概念構圖與圖示對兒童自然科學的知識結構、理解能力與學習反應之影響

The Influence of Using Concept Mapping and Illustration on Children's Science Knowledge Structure, Comprehension, and Learning Response

10.6173/CJSE.2001.0901.03

江淑卿(Shwu-Ching Jiang)

概念構圖 ； 圖示 ； 知識結構 ； 理解能力 ； 學習反應 ； concept mapping ； illustration ； knowledge structure ； comprehension ability ； learning response

科學教育學刊

9卷1期（2001 / 03 / 01）

35 - 54

繁體中文

本研究目的在探討不同自然學業能力的兒童，閱讀概念構圖、圖示、結合概念構圖與圖示等型式的教材，對知識結構、理解能力與學習反應之影響。採二因子等組後測實驗設計，根據自然科學業成績，選取180位五年級高、中、低能力兒童為受試。再隨機分派至概念構圖組、圖示組、結合概念構圖與圖示組、控制組，各組接受閱讀概念構圖、圖示、概念構圖與圖示、文章等課程。教學結束一週後，隔週實施三篇教材的「科學知識結構測驗」與「科學理解測驗」，採徑路探測法和二因子變異數分析處理資料。另外，從各組隨機選取24人進行晤談,以分析其學習反應。研究發現：不同自然學業能力的兒童，閱讀不同表徵型式的教材後，在知識結構和理解能力上有差異。(1)對低能力學生而言，閱讀圖示後的知識結構和理解能力，比僅閱讀文章者佳；閱讀結合概念構圖與圖示後的理解能力，比僅閱讀文章者佳。(2)對中能力學生而言，閱讀概念構圖、圖示、結合概念構圖、圖示後，其知識結構和理解能力，皆比僅閱讀文章者佳。(3)對高能力學生而言，閱讀不同表徵型式教材之效果，可能因教材的難度而有所差異。另外，由晤談發現學習反應會受教材表徵型式和學習者能力之影響。本研究結果可提供國小自然科學教材和讀物的閱讀指導與設計編製之參考。

The main purpose of this study was to explore the influence of concept mapping, illustration, and the combination of concept mapping and illustration with different levels of children's academic ability on students' knowledge structures, comprehension, and learning response. A two-way between-subjects factorial design was used. A total of 180 fifth-graders including low, middle and high ability students were chosen from primary school based on their achievement of sciences. Then they were randomly assigned into a concept mapping group, illustration group, a group combing concept mapping and illustration and a control group. One week after instruction, the Knowledge Structure Test and Comprehension Ability Test for three scientific texts were administered. The data were analyzed using Pathfinder and a two-way factorial ANOVA. A sample of 24 children were randomly chosen from the four groups to be interviewed. The results indicated that the effects of different material formats on students' knowledge structures and comprehension ability were affected by learners' ability. Low ability students' knowledge structures and comprehension ability were influenced more by reading illustration as opposed to text alone. Comprehension ability was more effectively promoted by combing concept mapping and illustration than by only reading text. Middle ability students knowledge structures and comprehension were more effected by the different material formats than by only reading text. The effects of reading different material formats on high ability students was affected by the difficulty of the material. The analysis of children's interviews indicated that learning response was affected by the different material formats and the learner's ability.

1. 江淑卿(2000)。徑路探測法在測量知識結構上的效度研究。測驗年刊，47(1)，73-94。
   連結：
2. Afflerbach, P. P.(1990).The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers’ main idea construction strategies.Reading Research Quarterly,25(1),31-46.
3. Aitkenhead, A. M.(Ed.)(1985).Issues in cognitive modeling.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Chandler, P.,Sweller, L.(1991).Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction.Cognition and Instruction,8,293-332.
5. Glynn, S. M.,Takahashi, T.(1998).Learning from analogy–enhanced science text.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,35(10),1129-1149.
6. Hall, R.(1988).Fort Worth, TX.,Texas Christian University.
7. Hirumi, A.,Bower, D. R.(1991).Enhancing motivation and acquisition of coordinate concepts using concept trees.Journal of Educational Research,84(5),273-279.
8. Holley, C. D.,Dansereau, D. F.(1984).Spatial learning strategies: Techniques, applications, and related issues.New York:Academic Press.
9. Hoz, R.,Bowman, D.,Chacham., T.(1997).Psychometric and edumetric validity of dimensions of geomorphological knowledge which are tapped by concept mapping.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,34(9),925-947.
10. Johnson, P. J.,Goldsmith, T. E.,Teague, K. W.(1994).Locus of the predictive advantage in pathfinder-based representations of classroom knowledge.Journal of Educational Psychology,86,617-626.
11. Jonassen, D. H.(1992).Learner-generated vs. instructor-provided analysis of semantic relationships.The Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology,Colorado:
12. Kealy, W.A.,Webb, J. M.(1995).Contextual influences of Maps and diagrams on learning.Contemporary Educational Psychology,20,340-358.
13. Keller,J. M.(1988).Development of Instructional Materials Motivation Checklist (IMMC) and Survey (IMMS).Tallahassee:The Florida State University, Department of Education Research.
14. Lambiotte, J. B.,Dansereau, D. F.,Cross, D. R.,Reynolds, S. B.(1989).Multirelational semantic maps.Educational Psychology Review,1,331-367.
15. Mayer, R. E.(1997).Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?.Educational Psychologist,32(1),1-19.
16. Mayer, R. E.,Anderson, R. B.(1991).Animation need narrations: An experimental test of dual-coding hypothesis.Journal of Educational Psychology,83(4),484-490.
17. Mayer, R. E.,Galline, J. K.(1990).When is an illustration worth ten thousand words?.Journal of Educational Psychology,82,715-726.
18. Newbern, D.,Dansereau, D. F.(1997).Spatial–semantic display processing: The role of spatial structure on recall.Contemporary Educational Psychology,22,319-337.
19. Novak, J. D.,Gowin, D. B.(1984).Learning how to learn.New York:Cambridge University Press.
20. Paivio, A.(1986).Mental repersentations: A dual coding approach.New York:Oxford University Press.
21. Purnell, K. N.,Solman, R. T.(1991).The influence of technical illustrations on students’ comprehension in geography.Reading Research Quarterly,26,277-299.
22. Reway, K. L.,Dansereau, D. F.,Hall, R. H.,Pitre, U.(1989).Effects of knowledge maps and scripted cooperation on recall of technical material.Journal of Educational Psychology,81,604-609.
23. Rye, J. A.,Rubba, P. A.(1998).An exploration of the concept maps as an interview tool to facilitate the externalization of students’ understandings about global atmospheric change.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,35(5),521-546.
24. Schvaneveldt, R. W.(1994).Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1994). Knowledge Network Organizing Tool ( PCKNOT version: 4.2 ). Las Cruces, NM: Interlink, Inc..
25. Schvaneveldt, R.W.(Ed.)(1990).Pathfinder associative Networks : Studies in knowledge organization.Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
26. Skaggs, L. P.(1988).Fort Worth, TX.,Texas Christian University.
27. Wiegmann, D. A.,Dansereau, D. F.,McCagg, E. C.,Reway, K. L.,Pitre, U.(1992).Effects of knowledge map characteristics on information processing.Contemporary Educational Psychology,17,136-155.
28. 江淑卿(1997)。台北市，國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所。
29. 江淑卿,郭生玉(1997)。不同學習過程的概念構圖策略對促進知識結構專家化與理解能力之效果研究。師大學報，42，1-16。
30. 張欣怡(1997)。台北市，國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所。
31. 藍雅齡(1998)。台北市，國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所。

1. 蔡依玲、董大暉(2010)。譯者翻譯倫理認知之比較：以專業譯者和學生譯者為例。翻譯學研究集刊，13，191-217。
2. 郭政峰、李來錫(2012)。以正規化概念分析建構3C產品虛擬社群之知識結構。行銷評論，9(4)，396-416。
3. 洪月女(2016)。學科閱讀研究與教學之探討。高雄師大學報：教育與社會科學類，40，19-39。
4. 謝進昌(2012)。概念構圖策略後設分析資料庫建置之初探研究。測驗學刊，59(4)，513-546。
5. 徐慧珊(2022)。從SmartReading®適性閱讀檢測結果初探國語文教材之適用性－以臺灣某國際學校兩屆七年級母語學習者為例。臺灣華語教學研究，24，49-77。
6. 趙毓圻、熊召弟、于曉平(2011)。臺灣中小學奈米科技實驗教材之內容分析。教育科學研究期刊，56(4)，1-42。
7. (2024)。以概念構圖為核心之國小雙語自然教材教法課程：雙語師資生於課程中的成長與反饋。教育研究與發展期刊，20(2)，1-30。