跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(100.28.0.143) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/14 22:27
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:李蕙伶
研究生(外文):Lee Hui-ling
論文名稱:探討高一學生「對論證的態度」和「對科學的態度」對於論證能力和物理學習成就之關係
論文名稱(外文):THE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARGUMENTATIVENESS, ATTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE, ARGUMENTATION ABILITY AND THE PHYSICS ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF 10TH GRADERS IN THE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
指導教授:洪振方洪振方引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
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:2009
畢業學年度:97
語文別:中文
論文頁數:125
中文關鍵詞:對論證的態度對科學的態度論證能力學習成就
外文關鍵詞:argumentativenessattitudes toward scienceargumentation abilityacademic achievement
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:8
  • 點閱點閱:741
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:133
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究主要目的以「對論證的態度」和「對科學的態度」為自變項,以論證能力和物理學習成就為依變項,並比較自變項之重要性。研究工具包括「對論證的態度量表」、「對科學的態度量表」和「論證能力測驗」等測驗工具。以85位台北市高一學生為研究對象,所得資料經由描述性統計分析、相關分析、獨立樣本t考驗、多元逐步迴歸分析後,主要的研究結果顯示:
一、學生「對論證的態度」、「對科學的態度」和「論證能力」得分均呈現常態分佈。在論證能力各因子得分,「提出宣稱」和「舉證」為負偏態,「反反駁」為正偏態。
二、論證能力總分方面,對論證的態度相較於對科學的態度較為重要。
三、論證能力各因子方面,對論證的態度在提出宣稱、提出反例和反駁上相較於對科學的態度較為重要;對科學的態度在提出理由上相較於對論證的態度較為重要。
四、物理學習成就方面,對科學的態度相較於對論證的態度較為重要。
The purpose of this study was to compare the importance of the argumentativeness and the attitudes toward science on the argumentation ability and the physics academic achievement, investigating how 10th graders’ the argumentativeness and the attitudes toward science influenced their argumentation ability and physics academic ability. The research tools utilized in this study included of the Argumentativeness Scale , Attitudes toward Science Inventory , and Argumentation Ability Test. The raw data collected from 85 students in the 10th grade in Taipei city were analyzed by the methods of descriptive statistics, co-relational analysis, independent sample t-test and stepwise multiple regression analysis. The results were as follows:
1. The attitudes toward science , the argumentativeness , the argumentation ability and the physics academic achievement were normalized. Among the six components of the argumentation ability ,” claim” and “data” were toward negative skewness , and “counter-rebuttal” was toward positive skewness.
2. On the argumentation ability, the argumentativeness was more important than the attitudes toward science.
3. On the six components of the argumentation ability included “claim”, “rebuttal” and “rebut”, the argumentativeness was more important than the attitudes toward science. However, the attitudes toward science was more important than the argumentativeness on “warrant”.
4. On the physics academic achievement, the attitudes toward science was more important than the argumentativeness.
目 錄
中文摘要………………………………………………………I
英文摘要……………………………………………………...II
目錄…………………………………………………………...IV
表次…………………………………………………………..VII
圖次………………………………………………………... ...IX
第壹章 緒論…………………………………………………1
第一節 研究背景與重要性………………………………………….2
第二節 研究目的與問題……………………………………………...7
第三節 相關名詞釋義.........................................................................9
第四節 研究範圍與限制……………………………………………11
第貳章 文獻探討……………………………………………13
第一節 關於論證的理論…………………………………………....13
第二節 態度與學習的關係………………………………………....24第三節 對科學的態度與學習成就之關係…………………………30
第四節 綜合討論……………………………………………………34
第參章 研究方法……………………………………………39
第一節 研究架構與設計……………………………………………40
第二節 研究對象…………………………………………………….41
第三節 研究工具…………………………………………………….42
第四節 實施程序…………………………………………………….55
第五節 資料分析…………………………………………………….57
第肆章 研究結果與討論…………………………………..59
第一節 高一學生對論證的態度、對科學的態度、論證能力與物理學習成就之表現………………………………………….59
第二節 高一學生對論證的態度、對科學的態度、論證能力及物理學習成就的關係...………………………………………..72
第三節 對論證的態度和對科學的態度之高、低傾向的高一學生在論證能力之比較…………………………………………..75
第四節 對論證的態度和對科學的態度之高、低傾向的高一學生在物理學習成就之比較……………………………………..80
第五節 高一學生對論證的態度與對科學的態度對於論證能力與物理學習成就之多元逐步迴歸分析..………………………83
第伍章 結論與建議 ……………………………………….89
第一節 主要研究發現與結論………………………………………89
第二節 建議 ………………………………………………………..93
參考文獻…………………………………………………….97
中文部分…………………………………………………………….97
英文部分…………………………………………………………….99
附 錄
附錄一 對論證的態度量表……………………………………..111
附錄二 對科學的態度量表……………………………………..115
附錄三 論證能力測驗…………………………………………..119
參考文獻
中文部分:
丁信中、楊芳瑩、洪振方(2001):轉換地球科學理論形成過程於科學學習歷程理論探討。科學教育研究與發展季刊,22,1-15。
王美芬、熊召弟(1995):國民小學自然科教材教法。台北市:心理出版社。
吳堯文 (2004)。國小高年級學生學習成就、對科學的態度、與小組科學學習行為之關係。國立台南大學自然科教育學系教學碩士班碩士論文,未出版。
吳堯文、蔣佳玲(2005)。國小學生小組科學學習行為與學習成就之關係。中華民國第二十一屆科學教育學術研討會。彰化師大。
林煥祥(主編)(2008)。臺灣參加PISA 2006 成果報告。花蓮市:國立花蓮教育大學科學教育中心。
林煥祥、洪振方、洪瑞兒(2007)。德智體群美五育理念與實踐。教育部。
林世娟(2001)。國小學童「科學態度」及「對科學的態度」之研究∼以植物的生長教學活動為例。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
林志彥(1998)。教學策略與學生對科學的態度之關係:一位國中生物教師之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
林雅慧 (2001):國小低年級教師進行科學對談之行動研究。 國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
周俊豪(2007)。國中生學習自我效能、對科學的態度及人格特質對學習成效影響之研究:以浮力單元為例。國立高雄師範大學物理學系碩士班碩士論文。
洪振方(2008)。論證能力測驗。未出版,高雄市。
莊雪芳、鄭湧涇(2002):國中學生對生物學的態度與相關變項。科學教育學刊,10(1),1-20。
許德發(1998)。專科學生對科學的態度、生物學科的自我效能與其營養健康信念表徵、學業成就之關係研究。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
張春興(1992)。現代心理學。台北:東華。
黃台珠等 (2002)。促進理解之科學教學, 心理出版社。
黃翎斐、胡瑞萍 (2006)。論證與科學教育的理論和實務。科學教育,292,15-28。
劉德明(1999)。小學自然的科學態度之研究。花蓮師院學報,9,83-120。
鄭湧涇(1994)。職前與在職生物教師科學態度之研究。師大學報,39,381-407。
鄭湧涇和楊坤原 (1995):生物認知偏好與學業成就的關係。 科學教育學刊,3(1),1-21.
鄭湧涇、楊坤原(1998)。國中學生對生物學的態度。師大學報,43(2),37-54。
龍麟如(1997)。國小學生對科學的態度與相關變項關係之研究。國立台灣師範大學生物研究所碩士論文。
蕭建華 (2005)。初探不同學習環境對高一學生地球科學學習成效的影響。國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士學位論文,台北市 。
蘇懿生(1994)。高中自然科實驗室氣氛與對科學之態度的關係。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所。


英文部分:
Aiken, L. R. & Aiken, D. R. (1969). Recent research on attitudes concerning science. Science Education, 53(4), 295-305.
Anscombre, J-C., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’Argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
Baker, M. (1999). Argument and constructive integration. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Esperet, (Series Eds.), J. Andriessen, & P. Coirier (Vol. Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing, 179-201. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Becker, C. B. (1986). Reasons for the lack of argumentation and debate in the Far East. International Journal of International Relations, 10, 75–92.
Biling, M.(1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: D. McKay.
Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451) . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L. & Campione J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a
context by any other name. Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills, 21, 108-126.
Buty, C., & Plantin, C. (in press). Argumenter en classe de sciences. Lyon: INRP.
Cannon, R. K., & Simpson, R. D.(1985). Relationship among attitude, motivation,and achievement of ability ground, seventh grade, life Science students. Science Education, 69(2),121-138.
Chang, C. Y., & Mao, S. L. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan science students' outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(6), 340-346.
Cheng, P., & Novick, L. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review,99, 365-382.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 323-393.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1999). Temperament: A new paradigm for trait psychology. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 399-423). New York: Guilford
Collin, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S. E.(1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing , learning and instruction Essays in honor of Robert Slaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
De Vries, E., Lund, K. and Baker, M. (2002) Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 11:1 , pp. 63-103.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Duschl R.A. (1990) Restructuring Science Education. The importance of theories and their development. (pp.187-206) New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promting argumentation discourse in science education. Studise in Science Edcuation, 38, 39-72.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R(2004). A systematic theory or argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ennis, R. H. (1992). Critical thinking: What is it? In Henry A. Alexander (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1992(pp.76-80). Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society. (pp. 76-80). Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
Erduran S. (2008). Methodological Foundations in the Stydy of Argumentation in Science Classrooms. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education:Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (chap. 3, pp.47-69). Dordrecht: Springer.
Estes, T.H., Estes, J.J., Estes, H.C, & Roettger, D.M.(1981). Ester Attitude Scales: Manual for administration. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Finacchiaro, M.A. (2005). Arguments about arguments. Systematic, critical and historical essays in logical theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, B. J.(1978). Development of a test of science related attitudes. Science Education, 62, 509-515.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8-33). New York: Teachers College Press.
Garcia-Mila, M. & Andersen, C. (2008). Cognitive Foundations of Learning Argumentation. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education:Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (chap. 2, pp.29-45). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to science: A review. Studies in science education, 2, 1-41.
Gauld, C. (1982). The Scientific attitude and science education: A critical reappraisal. Science Education, 66(1), 109-121.
George, R. (2000). Measuring change in students'''' attitudes toward science over time: An application of latent variable growth modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(3), 213-225.
Grize, J-B (1982). De la logique a l’argumentation. Geneve: Droz.
Haladyna, T. & Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Attitudes toward science: A quantitative synthesis. Science Education, 66(4), 547-563.
Herrenkohl, L., Palinscar, A., DeWater, L.S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451–493.
Hsu C. F.(2007). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Communication Orientations between Americans and Taiwanese. Communication Quarterly, 55(3), 359-374
Ifert, D. E, & Bearden, L. (1998). The influence of argumentativeness and verbal aggression on responses to refused requests. Communication Reports, 11(2), 145-154.
Infante, D., & Rancer, A. (1982). A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.
Infante, D., Trebing, J., Shepherd, P., & Seeds, D. (1984). The relationship of argumentativeness to verbal aggression. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50, 67-77.
Infante, D., & Wigley, C. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69.
Infante, D. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J.C. McCroskey, & J.A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157-192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Infante. D. , Myers. S. & Buerkel, R. (1994). Argument and verbal aggression in constructive and destructive family and organizational disagreements. Western Journal of Communication, 58. 73-84,
Infante D., & Rancer, A. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: a review of recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook 19, 319-351.
Jenkins, G. D., Klopf, D. W., & Park, M. S. (1991, July). Argumentativeness in Korean and American college students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the World Communication Association, Jyvaskyla, Finland.
Jimenez-Alexandre, M.P. & Erduran S. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education:Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (chap. 1, pp.3-25). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kelly, G. F., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28-55.
Kelly, G., (2005) Inquiry, Activity, and Epistemic Practice. NSF Inquiry Conference Proceedings , Rutgers University, February. Retrieved December 2006, from http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~rgrandy/NSFConSched.html.
Kim, M., Aune, K., Hunter, J. E., Kim, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (2001). The effect of culture and self-construals on predispositions toward verbal communication. Human Communication Research, 27, 382-408.
Klaczynski, P. (2000). Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 71, 1347–1366.
Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Knorr-Cetina, K.(1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Koballa, Jr., T. R. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward learning science. In Glynn,S.M. & Duit, R.(Eds.), Learning Science in the School:Research Reforming Practice(59-84). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Koehler, C, & Neer, M. (1997). An investigation of variables that define collaborative and critical thinking: The effects of argumentative style on critical thinking competence and social tolerance. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving. 7, 27-3
Kress, H., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J.C & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of thescience classroom. London: Continuum.
Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Andersen, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(4, Serial No. 245).
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155-178.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1986). The Powers of Association. In J. Law (Ed.) Power, Action and Belief: a New Sociology of Knowledge?. London, Boston and Henley, Routledge and Kegan Paul. 32: 264-280.
Lawson, A. E.(1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. California: Wadsworth.
Lawson, A. E. (2003). Allchin’s Shoehorn, or why science is hypothetico-deductive. Science & Education, 12, 331-337.
Lesh, R., Doerr, H. M., Carmona, G., & Hjalmarson, M. (2003). Beyond constructivism. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2,3), 211-234.
Lemke J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mager, R. F. (1968) Developing Attitude Toward Learning. Palo Alto: Fearon Press.
Mortimer, E.F. & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Norris, S.P. & Phillips, L.M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
Martin, M.M., Anderson, C.M., & Thweatt, K.S. (1998). Aggressive communication
traits and their relationships with the cognitive flexibility scale and the communication flexibility scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 531-540.
Mason, L. (1996). "An analysis of children's construction of new knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions." Qualitative Studies in Education 9(4): 411-433.
Marttunen, M. (1994). Assessing argumentation skill among finnish university students. Learning and Instruction, 4, 175-191.
McCroskey, J. C. Oral communlcatlon apprehenslon. A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 1977, 4, 78-96.
Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (1999) Beyond 2000. London: King's College London.
Munby, H. (1983). An investigation into the measurement of attitudes in science education. SMEAC Information Center, Ohio State University, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 237-347).
Myers, R. E., & Fouts, J. T. (1992). A cluster analysis of high school science classroom environments and attitude toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29(9), 929-937.
Myer, G. (1990). Writing biology. Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison, UK: Open University Press.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, l., & Mcgillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Oliver,J.S.,& Simpson, R.D.(1988). Influences of attitude science, achievementnmotivation, and achievement in science : A longitudinal study. Science Education,72(2),143-155.
Onyekwere, E.O., R.B. Rubin & D.A. Infante (1991).Interpersonal perception and communication satisfaction as a function of argumentativeness and ego-involvement. Communication Quqrterly 39 (1), 35-47.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). The IDEAS Project. London: King’s College London.
Osborne, J. F. (2001) Promoting argument in the science classroom: A rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education 1:3 , pp. 271-290.
Osborne, J.F. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203–215.
Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Plantin, C. (2005). L’Argumentation. Histoire, theories et perspectives. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Frence.
Prunty, L. L., Klopf, D., & Ishii, S. (1990). Argumentativeness: Japanese and American tendency to approach or avoid conflict. Communication Research Reports, 7, 75–79.
Rancer, A.S., Baukus, R.A., & Infante, D.A. (1985). Relations between argumentativeness and belief structures about arguing. Communication Education, 34, 37-47.
Rancer, A.S., Whitecap, V.G., Kosberg, R.L., & Avtgis, T.A.(1997). Testing the efficacy of a communication training program to increase argumentativeness and argumentative behavior in adolescents. Communication Education, 46, 273-286.
Rancer, A., Baukus, R., & Amato, P. (1986). Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness and marital satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 3, 28-32.
Roseberry, A. S., Warren, B. and Conant, F. R. (1992) Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2 , pp. 61-94.
Sanders, J.A. & Wiseman, R.L. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking?. Communication Reports. 1 (7), 27-36.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J.(2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 342-375.
Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R., Schulze, S. and John, J. (1995) Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4:2 , pp. 131-166.
Schibeci, R. A. (1984). Images of Science and scientists and science education. Science Education, 70(2),139-149.
Schullery, N. M., & Schullery, S. E. (2003). Relationship of argumentativeness to age and higher education. Western Journal of Communication, 67(2), 207-223.
Siegel, H.(1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Synthese, 80,9-41.
Siegel, H. (1992). On defining “critical thinker” and justifying critical thinking. In H. A. Alexander(Ed.), Philosophy of education, 1992. Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual meeting of the philosophy of Education Society (pp.72-75). Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
Suzuki, S. (2005). Analyzing structural features of informal argument. In C. A. Willard (Ed.) Critical problems in argumentation (pp. 587-597). Washington, DC:
Suzuki, S. (2007). What Explains Argument Structures?: Examining Arguments Constructed by Japanese College Students.National Communication Association (pp. 1-25). NCA 93rd Annual Convention , TBA, Chicago, IL.
Simpson, R.D. & Oliver, J.S.(1985). Attitude toward science and achievement motivation profiles of male and female science students in grade six throughten. Science Education,69(4),511-526.
Simpson, R. D., Koballa, Jr.T. R., Oliver, J. S., & Crawley, F. E. (1994). Research on affective dimension of learning. In Gabel, D.L. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning-A project of the National Science Teachers Association.(221-234).New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and Development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235–260.
Talton, E. L., & Simpson, R. D. (1987).Relationships of attitudes toward classroom environment with attitudes toward and achievement in science among tenth grade biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(6), 507-525.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
US Department Of Education (2000). Before it’s too late. Washington DC.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. UK: Cambridge University Press.
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 387-398.
Welch, W. W. (1985). Research in science education: Review and recommendations. Science Education, 69(3), 421-448.
Wickman, P.O., & Ostman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86(5), 601-623.
Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.
Zint, M. (2002). Comparing three attitude-behavior theories for predicting science
teachers’ intention. Journal of Research in Science Teachi, 39(9),819-844.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top