10 30 interview about instance Piaget & Garcia1989

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "10 30 interview about instance Piaget & Garcia1989"

典能税
7 years ago
Views:

2 10 30 interview about instance Piaget & Garcia1989

3 A Study of Alternative Conception and Conceptual Development for Dissolving in Elementary and Secondary School Abstract The purpose of this research was to explore students alternative conception, possible sources, conceptual formulation and development for dissolving. The objects were 6 th graders, second-year students of junior high school, and first-year students of senior high school, 10 students from each different grade. The research method was Interview About Instance (IAI) by using three pictures. It was discovered that both elementary students and secondary students judged whether a substance dissolves in water mainly from the name of subtances in the pictures. Among these three grades, the number of senior high school students who judged it by chemical formulas of subtance was the largest. In the possible sources of alternative conception, personal thought covered the majority. In school learning, teachers played an important role for the formulation of alternative conception. In daily life, actual experience was the major source for the formulation of alternative conception. During the formulation of alternative conception, students tended to over-generalize the relationship of oil, density, and dissolving, as well as all acids can be dissolved in water. This research was based on Piaget & Garcia(1989) s model of the development for science theory, and concluded the features of students conceptual development for dissolving being: Students of lower years tended to judge the solvency of a substance based on its appearance and features. But as school experience increased, students gradually formed concepts for density, and had a higher tendency of reasoning the solvency based on this concept. Even after students formed concepts of acids and chemical formulas in high school, it appeared that both concepts still coexisted in a student s cognitive structure. Finally, some suggestions for teaching and future studies are adverted in this research. Keywords: Alternative Conception, Conceptual Development, Conceptual Formulation, Dissolving

6 XX XX XX XX 60

7 4-1-7 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX 132

8 4-3-7 XX XX XX

9 meaningful learning 90 blank slate conceptions misconception alternative conception alternative framework 1

10 Ausubel1968 2

11 90 91 two-tire 3

12 1. 4

13 dissolve 3. alternative conception 4. misconception misconception 5

14 5. interview about instanceiai instance White & Gunstone conceptual development

15 7

16 8

17 Novak1977 objects events regularity Lawson and Abraham

18 82 82 Smith & Medin 1981 Symbolic construction categorization Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson and Boyes1976 category system Lawson and Renner1975 concrete 10

19 formal Reif1987 Braund 1991 basic concept superordinate concept subordinate concept 79 Cohen

20 1. Regularity

21 Osborne Piaget and Garcia Piaget and Garcia1989 domain

22 abstraction observable reflecting Piaget and Garcia1989 instrument abstraction generalization empirical abstraction extensional generalization reflective abstraction inferior superior mental reflectionpiaget and Garcia1989 Kitchener1986 Piaget epistemic stage subsequent qualitatively change Kitchener Piaget Piaget 14

23 Piaget and Garcia1989 Levine2000 Kuhn1977 Piaget Piaget justify discovery Levine Kuhn incommensurability paradigm prior knowledge naive conception children's ideas preconception misconception spontaneous conceptions alternative framework declarative knowledge

24 77 misconception 1.Ausubel, Novak & Hanesian 1978 preconceptions 2.Sutton 1980 private concepts 3.Driver 1981 alternative frameworks 4.Gilbert, et al Osborne, et al 1983 student frameworks 5.Erickson Arnaudin 1982 misconceptions 7.Novak 1983 limited or inappropriate prepositional hierarchies 8.Resnick 1983 naïve theories 9.Waterman 1983 alternative conception 10.Fischer & Lipson 1986 underlying sources of error Anderson

25 ( 84) 81 Fisher (alternative belief system)

26 Mintzes, Wandersee and Novak

27 Driver

28 Head from everyday experience and observation 2. from confusion about the analogies Ausubel misleading 3. from the peer culture 20

29 4. innate origin of some ideas Reif and Larkin awareness Driver and Erickson

30 Driver and Erickson interview about instances interview about events or phenomena Stewart1980 Stewart thinking aloud protocals

31 Waern 3 4 Venn 5 6 A. B. C

32 Driver and Russell 24

33 Andersson (1) (2) (3) Driver dissolving melt "" "" Longden, Black and Solomon macro micro 91 Nakhleh and Samarapungavan explanatory frameworks macrocontinuous macroparticulate microparticulate 25

34 particle Garnett, Garnett & Hackling1995 particles granules particles moleculesebenezer & Gaskell 1995 models Abraham, Williamson & Westbrook1994, p.148 Brosnan and Reynolds melting dissolving Ebenezer and Erickson suger-water Nieswandt Johnson2000 Andersson Boo and Watson 2001 sodium chlorine Ebenezer and Fraser

35 78 Prieto, Blanco and Rodriguez two-tire

36 P<.05 P<

37 activation 1. attribute mode expilicit 29

38 impilicit 2. process mode 3. outcome mode 4. empirical mode 5. structural mode 6. intuitive mode conceptual ecology 30

39 31

40 32

41 91 interview about instance Piaget White and Gunstone

42 91 91 two-tier interview about instance

43 two-tier

44 A B A B A B interview about instance purposeful sampling information-rich cases

45 91 two-tier 92a 92b A

46 OOH CO 3 H 2 O 2 ph=7 ph=5 ph= g/ g/ g/

48 what why & how 40

50 ID Task Name Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 42

51 43

53 a1,1b2,2a2,2b2,3a1,3b4, 3a2,3b1 5a1,5b4 1a2,2a1,3a3,4b3 3a4,4a3 1a3,2a3,4a2 3b3 1a4,1b3,3a4 4a1 1a4,2a4,2b4,5a3 2b3,4a4 1b1,2b1,3b2,4b2,5a2,5b1 4b4 1b4,4b1 5a4 1b3 5b2 2b4,5b3 45

54 H B H B H H B B A F 2 F I F A I A B A F 4 C C C M F N N L N B F D F F A F F G F D 2 F I N A N I 3 J A J I J J I J J A 5 A Q I P I Q F A P F F F F C F D F F F 2 E E E N F F 3 F J J I A J J J A I 4 C C C C C O C O C C 5 I I I I I Q I I A I 46

56 48

57 xx xx xx

58 10 xx xx xx

59 xx xx 51

60 xx

61 4 3 53

62 xx xx

64 5 3 56

65 xx xx

67 10 xx xx xx

68 xx xx

69 61

70 xx xx

72 3 64

73 xx xx

74 66

75 10 xx xx xx

76 xx xx

77 8 5 69

79 xx xx 71

82 xx xx

83 7 6 75

84 H 2 O 76

85 Taber2001 form pseudo-explanation 77

86 xx xx xx 91 Fisher

87 xx 0606 xx 0608 xx xx 79

89 xx xx

91 xx xx xx xx ph ph xx 83

92 xx xx 1005 xx OOH xx xx 84

93 xx xx xx xx

95 0606 xx xx xx 0608 xx 87

96 xx Driver xx xx 88

97 xx

98 xx xx 10% xx xx 0806 xx 90

99 xx 1003 CO 2 CO 3 xx CO

100 xx 1003 xx 1005 xx 1008 xx

101 1005 xx xx xx xx 93

102 xx 0605 H 2 O xx xx xx 94

103 xx xx 0604 xx 0602 xx 95

104 xx

105 xx xx 97

106 xx % xx

107 6 H 2 O xx xx xx

108 1007 xx 1004 xx xx 1003 xx xx 100

109 101 xx xx

110 /6 8/7 14/

111

112 2 104

113

114 2 106

115

116

117

118 xx xx

119 /6 6/5 11/

120

121

122

123 xx xx /3 4/4 13/9 115

124 xx

125

126

127 2. Driver(1985) Driver xx

128 xx xx

129 /8 13/7 10/

130

131

132

133 4 125

134

135 xx xx

136 /3 7/6 14/ xx

137

138

139

140 xx xx /4 5/5 16/9 132

141

142

143

144

145 xx

146 xx xx

147 /10 7/6 14/

148

149

150

151

152 xx xx /8 2/2 12/10 144

153

154

155

156

157 3 xx xx

158 /2 1/1 12/

159

160 2 152

161 Head

162 Driver1985 context dependency 82 xx xx xx 154

163 /

164 156

165

166 158

167 Piaget and Garcia

168 Piaget and Garcia 1989 intra-object inter-object trans-object xx xx xx

169 (92b)POE 24.4%7.1%0.9% 30.8%19.8%10.7% %15.5%2.8% 2.0% 161

170 xx xx xx xx (92b) POE 61.1%59.2%54.1% %44.4%63.6% 31.1% 162

171 ph xx xx xx (92b) %62.9% % 163

172 xx xx xx xx CO 3 xx H 2 O xx xx (92b) 0 164

173 1 9 -OOH 165

174 xx 166

175 Piaget and Garcia

176 xx xx

177 3. xx xx 4. H 2 O 5. xx xx

178

179 Piaget and Garcia Piaget and Garcia1989 Thagard1992 Chi1991 Keil1989 Thagard

180 Thagard

181 Piaget and Garcia

182 174

183 Ι NSC S N NSC S D 84 1 ( ) II-- II NSC S

184 176 92a ()-- -- ()(1/2) NSC S (92b) NSC S N

185 NSC S D Ш NSC S Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M. & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), Andersson, B. (1990). Pupil`s conceptions of mater and its transformation (age 12-16). Science in Science Education, 18,

186 Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Boo, H. K. & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school student s (aged 16-18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85(5), Braund, M. (1991). Children s ideas in classifying animals. Journal of Biological Education, 25(2), Brosnan, T., & Reynolds, Y. (2001). Student s explanations of chemical phenomena: macro and micro differences. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(1), Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Some features of children s ideas and their implications for teaching. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children s ideas in science. Open University Press: Milton Keynes. Ebenezer, J. V., & Erikson, G. L. (1996). Chemistry students concepts of solubility: A phenomenography. Science Education, 80(2), Ebenezer, J. V., & Fraser, D. M. (2001). First year chemical engineering students conceptions of energy in solution progress: Phenomenographic categories for common knowledge construction. Science Education, 85(5), Ebenezer, J. V., & Gaskell, P. G. (1995). Relational conceptual change in solution chemistry. Science Education, 79(1), Fisher, K. M. (1985). A misconception in biology: Aminoacids and translation. Journal of Reasearch in Science Teaching, 22(1),

187 Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling M. W. (1995). Students' alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, Head, J. (1986). Research into alternative framework : Promise and problems. Research in Science & Technological Education, 4(2), Johnson, P. (2000). Children s understanding of substances, part 1: recognizing chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), Kitchener, R. F. (1986). Piaget s theory of knowledge and scientific reason. Yale University. Lawson A. E., & Renner, J. W. (1975). Piagetian theory and biology teaching. American Biology Teacher, 37(6), Lawson, A., & Abraham, M. R., (1986). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concept & thinking skills. NARST Monograph, no.1. Levine, A. (2000). Which way is up? Tomas S. Kuhn s analog to conceptual development in childhood. Science and Education, 9, Nakhleh, M. B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children s beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), Nieswandt, M. (2001). Problems and possibilities for learning in an 179

188 introductory chemistry course from a conceptual change perspective. Science Education, 85(5), Novak, J. D. (1977). A Theory of Education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Osborne, R. (1980). Some aspects of the students view of the world. Research in Science Educatio, 10, Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1989). Psychogenesis and the history of science. New York: Columbia University Press. Prieto, T., Blanco, A., & Rodriguez, A. (1989). The ideas of 11- to 14-year-old students about the nature of solution. International Journal of Science Education, 11, Reif, F. (1987). Interpretation of scientific or mathematical concepts: Cognitive issues and instructional implications. Cognitive Science, 11, Taber, K. S. (2001). Shifting sands: a case studyof conceptual development as competition between alternative conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. White, R., T. & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing Understanding. London: Falmer Press. 180

189 181

190 182

191 183

192 184

193 185

194 186

195 187

第一章

第一章國立台北師範學院學報, 第十四期 ( 九十年九月 )573~614 國立台北師範學院 573 國小學生的動物生殖觀熊召弟陳業勇林益興楊婷喬摘要本研究的目的是探究國小學生對於動物生殖的想法這些概念知識主要包括五方面 :( 一 ) 生殖的