臺灣四年級與八年級學生於TIMSS 2011試題中建模能力之比較

Comparing Taiwanese Grade 4 and Grade 8 Students' Modeling Ability in TIMSS 2011 Items

10.6173/CJSE.2017.2504.02

林靜雯(Jing-Wen Lin)；余阮清(Ruan-Ching Yu)

TIMSS 2011 ； 建模能力分析指標TIMSS修正版 ； 建模實務評量 ； 學習進程 ； TIMSS 2011 ； Revised Modeling Ability Analytic Index (MAAI-T) ； Modeling Practice Assessment ； Learning Progression

科學教育學刊

25卷4期（2017 / 12 / 01）

331 - 354

繁體中文

有鑒於目前全面性探討學生建模實務評量之不足，本研究採用「建模能力分析指標」國際數學與科學教育成就趨勢調查(Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, TIMSS)修正版，分析TIMSS 2011四、八年級科學試題以瞭解其中適合檢測建模能力之試題於「建模歷程」與「建模階層」之分布情形，而後再探討臺灣四、八年級學生於此測驗中建模能力之表現。結果發現：一、TIMSS 2011四、八年級試題皆集中於「模型選擇」與「模型分析與應用」兩階段；四年級試題於建模階層分布尚稱平均，八年級則集中於階層二及三。二、在「模型選擇」方面，臺灣四年級學生可掌握至階層二「多因素之選擇」，八年級學生則進展到階層三「簡單關係的選擇」；在「模型分析與應用」方面，四年級和八年級學生皆可掌握至階層三「簡單關係的應用」，但八年級學生可處理較多因素及較為抽象、微觀之變數。研究建議若運用TIMSS試題作為建模實務評量，尚需補充「模型建立」、「效化」及「調度」階段之試題，方能檢測學生各面向的建模能力。設計以建模為基礎之課程時，在「模型選擇」及「模型分析與應用」兩階段可參考本研究之結果發展學習進程。

Due to the scantiness of the whole perspectives of the assessments of modeling practices, this study adopted the Revised Modeling Ability Analytic Index (MAAI-T), to analyze the distribution of stages of modeling process and levels of modeling ability in the appropriate 4th and 8th TIMSS items, then exploring Taiwanese fourth and eighth grade students' performance of modeling ability in this assessment. The results indicate: 1. The fourth and eighth grade items in TIMSS 2011 mainly focus on the stages of ＂model selection＂ and ＂model analysis and application.＂ The items equally distributed in each level of modeling ability in fourth grade, but mainly focus on level 2 and 3 in eighth grade. 2. In the stage of model selection, the fourth grade students in Taiwan could handle multiple factors (level 2); the eighth grade students could expand to operate simple relationships (level 3). In the stage of model analysis and application, both fourth and eighth grade students could handle simple relationships (level 3), but eighth grade students could deal with more multiple factors, abstract and microscope variables. This study suggests that using TIMSS items as modeling practice assessments still requires supplementing the items to model construction, validation and deployment stages in order to explore students' performances in whole modeling process. However, designing the modeling-based curriculum, educators can establish learning progression of modeling ability by referencing to the stages of model selection and model analysis and application in the study.

1. 張志康、邱美虹(2009)。建模能力分析指標的發展與應用─以電化學為例。科學教育學刊，17(4)，319-342。
   連結：
2. 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。
   連結：
3. The Glossary of Education Reform. (2013). Learning progression. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://edglossary.org/learning-progression/
4. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2013a). TIMSS 2011 item information tables. Retrieved May 6, 2017, from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/ international-database.html
5. 國家教育研究院(2016)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要：國民中小學暨普通型高級中 等學校自然科學領域(草案)。查詢日期：2017年11月21日，檢自https://www.naer.edu.tw/ ezfiles/0/1000/attach/90/pta_10118_2261414_00571.pdf
6. Newberry Online Limited. (2018). Science pathways. Retrieved January 16, 2017, from http:// www.sciencepathways.co.uk
7. Biggs, J. B.,Collis, K. F.(1982).Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy.New York:Academic Press.
8. Biggs, J. B.,Tang, C.(2007).Teaching for quality learning at university.Maidenhead, UK:Open University Press.
9. Bloom, B. S.,Engelhart, M. D.,Furst, E. J.,Hill, W. H.,Krathwohl, D. R.(1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives: The cognitive domain.New York:David McKay.
10. Crowe, A.,Dirks, C.,Wenderoth, M. P.(2008).Biology in bloom: Implementing Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology.CBE-Life Sciences Education,7(4),368-381.
11. Danusso, L.,Testa, I.,Vicentini, M.(2010).Improving prospective teachers' knowledge about scientific models and modelling: Design and evaluation of a teacher education intervention.International Journal of Science Education,32(7),871-905.
12. Davis, E. A.,Kenyon, L.,Hug, B.,Nelson, M.,Beyer, C.,Schwarz, C.(2008).MoDeLS: Designing supports for teachers using scientific modeling.Paper presented at the Association for Science Teacher Education,St. Louis, MO.:
13. Gilbert, J. K.(Ed.),Boulter, C. J.(Ed.)(2000).Developing models in science education.Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer.
14. Gilbert, J. K.(Ed.),Justi, R.(Ed.)(2016).Modelling-based teaching in science education.Cham, Switzerland:Springer.
15. Greca, I. M.,Moreira, M. A.(2000).Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling.International Journal of Science Education,22(1),1-11.
16. Grosslight, L.,Unger, C.,Jay, E.,Smith, C. L.(1991).Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,28(9),799-822.
17. Halloun, I. A.(1996).Schematic modeling for meaningful learning of physics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,33(9),1019-1041.
18. Halloun, I. A.(2006).Modeling theory in science education.Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer.
19. Harrison, A. G.,Treagust, D. F.(2000).A typology of school science models.International Journal of Science Education,22(9),1011-1026.
20. Hempel, C. G.(Ed.)(1958).International encyclopedia of unified science: Foundations of the unity of science.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
21. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement(2013).TIMSS 2011 user guide for the international database.
22. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement(2013).TIMSS 2011 released items with percent correct statistics-Fourth grade/Eighth grade.
23. Jong, J.-P.,Chiu, M.-H.,Chung, S.-L.(2015).The use of modeling-based text to improve students' modeling competencies.Science Education,99(5),986-1018.
24. 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.
25. Krathwohl, D. R.(2002).A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview.Theory Into Practice,41(4),212-218.
26. Lin, J.-W.(2017).A cross-grade study validating the evolutionary pathway of student mental models in electric circuits.Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,13(7),3099-3137.
27. Lin, J.-W.,Cheng, M.-F.,Yu, R.-C.,Wu, W.(2016).Comparing elementary and junior High school students' conceptual understanding and analogical modeling competence of electricity.Paper presented at 2016 NARST Annual International Conference,Baltimore, MD.:
28. Lin, J.-W.,Yu, R.-C.(2015).Using TIMSS items to examine students' science modeling ability: A cross-countries comparison in the topic of classification of matter.Paper presented at the 6th NICE Conference of Network for Inter-Asian Chemistry Educators,Tokyo, Japan:
29. Lin, J.-W.,Yu, R.-C.(2017).Using revised modeling ability analytic index to compare cross-countries students' modeling ability in TIMSS items.Paper presented at 2017 NARST Annual International Conference,San Antonio, TX:
30. Liou, P.-Y.,Liu, E. Z.-F.(2015).An analysis of the relationships between Taiwanese eighth and fourth graders' motivational beliefs and science achievement in TIMSS 2011.Asia Pacific Education Review,16(3),433-445.
31. Liu, X.,McKeough, A.(2005).Developmental growth in students' concept of energy: Analysis of selected items from the TIMSS database.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,42(5),493-517.
32. Martin, M. O.(Ed.),Mullis, I. V. S.(Ed.)(2012).Methods and procedures in TIMSS and PIRLS 2011.Chestnut Hill, MA:TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
33. Martin, M. O.(Ed.),Mullis, I. V. S.(Ed.),Pierre, F.(Ed.)(2008).TIMSS 2007 technical report.Chestnut Hill, MA:TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
34. Martin, M. O.,Mullis, I. V. S.,Foy, P.,Stanco, G. M.(2012).TIMSS 2011 international results in science.Chestnut Hill, MA:TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
35. Mullis, I. V. S.(Ed.),Martin, M. O.(Ed.)(2013).TIMSS 2015 assessment frameworks.Chestnut Hill, MA:TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
36. Mullis, I. V. S.(Ed.),Martin, M. O.(Ed.),Ruddock, G. J.(Ed.),O'Sullivan, C. Y.(Ed.),Preuschoff, C.(Ed.)(2009).TIMSS 2015 assessment frameworks.Chestnut Hill, MA:TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
37. Namdar, B.,Shen, J.(2015).Modeling-oriented assessment in K-12 science education: A synthesis of research from 1980 to 2013 and new directions.International Journal of Science Education,37(7),993-1023.
38. Nersessian, N. J.(1995).Should physicists preach what they practice?.Science & Education,4(3),203-226.
39. Nicolaou, C. T.,Constantinou, C. P.(2014).Assessment of the modeling competence: A systematic review and synthesis of empirical research.Educational Research Review,13,52-73.
40. Oh, P. S.,Oh, S. J.(2011).What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview.International Journal of Science Education,33(8),1109-1130.
41. Robitaille, D. F.,Schmidt, W. H.,Raizen, S. A.,McKnight, C. C.,Britton, E.,Nicol, C.(1993).Curriculum frameworks for mathematics and science.Vancouver, Canada:Pacific Educational Press.
42. Rodgers, C.(2002).Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.The Teachers College Record,104(4),842-866.
43. Schwarz, C. V.,Reiser, B. J.,Davis, E. A.,Kenyon, L.,Achér, A.,Fortus, D.(2009).Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,46(6),632-654.
44. Sins, P. H. M.,Savelsbergh, E. R.,van Joolingen, W. R.(2005).The difficult process of scientific modeling: An analysis of novices' reasoning during computer-based modeling.International Journal of Science Education,27(14),1695-1721.
45. Van Driel, J. H.,Verloop, N.(2002).Experienced teachers' knowledge of teaching and learning of models and modelling in science education.International Journal of Science Education,24(12),1255-1272.
46. Van Driel, J. H.,Verloop, N.(1999).Teachers' knowledge of models and modelling in science.International Journal of Science Education,21(11),1141-1153.
47. Wilson, M.(2009).Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,46(6),716-730.
48. Zuzovsky, R.,Tamir, P.(1999).Growth patterns in students' ability to supply scientific explanations: Findings from the third international mathematics and science study in Israel.International Journal of Science Education,21(10),1101-1121.
49. 林靜雯(2015)。以TIMSS 2011試題及建模能力分析指標檢測學生物質分類建模能力之跨國比較。中國化學會年會，花蓮縣:
50. 林靜雯(2014)。,臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
51. 邱美虹(2016)。科學模型與建模：科學素養中的模型認知與建模能力。臺灣化學教育，11
52. 邱美虹(2015)。,臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
53. 劉俊庚、邱美虹(2010)。從建模觀點分析高中化學教科書中原子理論之建模歷程及其意涵。科學教育研究與發展季刊，59，23-53。