地球科學教室學習環境問卷之研發與初探

Development and Exploration of the Earth Science Classroom Learning Environment Instrument

10.6173/CJSE.2004.1204.02

李旻憲(Min-Hsien Lee)；張俊彥(Chun-Yen Chang)

中等學校 ； 地球科學 ； 學習環境 ； Secondary School ； Earth Science ； Learning Environment

科學教育學刊

12卷4期（2004 / 12 / 01）

421 - 443

繁體中文

本研究旨在研發「地球科學教室學習環境問卷」(Earth Science Classroom Learning Environment Instrument, ESCLEI)，並藉此問卷初步調查高一地球科學教室學習環境的特質，進而初探其在地球科學學習與教學上的可能意涵。ESCLEI包含「學生中心」與「教師中心」兩分量表，同時亦將「理想版」問卷及「實際經歷版」問卷同置於一份問卷中。試驗性研究對象來自台北市及台中市共兩所公立高中，計有四位地科老師分別執教的四個班級之高一學生參與，有效樣本共167人。研究設計採問卷調查法，主要目的爲藉由本次試驗性研究，進行初步結果分析及問卷細緻化的工作，以利後續之大規模施測。研究結果顯示：一、ESCLEI已具有一定之信度與效度；二、學生心目中似乎可同時接受教師中心與學生中心的學習環境，這可能意味著國內學生對（地球）科學教室學習環境的看法，可能有其別於國外的獨特性；三、在教師中心及學生中心的分量上，學生實際經歷的學習環境均較心目中理想的學習環境有顯著的落差；四、學生理想中的學習環境在教師中心與學生中心的分量上並無顯著差異；五、學生實際經歷的學習環境中，教師中心的分量顯著地高於學生中心的分量，顯示國內長久以來地球科學教室的學習環境，在高中階段仍是以教師爲中心的；六、本問卷似可區別出不同地球科學教師所營造出的教室學習環境。以上的研究結果對於地球科學的教學和學習應具有一定的啟示並對後續更深入之研究工作有相當的助益。

The ESCLEI (Earth Science Classroom Learning Environment Instrument) was developed and pilot tested with tenth-grade students in earth science classes to explore related issues in earth science teaching and learning. The instrument consists of two subscales (student-centered and teacher-centered learning environments) with both preferred and actual (or perceived) forms pooled together. Participants were 167 10(superscript th) grade students enrolled in four earth science classes taught by four different teachers at two senior high schools in the Taipei and Taichung City. The instrument was found to be a reliable and valid measure for assessing earth science classroom learning environment. Students preferred both the student-centered and teacher-centered learning environments, which seem to be a domestically unique situation. There is a noticeable gap between pupils' preferred and actual (perceived) classroom learning environments in both subscales. The preferred classroom learning environments revealed by students' responses on both scales are quite similar to each other. However, students' perceived (actual) learning environment is much more oriented toward teacher-centered settings than toward the student-centered situation. The instrument was also found to be a sensitive measure in distinguishing between different earth science learning environments intended and designed by different teachers. The results of the current study could shed light on teaching and learning of earth sciences and have a potential benefit for future studies. Furthermore the results of this pilot survey study could be used for the modification and specific adaptation of the instrument and for conducting large sample field studies in the future.

1. 黃台珠、Aldridge、Fraser(1998)。台灣和西澳科學教室環境的跨國研究：結合質性與量的研究方法。科學教育學刊，6(4)，343-362。
   連結：
2. Aldridge, J. M.,Fraser, B. J.,Taylor, P. C.,Chen, C. C.(2000).Constructive learning environment in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia.International Journal of Science Education,22(1),37-55.
3. Campbell, J.,Smith, D.,Boulton-Lewis, G.,Brownlee, J.,Burnett, P. C.,Carrington, S.,Puride, N.(2001).Student`s perceptions of teaching and learning: The influence of student`s approaches to learning and teacher`s approaches to teaching.Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,7(2),173-187.
4. Chall, J. S.(2000).Chall`s book backs teacher-centered style.Reading Today,18(2),33.
5. Chang, C. Y.(2003).Teching earth sciences: Should we implement teacher-director or student-controlled CAI in secondary classroom.International Journal of Science Education,25(4),427-438.
6. Chang, C. Y.,Barufaldi, J. P.(1999).The use of a problem-solving-based instructional model in initiating change in students` achievement and alternative frameworks.International Journal of Science Education,21,373-388.
7. Chang, C. Y.,Mao, S. L.(1999).Comparison of Taiwan science students` outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction.The Journal of Educational Research,92,340-346.
8. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.
9. Dick, W.(1991).An instructional designer`s view of constructivism.Educational Technology,31(5),41-44.
10. Fisher, D. L.,Waldrip, B. G.(1999).Cultural factors of science classroom learning environments, teacher-student interactions and student outcomes.Research in Science & Technological Education,17(1),83-96.
11. Glass, G. V.,Hopkins, K. D.(1996).Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology.Needham Heights, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
12. Kim, H. B.,Fisher, D. L.,Fraser, B. J.(1999).Assessment and Investigation of constructivist science learning environments in Korea.Research in Science & Technological Education,17(2),239-249.
13. She, H. C.,Fisher, D.(2002).Teacher communication behavior and its association with students` cognitive and attitudinal outcomes in science in Taiwan.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(1),63-78.
14. Stevens, J.(2002).Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences.Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.
15. Taylor, P. C.,Dawson, V.,Fraser, B. J.(1995).Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.San Francisco, USA:
16. Taylor, P. C.,Fraser, B. J.(1991).A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Wisconsin, USA:
17. Thompson, B.(2002).What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes.Educational Researcher,31(3),25-32.
18. Tsai, C. C.(2000).Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments.Educational Research,42(2),193-205.
19. Ven Driel, J. H.,Beijaard, D.,Verloop, N.(2001).Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teacher`s practical knowledge.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(2),137-158.
20. Ven Secker, C. E.,Lissitz, R. W.(1999).Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36(10),1110-1126.
21. Walker, D.(1990).Fundamentals of curricum.Orlando, FL:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
22. 王靜如(1997)。現代的學習認知研究與建構論賦予科學教育改革的啓示。屏師科學教育，3，2-13。
23. 朱湘吉(1992)。新觀念、新挑戰－建構主義的教學系統。教學科技與媒體,，2，15-20。
24. 吳俊憲(2000)。建構主義的教學理論與策略及其在九年一貫課程之相關性探討。人文及社會學科教學通訊，11(4)，73-88。
25. 張世忠(2000)。多元智慧與建構教學之統整與應用。中等教育，51(6)，124-135。
26. 董家莒(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北市，國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所。
27. 潘世尊(1989)。根本建構主義及其教學意含。教育研究（高師），7，203-216。
28. 蔡宛芸(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北市，國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所。
29. 賴麗琴(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北市，國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所。
30. 藍秀茹(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北市，國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所。

1. 蔡執仲、靳知勤、段曉林(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，12(3)，129-152。
2. 陳淑苾、陳素芬、張文華(2017)。開放式與結構式探究實驗活動對國小學生教室環境感知的影響。科學教育學刊，25(3)，277-300。
3. 許瑛玿、白佩宜(2011)。探討不同探究式教學法對高一生科學探究能力與學習環境觀感之影響。課程與教學，14(3)，123-156。
4. 劉淑蓉(2007)。中學科學與數學教師對學校環境知覺之比較研究。科學教育學刊，15(1)，53-72。
5. 游淑媚、林淑芳(2005)。國小學生的生物腐化想法與科學教室環境知覺關係之研究。科學教育學刊，13(3)，241-262。