以認知腳本詮釋國－學生從事科學學習活動的知覺之初探

A Study of the Cognitive Script Approach to Interpreting Student Perceptions about Doing a Science Learning Activity

10.6173/CJSE.2004.1204.03

江世豪(Shih-Hao Chiang)；郭重吉(Chorng-Jee Guo)

認知腳本 ； 關鍵事例分析法 ； 概念改變 ； Cognitive Script ； Critical Incident Technique ； Conceptual Change

科學教育學刊

12卷4期（2004 / 12 / 01）

445 - 468

繁體中文

本研究之目的係以學習者的認知腳本（簡稱腳本），透過認知取向的分析方式來探究學生對於從事科學學習活動的知覺。研究對象爲參與模組試教的彰化縣某國中九十二學年度35位國一班級學生。根據認知理論，學生對於學習活動事件的先前經驗，可以透過腳本予以呈現。研究者以自編且經專家審查之開放性問卷爲工具，教學前先調查個別的科學學習經驗，從篩選出的27份有效問卷蒐集到52項序列學習行動，按實徵研究的方法與建議，提取並排序當中行動項目頻率超過40%者，做成含有14項序列行動的班級學生群體腳本。教學實施後，透過「關鍵事例分析法」(CIT)的調查，同時參酌試教實況錄影與後續的深度晤談，進行此等相關的質性資料分析，以詮釋學生從事教學模組學習活動之經驗知覺。研究結果發現，學生的模組學習經驗共有六類知覺，當中有兩類對應於群體腳本，其餘四類違背群體腳本。研究顯示，透過腳本取向的方法能夠幫助研究者理解分析學生對於學習活動的觀點。本研究建議，教師在進行教學改變或模組研發過程時，對於學生原有的學習腳本應先進行調查與理解，這個道理與科學教學中的概念改變觀念非常相似。

The purpose of this study was to interpret student perceptions of learning through a cognitive approach, which was based on their cognitive scripts (i.e., script). Thirty-five 7(superscript th) grade students were selected to participate in this investigation. During this study, students engaged in a science module learning activity. According to cognitive theory, their scripts can represent prior experiences of science learning. Based on this theory, a sequence of 52 science learning actions were collected from these students by way of self-evaluation reports. Through script-elicit, the standard for selection was based on a level of action frequency that was higher than 40 percent. With regards to the comparison pair procedure, the researcher obtained the student-group script that contained 14 sequential actions. A qualitative analysis was conducted after the science module was completed, which included the student-group script, a critical incident technique (CIT), videotaped instruction, and personal interviews with students. From these sources, six categories of perceptions were found. Two categories corresponded to the student-group script. On the other hand, four other categories violated the student-group script. The result shows the significance of interrelating student views of learning activities with outside observers' through the script approach methodology. This research strongly suggests that teachers should more carefully investigate and understand the learners' script before changing their teaching practice or designing future teaching modules. The reason is quite similar to the notion of conceptual change in science teaching.

1. 王國華、段曉林、張惠博(1998)。國中學生對科學教師學科教學之知覺。科學教育學刊，6(4)，363-381。
   連結：
2. 劉宏文、張惠博(2001)。高中學生進行開放式探究活動之個案研究－問題的形成與解決。科學教育學刊，9(2)，169-196。
   連結：
3. Abelson, R. P.(1981).Psychological status of the script concept.American Psychologist,36(7),715-729.
4. Abelson, R. P.,J. S. Carroll,J. W. Payne (Eds.)(1976).Cognition and social behavior.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
5. Baird, J. R.,Fensham, P. J.,Gunstone, R. F.,White, R. T.(1991).The importance of improving science teaching and learning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,28(2),163-182.
6. Berg, K. F.(1994).Scripted cooperative in high school mathematic: Peer interaction and achievement.ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
7. Best, J. B.(1992).Cognitive psychology.St. Paul, MN:West.
8. Bogdan, R. C.,Biklen, S. K.(1992).Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods.Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
9. Bower, G. H.,Black, J. B.,Turner, T. J.(1979).Scripts in memory for text.Cognitive Psychology,11(2),177-220.
10. Dansereau, D. F.,McDonald, B. A.,Collins, K. W.,Garland, J. C.,Holley, C. D.,Diekhoff, G. M.,Evans, S. E.,H. F. O`neil,C. D. Spielberger (Eds.)(1979).Cognitive and affective learning strategies.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
11. Flanagan, J. C.(1954).The critical incident technique.Psychological Bulletin,51,327-357.
12. Hall, R. H.,Rocklin, T. R.,Dansereau, D. F.,Skaggs, L. P.,O`Donnell, A. M.,Lambiotte, J. G.,Young, M. D.(1988).The role of individual differences in the cooperative learning of technical material.Journal of Educational Psychology,80,172-178.
13. Hodson, D.(1998).Teaching and learning science: Toward a personalized approach.Philadelphia, PA:Open University Press.
14. John, D. R.,Whitney, J. C.(1986).The development of consumer knowledge in children: A cognitive structure approach.Journal of Consumer Research,12,406-417.
15. John, G.,Whitney, J. C.(1982).Proceedings of American Marketing Association Educators` Conference.Chicago:American Marketing Association.
16. Johnson, R. T.,Johnson, D. W.(1994).Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning.Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
17. Kilmann, R. H.,Saxton, M. J.,Serpa, R.(1986).Issues in understanding and changing culture.California Management Review,28,87-94.
18. Kozulin, A.(1990).Vygotsky`s psychology: A biography of ideas.New York:Harvester Wheatsheaf.
19. Lambiotte, J. G.,Dansereau, D. F.,O`Donnell, A. M.,Young, M. D.,Skaggs, L. P.,Hall, R. H.,Rocklin, T. R.(1987).Manipulation cooperative scripts for teaching and learning.Journal of Educational Psychology,79,424-430.
20. Larson, C. O.,Dansereau, D. F.,O`Donnell, A. M.,Hythecker, V. I.,Lambiotte, J. G.,Rocklin, T. R.(1985).Effect of metacognitive and elaborative activity on cooperative learning and transfer.Contemporary Educational Psychology,10,342-348.
21. Leach, J.,Scott, P.(2002).Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning.Studies in Science Education,38,115-142.
22. Lloyd, B. A.,Lloyd, R. C.(1986).Teaching/learning: The student viewpoint.Reading Horizon,26(4),266-269.
23. Loughran, J.,Derry, N.(1995).Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.San Francisco, CA:
24. Mandler, J. M.,C. R. Puff (Ed.)(1979).Memory organization and structure.New York:Academic Press.
25. Nelson, K.,Gruendel, J.,K. Nelson (Ed.)(1986).Event knowledge, structure and function in development.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
26. Newmann, F.(1992).Students` engagement and achievement in American secondary schools.New York:Teacher College Press.
27. O`Donnell, A. M.,Dansereau, D. F.,Hall, R. H.,Rocklin, T. R.(1987).Cognitive, social/affective, and metacognitive outcomes of scripted cooperative learning.Journal of Educational Psychology,79,431-437.
28. O`Donnell, A. M.,Dansereau, D. F.,Hythecker, V. I.,Larson, C. O,Rocklin, T. R.,Lambiotte, J. G.,Young, M. D.(1986).Effects of monitoring on cooperative learning.Journal of Experiment Education,54,169-173.
29. O`Donnell, A. M.,Dansereau, D. F.,Rocklin, T. R.,Lambiotte, J. G.,Hythecker, V. I.,Larson, C. O.(1985).Cooperative writing: Direct effects and transfer.Writing Communication,2,307-315.
30. Olson, L.,Moore, M.(1984).Voices form the classroom: Students and teachers speaking out on the quality of teaching in our schools.ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
31. Peterson, P.,Swing, S.(1982).Beyond time on task: Students` reports of their thought processes during direct instruction.Elementary School Journal,82,481-491.
32. Pillard, A.,Tann, S.(1993).Reflective teaching in the primary school: A handbook for the classroom.London:The Open University.
33. Posner, M. I.,Synder, C. R. R.,R. L. Solso (Ed.)(1975).Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
34. Schank, R. C.,Abelson, R. P.(1977).Scripts, plans, goals and understanding.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
35. Social cognition and cognitive schema
36. Staer, H.,Goodrum, D.,Hacking, M.(1998).High school laboratory work in Western Australia: Openness to inquiry.Research in Science Education,28(2),219-228.
37. Strike, K. A.,Posner, G. J.,R. A. Duschl,R. J. Hamilton (Eds.)(1992).Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice.Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.
38. Sutton, C.,A. G. Welford,J. Osborne,P. Scott (Eds.)(1996).Science education research in Europe: Current issue and themes.London:Falmer.
39. von Glasersfeld, E.,T. Husen,N. Postlethwaite (Eds.)(1989).International encyclopedia of education [Suppl.].Oxford, England:Pergamon.
40. Weinstein, R. S.(1983).Student perceptions of schooling.Elementary School Journal,83,287-312.
41. Winne, P. H.,Marx, R. W.(1982).Students` and teachers` views of thinking processes involved in classroom learning.Elementary School Journal,82,493-518.
42. Wood, D. J.,Bruner, J. S.,Ross, G.(1976).The role of tutoring in problem solving.Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry,19,89-100.
43. Yerrick, R. K.(2000).Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,37(8),803-807.
44. Zuber, R. L.(1992).Cooperative learning by fifth-grade student: the effect of scripted and unscripted techniques.Proquest Dissertation Abstract.
45. 王澄霞(1996)。建立STS教師專業能力基準：化學領域。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
46. 王叢桂、羅國英(1994)。學業困擾大學生的生活形態、對求助體系的認知腳本、生涯規劃，與學習策略之研究。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
47. 教育部(1998)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。台北:教育部。
48. 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。
49. 詹志禹(1998)。認知的主動性。教育研究資訊，6(1)，28-51。
50. 熊召弟(1999)。九年一貫課程研討會論文集（上）：邁向課程新紀元。台北:中華民國教材研究發展學會。

1. 洪振方、李明昆(2010)。國三學生對探究性科學問題提問之研究。臺北市立教育大學學報：教育類，41(2)，111-148。
2. 周春美、沈健華(2009)。高中職商業類科教師教學的認知腳本之分析－從師資生的觀點。高雄師大學報：教育與社會科學類，26，59-82。