中美高中生物学教科书科学本质表征的比较研究

发布时间：2018-04-10 21:36

本文选题：科学本质 + 广义科学本质　；参考：《华东师范大学》2015年博士论文

【摘要】：提高全体学生的科学素养是世界各国科学教育的主要目标,也是当前我国高中科学课程改革的重要理念。科学本质是科学素养的核心和基础,增进学生对科学本质的理解有利于促进学生科学素养的提高和发展。当前研究发现多数师生持有质朴的科学本质观,究其原因可能是科学本质本身复杂,也可能是因为教科书科学本质表征存在问题。因此,以中美高中生物学教科书为切入点,展开科学本质表征的比较研究具有一定的理论和实践意义。本研究的目的是比较中美高中生物学教科书科学本质表征存在的差异。研究主要采用了内容分析法和比较法。根据PCK理论,课程标准、教科书、学生和教师都是科学本质PCK的重要组成部分,为了更好地比较分析教科书对科学本质的表征,有必要先分析课程标准,再调查教师和学生的科学本质观点及对科学本质教育的态度。研究分别采用Chiappetta1 (2007)的广义科学本质框架和Alshamarani2(2008)的狭义科学本质框架分析课程标准对科学本质的表征。采用Chen(2006)编制的科学观和科学教育态度问卷(VOSE),调查高中师生的科学本质观和教师的科学本质教育态度。采用Chiappetta等的广义科学本质框架,定量分析高中生物学教科书对科学本质四要素表征数量的平衡性。采用Alshamrani(2008)的狭义科学本质内涵为框架、Abd-El-Khalick(2008) 3的科学本质评估标准为工具,定性分析教科书对科学本质表征的准确性。以科学本质与具体内容整合视角,分析5个重要的科学本质表征实例。本研究的主要研究结论如下：(1)美国两个课程标准对广义科学本质表征更为显性,表征知识内容范围更广、STS内容更详细。中国的两个课程标准对科学思维和科学探究表征更详细。课程标准对狭义科学本质表征不够全面和准确,多为隐性、理性表征。(2)师生的科学本质观在很多方面是“混合”观点,少数是“隐性、理性”观点。通过t检验,发现师生科学本质观没有显著区别。教师对科学本质教育态度多为“隐性、理性”和“混合”观点,与课程标准对狭义科学本质表征情况相似。(3)教科书对广义科学本质的四要素表征均不平衡,科学知识和科学探究数量构成比较高,科学思维和科学技术社会(STS)数量构成比较低；χ2检验判明四本教科书中科学本质表征数量分布不一致。(4)教科书对狭义科学本质表征不够全面、准确。借助相关性统计分析,发现中国的课程标准与教科书表征的科学本质有显著正相关,说明课程标准影响教科书对科学本质的表征。美国课程标准与教科书科学本质表征无相关性,但标准之间有相关性。师生的科学本质观表现与课程标准和教科书的科学本质表征有相似性。(5)论文选取某些具体科学本质详细分析,发现教科书对“科学方法”、“理论与定律”表征都不够显性、理性。分析科学本质与具体科学内容整合方式发现,教科书没有结合对基因功能描述隐性表征科学暂定性、没有结合描述科学家去表征丰富的科学本质、没有结合科学探究表征多样的科学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

【学位授予单位】：华东师范大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：G633.91

【相似文献】