探討融入自我調整學習鷹架對九年級學生科學本質觀點之影響

Explore impacts of self-regulation scaffolding on nighth-grade students’ views of nature of science.

宋政

自我調整學習 ； 科學認識論 ； 科學本質 ； 國中生 ； Nature of science ； middle school students ； self-regulated learning ； scientific epistemology

交通大學教育研究所學位論文

2016年

碩士

王嘉瑜

繁體中文

本研究目的是探討九年級學生參與融入自我調整學習策略的科學本質教學前、後，自我調整學習能力與科學本質觀點有何改變，並藉由分析放聲思考任務中所展現的自我調整學習表現，進而探討學習者的自我調整學習能力與科學本質觀點的改變有何關聯。 本研究分為兩階段。階段一採準實驗設計，以九年級學生共59人為對象，分為實驗組與對照組。實驗組採用自我調整學習策略嵌入科學本質教學，而對照組則是僅接受科學本質教學，比較兩組的學生於科學本質觀點開放式問卷與自我調整學習自陳量表的差異，以了解不同教學模式學生的自陳自我調整表現(後測)有何差異，與教學前、後科學本質觀點改變的程度有何差異。 為進一步取得自我調整學習表現與科學本質觀點發展關聯更直接的證據，研究者設計放聲思考任務，以分析學習者於模擬科學家探討未知現象的科學本質小活動中，展現哪些自我調整學習策略和了解學生所展現的科學本質觀點，以分析學生的自我調整學習表現如何影響科學本質觀點。此部分，從階段一的實驗組與對照組有效樣本中以學生「自我調整學習自陳量表前測分數」，將學生分為高中低三組，從各班高分組隨機取3人、中間組取4人、低分組取3人參與階段二的放聲思考任務。 科學本質觀點開放式問卷的分析結果顯示，接受自我調整學習策略嵌入科學本質教學的實驗組學生，於科學的暫時性觀點提升人數較多。而進、退步人數比例上，實驗組學生進步的比例略高於對照組，尤其卡方檢定的結果顯示，實徵性與暫時性觀點的進、退步與嵌入自我調整學習策略與否有顯著關聯性。自我調整學習自陳量表的分析結果顯示，嵌入自我調整學習策略的課程和鷹架能夠顯著提升學生自陳自我調整學習表現，對照組則否；但推論性統計上，兩組學生在自陳自我調整學習量表的後測分數未達顯著差異。然而，分析放聲思考任務中，第二階段參與者的任務相依自我調整學習表現，實驗組展現較佳策略品質(Level 1)的人數較對照組多，呈現較差策略品質(Level 2)的人數較對照組少。另外，高自我調整學習表現的學生，進行黑箱任務時，較能監測證據的增加而精緻化推論，或發現新證據而無法以目前的推論解釋，因而判斷必須調整或進行其他的觀察略來進一步檢視結論，在事後訪談中亦較能覺察並以自己的學習經驗來支持自己的暫時性觀點。屬於高自我調整學習表現的學生中，有半數屬於建構或混合觀點，而屬於實證觀點亦有半數。當自我調整學習的品質降至中和低表現，屬於實證的暫時性觀點的學習者人數提高。 本研究顯示，於科學本質教學中融入自我調整學習教學和鷹架，可提升學習者的任務相依自我調整學習表現，並在科學知識的暫時性觀點方面，提升建構觀點的比例。在科學本質教學過程中，學習者的自我調整學習表現對其科學本質觀點的發展歷程有重要的影響。

This study investigated whether incorporating scaffolds of self-regulated learning with nature of science instruction would affect 9th graders’ skills of self-regulated learning and views of nature of science. This study took a mix-method approach. A quasi-experimental design was used at the first part of the study. Two classes of the 9th grade students, recruited from the Northern Taiwan were divided into two groups. One class of the students received an instruction and scaffolds of self-regulated learning while underwent three units on nature of science. The control group received only the units on nature of science without the instruction and scaffolds of self-regulated learning. Performances of the two groups were compared based on their level of understanding about nature of science and their score of a self-reported questionnaire on self-regulated learning. At the second part of the study, students with high (n=3), moderate (n=4), and low (n=3) scores of the self-regulated learning questionnaire, both from the experimental and the control groups, were invited to participate a black-box activity. They were to think-aloud while working through the activity in order to analyze their self-regulated skills and view about nature of science. The results from the questionnaire for Views of NOS show that, students who received the SRL scaffolds outperformed their counterpart on the tentativeness of scientific knowledge. Results of Chi-squared analyses also showed that the incorporation for SRL scaffolds is significantly associated with learners’ changing views regarding the tentative and empirical nature of scientific knowledge. Students who received the SRL scaffolds also demonstrated a significant improvement on their SRL scores, which were not observed on students of the control groups. No difference was found between the two groups, however, on the score of the post-SRL questionnaire. The qualitive analyses showed that more students of the experimental group demonstrated better quality of SRL skills than students of the control group. The former learners were more aware of the new evidence and, therefore, refined their conclusion; they were more likely be aware of anormaly and decided to collect more evidence for evaluating their conclusion as well. The findings of the study showed that incorporating SRL scaffolds facilitate SRL skills and the soficitated view on tentative nature of scientific knowledge. More importantly, learners’ SRL skills is found to play an important role on their views about NOS.

1. 王子華、王國華、王麗龍、黃世傑 (2002)。大學普通生物學後設認知量表的發展。測驗統計年刊，10，75-100。
   連結：
2. 陳志恆、林清文 (1998)。國中學生自我調整學習策略量表之編制及效度研究。輔導與諮商學報，30(2)，1-36。
   連結：
3. AAAS(1993), Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS Press.
   連結：
4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, Randy L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.
   連結：
5. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
   連結：
6. Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F.. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1025-1049.
   連結：
7. Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 564-577.
   連結：
8. Brand, S., Reimer, T., & Opwis, K. (2003). Effects of metacognitive thinking and knowledge acquisition in dyads on individual problem solving and transfer performance. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 251-261.
   連結：
9. Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 186-204.
   連結：
10. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 378-405.
    連結：
11. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The Development of Epistemological Theories: Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing and Their Relation to Learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
    連結：
12. Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Metacognition in chemical education: question posing in the case-based computerized learning environment. Instructional Science, 37(5), 403-436.
    連結：
13. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
    連結：
14. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395-418.
    連結：
15. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
    連結：
16. Lederman, Norman G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Avoiding De-Natured Science: Activities that Promote Understandings of the Nature of Science. In W. McComas (Ed.), NSSE (Vol. 5, pp. 83-126): Springer Netherlands.
    連結：
17. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, Randy L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
    連結：
18. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 70-298.
    連結：
19. Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 259-271.
    連結：
20. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years : a scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    連結：
21. Peters, E. E. (2012). Developing Content Knowledge in Students Through Explicit Teaching of the Nature of Science: Influences of Goal Setting and Self-Monitoring. Science & Education, 21(6), 881-898.
    連結：
22. Peters, E. E., & Kitsantas, A. (2009). Self‐regulation of student epistemic thinking in science: the role of metacognitive prompts. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 27-52.
    連結：
23. Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Continuities and discontinuities: future directions for research in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 29(3), 137-148.
    連結：
24. Sandi-Urena, S., Cooper, M., & Stevens, R. (2012). Effect of Cooperative Problem-Based Lab Instruction on Metacognition and Problem-Solving Skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(6), 700-706.
    連結：
25. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504.
    連結：
26. Tsai, C-C. (1998). Science Learning and Constructivism. Curriculum and Teaching, 13(1), 31-52.
    連結：
27. Tsai, C-C. (2003). The interplay between philosophy of science and the practice of science education. Curriculum and Teaching, 18(1), 27-43.
    連結：
28. Tsai, C-C., & Liu, S‐Y. (2005). Developing a Multi‐dimensional Instrument for Assessing Students’ Epistemological Views toward Science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1621-1638.
    連結：
29. Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2008). Relation between intellectual ability and metacognitive skillfulness as predictors of learning performance of young students performing tasks in different domains. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 128-134.
    連結：
30. Wang, C-Y. (2015). Scaffolding Middle School Students’ Construction of Scientific Explanations: Comparing a cognitive versus a metacognitive evaluation approach. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 237-271.
    連結：
31. Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 173-187.
    連結：
32. Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 466-488.
    連結：
33. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
    連結：
34. 中文部分：
35. 教育部 (2000)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要-自然與生活科技領域。台北市：行政院教育部。
36. 許國忠、王靜如 (2003) 。科學本質教學初探。科學教育研究與發展季刊，33，15-29。
37. 葉辰楨、王國華、蔡明致 (2010)。後設認知鷹架策略融入科學探究教學之探討。科學教育研究與發展季刊，58，1-32。
38. 英文部分：
39. Elder, A. D. (Ed.). (2002). Characterizing fifth grade students epistemological beliefs in science. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). Revising Instruction to Teach Nature of Science. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 36-39.
41. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
42. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
43. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531-566). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
44. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.