簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 毛莉嘉
論文名稱: 國小學童熱傳導概念理解與概念改變研究
指導教授: 張美玉
口試委員:
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱:
畢業學年度: 92
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 132
相關次數: 點閱:2下載:0
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 國小學童熱傳導概念理解與概念改變研究
    摘要
    本研究以新竹縣市兩所國小之五年級學童為對象,以熱傳導概念為例,探討學童熱傳導概念理解情形、學童面對認知衝突情境之反應與認知衝突對概念改變所可能產生的影響。研究工具有半結構式紙筆測驗、實驗操作以及個別訪談等。
    研究中將學童對熱傳導的概念理解情形區分為A、B、C三組。研究結果顯示:A組學童中有部分可能因為本身有正誤概念並存的現象,因此;在實驗觀察後反而出現實驗觀察前所未顯示出來的熱傳導另有概念。B組學童中因為其概念不完備或不當統整的情形未能被察覺出來,因此;多數學童仍保持其原有的概念理解情形未改變。C組學童則有難以從既有概念跨越到新概念的情形,因此實驗觀察亦未對其概念改變有明顯的正向影響。


    A study of conceptual comprehension and change about heat divergence
    Abstract
    To interpret the concept of heat divergence as teenage children of two elementary schools , fifth-grade pupils in Hsinchu, Taiwan. The purpose of this study is to explore the influence of conceptual comprehension of heat divergence , and also analysis its interaction between these conceptual changes as well as reactions of cognitive conflict, as researcher presented in the situation of cognitive conflict. The research instruments, which the research use, include the paper-pencil test(semi-structured), experimental manipulation, individual interview instrument and so on.
    We used the degree of conceptual comprehension of heat divergence to separate students’ cognition into three levels : group A, group B, and group C. The results of this study are as follows: More students in group A both have right and wrong concept simultaneously, therefore, pupils to see the experimental manipulation , they seem to appear the alternative conception of heat divergence that the subjects never emergence in the experimental observation before. Students in group B have fragmented or little unity concept of heat divergence that the researcher can not find it , therefore, most students still remain the original thinking. Students in the group C
    , seem to have a lot of difficulties that to combine original with new concept or stride across original conceptions to new conceptions, therefore, students observed experiment have no positive influence to change their alternative conception obviously.

    目次 頁次 謝詞……………………………………………………………………I 論文摘要………………………………………………………………II 目次 ………………………………………………………………… III 圖次……………………………………………………………………VI 表次……………………………………………………………………VII 第壹章緒論………………………………………………………………1 第一節問題背景與研究動機………………………….………………1 第二節研究目的與研究問題………………….………………………3 第三節名詞釋義…………………………………………….………..4 第四節研究範圍與限制……………………………………………….5 第貳章文獻探討 ………………………………………………………7 第一節概念與學習……………………………………………………..7 第二節另有概念的意義來源類別與特性.……………………………18 第三節認知衝突…………………..………………………………….24 第參章研究設計與實施 ………………………………………………36 第一節研究流程………………………………………….……………37 第二節研究樣本……………………………………………………….38 第三節研究工具……………………………………………….………39 第四節實施流程………………………………………………….……48 4第五節資料分析………………………………………………………49 第肆章結果與討論……………………………………………….……54 第一節國小學童熱傳導概念理解與自信之關係…………….………54 第二節國小學童熱傳導另有概念來源類別……………………….…64 第三節熱傳導實驗操作及其反應……………………..………….…73 第四節國小學童熱傳導概念改變情形……………………………….85 第五節實地訪談………………………………………………………98 第伍章結論與建議 第一節結論…………………………………………………………..105 第二節建議……………………………………………………………106 參考文獻 中文部分………………………………………………………………107 英文部分 …………………………………………………………...112 附錄 附錄一熱傳導概念測驗…………………………………………..….121 附錄二熱傳導實驗觀察問卷……………………….………………..122 附錄三認知衝突因子問卷………………..……………….…………123 5 圖次 頁次 圖2-1-1 多向度的詮釋架構………………………………..…………...12 圖2-1-2 學生學習後可能產生的情形…………………………………….17 圖2-3-1 認知衝突型態…………………………………………………….26 圖2-3-2 認知衝突處理模式………………………………………………..29 圖3-1-1 研究流程…………………………………………………………..37 圖3-4-1 研究實施流程………………………………………..…….……49 圖4-4-1 「A組」概念改變圖………………………………...…….……88 圖4-4-2 「B組」概念改變圖…………..…. ………..………..…………91 圖4-4-3 「C組」概念改變圖……………....…. ……..…....………93 6 表次 頁次 表3-1-1 欣欣國小與師師國小自然科使用教材………………………………38 表3-1-2 研究樣本…………….……………………………………………39 表3-3-1「認知衝突因子測驗」問題內容……………………….………..45 表3-5-1原始資料轉錄代碼………………………………………………..50 表3-5-2 熱傳導概念理解情形……………………………………………..52 表3-5-3認知衝突因子強弱程度分析……………………………..………53 表4-1-1 問卷回收統計…………………………………………………….56 表4-1-2 「一∼一、概念測驗選擇題」結果統計 …………………56 表4-1-3 國小自然科各版本熱傳導概念單元目標及用語 …………57 表4-1-4 一~二、熱傳導概念理由說明統計 ………………………59 表4-1-5 熱傳導概念理解情形 ………………………………………61 表4-1-6 熱傳導概念的自信程度…………………………………….63 表4-1-7 熱傳導概念理解情形與自信程度分析 ……………………64 表4-2-1 熱傳導另有概念來源統計 …………………………………65 表4-2-2 「日常生活經驗」之內容分析 ……………………………66 表4-2-3 「日常生活經驗」之內容分析與概念理解情形 …………67 表4-2-4 「正式或非正式的教學」之內容分析 ……………………69 表4-2-5 「正式或非正式的教學」之內容分析與概念理解情形 …70 表4-2-6「熱傳導概念記憶錯誤」內容舉例說明……………………70 表4-2-7「其他概念的錯誤類推」內容舉例說明……………………71 表4-2-8「實驗操作」內容舉例說明 ………………………….……72 表4-3-1 熱傳導概念理解與實驗結果反應統計 ……………………74 7表4-3-2 對實驗結果反應理由說明之人數比例統計 ……………76 表4-3-3 實驗結果反應與理由說明統計 ……………………………77 表4-3-4 「主觀因素」之概念理解與實驗反應統計分析 …………78 表4-3-5 「主觀因素」理由說明與內容舉例 ………………………78 表4-3-6 「實驗操作」之概念理解與實驗反應統計分析 …………80 表4-3-7 「實驗操作」理由說明與內容舉例………….……………80 表4-3-8 「相關概念詮釋」之概念理解與實驗反應統計分析 ……82 表4-3-9 「相關概念詮釋」理由說明與內容舉例…….……………83 表4-3-10 認知衝突因子測驗(CCLT)統計結果.………….………84 表4-4-1 學童熱傳導概念理解情形之改變 …………………………86 表4-4-2 學童熱傳導概念理解情形之增減狀況 ……………………86 表4-4-3 「A組」之概念改變狀況……………………………………88 表4-4-4 「B組」之概念改變狀況……………………………………90 表4-4-5 「C組」之概念改變狀況 ………………..……………..93

    參考文獻:中文部分
    王美芬( 1997 ):我國國小學生有關於人體生理的認知模式研究,台北師範學院學報、1997、28期137-158頁。
    王美芬、熊召弟(1998):國民小學自然科教材教法。台北:心理出版社。
    李素卿譯﹙1999﹚:Cranton, P. 著。瞭解與促進轉化學習─成人教育者指南。台北:五南。
    李權洲(2000):三至八年級學生對熱膨脹相關概念之研究,國立高雄師範大學物理學系碩士論文.
    林清山﹙1997﹚:教育心理學認知取向。台北。遠流。
    林靜雯(2000):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。P.24。P.27。P.31。
    邵瑞珍、皮連生主編(1989)。教育心理學。台北:五南。
    物理教育﹙2000﹚第二卷第二期P.21~26。
    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。
    邱照麟﹙2000﹚:國小學童「空氣」概念之研究。。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。P.11~12。
    洪振方( 1996 ):科學知識重建的認知取向分析。高雄師大學報七期293-328。
    張川木(1996):促進概念改變教學法(II)。科學教育月刊第186期10-18頁。
    張春興(1991):張氏心理學辭典。台北:東華書局。
    張春興(1993):現代心理學。台北:東華書局。
    張美玉( 1998 ):建構取向的科學教室內師生互動實例。科學教育月刊,1998第六卷第二期,149-168。
    張美玉(2000):歷程檔案評量的理念與實施。科學教育月刊,第231期,P.58-63。
    許良榮,(1993):談建構主義之理論觀點與教學的爭論。國教輔導第33卷第2期7-12頁。
    許榮富(1992):科學教育的科學與認知科學。中華民國第八屆科學教育學術研討會發表論文。
    郭重吉(1988):從認知的觀點探討自然科學的學習。教育學院學報,13,pp.352-378。
    郭重吉(1992)。從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進革新。科學發展月刊,第20卷第五期
    郭重吉(1993):國小自然科教學的一些構想。國教之聲,27(1),4-7。
    郭重吉(1996):從建構主義談數理師資培育的革新。科學發展月刊,24(7),pp.555-562。
    陳俊璋( 2001 ):國小學童對氣團及其相關概念認知之研究,台北市立師範學院自然科學教育研究所碩士論文。
    陳勇全(2000):三至八年級學生對牛頓第二運動定律相關概念改變之研究,國立高雄師範大學物理學系碩士論文。
    陳文典﹙民83﹚國小學童對熱與溫度概念的認知。
    陳振威﹙1999﹚:學生概念生態組成因子之研究—以密度/沉浮概念為例。P.18。18-23。
    陳振威、陳龍川﹙2000﹚:國小學生密度概念之概念生態。物理教育,第三卷第二期,21-56。P.25。
    黃台珠(1984):概念的研究及其意義。科學教育月刊,66,44-51。
    黃湘武(1993):皮亞傑理論在科學教育上的應用研究,杜祖貽編,西方社會科學理論的移植與應用,頁53-62。
    楊文金(1993)。多重現與電學概念理解研究。科學教育學刊,1(2),135-160。
    楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦圓(1988):社會及行為科學研究法(上冊)。台北:東華。
    楊景淵﹙2002﹚:動態評量對國小自然科學概念學習的效益研究。國立新竹師範學院課程與教學碩士論文。
    葉誌鑑﹙2001﹚:國小高年級學童電磁鐵概念分析之研究。臺北市立師範學院/科學教育研究所,碩士P.25。P.15~17。
    彭泰源﹙1998﹚:國小五年級學童力與運動學習概念之研究。P.8~11。
    簡順永(2000):高二學生力概念的運用調查分析。國立台灣師範大學物理系研究所碩士論文。(未出版)
    葛樹人(1991):心理測驗學。台北:桂冠。
    廖雯玲(1999):建構主義取向教學法對國小六年級學生在「地球運動」單元學習之影響。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
    廖雯玲(2000):建構主義取向教學法對國小六年級學生在「地球運動」單元學習之影響。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。P.27、P.31。
    廖琳瑩,劉秀寶,佘曉清(1999):應用「衝突式情境」教學改變國中生理化迷思概念,中等學校之教學與學習學術研討會論文專輯。
    熊召弟、王美芬、段曉林、熊同鑫等譯(1996):科學學習心理學。台北: 心理。
    劉嘉茹(2000):以研究綱領與本體分類論探究概念改變機制之研究。國立台灣師範大學博士論文。P.6
    劉德明(1999):小學自然的科學態度之研究。花蓮師院學報,9,83-119。
    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。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。P.143。
    鄭昭明﹙1993﹚:認知心理學:理論與實踐。P.316~318。
    賴美杏﹙2000﹚:從小組討論看問題與生物概念的學習。P.9。10。
    蔡佳璋(2001):三至八年級學生熱膨脹概念之研究,國立高雄師範大學物理學系碩士論文。P.13~14。P.17。
    鍾聖校(1995):國小自然科課程教學研究。台北:五南。
    魏金財(1992)。兒童對雨量之概念及其概念之改變類型。國教學報,第四期。
    參考文獻:英文部分
    Adams,A. D.& Chiappetta, E. L.(1998). Traditional high school physics classroom.Parer presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego,CA,April,13-17.
    Anderson, C. W.; Smith, E. L.(1983):Children’s conception of light and color understanding the role of unseen rays. (ED 270318)
    Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Beeth, M. E. (1993). Dynamic aspects of conceptual change instruction. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    Benson, D. L., Wittrock, M. C., & Baur, M. E.(1993).Students’ presconceptions of the nature of gases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,30(6),587-597.
    Blosser, P. E. (1987a). Secondary school students’ comprehension of science concepts: Some findings from misconceptions research. ED 286 757
    Blosser, P. E. (1987b). Science misconceptions research and some implications for the teaching of science to elementary school students. ED 282 776
    Bodrakova, W. V. (1988). The role of rxternal and cognitive conflict in children’s conservation learning. Doctorial dissertation , city University of New York.
    Bonder, G. M.(1986).Constructivism:theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education,63,873-878.
    Botwin, G., & Murray, F. (1975). The efficacy of peer modeling and social conflict in the acquisition of conservation. Child Development. 46,796-799.
    Burton, W. H., Kimball, R. B., & Wing, R. L.(1960). Education for effective thinking. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
    Champagne, A.B., Klopfer, L.E., & Gunstone, R.F.(1982). Cognitive research and the design of science instruction. Education Psychologist, 17(1), 31-53.
    Chann, C, Burtis, j, & Bereiter, C,(1997). Knowledge building as a mediator conflict in conceotual change, Cognition and instructton, 15, 1-40
    Chi, M. T. H. (1992) Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: examples from learning and discovery in science. In R.Giere(Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp.129-186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts, Learning and instruction, 4, 27-43.
    Chinn, C. A, & Brewer, W. F.(1998). An empirical test of a taxanomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Reseaarch in Science Teaching, 35, 623-654.
    Damon, w , & Killen, M. (1982). Peer interaction and the process of change in children’s moral reasoning. Merrill-palmer Quarterly, 28, 347-367
    Dekkers, P. J. J. M.& Thijs, G. D. (1998). Making Productive Use of Students’ initial Conceptions in Developing the Concept of Force. Science education , 82 , 31-51
    Drefus, A., Jungwirth, e., & Eliovitch, R. 1990:Applying the “cognitive conflict”strategy for conceptual change-some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science education, 74(5), 555-569.
    Driver(1968、1988)
    Driver, R. and Easley, J.(1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84
    Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A.(1985):Children’s ideas in science. Open University Press: Milton Keynes.
    Driver,R., & Oldham, V.(1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science education. Studies in Science Education,13,105-22.
    Druyan,(1997).Effect of the Dinesthetic Conflict on Promoting Scientific Reasoning.
    Journal of Research in Science Teaching,34(10),1083-1099.
    Dupin, J. J. & Johsua, S. (1987). Conceptions of French pupils concerning electric circuits: Structure and evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(9), 791-806.
    Fisher, K. M. (1985). A misconception in biology: Aminoacids and translation.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22 (1), 53-62.
    Furth, H. G.(1981).piaget and knowledge. Theoretical foundation. Chicago; University of Chicago Press.
    Gilbert, J.K., Osborne, R.J. & Fensham, P.J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623-633.
    Gredler, D. E.(1992).Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. NY ; Macmillan Publiching Company.
    Gyoungho Lee.(2001).What do we know about students’ cognitive conflict in science classroom: A theoretical model of cognitive conflict process. The proceedings of the 2001 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Costa Mesa, CA, January 18-21.
    Hashweh.(1986).Toward an Explanation of Conceptual Change, European Journal of Science Education, 8(3),229-249.
    Hewson, P. W.(1982). The influence of prior knowledge in learning. European Journal of Science Education, 4(1),61-78.
    Hewson, P.W., & Hewson, M.G.(1983). Effect of instruction using students’ prior
    knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731-743.
    Hewson, P. W, & Hewson, M. G. A. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instuctional Science,13,1-13
    Hashweh, M.Z(1988). Descriptive studies of students, conceptions in scierce. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(2), pp.513-529.
    Keil, F. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Krajcik, J.S.(1991). Developing students’ understanding of chemical concepts. In S.M.Glynn etc.(Eds.), The psychology of learning science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.p.117-148.
    Kwon, J.S.(1989). Acognitive model of conceptual change in science learning. Physics Teaching(written in Korean)7(1),1-9. Korean Physics Society.
    Kwon, J. S., Lee, G.H., Park, H. K. Kim, J. T., Lee, Y. J., (2000). The relationship between the characteristics of cognitive conflict and responses to anomalous situations when learning science. 2000 NARST Annual Meeting, New Orleans,April 28.
    Lawson, A. E., & Thompson, L. D. (1988). Formal reasoning ability and misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 733-746.
    Lee, G.(2000):The effect of cognitive conflict, learning motivation and learning strategy
    on high school students’ conceptual change in physics. Doctoral dissertation, Korea National University of Education.
    Lee, G. H., Kwon, J. S., Park, S. S., Kim, J. W., Kwon, H. G. & Park, H. K. (1999). The Development of an Instrument for the Measuring of Students’ Cognitive Conflict Levels. 1999 NARST Annual Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, March 31.
    Lee, Y. J.(1998)The effect of cognitive conflict on students’ conceptual change in physics. Doctoral dissertation, Korea National University of Education.
    Medin, D. (1989). Concepts and conceptral structure. American Psychologist, 44, 1469-81.
    McCloskey, M.(1983a):Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 113-122.
    Mischel, T. (1971). Piaget:Cognitive cognitive conflict and the motivation of though. In T. Mischel (Ed.), Cognitive development and epistemology (pp.311-335). New York:Academic Press.
    Movshovitz-Hadar, N, & Hadass, R.(1990). Preservice education of math teachers using paradoxes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 265-687.
    Murray, F. B., Ames, G., & Botvin, G.(1977). The acquisition of conservation through cognitive dissonance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 69, 519-527.
    Niaz, M (1995).Cognitive Conflict as a teaching Strategy in Solving Chemistry Problems: A Dialectic-Constructivist Persoective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,32(9),959-970.
    Owen, S., Blount, H., & Moscow, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: An introduction. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
    Park, H.,(1995). A study of students’componts of conceptual ecologies. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1991):Bibliography-Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. Kiel, Germany:Institute for Science Education, University of Kiel.
    Posner, G.J.; Strike, K. A.; Hewson, P. W. & Gerizog, W. A. (1982): Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
    Rosch, E. H., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognition Psychology, 8, 382-439.
    Schroeder AP, Sihm I, Thygesen K, Pedersen EB, Lederballe O. (1996) Influence of humoral and neurohormonal factors on cardiovascular hypertrophy in untreated essential hypertensives. Am J Hypertens 9: 207-15.
    Smedsland, J.(1961).The acquisition of conservation of substance and weigh in children Scandanavian Journal of Psychology. 2, 156-160.
    Stavy, R., & Berkovitz, B.(1980).Cognitive conflict as a basis for teaching quantitative aspects of the concept of temperature. Science Education, 64,(5), 679-692.
    Strike, K. A. and Posner G. J. (1985). A Conceptual Change View of Learning and Understanding. In West, L.H.T. and Pines, A. L.(eds.), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change. New York: Academic Press.
    Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147-176).
    Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students misconceptions in science. International Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10(2), 159-169.
    Thorley, N.R., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Conflict within dyadic interactions as a stimulant for conceptual change in Physics. Interational Journal of Science Education, 9 (2), 203-216.
    Vennille, G. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). The role of analogies in promoting conceptual change in biology. Instruction Science, 24, 295-320.
    Vosniadou, S. (1994). Universal and culture-specific properties of children’s mentalmodels of the earth. In S.A. Gelman L.A. Hirschfeld. (Eds.), In Mapping the mind:Domain specificity in cognition and culture, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
    Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    Wadsworth, B. J.(1996). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development. N.Y. Longman.
    Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe),
    Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Zimmerman, B. J., & Blom, D. E.(1983):Toward an empirical test of the role of cognitive conflict in learning . Developmental Review, 3, 18-38.

    無法下載圖示 全文公開日期 本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
    全文公開日期 本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)
    全文公開日期 本全文未授權公開 (國家圖書館:臺灣博碩士論文系統)
    QR CODE