國小學童認識信念、科學文本理解與推論能力之相關研究

Abstract

本研究旨在透過讓學童閱讀具有不確定性的科學問題，探討國小學童的個人認識觀、科學探究看法、推論能力及對於科學文本的理解，並找出彼此間的關係。 本研究主要是以質的研究方法為主，結合量的研究法，透過半結構性晤談法以及開放性紙筆測驗，問卷調查法進行資料蒐集。本研究樣本是以臺北市某國小三、六年級共120人進行研究，其中三年級佔60人，男生有30人，女生有30人；六年級佔60人，男生有30人，女生有30人。研究工具有「科學探究看法問卷」 、「科學文本理解問卷」、「閱讀情意問卷」以及「爭議性科學問題的晤談工具」含恐龍晤談文章 與文章晤談稿共四種。所使用的研究方法包括描述性統計、獨立t檢定、單因數變異數分析、皮爾森積差相關、薛費事後比較法、卡方檢定以及單因數共變數分析等。 本研究重要發現如下： 1.國小學童對「知識的本質」的看法，大部分持多元論的觀點且趨近於知識為確定的立場；而對於「知的過程」的看法，則大部分持多元論的觀點。 2.學童對「科學方法」與「科學活動」的探究看法，大部分停留在前實證論階段；而學童對「科學證據」的科學探究看法，則大多能表達出實證論觀點。 3.三年級學童在「閱讀價值」、「閱讀挑戰」、「閱讀傾向」、「他人期望」及「個人閱讀興趣」的情意元素顯著高於六年級學童，且科學主題興趣與「閱讀價值」、「閱讀挑戰」、「閱讀傾向」、「他人期望」及「個人閱讀興趣」等五個情意元素，彼此間有顯著正相關。 4.學童對於透過問卷所測得的科學文本內容理解表現有高達約8成的正確率；且學童在閱讀完科學文章後，三年級學童平均能舉出文章中的一個證據或推論做為導致恐龍滅絕的理由，而六年級學童則可以舉出文章中的二個證據或推論做為導致恐龍滅絕的理由。 5.一般而言學童的論證能力(argumentation)並不強，大部分學童在「反論」與「反駁反論」的表現上，無法提出科學性理由做為論點，只能提出一般性的理由做為論點；只有在「論證」的表現(making arguments)上，六年級有超過一半的學童可以提出一個科學性的理由做為論點。 6.學童只在「他人期望」的閱讀情意部份，和透過晤談的方式所測出的科學文本理解有顯著正相關；其餘閱讀情意項目與科學主題興趣，皆和透過晤談或問卷所測出的科學文本理解間皆沒有顯著相關存在。 7.三、六年級學童在「知識的本質」與「知的過程」的認識觀、「科學方法」的探究看法、反思推論能力、與爭議性科學文本理解表現沒有顯著差異。 8.六年級學童在「科學活動」、「科學證據」的探究看法與「論證」、「反論」、「反駁反論」的思考推論表現，以及「隕石撞擊」、「火山爆發」兩篇文章的文本理解晤談表現與「火山爆發」的文本理解問卷表現，皆顯著高於三年級。 9.男、女生在「知的過程」之認識觀與「科學活動」、「科學方法」和「科學證據」的探究看法，及「論證」、「反論」的思考推論表現、「反思推論能力」、科學文本理解問卷表現以及「火山爆發」與「蟲蟲搞的鬼」的科學文本理解晤談表現，沒有顯著差異。 10.男生對「知識的本質」的認識觀比女生成熟，而在「隕石撞擊」的科學文本理解晤談表現與「反駁反論」的推論表現上，男生也顯著高於女生。 11.「知識本質」、「知的過程」之個人認識觀類型與科學文本理解晤談、問卷表現以及思考推論表現間，沒顯著差異存在。 12.「知識本質」之個人認識觀和「科學活動」與「科學方法」的探究看法有顯著差異，但和「科學證據」的探究看法沒顯著差異；「知的過程」之個人認識觀和「科學活動」、「科學方法」與「科學證據」的探究看法，沒顯著差異。 13.科學文本理解晤談表現與「科學活動」的科學探究看法、「論證」、「反論」及「反駁反論」的推論表現，有顯著正相關或差異存在；而科學文本理解問卷表現只和「論證」、「反論」的推論表現、「科學活動」的探究看法，有顯著正相關或差異存在，和「反駁反論」、「科學方法」、「科學證據」的探究看法，沒顯著相關或差異存在。 14.「論證」推論表現和「科學方法」的探究看法，有顯著差異，和「科學活動」與「科學證據」的探究看法，沒有顯著差異；「反論」推論表現和「科學活動」的探究看法，有顯著差異，而和「科學方法」與「科學證據」的探究看法，沒有顯著差異；「反駁反論」推論表現則和「科學活動」、「科學方法」以及「科學證據」的探究看法間，沒有顯著差異存在。 15.科學探究看法與科學文本理解會反應於推論表現上。

The purpose of this study was to let student read scientific questions that contain uncertainty in order to explore the personal epistemological beliefs, views on scientific investigation, and argument ability of elementary school students, to explore how these affect understanding of science texts and to discover the relationships among them. This study employed qualitative research methods in collaboration with quantitative methods.Semi-structured interview, open pen-and-paper test, and interviews were conducted for data collection. The research sample consisted of 120 third and sixth graders in an elementary school in Taipei City.Among them, 60 were in the third grade, with 30 boys and 30 girls. 60 were in the sixth grade, with 30 boys and 30 girls. The research tools included the “views on scientific investigation questionnaire,” “science text reading comprehension questionnaire,” “reading affection questionnaire,” and “interview tool for controversial scientific questions,” which includes the dinosaur interview article and four types of article interview drafts. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, independent t-test, one way ANOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, Scheffe post-hoc comparison method, chi-test, and one-way ANCOVA. The important findings of this study were as follows: 1.The views of elementary school students regarding “nature of knowledge” were generally of the multiplist perspective, approaching the position of knowledge as certainty; their views on “process of knowing” were generally of the multiplist perspective. 2.Student exploratory views on “scientific method” and “scientific activity” were generally in the pre-positivist view stage; student views toward the scientific exploration of “scientific evidence” could generally be expressed as positivist views. 3.Third-grade students had significantly higher emotional elements than sixth-grade students in “reading value,” “reading challenge,” “reading inclination,” expectations of others,” and “personal reading interest.”Furthermore, there were significant positive correlations between scientific topical interest and the five emotional elements of “reading value,” “reading challenge,” “reading inclination,” “expectations of others,” and “personal reading interest.” 4.Student performances on the science text comprehension questionnaire showed as high as about 80% accuracy rate; after students read the science articles, third-graders generally were able to cite one piece of evidence from the text or one deduction about the reason for dinosaur extinction, while sixth-graders could cite two pieces or evidence or deductions about the reason for dinosaur extinction. 5.Generally, student argumentation ability was not strong. In student performance in “counterargument” and “rebuttal,” most students could not propose scientific reasons as their viewpoints, and could only propose general reasons as their viewpoints. Only in the performance of “making arguments,” more than half of the sixth-graders were able to propose a scientific reason as the viewpoint. 6.A significant positive correlation was only found between the student reading emotional factor of “expectations of others” and science text comprehension found through the interview method; in other reading emotional factors and interest in scientific topics, there were no significant correlations with the science text comprehension found through the interview method or quantitative methods. 7.The epistemology of third- and sixth-graders in “nature of knowledge” and “process of knowing” and exploratory views on “scientific method,” there were no significant differences between reflective reasoning ability and controversial science text comprehension performance. 8.Sixth grade students were significantly better than third grade students in terms of views on scientific investigation in scientific activity, scientific evidence, and reasoning performance of argumentation, counterargument, and rebuttal, interviews regarding ability of understanding science texts for the two articles of Meteors Hit and Volcanic Eruptions, as well as questionnaires on understanding science texts of the article Volcanic Eruptions. 9.In “the process of knowing,” epistemological beliefs and scientific activity,views on scientific investigation of scientific method and scientific evidence, and reasoning performance in argumentation, counterargument, and rebuttal ability,interviews regarding ability of understanding science texts for the two articles of Volcanic Eruptions and It Was the Bugs, and reading comprehension questionnaire scores on the three articles Meteors Hit,Volcanic Eruptions, and It Was the Bugs, there were no significant differences between boys and girls. 10.Boys have more mature development than girls in epistemological beliefs of “the nature of knowledge,” and in the interviews inunderstanding science texts of Meteors Hit and counterargument and rebuttal, boys significantly scored higher than girls. 11.There were no significant differences in the personal epistemological view types of “nature of knowledge” and “process of knowing” and science text comprehension interview, questionnaire performance, and reflexive reasoning performance. 12.Personal epistemological beliefs and scientific activity of “nature of knowledge” show significant differences with the types of views on scientific investigation on scientific method, but do not show significant differences with the views on scientific investigation on scientific evidence;personal epistemological beliefs and scientific activity of “the process of knowing,”views on scientific investigation of scientific method and scientific evidence. There were no significant correlations between the scientific theme of dinosaurs and the reading affect questionnaire and interview and the questionnaire on understanding science texts. 13.There were positive correlations or differences between science text comprehension interview performance and the scientific exploratory view of “scientific activity,” reasoning performances of “argumentation,” “counterargument,” and “rebuttal”; there were only positive correlations or differences between science text comprehension questionnaire performance and the reasoning performances of “argumentation” and “counterargument” and the exploratory view of “scientific activity”; there was no significant correlation or difference with “rebuttal,” the exploratory view of “scientific evidence,” and “scientific method.” 14.There were significant differences between the reasoning performance of “argumentation” and the exploratory view of “scientific method,” no significant difference with “scientific activity” and “scientific evidence”; there were significant differences between the reasoning performance of “counterargument” and the exploratory view of “scientific activity,” but no significant differences with the exploratory views of “scientific method” and “scientific evidence”;the reasoning performance of “rebuttal” showed no significant difference with the exploratory views of “scientific activity,” “scientific method,” and “scientific evidence.” 15.Science exploratory views and science text comprehension were reflected in reasoning performance.