(3.239.33.139) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/02/26 22:58
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:王翠妃
研究生(外文):Tsui-Fei,Wang
論文名稱:探究教學對國中資優學生創造力及科學推理之影響
指導教授:段曉林段曉林引用關係
學位類別:碩士
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:2008
畢業學年度:97
語文別:中文
中文關鍵詞:資優生探究教學
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:8
  • 點閱點閱:449
  • 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:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:4
本研究主要探討進行探究教學過程中學生創造力及科學推理的轉變情形。研究樣本為中部某公立國中一班資優生於學生國二上至國三上(一年半),進行教學研究與資料收集。研究者依據探究教學模式設計相關教學活動,於學生國二上學期至國三下學期進行理化科的探究教學,每學期選取兩單元(共六個單元)來進行資料收集與分析,利用錄影、錄音、半結構式深入訪談、文件資料的收集及逐字稿的整理,並採用Hogan 和 Fisherkeller(1999)所製成的科學推理檢核表,來分析學生所展現的科學推理類型及其轉變。同時參考林偉文(2002)引自Besemer 等人,整理出評量創造產品的三個主要向度,分別是新奇性(novely)、解決性(resolution)、精緻與整合(elaboration and synthesis),並依序分別列出各項子向度,以編成「創造產品語意評量量表」(Creative Product Semantic Scale,CPSS),並依據創造產品評量量表評分要點,採二人共評給分,分析學生在六個單元的實驗設計,作為學生在產品上展現的創造力成長依據。並在每個學期末(共三次)進行實驗考試作為科學創造力檢測的資料,評分標準依據Torrance(1970)所提出的三項創造力指標進行評斷學生創造力的成長情形。研究發現,經由探究教學,學生科學推理的類型呈現階層性的轉變,依序為推論式推理、分析式推理、對話式推理、評價式推理、統整式推理。此階層性的轉變可說明學生推理的成長階段,進而可提供依循不同階段進行探究活動設計的建議。在推理類型的轉變過程中發現,當學生發展至評價式推理時,學生的創造力成長幅度最大,且由質性資料與推理階層的分析結果可以發現,對話式推理對學生進展至評價式與統整式推理有重要的影響。換而言之,教師在進行探究活動時,需有策略性的進行對話的引導與論證,培養學生進行對話式推理,如此可促進學生同時在推理與創造兩項思考能力的發展。
This study was mainly intended to explore the transition of students’ creativity and scientific reasoning throughout the process of inquiry instruction. It took half a year to
gather data for this research from a class of gifted students (the subjects of this study) in a municipal junior high school in central Taiwan. Based on inquiry instruction teaching pattern, related classroom activities were designed and applied to science teaching from when the subjects were in the eighth grade to the first semester of the ninth grade. Two out of six units were selected every semester for data collecting and analyzing. To analyze the
modes of scientific reasoning and the changes that the subjects showed, the methods used were as follows: taping, recording, semi-structured in-depth interviewing, documents
collecting, verbatim, and the table made by Hogan and Fisherkeller (1999) for examining scientific reasoning. In addition, the researcher consulted Creative Product Semantic Scale (CPSS), which was made by Wei-un Lin (2002), who referred to Besemer & others and worked out the following three major factors with subsidiary ones respectively to judge creative product: novelty, resolution, elaboration and synthesis. Furthermore, according to assessment points in CPSS, two instructors were required to evaluate and analyze the subjects’ experimental designs for the six units, and the results indicated the growth of creativity that they showed in their product. At the end of every semester – there were three semesters in total - an experimental exam was also held to examine their scientific creativity, and the evaluation standards were based on the three creativity indexes presented by Torrance (1970). The finding of this study was that throughout inquiry instruction, the mode of the subjects’ scientific reasoning shifted from inferential reasoning through analytical reasoning, dialogical reasoning, evaluative reasoning to integrative
reasoning in sequence. This order illustrated the phases of growth in the subjects’reasoning and thus offered suggestions when inquiry activities were designed for each
phase. It was found out that during the transition of the reasoning mode, the subjects’creativity developed the most when they achieved the phase of evaluative reasoning.
Besides, according to qualitative data and analysis of the reasoning phases, dialogical reasoning have important influences on the subjects’ development into evaluative
reasoning and integrative reasoning. In other words, during inquiry activities, strategic guidance and proof in dialogues are required to cultivate the subjects’ dialogical reasoning, and in this way their ponder abilities - reasoning and creativity - were promoted at the
same time.
第壹章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機……………………………………………..1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題………………………………………..3
第三節 名詞釋義……………………………………………………..3
第貳章 文獻探討
第一節 科學探究……………………………………………………..5
第二節 科學探究與創造力………………………………………….25
第三節 科學推理…………………………………………………….35
第參章 研究方法
第一節 研究者的理念與角色……………………………………….41
第二節 研究流程…………………………………………………….43
第三節 研究對象…………………………………………………….46
第四節 教案設計理念……………………………………………….48
第五節 資料的收集與分析………………………………………….53
第六節 研究的嚴謹性……………………………………………….66
第肆章 研究結果與討論
第一節 探究教學後,學生在科學創造力的成效………………….68
第二節 學生在探究過程中進行科學推理的情形………………….77
第三節 學生在探究過程中推理類型的轉變趨勢………………….93
第四節 學生在探究過程中其創造力的展現情形…………………102
第伍章 結論與建議
第一節 研究結論……………………………………………………110
第二節 研究建議……………………………………………………116

表 次
表2-1-1 邏輯實證主義與後現代主義的比較…………………………..6
表2-1-2 科學探究活動等級分法……………………………………….12
表3-5-1 教學活動一覽表……………………………………………….55
表3-5-2 科學推理的類型與判別依據………………………………….56
表3-5-3 推理類型檢核表……………………………………………….61
表3-5-4 創造產品語意評量量表……………………………………….62
表3-5-5 兩位評分者評分信度分析…………………………………….63
表3-5-6 創造力評分量表……………………………………………….64
表4-3-1 六個單元各推理類型的綜合比較……………………………100
表4-4-1 單元一~單元六創造產品評量結果…………………………103
表4-4-2 六個單元研究策略相似性綜合比較…………………………107

圖 次
圖2-1-1 巢狀探究教學模式…………………………………………….15
圖2-1-2 研究者使用的巢狀探究教學模式…………………………….22
圖2-2-1 愛的「ATDE」創造思考教學模式…………………………….29
圖2-2-2 CIM 的循環模式圖…………………………………………….32
圖3-2-1 研究流程圖…………………………………………………….43
圖3-3-1 研究者使用的巢狀探究教學模式…………………………….51
圖4-1-1 三次實驗考試創造力的綜合比較…………………………….69
圖4-3-1 單元一學生各推理類型所佔得百分比……………………….93
圖4-3-2 單元二學生各推理類型所佔得百分比……………………….94
圖4-3-3 單元三學生各推理類型所佔得百分比……………………….95
圖4-3-4 單元四學生各推理類型所佔得百分比……………………….96
圖4-3-5 單元五學生各推理類型所佔得百分比……………………….97
圖4-3-6 單元六學生各推理類型所佔得百分比……………………….99
圖4-3-7 六個單元各推理類型的綜合比較……………………………100
圖4-4-1 A~F 組在六個單元中創造力產品的綜合分析……………104
圖4-4-2 六個單元研究策略中的相似性綜合比較……………………107

附 錄 次
附錄一 探究教學活動單(精緻化)……………………………………131
附錄二 科學創造力診斷—實驗考試……………………………………138
附錄三 各組實驗考試分析結果…………………………………………143
附錄四 各組在實驗設計所採用的策略比較分析………………………161
中文文獻

王美芬和熊召弟(1995)。國民小學自然科教材教法。台北:心理。
王妙雯(2003)。開放教育與內在學習動機、創造力及自尊的相關研究。屏東師範學院教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東市。
毛連塭(1988)。綜合充實制資優教育。台北:心理出版社。
毛連塭(1989)。實施創造思考教學的參考架構。創造思考教育,1,2-9。
田炯良(2004)。融入科學本質之教學對八年級學生科學本質觀及學習動機之影響。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,彰化市。
李玉菁(2006)。國中資優生與普通生的自然科學習動機、學習策略與學業成就之相關研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,彰化市。
余瑞虔(1998)。國中理化創造性教學法影響國中學生創造思考能力之研究。國立台灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
林清山譯(1990)。教育心理學認知取向。 台北:遠流。
林偉文。(2002)。國民小學學校組織文化、教師創意教學潛能與創意教學的關係。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北市。
吳靜吉等(2002)國際創造力教育發展趨勢。資優教育月刊,2(1)1-25.
吳坤璋(2006)。科學探究能力與科學創造力理論模式之研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所,未出版,高雄市。
吳佳蓮,吳心楷(2006)。科學探究活動中國小五年級學童科學解釋能力及實務認識論之研究。第二十二屆科學教育學術研討會。國立臺灣師範大學,台北市。
周家卉(2006)。國小學童科學推理類型之研究。國立臺南大學自然科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台南市。
洪文東( 1997)。創造性思考與科學創造力的培養。國教天地,123,10-14。
洪振方(2003)。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。國立高雄師範大學高雄師大學報,15,641-662。
許榮富、楊文金、洪振方(1990)。學習環的理論基礎及其內涵分析。物理會刊,12(5),375-398。
許榮富、黃芳裕(1992)。學生使用科學知識的省察力發展之分析。中華民國物理教育學術研討會論文彙編,169-197。國立臺灣師範大學,台北市。
許榮富(1992)。科學教育的科學與認知科學。論文發表於中華民國第八屆科學教育學術研討會。高雄市:國立高雄師範大學。
許明輝、吳靜吉(2000)。創意教學與愉快學習的互動效應。載於:陳成禮、方駿主編。(2000)。學與教的喜悅, 211-222。香港:朗文。
麻彥坤(2005)。維果次基與現代西方心裡學。哈爾濱:黑龍江人民出版社。
張春興(1992)。現代心理學。台北市:東華。
張玉成(1993)。思考技巧與教學。台北:心理。
張巨清、吳寅華(1995)。邏輯與歷史--現代科學方法論的嬗變。台北:淑馨出版社。
張玉燕(1997)。批判思考與教學。教育實習輔導季刊,3(1),39-46。
黃芳裕(2002)。後現代社會中科學教師的專業素養。九年一貫「自然與生活科技」國民中小學教師研習活動。教育部:國立台灣科學教育館。
賈馥茗(1976)。英才教育。台北市:開明書局。
湯偉君(1999)。創造性問題解決模式對國三學生科學學習的影響。台灣師大科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
熊召弟(1996)。建構者觀的自然科教學。科學教育研究與發展,3,3-11。
謝甫佩和洪振方(2004)。國小學生科學探究活動的課程設計及實施成果之個案研究。師大學報:科學教育類,49(2),61-86 。
廖婭妏、佘曉清和陳倩嫻(2006)。運用「科學推理」於網路互動學習:促進國中生原子概念之建構學習。論文發表於中華民國第22屆科學教育研討會。台北市:國立台灣師範大學。
郭靜姿(1996)。資賦優異學生的鑑定與教育安置。教育資料集刊,21,27-54。|
郭重吉(2002)。建構論的哲學基礎。載於詹志禹(主編),建構論:理論基礎與教育應用(頁2-48)。台北市:東華書局。
葉玉珠、吳靜吉(1992)。中小學批判思考與學業成績之相關研究。教育與心理研究,15,79-100。
葉玉珠(1998)。有效批判思考教學的基礎之探討。教育研究,59,57-67 。
葉玉珠(2006)。創造力教學—過去、現在與未來。台北:心理出版社。
劉宏文和張惠博(2001)。高中學生進行開放式探究活動之個案研究-問題的形成與解決。科學教育學刊,9,169-196。
陳英豪、吳鐵雄和簡真真編著(1980)。創造思考與情意的教學。高雄:復文圖書出版社。
陳龍安(1983)。如何實施創造性教學。台北:市立師專。
陳龍安(1990)。「問想做評」創造思考教學模式的建立與驗證--智能結構模式在創造思考教學上的應用。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文未出版,台北市。
陳龍安(1995)。創造思考教學。台北:心理出版社。
陳龍安(1997)。創造思考教學的理論與實際。台北:心理出版社。
陳龍安(2002)。創造思考教學與策略。台北:心理出版社。
陳振威(1999)。學生概念生態成因數之研究-以密度/浮沉概念為例。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮市。
陳亦媛 (2003)。兒童歸納推理能力探究--影響兒童證據與假設協調能力的可能原因與解決之道。國立臺灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
陳桂香(2007)。實施探究教學對國二學生科學學習成效的影響。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化市。
潘裕豐(1996)。國小批判思考教學效果之實驗研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
潘裕豐(2006)。為何及如何進行創造思考教學。生活科技教育月刊,39(2),38-55 。
蔡執仲和段曉林(2003)。進行探究式實驗教學對於維持學生理化學習動機之影響。論文發表於中華民國第十九屆科學教育學術研討會。台北市:國立台灣師範大學。
蔡執仲(2007)。『巢狀探究教學模式』對國二學生科學學習環境知覺與學習動機影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,彰化市。
蔡執仲、段曉林和靳知勤(2007)。巢狀探究教學模式對國二學生理化學習動機之影響。科學教育學刊,13,289-315。
韓順興(2004)。創造性探究教學對國中生理化科學習動機、創造力與學習成就之影響。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,彰化市。
簡春安 (1992)。社會工作與計質研究法。見許林高 (主編) ,質化研究在社會工作界的應用論見彙編,(頁 1-23)。台北 : 中華民國社會工作訓練中心。
鄭麗玉(1993)。認知心理學。台北市:五南。
羅弘志、黃芳裕(2002)。後現代認識論的觀點--探討「酸鹼指示劑」知識成長過程。第十八屆科學教育學術研討會。國立彰化師範大學,彰化市。
蘇禹銘、黃台珠(2006)。科學教師學校本位課程發展機制之研究。中華民國第 22 屆科學教育學術研討會論文彙編。國立臺灣師範大學,台北市。







英文部分
Anderson, R.D.(2002). Reforming science teaching:What research says about inquiry? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Amabile, T.M.(1983). The psychology of creativity. New York :Springer_Verlag
Amabile, T.M.(1996). Creativity in context : Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, Colo.:Westview Press
American Association for the Advancement of Science(1989).Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report on scientific literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.
Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1999). Students’ reasoning about chemical reaction: what changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 645-665.
Besemer, S. P. & O’Quinn, K. (1986). Analyzing creative products: Refinement and
test of a judging instrument. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 115-126
Brown, D.E.& Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical. reasoning: abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science,18,237-261.
Busse, T.V. and Mansfield, R.S. (1980). Theories of the creative Process:A review and perspective. The Journal of creative Behavior, 14(2), 191-193.
Bybee, R. W., & Landes, N. M.(1988). The biological sciences curriculum study (BSCS). Science and Children, 25(8), 36-37.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. N.H. Heinemann: Portsmounth.
Carin, A. A., Bass, J. E., & Contant, T. L. (2005). Teaching science as inquiry. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.
Champagne, A. B. , Klopfer L. E. & Anderson J. H.(1980). Factors Influencing the Learning of Classical Mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074-79.
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring instruction to deal with students preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241-1251.
Collette, A. T., & Chiappetta, E. L. (1984). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. St. Louis: Times Mirror/ Mosby College Pubishing.
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613-342
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Davis, G.A. (1986). Creativity is forever(2nd ed.) . Dubuque , Iowa : Kendall/ Hunt.
De Bono, E.(1971). Lateral thinking for management: A handbook of creativity. New York: American Management Association.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln. (eds.). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1971). How we think. Chicago: Hener Regnery
Dezin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S.(Eds.)(1994). Handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE.
Drake, S. M. (1992). Developing an integrated curriculum using the story model. Toronto, ON: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Dutt, N. K. (1977). Essentials of educational measurement (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1980). Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education. TX: Kkendall, Hunt.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1991). Gifted students must have time together in learning activities at their level and pace. Images, 5(2), 2-3, 12-13.
Fishkin, A. S., &Johnson, A. S. (1998). Who is Creative?Identifying Children’s Creative Abilities.Roeper Review,21(1),40-46.
Gerber, B. L., Cavallo, A. M. L., & Marek, E. A. (2001). Relationships among
informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 535-549
Gubrium, J. F., & Sanker, A. (1994) . Qualitative methods in aging research. CA: Sage.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1975). Creativity: A quarter century of progress. In I. A. Taylor, & T.W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 35-39). Chicago: Aldine.
Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective
elementary teachers’ developing understanding of science inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1653-1674
Halpern, D. F. (1984). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. New Jersey: Hillsdale.
Halpern, D.F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Herron, M. D.(1971). The nature of science enquiry. School Review, 79,171-212.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 2(2), 201-217.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (1999). Dialogue as data: Assessing students' scientific reasoning with interactive protocols. In J. J. Mintzes, J. D. Novak, & J. W. Wandersee (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 96-124). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Howe (1997). Creative Problem Solving approaches processes for teaching and doing creative activing. 創造思考教學研討會研習手冊。台北市:台灣師範大學科學教育研究所。
Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.
Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 748-769
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631-645
Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. (2004). Designing online learning environments to support scientific inquiry. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 1-10.
Kim, H., Hannafin, M., & Kim, M. (2004). Online case-based learning:Components, applications, and assessment. Distance Learning, 1(5), 23-31.
Klahr,D.,Fay,A.,& Dunbar,K.(1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology ,25, 111-146.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills.New York: Academic Press.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lawson, A. E., & Snitgen, D. A. (1982). Teaching formal reasoning in college biology course for preservice teacher. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 19, 233-248
Lawson, A. E.(1995). Science teaching and the developmentof thinking, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lawson, A. E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 716-740
Levin, H. (1991). Accelerated visions. Accelerated Schools, 1(3), 2-3.
Lipman, M.(1988).Critical thinking — what can it be?Educational Leadership, 46, 38-43.
Loving, C. C. (1997). From the summit of truth to its slippery slopes: Science education’sjourney through positivist-postmodern territory.American Educational Research Journal, 34(3),421-452.
Maltzman, L. (1960). On the training of originality. Psychological Review, 67(4), 229-242.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1063-1080.
Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational psychology: A cognitive approach. Boston: Little, Brown and Company
Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. T. (1967). Examiner’s manual: Remote associates test. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Miller, J. P.; Cassie, J. R. B.; Drake, S. M.(1990). Holistic learning: A teacher's guide to integrated studies. Toronto, Ontario: OISE Press.
Mumford, M. D., and Gustafson, S. B.(1988). Creativity syndrome:Integration, application, and innovation, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27-43.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Newman, Jr., W. J., Abell, S. K., Hubbard, P. D., McDonald, P. D., Otaala, J., & Maryini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science method. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 15, 257-279
Packer, M.J. & Goicoechea, J.(2000).Sociocultural and Constructivist Theories of Learning: Ontology, Not Just Epistemology.Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227 -241.
Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Paul, R. (1993). Critical Thinking: How To Prepare Students for a Rapidly Changing World. Foundation for Critical Thinking. CA: Santa Rosa.
Perkins, D. N.(1988). Creativity and the quest of mechanism. In R. J. Sternberg and E. E. Smith(Eds.), The Psychology of human thought (pp. 309-336). New York : Cambridge University Press
Piaget, J. (1974). To understand is to invent. New York: Viking Press
Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (1995). Knowing and interaction: A study of culture, practices, and resources in a grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction, 13 (1), 73-128.
Sandoval, W. M., & Daniszewski, K. (2004). Mapping trade-offs in teachers’ integration of technology-supported inquiry in high school science classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 161-178
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.
Suchman, J. R. (1966). Development Inquiry. Chicago: Science Research Associates, pp. 14-18.
Torrance, E. P. (1967). Scientific views of creativity and factors affecting its growth. In J. Kagan (Ed.), Creativity and learning. Boston: Bacon Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6,114-143.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking, norm-technical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1987). Teaching for creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 189-215). Buffalo, New York: Bearly Limited.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 43-75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Waldrop, M. M.(1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 936-960
Wallas, G. (1926). The arts of thought. New York: Harcour Brace and Worl.
Waters, L. J., Siegal, M., & Slaughter, V. (2000). Development of reasoning and the tension between scientific and conversational inference. Social Development, 9, 383-396
White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Predictionobservation-explanation. In R. White & R.Gunstone (Eds.), Probing understanding (pp. 44-64). London: The Falmer Press.
Williams, F. E. (1979). Assessing creativity across Williams’ CUBE model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 23, 748-756.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry project in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112-141
Yager, R. E. (1984), Defining the discipline of science education, Science Education, 68(1), 35-37.
Yeh, Y. C., & Strang, H. R. (1997). The impact of a computer simulation on critical-thinking instruction. In Information Technology and Teacher Education Annual: 1997 (pp. 994-977). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Zimmerman,C.(2000).The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20, 99-149.
Zubrowski, B. (2002).A Curriculum Framework Based on Archetypal Phenomena and Technologies. Science Education, 86:481-501.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔