臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：提升自然科學思辨能力之雲端學習系統發展研究-以國小四年級自然與生活科技為例
作者：陳俊臣
作者(外文)：Chen, Jyun-Chen
校院名稱：國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱：科技應用與人力資源發展學系
指導教授：蕭顯勝
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2017
主題關鍵詞：科學思辨能力；POE探究學習模式；凱利方格技術；協同學習策略；Scientific critical thinking ability；POE inquiry learning model；Repertory Grid Technique；Collaborative Learning Strategy
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:6
科學教育的目的之ㄧ是讓學生學會如何去進行探究活動，也培養出批判思考能力。科學上的批判思考能力是指：資訊統整、對事物能夠做推論與批判、解決問題等整合性的能力，也就是本研究所稱的科學思辨能力。目前培養學生的科學思辨能力受到關注，包含：國際學生能力評量計畫（PISA）、美國二十一世紀技能夥伴計畫、我國教育部及許多科學教育相關研究都對此投入資源，開發批判思考能力之指標、測驗、或發展培養學生批判思考能力之課程。本研究參考過去研究發現：預測-觀察-解釋（Prediction-Observation- Explanation, POE）的POE探究學習模式能幫助學生逐步深入科學問題的核心、幫助學生進行自我解釋調整原先的迷思概念，以提升科學學習成效及科學思辨能力。故採用POE探究學習模式發展ㄧ套提升科學思辨能力之學習方法，並導入凱利方格技術及協同學習策略強化POE的探究學習效果，又利用雲端運算及智慧教室把真實的問題與情境帶給學生，幫助學生探索與解決科學問題以培養科學思辨能力。本研究採用準實驗研究法進行三期的教學實驗。第一期教學實驗進行5週，共有6個班級125位學生參與。結果發現POE探究學習模式能有效提升科學思辨能力，而且凱利方格技術、協同學習策略也能強化POE探究學習模式。第二期教學實驗進行一個學期，共有10個班級266位學生參與。研究結果印證了第一期教學實驗的發現，而且發現POE探究學習模式、凱利方格技術及協同學習策略，三者同時應用能有效協助提升科學思辨能力。第三期教學實驗進行一個學期，共有24個班級666位學生參與。再次印證第二期教學實驗的發現。最後，從整體教學實驗的歷程，本研究發現凱利方格技術能幫助POE建構知識基礎，讓學生在POE的探究歷程中，避免因為知識錯誤或不足的現象而造成學習困難；發現協同學習策略能幫助POE解決學習歷程中缺乏討論及形成結論的狀況，避免學生因個人資質限制造成學習困惑，讓學生藉由分享、討論與合作，促使學生修正概念、解決問題，達到互惠的效果。
Teaching students how to participate in activities that improve scientific critical thinking ability is the purpose of science education. Scientific critical thinking ability in research helps in understanding how to integrate information, make inferences about things, and solve problems. Improving students’ scientific critical thinking ability has received attention worldwide, such as the Program for International Student Assessment, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the Taiwanese Ministry of Education. Much research on science education has contributed to developing critical thinking competence indicators, assessment tools, and curricula. This study was based on the findings of previous studies, particularly the prediction-observation-explanation (POE) inquiry learning model, which aims at helping students understand core scientific problems step by step through self-explanation to correct misconceptions and to improve their scientific critical thinking ability. This study used the POE inquiry learning model to develop a learning method to improve students’ scientific critical thinking ability. The Repertory Grid Technique and the Collaborative Learning Strategy were assimilated into the POE inquiry learning process to strengthen the students’ learning effect. A cloud-based computing system and smart classroom were used to present real science situations to help students solve problems and improve their scientific critical thinking ability. A quasi-experimental method was used, and there were three experiments in this study. The first experiment was conducted for five weeks with 125 fourth grade students. The result showed that using the POE inquiry learning model improved students’ scientific critical thinking ability. Moreover, the Repertory Grid Technique (or the Collaborative Learning Strategy) could reinforce the effect of POE inquiry learning model. The second experiment was conducted for twenty weeks with 266 participates. The result proved the finding of the first experiment. Moreover, the results showed that using the POE inquiry learning model, the Repertory Grid Technique, and the Collaborative Learning Strategy improved students’ scientific critical thinking ability. The third experiment was conducted for twenty weeks with 666 participates. The result proved the finding of the second experiment. Finally, from the whole experimental process, the result showed that the Repertory Grid Technique helped students to integrate basic knowledge in the POE inquiry learning process so they could avoid learning difficulties caused by a lack of or incorrect knowledge, while the Collaborative Learning Strategy helped students to discuss and cooperate as a group to avoid learning difficulties caused by self-qualification.
王盈琪、王美芬（2006）。利用POE 教學模式探討國小三年級學童光迷思概念及其概念改變之成效。文章發表於：中華民國第二十二屆科學教育學術研討會。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學。
吳京玲、陳正專（2010）。美國《 二十一世紀核心技能》之探究。教育研究月刊，189，28-39。new window
吳宗哲（2011）。臺北市蓬萊國小雲端未來學校的理念與內涵。2014年9月20日取自http://www.tmue.edu.tw/~science/chiview/scitotal/st3802.pdf。
吳權威、林欣玫、許正妹（2011）。談智慧教室的創新教學與應用模式。新竹市教育電子報，54。2014年12月17日取自http://www.hceb.edu.tw/epaper/201109/tendency.asp.
吳權威、張奕華、許正妹、吳宗哲、王緒溢（2013）。智慧教室與創新教學理論及案例。臺北市：網奕資訊科技。
邱美虹（2000）。概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊，8，1-34。new window
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：心理。new window
張鈿富、吳慧子、吳舒靜（2010）。歐盟、美、澳「公民關鍵能力」發展及其啟示。教育資料集刊，48，273-300。new window
教育部（2008）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要社會學習領域。臺北：教育部。new window
莊思筠、賴阿福、馮清皇（2011）。數位化未來教室之探討。國教新知，58（1），30-51。
黃榮懷、胡永斌、楊俊鋒、肖廣德，（2012）。智慧教室的概念及特徵。開放教育研究，2（18），22-27。
楊凱悌、邱美虹、王子華（2009）。應用數位影音融入 POE 教學改善國小高年級學童脊椎動物分類另有概念之效益研究。科學教育學刊，17（5），387-407。new window
葉玉珠（2003）。批判思考測驗─第一級。臺北市：心理。
葉辰楨（2000）。POE模式在國一生物科教學之運用。文章發表於：中華民國第十六屆科學教育學術研討會。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學。
趙毓圻（2010）。PODE教學模式在資優科學課程設計之應用。資優教育季刊，117，25-32。
蕭顯勝、陳俊臣、卓沛彣（2015）。在智慧教室環境中利用POE探究式學習策略、凱利方格技術、協同學習模式協助學生提升自然科學學習成效。文章發表於第六屆全球華人探究學習創新應用大會（GCCIL2015），無錫。
鍾靜（2015）。以探究教學提昇學童數學概念之深度和廣度。國民教育，55（1），126-139。
蘇明勇（2003）。批判思考之思考批判：科學教育中的批判思考教學與評量。科學教育研究與發展季刊，2003專刊，88-119。
Arends, R. (1997). Classroom instruction and management. New York, NY: McGrawhill.
Asia Society (2015). What is PISA and Why Does it Matter? Retrieved Dec 25, 2015, from http://asiasociety.org/education/learning-world/what-pisa-and-why-does-it-matter.
Azrieli, Y., & Lehrer, E. (2007). Category generated by extended prototypes: An axiomatic approach. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 51(1), 14-28.
Beck, J., & Forstmeier, W. (2007). Superstition and belief as inevitable by-products of an adaptive learning strategy. Human Nature, 18, 35-46.
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of science apprenticeship programmer on high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487-509.
Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349-377.
Bezzi, A. (1996). Use of repertory grids in facilitating knowledge construction and reconstruction in geology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(2), 179-204.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of education goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Mckay.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds). (2000). Technology to support learning. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9853。
Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Lee, C. L. (2003). Web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 56-69.
Chao, Y. C. (2010). Using PODE teaching model on gifted science curriculum design. Gifted Education, 117, 25-32.
Chen, Y. L., Pan, P. R., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2013). Correcting misconceptions on electronics: Effects of a simulation-based learning environment backed by a conceptual change model. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 212-227.
Chen, Y. T. (2012). Communication of elementary school teachers in an asynchronous discussion net environment. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 57(1), 79-111.
Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). A knowledge engineering approach to developing Mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 54(1), 289-297.
Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Huang, S. X., & Wu, T. T. (2008). A knowledge engineering approach to developing e-libraries for mobile learning. The Electronic Library, 26(3), 303-317.
Coştu, B., Ayas, A., & Niaz, M. (2012). Investigating the effectiveness of a POE-based teaching activity on students’ understanding of condensation. Instructional Science, 40(1), 47-67.
Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A technique for internet-based learning. Distance educator, 1(2), 10-13.
Doelitzscher, F., Sulistio, A., Reich, C., Kuijs, H., & Wolf, D. (2010). Private cloud for collaboration and e-learning services: from IaaS to SaaS. Germany: Department of Computer Science Hochschule Furtwangen University.
Dong, B., Zheng, Q., Qiao, M., Shu, J., & Yang, J. (2009). Blue sky cloud framework: An e-Learning framework embracing cloud computing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 59(31), 577-582.
European Commission. Directorate-General for Employment, & Equal Opportunities. Unit D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: National public policies in the European Union. Office for official publications of the European communities.
Facione, P. A., Sánchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 44(1), 1-25.
Fransella, F., Bell, R., & Bannister, D. (2004). A manual for repertory grid technique. John Wiley & Sons.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2003). A theory of critical inquiry in online distance education. Handbook of distance education, 1, 113-127.
Gilbert, J. K., De Jong, O., Jusit, R., Treagust, D. F., & Van Driel, J. H. (2002). Towards research-based practice. Dordrecht The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Glaser, R., Schauble, L., Raghavan, K., & Zeitz, C. (1992). Scientific reasoning across different domains. In E. de Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 345-373). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Goldstone, R. L., Lippa, Y., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2001). Altering object representations through category learning. Cognition, 78(1), 27-43.
Goodrun, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2000). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: A research report prepared for the department of education, training and youth Affairs. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Gopnik, A. (2012). Scientific thinking in young children: theoretical advances. Science, 337, 1623-1627.
Gunstone, R. F. (1990). Children’s science: A decade of developments inconstructivist views of science teaching and learning. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(4), 9-19.
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer assisted learning, 21(2), 102-117.
Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80, 69-74.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 283-301.
Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds), Distance Education, International Perspectives, (pp. 114-122). NY: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.
Holt, L. C., & Kysilka, M. L. (2006). Instructional patterns: Strategies for maximizing student learning. London: Sage.
Hong, J. C., & Kao, J. Y. (2007). The crystal project: A study of inquiry-based science and technology learning in manufacturing settings. Paper presented at the Redesigning Pedagogy: Culture, Knowledge and Understanding Conference. National Institute of Education, Singapore.
Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Liu, M. C., Ho, H. Y., & Chen, Y. L. (2014). Using a “prediction–observation–explanation” inquiry model to enhance student interest and intention to continue science learning predicted by their Internet cognitive failure. Computers & Education, 72, 110-120.
Hsiao, H. S., Chang, C. S., Chen, C. J., Wu, C. H., & Lin, C. Y. (2013). The influence of Chinese character handwriting diagnosis and remedial instruction system on learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, (ahead-of-print), 1-19.
Hsiao, H. S., Chen, J. C., & Liu, T. C. (2016). Building a smart classroom-A case study of spreading inquiry-based nature science courses for elementary school in Taiwan. In ICT in Education in Global Context (pp. 211-227). Springer Singapore.
Hsu, C. Y., Tsai, C. C., & Liang, J. C. (2011). Facilitating preschoolers’ scientific knowledge construction via computer games regarding light and shadow: The effect of the prediction-observation-explanation (POE) strategy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 482-493.
Hsu, L. R., & Chiang, Y. T. (2005). Using the POE strategy to explore students’ alternative conceptions of combustibility. Research and Development in Science Education Quarterly, 38, 17-30.
Hsueh, Y. C. (2014). Adopting a learning community in a junior high school under the 12-year basic education system. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 59(1), 101-140.
Hung, J. F. (2010). The influences of a thinking-based inquiry learning intervention on eighth graders’ scientific inquiry abilities. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 389-415.
Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Lin, Y. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). A knowledge acquisition approach to developing mindtools for organizing and sharing differentiating knowledge in a ubiquitous learning environment. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1368-1377.
Hwang, G. J., Sung, H. Y., Hung, C. M., Yang, L. H., & Huang, I. (2013). A knowledge engineering approach to developing educational computer games for improving students’ differentiating knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 183-196.
Hwang, J. J., & Chang, C. Y. (2010). Make learning more successful: Ideas and strategies for adaptive curriculum and instruction. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 13(3), 1-22.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Kanselaar, G. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 59-88.
John, J. P. (2013). Preliminary study on using repertory grid technology to diagnose the mental model of force concept. Secondary Education, 64(1), 103-132.
Karamustafaoğlu, S., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2015). Electrochemistry concepts using the predict-observe-explain strategy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 923-936.
Kearney, M., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. G. (2001). Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported predict-observe-explain tasks to probe understanding. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 589-615.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). Psychology of personal constructs. NY: Norton.
Kim, K., Sharma, P., Land, S. M., & Furlong, K. P. (2013). Effects of active learning on enhancing student critical thinking in an undergraduate general science course. Innovative Higher Education, 38(3), 223-235.
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664-687.
King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111-126.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive-load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 31-42.
Kruckeberg, R. (2006). A deweyan perspective on science education: Constructivism, experience, and why we learn science. Science & Education, 15, 1-30.
Kucukozer, H. (2008). The effects of 3D computer modelling on conceptual change about seasons and phases of the moon. Physics Education, 43(6), 632-636.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
Kurz, T. L., & Middleton, J. A. (2006). Using a functional approach to change preservice teachers’ understanding of mathematics software. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 45-65.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). The nature of science and scientific inquiry. In G. Venville & V. Dawson (eds.), The Art of Teaching Science, (pp. 2-17). Singapore: Allen & Unwin.
Lederman, N. G. (2006). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. Abell & N. G. Lederman (eds.), Handbook of research on science education, (pp. 831-879). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Liew, C. W., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). The effectiveness of predict-observe-explain tasks in diagnosing students’ understanding of science and in identifying their levels of achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, April 13-17, 1998. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED420715)
Liew, C. W. (1995). A predict-observe-explain teaching sequence for learning about students’ understanding of heat and expansion of liquids. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41(1), 68-71.
Lin, H. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2011). A study of integrating mastery learning strategy into computer assisted instruction for scientific conceptual change at an elementary school. Instructional Technology & Media, 97, 45-63.
Lin, J. L., & Hsu, S. Y. (2007). A case study of a junior high teacher using 5E scientific inquiry fused cooperative strategies for developing an optic unit. Chinese Physics Education, 8(1), 1-16.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press.
Liu, L. C., Lu, C. C., & Lee, K. L. (2008). Research on Bloom’s mastery learning in science and technology of elementary school children. Bulletin of Research on Elementary Education, 18, 99-122.
Lowyck, J., & Pöysä, J. (2001). Design of collaborative learning environments. Computers in human behavior, 17(5), 507-516.
Lu, C. C., Hong, J. C., & Tsai, C. W. (2008). The promotion of pupil’s science achievement and scientific inquiry ability through the use of “5 Why” scaffolding strategies- “How to Make Bread” module as a teaching example. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 395-413.
Lu, C. C., Hong, J. C., & Chen, Y. Y. (2011). Practical experiential inquiry-based scaffold teaching method used in non-standard science education-A comparative study of children with different science inquiry learning ability. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 359-381
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Collaborative versus individual use of regulative software scaffolds during scientific inquiry learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(2), 105-117.
Marc, F., Heiko, N., & Georg, C. (2009). Cloud computing for the masses. Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on user-provided networking: challenges and opportunities, 31-36, New York, USA.
Marzano, R. J. (1990). Standardized tests: Do they measure general cognitive abilities. NASSP Bulletin, 74, 93-101.
Mell, P., & Grance, T. (2011). The NIST definition of cloud computing. Retrieved December 23, 2014, from http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York City, NY: McGraw-Hill.
OECD (2013). Draft science framework. Retrieved on Dec. 25, 2015 from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Science%20Framework%20.pdf.
OECD. (2006). The PISA 2006 assessment framework for science, reading and mathematics. Paris: OECD.
Oliveras, B., Márquez, C., & Sanmartí, N. (2013). The use of newspaper articles as a tool to develop critical thinking in science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 885-905.
Palmer, D. (1995). The POE in the primary school: An evaluation. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 323-332.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved Dec 25, 2013, from http://www.p21.org/documents/ P21_Framework_ Definitions.pdf.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61.
Peng, H. Y., Chuang, P. Y., Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Wu, T. T., & Huang, S. X. (2009). Ubiquitous performance-support system as Mindtool: A case study of instructional decision making and learning assistant. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 107-120.
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 171-186.
Piaget, J. (1971). The theory of stages in cognitive development. In D. R. Green, M.P. Ford & G.B. Flamer, (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget, (pp. 1-11). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pocatilu, P., Alecu, F., & Vetrici, M. (2010). Measuring the efficiency of cloud computing for e-learning systems. WSEAS Transactions on Computers, 9(1), 42-51.
Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: Divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 47(3), 332-351.
Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 82-94.
Raju, N. S., Price, L. R., Oshima, T. C., & Nering, M. L. (2007). Standardized conditional SEM: A case for conditional reliability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31(3), 169-180.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Institute of Educational Research. (Expanded edition, 1980. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.)
Reiff, R., Harwood, W., & Phillipson, T. (2002) A scientific method based upon research scientists' conceptions of scientific inquiry. 2002 AETS Proceedings.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 342-375.
Sato, M. (2010). The challenge of schools-Transcending the learning community, Q.-Q. Zhong (trans.). Shanghai, China: East China Normal University Press.
Sato, M. (2012). The revolution of learning-The education innovation starting from classrooms, Y.-L. Huang & Q.-Q. Zhong (trans.). Taipei, Taiwan: Common Wealth Parenting.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society, 67-98. Chicago: Open Court.
Schmid, E. C. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers and Education, 51, 1553-1568.
Schmittmann, B. D., Visser, I., & Raijmakers, M. E. J. (2006). Multiple learning modes in the development of performance on a rule-based category-learning task. Neuropshchologia, 44, 2079-2091.
Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective (3rd). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Shute, V. J. (1993). A comparison of learning environments: All that glitters. Computers As Cognitive Tools, 47-73.
Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just lipstick? Computers and Education, 51, 1321-1341.
So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318-336.
Stern, L., & Roseman, J. E. (2004). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from project 2061's curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 538-568.
Stinner, A. (2001). Linking the book of nature and the book of science: Using circular motion as an Exemplar beyond the textbook. Science & Education, 10, 323-344.
Suchman, J. R. (1964). The Illinois studies in inquiry training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 230-232.
Sun Microsystems, Inc. (2009). Introduction to cloud computing architecture: White paper (1st ed.). Santa Clara, CA: Author.
Sung, H. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students’ learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education, 63, 43-51.
Taber, K. S. (2008). Exploring conceptual integration in student thinking: Evidence from a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 1915-1943.
Tao, P. K., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39-57.
Torff. B., & Tirotta. R.（2010）.Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computer & Education, 54(2), 379-383.
Tsai, C. W. (2010). Do students need teacher’s initiation in online collaborative learning? Computers & Education, 54(4), 1137-1144.
Vogel, B., Spikol, D., Kurti, A., & Milrad, M. (2010). Integrating mobile, web and sensory technologies to support inquiry-based science learning. In Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education (WMUTE), 2010 6th IEEE International Conference, 65-72. IEEE.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang C. C., Hung J. C., Shih T. K., & Lin H. W. (2006). A repository-based question answering system for collaborative e-learning. Journal of Computers, 17(3), 55-68.
Westbrook, S. L. (1997). The labs done…Now what? In Perspectives on inquiry oriented teaching practice: Conflict and clarification. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
Wilhelm, J., Baker, T., & Dube, J. (2001). Scaffolding learning. Adapted from strategic reading: Guiding students to lifelong literacy. Retrieved August 8, 2013, from http://www.myread.org.
Wu, J., Ping, L., Ge, X., Wang, Y., & Fu, J. (2010). Cloud storage as the infrastructure of cloud computing. In Intelligent Computing and Cognitive Informatics (ICICCI), 2010 International Conference on (pp. 380-383). IEEE.
Wu, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Su, L. H., & Huang, Y. M. (2012). A context-aware mobile learning system for supporting cognitive apprenticeships in nursing skills training. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 223-236.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2005). The effect of constructivist-oriented science instruction on elementary school students’ cognitive structures about basic electromagnetism. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 387-411.
Yang, K. T., Chiu, M. H., & Wang, T. H. (2009). A study of the effectiveness of implementing digital video clips supported POE teaching strategy in improving elementary school high-grade students’ alternative conceptions about the classification of vertebrates. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 17, 387-407.
Yang, Y. T., & Wu, W. C. (2011). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 339-352.
Yuretich, F. R. (2004). Encouraging critical thinking: Measuring skills in large introductory science classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(3), 40-46.
Zacharia, Z. C. (2005). The impact of interactive computer simulations on the nature and quality of postgraduate science teachers’ explanations in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1741-1767.
Zhang, S., Zhang, S., Chen, X., & Wu, S. (2010). Analysis and research of cloud computing system. Paper presented at Analysis and Research of Cloud Computing System Instance,” The Second International Conference on Future Networks (ICFN), 88-92.
Zion, M., Michalsky, T., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2005). The effects of metacognitive instruction embedded within an asynchronous learning network on scientific inquiry skills. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 957-983.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：970（臺灣：966，外國：4） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1885225 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67690528
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上