高中學生參與拋體運動專題實驗之研究
邱維宣
中文摘要
本研究旨在藉由未具拋體運動正式知識背景的個案高一學生動手設計拋體構形的專題實驗，以問卷為主，輔以作品呈現、晤談錄音與攝影資料，探查個案高一學生在設計拋體構形過程所運用的物理原理與遭遇的問題，並蒐集個案高一學生在拋體運動單元教學前所持有關於拋體運動概念加以分析，找出迷思概念，以現行物理教材的拋體運動單元進行教學，結束後再重覆進行問卷施測，以蒐集個案學生在拋體運動單元教學後所持有迷思概念，最後對同校中，研究者所任教已修過拋體運動單元的高二學生，以相同問卷施測，蒐集關於拋體運動迷思概念，與個案學生的資料加以分析比對，期能找出共通的迷思概念、學習困難點與教學的成效，作為研究者改進教材與教法的依據，使研究者的教學更有效率，任教的學生也可獲得更佳的學習效果。
根據資料處理分析的結果，本研究主要發現個案高一學生與高二學生有以下五項共通處：
一、迷思概念：
1. 對空氣阻力在實際拋體運動中扮演的角色產生混淆。
2. 對於拋體運動飛行過程中無法清楚分辨速度、加速度、力與能量的關係。
3. 對平面運動互相垂直的方向運動認為非同時進行與運動會相互影響。
4. 接受錯誤的廣告資訊，認為外力控制的下墜器材為自由落體運動。
二、學生易懂的運動：自由落體，鉛直下拋。
三、學生難懂的運動：鉛直上拋、斜向拋射。
四、學生難懂的原因：公式很多、難、易混淆、名詞不懂，不知何從解釋。
五、在教學活動所獲得的明顯的效果：
教學後學生使用物理名詞以描述物理現象較教學前精確。

Research on Participating Projectile Movement Project for Senior High School Students
Wei-Hsuan Chiu
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study is to investigate the misconceptions of the first grade of the senior high school students who participated the study of projectile movement program to design. The study is mainly designed by questionnaire and partly by students’ works which included recorded conversations and photography. These helped to realize the theories they used the problems they encountered. First, the students’ conceptions before learning are analyzed for the purpose of finding their misconceptions. Second, The students accepted the teaching of the unit of project-motion. Third, using questionnaire to make sure the misconceptions they still had was followed. Fourth, in comparison with the second grade students who just had learned the same unit, the researcher had founded the similarities of their misconceptions. This could not only help a lot to improve teaching materials and methods, but also benefit both the teachers and the students.
According to the outcome of the analysis of the data, the major findings of the similarities of the misconceptions of the first and the second students were inducted into the following five points.
I. Misconceptions
1.The misconceptions for the role of air resistance
2. The misconceptions for the relationship of velocity, acceleration, force and energy.
3. They misunderstood the plane movement and the vertical movement proceeded not at the same time and would influence each other.
4. They had the misconceptions from wrong advertisement, which leaded them to misbelieve the dropping oh the equipments controlled by outer force was also free falling body moment.
II. What they could easily understood were，free falling body moment，vertical downward movement.
III. What they couldn’t easily understood were vertical downward movement and projectile movement.
IV. The reasons why they felt difficult were having too many complex formulas and terms.
V. The obvious effects after teaching the unit was that the students could use the physical terms to describe the physical phenomenon more precisely.

目 次
目 次………………………………………………………………I
圖 次………………………………………………………………III
附錄次………………………………………………………………IV
第壹章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與研究動機…………………………………1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題…………………………………2
第三節 名詞釋義…………………………………………………5
第四節 研究限制…………………………………………………5
第貳章：理論基礎與文獻探討
第一節知識的建構論………………………………………………6
第二節 動機與學習………………………………………………12
第三節 行動研究---以問題為中心的教學策……………………14
第四節 探究式實驗與教學………………………………………19
第五節 迷思概念…………………………………………………24
第六節 結論………………………………………………………27
第參章：研究方法
第一節 個案的選擇與背景描述…………………………………30
I
第二節研究者角色………………………………………………32
第三節研究架構與流程…………………………………………33
第四節 研究工具與資源…………………………………………35
第五節資料收集方法……………………………………………36
第六節 信賴度……………………………………………………38
第四章研究結果與討論
第一節 拋體構形設計概念與實作結果分析………………………39
第一部份：拋體構形相關概念 ………………………………………40
第二部份：研究者與學生晤談結果分析……………………………50
第三部份：拋體構形設計與實作……………………………………60
第二節 個案學生問卷結果分析……………………………………69
第三節 高二學生拋體運動問卷結果分析…………………………98
第五章結論與建議
第一節結論…………………………………………………………115
第二節建議與啟示…………………………………………………124
第一部份對教學的啟示……………………………………………124
第二部份對後續研究的建議………………………………………126
II
參考文獻
中文部分……………………………………………………………127
英文部分……………………………………………………………130
附錄…………………………………………………………………140
圖次
圖1-1研究架構圖………………………………………………………4
圖3-01 研究流程圖………………………………………………………34
圖4-01 ：S-001拋體運動構形設計圖（1）…………………………60
圖4-02 ：S-001拋體運動構形設計圖（2）…………………………61
圖4-03 ：S-001拋體運動構形圖………………………………………61
圖4-04 ：S-002拋體運動構形設計圖…………………………………63
圖4-05 ：S-002拋體運動構形圖………………………………………63
圖4-06 ：S-004拋體運動構形設計圖…………………………………64
圖4-07 ：S-004拋體運動構形圖………………………………………64
圖4-08 ：S-005拋體運動構形設計圖…………………………………65
圖4-09 ：S-005拋體運動構形圖………………………………………65
圖4-10 ：S-007拋體運動構形設計圖…………………………………67
圖4-11 ：S-007拋體運動構形圖………………………………………67
III
附錄次
附錄一、拋體運動專題實驗問卷（一）………………………………140
附錄二、拋體運動基本概念問卷（二）………………………………142
附錄三、拋體運動基本概念診斷問卷（三）…………………………144
附錄四、拋體運動專題實驗問卷（四）………………………………146
附錄五、拋體運動基本概念問卷（五）………………………………147
附錄六、拋體運動基本概念診斷問卷（六）…………………………149
附錄七、拋體運動基本概念診斷問卷（七）………………………151
附錄八、拋體運動基本概念診斷問卷（八）…………………………152
附錄九、拋體運動基本概念診斷問卷（九）…………………………153
附錄十、拋體運動基本概念診斷問卷（十）…………………………154
附錄十一、拋體運動基本概念診斷問卷（十一）……………………155
附錄十二、拋體運動成就測驗問卷（十二）…………………………156
附錄十三、拋體運動成就測驗問卷（十三）…………………………157
附錄十四、拋體運動成就測驗問卷（十四）…………………………158
附錄十五、拋體運動成就測驗問卷（十五）…………………………159
附錄十六、拋體運動基本概念問卷（十六）…………………………160
附錄十七、拋體運動基本概念診斷問卷（十七）……………………162

參考文獻
中文部分：
王美芬譯（S.M.Glynn，R.H.Yeany，and B.K.Britton 著），民85。 建構論的科學學習觀。科學學習心理學。台北：心理出版社。
李玉貞，民89。光學史融入教學對高中學生科學本質觀及光概念的改變之研究國立高雄師範大學 科學教育研究所碩士論文。
李維譯（L. S. Vygotsky原著），民87。思維與語言。台北：桂冠出版。
吳淑娟，民88。國中學生理化科學習動機面貌及影響因素之個案研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
林志彥，民87。教學策略與學生對科學態度的關係：一位國中生物教師的個案研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
林清山、吳天祐，民87。行動研究。教育資料與研究雙月刊，（27）林清山、吳天祐，民87。行動研究。教育資料與研究雙月刊，（27）
林陳涌，民84。從經驗證據和科學理論的關係來探討自然科學實驗教學的意義。科學教育月刊。184，2-16。
林淑美，民89。營造一個促進學生思考的國中生物教室之行動研究 國立高雄師範大學 科學教育研究所 碩士論文。
周金城，民91。以孔恩的常態科學探究高中師生科學社群中科學探索活動的歷程─參與科學展覽活動之得獎個案分析 國立台灣師範大學 科學 教育研究所
施玫君，民89。職前物理教師教學先前概念之研究 國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所 碩士論文。
陳文心，民81。布魯納的「學習興趣」教育觀點述評。現代教育，728),157-162。
陳伯璋，民79。教育研究方法的新取向。台北市。南宏圖書。
陳伯璋，民77。行動研究的理論基礎及其應用。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告。0103-11-77A-F215。
陳美玉，民86。超越疏離的師生關係─做一個有能力了解學生的專業教師。教學輔導季刊，3，頁35-47。
陳美玉，民87。札記反省法在教師專業發展上應用之探討。中等教育雙月刊，第49 卷第5 期，頁60-71。
陳啟明，民79。發展紙筆測驗以探究高一學生對直流電路的迷思概念。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳澤民，民86。數學學習心理學、Skemp,R.R.(1987)著、The Psycho1ogy of 1earning Mathematics，九章出版社。
徐順益，民88。以類比思考成分探討國二學生在有類比物教學後有關速度與加速度之解題思考現象。科學教育學刊,7 卷,4期, 頁315-341。
教育部，民84。高中課程標準。
黃政傑和林佩璇，民85。合作學習。台北：五南出版社。
黃湘武、黃寶鈿，民78。學生對投影及光性質之概念研究。第五屆科學教育學術研討會。
黃鴻博，民85。國民小學學校中的科學展覽活動。科學教育研究與發展月刊，2，3-22。
黃煜程，民90。國中理化教師所營造的學習環境對學生成就動機的影響--個案研究 國立彰化師範大學 科學教育研究所 碩士論文。
夏林清，民88。 行動研究。[online].available ：
http://stmail.fju.edu.tw/~a8635612/clinical/theory/action.htm.
郭重吉，民77。從認知的觀點探討自然科學的學習。《教育學院學報》，第13期，351-378。
郭重吉，民81。從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。科學發展月刊第二十卷第五期。
張川木，民84。 促進概念改變教學法( Ⅰ )。科學教育月刊，185，21-23。
張世忠，民88。一堂國中理化科之教學觀察、評論和展望。科學教育月刊，219，2-9。
張秋男，民70。對科學展覽應有的認識及如何使展覽作品成功。科學教育月刊，42，8-12。
張春興，民85。教育心理學－三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華書局。
張惠博，民82。邁向科學探究的實驗教學。教師天地，62，12-20。
賈馥茗，民81。經驗與教育/杜威(JohnDowey)原著。台北市:五南。
趙金祁、李田英、楊文金，民78。中華民國科學教育發展實況與與展望。科學教育月刊，116，2-28。
趙金祁，民68。如何指導學生從事科學研究及科學展覽。科學教育月刊，344，20-36。
歐用生，民83。做一個有反省能力的教師。研習資訊，第11 卷，第5 期，頁1-6。
歐用生，民88。行動研究與教育革新。國立台東師範院校1999 行動研究國際研討會主題論文集。頁1-17。
劉士華，民75。中小學科學展覽之檢討。科學教育月刊，17（5），
394-395。
劉宏文，民90。高中學生進行開放式科學探究活動之個案研究。彰化：國立彰化師範大學 科學教育研究所博士論文。
顏玉雲，民86。師範教育的新取向反省的教學。教育研究雙月刊，第53 期，39-49 頁。
賴美杏，民89。從小組討論看問題與生物概念的學習 國立高雄師範大學 科學教育研究所碩士論文
顏瓊芬，民88。職前生物教師進行開放式科學探究過程之研究。彰化：國立彰化師範大學博士論文。
謝青龍，民84。從「迷思概念」到「另有架構」的概念改變。科學教育月刊，180 ， 23-29。
魏明通，民83。:各國STS課程教材評介（一）英國STS及SISCON計畫。科學教育月刊，168，2-9。
英文部分：
Abd-El-Khalick, F.,Bell, R. & Lederman, N. G. (1997). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatureal natureal. Paper presented at National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Book, IL.
Atkinson, J. W. (1966). A theory of achievement motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Inc.
Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View . NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bates, G.C. (1978). The role of the laboratory in secondary school science programs. In M.
B. Rowe (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher series.
Washington, D. C.: National Science Teachers Association, Volume 1.
Bianchini , J. A, (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect ：student learning of science in small group. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039-1065.
Binkley , N. & Brandes , G.M. (1995).Book reviews ： Reflection：Meanings and interpretations .Curriculum Inquiry,25,2,207-212。
Blosser, P.E. (1987a). Science misconceptions research and someimplications for the teaching of science to elementary school students.ERIC Document No. ED 282776.
Blooser, P.E. (1987b). Secondary school students'' comprehension ofscience concepts: Some findings from misconceptions research. ERICDocument No. ED 286757.
Borich, G. D. (1994). Observation skills for effective teaching. USA: errill.Bristol,PA:The
Falmer Press.
Brophy, J. (1987). Socialization students motivation to learn. advances in motivation and achievement: Enhancing Motivation, 5, 181-210.
Brown, R. & Pressley, R. (1994). Self-regulated reading and getting meaning from text: The transactional strategies instruction model and it’s ongoing validation. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman(Eds.),Self-regulation of learning and performance. New Jersey: Hillsdale.
Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, G. E. (1994). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D. L.Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357-388). National Science Teachers Association.
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. AmericanPsychologist, 41,1123-1130.
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P. & Glaser, R.(1989).Self-
explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. E., & Klopfer, L. E. ( 1985 ).Instructional consequences of students’ knowledge about physical phenomena. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive and conceptual change (pp. 61-68). New York: Academic Press.
Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics.American Journal of Physics, 50, 66-71.
Cohen,L. & Manion,L.(1985).Research Methods in Education. (2nd ed.),London:croom
Helm.
Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J., & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 37(3), 237-258.
DeBore, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice (pp. 215-241) . Teachers College, Columbia University.
Dekkers, P. J. J. M., & Thijs, G. D. (1993). Effectiveness of practical work in the remediation of alternative conceptions in mechanics with students in Botswana. Paper presented in 3rd Misconceptions Conference, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Doyle, W. (1985). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, Third Edition (pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.
Driver, R. & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review ofliterature related to concept development in adolescent sciencestudents. Students in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
Driver, R. (1984). Cognitive psychology and pupils’ frameworks inmechanics. In P. Lijnse (eds.). Proceeding of conference on physicseducation , Utrech-The Netherlands.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s image of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Duit, R., Treagust, D. F., & Mansfield, H. (1996). Investigating student understanding as a prerequisite to improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B.J. Fraser (Eds.).Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics. (pp.54-64). Teacher College Press, New York: Columbia University.
Duschl R. A.(1991). Epistemological Perspectives on Conceptual Change: Implications for Educational Practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9),839-858.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivation process affecting learning. American Psychology,41,
1040-1048.
Elliott , J.(1991).Action researcher for education change . Bristol：Open University Press.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals.
Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.
Feldman ,A.(1994). Erzberger ’s Dilemma : Validity in action research and science teacher’s need to know . Science education,78(1),83-101.
Friedler, Y. , & Tamir, P. (1990). Life in science laboratory classroom at secondary level. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.). The student laboratory and science curriculum (pp. 337-354). London: Rutledge.
Gallagher, J. J.(1991). Uses of interpretive research in science education. NARST monograph, No .4.pp5-17.
Gallas, K. (1994). The language of learning: How children talk, write, dance, draw, and sing their way into understanding the world. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gange, A. (1975). Essentional of learning for instruction. United States of America.
es, Princeton:
Educational Testing Service.
Geelan, D.R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science and Education, 6, 15-28.
Gilbert, J.K., Osborne, R.J. & Fensham, P.J. (1982). Children''s scienceand its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623-633.Goldman, R.J. & Goldman, J.D.G. (1982). How Children Perceive theOrigin of Babies and the Roles of Mothers and Fathers in Procreation:A Cross-national Study. Child Development, 53(2), 491-504.
Gil-Perez, D. (1996). New trends in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 18 (8), 889-901.
Guba,E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation.
Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. (1991). Primary and secondary students’ attainment of science investigation skills. Research in Science Education, 21, 161-170.
Hammer, D. (1995). Epistemological considerations in teaching introductory
physics. Science Education, 79(4), 393-413.
Harding, P., & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in classroom: Emphasizing open-mindedness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 225-236.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1986).Toward an explanation of conceptual change. European Journal of Science Edusation. 8(3), 229-249.
Hayon’L.K.(1990).Reflection and professional knowledge : A conceptual framework. In C. Day, M. Pope & P. Denicolo (Eds.),Insight into teachers’ thinking and practice.
Hayon,L.K.(1990).Reflection and professional knowledge ：A conceptual framework. In C. Day, M. Pope & P. Denicolo (eds.),Insight into teachers’ thinking and practice. Bristol, PA ： The Falmer Press.
Head, J. (1986). Research into ‘alternative framework’: Promise and problems. Science & Technological Education, 4(2), 203-211.
Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). The student laboratory and the science curriculum. London:
Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social constructivism: a Vygotskian perspective on teaching and learning science. School Science Review, 79(289), 33-41.
Hodson, D., & Bencze, L. (1998). Becoming critical about practical work: changing views and changing practice through action research. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 683-694.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201-217.
Howe, A. C.(1996). Development of science concepts within a vygotskian Framework. Science Education 80(1), 35 -51.
Inagaki, K. (1990). Young children’s use of knowledge in everyday biology. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8(.3), 281-28.
Jansweijer, W.,Elshout, j. j.,& Wielinga (1990). On the multiplicity of learning to solve problems. In H.Mandlet al. (Eds.), Learning and instruction (Vol.2.1)(pp.127-146). Oxford: Pergman.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1999). Epistemic cultures : How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press.
Kyle,W.C.（1997）.Action research . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34,669-671。
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Layton, D. (1990). Student laboratory practice and the history and philosophy of science. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 37-59). London: Routledge.
Lederman, N. and Druger, M. (1985). Classroom factors related to changes in students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(7) 649-662.
Ledbetter, C.E. (1993).Qualitative Comparison of Students’Constructions of Science. Science Education . 77(6),611-624.
Lee, O., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classroom. Journal of American Educational Research,　　30(3), 585-610.
LeFerve, J., & Dixon, P.(1986). Do written instructions need examples? Cognition and Instruction , 3,1-30.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lepper, C. (1983). Extrinsic reward and intrinsic motivation: Implication for the Classroom.
Matthews, M. R. (1993). Science Teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. Chapter 10: Teacher Education, 199-213. Tew York, London.
Mayer, R. E. (1983). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. N.Y.: W.H.Freeman.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New Jersey.Erlbaum
McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4),113-122.
McGonigal,J.(1999).How Learning to Become a Teacher-Researcher Prepared an Educator to do Science Inquiry with Elementary Grade Students. Research in Science Education,1999,29(1),5-23.
McNiff, J.(1988). Action research principle and practice. London : Routledge.
Meichtry,Y.(1993).The Impact Of Science Curricula On Student Views About The Nature Of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,30(5):429-443.
Millar, R., & Lubben, F. (1996). Knowledge and action: Students’understanding of the procedures of scientific enquiry. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 191-199). London: The Falmer Press.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Exploration in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nott, M. (1997). Proudcing the evidence: teacher’s initiations into practical work. Research in science Education, 27(3), 395-409.
Novick, L.,(1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: learning, Memory, and cognitionVol.14.No3,510-520
Nussbaum, J. (1985). The particulate nature of matter in the gaseousphase. In R. Driver, E. Guesne and Tiberghien (eds.). Children’s ideasin Science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Okolo, C. M., Bahr, C. M., & Garnder, J. E. (1995). Increasing achievement motivation of elementary school students with mild disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30(5), 279-312.
Osborne, R. J. & Freyberg, P. (Eds.)(1985). Learning in science: The implications of
children’s science. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.
Osborne,R.J. & Wittrock,M.C. (1983).Learning science ：a generative process. Science Education,67(4),489-508.
Perkins, D. N., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 303-326.
Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Knowing, researching, and reporting science education: Lesson from science and technology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 213-235.
Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science: Know and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Routledge. Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: historical perspectives
and contemporary teaching. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249-262). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Shymansky,J.A. & Kyle Jr.W.C.(1992).Establishing a research agenda: critical issues of science curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 749-778.
Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1985). Attitude toward science and achievement motivation profiles of male and female science students in grades six throughten. Science Education, 69( 4) , 511-26.
Songer. N.B & Linn. M.C,(1991).How Do Students’ Views of Science Influence Knowledge Integration? .Journal of Research in Science Teaching.28(9):761-784.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997) Thinking Styles. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Sutton, C. & West, L. (1982). Investigating children''s existing ideasabout science. ERIC Document Reprod uction service No. ED230424.
Tamir, P. (1989). Training teachers to teach effectively in the laboratory. Science Education, 73, 59-69.
Trowbridge, J.E. ＆ Mintzes, J.J. (1985). Students'' alternative conceptionsof animals and animal classification. School Science and Mathematics,85(4), 304-316.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In T. Husen, & N.Postlethwaite (Eds.). The International in Encyclopedia of Education.Supplementary (1), 162-163. New York: Pergamon.
Von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Knowing without Metaphysics: Aspect of the Radical Constructivist Position. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED.304344)
Von Glasersfeld , E.(1993).Questions and Answers about Radical Constructism In Tobin,K.(ed.).The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education,23-38. Washington , DC：AAAS Press.
Vygostky, L. S. (1934). Thought and language. Translation newly revised and edited by Alex Kozulin. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1988).
Wells, G. (1995). Language and inquiry-oriented curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 25,
233-269.
White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.
Woolnough, B., & Allsop, T. (1985). Practical work in science. London: Cambridge University Press.
Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.