國中學生對科學概念與生活概念「類屬-組成」論述的語意理解之研究 Students’ Semantic Understanding of ‘Kind-of/Part-of’ Discourses of Rural Area Schools

Date
2013
Authors
黃瀞儀
Ching-I Huang
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
本研究主要探討偏鄉國中九年級學生對科學概念與生活概念中「類屬—組成」論述的語意理解之差異。科學文本的功能不僅說明概念的定義,也解釋概念之間的關係,所謂「類屬—組成」論述是用來呈現科學概念間類屬與組成關係的陳述方式。為了體現類屬與組成關係,科學文本會以不同的論述方式來描述,如:「X是一種Y」指出X和Y之間具有類屬關係,而「X由Y組成」是指X和Y間是組成關係。本研究選取苗栗縣某偏鄉國中九年級學生6位作為研究對象,其皆為5學期內15次定期考查占全校前10%的學生,以6組生活概念和6組科學概念,並搭配8種「類屬—組成」論述語式,設計出2份問卷:「生活概念的語意論述問卷」以及「科學概念的語意論述問卷」作為測驗工具,再以凱利方格技術(RGT)探討學生的語意理解以及比較兩者間的差異,並進行半結構式訪談。 本研究發現:學生對於類屬關係的理解較具共識,他們能夠精確地分辨出類屬關係和組成關係的語意差異,同時也分化出組成關係中具有混合分體與鍵結分體的意義,甚至是單一成分與多重成分的混合分體。根據研究發現,學生對於類屬或組成論述的語意理解,{是、一種}與{一部分}適合用於表達類屬與組成關係,而{聚集而成}與{混合而成}則適用於描述混合分體,{組成}適合於描述鍵結分體,同時也發現{有}此論述方式所指涉的語意關係較為模糊,顯示它並非體現類屬組成關係的理想形式。然而,學生對於「氮氣是一種空氣」這個類屬論述是同意的,顯示學生將空氣和氣體這兩個詞彙作混淆使用,有不精確的區分;另外,學生同意「紅血球是血球的一部分」的組成論述方式,可能是血球種類只有3種,視為非典型的種類關係,故學生認為適用於{一部分}來描述之。最後,從個別訪談中可知,不同的學生對於相同論述方式所指涉的語意關係有多元的理解。
The study aimed at exploring students’ differences of understandings on the ‘kind-of/part-of’ discourses in science concepts and life concepts. The functions of science textbooks are not only to introduce the definitions of science concepts, but also to explain the relation between concepts for students. By ‘kind-of/part-of’ discourses the taxonomic and partonomic relations of science concepts could thus be described. The purposes of this study were to explore the discourses semantics which embodied the taxonomic and partonomic relations in science textbooks. For instance, ‘Y and Z are kind of X’ and ‘X is composed of Y and Z’ indicate that there exists ‘kind-of/part-of’ relation between X and Y and Z. A total of six participants which included six 9th grade students. They were then asked to fill out two questionnaires which designed by the Repertory Grid Technique(RGT) for exploring their differentiations of taxonomic and partonomic relations and the understandings of ‘kind-of/part-of’ discourse semantically. Two questionnaires, one is science concepts questionnaire, the other is life concepts questionnaire. The results showed that students had high consensus on taxonomic relation. They could definitely distinguish the semantic differences of semantics between taxonomic and partonomic relation. They could also understand that the partonomic relations implied a blending and bonding meaning even classify the mono-blend and multi-blend meaning. The results showed that students argued that [is, is a kind of] and [is a part of] were proper to represent the taxonomic and partonomic relations, and [collect] and [mix] were proper to represent the blending meaning, and [composite] were proper to represent the bonding meaning. They also suggested the lexicon [have] represented the taxonomic and partonomic relations ambiguously, which meant they were not the ideal discourses to indicate these two relations. Furthermore, students agreed the discourse, ‘nitrogen is kind of air’ that appeared they used two lexicons, [air] and [gas] are not correctly. Additionally, students agreed the discourse, ‘red blood cells are part of blood cells’ that maybe blood cells have three kinds of blood cells that is not atypical taxonomic relation. Finally, the individual interviews indicated that students interpreted these discourses with multiple semantic understandings.
Description
Keywords
語意理解, 科學文本, 「類屬—組成」論述, Reading Comprehension, Science Textbook, Kind-of/Part-of Discourses
Citation
Collections