:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:跨領域思維下運用科學史於大學通識課程之取徑
作者:鄭立婷 引用關係
作者(外文):CHENG, LI-TING
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:科學教育暨環境教育研究所
指導教授:洪振方
劉湘瑤
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2017
主題關鍵詞:科學史通識教育跨領域思維History of Sciencegeneral educationinterdisciplinary perspective
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(1) 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:1
本研究旨在探討不同領域之大學個案教師在運用科學史於科學通識課中的教學理念與特色,並從中找出科學史能在大學通識課程扮演的多元角色以及對跨領域思維的啟發。研究採質性研究中自然者探究的模式切入,透過現場觀察、深度訪談與文件收集等方式,對兩位分別為科學教育領域及科學史領域的專家所設計的科學史通識課進行研究資料之蒐集。研究結果之主要發現為:科學教育學者所開設的「科學本質」通識課,以明示反思教學策略引導學生察覺科學的不同樣貌,並透過深度的思考反思自身對科學的認識;科學史學者所開設的「達爾文革命」通識課,以歷史研究的角度切入,從經典閱讀中了解演化論發展的歷史脈絡,並從中探討何謂科學。透過兩位學者的課程可以發現,科學史在大學通識課程中可扮演讓學生理解科學本質、提升自我覺察與反思能力、增進論證與脈絡化思考能力之角色。而兩位學者乃分別以巨觀與微觀的角度切入,讓學生從兩種不同的歷史角度提升自身對科學的認識。根據研究發現,本研究借用太極兩儀之概念,建議跨領域思維下的科學史通識課可以結合不同領域之教學特色,設計能透過巨觀表徵與微觀機制的科學史脈絡,增進學生對科學的認識以及培養學生深度思考能力,以交互融合、相生相成的態度建構創新的科學史通識課。
This study aims to explore the teaching philosophy and characteristics of History of Science (HOS) in general education courses from an interdisciplinary perspective, and expects to find out the multiple roles of HOS and the enlightenment of interdisciplinary thinking. The case study was conducted with two university professors in two disciplines, one in science education, and the other one in history. The naturalistic inquiry method in terms of qualitative research is applied in the study, and the datais obtained byclassroom observations, in-depth interviews and document collection from two professors and their general education courses. Major findings are summarized as follows: The Science Education professor and the class named “Nature of Science“ intended to guide students to perceive different aspects of science by using an explicit-reflective teaching approach, and to examine their understandings of science through deeply thinking. The History of Science professor and the class named “Darwinian Revolution“, taught students to explore the definition of science from the perspective of historical research, by reading the classical articles, and to understand the historical development of evolutionary theories. By observing the teaching approaches of two professors, it is found that HOS can play a significant role in general education courses, which makes students understand the nature of science, to enhance their self-awareness and reflection ability, as well as to improve the argumentation and contextual thinking ability. In addition, two professors demonstrated HOS materials with analysis and integrated lenses respectively to help students improve the understandings of science. By using the concept of Tai-Chi Yin-Yang diagram, the findings of this study suggest a model of interdisciplinary HOS general education courses which can incorporate teaching characteristics of different disciplines and be designed to enhance students' understandings about science and reflective thinking abilities through the scientific history context. The innovative HOS general education courses may refer to the concept of a mutual whole with teaching approaches seemingly opposite but complementary to one another.
一、中文部分
王蓉、李樹財 (2008)。從科學史看人文與科學精神的融合。宜春學院學報,30(1),15-19。
王財印 (2008)。產婆法與發問技巧。載於王財印、吳百祿、周新富合著:教學原理。台北:心理出版。
江曉原(2000)。為什麼需要科學史。上海交通大學學報,8(4)。
向鴻全 (2012)。經典與反經典-臺灣高等教育中經典閱讀活動的省思。通識教育學刊,9,69-83。
任孔冰 (2010)。論大學生知識整合能力的培養。中國電力教育,24,15 – 16。
李金連(2004)。從人文與科技的融合問題探究學校教育中之通識教育。科學教育月刊,268,20-30。
李建珊、賈向桐 (2009)。當代科學教育中的科學史向度。廣西民族大學學報,2。http://sts.gxun.edu.cn/info/1019/1476.htm
李宗薇 (1997)。教學設計。載於黃政傑主編:教學原理。67-116,台北:師大書苑。
李咏吟 (1995)。教學原理。台北:遠流。
李道緝 (2008)。通識歷史。台北:二魚文化。
呂增建 (2009)。科學史的素質科普價值。焦作大學學報,4,118-119。
呂仕儒 (2007)。科學史教學與創造性思維的培養。 山西大同大學學報(自然科學版),23(2),93-96。
巫俊明 (1997)。歷史導向物理課程對學生之科學本質的了解、科學態度、及物理學科成績之影響。物理教育,1(2),64-84。
吳清基(1990)。精緻教育的理念。台北:師大書苑。
吳清山、林天祐(2000)。知識經濟。教育資料與研究,37,100。
吳芝儀、李鳳儒(譯) (1995)。 Q. Patton著。質的評鑑與研究。台北:桂冠。
吳瑞珠 (2015)。經典是跨越學科與世代的對話橋樑,通識在線,56。
http://www.chinesege.org.tw/geonline/html/page4/publish_pub.php?Pub_Sn=120&Sn=1781
吳百祿 (2008)。合作學習法,載於王財印、吳百祿、周新富合著:教學原理。台北:心理出版。
宋家復(譯) (2016)。S. Wineburg, D. Martin, C. Monte-San著。像史家一般閱讀:在課堂裡教歷史閱讀素養。台北:國立台灣大學出版中心。
林從一 (2014)。台灣通識教育發展歷程,長庚人文社會學報,7(2),191 – 253。
林樹聲 (2001)。科學通識課程之設計與實施―以 “現代科技爭議探討” 課程為例。通識教育, 8 (2),109-134。
林樹聲 (2004)。通識素養的培育與爭議性科技議題的教學。南華大學通識教學中心2,25-37。
林財庫 (2001)。系統典範及《周易》之思維方式對現代認知科學與科學認識的啟發,高雄師大學報,13,30-50。
林佩璇 (1999)。學校本位課程發展的個案研究:臺北縣鄉土教學活動的課程發展。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北。
林崇熙、傅大為 (1995)。歷史中的台灣科學-關於「台灣科學史」研究的回顧與檢討,新史學,6( 4),165-199。
林陳涌、鄭榮輝、張永達 (2009)。融入科學史教學對高中學生的科學本質觀、對科學的態度以及學習成就的影響。科學教育學刊,17(2),93-109。
周暢、段耀勇 (2005)。科學史的向度與歷史歸屬。淮陰師範學院學報(哲學社會科學版), 27(1),35 – 39。
周祝瑛 (2010)。台灣社會變遷中高等教育的挑戰。第7屆兩岸高等教育學術研討會:高等教育與未來社會。台北,國立政治大學,2010年10月17日。
周新富 (2008)。直接教學法,載於王財印、吳百祿、周新富合著:教學原理。台北:心理出版。
邱明富(2003)。科學史融入教學以提昇國小學童科學本質觀與對科學態度之行動研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。
邱明富、高慧蓮(2004)。科學史融入教學以提昇國小學童科學本質觀之研究。國立臺北師範學院學報,17(1),183〜214。
邱明富、高慧蓮(2006)。科學史融入教學對國小學童科學本質觀影響之探究。科學教育學刊,14(2),163-187。
邱韻如 (2014)。讓實驗與教學出頭天的英國皇家學會與皇家科學院。物理雙月刊,36(5),357-364。
洪振方(1997)。科學史融入科學教學之探討。高雄師大學報,8,233-246。
洪振方(1998)。在科學教學的另類選擇:融入科學史教學。屏師科學教育月刊,7,2-10。
洪振方(1999)。從科學史與科學哲學的探討反思學生社群科學知識的重建與問題。物理教育,3(4),58-84。
洪健榮 (2001)。從歷史認知科學-科學哲學家Larry Laudan對於史學的反省與實踐。輔仁歷史學報,12,153 – 184。
胡昌智 (2012)。介紹德國一個歷史教學研究計畫:提升與發展反思的歷史意識。清華歷史教學,22,133。
徐光台 (1995) 。從科學史的觀點來看通識教育中科學教育與人文教育的會通問題,通識教育季刊,2(2),1-21。
徐光台(1999)。科學史與科學通識教育:以達爾文《物種源始》為例。通識教育季刊,6(4), 37-48。
袁維新 (2005) 。國外科學史融入科學課程的研究綜述,比較教育研究,10,62-67。https://kknews.cc/education/395olr8.html
翁秀玉、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,201,2-16。
殷海光 (1990)。學術與思想(二)。台北:桂冠。
教育部(1984)。大學通識教育選修科目實施要點。高字第一一九八六號函及附件。
教育部(2006)。教育部通識教育中程綱要計畫(第一年/96-99 年度) ──通識教育領航、行動與整合計畫》,http://hss.edu.tw/upload/user/file/GE/ 9699geproject.pdf。
教育部(2015)。教育部重編辭典修訂本。台北:教育部。
陳恒安 ( 2004)。煉金術,科學與歷史課。科學發展,384,77-79。
陳恒安(2005)。南華大學通識課程自然領域經典教學:以達爾文《物種起源》為例。南華通識教育研究,3, 27-42。
陳恒安(2007)。〈科學月刊〉中與演化論相關的爭議1970-2006。科技、醫療與社會, 5, 183-227。
陳恒安(2008)。"Evolution" in Senior High School Biology Textbooks: 1964-2008。生物學哲學與經濟哲學國際研討會論文集。中正大學哲學系,2008年11月21日。
陳恒安(2009)。高中歷史課本中的達爾文與「進」化論,科學發展, 83- 85。
陳瑞麟(2015) 。通識的STS化與STS的通識化。通識在線,60。http://www.chinesege.org.tw/geonline/html/page4/publish_pub.php?Pub_Sn=128&Sn=1887
陳懷萱 (2015)。史丹福大學:科技與人文跨領域是創新教育的養分。社會創新人才培育網通訊,4-6。
陳麗瑛 (1999)。科學史、哲融入生命科學通識教育之研究。國立高雄師範大學碩士論文。未出版,高雄。
陳復 (2016) 。革新大學通識教育課程的創新教學機制。通識學刊:理念與實務,4(2),121- 152。
陳向明 (2002) 。社會科學質的研究。台北:五南。
陳冠華(1999)。英國歷史教育改革理念之歷史科的內容。清華歷史教學, 10,24-44。
張子超 (2014)。創新的涵義和啟發。通識在線,50。http://www.chinesege.org.tw/geonline/html/page4/publish_pub.php?Pub_Sn=9&Sn=1622
張玉成 (1993)。思考技巧與教學。台北:心理。
張晶 (2009)。科學史教育的歷史考察:將科學史引入科學教育的歷程。自然辯證法通訊, 31(1),62 – 65。
張榮耀 (2000)。以科學史與本體論的觀點探討概念改變的機制。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所,碩士論文,未出版,台北。
張譽騰 (2000)。側看史諾與《兩種文化》。載於林志成、劉藍玉(譯),P. C. Snow著。兩種文化。台北:貓頭鷹。
張漢雲、劉宏全 (2006)。科學、歷史、人文、哲學-關於高等院校文科專業自然科學史教學的幾點思考。陝西教育學院學報,22(2),1 – 5。
許良榮、李英田(1995)。科學史在科學教學的角色與功能。科學教育月刊,179,15-27。
許良榮(1999)。科學史與科學教學---一些省思與建議。物理教育,3(1),93-101。
許良榮、侯志洋 (2002)。國小自然科教師對科學史融入教學之態度(2):晤談研究。台中師院學報,16,551-576。
許德發 (2000)。專科學生對科學的態度、生物學科的自我效能與其營養健康信念表徵、學業成就之關係研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所,博士論文,未出版。
許憶君 (2016)。影片示範教學提升國小學習障礙學生整數乘除法應用題解題成效之研究。台中教育大學特殊教育研究所,碩士論文,未出版。
許重傑 (2015)。超大型積體電路技術實習課程學習成效評估之研究。科技與工程教育學刊,46(2),11-29
郭重吉 (2010)。從大學生核心能力的培養談科學通識教育。通識在線,26。
http://www.chinesege.org.tw/geonline/html/page4/publish_pub.php?Pub_Sn=43&Sn=868
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,165-193。師大中等教育輔導委員會。
彭明輝 (1995)。歷史地理學與現代中國史學。台北:東大圖書。
黃光雄、簡茂發(1993)。教育研究法。台北:師大書苑。
黃俊傑(1996)。歷史思維的特質。通識教育, 3(1),31- 41。
黃俊傑(2001)。邁向二十一世紀大學通識教育的新境界:從普及到深化。通識教育,8(4),49-62。
黃俊傑(2003)。歷史知識與歷史思考。台北:國立台灣大學出版中心。
黃俊傑(2006)。台灣各大學院校通識教育現況:對於評鑑報告的初步觀察, 通識學刊:理念與實務,1(1),183-224。
黃俊傑(2008)。全球化時代的大學通識教育與文化傳承:問題與方向,通識學刊:理念與實務。1(3),1-14。
黃俊傑(2015)。大學通識教育的理念與實踐。台北:國立台灣大學出版中心。
黃俊儒 (2015)。STS對於通識教育的最大啟示:回歸知識的緣起。通識在線,60。
http://www.chinesege.org.tw/geonline/html/page4/publish_pub.php?Pub_Sn=128&Sn=1889
黃政傑、林佩璇 (1996)。合作學習,台北:五南。
單小琳 (2000) 。多元評量,台北:聯經。
湯堯、徐慧芝、蘇建洲 (2016)。大學校院理工科系跨領域課程品質評估量表發展之研究,教育科學研究期刊, 61(1),91 – 113。
程樹德、傅大為、王道還、錢永祥(譯) (1994)。 T. Kuhn著。科學革命的結構。台北: 遠流。
楊雅惠 (2015) 交互教學法融入國小五年級少年小說閱讀教學之行動研究。區域與社會發展研究,6,31-61。
楊雅婷(譯)(2010)。John J. MacAloon著。社會科學的通識教育。台北:韋伯。
楊燕玉 (2001)。 科學故事課程對國小五年級學童科學本質觀與對科學的態度影響之研究。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所,碩士論文,未出版。
詹志華 (2008)。論科學史的創新意蘊,自然辯證法通訊,30(5) ,63-68。
詹志禹 (2013)。跨域整合與創新,通識在線,49。http://www.chinesege.org.tw/geonline/html/page4/publish_pub.php?Pub_Sn=10&Sn=1586
鄒川雄 (2006)。通識教育與經典詮釋:一個教育社會學的反省。嘉義縣:南華教社所。
溫明麗 (2003)。詮釋典範與教育研究。教育研究方法論:觀點與方法研討會。2003年四月。
葉重新 (2004)。教育研究法,台北:五南。
賈士蘅(譯) (2006)。Keith Jenkins著。歷史的再思考。台北:麥田。
廖麗貞、洪振方 (2000)。科學史、哲融入大學生命科學通識教育教學模式之初探。高雄師大學報, 11,241-265。
廖麗貞、林寶英、洪振方(2000)。將達爾文演化論發展史融入大學生命科學通識課程之研究。科學教育學刊,8(2),179-198。
鄭泰昇、王靖婷 (2016)。無邊界校園:大學未來的想像與省思。通識在線,63。http://www.chinesege.org.tw/geonline/html/page4/publish_pub.php?Pub_Sn=134&Sn=1966
鄭秀如、林煥祥 (1998)。科學史對高中學生學習成就之影響,科學與教育學報,20,205-222。
蔣景華 (2009)。開展「實驗室科學史」的研究。實驗室科學,4,1-4。
潘淑滿 (2008)。質性研究-理論與應用。台北:心理。
劉海霞 (2009)。提高公民科學素質不應忽略科學史教育。科技管理研究,8,564 – 566。
蔡筱梅 (2005)。知識整合機制對團隊學習績效的影響,中央大學企業管理研究所,碩士論文,未出版。
戰克勝 (2008)。「互動式歷史小故事」在大學通識科學教育之應用研究,科學教育學刊,16( 2),125-146。
謝州恩、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。
韓延明 (2003)。大學理念論綱。北京:人民教育出版社。
鍾愛、黃富昌 (2006)。技專校院通識課程「永續發展」教學策略之初探。 2006 台灣環境資源永續發展研討會論文集,桃園縣,台灣環境資源永續發展協會 。
鍾菁菁 (2014)。理解式球類教學介紹與實務應用。國立臺灣體育運動大學體育學系(所)刊,13,35-46。
蕭瑞麟 (2011)。不用數字的研究:質性研究的思辯脈絡。台北:五南。

二、西文部分
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of science in science education: Toward a coherent framework for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & McRobbie, C. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 2) (pp. 1041-1060). The Netherlands: Springer.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057-1095.
Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72(1), 73–82.
Akerson, V. L, Abd-El-Khalick, F., & 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(4), 295 – 317.
Allchin, D. (2000). How not to teach historical case studies in science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33,33-37.
Andreasen, J. (2012). History of the Dental Trauma Guide. Dent Traumatol, 28(5), 336-44.
Bandura, A. (1971). Behavior therapy from a social learning perspective. Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Psychology. London, England.
Bencze, L., & Elshof, L. (2004). Science teachers as metascientists: An inductive-deductive dialectic immersion in northern alpine field ecology. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1507-1526.
Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2001). A genealogy of the increasing gap between science and the public. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 99–113.
Borich, G.D. (1996). Effective teaching methods (3rd Ed). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Knowledge integration and wise engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER): 1(1). Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1026
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 Erlbaum.
Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and Common Sense. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
Dain, P. (2000). The historical sensibility. Libraries & Culture, 35(1), 240-243.
Davson-Galle, P. (2002). Science, Values and Objectivity. Science & Education, 11, 191-202.
Day, M. (2008). The Philosophy of History, London: Continuum.
Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education,14, 33-62.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
Eggen, P-O., Kvittingen, L., Lykknes, A., & Wittje, R. (2012). Reconstructing Iconic Experiments in Electrochemistry: Experiences from a History of Science Course. Science & Education. 21(2), 179-189.
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (1998). The role of Socratic questioning in thinking, teaching, and learning. The Clearing House, 71(5), 297-302.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrockk (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd). New York, NY: MacMillan, 119-161
Fisher, R. (2012). Talking to think: why children need philosophical discussion, in D. Jones and P. Hodson (eds), Unlocking speaking and listening, 2nd. London: David Fulton, 94–107.
Gall, M. (1984). Synthesis of research of teachers’ questioning. Educational Leadership, 42(3), 40-47.
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.
Gooday, G., Lynch, J.M., Wilson, K.G. & Barsky, C.K. (2008). Does science education need the history of science? Isis, 99, 322-330.
Guba, E. (1990). The paradigm dialog. London: Sage.
Gullen, J. (2012). Essaying the past. How to read, write, and think about history. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Heering, P. (2000). Getting shocks: Teaching secondary school physics through history. Science & Education, 9 (4), 363-373.
Hendrick, R. M. (1992). The role of history in teaching science—A case study. Science & Education.1, 145-162.
Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Irwin, A. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education. 84(1), 5-26.
Jones, R.(1989). The historiography of science: retrospect and future challenge. In M. Shortland& A. Warwick(eds.), Teaching the history of science. Basil Blackwell: The British Society for the History of Science. (p.80-99)
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-91.
Kauchak, D.P. & Eggen, P. D. (2006). Strategies and models for teachers teaching content and thinking skills, 5th edition, Pearson Education Inc.
Kauffman, G. B. (1991). History in the chemistry curriculum. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), History, philosophy, and science teaching: Selectedreadings. (pp. 185-200). Toronto & New York: OISE Press, Teachers College Press.
Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design. Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 3-4.
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.
Khishfe, R. & Abd Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry‐oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.
Kimball, M. E. (1967). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(2), 110-120.
Kipnis, N. (1996). The 'historical-investigative' approach to teaching science. Science & Education, 5(3), 277-292.
Klopfer,L.E.,& Watson,F.G. (1957).Historical materials and high school science teaching. The Science Teacher, 24, 264-265; 292-293.
Kohn, A. (2015). Who's Asking? Educational Leadership, 73(1), 16-22.
Kortemeyer, G., & Westfull, C. (2009). History of Physics: Outing the Hidden Curriculum? American Journal of Physics, 77, 875-81.
Kuhn, T. S.(1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, A. E.(1979). Relationships among performances on group-administered items of formal reasoning.Journal of Psychology, 96, 235–241.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conception 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 the nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 916-929.
Levine, D. N.(2008). Obama and Ethiopia II: Time for new visions. Ethiopian review. Retrieved from http://www.eineps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=751&sid=65407ef7227153e2da4d07b66737e87c.
Lichtman, M. (2010).Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. London: Sage.
Mackinnon, D. W. (1987). Some critical issues for further research in creativity. In Isaksen, S. G. (ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research, Bearly Ltd., Buffalo, NY, pp. 120-130.
Mandell, N. (2008).Thinking like a Historian: A Framework for Teaching and Learning. OAH Magazine of History. 55-59.
Mandell, N., & Malone, B. (2008). Thinking like a historian: rethinking history instruction. Madison, WI: Wisconsin historical society press.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research. Thousands Oaks, Calif: Sage.
Martin-Hanesn, L. M. (2008). First-year college students’ conflict with religion and science. Science & Education, 17(4), 317-357.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Rutledge.
McComas, W. F., & Yager, R. E. (1989). The Iowa assessment package for evaluation in five domains of science education. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa, Science Education Center.
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2-3), 249-263.
McComas, W. F., & Kampourakis, K. (2015). Using the history of biology, chemistry, geology, and physics to illustrate general aspects of nature of science. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 9(1), 47-76.
McGregor, D. (2007). Developing thinking developing learning. Poland: Open University Press.
Mendelsohn, A. (2003). Why study the history of science, medicine and technology? History today. Retrieved from http://www.historytoday.com/andrew-mendelsohn/why-study-history-science-medicine-and-technology
Miles, M. B., & Habermm, A. M. (1994). The qualitative researchers companion. 2 London: Sage.
Millar, R., & Driver, R.(1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education,14, 33-62.
Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model of development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405–425.
National Research Council [NRC].(1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Niaz, M. (2016). Chemistry education and contributions from history and philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Norman, O. (1998) Marginalized discourses and scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 365-374.
Oldroyd, D. R.(1977). Teaching the history of chemistry in New South Wales secondary schools. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 23(2), 9-22.
Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Osborne, J. (2006). Ideas, evidence and argument in science education. Paper presented at the Meeting of International Workshop of Argumentation in Science Teaching and Learning, Taipei, Taiwan.
Padilla, K. & Furio-Mas, C. (2008). The importance of history and philosophy of science in correcting distorted views of ‘Amount of Substance’ and ‘Mole’ concepts in chemistry teaching. Science & Education. 17(4), 403-424.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Portugali, J. (2011). Complexity, cognition and the city, Heidelberg: Springer.
Huang, R. & Li, Y. (2012). What matters most: A comparison of expert and novice teachers' noticing of mathematics classroom events. School Science and Mathematics. 112(7), 420–432.
Roach, L. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1993). Short story science: Using historical vignettes as a teaching tool, The Science Teacher, 60, 18-21.
Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education. 18(5), 561-580.
Sadler, T. D. (2005). Evolutionary theory as a guide to socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Biological Education, 39(2), 68-72.
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 (p.306-312). Tallahassee: Florida State University.
Sarton, G. (1970). A history of science: Ancient science through the golden age of Greece, Harvard University Press.
Schecker, H. P. (1992). The paradigmatic change in mechanics: Implication of historical processes for physics education. Science & Education, 1(1), 71-76.
Schneider, M. (2011). Commentary 2: Knowledge integration in mathematics learning: The case of inversion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(3), 447-453
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, 205-236.
Shane, J. W., Binns, I. C., Meadows, L., Hermann, R.S., & Benus, M.J. (2016). Beyond evolution: Addressing broad interactions between science and religion in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27 (2), 165-181.
Sharan, Shaulov (1990) Group
Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn, and academic achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning theory and research. New York, NY: Praeger. (p.173-202)
Shortland, M., & Warwick, A.(1989). Teaching the history of science. Basil Blackwell: The British Society for the History of Science. (p.1-16)
Siegel, H. (1979). On the distortion of the history of science education. Science education, 63(1), 111-118.
Solbes, J., & Traver, M. (2003). Against a negative image of science: History of science and the teaching of physics and chemistry. Science & Education, 12(7), 703-717.
Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scott, 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.
Sternberg, R., & Spear-Swerling, L. (1996). Teaching for Thinking. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Stern, L. (2004) Effective assessment: Probing students' understanding of natural selection. Journal of Biological Education, 39(1), 12-17.
Stuckey, M., Heering, P., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A. & Eilks, I. (2015). The philosophical works of Ludwik Fleck and their potential meaning for teaching and learning science. Science & Education, 24(3), 281-298.
Turchetti, S., Herran, N., & Boudia, S., (2012). Introduction: Have we ever been “transnational”? Towards a history of science across and beyond borders. British Journal for the History of Science, 45(3), 319-336.
Van Eemeren, F. H. (1995). A world of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 17(2), 144-158.
Wang, H. A., & Marsh, D. D. (2002). Science instruction with a humanistic twist: Teachers` perception and practice in using the history of science in their classrooms. Science & Education, 11(2), 169-189.
Yelon, S. L. (2001). Goal-directed instructional design: A practical guide to instructional planning for teachers and trainers. Michigan State University: Self-published.
Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2015). Metacognition and teaching higher order thinking (HOT) in science education: Students' thinking, teachers' knowledge and instructional practices. In R. Wegerif, J. Kaufman & L. Li (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 229-242). Oxon, UK: Routledge.







 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE