高中學生進行開放式探究活動之個案研究－問題的形成與解決

A Case Study of High School Students Doing Open-ended Inquiry Activity: Problem Framing and Solving

10.6173/CJSE.200106_9(2).0004

劉宏文(Hung-Wen Liu)；張惠博(Huey-Por Chang)

高級中學 ； 問題解決 ； 探究 ； Inquiry ； Problem solving ； Senior high school

科學教育學刊

9卷2期（2001 / 06 / 01）

169 - 196

繁體中文;英文

近年來，鼓勵學生進行探究活動已成為科學教育界普遍關注的議題。探究導向的教學，是以學生的探究活動為中心，經由問題解決的過程，一方面讓學生體會科學探究的經驗，學習到科學的過程與技能，另一方面，探究的主題可以打破學門的藩籬，學生探究自己有興趣的問題，在眞實的科學活動中建構、理解科學知識。本研究選擇八十七至八十八學年度參與開放式科學探究活動的三組學生（共九位），以質性研究法探討學生在開放式探究活動中如何形成問題？如何解決問題？問題的解決有何特質？研究發現，學生提出的問題，多來自學生的學習與生活經驗，研究問題會隨著研究情境的發展而更加精鍊，問題解決的歷程具有「權宜」與「索引」的特質。學生在探究現場遭遇到突發的、特定的問題，所運用的推理過程是通過具體操作而達到抽象的層級；解決問題的方式與實際行動的採行則與探究現場的情境相關，而不是在去脈絡的情境下，運用現成既定的公式（algorithms）進行思考。學生並且學習到如何形成問題、設計實驗、執行探究、解釋數據；學生所從事的科學活動、所經驗的情境，可能與科學家真正的科學工作有些差距，然而卻是亟富啓發意義的探究經驗，是抽離情境下的科學教學所難以比擬的。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the features of problem framing and solving in an inquiry oriented laboratory environment. With the research based on the data from three investigative groups, it was found that students' problems in the laboratory were related to their everyday life experience. Then, these problems could be elaborated according to the evolution of the inquiry oriented environment at a later time. In addition, students' problem solving in open-ended inquiry environment was distinctly different from doing word problems in a traditional science classroom setting. Finally, problems might be solved from concrete operation to abstract level. Students who coped with the constantly arising problems invoked situated creative ways to make their experiments work, rather than search for a prescribed algorithm to solve the problems. Based on the results of this research, it was suggested that high school students learn science concepts, process, and skills efficiently from authentic science activities. In order to help students experience the uncertainties, ambiguities, and the social nature of scientific work, science should be learned in contexts constituted in part by ill-defined problems.

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science(1989).Project 2061: Science for all Americans.Washington, D.C.:AMS Press.
2. Anderson, J. R.(1990).Cognitive psychology and its implications.San Francisco: CA:Freeman.
3. Bodner, G. M.(1991).A view from chemistry.Toward a unified theory of problem solving: View fom the content domain,NJ Associates, Inc.:
4. Cazden, C. B.(1986).Classroom discourse.Handbook for research on teaching,New York:
5. Chi, M. T. H.,Feltovitch, P. J.,Glaser, R.(1981).Categorization and representation of physical problems by expert and novices.Copitive Science,5,121-152.
6. Gagrze, E. D.,Yekovich, C. W.,Yekovich, F. R.(1993).The cognitive psychology of school learning.New York:Haper Collins College Publishers.
7. Gallagher, J. J.,Tobin, K.(1989).Teacher management and student engagement in high school science.Science Education,71(4),535-555.
8. Garhnkel, H.(1991).Respecification: Evidence for locally produced naturally accountable phenomena order, logic, reason, method, etc. is an as of the essential heredity of immortal ordinary society,(I)-an announcement of studies.Ethnomethodology and the human sciences,Cambridge:
9. Garhnkel, H.,Sacks, H.(1986).On fomal structure of practical action.Ethnomethodological studies of work,London:
10. Gog, R,Duggan, S.(1995).Investigation work in the science curiculum.Buckingham:Open University Press.
11. Hegarty-Hazel, E.(1990).The student laboratory and the science curriculum.London:Routledge.
12. Hodson, D.(1993).Re-thinking old ways: Toward a more critical approaches to practical work in school science.Studies in Science Education,22,85-142.
13. Hunt E.(1994).Problem solving.Thinking and Problem Solving
14. Knorr-Cetina, K. D.(1981).The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science.Oxford:Pergamon Press.
15. Knorr-Cetina, K. D.(1999).Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
16. Kuhn, T. S.(1970).The structure of scientific revolutions.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
17. Larkin, J.,Rainard, B.(1984).A research methodolqy for studying how people think.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,21,235-254.
18. Latour, B.,Woolgar, S.(1986).Laboratoy Iife: The construction of scientific facts.New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
19. Lave, J.(1988).Cognition in practice: Mind mathematics and culture in everyday Ife.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
20. Lemke, J. L.(1989).Using Qmguage in the classroom.Cambridge:Oxford University Press.
21. Lemke, J. L.(1990).Talking science: Language,learning, and values.New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
22. Lunestta, V. N.(1998).The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contemporary teaching.International handbook of science education,Netherlandds:
23. National Research Council(1996).National science education standards.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
24. Qin, Y.,Simon, H.(1990).Laboratory replication of scientific processes.Cognitive Science,14,281-312.
25. Roth, W-M.(1992).The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science.Science Education,76(5),531-557.
26. Roth, W-M.(1995).Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open inquiry science laboratories.Dordrecht Kluwer Anemic Press.
27. Roth, W-M.,Bowen, G. M.(1995).Knowing and interneting: A study of cultute, practices, and resources in a grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor.Cognition and Instruction,13(1),73-128.
28. Schon, D. A.(1987).Educating the reflective practitioner.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Press.
29. Smith, M. U.(1991).Toward a unified theory of problem solving: View fom the content domain.New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Inc., Publishers.
30. Tobin, K(1990).Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning.School Science and Mathematics,90,403-418.
31. Turkle, S.,Papert, S.(1991).Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete.Constructionism,New Jersey:
32. Vygotsky, L. S.(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
33. 玉如玉(1999)。台北市，國立台灣師範大學。
34. 余瑞虔(1999)。台北市，國立台灣師範大學。
35. 洪榮昭(1995)。行政院國科會研究計畫成果報告行政院國科會研究計畫成果報告,行政院國科會。
36. 張俊彥,程上修(2000)。在地球科學課融入創造性問題解決及合作學習策略之初探研究。科學教育學刊，8(3)，251-272。
37. 張秋男(1981)。對科學展覽應有的認識及如何使展覽作品成功。科學教育月刊，42，8-120。
38. 曾金來(1981)。中小學科學展覽作品製作問題。國教世紀，16(9)，8-10。
39. 湯偉君(1999)。創造挂問題解決模式的沿革與運用。科學教育月刊，223，2-20。
40. 黃鴻博(1996)。國民小學學校中的科學展覽活動。科學教育研究與發展月刊，2，3-22。
41. 楊善華(1999).當代西方社會學理論.北京:北京大學出版社.
42. 劉誌文(1995)。國民小學自然科創造性問題解決教學效果之研究。國民教育研究集刊，1，385-402。

1. 蔡錕承、張欣怡(2011)。結合實物與虛擬實驗促進八年級學生「溫度與熱」知識整合、實驗能力與學習策略之研究。科學教育學刊，19(5)，435-459。
2. 蔡執仲、段曉林(2005)。探究式實驗教學對國二學生理化學習動機之影響。科學教育學刊，13(3)，289-315。
3. 曾敬梅、陳穎志、張文華(2010)。探討教師角色在促進國小學童論證表現的改變—以啟發式科學寫作（SWH）教學為情境的四年個案研究。科學教育學刊，18(5)，417-442。
4. 郭重吉、江世豪(2004)。以認知腳本詮釋國—學生從事科學學習活動的知覺之初探。科學教育學刊，12(4)，445-468。
5. 許瑛玿、白佩宜(2011)。探討不同探究式教學法對高一生科學探究能力與學習環境觀感之影響。課程與教學，14(3)，123-156。
6. 賴志忠(2018)。營造多元探究情境培養學生問題解決能力。中等教育，69(3)，142-154。
7. 賴志忠,段曉林(2020)。以ARCS動機模式融入引導式探究教學提升九年級生學習動機之行動研究。科學教育學刊，28(1)，25-48。
8. 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。
9. 張宇樑(2014)。運用專業成長活動促進高職教師探究教學知覺轉變之個案研究。科學教育學刊，22(4)，363-388。
10. (2002)。職前國小教師眞實的科學探究能力之培育。臺中師院學報，16，577-593。
11. (2020)。概念為本的科學探究教學實踐：一位國中教師邁向素養導向教學的第一哩路。教育研究月刊，310，80-101。
12. (2023)。運用探究式教學與分組合作學習在「金融市場」財金專業課程學習成果之研究。嘉大教育研究學刊，51，1-24。