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

The Impact of Different Inquiry-Based Instructions on Tenth Graders' Inquiry Ability and Perspectives about Learning Environment

10.6384/CIQ.201107.0124

白佩宜(Pei-Yi Pai)；許瑛玿(Ying-Shao Hsu)

科學探究 ； 探究教學法 ； 學習環境觀感 ； 地球科學教育 ； Scientific Inquiry ； Inquiry-Based Instruction ； Perspective about Learning Environment ； Earth Science Education

課程與教學

14卷3期（2011 / 07 / 01）

123 - 156

繁體中文

This study examines the influences of three inquiry-based instructions (structured inquiry, guided inquiry and open inquiry) on tenth graders' scientific inquiry abilities, including posing questions and hypothesis, planning, experimenting, collecting and analyzing data, and interpreting and concluding. The three inquiry-based instructions used in this study are based on the different amount of teacher guidance in a topic related to weather observation. The participants in this quasi-experimental research were three classes of tenth graders (43 students in structured inquiry, 43 students in guided inquiry, and 41 students in open inquiry) in Taipei County. Here are the results. (1) Students' overall scientific inquiry abilities had no significant difference before and after the inquiry-based lesson, but their performances were improved obviously in posing questions and hypothesis (t = 3.56, p ＜0.0001, E.S.= 0.81). (2) The low-inquiry-ability students made more significant improvement than the medium-inquiry-ability and high-inquiry-ability students in the overall inquiry ability after the inquiry-based lesson. (3) The structured-inquiry instruction was the most helpful to improve the ability in posing questions and hypothesis; especially, it helped the low-inquiry-ability students improve their abilities in experimenting, collecting and analyzing data. (4) The guided-inquiry instruction helped the low-inquiry-ability and medium-inquiry-ability students improve their ability in posing questions and hypothesis. Also, the guided-inquiry instruction improved the medium-inquiry-ability students' ability in planning, and the low-inquiry-ability students' ability in interpreting and concluding. (5) The open-inquiry instruction improved the high-inquiry-ability students' ability in planning. (6) More than half of the students perceived the classroom learning environment closer to their expectation after the inquiry-based instructions. In present science classroom, most students have few chances to undertake student-centered inquiry. It is suggested that teachers adopt suitable methods of inquiry-based instruction in order to promote students' inquiry abilities.

This study examines the influences of three inquiry-based instructions (structured inquiry, guided inquiry and open inquiry) on tenth graders' scientific inquiry abilities, including posing questions and hypothesis, planning, experimenting, collecting and analyzing data, and interpreting and concluding. The three inquiry-based instructions used in this study are based on the different amount of teacher guidance in a topic related to weather observation. The participants in this quasi-experimental research were three classes of tenth graders (43 students in structured inquiry, 43 students in guided inquiry, and 41 students in open inquiry) in Taipei County. Here are the results. (1) Students' overall scientific inquiry abilities had no significant difference before and after the inquiry-based lesson, but their performances were improved obviously in posing questions and hypothesis (t = 3.56, p ＜0.0001, E.S.= 0.81). (2) The low-inquiry-ability students made more significant improvement than the medium-inquiry-ability and high-inquiry-ability students in the overall inquiry ability after the inquiry-based lesson. (3) The structured-inquiry instruction was the most helpful to improve the ability in posing questions and hypothesis; especially, it helped the low-inquiry-ability students improve their abilities in experimenting, collecting and analyzing data. (4) The guided-inquiry instruction helped the low-inquiry-ability and medium-inquiry-ability students improve their ability in posing questions and hypothesis. Also, the guided-inquiry instruction improved the medium-inquiry-ability students' ability in planning, and the low-inquiry-ability students' ability in interpreting and concluding. (5) The open-inquiry instruction improved the high-inquiry-ability students' ability in planning. (6) More than half of the students perceived the classroom learning environment closer to their expectation after the inquiry-based instructions. In present science classroom, most students have few chances to undertake student-centered inquiry. It is suggested that teachers adopt suitable methods of inquiry-based instruction in order to promote students' inquiry abilities.

1. 李旻憲、張俊彥(2004)。地球科學教室學習環境問卷之研發與初探。科學教育學刊，12(4)，421-443。
   連結：
2. 黃台珠、Aldridge, J. M.、Fraser, B. J.(1998)。臺灣和西澳科學教室環境的跨國研究：結合質性與量的研究方法。科學教育學刊，6(4)，343-362。
   連結：
3. 劉宏文、張惠博(2001)。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。科學教育學刊，9(2)，169-196。
   連結：
4. 蔡執仲、段曉林、靳知勤(2007)。巢狀探究教學模式對國二學生理化學習動機影響之探討。科學教育學刊，15(2)，119-144。
   連結：
5. Dewey, J., [1933(1910)]. How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Health.
6. 教育部（2008 a）。普通高級中學必修科目「基礎地球科學」課程綱要。臺北市。
7. 香港教育學院超媒體自學中心( 1998）。科學探究技巧。2008年2月10日取自：香港教育學院(HKIEd) ， 超媒體自學中心網址http://www.ied.edu.hk/has/sci/sps/index.htm
8. 教育部（2008 b）。普通高級中學選修科目「基礎地球科學」課程綱要。臺北市。
9. 教育部（2004）。普通高級中學必修科目「基礎地球科學」課程綱要。臺北市。
10. Abd-El-Khalick, F.(2004).Inquiry in science education: International perspectives.Science Education,88(3),397-419.
11. Colburn, A.(2000).An inquiry primer.Science Scope,23(6),42-44.
12. CSMEE & NRC(2000).Inquiry and the national Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning.Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press.
13. DeBoer, G. E.(1991).A history of Ideas in Science Education.New York:Teachers College Press.
14. DeBoer, G.,National Science Teachers Association(1993).Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning.Washington, D.C.:National Science Teachers Association.
15. Fraser, B. J.,Fisher, D. L.,McRobbie, C. J.(1996).Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument.The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New York, NY:
16. Herron, M.(1971).The nature of scientific enquiry.School Review,79,171-212.
17. Kelly, G. J.,Chen, C.(1999).The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36(8),883-915.
18. Lee, O. Deaktor,R. A. Hart, J.,Cuevas, P.,Enders, C.(2005).An instructional intervention's impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,42,857-887.
19. Martin-Hansen, L.(2002).Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom.The Science Teacher,69(2),34-37.
20. Marx, R. W.,Blumenfeld, P. C.,Krajcik, J. S.,Fishman, B.,Soloway, E.,Geier, R.,Tal, R. T.(2004).Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: assessment of learning in urban systemic reform.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41,1063-1080.
21. Mason, L.(2001).Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: a classroom study.Learning and Instruction,11,305-329.
22. Mintzes, J. J.,Wandersee, J. H.,Novak, J. D.(1998).Teaching science for understanding- A human constructivist view.New York:Academic Press.
23. Moje, E. B.,Collazo, T.,Carrilo, R.,Marx, R. W.(2001).Maestro, what is "quality" ?" : language, literacy, and discourse n project-based science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38,469-498.
24. National Research Council(2000).Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards.Washington, DC, USA:National Academic Press.
25. Sandoval, W. A.,Millwood, K. A.(2003).High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,40(4),369-392.
26. Schneider, R. M.,Krajcik, J.,Marx, R. W.,Soloway, E.(2002).Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39,410-422.
27. Schwab, J.(1960).What do scientists do?.Behavioral Science,5(1),1-27.
28. Schwab, J.(1966).The Teaching of Science.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
29. Tamir, P.,Zohar, A.(1991).Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena.Science Education,75(1),57-67.
30. Tsai, C. C.(2000).Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of construcyivist learning environments.Educational Research,42,193-205.
31. 王素香(1995)。高雄，國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所。
32. 吳佳蓮、吳心楷(2006)。科學探究活動中國小五年級兒童科學解釋能力及實務認識論之研究。中華民國第22屆科學教育學術研討會，臺北市:
33. 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。國立高雄師範大學高雄師大學報，15，641-662。
34. 翁榮源、陳定威、施信宏(2006)。引導發現式學習在「環境化學」網站之應用與研究。科學教育月刊，292，39-54。
35. 高強華(1998)。教師新思維論文選輯，臺北市:
36. 黃宰龍(2002)。臺中，國立台中師範學院科學應用與推廣系。
37. 蕭建華(2005)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所。
38. 謝莉文(2006)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所。

1. 陳淑苾、陳素芬、張文華(2017)。開放式與結構式探究實驗活動對國小學生教室環境感知的影響。科學教育學刊，25(3)，277-300。
2. 段曉林,林玉蓮(2019)。開放式生物探究活動對馬來西亞高二高、低參與度學生之科學探究能力與覺知的影響。科學教育學刊，27(1)，1-23。
3. 盧秀琴,劉靜文(2021)。國小自然科教師學習兩種探究式教學法與抉擇應用。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，14(1)，1-27。
4. 周淑卿,王佩蘭(2020)。科技實作課程發展中教師實務知識建構之個案研究。課程與教學，23(4)，27-57。
5. (2019)。培育師資生使用PO+E教學法研發國小奈米科技教案與教學。教育研究學報，53(2)，31-56。