臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：情境興趣為本的教學促進高一學生生物遺傳學習成就之研究
作者：鄭瑞洲
作者(外文)：Cheng Jui-Chou
校院名稱：國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱：科學教育暨環境教育研究所
指導教授：洪振方教授
黃台珠教授
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2013
主題關鍵詞：個人興趣；情境興趣；情境興趣為本的教學；學習成就；學習動機；Individual interest；Situational interest；Teaching based on situational interest；Academic achievement；Learning motivation
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1
本研究旨在以情境興趣理論基礎，運用能引發情境興趣的多元教學策略及動手做實驗策略分別開發高中生物遺傳單元之兩組實驗模組課程，與傳統教學組比較其教學對學生情境興趣、個人興趣、學習動機及學習成就的影響及其因素，並提出一個情境興趣影響學習成就之徑路模式，探討教學後三組學生的情境興趣影響學習成就間之徑路關係及其效果值，以期能對教學所引發學生的情境興趣如何影響學生的學習成就，有更深入及更完整的瞭解。本研究對象為高雄市某高級中學一年級3個班級共計133名學生，分別為多元教學策略組45人；動手做實驗組44人及傳統教學組44人，由同一位教師進行三組教學，各歷時5週12小時。三組教學前後，學生分別蒐集學生的情境興趣、個人興趣、學習動機及學習成就之資料，並以t檢定、單因子共變數分析及徑路分析進行統計考驗；並於教學後以半結構式訪談蒐集多元教學策略組及動手做實驗組教學提升學生的情境興趣、個人興趣、學習動機及學習成就之因素。研究結果發現：一、在情境興趣方面，多元教學策略組學生在情境興趣及其各向度提升效果上，均優於傳統教學組；且多元教學策略組學生在維持性情境興趣的價值向度，優於動手做實驗組；而動手做實驗組在促發性情境興趣向度及維持性情境興趣的情感向度提升效果上，優於傳統教學組。二、在個人興趣方面，多元教學策略組學生在個人興趣及其各向度提升效果上，均優於傳統教學組；且多元教學策略組學生在個人興趣的價值向度提升效果上，優於動手做實驗組；而動手做實驗組及傳統教學組在個人興趣及其各向度提升效果上，沒有顯著性差異。三、在學習動機方面，多元教學策略組在學習動機提升效果上，優於動手做實驗組及傳統教學組；而動手做實驗組及傳統教學組在學習動機提升效果上，沒有顯著性差異。四、在學習成就方面，多元教學策略組在學習成就提升效果上，優於動手做實驗組及傳統教學組；而動手做實驗組及傳統教學組在學習成就提升效果上，沒有顯著性差異。五、教學後，多元教學策略組學生的情境興趣主要透過個人興趣及學習動機中介變項間接影響學習成就；動手做實驗組學生的情境興趣主要影響學習成就，及部分經由個人興趣，再經由學習動機，此兩中介變項來間接影響學習成就；而傳統教學組學生無法在此徑路模式中呈現情境興趣對學習成就的直接或間接影響之徑路關係。六、多元教學策略組及動手做實驗組教學能使學生產生不同的情境興趣、個人興趣、學習動機及學習成就的影響因素，以提升學生的學習成就。
綜合以上結果顯示本研究所開發之多元教學策略組教學能引發學生之情境興趣，並藉由個人興趣及學習動機的中介變項，間接影響學習成就；而動手做實驗組教學引發學生之情境興趣，主要能直接影響學習成就，少部分藉由個人興趣及學習動機的中介變項，間接影響學習成就；傳統教學組學生無法引發學生之情境興趣，且無法直接或間接藉由個人興趣及學習動機的中介變項影響學習成就。
Student interest plays a vital role in science learning. In particular, senior high students in Taiwan showed lower interest in formal science learning. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of three teaching strategies on students’ situational interest, individual interest, learning motivation and academic achievement on their learning of biological genetics. A total of 133 10th graders participated in the study; there were 45, 44 and 44 students in the multiple teaching strategies group, hands-on group and the traditional teaching group, respectively. Data were collected from three groups before and after the teaching by questionnaires of situational interest, individual interest, learning motivation and academic achievement. The semi–structured interviews of selected students were conducted after the teaching of the multiple teaching strategies group and the hands-on activity strategies group.The quantitative analysis methods included t-test, ANCOVA, path analysis, and Cohen’s η2 value were used to calculate the effect size. The results showed that 1) students’ situational interest and all the scales were significant increased after the multiple teaching strategies curricula more than the control curricula; the scale of maintained situational interest-value was significant increased after the multiple teaching strategies curricula more than the hands-on strategies curricula; the scales of triggered situational interest and maintained situational interest-sense were significant increased after the hands-on strategies curricula more than the control curricula. 2) Students’ individual interest and all the scales were significant increased after the multiple teaching strategies curricula more than the control curricula; the scales of individual interest-value were significant increased after the multiple teaching strategies curricula more than the hands-on strategies curricula. 3) Students’ learning motivation was significant increased after the multiple teaching strategies curricula more than the hands-on strategies curricula and the control curricula 4) The achievement of learning was significant increased after the multiple teaching strategies curricula more than the hands-on strategies curricula and the control curricula. 5) The students’ situational interest indirectly influenced the academic achievement were mediated by students’ individual interest and learning motivation after the multiple teaching strategies curricula,; the students’ situational interest directly influenced the academic achievement and partly were mediated by students’ individual interest and learning motivation after the hands-on strategies curricula; the students’ situational interest didn’t directly or indirectly influence the academic achievement after the traditional teaching strategies curricula. 6) There were differentially factors of situational interest, individual interest, learning motivation and academic achievement were produced after the multiple teaching strategies curricula and the hands-on strategies curricula.
參考文獻
中文部分
丁信中（2009）。芬蘭中學生PISA科學成就優異表現及其相關因素之探討：2007歐洲科學教育學術參訪反思。科學教育月刊，316，2-19。
李哲迪（2009）。臺灣高中學生在TIMSS及PISA的科學學習成果表現及其啟示。研習資訊，26(2)，73-88。
李哲迪(2013)。TIMSS 2007臺灣八年級學生的科學成就及其相關因素之探討(上)。科學教育月刊，360，12-25。
林煥祥、劉聖忠、林素微、李暉（2008）。臺灣參加PISA 2006 成果報告。行政院國家科學委員會計畫成果報告 (報告編號: NSC 95-2522-S-026-002)，113-114，未出版。
余民寧、韓珮華（2009）。教學方式對數學學習興趣與數學成就之影響：以TIMSS 2003 台灣資料為例。測驗學刊，56(1)，19-48。
邱美虹(2005)。TIMSS 2003 臺灣國中二年級學生的科學成就及相關因素之探討。科學教育月刊，282，2-40。
林陳涌、鄭榮輝、張永達(2009)。融入科學史教學對高中學生的科學本質觀、對科學的態度以及學習成就的影響。科學教育學刊，17(2)，93-109。
洪蓉宜、黃昭仁、張欣怡(2012)。動態表徵課程之不同實施方式對高中生細胞分裂概念複習之影響。人文社會學報，8(1)，71-96。
教育部（2003）。科學教育白皮書。臺北市：教育部。
黃台珠(1990)。中學生遺傳相關錯誤類型的探討。科學教育月刊，133，34-53。
黃台珠、鄭世暖、林明輝、蘇懿生、張學文、趙大衛 (1994)。國中生物遺傳教學的改進研究。高雄師大學報，5，113-135。
張春興、林清山（1996）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北市：東華書局。
張靜儀(2005)。國小自然科教學個案研究-以ARCS 動機模式解析。科學教育學刊，13(2)，191-216。
楊坤原、鄭湧涇（1997）。高一學生遺傳學解題表現與解題策略之研究。科學教育學刊，5(4)，529-555。
楊坤原、張賴妙理（2004）。遺傳學迷思概念之文獻探討及其在教學上的啟示。科學教育學刊，12(3)，365-398。
蔡執仲、段曉林(2005)。探究式實驗教學對國二學生理化學習動機之影響。科學教育學刊，13(3)，289-315。
蔡執仲、段曉林、靳知勤(2007)。巢狀探究教學模式對國二學生理化學習動機影響之探討。科學教育學刊，15(2)，119-144。
鄭瑞洲、洪振方、黃台珠（2011）。情境興趣-制式與非正式課程科學學習的交會點。科學教育月刊，340，2-10。
薛靜瑩、林陳涌（1999）。學生對遺傳先前概念之探討。科學教育月刊，217，2-16。

英文部分
Ainley, M. (2006). Connecting with learning: Motivation, affect and cognition in interest processes.Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 391-405.
Ames, C. (1987). The enhancement of student motivation. In M. L. Maher &; D. Kleiber (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement: Enhancing motivation, Vol. 5 (pp. 123-148). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ames, C., &; Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student’s learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
Anderson, L.W., &; Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Badura, A. S. (2002). Capturing students’ attention: Movie clips set the stage for learning in abnormal psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 58–60.
Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., &; Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84-86.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy:Toward a unifying theory of behavioral chang. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.
Barak, M., Ashkar, T., &; Dori, Y. J. (2011). Learning science via animated movies: Its effect on students’ thinking and motivation. Computers &; Education, 56(3), 839-846.
Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 40-48.
Christphore R. (2003). How to teach biology using the movie science of cloning people, resurrecting the dead, and combining flies and humans. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 289-296.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Dawson, V. (2007). An exploration of high school (12-17 year old) students’ understandings of, and attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Research in Science Education, 37, 59-73.
Duncan, 0. D. (1966). Path analysis: sociological examples. American Journal of Sociology,72, 1-16.
Efthimiou, C., Llewellyn, R., Maronde, D., &; Winningham, T. (2006). Physics in Films: an assessment. Retrieved November 30, 2013, from http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609154.pdf
Eggen, P. D. &; Kauchak, D. (1999). Educational Psychology: Window on Classroom. Macmillan Publishing Company 886 Third Avence New York, NY 10022. p.398~409.
Foley, B. J., &; McPhee, C. (2008). Students’ attitudes towards science in classes using hands-on or textbook based curriculum. Paper presented at the meeting of The American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Retrieved November 26, 2013, from
http://stem.gstboces.org/Shared%20Documents/STEM%20DEPLOYMENT%20PROJECT%20RESEARCH/Students%20Attitudes%20towards%20Science%20in%20Classes%20Using%20Hand-on%20vs%20Textbooks.pdf
France, R. (2007). Location, location, location: Positioning biotechnology education for the 21 century. Studies in Science Education, 43, 88-122.
George, D., &; Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn &; Bacon.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 191-209.
Hidi, S., &; Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository writing. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, &; A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 215–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Associates, Inc.
Hidi, S., &; Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-179.
Hidi, S., &; Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111-127.
Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., &; Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational variable that combines affective and cognitive functioning. Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development, 89-115.
Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls’ interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12, 447-465.
Hogan, K. (1999). Relating students’ personal frameworks for science learning to their cognition in collaborative contexts. Science Education, 83, 1-32.
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., &; Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest.Research in Science Education, 40(5), 743-757.
Kleinginna, P. J., &; Kleinginna, A. (1981). A categorized list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 263-291.
Koufetta-Menicou C., &; Scaife, J. (2000). Teachers' questions-types and significance in science education. School Science Review, 81(296), 79-84.
Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383–409.
Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381–395.
Lazarowitz, R., &; Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1998). Cooperative learning in the science curriculum. In K. G. Tobin (Ed.), International handbook of science education.449-469. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lee, O., &; Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 585-610.
Lee, O., &; Brophy, J. (1996). Motivational patterns observed in sixth-grade science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 585-610.
Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., &; Chen, Y. C. (2013). Exploring the Development of College Students' Situational Interest in Learning Science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2152-2173.
Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727-758.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Durik, A. M., Conley, A. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Karabenick, S. A. (2010). Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 647-671.
Maehr,M.L.,&; Meyer,H.A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling：Where we’ve been, where we are, and where we need to go. Education Psychology Review , 9, 371-409.
McClelland, D. C. (1976). The achieving society. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.
Meyer, D. K.,&; Turner, J. C. (2002). Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research. Educational psychologist, 37(2), 107-114.
Mitchell, M. (1997). Situational interest in the statistics classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997).
Murphy, P. K. &; Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3–53.
Neathery, M. F. (1997). Elementary and secondary students’ perceptions toward science and correlation with gender, ethnicity, ability, grade, and science achievement. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 2(1). Retrieved November 26, 2013, from
http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/7573/5340
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.
OECD. (2007). Executive Summdary PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Volume I. Analysis. Paris: OECD. Retrieved November
26, 2013, from http://www.oecd.org/fr/education/scolaire/programmeinternationalpourlesuividesacquisdeselevespisa/pisa2006results.htm#ES
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martin, I., &; McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., &; Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards Science: A review of the literature and its implications. nternational Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
Palmer, D. (1995). The POE in the primary school: An evaluation. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 323-333.
Palmer D. (2009). Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 147–165.
Pine, J. P., Aschbacher, P. A, Roth, E., Jones, M., McPhee, C., Martin, C., et al. (2006). Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in textbook and inquiry curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 467-484.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., &; Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167-199.
Pintrich, P. R., &; Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and application (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., &; McKeachie, W. (1993). Predictive validity and reliability of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., &; Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Renninger, K. A. (2007). Interest and motivation in informal science learning. Learning Science in Informal Environments Commissioned Paper. Board on Science Education, The National Academies.
Renninger, K. A., &; Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46, 168-184.
Renninger, K. A. &; Su, S. (2012). Interest and its development. In R. Ryan (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Motivation (pp. 167-187). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299-323.
Schraw, G., &; Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and discussions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23-52.
Shen, B., Chen, A., &; Guan, J. (2007). Using achievement goals and interest to predict learning in physical education. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 89–108.
Stipek, D. J. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Developmet, 66 (1), 209-223.
Stipek, D. J. (2002). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &; Bacon.
Stohr-Hunt, P. M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 101-109.
Stocklmayer, S. M., Rennie, L. J., &; Gilbert, J. K.(2010). The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 1- 44.
TIMSS. (2011). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science, Retrieved November 26, 2013, from http://timss.bc.edu/timss2011/index.html
Tsui, C.-Y., &; Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 111-135.
Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C., &; Shieh, S. H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639-654.
Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivation research in education. Journal of Education Psychology, 82(4), 616-622.
Wolk, S. (2007). Why go to school? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(9), 648–658.
Yosi Rotbain, Gili Marbach-Ad, Ruth Stavy. (2008) Using a Computer Animation to Teach High School Molecular Biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 49-58.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：768（臺灣：761，外國：7） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1669892 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67487191
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上