不同學習階段和不同學習成就的中學生其力學概念組織之研究

The Study of Secondary School Students' Concept Organizations in Mechanics

任宗浩(Tsung-Hau Jen)

指導教授 ： 李田英

國立臺灣師範大學/理學院/科學教育研究所/博士(2000年)

摘要

本研究提出一個「形式」和「內涵」的二維認識架構以了解學生的概念組織，並藉此架構探討﹙1﹚中學生在力學概念組織上的差異，以及﹙2﹚國中生經過常態教學方式學習力學概念前、後，以及分類時提供概念特質間的因果關係對其分類的影響。研究包含兩個實驗，實驗一以「卡片分類」的方法，針對60名國三學生、60名高中生以及5位物理博士，探討不同學習階段和不同學習成就的受試者在力學概念組織型態上的差異。受試者的分類理由經三位編碼者按其敘述形式與內涵編碼之後，進行「學習階段」與「學習成就」二因子多變量變異數分析。實驗結果顯示﹙1﹚高中組依據「後設─名義的」理由分類之比例，顯著高於國中組﹙p<.05﹚；﹙2﹚「高學習成就群」依據「後設─功能的」和「後設─名義的」理由分類之比例均顯著高於「低學習成就群」﹙p<.05﹚；此結果顯示「形式」與「內涵」之二維認識架構的確能夠反映中學生在概念組織型態上之差異。實驗二根據不同學校和不同老師以班級為單位，將119名國三學生分成實驗組﹙58人﹚和控制組﹙61人﹚，研究者利用自行發展的「概念學習偏好」測驗﹙重測信度0.72至0.85﹚探討一般國中常態物理教學以及測驗提示因果脈絡對於國中生概念分類的影響。研究結果顯示︰﹙1﹚對於新的物理概念，國中生顯著偏好以「後設性」和「功能性」特徵分類概念﹙p<.05﹚；﹙2﹚對已學過的力學概念，國中生顯著偏好以「關聯性」特徵分類概念﹙p<.05﹚；﹙3﹚國中生經過常態物理教學方式學習力學概念後，以「後設性」和「功能性」概念特徵分類之比例顯著降低﹙p<.05﹚；﹙4﹚對已學過的力學概念，提示因果脈絡顯著增加國中生以「後設性」和「功能性」概念特徵分類之比例﹙p<.05﹚。

關鍵字

中學教育 ； 高中生 ； 國中生 ； 物理 ； 力學 ； 認知結構 ； 概念組織 ； 分類

並列摘要

This study proposed a two-dimensional framework of cognitive structure as a way to understand how students organize their concepts learned. Equipped with this framework, this study investigated into two issues. First, are there any differences among junior and senior high students with respect to their organization of concepts in mechanics? Second, will the provision of hints towards the characteristics among concepts affect students in their subsequent classification of those concepts? Two experiments were conducted for these purposes.
The first experiment focused on the differences among 60 9th graders, 60 senior high students and 5 physics experts regarding the way they organize concepts in mechanics via a card sorting approach. The reasons behind such categorization were then coded independently by three raters, and a two way MANOVA was then performed with “grade level” and “learning achievement” as the two factors. The results of the first experiment revealed that secondary school students differed in terms of the “form” and “content” of their concept organization. Furthermore, the percentage of high school students who belonged to the “meta-descriptive/nominal” group was significantly greater than that of junior high students. It was also found that the percentage of students who belong to the “meta-descriptive/nominal” and “meta-descriptive/functional” group were significantly higher for the high achievers than for the low achievers.
The second experiment focused on the second purpose of this study. It was conducted on 119 ninth graders from two different schools and separated them into an experimental group (with 58 students) and a control group (with 61 students) setup. An instrument that measured disposition towards concept learning was specially designed for this purpose. Test-retest reliabilities for its various sub-scales were in the range from .72 to .85. The results of this experiment revealed that junior high students were inclined to classify newly learned concepts in physics according to the “meta-descriptive” and “functional” approach. Moreover, they tended to use the associative characteristics of concepts as a means to categorize learned concepts in mechanics. It was also found that students tended to retract from using the meta-descriptive and functional characteristics to categorize learned concepts in mechanics. Lastly, it was found that the provision of causal effect information increased the probability of using the meta-descriptive and functional characteristics to categorize learned concepts in mechanics by junior high students.

並列關鍵字

secondary school education ； senior high students ； junior high students ； physics ； mechanics ； cognitive structure ； concept organization ； classification

參考文獻

林靜雯 (1990): 由概念改變及心智模式初探多重類比對國小四年級學生電學概念學習之影響。台北市︰國立台灣師範大學碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。

Larkin, J.H. (1981) Enriching formal knowledge: A model for learning to solve problems in physics. In J. R. Anderson (ed.), Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition (pp. 311-334). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ahn, W. K., Gelman, S. A., Amsterlaw, J. A., Hohenstein, J., & Kalish, C. W. (2000). Causal status effect in children’s categorization. Cognition, 76(2), B35-B43.

Ahn, W., Kalish, C.W., Medin, D.L., & Gelman, S.A. (1995). The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition, 54, 299–352.

Armstrong, S., Gleitman, L. and Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13, 263-308.