English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 89686/119522 (75%)
Visitors : 23951179      Online Users : 217
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 教育學院 > 教育學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/49791
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49791


    Title: 知識翻新教學對小學生 科學探究活動與科學合作概念之影響
    Effects of knowledge building on elementary students’science learning activities and their views on scientific collaboration
    Authors: 王博賢
    Wang, Po Hsien
    Contributors: 洪煌堯
    Hong, Huang Yao
    王博賢
    Wang, Po Hsien
    Keywords: 知識翻新
    知識論壇
    科學合作
    科學探究
    科學本質
    knowledge building
    Knowledge Forum
    nature of science
    scientific collaboration
    scientific inquiry
    Date: 2009
    Issue Date: 2010-12-09 09:31:26 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究主要目的在探究國小學生,在利用「知識論壇」 (Knowledge Forum)—一個以知識翻新(knowledge-building)教育思想為核心所建立的電腦輔助合作學習(CSCL)平台—進行教學之前與之後,在「科學學習歷程」與「科學合作概念」上的改變情形。研究對象為台北市某國小五年級學生。資料來源主要為課堂觀察、上課錄影資料、知識論壇平台上的活動記錄、以及集體訪談的前後測訪談稿。實驗共分二組:(1) 實驗組使用知識論壇平台進行知識翻新教學;(2) 控制組則以傳統講授與小組合作方式授課。
    研究結果主要有以下四點:(1) 課堂觀察與錄影資料分析顯示,在傳統的課堂中(控制組)教師主導的活動佔據大部分上課時間,然而在進行知識翻新教學之課堂中(實驗組),學生則使用更多的時間進行同儕間的互動與合作;(2) 知識論壇平台活動記錄分析結果發現,在論壇的輔助下進行知識翻新教學,有助於幫助學生跳脫分工合作的小組活動、進行更機遇式(opportunistic)的合作學習;(3) 平台中的發文內容分析顯示,經過18週的課程,學生有更多以合作為基礎的學習活動;(4) 訪談稿前測結果指出,學生對於科學知識本質的「暫時性」與「共構性」僅有初步瞭解。在合作方式上,多數學生認為科學家會合作,然而在合作的方式上則普遍強調以「分工」為基礎的科學合作,而非以「創新」知識為基礎的合作方式。訪談稿後測結果則指出,經過知識翻新課程後,受試國小學生已漸能形成以創新為基礎(而非任務為導向)的科學合作概念。
    本研究主要的結論有四點:(1) 知識翻新教學有助於促進學生間的互動學習;(2) 在知識翻新教學後學生有更多以合作為基礎的探究活動;(3) 本研究中的小學生已普遍有合作的理念,但仍停留在分工合作的觀點;以及(4) 知識翻新教學可以有助於幫助學生形成以創新為主的合作觀。
    The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of knowledge building on fifth-grader’ science learning process and their views on collaboration. A software program called Knowledge Forum—which is designed based on knowledge-building theory—was employed to complement student learning. Participants were 53 fifth-graders from an urban school in Taipei. Data source mainly came from video-taping of classroom activities, class observation records, group interview, and the online activities automatically recorded in the Knowledge Forum platform. The students were divided into two groups for comparison: (1) the experiment group adopted knowledge building pedagogy; (2) the control group adopted traditional instruction that combined both teacher lectures and student collaboration in groups.
    The main findings are as follows: (1) as shown in the video and the classroom observation data, it was found that in the traditional (control) class, teacher-led activities took up the majority of class time; in contrast, in the knowledge building (experimental) class, students had more time for peer interaction and collaboration; (2) as the online activity data showed, it was found that engaging in knowledge building helped students to move away from division of labor and to engage in more opportunistic collaboration ; (3) based on content analysis on student online discussion, it was found that students progressively performed more collaborative activities towards the end of this class; and (4) as evidenced in the pre-post interview data, it was found that students initially had a more limited understanding of scientific knowledge as “tentative” and “co-constructive”. In addition, while they thought scientists work together, they tended to highlight the kind of teamwork based on division of labor, rather than the kind of teamwork aimed to create new knowledge. However, the post-interview data showed that after engaging in knowledge building for 18 weeks, students began to see scientific collaboration as more innovation-oriented, and less task-oriented.
    Based on the findings, the following conclusions were made: (1) engaging students in knowledge building was helpful for promoting more interaction among students; (2) knowledge building progressively fostered more scientific inquiry activities that is based on collaboration; (3) before attending this study, students had already the concept of cooperation, and such concept is highly based on division of labor, but after engaging in knowledge building, they were able to gradually develop a more creative view of collaboration.
    Reference: American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for All Americans. Washington. DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
    Anderson, R. D., Anderson, B. L., Varanka-Martin, M. A., Romagnano, L., Bielenberg, J.,Flory, M., Mieras, B., & Whirworth, J. (Eds.).(1994). Issues of curriculum reform in science. Mathematics and Higher order thinking across the disciplines. U. S. Govermment Printing Office.
    Barros, B., Verdejo, M. F., Read, T. and Mizoguchi. R. (2002). Applications of a Collaborative Learning Ontology. Lecture Notes In Computer Science,2313,103 – 118
    Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on Scientific Collaboration: Past, Present, and Future. Scientometrics,52 (3), 375.
    Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Kirschner, P. (2004, April). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. In P. A. Kirschner (Chair), Learning in innovative learning environments. San Diego, California, USA.
    Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, Socioculturalism, and Popper's World 3. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 21-23.
    Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition & Instruction, 2, 131-156.
    Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) .(1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
    Bruce, B. C., & Rubin, A. (1993). Electronic quills: A situated evaluation of using computers for writing in classrooms. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Carey, S., & Smith, C. L. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235-251.
    Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Collette, A.T., & Chiappetta, E. C.(1994). Science instruction in the middle and science school(3nd). Columbas U.S.A.:Merrill.
    Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In Vosniadou, S., Corte, E. E., Glaser, R. & Mandl, H. (Eds.).International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments, (pp. 347-361). Hisdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    Crook, C. (1998). Children as computer users: The case of collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 30, 237-247.
    Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). (1999). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. New York: Elsevier.
    Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's image of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
    Fishman, B. J., & D'Amico, L. M. (1994). Which Way Will the Wind Blow? Networked Computer Tools for Studying the Weather. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED388245).
    Friedler, Y., & Tamir, P. (1990). Life in science laboratory classroom at secondary level. In E. Hegarty-Hazel(Ed.). The student laboratory and science curriculum (pp. 337-354).London: Rutledge.
    Gallupe, R. B., Bastianutti, L. M., & Cooper, W. H. (1991). Unblocking Brainstorms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 137-142.
    Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
    Gorard, S., Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research. London: Open University Press.
    Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072-1088.
    Hewitt, J.(2004). An exploration of community in a knowledge forum classroom: an activity system analysis. In Sasha Barab, Rob Kling and James Gray (Eds.).Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge :Cambridge University Press
    Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Toward a more critical approaches to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142.
    Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., & Zhang, J. (2007). Knowledge society network: Toward a dynamic, sustained network for building knowledge. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association (AERA). Chicago, USA.
    Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., & Teo, C. L. (2007). Principle-based design of technology use to support community knowledge-building. Paper presented at the meeting of The 11th Knowledge Building Summer Institute. Toronto,Canada.
    Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., & Teo, C. L. (2008). Principle-based design to foster adaptive use of technology for building community knowledge. In G. Kanselaar, V. Jonker, P.A. Kirschner, & F.J. Prins (Eds.). International. Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a learning world. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences – ICLS 2008, Vol. 1 (pp. 374-381). Utrecht, the Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.
    Huang, C. J., Trappery, A., and Yao, Y. H. (2003). Collaborative design, collaborative product commerce, configuration management, workflow management. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers. 20(4).
    John Allen (1992). Fordism and Modern Industry. In John Allen, Peter Braham, and Paul Lewis (Ed.), Political and Economic Forms of Modernity(pp. 232-236). Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning Together and Alone. cooperative, competitive, and individualistic earning. (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2).67-73.
    Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. (1990). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. In Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (Eds.). Circles of Learning: Cooperative in the Classroom. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
    Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
    King, A.(1994).Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.
    Kirschner, P.A.(2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed). Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
    Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Kuhn, T. S.(1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolution (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Teachers’ pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study. Computer & Education, 45(3), 377-356.
    Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
    Martin, B., Kass, H., & Brouwen, W. (1990). Authentic science: A diversity of meanings. Science Education, 74 (5), 541-554.
    McComas, W. F., Clough, M.P. & Almazroa, H.(1998). The nature of science in science education : Rationales and Strategies. Netherlands : Kluwer academic publishers.
    Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Morrison, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Science teachers’ diagnosis and understanding of students’ preconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 87(6), 849-867.
    Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457-473.
    Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557-577.
    Papert, S. (1991). What's the Big Idea: Towards a Pedagogy of Idea Power. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3-4).
    Park, M. J. (1999). The Effect of a Shared, Intranet Science Learning Environment on Academic Behaviors. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1184-1189). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
    Peter, F. Drucker. (1986). Innovation and Entreprenership - Practice and Principles. NY: Harper Business.
    Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. London: Oxford Univ. Press.
    Popper, K.P. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row, publishers, Inc.
    Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing Collaborative Interactions: Divergence, Shared Understanding and Construction of Knowledge. Computers & Education, 47(3), pp. 332-351.
    Rauenbusch, F., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Making reading more difficult: A degraded text microworld for teaching reading comprehension strategies. Cognition & Instruction, 8, 181-206.
    Ritchie, S. M., & Rigano, D.L. (1996). Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 799-815.
    Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20.
    Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B.Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
    Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education and technology: An encyclopedia. (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In James, W. G.(Ed.),The Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.
    Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K.Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
    Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilley (Eds.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Schwab, J. J. (1963). Biology teachers’ handbook. New York: Wiley.
    Shah, C. (2008). Toward collaborative information seeking (CIS). Retrieved June 20, 2008,from http://workshops.fxpal.com/jcd12008/submissions/tmpEl.pdf
    Sharan, S., Shaulov A. (1990). Cooperative Learning, Motivation to Learning, and Academic Achievement. In S. Sharan(Ed), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research (pp173-202.) . NY: Praeger Publishers.
    Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315-342.
    Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Slavin, R. E. (1995). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://www.aegean.gr/culturaltec/c_karagiannidis/2003-2004/collaborative/slavin1996.pdf
    Songer, N.B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students view of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 21(4), 409-421.
    Stahl, G. (2007). Meaning making in CSCL: Conditions and preconditions for cognitive processes by groups. Paper presented at the international conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL2007), Brunswick, NJ.
    Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-425).Cambridge University Press.
    Tamir, P., & Lunetta, V. N. (1978). An analysis of laboratory activities in the BSCS Yellow Version. American Biology Teacher, (40), 353-357.
    Tamir, P., & Lunetta, V. N. (1981). Inquiry related tasks in high school science laboratory handbooks. Science Education, (65), 447-484.
    Thomas A. Finholt (2002). Collaboratories. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.) , Annual Review of Information Science andTechnology (36). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
    Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding. N.J.: Princeton University Press.
    Toulmin, S. (1982). The construal of reality: criticism in modern and postmodern science. Critical Inquiry, (9), 93-111.
    Tsai,C.(1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eightgraders. Science Education, (82), 473-489.
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2005). Towards knowledge societies. Paris: UNESCO.
    Vivienne B. (1992). The Emergence of the Economy. In Stuart Hall and Bram Gieben (Ed.), Formations of Modernity. Cambridge: Open University Press.
    Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Process, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
    Watson, S. B. (1991). Cooperative Learning and Group Educational Modules: Effects on cognitive achievement of high school biology students. Journal of research in science teaching, 28(2), 141-146.
    Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education, (75), 9-21.
    Whitehead, A. N. (1970). Science and the modern world. Free Press.
    Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9- and 10-year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 117-145.
    王靜如(2001)。小學教師科學本質概念及教學之研究。科學教育學刊,9(2),197-217。
    李悅美(2002)。國民小學高年級學童科學本質觀之研究。台北市立師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    林天祐(1996)。合作學習。教育資料與研究,13。
    知識與國富論:一個探索經濟成長的故事(周曉琪譯)(2008)。台北:時報文化出版公司。(原著出版年:2006年)
    洪文東(1995)。科學教育的目標。屏師科學教育,1,4-12。
    桑地牙哥.拉蒙卡哈(2000)。研究科學的第一步(程樹德譯)。台北:究竟。
    翁秀玉(1997)。國小自然科教師傳達科學本質之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研所碩士論文,未出版,彰化市。
    高廣孚(1989)。哲學概論。臺北:五南出版社。
    莊嘉坤(1999)。從認同的觀點分析學童對科學本質的了解與科學生涯的知覺。科學教育學刊,7(4),343-366。
    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。
    許榮富(1985)。科學過程技能簡介。中等教育,36(1),26-31。
    傅雅秀(2002)。從生命科學期刊論文作者數探討科學合作。圖書資訊學刊,17,71-80
    黃正傑、林佩璇(1996)。合作學習,台北市:五南圖書。
    黃善美、黃萬居(2003)。以問題為中心的合作學習策略對國小學童科學學習之研究。科學教育研究與發展,32,1-31。
    黃鴻博(2000)。兒童科學探究活動遭遇問題的探討。台中師院學報,14,389-410。
    黃寶蓉(2000)。科學本質在教與學的意函之研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
    楊榮祥、Fraser B.(1998)。台灣和西澳科學教室環境的合作研究 ── 研究架構、方法及對台灣科學教育的啟思。科學教育學刊,6(4),325–342。
    詹雯靜(2009)。不同電腦支援合作學習環境對師培生在教育理論、教師專業與教學實務等概念學習上之影響。國立政治大學碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    劉宏文(1996)。建構主義的認識論觀點及其在科學教育上的意義。科學教育月刊,193,8-24。
    鄭美紅、蔡慶麟(2005)。初中科學探究活動的設計與推行模式。亞太科學教育論壇,6(1)。取自 http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v6_issue1/chengtsoi/index.htm#contents
    諮詢合作與融合教育(周天賜譯)(2008)。台北:心理出版社。(原著出版年:1993年)
    顏瓊芬(2000)。職前生物教師進行開放式科學探究過程之研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,彰化市。
    顏瓊芬、黃世傑(2003)。學生在開放式科學探究過程中互動模式之研究。科學教育學刊,11(2),141-169。
    蘇育任(1997)。運用模組開發活動培育STS教師之可行性研究。科學教育學刊,5(2),245-266。
    宋祖慈(2008)。人文.風景交織的臺北後花園。臺北畫刊,490,50-53。
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    教育研究所
    96152006
    98
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0961520061
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[教育學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    006101.pdf2071KbAdobe PDF1198View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback