(3.235.191.87) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/13 14:09
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:鄭朝升
研究生(外文):Cheng, chao-Shen
論文名稱:國小科學教師對於社會性科學議題與社會性科學議題教學之觀點及其教學實務
論文名稱(外文):Integrating socio-scientific issues into science instruction: Taiwanese elementary science teachers’ views and teaching practices.
指導教授:吳穎沺吳穎沺引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wu, Ying-Tien
口試委員:靳知勤李文瑜吳穎沺
口試委員(外文):Chin, Chi-ChinLee, Wen-YuWu, Ying-Tien
口試日期:2011-06-08
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺中教育大學
系所名稱:科學應用與推廣學系科學教育碩士班
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:2011
畢業學年度:99
語文別:中文
論文頁數:207
中文關鍵詞:社會性科學議題社會性科學議題教學教學實務經驗國小科學教師
外文關鍵詞:Socio-scientific issue (SSI)SSI-based instructionTeacher professionalElementary science teacher
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:639
  • 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:185
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究旨在探討現職國小自然科學教師對於社會性科學議題之觀點、對社會性科學議題教學之觀點以及在社會性科學議題教學上的實務經驗,並針對三者之間的關係加以探討。
為了探討上述的目的,本研究就採取質、量並重的研究方法,分兩階段進行,首先以質性訪談問卷,對110位現職國小自然科學教師進行質性初探,研究結果在教師對於社會性科學議題之觀點上主要歸納為五類:「與個人生活相關」、「有複雜的解決過程」、「具爭議性」、「因科技快速進步而產生」及「涵蓋跨領域的知識」;而對於對社會性科學議題教學之觀點以及教學實務經驗上發現大部分教師的觀點與做法仍是較為傳統教學取向。
而第二階段使用參考第一段結果及相關文獻所開發的量化工具,以361位現職國小自然科學教師為對象,對於教師在社會性科學議題之觀點、對社會性科學議題教學之觀點以及在社會性科學議題教學上的實務經驗進行調查,並針對三者之間的關係加以比較與探討。研究結果發現關於教師在社會性科學議題的觀點方面,質性階段歸納出五個主要觀點,且在量化階段得到了驗證,而所開發的量化問卷具有良好的信度( = 0.89)。至於對於社會性科學議題的觀點與教學實務方面,不論是在質性或是量化施測階段的結果,教師所展現出來的觀點及實際的教學經驗上大部分都是較偏向於傳統教學取向,未能掌握社會性科學議題適合用來營造良好的學習情境之特性。至於這三者之間的關係,從量化階段的施測看來,所分析的結果呈現出三者之間是有關係存在的。
最後本研究基於研究之結果,對社會性科學議題融入教學之教學實務、師資培育與教師專業發展及未來研究等三方面提出相關建議。

The purposes of this study were to explore elementary science teachers' views on socio-scientific issues (SSIs), views regarding SSI-based instruction, and their SSI-based teaching practices. Also, the relationship among teachers' views on SSIs, views regarding SSI-based instruction, and SSI-based teaching practices was investigated. To this end, both qualitative and quantitative research methods were used in this study. There are two stages of the conduct of this study: Qualitative investigation stage and Quantitative exploration stage. In the first stage, a group of elementary science teachers’ views regarding SSIs and SSI-based instruction, as well as their teaching practices, were investigated by an open-ended questionnaire developed in this study. Through qualitative analyses, this study summarized five major categories of views regarding SSIs that mentioned by the teachers: “SSIs are personal relevance”, “The resolution of a SSI often involves complex problem-solving processes”, “SSIs are controversy”, “SSIs are caused by the rapid advancement in technology or science”, and “The resolution of a SSI often involves using inter-disciplinary knowledge”. The teachers in this study revealed limited and surface views regarding SSIs and SSI-based instruction; not surprisingly, they also mentioned traditional-oriented SSI-based teaching practices in the self-reported responses. In the second stage, according to the teachers’ responses on open-ended questionnaire, quantitative instruments for assessing teachers’ views regarding SSIs, SSI-based instruction, and their teaching practices were developed and implemented. The results derived from a series of EFA analyses shows high reliability and validity of the instrument for assessing teachers’ views on SSIs. And, the quantitative analyses in this stage also reconfirmed the findings derived from qualitative analyses. Most importantly, significant relationship among teachers' views on SSIs, views regarding SSI-based instruction, and SSI-based teaching practices. Implications for teaching practices and directions for further research are also discussed.
目 次
頁數
中文摘要......................... Ⅰ
英文摘要......................... Ⅱ
目次................................ Ⅳ
表目次.............................. Ⅷ
圖目次.............................. Ⅹ
第一章 緒論.......................... 1
第一節 研究背景與動機.................... 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題.................. 4
第三節 名詞解釋....................... 6
第四節 研究範圍與限制.................... 7
第二章 文獻探討........................ 8
第一節 社會性科學議題.................... 8
壹、社會性科學議題之定義及特性............... 8
貳、社會性科學議題之範圍與分類............... 12
參、小結.......................... 14
第二節 社會性科學議題之教學................. 15
壹、九年一貫與社會性科學議題教學.............. 15
貳、社會性科學議題教學與科學學習成果............ 18
參、社會性科學議題之教學策略................ 21
肆、小結.......................... 23
第三節 教師與社會性科學議題教學.............. 25
壹、教師對於社會性科學議題教學之觀點............ 25
貳、教師在社會性科學議題上之教學實務............. 26
參、小結.......................... 28
第三章 研究方法........................ 30
第一節 研究設計........................ 30
第二節 研究流程........................ 32
第三節 研究對象........................ 33
第四節 研究工具........................ 35
壹、「國小教師對於社會性科學議題與其教學之觀點與實務之質性訪談
問卷」.......................... 35
貳、「國小教師對於社會性科學議題與其教學之觀點與實務之量化問
卷」........................... 38
第五節 資料處理與分析..................... 40
壹、第一階段—質性初探階段................. 40
貳、第二階段—量化調查階段................ 40
第四章 研究結果與討論........................ 42
第一節 質性初探階段結果分析與討論................ 42
壹、教師對於社會性科學議題之觀點及相關經驗........... 42
貳、教師對於社會性科學議題教學之觀點............. 51
參、教師在社會性科學議題教學之教學實務............ 64
第二節 量化調查階段結果分析與討論.................. 80
壹、教師對於社會性科學議題之觀點............... 80
貳、教師對於社會性科學議題教學的觀點............. 85
參、教師在社會性科學議題教學之教學實務.......... 91
肆、教師在SSI之觀點、SSI教學之觀點與教學實務經驗三者之間的關
係.............................. 98
第三節 整理與討論........................ 126
壹、教師對於社會性科學議題的觀點及將其融入教學的觀點與教學實
務........................... 126
貳、社會性科學議題的觀點、社會性科學議題教學的觀點及融入社會
性科學議題之教學實務三者之間的關係............ 129
第五章 結論與建議........................ 132
第一節 結論.......................... 132
第二節 建議.......................... 135
參考文獻............................... 138
附錄............................... 146
附錄一:「國小教師對於社會性科學議題融入教學之觀點與實務之質性
訪談問卷」......................... 146
附錄 二:國小教師對於社會性科學議題與其教學之觀點與實務之量化問
卷............................. 149
附錄 三:不同SSI觀點(與個人生活相關)的教師回答SSI教學觀點之卡方檢定結果表....................... 153
附錄 四:不同SSI觀點(有複雜的解答過程)的教師回答SSI教學觀點之卡方檢定結果表..................... 156
附錄 五:不同SSI觀點(具爭議性)的教師回答SSI教學觀點之卡方檢定結果表.......................... 159
附錄 六:不同SSI觀點(因科技快速進步而產生)的教師回答SSI教學觀點之卡方檢定結果表.................... 162
附錄 七:不同SSI觀點(涵蓋跨領域知識)的教師回答SSI教學觀點之卡方檢定結果表....................... 165
附錄 八:不同SSI觀點(與個人生活相關)的教師回答SSI教學實務經驗卡方檢定結果表...................... 168
附錄 九:不同SSI觀點(有複雜的解決過程)的教師回答SSI教學實務經驗之卡方檢定結果表.................... 171
附錄 十:不同SSI觀點(具爭議性)的教師回答SSI教學實務經驗之卡方檢定結果表........................ 174
附錄 十一:不同SSI觀點(因科技快速進步而產生)的教師回答SSI教學實務經驗之卡方檢定結果表................. 177
附錄 十二:不同SSI觀點(涵蓋跨領域的知識)的教師回答SSI教學實務經驗之卡方檢定結果表................... 180
附錄 十三:教師在將SSI融入教學之考量因素與實際教學經驗中將SSI融入教學之原因卡方檢定結果表................ 183
附錄 十四:教師在將SSI融入教學之考量因素與實際教學經驗中所採用的教學策略卡方檢定結果表.................. 184
附錄 十五:教師在將SSI融入教學之考量因素與實際教學經驗中所發現學生的收穫卡方檢定結果表.................. 185
附錄 十六:教師在將SSI融入教學之考量因素與實際教學經驗中教師所需的專業知能卡方檢定結果表................. 186
附錄 十七:教師認為將SSI融入教學所帶給學生的益處與實際教學經驗中將SSI融入教學之原因卡方檢定結果表............ 187
附錄 十八:教師在將SSI融入教學所帶給學生的益處與實際教學經驗中所採用的教學策略卡方檢定結果................ 188
附錄 十九:教師在將SSI融入教學之所帶給學生的益處與實際教學經驗中所發現學生的收穫卡方檢定結果表.............. 189
附錄 二十:教師在將SSI融入教學之所帶給學生的益處與實際教學經驗中教師所需的專業知能卡方檢定結果表............. 190
附錄 二十一:教師認為將SSI融入教學與一般自然科教學可能的差異與
實際教學經驗中將SSI融入教學之原因卡方檢定結果表...... 191
附錄 二十二:教師在將SSI融入教學所帶給學生的益處與實際教學經驗
中所採用的教學策略卡方檢定結果表.............. 192
附錄 二十三:教師在將SSI融入教學與一般自然科教學可能的差異與實
際教學經驗中所發現學生的收穫卡方檢定結果表........ 193
附錄 二十四:教師在將SSI融入教學與一般自然科教學可能的差異與實
際教學經驗中教師所需的專業知能卡方檢定結果表....... 194


表目次
表 2-1-1
科教學者對於社會性科學議題特色之看法............ 10
表 2-1-2 社會性科學議題之範圍與分類................ 13
表 2-2-1 九年一貫課程綱要「自然與生活科技」學習領域與SSI相關之教材 17
內容...........................
表 2-2-2 九年一貫自然與生活科技次主題與所屬之社會性科學議題類別比
較表........................... 17
表 3-3-1 第一階段參與教師之不同背景變項教師人數.......... 33
表 3-3-2 第二階段參與教師之不同背景變項教師人數........... 34
表 3-4-1 質性問卷問題目的與題項之對應............... 38
表 4-1-1 教師對於社會性科學議題之觀點................ 47
表 4-1-2 教師特別關注社會性科學議題之因素............. 51
表 4-1-3 在教學中融入社會性科學議題可能獲得之益處......... 57
表 4-1-4 社會性科學議題教學與一般自然科教學之差異......... 63
表4-1-5 教師曾融入教學之社會性議題分類.............. 65
表4-1-6 教師實施社會性科學議題教學的原因............. 70
表 4-1-7 教師在自然科教學中社會性科學議題教學上曾經遇到的困難... 74
表 4-1-8 教師在自然科教學中融入社會性科學議題曾經使用的教學策略.. 75
表 4-1-9 教師在自然科教學中融入社會性科學議題後所發現教師所需的專業知能........................... 78
表 4-2-1 教師對於社會性科學議題之觀點之五個向度因素分析及值... 81
表 4-2-2 教師在對於社會性科學議題觀點之各向度得分情形....... 82
表 4-2-3 不同自然科教學年資教師在社會性科學議題觀點之比較..... 84
表 4-2-4 不同學歷背景教師在社會性科學議題觀點之比較....... 85
表 4-2-5 教師對於將SSI融入教學是否可行之考量因素次數分配表... 86
表 4-2-6 教師認為將社會性科學議題融入教學所帶給學生的益處.... 88
表 4-2-7 教師認為融入SSI的教學與一般的自然科學可能的差異.... 90
表 4-2-8 教師在自然科教學當中曾經融入的社會性科學議題...... 91
表 4-2-9 教師在自然科教學當中曾經融入社會性科學議題的原因.... 93
表 4-2-10 教師在將社會性科學議題融入教學時曾遇到的困擾...... 93
表 4-2-11 教師在將社會性科學議題融入教學時曾經採用的教學策略... 94
表 4-2-12 在將社會性科學議題融入教學後,教師所發現學生的收穫... 96
表 4-2-13 教師在將社會性科學議題融入教學後認為所需的專業知能... 97
表 4-2-14 教師SSI觀點(與個人生活相關)與其對SSI教學觀點的相關情形卡方檢定結果彙整表................... 100
表 4-2-15 教師SSI觀點(有複雜的解答過程)與其SSI教學觀點的相關情形卡方檢定結果之彙整表.................... 101
表 4-2-16 教師SSI觀點(具爭議性)與其對SSI教學觀點的相關情形卡方檢定結果彙整表...................... 103
表 4-2-17 教師SSI觀點(因科技快速進步而產生)與其對SSI教學觀點的相關情形卡方檢定結果彙整表................ 105
表 4-2-18 教師SSI觀點(涵蓋跨領域知識)與其對SSI教學觀點的相關情形卡方檢定結果彙整表................... 108
表 4-2-19 教師SSI觀點(與個人生活相關)與其在SSI教學之實務經驗的相關情形卡方檢定結果彙整表................ 111
表 4-2-20 教師SSI觀點(有複雜的解決過程)與其在SSI教學之實務經驗的相關情形卡方檢定結果彙整表............... 113
表 4-2-21 教師SSI觀點(具爭議性)與其在SSI教學之實務經驗的相關情形卡方檢定結果彙整表................... 114
表 4-2-22 教師SSI觀點(因科技快速進步而產生)與其在SSI教學之實務經驗的相關情形卡方檢定結果彙整表............. 115
表 4-2-23 教師SSI觀點(涵蓋跨領域的知識)與其在SSI教學之實務經驗的相關情形卡方檢定結果彙整表............... 117


圖目次
圖 3-1-1
研究架構圖........................ 30
圖 3-2-1 研究流程圖........................ 32
圖 4-3-1 教師對於「社會性科學議題的觀點」、「社會性科學議題教學的觀
點」及「社會性科學議題教學之教學實務」三者關係圖..... 131



參考文獻
教育部(2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北:教育部。
王柏崴、黃禎貞、唐孝蘭、葉國樑、曾治乾(2009)。台北市國中學生綠色消費知識、態度、行為意圖及其相關因素研究 ~以某國中為例。科學教育學刊,17,255-274。
林樹聲(2004)。重視自然與生活科技學習領域中科技爭議議題的融入與探討。 載於教育部主編,國民中小學九年一貫課程理論基礎(二)(pp. 453-465)。台北市:教育部。
林樹聲(2006)。從爭議性科技議題的教學設計和實踐中詮釋科學教師的角色─
個案研究。科學教育學刊,14,237-255。
林樹聲(2007)。國小資深科學教師的專業改變:以基因改造食品議題之教學為例。科學教育學刊,15,241-264。
林樹聲、黃柏鴻(2009)。國小六年級學生在社會性科學議題教學中之論證能力研究–不同學業成就學生間之比較。科學教育學刊,17,111-133。
許世璋(2003)。大學環境教育課程對於環境行動與其它環境素養變項之成效分析。科學教育學刊,11,97-119。
黃俊儒(2008)。構思科技社會中的即時學習:以學生及專家對於科學新聞文本之理解差異為例。科學教育學刊,16,105-124。
靳知勤(2002)。「有素養」或「無素養」?-解讀非科學主修大學生對三項全球性環境問題之敘述表徵。科學教育學刊,11,59-86。
鄭榮輝、林陳涌(2002)。職前教師對生物倫理教育之意見調查。科學教育學刊,10,211-232。
劉湘瑤、李麗菁和蔡今中(2007)。科學認識觀與社會性科學議題抉擇判斷之相關性探討。科學教育學刊,15,335-356。
Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67-90.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barrett, S. E., & Nieswandt, M. (2010). Teaching about ethics through socioscientific issues in physics and chemistry: Teacher candidates' beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 380-401.
Bryce, T., & Gray, D. (2004). Tough acts to follow: The challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 717-733.
Chang, C.-Y, Yeh, T.-K., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2010). The Positive and Negative Effects of Science Concept Tests on Student Conceptual Understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 265-282.
Cheng, C.-S., & Wu, Y.-T. (2009). Integrating socio-scientific issues into science instruction: Taiwanese elementary science teachers’ views and teaching practices. Paper was presented at the International Science Education Conference (ISEC), Singapore.
Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1996). Science teachers’ social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 319-333.
Davis, K. S. (2003). ‘Change is hard’: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practises. Science Education, 87, 3–30.
Dawson. V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian school students' understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 57-69.
Dawson. V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school students' informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1421-1445.
Ekborg , M. (2005). Student-teachers’ Learning Outcomes during Science Subject Matter Courses. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1671-1694.
Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 279-296.
Gayford, C. (2002). Controversial environmental issues: A case study for the professional development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1191-1200.
Grace, M. (2009). Developing High Quality Decision-Making Discussions About Biological Conservation in a Normal Classroom Setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 557-570.
Halverson, K. L., Siegel, M. A., & Freyermuth, S. K. (2009). Lenses for framing decisions: Undergraduates' decision making about stem cell research. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1249-1268.
Jakobsson, A., Mäkitalo, Å., & Säljö, R. (2009). Conceptions of knowledge in research on students' understanding of the greenhouse effect: Methodological positions and their consequences for representations of knowing. Science Education, 93, 978-995.
Jim nez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171-1190.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching Nature of Science within a Controversial Topic: Integrated versus Nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395-418.
Kolstø, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: teaching science for citizenship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 645-664.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001b). ‘To trust or not to trust,…’ –pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877-901.
Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction . International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1017–1043.
Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632-655.

Lee, H., & Witz, K. G. (2009). Science teachers' inspiration for teaching socio-scientific issues: Disconnection with reform efforts. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 931–960.
Lee, M.-H., Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1999–2020.
Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1201-1224.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 411-423.
Reis, P., & Galvao, C. (2004). The impact of socio-scientific controversies in Portuguese natural science teachers’ conceptions and practices. Research in Science Education, 34, 153-171.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi. A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classroom: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353-376.
Sadler, T. D., Barab. S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371-391.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387-409.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science sducation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 909-921.
Seethaler, S. & Linn, M. (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: An inquiry-based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1765-1785.
Summers, M., Kruger, C., & Childs, A. (2001). Understanding the science of environmental issues: Development of a subject knowledge guide for primary teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 33-53.
Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers' informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2475-2495.
Tsai, C.-C. (2002). A science teacher’s reflections and knowledge growth about STS instruction after actual implementation. Science Education, 86 , 23-41.

Tytler, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815-832.
Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model: Toward real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58, 52-57.
Yang, F.-Y. (2003). Senior high school students' preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 221-244.
Yang, F.-Y. (2004). Exploring high school students' use of theory and evidence in an everyday context: The role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1345-1364.
Yung, B. H. W., Wong, S. L., Cheng, M. W., Hui, C. S., & Hodson, D. (2007). Tracking pre-service teachers’ changing conceptions of good science teaching: The role of progressive reflection with the same video. Research in Science Education, 37, 239-259.
Weelie, V. D. (2002). Making biodiversity meaningful through environmental education. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1163-1187.
Wong, S. L., Yung, B. H. W., Cheng, M. W., Lam, K. L., & Hodson, D. (2006). Setting the stage for developing preservice teachers’ conceptions of good science teaching: The role of classroom video. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1-24.
Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C. -C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1163-1187.


Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relations to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 371-400.
Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 77-101.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.


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