邱美虹湯偉君Tang, Wei-Chun2019-09-052009-7-292019-09-052008http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22GN0891450012%22.&%22.id.&http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/104724「解釋」是解釋者、接受解釋者與被解釋物，三者間的互動，也是科學教室常見的行為，包括教師對學生解釋某一自然現象，或是教科書對師生解釋某一自然現象。本研究即以「解釋」為出發，探討演化論之教科書編寫與教學。 透過科學哲學對解釋的討論，以及科學界對「演化」解釋的典範變遷，兩者作為主要的理論基礎。本研究主要分成兩大主軸，一是分析當今教科書演化課文的內容，一是建立演化機制的改良版課文，並檢視其成效。在教科書探討方面，研究者首先針對現今高、國中七個版本生物相關教科書的「演化」專章和「演化機制」的內容，以「解釋類型」、「複雜系統特性」進兩角度進行分析，並特別針對「演化機制」專節，進行內容分析。在改良課文的探討方面，筆者以「解釋類型」、「複雜系統特性」融入演化機制解釋的撰寫，並以國、高中各三班學生進行教學及前後測，除量的分析之外，也以晤談資料檢視學生的演化概念。 研究結果發現，現今演化教科書編寫，主要仍以達爾文天擇說為典範，即使提及當代對天擇說的修正，也以天擇說的補充角色出現，亦即，現有可含攝天擇說的融貫理論，並不被視為可以取代天擇說。同時部分教科書對於「人擇的類比」、「拉馬克的歷史地位」、「達爾文的理論發展史」的撰寫方式，都有值得討論的議題。 在筆者發展的三組新課文，經轉化為教學材料進行教學後，發現同時包含「解釋類型」與「複雜系統觀」的EC組，學習效果最佳。只有「複雜系統觀」的C組又比只有「解釋類型」的E組來的佳。在高中施用的效果較國中為佳。除了以測驗題成績進步做衡量外，筆者自行發展的演化概念模式層級，也發現這樣的結果。 所謂演化概念層級是以區分「演化現象」、「演化機制」兩不同層次的解釋，將學生的演化概念，區分成「知道生物會演變與否」、「知道生物會演變，但對生物演化方向的理解為何」、「知道生物會朝某方向演化，但演化機制的理解為何」等三大層級，並依正確及完整程度，從中再區分出數個次層級，一共九種基本模式。以此模式可輕易且有效精細的捕捉到學生的演化另有概念及演化概念改變情形。 最後筆者認為教科書基於其文本權威，不應逃避對演化機制做出更正確解釋的責任，本研究將「複雜系統特性」融入演化機制解釋的嘗試，初步證明有效且值得參考。而對演化概念的評量，筆者也建議可採比分數更富意義，非文字的圖形表徵：演化概念模式圖。Explanations are interactions among explanations, audiences, and explainers. They are used to communicate ideas between teachers and their students in the classroom. The explanatory activity also happens in the interaction between textbook writers and their readers. Textbooks writers always try to offer satisfactory explanations for teachers or students about how and why a phenomenon takes place. Little research has been done in science education research regarding the relationship between the essentials of explanation and science education. The purpose of this study is to explore the implications of the explanation theory in science teaching, especially in textbook contents and teaching. Evolution concepts are chosen as examples to illustrate the relationships in the study. The researcher bases the dissertation on the discussions about explanations in science philosophy and the paradigms shift about evolution. The study encompasses two issues. The first one is to analyze the descriptive contents about evolution in current textbooks. The other one is to evaluate three modified textbook materials about evolution designed by the researcher based on explanatory types and the complex system view. The analyzed evolution texts are from three senior and four junior high school biology textbooks in Taiwan. In addition, there were 200 students: 95 seventh-grade and 105 tenth-grade students, who participated in the pre-post tests and the teaching programs. The seventh-grade students were assigned into three groups: explanatory group (E), complex group (C), and explanatory and complex group (EC). Different groups separately received three different teaching programs which are based on three modified evolution texts. They all received pre- and post-tests. Some students were selected, based on their achievements, to attend one-on-one interviews to examine their conceptions about evolution. Same operations were applied to senior high students. The results of this study indicate that Darwinian selection is still the major paradigm in evolution texts in biology textbooks. Some modified theories may be represented in texts, but they are only complementary explanations for Darwinian selection. Accordingly, these new explanations for evolution are not viewed as a new paradigm. Some textbooks’ treatment of issues, for example, ‘analogy of artificial selection,’ ‘historical status of Lamarck,’ and ‘the development of Darwinian selection,’ is worthy of further discussions. The results of this study also show that the EC group students—taught with explanatory types and the complex system view merged into evolution texts—developed significantly improved understanding when compared to the other two groups. The C group students, taught with the complex system view merged into evolution texts, developed better understanding than did the E group students. The teaching materials of the E group have only explanatory types merged into evolution texts. Senior high school students could make more significant progress during teaching programs compared to junior high school students. These results were based on assessments not only from test scores but also from the interview data. The data from the interviews were classified into different evolution concept levels. The so-called evolution concept levels were developed by the researcher and can represent the differential understanding of evolution. They encompass two levels of explanations: the evolutionary phenomenon and evolutionary mechanisms. The researcher differentiates between the following three layers of understanding about evolution: ‘knowing whether living organisms can evolve’, ‘knowing living organisms can evolve and in which direction,’ and ‘knowing the mechanisms of how living organisms evolve.’ The strategy of assessing students’ understanding about evolution is a better research strategy than quantitative analyses for elucidating the subtle change of individual student’s evolution conceptions. In sum, the researcher argues that textbooks cannot evade the responsibility to make the most appropriate explanations for evolutionary mechanisms. This study initially demonstrates the success for developing students’ understanding of evolution by merging the complex system view into evolutionary mechanism explanations and teaching. The researcher also suggests adopting visual representations—the diagrams of evolution concept model that are more meaningful than test scores—as a new instrument for assessing student understanding of evolution.教科書解釋類型科學解釋演化論複雜系統觀突現機制性解釋功能性解釋