摘 要
本研究的研究目的為：(1)應用概念構圖初步探究高三學生可能具有之「相關」迷思概念；(2)評估概念構圖在發展「相關」迷思概念診斷測驗(本研究稱之為封閉式迷思概念診斷測驗)的重要性(3)應用開放式迷思概念診斷測驗初步確認與發掘新的「相關」迷思概念；(4)評估開放式迷思概念診斷測驗在發展封閉式迷思概念診斷測驗的重要性。
根據研究結果，本研究的主要結論如下：
一、應用概念構圖初步發掘之「相關」迷思概念：應用概
念構圖發掘的「相關」迷思概念一共有8項，其中，
有7項是過去有關文獻中，尚未發現的迷思概念。前
三項依序為：(1)相關等於因果；(2)在不同研究下，
當樣本數不同時，均能依「相關係數」的大小來決定
關聯強度的大小；(3)將「相關係數」視為線性相
關。
二、概念構圖在發展封閉式迷思概念診斷測驗的重要性：
概念構圖是發展概念診斷測驗所應執行的首要步驟，
學生在繪製概念圖的過程中，能夠自然展露其可能具
有之「相關」迷思概念，概念構圖的結果更是建製封
閉式迷思概念診斷測驗第一階段試題的主要來源。
三、應用開放式迷思概念診斷測驗初步確認與發掘新的
「相關」迷思概念：透過研究對象的錯誤理由所篩選
出來的「相關」迷思概念，有12項大致符合本研究事
先預期診斷的「相關」迷思概念。此外，透過對錯誤
理由的分析，本研究也發掘了6項異於先前已發掘之
迷思概念，其中，有3項是符合本研究事先制定之篩
選迷思概念標準的「相關」迷思概念：(1)散布圖
上的樣本點愈密集，其相關強度較強；(2)負相關意
指兩變數之間具有些微的關係；(3)正相關意指兩變
數具有正比。
四、評估開放式迷思概念診斷測驗在發展封閉式迷思概念
診斷測驗的重要性：開放式迷思概念診斷測驗是建製
封閉式迷思診斷測驗的重要歷程，本研究發現，應用
第二階段為開放式理由撰寫的概念診斷測驗，能夠探
究研究對象在各項答案背後的想法，而不侷限於研究
對象對表面知識的了解情形而已；此外，本研究對理
由的分析尚具有確認與再發掘相關迷思概念的功效，
測驗施測的結果亦能提供未來發展之封閉式迷思概念
診斷測驗的修改方向。
本研究最後提出建議，以供後續研究者參考。

參考文獻
一、中文部分：
王念孫、鄭玉卿、王鴻龍譯 (民91)。David S. Moore著。實用統計學。臺北
市：科大文化。
邱垂昌、官月緞(民92)。結構化知識圖形中概念構圖之運用—以高等會計學為例。教育心理與研究，26，355-384頁。
李虎雄、陳昭地、黃登源、李政貴、林礽堂、儲啟政編著(民92)。高中數學甲教科書上冊。臺中市：康熙。
余民寧、陳嘉成(民85)。概念構圖：另一種評量方法。政大學報，73，161-200頁。
余民寧(民86)。有意義的學習-概念構圖之研究。台北市：商鼎文化出版社。
陳淑筠(民91)。國內學生自然科學迷思概念研究之後設研究。台東師範學院教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
張少同(民91)。青少年的數學概念學習研究—子計畫七：青少年的統計概念學習研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告(報告編號：NSC 91-2521-S-003-007-)，未出版。
科學學習心理學(熊召弟、王美芬、段曉林、熊同鑫譯)（民85）。台北：心理出版社。(原著出版年：1991)
劉俊庚(民90)。迷思概念與概念改變教學策略之文獻分析－以概念構圖和後設分析模式探討其意涵與影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
劉子鍵(民94)。電腦模擬輔助學習與同儕互動學習對高中生之統計迷思概念
的影響(1/3)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫期中進度報告(NSC 93 -2520 – S – 008 – 004 -)，未出版。
劉子鍵、林怡均(民94年6月)。以概念構圖法探究高中（職）生對「相關」概念之理解及具有之迷思概念。學習、教學與評量國際研討會。台北市：台灣師範大學。
統計，讓數字說話(鄭惟厚譯) (民87)。臺北市：天下遠見。(原著出版年：1991)
統計學的世界(鄭惟厚譯) (民91)。臺北市：天下遠見。(原著出版年：2001)
鍾聖校（民83）：對科學教育錯誤概念研究之省思。教育研究資訊，2(3)，89-110。
二、英文部分：
Carr, M. (1996). Interviews about instances and interview about events. In R. Duit, D. F.Treagust & B. J.Fraser (Eds.), Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics (pp. 44-53). New York:: Teachers College Press.
Chance, B., Garfield, J., & delMas, R. (2001). A model of classroom assessment in action:Using assessment to improve student learning and statistical reasoning. Paper presented at the Central California Assessment Conference, Fresno, CA.
Cohen, S., Smith, G., Chechile, R., Burns, G., & Tasi, F. (1996). Identifying impediments to learning probabilityand statistics from an assessment of instructional software. Journal Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21(1), 35-54.
Duit, R., Treagust, D. F., & Mansfield, H. (1996). Investigating student understanding as a prerequisite to improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In R. Duit, D. Treagust & B. Fraser (Eds.), Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics (pp. 17-31). New York:: Teachers College Press.
Garfield, J., & deMas, R. (1994). Student''s informal and formal understanding of statistical power. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Marrakech Morocco.
Garfield, J. (1995). How students learn statistics. International Statistical Review(63), 25-34.
Garfield, J. & Gal, I. (1999). Assessment and statistics education: Current challenges and directions. International Statistical Review, 67, 1-12.
Garfield, J. (2003). Assessing statistical reasoning. Statistics education research Journal, 2(1).
Garfield, J., delMas, R. & Chance, B. (2003). The Web-based ARTIST Project. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Chicago.
Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts,misconceptions and alternative conceptions:Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in science education, 10, 61-98.
Griffard, P. B., & Wandersee, J. H. (2001). The two-tier instrument on photosynthesis: what does it diagnose? International Journal of science education, 23(10), 1039-1052.
Haslam, F., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students'' misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education, 21(3), 203-211.
Jun, L., & Pereira-Mendoza. (2002). Misconceptions in Probability. Paper presented at the ICOTS6, Cape Town, South Africa.
Konold, C., Pollatsek, l., Well, A., Lohmeier, J., & Lipson, A. (1993). Inconsistencies in Students'' Reasoning about Probability. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(5), 392-414.
Konold, C. (1995). Issues in Assessing Conceptual Understanding in Probability and Statistics. Journal of Statistics Education, 3(1).
Mevarech, Z. R. (1983). A deep structure model of students'' statistical misconceptions. Educational studies in mathematics, 14, 415-429.
McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475-492.
Moore, D. S. (1997). New pedagogy and new content: The case of statistics. International Statistical Review, 65(2), 123-137.
Morris, E. (2001). The design and evaluation of Link :A computer-based learning system for correlation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 39-52.
Morris, E., Joiner, R., & Scanlon, E. (2002). The contribution of computer-based activities to understanding statistics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 114-124.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learning. New York: Cambridge University press.
Novak, J. D. (1993). How do we learn our lesson. The science teacher, 60(3), 50-55.
Osborne, R. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1980). A method for investigating concept understanding in science. European journal of science education, 2(3), 311-321.
Peterson, R. F., Treagust, D. F.,& Garnett, P. (1986). Identification of secondary students'' misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure concepts using a diagnostic test instrument .Research in Science education.
Pollatsek, A., Lima, S., & Well, A. D. (1981). Concept or computation: students'' understanding of the mean. Educational studies in mathematics, 12, 191-204.
Rice, D. C., Ryan, J. M., & Samson, S. M. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1103-1127.
Roberts, L. (1999). Using concept maps to measure statistical understanding. International Journal of Educational Science Technology, 30(5), 707-717.
Saldanha, L., & Thompson, P. (2002). Conceptions of sample and their relationship to statisstical inference. Educational studies in mathematics, 51, 257-270.
Schau, C., & Mattern, N. (1997). Assessing students?connected understanding ofstatistical relationships. In I. G. a. J. B. Garfield (Ed.), The assessment challenge in statistics education (pp. 91-104). The Netherlands: IOS Press.
Shaughnessy, J. M. (1992). Research in probability and statistics: Reflections and directions.In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning(pp. 465-494). New York: Macmillan.
Staver, J. R. (1986). The effects of problem format,number of independent variables reasoning problem. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 23, 533-542.
Stice, C. F., & Alvarez, M. C. (1987). Hierarchical concept mapping in the early grades.Childhood Education, 64 (2), 86-96.
Stone, A., Allen, K., Rhoads, T. R., Murphy, T. J., Shehab, R. L., & Saha, C. (2003). The statistics concept inventory :A pilot study. Paper presented at the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boulder, CO.
Tamir, P. (1971). An alterantive approach to the construction of multiple choice text items. Journal of biological education, 5, 305-307.
Tamir, P. (1989). Some issues related to the use of justifications to multiple-choice answers. Journal Biological education, 23(4), 285-292.
Tan, K. C. G., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Developement and application of a two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument to assess high school students'' understanding of inorganoc Chemistry qualitative analysis. Journal of research in science teaching, 39(4), 283-301.
Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students'' misconception in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159-169.
Wallace, J. D., & J.Mintzes, J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of research in science teaching, 27(10), 1033-1052.
Yarroch, W. L. (1991.). The Implications of content versus validity on science tests. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,28(7), 619-629.
Yu, C. H., & Behrens, J. T. (1995). Identification of Misconceptions in the Central Limit Theorem and Related Concepts and Evaluation of Computer Media as a Remedial Tool. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Education Reseacher Association. Association, San Franscio, CA.