臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究嘗試以三種不同的教學方式，進行科學史融入高中物理的實驗教學，探討不同的科學史融入式教學對學生的學習成就與科學本質觀的改變是否存在顯著差異。同時，本研究亦蒐集參與實驗教學的教師意見及學生學習感受，進行質與量化的分析。
本研究教學採取準實驗研究法，採取不等的前測－後測控制組設計（nonequivalent pretest-posttest control）。共有4所高中，5位高中教師，12個高二班級，552位學生參與。其中三個班級為控制組，維持實驗教師慣用的教學方式進行教學活動；其它班級則為實驗組，分別進行「合作學習法」、「問答法」及「講述法」的科學史融入式實驗教學。實驗教學為期一個月，以問卷調查、教室觀察、晤談、學生月考成績作為資料來源。所使用的問卷為自編之二份問卷：學生「學習感受問卷」、教師「科學史融入高中物理教學意見調查表」，及「了解科學本質問卷」（Understanding of Nature of Science Scale，UNOS；林陳涌，1996）。所得資料以頻率分析、卡方考驗、相依性T考驗、共變數分析法、變異數分析法進行分析。
主要結果有四項：(1)教師上課明白指出科學史與科學本質觀間的關聯時，科學史量太少會造成學生科學本質觀退步；(2)教師的科學本質觀與學生的科學本質觀，兩者之間無顯著關聯；(3)「問答法」與「講述法」的科學史融入式教學在學生的學習成就上，與控制組無顯著差異；「合作學習法」則有助於提昇學生的學習成就；(4)科學史教學可提升學生學習興趣及思考能力，依其效果強度排序為合作學習法、問答法、講述法。
本研究之實驗教師五位中有四位未受過科學史、哲教學訓練，實驗教師因不熟悉科學史教學，而無法將其所具有的科學本質觀轉換為教學策略，進而影響到學生的科學本質觀，這是探討本研究結果所需考慮的因素。

In comparison with teachers'' original instructional methods, the present study evaluated the effects of three experimental teaching methods integrating science history in high school physics on students'' academic achievement and their understandings of nature science. A quasi-experimental design which used non-equivalent pretest-posttest design was employed in this study. Five teachers in four different senior high schools participated in this teaching experiment. Twelve 11th grade classes (N=552) were divided into four teaching methods groups. Three classes were in the control group that received teachers'' original teaching methods. The others received one of three experimental teaching methods that integrated science history in high school physics. Three experimental teaching methods of this study were didactic instruction, question-answer technique, and cooperative learning. The experimental teaching proceeded one month. Semi-constructed interviews, classroom observations, school examination results, and three different questionnaires were applied for data collection. Two researcher-designed questionnaires asked for feedback of participating teachers and students respectively. Another questionnaire employed was the Understanding of the Nature of Science Scale (UNOS; Lin. 1996), which was administered to both participating teachers and students to investigate the associations between. Collected data had been analyzed by descriptive statistics, χ2, dependent t-test, and analysis of covariance and variance. The results revealed: (1) The scores of students'' understandings on the nature of science retrograded when instructor did make connections between scientific history and the nature of science in class but the contents of science history used were less than certain amount. (2) There were no significant associations found between UNOS scores of teachers and ones of their students. (3) Comparing with teachers'' original teaching methods, experimental teaching of cooperative learning did promote students'' academic achievements; but the other two experimental teaching methods did not. (4) Learning attitudes and thinking skills of students were significantly improved while the experimental teachings integrating science history physics instruction. Cooperative learning had the best results, and question-answer technique and didactic instruction followed in descending order. (5) Four of five participating teachers had not taken courses of neither science history nor science philosophy. It was one of the major reasons that students'' understandings of the nature of science were not improved, since these untrained teachers were not familiar with teaching strategies of science history.

第壹章 緒論1
第一節 研究背景與研究動機1
第二節 研究目的、研究問題與研究假設3
第三節 研究的範圍、基本假定與限制5
第四節 名詞界定7
第貳章 文獻探討9
第一節 科學史與科學教育9
第二節 科學史教材18
第三節 教學法之探討24
第四節 教師科學本質觀對學生科學本質觀的影響30
第五節 綜合結語32
第參章 研究設計35
第一節 研究設計35
第二節 研究對象的選取40
第三節 研究工具42
第四節 資料分析方法48
第肆章 研究結果與討論55
第一節 影響學生科學本質觀之分析55
第二節 影響學生學習成就之分析78
第三節 影響學生學習感受之分析83
第四節 教師對本教學實驗意見之分析98
第伍章 結論與建議107
第一節 結論107
第二節 建議116
參考書目119
中文部份119
英文部份123
附錄130
附錄 一 科學史教材－學生用130
附錄 二 科學史教材－教師用156
附錄 三 學生學習感受問卷194
附錄 四 科學史融入高中物理教學意見調查表195

王文科（1997）：教育研究法。台北：五南。
王克迪譯（Isaac Newton著）（1992）：自然哲學之數學原理宇宙體系。武漢：武漢。
王明慧（1996）：國一數學科活潑化教學模式對提昇學習動機與班級學習氣氛之實驗研究。國立高雄師範大學數學系碩士論文。
左太政（1997）：科學史、哲在科學教學之研究(III)－融入式數學史教學之成效研究。國科會專題。
申先甲（1999）：中國大陸物理學史滲入物理教學工作概況簡介。發表於：一九九九科學史、哲與科學教育學術研討暨研習會。
石德蓋（1784）：教學技術之研究。高雄：復文。
朱章才譯（阿爾明‧赫爾曼著）（1996）：物理學王國。新竹：凡異。
行政院教育改革審議委員會（1996）：教育改革總諮議報告書。行政院教育改革審議委員會。
余書麟（1972）：教學原理。臺北：文景。
吳鼎（1972）：教學原理。臺北：國立編譯館。
巫俊明（1997）：歷史導向物理課程對學生科學本質的了解、科學態度、及物理學科成績之影響。物理教育，第一卷第二期，64-84。
李口永吟、單文經（1997）：教學原理。台北：遠流。
李祖壽（1980）：教學原理與教法。臺北：大洋
李珩譯（W.C.丹皮爾著）（1992）：科學史及其與哲學和宗教的關係。台北：明文。
林財庫（1997，1998，1999）：科學史、哲在科學教學之研究－學習科學史對力學教學之影響（Ⅰ，Ⅱ，Ⅲ）。國科會專題。
林陳涌（1996）：「了解科學本質量表」之發展與效化。科學教育學刊，第四卷第一期，31-58。
林煥祥（1995，1996）：科學史融入式理化教學的效益評估（Ⅰ，Ⅱ）。國科會專題。
林煥祥（1997，1998）：科學史、哲在科學教學之研究－融入式化學史教學之效益探討（Ⅰ，Ⅱ，Ⅲ）。國科會專題。
林德宏（1997）：科學思想史。新竹：理藝。
林寶山（1990）：教學論：理論與方法。台北：五南。
林顯輝（1991）：科學、技學和社會三者相結合的科學教育新理念。國教天地，87期，頁24-32。
林顯輝、林秀鳳和潘惠冠（1995）：符合科學教育新目標的自然科教科書。屏師科學教育，1期，頁13-24。
邱美虹（1994b）：科學課程革新-評判2061，SS&C和STS理念。科學教育月刊，174期，頁2-15。
洪木利（1979）：高雄地區國中物理科教師教學特性比較研究。高雄師院學報第七期。
洪木利（1985）：國中物理科教師教學困難與問題之調查研究。國科會專題。
洪木利（1994，1995）：學習策略對學生科學概念發展的影響（Ⅰ，Ⅱ）。國科會專題。
洪木利（1997，1998，1999）：科學史、哲在科學教學之研究：總計畫（Ⅰ，Ⅱ，Ⅲ）。國科會專題。
洪木利（1998）：高雄師範大學物理所「物理教育研究法」上課內容。
洪木利（1999）：科學史、哲在科學教學之研究(III)－科學史融入高中物理教學之研究。國科會專題。
洪振方（1994）：從孔恩異例的認知與論證探討科學知識的重建。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
洪振方（1996）：八十五年度「科學教育學門-資源整合規劃修訂」研究報告，行政院國家科學委員會，頁4-6。
洪振方（1996）：科學知識重建的認知取向分析。高雄師大學報，第七期，頁301-337。
洪振方（1997，1998）：科學史、哲在科學教學之研究－整合科學史於高中基礎理化之教學範例研究（Ⅰ，Ⅱ）。國科會專題。
洪振方（1997a）：科學史融入科學教學之探討。高雄師大學報，第八期，頁233-246。
洪振方（1998）：高雄師範大學科學科學研究所「教學理論及模式」上課內容。
洪振方（1999）：科學史、哲在科學教學之研究(III)－科學史融入教學專業知能培育模式之建立(III)。國科會專題。
洪振方，廖麗貞（1999）：科學史、哲在科學教學之研究－科學史在大學生物通識教育之研究。國科會專題。
洪萬生（1995）：從科學史的觀點看科學與人文的關聯。國科會「科學與人文平衡研究規劃協調」計劃。
科學之夢（1991）：新竹：凡異。
孫邦正（1978）：教學法新論。台北：商務。
馬文蔚、唐玄之、周永平主編（1995）：物理學發展史上的里程碑。新竹：凡異。
高中物理課本，第一冊，第四冊（1997）：國立編譯館主編。
高級中學課程標程標準（1994）：教育部編印。
國中物理課本，第一冊（1998）：國立編譯館主編。
國家教育發展研究中心（1992）：發達國家教育放革的動向和趨勢。北京：人民教育出版。
張巨青、吳寅華（1994）：邏輯與歷史-現代科學方法論的嬗變。台北：淑馨。
張景媛（1988）：教學類型與學習類型適配性研究暨學生學習適應理論模式之驗證。臺灣師範大學碩士論文。
梁衡（1992）：數理化通俗演義（上）。新竹：理藝。
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期，頁15-27。
許玫理、郭重吉（1993）：我國國民中學自然科學教師科學哲學觀點之調查研究。科學教育，第四期，頁183-236。
許榮富（1990）：從科學知識建構的過程觀點探討物理教學。中等教育，第四十一卷第四期，頁4-21。
郭奕玲（1999）：通過科學史選修課教書育人的體會。高雄師範大學演講。
郭奕玲、沈慧君（1994）：物理通史。新竹：凡異。
郭鴻銘（1976）：科學素養的教育-有關的觀念及其在教學方面之運用。科學教育月刊，2期，頁41-49。
郭鴻銘、沈青嵩（1976）：科學素養之涵意。科學教育月刊，1期，頁32-40。
陳治光（1996）：從伽利略的思維實驗探討職前教師的科學思考及其教學啟發。高雄師範大學碩士論文。
陳勇志（1997）：融合科學史於國中理化科教學之評估研究。高雄師範大學碩士論文。
陳勇志（1997）：融合科學史於國中理化科教學之評估研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳英豪（1977）：教師人格特質及教學態度對教學成績雲測效果之研究。高雄師院學報第五期。
陳淑媛（1997）：融入科學史於高中基礎理化教學之行動研究。高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
傅大為（1994）：從科學哲學觀點對「科學史與科學教育」關係的一點看法。發表於：張昌鼎逝世週年紀念研討會。
傅麗玉（1996）：科學史與台灣中等教育之整合-問題與建議。化學教學面面觀，師大中等教育輔導委員會，頁165-193。
程樹德、傅大為、王道還、錢永祥譯（Kuhn, T. S.著）(1970)：科學革命的結構。台北：遠流。
舒煒光（1994）：哲學導論。台北：五南出版社。
楊君仁、王燦魂、張壯熙（1997）：第六次「科技與人文對話」論壇-文學、藝術與科學對話資料評析。科學發展月刊，第二十五卷，第十期，頁。
楊瑞典（1987）：我國化學教育現況及示範實驗之研究。教育學院學報，12期，頁473-493。
楊榮祥（1992）：科學教育世界第一？由國際數理教育評鑑結果說起。中等教育，第四十三卷，第二期，頁8-21。
楊榮祥（1995）：Research on science teachers'' belief and their teaching practices, 84年5月31日發表於高雄師範大學科教所的演講。
廖麗貞1998科學史、哲在科學教學之研究－科學史在大學生物通識教育之研究
熊召弟、王美芬、段曉林、熊同鑫譯（Shawn M. Glynn & Russell H. yeany & Bruce K. Britton著）（1996）：科學習心理學。台北：心理。
趙金祁（1993）：人文與科技平衡中科學教育扮演的角色。科學教育月刊，第156期，1-7。
趙金祁（1994）：人文科技的通識與通識問題。科學教育月刊，第173期，2-16。
趙金祁（1997）：科學教育與心靈重整-通識化科學教育的必要性及其應達成的目標。科學教育月刊，第199期，頁2-16。
趙金祁（1999）：科學教育立論基礎芻議。發表於1999科學史、哲與科學教育學術研討暨研習會。
劉仲康（1997，1998）：科學史、哲在科學教學之研究－遺傳學史、哲在遺傳學教學之研究（Ⅰ，Ⅱ）。國科會專題。
劉聖忠（1998）：STS/建構主義的學習環境下老師對科學本質的了解對學生學習科學本質的影響。發表於：中華民國第十四屆科學教育學術研討會。
劉廣定（1997）：科學史與科學教學。科學教育月刊，第203期，頁16-20。
歐陽鍾仁（1986）：科學史。台北：幼獅文化中心。
鄭秀如（1997）：科學史對學史科學知識本質觀及學習成就之影響。高雄師範大學碩士論文。
鄭晉昌（1996）：建構主義與合作學習法－CYBERSOACE中的合作學習。教育研究雙月刊，第49期13-15。
蕭寶森譯（Jostein Garrder著）（1995）：蘇菲的世界。台北：智庫文化。
賴羿蓉（1996）：從相異哲學觀建構之科學史剖析教師科學探究模與教材抉擇。高雄師範大學碩士論文。
魏明通（1990）：我國教育目標、現況及問題與探討。科學教育月刊，126期，頁2-8。
蘇宏仁（1997）：美國科學教育的改革-回顧、前瞻與借鏡。科學教育月刊，第200期，頁2-11。
AAAS. (1989a). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. America Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC.
AAAS. (1989a). Project 2061: Science Literacy for a Changing Future. America Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC.
AAAS. (1994). Project 2061 Update 1994. America Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC.
Aikenhead, G. G. (1974). Course evaluation II: interpretation of student performance on evaluation tests. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 23-30.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Duffee, L. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge. Science Education, 76(5), 439-506.
Armstrong, J. & Bray, J. (1986). How can we improve Textbooks? Educaion Commission of States, Denver, Colo. Department of Education, Washingtion, DC. ED. 292-298.
Barman, C. R. (1992). An evaluation of the use of a technique designed to assist prospective elementary teachers use the learning cycle with science textbook. School science and mathematics, 92, 59-63.
Birckhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62.
Brackenridge, J. B. (1989). Education in science, history of science, and the textbook-necessary vs. sufficient conditions. Interchange, 20(2), 71-80.
Bruner, Jerome (1985). "Narrative and Paradigmatic Modes of Thought," in Eisner, Elliot (Ed.) 1985. Learning and Teaching the Ways of Knowing, Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Brush, S. G. (1969). The Role of History in the Teaching of physics. The Physics Teacher. v. y, n. 4, p.271-289.
Brush, S. G.(1989). History of science and science education. Interchange 20(2), 69-70.
Brush, S. G.(1992). A Let to the Editor of Science and Education. Teaching the History, 1(4), 331-332.
Bybee et al. (1991). Teaching history and the nature of science in science courses. Science Education, 75(1), 143-156.
Carey, S. & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of science knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235-251.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA:Mit Press.
Clement, J. (1983). A conceptual model discussed by Galileo and used intuitively by physics students. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (eds.), Mental Models. (p.325-340). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.
Clough, M. P. (1996). Strategies and activities for initiating and maintaining pressure on student''s naive views concerning nature of science. In Proceedings, Volume1, of Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and Common Sense, Yale University Press, New Haven.
De Berg, K. C. (1989). The emergence of quantification in the pressure-volume relationship for gases: A textbook analysis. Science Education, 73(2), 115-134.
Driver, R. & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science education. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
Duschl, R. (1985). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teacher College Press.
Duschl, R. (1985). Science education and philosophy of science: Twenty-five years of mutually exclusive development. School Science and Mathematics, 85(7), 541-555.
Edmondson, K. M. (1989). The influence of students'' conceptions of scientific knowledge and their orientations to learning on their choices of learning strategy in a college introductory level biology course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.
Elder & Paul. (1996). Critical Thinking: A Stage Theory of Critical Thinking. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(1), 34-35.
Finley, F. N. (1983). Students'' recall from science text. Journal of research in science teaching, 20(3), 247-259.
Franco, G., & Colinvaux-De-Dominguez, D. (1992). Genetic epistemology, history of science and science education. Science and Education, 1(3), 255-272.
Fu, Li-Yu (1995). Invite Science Teachers to Good History: Three Questions of the History of Science for Science Teachers. Annual Conference of Association of Education for Teachers in Science, Charleston, West Virginia, USA.
Garrison, J. W., & Lawwill, R. S. (1993). Democratic science teaching: A role for the history of science. Interchange, 24(1 & 2), 29-39.
Gil, D., & Solbes J. (1993). The introduction of modern physics: Overcoming a deformed vision of science. International Journal of Science education, 15(3), 255-260.
Harrison, Edward, (1987). Whigs, Prigs and Historians of Science. Nature, v.329, 213-214.
Jenkin, E. (1989). Why the history of science? IN M.Shortland & A. Warwick (eds.), Teaching the history of science (p.19-29). Basil Blackwell: The British Society for the History of Science.
Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1996). Changes in students'' understanding of evolution resulting form difference curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 879-900.
Jones, R. (1989). The historiography of science: retrospect and future challenge. In M. Shortland & A. Warwick (eds.), Teaching the history of science, 80-99. Basil Blackwell: The British Society for the History of Science.
Kauffman, G. (1980), History in the chemistry curriculum: Prons and cons, journal of College science Teaching, March/April, 274-278.
Kenealy, P. (1989). Telling a coherent " story": A role for the history and philosophy of science in a physical science course. In D. E. Herget(ed.), The History and Philosophy of Science in Science Teaching. Proceedings of the first international conference (p.209-220). Tallahassee: Florida State University.
Kipnis, N. (1996). The "Historical-Investigative" Approach to Teaching Science. Science & Education, 5, 277-292.
Klopfer, L. E. & Cooley, W. W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists: A report on the HOSC instruction project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1 33-47.
Klopfer, L. E. , & Watson, F. G. (1957). Historical materials and high school science teaching. The Science Teacher, October 264-265; 292-293.
Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1988). Use of systemic networks in the development of a questionnaire. International Journal of Science Education, 10(5), 497-509.
Lawson, A. E., Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1989). A theory of Instruction: Using the Learning Cycle to Teach Science Concepts and Thinking Skill. NARST Monograph, 1.
Lederman, N. and Druger, M. (1985). Classroom factors related to changes in students'' conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(7) 649-662.
Lochhead, j., & Dufresne. R. (1989). Helping students understand difficult science concepts through the use of dialogues with history. In D. E. Herget (ed.), The History and Philosophy of Science in Science Teaching. Proceedings of the first international conference (p.221-229). Tallahassee: Florida State University.
Matthews, M. R. (1992). History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching: The present rapprochement. Science & Education, 1, p.11-47.
Matthews, M. R. (1993). Science Teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. Chapter10: Teacher Education , 199-213.Tew York, London.
Matthews, M.R. (1989). A role for history and philosophy in science teaching. Interchange, 20(2), 3-15.
Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. New York, London.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (eds.), Mental Models. (p.299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McDonald, D. (1989). Teaching science for understanding: Implications of spontaneous concepts and the history of science. ERIC: ED314251.
Mchkeachie, W. I.(1978). Teaching tips (7th ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Meichtry, Y. J.(1992), Influence student understanding of nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum development, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 389-407.
Memory, D. M., & Uhlhorn, K. W. (1991). Multiple textbooks at different readability levels in the science classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 91(2), 64-72.
Monk, M. & Osborne, J. (1996). Placing the History and Philosophy of Science on the Curriculum: A Model for the Development of Pedagogy. School of Education.405-424.
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Combridge University prss.
Nussbaum, J. (1983). Classroom conceptual change: The lesson to be learned from the history of science. In H. Hlem & J. D. Novak (eds.), Misconceptions in Science & Mathematics (p.272-281). Cornell University, Department of Education.
Oldroyd, D. R. (1977). Teaching the history of chemistry in New South Wales secondary schools. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 23(2), 9-22.
Pella, M. O., O''heam, G. T., & Gale, C.W.(1966). Scientific literacy in the aerospace age. ERIC: ED 010002.
Raman, V.V. (1971). The Gas Laws. The Physics Teacher. v. 9, n.7, p.419-424.
Renner, J. S. (1990). Understandings and misunderstandings of eighth graders of four Physics concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 35-54.
Resnick (1988). Learning in school and out. Education Research, 16(9), 13-20.
Roach, L. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1993). Short Story Science: Using History Vignettes as a Teaching Tool. The Science Teacher, 9, 18-21.
Roach, L. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1995). Putting People Back into Science: Using History Vignettes. School Science and Mathematics, 96(7), 365-370.
Robinson, J. T. (1969). Philosophy of science: Implication for teacher education. European journal of science education. 5(4), 447-445.
Russell, Colin. (1984). Whigs and Professionals. Nagure, v. 308. (26 April 1984), 777-778.
Russell, T. (1981) What history of science, how much, and why? Science Education, 65(1), 51-64.
Sanchez, L. (1989). On the implicit use of history in science education. In D. E. Herget (ed.), The History and Philosophy of Science in Science Teaching. Proceedings of the first international conference, 306-312.
Schecker, H. P. (1992). The paradigmatic change in mechanics: Implication of historical processes for physics education. Science and Education, 1(1), 71-76.
Sequeira, M. & L. Leite. (1991). "Alternative conceptions and history of science in physics teacher education", Science Education, 75(1): 45~56.
Shortland M., & Warwic, A. (eds.) (1989). Teaching the History of Science. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Slavin, Robert E. (1990). Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Solomon, J. (1989). Teaching the History of Science: Is Noting Scared? Teaching the History of Science, 42-54.
Solomon, J., Duveen, I., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409-421.
Souque, J. P. (1987). Science education and textbook science. Canadian Journal of Education, 12(1), 74-86.
Stake, R. E. & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case studies in science education vol. (I+II). ERIC: ED 166058 and ED 166059.
Stake, R. E. & Leite, L. (1978). Case studies in science education. Urbana, IL: Center for instructional research and curriculum evaluation, University of Illinois.
Stewart, J., Finley, F. N., & Yarroch, W. L. (1982). Science content as an important consideration in science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(5), 425-432.
Stinner, A., & Williams, H. (1993). Conceptual change, history, and science stories. Interchange, 24(1 & 2), 87-103.
Stray, C. (1994). Paradigms regained: Toward a historical sociology of Textbook. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(1), 1-29.
Thumm, Walter (1975). Rontgen''s Discovery of X rays. The Physics Teacher. v.10, n.4, 207-214.
Wandersee, J. H. (1986). Can the history of science help science educators anticipate students'' misconceptions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(17), 581-597.
Wolpert, L. (1992). The Unnatural Nature of Science. Faber & Faber, New York.
Yore, L. D. & Shymansky, J. A. (1985). Reading, understanding, remembering and using information in written science materials. ERIC: ED258825.