:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:教師科學教學專業知識研究-以科學本質為焦點
作者:鄭淑妃
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱:科學教育研究所
指導教授:段曉林
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2010
主題關鍵詞:科學本質科學本質知識科學本質學科教學知識知識轉化同儕專業合作nature of scienceknowledge of the nature of sciencepedagogical content knowledge of nature of scienceknowledge transformationpeer-collaborative professional development
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:40
落實教師從事科學本質教學以培養具有科學素養的公民一直是科學教育的重要目標,因此,探討教師的科學教學專業知識必不能忽略「科學本質」(The Nature of Science,簡稱NOS)。本研究旨在探究教師的「科學本質知識」(NOS Knowledge)與「科學本質學科教學知識」(Pedagogical Content Knowledge of NOS,簡稱NOS-PCK)在同儕專業合作過程中的變化與轉化,以及它們對學生的影響。研究中主要是透過方格晤談、敘說訪談、專業合作對話、科學本質問卷、以及課室觀察錄影等多方的資料來瞭解教師NOS Knowledge與NOS-PCK的轉變情形,並且援用學生的兩種問卷施測和科學家繪圖等資料為佐證。
研究結果顯示:一、在研究期間兩位個案教師NOS Knowledge的構念消長情形不同。非數理背景的方老師在研究期間新增許多NOS Knowledge;而數理背景的袁老師在研究期間的NOS Knowledge變化則較少。二、雖然兩位個案老師都能認同科學本質的重要性,但是他們的NOS-PCK發展的歷程並不相同。方老師的NOS Knowledge已完成知識的轉化;袁老師的NOS Knowledge仍停留在概念的層次,尚未有效的轉化成為NOS-PCK。三、參與同儕專業合作幫助兩位個案老師察覺到科學本質教學是在他們過去的科學教學中所忽略的,也對科學本質教學的重要性表示認同。並且,方老師也在同儕專業合作的協助下,獲得科學本質教學的反思和回饋,促成他在自然科教學上的專業成長。四、由學生的科學本質問卷和學生對教師的科學教學知覺問卷的前後測分析顯示,兩位老師個案班學生在研究前後對科學本質整體的瞭解有顯著提升;並且能感受到個案教師的學科教學知識在研究前後於整體上有明顯的差異;還有,兩位個案教師NOS Knowledge的特質,和他們學生在兩份問卷分量表上的細微不同以及所繪的科學家畫像上的差異是互相一致的。
文末並根據研究結果,對科學本質科學師資培育以及未來研究提出建議。
One of the most important goals of science education is to help teachers fulfill the teaching practice of nature of science (NOS) in order to cultivate students who are future citizens with scientific literacy.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the change and transformation of two case teachers’ both NOS Knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of NOS (NOS-PCK) during a peer-collaborative professional development process. The methods adopted here were repertory grid technique, narrative interview, dialogues in the peer-collaborative professional development process, questionnaires, and classroom observation. Furthermore, data from questionnaires of students and their drawings of scientist were collected as well.
There were four finding revealed by the study. First of all, the change of NOS Knowledge between the two case teachers was different. Fang, a non science majored background case teacher, has generated more NOS Knowledge; whereas the change of the other case teacher, Yuan, with science majored background, was less. Secondly, though two case teachers could identify the importance of NOS, the development of NOS-PCK between them was different. Fang’s NOS Knowledge has been completely transformed into NOS-PCK. However, that of Yuan still remains in cognitive level, and was not well transformed into NOS-PCK. Thirdly, through the peer-collaborative professional development process, these two case teachers have been awared that NOS were ignored in their past classroom teaching. Furthermore, Fang acquired the reflection and feedback through the program which facilitate the professional development in science teaching in return. Last, the analysis of pretest and posttest of student questionnaires revealed that the understanding of NOS of those students from Teacher Fang and Yuan have been promoted significantly. These students have perceived that pedagogical content knowledge of both teachers during the study interval was significantly different than before. Moreover, the characters of NOS Knowledge between these two teachers were consistent with the differences in the dimensions of the questionnaires and the scientist paintings drawn by the students.
According to the findings, the suggestions to teacher education related to NOS and further study are discussed.
參考資料
一、 中文部分
丁嘉琦(1999)。花蓮縣國小教師科學本質觀點之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
王美芬(1998)。自然科教師專業成長與遠距輔導的可行性探討。科學教育研究與發展季刊,11,3-18。
王靜如(2001)。小學教師科學本質概念及教學之研究。科學教育學刊,9(2),197-217。new window
王靜如(2003a)。科學本質的理論、教學知識與課程設計。載於國立台灣師範大學(主編),自然與生活科技學習領域課程設計研討會論文集 (1-27頁)。台北:國立台灣師範大學。
王靜如(2003b)。科學本質教學與教學知能。屏師科學教育,17,3-11。
王靜如(2006)。傳達科學本質之理論與教學實例。台北:秀威資訊科技股份有限公司。
王勇智、鄧明宇譯(2003)。敘說分析。台北市:五南。(原著出版年:1993年)。
吳芝儀(2003)。敘事研究的方法論探討。載於齊力、林本炫(主編),質性研究方法與資料分析,(143-170頁)。嘉義縣:南華大學教育社會學研究所。
吳芝儀和李奉儒(1995)。質的評鑑與研究。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
邱太河(2006)。教師推動科學本質能力指標教學所需學科教學知識之行動研究。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
邱明富(2002)。科學史融入教學以提昇國小學童科學本質觀與對科學的態度之行動研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。new window
李松濤(2006)。科學教師教學決策機制之研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,高雄。
李悅美(2002)。國小高年級學童科學本質觀之研究。台北市立師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。new window
李謙秉(2005)。以互動式科學故事教學提升國小五年級學童對科學本質能力指標內涵理解之行動研究。國立新竹教育大學應用科學系碩士論文,未出版,新竹。
林千青(1996)。國小職前教師與在職教師對科學知識本質了解之研究。國立屏東師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
林陳涌(1999)。科學本質在科學教育上的研究與實施。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所88學年度所內專題演講講稿。民91年7月22日,取自:http://www.nhltc.edu.tw/~sciewww/doc/doc4.htm
林陳涌(1995)。高中學生對科學本質瞭解之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(報告編號:NSC 84-2511-S-003-083),未出版。
林陳涌和楊榮祥(1998)。利用凱利方格晤談法探討教師對科學本質的觀點—個案研究。科學教育學刊, 6(2), 113-128。
林裕仁(2006)。科學本質教學策略之建構與成效探討。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
林維智(2002)。符合科學本質教學的觀察量表之發展與效化。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
翁秀玉(1997)。國小自然科教師傳達科學本質之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
翁秀玉和段曉林(1997)。科學本質在科學教育上的啟示與作法。科學教育月刊,201,2-15。
周淑卿(2003)。教師敘事與當代教師專業的開展。教育資料集刊,28,407-420。
段曉林(1996)。職前教師學科教學知識發展之研究(Ι)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(報告編號:NSC 84-2513-S-018-003),未出版。
洪振方(2001)。建構學習社群及評鑑系統促進數學與自然科學教師素質之研究―建立符合科學本質的教學理論模式。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫進度報告(報告編號:NSC 89-2511-S-017-011),未出版。
胡幼慧(1996)。多元方法:三角交叉檢視法。載於胡幼慧(主編),質性研究—理論、方法及本土女性研究實例,(271-285頁)。台北:巨流出版社。
高慧蓮(2003)。九年一貫課程提升學生科學本質能力可行模式之探究。九十三學年度師範校院教育學術論文發表會論文集,961-993。new window
高慧蓮(2004)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告九年一貫「自然與生活科技」領域能力指標詮釋研究子計畫三:國小學生NOS的探究。(報告編號:NSC92-2522-S-153-012)。
高慧蓮和林裕仁(2005)。科學本質教學策略之文獻分析與歸納。論文發表於2005年二十一屆全國科學教育學術研討會。彰化市: 國立彰化師範大學。
高慧蓮和蘇明洲(2004)。科學本質的理論回顧與課程設計的實例分享。中華民國九十三學年度自然與生活科技領域課程研討會手冊,279-310,台北:國立台灣師範大學。
徐光台(1999)。建構主義與科學教育進步。歐美研究,29(4),153-183。new window
教育部(2000)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。台北:教育部。new window
教育部(2003)。科學教育白皮書。台北:教育部。
教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要自然與生活科技學習領域。台北市:教育部。new window
莊筱玉(2006)。教師專業知識建構、轉化及發展之研究―一位技術學院英文教師的個案研究。國立屏東教育大學教育行政研究所博士論文,未出版,屏東。new window
郭重吉和許玫理(1992)。從科學哲學觀點的演變探討科學教育的過去與未來。國立彰化師範大學學報,3,532-561。
郭鴻銘和沈清嵩(1976)。科學素養之涵意。科學教育月刊,1,9-16。
許玫理(1992)。我國國民中學自然科學教師科學哲學觀點之調查研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
許玫理和郭重吉(1993)。我國國民中學自然科學教師科學哲學觀點之調查研究。科學教育學刊,4,183-236。
黃志賢(2002)。科學探究教學模組對國小中年級兒童科學本質觀影響之行動研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
黃政傑(1996)。質化研究的原理與方法。載於黃政傑(主編),質的教育研究:方法與實例(1-40頁)。台北:漢文書店。
黃寶蓉(2000)。科學本質在教與學的意涵之研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
張宏嘉(2001)。科學本質轉換至教學之判準、範例與限制。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
張德銳(2009)。美國教學輔導教師制度及其在我國中小學教師專業成長之應用。教育資料集刊,42,181-202。new window
張簡明旺(2002)。國小低年級科學本質教學模組設計之行動研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
陳文玲(2005)。一位教師落實科學本質能力指標之教學行動與反思。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
陳忠志(1998)。國中教師科學本質及科學教學信念對理化教室環境的影響。科學教育學刊, 6(4),383-402。new window
陳美玉(1999)。教師專業發展途徑之探討-以教師專業經驗合作反省為例。教育研究資訊,7(2),80 – 99。new window
陳俊欽(2005)。促進國小高年級學童對科學本質能力指標隱含內涵了解之行動研究。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
陳筱雯(2004)。國小自然科教師科徐本質學科教學知識之研究。國立屏東教育大學術裡教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
陳富君(2002)。培養教師發展符合科學本質的教學模式。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
陳榮祥(2002)。西方科學哲學發展之初探。科學教育研究與發展,28,43-56。
舒光(1987)。科學哲學導論。台北:水牛。
歐用生(2006)。教師專業成長。台北:師大書苑。
歐陽志昌(2003)。透過科學史素材落實科學本質能力指標的課程設計之行動研究。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
劉昭能(2002)。符合科學本質的國中理化教學之行動研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
劉聖忠(2006)。社會脈絡變遷中科學課程之區塊研究。行政院國家科學委員會計畫成果報告(計畫編號:NSC93-2522-S-003-005)。
劉錫忠(2001)。提昇國中生對科學本質理解之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究,彰化。
鄭淑妃、劉聖忠和段曉林(2005)。國小自然科教師科學本質觀與教學之個案研究。科學教育學刊,13(2),169-190。new window
鄭淑妃(1999)。國小自然科教師科學本質觀之詮釋性研究。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。new window
鄭明順(2008)。以三階段教學模式落實科學本質關鍵概念之行動研究。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。
鄭湧涇、周美雪和張麗珠(1989)。職前與在職生物教師對科學的本質的了解。載於中華民國第四屆科學教育學術研討會(主編)(257-283頁),中華民國第四屆科學教育學術研討會。台北:國立台灣師範大學。
潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究:理論與應用。台北:心理。
盧曉慧(2004)。以互動式歷史小故事促進國小學生科學本質了解及科學態度之行動研究。國立新竹教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,新竹。
謝甫珮和洪振方(2004)。國小學童對自然科教師學科教學之知覺調查研究。科學教育研究與發展,38,1-16。
顏國樑(2004)。從教師專業發展導向論實施教師評鑑的策略。教育資料集刊,28,259-286。



二、 英文部分
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatureal natureal. Science Education, 82(1), 417-436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
Aikenhead, G. S., Fleming, R. W., & Ryan, A. G. (1987). High school graduates’ beliefs about science-technology-society. Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71(2), 145-161.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.
Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: Ayear long case study of a fourth grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1025–1049.
Akerson, V. L., Cullen, T. A., & Hanson, D. L. (2009). Fostering a community of practice through a professional development program to improve elementary teachers’ views of nature of science and teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1090-1113.
Akerson,V.L.,&Hanuscin, D.L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 653–680.
Akerson, V.L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213.
Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39-55
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, D.C.: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barman, C.R. (1997). Students’views of scientists and science: results from a national study. Science & Children , 35(1), 18-23.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. London: Falmer Press.
Billeh, V. Y. & Hasan, O. E. (1975). Factors affecting teachers' gain in understanding the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(3), 209-219.
Blakely, R. E. (1987). A comparative study of Georgia middle school teachers' understanding of the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
Bloom, J. W. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of science: Science, theories and evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 11(4), 401-415.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62.
Calderhead, J. (1988). The development of knowledge structures in learning to teach. In J. Calderhead (Eds.), Teachers' professional learning (pp.51-64). London: The Falmer Press.
Caniglia, J. C. (1994). The transformayion and enactment of teachers’ content, pedagogical, and personal practical knowledge: Four case studies of expert secondary mathem. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Louisiana.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291–310). New York: Macmillan.
Cleminson, A. (1990). Establishing an epistemological base for science teaching in the light of contemporary notions of the nature of science and of how children learn science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 429-445.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners` responses to the demands of conceptual change: considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 15, 463-494.
Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A.(1993). Pedagogical content knowing: Anintegrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-272.
Collette, A. T. & Chiappeta, E. L. (1994). Science Instruction in the Middle and Secondary School (3rd ed.). Columbus, U.S.A.: Merrill
Cooley, W. W. & Klopfer, L. E. (1961). Test on understanding science manual. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Cooley, W. W. & Klopfer, L. E. (1963). The evaluation of specific educational innovations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 73-80.
Creswell J.W. (1994). Research design: qualitative & quantitatuve approaches. Newbury Park: Sage.
Cuba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ERIC/ECTJ Annual Review Paper, 29(2), 75-91.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P.(1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Duschl, R. A. (1988). Abandoning the scientistic legacy of science education. Science Education, 72(1), 51-62.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London: Croom Helm.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Review of research in teaching, 20 (pp. 3-56). Washington: AERA.
Geddis, A. N. & Wood, E.(1997). Transforming subject matter and managing dilemmas: A case study in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6) 611-626.
Goldhammer, R.,Anderson, R. H.,&Krajewski, R. J. (1993). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinohart and Winston.
Kelly, G. A., (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Kimball, M. E. (1968). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110-120.
Lakin, S. & Wellington, F. (1994). Who will teach the 'nature of science'?: Teachers' views of science and their implications for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 175-190.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M. (1993). Becoming a teacher: Balancing conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Paper present at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
Lederman, N. G. (1995). Translation and transformation of teachers’ understanding of the nature of science into classroom practice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED382 474)
Lederman, N. G. & Roth, M.W. (1996). The nature of scientific knowledge and learning: Tow longitudinal case studies. Research in Science Education, 26(1),103-127.
Lederman, N.G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2rd.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Magnusson, S. (1996). Preparing others to teach science: Theory and practice concerning science teacher educator pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science. In J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), PCK and science education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Manning, B. H., & Payne, B. D.(1993). A Vygotskian-based theory of teacher cognition: Toward the acquisition of mental reflection and self-regulation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(4), 361-371.
Marx, R. W., Freeman, J. G., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1998). Professional development of science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.667-680). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(1), 359-370.
Matthews, M. R. (1996).What should be the goal in teaching about the nature of science? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis. MO.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P. & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Eds.), The nature of science in science education : Rationales and strategies(pp. 3-39). Boston : Kluwer
McComas, W. F. & Olson J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Eds.), The nature of science in science education : Rationales and strategies(pp. 41-52). Boston : Kluwer.
Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
National Assessment of Education Progress. (1989). National Assessment Science Objective-1990 assessment. 18-26.
National Research Council.(1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (1982). Science- Technology- Society: Science education for the 1980'. Washington, D. C.: Author.
National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science. Document retrieved 12/08/08. http:/ /www.nsta.org/159&psid¼22.
Northfield, J., Gunstone, R., & Erickson, G. (1996). A constructivist perspective on science teacher education In Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., & Fraser, B. J. (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 201-211). New York: Teachers College Press.
Nussbaun, J. (1989). Classroom conceptual change: philosophical perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 530-540.
Palmquist, B.C., & Finley, F.N. (1997) . Preservice teachers’ views of the nature of science during a postbaccalaureate science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 595-615.
Park, S. & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Sciences Education, 38, 261–284.
Pope, M. & Keen. (1981). Personal construct psychology and education. London: Academic Press.
Pope, M. & Gilbert, J. (1983). Personal experience and the construction of knowledge in science. Science Education, 67(2), 193-203.
Popper, K. R. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper Torchbooks, Harper & Row, Inc.
Reynolds, D (1992). What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature. Review of Educational Reserch, 62(1), 1-35.
Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.
Rubba, P. A. & Andersen, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students' understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458.
Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). ”It’s the nature of the BEAST”: the influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205-236.
Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 43-48.
Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., Sowell, S., (2006). Describing teachers’ conceptual ecologies for the nature of science. Science Education, 90(5), 874-905.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Smith, C., & Gillespie, M. (2007). Research on professional development and teacher change: Implications for adult basic education. In Comings, J., Garner, B., & Smith, C. (Eds.), Annual review of adult learning and literacy: Vol. 7 (pp. 205–244). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J.(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing Grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tobin, k., Tippins, D. J. & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on Instructional Strategies for Teaching Science. In Gabel, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Tuan ,H . L., Wang , K.H. , Chang , H.P. , & Treagust , D. (2000). The development of an instrument for assessing students’ perceptions of teachers’ knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 385-398.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In T, Husen & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. ll-12). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Trans.) Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Welch, W. W. (1969). Curriculum evaluation. Review of Educational Research, 39(4), 429-443.
Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructvist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education, 75(1), 9-21.
Yager, R. E. (1990). Workshop science/ technology/ society as reform in science education. Science Education Center, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei Taiwan, R.O.C.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE