| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立高雄師範大學 === 物理學系 === 91 === The main purpose of this research is to investigate the high school students’ misconceptions for the unit “Bernoulli’s theorem”, to understand the reasons and modes of these misconceptions, and to develop it two-tier diagnostic examine.
The samples were taken 15 classes of students from 5 senior high schools in Kaohsiung city and county. There are 5 classes for each grade to join the Two-tier diagnostic implement. The tested students include 184 of 10th grade, 205 of 11th grade, 186 of 12th grade. The valid samples were 183 of 10th, 203 of 11th,182 of 12th.The two-tier diagnostic implement is accomplished by open-questionnaire, qualitative interviews, and two-tier choice pretest.
The results of test are distributed according to the grade of students. The analysis of result is to realize that these misconceptions cause of students learned Bernoulli’s theorem, and to establish the surface and content validity of two-tier diagnostic instrument.
Analyzed from the result of examine, the misconceptions of students in “Bernoulli’s” were generalized as the following 7 modes1:1.airflow is no effect,2. airflow is a straight-line motion,3. misuse communicating vessel’s principle,4. water depth replace water position,5. phenomenon of faucet,6. flow velocity control pressure,7.potential energy affect flow velocity；. Among them, 7 modes describe the causes of misconceptions in “Bernoulli’s”:1.from formal or informal teaching,2. assimilated daily life experience or survival of nature,3.subject knowledge inadequate,4. wrong understand program knowledge,5. due to similar knowledge or analogy,6. excessively infer prior knowledge,7 insufficient ability of inference or analysis。
To analyze of result of test, the two-tier diagnostic instrument have high reliability. Cronbach α equals 0.658. Individually different grade analysis and class’ knowledge analysis supported the two-tier diagnostic instrument with high construct validity. Expert analyzed the two-tier diagnostic instrument and qualitative interviews supported the two-tier diagnostic instrument with high content validity and high construct validity.
|
|---|
