题名

探究教學對國中資優學生科學推理類型轉變之影響

并列篇名

The Influence of Inquiry-based Instruction on the Changes of Junior-high Gifted Students' Science Reasoning

DOI

10.6172/BSE.201303.3801004

作者

王翠妃(Cui-Fei Wang)；余忠潔(Chung-Chieh Yu)；段曉林(Hsiao-Lin Tuan)

关键词

科學推理 ； 探究教學 ； 資優教育 ； scientific reasoning ； inquiry-based teaching ； gifted students

期刊名称

特殊教育研究學刊

卷期/出版年月

38卷1期（2013 / 03 / 01）

页次

79 - 106

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

學生以探究的方式學習科學，不但能發展出各種推理類型，並能增進推理能力，尤其是資優生，更適宜採探究教學來引導，以增進其推理能力。本研究目的在探討實施巢狀探究教學模式對於國中資優生的推理類型發展之影響，並分析其影響的因素。研究者選取中部某公立國中資優班（28名學生），由該班科學教師在八年級至九年級上學期（一年半）於理化課程中進行巢狀探究教學。研究者選取九位同學課堂錄影轉錄的文字稿，以質性研究法分析課室中的對話內涵，探討學生科學推理類型在研究歷程中的轉變，並與其他資料（學習單、反思心得、研究者的教案設計、觀察札記、訪談紀錄）進行分析與比較之三角校正。研究發現，在探究教學情境下，資優生在第一階段只展現分析式與推論式的推理類型，在第二階段則展現分析式、推論式與對話式等較多推理類型，到了第三階段，更發展出分析式、推論式、對話式、評價式、統整式的多元推理類型。不但如此，個案學生亦能活用各種推理類型於探究活動中。其中，對話式推理一直占有相當比例，此類型的推理扮演促使學生發展各種類型推理基礎。對話與討論提供給資優生驗證自己想法、批判與思考他人意見的機會，這能增進學習者本身論證的信心，進而到達更高階推理的層次。本研究建議，教師應長期針對資優生進行探究教學，且應不斷地與學生對話並引導學生討論，如此，才能促進資優生運用推理進行科學探究。
英文摘要

Purpose: Inquiry-based teaching can improve the cognitive skills, learning motivation, and scientific achievements of students. However, few studies explore inquiry-based teaching's influence on gifted students, especially their scientific reasoning. Therefore, this study examines the effects of inquiry-based teaching on the development of scientific reasoning in gifted students from a junior high school. Methods: A gifted science class (28 gifted students) from a government school in central Taiwan was selected for this study. The first author who was also the science teacher for this class, applied Nest-Inquiry teaching model (Tsai, Tuan & Chin, 2007) to this gifted science class from the first semester of eighth grade to the first semester of the ninth grade. Several topics from the science textbook were modified to fit the Nested-Inquiry teaching model: sound waves, distinguishing elements, reaction rates, acids, bases and salts, circular motion, work, and energy. The case teacher used inquiry-based teaching to help students familiarize themselves with science inquiry, conduct experiments, group discussion, data analysis, and communicate their findings. Nine gifted students were selected in this study to analyze their findings. There were various sources of data: classroom observation, videotaping of all the inquiry-based teaching, interviews of student groups after each inquiry-based teaching, students' worksheets, students' reflections, and case teachers' lesson plans and reflection notes, videotaping of students' lab experiment skills test, and so on. We employed Halpern's (1996) argumentation criteria and Hogan and Fisherkeller's (1999) categories of scientific reasoning to analyze 9 students' data for the entire duration of the study period. Two researchers independently analyzed data and discussed their findings to reach a consensus (Erickson, 1986). Findings: This study revealed that the various types of students' reasoning (analytical, inferential, dialogical, evaluative, and integrative reasoning) gradually transformed during 3 stages of the study period. Students' reasoning patterns during inquiry activities possessed the following pattern during the first stage: analytic reasoning (47%), inferential reasoning (30%), and no reasoning (17%). Students' reasoning pattern during the second stage: no reasoning disappeared, analytic reasoning (43%), inferential reasoning (43%), and their dialogical reasoning (11%). Students' reasoning pattern during the third stage: analytic reasoning (32%), dialogical reasoning (22%), inferential reasoning (29%), evaluative reasoning (10%), and integrated reasoning (7%). Moreover, students also simultaneously displayed diverse reasoning forms. Dialogical reasoning was the underlying component that facilitated the competency of students' scientific reasoning. Conclusions/Implications: Investigating the impact of inquiry-based teaching on the development of scientific reasoning in gifted students from a junior high school was the purpose of this study. Findings indicate that long-term inquiry-based teaching can enhance gifted students' various reasoning performances. Dialogical reasoning can manifest during student-student interactions and teacher-student interactions. Students can develop higher-order reasoning abilities with dialogical reasoning. This study suggests that future science teachers implement long-term inquiry-based teaching to gifted classes to enhance the development of students' reasoning abilities.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 李光烈、劉嘉茹、江新合(2010)。模型化活動模組對國小學童科學推理能力之促進效果。教育心理學報，41(4)，751-772。
    連結：
  2. 蔡執仲、段曉林、靳知勤(2009)。巢狀探究教學對國二學生覺知教師溝通行為改變之探討。課程與教學季刊，12(3)，129-152。
    連結：
  3. 蔡執仲、段曉林、靳知勤(2007)。巢狀探究教學模式對國二學生理化學習動機之影響。科學教育學刊，13，289-315。
    連結：
  4. Abell, S.(Ed.),Lederman, N.(Ed.)(2007).Handbook of research on science education.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
  5. Baldwin, V.(1994).The seven plus story: Developing hidden talents among students in socioeconomically disadvantaged environments.Gifted Child Quarterly,38,80-84.
  6. Bransford, J. D.,Brown, A. L.,Cocking, R.(2000).How people learn: Brain, mind experience and school.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
  7. Bybee, R. W.(1997).Achieving scientific literacy.Heinemann, NH:Portsmounth.
  8. Bybee, R. W.,Landes, N. M.(1988).The biological sciences curriculum study.Science and Children,25(8),36-37.
  9. Colangelo, N.(Ed.),Davis, G. A.(Ed.)(1997).Handbook of gifted education.Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
  10. Crawford, B. A.(2000).Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles of science teacher.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,37(9),916-937.
  11. Dalzell, H. J.(1998).Giftedness: Infancy to adolescence-A developmental perspective.Roeper Review,20,259-265.
  12. Damon, W.(Ed.)(1997).Handbook of Child psychology.New York:Wiley.
  13. Denzin, N. K.(Ed.),Lincoln, T. S.(Ed.)(1994).Handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
  14. DeVries, R.,Edmiaston, R.,Zan, B.,Hildebrandt, C.(2002).Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum: Practical principles and activities.New York:Teachers College Press.
  15. Driver, R.,Leach, J.,Millar, R.,Scott, P.(1995).Young Peoples' images of science.Milton, KE:Open University Press.
  16. Duschl, R. A.,Osborne, J.(2002).Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.Studies in Science Education,38,39-72.
  17. Ferrell, B.,Kress, M.,Croft, J.(1988).Characteristics of teachers in a full day gifted program.Roeper Review,10,136-139.
  18. Gerber, B. L.,Cavallo, A. M. L.,Marek, E. A.(2001).Relationships among informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability.International Journal of Science Education,23,535-549.
  19. Halpern, D. F.(1996).Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (3rd ed.).Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
  20. Johnson-Laird, P. N.,Byrne, R. M. J.(1991).Deduction.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
  21. Karnes, F. A.(Ed.),Bean, S. M.(Ed.)(2001).Methods and materials for teaching the gifted.Waco, TX:Prufrock Press.
  22. Khan, S.(2007).Model-based inquiries in chemistry.Science Education,91(6),877-905.
  23. Klahr, D.,Dunbar, K.(1988).Dual space search during scientific reasoning.Cognitive Science,12,1-48.
  24. Kuhn, D.(1993).Science argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.Science Education,77(3),319-337.
  25. Kuhn, D.,Amsel, E.,O''Loughlin, M.(1988).The development of scientific thinking skills.New York:Academic Press.
  26. Lawson, A. E.(1978).Development and validation of the classroom test of formal reasoning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,15(1),11-24.
  27. Lincoln, Y. S.,Guba, E. G.(1985).Naturalistic Inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Publications.
  28. Lipton, P.(1991).Inference to the best explanation.New York:Routledge press.
  29. Lott, G. W.(1983).The effect of inquiry teaching and advance organizations upon student outcomes in science education.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,20(5),437-446.
  30. Loving, C. C.(1997).From the summit of truth to its slippery slopes: Science education's journey through positivist-postmodern territory.American Educational Research Journal,34(3),421-452.
  31. Marx, R. W.,Blumenfeld, P. C.,Krajcik, J. S.,Fishman, B.,Soloway, E.,Geier, R.,Tal, R. T.(2004).Inquiry-based science in middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41,1063-1080.
  32. Marzano, R. J.(1998).Dimensions of learning-Teacher's manual..Alexandria, VA:ASCD.
  33. McDonald, S.,Songer, N. B.(2008).Enacting classroom inquiry: Theorizing teachers' conceptions of science teaching.Science Education,92(6),973-993.
  34. Mintzes, J. J.(Ed.),Novak, J. D.(Ed.),Wandersee, J. W.(Ed.)(1999).Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view.San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
  35. National Research Council(1996).National science education standards.Washington, DC:Author.
  36. Renzulli, J., S.(1977).The enrichment trial model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented.Mansfield, CT:Creative Learning Press.
  37. Sandoval, W. A.,Reiser, B. J.(2004).Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry.Science Education,88,345-372.
  38. Schauble, L.(1996).The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts.Developmental Psychology,32(1),102-119.
  39. Shavelson, R. J.,Solano-Flores, G.,Ruiz-Primo,M. A.(1998).Towards performance assessment technology.Evaluation and Program Planning,21,171-184.
  40. Shymansky, J.(1984).BSCS programs: Just how effective were they?.The American Biology Teacher,46(1),54-57.
  41. Songer, N. B.,Lee, H. S.,Kam, R.(2002).Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy?.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(2),128-150.
  42. Sousa, D. A.(2003).How the gifted brain learns.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.
  43. Treffinger, D. J.,Isaksen, S. G.,Stead-Dorval,K. B.(2006).Creative problem solving: An introduction (4th ed.).Waco, TX:Prufrock Press.
  44. Tytler, R.,Peterson, S.(2005).A longitudinal study of children's developing knowledge and reasoning in science.Research in Science Education,35(1),63-98.
  45. VanTassel-Baska, J.,Feldhusn, J.(1994).Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners.Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon.
  46. Waight, N.,Abd-El-Khalick, F.(2007).The impact of technology on the enactment of "inquiry"in a technology enthusiast's sixth grade science classroom.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,44(1),154-182.
  47. Waters, L. J.,Siegal, M.,Slaughter, V.(2000).Development of reasoning and the tension between scientific and conversational inference.Social Development,9,383-396.
  48. Wittrock, M. C.(Ed.)(1986).Handbook of reach on teaching.New York:MacMillan Press.
  49. Wu, H. K.,Krajcik, J. S.(2006).Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders' use of data tables and graphs.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,43(1),63-95.
  50. 丁素雯、段曉林(2007)。巢狀探究教學模式對國二學生探究能力影響之探討。第二十三屆科學教育學術研討會，高雄=Taiwan:
  51. 李錦坤(2005)。國立交通大學理學院網路學習碩士在職專班=National Chiao Tung Univiersity。
  52. 周家卉(2006)。臺南=Taiwan，國立臺南大學自然科學教育學系=National University of Tainan。
  53. 林珮君、段曉林(2007)。探究教學對國中學生知識觀與學習動機之影響。第二十三屆科學教育學術研討會，高雄=Taiwan:
  54. 洪振方(2003)。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。國立高雄師範大學高雄師大學報，15，641-662。
  55. 教育部(2000)。國民中小學九年一貫課程總綱。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:作者=Ministry of Education。
  56. 教育部(2002)。創造力教育白皮書。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:作者=Ministry of Education。
  57. 教育部(2002)。全國第一次科學教育會議資料。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:作者=Ministry of Education。
  58. 黃介仁、段曉林(2007)。巢狀式探究教學提升國中生科學概念學習成效之行動研究。第二十三屆科學教育學術研討會，高雄=Taiwan:
  59. 潘裕豐(2006)。為何及如何進行創造思考教學。生活科技教育月刊，39(2)，38-55。
  60. 蔡典謨(1998)。資優學生充實課程彙編。高雄=Kaohsiung:國立高雄師範大學特殊教育中心=National Kaohsiung Normal University Special Education Center。
  61. 謝州恩、吳心楷(2005)。探究情境中國小學童科學解釋能力成長之研究。師大學報，50(2)，55-84。
print cancel