類比;而轉型論者最為偏好的類比與本體屬性則依序為外力類比(直接的與相呼應的屬性),其次是成長類比(次團體或種類屬性),而意圖類比(意圖的屬性)則較少。在晤談中,學生在遇到教科書中未學過的演化問題時,普遍傾向以轉型論的架構來推論演化模式。 綜合紙筆測驗前、後測及晤談結果顯示,對照組學生對達爾文的演化理論停留在機械記憶,並未能充分理解其理論。而教學組學生在實施過以提問法輔助進行的生物演化教學課程及突現過程本體訓練後,則會有較多的變異論心智模式,並普遍能遷移至未學過的演化問題。   研究者認為,傳統教科書在論述生物演化時,偏重在變異(個體差異)、過度繁殖、生存競爭、適者生存這四個達爾文演化論名詞與直線式過程(程序)的描述上。生物演化教育應聚焦在演化本身的意涵、族群在演化上的重要意義、以及演化模式發生的突現過程因果機制。

English Abstract

120 participants at the 10th grade students were first assessed by a questionnaire within 30 questions adapted from Shtulman(2006) to probe their concepts of biological evolution on the theoretical consideration of conceptual ontology, variationism and transformationism. The written questionnaire showed that 120 students demonstrated three types of mental model: variationism, transformationism and synthetic mental model. The overall test scores on 30 questions ranges from -14 to +28 and averaged +5.68, revealing that students committed more variationism than transformationism on the whole. Then, the experimental group were treated with an instructional remediation with integrated multiple perspectives proposed by Chi & Slotta, Geraedts & Boersma, and Shtulman, and followed by a post-test. At last, by means of interviewing with both experimental and comparison groups, the teaching effects and performance variation were to be demonstrated. While interviewing , interviewed students, when encountering those questions which were unlearned on textbooks, inclined to transformationism explanatory framework instead of variationism. According to the pre-and -post scores and the interview, we find that the comparison group students remained at the rote memory about Darwin's evolution theory. On the other side, those students, who were instructed in class with problem-posing approach and emergent process ontology training, obviously had some concept change upon variationism and could more freely transfer to unlearned context of evolution.

Topic Category 理學院 > 科學教育研究所
社會科學 > 教育學
Reference
  1. 王道還(譯)(2000)。J. Diamond著。第三種猩猩:人類的身世與未來 (The third chimpanzee: The evolution and future of the human animal)。台北市:時報文化。
    連結:
  2. 何佳燕(2002)。探討粒子概念對國二學生學習溫度與熱的學習成就與心智模式之影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    連結:
  3. 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。
    連結:
  4. 邱美虹、林靜雯(2002)。以多重類比探究兒童電流心智模式之改變。科學教育學刊, 10(2), 109-134。
    連結:
  5. 邱美虹、林靜雯、梁家祺、周金城、吳明珠、湯偉君、劉嘉茹、林秀蓁、林世洲、鄭?珍、張淑女(譯)(2003)。P. Thagard著。概念革命(Conceptual revolutions)。台北市:洪葉文化。
    連結:
  6. 邱顯博(2002)。國二、國三學生的擴散作用概念與概念改變之研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    連結:
  7. 林靜雯、邱美虹(2006)。以述詞分析法探究多重類比於電學教學中概念改變之成效。科學教育學刊, 14(1), 55-81。
    連結:
  8. 林靜雯(2006)。由概念演化觀點探究不同教科書教-學序列對不同心智模式學生電學學習之影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北市。
    連結:
  9. 涂可欣(譯)(1999)。E. Mayr著。看!這就是生物學 (This is biology: The science of the living world)。台北市:天下遠見。
    連結:
  10. 陳藍萍(2004)。高一學生生物演化概念之研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所教學碩士班碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    連結:
  11. 陳盈吉(2004)。探究動態類比對於科學概念學習與概念改變歷程之研究--以國二學生學習氣體粒子概念為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    連結:
  12. 陳郡鳳(2005)。探討理想氣體動力論之建模教學對高一學生建構微觀氣體粒子運動心智模式的影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    連結:
  13. 劉誠宗(2003)。學生對物種起源的解釋架構一貫性之探析。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所教學碩士班碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    連結:
  14. Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952-978.
    連結:
  15. Andersson, B., & Wallin, A. (2006). On developing content-oriented theories taking biological evolution as an example. International Journal of Science Education,
    連結:
  16. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts [special issue]. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
    連結:
  17. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N. A., Chiu, M.H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 145-182.
    連結:
  18. Chi, M. T. H. (1997b). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271-315.
    連結:
  19. Chi, M.T.H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199.
    連結:
  20. Darwin, C. R. (1859). The origin of species. London: J. Murray.
    連結:
  21. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction,10(2 & 3), 105-225.
    連結:
  22. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155-1191.
    連結:
  23. Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35, 125-129.
    連結:
  24. Ducan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students' understandings of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
    連結:
  25. Duit, R., & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688.
    連結:
  26. Ferrari, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1998). The nature of na?ve explanations of natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 20, (10), 1231-1256.
    連結:
  27. Franco, C. & Colinvaux, D. (2000). Grasping mental models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing Models in Science Education (pp. 93-118). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    連結:
  28. Gould, S. J. (1996). Full house: The spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin. New York: Three Rivers Press.
    連結:
  29. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. (1991) Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799-822.
    連結:
  30. Linn, M.C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers. Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    連結:
  31. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    連結:
  32. Medin, D., & Atran, S. (2004). The native mind: Biological categorization and reasoning in development and across cultures. Psychological Review, 111(4), 960-983.
    連結:
  33. Milne, C. (1998). Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications of heroic science stories for school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 175-187.
    連結:
  34. Poling, D. A., & Evans, E. M. (2004a). Are dinosaurs the rule or the exception. Developing concepts of death and extinction. Cognitive Development, 19, 363-383.
    連結:
  35. Poling, D. A., & Evans, E. M. (2004b). Religious belief, scientiWc expertise, and folk ecology. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3), 485-524.
    連結:
  36. 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.
    連結:
  37. Pozo J. I., & Crespo, M. ?. G. (2005). The embodied nature of implicit theories: The consistency of ideas about the nature of matter. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 351-387.
    連結:
  38. Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1),1-34.
    連結:
  39. Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between na?ve and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 170-194.
    連結:
  40. Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Joran, E. (1995). Assessing students' misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basis for conceptual change. Cognition and
    連結:
  41. Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 261-289.
    連結:
  42. Treagust D.F., Chittleborough G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368.
    連結:
  43. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585.
    連結:
  44. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change [special issue]. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
    連結:
  45. 壹、中文部份
  46. 王道還(譯)(2002)。R. Dawkins著。盲眼鐘錶匠:解讀生命史的奧祕 (The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design)。台北市:天下遠見。
  47. 呂光洋(2005)。國立台灣師範大學生命科學系演化論課程內容與講義。
  48. 肖迪、黎冷(譯)(2003)。C. R. Darwin著。物種起源 (The origin of species)。台北縣:華立文化。
  49. 吳美芬(2002)。師院學生演化概念認知之研究。國立新竹教育大學數理研究所碩士論文,未出版,新竹市。
  50. 高永菲(2001)。心理與教育統計學。台北市:元照。
  51. 高淑芬、邱美虹 (1998)。類比的檢索與對應。科學教育學刊, 6(1), 63-80。
  52. 陳婉茹(2004)。探討動態類比對於化學平衡概念學習之研究-八年級學生概念本體及心智模式之變化-。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
  53. 郭生玉(2004)。教育測驗與評量。台北縣:精華。
  54. 葉篤莊、周建人、方宗熙(譯)(1998)。C. Darwin著。物種起源 (The origin of species)。台北市:臺灣商務。
  55. 潘慧玲(編著)(2004)。教育論文格式。台北市:雙葉。
  56. 謝佳霓(2006):演化理論在學校組織變革應用之研究—以一所國民中學推動九年一貫課程為例。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
  57. 貳、英文部分
  58. 28(6, 12), 673-695.
  59. Banet, E., & Ayuso, G. E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of
  60. living beings in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 373–407.
  61. Boulter, C. J., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing Models in Science Education (pp. 41-57). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  62. Buckley, B. C., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Investigating the role of representations and expressed models in building mental models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing Models in Science Education (pp. 119-135). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  63. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive
  64. models of science: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (pp. 129-186). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  65. Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.). Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice, 3-27. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  66. Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. New York: W.W. Norton.
  67. diSessa, A.A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufal (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp.49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  68. Freeman, S. & Herron, J. C. (2004). Evolutionary analysis(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Eduction.
  69. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  70. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-241). London: Cambridge University Press.
  71. Geraedts, C. L., & Boersma, K. Th. (2006). Reinventing natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 28(8), 843-870.
  72. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing Models in Science Education (pp. 3-17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  73. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  74. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and methodology of scientific research programmes, In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp.91-196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  75. Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. New York: Basic Books.
  76. Newport, F. (2004). Third of Americans say evidence has supported Darwin’s evolution theory. Princeton, NJ: The Gallup Organization.
  77. Noman, D. A. (1983). Some observation on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  78. Ohlsson, S. (1991) Young adults’ understanding of evolutionary explanations: preliminary observations. Technical Report. Learning Research and Development Center,University of Pittsburgh.
  79. Instruction, 13(3), 373-400.
  80. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Times Cited
  1. 湯偉君(2007)。以解釋本質探討中學演化論之教科書內容與教學。臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所學位論文。2007。1-599。
  2. 辛怡瑩(2008)。以概念演化樹探討跨年級學生對演化概念之發展。臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所學位論文。2008。1-201。