建模能力分析指標的發展與應用－以電化學為例

The Development and Application of Modeling Ability Analytic Index-Take Electrochemistry as an Example

10.6173/CJSE.2009.1704.04

張志康(Chih-Kang Chang)；邱美虹(Mei-Hung Chiu)

建模 ； 建模能力分析指標 ； 模型 ； MAAI ； Modeling ； Model

科學教育學刊

17卷4期（2009 / 08 / 01）

319 - 342

繁體中文

This study intended to develop the ”Modeling Ability Analytic Index (MAAI)” for assessing students' modeling ability at different stages, and planed to make teachers understand the meaning of modeling well. In the application of index, not only can MAAI be used to design modeling assessment tools, but also it can be used to design corresponding coding scheme to investigate students' modeling abilities. In our empirical study, we used the topic of electrochemistry to analyze 79 senior high school students' modeling abilities after they took the modeling test. The research findings suggest that: (1) Students' modeling ability was categorized low. The result was almost the same as Hestenes' research (1992). (2) The students’ modeling ability had significant correlation with their achievement in science subjects and academic achievement. (3) For low-achieving students, their modeling ability had no significant correlation with their academic achievement, but had significant correlation with their achievement in science subjects. Therefore, we considered that modeling ability is an important foundation of learning science. If teachers use MAAI more often, than it will help students learn science better.

This study intended to develop the ”Modeling Ability Analytic Index (MAAI)” for assessing students' modeling ability at different stages, and planed to make teachers understand the meaning of modeling well. In the application of index, not only can MAAI be used to design modeling assessment tools, but also it can be used to design corresponding coding scheme to investigate students' modeling abilities. In our empirical study, we used the topic of electrochemistry to analyze 79 senior high school students' modeling abilities after they took the modeling test. The research findings suggest that: (1) Students' modeling ability was categorized low. The result was almost the same as Hestenes' research (1992). (2) The students’ modeling ability had significant correlation with their achievement in science subjects and academic achievement. (3) For low-achieving students, their modeling ability had no significant correlation with their academic achievement, but had significant correlation with their achievement in science subjects. Therefore, we considered that modeling ability is an important foundation of learning science. If teachers use MAAI more often, than it will help students learn science better.

1. AAAS.(1993).Benchmarks for science literacy.New York:Oxford University Press.
2. Bateson, G.(1973).Steps to an ecology of mind.London:Paladin.
3. Biggs, J. B.,Collis, K. F.(1982).Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy.New York:Academic Press.
4. Bloom, B. S.,Engelhart, M. D.,Furst, E. J.,Hill, W. H.,Krathwohl, D.(1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives: The cognitive domain.New York:David McKay Company.
5. Buckley, B. C.,Boulter, C. J.,J. K. Gilbert(Eds.),C. J. Boulter (Eds.)(2000).Developing models in science education.Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.
6. Chan, C. C.,Tsui, M. S.,Chan, M. Y. C.(2002).Applying the structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on student's learning outcomes: An empirical study.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,27(6),511-527.
7. Driver, R.,Bell, B.(1986).Students' thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view.School Science Review,67,443-456.
8. Duit, R.,Glynn, S.,G. Welford(Eds.),J. Osborne(Eds.),P. Scott (Eds.)(1996).Research in science education in Europe.London:The Falmer Press.
9. Franco, C.,de Barros, H. L.,Colinvaux, D.,Krapas, S.,Queiroz, G.,Alves, F.(1999).From scientists' and inventors' minds to some scientific and technological products: Relationships between theories, models, mental models and conceptions.International Journal of Science Education,21(3),277-291.
10. Gilbert, J.(1993).The role of models and modeling in science education.Paper presented at the 1993 Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,Atlanta, GA, USA:
11. Gilbert, J.,Boulter, C.,B. Fraser (Eds.),K. Tobin (Eds.)(1998).International handbook of science education.Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.
12. Greca, I. M.,Moreira, M. A.(2000).Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling.International Journal of Science Education,22(1),1-11.
13. Grosslight, L.,Unger, C.,Jay, E.,Smith, C.(1991).Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,28,799-822.
14. Halloun, I.(1996).Schematic modelling for meaningful learning of physics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,33,1019-1041.
15. Harrison, A. G.,Treagust, D. F.(2000).A typology of school science models.International Journal of Science Education,22(9),1011-1026.
16. Hempel, C. G.,C. G. Hempel (Ed.)(1958).International encyclopedia of unified science: Foundations of the unity of science.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
17. Hestenes, D.(1992).Modeling games in the Newtonian world.American Journal of Physics,60,732-748.
18. Hogan, K.,Thomas, D.(2001).Cognitive comparisons of students' systems modeling in ecology.Journal of Science Education and Technology,10(4),319-344.
19. Johnson-Laird, P. N.(1983).Mental models.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
20. Justi, R. S.,Gilbert, J. K.(2003).Teachers' views on the nature of models.International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1369-1386.
21. Justi, R. S.,Gilbert, J. K.(2002).Modeling, teachers' views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers.International Journal of Science Education,24(4),369-387.
22. Justi, R. S.,van Driel, J. V.(2005).A case study of the development of a beginning chemistry teacher's knowledge about models and modeling.Research in Science Education,35(2-3),197-219.
23. Kember, D.,Jones, A.,Loke, A.,McKay, J.,Sinclair, K.,Tse, H.(1999).Determining the level of reflective thinking from students' written journals using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow.International Journal of Lifelong Education,18(1),18-30.
24. Lohner, S.,van Joolingen, W. R.,Savelsbergh, E. R.,van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M.(2005).Students' reasoning during modelling in an inquiry learning environment.Computers in Human Behavior,21(3),441-461.
25. National Research Council(1996).National science education standards.Washington:National Academy Press.
26. Nersessian, N.(1995).Should physicists preach what they practice?.Science and Education,4,203-226.
27. Sins, P. H. M.,Savelsbergh, E. R.,van Joolingen, W. R. V.(2005).The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices' reasoning during computer-based modelling.International Journal of Science Education,27(14),1695-1721.
28. Stratford, S. J.,Soloway, E.(1998).Secondary students' dynamic modelling processes: Analysing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems.Journal of Science Education and Technology,7(3),215-234.
29. Sutton, C.,G. Welford(Eds.),J. Osborne(Eds.),P. Scott (Eds.)(1996).Research in science education in Europe.Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.
30. Treagust, D. F.,Chittleborough, G.,Mamiala, T. L.(2002).Students' understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science.International Journal of Science Education,24(4),357-368.
31. van Driel, J. H.,Verloop, N.(1999).Teachers' knowledge of models and modelling in science.International Journal of Science Education,21(11),1141-1154.
32. 邱美虹(2007)。行政院國家科學委員會研究計畫成果報告(NSC 95-2511-S-003-024-MY2)行政院國家科學委員會研究計畫成果報告(NSC 95-2511-S-003-024-MY2),臺北市:國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所。
33. 邱美虹(2008)。模型與建模能力之理論架構。科學教育月刊，306，2-9。
34. 邱美虹、劉俊庚(2008)。從科學學習的觀點探討模型與建模能力。科學教育月刊，314，2-20。
35. 舒煒光、邱仁宗(1991)。當代西方科學哲學述評。台北市:水牛圖書出版事業有限公司。

1. 曾茂仁,邱美虹(2021)。透過建模教學提升學生在化學電池概念和建模能力上的表現。科學教育學刊，29(2)，137-165。
2. 林靜雯、林怡瑾(2015)。五年級資優生與專家使用圖形化程式（NXT-G）之心智模式及建模歷程。科學教育學刊，23(3)，293-319。
3. 林靜雯、余阮清(2017)。臺灣四年級與八年級學生於TIMSS 2011試題中建模能力之比較。科學教育學刊，25(4)，331-354。
4. 林英傑(2011)。電腦輔助建模學習活動對國小高年級學童建模能力之研究。教學科技與媒體，96，22-42。
5. 謝東霖,蔡哲銘,曾茂仁,邱美虹(2019)。探討高中學生於建模導向科學探究之學習成效。科學教育學刊，27(4)，207-228。
6. 鐘建坪、邱美虹(2014)。運用SOLO 分類法探討科展活動之建模的類型—以八年級物理科展為例。教育實踐與研究，27(1)，31-64。
7. (2010)。國小教師科學模型功能暨建模歷程量表之編製發展與實測分析。教育與心理研究，33(4)，23-51。
8. (2024)。探討繪圖導向科學建模教學對國小六年級學童模型建立及系統思考能力影響之研究。科學教育學刊，32(1)，33-61。