教科書章節編排順序對國中生學習成效的影響－以生殖、遺傳章節為例

The Effect of the Sequence among Chapters of the Junior High School Textbooks on Students' Learning Performance - A Case Study of the Reproduction and Genetics Chapters

10.6249/SE.201809_69(3).0034

陳秀溶(Hsiu-Jung Chen)；王國華(Kuo-Hua Wang)；蔡顯麞(Hsien-Chang Tsai)

教科書章節編排順序 ； 遺傳 ； 學習成效 ； arrangement sequence among textbook chapters/sections ； genetics ； learning achievement

中等教育

69卷3期（2018 / 09 / 01）

111 - 127

繁體中文

本研究主要探討現行教科書在生殖、遺傳章節順序安排的兩種類型，對不同學習成就之國中生遺傳章節學習成效與各認知層次試題作答表現之影響。採準實驗研究，樣本139位，依學生上學期自然段考平均分數分高（前27%）、中與低（後27%）三群。實驗組教學處理排序為無性生殖、有性生殖、細胞的分裂、遺傳章節；對照組則為細胞的分裂、無性生殖、有性生殖、遺傳章節。學生依序接受前測（Cronbach's α＝0.84）、教學處理與後測（Cronbach's α＝0.83），數據用共變數分析與百分比同質性檢定進行分析。結果顯示兩組高分群與中間群後測成績無差異，但低分群表現實驗組顯著優於對照組（p＝0.03＜0.05）。實驗組在應用層次答題表現顯著優於對照組（p＝0.03＜0.05），低分群學生在應用與分析層次答題表現上，實驗組顯著優於對照組（p＝0.00＜0.05）。根據研究結果，本研究提出教科書概念安排及教學的建議。

This study was to discuss the effect of the sequences arranged on both chapters, Reproduction and Genetics, in the current textbook on the performance of junior high school students who have learned and answered each cognitive level of question. This Study used quasi-experiment method on 139 students as the samples, who were divided into high (Top 27% of all), intermediate and low level (Last 27% of all) of average scores displayed in the science monthly exam last semester. Experimental Group was taught in the sequence of the Chapter titled asexual reproduction, sexual reproduction, cell division, inheritance; Control Group was done in the sequence of the Chapter titled cell division, asexual reproduction, sexual reproduction and inheritance. Students were treated with pretest by sequence (Cronbach's α=0.84), teaching process and posttest (Cronbach's α=0.83), among of which, data collected were analyzed by ANCOVA and Chi-Square. The results showed that none of difference between the posttest achievements of both high-score group and intermediate-score group, while that of experimental group's low-score group showed significantly higher than that of Control Group (p=0.03＜0.05). Experimental Group had better achievements than Control Group in terms of application cognitive questions (p=0.03＜0.05), while among low level subgroup, Experimental Group performed better than Control Group in terms of application and analysis cognitive questions (p=0.00＜0.05). Indicated from the findings hereof, some suggestions were made on the conceptual arrangement of textbook and teaching method.

1. 周珮儀(2005)。我國教科書研究的分析：1979-2004。課程與教學季刊，8(4)，91-116。
   連結：
2. 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。
   連結：
3. 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。科學教育專刊，12(3)，365-398。
   連結：
4. Bruner, J. S.(1960).The process of education.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
5. Canal, P.(1999).Photosynthesis and 'inverse respiration' in plants: an inevitable misconception?.International Journal of Science Education,21(4),363-371.
6. Chu, Y. C.(2008).Glasgow, Britain,University of Glasgow.
7. Crocker, L.,Algina, J.(1986).Introduction to classical and modern test theory.NY:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
8. Driver, R.,Leach, J.,Scott, P.,Wood-Robinson, C.(1994).Young people's understanding of science concepts: Implications of cross-age studies for curriculum planning.Studies in Science Education,24,75-100.
9. Fensham, P. J.(2011).Globalization of science education: comment and a commentary.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,48(6),698-709.
10. Finley, F. N.,Stewart, J.,Yarroch, W. L.(1982).Teacher's perceptions of important and difficult science content.Science Education,66,531-538.
11. Hallden, O.(1988).The evolution of the species: pupil perspectives and school perspectives.International Journal of Science Education,10(5),541-552.
12. Kindfield, A. C.(1994).Assessing understanding of biological processes: elucidating students' models of meiosis.The American Biology Teacher,56(6),367-71.
13. Knippels, M. C. P.,Waarlo, A. J.,Boersma, K. T.(2005).Design criteria for learning and teaching genetics.Journal of Biological Education,39(3),108-112.
14. Lebrun, J.,Lenoir, Y.,Laforest, M.,Larose, F.,Roy, G. R.,Spallanzani, C.,Pearson, M.(2002).Past and current trends in the analysis of textbooks in a quebec context.Curriculum Inquiry,32(1),51-80.
15. Lewis, J.,Wood-Robinson, C.(2000).Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance-Do students see any relationship?.International Journal of Science Education,22(2),177-195.
16. Marmaroti, P.,Galanopoulou, D.(2006).Pupils' understanding of photosynthesis: a questionnaire for the simultaneous assessment of all aspects.International Journal of Science Education,28(4),383-403.
17. Moll, M. B.,Allen, R. D.(1987).Student difficulties with Mendelian genetics problem.The American Biology Teacher,49(4),229-233.
18. Ornstein, A. C.、Hunkins, F. P.、方德隆譯(2004)。課程發展與設計。臺北:高等教育。
19. Tolman, R. R.(1982).Difficulties in genetics problem solving.The American Biology Teacher,44(9),525-527.
20. Williams, M.,DeBarger, A. H.,Montgomery, B. L.,Zhou, X.,Tate, E.(2012).Exploring middle school students' conceptions of the relationship between genetic inheritance and cell division.Science Education,96(1),78-103.
21. 何英奇、毛國楠、張景媛、周文欽(2001)。學習輔導。臺北:心理。
22. 李秋萍(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。高雄，國立中山大學。
23. 周珮儀(2012)。十二年國教與教科書。教科書研究，5(2)，126-129。
24. 張世錩(1992)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，文化大學。
25. 許雅惠(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，臺北市立師範學院。
26. 連佩雯、程台生、蔡孜怡(2005)。不同課程標準的南臺灣國一生遺傳學習之研究。當代教育研究，13(1)，103-134。
27. 陳佳伶(2010)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。彰化，國立彰化師範大學。
28. 陳明鴻(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。新竹，國立交通大學。
29. 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。
30. 黃政傑(1991)。課程設計。臺北:東華書局。
31. 董基宏(1992)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，文化大學。
32. 薛龍(2008)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。高雄，國立高雄師範大學。
33. 藍順德(2004)。二十年來國內博碩士論文教科書研究之分析。國立編譯館館刊，32(4)，2-25。
34. 蘇進棻(2006)。九年一貫「一綱多本」教科書政策衍生問題與因應策略。教育研究與發展期刊，2(3)，63-91。