第五章 結論與建議
附錄一 69 篇資料文獻來源
Akpinar, Y., & Bal, V. (2006). Teachers' Collaborative Task Authoring to Help Students Learn a Science Unit. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 84-95.
Asan, A. (2007). Concept mapping in science class: A case study of fifth grade students. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 186-195.
Barton, R. (2005). Supporting teachers in making innovative changes in the use of computer ‐ aided practical work to support concept development in physics education. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 345-365.
Borghi, L., De Ambrosis, A., Lamberti, N., & Mascheretti, P. (2005). A teaching–learning sequence on free fall motion. Physics education, 40(3), 266.
BouJaoude, S. B., & Jurdak, M. E. (2010). Integrating physics and math through microcomputer-based laboratories (MBL): Effects on discourse type, quality, and mathematization. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
8(6), 1019-1047.
Ç alik, M., Okur, M., & Taylor, N. (2011). A comparison of different conceptual change pedagogies employed within the topic of “sound propagation”. Journal of Science
education and Technology, 20(6), 729-742.
Casperson, J. M., & Linn, M. C. (2006). Using visualizations to teach electrostatics.
American journal of physics, 74, 316-323.
Chang, K., Chen, Y., Lin, H., & Sung, Y. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1486-1498.
Chen, C.-H., & She, H.-C. (2012). The Impact of Recurrent On-line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation on Students' Argumentation and Conceptual Change.
Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 197–210.
Clark, D. B., Nelson, B. C., Chang, H., Martinez-Garza, M., Slack, K., & D’Angelo, C.
M. (2011). Exploring Newtonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: Comparison of learning and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United States. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2178-2195.
Clark, D., & Jorde, D. (2004). Helping students revise disruptive experientially supported ideas about thermodynamics: Computer visualizations and tactile models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 1-23.
Dalacosta, K., Kamariotaki-Paparrigopoulou, M., Palyvos, J., & Spyrellis, N. (2009).
Multimedia application with animated cartoons for teaching science in elementary education. Computers & Education, 52(4), 741-748.
Deniz, H., & Dulger, M. F. (2012). Supporting Fourth Graders’ Ability to Interpret Graphs Through Real-Time Graphing Technology: A Preliminary Study. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 652-660.
Echeverría, A., Barrios, E., Nussbaum, M., Améstica, M., & Leclerc, S. (2012). The atomic intrinsic integration approach: A structured methodology for the design of games for the conceptual understanding of physics. Computers & Education,
59(2), 806-816.
Force (four weeks, January–February), Electricity (six weeks, April–May), and Cosmology (four weeks, June) in physics
Fund, Z. (2007). The effects of scaffolded computerized science problem‐solving on achievement outcomes: a comparative study of support programs. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 410-424.
Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. (2008). Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 348-358.
Goldstein, J., & Puntambekar, S. (2004). The brink of change: Gender in technology-rich collaborative learning environments. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 13(4), 505-522.
Goodison, T. (2003). Integrating ICT in the classroom: a case study of two contrasting lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 549-566.
Han, I., & Black, J. B. (2011). Incorporating haptic feedback in simulation for learning physics. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2281-2290.
Härtel, H. (2000). xyZET: a simulation program for physics teaching. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 9(3), 275-286.
Hatzikraniotis, E., Kallery, M., Molohidis, A., & Psillos, D. (2010). Students' design of experiments: an inquiry module on the conduction of heat. Physics Education,
45(4), 335-344.
Hsu, Y. (2006). ‘Lesson Rainbow’: the use of multiple representations in an Internet‐
based, discipline ‐ integrated science lesson. British journal of educational
technology, 37(4), 539-557.
Jaakkola, T., & Nurmi, S. (2008). Fostering elementary school students’ understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 271-283.
Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation‐laboratory contexts. Journal of research in science teaching, 48(1), 71-93.
Jang, S. (2006). The effects of incorporating web‐assisted learning with team teaching in seventh‐grade science classes. International Journal of Science Education,
28(6), 615-632.
Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: a case study on students' understanding of trajectory motion. Computers
& education, 36(2), 183-204.
Jimoyiannis, A., Mikropoulos, T. A. & Ravanis, K. (2000). Students' performance towards computer simulations on kinematics. Themes in Education, 1(4), 357-372 Kablan, Z., & Erden, M. (2008). Instructional efficiency of integrated and separated
text with animated presentations in computer-based science instruction.
Computers & Education, 51(2), 660-668.
Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom use of multimedia-supported predict–observe–explain tasks in a social constructivist learning environment. Research in Science
Education, 34(4), 427-453.
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2004). Information presentation and troubleshooting in electrical circuits. International Journal of Science
Education, 26(2), 239-256.
Kiboss, J. K. (2002). Impact of a computer-based physics instruction program on pupils' understanding of measurement concepts and methods associated with school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 193-198.
Kong, S. C., Yeung, Y. Y., & Wu, X. Q. (2009). An experience of teaching for learning by observation: Remote-controlled experiments on electrical circuits. Computers
& Education, 52(3), 702-717.
Lazonder, A. W., & Kamp, E. (2012). Bit by bit or all at once? Splitting up the inquiry task to promote children's scientific reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 458-464.
Liu, H., & Su, I. (2011). Learning residential electrical wiring through computer simulation: The impact of computer‐based learning environments on student achievement and cognitive load. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 598-607.
Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., & Savelsbergh, E. R. (2003). The effect of external representation on constructing computer models of complex phenomena.
Instructional Science, 31(6), 395-418.
Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). Computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning and classroom scripts: Effects on help-seeking processes and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 257-266.
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Collaborative versus individual use of regulative software scaffolds during scientific inquiry learning. Interactive
Learning Environments, 17(2), 105-117.
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & Jong, T. D. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
22(2), 87-98.
McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task:
Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 48(7), 745-770.
Mitnik, R., Nussbaum, M., & Recabarren, M. (2009). Developing Cognition with Collaborative Robotic Activities. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 317-330.
Monaghan, J. M., & Clement, J. (2000). Algorithms, visualization, and mental models:
High school students' interactions with a relative motion simulation. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 9(4), 311-325.
Mun, W. K., Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2009). The impact of the use of response pad system on the learning of secondary school physics concepts: A Singapore quasi ‐ experiment study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 848-860.
Nicolaou, C. T., Nicolaidou, I., Zacharia, Z., & Constantinou, C. P. (2007). Enhancing fourth graders’ ability to interpret graphical representations through the use of microcomputer-based labs implemented within an inquiry-based activity sequence.
Journal of computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(1), 75-99.
Papadimitriou, A., Grigoriadou, M., & Gyftodimos, G. (2009). Interactive Problem Solving Support in the Adaptive Educational Hypermedia System MATHEMA.
Learning Technologies, IEEE Transactions on, 2(2), 93-106.
Pol, H. J., Harskamp, E. G., Suhre, C. J., & Goedhart, M. J. (2009). How indirect supportive digital help during and after solving physics problems can improve problem-solving abilities. Computers & Education, 53(1), 34-50.
Puntambekar, S., & Stylianou, A. (2005). Designing navigation support in hypertext systems based on navigation patterns. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 451-481.
Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Hübscher, R. (2003). Improving navigation and learning in hypertext environments with navigable concept maps.
Human-Computer Interaction, 18(4), 395-428.
Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 9-20.
Reid-Griffin, A., & Carter, G. (2004). Technology as a tool: applying an instructional model to teach middle school students to use technology as a mediator of learning.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(4), 495-504.
Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation—A bridge between theory and reality:
The case of electric circuits. Journal of computer assisted learning, 16(1), 14-26.
Russell, D. W., Lucas, K. B., & McRobbie, C. J. (2004). Role of the microcomputer‐
based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in thermal physics. Journal of Research in science teaching, 41(2), 165-185.
Shen, J., & Linn, M. C. (2011). A Technology‐Enhanced Unit of Modeling Static Electricity: Integrating scientific explanations and everyday observations.
International Journal of Science Education, 33(12), 1597-1623.
Sins, P. H., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2005). The Difficult Process of Scientific Modelling: An analysis of novices' reasoning during computer‐based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1695-1721.
Soong, B., & Mercer, N. (2011). Improving Students' Revision of Physics Concepts through ICT ‐ Based Co ‐ construction and Prescriptive Tutoring. International
Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1055-1078.
Struck, W., & Yerrick, R. (2010). The effect of data acquisition-probeware and digital video analysis on accurate graphical representation of kinetics in a high school physics class. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(2), 199-211.
Tas, E. (2011). A new web designed material approach on learning and assessment in science education. ENERGY EDUCATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PART
B-SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, 3(4), 567-578.
Testa, I., Lombardi, S., Monroy, G., & Sassi, E. (2011). An innovative context-based module to introduce students to the optical properties of materials. Physics
Education, 46(2), 167-177.
Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149-173 Ü nlü, Z. K., & Dökme, İ. (2011). THE EFFECT OF COMBINING
ANALOGY-BASED SIMULATION AND LABORATORY ACTIVITIES ON TURKISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS'UNDERSTANDING OF SIMPLE ELECTRIC CIRCUITS. Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(4).
Veermans, K., Joolingen, W. v., & De Jong, T. (2006). Use of heuristics to facilitate scientific discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 341-361.
Vick, M. E. (2010). A Virtual Circuits Lab. Science Teacher, 77(5), 28-31.
Vreman ‐ de Olde, C., & Jong, d. T. (2006). Scaffolding learners in designing investigation assignments for a computer simulation. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 22(1), 63-73.
Vreman ‐ de Olde, C., & Jong, d. T. (2006). Scaffolding learners in designing investigation assignments for a computer simulation. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 22(1), 63-73.
Wegerif, R. (2004). The role of educational software as a support for teaching and learning conversations. Computers & Education, 43(1), 179-191.
Wu, H., & Huang, Y. (2007). Ninth‐grade student engagement in teacher‐centered and student‐centered technology‐enhanced learning environments. Science Education,
91(5), 727-749.
Yang, K., & Heh, J. (2007). The impact of internet virtual physics laboratory instruction on the achievement in physics, science process skills and computer attitudes of 10th-grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
16(5), 451-461.
Zheng, R. Z., Yang, W., Garcia, D., & McCadden, E. (2008). Effects of multimedia and schema induced analogical reasoning on science learning. Journal of computer
assisted learning, 24(6), 474-482.
Zucker, A. A., & Hug, S. T. (2008). Teaching and learning physics in a 1: 1 laptop school. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 586-594.
附錄二 資料萃取表
附表 1-1 編號 17 號資料萃取表
Data Extraction Form 編號：17
文獻來源
Hsu, Y. (2006). ‘Lesson Rainbow’: the use of multiple representations in an Internet‐based, discipline‐integrated science lesson. British journal of educational technology, 37(4), 539-557.
知識概念 Lesson Rainbow
研究目的
This research project was intended to investigate students’ conceptual progress, and to evaluate the use of MRs and of situated learning components in the design of Lesson Rainbow.
學習者教育階段 國中 年齡 國家 Taiwan
For the story component, realistic situations occurring during a family trip were presented to students via story-based animations. The online forum represented the collaboration component. Animated tutorials with formative tests allowed for multiple practices. An electronic notebook provided an opportunity for students’ reflection.
Hypermedia and network technology displayed the learning materials to students.
學習活動
Experimental stage: The AT and the MRQ were conducted a week before the
experiment. In the experiment, students received a training session for 1 hour and then completed Lesson Rainbow in a week.
研究發現
1. students’ science concepts significantly increased (t = 3.84, p < 0.01) through the use of Lesson Rainbow.
2. Students thought that the use of MRs in this web-based lesson was an effective pedagogical tool in as much as it allows for the learning of specific theoretical viewpoints in addition to the necessary background information.
3. The results of the paired t-test showed that there was a significant difference in the students’ understanding of the concepts before and after the experimental instrument (t = 3.84, p < 0.01).
4. The students had low scores in the pretest (mean = 5.2) and posttest (mean = 4.9) of the AT in the physics domain, com- pared with 15 points of the total score. The items designed in the physics domain are related to the real-life contexts (see
Appendix 2d), and the students have a difficulty to transfer what they learned in Lesson Rainbow to such context-based questions if the real-life contexts are not familiar to them or are not directly related to the concepts of rainbow formation.
5. Half of the 16 students reported that the animation was the representation that was most beneficial for their learning in Lesson Rainbow. Student A28 said, ‘The animations representing the family trip were quite interesting and taught me something’. Four of them described how the anima- tions with captions helped them understand the major concepts. Student A86 said, ‘...I can see the animations (images or videos) and read their textual interpretation at the same time. This makes it easy for me to understand concepts...’. Three of them reported that Lesson Rainbow helped them to connect scientific contents with real-life experiences.
6. The students regarded that the instructional design of Lesson Rainbow
significantly influenced their learning process less than the other designs. Lesson Rainbow starts from real-life situations and provides learning materials
employing MRs to which students must connect; this helps learners to understand the meanings of, and interrelationships between, different kinds of external representations that refer to a specific situation. This kind of design may facilitate their understanding of the correspondence between abstract symbolic expressions and real-world situations.
附表 1-2 編號 202 號資料萃取表
Data Extraction Form 編號：202
文獻來源
Ç alik, M., Okur, M., & Taylor, N. (2011). A comparison of different conceptual change pedagogies employed within the topic of “sound propagation”. Journal of Science education and Technology, 20(6), 729-742.
知識概念 Light and Sound
研究目的
The aim of this study is to compare different conceptual change methods with each other and with current teaching methods within the ‘sound propagation’
topic of a ‘light and sound’ unit.
學習者教育階段 國小五年級生 80 人 年齡 11-12 國家 Turkey
研究結果
Each teaching session lasted a two class period (80 min).
控制組：
The teacher asked some curious questions, i.e. how does sound propagate? Is there any medium where sound propagation does not take place to activate the students’
pre-existing knowledge
Teacher got the students to engage in hands-on activities such as hitting two rocks with each other in air and in water and then listening their sounds, hitting their hands to the table and listening its sound, and using stethoscope to listen sounds of their hearts After the students articulated their observations, the teacher actively presented scientific explanations and required the students to take notes
實驗1組(with conceptual change text)：
The teacher got the students to watch some clips from Starwars film where related heroes can hear sounds of explosions, collisions, space shuttle’s engine at space. Then, the teacher asked the students about their pre- existing ideas using prompt questions
‘where does sound propagate rapidly (solid–liquid-gases-vacuum/space)? Can sound travel through space (vacuum)?. The teacher handed conceptual change text out (see Appendix 2) and gave 10 min to read it. The teacher and the students interactively discussed all alternative conceptions as a whole-class discussion. The teacher persuaded the students to change their alternative conceptions towards scientific one.
The teacher asked the students to transfer their newly structured knowledge to different questions such as ‘how do astronauts communicate with each other in space’, ‘When we act up at home, our neighbours generally bump radiators to warn us. Could you explain this by means of sound propagation?’
實驗2組(with analogy and animation)：
The teacher asked the students about their pre-existing ideas using prompt questions
‘Does a man learn train’s moving without seeing it? Please explain your reason’, ‘What does idiom ‘Many hands make light works’ mean?’
The teacher handed out worksheet incorporating in directions of cargo analogy activity (see Appendix 3) and asked them to conduct it by tracking the given directions
The teachers allowed the students to examine animations converted from the cargo analogy activity (see Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).In this process, the teacher sought to clarify parts of the analogy students did not understand, but refrained from giving any clues to the answers. The teacher and the students interactively discussed all generated
knowledge domains as a whole-class discussion
The teacher got the students to watch some clips from Starwars where related heroes can hear sounds of explosions, collisions, space shuttle’s engine at space. Then, the teacher created an interactive discussion environment on what was wrong in Starwars film. The teacher confirmed/refuted students’ generated knowledge domain and presented scientific explanation.The teacher argued where analogy broke down by help of analogical mapping (shared and unshared domains between analogue and target) (see Appendix 4). The teacher asked the students to transfer their newly structured knowledge to different questions such as ‘how do astronauts communicate with each other in space’, ‘When we act up at home, our neighbours generally bump radiators to warn us. Could you explain this by means of sound propagation?
實驗三組(with a combination of conceptual change text, analogy and animations)：
The teacher asked the students about their pre-existing ideas using prompt questions
‘Does a man learn train’s moving without seeing it? Please explain your reason’, ‘What does idiom ‘Many hands make light works’ mean?’. The teacher handed out worksheet incorporating in directions of cargo analogy activity and asked them to conduct it by tracking the given directions (See Appendix 3) .The teachers allowed the students to examine animations converted from the. In this process, the teacher sought to clarify parts of the analogy students did not understand, but refrained from giving any clues to the answers. The teacher and the students interactively discussed all generated
knowledge domains as a whole-class discussion. The teacher got the students to watch some clips from Starwars film where related heroes can hear sounds of explosions, collisions, space shuttle’s engine at space. Then, the teacher created an interactive discussion environment on what was wrong in Starwars film foregoing analogy (see Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The teacher confirmed/disconfirmed students’ generated knowledge domain and presented scientific explanation
The teacher argued where analogy broke down by help of analogical mapping (shared and unshared domains between analogue and target) (see Appendix 4). Then, the teacher asked the students some questions ‘where does sound propagate rapidly
(solid–liquid-gases- vacuum/space)? Can sound travel through space (vacuum)?. The teacher handed conceptual change text out and gave 10 min to read it. The teacher and the students interactively discussed all alternative conceptions as a whole-class discussion. The teacher persuaded the students to change their alternative conceptions towards scientific one. The teacher asked the students to transfer their newly structured knowledge to different questions such as ‘how do astronauts communicate with each other in space’, ‘When we act up at home, our neighbors generally bump radiators to warn us. Could you explain this by means of sound propagation?
研究發現
Analogies and animations appeared to allow the students to construct better scientific explanations than did the conceptual change text. Even though the conceptual change text challenged the students’ alternative conceptions directly, it was not as effective as analogies and animations at improving their conceptual under- standing. This may be because analogies and animations make the unfamiliar familiar. The fact that the students see familiar features may have increased their enthusiasms and eliminated their prejudices
本篇的結論有五項
(1) all groups showed some progress in their conceptual understanding after the teaching, (2) instruction with the control group only temporarily helped the students to improve their conceptual understanding and students returned their initial conceptions over time, (3) using a conceptual change text was less effective in remediating alternative conceptions and enhancing conceptual understanding than was using analogies/animations or a combination of analogy, animations and conceptual change text, (4) a combination of different conceptual change methods was the most effective in eliminating the students’ alternative conceptions (5) each conceptual change method and the combination used here resulted in conceptual change being stored in the students’ long term memory
附表 1-3 編號 216 號資料萃取表
Data Extraction Form 編號：216
文獻來源 Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation‐
laboratory contexts. Journal of research in science teaching, 48(1), 71-93.
知識概念 電
研究目的
The aim of the present article is to compare learning outcomes of students using a simulation alone (simulation environment) with outcomes of those using a simulation in parallel with real circuits (combination environment)1 in the
The aim of the present article is to compare learning outcomes of students using a simulation alone (simulation environment) with outcomes of those using a simulation in parallel with real circuits (combination environment)1 in the