跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.233.217.106) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/14 14:45
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:林雅凰
論文名稱:小組討論概念圖學習成效之研究~以族群與群落為例
論文名稱(外文):The Study of Concept Mapping Based on Group Discussion〜For Concept of Population and Community
指導教授:鄭春蕓鄭春蕓引用關係郭金美郭金美引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立嘉義大學
系所名稱:科學教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:113
中文關鍵詞:小組討論概念圖族群群落國小六年級概念改變
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:30
  • 點閱點閱:798
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
摘要
本研究採「小組討論概念圖」之教學策略進行國小六年級自然課程「族群與群落」單元之教學,使用單組前、後測設計。研究的主要目的在了解學生使用「小組討論概念圖」之學習成效。
本研究以雲林縣斗六市某國民小學之六年級學生一班36人做為研究對象,進行「小組討論概念圖」之教學,資料的收集方法有紙筆測驗及概念圖兩種,紙筆測驗取自全中平所著之國民小學有關「地球是一個環境的複合體」環境教育概念研究高年級知識A卷,其庫李信度KR-20為 0.77。得到下列的研究成果:
1、「小組討論概念圖」是一種很好的教學及學習策略,它確實可以持續提升概念學習成效,促使學生概念持續改變到更好的範疇。由學生所繪製的一連串概念圖可發現:教學前,學生之概念圖結構鬆散,且概念屬於具體的低階層概念;教學後,學生之概念圖結構嚴謹,且概念屬於統整性之高階層概念。
2、「小組討論概念圖」可以指引教學的進行方向,又可隨時評量學生之概念學習情況。此乃因概念圖可清楚指出學生教學當時所持有之另有概念,使得教師可隨時掌控學生概念,運用教學策略促進學生概念學習。
3、「小組討論概念圖」能使小組討論主題聚焦,使小組更有效率的討論。此乃因概念圖創造出可論述的概念世界,以做為小組討論的對象,使成員能專注的參與討論。
4、「小組討論概念圖」的確值得推廣運用在科學教室中,但是教師需小心分析學生的整個概念圖,不論其連結正確與否,因為唯有這樣的分析型式才會積極的顯示學生概念架構,獲得更多的訊息,且為學生的學習經驗帶來更大的效益。
5、本研究同時也發現,學生在活動二「群落中各生物族群『吃』與『被吃』間的交互作用」,於教學結束後一個月所繪製的概念圖,整體而言比學生於教學一結束後所繪製的概念圖更好,這大大不同於本單元之另外兩個活動,可能代表著學生在教學當時的成熟度還不夠。
Abstract
This research, using one-group pretest-posttest design, adopts “Concept Mapping based on Group Discussion” teaching strategy to teach the unit “Population and Community” in the sixth grade’s Nature curriculum. The main objective of this research is to understand the learning co- ndition of how students use “Concept Mapping based on Group Discussion”.
Taking the sixth grade students of some elementary school in Yun-Lin as the object of study, this research practices concept learning and evaluation of the unit “Population and Community”. The results is as follows:
1. “Concept Mapping Based on Group Discussion” is a good teaching and learning strategy. It certainly maintains to lift effect of concept learning, and push students’ concepts maintain changing to better field. It’s clear to find out from a series of concept mapping drawn by students that before teaching the concept mapping structure is inattentive, it belongs to the lower level. But after teaching the concept mapping structure is more serious and belongs to a higher level of system concept.
2. “Concept Mapping Based on Group Discussion” may point out teaching direction. It could be used to assess students’ concept learning anytime, because concept mapping shows students’ alternative conceptions at that time clearly. Teachers can control students’ concept anytime and use teaching strategy to prompt students’ concept learning.
3. “Concept Mapping Based on Group Discussion” can focus on group discussing topic to enhance the effect. The reason is concept mapping which creates a spoken concept world to be the object of group discussion and all the group members pay attention to join discussion.
4. “Concept Mapping Based on Group Discussion” dose be worth using in science classroom, but teachers have to analysis students’ whole concept mapping carefully. No matter the linking is right or not, only this style of analysis may show students’ concept structure positively, and gains more information. The most important thing is to bring better benefit for students’ learning.
5. This research finds out one thing as follows at the same time. One month after teaching students’ concept mapping is better than the teaching just over. It appeared on Action II the interaction of “eating” and “eaten” in community. This is very different from another chapters of the union. Maybe students’ maturity isn’t enough at that time.
目錄
第壹章 緒論…………………………………………………………………………….…1
第一節 研究動機與目的………………………………………………………….…1
第二節 研究問題……………………………………………………………….……4
第三節 研究範圍及限制………………………………………………………….…5
第四節 名詞釋義………………………………..…………………….………….….5
第貳章 文獻探討…………………………………...………………………………….…..9
第一節 概念圖與認知學習………………………………………………………..9
第二節 概念圖在科學教學上的應用……………………………………………15
第三節 概念改變與概念圖………………………………………………………19
第四節 小組討論與概念圖………………………………………………………24
第五節 有關概念圖教學的實徵研究……………………………………………27
第參章 研究方法..……………………….………………………………………39
第一節 研究設計與流程………………………………………………....39
第二節 「小組討論概念圖學習」之教學實施 …………………………………...45
第三節 研究對象………………………………………………………………….48
第四節 評量工具……………………………………………………………….…49
第五節 資料分析……………………………………………………….………51
第肆章 研究結果與討論…………………………………………………………………57
第二節 學生在教學前相關之先前概念………………………………………….57
第二節 紙筆測驗之得分………………………………………………………….59
第二節 各概念圖之得分………………………………………………………….61
第二節 各概念圖中主要概念分析……………………………………………….66
第二節 概念改變的歷程分析…………………………………………………….75
第二節 概念學習的顯著性考驗………………………………………………….84
第伍章 結論與建議…………...…………………………………………………………87
第一節 結論…………………………………………………………….…....……87
第二節 建議……………………………………………………………….……….90
參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………………..92
一、 中文…………………………………………………………………………….92
二、 外文…………………………………………………………………………….93
附錄…………………………………………………………………………………………99
附錄一:紙筆測驗卷…………………………………………………………………99
附錄二:教學者概念圖…………………………………………………………….103
附錄三:教學活動設計…………………………………………………………….106
附錄四:學生概念圖……………………………………………………………….126
圖目次
圖2-1 概念學習過程……………………………………………………………………12
圖2-2 概念圖的建構過程………………………………………………………………17
圖2-3 調適過程中的衝突………………… ………………………………………..20
圖2-4 學習者欲進行新認知時典型的回應……..………….…….……………………21
圖3-1 小組內討論的程序………………………………………………………………40
圖3-2 研究實施流程圖………………………………………………………………..44
圖3-3 本單元與其他單元的關係圖……………………………………………..……..46
圖3-4 教學實施設計…………….………………………………………………..…….47圖3-5 概念圖的計分例子……….……………..……………………………………….54
圖3-6 概念圖之優劣排列….………………………………………………………….56
圖4-1 學生在族群的大小會改變之主要概念個數及人數分佈圖…………………...69
圖4-2 學生在生物「吃」與「被吃」的關係中之主要概念個數及人數分佈圖…….72
圖4-3 學生在群落中生物的合作與競爭中之主要概念個數分佈……….…………...74
表目次
表2-1 國外有關小組合作學習及概念構圖並用的研究…………………..…....………32
表2-2 國內有關小組合作學習及概念構圖並用的研究……………………..…………37
表3-1 紙筆測驗各題目之概念敘述…………………………………………..…………50
表4-1 學生各項紙筆測驗之得分……………………………………..…………………59
表4-2 學生各項紙筆測驗之分數摘要表……………………………..…………………60
表4-3 學生紙筆測驗得分之t-考驗…………………………………..…………………60
表4-4 學生在活動一各項概念圖之得分…………………………………………..……62
表4-5 學生在生物族群的變化中各項概念圖之分數摘要表…………….…….………62
表4-6 學生在生物族群的變化中概念圖間分數之 t-考驗…………………...………..63
表4-7 學生在群落以及群落中生物「吃」與「被吃」的關係中各項概念圖之得分.….63
表4-8 學生在生物「吃」與「被吃」的關係中各項概念圖分數摘要表…….…….…..64
表4-9 學生在生物「吃」與「被吃」的關係中概念圖間分數之 t-考驗.………...64
表4-10 學生在群落中生物的合作與競爭中各項概念圖之得分…………..………...….65
表4-11 學生在群落中生物的合作與競爭中各項概念圖之分數摘要表….………….....65
表4-12 學生在群落中生物的合作與競爭中概念圖間分數之 t-考驗…….………...….66
表4-13 學生在族群的大小會改變之主要概念分析表…………………...…………..….68
表4-14學生在族群的大小會改變中各項概念圖之主要概念的分佈表...…………..….68
表4-15 學生在生物「吃」與「被吃」的關係之主要概念分析表...……..…………….….70
表4-16 學生在生物「吃」與「被吃」的關係之主要概念摘要表...……..………………..71
表4-17 學生在群落中生物的合作與競爭之主要概念分析表.……………………….…73
表4-18 學生在群落中生物的合作與競爭中各項概念圖之主要概念的分佈表…..……74
表4-19 學生在生物族群的變化的概念分佈表………………….……………….………75
表4-20 學生在生物族群的變化中CM1到 CM2的概念改變歷程分析表……………76
表4-21 學生在生物族群的變化中CM2到 CM3的概念改變歷程分析表……………76表4-22 學生在生物族群的變化中發生概念改變的時間……………...……………..….78
表4-23 學生在生物「吃」與「被吃」的關係中概念分佈表………………………………78
表4-24 學生在生物「吃」與「被吃」關係中CM1到 CM2的概念改變歷程分析表…79
表4-25 學生在生物「吃」與「被吃」關係中CM2到 CM3的概念改變歷程分析表…79
表4-26 學生在生物「吃」與「被吃」關係中發生概念改變的時間……………….…..81
表4-27 學生在生物的合作與競爭中概念分佈表………………..…………………....…82
表4-28 學生在生物的合作與競爭中CM1到 CM2的概念改變歷程分析表………..83
表4-29 學生在生物的合作與競爭中CM2到 CM3的概念改變歷程分析表…………83
表4-30 學生在生物的合作與競爭中概念改變發生的時間………………………….…84
表4-31 36位學生於生物族群的變化之概念改變考驗…………………………….…85
表4-32 36位學生於生物「吃」與「被吃」的關係之概念改變考驗……………………85
表4-33 36位學生生物的合作與競爭之概念改變考驗………………………………86
參考文獻
一、中文部分
王美芬、熊召弟(2000):國民小學自然科教材教法。台北:心理學出版社。
王薌如(1994):概念圖教學在國中生物學習之成效。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
全中平(1992):國立臺北師範學院非數理系學生對概念圖學習態度之研究。台北師院學報,5,299-317。
全中平(1995):國民小學有關「地球是一個環境的複合體」環境教育概念研究。台北師院學報,8期,274-288。
余民寧(1999):有意義的學習-概念圖之研究。台北:商鼎文化出版社。
林純年(1997):概念圖對國小同自我學習科學說明資料之影響。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
邱上真(1989):後設認知研究在輕度障礙者教學上的應用。特殊教育專刊,30,12-16。
邱喚文(2001):利用概念圖探究國中三年級學生「酸與鹼」的概念學習。台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
南一書局(2001):國民小學「自然」教科書,六上第十一冊。台南:南一書局。
南一書局(2001):國民小學「自然」教學指引,六上第十一冊。台南:南一書局。
南一書局(2001):國民小學「自然」習作,六上第十一冊。台南:南一書局。
時德平(2001):概念構圖教學策略與食譜式教學法對國小五年級學童「電與磁」的概念學習之比較性研究。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
耿筱曾(2000):為什麼概念圖是一種有效的教學策略。科學教育與研究發展,9期,76-78。
張春興(1999):教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。台北市:東華書局。
張敬宜、熊召弟:我國國小學童生態平衡概念發展之研究。台北師院學報,8期,321-376。
張靜嚳(1994):何謂建構主義? 中部地區科學教育簡訊,三期。線上檢索日期:民91年4月23日。 網址:http://scied.ncue.edu.tw/建構主義1.htm.
郭金美(1999):建構主義教學法─影響學童光學概念學習教學模式的研究,國立嘉義師院學報,13期,157-201。
陳嘉成(1996):以概念構圖為學習策略之教學對小學生自然科學習之成效結果。國立政治大學教育學類碩士論文。
黃台珠(1984):概念研究及其意義。科學教育月刊,66期,44-55。
黃台珠(1995):概念圖在國中生物教學上的成效研究(II)。國科會研究報告。
黃萬居(1993):國小學生的概念構圖和自然科學學習成就之研究。台北市立師範學院學報,24期,47-66。
董正玲(1991):利用晤談方式探究國小兒童運動與力概念的另有架構。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
蔡永巳、陳瓊森(1998):國二理化科試行合作學習之合作式行動研究。彰化師大科學教育期刊第8期。
鄭湧涇(1998):概念學習研究對科學教師與師資的啟示。國民中學學生概念學習學術研討會論文集,18-32。
蕭建嘉(2001):以概念構圖的動態評量(CMDA)探討國小高年級學童的概念改變-以「地球的運動」單元為例。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
謝華真(1999):概念構圖教學對國小四年級學童在自然科學習成效之研究。台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
二、外文部分
Anderson, B. (1986). Pupils explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70(5), 549-563.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Rinehart & Winston.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Education Psychology: A Cognitive View (Rev. ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Bennett, N. & Cass, A. (1988). The effects of group composition on group interactive processes and pupil understanding. British Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 19-32.
Beyerbach, B. A. (1990) Using a computerized concept mapping program to access pre-service teachers’ thinking about effective teaching. The Journal of Research in Education, 27(10), 961-972.
Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039-1065.
Bodenr, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873-878.
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41, 1123-1130.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Creativity: Shifting across ontological categories flexibly. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid, (Eds.), Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes (109-234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cliburn, J. W., Jr. (1987). How to do it. Helping students understand physiological interactions: A concept mapping activity. The American Biology Teacher, 49, 426-427.
Cosgrove, K. E., & Osborne, R. J. (1985). Lesson frameworks for changing children’s ideas. In R. J. Osborne & P. Freyberg, (Eds.), Learning in Science: The Implications of Children’s Science. (101-111). Heinemann Publishers: Auckland, New Zealand.
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
Driver. R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott. P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
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, (17-31), New York: Teachers College Press.
Duit. R., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg, (Eds.), Improving Science Education, (46-69). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Edmondson, K. M.(2000). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In J. D. Novak, J. J. Mintzes & J. H. Wandersee, (Eds.), Assessing Science Understanding. (15-41). Academic Press: A Harcourt Science and Technology company.
Edwards, J., & Fraser, K. (1983). Concept maps as reflectors of conceptual understanding. Research in Science Education, 13, 19-22.
Erickson, G. L. (1979). Children’s conceptions of heat and temperature. Science Education, 63(2), 221-230.
Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children''''s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623-633.
Glynn, S. M., & Duit, R. (1995). Learning science meaningfully: Constructing conceptual models. International Journal of Educational Research, 3, 21-39.
Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1981). Understanding of gravity. Science Education, 65(3), 291-299.
Halford, G. S. (1993). Children''''s Understanding: The Development of Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hegarty-Hazel, E., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relationship between students’ conceptual knowledge and study strategies- Part I: Student learning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 421-429.
Heinze-Fry, J. A., & Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement to ward meaningful learning. Science Education, 74(4), 461-472.
Helm, H. (1980). Misconception in physics among South African students. Physics Education, 15, 92-100.
Henderson, J., & Wellington, J. (1998). Lowering the language barrier in learning and teaching science. School Science Review, 79(288), 35-46.
Hirokawa, R. Y., & Johnston, D. D. (1989). Toward a general theory of group decision making, Small Group Behavior, 20(4), 500-523.
Holt, J. (1982). How Children Fail (Rev. ed.). New York: Delta.
Horton, P. B., Mcconney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77, 95-111.
Jay, J. A.(1995) A study of concept mapping in a college-level cell biology course. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(12), 3760a .(University Microfilms No.9511658).
Jonassen, D. H., Reeves, T., Hong, N., Harver, D., & Peters, K. (1997). Concept mapping as cognitive learning and assessment tools. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8, 289-308.
Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (1998). Small groups and shared constructions. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wanderess & J. D. Novak, (Eds.), Teaching Science for Understanding. A Human Constructivist View. (261-279). San Diego, Calif: Academic Press.
Kinchin, I. M. (1998). Constructivism in the classroom: mapping your way through. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Student Conference, The Queen''''s University of Belfast, 26-27. August; available at http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000811.htm
Kintsch, W. (1974). The Representation of Meaning in Memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolution. (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lawless, C., Smee, P., & O''''Shea, T. (1998). Using concept sorting and concept mapping in business and public administration, and in education: an overview. Educational Research, 40(2), 219-235.
Liu, X., & Hinchey, M. (1996).The internal consistency of a concept mapping scoring scheme and its effect on prediction validity. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 921-937.
Mansfield, H., & Happs, J. (1996). Using student conceptions of parallel lines to plan a teaching program. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit & B.J. Fraser, (Eds.) , Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics. (120-130). New York: Teachers College Press.
Mason, C. L. (1992) Concept mapping: A tool to develop relative science education. Science Education, 76(1), 51-63.
Mayer, R. E. (1981). The promise of cognitive approach. New York: Freeman.
Mueller, A. (1997). Discourse of scientific inquiry in the elementary classroom. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 9(1), 15-33.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive Change in School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D. (1976). Understanding the learning process and effectiveness of teaching methods in the classroom, laboratory, and field. Science Education, 60, 493-512.
Novak, J. D. (1977). A Theory of Education. New York: Cornell University Press.
Novak, J. D. (1980a). Progress in application of learning theory. Theory in Practice, 19, 58-65.
Novak, J. D. (1980b). Learning theory applied to the biology classroom . The American Biology Teacher, 42(5), 280-285.
Novak, J. D. (1984). Application of advances in learning theory and philosophy of science to the improvement of chemistry teaching. The Journal of Chemical Education, 61(7), 607-612.
Novak, J. D. (1990a). Concept maps and vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
Novak, J. D. (1990b). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949.
Novak, J. D. (1996). Concept mapping: A tool for improving science teaching. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit & B. J. Fraser, (Eds.), Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics. (32-33). London: Teachers College Press.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153.
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625-645.
Okebukola, P. A. & Jegede, O. J. (1989) . Cognitive preference and learning mode as determinants of meaning through concept mapping. Science Education, 71, 232-241.
Okebukola, P. A. (1990). Attaining meaningful learning of concepts in genetics and ecology: an examination of the potency of the concept mapping technique. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 493-540.
Osborne, R. J., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in Science: The Implications of Children''''s Science. Heinemann Publishers: Auckland, New Zealand.
Osborne, R. J., & Tasker, R. (1985). Introducing children''''s ideas to teachers. In R. J. Osborne & R. Freyberg, (Eds.), Learning in Science: The Implications of Children''''s Science. (136-148). Heinemann Publishers: Auckland, New Zealand.
Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67(4), 489-508.
Pankratius, W. J. (1990). Building an organized knowledge base: concept mapping and achievement in secondary school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(4), 315-333.
Pearsall, N. R., Skipper, J. E. J., & Mintzes, J. J. (1996). Knowledge restructuring in the life science: A longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, Missouri.
Pendley, B.D., Bretz, R. l., & Novak, J.D. (1994). Concept maps as a tool to assess learning in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 9-15.
Perkins, D. N. (1991). What constructivism demands of the learner? Education Technology, 31(9), 19-21.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
Prosser, M. (1987). Is prior knowledge of subject matter important to the development and use of meaningful learning skills? Programmed Learning and Education Technology, 24, 280-285.
Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989). The ‘how’ and ‘what’ of learning of physics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 513-528.
Rafal, C. T. (1996). From co-construction to takeovers: science talk in a group of four girls. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 279-293.
Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science, 220, 477-478.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76(5), 531-557.
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis oh high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 503-534.
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Science discourse through collaborative concept map: New Perspectives for the teacher. International Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 437-455.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1975). The computer implementation .In D. A. Norman, & D. E. Rumelhart, (Eds.), Exploration in Cognition. San Francisco: Freeman.
Seaman, T. (1990). On the High Road Achievement: Cooperation Concept Mapping. Researcher Report (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 335-140).
Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils'''' understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63-82.
Solso, R. L. (1995) Cognitive Psychology (Rev. ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Stavy, R., Eisen, Y., & Yaakobi, D. (1987). How students aged 13-15 understand photosynthesis. International Journal of Science Education, 9(1), 105-115.
Stice, C. F., & Alvarez, M. C. (1986) Hierarchical Concept Mapping: Young Children Learning How to Learn. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 274946)
Stofflett, R.T. (1994). The accommodation of science pedagogical knowledge: The application of conceptual change constructs to teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 787-810.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding. Volume 1. : The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton, HJ: Princeton University Press.
Trowbrideg, J. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1996). How do graphics presented during college biology lessons affect students’ learning? Journal of College Science Teaching, 16(1), 54-57.
Trowbrideg, J. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1998). Theory-Priven Graphic Organizer. In J. D. Novak, J. J. Mintzes & J. H. Wandersee, (Eds.), Teaching Science for Understanding. (95-131). New York: Academic Press.
Tsai Chin-Chung. (2000). Enhancing science instruction: the using of ‘conflict maps’. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 285-302.
Udupa, P. S. (1993). Concept Mapping / Cooperative Learning as A Technique to Improve the Learning of at-Risk and Nondisabled Students. Minnesota : University of Minnesota Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, J. P., & Mintzes, J. J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10). 1033-1052.
Wandersee, J. H. (1990). Concept mapping and the cartography of cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 932-936.
Wandersee, J. H., & Ai-Kunifed, A. (1990). One hundred references related to concept mapping. The Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1069-1075.
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21-39.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London: The Falmer Press.
Wood, D., & O''''Malley, C. (1996). Collaborative learning between peers: an overview. Educational Psychology in Practice, 11(4), 4-9.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top