透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.165.248.212
  • 學位論文

台灣與中國國中自然教科書之內容分析比較 ―以酸鹼鹽單元為例

Comparison of Science Text Books Content Analysis for Junior High School in Taiwan and Mainland China ―Using Acid , Base ,Salt as an Example

指導教授 : 楊坤原

摘要


本研究旨在分析與比較台灣康軒版國中自然與生活科技與中國人教版初中化學教科書酸鹼鹽教材之內容。本研究採用內容分析法,以問題為分析單位,利用「布魯姆認知領域教育目標分類(修訂版)」為工具,分析知識向度、認知歷程向度及其二維向度分類下之內容分布情形,並探討及比較兩者課程內容、概念呈現、實驗活動與編排方式的異同,以瞭解兩岸教科書在各自的課程綱要或課程標準之架構下所具備的差異和特色。 研究結果如下: 一、台灣康軒版在版面編排設計較清晰、整齊,圖片顏色也較豐富。 二、台灣康軒版在實驗操作的解說較詳盡,中國人教版則以較簡潔的方式呈現。 三、台灣康軒版在例題解說非常詳盡,中國人教版則沒有解說。 四、中國人教版重視例題及課後練習,這兩項的題數約為台灣康軒版的5倍。 五、台灣康軒版和中國人教版在「知識向度」所占題數比重順序類似,但中國人教版比台灣康軒版更重視後設認知。 六、台灣康軒版和中國人教版在「認知歷程向度」所占題數比重順序也類似。但在認知歷程「評鑑」和「創造」兩高層次之題目分布百分比則偏少,而且台灣康軒版並沒有「創造」層次題目。 七、知識向度與認知歷程向度所歸納出題型中,兩版本最常出現的題型依序為「概念知識和了解」、「程序知識和應用」及「程序知識和了解」。其所佔比例皆在10%以上。 上述研究結果,可以提供有關單位作為編輯教科書之參考,並提供相關建議以為未來研究方向之依循。

並列摘要


The purpose of this study was to explore and compare the differences of contents and cognitive levels of Acid Base Salt units in junior high school’s textbooks. This study was based on the Science and Technology textbooks published by Kang Hsuan Educational Publishing Group in Taiwan and the chemistry textbooks published by The People's Education Press (PEP) in China. By using content analysis as method, science problem as unit and Revised Bloom’s taxonomy of Educational Objectives as the analytic tool to analyze. Through problem based content analysis, we expect to realize the distribution and consistency of these textbooks in Knowledge Dimension, Cognitive Process Dimension and both two dimensions. We also inquire the similarities and differences of the curriculum contents, concepts, experiments and layouts of the two in order to realize the distinguishing features under distinct Curriculum Guidelines. The findings indicate that: 1. The page layouts are clearer, neater and more colorful in Kang Hsuan’s version. 2. The explanations of experiments are described in detail in Kang Hsuan’s version while PEP’s versions are simpler. 3. The explanations of sample problems are detailed in Kang Hsuan’s version. However, there are no explanations in PEP’s version. 4. The PEP’s version put more emphases on sample problems and exercises which are about five times than Kang Hsuan’s version. 5. Both versions are similar in numbers and sequence in Knowledge Dimension. The PEP’s version pays more attention to Metacogniton. 6. The two version are also similar in Cognitive Process Dimension but there are fewer sample problems in two higher “Evaluate” and “Create” levels, especially no problems in “Create” level in Kang Hsuan’s version. 7. Six levels in the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, and four types of knowledge were identified, together comprising nineteen major types. Most of the problem types are “Understand Conceptual Knowledge”, “Apply Procedural Knowledge” and “Understand Procedural Knowledge” which take more than 10% in both versions. This study is to provide as a reference for further textbooks revision and suggestions for further research.

參考文獻


蘇景進(2004)。高三學生酸鹼鹽迷思概念之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所,台灣省台北市。
陳尚義(2014)。台灣與中國大陸國中自然教科書之內容比較(未出版之碩士論文)。國立暨南國際大學國際文教與比較教育研究所,台灣省南投縣。
林志成、陳文進(2005)。教改思潮下學校組織發展與管理之因應。中華技術學院學報,33,157-175。
劉俊庚、 邱美虹(2012)。我國百年國中科學課程發展回顧與展望。科學教育月刊,347,2-20。
郭重吉(2012)。科學教育研究的進展、困境與挑戰。物理教育學刊, 13(1),1-10。

延伸閱讀