Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/36334
|
| Title: | 系統結構圖與概念構圖的教學策略對國小學生科學學習成效之研究 |
| Authors: | 陳嘉甄
chen, chia-chen |
| Contributors: | 余民寧
馬信行
陳嘉甄
chen, chia-chen |
| Keywords: | 系統思考
系統結構圖
概念構圖
自然科學學習
知識結構
路徑探測法
system thinking
systematic structure diagramming
concept mapping
science learning
pathfinder |
| Date: | 2004 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-18 18:20:34 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究應用系統思考為基礎所發展出來的系統結構圖方法，結合電腦模擬活動，引導學生感知系統動態性及複雜性，設計自然科學教學方案進行教學；同時比較融入概念階層聯結為基礎的概念構圖方法教學、及一般教學的學生認知表現。具體而言，本研究目的為：在自然科學學習歷程中，結合環狀關聯的系統結構圖，及階層關聯的概念構圖方法，比較二圖形學習策略對學生成就測驗及知識結構的表現差異。
研究採多基線實驗研究法，以國小五年級學生樣本，共三個班級，100人，分列為對照組、系統結構圖策略組、及概念構圖策略組。以自編的複本測驗、實作評量檢核表，及應用路徑探測法(Pathfinder)，評估學生認知表現與知識結構。
結果發現，採用系統結構圖策略或概念構圖策略，均能增進學生認知表現，且記憶保留效果會優於不特別採用策略者，其知識結構的表現亦存在差異；而二種圖形式學習策略的各項認知表現之間，不存在任何差異；不同能力組別與不同學習策略間，具交互作用存在。
本研究證實，在學習歷程中，採用概念構圖策略或系統結構圖策略，將比採用一般教學方法，較能有效增進學生的學習表現及保留效果，其知識結構也會較接近專家表現。因此在教學歷程中，結合策略進行教學有其必要性。圖像式的思考及學習方法能有效協助學生學習。然而研究所取用的二種圖形策略的思考本質是不同的，一重視靜態架構、一重視動態因果變化，未來研究者可進一步探究造成改變的內在機制，及是否能真正轉化為習用的思考型態。
The world of system and system thinking marks a shift from the more linear, analytic way of thinking that most people are used to. A system is a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent components that form a complex and unified whole. Systematic structure diagram is a useful tool to offer a glimpse into the complex systems behavior.
Concept mapping, known as cognitive maps or organizers, semantic networks, or visual/graphic organizers, make use of figures, lines, arrows, and spatial configurations to show how content ideas and concepts are related. Concept mapping is described repeatedly in the literature as a tool that can support and enhance students’ learning in science classrooms. It is an important meta-cognitive tool in science education today.
The research uses the experiment methodology of multiple baselines designs. In the study 100 students in 3 classes at grad 5 were studied to see the implications of the learning results. Assign the subjects to three groups, control group (n=34), Systematic structure diagramming group (n=33), and concept mapping group (n=33). The graphics oriented strategies, Systematic structure diagramming /concept mapping, were used in the teaching processes of the systematic structure diagramming group /concept mapping group. The researcher evaluated the performance of the subjects with duplicated-tests, checklists, and Pathfinder. The testing of the students was done in a pretest-posttests design using written tests. Data were analyzed in the use of three-factor repeated measures.
The analysis of repeated measures showed a statistically significant difference in duplicated-tests and knowledge structures between control group and two experimental groups. There also exists an interaction between group and strategy. The result revealed that concept mapping may improve test scores of low-achieving students.
This research verified that the learning performances, knowledge structures, organizations, and delayed memories of the subjects who belong to concept mapping strategy group and systematic structure diagramming strategy group were better than control group. The results indicated that, for improving students’ learning performances and retention effects, adapting concept mapping strategy and systematic structure diagramming strategy in the teaching processes may help students form a cognitive schema to assimilate and relate the information.
Base on the results from this study, some recommendations educators were suggested. |
| Reference: | 丁偉宬。(2003)。以概念構圖評量方式探討運用改良式概念圖之學習成效-會計學存貨單元為例。國立彰化師範大學會計學系碩士論文。未出版。
王思峰。(1998)。系統思考與組織學習理論在教育上的應用。教育研究雙月刊，60，4-35。
王薰巧。(2003)。國小自然與生活科技領域課程運用概念構圖之研究。國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文。未出版。
朱景生。(2003)。以概念構圖之動態評量策略探究國釔學童水的「蒸發、凝結」概念的概念學習。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
江淑卿、林世華、陳淑芬，與張國恩。(1998)。知識結構的測量：徑路搜尋法與概念構圖法的比較。教育心理學報，30(2)，123-142。
江淑卿、郭生玉。(1997)。不同學習過程的概念構圖策略對促進知識結構專家化與理解能力之效果研究。師大學報，42期(革新版)，1-16。
江淑卿。(2000)。徑路探測法在測量知識結構的效度研究。中國測驗學會年刊，47，73-94。
江淑卿。(2001)。經驗式和統計式概念構圖對兒童的知識結構與理解能力之影響。屏東師院學報，14(上)，頁371-396。
余民寧、陳嘉成、潘雅芳。(1996)。概念構圖法在測驗教學上的應用。測驗年刊，43，195-254。
余民寧、潘雅芳、林偉文。(1996)。概念構圖法：合作學習抑個別學習。教育與心理研究，19期。93-124。
余民寧。(1993)。次序性資料的內容效度係數和同質性信度之計算。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，40，199-214。
余民寧。(1997)。教育測驗與評量。台北：心理出版社。
余民寧。(2002)。教育測驗與評量：成就測驗與教學評量(二版)。台北：心理出版社。
吳勝福。(2003)。應用概念構圖融入高職教學對生多元智慧表現之研究：以計算機概論為例。南台科技大學資訊管理系碩士論文。未出版。
宋德忠，陳淑芬，與張國恩。(1998)。電腦化概念構圖系統在知識結構測量上的應用。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，45(2)，37-56。
宋德忠、林世華、陳淑芬，與張國恩。(1999)。知識結構的測量:徑路搜尋法與概念構圖 法的比較。教育心理學報，30(2)，頁123-142。
宋德忠、陳淑芬，與張國恩。(1998)。電腦化概念構圖系統在知識結構測量上的應用。測驗年刊，45(2)，頁37-56。
李秀美。(2002)。概念構圖對提升國小學童說話能力效之研究。台範學院語文教育學系碩士班碩士論文。未出版。
李明芬。(1999)。系統思考的再思與教學系統設計的轉化。教學科技與媒體，48, 40~50。
林邦傑。(1981)。集群分析及其應用。教育與心理研究，4，31-57。
林冠群與吳裕益。(2002)。引出知識的方式對數學課室學習中概念構圖評量的信、效度之影響。測驗年刊，48(2)，頁103-105。
林筱雯。(2001)。運用概念構圖為後設認知工具於國小二年級自然科之行動研究。屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
邱上真。(1989)。知識結構的評量：概念構圖技巧的發展與試用。特殊教育學報，4, 215-244。
洪麗卿。(2001)。社會科概念構圖教學策略之建構。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
徐兆正。(2001)。以概念構圖教學策略探究國小高年級學童生態概念的概念學習研究。國台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
翁錦瑛。(2001)。數學概念構圖教學與診斷效益。台南師範學院教師在職進修數學碩士學位班碩士論文。未出版。
涂金堂。(2000)。徑路測量法在知識測量上的應用。國立臺南師範學院初等教育學報，13，275-306。
涂金堂。(2002)。知識結構的評量與改變之研究—以國小學生數學文字題為例。國立政治大學教育系博士論文，未出版。
張俊豐。(2001)。體育運動概念的表達：以排球快攻概念構圖為例。國民體育，30(1)，88-101。
張國恩、宋曜廷，與李啟龍。(2002)。網路化合作探究學習系統。資訊教育，89，頁43-45。
張証欽。(2003)。納入命題地位於概念構圖歷程分析之研究。國立台南師範學院資訊教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
陳永春。(2002)。概念構圖教學策略與不同性別對國小五年級學童在社會科學習成就與學後保留之探究。屏東科技學院教育科技研究所碩士論文。未出版。
陳秀惠。(2000)。國小高年級學童身體動作認知概念之相關研究。臺東師院學報，11(上)，頁247-267。
陳俊宏。(2003)。概念構圖應用於國中生活科技教學成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文。未出版。
陳新豐。(2002)。國小學生知識結構的評量分析:以國小自然學習成就為例。教育與心理研究，25，頁257-280。
陳嘉成。(1996)。以概念構圖為學習策略之教學對小學生自然科學學習效果之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陳慶瀚。(2003)。朝向複雜思考的創造力教學方法。教育部創意教師行動研究案。
馮瓊瑤。(2003)。國小四年級學童實施概念構圖作文教學研究。嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
劉俊庚。(2001)。迷思概念與概念改變教學策略之文獻分析—以概念構圖和後設分析模式探討其意涵與影響。國台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
劉慶偉。(2003)。概念構圖融入高職程式語言教學成效分析之研究。屏東科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
劉麗琴。(2001)。在國小融合式班級中實施概念構圖教學以植入人工電子耳聽障生為個案之研究。台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
蕭家慧。(2001)。利用概念構圖的動態評量方式探究國小五年級學童在光和頻色的概念學習。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
鍾聖校。(1994)。不同教學法對錯誤概念修正的影響。台北師院學報，7期。169-204。
羅廷瑛。(2001)。「概念構圖教學課程」對國小一年級學生自然科學習表現影響之研究。教育資料與研究，38，頁29-35。
蘇貞。(2002)。諮商師個案概念化內涵之分析研究—概念構圖法之應用。國高雄師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。未出版。
饒見維。(1995)。知識場論—認知、思考與教育的統合理論。台北：五南。
饒見維。(1996)。教師專業發展—理論與實務。台北：五南。
Anita C. A. , Larae I. H., & Mark J. F. (2003). Instructional tool in nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 24(6) , 311-317.
Appleton, K. & Asoko, H. (1996). A case study of a teacher’s progress toward using a constructivist view of learning to inform teaching elementary science. Ken Science Education, 80(2), 165-180.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Benathy, B. H. (1992). A Systems view of Education: Concepts and Principles for Effective Practice. New Jersey: Educational technology publications.
Branaghan, R. J. (1990). Pathfinder networks & multidimentional spaces: Relative Strengths in representing strong associates. In R. W. Schvaneveldt(Ed.), Pathfinder Associative networks：Studies in Knowledge Organization. New Jersey: Ablex.
Campbell, L. , Campbell, B. , Dickinson, D. (1999). 多元智慧的教與學(郭俊賢與陳淑惠譯)。台北：遠流。(原著出版於1999)
Ceren, T. (2003). Remediating high school students` misconceptions concerning diffusion and osmosis through concept mapping and conceptual change text. Research in Science and Technological Education, 21(1), 5-16.
Chang, K. , Sung, Y. , & Chen, I. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. Journal of Experimental Education, 71(1) , 5-23 .
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Cook(2000)
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity, In R.J. Sternberg (ed.), The Nature of Creativity (pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (ed.), The Handbook of Creativity (pp. 313-335). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999)。創造力(杜明城譯)。台北：時報。 (原著出版於1996)
Dearholt, D. W. & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Properties of pathfinder networks. In R. W. Schvaneveldt(Ed.), Pathfinder Associative networks：Studies in Knowledge Organization. New Jersey: Ablex.
Dearhotlt D. W. & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Properties of pathfinder networks. In Pathfinder Associative Networks: Studies in Knowledge. New Jersey: Ablex
Dearhotlt, D. W. & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Properties of pathfinder networks. In R. W. Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder Associative Networks: Studies in Knowledge. New Jersey: Ablex.
Diekhoff, G. M., & Diekhoff, K. B. (1982). Cognitive maps as a tool in communicating structural knowledge. Educational Technology, 22(4), 28-30.
Forrester, J. W. (1992). System Dynamics and Learner-Centered-Learning in Kindergarten through 12th Grade Education(D-4337). Cambridge, Mass：Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Francine, G. E. , Mark, T. B. , & Richard, C. S. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 356-65.
Gagne, E. D. , Yekovich, C. W. , & Yekovich, F. R. (1998)。教學心理學—學習的認知基礎(岳修平譯)。 台北：遠流。
Goldsmith , T. E. & Davenport, D. M. (1990). In R. W. Schvaneveldt(Ed.), Pathfinder Associative networks：Studies in Knowledge Organization. New Jersey: Ablex.
Goldsmith, T. E. & Davenport, D. M. (1990). Assessing structure similarity of graphs, In R. W. Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder Associative Networks: Studies in Knowledge, By New Jersey: Ablex.
Goldsmith, T. E. Johnson, P. J., & Acton, H. W. (1991). Assessing Structure knowledge. Journal of Eductional Psychology, 83, 88-96.
Heinze-Fry, J. A. & Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward meaningful learning. Science Educatoion, 74, 461-472.
Herl, H. , Baker, E., & Niemi, D. (1996). Construct validation of an approach to modeling cognitive structure of U.S. history knowledge. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 213-230.
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.
Kinchin, I. M. (2001). If concept mapping is so helpful to learning biology, why aren’t we all doing it ? International Journal of Science Education , 23(12). 1257-1269. ISSN 1464-5289 online.
Koubek, R. J. & Mountjoy, D. N. (1991). Toward a model of knowledge structure and a comparative analysis of knowledge structure measurement techniques. Wright State University. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED339719.
Lannon, K. C. (1991). Revitalizing the Schools: a Systems Thinking Approach. The Systems Thinker, 2(5),電子期刊。
Mandinach, E. (1989). Model-Building and the Use of Computer Simulation of Dynamic Systems. Educational Computing Research, 5(2), 221-243.
Margaret, M. & Marie, B. (2003). Using the Concept Mapping To Evaluate the Training of Primary School Leaders. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(1), 73-87.
Marion, F. , Martha, C. P. L., Patricia, R. F., & William H. E. (2003). Concept maps: a practical solution for completing functional behavior assessments. Education and Treatment of Children , 26(1), 89-103.
Morton, J. & Berkerian, D. (1986). Three ways of looking at memory. In N. E. Sharkdy (Ed.), Advances in Cognitive Science 1.Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. New Jersey: Lawrence erbium associate.
O’Connor, J. & McDermott, I. (2000). 系統思考實用手冊(王承豪譯)。台北：世茂(原著出版於1999)。
Ossimitz, G.. (2000). Teaching System Dynamics and Systems Thinking in Austria and Germany.電子檔 A paper presented at the System Dynamics 2000 conference in Bergen, Norway. http:// www. uni-klu. ac. At /~gossimit /eng /sdyneng.htm.
Peitgen, J. & Saupe. D. (1992). Chaos and Fractals: New Frontier of Science, NY：Springer-Verlag.
Prigogine, I. (1980). From Being to Becoming, Yew York: W. H. Freeman and Co.
Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D. A. (1988). Representation in memory. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Hernstein, G. Lindzey, & R. D. Luce (eds.), Steven’s handbook of Experimental Psychology : Vol2, Learning and Cognition (2nd ed., 511-587). New York: Wiley.
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline： The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Dubeday Currency.
Senge, P. M. (1997). Communities of leaders and learner’s. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 30-32.
Senge, P., McCabe, N. C., Lucas, T., Smith, B. Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2002)。學習型學校(上)(楊振富譯)。台北：天下。(原著出版於2002)
Shanon, B. (1993). The representational and the representational : An Essay on Cognition and the Study of Mind. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Smith, M. E. (2001). Systematic thinking or a quick fix: a managerial dilemma. Supervision, 62(7), 3-7.
Sternberg, R. J. & Rubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (eds.). (1999). Handbook of Creativity. Pp. 3-15. N.Y.: Cambridge.
Wallace, J. D., & Mintzes, J. J. (1990). The concept as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Scinece Teaching, 27, 1033-1052.
Williams, L. (1999). Designing instructional units with ST/SD approach(電子檔), in Glynn’s Integration of Systems Thinking: A Water Foundation Grant Project. http://www.clexchange.org/ftp/documents/personal-growth/PG1999-09Stress1stDayMS.pdf, 2004/01/01. |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
教育研究所
88152509
93 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0881525091 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [教育學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 181 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
