運用PISA科學素養評量架構探討國中生物教科書中問題的特徵

Features of Grade 7 Biology Textbook Questions Explored Using the Framework for PISA Scientific Literacy Assessment

10.6481/JTR.202004_13(1).03

仰威融(Wei-Rong Yang)；林淑梤(Shu-Fen Lin)

內容分析 ； 科學素養 ； 教科書問題 ； PISA ； content analysis ； scientific literacy ； textbook questions ； PISA

教科書研究

13卷1期（2020 / 04 / 15）

75 - 106

繁體中文

本研究旨在利用PISA 2015科學素養評量架構中情境、知識和能力三部分，探討我國三個版本國中生物教科書問題具有的特徵，並比較三個版本之間的差異。內容分析的結果顯示三個版本九成以上的問題在培養「解釋科學現象」的能力，而在「評估與設計科學探究」和「詮釋科學數據和舉證」能力的問題相對稀少。在知識部分，「內容知識」題目接近九成，而「程序性知識」和「認識論知識」的問題相對稀少。教科書中近七成的問題屬於去情境，主要分布於單元末的評量。個人化情境問題僅占一至兩成，地區和全球情境的問題則十分罕見。此結果顯示出教科書以傳輸、理解和驗證內容知識為主要的教育目的。建議未來生物教科書減少應用內容知識的問題，多設計情境問題，應用各種知識和發展全面的科學能力。

This study used the framework for Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 scientific literacy assessment, which analyzed parts of context, knowledge, and competence in each textbook question to investigate the features of questions in the seventh-grade biology textbooks and compare the differences among the three textbook versions. The results indicated that more than 90% of the textbook questions in all three versions assessed the competence of explaining scientific phenomena; however, few assessed the competences of evaluating and designing scientific enquiry and interpreting data and evidence scientifically. Moreover, approximately 90% of the questions in all three versions were designed to test students' content knowledge, and only a few tested their procedural and epistemic knowledge. Decontextualized questions accounted for 70% and mainly appeared in the assessment sections. The questions with personal context accounted for merely 10%-20%, and those with local and global contexts were rare. The results revealed that the main purposes of these textbooks were transmission, understanding, and verification of content knowledge rather than development of scientific competences. Textbook developers should design fewer questions requiring application of content knowledge, and instead, design more contextualized questions that make learners apply diverse knowledge and develop multiple competences.

1. 呂紹海,巫俊明(2008)。國小「自然與生活科技」教科書中科學史內容之分析。新竹教育大學教育學報，25(2)，1-31。
   連結：
2. 李明玲,溫媺純(2017)。教科書中科學知識架構之內容分析──以生殖與遺傳單元為例。科學教育學刊，25(3)，219-243。
   連結：
3. 周珮儀,鄭明長(2008)。教科書研究方法論之探究。課程與教學季刊，11(1)，193-222。
   連結：
4. 唐淑華(2017)。培養閱讀素養，何必遠求？從設計一本「以學生為主體」的中學課本開始。教科書研究，10(2)，1-31。
   連結：
5. 黃茂在,吳敏而(2016)。探索十二年國教自然科學教科書的設計原則──以「熱傳播」單元為例。教科書研究，9(2)，69-100。
   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. 楊德清,鄭婷芸(2015)。臺灣、美國與新加坡國中階段幾何教材內容之分析比較。教育科學研究期刊，60(1)，33-72。
   連結：
8. 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（2018）。
9. Anagnostopoulou, K.,Hatzinikita, V.,Christidou, V.(2012).PISA and biology school textbooks: The role of visual material.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,46,1839-1845.
10. Bazzul, J.(2015).Tracing "ethical subjectivities" in science education: How biology textbooks can frame ethico-political choices for students.Research in Science Education,45(1),23-40.
11. Bransford, J. D.,Brown, A. L.,Cocking, R. R.(2000).How people learn (Vol. 11).National academy press.
12. Calado, F.,Scharfenberg, F. J.,Bogner, F.(2015).To what extent do biology textbooks contribute to scientific literacy? Criteria for analysing science-technology-society-environment issues.Education Sciences,5(4),255-280.
13. Davila, K.,Talanquet, V.(2010).Classifying end-of-chapter questions and problems for selected general chemistry textbooks used in the United States.Journal of Chemical Education,87(1),97-102.
14. Davis, O. L.,Hunkins, F. P.(1966).Textbook questions: What thinking processes do they foster?.Peabody Journal of Education,43(5),285-292.
15. Elisenman, H. B.,Wagner, D.(2007).A framework for uncovering the way a textbook may position the mathematics learner.For the Learning of Mathematics,27(2),8-14.
16. Fraser, B. J.(Ed.),Tobin, K. G.(Ed.)(1998).International handbook of science education (Vol. 1).Kluwer.
17. Ge, Y. P.,Unsworth, L.,Wang, K. H.,Chang, H. P.(2018).What images reveal: A comparative study of science images between Australian and Taiwanese junior high school textbooks.Research in Science Education,48(6),1409-1431.
18. Kent, W. A.(Ed.),Lambert, D.(Ed.),Naish, M.(Ed.),Slater, F.(Ed.)(1996).Geography education: Viewpoints on teaching and learning.Cambridge University Press.
19. Lemoni, R.,Stamou, A. G.,Stamou, G. P.(2011)."Romantic", "classic" and "baroque" views of nature: An analysis of pictures about the environment in Greek primary school textbooks: Diachronic considerations.Research in Science Education,41(5),811-832.
20. Lin, C.-Y.,Cheng, J.-H.,Chang, W.-H.(2010).Making science vivid: Using a historical episodes map.International Journal of Science Education,32(18),2521-2530.
21. Lustick, D.(2010).The priority of the question: Focus questions for sustained reasoning in science.Journal of Science Teacher Education,21(5),495-511.
22. McDonald, C. V.(2016).Evaluating junior secondary science textbook usage in Australian schools.Research in Science Education,46(4),481-509.
23. Mishra, R. K.(2015).Mapping the knowledge topography: A critical appraisal of geography textbook questions.International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education,24(2),118-130.
24. National Research Council(1996).National science education standards.National Academic Press.
25. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Science framework. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Science%20Framework%20.pdf
26. Perin, D.(2011).Facilitating student learning through contextualization: A review of evidence.Community College Review,39(3),268-295.
27. Skoog, G.(2005).The coverage of human evolution in high school biology textbooks in the 20th century and in current state science standards.Science & Education,14,395-422.
28. Smith, B. L.,Holliday, W. G.,Austin, H. W.(2010).Students’ comprehension of science textbooks using a question-based reading strategy.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,47(4),363-379.
29. 佘曉清（編）,林煥祥（編）(2017).PISA 2015 臺灣學生的表現.心理.
30. 周珮儀,林慶隆,范信賢,秦葆琦,蔡清田,鄭章華,鄭圓鈴(2015)。論壇：十二年國民基本教育教材。教科書研究，8(3)，155-180。
31. 林淑梤,張惠博,段曉林(2008)。科學實習教師個人實務理論實踐之探究。師大學報：科學教育類，53(2)，1-30。
32. 許美香(2019)。國立臺中教育大學教育學系。
33. 陳建立(2010)。國立臺灣師範大學生命科學系。
34. 陳麗華(2008)。書評：評介「為學習而設計的教科書」及其對我國中小學教科書設計與研究的啟示。教科書研究，1(2)，137-159。
35. 黃郁雯(2005)。國立臺北教育大學自然科學教育研究所。
36. 劉昭宏,郭重吉(1995)。教科書在國中理化教學中的應用之個案研究。科學教育，6，89-112。
37. 賴麗珍（譯）,Wiggins, G.,McTighe, J.(2016).重理解的課程設計.心理.

1. 戴建耘,劉銘恩,黃敦煌,丁淑觀(2020)。從實作評量探討小組解構問題發展程序性知識與新課綱核心素養。科學教育學刊，28(S)，483-507。
2. 洪瑞兒,洪振方,林煥祥,吳枚瑛(2022)。探討實證知情實務教學介入對國中生食安素養的成效。教育科學研究期刊，67(3)，113-146。
3. 鄭立婷,曾郁然,洪瑞兒,林煥祥(2022)。以閱讀科學文本教學模式提升高中生科學能力之探究。科學教育學刊，30(3)，217-239。
4. (2024)。國中基礎學科教科書編審者對素養導向教科書設計之觀點與實踐。教科書研究，17(1)，67-109。