偏鄉學生面臨科學探究式專題導向教學法之學習挑戰

Challenges in Adopting Place-Based Science-Inquiry Project-Based Learning Pedagogy in Rural Schools

10.6173/CJSE.201906_27(2).0003

洪萱芳(Hsuan-Fang Hung)；林英杰(Ying-Chieh Lin)；顏瓊芬(Chiung-Fen Yen)

地方本位教育 ； 科學探究 ； 專題式導向教學法 ； 學生特質 ； 環境教育 ； Place-Based Education ； Science Inquiry ； Project-Based Teaching ； Student Characteristics ； Environmental Education

科學教育學刊

27卷2期（2019 / 06 / 01）

121 - 145

繁體中文

本文主要探討以生活經驗為起點出發的地方本位教育模式，結合科學探究式專題導向法對偏鄉學生的學習成效。研究文獻指出，許多科學知識的教學並未充分連結學生的生活經驗與背景知識，使得許多學生在學習歷程中遭遇挑戰，進而影響自我學習認同；此外，學生在進行科學學習時，因為先備知識不足，導致其在科學學習過程中學習動機低落，學習成效亦受到極大影響。因此本研究希望透過探討9位中部偏鄉小學五年級學生為主要研究對象，由1位自然科學專業知識與教學資歷極為豐富的教師擔任教學者，希望在排除教師學科知識較弱的因素下，探討偏鄉學生面對科學探究式專題導向教學法的挑戰。研究發現，本研究所建構的地方本位教育之科學探究式專題導向教學法，較適合對周遭環境敏感度較高的學生，因不管原有知識架構完整與否，透過經驗的連結，可協助發展出系統化的知識架構，對學習成效有正面影響。另外，研究結果也顯示，傳統講授法對於學生的學習認同與習慣影響深遠，包含傾向有標準答案的教學與強調學習結果忽略過程的學習方式等，因此若要推動創新教學法，必須正視傳統教學法對學生帶來的影響。

This research used place-based education theory as the main framework to develop a place-based education module using the cross-cutting concept of ＂Structure and Function＂ to integrate multi-subject science concepts into the science curriculum. Outdoor education pedagogy and project-based learning strategy were used in the module. Researchers used plants in the Dadu Mountain and Gaomei Wetland areas where the participating school for this research was located. The purpose of the science instruction used in this study was to connect students' knowledge of plants developed from their interactions with these plants grown in the mountain and wetland areas with their knowledge developed from textbooks in the classroom. Five curriculum units were developed. These units consisted of 19 formal lessons and 2 extended lessons. Data collection methods included pre- and post-interviews with students, lesson worksheets and concept maps, and class observations and field notes. Scientific identity survey was conducted before and after the module was implemented. Affection survey was conducted at the end of the module. Research outcomes found that students' past learning experiences with traditional pedagogy appeared to be the reason why they experienced difficult challenges using the new implemented pedagogy. Students' learning motivation and learning engagement were observed to be positively influenced by the module, and the concept of the ＂Structure and Function＂ used to integrate the multi-subject science concepts was shown to help students in their systematic learning of the material. Using plants grown in the school area and the local community had a positive influence on low performing students, because these students were able to connect their daily life experiences with their classroom learning experiences. This connection further improved their learning motivation.

1. 洪萱芳,姚宗威,林淑芬,顏瓊芬(2017)。以地方為基礎之文化融入科學教育課程研究─以泰雅族和賽德克族傳統編織文化為例。科學教育學刊，25(3)，245-276。
   連結：
2. 洪萱芳,顏瓊芬,張妤萍,洪韶君(2016)。以偏鄉國小為場域之地方本位環境教育課程省思。科學教育學刊，24(3)，299-331。
   連結：
3. 郭俊呈,侯雅雯(2017)。翻轉教室觀點融入偏鄉教育之省思。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，10(1)，33-47。
   連結：
4. 楊秀停,王國華(2007)。實施引導式探究教學對於國小學童學習成效之影響。科學教育學刊，15(4)，439-459。
   連結：
5. 蔣佳玲,李暉(2016)。你說的原住民是哪一族？太魯閣、阿美與漢族學生科學學習認同之比較。科學教育學刊，24(4)，417-435。
   連結：
6. 魯俊賢,吳毓瑩(2007)。過程技能之二階段實作評量：規劃、實踐與效益探究。科學教育學刊，15(2)，215-239。
   連結：
7. 謝甫佩,洪振方(2004)。國小學生科學探究活動的課程設計及實施成果之個案研究。師大學報：科學教育類，49(2)，61-86。
   連結：
8. 顏瓊芬,黃世傑(2003)。學生在開放式科學探究過程中互動模式之研究。科學教育學刊，11(2)，141-169。
   連結：
9. Bruner, J. S.(1960).The process of education.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
10. Chang, C.-Y.,Mao, S.-L.(1999).Comparison of Taiwan science students’ outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction.The Journal of Educational Research,92(6),340-346.
11. Clements, M. A.(Ed.),Bishop, A. J.(Ed.),Keitel, C.(Ed.),Kilpatrick, J.(Ed.),Leung, F. K. S.(Ed.)(2013).Third international handbook of mathematics education.New York:Springer.
12. Costenson, K.,Lawson, A. E.(1986).Why isn't inquiry used in more classrooms?.The American Biology Teacher,48(3),150-158.
13. de Abreu, G.(Ed.),Presmeg, N. C.(Ed.)(2002).Transitions between contexts of mathematical practices.Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.
14. Dewey, J. (1935). Peirce's theory of quality. The Journal of Philosophy, 32(26), 701-708.
15. Drake, K. N.,Long, D.(2009).Rebecca's in the dark: A comparative study of problembased learning and direct instruction/experiential learning in two 4th-grade classrooms.Journal of Elementary Science Education,21(1),1-16.
16. Duit, R.,Treagust, D. F.(2003).Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning.International Journal of Science Education,25(6),671-688.
17. Duschl, R.,Maeng, S.,Sezen, A.(2011).Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis.Studies in Science Education,47(2),123-182.
18. Freeman, S.,Eddy, S. L.,McDonough, M.,Smith, M. K.,Okoroafor, N.,Jordt, H.(2014).Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,111(23),8410-8415.
19. Gagné, R. M.(1965).The conditions of learning.New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
20. Glynn, S. M.(Ed.),Yeany, R. H.(Ed.),Britton, B. K.(Ed.)(1991).The psychology of learning science.New York:Routledge.
21. Goos, M.(2004).Learning mathematics in a classroom community of inquiry.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,35(4),258-291.
22. Gülbahar, Y.,Tinmaz, H.(2006).Implementing project-based learning and e-portfolio assessment in an undergraduate course.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,38(3),309-327.
23. Harris, L. R.(2008).A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student engagement in learning.The Australian Educational Researcher,35(1),57-79.
24. Hung, H.(2011).Greensboro, NC,University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
25. Hussain, A.,Azeem, M.,Shakoor, A.(2011).Physics teaching methods: Scientific inquiry vs traditional lecture.International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,1(19),269-276.
26. Kaga, Y.,Bennett, J.,Moss, P.(2010).Caring and learning together: A cross-national study on the integration of early childhood care and education within education.Paris, France:United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization.
27. Lederman, J. S.,Lederman, N. G.(2005).Developing and assessing elementary teachers’ and students’ understandings of nature of science and scientific inquiry.Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,Dallas, TX:
28. Lee, H.,Yen, C.-F.,Aikenhead, G. S.(2012).Indigenous elementary students’ science instruction in Taiwan: Indigenous knowledge and Western science.Research in Science Education,42(6),1183-1199.
29. Leuchter, M.,Saalbach, H.,Hardy, I.(2014).Designing science learning in the first years of schooling. An intervention study with sequenced learning material on the topic of "floating and sinking".International Journal of Science Education,36(10),1751-1771.
30. Martin, B.,Kass, H.,Brouwer, W.(1990).Authentic science: A diversity of meanings.Science Education,74(5),541-554.
31. Merritt, J.,Lee, M. Y.,Rillero, P.,Kinach, B. M.(2017).Problem-based learning in K–8 mathematics and science education: A Literature review.Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning,11(2)
32. Munck, M.(2007).Science pedagogy, teacher attitudes, and student success.Journal of Elementary Science Education,19(2),13-24.
33. Namy, L. L.,Gentner, D.(2002).Making a silk purse out of two sow's ears: Young children's use of comparison in category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,131(1),5-15.
34. National Research Council(2000).Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning.Washington, DC:National Academy of Sciences.
35. National Research Council(1996).National Science Education Standards.Washington, DC:National Academy.
36. Porter, C.,Parvin, J.(2008).,The Chemical Industry Education Centre, University of York.
37. QSR International Pty Ltd.(2017).QSR International Pty Ltd. (2017). NVivo 11 Pro for Windows [Computer software]. Melbourne, Australia: QSR International Pty Ltd..
38. Schwab, J. J.,Brandwein, P. F.(1962).Teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
39. Shymansky, J.(1984).BSCS programs: Just how effective were they?.The American Biology Teacher,46(1),54-57.
40. Siegel, M.,Borasi, R.,Fonzi, J.(1998).Supporting students’ mathematical inquiries through reading.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,29(4),378-413.
41. Smyth, J.(2006)."When students have power": Student engagement, student voice, and the possibilities for school reform around "dropping out" of school.International Journal of Leadership in Education,9(4),285-298.
42. Sobel, D.(2004).Place-based education: Connecting classrooms & communities.Great Barrington, MA:Orion Society.
43. Stake, R. E.(Ed.),Easley, J. A., Jr.(Ed.)(1978).Case studies in science education.Champaign, IL:University of Illinois at Urbana.
44. Walker, A.(Ed.),Leary, H.(Ed.),Hmelo-Silver, C. E.(Ed.),Ertmer, P.(Ed.)(2015).Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows.West Lafayette, IN:Purdue University Press.
45. Wilhelm, J.,Sherrod, S.,Walters, K.(2008).Project-based learning environments: Challenging preservice teachers to act in the moment.The Journal of Educational Research,101(4),220-233.
46. 呂弘暉,林惠敏(2010)。問題解決導向學習在大學通識課程之操作檢視─以《家庭與人際關係：經典劇本導讀》為例。止善，8，71-96。
47. 呂玟霖(2016)。淺談偏鄉學校教師人力的困境與突破。臺灣教育評論月刊，5(2)，26-28。
48. 呂瓊萱(2006)。嘉義縣，國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所。
49. 林天祐(2012)。偏鄉學校的師資課題。臺灣教育評論月刊，1(3)，25-26。
50. 林妙徽,顏瓊芬,李暉(2008)。原住民科學教育之困境與未來展望。臺灣人文生態研究，10(1)，89-112。
51. 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，15，641-662。
52. 國家教育研究院(2018年11月2日)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型、技術型、綜合型高級中等學校—自然科學領域訂定發布。查詢日期：2019年5月13日，檢自https://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-15486,c639-1.php。
53. 張芬芬(2010)。質性資料分析的五步驟：在抽象階梯上爬升。初等教育學刊，35，87-120。
54. 張訓譯(2018)。翻轉教學之偏鄉問題再思考。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(8)，82-87。
55. 張景媛,羅廷瑛(2009)。,臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
56. 張景媛,羅廷瑛(2014)。精進教學有秘方：綜合活動學習領域教案設計與評量的方法。教育研究月刊，247，37-49。
57. 張德銳(2017)。偏鄉學校的師資問題與對策。臺灣教育評論月刊，6(9)，1-5。
58. 教育部(2015)。教育部(2015)。偏鄉教育創新發展方案。臺北市：作者。
59. 莊嘉淋(2013)。桃園縣，中原大學教育研究所。
60. 郭李宗文,熊同鑫,鄭育萍(2010)。小一原住民數學學習相關因素之教師觀點初探。2010年原住民學生數理科教／學理論與實務學術研討會，臺東市:
61. 陳姿妙(2006)。彰化市，國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所。
62. 陳建樺(2009)。桃園縣，中原大學教育研究所。
63. 彭錦鵬,許添明,陳端容,李俊達,吳濟安,周延(2016)。,臺北市:國家發展委員會。
64. 游柏隆(2007)。臺北市，國立臺北教育大學自然科學教育學系碩士班。
65. 黃政傑(2014)。翻轉教室的理念、問題與展望。臺灣教育評論月刊，3(12)，161-186。
66. 黃善美,黃萬居(2003)。以問題為中心的合作學習策略對國小學童科學學習之研究。科學教育研究與發展季刊，32，1-31。
67. 劉湘瑤(2016)。科學探究的教學與評量。科學研習月刊，55(2)，5-11。
68. 劉寶元,劉嘉茹(2013)。屏東縣國小科學教師人力結構的現況與初探─以參與推廣研習教師為例。屏東教大科學教育，37，3-15。
69. 顏瓊芬,黃世傑(2014)。學生在開放式科學探究過程中互動模式之研究。科學探究教學：臺灣個案研究論文集（1994–2012），新北市:

1. 劉佳儒,張美珍,王裕宏(2020)。輔導偏鄉國中學生學習飛行科學知識之成效分析：以培訓參與競賽活動為策略。科學教育學刊，28(4)，327-351。
2. 謝傳崇,李孟雪(2021)。台灣國民小學教師翻轉教學之研究－TALIS的分析與驗證。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，14(1)，91-113。
3. 顏瓊芬,許彩梁,林洋如,江允芃(2023)。以永續專案卡與地方本位知識發展臺灣中小學的氣候行動實踐。中等教育，74(3)，37-54。
4. 鄭立婷,洪振方,林煥祥(2020)。透過科學營探討弱勢學生之探究能力表現。科學教育學刊，28(3)，197-221。
5. 鄭依萍,康智凱,林登敏,林建隆(2023)。地方本位教育的探究教學增進物理科師資生教師專業知能：以大學社會責任實踐偏鄉教育為例。教育科學研究期刊，68(3)，35-60。