不同教學方法增進學生科學本質學習成效之比較與分析

(1)

(2)

The Comparison and Analysis of Different

Science Teaching Representation Improving

Students Learning Effects in Nature of Science

Fu-Yi Shieh

Jeng-Fung Hung

Abstract

Abstract: The study distinguished and analyzed among four different science teaching strategies for students to understand the effects of Nature of Science (NOS). We took four eighth grade classes of the junior high school 130 students as the samples, and used different science teaching methods to teach until six weeks. By one-way analysis of covariance, the result showed that the four classes are significant below .001 on the scores of NOS test. The class who used inquiring activities with explicit teaching NOS is better than the science history with explicit teaching method, and better than the other who used inquiring activities with implicit teaching NOS, and better than the class who used textbook based for science teaching. The teaching video data showed that the class who by inquiring activities with explicit teaching NOS could match the inquiring activities of students engaged in, and analogized to thescientists’research to understand theNOS.

Keywords: nature of science, science inquiry, explicit teaching method, implicit teaching method

Fu-Yi Shieh: Doctoral student, Institute of Science Education, National Koahiung Normal University

(3)

壹、前言

(4)

(5)

(6)

根據上述所界定之科學本質的範疇與各面向的定義，科學本質的意涵含攝「科學知識具有累積性、暫時性、可複製性、公開性與創造性的特質；科學探究具有實證性、非單一性、非固定性、理論蘊含與非絕對客觀性之特質；科學事業則具有倫理與道德、科學與科技、科學與社會、科學家的身分與科學社群等特質。」林陳涌（ 1996）以台北地區 1670 位高中生為樣本，調查他們對科學本質的理解。此研究發現，學生對科學本質的看法主要受到邏輯實證主義的影響，女生對科學本質理解程度顯著地高於男生，修習科學科目較多之第二、三類組學生對科學本質的理解優於修習科學科目較少的第一類組，而且科學本質的理解並未隨著年級之增加而顯著地增強。此外，許良榮與蕭培玉（ 2007）則主張，近三十年來有許多國內外文獻皆指出學生仍具有不恰當的科學本質觀。綜合上述對於科學本質之意涵的探討，本研究以林陳涌（ 1996）所界定科學本質之三面向為範疇，包括： 1.科學方法的本質：評測學生對科學方法的了解，尤著重於科學方法的獨特性、適用性、客觀性與理性之面向。 2. 科學知識的本質：評測學生對科學知識本質的了解，尤著重於科學知識的種類、角色、本體地位與知識地位之面向。 3.科學事業的本質：評測學生對科學事業本質的了解，尤著重於科學的基本假設、定義、目的、科學家、科學社群、以及科學與社會關係之面向。

二、科學本質的教學方法與研究取向

(7)

透過從事的科學探究活動中學習科學思考與發展科學過程技能。但是， Akerson 和 Hanuscin（ 2007）指出，教師除了具備正確與當代的科學本質觀之外，仍需具有將科學本質融入探究教學活動的教學知能，並採用明示的教學方法方能引導學生理解抽象的科學本質之觀點。

(8)

Akindehin （ 1988 ）則提出第三種研究取向，主張應妥善研擬科學本質的教學，屏除將科學本質當作「附加式」或「間接式」的參與以增進學生理解科學本質的意涵，強調這類「明示的」與「反思的」取向運用於科學教學，對科學本質或科學探究傳遞了不同的面向，並且運用科學史、哲中的元素以增進學習者科學本質的觀點，關於這種明示的與歷史性的研究取向，已成為更有效地協助學生獲得對科學本質與科學探究深入的理解（ Lederman & Lederman, 2004）。

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

效顯著地低於探究明示組與科學史明示組，亦低於探究隱喻組，在量化資料的差異上達顯著水準。

(28)

(29)

(30)

參考文獻

王靜如、周金燕、蔡瑞芬（ 2006）。國小教師科學教學基準系列報導 （三）：科學知識。屏東教育大學科學教育， 24， 21-28。 林陳涌（ 1996）。「了解科學本質量表」之發展與效化。科學教育學 刊， 4(1)， 31-58。 邱明富、高慧蓮 (2004)。科學史融入教學以提昇國小學童科學本質 觀之研究。國立台北師範學院學報， 17(1)， 183-214。 邱明富、高慧蓮 (2006)。科學史融入教學對國小學童科學本質觀影 響之探究。科學教育學刊， 14(2)， 163- 187。 高敬文〈 1996〉。質化研究方法論。台北：師大書苑。 洪振方（ 1998）。在科學教學的另類選擇：融入科學史教學。屏師科 學教育月刊， 7， 2-10。 許良榮、蕭培玉（ 2007）。中小學之科學本質與科學史的教學需求之 研究。科學教育學刊， 15(1)， 1-23。 教育部（ 2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要 -自然與生學習領域。 台北：教育部。 黃萬居、李悅美（ 2003）。國民小學學童科學本質觀之研究。台北市 立師範學院學報， 34， 173-198。

American Associatio n for the Advancem ent of Science. (2001). Atlas

for Science Literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history o f science co urses on students’views ofnature ofscience.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057-1095.

Akerson,V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of s cience through inquiry: Res ults of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 653-680. Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice

(31)

73-82.

Clough, M. P. (2006).Learners’responses to the demands of

conceptual chan ge: Considerations for effective nature of sci ence instruction. Science Education, 15, 463-494.

Clough, M. P., & Olson, J . K. (2004). The Nature of Science: Always part of the science st ory. The Science Teacher, 28-31.

Collette, A. T., & Chiappetta, E. C. (1994). Science instruction in the

middle and science school(3nd, pp.27-47). Columbas U.S.A.:

Merrill.

Flick, L. B. (1996). Student perspectives on learning inquiry-oriented

science: Sci ence knowledge and nature of science. Unpublished.

Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of ex plicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on six th graders’views ofnature ofscience.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.

Lawson, A. E. (1982). The nature of advanced reasoning and s cience instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 743-760. Lederman, N. G., & Led erman, J . S. (2004). Revising instruction to

teach nature o f scien ce. The Science Teacher, 71(9): 36–39.

Matson, J . O., & Parson S. (2006). Misconceptions about the nature of science, inquiry- bas ed instruction, and constructivism : creating confusion in the science classroom. Elect ronic Journal of Literacy

through Science, 5(6).

Meichtry, Y. J . (1995). Elementar y science methods: strategies to measure and dev elop student views about the nature of science.

ERIC Document Repr oduction Service No. ed 382-448.

National Research C ouncil (1996). National science education

standards. Washington DC: National Academ y Press.

(32)

530-540.

Osborne, J ., Colins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What“Ideas-about-Science”should be taught in school science? A Delphi stud y o f the ex pert communit y. Jo urnal of Researh in Science

Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.

Riley, J . P. (1979). The influence of hands-on science process training on preservice teachers’acquisition ofprocess skills and attitude toward science and science teaching. Jour nal of Research in Science

Teaching, 16(5), 373-384.

Sandoval,W.A.(2005).Understanding students’practical epistemologies and their influence on learning throu gh inquiry.

Science Education, 8 9, 634-656.