第五章 結論與建議
第二節 建議
本研究根據晤談資料探討學生對基因相關概念的瞭解，也反應出 學生的基因相關概念隨著年齡增長之發展與遭遇的困境，根據上述結
果，給予教師教學、教科書編輯者編輯教材、以及未來研究上之建議 如下：
一、對教師教學的建議：
由學生學習基因相關概念後所展現的情形來看，隨著年齡增長，
學生學習到更多關於分子遺傳學的知識，但卻很難將這些知識與他們 已擁有的古典遺傳學的知識作清楚的區別。教師於教授遺傳學之基因 相關概念時，若能幫助學生統合兩邊的知識，將對學生學習遺傳學有 所助益，以下為幾點教學建議：
1. 教師應讓學生瞭解基因的多義性：
教師應幫助學生瞭解基因的定義會隨著不同時代背景、不同研 究領域而有所不同，而與基因相關的其他概念，諸如性狀、基因與性 狀的關係等等，亦隨著基因的定義改變而改變。如此可避免學生因學 習了不同的基因概念，而產生概念上的混淆與分裂。
2. 教師應幫助學生整合基因的物質形象與基因的功能定義：
學生初次正式接觸遺傳學教材是在國中，而目前國中生物學教科 書幾乎都有放置基因為雙股螺旋的圖片，因此教師在教學時應注意連 結基因的物質形象與基因功能定義。
3. 教師應幫助學生整合基因與其表現的關係：
教師在敎授基因的表現時，應注意將基因本身與基因的表現做連 結，而非只侷限於教材所舉的例子。教師應注意讓學生清楚瞭解什麼 是基因的表現，基因會影響什麼，而基因又是如何產生影響，如此才 能避免學生對基因的表現的概念只有片面而無法連貫的知識、固著於 教材所舉的範例，當學生遭遇到教材以外的例子時就無從類推。
4. 教師應注意學生可能對於性狀一詞使用的詞彙「性」而產生與 性別、性徵有所聯想的另有概念。
二、對教材編輯者的建議：
由學生學習遺傳學後所展現的情形來看，學生學習到關於古典遺 傳學與關於分子遺傳學的知識，但卻由於分段學習以致難以釐清兩邊 的知識，進而產生統整其基因相關概念上的困擾。以下為兩點教材編 輯之建議：
1. 教材編輯者應提及基因的多義性：
在編輯基因相關教材時，編輯者應說明基因的定義會隨著不同時 代背景、不同研究領域而有所不同，而與基因相關的其他概念，諸如 性狀、基因與性狀的關係等等，亦隨著基因的定義改變而改變，所以 在不同的情境之下，基因的涵義可能並不相同。
2. 編輯教材時應注意定義與範例的連結：
教材編輯者在提出「性狀」等專有名詞或概念時，應避免只採用 提供例子的方式，以免造成學生對該詞彙的概念只停留在教材的舉 例，往後只要遇到教材沒有提到的例子，學生就無從下判斷。編輯教 材時應將不同情境、不同研究領域下該詞彙的概念以文字描述說明，
再佐以與該定義吻合的範例。
三、未來研究方向的建議：
本研究採用質性晤談來分析學生的概念，受限於人力物力，僅晤 談北部地區四個年級共四十三位學生，為了未來更進一步、更深入的 探討，在此對於接下來本研究可行的發展方向提出下列幾點建議：
1. 由研究結果可看出學生的基因相關概念，未來之研究可增加更 多取樣對象，或採用不同背景的取樣對象，以本研究結果為基礎，再 以量化方式呈現應能看出更多結果。
2. 本研究可以進一步結合比較學生的學科知識成就，探討學生的 基因相關概念及學習上遭遇的困境，與學生表現出來的學科成就是否 有關。
3. 由研究結果可知，學生學習了古典遺傳學與分子遺傳學後，可 能會無法連結兩邊的知識，而造成其釐清概念時的困難。因此，如何 讓學生瞭解兩種遺傳學的差異、以及如何讓學生能夠融會與基因相關
的各種概念？是未來可以進一步探討的。
4. 未來亦可深入研究學生瞭解了兩種遺傳學的差異以及基因在 不同情境下的多義性之後，對於學生學習基因相關概念是否有所助 益。
5. 未來可研究學生認知中兩種遺傳學概念之關係，是否符合 Thagard 理論中探討新舊理論間的四種關係？隨著學生年齡增長，兩 種遺傳學中的基因相關概念之關係，是合併(incorporate)、含攝覆蓋 (sublate)、取代(supplant)或忽視不理(disregard)？
參考文獻
一、中文文獻
Skemp, R. R. (1987)著，The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. 陳澤民 譯(1995)：數學學習心理學。台北：九章。
Skemp, R. R. (1989)著，Mathematics in the Primary School. 許國輝譯 (1995)：智性學習。香港：公開進修學院出版社。
Kuhn, T. S. (1970)著，The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 程樹德、傅 大為、王道還、錢永祥譯(1994)：科學革命的結構。台北，遠流。
南一書局(2007)：高級中學生命科學下冊。台北：南一。
南一書局(2007)：普通高級中學生物下冊。台北：南一。
教育百科辭典編審委員(1994)：教育百科辭典。台北：五南。
康軒文教事業(2006)：國中自然與生活科技 1 下。台北：康軒。
康軒文教事業(2007)：國中自然與生活科技 1 下。台北：康軒。
陳向明(2002)：社會科學質的研究。台北：五南。
陳向明(2007)：社會科學質的研究。台北：五南。
陳世輝(1994)：兒童遺傳概念之研究。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告 (NSC-83-0111-S-026-004)。
黃台珠(1990)：中學生遺傳相關概念錯誤類型的探討。《科學教育月
黃台珠(1993)：中學生遺傳學習的現況及問題。《高雄師大學報》，4，
269-300。
湯清二(1990)：迷思概念與科學教學改進研究(I)「以遺傳學為例」。《彰 化師範大學學報》，1，367-397。
楊坤原、陳進利(1990)：中學生認知能力與遺傳學概念學習之相關研 究。《科學教育》，1，61-75。
楊坤原、張賴妙理(2004)：發展和應用二段式診斷工具來偵測國中一 年級學生之遺傳學另有概念。《科學教育學刊》，12(1)，107-131。
楊坤原、張賴妙理(2004)：遺傳學迷思概念之文獻探討及其在教學上 的啟示。《科學教育學刊》，12(3)，365-398。
張筱莉、林陳涌(2001)：學童眼中的科學專有名詞。《科學教育學刊》，
9(3)，219-234。
劉誠宗(2003)：學生對物種起源的解釋架構一貫性之探析。《台北市：
國立台灣師範大學碩士論文》，未出版。
翰林出版(2006)：國民中學 1 下自然與生活科技。台南：翰林。
薛靜瑩(1998)：國小、國中學生的遺傳先前概念。《台北市：國立台灣 師範大學生物研究所碩士論文》，未出版。
鐘聖校(1997)：認知心理學。台北：心理。
二、英文文獻
Bahar, M. B., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84-86.
Bahar, M. B., Johnstone, A. H., & Sutcliffe, R. G. (1999). Investigation of students＇ cognitive structure in elementary genetics through word association tests. Journal of Biological Education, 33(3), 134-141.
Baker, E., & Taylor, P. C.S., (1995). The effect of culture on the learning of science in non-Western countries: The results of an integrated research review. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 695-704.
Banet, E., & Ayuso, E. (1999). Teaching genetics at secondary school: A strategy for teaching the location of inheritance information. Science Education, 84, 313-351.
Bernard, H. R. (1988). Unstructured and Semistructured Interviewing.
Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology. Newbury Park: Sage.
Browning, M. E., & Lehman, J. D. (1988). Identification of student misconceptions in genetics problem solving via computer program.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(9), 747-761.
Campbell, N. A., Reece, J. B., & Mitchell, L. G. (2005). Biology (7th ed.).
New York: Addison Wesley.
Carlson, E. A. (1991). Defining the Gene: An Evolving Concept, Am J Hum Genet, 49(2), 475-487.
Carlson, E. A. (2004). Mendel's Legacy: The Origin of Classical Genetics.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.
Chi, M. T. H. & Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics, Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 249-260.
Confrey, J. (1989). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3-56.
Deadman, J. A., & Kelly, P. J. (1978). What do secondary school boys understand about evolution and heredity before they are taught the topics? Journal of Biological Education, 12(1), 7-15.
Donovan, M. P. (1997). The vocabulary of biology and problem of semantics.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(6), 381-382.
Dreyfus, A., & Jungwirth, E. (1989). The pupil and the living cell: A taxonomy of dysfunctional ideas about an abstract idea. Journal of Biological Education, 23(1), 49-55.
Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Eylon, B-S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251-301.
Falk, R. (1986). What is a gene? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 17(2). 133-173.
Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspectives. Science Education, 89, 335-347.
Finkel, E. A. (1996). Making sense of genetics: Students＇ knowledge use during problem solving in a high school genetics class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 345-368.
Fisher, K. M., & Moody, D. E. (2000). Student misconceptions in biology. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Klu-wer Academic Publishers.
Fisher, K. M., Lipson, J. I., Hildebrand, A. C., Miguel, L., Schoenberg, N., &
Porter, N. (1986). Student misconceptions and teacher assumptions in college biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 15(2), 276-280.
Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The Art of Science. In N.K.
Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln（Eds.）Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fox-Keller, E. (2000). The century of the gene. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gericke, N. M. & Hagberg, M. (2007). Definition of historical models of gene function and their relation to students＇ understanding of genetics.
Science and Education, 16, 849-881.
Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). A constructive view of learning science. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates, Publishers.
Hackling, M. (1982). An examination of secondary students＇ understanding of inheritance concepts. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 28(1), 13-20.
Hackling, M. W. & Treagust, D. F. (1982). What lower secondary students should understand about the mechanisms of inheritance and what they do understand following instruction. Research in Science Education, 12, 78-88.
Hendrix, J. R., Mertens, T. R., & Baumgartner, R. S. (1981). Individualizing instruction through concept assessment. The American Biology Teacher, 43(5), 246-253.
Herron, J. D., Cantu, L. L., Ward, R. & Srinivasan, V. (1977). Problems associated with concept analysis. ScienceEducation, 61(2), 185-199.
Johnstone, A. H. & Mahmoud, N. A. (1980) Isolating topics of high perceived difficulty in school biology, Journal of Biological Education, 12(2), 163-166.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
Kargob, D. B., Hobbs, E. D., & Erickson, G. L. (1980). Children＇s beliefs about inherited characteristics. Journal of Biological Education, 14(2), 137-146.
Kindfield, A. C. H. (1991a). Confusing chromosome number and structure: A common student error. Journal of Biological Education, 25(3), 193-200.
Kinnear, J. F., & Martin, M. D. (1987). Symbol use and concept development in genetic engineering. Paper presented at the Second International Seminar: Misconceptions and educational strategies in science and
mathematics. Ithaca, NY, July 26-29, 1987.
Kitcher, P. (1982). Gene, Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 33, 337-359.
Lawson, A. E. (1986). Integrating research on misconception, Reasoning patterns and three types of learning cycles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 278 567).
Lazarowitz, R., & Penso, S. (1992). High school students＇ difficulties in learning biology concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 26(3), 215-223.
Lewis, J. (2004). Traits, genes, particles, and information: re-visiting students＇ understandings of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 195-206.
Maddock, M. N. (1981). Science education: An anthropological viewpoint.
Studies in Science Education, 8, 1-26.
Marantz Hening, R. (2000). The monk in the garden: The lost and found genius of Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics. Boston: Mariner Books.
Mbajiorgu, N. M., Ezechi, N. G. & Idoko, E. C. (2007). Addressing Nonscientific Presuppositions in Genetics Using a Conceptual Change Strategy. Science Education, 91(3), 419-438.
Merrill, M. D., Tennyson, R. D., & Posey, L. O. (1992). Teaching concepts:
An instructional design guide (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.
Mertens, T. R., & Hendrix, J. R. (1990). The popular press, scientific literacy in human genetics, and bioethical decision-making. School Science and Mathematics, 90(4), 317-322.
Moll, M. B., & Allen, R. D. (1987). Student difficulties with Mendelian genetics problem. The American Biology Teacher, 49(4), 229-233.
Morange, M. (2001). THE MISUNDERSTOOD GENE. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mysliwiec, T. H. (2003). The genetic blues: Understanding genetic principles using a practical approach and a historical perspective. The American Biology Teacher, 65(1), 41-46.
Novak, J. D. (1997). An alternative to Piagetian psychology for science and mathematics education. Science Education, 61(4), 453-477.
Pearson, J. T., & Hughes, W. J. (1988). Problems with the use of terminology in genetics education: A literature review and classification scheme.
Journal of Biological Education, 22(3), 178-182.
Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. (1991). Bibliography: Students alternative frameworks
and science education. Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel Institute for Science Education.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982).
Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change, Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
Radford, A. & Bird-Steward, J. A. (1982). Teaching genetics in schools.
Journal of Biological Education, 16(3), 177-180.
Southerland, S. A., Smith, M. U. & Cummins, C. L. (2000). “What do you mean by that?＂ Using structured interviews to assess science understanding. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak, (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding-A human constructivist view.
London: Academic Press.
Sterelny, K. & Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Stewart, J. H. (1982). Difficulties experienced by high school students when learning basic Mendelian genetics. The American Biology Teacher, 44(2), 80-84, 89.
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tolman, P. R. (1982). Difficulties in genetics problem solving. The American Biology Teacher, 44(9), 525-527.
Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33, 111-135.
Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2004). Conceptual change in learning genetics:
an ontological perspective. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22(2), 185-202.
Tudge, C. (1993). In Mendel＇s footnotes: An introduction to the science and technologies of the genes and genetics from the 19th century to the 20nd.
London: Jonathan Cape.
Venville, G. & Donovan, J. (2005). Searching for clarity to teach the complexity of the gene concept, Teaching Science, 51(3), 20-24.
Venville, G. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031-1055.
Venville, G. J. & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Teaching about the Gene in the Genetics Information Age, Australian Science Teachers Journal,48(2), 20-24.
Wandersee, J. H., Fisher, K. M., & Moody, D. E. (2000). The nature of
biology knowledge. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody
biology knowledge. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody