國中“細胞課程”概念改變教學之發展研究

A Study of Conceptual Change Teaching Activities for the Lesson of Cell Curriculum in Junior High School

10.6173/CJSE.2007.1503.05

盧秀琴(Chow-Chin Lu)；黃麗燕(Li-Yen Huang)

5E學習環教學策略 ； 細胞課程 ； 概念改變教學 ； 5E Constructive Learning Cycle ； Cell Lesson ； Conceptual Change Teaching Activities

科學教育學刊

15卷3期（2007 / 06 / 01）

295 - 316

繁體中文

本研究先分析國中生學習完「細胞課程」後具有的另有概念類型，然後以概念改變模式為依據，使用5E學習環教學策略，搭配類比教學、概念構圖和實驗等設計「細胞課程」的概念改變教學活動。本研究採用準實驗研究，以班級教學方式進行實驗。研究結果發現使用概念改變教學的實驗組學生比控制組學生獲得較多的科學概念，達到顯著差異；實驗組學生在TIWM、CCAT得分進步超過對照組學生0.51和0.39個標準差的實驗效果量；且概念改變教學設計對於中、低分群學生具有顯著的效果。以「葉子的層次」為例詮釋本體類別內的概念改變教學成效，發現以觀察榕樹葉橫切面標本做放聲思考討論和概念構圖，確實可使學生產生認知結構的衝突，進而幫助他們釐清概念；而「細胞的生理現象」屬於本體類別間的概念改變，雖然教師使用5E學習環教學，學生只認識表象的細胞擴散與滲透，無法說明真正原因。由於部分生物教師以講述法在教「細胞課程」，建議教師在教學前或進行補救教學時，可參考本研究的概念改變教學設計，如：細胞構造與功能的類比教學、葉子組成層次的概念構圖等，選擇性的加入自己的教學；對於較難的「細胞的生理現象」，則建議放在國二的溶液、濃度和滲透壓等化學課程一起做教學。

To develop the conceptual change teaching activities, firstly, this study analyzed the types of alternative conceptions of the lesson of cell, and then applied the following teaching strategies to curriculum design, the conceptual change model, the 5E constructive learning cycle, matches analogy teaching, concept mapping and laboratory experiment. The quasi-experimental method was employed in this study to explore the effect of curriculum design. The results uncovered that the conceptions of experimental group students were better than that of the control group students, and furthermore it revealed the significant difference between these two groups. The conceptual change teaching activities could apparently promote the experimental group students' learning outcome, and the scores of TIWM and CCAT in the middle and low score-group of experimental group were higher by 0.51 SD and 0.39 SD, especially. For example, in the lesson of ”leaf's level”, to de-monstrate the effect of teaching activities, students actively engaged their learning on observing the cross section specimen of the banyan tree leaf, to think and to discuss together, then followed by mapping conception, and the activities were truly caused students' cognitive conflict, and resulting in the conceptual clarification on their confused conceptions. However, the learning outcome of 5E constructive learning activities for the difficult concepts and those concepts involving the cross ontological conceptual change, such as the concepts of ”the physiological phenomenon of cell membrane”, was limited on the explicit representation of osmosis only, not on the abstract and the real principle. This study proposed the following suggestions. Regarding the conducive effects of the teaching activities in this study, the teaching methods used by case teacher's explanation could be served as the base of curriculum design, for example, the analogy teaching for the cell structure and function, and the concept mapping in the leaf composition and so on. For the more difficult and abstract concepts, such as ”physiological phenomenon of the cell membrane”, this study suggested the way of setting these concepts into the chemistry lessons together, density and osmotic pressure.

1. 盧秀琴(2005)。探討教科書與中小學學生學習細胞相關概念的關係。科學教育學刊，13(4)，367-386。
   連結：
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science(2001).Atlas of Science Literacy.Washington, DC:AAAS.
3. Bean, T. W,Singer, H,Cowen, S.(1990).Learning concepts from biology text through pictorial analogies and an analogical study guide.Journal of Educational Research,83(4),233-237.
4. Brown, D. E.(1992).Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: factors influencing conceptual change.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,29(1),17-34.
5. Campbell, N. A.,Reece, J. B.(2003).Biology concepts & connections.San Francisco:Benjamin Cummings Company press.
6. Carey, S.(1985).Conceptual change in childhood.Cambridge, Mass:The MIT press.
7. Carlsen, D.,Ander, T.(1992).Use of a microcomputer simulation and conceptual change text to overcome student preconceptions about electric circuits.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,19(4),105-109.
8. Chi, M. T. H.,R. Giere (Ed.)(1992).Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
9. Duit, R.,Goldberg, F.,Niedderer, H.(Eds.)(1991).Towards learning process studies: a review of the workshop on research in physics learning.Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies. Proceedings of an international workshop held at the University of Bremen
10. Duschl, R. A.,Gitomer, D. H.(1991).Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for educational practice.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,28,839-858.
11. Gentner, D.,Brem, S.,Ferguson, R. W.,Markman, A B.,Levidow, B.B.,Wolff, P.,Forbus, K.D.(1997).Analogical reasoning and conce-ptual change: A case study of Johannes Kepler.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,6,13-40.
12. Gentner, D.,S. Vosoniadou,A. Ortony (eds.)(1989).Similarity and analogical reasoning.New York:Cambridge University Press.
13. Gentner, D.,Toupin, C.(1986).Systematicity and surface similitive in the development of analogy.Cognitive Science,10,277-300.
14. Gilbert, J. K.,Watts, D. M.(1983).Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: changing perspectives in science education.Studies in Science Education,10,61-68.
15. Glynn, S. M.,R. H. Yeany,B. K. Britton (Eds.)(1991).The psychology of learning science.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
16. Gopnik, A.,Wellman, H. M.,L. A. Hirschfeld,S. A. Gelman (Eds.)(1994).Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
17. Jensen, M. S.,Wilcox, K. J.,Hatch, J. T.,Somdahl, C.(1996).A computer-assisted instruction unit on diffusion and osmosis with a conceptual change design.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,15(1/2),49-64.
18. Keil, F.(1984).Semantic and conceptual development: An ontological perspective.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
19. Kuhn, T. S.(1962).The structure of scientific revolutions.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
20. Lakatos, I.,A. Musgrave (Eds.)(1970).Criticism and the growth and the knowledge.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
21. Magnusson, S. J.,Templin, M.,Boyle R. A.(1997).Dynamic science assessment: A new approach for investigating conceptual change.The Journal of the Learning Science,6(1),91-142.
22. Marek, E. A.,Cowan, C. C.,Cavallo, A. M. L.(1994).Students` misconceptions about diffusion: how can they be eliminated?.The American Biology Teacher,56(2),74-77.
23. Nersessian, N.,R. Giere (Ed.)(1992).Cognitive models of science Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
24. Novak, J. D.(1991).Clarify with concept maps.Science Teacher,58(7),45-49.
25. Novak, J. D.,Gowin, D. B.(1984).Learning how to learn.Cambridge, London:Cambridge University Press.
26. Pfundt, F.,Duit, R.(1991).Bibliography: Students` alternative frameworks and science education.Keil, West Germany:IPN.
27. Posner, G. J.,Strike, K. A.,Hewson, P. W.,Gertzog, W. A.(1982).Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change.Science Education,66(2),211-227.
28. Rumelhart, D. E.,Norman, D. A.,R. Klatsky,J. W. Cotton (Eds.)(1981).Semantic factors in cognition.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Shemesh, M.,Lazarowitz, R.(1989).Pupils` reasoning skills and their mastery of biological concepts.Journal of Biological Education,23(1),59-63.
30. Stepans, J. I.,S. M. Glynn,R. J. Yeany,B. K. Britton (Eds.)(1991).The psychology of learning science.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Tanner, K.,Allen, D.(2005).Approaches to biology teaching and learning: understanding the wrong answers-teaching toward conceptual change.Cell Biology Education,4(2),112-117.
32. Trowbridge, J. H.,Bybee, R. W.(1990).Applying standards-based constructivism: A two-step guide for motivating students.New York:Cambridge University Press.
33. Wandersee, J. H.(1986).Can the history of science help science educators anticipate students` misconceptions?.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23(7),581-597.
34. White, R., T.,Gunstone, R. F.(1992).Probing understanding.London:Falmer Press.
35. Wiser, M.,Carey, S.,D. Gentner,A. Stevens (Eds.)(1983).Mental models.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
36. 余民寧(1995)。心理與教育統計學。台北:三民。
37. 邱美虹(2000)。概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊，8(1)，1-34。
38. 張靜儀、余世裕(2002)。國小學童對聲音迷思概念之研究。屏東師院學報，16，395-434。
39. 教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要－自然與生活科技學習領域。台北:教育部。
40. 許瑛玿、謝惠珠(2004)。應用概念改變教學策略在颱風常識的學習。台灣師大學報，49(1)，15-40。
41. 郭人仲、徐順益、王國華(1995)。國中生物概念的類比學習之研究。科學教育，9，51-65。
42. 郭重吉(1988)。從認知的觀點探討自然科學的學習。教育學院學報，13，325-378。
43. 曾千虹、耿正屏(1993)。國小、國中及高中學生之細胞概念發展。科學教育，7，157-182。
44. 湯清二(1993)。我國學生生物細胞概念發展研究－迷思概念之晤談與概念圖。彰化師範大學學報，4，141-170。
45. 湯清二(1991)。我國學生自然科概念發展與診斷教學之研究：生物細胞概念發展(一)。彰化師範大學學報，2，489-515。
46. 盧秀琴(2005)。國科會93年專題研究計畫成果報告國科會93年專題研究計畫成果報告,國科會。
47. 盧秀琴(2003)。台灣北部地區中小學學生的顯微鏡操作技能與相關概念之發展。國立台北師範學院學報－數理科技教育類，16(2)，161-186。
48. 盧秀琴(2003)。顯微鏡下的世界兩階層診斷式紙筆測驗的發展與效化。國立台北師範學院學報－數理科技教育類，16(1)，112-136。
49. 盧秀琴(2004)。不同教學策略影響中小學學生學習顯微鏡相關課程之探究。國立台北師範學院學報，17(1)，147-172。
50. 盧秀琴(2005)。中小學「細胞概念類比測驗」的發展與效化。國立台北師範學院學報－數理科技教育類，18(1)，87-116。

1. 賴淑菁,盧秀琴(2020)。使用6E教學策略教導國小學生製作「電磁車」專題以培養STEAM素養。中等教育，71(1)，10-28。
2. 林靜雯、吳育倫(2013)。應用診斷測驗結合答題信心探究跨年級學生簡單暨串聯電路之理解及影響來源。教育科學研究期刊，58(2)，25-56。
3. 鄭富中、楊景盛、林素華(2011)。觸控顯示手寫板應用於國中生物教學之成效─以細胞單元為例。數位學習科技期刊，3(4)，43-63。
4. (2021)。類比教學融入國中身心障礙資源班資訊安全教育成效之研究。東臺灣特殊教育學報，24，63-80。