探討建模教學對八年級學生酸鹼概念發展與建模能力的影響

Abstract

本研究選取國民中學教科書自然與生活科技第四冊『酸與鹼』單元為研究主題，依課程內容擷取『酸鹼的定義與通性』、『酸鹼濃度與pH值』和『酸鹼中和與鹽類』三個主題概念設計教學活動。分別進行『建模教學』、『建模合作教學』和『一般教學』三種不同教學模式，探討不同教學法對學生酸鹼概念與建模能力的影響，並進一步探討兩者間的相關性。 本研究的研究對象為國中八年級三個班共88位學生，所使用的研究工具為研究者針對主題概念所研發的『酸鹼概念診斷測驗』與『建模能力分析試題』，據此工具以量化的形式來分析學生的酸鹼概念與建模能力。研究結果如下： 一、兩種建模教學(實驗組)在教學後酸鹼概念的後測及延宕測表現，都顯著優於一 般教學(控制組)，在兩實驗組間的比較上，『建模合作組』在後測和延宕測的 表現皆優於『建模教學組』。建模教學與建模合作教學在『酸鹼的定義與通 性』和『酸鹼濃度與pH值』主題概念的學習，都能顯著優於一般教學。但在較 為複雜的『酸鹼中和與鹽類』概念學習上，建模教學無法顯著優於一般教學， 而建模合作教學依然能顯著優於一般教學。 二、教學前三組學生在『酸鹼中和』心智模式皆以現象模式、直覺濃度模式與不一 致的混合模式、競爭模式和散亂模式為主。教學後『一般教學組』達類科學模 式的比例為25%，『建模教學組』的類科學模式比例為35.7%，『建模合作 組』有34.7%的類科學模式，且有9.4%達科學模式。延宕測後『建模教學 組』與『建模合作組』在類科學模式以上的比例稍增加，但『一般教學組』卻 減少，顯示建模教學較一般教學能幫助學生建構出正確的科學心智模式。 三、兩種建模教學(實驗組)在教學後建模能力的後測及延宕測表現，都顯著優於一 般教學(控制組)，在兩實驗組間的比較上，『建模合作組』後測的表現優於 『建模教學組』。延宕測後『建模合作組』在三組間仍然保有最佳表現。建模教 學在各個建模歷程的後測和延宕測表現上都優於一般教學，顯示建模教學較一 般教學更能有效提升學生的建模能力。研究中亦發現，兩實驗組在前三個歷程 的建模能力表現上差異不大，但在後二個建模歷程，『建模合作組』的表現明 顯優於『建模教學組』。可見透過合作式的建模教學，對於學生高階認知與推 論能力的培養具有較佳的成效。 四、教學前三組中僅『建模合作組』的酸鹼概念與建模能力達顯著相關 (p＜.01)，其餘兩組的相關性低。教學後三組均達顯著正相關(p＜.001)， 顯見三種教學模式均能同時提升學生的酸鹼概念與建模能力。而建模教學比一 般教學較能同時提升教學成效與學生的建模能力，且透過合作式學習，更能增 進整體的成效。

The topic of this research was chosen from “Acid and Base”, Science and Technology, Book Ⅳ in junior high school. It contained three subconcepts of “definition and generality of acid and base”, “concentration and pH value of acid and base”, and “neutralization and salts” to design the instruction. It conducted three different teaching models of “modeling teaching”, “cooperative modeling teaching”, and “general teaching” to investigate the effectiveness on students’ concepts of acid and base and modeling ability and further explored the correlation between them. The participants in this research included 88 8th graders from three classes. The research instruments included “diagnostic test of concepts of acid and base” and “analytic test of modeling ability” which were designed by researcher to analyze students’ concepts of acid and base and modeling ability quantitatively. The research results were mentioned as below: 1. The performance of posttest and retention test in the concepts of acid and base of the two modeling teachings (experimental groups) were significantly superior to the general teaching (control group) after teaching. Compared with the two experimental groups, “cooperative modeling teaching group” was superior to “modeling teaching group” in both posttest and retention test. The modeling teaching group and the cooperative modeling teaching group were also significantly superior to the general teaching group in the subconcepts of “definition and generality of acid and base” and “concentration and pH value of acid and base”. However, in the learning of more complicated subconcept of “neutralization and salts”, the modeling teaching group was not able to be superior to the general teaching group, but the cooperative modeling teaching group still did. 2. Before the teaching, students’ “mental model of neutralization ” in the three groups all came with phenomenon model, intuitive concentration model, mixed model, competitive model, and messy model. After the teaching, there were 25% students could reach to scientific-like model in the “general teaching group”, 35.7% students in the “modeling teaching group”. There were 34.7% students could reach to scientific-like model and 9.4% students could reach to scientific model in the “cooperative modeling teaching group”. In the retention test, the “modeling teaching group” and the “cooperative modeling teaching group” both slightly increased the rate of scientific-like model, but the “general teaching group” decreased. It revealed that modeling teaching could help students constructing more correct scientific mental model than general teaching did. 3. The performance of posttest and retention test in modeling ability of the two modeling teachings (experimental groups) were significantly superior to the general teaching (control group) after the teaching. Compared with the two experimental groups, the “cooperative modeling teaching group” was superior to the “modeling teaching group” in the posttest. The “cooperative modeling teaching group” still had the best performance among the three groups in the retention test. In every modeling process, modeling teachings were superior to general teaching in both posttest and retention test. It showed that modeling teachings could efficiently promote students’ modeling ability than general teaching. It also found that there was not significant difference on modeling ability between the two modeling teachings in the first three modeling processes, but the “cooperative modeling teaching group” was superior to the “modeling teaching group” in the last two modeling processes. As we can see that through the cooperative modeling teaching could promote students’ high level cognition and deductive ability. 4. Before the teaching, only the “cooperative modeling teaching group” had a significant and positive correlation (p＜.01) between the concepts of acid and base and modeling ability. After the teaching, there were significant and positive correlations (p＜.001) in the three groups. It showed that the three teachings could simultaneously promote students’ concepts of acid and base and modeling ability. Modeling teachings could simultaneously facilitate teaching effects and students’ modeling ability than general teaching. Through the cooperative learning, it could enhance even more in the whole effects.