:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:科學探究歷程想像力測驗發展及其相關因素之研究
作者:謝佳諺 引用關係
作者(外文):Chia-Yen Hsieh
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:特殊教育學系
指導教授:吳裕益 博士
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2016
主題關鍵詞:想像力科學探究歷程想像力線性結構方程模式(SEM))試題反應理論(IRT)試題差異函數分析(DIF)試題恆等性imagination of scientific inquiry processStructural Equation ModelingItem Response TheoryDifferential Item FunctioningMeasurement of identityimagination
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:99
本研究旨在編製及發展具有良好信、效度之科學探究歷程想像力測驗量表,同時檢驗科學探究歷程想像力測驗之線性結構方程模式(SEM)之適配度,並試圖找出其相關因素。本研參考諸多文獻,將科學探究歷程分成四個階段,分別是「尋找問題」、「提出假說」、「設計實驗」、「形成結論」。另外,想像力的構念則包含「生產力」、「感受力」、「精緻力」、「新穎力」。研究者結合以上述兩個構念,參考相關文獻編製及發展科學探究歷程想像力測驗量表。接著使用試題反應理論(IRT)考驗本量表之信、效度,並針對所有試題進行試題差異函數分析(DIF),以確保本量表對資優生及一般生沒有試題差異性。接著以線性結構方程模式(SEM)分析科學探究歷程想像力之模式適配度,最後依學生做答反應編製常模,以增加本研究工具的實用性。
研究結果顯示,本研究所發展的「科學探究歷程想像力測驗量表」具有良好的信效度且具有適用性,另外,本研究工具沒有DIF現象且具有試題恆等性。而影響科學探究歷程的因素有「科學能力」、「生活經驗」、「年級」、「是否為資優生」及「科學創造力」等五個因素。
依研究結果,本研究對量表的應用、科學探究想像力之培育、科學探究想像力鑑定及未來研究提出相關的建議。
This research aims at designing and developing a scale for test on imagination of scientific inquiry process with reliability and validity, and examining the goodness-of-fit of this test’s Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) as well as trying to find the relevance. This research has taken various references and divided the inquiry process into four stages, which are “locate the inquiry”, “propose the assumption”, “design the experiment” and “form the conclusion”. In addition, the imagination construct includes productivity, sensibility, elaboration and novelty. The researcher combined the two constructs along with references to design and develop the scale and then the Item Response Theory (IRT) was adopted to test the reliability and validity. All the items were analyzed by Differential Item Functioning (DIF) to ensure the scale giving no differential items to regular and gifted students. Afterwards, the SEM was employed to analyze the model’s goodness-of-fit of imagination of scientific inquiry process. Then, a norm was built in accordance to students’ responses to raise the applicability of this research tool.
The results show that the scale for test on the imagination of scientific inquiry process is with high reliability, validity and applicability. The research tool doesn’t exist Differential Item Functioning and meets the requirements of measurement of identity. The five factors influencing the scientific inquiry process are scientific abilities, life experience, age, scientific creativity and being gifted students.
Based on the results, this study has put forward several suggestions on scale application, nurturing and identifying scientific inquiry imagination and for future studies.
內政部(2015):人口結構。檢索於http://www.moi.gov.tw/
王文中(2004):Rasch 測量理論與其在教育和心理之應用。教育與心理研究,27(4),637-694。new window
王文中、鄭英耀(2000):創造力發展量表之編製與試題反應分析。測驗學刊,47(1),153-173。new window
王佳琪、何曉琪、鄭英耀(2014):科學創造性問題解決測驗之發展。測驗學刊,61(3),337-360。new window
王佳琪、何曉琪和鄭英耀(2015):科學想像力情境測驗。未出版之手稿,國立中山大學,高雄。
王佳琪、鄭英耀、劉昆夏、何曉琪(2011):以Rasch分析檢驗「多向度幽默感量表」之信效度。測驗學刊,58(4),691-713。new window
王美芬(2006):「自然與生活科技領域」的探究教學策略。教育研究月刊,152,45-55。
王美芬、熊召弟(2005):國小階段自然與生活科技教材教法。臺北:心理。
王飛、賈瑜(2011):從科學探究看物理的教學改革。洛陽師範學院學報,30(5),42-45。
王愉敏(2011):「概念結合想像力測驗」之編製。中興大學企業管理學系碩士論文,未出版,臺中。
古益靈(譯)(2004):A. Lack著。絕對創造力(Absolute creativity)。臺北:海洋文化。(原著出版年2001)。
白佩萱、許瑛招(2011):探討不同探究式教學法對高一生科學探究能力與學習環境觀感之影響。課程與教學,14(3),123-156。
江美惠(2005):創造性問題解決教學方案對資優學生創造力及問題解決能力影響之研究。資優教育研究,5(2),83-106。
余民寧(1997):教育測驗與評量-成就測驗與教學評量。臺北:心理。
余桂霖(2010):結構方程式模式型分析。臺北:五南。
余韻玲(2011):學前自然科學探究式問題解決課程設計。資優教育季刊,120,20-27。
吳百與、張耀云、吳興楷(2010):科學探究活動中的科學推理。科學教育研究與發展季刊,56,53-74。
吳坤璋、吳裕益、黃台珠(2005):科學探究能力測驗的編製與信、效度考驗。測驗學刊,52(2),119-148。new window

吳裕益(2013):聚斂效度和區別效度/結構方程模式的理論與應用研究。未出版之上課講義,國立高雄師範大學,高雄。
吳裕益(2014):項目反應理論/測驗理論與應用研究。未出版之上課講義,國立高雄師範大學,高雄。
呂建億(2011):融入合作學習與創造思考教學模式來解決問題的科技活動–以創意彈珠軌道機構闖關遊戲為例。生活科技教育月刊,44(6),52-72。
李乙明(譯)(2004):R. White, & R. Gunstone著。學習之多元評量(Probing Understanding)。臺北:洪葉文化。(原著出版年1992)。
李昆明、洪振方(2010):國三學生對探究性科學問題提問之研究。臺北市立教育大學學報,41(2),111-148。new window
林心茹(譯)(2013):S. Blenkinsop著。想像力教育:跟你想像的教育不一樣(The imagination in education : extending the boundaries of theory and practice)。臺北:遠流。(原著出版年2009)。
林俊宏(譯)(2013):V. Mayer-Schönberger , & K. Cukier著。大數據 (Big Data:A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think)。台北市: 遠見天下文化。(原著出版年2013)。
林俊宏(譯)(2014):V. Mayer-Schönberger , & K. Cukier著。大數據-教育篇(Learning with Big Data: The Future of Education)。台北市: 遠見天下文化。(原著出版年2014)。
林建仲、朱耀明、李祁仁、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。new window
林美馨、楊芳瑩(2011):由認知觀發展的角度探討國小學童對科學探究的看法。科學教育學刊,19(6),531-548。new window
林偉文(2011a):未來想像的評量。未來想像與創意人才中程培育計畫。教育部顧問室,未出版。
林偉文(2011b):科學教育、科技與設計之想像力與創造-(子計畫一)科學教師、科學競賽團隊之想像力與培育。行政院國家科學委員會專案研究成果報告(NSC 98-2511-S-152-020-MY2),未出版。
林偉文、朱采翎、江欣珀(2012):未來想像評量任務。載於國立臺北教育大學教育研究所(主編),未來想像教育評量工作坊手冊(19-32頁)臺北。
林逢祺(2010):Maxine greene《釋放想像力》思想及其對教師專業發展的啟示。載於國立臺北教育大學課程與教學研究所(主編),「美學取向課程與教學之理論建構與應用」學術論壇手冊(157-196頁),臺北:國立臺北教育大學。
邱發忠、陳學志、林耀南、涂莉苹(2012):想像力構念之初探。教育心理學報,44(2),389-410。doi:10.6251/BEP.20120402new window
邱皓政(2002):量化研究與統計分析。臺北:五南。
姚風云、苑成存、苑成聚、林卿、溫美榮(2006):創造學理論與實踐。北京:清華大學。
施俊名、吳裕益(2008):大學生身心健康量表構念效度驗證之研究。教育研究與發展期刊,4(4),201-230。new window
洪文東(2000):從問題解決的過程培養學生的科學創造力。屏師科學教育,11,52-62。
洪文東(2004):以探究式教學活動設計提升學生科學探究能力(NSC93-2511-S-153-004)。臺北:行政院國家科學委員會。
洪振方(2002):創造性探究模式之建立及其在實驗課教學的成效。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃書,計劃編號:NSC-92-2511-S-017-022。
洪振方(2003):探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式初探。國立高雄師範大學學報,15,641-662。new window
洪振方(2010):思考導向的探究式學習對國二學生科學探究能力的影響。科學教育學刊,18(5),389-415。new window
唐偉成(2008):分析影響國小高年級學童從事科學探究活動之社會因素。國立國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,高雄。
高雄市政府教育局(2015):高雄市資賦優異教育白皮書-104到107年版。高雄:作者。
高雄市國民教育輔導團(2015):高雄市國民教育輔導團104年度辦理十二年國民基本教育精進國民中小學教學品質計畫自然與生活科技學習領域輔導小組精進科學素養之情境式評量。檢索於http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/bin/home.php
高雄市創造力學習中心(2015):創意運動會腦力競賽。檢索於http://creativity.kh.edu.tw/act.asp
高雄市資優資源中心(2015):高雄市資優現況。檢索於http://web2.spec.kh.edu.tw/releaseRedirect.do?unitID=184&pageID=3056
康仕仲、謝尚賢(2012):工程師幻想曲-想像力在工程教育之運用與評估。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告,未出版。
張玉山(2008a):科技問題解決的教材設計─功能導向模式的應用。教科書研究,1(1),83-103。new window
張玉山(2008b):國小學生在網路化問題解決活動的創意思考歷程之探究。科學教育學報,1(1),101-135。
張玉山、游光昭、許雅婷、黃雅莉(2006):以創意成分理論為基礎的網路化生活科技創意學習─模組設計。生活科技教育月刊,39(8),43-61。
張昇鵬(2003):資賦優異學生及普通學生後設認知能力與創造思考能力之比較研究。特殊教育學報,17,95-120。new window
張昇鵬(2005):資賦優異學生後設認知能力與批判思考能力關係之研究。特殊教育學報,28,259-288。new window
張俊彥、翁玉華(2000):我國高一學生問題解決能力與其科學過程技能之相關性研究。科學教育學刊,8(1),35-55。new window
張春興(2007):張氏心理學辭典。臺北:東華。
張麗雲(2008):資優班學生科學探究活動之分析。國立臺南教育大學特殊教育與復健學報,18,51-71。new window
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。臺北:作者。new window
教育部(2008):國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要:自然與生活科技學習領域。臺北:作者。new window
教育部(2014):特殊教育法。臺北:作者。
教育部(2015):教育統計。檢索於https://stats.moe.gov.tw/
曹筱玥、林小慧(2012):想像力量表編製。教育科學研究期刊,57(4),1-37。new window
梁朝雲、許育齡、林威聖(2014):探究想像力內涵暨評測量表研發。測驗學刊,61(1),37-50。new window
梁朝雲、許育齡、劉育東、李元榮(2011):促發想像之環境因素的評測工具─以跨域設計教育為例的初探性研究。設計學報,16(1),65-82。new window
梁朝雲、黃英修、許育齡、周文修(2011):促發產品設計學生想像的環境因素與其歷程。藝術研究學報,4(2),41-59。new window
莊敏雄(2012):建模教學對國小學童的模型理解、科學探究能力及地質概念理解之影響。國立國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,高雄。new window
莊耀輝(2011):激發想像力之研究。遠東通識學報,5(2),79-90。new window
許育齡、梁朝雲(2012):探究想像力的意涵與特徵─探索性與驗證性因素分析之發現。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系教育心理學報,44(2),349-372。doi: 10.6251/BEP.20120321new window
許素(2002)。培育國小高年級學童科學探究能力:製作科學展覽的經驗與反省。教育資料與研究,48,24-30。new window
郭生玉(2001):心理與教育測驗。台北:五南。
郭志文、陳武雄、謝佳諺、翁慶才、蘇素平(2013):機器人課程與團隊想像力。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(編號:NSC100-2511-S-110-009-MY2),未出版。
郭志文、陳武雄、謝佳諺、翁慶才、蘇素平、曾群峰、蔡佳樺(2011):機器人課程與團隊創造力。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(編號:NSC 98-2511-S-110-009-MY2),未出版。
陳柏璋(2001):知識經濟與教育改革。中等教育,52(2),181-179。
陳振明(2003):影響高一學生科學創造力的因素之研究。國立國立高雄師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文,未出版,高雄。new window
陳榮祥、江新合(2006)。V 圖式科學探究指導模式之開發與測詴。臺中教育大學學報:數理科技類,20(2),69-98。new window
陳學志、張雨霖、陳瑛霞(2013):為有源頭活水來-高中職階段未來想像與創意之人才培育。載於未來想像教育在台灣(184-198頁)。臺北:國立政治大學教育部未來想像與創意人才培育總計畫辦公室。
陳樹發、鄭云洲(2006):怎樣培養青少年的觀察力。景德鎮高專學報,21(3),78-80。
陳龍安(2002):創造力的開發理念與實踐。創意開發學術研討會論文集(頁1-20)。嘉義市:國立嘉義大學人文藝術學院。
陳藝菁(2004):發展高中學生想像力評量工具之研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
單文經、侯秋玲(2008):探究取向的課程與教學。教育研究與發展期刊,4,63-84。new window
鈕文英(2013):研究方法與論文寫作(二版)。臺北:雙葉。
黃小萍、蔡美玲(譯)(2005):G. Paulsen著。手斧男孩首部曲(Hatchet)。臺北:野人。(原著出版年2001)。
黃芳銘(2006):社會科學統計方法學-結構方程模式。臺北:五南。
黃鴻博(2000)。兒童科學探究活動遭遇問題的探討。國立臺中師院學報,14, 389-409。new window
葉玉珠(2000):智能與批判思考。國立中山大學社會學季刊,2(1),1-28。
葉玉珠(2001):高層次思考教學設計的要素分析。中山通識教育學報,創刊號。
葉玉珠(2006):創造力教學─過去、現在與未來。台北:心理。
葉玉珠、彭月茵、林志哲、蔡維欣、鍾素香(2008):情境式科學創造力測驗之發展暨科學創造力之性別與年級差異分析。測驗學刊,55(1),33-60。new window

葉辰楨、王國華、蔡明致(2010):後設認知鷹架理論融入科學探究教育之探討。科學教育研究與發展季刊,58,1-32。
詹志禹、陳玉樺(2011):發揮想像力共創台灣未來─教育系統能扮演的角色。教育資料與研究雙月刊,100,29-35。new window
詹雨臻、葉玉珠(2005):生活問題解決測驗之發展。測驗學刊,52(1),1-30。new window
劉世南、郭誌光(2001):創造力的概念與定義。資優教育季刊,81,1-7。
劉宏文、張惠博(2001):高中學生進行開放式探究活動之個案研究─問題的形成與解決。科學教育學刊,9(2),169-196。new window
蔡執仲、段曉林、靳知勤(2007):巢狀探究模式對國二學生理化學習動機影響之探討。科學教育學刊,15,119-144。new window
蔡淑桂 (2004):多元智能教學方案對幼兒創造力之影響研究。醫護科技學刊, 6(4),330-348。new window
魯俊賢、吳毓瑩(2007)。過程技能之二階段實作評量:規劃、實踐與效益探究。科學教育學刊,15(2),215-239。new window
蕭儒棠(2014):物理辯論競賽之學生科學探究活動評量探析。物理教育學刊,15(2),107-144。
賴慶三、高汶旭(2004)。國小專題本位科學展覽活動教學之研究。臺北市立師範學院學報,35(2),259-284。new window
薛清江(2015):技職院校學生敘事想像力之培養。通識教學與研究學刊,1,35-51。
謝甫佩、洪振方(2003):反思的學習策略對電磁概念學習遷移的成效。師大學報,48(2),141-164。
謝甫佩、洪振方(2004):國小學生科學探究活動的課程設計及實施成果之個案研究。師大學報,49(2),61-86。doi:10.6300/JNTNU.2004.49(2).03
謝佳諺、黃籃瑩(2010年7月):其他教育相關議題研究。參與國際創造力競賽獲獎學生創造力之研究-以2008、2009世界創造力博覽會為例。南臺灣2010年教育論壇(海報發表),國立中山大學。
謝洲恩、劉湘瑤(2013):省思九年一貫自然與生活科技課程綱要中的科學本質內涵。科學教育研究與發展季刊,66,53-76。
顏弘志(2004):建構主義看探究教學。科學教育研究與發展季刊,36,1-14。
羅淑瓊,林曉雯(2012):國小學童科學探究學習策略量表的編製與發展。科學教育學刊,20(6),515-538。new window

蘇素平(2013):高雄市想像力教育推動策略之發展與成效。國立國立高雄師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文,未出版,高雄。new window
饒穎欽、陳建宏、吳明雄、簡明忠、許碧珊、張中一、黃秀玉(2009):高中生文學創造力測量指標相關因素之建構。教育學刊,36,119-158。new window










ACARA. (2013). The Australian Curriculum: Science. Retrieved from http://www. Australiancurriculum.edu.au/.
Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: The results of a three-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 653-680.
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 271-284.
Barr, J., & Steele, T. (2003). Revaluing the enlightenment: Reason and imagination. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(4), 505–515.
Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safiullina, X. (2010).Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as predictors of creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 532-535. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.008
Beanry, M. (2005). Imagination and creativity. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Bond, T. G. & Fox, G. M. (2015). Applying the rasch model:fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Bybee, R. E., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Scotter, P. V., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins effectiveness, and application. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
Carsten, M. B., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis years of mood- creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus ? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779-806.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504.

Chermahini, S., & Hommel, B. (2010). The link between creativity and dopamine: Spontaneous eye blink rates predict and dissociate divergent and convergent thinking. Cognition, 115(3), 458-465.
Cheung,G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 233–255.
Cho, J. (2002). The development of an alternative in-service program for Korean science teachers with an emphasis on science-technology-society. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1021-1035.
Colello, S. M. G. (2007). Imagination in children’s writing: How high can fiction fly? Retrieved from http://www.hottopos.com/notand14/silvia.pdf
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. Lodon, UK : Kogan Page.
Duran L. B., & McArthur, J. (2004). Undergraduate Students' Perceptions of an Inquiry - Based Physics Course . Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(2), 155 - 171.
Eckhoff, A., & Urbach, J. (2008). Understanding imaginative think during childhood: Socio-cultural conception of creativity and imaginative thought. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(2), 179-185.
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Leaning for use: A framework for the design of technology supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
Egan, K. (2008). The Future of Education: Reimagining our Schools from the ground up. San Francisco, CA:Yale University Press.
Feist, G. J. (2010). The function of personality in creativity: The nature and nurture of the creative personality. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 113-130). New York, NY: Cambridge University press.
Feland, J. M., & Fisher, C. (2008). Cramming twenty pounds more into a sophomore design toolkit: increasing curricular loads on design students and enjoying it! Retrieved from http://files.asme.org/asmeorg/Governance/ Honors/1104.pdf
Fornell, C, & Larcker D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models within observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, February, 18, 39-50.
Gao, F., Mokhtarian, P. L., Johnston, R. A. (2008). Non-normality of Data in Structural Equation Models. For Presentation at the Transportation Research Board’s 87th Annual Meeting Washington, D.C., January, 2008.
Gbarabaghi, K. (2008). Contemplations about the imagination and complacency in child and youth care practice. Relational Child and Youth Care Practice, 21,30-41.
Gilbert, B., & Kim, N. (2012). The Parallels Between Philosophical Inquiry and Scientific Inquiry: Implications for science education. Educational Philosophy and Theory,44(10), 1045-1059. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00751.x
Greene, M. (2000).Releasing the imagination- Essays on Education, the Arts, and Social Change. NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Griffin, P., Care, E., & McGaw, B. (2012). The changing role of education and schools. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills(pp. 17-66). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, NY: Springer.
Guttman, L. (1950). The basis for scalogram analysis. In Stouffer et al. Measurement and Prediction. The American Soldier Vol. IV. New York: Wiley.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Fokialis, P., & Kabouropoulou, M. (2012). Thinking about creativity in science education. Creative Education, 3(5), 603-611.
Haigh, M., France, B., & Forret, M. (2005). Is 'doing science' in New Zealand classrooms an expression of scientific inquiry? International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 215-226.
Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hardy, J., & Jefferies, A. (2010). How learners change: Critical moment, changing minds. In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham & S. D. Freitas (Eds.), Rethinking learning for a digital age(pp. 114-127). New York, NY: Routledge.
Heath, G. (2008). Exploring the imagination to establish frameworks for learning. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(2-3), 115-123.
Ho, H. C., Wang, C. C, Cheng, Y. Y.(2013). Analysis of the scientific imagination process. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 68-78.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st century. Science Education 88(1), 28-54.
Howes, E. V., Lim, M., & Campos, J. (2008). Journeys Into Inquiry-Based Elementary Science: Literacy Practices, Questioning, and Empirical Study Experience and early childhood science education. Science Education, 24(3), 189-217.

Hsieh, C. Y., & Yang, K. Y. (2010, June). THE MIND GAME - A creative contest in Kaohsiung. Paper presented at the 11th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness. IN Australia.
Hsieh, C. Y., Tsai, K. F., Chen, W. H., & Cheng, Y. Y. (2015, November):Imagination and Creativity. Pilot Study of The Tool for Tests on Scientific Inquiry Imagination. IN National Sun Yat-sen University (NSYSU).
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Jeong, H., Songer, N. B., & Lee, S. Y. (2007). Evidentiary competence: Sixth graders’ understanding for gathering and interpreting evidence in scientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 37, 75-97.
Karwowski, M. (2008a). Measuring creativity using the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI). Part 1. Presentation of a new instrument to measure creative potential. New Educational Review, 14, 44-53.
Karwowski, M. (2008b). Measuring creativity using the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI). Part 2. On validity of the TCI. New Educational Review, 15, 216-231.
Karwowski, M., & Soszynski, M. (2008). How to develop creative imagination? Assumptions, aims and effectiveness of role play training creativity (RPTC). Thinking Skill and Creativity, 3(2), 163-171.
Kaufmann, D. (2003). What to Measure ? A new look at the concept of creativity. Scandinavian Journal Educational Research, 47, 235-251.
Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the devel-opment of a revised version of the learning process questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 261-279.
Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. (2004). Designing online leaning environment to support scientific inquiry. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 1-10.
Krajcik, J. S., Czernian, C., & Bwrger, C. (2003). Teaching children science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill.



Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 283-315). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press.
Lawson, A. E. (2002). Science teaching and development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
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.
Liang, C., Hsu, Y., Chang, C. C., & Lin, L. J. (2012).In search of an index of imagination for virtual experience designers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,11, 432-441. doi:10.1007/s10798-012-9224-6
Linacre, J. M. (1994). Many-facet Rasch measurement. Chicago: Mesa Press.
Lindqvist, G. (2003). Vygolsky's theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 15(2&3), 245-251.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures(MACS) analysis of cross-cultural data : Practice and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53-76.
Lochhead, J., & Zietsman, A., (2001). What is problem solving? In A. L. Costa(Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. (3rd ed.)(pp.54-57). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal,13, 295-308.
McCormack, A. J. (2010). Imagine and invent: Create a great future. Journal of College Science Teaching, 22, 2-5.
Micheal, A. M., & Deborah, L. M. (2005). Situational judgment test. Retrieved from:http://www.ipmaac.org/conf/05/mcdaniel.pdf
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction–What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.


Mioduser, D., & Dagan, O. (2006). The effect of alternative approaches to design instruction (structural or functional) on students' mental models of technological design processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Retrieved from http://muse.tau.ac.il/publications/97.pdf
Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making: Vygotsky’s contemporary contribution to the dialectic of creativity & development. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Creativity and development (pp. 61-90). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Altine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation modes. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445.
National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NSTA. (2005). NSTA Position Statement: Scientific Inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquir y.aspx
O’Connor, K. P., & Aardema, P. (2005). The imagination: Cognitive, pre-cognitive, and meta-cognitive aspects. Consciousness and Cognition,14, 233-256.
Owens, R. J. (2010). Language disorders. A functional approach to assessment and intervention, 5th Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., & Vincent, M. (2002). Supporting guided-inquiry instruction. Teaching exceptional children. 34(3), 88-91.
Park, J., Jang, K., & Kim, I. (2009). An Analysis of the Actual Processes of Physicists’ Research and the Implications for Teaching Scientific Inquiry in School. Journal of Research Science Education, 39, 111 – 129.
Pelaprat, E., & Cole, M. (2001). “Minding the gap”: Imagination, creativity and human cognition. Integrative psychological and Behavioral Science, 45(4), 391-418.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2002). Mental imagery: In search of a theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(2),157-238.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2007). Things and places: How the mind connects with the world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Institute of Educational Research. (Expanded edition, 1980. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).
Reiff, R. (2002). If inquiry is so great, why isn’t everyone doing it? Charlotte, NC: Association for Education of Teachers in Science. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 465642).
Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 489-506.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. American Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687.
Sandoval, W.A. (2005). Understand student’s practical epistemologies and their influence on learning their inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.
Settlage, J. (2007). Moving past a belief in inquiry as a pedagogy: Implications for teacher knowledge. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the classroom: Realities and opportunities (pp. 204 – 215). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of management, 30(6) ,933 -958.
Singer, D.G., & Singer, J. L. (2005). Imagination and play in the electronic age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, R. M., Schumacker, R. E., & Bush, M. J. (1998). Using item mean square to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2(1), 66-78.
So, W. M. W. (2003). Learning science through investigation: An experience with Hong Kong primary school children. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1,175-200.
Strough, J., Cheng, S., & Swendon, L. M., (2002). Preference for collaborative and individual everyday problem solving in later adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(1),26-35.
Thang, S. M. (2004). Student approaches to studying: Identifying the Malaysian constructs and comparing them with those in other contexts. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(4), 359-371.
Thomas, N. J. T. (2003). Imagining minds. Journal of Consciousness, 10(11), 79-84.

Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive Validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 236-262.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7-97. (Original work published 1930)
Wang, J. R., Huang, B. Y., Tsay, R. F., Lee, K. P., Lin, S. W., & Kao, H. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of inquiry-based instruction on student learning outcomes in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(3), 534-542.
Ward, T. B., & Wickes, K. N. S. (2009). Stable and dynamic properties of category structure guide imaginative thought. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 15-23.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (2015). MICRA, Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imagination.
Wolk, S. (2007). Why go to school? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(9),648-682.
Woolfolk, A. (2001). Education Psychology. (8th ed.). Needham Heighths MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Wright, B. D. (1996). Reliability and separation. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 9(4), 472.
Wu, H. K., Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct scientific explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289-1313.
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172-223.
Zwick, R., Thayer, D.T., Lewis, C. (1999) An Empirical Bayes Approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF Analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(1) , 1-28.

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