跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.210.83.132) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/05/27 02:23
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:馮禮君
研究生(外文):Li-Chung Feng
論文名稱:透過課室對談提升國一學生科學本質關鍵概念之初探研究
論文名稱(外文):A Preliminary Study of Promoting the Seventh Grade Students’ Key Concepts of the Nature of Science through Science Talking
指導教授:劉聖忠劉聖忠引用關係
指導教授(外文):Sheng-Zhong Lieu
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立東華大學
系所名稱:課程設計與潛能開發學系
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2013
畢業學年度:101
論文頁數:112
中文關鍵詞:科學本質課室對談學科教學知識
外文關鍵詞:Nature of ScienceScience talkingPedagogical Content Know-ledge
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:343
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:76
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究旨在探討透由課室對談模式對於提升學生科學本質關鍵概念做一初探的研究。本研究採用個案研究的方式,先對於課室對談做一探討,再說明個案教師的課室對談模式、個案教師如何實行課室對談以教授科學本質關鍵概念、以及個案教師在教學中所遇到的困難。個案教師的教學目標是教授能力指標3-4-0-2「什麼是大自然的現象,什麼是科學理論」,而對於學生科學本質關鍵概念的了解則採用「學生科學本質問卷(SVNOS)」來評量,從問卷中「持久性」、「暫時性」、「一致性與客觀性」、「創造力與想像力」、「觀察是理論蘊含」的向度來評量學生在教學前後在科學本質關鍵概念的變化情形。
研究結果顯示:一、依據文獻所顯示的課室對談模式有四個步驟,依序是:共同經驗、問題、對談與總結。二、個案教師在教學上所遭遇的困難,主要是來自於在教學環境中對科學知識的重視而不在意其它部分的學習,例如科學的技能、科學本質關鍵概念。三、學生在科學本質關鍵概念的部分,SVNOS問卷結果顯示,在某些向度上,學生的科學本質關鍵概念是有提升,例如:「暫時性」、「持久性」,而有些部分的向度則沒有差異,例如:「一致性與客觀性」、「想像力與創造力」、「觀察是理論蘊含」。雖然個案教師的教學不能使學生在SVNOS的每個向度都達到顯著性,但是個案教師的教學模式確是能提升學生科學本質關鍵概念。
對於未來的研究,則希望能進一步探討科學本質關鍵概念間的相互關係,以及針對個別的科學本質關鍵概念發展適宜的問卷。
This study is a preliminary study about promoting the students’ key concepts of the nature of science (NOS) through the science talking. The study is to discuss the science talking first, then to illustrate the science talking model, and how the teacher put the science talking model into practice to teach the key concepts of the nature of science and the difficulties the teacher faced. The teacher’s teaching aim is to teach NOS-CI: 3-4-0-2 ”What nature phenomenon is, and what the science theory is.” Students’ Views on Nature of Science (SVNOS) was used to reflect students’ understanding the tenets of the nature of science (UNOS). ”Durability”, “tentativeness”, “coherence and objectivity”, “creativity” and “theory-laden” are the tenets from SVNOS to evaluate the students’ UNOS before and after the treatment.
The results are shown as following: (a) According to the documents, the science talking model are composed by four steps in sequence: to have the common experiences, to question, to talk and to summarize. (B)The difficulties the teacher faced while teaching is mainly from the attention to science know-ledge and inattention to other parts, such as the scientific skills, the key concepts of the nature of science. (C)As for students’ UNOS, SVNOS shows that in some tenets, students’ UNOS is promoted, such as, “tentativeness” and “durability;”in some tenets, students’ UNOS shows no differences, such as “coherence and objectiveness”, “creativity” and “theory-laden.” Although the teacher’s teaching couldn’t make every tenet significant, the teacher’s teaching model actually could promote the students’ key concepts of the nature of science.
Recommendations for further research are to discuss the relationship be-tween the tenets of SVNOS and to develop the suitable assessments for each tenet of SVNOS.
表目錄 III
圖目錄 IV
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 4
第三節 名詞釋義 5
第四節 研究範圍與限制 6
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 九年一貫課程與科學本質關鍵概念 7
第二節 科學本質學科教學知識 17
第三節 課室對談與論證 24
第三章 研究方法 55
第一節 研究對象 55
第二節 研究情境 56
第三節 研究設計 57
第四節 研究工具 61
第五節 研究資料蒐集與分析 68
第四章 研究結果與討論 73
第一節 個案教師的教學歷程及其中所遭遇的困難 73
第二節 學生對科學本質關鍵概念的理解 88
第五章 結論與建議 109
第一節 研究結論 109
第二節 對未來研究的建議 111
參考文獻 113
一、中文文獻 113
二、英文文獻 120
附錄 133
附錄一:學生教學前訪談題目 133
附錄二:學生教學後訪談題目 134
附錄三:學生科學本質問卷(SVNOS) 135
附錄四:個案教師教學簡報 140
附錄五:個案教師所設計的學生學習單 149
一、中文文獻
丁信中(2004)。青年學生於理論競爭論證過程中對其支持理論侷限的覺察。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究博士論文,未出版,高雄市。
王靜如 (2003):科學本質教學與教學知能。屏師科學教育,17,3-11。
王靜如(2001)。小學教師科學本質概念及教學之研究。科學教育學刊,9(2),197-217。
王靜如、張靜儀 (2001)。教師科學本質觀,教學信念與教學實務之研究。屏東師院學報, 14, 859-898。
江維信 (2000)。科學本質課程對師院研究生科學本質觀影響之研究。國立東華大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
何佩穎 (2008)。發展問卷以檢測國小學童科學本質能力指標了解之調查研究。國立東華大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
吳堯文 (2004)。國小高年級學生小組科學學習行為、對科學的態度與學習成就之關係。國立台南大學自然科學教育學系碩士班碩士論文,未出版,台南。
吳麗后 (2006)。不同教學策略對國小四年級學童達成科學本質能力指標之研究。國立花蓮教育大學科學教育研究所碩士學位論文 ,未出版,花蓮。
巫俊明 (2002)。運用科學史增進學生對於科學本質的了解。國教世紀,199,61-68。
李秀娟 (2000)。概念改變教學情境下社會互動的情形。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,新竹。
李悅美 (2001)。國民小學高年級學童科學本質觀之研究。台北市立師範學院科學教育研究所自然科學教學碩士學位論文,未出版,台北。
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。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,彰化。
李暉、郭重吉 (1999)。科學話語與科學概念之學習:以國中生理化課學習為例。科學教育(彰化師大),10,3-29。
李德永 (2010)。提升學童科學本質關鍵概念之研究─以三階段教學模式為例。國立東華大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
沈慧芬 (2001)。國小高年級學生科學本質相關問卷之內容分析。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。
周進洋 (2003)。2003數學與科學的對話:概念學習。陳忠志(主持人),從概念知識連結看科學教室符號互動。科教處學術研討會,國立高雄師範大學。
林玉秋 (2005)。以圖畫書引導低年級學童科學對談之研究。國立台南大學國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台南。
林志能、洪振方 (2008)。論證模式分析及其評量要素。科學教育月刊,312,2-18。
林陳涌 (1996)。「了解科學本質量表」之發展與效化。科學教育學刊, 4(1), 31-58。
林陳涌 (1999)。科學本質在科學教育上的研究與實施。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所88學年度所內專題演講講稿。
林陳涌(1995)。高中學生對科學本質瞭解之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(NSC84-2511-S-003-083)。
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,未出版,彰化。
林雅慧、張文華、林陳涌 (2003)。國小低年級學生參與科學對談的類型之研究。科學教育學刊,11(1),51-74。
林燕文、洪振方 (2007)。對話論證的探究對促進學童科學概念理解之探討。花蓮教育大學學報,24,139-177。
邱太河 (2006)。教師推動科學本質能力指標教學所需學科教學知識之行動研究。國立花蓮教育大學科學教育研究所碩士學位論文,未出版,花蓮。
邱明富 (2003)。科學史融入教學以提昇國小學童科學本質觀與對科學的態度之行動研究。 屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
洪振方 (1994)。從孔恩異例的認知與論證探討科學知識的重建。台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北市。
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。國立高雄師範大學學報,15,641-662。
胡信忠 (2009)。以三階段教學模式提昇科學本質學科教學知識之研究。國立東華大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
翁秀玉 (1997):國小自然科教師傳達科學本質之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研所碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
翁秀玉和段曉林 (1997)。科學本質在科學教育上的啟示與做法。科學教育月刊,201,2-15。
翁秀玉和段曉林(1998)。國小自然科教師傳達科學本質之行動研究。彰師大科學教育,8,36-52。
高慧蓮 (2004)。九年一貫「自然與生活科技」領域能力指標詮釋研究子計畫三:國小學生科學本質的探究。(行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告,報告編號:NSC92-2522-S-153-012)
高慧蓮(2002)。九年一貫課程「自然與生活科技」領域教學與專題研究計畫,(NRC90-2511-S-153-009-X3)。
高慧蓮(2003)。九年一貫課程提升學生科學本質能力可行模式之探究。九十三學年度師範校院教育學術論文發表會論文集,961-993。
高慧蓮(2005)。九年一貫自然與生活科技領域能力指標詮釋研究─計畫三:國小學生科學本質的探究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告(NSC92-2522-S-153-012)。
高慧蓮、蘇明洲(2004)。科學本質的理論回顧與課程設計的實例分享。中華民國九十三年自然與生活科技學習領域課程研討會手冊(261-292頁)。台北:國立台灣師範大學。
張巨青、吳寅華 (1994)。邏輯與歷史:現代科學方法論的嬗變。台北市:淑馨出版社。
張淑女 (2004)。從認識論的觀點探究大學生論證思考之能力與模式。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北。
曹雅雯 (2003)。以概念地位(status)的觀點看小組討論中的概念改變─以生態單元為例。國立台灣師範大學生物研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
教育部 (2001)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。台北,教育部。
教育部 (2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要自然與生活科技學習領域。台北市,教育部。
教育部(2004)。自然與生活科技課程綱要「能力指標」與「教材細目」解說。台北市:教育部。
莊敏雄、洪振方、邱太河 (2006)。是權威?還是說服?國小自然科教師教學之研究。中華民國第22屆科學教育學術研討會,台北。
莊嘉坤(1999)。從認同的觀點分析學童對科學本質的了解與科學生涯的知覺。科學教育學刊,7(4),343-366。
許良榮、李田英 (1995)。科學史在科學教學的角色與功能。科學教育月刊,179,15-27。
許郁君(2002)。科學對談對國中生概念轉變的探討。國立高雄師範大學化學研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
許家榮 (2008)。在國小實踐科學本質三階段教學模式之初探研究。國立花蓮教育大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
許國忠、王靜如 (2003)。科學本質教學初探。科學教育研究與發展,23,15-29。
郭博嵐 (2005)。國小在職教師對九年一貫科學本質能力指標了解之詮釋性研究。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
陳文玲 (2006)。一位教師落實科學本質能力指標之教學行動與反思。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
陳俊欽 (2005)。促進國小高年級學童對科學本質能力指標隱含內涵了解之行動研究。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
陳意升 (2004)。以互動式科學小故事融入國小自然與生活科技課程之行動研究。國立新竹師範學院碩士論文,未出版,新竹。
游麗卿 (1996)。皮亞傑與維高斯基的對話。維高斯基對研究概念發展的啟示,百年校慶學術研討會暨皮亞傑與維高斯基百年誕辰紀念─,台北市立師範學院兒童發展中心。
彭鋐暐 (2010)。實踐三階段教學模式對學生能力指標與自然科學業成就影響之研究。國立東華大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
黃文美 (2002)。日常用與對國小六年級學童自然科學學習的影響─以國編本第十二冊「我們的地球」為例。國立台中師範學院自然科學教育學系碩士論文,未出版,台中。
黃志賢(2003)。科學探究教學模組對中年級兒童科學本質觀影響之行動研究。屏東師範大學碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
黃俊偉 (2004)。國小五年級學生科學本質觀與科學家形象之研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
黃俊澤 (2008)。國中教師科學本質教學理念與教學表現之個案研究。國立花蓮教育大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
黃翎斐、胡瑞萍 (2006)。論證與科學教育的理論和實務。科學教育月刊,292, 15-28。
楊代誠 (2002)。國中數學課室教師進行師生對談歷程及影響因素之研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
楊燕玉 (2001)。科學故事課程對國小五年紀學童科學本質與對科學的態度影響之個案研究。國立花年師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
廖雯玲 (1999)。建構主義取像教學對國小六年級學生在地球運動單學習之影響。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台南。
劉振中 (2002)。國小教師科學本質觀及其教學實務之研究。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
劉振中、熊召弟 (2002)。國小教師的科學本質觀及其教學實踐個案研究。國立台北師範學院學報,15,285-314。
劉聖忠 (2006)。社會脈絡變遷中科學課程之區塊研究。行政院國家科學委員會計畫成果報告(NSC93-2522-S-003-005)。
劉聖忠 (2008)。國小教師科學本質能力指標學科教學知能。行政院國家科學委員會計畫成果報告(NSC95-2522-S-026-004-MY3)。
蔣佳玲、郭重吉 (1999)。學生小組互動中的應得權及其對科學學習的影響。科學教育(彰化師大),10,31-45。
蔡俊彥, 黃台珠, & 楊錦潭 (2008)。國小學童網路論證能力及科學概念學習之研究。科學教育學刊, 16(2), 171-192。
蔡執仲、段曉林、靳之勤(2009)。進行「巢狀探究教學模式」對國二學生學習環境感知之影響。屏東教育大學學報-理工類,29,79-112。
鄧鈴冠 (2006)。國小資深教師以科學故事為基礎之科學本質教學研究。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義。
鄭可偉 (2002)。STS教學對國民小學學生科學本質觀與學習動機之研究。台北市立師範學院科學教育言教所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
鄭明順 (2009)。以三階段教學模式落實科學本質關鍵概念之行動研究。國立東華大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
鄭淑妃 (1999)。國小自然科教師科學本質觀之詮釋性研究。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。
鄭淑妃、劉聖忠和段曉林(2005)。國小自然科教師科學本質觀與教學之個案研究。科學教育學刊,13(2),169-190。
鄭森榮 (2005)。探究式實驗對國小六年級學童科學本質與對科學的態度之研究。國立新竹師範學院應用科學教學碩士論文,未出版,新竹。
藍偉螢、楊文金(1990)。科學論證的發展—一個國中理化科教室的個案。中華民國第17屆科學教育學術研討會,高雄。
蘇明洲和高慧蓮(2004)。科學本質的理論回顧與課程設計的實例分享。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(NSC92-2522-S-153-012-)。

二、英文文獻

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(1), 417-436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ concep-tions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
Abimbola, I. O. (1983). The relevance of the “new” philosophy of science for the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 83(3), 181-193.
Achtenhagen, F. (2001). Criteria for the development of complez teaching-learning environments. Instructional Science, 29, 361-380.
Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F.(2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 937-1114.
Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teach-ers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related at-titudes. Science Education, 72(1), 73-82.
Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science?. Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing, 34(1), 39-55.
American Association for the Advancement of Science(1989). Project 2061: Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Project 2061: Bench-marks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baker, M. (1999). Argument and constructive integration. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Es-peret, (Series Eds.), J. Andriessen, & P. Coirier (Vol. Eds.), Foundations of ar-gumentative text processing, 179-201. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE, International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797 - 817.
Bentley, D., & Watts, M. (1992a). Communicating for understanding. Communicating in school science (pp.1-26). London: The Falmer Press.
Bentley, D., & Watts, M. (1992b). Groups, tasks and problem solving: Creating a cli-mate for communication. Communicating in school science (pp.27-56). London: The Falmer Press.
Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialetical, Argumentation, 1, 41- 56.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Canbridge: Harvard Universtity Press.
Bybee, R. W., & Landes, N. M. (1988). The biological sciences curriculum study (BSCS). Science and Children, 25(8), 36-37.
Chen, S., Lieu, S.-C., Chang, W.-H., Lin, S.-F., & Huang, M.-T. (2009). Model for assessing elementary students’ concepts of nature of science. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, USA.
Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1993) Do middle school life science textbooks provide a balance of scientific literacy themes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 787-797.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold on-line argumentation, International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
Clough, M. P. (1998). Integrating the Nature of Science with Student Teaching: Ra-tionales and Strategies. In W. F. McComas (ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 197-208). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Con-siderations for effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 15(5), 463-494.
Collette, A. T., & Chiappetta, E. L. (1994). Science instruction in the middle and sec-ondary schools(3rd ed.). New York: Maxwell Macmillan.
Cooley, W. W. & Klopfer, E. L. (1961). YOUS-Test on Understanding Science, Form W: Manual for Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Scores, Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Crouch, C. H., Fagen, A. P., Callan, J. P., & Mazur, E. (2004). Classroom demonstra-tions: Learning tools or entertainment? American Journal of Physics, 72, 835-838.
Darby, L. (2005). Science students’ perceptions of engaging pedagogy. Research in Science Education, 35(4), 425-445.
Doing, B. (1997). What makes scientific dialogue possible in the classroom?Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, U.S.A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 413 246)
Doll, W. E. (1989). Foundations for a post-modern curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21, 243-253.
Dorman, J. P. (2003). Cross-national validation of the What is happening in this class? (WIHIC) questionnaire using confirmatory factor analysis. Learning Environ-ments Research, 6, 231-245.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young People’s Images of Science, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific ar-gumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York:Teacher College Press.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J.(2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. (1993). The interplay of scientific epistemological views, learning strategies and attitudes of college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(6), 547-559.
Edward, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge-the development of under-standing in classroom. London: Routledge.
Eduardo, F. M. & Andrea, H. M. (2000). Anomalies and conflicts in classroom dis-course. Science Education, 84(4), 429-444.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TApping into Argumentation: Devel-opment in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science. New York: Teachers College Press.
Garrison, J. W., & Lawwill, R. S. (1993). Democratic science teaching: A role for the history of science. Interchange,24(1 & 2),29-39.
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies. London:Falmer.
Gee, J. P. (1992). “What is literacy?” In Becoming Political. Edited by P. Shannon, 21-28. Portsmouth, N. H. : Heinemann, 1992.
Gee, J. P. & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: a methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119-169.
Giere, R. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning. FL: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston , Inc.
Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought & Knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hawthorn, Jeremy (1992). Aconcise Glossary of Contemporary Literacy Theory. Ed-ward Arnold, London.
Hicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning, and teaching. Review of Research in Education, 21, 49-95.
Howe, A. C. (1996). Development of science concepts within a Vygotskian frame-work. Journal of Science Education, 80(1), 35-49.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
Johnson, S. (2000). Primary children talk about in the garden. (ERIC Document Re-production Service No. ED439948)
Kamen, M., Roth, W. M., Flick, L., Shapiro, B., Barden, L., Kean, E., Marble, S., & Lemke, J. (1997). Amultiple perspective analysis of the role of language in in-quiry science learning: to build a tower. Science Education, 2(1). Retrieved from http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/kamen_etal.html
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teach-ing children how to question and how to explain. American Education Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16-26.
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1-8.
Kim, B. S., Ko, E. K., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2005). A developmental continuum of pedagogical conten knowledge for nature of science instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Asssociation for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, Texas.
Kimball, M.E. (1968). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110-120.
Klein, E. R., Hammrich, P. L., Bloom, S., & Ragins, A. (2000). Language development and science inquiry: A child-initiated and teacher-facilitated program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440756)
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research program-mers. In I. Lakatos, & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth and the knowledge (pp. 91-195). Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, A. E. (2003). Allchin’s Shoehorn, or why science is hypothetico-deductive. Science & Education, 12, 331-337
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science and Education, 12(1), 91-113.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G. (1995). Translation and transformation of teachers’understanding of the nature of science into classroom practice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 382474)
Lederman,N.G.(1998).The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education,3(2).
Lederman, N.G. (2000). Problem solving and solving problems: Inquiry. School Science & Mathematics, 100(3), 113-16.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). Revising instruction to teach nature of science. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 36-39.
Lederman, N., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of the tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225-239.
Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teacher behavior? Science Education, 70(5), 721-734.
Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. Y.(1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessments? Science & Education, 7, 595-615.
Lemke, J.L.(1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values(pp.167-176). New York: Ablex.
Lieu, S. C. (1997). Teacher understanding of the nature of science and it’s impact on student learning about the nature of science in STS/Constructivist classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Loving, C. C. (1997).From the summit of truth to its slippery slopes: Science educa-tion journey through positivist-postmodern territory. American Educational Re-search Journal, 34(3), 421-452.
Moje, E. B. (1995). Talking about science: An interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high school science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teach, 32(4), 349-371.
Marble, S. T. (1992). Student descriptions of the nature of science. Doctoral disserta-tion, University of Texas at Austin, 192. (University Microfilms NO. AAC93-0227).
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
Matthews, M. (1996). What should be the goal in teaching about the nature of science? National Association for Research in Science Teaching: St. Louis, MO.
McComas, W.F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H.(1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Science & Technology Education Library, 5, 3-39.
McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and Strategies. Science & Technology Education Library, 5, 41-52.
Moser, S. (1994). Using storybooks to teach science themes. Reading Horizons, 35(2), 138-150.
National Assessment of Education Progress. (1989). National Assessment Science Objective-1990 Assessment, 18-26.
National Research Council. (NRC)(1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Education Standards.(1996). (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-vice No. ED391-690).
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J.(1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M.(2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
Nussbaum, J. (1989). Classroom conceptual change philosophical perspectives. In-ternational Journal of Science Education, 11, 530-540.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., & Millar, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.
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.
Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223-238.
Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classroom: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858.
Riley, J. P. (1979). The influence of hands-on science process training on preservice teachers’ acquisition of process skills and attitude toward science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(5), 373-384.
Rubba, P. A. & Anderson, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess sec-ondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634-656.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 23, 23-33.
Schecker, H. P.(1992). The paradigmatic change in mechanics: Implication of historical processes for physics education. Science and Education,1(1),71-76.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). What do scientists do? Behavioral Science, 5, 1-27.
Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N.G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influ-ence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205-236.
Shepardson, D. P. (1999). Learning science in a first grade science activity: A Vygots-kian perspective. Journal of Science Education, 83(5), 621-637.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Har-vard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Re-search and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2&3), 235-260.
Soloman, J. (1993). The social construction of children’s scientific knowledge. In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas(Eds.), Children’s informal ideas in science. New York: Routledge.
Soloman, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ under-standing of the nature of science. Science Education, 80(5), 493-508.
Spears, J., & Zollman, D. (1977). The influence of structures versus unstructured la-boratory on students’ understanding the process of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(1), 33-38.
Sprod, T. (1997). Nobody really knows: The structure and analysis of social construc-tivist whole class discussions. International Journal of Science Education, 19(8), 911-924.
Sprod, T. (1998). “ I can change your opinion on that”: Social constructivist whole class discussions and their effect on science reasoning. Research in Science Education, 28(4), 463-480.
Staarman, J. K., Krol, K., & ven der Meijden, H. (2005). Peer interaction in three col-laborative learning environments. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(1), 29-39.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tsai, C. C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eightgraders. Science Education, 82,473-489.
van Dijk, T. A.(1997). Discourse as structure and process. London:SAGE.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Funda-mentals of argumentation theory. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 89-111.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Tool and symbol in child development. In M. Cole (Ed.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp.19-30). Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Watson, J. R., Swain, F. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students’ discussions in prac-tical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A Sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1990). The development of collaborative dialogue within small group interactions. In L. Steffe & T. Wood (Eds.), Transforming children’s mathematics education (pp. 244-252). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wooddruff, E., & Meyer, K. (1997). Expalanation from intra- and inter-group dis-course: Students building knowledge in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 25-39.
Yager, R. E. (1990). Workshop Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education. Science Education Center. National Taiwan Normal University. Tai-pei. Taiwan. R. O. C.
Yager, R. E. (1994). Science-Technology-Society as Reform. Science Education Cen-ter, the University of Iowa City, JA. U.S.A.
Yore, L.D., Anderson, J. O. & Shymansky, J. A.(2002) Modeling the Relationships of Classroom Characteristics and Student Attributes to Students’ Science Achieve-ment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (New Orleans, LA, April 7-10, 2002) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No., ED 463-183)
Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: lan-guage and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction. In-ternational Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 291-314.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 王靜如 (2003):科學本質教學與教學知能。屏師科學教育,17,3-11。
2. 王靜如(2001)。小學教師科學本質概念及教學之研究。科學教育學刊,9(2),197-217。
3. 王靜如、張靜儀 (2001)。教師科學本質觀,教學信念與教學實務之研究。屏東師院學報, 14, 859-898。
4. 巫俊明 (2002)。運用科學史增進學生對於科學本質的了解。國教世紀,199,61-68。
5. 李秀娟 (2000)。概念改變教學情境下社會互動的情形。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,新竹。
6. 李暉、郭重吉 (1999)。科學話語與科學概念之學習:以國中生理化課學習為例。科學教育(彰化師大),10,3-29。
7. 林志能、洪振方 (2008)。論證模式分析及其評量要素。科學教育月刊,312,2-18。
8. 林陳涌 (1996)。「了解科學本質量表」之發展與效化。科學教育學刊, 4(1), 31-58。
9. 林雅慧、張文華、林陳涌 (2003)。國小低年級學生參與科學對談的類型之研究。科學教育學刊,11(1),51-74。
10. 林燕文、洪振方 (2007)。對話論證的探究對促進學童科學概念理解之探討。花蓮教育大學學報,24,139-177。
11. 邱明富 (2003)。科學史融入教學以提昇國小學童科學本質觀與對科學的態度之行動研究。 屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
12. 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。國立高雄師範大學學報,15,641-662。
13. 高慧蓮 (2004)。九年一貫「自然與生活科技」領域能力指標詮釋研究子計畫三:國小學生科學本質的探究。(行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告,報告編號:NSC92-2522-S-153-012)
14. 高慧蓮(2005)。九年一貫自然與生活科技領域能力指標詮釋研究─計畫三:國小學生科學本質的探究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告(NSC92-2522-S-153-012)。
15. 莊嘉坤(1999)。從認同的觀點分析學童對科學本質的了解與科學生涯的知覺。科學教育學刊,7(4),343-366。