發(fā)布時間：2018-04-10 21:36

  本文選題：科學本質 + 廣義科學本質�。� 參考：《華東師范大學》2015年博士論文

【摘要】：提高全體學生的科學素養(yǎng)是世界各國科學教育的主要目標,也是當前我國高中科學課程改革的重要理念�？茖W本質是科學素養(yǎng)的核心和基礎,增進學生對科學本質的理解有利于促進學生科學素養(yǎng)的提高和發(fā)展。當前研究發(fā)現多數師生持有質樸的科學本質觀,究其原因可能是科學本質本身復雜,也可能是因為教科書科學本質表征存在問題。因此,以中美高中生物學教科書為切入點,展開科學本質表征的比較研究具有一定的理論和實踐意義。本研究的目的是比較中美高中生物學教科書科學本質表征存在的差異。研究主要采用了內容分析法和比較法。根據PCK理論,課程標準、教科書、學生和教師都是科學本質PCK的重要組成部分,為了更好地比較分析教科書對科學本質的表征,有必要先分析課程標準,再調查教師和學生的科學本質觀點及對科學本質教育的態(tài)度。研究分別采用Chiappetta1 (2007)的廣義科學本質框架和Alshamarani2(2008)的狹義科學本質框架分析課程標準對科學本質的表征。采用Chen(2006)編制的科學觀和科學教育態(tài)度問卷(VOSE),調查高中師生的科學本質觀和教師的科學本質教育態(tài)度。采用Chiappetta等的廣義科學本質框架,定量分析高中生物學教科書對科學本質四要素表征數量的平衡性。采用Alshamrani(2008)的狹義科學本質內涵為框架、Abd-El-Khalick(2008) 3的科學本質評估標準為工具,定性分析教科書對科學本質表征的準確性。以科學本質與具體內容整合視角,分析5個重要的科學本質表征實例。本研究的主要研究結論如下：(1)美國兩個課程標準對廣義科學本質表征更為顯性,表征知識內容范圍更廣、STS內容更詳細。中國的兩個課程標準對科學思維和科學探究表征更詳細。課程標準對狹義科學本質表征不夠全面和準確,多為隱性、理性表征。(2)師生的科學本質觀在很多方面是“混合”觀點,少數是“隱性、理性”觀點。通過t檢驗,發(fā)現師生科學本質觀沒有顯著區(qū)別。教師對科學本質教育態(tài)度多為“隱性、理性”和“混合”觀點,與課程標準對狹義科學本質表征情況相似。(3)教科書對廣義科學本質的四要素表征均不平衡,科學知識和科學探究數量構成比較高,科學思維和科學技術社會(STS)數量構成比較低；χ2檢驗判明四本教科書中科學本質表征數量分布不一致。(4)教科書對狹義科學本質表征不夠全面、準確。借助相關性統(tǒng)計分析,發(fā)現中國的課程標準與教科書表征的科學本質有顯著正相關,說明課程標準影響教科書對科學本質的表征。美國課程標準與教科書科學本質表征無相關性,但標準之間有相關性。師生的科學本質觀表現與課程標準和教科書的科學本質表征有相似性。(5)論文選取某些具體科學本質詳細分析,發(fā)現教科書對“科學方法”、“理論與定律”表征都不夠顯性、理性。分析科學本質與具體科學內容整合方式發(fā)現,教科書沒有結合對基因功能描述隱性表征科學暫定性、沒有結合描述科學家去表征豐富的科學本質、沒有結合科學探究表征多樣的科學方法和高水平的探究活
[Abstract]:Improve the students' scientific literacy is the main goal of science education around the world, an important concept is the current our country high school science curriculum reform. The essence of science is the core and foundation of scientific literacy, to enhance students' understanding of the nature of science to promote the improvement and development of the scientific literacy of students. The current study found that most teachers and students hold the pristine nature of science the concept, the reason may be the essence of science itself is complex, it may be because the nature of science textbook characterization problems. Therefore, the Sino US high school biology textbooks as the starting point, comparative study on the characterization of the nature of science has certain theoretical and practical significance. The purpose of this study was to compare differences between Chinese and American high school biology textbooks of science the essence of characterization. Research mainly adopts content analysis method and comparative method. According to the PCK theory, curriculum standards, textbooks, students And teachers are an important part of the nature of science PCK, in order to better characterize the comparative analysis of the nature of science textbooks, it is necessary to analyze the curriculum standard, and the views of science investigation of teachers and students and their attitude to the nature of science education. The research by Chiappetta1 (2007) generalized the nature of science and Alshamarani2 framework (2008 the special nature of Science) framework for analysis and characterization of the nature of science curriculum standard. The Chen (2006) preparation of the view of science and science education attitude questionnaire (VOSE), attitude toward the nature of science education survey of the nature of science high school teachers and students and teachers. The concept of the generalized nature of science framework Chiappetta, balance analysis of high school biology textbooks on the number of the four elements of the nature of science. The quantitative characterization of Alshamrani (2008) of the special nature of science connotation as the framework, Abd-El-Khalick (2008) 3 assessment of the nature of Science Evaluation standard for qualitative analysis tools, the accuracy of the nature of science textbook. The characterization of the nature of science and the specific content of the integration perspective, analysis of the 5 important scientific nature characterized examples. The main conclusions of this study are as follows: (1) the two curriculum standards is more dominant on the generalized scientific representation, representation of knowledge scope a broader, more detailed content. STS two curriculum standards China of scientific thinking and scientific inquiry. More detailed characterization of the course standard of narrow sense is not very comprehensive and accurate characterization of the nature of science, more recessive, rational representation. (2) the nature of science and values in many aspects is the "mixed" point of view, the minority is recessive, "rational point of view. Through t test, found no significant difference between teachers and students of the nature of science teachers. For many" hidden nature of science education attitude, rationality "and" mixed "point of view, and the scientific curriculum standard to narrow Similar qualitative characterization. (3) the four elements to characterize the generalized nature of science textbooks are not balanced, scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry number form is relatively high, the scientific thinking and scientific technology society (STS) constitute a relatively low number; 2 test to ascertain four textbooks in the nature of science characterization quantity distribution (4) is not consistent. The special nature of science textbook characterization is not comprehensive, accurate. By means of correlation analysis, found that there was a significant positive correlation Chinese the nature of science curriculum standards and textbook representation, the representation of the nature of science curriculum standard textbook effect. There is no correlation between the United States and the nature of science curriculum standard textbook representation, but there is correlation between the standard representation of scientific nature of science. The essence of teachers and students view and curriculum standards and textbooks are similar. (5) this paper selects some detailed analysis of the nature of science, found on textbooks" The scientific method "," theory and law "are not rational. The explicit characterization and analysis of the nature of science and scientific way of specific content integration, combined with the implicit representation of scientific textbooks do not describe the tentative on gene function, with no description of the nature of science scientists to the characterization of the rich, not with the scientific methods of scientific inquiry and a high level of diversity characterization the inquiry activities

【學位授予單位】：華東師范大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：G633.91

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 沈為慧;陳偉壁;;更新觀念 充實內容 變換視角——讀《科學史十五講》有感[J];歷史教學(中學版);2009年06期

2 袁維新;科學的本質與科學本質教育[J];課程.教材.教法;2004年07期

3 陳維霞;陳嫻;;淺談科學探究中的科學本質教育[J];中小學教師培訓;2005年10期

4 梁永平;;對我國《科學課程標準》中科學本質教育目標的反思與建議[J];教育理論與實踐;2006年12期

5 項紅專;;美國科學史教育特色——理解科學本質[J];外國中小學教育;2006年08期

6 陳彥芬;;科學本質教育及其教學研究與實踐——以英國國家科學課程標準為例[J];衡水學院學報;2007年04期

7 袁維新;;國外科學本質教育研究及啟示[J];外國中小學教育;2009年03期

8 賴小琴;;國外科學本質研究述評[J];廣西教育學院學報;2009年01期

9 袁維新;;國外關于科學本質教學的研究[J];比較教育研究;2009年01期

10 朱冠章;黃國華;李武鋼;祝偉月;;傳達科學本質的物理教學設計探討[J];大眾科技;2010年05期

相關博士學位論文 前3條

1 黃曉;體現科學本質的科學教學[D];華東師范大學;2010年

2 嚴文法;高中生科學本質觀及其影響因素的研究[D];西南大學;2009年

3 牛波;中美高中生物學教科書科學本質表征的比較研究[D];華東師范大學;2015年

相關碩士學位論文 前10條

1 季薛慶;科學本質課堂教學實證研究[D];華東師范大學;2011年

2 張金運;科學本質：從哲學走向課堂[D];南京師范大學;2008年

3 馬俊萍;中學教師科學本質觀現狀及學生科學本質提高策略研究[D];陜西師范大學;2011年

4 劉娟;我國初中科學教材中的科學史：關于科學本質的分析[D];廣州大學;2006年

5 張學敏;高中物理規(guī)律教學中科學本質教育的研究[D];曲阜師范大學;2014年

6 侯曉梅;提升小學生科學本質理解的實踐研究[D];浙江師范大學;2014年

7 柳珊珊;初中理科教科書中科學史的文本分析[D];南京師范大學;2008年

8 王亮;高中教材中力學實驗部分科學本質教育研究[D];曲阜師范大學;2012年

9 朱冠章;利用科學史傳達科學本質的高中物理教學研究[D];廣西師范學院;2010年

10 劉榮發(fā);高中化學科學本質教育現狀及教學對策研究[D];華中師范大學;2013年

，

本文編號：1733015