以希望感理論探討概念改變之古典模式與新興模式對低成就與非低成就學生的成效

Abstract

本研究主要探討兩種概念改變模型古典模式（Classical Model）與新興模式（Prevalence Model）對低成就與非低成就學生的學習成效之影響，並以希望感理論做出可能原因之解釋。以綜合高中、高職工科、實用技能班一年級的學生共244人，分班進行兩種概念改變的教學，而後資料分析試瞭解對不同類別的學生而言，何種教學法較有成效，且本研究以浮力為主題，使用二階層診斷評量，可釐清哪種教學法對何種浮力的迷思概念之概念改變較有幫助。研究顯果顯示：（一）針對非低成就低希望感的學生，Prevalence Model的課程顯著優於Classical Model的課程。（二）兩種課程對密度迷思3以及體積迷思3都有顯著的概念改變；公式迷思以及體積迷思2僅Classical Model課程能有效的概念改變；密度迷思2以及體積迷思1僅Prevalence Model的課程能有效的概念改變；而兩種課程對三種重量迷思以及密度迷思1都沒有顯著的概念改變幫助。

This study aims to examine low-achievement students’ learning effectiveness between two conceptual change models, the Classical Model and the Prevalence Model. The Hope Theory is used to explain the possible reasons which would cause any difference between the two models. A total of 244 first-year senior high school students participate in this study and are assigned to receive teaching activities based on one of the two models. Student’s preference of the conceptual change model will be revealed through data analysis. A two-tier test on buoyancy is used to investigate which kind of concept change model is better to improve which misconception of buoyancy. The result shows that (1) to non-low-achievement and low hope students, the curriculum of Prevalence Model is significantly better than Classical Model. (2) the conceptual change of density-3 misconception and volume-3 misconception are significant by both models, the conceptual change of formula misconception and volume-2 misconception are significant by Classical Model only, the conceptual change of density-2 misconception and volume-1 misconception are significant by Prevalence Model only, and the conceptual change of three kinds of weight misconceptions and density-1 misconception are not significant by both models.