跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.86.95) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/05/30 04:32
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:洪菁穗
研究生(外文):Hung, Ching Sui
論文名稱:高中科學教師「探究與實作」課程的教學概念與評量素養的系列研究
論文名稱(外文):A Series of Studies on Assessment Literacy and the Teaching Conceptions about the Curriculum "Inquiry and Practice" of High School Science Teachers
指導教授:吳心楷吳心楷引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wu, Hsin-Kai
口試委員:王子華許瑛玿李旻憲彭淑玲吳心楷
口試委員(外文):Wang, Tzu-HuaHsu, Ying-ShaoLee, Min-HsienPeng, Shu-LingWu, Hsin-Kai
口試日期:2022-07-13
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
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:2022
畢業學年度:110
語文別:中文
論文頁數:217
中文關鍵詞:教學概念評量素養探究與實作高中教師科學實務
外文關鍵詞:Conceptions of TeachingAssessment LiteracyInquiry and PracticeHigh School TeachersScience Practice
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:233
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本論文旨在調查高中科學教師對於「探究與實作」課程的教學概念、評量素養,及對於科學課程的評量素養現況。本文包含三個研究,研究一探討高中科學教師對於「探究與實作」課程的教學概念,包含課程特徵、挑戰與需求、課程目標與教學活動設計,並分析課程目標與活動設計的交互作用。研究二旨在調查高中科學教師的「探究與實作」課程之評量素養,並分析評量素養元素間的交互作用。在研究一、二也分別探索不同科目、年資及專業成長經驗的教師對於「探究與實作」課程的教學概念及評量素養分布。研究三則開發了科學評量素養問卷,並調查高中科學教師的評量素養現況、評量素養元素間的關係及背景因素的影響。由於研究二、三以Abell與Siegel (2011)的科學教師評量素養模型為基礎,二個研究都包含評量目的、內容、策略與行動。但研究二的評量行動聚焦於評量計分,研究三則加入教師對於教學與學習的概念。
40位主要來自於北台灣的高中科學教師參與研究一、二,每科各10人,包含資淺、資深教師各3人及種子教師(即學科中心教師及課綱委員) 4人。這二個質性研究主要以半結構訪談收集資料,並混合資料導向及文獻導向的方式產生編碼架構。研究三為量化研究,採取二階段的分層隨機抽樣,最後得到322份北北基桃公立高中科學教師的有效問卷作為後續分析的基礎。
研究一的結果顯示教師對於課程特徵的概念與課綱相符,但忽略科學探查的部分面向。教師雖然肯定課程的價值,但也提出不同層面的挑戰。最常見的挑戰是微觀因素,其次是巨觀及中觀因素。此外,教師賦予探究實作課程多樣化的目標,最常見的目標是提高學習動機、連接科學與生活及了解、執行科學探究等。對於不同的探究階段及活動,教師賦予其特定的教學目標,然而不論是教學目標或活動設計,都忽略分析、詮釋數據及論證與建模。教師設計的探究活動非常多元,包含一般及特定活動。而不同科目、年資、專業成長經驗的教師在探究教學概念上各具特色。在研究二中,教師對於探究實作課程的主要評量目的為形成性目的,總結性次之;其評量內容非常多元,其中「以探究作為結果」的內容比「以探究作為方法」的內容多。教師常用書寫、口語與觀察資料來判斷學生的表現,但較少使用實作模型;其計分標準反映了評量內容及資料類型的多樣化。教師的評量目的、內容及評量策略之間有交互作用,且不同背景因素的教師在評量素養上呈現部分差異。研究三確認了高中科學教師在各評量素養元素的CFA模型。受訪教師持有較強建構概念,最重視診斷性目的,另二種次之;在評量內容及判斷學生表現的資料類型上呈現出多元性。另外,建構概念比傳統概念更能正向預測教師的評量目的、及評量內容與行動的頻率。在背景因素部分,科目與年資在評量素養上的差異分布於不同的評量素養元素。最後,本文提出對應的建議與討論。
The purposes of this dissertation were to explore teachers’ conceptions, assessment literacy about “Inquiry and Practice” and science assessment literacy. The series of studies consists of three studies. Study 1 explored teachers’ conceptions about the “Inquiry and Practice” curriculum, including its characteristics, challenges, teaching goals and activities and analyzed the interactions between teaching goals and activities. In study 2, teachers’ assessment literacy about the same curriculum and the interactions among the components of assessment literacy were explored. Furthermore, this dissertation analyzed the distribution of teaching concepts and assessment literacy of teachers with different subjects, teaching and professional development experience in study 1 and 2 respectively. In study 3, a science assessment literacy questionnaire was developed to investigate the science assessment literacy of high school teachers, and to analyze the interrelations among the components of assessment literacy and the effects resulting from background factors. Since study 2 and 3 were theoretically based on the model for science teacher assessment literacy developed by Abell and Siegel (2011), the components of assessment literacy in both studies were assessment purposes, competences assessed, assessment strategies and assessment actions. In Study 2, the assessment action focused on assessment scoring. In Study 3, the construct - conceptions about teaching and learning also included.
Forty high school science teachers with relevant experience in inquiry teaching, mainly from northern Taiwan, participated in study 1 and 2. There were 10 teachers in each subject with 3 less-experienced, 3 experienced and 4 “seed” teachers (who were regularly involved in professional development activities). Data were collected from semi-structured interviews of teachers and their background questionnaires. The coding scheme was developed through both data-orienting and theory-orienting approaches. Study 3 used a two-stage stratified random sampling method to collect 322 valid questionnaires from public high school science teachers in four cities in northern Taiwan.
Study 1 revealed that teachers’ conceptions of course characteristics were consistent with curriculum guidelines but they ignored some aspects of scientific investigations. Although recognizing the value of this curriculum, teachers also indicated challenges at different levels. The most common challenge were micro-level factors, followed by the macro-level ones. Besides, teachers set multiple goals for inquiry teaching and set specific goals in different phases or activities of inquiry. However, less attention was paid to analyzing and interpreting data, argumentation and modeling regardless of learning goals or activities. The inquiry activities designed by teachers were various, including general and specific activities. Moreover, teachers with different subjects, teaching and professional development experience have their own characteristics in conceptions of inquiry teaching. Study 2 found that the most mention purpose of assessment in inquiry teaching was formative purpose, followed by summative one. The competences assessed were very diverse, and the responces of “inquiry as ends” was more than that of “inquiry as means”. Teachers often use written, oral, and observational data to assess students' performance in science, but rarely use artifacts and models. Teachers' scoring criteria reflected the diversity of competences assessed and data types. Additionally, the noticeable interactions among assessment purpose, competences assessed and assessment strategies were presented. There were also some significant differences among the assessment literacy of teachers with different backgrounds. Study 3 confirmed the CFA models in components of assessment literacy. Teachers in study 3 hold constructivist learning conception, placed emphasis on diagnostic purposes, presented diversity in competences assessed and the types of data used to assess students' performance. Study 3 also identified that constructivist conceptions were more positive predictors of teachers’ assessment purposes, the frequency of assessing different competences and taking actions than traditional conceptions. The differences resulting from subjects and teaching experiences in assessment literacy were distributed in different assessment literacy components. Finally, some suggestions and discussions were provided.
第一章 前言 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 6
第三節 名詞釋義 8
一、探究(inquiry) 8
二、科學實務(science practices) 8
三、教學概念(conceptions of teaching) 8
四、評量素養(assessment literacy) 9
第二章 理論背景 10
第一節 探究與科學實務 10
一、探究 10
二、科學實務 13
三、教學目標由探究到科學實務的轉變 16
四、臺灣108課綱探究與實作課程的簡介 18
五、整合美國與臺灣課綱中探究與實作的分析架構 20
六、相關研究成果與挑戰 23
第二節 教師對於探究教學的概念 27
一、教師的信念、概念與觀點 27
二、教師對於探究教學的概念 29
三、教師探究教學概念與背景因素 30
第三節 評量素養 32
一、評量素養的定義 32
二、評量素養理論 33
三、探究學習的評量 38
四、評量素養元素及元素間的關係 42
五、教師背景因素與評量素養 58
六、評量素養工具的開發與成果 61
第三章 研究方法 66
第一節 研究流程與研究間的關聯 66
第二節 研究一與研究二 68
一、研究對象 68
二、研究工具與資料收集 70
三、資料分析 72
第三節 研究三 75
一、研究對象與取樣方式 75
二、工具的設計 76
三、資料分析 81
第四章 研究結果 83
第一節 研究一 83
一、高中科學教師對於「探究與實作」課程的概念 83
二、不同科目的高中科學教師對於「探究與實作」課程的概念分布 94
三、高中科學資淺、資深、種子教師對於「探究與實作」課程的概念分布 110
四、研究一總結 117
第二節 研究二 119
一、高中科學教師對於「探究與實作」課程的評量素養 119
三、不同科目的高中科學教師對於「探究與實作」課程的評量素養分布 133
三、高中科學資淺、資深、種子教師對於「探究與實作」課程的評量素養分布 146
四、研究二總結 154
第三節 研究三 156
一、問卷的信效度 156
二、高中科學教師的評量素養 160
三、評量素養元素間的關係 165
四、教師背景因素與評量素養元素的關係 170
五、研究三總結 173
第五章 結論與討論 176
第一節 研究一 176
一、結論 176
二、課程挑戰 176
三、教學目標 177
四、活動設計 178
五、背景因素的影響 179
六、教師專業成長與研究限制 179
第二節 研究二 180
一、結論 180
二、評量目的、內容與策略 181
三、評量內容與與策略的交互作用 183
四、評量計分 183
五、建議與研究限制 184
第三節 研究三 185
一、結論 185
二、對教學與學習的概念 185
三、評量內容與資料類型 186
四、評量素養元素間的關係 188
五、背景因素對評量素養的影響 189
六、建議與研究限制 190
第四節 整體的討論 190
一、探究學習課程目標、活動設計與評量的對應 190
二、探究實作與科學課程評量素養的比較 193
三、總結與建議 197
參考文獻 199
附錄 216
Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok‐Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., . . . Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
Abell, S. K., & Siegel, M. A. (2011). Assessment literacy: What science teachers need to know and be able to do. In D. Corrigan et al. (Eds.), The professional knowledge base of science teaching (pp. 205-221). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3927-9_12
AFT, N., NEA, (American Federation of Teachers, National Council on Measurement in Education, & National Education Association). (1990). Standards for teacher competence in educational assessment of students. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9(4), 30-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1990.tb00391.x
Akuma, F. V., & Callaghan, R. (2019). A systematic review characterizing and clarifying intrinsic teaching challenges linked to inquiry‐based practical work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(5), 619-648. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21516
Alt, D. (2018a). Science teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning, ICT efficacy, ICT professional development and ICT practices enacted in their classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 141-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.020
Alt, D. (2018b). Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching, Attitudes Toward Testing, and Use of Contemporary Educational Activities and Assessment Tasks. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(7), 600-619. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1485398
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982
Asay, L. D., & Orgill, M. K. (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9152-9
Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802582241
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation Accountability, 21(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20390
Bol, L., & Strage, A. (1996). The contradiction between teachers' instructional goals and their assessment practices in high school biology courses. Science Education, 80(2), 145-163. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199604)80:2
Breslyn, W., & McGinnis, J. R. (2011). A comparison of exemplary biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics teachers' conceptions and enactment of inquiry. Science Education, 96(1), 48-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20469
Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 471-485. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290504
Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x
Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J., McMillan, J. H., Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., . . . Welsh, M. E. (2016). A century of grading research: meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 803-848. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316672069
Brown, G. T. (2004). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(3), 301-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000304609
Brown, G. T. (2006). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Validation of an abridged version. Psychological Reports, 99(1), 166-170. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.99.5.166-170
Brown, G. T., Chaudhry, H., & Dhamija, R. (2015). The impact of an assessment policy upon teachers’ self-reported assessment beliefs and practices: A quasi-experimental study of Indian teachers in private schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 71, 50-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.03.001
Brown, G. T., Hui, S. K., Flora, W. M., & Kennedy, K. J. (2011). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment in Chinese contexts: A tripartite model of accountability, improvement, and irrelevance. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(5-6), 307-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.10.003
Brown, G. T., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K. S., & Yu, W. M. (2009). Assessment for student improvement: Understanding Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 347-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319737
Brown, G. T., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2011). Queensland teachers’ conceptions of assessment: The impact of policy priorities on teacher attitudes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 210-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.003
Brown, G. T., & Remesal, A. (2012). Prospective teachers' conceptions of assessment: A cross-cultural comparison. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n1.37286
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20151
Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10-13. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/sc14_051_08_10
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness (Vol. 5). Colorado Springs, Co: BSCS.
Caleon, I. S., Tan, Y. S. M., & Cho, Y. H. (2018). Does teaching experience matter? The beliefs and practices of beginning and experienced physics teachers. Research in Science Education, 48(1), 117-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9562-6
Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9275-2
Cetina, K. K. (2009). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2653984
Chan, K. W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 817-831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.002
Cherbow, K., McKinley, M. T., McNeill, K. L., & Lowenhaupt, R. J. (2020). An analysis of science instruction for the science practices: Examining coherence across system levels and components in current systems of science education in K‐8 schools. Science Education, 104(3), 446-478. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21573
Cheung, A., Slavin, R. E., Kim, E., & Lake, C. (2017). Effective secondary science programs: A best‐evidence synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 58-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21338
Chien, S. P., Wu, H. K., & Hsu, Y. S. (2014). An investigation of teachers’ beliefs and their use of technology-based assessments. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 198-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.037
Correia, C. F., & Harrison, C. (2020). Teachers’ beliefs about inquiry-based learning and its impact on formative assessment practice. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38(3), 355-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1634040
Cowie, B., & Harrison, C. (2021). The what, when & how factors: reflections on classroom assessment in the service of inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 43(3), 449-465. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1824088
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20157
De Vries, S., van de Grift, W. J., & Jansen, E. P. (2014). How teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching relate to their continuing professional development. Teachers and Teaching, 20(3), 338-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848521
DeLisi, J., Kook, J. F., Levy, A. J., Fields, E., & Winfield, L. (2021). An examination of the features of science fairs that support students' understandings of science and engineering practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(4), 491-519. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21669
DeLuca, C. (2012). Preparing teachers for the age of accountability: Toward a framework for assessment education. Action in Teacher Education, 34(5-6), 576-591. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.730347
DeLuca, C., Coombs, A., MacGregor, S., & Rasooli, A. (2019, September). Toward a differential and situated view of assessment literacy: Studying teachers' responses to classroom assessment scenarios. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 4, p. 94). Frontiers Media SA.
DeLuca, C., & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in teacher candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(4), 419-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.516643
DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016a). Approaches to classroom assessment inventory: A new instrument to support teacher assessment literacy. Educational Assessment, 21(4), 248-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2016.1236677
DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016b). Teacher assessment literacy: A review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 251-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9233-6
DeLuca, C., Valiquette, A., Coombs, A., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2018). Teachers’ approaches to classroom assessment: A large-scale survey. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(4), 355-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1244514
Demir, A., & Abell, S. K. (2010). Views of inquiry: Mismatches between views of science education faculty and students of an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 716-741. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20365
Deneen, C. C., Fulmer, G. W., Brown, G. T., Tan, K., Leong, W. S., & Tay, H. Y. (2019). Value, practice and proficiency: Teachers' complex relationship with assessment for learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80, 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.022
Dobber, M., Zwart, R., Tanis, M., & van Oers, B. (2017). Literature review: The role of the teacher in inquiry-based education. Educational Research Review, 22, 194-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.002
Dolin, J., Black, P., Harlen, W., & Tiberghien, A. (2018). Exploring Relations Between Formative and Summative Assessment. In Transforming Assessment (pp. 53-80). Springer.
Duncan, C. R., & Noonan, B. (2007). Factors affecting teachers’ grading and assessment practices. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(1).
Dunst, C. J., Bruder, M. B., & Hamby, D. W. (2015). Metasynthesis of in-service professional development research: Features associated with positive educator and student outcomes. Educational Research Reviews, 10(12), 1731-1744. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2306
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 407-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.009
Fang, S. C., & Hsu, Y. S. (2017). Understanding science teachers' enactments of a computer-based inquiry curriculum. Computers & education, 112, 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.004
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1220688
Fitzgerald, M., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2019). Barriers inhibiting inquiry-based science teaching and potential solutions: perceptions of positively inclined early adopters. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 543-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9623-5
Flores, M. A., Veiga Simão, A. M., Barros, A., & Pereira, D. (2015). Perceptions of effectiveness, fairness and feedback of assessment methods: a study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1523-1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.881348
Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041-1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21188
Fulmer, G. W., Lee, I. C., & Tan, K. H. (2015). Multi-level model of contextual factors and teachers’ assessment practices: An integrative review of research. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(4), 475-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1017445
Furtak, E. M., & Penuel, W. R. (2019). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of “hands‐on” and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103(1), 167-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21488
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Getahun, D. A., Saroyan, A., & Aulls, M. W. (2016). Examining undergraduate students' conceptions of inquiry in terms of epistemic belief differences. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 46(2), 181-205. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v46i2.185500
Gotch, C. M., & French, B. F. (2014). A systematic review of assessment literacy measures. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(2), 14-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12030
Grangeat, M., Harrison, C., & Dolin, J. (2021). Exploring assessment in STEM inquiry learning classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 43(3), 345-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1903617
Grob, R., Holmeier, M., & Labudde, P. (2021). Analysing formal formative assessment activities in the context of inquiry at primary and upper secondary school in Switzerland. International Journal of Science Education, 43(3), 407-427. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1663453
Guskey, T. R., & Link, L. J. (2019). Exploring the factors teachers consider in determining students’ grades. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(3), 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1555515
Hackling, M., Peers, S., & Prain, V. (2007). Primary connections: Reforming science teaching in Australian primary schools. Teaching Science, 53(3), 12-16.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis 6th Edition (6th ed., Vol. 87). Prentice Hall.
Halawa, S., Hsu, Y. S., Zhang, W. X., Kuo, Y. R., & Wu, J. Y. (2020). Features and trends of teaching strategies for scientific practices from a review of 2008–2017 articles. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1183-1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1752415
Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 971-993. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199611)33:9<971::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-S
Harwood, W. S., Hansen, J., & Lotter, C. (2006). Measuring teacher beliefs about inquiry: The development of a blended qualitative/quantitative instrument. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0357-4
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-88415-412-9.50012-X
Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(1), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001
Heitink, M. C., Van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P., Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. B. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17, 50-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.002
Herridge, M., Tashiro, J., & Talanquer, V. (2021). Variation in chemistry instructors’ evaluations of student written responses and its impact on grading. Chemistry Education Research Practice, 22(4), 948-972. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00061F
Hsu, Y. S., Fang, S. C., Zhang, W. X., Wu, H. K., Wu, P. H., & Hwang, F. K. (2016). Identifying effective design features of technology-infused inquiry learning modules: A two-year study of students' inquiry abilities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 228-244.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 351. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.351
Inkinen, J., Klager, C., Juuti, K., Schneider, B., Salmela‐Aro, K., Krajcik, J., & Lavonen, J. (2020). High school students' situational engagement associated with scientific practices in designed science learning situations. Science Education, 104(4), 667-692. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21570
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.877618
Ireland, J. E., Watters, J. J., Brownlee, J., & Lupton, M. (2012). Elementary teacher’s conceptions of inquiry teaching: Messages for teacher development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(2), 159-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9251-2
JCSEE, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, (2015). Classroom assessment standards: Practices for PreK-12 teachers.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1023
Kim, M., Tan, A. L., & Talaue, F. T. (2013). New vision and challenges in inquiry-based curriculum change in Singapore. International Journal of Science Education, 35(2), 289-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.636844
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press.
Kuo, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Jen, T. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). Development and validation of a multimedia-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(14), 2326-2357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1078521
Kyaruzi, F., Strijbos, J. W., Ufer, S., & Brown, G. T. (2018). Teacher AfL perceptions and feedback practices in mathematics education among secondary schools in Tanzania. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.01.004
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2804509
Lee, M. H., Johanson, R. E., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students' conceptions of and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92(2), 191-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20245
Lee, M. H., Liang, J. C., Wu, Y. T., Chiou, G. L., Hsu, C. Y., Wang, C. Y., . . . Tsai, C. C. (2020). High school students’ conceptions of science laboratory learning, perceptions of the science laboratory environment, and academic self-efficacy in science learning. International Journal of Science Mathematics Education, 18(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09951-w
Lee, M. H., Lin, T. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Proving or improving science learning? Understanding high school students’ conceptions of science assessment in Taiwan. Science Education, 97(2), 244-270. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21046
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2007). Scientific thinking and science literacy (Vol. 4). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0405
Levy-Vered, A., & Nasser-Abu Alhija, F. (2015). Modelling beginning teachers’ assessment literacy: The contribution of training, self-efficacy, and conceptions of assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 21(5-6), 378-406. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2015.1117980
Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers' use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318-1347. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20191
Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690121307
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 95-132). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_4
Maltese, A. V., Tai, R. H., & Fan, X. (2012). When is homework worth the time? Evaluating the association between homework and achievement in high school science and math. The High School Journal, 52-72. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2012.0015
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34.
Mayr, E. (2007). What makes biology unique?: considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.42-3407
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M., H. R. . (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
McMillan, J. H. (2001). Secondary teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2001.tb00055.x
McMillan, J. H. (2008). Assessment essentials for standards-based education. Corwin Press.
McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49.
Mertler, C. A. (2003). Preservice Versus Inservice Teachers' Assessment Literacy: Does Classroom Experience Make a Difference? [Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Columbus, OH.].
Mertler, C. A. (2004). Secondary teachers' assessment literacy: Does classroom experience make a difference? American Secondary Education, 49-64.
Mertler, C. A., & Campbell, C. (2005). Measuring Teachers' Knowledge & Application of Classroom Assessment Concepts: Development of the" Assessment Literacy Inventory" Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Meyers, N. M., & Nulty, D. D. (2009). How to use (five) curriculum design principles to align authentic learning environments, assessment, students’ approaches to thinking and learning outcomes. Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(5), 565-577. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802226502
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2017). Mplus User's Guide: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables. Muthén & Muthén.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9596
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027870190403
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press)
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Nieminen, P., Hähkiöniemi, M., & Viiri, J. (2021). Forms and functions of on-the-fly formative assessment conversations in physics inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 43(3), 362-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1713417
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2016). The impact of paper-based, computer-based and mobile-based self-assessment on students' science motivation and achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1241-1248.
Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational Assessment of Students (P. A. Smith, Ed. 6th ed.). ERIC.
OECD. (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies: executive summary. In OECD Paris.
OECD. (2013). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. OECD Publishing: Paris.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
Otting, H., Zwaal, W., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2010). The structural relationship between students’ epistemological beliefs and conceptions of teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 741-760. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903383203
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004
Pastore, S., & Andrade, H. L. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.05.003
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., . . . Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. ERIC. https://doi.org/10.17226/10019
Plake, B. S. (1993). Teacher assessment literacy: Teachers’ competencies in the educational assessment of students. Mid-Western Educational Researcher 6(1), 21-27.
Plake, B. S., Impara, J. C., & Fager, J. J. (1993). Assessment competencies of teachers: A national survey. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(4), 10-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1993.tb00548.x
Pols, C., Dekkers, P., & de Vries, M. (2022). Defining and assessing understandings of evidence with the assessment rubric for physics inquiry: Towards integration of argumentation and inquiry. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(1), 010111. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010111
Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground–A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351
Rached, E., & Grangeat, M. (2021). French teachers’ informal formative assessment in the context of inquiry-based learning. International Journal of Science Education, 43(3), 385-406. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1740818
Ramnarain, U., & Hlatswayo, M. (2018). Teacher beliefs and attitudes about inquiry-based learning in a rural school district in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n1a1431
Randall, J., & Engelhard, G. (2010). Examining the grading practices of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(7), 1372-1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.008
Reiser, B. J., Michaels, S., Moon, J., Bell, T., Dyer, E., Edwards, K. D., . . . Park, A. (2017). Scaling up three-dimensional science learning through teacher-led study groups across a state. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 280-298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117699598
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach (2th ed.). Macmillan.
Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24.
Ropohl, M., & Rönnebeck, S. (2019). Making learning effective–quantity and quality of pre-service teachers’ feedback. International Journal of Science Education, 41(15), 2156-2176. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1663452
Ruiz‐Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers' informal formative assessment practices and students' understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20163
Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122-1148. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037
Scalise, K., & Clarke‐Midura, J. (2018). The many faces of scientific inquiry: Effectively measuring what students do and not only what they say. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(10), 1469-1496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21464
Shen, K. M., Lee, M. H., Tsai, C. C., & Chang, C. Y. (2016). Undergraduate students’ earth science learning: relationships among conceptions, approaches, and learning self-efficacy in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1527-1547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1198060
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470690048.ch10
Siegel, M. A., & Wissehr, C. (2011). Preparing for the plunge: Preservice teachers’ assessment literacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9231-6
Simon, M., Chitpin, S., & Yahya, R. (2010). Pre-service teachers' thinking about student assessment issues. International Journal of Education, 2(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v2i2.490
Starr, C. R., Hunter, L., Dunkin, R., Honig, S., Palomino, R., & Leaper, C. (2020). Engaging in science practices in classrooms predicts increases in undergraduates' STEM motivation, identity, and achievement: A short‐term longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1093-1118. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21623
Stiggins, R. J. (1991). Relevant classroom assessment training for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 7-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1991.tb00171.x
Stiggins, R. J. (1999). Are You Assessment Literate? High School Magazine, 6(5), 20-23.
Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing “science practice” in learning settings. Science Education, 99(6), 1033-1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21191
Sun, Y., & Cheng, L. (2014). Teachers’ grading practices: Meaning and values assigned. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(3), 326-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2013.768207
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (Vol. 5). pearson Boston, MA.
Talanquer, V., Tomanek, D., & Novodvorsky, I. (2013). Assessing students' understanding of inquiry: What do prospective science teachers notice? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 189-208. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21074
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.
Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80(2), 223-241. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199604)80:2<223::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-I
Tsai, C. C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: science teachers' beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771-783. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110049132
Tsivitanidou, O. E., Constantinou, C. P., Labudde, P., Rönnebeck, S., & Ropohl, M. (2018). Reciprocal peer assessment as a learning tool for secondary school students in modeling-based learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 51-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0341-1
Volkmann, M. J., & Abell, S. K. (2003). Rethinking laboratories : Tools for converting cookbook labs into inquiry. The science teacher, 70(6), 38.
Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936-960. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20032
Wang, J.-R., Kao, H.-L., & Lin, S.-W. (2010). Preservice teachers' initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 522-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.014
Willis, J., Adie, L., & Klenowski, V. (2013). Conceptualising teachers’ assessment literacies in an era of curriculum and assessment reform. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40(2), 241-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0089-9
Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry‐based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289-1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621035
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010
Zion, M., Cohen, S., & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423-447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9034-5
Zlabkova, I., Petr, J., Stuchlikova, I., Rokos, L., & Hospesova, A. (2020). Development of teachers’ perspective on formative peer assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 43(3), 428-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1713418
Zuiker, S., & Whitaker, J. R. (2014). Refining inquiry with multi-form assessment: Formative and summative assessment functions for flexible inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 1037-1059. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.834489
王子華、王國華、王瑋龍、黃世傑 (2004)。不同形成性評量模式對國中生網路學習之效益評估。科學教育學刊,12(4),469-490。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2004.1204.04
王子華、范雅晴、王國華 (2008)。數理科在職教師評量素養培育模式之探究。科學教育學刊,16(1),25-51。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2008.1601.04
吳心楷、辛靜婷(2011)。數位學習研究中質性資料的管理與分析:以Nvivo的使用為例。收錄於宋曜廷(編著),數位學習研究方法(頁163-208)。高等教育。
吳百興、吳心楷 (2010)。八年級原住民學生在設計導向活動的科學學習。科學教育學刊,18(4),277-304。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2010.1804.01
林小慧、郭哲宇、吳心楷 (2021)。學生學習投入、好奇心、教師集體層級變項與科學探究能力的關係:跨層級調節式中介效果之探討。教育科學研究期刊,66(2),75-110。 https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202106_66(2).0003
林玉蓮、段曉林 (2019)。開放式生物探究活動對馬來西亞高二高、低參與度學生之科學探究能力與覺知的影響。科學教育學刊,27(1),1-23。 https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.201903_27(1).0001
邱皓政 (2021)。量化研究法(三)-測驗原理與量表發展技術(第二版)。雙葉書廊。
洪菁穗、吳心楷 (2022)。高中科學教師對「探究與實作」課程的概念:課程特徵、挑戰、教學目標、與教學活動。科學教育學刊,30(1),1-26。 https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.202203_30(1).0001
洪萱芳、林英杰、顏瓊芬 (2019)。偏鄉學生面臨科學探究式專題導向教學法之學習挑戰。 科學教育學刊,27(2),121-145。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.201906_27(2).0003
國家教育研究院 (2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要:自然領域。
張珮珊、賴吉永、溫媺純 (2017)。科學探究與實作課程的發展、實施與評量:以實驗室中的科學論證為核心之研究。科學教育學刊,25(4),355-389。 https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2017.2504.03
陳均伊 (2010)。教師專業成長之個案研究:一個國中自然教師探究教學觀點的轉變。教育科學研究期刊,55(2),233-264。
曾崇賢、段曉林、靳知勤 (2011)。探究教學的專業成長歷程--以十位國中科學教師的觀點為例。科學教育學刊,19(2),143-168。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2011.1902.04
楊景盛、董曜瑜、陳秀溶、王國華 (2017)。社會性科學議題情境下論證式探究教學與課程對七年級學生科學學習成就,論證能力和科學素養之影響。科學教育學刊,25(S), 485-500。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2017.25S.04
靳知勤、陳錦滿 (2021)。STS 科學讀寫探究對四年級不同程度學生科學學習動機、小組合作及過程技能影響之研究。科學教育學刊,29(1),25-56。 https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.202103_29(1).0002
蔡哲銘、邱美虹、曾茂仁、謝東霖 (2019)。探討高中學生於建模導向科學探究之學習成效。科學教育學刊,27(4),207-228。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.201912_27(4).0001
蔡偉澎、江美姿、洪維佳、蔣仲霖 (2013)。大學教師信念與教學策略之研究─ 以臺灣某一私立大學為例。高教評鑑與發展,7(2),63-85。 https://doi.org/10.6197/HEED.2013.0702.03
鄭立婷、林煥祥、洪振方 (2020)。透過科學營探討弱勢學生之探究能力表現。科學教育學刊,28(3),197-221。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.202009_28(3).0001
賴志忠、段曉林 (2020)。以 ARCS 動機模式融入引導式探究教學提升九年級生學習動機之行動研究。科學教育學刊,28(1),25-48。 https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.202003_28(1).0002
電子全文 電子全文(網際網路公開日期:20270817)
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