中小學之科學本質與科學史的教學需求之研究

A Study of the Necessity for Teaching the 'Nature of Science' and 'History of Science' in Elementary and Secondary Schools

10.6173/CJSE.2007.1501.01

許良榮(Liang-Rong Hsu)；蕭培玉(Pei-Yu Hsiao)

大慧調查 ； 科學史 ； 科學本質 ； Delphi Method ； History of Science ； Nature of Science

科學教育學刊

15卷1期（2007 / 02 / 01）

1 - 23

繁體中文

近年來科學教育改革中，科學史與科學本質受到極為廣泛的重視，但不論國內外，對於中小學需要教導哪些科學本質與科學史尚未有一致的觀點。本研究採用大慧(Delphi)調查法諮詢國內20位專家學者，包括純科學、科學教育、科學史哲、環境教育與教育專家學者。以期歸納出中小學不同年級階段需要教導之科學本質教學目標與科學史的教學內容。研究結果歸納出中小學所需教導之科學本質的教學目標，小學階段有9項、國中階段有22項、高中階段有28項。科學史的教學內容方面，在小學階段，專家之間未達共識，未歸納出需教導的內容，而國中階段需教導之科學史內容有5項、高中階段有12項。在科學史內容的呈現方面，研究結果發現有部分沒有達到篩選原則的科學史教學內容項目，專家學者認為可以「基本教材」方式呈現，顯示科學史內容應如何呈現，仍是有待深入探究的問題之一。另一方面，本研究歸納的科學本質之教學目標包含了McComas和Almazroa (1998)以及Osborne等人(2003)所提出之科學本質目標，但是與九年一貫課程之重疊性不高，因此九年一貫課程之科學本質目標是否恰當，似乎有再思考的必要。最後根據研究結果，本研究提出國內專家認為中小學在科學教學所需教導之科學本質目標與科學史內容，期望能提供未來編製教材之參考。

In recent reforms of science education, the nature of science (NOS) and history of science (HOS) are broadly emphasized. However, there is a lack of consensus on what should be taught regarding the NOS and HOS. This paper interviewed 20 experts and scholars in Taiwan, including scientists, science educators, history and philosophy of science (HPS), environmental educators and education experts using Delphi Method. Regarding the NOS, the teaching goals can be broken down into 3 education levels: 9 items for elementary schools, 22 for junior high schools, and 28 for senior high schools. However, the results indicated that the experts have not agreed on the necessity for elementary schools to study the HOS. Five and 12 items of teaching goals were composed of the content of the HOS in junior high school and senior high schools, respectively. These HOS items are fundamental and therefore must be included in the curriculum. In additional, the results from the survey regarding teaching goals of NOS are in agreement with the findings of McComas & Almazroa (1998) and Osborne et al., (2003). However, in comparison with the nine-year articulated curriculum, the teaching goals of NOS are different from our research. Reconsideration of the teaching goals of NOS in the nine-year articulated curriculum may be necessary. In summary, this study not only provides teaching goals and objectives of the NOS and HOS for elementary and secondary schools, but also provides a reference framework for the future development of science curriculums.

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F.,Lederman, N. G.(2000).The influence of history of science courses on students` views of nature of science.Journal of Reseach in Science Teaching,37(10),1057-1095.
2. Alters, B. J.(1997).Nature of science: A diversity or uniformity of ideas?.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,34(1),1105-1108.
3. Alters, B. J.(1997).Whose nature of science?.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,34(1),39-55.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science(1989).Project2061: Science for all Americans.Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science.
5. Brush, S. G.(1974).Should the history of science be rated X?.Science,183,1164-1172.
6. Brush, S. G.,M. Shortland,A. Warwick (Eds)(1989).Teaching the History of Science.NK:Basil Blackwell.
7. Carey, R. L.,Stauss, N. G.(1968).An analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by prospective secondary science teachers.Science Education,58(4),358-363.
8. Cleminson, A.(1990).Establishingan epistemological base for science teaching in the light of contemporary notions of the nature science and how children learn science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,27,429-445.
9. Cooley, W. W.,Klopfer, L.(1961).Test on Understanding Science: Form W.Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.
10. Duschl, R. A.(1988).Abandoning the scientific legacy of science education.Science Education,72,51-62.
11. Duschl, R. A.,D. L. Gablel (Ed.)(1994).Handbook of research on science teaching and learning.New York:McMillan.
12. Garrison, J. W.,Lawwill, R. S.(1993).Democratic science teaching: A role for the history of science.Interchange,24(1 & 2),29-34.
13. Giddings, J. G.(1982).Iowa,University of Iowa.
14. Horner, J.,Rubba, P.(1979).The laws are mature theories fable.The Science Teacher,45(2),31.
15. Kauffman, G. B.,M. R. Matthews (Ed.)(1991).History, Philosophy, and Science teaching: Selected Readings.Toronto:OISE Press.
16. Kimball, M. E.(1967).Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientist and science teachers.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,5(2),110-120.
17. King, B. B.(1991).Beginning teachers` knowledge of and attitudes toward history and philosophy of science.Science Education,75(1),135-141.
18. Kuhn, T. S.(1962).The structure of scientific revolutions.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
19. Electronic Journal of Science Education
20. Lederman, N. G.(1992).Students` and teachers` conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,29(4),331-359.
21. Lederman, N. G.(1986).Relating teaching behavior and classroom climate to change in students` conceptions of nature of science.Science Education,70(1),3-19.
22. Lederman, N. G.(1983).New York,Syrancuse University.
23. Lederman, N. G.,Wade, P. D.,Bell, R. Y.(1998).Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessments?.Science & Education,7,595-615.
24. Lederman, N. G.,Zeidler, D.(1987).Science teachers` conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teacher behavior?.Science Education,71(5),721-734.
25. Leite, L.(2002).History of science in science education: Development and validation of a checklist for analysing the historical content of science textbooks.Science & Education,11,333-359.
26. Matthews, M. R.(1994).Science teaching the role of history and philosophy of science.New York:Routledge.
27. McComas, W. F.,Almazroa, H.(1998).The nature of science in science education: An Introduction.Science & Education,7,511-532.
28. National Research Council(1996).National science education standards.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
29. Osborne, J.,Colins, S.,Ratcliffe, M.,Millar, R.,Duschl, R.(2003).What "Ideas-about-Science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community.Journal of Researh in Science Teaching,40(7),692-720.
30. Palmquist, B. C.,Finley, F. N.(1997).Preservice teacher`s views of the science during a postbaccalaureate science teaching program.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,34(6),595-615.
31. Roach, L. E.,Wandersee, J. H.(1995).Putting people back to science: Using historical vignettes.School Science and Mathematics,95(7),365-370.
32. Rubba, P. A.,Andersen, H.(1978).Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students` understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge.Science Education,62(4),449-458.
33. Ryan, A. G.,Aikenhead, G. S.(1992).Students` preconceptions about the epistemology of science.Science Education,76,559-580.
34. Schecker, H. P.(1992).The paradigmatic change in mechanics: Implication of historical processes for physics education.Science and Education,1(1),71-76.
35. Smith, M. U.,Lederman, N. G.,Bell, R.,Mc-Comas, W. F.,Clough, M.(1997).How great is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to Alters.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,34(1),1101-1103.
36. Smith, M. U.,Scharmann, L. C.(1999).Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis of classroom teachers and science education.Science Education,83,493-509.
37. Solomon, J.,Duveen, J.,Scot, L.,McCarthy, S.(1992).Teaching about the nature of science through history: action research in the classroom.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,29(4),409-421.
38. Sorsby, B.,J. Sears.,P. Sorensen (Eds.)(2000).Issues in science teaching.London:Routledge Falmer.
39. Stanley, W. B.,Brickhouse, N. W.(2001).Teaching science: The multicultural question revisited.Science Education,85,35-49.
40. Tsai, C. C.(1998).An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth graders.Science Education,82,473-489.
41. 尹基勉(1998)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北市，國立台灣師範大學化學研究所。
42. 巫俊明(1997)。歷史導向物理課程對科學本質的了解、科學態度、及物理學科成績之影響。物理教育，1(2)，64-84。
43. 李玉貞(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所。
44. 林財庫(2000)。科學史、哲在科學教育之研究－學習科學史、哲對力學教學之影響(III)。台北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
45. 林陳涌(1996)。「了解科學本質量表」之發展與效化。科學教育學刊，4(1)，1-58。
46. 林煥祥(2000)。以科學史提升在職化學教師對科學本質的瞭解。1999科學史、哲與科學教育學術研討暨研習會，高雄市:
47. 洪振方(1997)。科學史融入科學教學之探討。高雄師大學報，8，233-246。
48. 洪振方(1998)。科學教學的另類選擇：融入科學史的教學。屏師科學教育月刊，7，2-10。
49. 翁秀玉、段曉林(1997)。科學史對國小六年級學生理解科學本質之成效。科學教育研究與發展，8，26-41。
50. 翁秀玉、段曉林(1997)。科學本質在科學教育上的啟示與作法。科學教育月刊，201，2-15。
51. 張榮耀(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北市，國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所。
52. 張艷華(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育研究所。
53. 許良榮(1998)。科學史課文對於科學理論之學習影響的研究。中師數理學報，2(1)，111-141。
54. 許良榮(1996)。課文結構與先備知識對於科學理論之學習助益性的研究。台中師院學報，10，471-504。
55. 許良榮(1999)。科學史和科學教育：一些省思與建議。物理教育，3(1)，93-101。
56. 許良榮(1997)。八十八學年度師範學院教育學術論文發表會論文集。台北市:教育部。
57. 許良榮、李田英(1995)。科學史在科學教學的角色與功能。科學教育月刊，179，15-27。
58. 許良榮、侯志洋(2002)。國小自然科教師對科學史融入教學之態度(II)：晤談研究。台中師院學報，16，551-576。
59. 陳和玉(1998)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學物理學系。
60. 陳淑媛、洪振方(1998)。融入科學史之教學對學生了解科學本質之影響。科學教育學報，2，121-150。
61. 傅麗玉(1996)。化學教育面面觀。台北市:國立台灣師大中等教育輔導委員會。
62. 傅麗玉(1999)。科學家的不當行為故事在中等科學教育的價值與意義。科學教育學刊，7(3)，281-298。
63. 黃鴻博(1998)。國民小學教師對科學本質信念之研究。中師數理學報，1(1)，189-210。
64. 楊文金、楊莉川(1998)。從社會認同理論探討高中生傾向科學的態度與科學的本質。物理教育，2(1)，45-62。
65. 廖麗貞、洪振方(1998)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。台北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
66. 鄭子善(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。花蓮市，國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所。
67. 鄭秀如(1996)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所。
68. 鄭秀如、林煥祥(1998)。科學史對高中學生學習成就之影響。科學教育學報，2，205-222。
69. 鄭湧涇(1989)。職前與在職生物教師對科學本質的了解。中華民國第四屆科學教育學術研討會彙編，台北市:

1. 蔡秉宸(2020)。以教學策略提升學生對科學本質認識之整合分析。嘉大教育研究學刊，45，59-87。
2. 蔡文榮,宋如婷(2022)。數學史融入教學之國內外博碩士論文之文字探勘。教育科學期刊，21(2)，25-66。
3. 陳秋燕,邱瓊芳,吳正己(2021)。高中資訊科技教科書資訊科學史內容分析。科學教育學刊，29(2)，167-189。
4. 謝甫宜、洪振方(2010)。不同教學方法增進學生科學本質學習成效之比較與分析。屏東教育大學學報，35(教育)，1-32。
5. 謝州恩、劉湘瑤(2016)。建構國小自然科學課程之科學本質要項。科學教育學刊，24(4)，355-377。