(18.206.238.77) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/12 01:45
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:::

: 
twitterline
研究生:江世豪
研究生(外文):Chiang , Shih-Hau
論文名稱:科學教學實務中的認知腳本與教師思考之個案研究
論文名稱(外文):A Case Study on Cognitive Script and Teacher Thinking of Science Teaching Practice
指導教授:郭重吉郭重吉引用關係
指導教授(外文):Guo, Chorng-Jee
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
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:2004
畢業學年度:92
語文別:中文
論文頁數:271
中文關鍵詞:認知腳本成長教師教學序列教學認知技能腳本活動論述社群
外文關鍵詞:Cognitive scriptCognitive skills of teachingDeveloping teacherDiscourse communityScript activityTeaching sequence
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:4
  • 點閱點閱:575
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:117
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:9
在九年一貫課程逐漸取代舊課程型態之際,本研究旨在探究一位國中的理化科成長教師其轉化的教學實務與對應的思考,同時理解授課班級學生的反應。根據基模理論,認知者對於事件的行動與思考可以透過認知腳本(簡稱腳本)的構念予以呈現。本研究以腳本為理論基礎,研究設計參照「教師思考和行動模型」,透過質的研究法進行一學期的課室觀察與研究資料蒐集,方式包括以自編且經專家審查之開放性問卷(腳本自陳問卷與關鍵事例調查問卷)、教學錄影、對師╱生的晤談、教學文物等進行資料分析,探究師╱生在學習事件中的行動、互動方式與對應思考。研究者根據上述資料分析的討論結果,提出以下結論:
一、 透過腳本進行個案教師的課室╱實驗室教學序列分析時,同時也確認了其教學實務中主要的認知技能項目;因此,個案教師的教學腳本活動項目可視為其教學認知技能。
二、 學生的學習腳本與知覺方面:(一)針對班級學生施以間隔八個月的前、後測課室╱實驗室情境學習腳本自陳問卷調查,班級學生的科學學習群體認知腳本(簡稱群體腳本)之分析比較呈現後測的群體腳本在「與老師互動的方式」、「討論的方式」、「作業╱任務的完成」、「課後的延伸學習」等的腳本行動比前測結果明確,而且對應的事項更為細密。(二)進一步利用關鍵事例問卷調查分析結果,以前、後測群體腳本檢視對應時期的關鍵事例分類事項,結果顯示學生在前測對於科學學習共有五項知覺,其中有兩項對應群體腳本,其餘三項違背群體腳本;後測則呈現學生對於科學學習不同於先前的另五項知覺,且全部呈現對應於後測群體腳本。
三、 學生的知識建構方面,個案教師的教學改變特徵主要是透過設計學習單重新編寫課本內容與活動,當中涵蓋了「概念組織」、「實驗活動的延伸探索」、「相關學習資料的蒐集活動」,最後再透過「個人化學習檔案」的資料彙整,進一步精緻化個人的知識理解。對照於班級學生後測的群體腳本,可以發現到學生認知到這部分的科學學習的方式是根據學習單問題指引,上網或外出去搜尋相關資訊或材料,接著準備口頭與書面報告,老師會從學生們的這些分享資料當中,針對一些生活化問題提問進行討論。
四、 個案教師在實務轉化的經驗中,有「教學嘗試融入資訊科技」、「改編課本單元的教學活動」兩項滿意的教學關鍵事例,和一項「預定的教學活動未能實現」的不滿意關鍵事例。同時,透過敘說分析,可以瞭解到個案教師有三方面的思考:(一)自我省思了不同於以往教學實務的六點認知;(二)自我歸因教學的改變是由於參與教師專業成長的合作式研究計畫;(三)參與計畫後有兩項體認:「實務經驗,實為教學改變的利基點」、「透過與教育研究成果對話的成長經驗」,可視為實務教師觀點對於教師專業成長的啟示。
五、 本研究透過腳本的分析方式,將「師-生」雙方就社會心理層面的互動方式予以表徵,並進一步連結真實情境的互動過程之關鍵事例,理解與詮釋所欲探究的課室實體。研究者根據上述獲得的相關證據,主張存在於「師-生」雙方有關如何從事教學╱學習活動的認知腳本為主導互動的社會認知因素之一。
最後,研究者對未來研究提出兩項建議:一、不論在師資培育或教師專業成長的論述社群,在進行教學實務的分享、討論之對話時,可以透過腳本表徵作為論述所依據的認知工具;特別是,腳本可以同時針對「教學認知技能」以及「教學序列」的呈現與分析方面,扮演有效的工具之一。二、在發展教學模組或進行實務改變的同時,先將學生的學習經驗透過腳本表徵之,應可以做為理解學生個人╱班級群體在學習行動的內容與程序結構方面,是否能與教師的教學實務進行互動的一種評估方式,後續也應考量如何引導學習者進行「腳本修訂」之配套方式。

A Case Study on Cognitive Script and Teacher Thinking
of Science Teaching Practice
Shih-Hau Chiang
Abstract

In the midst of the impact of the Nine Year Integrated Curriculum Reform, two purposes of this study were developed. The first one was to explore a developing science teacher’s teaching practice and her corresponding thinking, who serving in the junior high school. The second purpose was to explore a participated class of 8th grader’s learning perceptions, as well as their knowledge construction.
According to schema theory, actions can be represented by a sequence of cognitive script (i.e., script), research was designed with a model of “teacher thinking and action” in term of cognitive script theories. Meanwhile, the qualitative methodology was employed. Data collection was carried on a whole semester. Methods of data collection included script self-report, questionnaire of critical incidents in science teaching/learning, classroom observation, video taped instruction, personal interviews with teacher/students, and artifacts in a science class. The findings of this study are summarized as follows:
1. The cognitive skills of teaching could be identified through teacher's classroom/laboratory teaching script activity analysis. Therefore, these items of teaching script activity can be regard as cognitive skills of teaching.
2. The results, over eight months of data collected from students pre-/post-test with classroom/laboratory learning script self-report, and the critical incident technique (CIT), showed that the developing teacher with the following science teaching effects:
(1) Sequential learning actions of the student-group post script indicated following four items that students can be regulated themselves more solid and sophisticated form than the student-group prior script. Such as, how to interact with teacher, how to conduct a discussion, how to complete a task/homework, and how to deal with their learning after science teaching.
(2) There five categories of student perception toward science learning were found through pre-test data. Among them, two of categories corresponded to the student-group prior script, and three other violated the script. However, the post-test data analysis indicated that five categories of perception were different from the pre-test result. Meantime, they are totally corresponded to the student-group post script.
3. Learning & teaching worksheets is a main way to guide student’s knowledge construction and teacher’ teaching. Learning & teaching worksheets contain the parts of “the concept organization,” “the exploration of science experiments,” “the study material collection activity.” And finally, a “personalized portfolio” was made to elaborate one’s conceptual understanding. Furthermore, the student-group post script can be made to interpretation the ways of student’s science learning, such as, by the questions in worksheets, by the materials collected through internet or other resources, by the oral reports and paper reports. After that, classroom discussion was carried on based on these learning reports.
4. Three critical incidents took place during the teaching practice transformation. Among them, two were satisfied by the developing teacher, and the other one was negative. Moreover, through narrative analysis, the thinking of developing science teacher has been identified in three aspects. The first, she had six cognitions reflection different from her former teaching practice. The second, her self-attribution of teaching change was due to the participation of the collaborative research project. And the third, she recognized that “practice experience is a foundation of teaching change,” as well as “the professional growth can be made through discoursing with educational studies”. Both are serving as implications for the practicing teachers’ professional growth demand.
5. Scripts of teacher-student interactive were obtained from this study. Meantime, the classroom reality made better understanding in term the scripts of the critical incidents in teaching/learning. Therefore, the claims is made that script is one of social psychology factor, which affects teacher-students interaction process in science teaching/learning events.
Based on these research findings, two suggestions are discussing as follows: (1). Scripts can be utilized as a cognitive tool for sharing and discussing the experiences in pre-service/experienced teachers’ discourse communities. Particularly, scripts play a successful role in representing “teaching sequence” and “cognitive skills of teaching.” (2). Students’ learning scripts is important information to be checked before changing teaching strategy or designing future teaching modules. Also, a strategy of script revised should be developed in order to help students learning science.

第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 問題背景與研究動機 2
第二節 本研究的重要性 9
第三節 名詞釋義 12
第四節 研究目的與待答問題 15
第五節 研究限制 17
第貳章 文獻探討 19
第一節 九年一貫的科學教育與建構主義思潮 20
第二節 教學實務知識的記憶表徵:基模之探討 31
第三節 認知腳本構念與應用 43
第四節 科學教學序列與教師思考之探討 58
第五節 知覺理論與學習知覺的實徵研究 69
第六節 總結 73
第參章 研究方法 75
第一節 研究設計 75
第二節 研究對象與研究情境之描述 79
第三節 資料蒐集與分析方法 85
第四節 研究者角色與理念 95
第五節 研究品質的判準-信賴度 97
第肆章 結果與討論 101
第一節 教師的科學教學認知腳本 101
第二節 學生的科學學習認知腳本 113
第三節 科學教學中的關鍵事例分析結果 132
第四節 科學教學歷程中學生的學習知覺和知識建構方式 138
第五節 個案教師對教學實務轉化的思考 200
第伍章 結論與建議 215
第一節 研究結論 216
第二節 研究建議 232
參考文獻 237
附錄一 251
附錄二 257
附錄三 261
附錄四 271

參考文獻
中文部分:
王國華、段曉林和張惠博(1998)。國中學生對科學教師學科教學之知覺。科學教育學刊, 6(4), 363-381。
王澄霞(1996)。建立STS教師專業能力基準:化學領域(專題研究計畫成果報告編號:NSC 84-2511-S-003-094a)。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
王叢桂和羅國英(1994)。學業困擾大學生的生活形態、對求助體系的認知腳本、生涯規劃,與學習策略之研究(專題研究計畫成果報告編號:NSC83-0301-H031-003)。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
布魯納(2001)。教育的文化(初版)(宋文理 譯)。台北:遠流。(原著出版年﹕1996)
江世豪和郭重吉(2004)。以認知腳本詮釋國一學生從事科學學習活動的知覺初探。科學教育學刊, 12(4)(付梓中)。
米高•奎因•巴頓(1990)。質的評鑑與研究(初版)(吳芝儀和李奉儒 譯)。台北:桂冠。(原著出版年﹕1990年)
成虹飛和黃志順(1999)。從教師成長看課程改革的意義。應用心理學, 1, 69-97。
邱玉萍(2004)。基層教師對課程設計的回顧與展望。教育與資訊研究, 57, 25-30。
沈姍姍(1998)。教育改革趨向與影響因素分析--國際比觀點。教育資料集刊, 23, 39-53。
李暉(1993)。國中理化教師試行主義教學之個案研究。國立彰化師範大學碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
李暉(2000)。科學話語與科學概念的學習:以國中生理化課學習為例。國立彰化師範大學博士論文,未出版,彰化。
林秀蓁(1995)。一位國中理化教師實驗室之教學與經營研究。:國立高雄師範大學碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
周淑卿(2004)。我是課程發展的專業人員?--教師專業身分認同的分析。教育資料與研究, 57, 9-16。
胡幼慧和姚美華(1996)。一些質性方法上的思考。文載於胡幼慧主編:質性研究--理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。台北:巨流出版社。
國立編譯館(1996)。國民中學認識台灣科、生物科、健康教育科新課程教材與教學之探討。國立編譯館通訊, 9(2), 10-39。
國立編譯館(1997)。國民中學地球科學、理化科新課程教材與教學之探討。國立編譯館通訊, 10(2), 4-22。
國立編譯館(2003)。國民中學理化科教科用書(2)。台北:國立編譯館。
許玫理(1992)。我國國民中學自然科學教師科學哲學觀點之調查研究。國立彰化師範大學碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
教育部(1998)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。台北:教育部。
郭重吉(1992)。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, 20(5), 548-570。
郭重吉(2001)。九年一貫國中自然教學模組發展和試教之研究(1)(專題研究計畫成果報告編號:NSC89-2511-S-018-023)。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
郭重吉(2002)。九年一貫國中自然教學模組發展和試教之研究(2)(專題研究計畫成果報告編號:NSC90-2511-S-143-011)。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
郭重吉(2003)。九年一貫國中自然教學模組發展和試教之研究(3)(專題研究計畫成果報告編號:NSC91-2511-S-143-007)。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
郭重吉和江武雄(1994)。從協助學生建構意義的觀點探討國中理化教學的改進(3)(專題研究計畫成果報告編號: NSC-83-0111-S-018-003)。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
郭鴻銘(1976)。科學素養的教育--有關的觀念及其在教學方面之應用。科學教育月刊, 2, 41-49。
郭鴻銘和沈青嵩(1976)。科學素養之涵義。科學教育月刊, 1, 31-40。
詹志禹(1998)。認知的主動性。教育研究資訊, 6(1), 28-51。
黃瑞琴(1991)。質的教育研究方法。台北:心理出版社。
黃瑞祺(2000)。現代與後現代。台北:巨流出版社。
黃顯華(1999)。九十年代香港的課程改革。課程與教學季刊, 2(3), 71-86。
陳文典和黃茂在(2000)。由國民中小學課程目標看「自然與生活科技」學習領域之教學與評量。2003年2月1日,取自http://www.iest.edu.tw/announce/9teach/8.htm。
陳伯墇(1999a)。九年一貫新課程綱要修訂的背景與內涵。教育研究資訊, 7(1), 1-13。
陳伯墇(1999b)。九年一貫課程的理念與分析。論文發表於九年一貫課程研討會論文集(上):邁向課程新紀元(pp.10-18)。台北:中華民國教材研究發展學會。
陳奎憙(1998)。我國師資培育制度變革之分析。教育資料集刊, 23, 171-195。
楊文金(1992)。在職國小教師對基本電路之概念研究。論文發表於中華民國第八屆科學教育學術研討會論文彙編(pp.500-518)。高雄:國立高雄師範大學。
甄曉蘭(2001)。推動學校本位課程發展的困難與策略。教育研究月刊, 85, 42-53。
張惠博(1994)。職前科學教師教學能力培養之研究:實驗室教學之研究(2/3)(專題研究計畫成果報告編號:NSC 82-011-S-018-004)。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
張靜嚳(1995)。問題中心教學在國中發展之經過、效果及可行性之探討。科學教育學刊, 3(2), 139-164。
歐用生(1995)。課程發展的基本原理。高雄:復文書局。
歐用生(1999)。從「課程統整」的概念評九年一貫課程。教育研究資訊, 7(2), 128-138。
蔣佳玲(1999)。從權力的觀點探討學生在小組互動中科學知識的建構。國立彰化師範大學博士論文,未出版,彰化。
劉志榮(2002)。國中自然與生活科技領域教師實行教學模組的歷程與思考之初探。國立彰化師範大學碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
劉宏文(2001)。高中學生進行開放式科學探活動之個案研究。國立彰化師範大學博士論文,未出版,彰化。
熊召弟(1999)。管窺《國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要》「自然與科技」學習領域。論文發表於九年一貫課程研討會論文集(上):邁向課程新紀元(pp. 147-156)。台北:中華民國教材研究發展學會。
饒見維(1999)。九年一貫課程與教師專業發展支配套實施策略。論文發表於九年一貫課程研討會論文集(上):邁向課程新紀元(pp. 305-323)。台北:中華民國教材研究發展學會。
簡紅珠(1992)。教育研究的主要派典及啟示之探析。高雄:復文書局。
簡紅珠(1998)。教師教學決定:內涵、 思考歷程與影響因素--兼談如何改進教學決定技能。課程與教學, 1(4), 61-80。
羅英豪(2004)。九年一貫課程健步走。教育與資訊研究, 56, 45-53。


西文部分:
Abbot, V., Black, J. B., & Smith, E. E. (1985). The representation of script in memory. Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 24, No. 2, 179-199.
Abelson, R. P. (1976). Script processing in attitude formation and decision making. In J. S. Carroll & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior(pp.33-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, Vol. 36, No. 7, 715-729.
Airasian, P. W., & Gullickson, A. R. (1994). Examination of teacher self- assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 195-203.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy:Project 2061. Washington, DC: AAAS Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Anderson,J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, Vol. 89, No.4, 369-406.
Anderson,J. R. (1993). Rules of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Anderson,J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its Implication. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Anderson, R. D. (1995). Curriculum reform: Dilemmas and promise. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 33-36.
Anderson, R. D. (1996). Study of curriculum reform. Washing, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Apple, M. W. (1986). Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education. London: Routledge and Kegan paul.
Arter, J. A., & Spandel, V. (1992). Using portfolios of student work in instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issue and practice, 11(1), 36-43.
Ashcraft, M. H. (1998). Fundamentals of cognition. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers , Inc.
Baird, J. R., Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1991). The importance of improving science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(2), 163-182.
Beerens, D. R. (2000). Evaluating teachers for professional growth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Berg, K. F. (1994). Scripted cooperative in high school mathematic: Peer interaction and achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374 976.)
Berliner, D. C. (1987). Ways of thinking about students and classrooms by more and less experience teachers. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 60-83). London: Cassell Educational Limited.
Best, J. B. (1992). Cognitive psychology (3rd ed.). St. Paul, M.N.: West.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Bonder, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873-878.
Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Difference in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473-489.
Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, Vol.11, No. 2, 177-220.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Bybee, R. W., & Ben-Zvi, N. (1998). Science curriculum: transforming goals to practices. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.487-498). London: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Calderhead, J. (1987). Introduction. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp.1-19). London: Cassell Educational Limited.
Calderhead, J. (1993). Dilemmas in developing reflective education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 43-51.
Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 5-12 & 18.
Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M.C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook for research on teaching (pp.432-463). New York: Macmillan.
Champang, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. F. (1985). Effecting change in cognitive structure amongst physics students. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pine (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 163-188). New York: Academic Press.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought process. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-19.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dansereau, D. F., McDonald, B. A., Collins, K. W., Garland, J. C., Holley, C. D., Diekhoff, G. M., & Evans, S. E. (1979). Evaluation of a learning strategy system. In H. F. O’neil, Jr., & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Cognitive and affective learning strategies (pp.209-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
Duit, R., & Treguest, D. F. (1998). Learning in science--From behaviorism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin(Eds.), International handbook of science education(pp.3-25). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Dupin, J. J., & Johsua, S. (1987). Conception of French pupils’ concerning electric circuits: Structure and evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(9), 791-806.
Einser, E. (1994). Educational imagination. (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin(Eds.), International handbook of science education, pp.1155-1173. Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House.
Fivush, R. (1987). Script and categories: interrelationships in development. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp.234-254). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, Vol.51 , 327-357.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York: Harper Collins College Publisher.
Gergen, K. J. (1995). Social construction and the educational process. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp.41-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119-169.
Gioia, D. A., & Poole, P. P. (1984). Scripts in organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, 449-459.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Guskey, T. R. (1985). Staff development and teacher change. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 57-60.
Hall, R. H., Rocklin, T. R., Dansereau, D. F., Skaggs, L. P., O’Donnell, A. M., Lambiotte, J. G., & Young, M. D. (1988). The role of individual differences in the cooperative learning of technical material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 172-178.
Hipps, J. A. (1993). Trustworthiness and authenticity: Alternate ways to judge authentic assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Toward a personalized approach. Philadelphia, PA : Open University Press.
Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social constructivism: A Vygotskian perspective on teaching and learning. School Science Review, 79(289), 33-41.
Hudson, J. A., Fivush, R., & Kuebli, J. (1992). Script and episode: The development of event memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol.6, 483-505.
Huibregtse, I., & Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (1994). Physics teachers’ conception of learning, teaching and professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 16(5), 539-561.
John, D. R., & Whitney, J. C. (1986). The development of consumer knowledge in children: A cognitive structure approach. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.12, 406-417.
John, G., & Whitney, J. C. (1982). An empirical investigation of the serial structure of scripts. Proceedings of American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference (pp.75-79). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Jorgenson, M. (1996). Rethinking portfolio assessment: Documenting the intellectual work of learners in science and mathematics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED400 169)
Joyce, B., Calhoun, E., & Hopkins, D. (1997). Models of learning--tools for teaching. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Kilmann, R. H., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1986). Issues in understanding and changing culture. California Management Review, 28, 87-94.
Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky’s psychology: A biography of ideas. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., O’Donnell, A. M., Young, M. D., Skaggs, L. P., Hall, R. H., & Rocklin, T. R. (1987). Manipulation cooperative scripts for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 424-430.
Langan-Fox, J., Langfield-Smith, K. & Code, S. (2000). Team mental models: Techniques, methods, and analytic approaches. Human Factors, 42, 242-271.
Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., O’Donnell, A. M., Hythecker, V. I., Lambiotte, J. G.., & Rocklin, T. R. (1985). Effect of metacognitive and elaborative activity on cooperative learning and transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 342-348.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, A. E., Abraham, M. R., and Renner, J. W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concept and thinking skill. NARST Monograph, 1.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115-142.
Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 18-25.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.78, No.2, 75-95.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lloyd, B. A., & Lloyd, R. C. (1986). Teaching/learning: The student viewpoint. Reading Horizon, 26(4), 266-269.
Louden, W. (1998). Stories and science: Is narrative research just made up? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.
Loughran, J., & Derry, N. (1995). Researching teaching for understanding: The students’ perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Mandler, J. M. (1979). Categorical and schematic organization in memory. In C. R. Puff (Ed.), Memory organization and structure (pp.259-297). New York: Academic Press.
Marsh, C. (1992). Key concepts for understanding curriculum. London: The Falmer Press.
Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Bryan, E. S. (1999). The activation of unrelated and canceled intention. Memory and Cognition, 27(2), 320-327.
Marx, R. W., Freeman, J. G., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1998). Professional development of science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.667-680). London: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Mayer, J. D., & Bower, G. H. (1986). Learning and memory for personality prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 473-492.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. New York: American Elsevier.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. J. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211-277). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1991). Learning to think like a teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 159-168.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Nelson, K., & Gruendel, J. (1986). Children’s script. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Event knowledge, structure and function in development (pp.21-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Newmann, F. (1992). Students engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teacher College Press.
O’Connell, B. G., & Gerard, A. B. (1985). Script and scraps: The development of sequential understanding. Child Development, 56, 671-681.
O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., Hall, R. H., & Rocklin, T. R. (1987). Cognitive, social/affective, and metacognitive outcomes of scripted cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 431-437.
O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., Hythecker, V. I., Larson, C. O Rocklin, T. R. Lambiotte, J. G., & Young, M. D. (1986). Effects of monitoring on cooperative learning. Journal of Experiment Education, 54, 169-173.
O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., Rocklin, T. R. Lambiotte, J. G., Hythecker, V. I., & Larson, C. O. (1985). Cooperative writing: Direct effects and transfer. Writing Communication, 2, 307-315.
Olson, L., & Moore, M. (1984). Voices form the classroom: Students and teachers speaking out on the quality of teaching in our schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 252 497.)
Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P. R., & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio?Educational Leadership, 48, 60-63.
Peterson, P., & Swing, S. (1982). Beyond time on task: Students’ reports of their thought processes during direct instruction. Elementary School Journal, 82, 481-491.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J. A. Hatch & R. Wisniewski (Eds.), Life history and narrative (pp.5-23). London: The Falmer Press.
Posner, G. J., & Strike, K. A. (1985). A Conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West, & A.L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change. New York: Academic Press.
Posner, M. I., & Synder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp.55-83). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
Putnum, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, Vol.29, No. 1, pp. 4-15.
Radnofsky, M. L. (1994). Empowerment and the power not to change: Teachers’ perceptions of restructuring. International Journal of Educational Reform, 3(2), 12-18.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton, & R. L. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factor in cognition (pp.37-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1988). Representation in memory. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & R. D. Luce(Eds.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology(2nd ed.)(pp. 511-587).New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Saphier, J., & Gower, G. (1997). The skillful teacher: Building your teaching skill. Carlisle, MA: Research for Better teaching.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
Scholl, R. W. (2000). Social cognition and Cognitive Schema. Retrieved June 20, 2002, from http://www.cba.uri.edu/Scholl/Notes/Cognitive_Schema.htm
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.
Schwab, J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81, 501-522.
Schwab, J. (1978). Science, curriculum and liberal education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Staer, H., Goodrum, D., &Hacking, M. (1998). High school laboratory work in Western Australia: openness to inquiry. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 219-228.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton(Eds.) Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Sutton, C. (1996). The scientific model as a form of speech. In A. G. Welford, J. Osborne & P. Scott (Eds.), Science education research in Europe: Current issue and themes (pp.143-152). London: The Falmer Press.
Synder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K.( 1992).Curriculum implementation. In A. A. Bellack & H. M. Kliebard (Eds.), Curriculum and education (pp.402-435). New York: Macmillian.
Tobin, K. G. (1998). Issue and trends in science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.129-151). London: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgment. London: Routledge.
van den Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum: between ideas and outcomes. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.421-447). London: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Viennot, L., & Rainson, S. (1999). Design and evaluation of a research based teaching sequence: The superstition of electric fields. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 1-16.
Vitale, M. & Romance, N. R.(1999). Portfolio in Science Assessment: A Knowledge-Based Model for classroom Practice. In J. D. Novak, J. J. Mintzes & J. H. Wandersee (Eds.), Assessing science understanding (pp. 167-196). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Sensory experience, abstraction, and teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp.369-383). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Constructivism in education. In T. Husen & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education [Suppl.]. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinstein, R. S. (1983). Student perceptions of schooling. Elementary School Journal, 83, 287-312.
Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 292-305.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1996). Probing understanding. New York: The Falmer Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Winitzky, N., & Kaucbak, D. (1997). Constructivism in teacher education: Applying Cognitive theory to Teacher learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings (pp. 59-83). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.
Winne, P. H., & Marx, R. W. (1982). Students’ and teachers’ views of thinking processes involved in classroom learning. Elementary School Journal, 82,493-518.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-803.
Zahorik, J. A. (1984). Can teacher adopt research finding? Journal of Teacher Education, Vol 35(1), 34-36.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
Zuber, R. L. (1992). Cooperative learning by fifth-grade student: the effect of scripted and unscripted techniques. (Proquest Dissertation Abstract No. AAC. 923139)

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 吳重禮,2002,「SNTV的省思:弊端肇因或是代罪羔羊?」,問題與研究,第四十一卷第三期,頁45-60。
2. 吳東野,1996,「單一選區兩票制選舉方法之探討:德國、日本、俄羅斯選舉之實例比較」,選舉研究,第三卷第一期,頁69-102。
3. 王業立,1995,「單記非讓渡投票制的政治影響:我國民意代表選舉制度的探討」,選舉研究,第二卷第一期,頁147-167。
4. 簡紅珠(1998)。教師教學決定:內涵、 思考歷程與影響因素--兼談如何改進教學決定技能。課程與教學, 1(4), 61-80。
5. 歐用生(1999)。從「課程統整」的概念評九年一貫課程。教育研究資訊, 7(2), 128-138。
6. 張靜嚳(1995)。問題中心教學在國中發展之經過、效果及可行性之探討。科學教育學刊, 3(2), 139-164。
7. 甄曉蘭(2001)。推動學校本位課程發展的困難與策略。教育研究月刊, 85, 42-53。
8. 陳奎憙(1998)。我國師資培育制度變革之分析。教育資料集刊, 23, 171-195。
9. 黃顯華(1999)。九十年代香港的課程改革。課程與教學季刊, 2(3), 71-86。
10. 詹志禹(1998)。認知的主動性。教育研究資訊, 6(1), 28-51。
11. 郭重吉(1992)。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, 20(5), 548-570。
12. 周淑卿(2004)。我是課程發展的專業人員?--教師專業身分認同的分析。教育資料與研究, 57, 9-16。
13. 沈姍姍(1998)。教育改革趨向與影響因素分析--國際比觀點。教育資料集刊, 23, 39-53。
14. 王國華、段曉林和張惠博(1998)。國中學生對科學教師學科教學之知覺。科學教育學刊, 6(4), 363-381。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔