國小自然與生活科技教科書的語句類型分析－因果性解釋與預測性解釋的探討

An Analysis of Elementary School Science and Technology Textbooks: An Examination of Causal Explanation and Predictive Explanation

10.6481/JTR.201304_6(1).03

陳均伊(Jun-Yi Chen)

內容分析法 ； 因果性解釋 ； 科學教科書 ； 預測性解釋 ； content analysis ； causal explanation ； science textbook ； predictive explanation

教科書研究

6卷1期（2013 / 04 / 15）

57 - 85

繁體中文

本研究旨在檢視國小自然與生活科技領域教科書（簡稱為科學教科書），探討其語句類型，以及使用科學解釋的數量與分布情形，包括：因果性解釋與預測性解釋。以98學年的A、B與C三個版本的科學教科書為研究樣本，從國小三至六年級，內容涵蓋物理、化學、生物、地球科學與生活科技等學科，共16,616句。採用科學解釋編碼系統，將句子分為：因果性解釋、預測性解釋、參與、事實描述，以及與科學內容無關等五種類別，由三位評分人員分別進行編碼，評分者信度為.98。研究發現教科書中有半數的句子屬於事實描述，因果性解釋和預測性解釋僅占四分之一。大致上，高年級教科書比中年級教科書較常使用因果性解釋的句子，但各版本間中、高年級的百分比差距不同。各學科中，物理和化學較其他學科使用較高比例的預測性解釋句子，而生物的事實描述句子比例較高。

Textbooks are regarded as valuable resources by teachers. The purpose of this study is to examine the mean percentage of scientific explanations, including causal explanation and predictive explanation, in science and technology textbooks in elementary schools in Taiwan. We analyzed three of the most widely used versions of elementary school science and technology textbooks (grades 3-6), covering physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, and technology, for a total 16,616 sentences. The coding system places sentences into five categories: causal explanation, predictive explanation, fact and description, engagement, and irrelevant. Interrater reliability is .98. We found that half of the sentences belonged in the fact and description category. Only a quarter of the sentences were causal explanation or predictive explanation in nature. Textbooks for grades five and six had higher percentages of causal explanation sentences than grades three and four. All subjects had lower percentages of causal explanation. The percentages of predictive explanation sentences in physics and chemistry were higher than those in other subjects. More fact-like statements were adopted in biology.

1. 宋曜廷、黃信樽、陳學志(2012)。能源與氣候變遷概念之內容分析─以自然與生活科技領域為例。教科書研究，5(2)，1-30。
   連結：
2. 張世忠、蔡孟芳、陳鶴元(2012)。國中科學教師的學科教學知識與科學教學導向之探討。科學教育學刊，20(5)，413-433。
   連結：
3. 莊善媛、李隆盛(2011)。國中自然與生活科技教師對部編本教科書之滿意度調查研究。教科書研究，4(1)，55-85。
   連結：
4. 陳均伊(2010)。教師專業成長之個案研究：一位國中自然教師探究教學觀點的轉變。教育科學研究期刊，55(2)，233-264。
   連結：
5. 黃秋華、陸偉明(2012)。小學國語教科書第三人稱代名詞的性別語義特徵之內容分析。教科書研究，5(1)，85-113。
   連結：
6. 黃靖惠、洪志誠、許瑛玿(2012)。九年一貫教科書「全球暖化概念」內容分析。教科書研究，5(3)，27-57。
   連結：
7. Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135-175.
8. 教育部（2010）。國民中小學九年一貫課程總綱綱要。取自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC/index.php
9. Banilower, E. R.,Boyd, S. E.,Pasley, J. D.,Weiss, I. R.(2006).Lessons from a decade of mathematics and science reform: A capstone report for the local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative.Chapel Hill, NC:Horizon Research.
10. Best, J. W.,Kahn, J. V.(2006).Research in education (10th ed.).Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
11. Brewer, W. F.,Chinn, C. A.,Samarapungavan, A.(2000).Explanation in scientists and children.Explanation and cognition,Cambridge, MA:
12. Brown, N. J. S.,Furtak, E. M.,Timms, M.,Nagashima, S. O.,Wilson, M.(2010).The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning.Educational Assessment,15,123-141.
13. Duschl, R.,Schweingruber, H., Shouse, A.(2007).Taking science to school: Learning and teaching in grades K-8.Washington, DC:National Research Council.
14. Fraenkel, J. R.,Wallen, N. E.(1996).How to design and evaluate research in education(3rd ed.).New York:McGraw-Hill.
15. Gilbert, J. K.,Boulter, C., Rutherford, M.(1998).Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses?.International Journal of Science Education,20,83-97.
16. Hinrichsen, J.,Jarrett, D.(1999).Science inquiry for the classroom: A literature review.Portland:Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
17. Kuhn, T. S.(1962).The structure of scientific revolutions.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
18. Martin-Hansen, L.(2002).Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom.The Science Teacher,69(2),34-37.
19. McNeill, K. L.,Krajcik, J.(2008).Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45,53-78.
20. Metz, K. E.(2000).Young children's inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry.Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science,Washington, DC:
21. Minstrell, J.,van Zee, E. H.(2000).Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science.Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science.
22. Nagel, E.(1979).The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation.New York:Harcourt, Brace, & World.
23. National Research Council(2000).Inquiry and the national science education standards.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
24. National Research Council(1996).National science education standards.Washington, DC:National Academic Press.
25. Newton, D. P.,Newton, L. D.(2007).An analysis of primary technology textbooks: Can they support cause and purpose explanations?.Research in Science & Technological Education,25(2),199-210.
26. Newton, D. P.,Newton, L. D.(2000).Do teachers support causal understanding through their discourse when teaching primary science?.British Educational Research Journal,26,599-613.
27. Newton, L. D.,Newton, D. P.,Blake, A.,Brown, K.(2002).Do primary school science books for children show a concern for explanatory understanding?.Research in Science & Technological Education,20,227-240.
28. Premack, D., Premack, J.(1995).Levels of causal understanding in chimpanzees and children.Cognition,50(1-3),347-362.
29. Rymarz, R.,Engebretson, K.(2005).Putting textbooks to work.British Journal of Religious Education,27,53-63.
30. Salmon, W. C.(1998).Causality and explanation.New York:Oxford University Press.
31. Sandoval, W.(2003).Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,12,5-51.
32. Sandoval, W. A.,Reiser, B. J.(2004).Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry.Science Education,88,345-372.
33. Schwartz, R. S.,Lederman, N. G.,Khishfe, R.,Lederman, J. S.,Matthews, L.,Liu, S. Y.(2002).RIC Document Reproduction ServiceRIC Document Reproduction Service,未出版
34. Smolkin, L. B.,McTigue, E. M,Donovan, C. A.,Coleman, J. M.(2009).Explanation in science trade books recommended for use with elementary students.Science Education,93,587-610.
35. Wong, E. D.(1996).Students' scientific explanations and the contexts in which they occur.Elementary School Journal,96(5),495-509.
36. Yip, C. W.(2009).Causal and teleological explanations in biology.Journal of Biology Education,43(4),149-151.
37. 李田英(2009)。我國師資培育的優勢與問題。科學教育月刊，321，12-26。
38. 林欣菁(2011)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。新竹市，國立新竹教育大學人資處社會學習領域碩士班。
39. 洪若烈(2004)。國小教師之教科書使用方式及其影響因素之探討。國教學報，15，175-192。
40. 教育部(2008)。重訂標點符號手冊修訂版。
41. 許宗淋(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，臺北市立教育大學歷史與地理學系。
42. 陳文典(2001)。課程變革對教學及學習模式的衝擊及其可能的回應。科學教育月刊，244，48-51。
43. 黃光雄、簡茂發(1996)。教育研究法。臺北市:師大書苑。
44. 賴文惠(2010)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺中市，國立臺中教育大學區域與社會發展學系。
45. 謝州恩、吳心楷(2005)。探究情境中國小學童科學解釋能力成長之研究。師大學報，50(2)，55-84。
46. 蘇禹銘、黃臺珠(2009)。科學教師學校本位課程發展信念與實踐之個案研究。科學教育月刊，324，2-13。

1. 顏慶祥,陳世文(2021)。「探究與實作」課程在普通高中自然科學領域實施概況之調查研究。課程與教學，24(4)，135-166。
2. 楊文金,黃仲義,陳世文(2021)。我國國民中小學科學教科書科學詞彙之差異比較。教科書研究，14(1)，1-29。