Title

高中學生與職前教師之化學實踐

Translated Titles

The Praxis on Chemistry of High School Students and Preservice Teachers

Authors

陳建宏

Key Words

科學思維 ; 實踐 ; 科學本體觀 ; scientific thinking ; Praxis ; ontology of science

PublicationName

臺灣師範大學化學系學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2000年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

黃芳裕

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

近年來,我國在國際科學奧林匹亞的表現一直都很優異,而在89年底的國際教育成就調查委員會所公布的結果,在與受試的國家中,我國學生的表現也是名列前茅。這些表現,似乎說明了我國科學教育的成功,只是這些測驗,針對的大多是學科領域內的知識與能力的評量,而在其他思考方面的能力呢?本文從相關文獻的探討中發現,隨著科學本體由邏輯實證論的觀點,轉變為建構實在論的想法,科學教育的目標也不再只重視學科知識的學習,反而更重視能將科學的思考方式運用到生活中,並能依環境的不同,形成最符合個體與社群利益的決定也就是科學思維的培養。因此本研究以社會建構論及實踐理論為設計理念,探討我國化學學習高成就學生的思考方式,是否和其學習成就一樣達到具有較高水準的科學思維,同時比較職前教師的表現,和學生之間有無差異。結果發現多數職前教師與學生,受到表象及學習經驗和教科書呈現方式的侷限,呈現出偏向邏輯實證論的科學本體觀。因此建議在學生的教材設計及師資培育的課程,應該有所修正。

English Abstract

In the recent years, the performance of students of our country in the international mathematic and scientific competition has been very outstanding. The result of Third International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat reported by The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement at the end of 2000 showed that our students were on the top of the list. It seems that the science education in our country is successful. These tests aim at intra- discipline knowledge and abilities, but what about the ability of thinking? From the literature, showing that the ontology of science had changed from logical positivism to constructive realism, and the goal of science education was not only laying emphasis on the learning of discipline knowledge any more, but also developing the ability of making a suitable decision on the situation of community/self benefits. So the research was based on the social constructivism and praxis theory. The study has three purposes: Understanding whether the students having scientific thinking, comparing the difference between preservice teachers and students, and the ontology of science of the students and the preservice teachers. The result shows that most students and perservice teachers are limited by the presentation, learning experience and the way textbooks presented. This kind of results shows that they are inclined to think the ontology of science in logic positive way. So we suggest that, the curriculums of students and teacher education’s should be revised.

Topic Category 基礎與應用科學 > 化學
理學院 > 化學系
Reference
  1. 邱美虹(2000)。概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊,第八卷,第一期,1-34。
    連結:
  2. 廖金閱(2000)。以論述分析討論新舊制理化實習個案教師之成長。台灣師範大學化學研究所 碩士論文。
    連結:
  3. Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science Education: Border Crossing into the Subculture of Science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1-52.
    連結:
  4. Cobern, W. W. (1996). World View Theory and Conceptual Change in Science Education. Science Education, 80(5), 576-610.
    連結:
  5. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J. & Glaser, R. (1981) Categorization and representation of physic problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121 –152.
    連結:
  6. Carol, W., Diane, T. –V. (2000). Developing Scientific Literacy: A Sociocultural Approach. Remedial & Special Education, 21 (2), 101-121.
    連結:
  7. Deboer, G. E. (1991) A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
    連結:
  8. Furió, D., Calatayud, M. L. & Padilla. (2000). Functional Fixedness and Functional Reduction as Common Sense Reasonings in Chemical Equilibrium and Geomtry and Polarity of Molecules. Science Education, 84, 545-565.
    連結:
  9. Fisher, A. (1989). Proposal to Develop a Higher Studies Test. Cambridge, University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
    連結:
  10. Griffith, B.A. & Frieden, A. (2000). Facilitating Reflective Thinking in Counselor Education. Counselor Education & Supervision, 40 (2), 82-93.
    連結:
  11. Howe, A.C. (1996). Development of Science Change within a Vygotskian Framework. Science Education, 80(1), 35-51.
    連結:
  12. Huffman, K., Vernoy, M., Williams, B., &Vernoy, J. (1991). Psychology in action. New York: Wiley.
    連結:
  13. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    連結:
  14. Kuhn, D. et al. (1988) The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego: Academic Press.
    連結:
  15. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16-26.
    連結:
  16. Kurfiss, J. G. (1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice and possibilities .Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education..
    連結:
  17. Knain, E. (1999) Sense and Sensibility in Science Education: Development Rational Beliefs through Cultural Approach. Studies in Science Education, 33, 1-29.
    連結:
  18. McGinn, M. K. & Roth, M. –M. (1999). Preparing Students for Competent Scientific Practice: Implications of recent Research in Science and Technology Studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14-24.
    連結:
  19. Mintzes, J. J. & Wandersee, J. H. (1998). Reform and Innovation in Science Teaching: A Human constructivist View. In Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H. & Novak, D. J. (eds). Teaching Science for Understanding. California: Academic Press.
    連結:
  20. Mortimer, E. F. & Machado, A. H. (2000) Anomalies and conflicts in classroom discourse. Science education, 84(4), 429-444.
    連結:
  21. Newton, P. (1999) The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553- 576.
    連結:
  22. Paul, R. (1993) Critical Thinking--what every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world, 3rd edn . Santa Rosa, CA, Foundation for Critical Thinking.
    連結:
  23. Prior, J. (2000). Social psychology of a learning environment and the acquisition of critical thinking skills. Social Work Education, 19 (5) , 501-510.
    連結:
  24. Walkner, P & Finney, N. (1999). Skill development and critical thinking in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 4 (4), 531-547.
    連結:
  25. 中文部分
  26. 王榮麟、王超群 合譯(1997)。建構實在論。台北市:五南。
  27. 邱美虹(2000)。評介美國評量新標準:科學實作部分。科學教育月刊,第228期,2-15。
  28. 沈清松(1997)。建構實在論評介。王榮麟、王超群 合譯(1997)。建構實在論。台北市:五南。
  29. 高宣揚(1998)。法國後馬克思主義的社會理論研究。黃瑞祺(編) 馬學新論:從西方馬克思主義到後馬克思主義。台北:中央研究院歐美研究所。
  30. 徐國慶 (2000)。涂爾幹論職業團體與市民社會。網路社會學通訊期刊 第九期。http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/e-j891015/e-j1015.htm
  31. 黃芳裕(1994)。學生使用科學知識省察表徵分析。台灣師範大學科學教育研究所 博士論文。
  32. 黃芳裕、廖國智、林懿萱(2000)。群體或個人的特性?以社會建構論分析我國科學教師科學知識建構特性。中華民國第十四屆科學教育學術研討會,彰化師範大學。
  33. 歐陽鍾仁(1988)。科學教育概論。台北市:五南。
  34. 趙金祁、許榮富、黃芳裕 (1992)。科學哲學對科學知識本體的主張的轉變 ,科學教育月刊。154期,2-18。
  35. 趙金祁、許榮富、黃芳裕 (1993)。科學哲學對組成科學知識之主張及其演變 ,科學教育月刊。161期,4-15。
  36. 應奇(1999。社群主義。台北:揚智文化。
  37. 魏明通(1997)。科學教育。台北:五南。
  38. 蕭明慧譯(1991)。科學哲學與實驗。台北市:桂冠。
  39. 教育部(1948)修訂中學課程標準。南京 : 教育部。
  40. 教育部中等教育司(1962)。中等課程標準。台北市:正中。
  41. 教育部中等教育司(1962)。國民中學暫行課程標準。台北市:正中。
  42. 教育部國民中學課程標準審查小組 編(1995)。國民中學課程標準。台北市:教育部。
  43. 教育部(2000)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。89.9.30公布。
  44. 英文部分
  45. Cobern, W. W (1989). World View Theory and Science Education Research : Fundamental Epistemological Structure as a Critical Factor in Science Learning and Attitude Development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching ,San Francisco. ED304345.
  46. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996) Young people’s image of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  47. Fago, G. C. (1995). A Scale of Cognitive Development: Validating Perry’s Scheme. ED393862.
  48. Glaser, E. M. (1941). An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. New York: AMS Press.
  49. Hanson, N. R. (1958) Patterns of discovery . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The structure of science revolutions. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.
  51. Moore, W. S. (1990). Tuning In to Student Voice; Assessment & the Perry Scheme of Intellectual & Ethical Development. ED322868
  52. Wilson, B. A. (1996). A Descriptive and Interpretive study: The Intellectual Development of Adults. ED39396.
  53. Taylor, R. H. & Patterson, L. (2000). Using Information Literacy to Promote Critical Thinking. Teacher Librarian, 28 (2), 9-14.
Times Cited
  1. 羅弘志(2002)。在教育政策轉換下之科學實習教師專業成長:個案研究。臺灣師範大學化學系學位論文。2002。1-209。
  2. 許朝欽(2006)。國中生對「物質性質與變化」概念理解的進展。臺灣師範大學化學系學位論文。2006。1-214。
  3. 黃鈺翔(2008)。國中生微觀粒子概念的發展。臺灣師範大學化學系學位論文。2008。1-199。
  4. 李明鴻(2009)。高中生氣體概念的發展。臺灣師範大學化學系學位論文。2009。1-169。
  5. 吳智凱(2009)。國中生對「水」概念理解的進展。臺灣師範大學化學系學位論文。2009。1-160。
  6. 戴菁慧(2009)。國中生對「物質與變化」概念理解之研究:台北地區的個案研究。臺灣師範大學化學系學位論文。2009。1-213。