應用概念圖引導與動畫輔助技專生化學問題解決能力之探究

Using Concept Maps and Animations to Support College Students' Problem-Solving Ability in Molecular Chemistry Learning

10.6137/RECT.2013.103.03

蘇金豆(King-Dow Su)

概念圖 ； 動畫 ； 分子化學 ； 解題能力 ； 學習態度 ； Concept maps ； Animation ； Molecular chemistry ； Problem-solving abilities ； Learning attitude

教育傳播與科技研究

103期（2013 / 03 / 01）

37 - 60

繁體中文

本研究旨在探討「分子化學動畫」融入與概念圖引導做為教學工具，對75位十年級（專一）選修化學課程之學生分子化學解題能力之影響。本研究採分組實驗策略教學，並運用成就測驗、態度問卷及半結構晤談方式蒐集資料，以二因子共變數分析方法，分析策略分組學生之學習能力。研究結果顯示有概念圖引導學習與動畫融入教學的組別（E1）解題能力優於只有動畫融入教學的組別（E2），動畫融入教學的組別優於只有概念圖引導學習的一般教學組別（C1），而概念圖引導學習的一般教學組別又優於無概念圖引導學習的一般教學組別（C2）。「學習態度」調查發現本研究發展之概念圖引導結合動畫科技教材介面之學生（E1）學習態度優於無概念圖引導之實驗組學生（E2）。在分子化學學習上，不同動畫使用時間的學生，在接受實驗教學後，六個次量表皆有明顯的態度改變，且實驗效果量大，Scheffé's事後比較也有顯著差異，足見動畫的呈現時間對學生學習態度具正面學習意義。晤談結果發現學生多認為有概念圖引導學習與動畫融入教學有助於分子化學解題，部分學生則期待未來能有更加精簡實用的概念圖與動畫設計。

The purpose of this project deals with applications of concept maps and integrated animations as effective teaching tools. This study focuses on dynamic effects of problem-solving ability in molecular chemistry for 75 college students. The research data are collected by means of achievement tests, learning attitude questionnaire, and semistructure interviews. This study is composed of strategic division group students who take chemistry courses and it also makes assessments of students' learning achievements. All data analyses are used with the two-way covariance of analyses (ANCOVA) for the strategic group students' learning achievements and attitudes. All statistic results are indicated in the following major aspects. For strategic group students (E1), who accept applications of concept maps and animations have more superior posttest learning achievements to those students (E2) who only approach integrated animations. The same group students (E2) who accept applications of integrated animations, have more superior learning achievements to those students (C1) who only accept the guidance of concept maps; and the same group students (C1) who accept the guidance of concept maps, have more superior learning achievements to those students (C2) who don't accept the guidance of concept maps. After reviewing learning attitudes, students (E1) who accept applications of concept maps and animations, have more superior learning attitudes to those students (E2) who only approach integrated animations. For students who employ different time spans of animations, show more significant learning attitudes in 6 subscales and over large effect sizes in molecular chemistry. After Scheffe's post-comparisons, group students (E1) who accept applications of concept maps and animations, show more significant learning attitudes in all scales. The animation variable of time spans indicates positive significance of students' learning attitudes. According to semi-structure interviews between students, all applications of molecular chemistry textual teachings with concept maps and animations have much appeal to students' curiosity and interests which can enrich their learning performances and problem-solving skills. Some students are looking forward to having concise and practical applications of concept maps and integrated animations in the future.

1. 梁志平、佘曉清(2006)。建構主義式的網路科學學習對國中生力的概念學習之研究。科學教育學刊，14，493-516。
   連結：
2. 羅希哲、溫漢儒、曾國鴻(2007)。概念構圖融入電腦輔助教學法應用於綜合高中學生化學科之學習成效及態度之研究。科學教育學刊，15，169-194。
   連結：
3. Allan, A. G.(2003).Cooperative chemistry: Concept mapping in the organic chemistry lab.Journal of College Science Teaching,32,311-315.
4. Ardac, D.,Akaygun, S.(2004).Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41,317-337.
5. Ausubel, D. P.(1968).Educational psychology: A cognitive view.New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
6. Bodner, G. M.,Domin, D. S.(2000).Mental models: The role of representations in problem solving in chemistry.University Chemistry Education,4,24-30.
7. Cakmakci, G.(2010).Identifying alternative conceptions of chemical kinetics among secondary school and undergraduate students in Turkey.Journal of Chemical Education,87,449-455.
8. Cheung, D.(2011).Using diagnostic assessment to help teachers understand the chemistry of the lead-acid battery..Chemistry Education Research and Practice,12,228-237.
9. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Cracolice, M. C.,Deming, J. C.,Ehlert, B.(2008).Concept learning versus problem solving: A cognitive difference.Journal of Chemical Education,85,873-878.
11. Cracolice, M. S.,Peters, E. I.(2006).Introductory chemistry: An active learning approach.Stamford, CT:Cengage Learning.
12. David, S. B.(2003).High school biology: A group approach to concept mapping.The American Biology Teacher,65,192-197.
13. Fisher, K. M.,Wandersee, J. H.,Moody, D. E.(2000).Mapping biology knowledge.Boston:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
14. Gay, L. R.(1992).Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application.New York:Macmillan.
15. Gilbert, J. K.(Ed.),de Jong, O.(Ed.),Justi, R.(Ed.),Treagust, D. F.(Ed.),van Driel, J. H.(Ed.)(2002).Chemical education: Towards research based practice.Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
16. Horton, P. B.,McConney, A. A.,Gallo, M.,Woods, A. L.,Senn, G. J.,Hamelin, D.(1993).An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool.Science Education,77,95-111.
17. Hwang, G. J.,Wu, P. H.,Chen, C. C.(2012).An online game approach for improving students' learning performance in web-based problem-solving activities.Computers & Education,59,1246-1256.
18. Jaber, L. Z.,Boujaoude, S.(2012).A macro-micro-symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions.International Journal of Science Education,34,973-998.
19. Katerina, S.,Tzougraki, C.(2004).Attitudes toward chemistry among 11th grade students in high schools in Greece.Science Education,88,535-547.
20. Lazakidou, G.,Retalis, S.(2010).Using computer supported collaborative learning strategies for helping students acquire self-regulated problem-solving skills in mathematics.Computers & Education,54,3-13.
21. Lenaerts, J.,Van Zele, E.(1998).Testing science and engineering students: The force concept inventory.Physicalia Magazine,20,49-68.
22. Lin, L.,Atkinson, R. K.(2011).Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes.Computers & Education,56,650-658.
23. Liu, T. C.,Lin, Y. C.,Tsai, C. C.(2009).Identifying senior high school students' misconceptions about statistical correlation, and their possible causes: An exploratory study using concept mapping with interviews.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,7,791-820.
24. Madden, S. P.,Jones, L. L.,Rahm, J.(2011).The role of multiple representations in the understanding of ideal gas problems.Chemistry Education Research and Practice,12,283-293.
25. Mayer, K.(2011).Addressing students' misconceptions about gases, mass, and composition.Journal of Chemical Education,88,111-115.
26. McDermott, L. C.,Redish, E. F.(1999).Resource letter: Per-1: Physics education research.American Journal of Physics,67,755-767.
27. Nakhleh, M. B.(1993).Are our students' conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Identifying conceptual students in general chemistry.Journal of Chemical Education,70,52-55.
28. Nakhleh, M. B.(1992).Why some students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions.Journal of Chemical Education,69,191-196.
29. Nakhleh, M. B.(1994).Chemical education research in the laboratory environment: How can research uncover what students are learning?.Journal of Chemical Education,71,201-207.
30. Novak, J. D.(2003).The promise of new ideas and new technology for improving teaching and learning.Cell Biology Education,2,122-132.
31. Novak, J. D.,Cañas, A. J.(2006).The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool.Information Visualization,5,175-184.
32. Novak, J. D.,Gowin, D. B.(1984).Learning how to learn.New York:Cambridge University.
33. Novak, J. D.,Gowin, D. B.(1998).Learning how to learn.New York:Cambridge University.
34. Nurrenbern, S. C.,Pickering, M.(1987).Concepts learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference?.Journal of Chemical Education,64,508-510.
35. Own, Z.(2010).The application of on adaptive web-based learning environment on oxidationreduction reactions.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,8,73-96.
36. Paivio, A.(1991).Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status.Canadian Journal of Psychology,45,255-287.
37. Paivio, A.(1971).Imagery and verbal processes.New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
38. Pólya, G.(1957).How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method.Garden City, NY:Doubleday.
39. Rebich, S.,Gautier, C.(2005).Concept mapping to reveal prior knowledge andconceptual change in a mock summit course on global climate change.Journal of Geoscience Education,53,355-365.
40. Sanger, M. J.,Greenbowe, T. J.(1997).Students' misconceptions in electrochemistry: Current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge.Journal of Chemical Education,74,819-823.
41. Sawrey, B. A.(1990).Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited.Journal of Chemical Education,67,253-255.
42. Schultz, E.(2008).Dynamic reaction figures: An integrative vehicle for understanding chemical reactions.Journal of Chemical Education,85,386-392.
43. Selvaratnam, M.,Canagaratna, S. G.(2008).Using problem-solution maps to improve students' problem-solving skills.Journal of Chemical Education,85,381-385.
44. Sternberg, R. J.,Williams, W. M.(2002).Educational psychology.Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
45. Su, K. D.(2013).Validity of problem-solving skills: Exploring dynamic reaction figures in acid and base chemical learning.Journal of Computer Engineering Informatics,1(1),1-12.
46. Su, K. D.(2008).The effects of a chemistry course with integrated information communication technologies on university students' learning and attitudes.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,6,225-249.
47. Su, K. D.(2008).An integrated science course designed with information communication technologies to enhance university students' learning performance.Computers & Education,51,1365-1374.
48. Su, K. D.(2011).An intensive ICT-integrated environmental learning strategy for enhancing student performance.International Journal of Environmental and Science Education,6,39-58.
49. Treagust, D.,Chittleborough, G.,Mamiala, T.(2003).The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations..International Journal of Science Education,25,1353-1368.
50. Van Merrienboer, J. J. G.,Kirschner, P. A.,Kester, L.(2003).Taking the load off a learner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning.Educational Psychologist,38,5-13.
51. West, R. E.,Graham, C. R.(2005).Five powerful ways technology can enhance teaching and learning in higher education.Educational Technology,45(3),20-27.
52. 吳靜吉(2002)。創造力教育白皮書─國際創造力教育趨勢。臺北:教育部。
53. 沈中偉(1995)。多媒體電腦輔助學習的學習論基礎研究。視聽教育雙月刊，36(6)，12-15。
54. 林建良、黃臺珠(2010)。概念圖與程序V圖對大專生程式解題能力之影響。教學科技與媒體，93，61-76。
55. 洪榮昭(1998)。技術教育專題製作中之創意發展─日本案例探討。泰山職訓局創造思考研討會
56. 彭惠娟、張基成(2000)。網路學習環境中互動式多媒體視訊教材之設計與製作。視聽教育雙月刊，41(6)，12-22。

1. 錢昭萍、黃國豪、梁麗珍、李琛瑜、王羽萱(2016)。圖像式媒體融入國文教學對學習之影響－以科技大學藝術設計與非藝術設計學生為例。人文社會學報，12(4)，277-304。
2. 錢昭萍、梁麗珍(2017)。多元教學對不同學院與性別的學生學習態度與學習成效之影響—以科技大學大一國文課為例。人文社會學報，13(3)，219-249。
3. 蘇金豆(2014)。融入式分子化學教學探討高三學生學習成效。教育傳播與科技研究，107，1-10。
4. 蘇金豆(2017)。應用視覺技術探討學生物質微粒特性的知識類型差異。教育傳播與科技研究，117，1-11。
5. 蘇金豆(2018)。應用創意電化學動畫概念圖學習探究學生認知能力。教育傳播與科技研究，118，15-28。
6. 蘇金豆、曾麗君(2014)。視覺與口語符號融入音樂教學增強學生學習表現。教育傳播與科技研究，107，45-60。
7. 王凱平(2014)。大專學生對社會性科技議題之問題解決能力分析。教育傳播與科技研究，108，73-90。
8. 薛為蓮,楊肅健(2019)。以概念構圖軟體輔助寫作認知策略教學之探究。教育傳播與科技研究，120，17-33。