|
一、中文部份
吳明隆 (2006)。SPSS統計應用學習實務：問卷分析與應用統計。台北市：知城數位科技。
林奇賢 (1998)。網路學習環境設計與應用。資訊與教育，67， 34-49。
林奇賢、馬榮燦、林志能 (2000)。網路學習與網路學校的發展對教師專業路線的衝擊。資訊與教育，79，3-7。
林志能、洪振方 (2007a)。在網路環境中進行科學論證～以部落格 (Blog)為例。論文發表於中華民國第二十三屆科學教育學術研討會。高雄市：國立高雄師範大學。
林志能、洪振方 (2007b)。一個資訊教育者的省思-從科學方法論的嬗變看起。論文發表於中華民國第三屆台灣數位學習發展研討會。台中縣： 亞洲大學
林志能、洪振方 (2008)。論證模式分析及其評量要素，科學教育月刊，312，2-18。
林志能、陳玲君、洪振方 (2010)。高一學生多變因因果推理與論證能力之相關研究，教育實踐與研究，23(2)，1-36。
林建仲、朱耀明、李祈仁、蔡華齡 (2003)。培養國小學生批判思考能力之網路教學模式研究，高雄師大學報，15，85-116。
林煥祥、洪振方、洪瑞兒 (2007)。智育理念與實踐。載於教育部 (主編)，德智體群美五育理念與實踐 (頁55-104)。台北市：教育部。
林煥祥 (2008)。臺灣參加PISA 2006 成果報告。花蓮市：國立花蓮教育大學。
洪振方 (1994)。從孔恩異例的認知與論證探究科學知識的重建。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
洛杉磯媒體素養中心 (2007)。媒體素養中心首頁。2007年1月31日，取自 http://www.medialit.org/about_cml.html。
馬榮燦、林志能、洪振方 (2009，5月)。網路論證學習環境之設計。論文發表於第十三屆全球華人計算機教育應用大會GCCCE2009。台北市：台灣師範大學。
孫春在、林珊如 (2007)。網路合作學習：數位時代的互動學習環境、教學與評量。台北市：心理。
張巨青、吳寅華 (1994)。邏輯與歷史：現代科學方法論的嬗變。台北市： 淑馨。
教育部 (2001)。中小學資訊教育總藍圖-總綱。台北市：教育部。
教育部 (2008)。教育部中小學資訊教育白皮書2008-2011。台北市：教育部。
教育部 (2010)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北市：教育部。
黃台珠、熊召弟、王美芬、佘曉清、靳知勤、段曉林、熊同鑫 譯 (2002)。促進理解之科學教學-人本建構取向。台北市：心理。
黃正傑、吳俊憲 (2006)。合作學習：發展與實踐。台北市：五南。
楊家興 (1993)。 超媒體：一個新的學習工具。教學科技與媒體，12，28-39。
楊芳瑩 (2002)。日常科學思考的培養，科學教育月刊，247，10-20。
葉玉珠 (1996)。電腦模擬應用於批判思考教學訓練之成效，國立政治大學學報，75，99-118。
葉玉珠 (2003)。批判思考測驗—第一級。台北市：心理。
葉玉珠、葉碧玲、謝佳蓁 (2000)。「中小學生批判思考技巧測驗」之發展，測驗年刊，47(1)，27-46。
蔡俊彥 (2009)。以認知學徒制網路論證系統促進論證能力、概念學習與批判思考成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，高雄市。
龍德義 (1999)。兩個訓練領袖的數學遊戲，數學教育，8，33-43。
譚克平 (2007) 。國中教導盒狀圖的建議及介紹如何用EXCEL製作盒狀圖，科學教育月刊，305，20-34。
二、西文部份
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. (pp. 3-27) . New York: Springer.
Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. (pp. 91-115). New York: Springer.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE, International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797 - 817.
Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialetical, Argumentation, 1, 41- 56.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. D., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educational Research, 18(1), 32 - 42.
Clark, D. B. (2004). Hands-on investigation in Internet environments: Teaching thermal equilibrium. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis., & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environment for Science Education. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clark, D. B., Sampson, V. D., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments, Educational Psychology Review, 19, 343 - 374.
Clark, D. B., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., & Erkens, G. (2008). Technology-enhanced learning environments to support students’ argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. (pp. 217-243). New York: Springer.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation, International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick(Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert glaser (pp.453-494). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Creswell, W., & Clark, V. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage publications.
De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63-103.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp.159-175). New York: Springer.
Ennis, R. (1996). Critical thinking. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TApping into Argumentation: Development in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. (pp. 47-69). New York: Springer.
Erduran, S., & Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. New York: Springer.
Felton, M. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19, 35-52.
Ficher, F., Bruhn, J., Grasel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213-232.
Garcia-Mila, & Andersen, (2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. (pp.29-46). New York: Springer.
Giere, R. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning. FL: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston , Inc.
Govier, T. (1989). Critical thinking as argument analysis? Argumentation, 3, 115-126.
Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought & knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking. NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum.
Hermann, A. (2002). Teaching critical thinking online. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(2), 53-76.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., & Broeken, M. (2006, June). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during online collaborative learning. Paper presented at the 2nd Special Interest Meeting of EARLI SIGs Instructional Design & Learning and Instruction with computers. Leuven, Belgium.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2006, June). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. Proceedings of the 7th Internet Conference of the Learning Sciences. Bloomington, IN.
Jenmann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J.Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205-226). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155-178.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning science thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16-26.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309-328.
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know?. Psychological Science, 12(1), 1-8.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. London: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 90-104.
Lawson, A. (2003a). The nature and development of hypothetic-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.
Lawson, A. (2003b). The neurological basis of learning, development and discovery: Implications for science and mathematics instruction. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishes.
Lemke, D. E. (2002). Laboratory manual for modern biology. Stipes Publishing.
Lin, C. N., & Hung, J. F. (2008, February). Using blog to improve students’ scientific argumentation. Poster session presented at the Conference of Asia Science Education. Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Lin, C. N., & Hung, J. F. (2009, October). The implementation of argumentation-based learning environment. Poster session presented at the International Conference of East-Asian Science Education. Taipei, Taiwan.
Linn, M. C. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: historical trends and current opportunities. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 265-294). Boston: Kulwer Academic Publishers.
Mauldin, R. F., & Lonney, L. W. (1999). Scientific reasoning for nonscience majors: Ronald N. Giere's approach, Journal of College Science Teaching, 416-421.
McNeill, K. L. (2008). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing science arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233-268.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. D. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78.
Milka, A., & Leena, L. (1998). Learning of argumentation in face to face and e-mail environments. Paper presented at the 4th International conference on argumentation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 16-19.
Missimer, C. A. (2002). Good arguments: An introduction to critical thinking. Prentice-Hall Publishes.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576.
Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. CA: Midwest Publications.
Nosich, G. M. (2005). Learning to thinking things through: a guide to critical thinking across the curriculum. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Bendixen, L. M. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573-595.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., and Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999.
OECD (2004). Learning for Tomorrow’s World - First Results from PISA 2003. OECD, Paris.
OECD (2006). Assessing scientific, reading, and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. OECD, Paris.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2003). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. Teacher training pack. Nuffield, UK: Nuffield Foundation.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185-204.
Paul, R. W. (1995). Socratic question and roleplaying. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for critical thinking.
Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (2005). Dimensions of Causal Understanding: the Role of Complex Causal Models in students’ Understanding of Science. Studies in Science Education, 41, 117-166.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge.
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr, (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress. (pp.263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. In G. Stahl (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002: Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 255-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Science, 12(1), 5-52.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Synthese, 80(1), 9-42.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2&3), 235-260.
Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in sociocognitive. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. (pp.179-199). New York: Springer.
Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510-528.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Their, M., & Daviss, B. (2002). The new science literacy: Using language skills to help students learn science.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation, 19, 347-371.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). ‘Constructivism’. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite, (Eds), The International Encyclopedia of education. (pp.162-163). Oxford: Pegamon.
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 89-111.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Trans. M., Mind in Society, (pp.79-91). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.). Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge-cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 191-211). New York: Springer.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1163-1187.
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle School. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172-223.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
|