高中物理教科書與學生關於力的話語與合法化的語言策略_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	高中物理教科書與學生關於力的話語與合法化的語言策略
作者：	李哲迪
作者(外文)：	Lee, Che-Di
校院名稱：	國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱：	科學教育研究所
指導教授：	楊文金
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2006
主題關鍵詞：	系統功能語言學；語法隱喻；技術性建構；話語；合法化；科學課文；凱利方格法；論證；概念學習；Systemic Functional Linguistics；Grammatical Metaphor；Technicality Construction；Discourse；Legitimation；Science Texts；Kelly''s Repertory Grid Technique (RGT)；Argumentation；Concept Learning
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(5) 博士論文(4) 專書(1) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:5 共同引用:0 點閱:48

摘要
　　本研究旨在分析漢語中高中學生和物理教科書將力建構為實在的語言基礎。
　　根據理論的探討，在語言層面，理論事物之實在透過兩種方式而建構。其一是語言性事實：事物之實在透過一套談論它的話語而不證自明。其二是合法化：事物之實在透過指出「科學語詞真的有所指，或與別的語詞有所別（對這兩者產生懷疑即為合法性危機）」而證成。理想上，在合法化的論證過程中使用的語言策略是展示隱喻事件和技術事件間的轉換（即技術性建構）。根據系統功能語言學，理論事物會以名詞形式作為語法的物件而參與在事件中，此類事件是為隱喻事件；理論事物的話語則是表達隱喻事件時需依循的詞彙語法。在技術事件中，理論事物以與經驗形式一致的語法形式來表達。藉由技術性建構，理論事物轉換為一致式表達，從而獲得其日常意義而成為可理解的。
　　實徵研究發現：在語言性事實的方面，教科書和高中學生建構了有別於常識力的科學力話語；但在合法化的方面，則幾乎沒有出現技術性建構。
　　對科學教科書語料庫和中研院平衡語料庫的內容分析，以及對學生 (N=72)的凱利方格問卷調查顯示：漢語中存在科學力和常識力兩種話語；雖然兩種話語有邊界模糊的現象，但高中學生能區別之；與高一學生相比，高三學生的兩種話語更趨於約定用法。這表示力的語法性存在已在高中學生群體中建立。
　　然而，在合法化方面，課文分析和學生(N=15)晤談結果顯示：課文沒有適當說明「力」的所指，而且「力」與「作用」之間以及「作用」與技術事件中對應的語詞之間沒有恰當銜接；對接觸力的「接觸」之所指也沒有說明；總結而言，課文沒有進行技術性建構。另外，本研究使學生(N=15)在彈簧秤測量情境中解釋測量結果並接受詢問，從而使之處於合法性危機。以Toulmin的論證架構為基礎，對學生的回答所做的分析顯示：雖能運用各種語言策略，但學生無法將隱喻事件拆解為技術事件，指出「力」之所指，藉以進行有效的論證。對學生而言，「力」是空洞的存在。
　　本研究從語言性事實和合法化的角度切入，藉由語言分析來探究概念學習。結論對此研究取徑在相關研究中的意義提出說明，並在此研究基礎上對科學課程、教學、師資培育與未來研究提出建議。
　　

以文找文

Abstract
　　The linguistic bases on that senior high school students and physical textbooks rely to construct force as reality in Chinese are investigated.
　　On the linguistic stratum, a theoretical entity can be constructed as reality by two ways. One is by linguistic facts. An entity’s reality is self-evident because of the discourse talking about it. The other is by legitimation. An entity’s reality is justified by showing that the scientific term does have signification or the signified of it is different from ones of other terms (Anyone who doubts these two claims is in legitimation crises). In legitimation, the linguistic strategies used in argument ideally are the transformation between metaphoric events and technical events (i.e., technicality construction). According to systemic functional linguistics, theoretical entities participate in events as grammatical objects with the form of noun. These events are called as “metaphorical events” following the lexico-grammar known as “discourses”. In technical events, the grammatical forms of theoretical entities are congruent to the experiential forms. Through technicality construction, theoretical entities are transformed into congruent expressions. And then they obtain the meaning resided in everyday language and become understandable.
　　Empirical findings show that on linguistic facts, textbooks and senior high school students do construct the scientific-force discourse, which is different from common-sense-force discourse, and on legitimation, there is hardly technicality construction.
　　The content analysis on the corpuses of science textbooks and of the Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese and the questionnaire survey on 72 students through “Linguistic Expressions Questionnaire” with the structure of Kelly’s Repertory Grid both show that: (1). There are two kinds of discourses. One is for scientific force and the other is for common-sense force. (2). Senior high school students can distinguish these two discourses with an ambiguous boundary. And (3). the discourses of 15th grade students are more coincident with the conventional usage than ones of 13th grade students. These indicate that the grammatical existence of force has been built in the group of senior high school students.
　　However on the aspect of legitimation, the analysis on texts of science textbooks and the interviews on 13th grade 15 students having read the texts shows: (1). The reference of “force” does not be properly interpreted by these texts. The cohesions between “force” and “action” and between “action” and the corresponding expression in technical events are not properly built up. (2). The reference of “contact” in “contact force” does not be interpreted either. In sum, there is no technicality construction in the science texts. Furthermore, 13th grade 15 students were interviewed and asked to interpret the results of measurement using spring scale so that they were situated in the legitimation crises. The analysis by applying the Toulmin’s framework of argumentation finds that varieties of linguistic strategies are identified but students cannot correctly unpack metaphoric events into technical events so as to refer the signification of “force” and make effective argumentations. For them, force is a hollow reality.
　　By choosing the viewpoints of linguistic facts and of legitimation, the investigation on concept learning through linguistic analysis is conducted. The meanings of this approach in related studies and some suggestions about science curriculum, teaching, teacher education, and further research are brought up as conclusion.

以文找文

中文部分
王金泉 (2005)：九年級學生科學寫作與學習成就之探討－以「溫度與熱」為例。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所在職進修碩士班碩士論文。
王振華 (2004)：法庭交叉質詢中的人際關係─系統功能語言學“情態”視角。外語學刊，118，51-59。
朱永生 (2002)：系統功能語言學與轉換生成語言學的主要差別。外語研究，74，1-5。
朱德熙 (1985)：語法答問。北京：商務印書館。
何秀煌 (2000)：記號學導論 (第5版)。台北市：水牛。 new window

李美惠 (2005)：科學寫作在自然科學教學與評量的應用－以電影中酸鹼現象之觀察與解釋為例。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所在職進修碩士班碩士論文。
李哲迪、楊文金 (2003)：高一學生如何定義力、能量和功？發表於中華民國第十九屆科學教育學術研討會，彰化。
邢福義 (2002)：漢語複句研究。北京：商務印書館。
周佩儀 (2003)：教科書研究的現況分析與趨勢展望。中華民國課程與教學學會編，教科書之選擇與評鑑 (頁175-207)。高雄：復文。
屈承熹 (1996)：現代漢語中「句子」的定義及其地位。世界漢語教學，4，16-23。
林明瑞等編 (2005)：高級中學基礎物理 (第二版)。台南市：南一。
林俊智 (2003)：以系統功能語言學觀點探討不同課文結構對科學文章的理解─以溫度與熱為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
林英智等編 (2004)：國中自然與生活科技領域（全六冊）。台北縣：康軒文教。
林陳涌、楊榮祥 (1998)：利用凱利方格晤談法探討教師對科學本質的觀點-個案研究。科學教育學刊，6(2)，113-128。 new window

邱美虹 (2000)：概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊，8(1)，1-34。 new window

胡壯麟 (1994)：語篇的銜接與連貫。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
胡壯麟、朱永生、張德錄 (1989)：系統功能語法概論。長沙：湖南教育出版社。
范開泰、張亞軍 (2000)：現代漢語語法分析。上海市：華東師範大學出版社。
翁育誠 (2004)：以蘊含序列與詞彙密度兩種結構探討科學課文結構與閱讀理解的關係─以溫度與熱為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
翁敏婷 (2000)：國中生理化學習環境知覺及其與學術地位、自我效能關係之探討。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
張德祿 (2004)：系統功能語言學的新發展。當代語言學，6，57-65。
張德祿、劉汝山 (2003)：語篇連貫與銜接理論的發展及應用。上海：上海外語教育出版社。

英文部分
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning - an introduction to school learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.
Bezzi, A. (1996). Use of repertory grids in facilitating knowledge construction and reconstruction in geology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(2), 179.
Bezzi, A. (1999). What is this thing called geoscience? Epistemological dimensions elicited with the repertory grid and their implications for scientific literacy. Science Education, 83(6), 675-700.
Brockriede, W., & Ehninger, D. (1960). Toulmin on argument: An interpretation and application. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46, 44-53.
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.
Castejon, J. L., & Martinez, M. A. (2001). The personal constructs of expert and novice teachers concerning the teacher function in the spanish educational reform. Learning and Instruction, 11(2), 113.
Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1981). The design, analysis and interpretation of repertory grids. In M. L. G. Shaw (Ed.), Recent advances in personal construct technology (pp. 9-30). London: Academic Press.
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.
Fetherstonhaugh, T. (1994). Using the repertory grid to probe students' ideas about energy. Research in Science & Technological Education, 12(2), 117.
Gagne', E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, K. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school earning (2 ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Gaines, B., & Shaw, M. (2005). Rep iv: Manual for research version 1.12. from http://repgrid.com/RepIV/
Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science and Education, 6, 15-28.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993a). The analysis of scientific texts in english and chinese. In M. A. K. Halliday (Ed.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993b). On the language of physical science. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 54-68). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993c). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93-116.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2 ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1995). Language and the reshaping of human experience. Paper presented at the The Fourth International Symposium on Critical Discourse Analysis, Athens.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998a). Language and knowledge: The 'unpacking' of text. In D. Allison, L. Wee, B. Zhiming & S. A. Abraham (Eds.), Text in education and society (pp. 157-178). Singapore: Singapore University Press and World Scientific.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998b). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. New York: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in english. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.
Haneda, M. (2000). Modes of student participation in an elementary school science classroom: From talking to writing. Linguistics and Education, 10(4), 459-485.
Hart, C. (2002a). If the sun burns you is that a force? Some definitional prerequistites for understanding newton's laws. Physics Education, 37, 234-238.
Hart, C. (2002b). Teaching newton's laws. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48(4), 14-23.
Hellingman, C. (1989). Do forces have twin brothers? Physics Education, 24, 36-40.
Herman, P. M. (1982). Energy, force, and matter. London: Cambridge University Press.
Herron, J. D., Cantu, L. L., Ward, R., & Srinivasan, V. (1977). Problems associated with concept analysis. Science Education, 61(2), 185-199.
Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (2001). Describing the cognitive landscape in learning and teaching about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1177-1199.
Hill, F. I. (1983). The rhetoric of aristotle. In J. J. Murphy (Ed.), A synoptic history of classical rhetoric (pp. 19-76). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
Johnson, R. K. (1979). Readability. School Science Review, 212(60), 562-568.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. London: Routledge.
Kintsch, W. (1979). On modeling comprehension. Educational Research, 14, 3-14.
Klaasen, C. W. J. M., & Lijnse, P. L. (1996). Interpreting students' and teachers' discourse in science classes: An underestimated problem. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(2), 115-134.
Knain, E. (2001). Ideologies in school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 319-329.
Kong, K. C. C. (2004). Marked themes and thematic patterns in abstracts, advertisements and administrative documents. Word-Journal Of The International Linguistic Association, 55(3), 343-362.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub.
Martin, J. R. (1993a). A contextual theory of language. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 116-136). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Martin, J. R. (1993b). Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and humanities. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 221-267). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Martin, J. R. (1997a). Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 3-39). London: Cassell.
Martin, J. R. (1997b). Working with functional grammar. London: Arnold.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. New York: Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & Rothery, J. (1993). Grammar: Making meaning in writing. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 137-153). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (Eds.). (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. New York: Routledge.
McCloughlin, T. J. J., & Matthews, P. S. C. (2002). The use of repertory grid analysis in studying students' conceptual frameworks in science. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the European Educational Research Association, Lisboa.
McDermott, L. C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, 37, 24-32.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11-64). Hillsdle, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. New York: Routledge.

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	非典型連謂表達式「V著O+VO」構式語義與意象圖式探究
2.	完美主義者的養成與轉化：一位明星高中女學生的生命敘說
3.	第九研究室的薪傳者--張清徽先生韻文學研究的開創及其影響
4.	國人文化認同意識對全球化與日韓偏好的影響之研究
5.	電子繪本對發展遲緩與非發展遲緩幼兒之閱讀腦波注意力與繪本理解表現影響之研究
6.	新冠疫情期間探究與實作國中教師線上教學現況探討
7.	「教」在疫情蔓延時--一所大型華語中心的線上教學及其啟示
8.	國小自然科教師學習兩種探究式教學法與抉擇應用
9.	理性與偏見：利得與損失的轉職心理知覺及其影響
10.	進取與人和，自立而助人：臺灣高中階段青年生涯概念原型分析研究
11.	運用錯誤類型資訊建置即時反饋系統題庫之效益：以微積分課程為例
12.	個別研究品質好壞有關係嗎？類比教學對於學生科學概念改變成效後設分析
13.	本土心理學中的創造性「繼承」與「轉化」：以權威取向的理論發展為例
14.	Tentenkid線上華語教學平臺與無國界教學
15.	師生共創科學概念探究的童話表演：以幼兒戲劇《灰姑娘》為例

1.	差序式領導與自己人部屬的角色：多層次分析觀點
2.	以眼球追蹤技術探討不同後設認知能力護生在圖文表徵的辨識歷程之研究
3.	體現認知教學方案對六年級學生地球運動概念學習影響之研究
4.	國小差異化閱讀教學之言說分析
5.	數位教材適性設計在國中多項式乘法教學的應用
6.	校園空間美學之教育論述與實踐－一位國小校長之自傳俗民誌研究
7.	閱讀與記憶策略在公職考試應用之研究
8.	中小學科學教科書中「或」邏輯語義分析與生師對其語義理解的比較
9.	提升自然科學思辨能力之雲端學習系統發展研究-以國小四年級自然與生活科技為例
10.	國小學童數學文字題解題自我調整學習策略、文字題閱讀理解與文字題解題表現關聯模式之建構與驗證—以因倍數單元為例
11.	國中生物教科書圖片分析及其教材設計應用
12.	西漢儒家知識理論探析
13.	聆聽音樂對設計師構想發展階段之創意構想內容影響研究
14.	定向越野的美學體驗
15.	我的負傷之旅-一個負傷療癒者的自傳式民族誌

1.	知天者：西漢儒家知識理論探索
2.	中國敘事理論探索與實際批評
3.	教室中的科學社群：從社會文化的觀點剖析科學的教與學
4.	中國近代平等觀念的形成(1895~1915)
5.	論宋季士儒之困頓與抉擇：以殉節思想為核心展開探討
6.	老人心理學
7.	許衡的倫理道德價值體系
8.	殷卜辭中牢字及其相關問題研究
9.	中國歷史戰爭科學研析
10.	華語句法新論
11.	《西儒耳目資》所反映的明末官話音系
12.	日治後期之殖民地警察與臺灣客語、民俗文化的學習 : 以警友雜誌為資料
13.	客家語教材常用字詞研究：以客國語平行語料庫比對為基礎
14.	漢語語法的社會與文化功能 : 以漢語語法的靈活性為切入點
15.	中國人的自我 : 心理學的分析

無相關著作

1.	從數位學習到新素養：電子書閱讀器對高中生社群的可能影響
2.	高職學生電工機械混成式數位學習效果
3.	體育運動實例融入物理教學
4.	從學生的表現與觀點探討引導發現式教學作為發展探究教學之折衷方案角色的成效--以密度概念為例
5.	科學史融入物理教學對高一女生的科學本質觀與電磁學概念改變之研究
6.	數位學習回饋訊息對學習動機之影響--以中部某高中學生為例
7.	多媒體中的提示信號與反思之使用對學習物理概念的影響
8.	從數位學習2.0看Podcast在華語教學的應用
9.	整合線上遊戲黏著度與線上教材持續性以發展悅趣化數位學習教材
10.	顏色的形上學
11.	以遊戲為媒材之合作學習方案效果研究
12.	國小教師自我導向學習與其參與數位學習效能之研究—兼及建構取向學習觀之探討
13.	台灣地區推動微軟未來學校實施可行性之研究
14.	遊戲治療中設限經驗之探究

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫