# 探討建模教學對於密度及水溶液概念的學習成效

No Thumbnail Available

## Date

2019

## Authors

## Journal Title

## Journal ISSN

## Volume Title

## Publisher

## Abstract

科學家利用模型思考，解決問題。在科學課程中，教師利用模型，幫助孩童認識世界。學生透過模型了解理論，教師可運用不同的表徵與模型，幫助學生探索與認識自然。本研究依課程內容可分為密度及水溶液兩單元，課程設計以邱美虹（2016）提出的建模歷程為架構，其過程包含八個步驟：分別為模型選擇、模型建立、模型效化、模型分析、模型應用、模型調度、模型修正、模型重建。
本研究主要探討在進行建模教學後，對於學生在密度與水溶液的學習成效上是否有幫助。本研究分為兩個研究主題：研究一：探討建模教學對於「密度概念」；研究二：探討建模教學對於「水溶液概念」學習成效。研究對象為台北市某國中八年級四班學生進行研究，將四班隨機分成建模教學組與一般教學組，建模教學組學生有55位，一般教學組學生有54位，共109位。研究工具分為量化與質性工具，量化工具包含密度及水溶液概念之前測、後測與延宕測驗、認知負荷問卷，質性工具包含學生晤談資料。概念測驗工具由兩位具有化學背景的大學教授，與一位資深國中教師建立專家效度，且密度與水溶液試卷信度為0.81及0.79。針對學生測驗結果，將以SPSS進行t-test及共變數分析（ANCOVA）
整體研究結果顯示：（1）建模教學可以幫助學生科學概念的學習與問題解決，其中在密度概念（F=25.1，p<0.001）及水溶液概念（F=13.83，p<0.001）中均達顯著差異。（2）建模教學最能幫助中能力學生學習科學概念，而在較複雜的科學概念上，對低能力學生幫助較低，但對於高能力學生則幫助較大。（3）建模教學運用模型思考，幫助學生學習與解決問題。但由於過程中學生要學習科學概念與建模歷程框架，相較於一般傳統教學，建模教學更容易造成個體的認知負荷，其中在密度概念整體認知負荷（t=2.66，p=0.009，df=89）及水溶液概念整體認知負荷（t=2.58，p=0.01，df=84）中均達顯著差異。

Scientists solve problems through model thinking. In science education, teachers use models to help students learn about the world, and students understand a theory through models. Teachers use various characteristics and models to assist students in exploring and learning the nature. The instructions in this study covered two units, including density and aqueous solution, and were designed based on the modeling process proposed by Chiu, Mei-Hung (2016). This process includes eight steps: model selection, model building, model validation, model analysis, model application, model deployment, model adjustment, and model rebuilding. The objective of this study was to investigate whether modeling instruction is helpful for students in learning the density and aqueous solution units. The focus of this study was two-fold. One was to examine the effectiveness of modeling instruction for students in learning “density”, and the other was to evaluate its effectiveness in learning “aqueous solution”. The participants were students of four eight-grade classes of a junior high school in Taipei City. They were randomly divided into two groups, including the modeling instruction group and the traditional instruction group. There were 109 participants in total, 55 in the modeling instruction group and 54 in the traditional instruction group. Both quantitative and qualitative instruments were employed. The quantitative instruments included pretest, posttest, and retention test for understanding of the density and aqueous solution concepts and a cognitive load questionnaire. The qualitative instruments included the students’ interview data. The expert validity of the tests for understanding of concepts was established by two college professors with a chemistry background and a senior junior high school teacher. In terms of reliability, the tests for the density and aqueous solution units were respectively measured at 0.81 and 0.79. The students’ test results were analyzed using t-test and ANCOVA on SPSS. The results were as follows: (1) Modeling instruction helped students in learning scientific concepts and solving scientific problems. The participants showed significant improvements in learning the concepts of density (F=25.1，p<0.001) and the concepts of aqueous solution (F=13.83，p<0.001); (2) Modeling instruction was most helpful for students of intermediate competence in learning scientific concepts. When applied to more complicated scientific concepts, it was less helpful for students of low competence but more helpful for students of high competence; (3) Modeling instruction uses model thinking as an approach to assist students with learning and problem-solving. In this study, as students needed to learn scientific concepts and the modeling framework in this process, modeling instruction would more easily cause cognitive load on individuals compared to the traditional instruction. The difference in overall cognitive load between the two instruction groups was significant across both the density unit (t=2.66, p=0.009,df=89) and the aqueous solution unit (t=2.58,p=0.01,df=84).

Scientists solve problems through model thinking. In science education, teachers use models to help students learn about the world, and students understand a theory through models. Teachers use various characteristics and models to assist students in exploring and learning the nature. The instructions in this study covered two units, including density and aqueous solution, and were designed based on the modeling process proposed by Chiu, Mei-Hung (2016). This process includes eight steps: model selection, model building, model validation, model analysis, model application, model deployment, model adjustment, and model rebuilding. The objective of this study was to investigate whether modeling instruction is helpful for students in learning the density and aqueous solution units. The focus of this study was two-fold. One was to examine the effectiveness of modeling instruction for students in learning “density”, and the other was to evaluate its effectiveness in learning “aqueous solution”. The participants were students of four eight-grade classes of a junior high school in Taipei City. They were randomly divided into two groups, including the modeling instruction group and the traditional instruction group. There were 109 participants in total, 55 in the modeling instruction group and 54 in the traditional instruction group. Both quantitative and qualitative instruments were employed. The quantitative instruments included pretest, posttest, and retention test for understanding of the density and aqueous solution concepts and a cognitive load questionnaire. The qualitative instruments included the students’ interview data. The expert validity of the tests for understanding of concepts was established by two college professors with a chemistry background and a senior junior high school teacher. In terms of reliability, the tests for the density and aqueous solution units were respectively measured at 0.81 and 0.79. The students’ test results were analyzed using t-test and ANCOVA on SPSS. The results were as follows: (1) Modeling instruction helped students in learning scientific concepts and solving scientific problems. The participants showed significant improvements in learning the concepts of density (F=25.1，p<0.001) and the concepts of aqueous solution (F=13.83，p<0.001); (2) Modeling instruction was most helpful for students of intermediate competence in learning scientific concepts. When applied to more complicated scientific concepts, it was less helpful for students of low competence but more helpful for students of high competence; (3) Modeling instruction uses model thinking as an approach to assist students with learning and problem-solving. In this study, as students needed to learn scientific concepts and the modeling framework in this process, modeling instruction would more easily cause cognitive load on individuals compared to the traditional instruction. The difference in overall cognitive load between the two instruction groups was significant across both the density unit (t=2.66, p=0.009,df=89) and the aqueous solution unit (t=2.58,p=0.01,df=84).

## Description

## Keywords

密度, 水溶液, 建模能力, 認知負荷, density, aqueous solution, modeling ability, cognitive load