(44.192.112.123) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/01 02:21
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:陳淑苾
研究生(外文):Chen, Shu-Bi
論文名稱:輔以寫作鷹架的開放式探究學習對國小學生形成實驗問題能力與學習成就的影響
論文名稱(外文):The Effect of Open Inquiry with Writing Scaffold on Elementary School Students' Forming Testable Questions and Achievement
指導教授:張文華張文華引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chang, Wen-Hua
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:生命科學系
學門:生命科學學門
學類:生物學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2017
畢業學年度:105
語文別:中文
論文頁數:190
中文關鍵詞:開放式探究提問能力學習成就寫作鷹架
外文關鍵詞:open inquiryquestion-posing abilitylearning achievementwriting scaffold
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:193
  • 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:40
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
摘要
本研究探討開放式探究教學對於學生學習的影響。學生在開放式探究中形成探究問題上是有困難的,本研究以寫作鷹架協助學生形成實驗問題並進行實驗設計,以利學生進行開放式探究。研究比較學生在輔以寫作鷹架的開放式及結構式探究教學後,其學習成就及形成實驗問題能力的差異,研究並探討不同學習成就學生在開放式探究學習中的學習過程及形成實驗問題能力的差異情形。研究採混合研究法收集量化及質性資料,包括:學習成就的前後及延宕測成績;形成實驗問題能力測驗的前後測成績及實驗組學生晤談資料。研究對象為國小五年級四個班級共106人,實驗組(n=52)及對照組(n=54)各兩班分別進行開放式及結構式探究,教學實驗課程為10週的自然與生活科技課程。分析結果顯示:兩組學生的學習成就皆有顯著提升但沒有明顯差異,學習保留效果皆良好。在形成實驗問題能力上兩組也都有顯著提升,實驗組是大效果量而對照組為小效果量。比較兩組學生在形成實驗問題能力測驗的差異,實驗組皆優於對照組。中、高成就學生在開放式探究學習的形成實驗問題能力總分、分辨變因和組合變因上優於結構式探究學習。低成就學生在開放式探究的形成實驗問題能力總分及組合變因上優於結構式探究學習。分析晤談資料顯示開放式探究學生認為寫作學習鷹架對於其思考是有幫助的,低成就學生不喜歡主動思考,在形成實驗問題上是有困擾的。研究結果顯示,進行開放式探究教學時老師可在大概念下以核心問題激發學生思考,並以小組討論界定實驗問題、設計實驗後執行實驗,以建構學生的科學知識。研究針對結果提出對學生學習與教學設計的相關建議。
關鍵字:開放式探究、提問能力、學習成就、寫作鷹架
ABSTRACT
This study aims to investigate the effect of open inquiry on students’ learning. During open inquiry, students posed their questions according to their interests. Yet question-posing was too difficult for students to handle. Thus the present study provided a writing scaffold that helps students pose experimental questions and design their own experiments for students’ learning in open inquiry. The present study examined students’ learning achievements and question-posing ability in open inquiry versus structured inquiry in order to learn the effect of open inquiry on students’ learning. Mixed methods were used to collect quantitative and qualitative data including students’ learning achievements before and after open inquiry as well as the follow-up tests, scores of experimental question-posing ability tests before and after open inquiry, students’ opinions on open inquiry obtained by interviews with students in the experimental group. A total of 106 students from four 5th-grade classes were involved in the study. 52 of them were in the experimental group, where they carried out open inquiry activities. 54 were in the control group, where they conducted structured inquiry activities. The intervention lasted for 10 weeks. The results revealed that the students’ learning achievements of both groups had been improved dramatically but there was no significant difference. A good learning retention effect was found. As to the problem-posing ability, both groups showed significant improvement after the inquiry while the experimental group had a larger increase and the control group showed a smaller degree. The MANCOVA analysis demonstrated that the experimental group had higher total score of the experimental question-posing ability test than the control group on investigation. The students with intermediate and high achievement in open inquiry had a better performance on the total score of the experimental question-posing ability test, the differential variable and the combined variable compared with the students with intermediate and high achievement in structured inquiry. As to the students with low achievement in open inquiry, they had a better performance on the total score and the combined variable compared with the students with low achievement in structured inquiry. The analysis results of the interviews with the students in open inquiry showed that all of the students in open inquiry thought that the writing scaffold is helpful in thinking process while the students with low achievement had trouble in question-posing because that they seldom think actively. Moreover, the result also indicated that teachers can use core problems of teaching practice as a situation to inspire students in open inquiry so that the students can define experimental problems in a group discussion and then design and execute experiments for increasing their scientific knowledge. This study proposed suggestions for student learning and curriculum design based on the results mentioned above.

Key words: open inquiry, question-posing ability, learning achievement, writing scaffold
摘要 I
Abstract III
目錄 IV
圖目錄 VII
表目錄 III
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究的背景與重要性 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 6
第三節 名詞釋義 7
第四節 研究限制 9
第貳章 文獻探討 11
第一節 探究教學與學習 11
第二節 鷹架與寫作 28
第三節 學生提問與探究 38
第參章 研究方法 61
第一節 研究對象與研究情境 61
第二節 研究設計與研究架構 63
第三節 研究方法與研究流程 71
第四節 研究工具 73
第五節 資料收集與分析處理 80
第肆章 研究結果與討論 87
第一節 學生在學習成就的差異 87
第二節 學生的形成實驗問題能力的差異 94
第三節 不同不同學習成就學生的學習的情形差異 101
第四節 開放式探究中不同學習成就學生的學習的情形差異 108
第五章 結論與建議 131
第一節 結論 131
第二節 建議 136
參考文獻 137
一、中文部份 137
二、西文部分 143
附錄 168
一、中文部份
方文威(2000)。科學探究-知多一點點【亞太科學教育論壇】。查詢日期:2012年7月9日。檢自 http://www.ied.edu.hk /apfslt/issue_1/si/article-2.htm。
王美芬、熊召弟(1995)。國民小學自然科教材教法。臺北市:心理出版社。
王美芬、熊召弟(2005)。國小階段自然與生活科技教材教法。臺北市:心理出版社。
王敏祝(2004)。以探究導向教學提昇國中學生學習成效之研究—以 [光學] 單元為例。未出版之碩士論文,國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所,彰化市。
白佩宜(2008)。探討不同探究式教學法對高一學生科學探究能力成長之影響。未出版之碩士論文,臺灣師範大學地球科學系,臺北市。
江世賓(1998)。山地小學生的自然科學學習面貌。未出版之碩士論文,國立彰化師範大學教育研究所論文,彰化市。
郭重吉、江武雄、張文華(1997)。中學數理教師在職進修課程設計之行動研究(I)—教師轉變與課程調整。科學教育學刊,5.3 ,295-320。
吳百興、張耀云、吳心楷(2010)。科學探究活動中的科學推理。科學教育研究與發展,56,53-74。
吳明隆、涂金堂(2014)。SPSS與統計應用分析。臺北市:五南。
吳宗勳(2012)。U化問題導向合作探究學習模式的發展與應用-國小學生科學提問能力進展特徵之探討。未出版之博士論文,國立臺南大學教育經營與管理研究所,臺南市。
吳清山(2012)。差異化教學與學生學習。國家教育研究院電子報,38。查詢日期:2017年2月10日。檢自http://epaper.naer.edu.tw/epaper.php?edm_no=38。
李明昆、洪振方(2010)。九年級學生對探究性科學問題提問之研究。台北市立教育大學學報,41(2),111-148。
李明昆、洪振方(2011)。九年級學生探究性科學問題提問與問題發展型態之個案研究。科學教育研究與發展季刊,61,51-80。
李國平(2009)。探究教學對於國小學童科學學習成效影響之後設分析。未出版之碩士論文,國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所,屏東。
李麗君(2006)。低成就學生逃避行為之探討。教育資料與研究,73,91-104。
林沂昇(2003)。「科學問題發現」之思考模式詮釋研究-以研究生與小學生的個案為例。未出版之碩士論文,國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所,屏東。
林陳涌(1995)。從經驗證據和科學理論之間的關係來探討自然科實驗教學的意義。科學教育月刊,184,2-16。
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。
林雅慧、蔡佩穎、張惠博、張文華(2007)。不同寫作對象於四年級學生科學寫作內容之影響的探討。師大學報,52,49-78。
林煥祥(2008a)。台灣參加PISA 2006成果報告(NSC 95-2522-S-026-002)。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
林煥祥(2008b)。學生的提問活動與其探究能力之探討(NSC 95-2511-S-026-001)。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
金泉浩晃(1997)。改變一生的曼陀羅MEMO技法(洪偉志、徐塵亮譯)。臺北市:世茂。
洪振方(2010)。思考導向的探究式學習對國二學生科學探究能力的影響。科學教育學刊,18 (5),389-415。
胡瑞萍、林陳涌(2002)。寫作與科學學習。科學教育月刊,253,2-18。
段曉林(2008)。迷人的科學探究教學。 發表於中華民國第廿四屆科學教育學術研討會。彰化市: 國立彰化師範大學。
徐椿樑(2001)。鷹架學習理論在專業技術教學的成效分析之研究。未出版之博士論文,國立臺灣師範大學工業教育研究所,臺北市。
郭文禎(1999)。國小學生投入實驗活動的方式與其對實驗看法之關係。未出版之碩士論文,國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所,彰化市。
郭文禎、張文華(2000)。國小學生投入實驗活動的方式與其對實驗看法之關系。科學教育,10,344-358。
陳月珍(2004)。資優同儕鷹架支持與電腦輔助教學對提昇身障學生數學學習成效與互動品質之研究。未出版之碩士論文,臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系,臺北市。
陳定邦(2004)。鷹架教學概念在成人學習歷程上應用之研究。未出版之博士論文,國立臺灣師範大學社會教育研究所,臺北市。
陳柏霖(2016)。科學問題發現與教學實務關係之探討。臺中教育大學學報: 數理科技類,30(2),1-19。
陳龍安(2006)。創造思考教學的理論與實際。臺北市:心理出版社。
張玉成(2002)。思考技巧與教學(第六版)。臺北市:心理出版社。
教育部(2003)。科學教育白皮書。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要總綱。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2012)。十二年國民基本教育。查詢日期2017年2月4日,檢自http://12basic.edu.tw/。
國家教育研究院(2016年2月)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校自然科學領域(草案)。查詢日期:2017年7月1日,檢自http://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles /0/1000/attach/ 90/pta_10118_2261414_00571.pdf。
許育彰(1999)。探討高中生從力學情境中發現問題能力之研究。未出版之博士論文,國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所,臺北市。
許榮富、趙金祁(1987)。科學實驗教學目標之確認之客觀性評量分析研究(NSC76-0111-S003-24)。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
連啟瑞、盧玉玲(1997)。國小高年級學童對物質類感興趣問題的分析與應用。科學教育學刊,5(2),191-218。
連啟瑞、盧玉玲(2005)。科學創造思考能力的提昇-「探究性問題」的形成。國立台北師範學院學報,18(1),29-58。
張春興(1996)。教育心理學: 三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北市:東華。
黃瑞琴(1991)。質的研究教育方法。臺北市:心理出版社。
鄒玉鈿、張景媛(2012)。[探究式創意實驗教學]對八年級學生自然領域學習表現之影響。慈濟大學教育研究學刊,8,53-90。
楊秀停、王國華(2007)。實施引導式探究教學對於國小學童學習成效之影響。科學教育學刊,15(4),439-459。
楊雅鳳(2008)。實施啟發式科學寫作對國小中年級學生提問能力影響之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺南大學研究所碩士論文,臺南市。
劉世閩、李志偉(2014)。數位化質性研究Nvivo10之圖解與應用。臺北市:高等教育。
劉宏文、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 (2 ),169-196。
鄭榮輝、林陳涌(2015)。科學素養與科學本質。收錄於鄭榮輝、林陳涌(編著),科學實作教學理論與實務(頁1-31)。臺北市:師大科教中心。
鄭麗華(2002)。以探究式實驗活動提升國二學生參與實驗活動及過程技能之行動研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所,彰化市。
龍麟如、謝祥宏(2006)。八十年代國小自然科學實驗課程研發過程之回顧-主題探究教學部分。科學教育月刊,290,16-27。
鐘聖校(2000)。情意溝通教學論-從建構到實踐。臺北市:五南圖書出版公司。
簡錦鳳(2007)。文字鷹架對七年級學生科學解釋能力的影響。未出版之碩士論文,臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所,臺北市。
顏瓊芬、黃世傑(2003)。學生在開放式科學探究過程中互動模式之研究。科學教育學刊,11(2),141-16。
蘇麗涼(2002)。國中理化實施探究導向教學對學生學習成效影響之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所,彰化市。


二、西文部分
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Hofstein, A. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.
Abell, S., & McDonald, J. (2006). Envisioning a curriculum of inquiry in the elementary school. Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science, 249-261.
Aksit, F., Niemi, H., & Nevgi, A. (2016). Why is active learning so difficult to implement: The Turkish case. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 6.
Alfke, D. (1974). Asking operational questions. Science and Children, 11, 18-19.
Allison, W. A., & Shrigley, R. L. (1986). Teaching children to ask operational questions in science. Science Education, 70(1), 73-80.
Apedoe, X. S. (2008). Engaging students in inquiry: Tales from an undergraduate geology laboratory-based course. Science Education, 92(4), 631-663.
Arlin, P. K. (1975). A cognitive process model of problem finding. Educational Horizons, 54(2), 99-106.
Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding Students' Experiments—What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks?. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719-2749.
Arslan, A. (2014). Transition between open and guided inquiry instruction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 407-412.
Asay, L. D., & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in The Science Teacher, 1998–2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 57-79.
Balgopal, M. M., Casper, A. M. A., Atadero, R. A., & Rambo-Hernandez, K. E. (2017). Responses to different types of inquiry prompts: college students’ discourse, performance, and perceptions of group work in an engineering class. International Journal of Science Education, 1-23.
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and children, 46(2), 26.
Baram-Tsabari, A., Sethi, R. J., Bry, L., & Yarden, A. (2006). Using questions sent to an ask-A-scientist site to identify children's interests in science. Science Education, 90(6), 1050-1072.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsadle, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., Lundberg, B., & Tibell, L. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351-372.
Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 180-191.
Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Gunstone, R., & Loughran, J. (1999). Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45(1), 27.
Bevins, S., & Price, G. (2016). Reconceptualising inquiry in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 17-29.
Biddulph, F., & Osborne, R. (1982). Some issues relating to children’s questions and explanations. LISP(P) Working paper no. 106. Waikato, New Zealand: University of Waikato.
Biddulph, F., Symington, D., & Osborne, R. (1986). The place of children’s questions in primary science education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4, 77-88.
Bielik, T., & Yarden, A. (2016). Promoting the asking of research questions in a high-school biotechnology inquiry-oriented program. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 15.
Biggs, J. (1988). The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. Australian Journal of Education, 32, 127-138.
Bjønness, B., & Kolstø, S. D. (2015). Scaffolding open inquiry: How a teacher provides students with structure and space. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 11(3), 223-237.
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? : A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577-616.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Height: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown, P. L., Abell, S. K., Demir, A., & Schmidt, F. J. (2006). College science teachers' views of classroom inquiry. Science Education, 90(5), 784-802.
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bunterm, T., Lee, K., Ng Lan Kong, J., Srikoon, S., Vangpoomyai, P., Rattanavongsa, J., & Rachahoon, G. (2014). Do different levels of inquiry lead to different learning outcomes? A comparison between guided and structured inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 1937-1959.
Chatterjee, S., Williamson, V. M., McCann, K., & Peck, M. L. (2009). Surveying students' attitudes and perceptions toward guided-inquiry and open-inquiry laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(12), 1427.
Chen, S. B., & Tseng, H.F. (2010, January). To see is to work out: Applying Mandala thinking strategy to formulate scientific research questions in project-based learning. Paper presented at SMTE conference, Hualien, Taiwan.
Chin, C. (2001, April). Student-generated questions: What they tell us about students' thinking. Paper presented at AERA conference, Seattle, WA, USA.
Chin, C. (2002). Open investigations in science: Posing problems and asking investigative questions. Teaching and Learning, 23(2), 155-166.
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315-1346.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000a). Learning deeply in science: An analysis and reintegration of deep approaches in two case studies of grade 8 students. Research in Science Education, 30(2), 173-197.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000b). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521-549.
Chin, C., & Chia, L. G. (2004). Implementing project work in biology through problem-based learning. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 69-75.
Chin, C., & Chia, L. G. (2006). Problem‐based learning: Using ill‐structured problems in biology project work. Science Education, 90(1), 44-67.
Chin, C., & Kayalvizhi, G. (2002). Posing problems for open investigations: What questions do pupils ask? Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(2), 269-287.
Chin, C., & Kayalvizhi, G. (2005). What do pupils think of open science investigations? A study of Singaporean primary 6 pupils. Educational Research, 47(1), 107-126.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010a). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010b). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of Leaning Science, 19(2), 230-284.
Ciardiello, A. V. (1998). Did you ask a good question today? Alternative cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(3), 210-219.
Clark, R. L., Clough, M. P., & Berg, C. A. (2000). Modifying cookbook labs. The Science Teacher, 67(7), 40.
Colbert, J. T., Olson, J. K., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Using the web to encourage student-generated questions in large-format introductory biology classes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 42-48.
Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In L. S. Schulman (Ed.), Issues in education: Problems and possibilities. (pp. 289-298). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Costenson, K & Lawson A.E. (1986). Why isn’t inquiry used in more classrooms? The American Biology Teacher, 48, 150-158.
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613-642.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cuccio-Schirripa, S., & Steiner, H. E. (2000). Enhancement and analysis of science question level for middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 210-224.
Davis, E. A.,& Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. Journal of the Learning Science, 13(3), 265-272.
Dembrow, M. P., & Molldrem-Shamel, J. (1997). Thinking about teaching through inquiry. Reading Teacher, 51(2), 162-164.
Dillon, J. T. (1984). The classification of research questions. Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 327-361.
Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning in education. In M. Mayer (Ed.), Questions and Questioning. New York, NY: Walter De Gruyter.
Dillon, J. T. (1994). Adaptive student questioning and students' verbal ability. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(4), 277-290.
Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 543-547.

Dyson, A. (1990). Special educational needs and the concept of change. Oxford Review of Education, 16(1), 55-66.
Elizabeth, H. (1990). The student laboratory and the science curriculum, London: Routledge.

Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition & Communication, 28, 122-128.
Esler, W. & Esler, M. (1989). Teaching elementary science 5E. Belmont, Calif : Wads-worth.
Fang, S. C., Hsu, Y. S., Chang, H. Y., Chang, W. H., Wu, H. K., & Chen, C. M. (2016). Investigating the effects of structured and guided inquiry on students’ development of conceptual knowledge and inquiry abilities: a case study in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 1945-1971.
Flammer, A. (1981). Towards a theory of question asking. Psycholgical Research, 43, 407-420.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition & Communication, 31, 21-32.
Freedman, R. L. (1999). Science and writing connections. New York, NY: White Plains.
Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329.
Galbraith, D. & Torrance, M. (1999). Conceptual process in writing: From problem solving to text production. In Galbraith, D. & Torrance, M. (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 1-12). Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press.
Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production, 4, 139-164.
Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Getzels, J. W. (1979). Problem finding: A theoretical note. Cognitive Science, 3, 167-172.
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Gibson, J. W., & Chase, K. (2002). Some relationships between selected creativity and critical thinking measures. Psychological Reports, 23(3), 707.
Good, T. L., Slavings, R. L., Kathleen, H. H., & Emerson, H. (1987). Student passivity: A study of question asking in K-12 classrooms. Sociology of Education, 60(3), 181-199.
Graesser, A. C., & McMahen, C. L. (1993). Anomalous information triggers questions when adults solve quantitative problems and comprehend stories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,136-151.
Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. A. (2003). How does one know whether a person understands a device? the quality of the questions the person asks when the device breaks down. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 524-535.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104-137.
Guilford, J. P. & Hoepfner, R. (1971). The analysis of intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gyllenpalm, J., Wickman, P. O., & Holmgren, S. O. (2010). Teachers' Language on Scientific Inquiry: Methods of teaching or methods of inquiry? International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1151-1172.
Hand, B., & Wallace, C. W. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes form laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149.
Hand, B., Prain, V., & Trobe, L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035.
Heinzen, T. (1989). On moderate challenge increasing ideational creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 223-226.
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review, 79(2), 171-212.
Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. 49(3), 37-52.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and Learning about Science: Language, Theories, Methods, History, Traditions and Values. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding scientific competencies within classroom communities of inquiry. In Hogan, K., &Pressley, M. (Eds), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Hohenstein, J., & Tran, L. U. (2007). Use of questions in exhibit labels to generate explanatory conversation among science museum visitors. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1557-1580.
Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127-143.
Hoover, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Scientific problem solving and problem finding: A theoretical model. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 201-219). Norwood, NJ: Ablex publishing Corporation.
Ireland, J., Watters, J. J., Lunn Brownlee, J., & Lupton, M. (2014). Approaches to Inquiry Teaching: Elementary teacher's perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1733-1750.
Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (1998). Small groups and shared constructions. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.) Teaching science for understanding: A constructivist view (pp.261-279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Jordan, R. C., Ruibal‐Villasenor, M., Hmelo‐Silver, C. E., & Etkina, E. (2011). Laboratory materials: Affordances or constraints? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1010-1025.
Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Question posing, inquiry, and modeling skills of chemistry students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 597-625.
Keating, J., Greenberg, R. D., Baldwin, M., & Thousand, J. (1998). A collaborative action research model for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(5), 381-390.
Keys, C. W. (1998). A study of grade six students generating questions and plans for open-ended science investigations. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 301-16.
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(6), 631-645.
King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children's problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307-317.
King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.
King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 13-17.
King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 127-148.
Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 601-627.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313-350.
Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (2003). Teaching children science in elementary and middle school classroom: A project-based approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kuhn, D., Arvidsson, T. S., Lesperance, R., & Corprew, R. (2017). Can Engaging in Science Practices Promote Deep Understanding of Them? Science Education, 101(2), 232-250.
Langer, J.A., & Applebee, A. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of teachers of English.
Laudan, R. (1977). Ideas and organizations in British geology: A case study in institutional history. Isis, 68(4), 527-538.
Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Lee, H., & Cho, Y. (2007). Factors affecting problem finding depending on degree of structure of problem situation. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(2), 113-123.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lombard, F. E., & Schneider, D. K. (2013). Good student questions in inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 47(3), 166-174.
Mason, J. (2000). Asking mathematical questions mathematically. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 31, 97-111.
McArthur, D., Stasz, C., & Zmuidzinas, M. (1990). Tutoring techniques in algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 7(3), 197-244.
McKenzie, J. (2000). Beyond technology: Questioning, research and the information literate school. Bellingham, WA: FNO Press.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. & Marx, R. W., (2006) Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Science, 15(2), 153-191.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle‐school science through design‐based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71-85.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
Minstrell, J., & Van Zee, E. (2000). Teaching in the inquiry-based science classroom. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains. In Runco, Mark A. (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 3-39). NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving of real-life problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 45-53.
Orwat, K., Bernard, P., & Dudek, K. (2014). Inquiry Based Science Education–bringing theory to practice. Science and Technology Education for the 21st Century. Research and Research Oriented Studies, 225-238.
Paletz, S. B. F., & Peng, K. (2009). Problem finding and contradiction: Examining the relationship between naive dialectical thinking, ethnicity, and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 139-151.
Parappilly, M., Siddiqui, S., Zadnik, M., Shapter, J., & Schmidt, L. (2013). An inquiry-based approach to laboratory experiences: Investigating students' ways of active learning. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 21(5), 42-53.
Pataray-Ching, J., & Roberson, M. (2002). Misconceptions about a curriculum-as-inquiry framework. Language Arts, 79(6), 498.
Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H., da Silva Lopes, B., Moreira, A., & Watts, M. (2012). Contexts for questioning: two zones of teaching and learning in undergraduate science. Higher Education, 64(4), 557-571.
Pedrosa de Jesus, M.H., Almeida, P., & Watts, D.M. (2004). Questioning styles and students' learning: Four case studies. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 531-548.
Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H., Teixeira-Dias, J. J. C., & Watts, M. (2003). Questions of chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 1015-1034.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
135. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The schoolwide enrichment model: Developing creative and productive giftedness. Handbook of Gifted Education, 3, 184-203.
Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in reading. In S. A. Stahl & D. A. Hayes (Eds.), Instructional models in reading (pp. 85-107). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Tesearch, 66(2), 181-221.
Roth, W. M. (2013). Data generation in the discovery sciences—learning from the practices in an advanced research laboratory. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1617-1644.
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127-152.
Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1160.
Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: Open or guided? Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831-848.
Sandoval, W.A., & Millwood, K. A.(2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 177-199.
Shodell, M. (1995). The question-driven classroom: Student questions as course curriculum in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 57(5), 278-281.
Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.V., & Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of effects of inquiry-based science curriculum of the ’60s on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 127-144.

Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius. New York, NY: Oxford University.
Sloane, F. C., & Gorard, S. (2003). Exploring modeling aspects of design experiments. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 29-31.
Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36-48.
Song, D. (2016). Student-generated questioning and quality questions: A literature review. Research Journal of Educational Studies and Review, 2(5), 58-70.
Spronken-Smith, R., Walker, R., Batchelor, J., O’Steen, B., & Angelo, T. (2012). Evaluating student perceptions of learning processes and intended learning outcomes under inquiry approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 57-72.
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.
Starko, A. J. (2001). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stone, A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3(4), 344-364.
Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1-35.
Tamir, P. (1976). The Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching. Technical Report 10. Iowa City, IA: Science Education Center, Univ. of Iowa.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge University Press.
Tobin, K. G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better question to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403-418.
Trautmann, N., MaKinster, J., & Avery, L. (2004, April). What makes inquiry so hard? (and why is it worth it?). Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (2000). Creative problem solving: An introduction (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Trowbridge, L. W. & Bybee, R. W. (1990). Becoming a secondary school science teacher (5th ed.). New York: Merrill.
van der Meij, H. (1990). Question asking: To know that you do not know is not enough. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 505-512.
van der Meij, H. (1994). Student questioning: A componential analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 6(2), 137-161.
van der Meij, H., & Dillon, J. T. (1994). Adaptive student questioning and students' verbal ability. Journal of Experimental Education, 62(4), 277-290.
van der Schee, J., & Rijborz, D. (2003). Coaching students in research skills: A difficult task for teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 229.
van Rens, L., Pilot, A., & van der Schee, J. (2010). A framework for teaching scientific inquiry in upper secondary school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 788-806.
Van Der Valk, T., & De Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in open‐inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829-850.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., & Webster, J.(2003). Developing pupils’ written expression of procedural understanding through the use of writing frames in science: Findings from a study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 173-192.
Watts, M., & Alsop, S. (1995). Questioning and conceptual understanding: The quality of pupils' questions in science. School Science Review, 76(277), 91-95.
Watts, M., Gould, G., & Alsop, S. (1997). Questions of understanding: Categorizing pupils' questions in science. School Science Review, 79(286), 57-63.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadephia, PA: Open University Press.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331–370). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
White, R. T. (1977). An overlooked objective. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 23, 124-125.
Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry‐based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276-301.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 227-268.
Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.
Yoon, S. A., Elinich, K., Wang, J., SCHOONEVELD, J. B., & Anderson, E. (2013). Scaffolding informal learning in science museums: How much is too much? Science Education, 97(6), 848-877.
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172-223.
Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Science Education International, 23(4), 383-399.
Zoller, U. (1987). The fostering of question-asking capability. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 510-512.
Zuckerman, H. (1992). The scientific elite: Nobel laureates’ mutual influences. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence (2nd ed., pp. 157-169). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
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. 郭重吉、江武雄、張文華(1997)。中學數理教師在職進修課程設計之行動研究(I)—教師轉變與課程調整。科學教育學刊,5.3 ,295-320。
2. 李明昆、洪振方(2011)。九年級學生探究性科學問題提問與問題發展型態之個案研究。科學教育研究與發展季刊,61,51-80。
3. 李麗君(2006)。低成就學生逃避行為之探討。教育資料與研究,73,91-104。
4. 林陳涌(1995)。從經驗證據和科學理論之間的關係來探討自然科實驗教學的意義。科學教育月刊,184,2-16。
5. 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。
6. 洪振方(2010)。思考導向的探究式學習對國二學生科學探究能力的影響。科學教育學刊,18 (5),389-415。
7. 郭文禎、張文華(2000)。國小學生投入實驗活動的方式與其對實驗看法之關系。科學教育,10,344-358。
8. 連啟瑞、盧玉玲(1997)。國小高年級學童對物質類感興趣問題的分析與應用。科學教育學刊,5(2),191-218。
9. 鄒玉鈿、張景媛(2012)。[探究式創意實驗教學]對八年級學生自然領域學習表現之影響。慈濟大學教育研究學刊,8,53-90。
10. 楊秀停、王國華(2007)。實施引導式探究教學對於國小學童學習成效之影響。科學教育學刊,15(4),439-459。
11. 劉宏文、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 (2 ),169-196。
12. 龍麟如、謝祥宏(2006)。八十年代國小自然科學實驗課程研發過程之回顧-主題探究教學部分。科學教育月刊,290,16-27。
13. 顏瓊芬、黃世傑(2003)。學生在開放式科學探究過程中互動模式之研究。科學教育學刊,11(2),141-16。
 
無相關點閱論文
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔