臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

高雄地區國小六年級學童基本科學過程技能之城鄉、性別差異研究--以傳達能力為例
胡美婌
嘉義大學教育學院國民教育研究所自然教學碩士學位班
摘要
本研究主要目的旨在探討高雄縣、市國小六年級學生基本科學過程技能─傳達能力的特質，並探究城鄉間不同學校地區、不同性別之差異性，以作為改進課程與教學的參考。
資料分析來源以封閉性選擇題紙筆測驗探討了解科學訊息傳達能力、開放性問答測驗探究文字圖表傳達能力及口語傳達能力測驗探究口語傳達能力。以t考驗及質的分析探討學生傳達能力特質及城鄉、性別之差異顯著性。測驗樣本以高雄市國小六年級學童163人，高雄縣鳳山市國小六年級學童130人，合計293人為高雄地區城市學童樣本，高雄縣除鳳山市外其他鄉鎮國小六年級學童158人為高雄地區鄉村學童樣本，進行了解科學訊息傳達能力及文字圖表傳達能力測驗，口語傳達能力測驗樣本以接受了解科學訊息傳達能力及文字圖表傳達能力測驗學生一校一班，該班測驗成績前25%、中50%、後25%學生各隨機抽樣一位為口語傳達能力測驗的對象，高雄地區城市學童樣本12人，高雄地區鄉村學童樣本18人，合計30人。
研究結果發現高雄縣、市國小六年級學童了解科學訊息傳達能力城市學童顯著優於鄉村學童，文字圖表傳達能力亦具城鄉顯著差異性；高雄縣、市國小六年級學童了解科學訊息傳達能力無性別顯著差異性，而文字圖表傳達能力六年級女生顯著優於男生。了解科學訊息傳達能力與文字圖表傳達能力院轄市學童顯著優於縣轄市學童，而了解科學訊息傳達能力院、縣轄市學童未達性別顯著差異性，文字圖表傳達能力則六年級女生顯著優於六年級男生。高雄縣境內六年級城市學童了解科學訊息傳達能力顯著優於鄉村學童，性別則無顯著差異；而高雄縣境內六年級學童文字圖表傳達能力未達城鄉顯著差異性，性別亦無顯著差異。
口語傳達能力特質分析發現，學生口語傳達能力可分為高傳達能力、略具傳達能力但具迷思概念、低傳達能力、傳達錯誤型、無傳達能力等，高傳達能力特質包括了解科學訊息傳達能力強、具變因概念的心智模式、具語言認知表徵、具完整概念圖基模、口語傳達能力佳，略具傳達能力但具迷思概念特質包括由舊經驗導引、未具變因概念的心智模式、被考試制約、認知衝突，低傳達能力特質包括語言雙向處理遲緩、直覺判斷、邏輯推理錯誤、悉無現象，傳達錯誤型特質包括缺乏基模的心智模式、資料導向歷程錯誤、概念導向歷程錯誤、訊息移置錯誤、缺乏先備知識的心智模式，無傳達能力特質包括了解科學訊息傳達能力薄弱、科學名詞誤用、無語言能力沉默不語等，由上述類型中可發現皆具城鄉顯著差異，不具性別顯著差異，與了解科學訊息傳達能力、文字圖表傳達能力具城鄉顯著差異，不具性別顯著差異性吻合。
本研究根據結論及個人心得提出對課程編製的建議為：（一）強調文字傳述與口語傳達的課程（二）強調將實驗結果以合適圖表傳達的課程（三）強調願意與同儕相互溝通，作適當回應的課程。於教師教學時提出四點建議：（一）掌握城鄉差異，設法補救教學時文化不利因素（二）設計城鄉學童文化交流之教學活動（三）加強家長正確科學觀念與態度的培養（四）減少教師教學時之性別差別待遇。對學術研究提出二點進一步的建議：（一）擴充傳達能力研究範圍，作更深入的探討研究（二）擴大地理區域、年齡層的研究，以獲得更深入的推論。
關鍵詞：傳達能力、口語傳達、城鄉差異、性別差異

The Study of Urban / Countryside And Gender Difference About Basic Science Process Skills For Sixth Graders’ In Kaohsiung Primary Schools
— Communication Ability for Instance
Mei-Shu Hu
The Class Of Natural Science Teaching Master Degree, Graduate Institute of Primary Education, College of Education, National Chiayi University
Abstract
The main purpose of this study is to find out Kaohsiung County/City primary school grade 6 students’ characteristics and difference between city and countryside and gender concerning their basic science process skills —communication ability. The result is expected for improving science curriculum and instruction in primary education.
There are 163 and 130 sixth graders respectively in four classes of Kaohsiung City and in the four classes of Fongshan City, chosen as the samples of urban area; For countryside students sample, 158 students from the 7 classes of villages and towns of Kaoshiung County. Closed-type written tests are used as the research tool to discuss and find out the communication ability of scientific information; opened-type Q & A test is used to understand the communication ability of writing and graph reading, while oral test is applied to investigate the communication ability of oral language. One class was chosen randomly from each sample school to perform the written questions and opened-type Q&A written test. The top 25%, middle 50% and bottom 25% students for their exam performance in each class are chosen randomly as the subjects for oral language communication ability. There are 12 students in urban area and 18 students from countryside of Kaohsiung area, participating in the oral language test.
T-test and qualitative analysis are used to analyze and discuss students’ communication ability and difference between city and countryside and gender. Research results showed that: (I) urban students are significantly better than students from rural area about ability of understanding scientific message, as well as in written words and graphs communication ability; (II) there is no significant gender difference in terms of understanding scientific message communication ability; (III) girls are significantly better than boys about writing and reading graph ability; (IV) students from city are significantly better than students from city governed by county about understanding scientific message ability and writing and reading graph communication ability; (V) there is no significant difference for students from city governed by city or by county about students’ understanding scientific message ability; (VI) girls are significantly better than boys in terms of writing and graph reading communication ability; (VII) students from cities of Kaohsiung County are better than students from countryside concerning understanding scientific message communication ability, but there is no significant difference for different genders; and (VIII ) there is no significant difference for writing and graph reading communication ability between city and countryside in Kaohsiung County, and no significant difference for different gender.
Characteristics analysis of oral language communication ability showed that, students’ oral language communication ability can be divided into categories including: high communication ability, communication ability but with confusing concept, low communication ability, error concept and no communication ability etc. In addition, among these types, there is difference between city and countryside, but no gender difference, which corresponds to the city and countryside significant difference but no significant gender difference of scientific message communication ability, written words and graphs communication ability.
Based on the results, this study suggested the following recommendations for the future reformed curriculum: I. Emphasizing courses of words communication and oral language communication; II. Emphasizing experiment results through proper graphs; III. Emphasizing courses willing to communicate with colleagues with proper responses. It also raises four recommendations to teachers: I. Understanding the difference between cities and countrysides, try to remedy disadvantageous cultural factors in teaching; II. Designing teaching activities of cultural exchange for city and countryside students; III. Strengthening parents’ correct scientific concept and cultivation of attitude; IV. Reducing teachers’ different treatment to different teachers while teaching. There are also two further suggestions to academic study: I. Expand the research range of communication ability, to have even deeper discussion and study; II. Expand geographic range and age study, to receive more thorough inference.
Keywords: Communication Ability, Difference between City and Countryside, Gender Difference

國立嘉義大學教育學院國民教育研究所
碩 士 論 文
指導教授： 郭金美 博士
高雄地區國小六年級學童基本科學過程技能之城鄉、性別差異研究--以傳達能力為例
研究生：胡美婌 撰
中 華 民 國 九 十 二 年 五 月
目 次
目次 ………………………………………………………Ⅰ
圖次 ………………………………………………………Ⅲ
表次 ………………………………………………………Ⅳ
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與研究動機………………………………1
第二節 研究目的、研究問題與假說………………………3
第三節 研究範圍與限制……………………………………5
第四節 名詞釋義……………………………………………5
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 自然科學過程技能的發展背景…………………..7
第二節 自然科學過程技能－傳達能力之意義……………8
第三節 影響自然科學過程技能之有關因素……………..11
第四節 科學過程技能的相關實證研究…………….…….13
第三章 研究方法和步驟
第一節 研究對象…………………………………………..35
第二節 研究設計和實施步驟……………………………..39
第三節 研究工具…………………………………………..44
第四節 資料分析…………………………………………..54
第四章 研究結果與討論
第一節 學生了解科學訊息傳達能力、文字圖表傳達能力
測驗結果分析……………………………………..55
Ⅰ
第二節 學生口語傳達能力分析………………………....75
第三節 國小六年級學童口語傳達能力之型式…………..85
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 結論………………………………………………..131
第二節 建議……………………………………………....138
參考書目
中文部份……………………………………………………….140
英文部份……………………………………………………….142
附錄
附錄一 傳達技能相關實證研究摘要表………………………150
附錄二 科學過程技能－傳達能力測驗預試試卷……………156
附錄三 傳達能力預試問卷內容分析…………………………172
附錄四 科學過程技能－傳達能力測驗預試分析表……..…174
附錄五 科學過程技能－傳達能力測驗試卷……………176
附錄六 口語傳達能力測驗試題…………………….….188
附錄七 文字圖表傳達能力測驗評分標準……………………191
附錄八 口語傳達能力測驗評分標準…………………………193
Ⅱ
圖次
圖3-1 研究流程圖……………………………………………………..41
Ⅲ
表次
表2-1 科學過程技能相關因素之探討…………………………………..31
表3-1 樣本學校及人數資料表…………………………………………..36
表3-2 研究樣本背景編碼表……………………………………………..43
表3-3 了解科學訊息傳達能力測驗內容分析表………………………..45
表3-4 科學過程技能－傳達能力測驗分析表…………………………..47
表3-5 文字圖表傳達能力測驗內容分析表……………………………..49
表3-6 文字圖表傳達能力測驗分析表…………………………………..49
表3-7 文字圖表傳達能力預試測驗信度分析表………………………..50
表3-8 文字圖表傳達能力正式測驗信度分析表………………………..51
表3-9 口語傳達能力測驗內容分析表…………………………………..52
表3-10 口語傳達能力預試測驗信度分析表………….……………...…..53
表3-11 口語傳達能力正式測驗信度分析表………….……………...…..53
表4-1 了解科學訊息傳達能力測驗城鄉差異t考驗.................................56
表4-2 了解科學訊息傳達能力測驗不同性別之城鄉差異t考驗……….56
表4-3 了解科學訊息傳達能力測驗院、縣轄市別差異t考驗………….57
表4-4 了解科學訊息傳達能力測驗不同性別之院、縣轄市差異t考驗.58
表4-5 了解科學訊息傳達能力測驗高雄縣之城鄉差異t考驗…………..58
表4-6了解科學訊息傳達能力測驗高雄縣不同性別之城鄉差異t考驗...59
表4-7了解科學訊息傳達能力測驗性別差異t考驗…………….………..60
表4-8了解科學訊息傳達能力測驗城鄉間之性別差異t考驗……….…..60
表4-9了解科學訊息傳達能力測驗不同院、縣轄市之性別差異t考驗...61
表4-10文字圖表傳達能力測驗城鄉差異t考驗……….………….……...62
表4-11文字圖表傳達能力測驗不同性別之城鄉差異t考驗………….....63
表4-12文字圖表傳達能力測驗院、縣轄市別差異t考驗……………….63
表4-13文字圖表傳達能力測驗不同性別之院、縣轄市差異t考驗.…....64
表4-14文字圖表傳達能力測驗高雄縣之城鄉差異t考驗…….…………65
表4-15文字圖表傳達能力測驗高雄縣不同性別之城鄉差異t考驗..…...65
表4-16文字圖表傳達能力測驗性別差異t考驗………………………….66
表4-17文字圖表傳達能力測驗城鄉間之性別差異t考驗………..……...67
表4-18文字圖表傳達能力測驗不同院、縣轄市之性別差異t考驗..…...67
Ⅳ
表4-19傳達能力紙筆測驗城鄉差異t考驗………………………...……..69
表4-20傳達能力紙筆測驗不同性別之城鄉差異t考驗………….............69
表4-21傳達能力紙筆測驗院、縣轄市差異t考驗……………………….69
表4-22傳達能力紙筆測驗不同性別之院、縣轄市差異t考驗.…............70
表4-23高雄縣傳達能力紙筆測驗之城鄉差異t考驗…….………………70
表4-24高雄縣傳達能力紙筆測驗不同性別之城鄉差異t考驗………….70
表4-25傳達能力紙筆測驗性別差異t考驗…………….…………………71
表4-26傳達能力紙筆測驗城鄉間之性別差異t考驗………………...…..71
表4-27傳達能力紙筆測驗不同院、縣轄市之性別差異t考驗.................72
表4-28傳達能力不同內容型式城鄉差異t考驗………………………….73
表4-29傳達能力不同內容型式性別差異t考驗………………………….74
表4-30傳達能力不同內容型式答對百分比分佈情形…………................74
表4-31口語傳達能力測驗城鄉差異t考驗….............................................76
表4-32口語傳達能力測驗性別差異t考驗……………………………….76
表4-33學生口語傳達類型之城鄉、性別人數分佈……………………..129
Ⅴ

參考書目
中文部份
王美芬和熊召弟（1995）。國民小學自然科教材教法。台北：心理出版社。
毛松霖（1993）。國小高年級兒童「傳達」之科學過程技能影響「解釋資料」能力層次之研究（行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告：NSC81-0111-S003-507C）。台北：中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
毛松霖（1994）。國民小學自然科新課程概說，載於國民小學新課程概說。台北：台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
毛松霖（1998）。民國八十年代國小自然科學課程改進之構想，載於國民小學自然實驗本第十二冊教師手冊。台北：台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
李遠哲（1996）。教育改革總咨議報告書。行政院教育改革審議委員會。
呂學榮（1988）。科學過程技能與邏輯思考能力相關性分析研究。未出版碩士論文。台北：臺灣師範大學物理研究所。
何寶珠（1990）。科學過程技能教學活動對國一學生之影響：科學過程技能成就水準及科學態度。未出版碩士論文。台北：台灣師範大學化學研究所，。
林邦傑（1981）。皮亞傑認知發展測驗指導手冊。正昇教育科學社。
林清山 (1984)。心理與教育統計學。台北：東華。
林俊華（1986）。國中學生科學過程技能學習成就之研究。未出版碩士論文。台北：台灣師範大學物理研究所。
邱鴻鱗（1995）。CAL與科學過程技能學習概念之建構（行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告：NSC 84-2511-S017-012-CL）。台北：中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
洪信德（2001）。國小五、六年級學童統整科學過過程技能心智模式之研究。未出版碩士論文。嘉義：國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所。
陳建勳（1977）。如何教學「科學方法」。教師之友，18（8），16。
陳麗煒（1989）。國中二年級學生基本科學過程技能之研究。未出版之碩士論文。彰化：彰化師範大學科學教育研究所。
陳瓊森（1984）。國民中學學生科學方法過程之研究。未出版碩士論文。高雄：高雄師範大學教育研究所。
陳英毫、吳裕益（1982）。測驗的編製與應用。台北：偉文。
許榮富等人（1984）。科學過程技能層序組織因子模式及其影響因素研究（行政院國科會專題研究計劃：NSC-74-0111-s003-11）。台北：中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
許榮富（1986）。科學過程技能組織因子模式及其影響因素研究（Ⅱ）( 國科會研究報告：NSC-75-0111-s003-013 )。台北：中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
許榮富（1987）。科學過程技能組織因子模式及其影響因素研究（Ⅲ）（國科會研究報告：NSC-76-0111-s003-025）。台北：中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
張寶連（1977）。科學方法基本過程之二--傳達。教師之友，18（8），22。
張俊彥和翁玉華（2000）。我國高一學生的問題解決能力與其科學過程技能之相關性研究。科學教育學刊，8（1），35-55。
教育部（1975）。國民小學課程標準。台北：正中。
教育部（1993）。國民小學課程標準。台北：國立編譯館。
教育部（2000）。國民中小學階段九年一貫課程第一學習階段暫行綱要。台北：教育部。
趙金祈（1982）。我國科學教育發展實況與展望。國家建設研究會報告。
楊文金（1987）。統整科學過程技能實作評量分析。未出版碩士論文。台北：台灣師範大學物理研究所。
熊召弟（1996）。臺北公立高中（高一）學生科學過程技能和邏輯思考能力之探討研究。臺北師專學報，9，545-578。
歐陽鐘仁（1987）。科學教育概論。台北：五南。
歐用生（2000）。國民中小學九年一貫課程的內涵與特色。學校本位課程發展工作坊資料集，2，8-17。
鄭碧雲（1991）。國中資賦優異學生科學過程技能與相關因素之研究。未出版碩士論文。彰化：彰化師範大學科學教育研究所。
鍾聖校（1984）。國小自然科新舊科課程學生科學過程能力之比較研究。台北師專學報，11，1-44。
鍾聖校（1995）。國小自然科課程教學研究。台北：五南。
鍾邦友（1995）。面對未來的教育改革--「美國2061計劃」簡介。教育研究資訊，3（4），141-149。
英文部份
Adey, P. S., & Harlen, H. A. (1986). Piagetion analysis of process skill test items. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23 (1). 707-726.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, D.C.: Author.
APU(assesssment of performance unit, 1980). Science in school, age 11, report No. 1. Center for Studies in science Education, University of Leeds.
APU(assesssment of performance unit, 1982). Science in school, age 13, report No. 1. Center for Studies in science Education, University of Leeds.
APU(assesssment of performance unit, 1982). Science in school, age 15, report No. 1. Center for Studies in science Education, University of Leeds.
Austin, R., Holding, B., Bell, J. & Daniels, S. (1991). Assessment Matters no.7: Patterns and Relationships in School Science. London: School Examinations and Assessment Council.
Bluhm, W.J. (1979). The effects of science process skill instruction on preservice elementary teachers knowledge of ability to use, and ability to sequence process skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16 (5),427-432
Brown, H. I. (1977). Pereception,theory and commitment: The new philosophy of science. Chicago： University of Chicago Press.
Bredderman, T. (1974). Elementary school science experience and the ability to combine and control variables. Science Education, 58 (4),457-469.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Vintage Books.
Burns, J. C., Okey, J. R., & Wise, K. C. (1985). Development of an integrated process skills test: TIPSⅡ. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22 (2), 169-177.
Campbell, R. L., & Okey, J. R. (1977). Influencing the planning of teachers with instruction in science process skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14 (3), 231-234.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (6), 623-654.
Dillashaw, F. G., & Okey, J. R. (1980). Test of the integrated science process skills for secondary science students. Science Education, 64 (5), 601-608.
Doran, R. L. (1978). Measuring the process of science objectives. Science Education, 62 (1), 19-33.
Erickson, G. L., & Erickson, L. J. (1984). Females and science achivement: evidence, explanation and implications. Science Education, 68 (2), 63-89.
Finley, F. N. (1983). Science process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20 (1), 47-54.
Funk, H. j., Okey, J. R., Fiel, R. L., Jaus, H. H., & Sprague, C. S. (1979). Learning science process skills, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Gabel, d., & Rubba, P. (1980). Science process skills: Where should they be taught? School Science and Mathematics, 80 (2), 121-126.
Gagne, R. M. (1965). The psychological base of science a process approach. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 65-68.
Ganiel, U., & Hofstein, (1982). Objective and continuous assessment of students performanve in the physics laboratory. Science Education, 66 (4), 581-591.
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1980). The role laboratory in science teaching: research implication. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 11-13.
Holley, D. (1996). Sciencewise: discovering scientific process through problem solving: Book l. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 401 151).
Hsu, R. F., & Lin, C. H. (1986). Validation of a group test on science process skills for junior high school students. Proceeding of National Conference in Science Education, National Science Council.
Hume, D. (1974). An enquiry concerning human understanding. In Anchor Books (Eds.), The empiricists. New York: Anchor Books.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Book.
Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2001). How children reason from data to conclusions in practical science investigations. Science Education Research in the Knowledge Based Society. 462-464.
Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: the development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions(2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. London: Academic Press.
Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15 (1), 11-24.
Lawson, A. E. (1982). The reality of general cognitive operations. Science Education, 66 (2), 229-241.
Lockard, J. D. (1977). Twenty years of science and mathematics curriculum development, edited by Lockard, J. D. The International Clearing house, Maryland.
Lovell, K. (1961). A follow-up study of Inhelder and Piaget’s the growth of logical thinking. British Journal of Psychology, 52, 143-153.
Lucas, K., & Roth, W. M. (1996). The nature of scientific knowledge and student learning: Two longitudinal case studies. Research in Science Education, 26 (1), 103-127.
Ludeman, R. R. (1975). Development of the science processes test, in ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 108 898.
Mangurian, l., Feldman, S., Clements, J., & Boucher, L. (2001). Analyzing and communicating scientific information. College Science Teaching, 7, 440-445.
Martins, I. (2001). Data as dialogue: from classroom talk to school science discourse. Science Education Research in the Knowledge Based Society. 128-130.
Maynes, F. J., & Ross J. A. (1980). Experimental Problem solving Item Pool: Junior and Intermedimate Divison Science. Project Final Report to the Ontario Institute for Students in Education.
National Science Teachers Association, (1971). Committee on curriculum studies, school science education for the 70’s. The Science Teacher , 38 (8), 46-51.
Okey, J. R., Wise, K. C., & Burns, J. C. (1982). Integrated process skills test department of science education, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602.
Padilla, M. J. (1980). Science activities-for thinking. School Science and Mathematics, LXXX, 601-608.
Padilla , M. J., Okey, J. R., & Dillashaw, F. D. (1983). The relationship between science process skill and formal thinking abilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20 (3), 239-246.
Padilla, M. J., & Padilla , R. K. (1986). Thinking in science: the science process skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 227 549)
Padilla, M. J. (1985). The development and validation of a test of basic process skills. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 256 628)
Papineau, D. (1979). Theory and meaning. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Pappelis, C., Pohlman, M. M., & Papellis, A. J. (1980). Can instruction improve science process skills of premedical and predental students? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17 (1), 25-29.
Perez, C. V. (1978). The development and evaluation of a test of science processes for use in the philippines. University Microfilms International.
Pettus, A. M., & Haley, C. D. (1980). Identifying factors related to science process skill performance levels. School Science and Mathematics, 80 (4), 273-276.
Rakow, S. J. (1985). Prediction of the science inquiry skill of seventeen-year-olds: a test of the model of educational productivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22 (4), 289-302.
Riley, J. P. (1977). The influence of hands on science process training on preservice teachers’ acquisition of process skills and attitude toward science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16 (5), 373-384.
Rivard, P. L., & Straw, B. S. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84 (5), 566-593.
Roadrangka, V., Yeany, R. H., & Padilla, M. J. (1983). The construction and validation of group assessment of logical thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Rocye, G. K. (1979). The development and validation of diagnostic criterion- referenced test of science processes. University Microfilms International.
Rubin, R. L., & Norman, J. T. (1989). A comparison of the effect of a systematic modeling approach and the learning cycle approach on the achievement of integrated science process skills of urban middle school students . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (62nd, San Francisco, CA). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 305 268).
Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: the role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31-57.
She, H., & Fisher, D. (2000). The development of a questionnaire to describe science teacher communication behavior in Taiwan and Australia. Science Education, 84 (6), 706-726.
Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Tannenbaum, R. S. (1968). The development of test of science teaching process Michigan : University Microfilms International.
Thiol, R. P., & George, K. D. (1976). Some factors affecting the use of the science process skill of prediction by elementary school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 13 (2), 155-166.
Tobin, K. G., & Capie, W. (1979). The effect of formal reasoning ability locus of control and student engagement on science process achievement. A paper presented at the University of South Carolina, Conference in Educational Research.
Tobin, K. G., & Capie, W. (1980). Teaching process skills in the middle school. School Science and Mathematics, 80 (7), 590-600.
Tobin, K. G., & Capie, W. (1982). Relationships between formal reasoning ability. Locus of control, academic engagement and integrated process skill achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19 (2), 113-121.
Tolman, R. P. (1976). Comment on the development of criterion-validated test item for four integrated science process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13 (6), 575-576.
Torrence, D. (1977). Measurement of science processes in intermediate grades through instructional television. Paper presented at the National Convention of the National Science Teachers Association.
Walkosz, M., & Yeany, R. H. (1984). Effects of lab instruction emphasizing process skills on achievement of college students have different cognitive development levels. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research Science Teaching, New Orleans, La. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 244 805)
Yap, K. C., (1985). Validation of hierarchical relationships among Piagetian cognitive modes and integrated science process skills for high school students with different cognitive reasoning abilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
Yeany, R. H., Yap, K. C., & Padilla M. J. (1986). Analyzing hierarchical relationships among modes of cognitive reasoning and integrated science process skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23 (3), 277-291.
Zuckerman, H. (1988). The sociology of science. In Smelser N. J. (ED.), Handbook of sociology. London: Sage Publications.