設計體驗式探究鷹架教學應用於非制式科學教育－不同探究能力學童的學習比較

Practical Experiential Inquiry-Based Scaffold Teaching Method Used in Non-Standard Science Education-A Comparative Study of Children with Different Science Inquiry Learning Ability

10.6173/CJSE.2011.1904.03

盧秀琴(Chow-Chin Lu)；洪榮昭(Jon-Chao Hong)；陳月雲(Yueh-Yun Chen)

社區資源 ； 科學探究能力 ； 體驗式探究鷹架教學 ； Community Resource ； Science Inquiry Learning Ability ； Practical Experiential Inquiry-Based Scaffold Teaching

科學教育學刊

19卷4期（2011 / 08 / 01）

359 - 381

繁體中文

In this research, we used practical experiential inquiry-based scaffold teaching in informal science education teaching about the soap industry, which was a community resource we wished to use in school lessons. Unlike basic hand-wash activities, we designed a ”Soap” teaching lesson. The designed lesson comprised four activities and an extended exercise. We used 105 fifth grade students as our research subjects, and used the Science Inquiry Learning Ability assessment (SILA) and the Achievement Testing of Soap Course (ATSC) to measure their learning over the teaching lessons and to compare the difference in learning between students with different learning inquiry ability. According to our study, ATSC F-test results show SILA high scoring students’ learning achievement is higher than that of SILA middle scoring students, and higher again than SILA low scoring students (p＜.01). Second, we find that most students from SILA high scoring group are capable of experiencing and reflecting. Not only could they generate their own conceptions or principles, but also apply the cardinal principle of soap preservation and solve problems which they encountered in the soap pilling exercise. Third, the SILA middle scoring student group had less sensitivity to the problems. They directly believed the data they had, but didn't think more about why this might happen. It appeared that they could provide various strategies, but not necessarily able to solve the problem. It was necessary for teachers to use scaffolding strategy to lead the students. Fourth, the SILA low scoring student group was in a passive position most of the time. They think conservatively and don't get on well with others. They recognized the natural phenomenon, but had no other ideas, and needed the teacher to give examples and guide them to finish the project.

In this research, we used practical experiential inquiry-based scaffold teaching in informal science education teaching about the soap industry, which was a community resource we wished to use in school lessons. Unlike basic hand-wash activities, we designed a ”Soap” teaching lesson. The designed lesson comprised four activities and an extended exercise. We used 105 fifth grade students as our research subjects, and used the Science Inquiry Learning Ability assessment (SILA) and the Achievement Testing of Soap Course (ATSC) to measure their learning over the teaching lessons and to compare the difference in learning between students with different learning inquiry ability. According to our study, ATSC F-test results show SILA high scoring students’ learning achievement is higher than that of SILA middle scoring students, and higher again than SILA low scoring students (p＜.01). Second, we find that most students from SILA high scoring group are capable of experiencing and reflecting. Not only could they generate their own conceptions or principles, but also apply the cardinal principle of soap preservation and solve problems which they encountered in the soap pilling exercise. Third, the SILA middle scoring student group had less sensitivity to the problems. They directly believed the data they had, but didn't think more about why this might happen. It appeared that they could provide various strategies, but not necessarily able to solve the problem. It was necessary for teachers to use scaffolding strategy to lead the students. Fourth, the SILA low scoring student group was in a passive position most of the time. They think conservatively and don't get on well with others. They recognized the natural phenomenon, but had no other ideas, and needed the teacher to give examples and guide them to finish the project.

1. 蔡執仲、段曉林、靳知勤(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。
   連結：
2. 盧秀琴、柯琳耀、洪榮昭(2009)。運用社區資源實施5Why鷹架式提問教學活動。教育實踐與研究，22(2)，1-32。
   連結：
3. 盧秀琴、洪榮昭、蔡春微(2008)。“5Why”鷹架式提問提升國小學生學習成就與科學探究學習能力之研究─以「如何做麵包？」教學模組為例。科學教育學刊，16(4)，395-413。
   連結：
4. Crawford, P. (2000). Self directed learning unit -- Muresk institute of agriculture. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/crawford.html
5. Wilhelm, J., Baker, T., & Dube, J. (2001). Scaffolding learning. Adapted from strategic reading: Guiding students to lifelong literacy. Retrieved August 8, 2005, from http://www.myread.org
6. 國立科學工藝博物館(2009)。奈米新世界─自然界的奈米現象─蓮葉效應─瞭解原理。查詢日期：2009年6月14日，檢自http://nano.nstm.gov.tw/02nature/nature03.asp。
7. Bruening, T. H.,Lopez, J.,McCormick, D. F.,Dominguez, D. R.(2002).Active learning: The impact on students participating in an extended field trip to Puerto Rico.Journal of Agricultural Education,43(4),67-75.
8. Ferreira, M.(2001).Building communities through role models, mentors, and hands-on science.School Community Journal,11(2),27-37.
9. Hofstein, A.,Bybee, R. W.,Legro, P. L.(1997).Linking formal and informal science education through science education standards.Science Education International,8(3),31-37.
10. Hong, J. C.,Kao, J. Y.(2007).The crystal project: A study of inquiry-based science and technology learning in manufacturing settings.Redesigning Pedagogy: Culture, Knowledge and Understanding Conference,Singapore:
11. Johnson, C.(2005).Science centers as learning environments: Defining our impact.Dimensions,November/December,3-5.
12. Kaartinen, S.,Kumpulainen, K.(2002).Collaborative inquiry and the construction of explanation in the learning of science.Learning and Instruction,12(2),189-212.
13. Kolb, D. A.(1984).Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
14. Lu, C. C.,Hong, J. C.,Chen, C. C.(2007).Experiential inquiry-based teaching module of the creative teaching "shueijing soap cleaning".Asian Conference on Creativity Development,Taipei, Taiwan:
15. Lu, C. C.,Hong, J. C.,Tseng, Y. C.(2007).Research on using D.I.Y. bread making course as inquiry-based teaching module in the elementary school.Asian Conference on Creativity Development,Taipei, Taiwan:
16. National Research Council(1996).National science education standards.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
17. Paris, S. G.,Yambor, K. M.,Packard, B. W. L.(1998).Hands-on biology: A museum-school-university partnership for enhancing students' interest and learning in science.The Elementary School Journal,98(3),267-288.
18. Piaget, J.(ed.),Elkind, D.(ed.)(1967).Six psychological studies: With an introd., notes and glossary.New York:Random House.
19. Rennie, L.,Stocklmayer, S. M.(2003).The communication of science and technology: Past, present and future agendas.International Journal of Science Education,25(6),759-773.
20. Strauss, A.,Corbin, J.(1998).Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
21. Vygotsky, L. S.(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
22. 余安邦(2001)。臺北縣社區有教室方案學習成果輯。臺北縣:臺北縣政府。
23. 林明良、夏日新(2001)。,臺北市:教育部。
24. 洪振方(2003)。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。高雄師大學報，15(3)，641-662。
25. 洪榮昭、盧秀琴(2008)。,臺北市:行政院國家科學教育委員會。
26. 徐薇(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。花蓮市，國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所。
27. 張美珍(2009)。國小教師運用科學博物館實施科技教育課程探析。生活科技教育月刊，42(2)，36-49。
28. 張惠博(2008)。臺灣非制式教育之省視。非制式科學教育國際研討會，彰化市:
29. 教育部(2005)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要─自然與生活科技學習領域。臺北市:教育部。
30. 教育部編(2002)。教學創新九年一貫課程─自然與生活科技領域教學示例。臺北市:教育部。
31. 教育部編(2006)。國民中小學九年一貫課程課程綱要─自然與生活科技學習領域。臺北市:教育部。
32. 陳文典編(2004)。科學課程論述。臺北市:教育部。
33. 陳浙雲、余安邦(2003)。社區有教室：九年一貫課程與社區學校化的實踐。教育資料與研究，54，33-46。
34. 傅文全、盧秀琴(2003)。國小實施「鄉土教學活動」之研究：以新莊運動公園為例。國立臺北市立師範學院學報：數理科技教育類，16(2)，135-160。
35. 游家政(1997)。社區資源在教學上的運用。國教園地，59/60，63-69。
36. 靳知勤(1995)。非制式科學教育研究的現況與展望─一九九五美國科學教學研究學會紀實。博物館學季刊，9(4)，71-79。
37. 盧秀琴(2009)。社區資源結合體驗式探究鷹架教學法之初探。國民教育，50(1)，76-83。
38. 謝智謀(2003)。另類學習方式─體驗學習。教師天地，127，6-15。

1. 王佳琪(2022)。探究式教學融入教育心理學課程之行動研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，15(2)，1-34。