模型本位探究策略在不同場域學習成效之研究

Abstract

模型的建構與使用在科學實務上扮演重要的角色。然而學校科學課程卻很少介紹模型、強調模型是理論建構的重要工具以及如何協助學生發展不同模型之間的轉化能力。本研究區分為兩大主題，四個部份。主題一包括部分1與部分2，主要著重在歷經與科學家相似真實性探究之8年級科展學生(N=5)，探討教師在科展建模歷程中提供模型與建模本質觀點的有無，對於學生所建構科學模型的類型、階層以及模型與建模認識觀點的異同表現。其中部份1以事後分析法進行個案研究(N=2)，探討無提供模型與建模鷹架時，科展學生建模的表現，而部分2以歷程分析法進行的個案研究(N=3)，嘗試將真實性探究的認知過程與模型與建模本質觀點納入科展建模歷程中，形成模型本位探究教學架構，探討在真實性建模的科展活動中提供模型與建模鷹架時，學生的建模表現。主題二嘗試以模型本位的探究教學架構應用在傳統課室教學(N=102)，形成本論文之部分3與部分4。其中部分3為立意取樣選取研究者任教之9年級班級，再隨機分配實驗組(模型本位探究教學組，N=37)與對照組(簡單探究教學組，N=32；與講述教學組，N=33)，教學過程中實驗組搭配建模文本而對照組搭配傳統文本，探討經過相同教師教學之後，學生對於模型與建模認識觀點、科學過程技能、概念內容、建模能力與後設建模能力之表現異同。而部份4主要藉由學生對已建模型進行證成，探討建模歷程中模型效化的概念融貫性，若學生能夠進行數據或是相關科學知識的證成，即可確認模型內部組成變因之間的關聯性，表示學生經過證成的模型之融貫程度相較於無法證成者為高。最後總結兩大主題的研究，包括部分1、2、3以及4，探討模型本位探究教學架構在真實性探究的科展歷程以及課室學習的歷程中，關於學生建模的表徵模型之間轉換的關係，亦表示如果強調實驗研究的科學建模，學生會先從巨觀現象建立起巨觀或是動作模型，接著經由資料收集與分析獲得「中觀」(meso-)的視覺以及語彙模型，最後才根據關係座標圖建立數學表徵模型，而如果只是黑板示範實驗，會忽略從「中觀模型」所能連結巨觀現象以及符號模型。研究結果顯示，彙整如下： 1.部分1為經由事後訪談之科展學生，S1與S2學生能夠在相同的探究階段建構相似的表徵模型類型，同時隨著探究時程的增加，兩位學生建構之外顯表徵模型階層逐漸提升至延伸抽象階段；而模型與建模認識觀點部份，S1與S2學生經歷師生共構之科展探究活動之後，對於模型的看法仍是屬於具體事物而非抽象思考模型，顯示只有經歷真實性探究的師生共構無法有效提升學生模型與建模認識觀點到最高階層。 2.部分2為補事後訪談研究法之缺失，透過歷程分析法探討個案學生在提供模型與建模鷹架時科展活動之表現。結果顯示在外顯表徵模型類型與階層面向，個案學生S3、S4以及S5與未提供模型與建模鷹架S1與S2建構相似表徵模型與階層。然而在模型與建模認識觀點面向上，S3經過科展建模歷程之後皆達最高層級，而S4與S5在「模型本質」以及「評價模型」皆達最高層級，而S4與S5在「模型功能與目的」以及「建模歷程」皆為階層2，主要原因為學生仍以解釋而非預測作為模型的主要功能取向。 3.對照部份1與部分2之結果顯示，經過長期真實性師生共構的科展學生皆能夠在不同的探究階段建構出相似的外顯表徵模型並且逐漸提升層級，然而無提供模型與建模觀點鷹架之學生，無法將想法視為抽象模型並透過內隱與外顯模型交互作用進行科學建模，而提供模型與建模鷹架之科展學生能夠將模型視為系統性思考的工具，並且運用在科展探究活動之中，獲得較高的階層。結果顯示模型與建模鷹架對於國中學生進行建模學習有其必要性。 4.經過不同教學模式教學之後，模型本位探究教學組學生在長時間內之「模型本質」-模型與建模認識觀點、「概念內容」-等加速度與牛頓第二運動定律以及「能力」-科學過程技能與建模能力之整體表現皆優於簡單探究以及講述教學組。然而模型本位探究教學在後設建模能力只有部份項目顯著優於其餘兩組，顯示以模型位探究進行學習活動仍然需要加強學生自我評估之表現，以及如何在過程中誘導學生原先已有的後設認知能力以促進建模學習是一項關鍵。綜合結果顯示以模型本位探究模式進行教學有助於學生不同面向的成長。 5.經過不同教學模式教學之後，學生透過情境適切的判斷證成已建模型合理性之證成融貫性表現，模型本位探究組除了在等加速度之後測未與簡單探究組達顯著差異之外，其餘部分皆顯著優於簡單探究組與講述教學組，而簡單探究組學生在等加速度延宕以及牛頓第二運動定律後測顯著優於講述教學組。結果顯示雖然進行簡單探究教學能夠讓學生獲得證成的能力，然而提供學生模型與建模鷹架並且外顯化建模歷程之教學活動更能有效提升學生證成融貫性。 6.模型本位探究教學策略能夠提供機會協助學生進行實驗活動形成巨觀模型，接著進行針對蒐集的數據繪製表格與關係圖並進行意義解釋形成中觀模型，再以建構之中觀模型與科學符號模型以及巨觀模型做比較，連結巨觀與科學符號模型。而教學歷程中額外提供學生鷹架，透過中觀模型連結巨觀現象與科學符號模型證成已建模型作為學生個人修改模型的依據。 雖然文獻說明模型與建模在科學學習扮演重要的角色，然而並未提供實徵的研究說明模型與建模鷹架為什麼是一項重要的學習要素。本研究認為提供模型與建模探究學習活動，需要提供學生模型與建模鷹架作為系統性思考的工具，透過實驗為主、證成合理性以及理論模型遷移的建模歷程讓學生接觸巨觀現象形成巨觀模型逐漸建構中觀模型，再以中觀模型連結巨觀模型與科學符號模型，發展學生的科學本質、概念內容以及相關能力以呼應科學學習的三大目標。

Although modeling is fundamental to human cognition and scientific inquiry, the design of secondary school curriculums rarely integrates inquiry and modeling, touches the epistemological view of models and modeling, and helps the student to develop the competences to make associations between models. This research which explores the implement of model-based inquiry teaching strategy in science fair and traditional classroom contexts in a secondary school covers two main subjects, which are divided into four parts. Subject 1 includes parts 1 and 2 (N = 5, 8th graders), and is targeted to explore whether the teacher providing the epistemological view of models and modeling during the process of science fair have any effect on the type, level, and cognition towards the concepts of model and modeling developed by the students. The intervention is made through integrating a model-based inquiry teaching framework based on the cognitive process of authentic inquiry and the concept of models and modeling into the process of science fair. Subject 2 (N = 102, 9th graders) is an attempt to implement the model-based inquiry teaching framework in traditional classroom context, which forms parts 3 and 4 of this research. The final consolidates the studies in the two main subjects, including parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, exploring model-based inquiry teaching strategy in the process of science fair and the traditional class learning in relation to the conversion between the representation models of student’s model construction process. The following is a consolidation of the results derived from the studies in this research: 1. Part 1 involves post hoc interviews with the students. S1 and S2 students are able to construct similar representation models in the same inquiry stage, and at the same time, the level of external representation models constructed by these two students gradually extends into the abstract stage along the inquiry process. In epistemological view of model and modeling, students S1 and S2 continue to see the concept of “model” as a concrete object, instead of an abstract entity, after they have experienced the explorative activities for the science fair with the teacher. 2. Part 2 is an attempt to remedy the shortcomings of the post hoc interviews. The results show that, in the dimensions of type and level of external representation models, students S3, S4, and S5 demonstrated the same level of representation models similar to the model constructed by S1 and S2 (not provided with the scaffolding of models and modeling). 3. Comparison between the results of Part 1 and 2 shows that students participating in the science fair who have been through a long-period of co-construction development with the teacher are able to construct similar external representation models in different stages and the levels elevates over the course of the process. However, students not provided with the scaffolding of models and modeling are unable to turn ideas into abstract models and conduct scientific modeling through alternating reference between the internal and expressed models. This indicates that co-construction activities involving only through authentic inquiry are not able to effectively elevate the students’ epistemological view of model to the highest level and that intervention of the scaffolding of model and modeling is necessary to the secondary school students when students are taught with the modeling instructional strategy. 4. Part 3 explores the 9th-gende students’ comprehension on the epistemological view of models and modeling, the scientific process skills, the content, modeling and metamodeling competences about acceleration and Newton's second law of motion before/after intervention of the model-based inquiry teaching. After teaching in differentiated teaching modes, students in the model-based inquiry teaching group generally have better performance than the simple inquiry and lecture teaching groups in the epistemological view of model and modeling, the understanding of acceleration and Newton’s second law of motion, and scientific process skills and modeling competences. However, students in the model-based inquiry teaching group only few perform better with significant difference than the students in the other two groups in the metamodeling competences. 5. After implementing the different teaching modes, the students verified the coherence and the reasonableness of the constructed models through appropriate judgment on the contexts. The model-based inquiry teaching group show better performance with significant difference than the simple inquiry group and the lecture teaching group in the posttest and delayed posttest of all aspects, except the unit of acceleration. 6. The model-based inquiry teaching strategy is able to provide the opportunity to help students form macroscopic models in the experiment activities, lead them to cross over to the stage of interpretation targeting on the data, tables, and correlation charts developed in the process and form the meso-models, and advance to the stage of linking macroscopic and scientific symbolic models through comparisons between the constructed meso-model and scientific symbolic model, as well as the macroscopic model. Although the research literature described the significant role played by the concept of models and modeling in scientific research, they did not provide empirical evidence to stress the importance of models and modeling. This research believes that, when implementing model and modeling explorative learning activities, students should be provided with the conceptual framework of models and modeling as a tool for systematic thinking. The modeling process involving experiments, justification, and theoretic model deployment brings the students into contact with the macroscopic phenomena and induce formation of macroscopic model, which is then gradually developed into the meso-model. The meso-model is then linked with the macroscopic model and scientific symbolic model to develop students' comprehend on the nature of science, content of concepts, and the associated competences, that is, the three goals of science learning.