Title

探討「圖卡操作」對化學式相關概念的學習成效

Translated Titles

Exploring Using Card to effect on Learn about the Relevant Conception of Chemical Formula.

Authors

陳淑華

Key Words

圖卡 ; 化學式 ; 反應方程式 ; card ; chemical formula ; chemical reaction formula

PublicationName

臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所在職進修碩士班學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2004年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

邱美虹博士

Content Language

繁體中文

English Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of card upon the relevant concept of chemical formula. Quasi-experimental design and survey were adapted in the study. The subjects of the study were drawn from the junior high school in I-Lan county and divided into two groups. Sixty students from two classes participated in this study. The experimental group used learning method of card . The controlled group used were taught in traditional teaching. All subjects were conducted pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest. At the same time, all students wrote the questionnaire in order to know how student’s attitude toward different learning methods. The pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest were the same test items designed by investigator. The reliability(α)of pilot and posttest were .89 and .93. The quasi-experimental results were as follow: (一)For all subjects: (1)The experimental group was significantly better than controlled group in「test paper grade」、「chemical formula」、「mass equal and conservation of atomic law」、「chemical reaction formula」、「knowledge」、「comprehension」. (2)There was no significant differences in「chemistry and classification of element」、「mole」、「analysis」、「application」、「generalization」. (二)students with different learning achievement: (1)High performence group had significant differences in「test paper grade」、「chemical formula」、「chemical reaction formula」、「comprehension」、「analysis」and experimental group was better than controlled group. (2)High performence group had no significant differences in「chemistry and classification of element」、「mass equal and conservation of atomic law」、「mole」、「knowledge」、「application」、「generalization」. (3)Middle performence group had significant differences in「test paper grade」、「chemical formula」、「mass equal and conservation of atomic law」、「chemical reaction formula」、「knowledge」、「comprehension」and experimental group was better than controlled group. (4)Middle performence group had no significant differences in「chemistry and classification of element」、「mole」、「analysis」、「application」、「generalization」. (5)Low performence group had no significant differences in「test paper grade」、 「chemistry and classification of element」、「chemical formula」、「mass equal and conservation of atomic law」、「chemical reaction formula」、「mole」、「knowledge」、「comprehension」、「analysis」、「application」、「generalization」. Survey investigation’s results found more students in the experimental group than the controlled group enjoyed the learning method. Controlled group had more number about not enjoying the learning method. More students in the experimental group than the controlled group thinked the learning method helpful. Controlled group had more number thinking about the learning method not helpful. If students can used card upon the relevant concept of chemical formula, they will have a great assistance about the relevant concept of chemical formula. Most experimental group foud helpful learn by doing teaching aid themselves. Subduple experimental group foud helpful learn by using card, especially in 「chemistry and classification of element」、「chemical formula」、「chemical reaction formula」. Above subduple experimental group foud funnier by using card and hoped usually to use actual practice activities. In summary, card was helpful in the relevant concept of chemical formula. Especially, students of middle learning achievement effected significantly. Because card contributed a more analogous learning experience and new conception was connected with original conception. Because use cards not only effect of picture but also hand-on. Hand-on could promot students’ learning motivation and interest. Because student could practice themselves and it is analogous the real life context. Using card could promot students’ learning achievements and motivation.

Topic Category 理學院 > 科學教育研究所在職進修碩士班
社會科學 > 教育學
Reference
  1. 王琬菁(2002):「原子價」概念融入科學課文對學生學習「化學式」與其相關概
    連結:
  2. 念之成效。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。(未出版)
    連結:
  3. 李賢哲(2001):以動手做(DIY)工藝興趣培養中小學同具科學創造力之人格特質,科學教育月刊,第243期,2~7。
    連結:
  4. 邱美虹(2000)。概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊,第8卷第1期,1-34。
    連結:
  5. 唐偉成(1998):開發科學創造力之教學策略研究—應用於國小自然科。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士學位論文。(未出版)
    連結:
  6. 徐怡詩(2003):國中自然與生活科技教師試行實作評量之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士學位論文。(未出版)
    連結:
  7. 張軒毓(2003):國中學生學習莫耳相關概念困難的探討。國立台灣師範大學化學學系在職進修專班碩士論文。(未出版)
    連結:
  8. 教育部(1975):國民中學課程標準。教育部編印。
    連結:
  9. 教育部(2000):九年一貫課程綱要。教育部編印。
    連結:
  10. 陳淑華(2002):化學式與平衡方程式創意教學法,科學教育月刊,第248期,38~40。
    連結:
  11. 陳運正(2001):在國小自然科教學中融入專題導向的科學學習活動-兩個個案之探討。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。(未出版)
    連結:
  12. 黃寶鈿與李武勳(2002):抽象概念具體化教學:以莫耳為例。科學教育月刊,第253期,48-50。
    連結:
  13. 廖凌欣(2001):環境教育融入九年一貫課程生活學習領域之行動研究。國立台灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文。(未出版)
    連結:
  14. 劉俊庚(2002):迷思概念與概念改變教學策略之文獻分析-以概念構圖和後設分析模式探討其意涵與影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文
    連結:
  15. 蔡宗程(2004):數學符號知識及運算概念與學生學習化學反應式之研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。(未出版)
    連結:
  16. Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students' Understanding of Chemical Reaction. International Journal of Science Education. 20(3), 305-316.
    連結:
  17. Anderson. C. W.(1987). Three perspectives on cognition and their implications for science teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington DC.
    連結:
  18. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education .Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    連結:
  19. Crane, S. C. and Liu, R. S. H. (1986). Models for demonstrating organic structures to a large audience. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(6), 516-517.
    連結:
  20. Dechsri, P., Jones, L. L., & Heikkinen, H. W. (1997). Effect of laboratory manual design incorporating visual information-processing aids on student learning and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 34(9), 891-904.
    連結:
  21. Donmoyer, R.(1997). This issue : Refocusing on learning... and on how a research community might learn in an era paradigm proliferation. Educational researcher,26(1), 4, 34.
    連結:
  22. Friedel, A. W. & Maloney D. P.(1992). An Exploratory, Classroom-Based Investigation of Students’ Difficulties with Subscripts in Chemical Formulas. Science Education, 76(1), 65-78.
    連結:
  23. Gabel, D. and Sherwood, R. (1980). The effect of student manipulation of molecular models on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 10, 75-81.
    連結:
  24. Gabel. D. L., Samuel. K. V., & Hunn, D.(1987 ). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695-697.
    連結:
  25. Gabel. D. L., Sherwood, R. D., & Enochs, L. (1984). Problem-solving skills of high school chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 221-233.
    連結:
  26. Gilbert, J. K. Watts, M. & Osborne, R. J. (1982). Students’conceptions of ideas in mechanics. Physical Education, 17 , 62-66.
    連結:
  27. Larkin, D. P. Simon, & Simon, (1980a). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problem. Science, 208, 1335-1342.
    連結:
  28. Larkin, D. P. Simon, & Simon, ( 1980b). Modes of competence in solving physic problem. Cognitive Science, 4, 317-345.
    連結:
  29. Mayer, R. E. (1978). Advance organizers that compensate for the organization of text, Journal of Education Psychology, 70, 880-886.
    連結:
  30. Mayer, R. E. (1980). Elaboration techniques that increase the meaningfulness of technical text: An experimental text of learning strategy hypothesis. Journal of Education Psychology, 70, 880-886.
    連結:
  31. Michael, P. F. (1997). Relationship among laboratory Instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 343-357.
    連結:
  32. Murphy, (1988). Equity as student opportunity to learn. Theory into Practice,27(2),
    連結:
  33. Niaz, M., & Lawson, A. (1985). Balancing chemical equations: the role of developmental
    連結:
  34. Osbone, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. W. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the change of state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 20, 825-838.
    連結:
  35. Patricia, M. S-H (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 101-109.
    連結:
  36. Pines, A. L., & West, L. H. T. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An interpretation of research within a sources-of-knowledge framework. Science education, 70(5), 583-604.
    連結:
  37. Savoy, L. G. (1988). Balancing Chemical Equations. School Science Review, 69(249), 713-720.
    連結:
  38. Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic and Molecular Structure in Chemical Education: A Critical Analysis from Various Perspectives of Science Education. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(8), 922-925.
    連結:
  39. Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 258-275.
    連結:
  40. 中文文獻:
  41. 王碧鴻(1997):探究高職化工科學生之莫耳概念。國立台灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文。(未出版)
  42. 李坤崇(2000):多元化教學評量,臺北市:心理。
  43. 李素卿(1999)譯:當代教育心理學(Good, T. J.,& Brophy, J.著)。台北市:五南出版社。
  44. 吳明清(1993):社會變遷中的教學模式與應用。載於中國教育協會、國立中正大學成人教育中心主編:文化變與教育發展。嘉義:國立中正大學。
  45. 吳明雄(2002):國中生活科技課程創造思考教學對學生學習成效之影響,國立
  46. 台灣師範大學工業教育系碩士學位論文。(未出版)
  47. 張世忠(2000):教學原理:統整與應用。臺北市:五南書局。
  48. 教育部(1983):國民中學課程標準。教育部編印。
  49. 教育部(1995):國民中學課程標準。教育部編印。
  50. 陳炳憲(2003):以類比學習環,ARCS動機策略改進國二學生化學式學習之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。(未出版)
  51. 陳新豐(1999):教育改革中的評量機制—談學校實施教學評量策略。國教之友,52(2),72-79。
  52. 許嘉仲(2002):影響國中學生理化科學習因素之個案研究。國立彰化師範大學物理學系在職進修專班碩士論文。(未出版)
  53. 溫世頌(1997):教育心理學。臺北市:三民書局。
  54. 劉志榮(2002):國中自然與生活科技領域教師實行教學模組的歷程與思考之初探。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。(未出版)
  55. 。(未出版)
  56. 簡茂發(2002):多元評量之理論與方法。教育資料與研究,第46期,1-7。
  57. 英文文獻:
  58. Al-Kunifed, A., Good, R., & Wandersee, J. (1993). Investigation of High School Chemistry Students' Concepts of Chemical Symbol, Formula, and Equation: Students' Prescientific Conceptions. ERIC Document. No: ED376020.
  59. Anderson. C. W., & Roth, K. J.(1989). Teaching for meaningful and self- regulated learning of science. In J. Brophy(Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 1. Teaching for meaning understanding and self-regulated learning. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
  60. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D. & Hanesian H. (1978). Education Psychology: A cognitive view. (12nd ed.). N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  61. Ben-Zvii, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1982). Students vs. Chemistry: A study of student conceptions of structure and process. Unpublished manuscript, Weizmann Institute of Science, Department of Science Education. Rehovot, Israel.
  62. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987, July). Students' visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry. 117-120.
  63. DiGisi, L. L. & Willett, J. B. (1995). What high school biology teacher say about their
  64. textbook use: A descriptive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(2),
  65. 123-142.
  66. Duncan, I. M. & Johnstone, A. H.(1973). The Mole Concept. Education in Chemistry; 10,
  67. 6, 213-214, Nov 73.
  68. Faw. H. W., & Waller, T. G. (1976). Methemagenic behaviors and efficiency in learning
  69. from prose material: Review, critique and recommendations. Review of Educational Research, 46, pp. 691-720.
  70. Finley. F. N.(1991). Why Students Have Trouble Learning from Texts?Science Learning: Process and Application. I.R.A.
  71. Gabel. D. L., Samuel. K. V., & Schrader, C. (1987, April). The particle nature of matter approach: Its effectiveness on chemistry achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Washington, DC.
  72. Gallowich, K. (1994). Videotaping EST/ESP Student Projects: “Real World”Research Projects for Professional and Academic Preparation. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (28th, Baltimore, MD, March 8-12, 1994).
  73. Glynn, S.M., Yeany, R.H., & Britton, B.K. (1991). The psychology of learning science. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
  74. Herron, J. D. (1975). Piaget for chemists. Journal of Chemical Education,52(3), 146-150.
  75. Lazonby, J. N., Morris, J. E., & Waddington, D. J.(1982). The muddlesome mole. Education in Chemistry, 19, 109-111.
  76. Mager, R. F. (1984). Developing attitudes toward learning. Belmont, CA:Pitman.
  77. 145-151.
  78. level and mental capacity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(1), 41-51.
  79. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University.
  80. Shuell, T. J. (1981). Dimensions of individual differences. In F. H. Farley & N. J. Gordon(Eds.), Psychology and education: The state of the union. Berkeley, California: McCutchan.
Times Cited
  1. 翁韻婷(2011)。角色扮演遊戲融入5E學習環 對國中化學式相關概念學習之影響。臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系學位論文。2011。1-129。