建構主義式的科學學習活動對國小高年級學生認知結構之影響

Abstract

建構主義是關於知識和學習的理論，而其所主張的學習觀點對於當今科學教育的課程發展或教學實踐有深遠的影響。本研究旨在探討建構主義式的科學學習活動對於國小高年級學生認知結構及對科學態度的影響，並進一步探討建構主義式的科學學習活動對於不同學業成就學生認知結構及對科學態度的影響。 本研究首先從哲學、認知心理學及社會心理學的面向探討建構主義的理論基礎，再歸結出建構主義在科學學習上的重大意涵及主張，以作為本研究的理論依據，最後再根據許多基於建構主義理論的教學策略或模式，設計出本研究中所採用的建構主義式的科學學習活動。 本研究採用實驗研究法之準實驗設計，研究對象為兩班國小五年級學生，其中一班為實驗組共三十五人，另外一班為對照組共三十四人。本研究分別對兩班實施一學期共六個單元的建構主義式科學學習活動與傳統科學學習活動，之後再對兩班學生的認知結構與對科學的態度進行評量。在認知結構的評量方面，本研究主要以錄音訪談方式配合「後設重聽法」收集資料，再以「語意流程圖析法」將訪談內容繪製成語意流程圖，並配合內容分析法以分析學生的訊息處理策略；而在科學的態度的評量方面，研究者在研究處理前後分別以「國小高年級學生對科學的態度量表」進行前後測各一次。 研究結果發現相較於傳統的科學學習活動，國小高年級學生經過建構主義式的科學學習活動後，不論認知結構的「量」與「質」、後設認知能力的使用及訊息處理策略的遷移都能獲致較佳的效果，而且不論是高學業成就或是低學業成就學生都比較能從建構主義式的科學學習活動中受益。然而除了認知結構的「量」之外，高學業成就的學生還會在後設認知能力、高階訊息處理策略的使用或是認知結構的整合性上明顯受益，但是低學業成就的學生大多只在認知結構的「量」受益。本研究也發現相對於傳統的科學學習活動而言，在經過長時間建構主義式的科學學習活動後，實驗組學生在科學學習態度上顯著優於對照組學生，然而在對科學的態度上與對照組學生無顯著差異存在。 最後研究者提出一個四個發展階段的模式以歸結說明研究成果，這四個階段分別為：「概念發展期」、「後設認知增強期」、「認知結構整合期」和「認知結構萃煉期」。以這個模式來看，在本研究進行期間，實驗組的低學業成就學生一直停留在第一個階段，一直沒有進入到第二個階段，因此研究者認為後設認知是影響學生認知學習結果的重大關鍵。 本研究也建議教學者應更重視先備知識與教學內容之間的連結，在課堂分組討論或實作時，可以採混合分組的方式，以提供低學業成就者更多「認知見習」的機會。而且教學者應該採取更多元的教學策略，甚至結合不同的教學策略，以促進學生的科學概念學習與知識建構。

Constructivism is a theory about ‘knowing’ and ‘learning,’ in which its perspectives have profound influences on the ongoing development of science curriculum and sci-ence teaching practice. This study mainly investigated the effects of the constructiv-ist-oriented instruction on elementary school students’ cognitive structures and their at-titudes toward science learning. Moreover, this study also explored the role of previous academic achievement on these effects. First, the theoretical foundations of philosophy, cognitive psychology, and social psychology about constructivism were carefully reviewed. Then, the important implica-tions and assertions of constructivism in science learning, viewed as the theoretical framework of this study, were summarized. Finally, based upon various constructiv-ist-oriented teaching strategies and models, the constructivist-oriented instructional ac-tivities used in this study were developed. This study was conducted with a quasi-experimental research design. The subjects were sixty-nine fifth graders. Thirty-five students in one class were assigned to a con-structivist-oriented instruction group, while thirty-four students in another class were assigned to the traditional instruction group. The research treatment was conducted for a semester (six instructional units); and the students’ cognitive structures were probed immediately after each unit’s instruction. In addition, their attitudes toward science and science learning were explored after the research treatment. In exploring students’ cog-nitive structures, the narratives were obtained through interviews coupled with a ‘meta-listening technique.’ Then, all the narratives were transcribed into the format of ‘flow maps.’ And, the information processing strategies were also investigated through a series of content analysis. A survey was also administered to assess students’ attitudes toward science learning both before and after the research treatment. Research findings revealed that the students in the constructivist-oriented instruction group attained significantly better leaning outcomes no matter in terms of the quality and quantity of their cognitive structures, the usage of metacognition, or the information processing strategies. Moreover, the findings also showed that both high academic achievers and low achievers benefited from constructivist-oriented instructional activi-ties, but in different ways. High academic achievers in the constructivist-oriented in-structional group displayed larger and more integrated cognitive structures, and better usage of metacognition and information processing strategies than those of high achiev-ers in the traditional group. However, low achievers only showed greater extent of the cognitive structures than their counterpartners in the traditional group. The study also found that students in constructivist-oriented instruction group showed significantly more positive attitudes toward science learning than those in traditional in-struction group after the treatment, but no significant difference was found on students’ attitudes toward science between both groups. The data gathered from this study likely suggest a four-stage model for the cognitive structure development under the constructivist-oriented science instruction. The stages include ‘cognitive development,’ ‘matacognition enrichment,’ ‘cognitive structure inte-gration,’ ‘cognitive structure refinement.’ Based on the research data in this study, low achievers in the constructivist-oriented instruction group were probably only in the first stage and they did not reach the second stage at the end of this study. However, high achievers may have experienced the four stages, and attained the fourth stage at the end of this study. As a result, it is argued that the usage of metacognition has a profound in-fluence on learner’s cognitive learning outcomes. This study also suggests that instructors should pay more attention to making the connections between students’ prior knowledge and instructional materials, or opportu-nities of cognitive apprenticeship should be provided for low achievers by mixing vari-ous academic achievers for group work. Moreover, instructors should utilize multiple teaching strategies and combine a variety of instructional activities to promote students’ concept learning and knowledge construction in science classrooms.