Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0112106-125900 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0112106-125900
論文名稱
Title
國中生在「壓力」與「浮力」單元學習後之迷思概念對解題之影響
A study on the effect of misconception of “pressure” and “buoyancy” on the related problem solving ability for the middle school students.
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
158
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2005-10-12
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2006-01-12
關鍵字
Keywords
迷思概念、壓力、浮力
misconception, buoyancy, pressure
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5717 次,被下載 2798
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5717 times, has been downloaded 2798 times.
中文摘要
摘 要

本研究旨在探討國中生在「壓力」與「浮力」單元學習後之迷思概念對解題之影響。本研究採用A、B兩種不同情境的問卷,以高雄縣市96名國二學生為正式施測對象,採兩段式紙筆測驗、晤談等方式,來收集學生壓力與浮力相關迷思概念之類型。壓力與浮力迷思概念之A、B問卷的重測信度分別為.84與.82。

首先對所有樣本進行A問卷施測,一週後再進行B問卷測驗。兩份問卷回收分析後,選出具代表性的學生進行晤談。晤談方面以上述之兩段式紙筆測驗為架構,晤談對象為原測驗班級的學生,依該班學生問卷得分之低、中、高程度,每班各2人。將所得資料以次數分配、百分率、平均數、標準差、獨立樣本T檢定、ψ相關、Pearson積差相關等統計方法進行分析。

研究者對兩份問卷的作答情形及晤談內容進行分析與比較,結果發現:
1. A問卷與B問卷得分達顯著相關(P<.01)。
2. A、B二問卷的得分與學生的學業成績均達顯著相關(P<.05)。
3. 在A問卷與B問卷的得分:城、鄉達顯著差異(P<.01)。

本研究並且彙整A、B問卷所測得之與壓力、浮力有關之共有迷思概念,與各情境測驗特有之相關迷思概念。
Abstract
Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of “pressure” and “buoyancy” misconceptions on the related problem solving ability for middle school students. The formal test was conducted upon 96 second-year middle school students in the Kaohsiung area. Both two-tier test and interview techniques were used to diagnose the students’ misconceptions about pressure and buoyancy. The A-type and B-type situation questionnaires were the two tests used in this study. The test-retest reliabilities of these two tests are 0.84 and 0.82, respectively.

Every student was required to complete the A-type questionnaire, and then take the B-type questionnaire a week later. After completing the tests, students were sample-selected as representatives for in-depth interviews. The interview for each student was based on his or her two-tier test. After dividing students into three levels within their own classes, two students were chosen from each level. The two tests’ data were then analyzed and compared using statistical frequency distribution, descriptive analyses, t-test, and phi and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. The data from interview was transcribed into Word documents from the recorded interview tapes.

The major results of this study are the following:

1. There was a significant correlation(P<.01) between the two misconception tests.
2. There was a significant correlation(P<.05)between each misconception test and the students’ school achievement.
3. There exist statistical significant differences on both A and B test scores between students from rural school from suburban school(P<.01).

This study also categorized the “pressure” and “buoyancy” misconceptions and unique misconceptions from different situations as tested by the A-type and B-type questionnaires.
目次 Table of Contents
目 次
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機…………………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題……………………………………………………4
第三節 名詞釋義…………………………………………………………………5
第四節 研究範圍與限制…………………………………………………………7
第五節 基本假設…………………………………………………………………7
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 概念………………………………………………………………………8
第二節 迷思概念 ………………………………………………………………14
第三節 問情境認知理論 ………………………………………………………23
第四節 迷思概念之診斷工具 …………………………………………………28
第三章 研究方法與流程
第一節 研究樣本……………………………………………………………… 33
第二節 研究工具 ………………………………………………………………33
第三節 研究流程 ………………………………………………………………44
第四節 研究資料處理與分析 …………………………………………………46
第四章 資料處理與分析
第一節 研究資料初步分析 ……………………………………………………47
第二節 相關分析………………………………………………………………102
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 結論……………………………………………………………………106
第二節 建議……………………………………………………………………120

參考文獻
中文部分 ………………………………………………………………………124
英文部分 ………………………………………………………………………129

附錄
附錄一 壓力與浮力迷思概念預試問卷(A)………………………………133
附錄二 壓力與浮力迷思概念預試問卷(B)………………………………139
附錄三 壓力與浮力迷思概念問卷(A)……………………………………143
附錄四 壓力與浮力迷思概念問卷(B)……………………………………147
參考文獻 References
參考文獻
中文部份
王春展(1996)。情境學習理論及其在國小教育的應用。國教學報,8,53-71。
吳武雄、陳瓊森(1992)。有效的科學概念教學:職前科學教師教學能力培養之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
吳昆勇 (2000)。阿基米得原理與引導式發現教學法對學生學習浮力概念的影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
李曉雯(2001)。國小四年級學生「月相」迷思概念之研究。臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
林生傳(1994)。教育心理學。台北:五南。
林佳靜(2000)。中國山水畫賞析學習軟體之設計。淡江大學教育科技學系碩士論文。
林俊義(2001)。國二學生浮力迷思概念之研究。彰化師範大學物理學系在職進修專般碩士論文。
林建隆(2000)。合作學習的類比學習環對國中學生壓力概念學習成效之研究。彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
林福榮(2001)。高雄市國二學生浮力的另有概念之研究 。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所學教育研究所碩士論文。
邱貴發(1996)。情境學習理念與電腦輔助學習-學習社群理念探討。台北市:師大書苑。
施郁芬、陳如琇(1996)情境脈絡與學習遷移。教學科技與媒體,29,23-31。
姚昭銘(2002)。高中學生「白努利原理」迷思概念之研究。國立高雄師範大學物理研究所碩士論文。
徐新逸(1995)。如何借重電腦科技來提昇問題解決的能力?-談「錨式情境教學法」之理論基礎與實例應用(上)。教學科技與媒體,20,25-30。
郭重吉(1988)。從認知觀點探討自然科學的學習。彰化教育學院學報,13,351-378。
郭重吉(1989)。從認知的觀點探討科學教育的理論與實際,認知與學習基礎研究第三次研究會發表。
郭重吉(1990)。學生科學知識認知結構的評估與描述,彰化師範大學學報,1,279-320。
郭重吉(1992):從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。科學發展月刊,20(5),548-570。
郭重吉(2000)。事例訪談與事件訪談--以物理概念為例。八十九年度「自然科學概念學習研究坊」會議手冊,台北市。
郭重吉 (2001)。漫談建構主義在數理教學上的應用。建構與教學,16。http://pei.cjjh.tc.edu.tw/sci-edu/edu_3_17.htm(2002,5,28)。
郭重吉、吳武雄(1989)。利用晤談方式探查國中學生對重要物理概念的另有架構之研究(I)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
郭重吉、吳武雄(1990)。利用晤談方式探查國中學生對重要物理概念的另有架構之研究(II)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
張川木(1986)。大一、高三學生力學錯誤概念之研究。高雄市:國立高雄師範大學碩士論文(未出版)。
張春興(2001)。教育心理學。台北市:東華書局。
張春興(1989)。張式心理學辭典。東華書局。
張惠博(1999)。迷思概念的研究方法。「科學概念學習研究」研習會。台北市:國立台灣師範大學。
張惠博(2001)。九年一貫課程實施與教師的專業成長。科學教育月刊。239,13-25。
張麗麗(2002)。評量改革的應許之地,虛幻或真實?--談實作評量之作業與表現規範。教育研究月刊,93,76-86。
陳文典(2002)。「生活化課程」的特質、功能與設計。南一書局。3-18。
理查•費曼(1996)。 物理之美。陳芊蓉、吳承遠(譯)。台北:天下文化。(原著出版年:1965)。
陳淑筠(2001)。國內學生自然科學迷思概念研究之後設研究。國立台東師範學院教育研究所碩士論文。
陳嘉成、余民寧、潘雅芳(1996)。概念構圖法在測驗教學上的應用。中國測驗學會測驗年刊,43,195-212。
陳嘉成、余民寧(1998)。以概念構圖為學習策略之教學對自然科學習的促進效果之研究。國立政治大學學報,77,201-235。
陳瓊森(2001)。從建構主義觀點談概念形成及概念轉變。
http://p1.ncue.edu.tw/cn/bk1/constuct.html(2001,8,9)
黃文俊(1993)。國中生物理壓力迷思概念及概念改變教學可行性之研究。私立淡江大學教育資料科學研究所教學科技組碩士論文(未出版)。
黃台珠(1984)。概念的研究及其意義。科學教育月刊,66,44-55。
黃明瑩(2000):探討幾何問題中的情境及相關變因解題影響之研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
黃家鳴(1998):數學文字題及課業的處境應該有多真實?數學教育,7,161-167。
黃湘武、黃寶鈿 (1987)。學生推理能力與概念發展之研究。認知與學習研討會專集。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
許自由(2001)。澎湖地區國二學生對壓力的認知概念架構之分析研究。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
許嘉玲 (1997)。浮力學習之概念改變。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
楊家興( 1995)。情境教學理論與超媒體學習環境。教學科技與體,22,40-48。
熊召弟、王美芬(1995)。國民小學自然科教材教法。台北:心理出版社有限公司。
鄭晉昌(1993)。電腦輔助教學的新教學設計觀─ 認知學徒制。教育資料與圖書館學,31(1),55-66。
鄭麗玉(2000)。認知與教學。台北:五南。
顏訓青(2001)。國中學生的浮力迷思概念之探究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
鐘聖校(1994)。對科學教育錯誤概念研究之省思。教育研究資訊,
2(3),89-110。
蘇育任(1993)。「兒童的科學」研究之沿革與其對國小自然科教學之啟示。台中師範學院初等教育研究集刊,1,91-104。


英文部份
Baldwin, T. T. & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future Research. Personnel Psychology. 41(1). 63-105.
Blosser, P. E. (1988). Problem Solving-Secondary School Science. ERIC Document NO: ED 309 049.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Cobern, W. W. (1989). World view theory and science education research: fundamental epistemological structure as a critical factor in science learning and attitude development. National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Driver, R. (1981). Pupils’ alternative frameworks in science. European Journal of science Education, 3(1), 251-257.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's ideas and the learning of science. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.) Children's ideas in science. (pp. 193-201). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Duit, R., Treagust, D., & Mansfield H. (1996). Investigating student understanding as a prerequisite to improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D.F.Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 17–31). New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Fisher, K. M. (1985). A misconception in biology: Amino acids and translation.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22 (1), 53-62.
Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4),623-633.
Gilbert, J. K., & Watts K. M. (1983). Concepts, misconception and alternative conceptions: changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
Gilbert, J. K., Watts, M. D., & Osborne, R. J. (1985). Eliciting student views using an interview about instances technique. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 11-27). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Green, B. F. , McClosky, M. , & Caramazza, A. (1985). The relation of knowledge to problem solving, with examples from kinematics. thinking and learning skills, 2, Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greeno, J. G., Smith, D. R., & Moore, J. L. (1995). Transfer of situated learning. In D. Detterman & R. Sternberg (Eds). Transfer on trial: Intelligence cognition, and instruction. Ablex.
Griffin, M. M., (1995). You can not get there from here: Situated learning, transfer, and map skills. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(1), 65-87.
Griffin, M. M., & Griffin, B. W. (1996). Situated cognition and cognitive style: Effects on students' learning as measured by conventional tests and performance assessments. Journal of Experimental Education. 64(4), 293-308.
Haslam, F. & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students’misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in lants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education, 21(3), 203-211.
Head, J. (1986). Misconceptions in physics among South African students.Physics Educations, 15(2), 92-105.
Hewson, M. G., & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning.Journal of Research in science Education, 20(8), 731-743.
Howe, A. C.(1996). Development of science concepts within a Vygotskian Framework. Science Education,80(1), 35-51.
Howson, A. G. (1996). Mathematics And Common Sense. In C. Asina , J.M. Alvarez, B. Hodgson, C. Laborde & A. Perezi, (Eds), International Congress on Mathematical Education selected Lectures,
257-269.
Howson, A. G. (1998), The Value of Comparitive Studies. In: Kaiser, G., Luna, E. and Huntley, I., (eds), International Comparisons in Mathematics Education. London: Falmer Press, 165-188.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge NJ: Cambridge University.
Lawson, A. E. (1986). Integrating research on misconception, Reasoning patterns and three types of learning cycles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 278 567).
Lin, H. S., Hung, J. Y., & Hung, S. C. (2002). Using the history of science to promote students' problem-solving ability. International Journal of Science Education,24(5), 453-464.
Mervis, C.B. & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. In M.R. Rosenzweig and L.W. Porter(Eds.), Annual review of psychology, 32, 89-115.
Millar, L. & Murdoch, J. (2002). A penny for your thoughts. Primary Science Review, 72, 26-29.
Mullet, E. & Montcouquiol, A. (1988). Archimedes’ effect, information integration and individual differences. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 285-301.
Novak, J. D. (1977). An alternative to Piagetian psychology for science and mathematics education. Science Education, 61(4), 453-477.
Novak, J. D. (1979). Applying psychology and philosophy to the improvement of laboratory teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 41, 466-470.
Reif, F. (1987). Instructional design, cognition and technology: Applications to the teaching of scientific concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 309-324.
Reusser, K., & Stebler, R. (1997). Every word problem has a solution. The suspension of reality and sense-making in the culture of school mathematics. Learning and Instruction, 7, 309-328.
Rowell, J. A. & Dawson, C. J. (1977). Teaching about floating and sinking : an attempt to link cognitive psychology with classroom practice. Science Education, Vol.61,547-567.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992).Learning to think mathematically: problem solving , metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D.A.
Grouws (Ed.), The handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York: Macmillan.
Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of EducationalResearch, 56, 411-36.
Solomon, J. (1987). Social influence of the construction of pupils understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63-82.
Suchman, L. A.,(1987). Plans and Situated Action: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taber, K. S. (1997). Student understanding of ionic bonding: Molecular versus electrostatic thinking?, School Science Review, 78(285), 85-95.
Tennyson, R. D., & Park, O. C. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of instructional design research literature. Review of Educational research, 50, 55-70.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (1996). Assessment and Realistic Mathematics Education. Utrecht: Freudenthal .
Verschaffel, L. (2002). Taking the modeling perspective seriously at the elementary school level: promises and pitfalls (Plenary lecture). In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (Vol. 1, pp. 64-82). School of Education and Professional Development, University of East Anglia, UK.
Yoshida, H., Verschaffel, L., & De Corte, E.,(1997). Realistic Considerations in Solving Problematic Word Problems: Do Japanese and Belgian Children Have the Same Difficulties? Learning and instruction. 7(4), 329-338.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內立即公開,校外一年後公開 off campus withheld
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code