| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立彰化師範大學 === 科學教育研究所 === 106 === This study aims to investigate how science reading and writing improved junior high school students’ metacognitive ability and scientific explanation ability through the study sheets braided by the researcher. The lessons used the OK4R reading strategy and group discussions, and students had to complete the study sheets. This action research involved 28 seventh graders, and lasted for ten weeks with two action cycles.
The research involved both qualitative and quantitative methods. On the one hand, Metacognition Awareness Inventory was used as a quantitative tool to examine students’ metacognition improvement before, during, and after science reading instruction. To examine this development, the researcher used data from the questionnaire to process SPSS t-tests and repeated measures analysis. For analyzing scientific explanation ability which was based on students’ writing, the researcher score the students’ performance including the claim part, evidence part, and conclusion part. Each part was scored 0 to 2 points, with a maximum of 6 points. The items were further divided into high, medium and low difficulty items. Repeated measures analyses were conducted to understand the students’ scientific explanation ability across items of different difficulty. On the other hand, this research collected qualitative materials such as research group discussion records, classroom observation videos, study sheets, teacher’s reflection journals, and interviews. These qualitative data further assisted to explain the quantitative evidence.
The results showed that after science reading and writing instruction, students’ ability of metacognition was significantly improved. (i.e. ability to narrate, to organize information and to evaluate their learning process). Besides, their ability to construct scientific explanations was enhanced as well, especially in eliciting evidence and proposing conclusions. Results from repeated measures analysis revealed that students improved remarkably on proposing evidence and conclusion in lower difficulty items, while they perform relatively stable when confronting medium and high difficulty items.
At last, this research provided suggestions on research, teaching, and activity designs for researchers and educators who may be interested in this topic.
|
|---|
