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：探討以「建模導向探究」及「專題導向探究」的教學策略融入「探究與實作｣課程設計下之學生學習成果
作者：蔡哲銘
作者(外文)：Tsai, Che-Ming
校院名稱：國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱：科學教育研究所
指導教授：邱美虹
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2020
主題關鍵詞：探究與實作；專題導向探究；建模導向探究；科學素養；模型；Science Inquiry and Practice；Project-Based Inquiry；Modeling-Based Inquiry；Scientific Literacy；Model
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:1
隨著「探究與實作」課程被列為部定必修課程，大考中心規劃將重視情境脈絡且能運用科學上的方法論的素養導向試題列為大學考試的命題方向。另一個受到矚目的是學生在課程產出的實作作品，將成為未來申請大學時的重要資料。本研究將兩種教學設計－「專題導向探究」及「建模導向探究」的教學策略融入「探究與實作｣課程。兩組課程大致分成兩個階段。第一階段先由教師利用三周的教學分別協助不同組的學生搭設探究歷程或建模歷程的鷹架，第二階段學生再利用三周的時間進行開放式問題的探究。同時，本研究改編PISA試題及歷年全國科展作品，設計科學素養導向測驗。並探討學生在課程前後的科學素養變化以及在課程中產出之實作作品的情形作為學生學習的成果表現。此外，有鑑於科學教育領域對於模型與建模的日漸重視，本研究將比較學生在兩種模式下對於模型本質的了解與建模能力的培養情形。
研究結果顯示，專題導向探究組在科學素養測驗在總分、提出可驗證觀點、尋找變因或條件、分析資料和呈現證據、提出結論或解決方案及表達與溝通等項目後測優於前測，且達顯著差異。而建模導向探究組僅在總分、分析資料和呈現證據、及表達與溝通等項目後測優於前測，且達顯著差異。在運用Johnson - Neyman法比較兩組探究模式在科學素養測驗的表現時，在總分、論證與建模、表達與分享等項目，皆得到專題導向探究教學適合素養評量前測較高的學生學習，而建模導向探究教學適合素養評量前測較低的學生學習的推論。而在發現問題與規劃與研究則以共變數進行分析，兩組無顯著差異。
而在模型本質問卷的施測結果，建模導向探究組在模型本體面向、認識面向與方法面向，前後測的t-檢定顯示後測優於前測，且達顯著差異。專題導向探究組的問卷前後測t-檢定顯示僅在模型本體面向後測優於前測，且達顯著差異。進一步兩組前後測共變量的分析顯示，在模型本體、認識與方法等三個面向，建模導向探究組的表現皆優於專題導向探究組，且達顯著差異。
在建模能力測驗的表現上，使用費雪精確檢定結果顯示，兩組的學生在模型選擇、模型效化兩項度的表現有差異，而在模型建立及模型應用與調度皆未達顯著差異。其中又以建模組在高層級(Level4與Level5)的人數多於探究組，可知建模教學有助於提升模型選擇與模型效化之建模能力。
在學生實作作品方面，建模導向探究組的學生分為8組，其中2組的成果能夠利用科學理論驗證模型並應用於其他情境，有4組可以建立模型的延伸關係，有2組可以建立模型的成分關係。對於開放性探究問題，建模導向探究組的學生能夠掌握選擇正確變因、並且能透過實作找到變因之間的定性關係，但是距離科學社群能夠形成模型解釋實作成果仍有一段差距。
在專題導向探究組將學生分為8組，有7組完成作品，但有1組未完成實驗驗證。評量結果顯示，在有7組在「提出適合科學探究問題」、有6組在「提出符合研究問題的設計」、有5組在「能分析數據」、有5組在「會製作並應用圖表」、有7組在「提出結論或建立模型」方面達到3分(可)以上。對於開放性探究問題，專題導向探究組的學生能夠掌握控制變因實驗方法的設計、認為本課程在實驗設計幫助最多，但仍會體會到問題的複雜與不確定性。
整體而言，以｢專題導向探究」及「建模導向探究」的教學策略融入「探究與實作｣課程，學生有豐富的學習成效也多能產出實作作品。｢專題導向探究」設計在培養學生科學素養的成果較佳，而「建模導向探究」則在培養學生對模型本質的概念與建模能力有較好的效果。兩組學生對於開放式的真實問題探究，皆體會到問題的複雜與不確定性，必要時教師需要協助對學生的探究調查技巧以及科學背景知識搭設鷹架，才能引導學生克服真實探究問題的挑戰。
This study integrates two instructional designs—“project-based inquiry” and “modeling-based inquiry”—into the “Science Inquiry and Practice” curriculum. The two sets of curricula are divided into two stages. In the first stage, teachers spend three weeks scaffloding students the inquiry or modeling process. In the second stage, students use another three weeks to conduct research for investigating open-ended questions.
With the “Science Inquiry and Practice” curriculum listed as a required course stipulated by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan, the College Entrance Examination Center has planned to apply literacy-oriented test questions, which are regarded as a context-focused and scientific methodology, to designing test items for national examnination for university admissions. Another focus is the practical works produced by students in their hands-on courses which will serve as an important portfolio used for their future university application. This research has designed scientifically literacy-oriented tests adapted from the PISA assesement and students’ works of the annual national science exhibitions. It will also explore the differences of students’ scientific literacy before and after the course and analyze students’ learning performance in light of their practical works produced in the course. In addition, this study will compare the extent to which students understand the essence of models and how teachers cultivate students’ modeling capability under the two modes of inquiry, given an increasing emphasis on models and modeling in the field of science education.
The results of this study illustrated that the performances of the project-based inquiry group in posttests were far superior to those in pretests with significant differences in these performances. These performances included “overall scores,” “abilities to give a verifiable perspective,” “the search for variables or conditions,” “analysis of data and presentation of evidence,” “ability to draw conclusions or provide solutions,” and “expression and communication.” Applying the Johnson-Neyman procedure to comparing the two groups of inquiry models in the scientific literacy test, this study discovered that in terms of overall scores, argumentation and modeling, as well as expression and sharing items, the project-based inquiry pedagogy were suitable for students with higher levels of achievement in the scientific literacy test. In addition, this study also found that modeling-based inquiry pedagogy were suitable for students with higher levels of achievement in the scientific literacy test. However, after identifying problems and planning and research were analyzed by covariates, this study found that there was no significant distinction between the two groups.
In the nature of model questionnaire, the t-test of the modeling-based inquiry group showed that its posttests were better than pretests in terms of the model ontology, cognition and methodology with significant differences among these tests. Based on the questionnaires of the project-based inquiry group carried out by the pre-and-post t-tests, the results showed that the posttests were better than the pretests only in terms of the model ontology, and they reached a significant difference level. However, there is no significant difference in cognitive perspective and methodological perspective. A further analysis of the pre-and-post-test covariates of the two groups revealed that the modeling-based inquiry group outperformed the topic-based inquiry group on model ontological perspective, cognitive perspective, and methodological perspective with significant differences in these three aspects.
In the performance of the modeling ability test, Fisher’s accurate test results showed that the two groups of students produced different performances in model selection and model validity, but there was no significant difference in model construction, model use and deployment. Furthermore, students in the modeling-based inquiry group at the higher level (Level 4 and Level 5) outnumbered those in the project-based inquiry group. Therefore, it was apparent that modeling instruction facilitated the modeling ability associated with model selection and model validity.
In terms of students’ practical works, students in the modeling-based inquiry group were divided into 8 groups. Among these 8 groups, 2 groups could be able to examine models using scientific theories and apply them to other scenarios. Four groups could be able to build an extended relationship of the model while another 2 groups could be able to form the component relationship of the model. As far as the open-ended questions were concerned, students could select the correct variables ; besides, through hands-on courses, they could find the qualitative relationship among the variables. Nevertheless, there was a large discrepancy between students’ practical works and the models constructed by scientific communities.
In addition, students were divided into 8 groups in the project-based inquiry group. 7 groups completed the inquiry works and submitted reports, but 1 group failed to complete the experimental verification. In general, students perform better in “raising questions suitable for scientific inquiry” and “being able to come up with designs that meet research questions,” whereas there is room for growth in “being capable of analyzing data” and “being able to produce and apply charts.”As far as the open-ended questions were concerned, students in the project-based inquiry group could conduct experiments with selecting the correct variables but experience these questions’ complexity and uncertainty. Students feel that this curriculum helps a lot when they design an experiment.
Overall, the students had an abundance of learning outcomes and produced practical works under the “project-based inquiry” and “modeling-based inquiry” teaching strategies integrated in the “Science Inquiry and Practice” curriculum. “Project-based inquiry” designs achieved better results when applied to cultivating students’ scientific literacy, while “modeling-based inquiry” was more effective in cultivating students’ concepts of the essence of models and developing their modeling ability. Dealing with the inquiry of open-ended questions, the two groups of students experienced these questions’ complexity and uncertainty. Teachers need to assist students in scaffolding the skills of investigation and prior knowledge of science wherever necessary so that they can instruct students how to overcome the challenge of investigating authentic problems.
參考文獻
中文部分
林煥祥（2009）。科學素養的評量。科學發展，438，66-69。
洪振方(2003)。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。高雄師大學報，15，641-662。
洪振方、封中興（2011）。以「探索-論證- 評價」為基礎的探究教學模式在國中自然科之教學成效。科學教育研究與發展季刊，60，1-34。
吳明珠（2008）。科學模型本質剖析：認識論面向初探。科學教育月刊，306，2-8。
吳百興、張耀云、吳心楷（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。
翁群評(2016)。學科能力測驗自然考科與科學素養評量之關連性探討。考試學刊，11，42-76頁
周金城（2008)。探究中學生對科學模型的分類與組成本質的理解。科學教育月刊，306，10-17。
邱美虹（2015）。以系統化方式進行模型與建模能力之線上教學與評量系統—探討科學課程、概念發展路徑與建模能力之研究。科技部計畫報告。
邱美虹（2008）。模型與建模能力之理論架構。科學教育月刊，306，2-9。
邱美虹（2016）。科學模型、科學建模與建模能力。臺灣化學教育，第十一期。網頁：http://chemed.chemistry.org.tw/?p=13898。
邱美虹和劉俊庚（2008）。從科學學習的觀點探討模型與建模能力。科學教育月刊，314，2-20。
陳毓凱、洪振方（2007）。兩種探究取向教學模式之分析與比較。科學教育月刊，305，4-19。
曾茂仁（2016）。探討建模本位探究教學於化學電池的學習成效與建模能力
國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
楊琇停和王國華（2007）。實施引導式探究教學對於國小學童學習成效之影響。科學教育月刊，15(4)，439-459。
教育部（2000）。國民中小學九年一貫課程總綱。台北：教育部。
張志康（2009）。從概念改變理論探究建模教學對學生力學心智模式與建模能力之影響。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
國家教育研究院(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校——自然科學領域。查詢日期：2018年11月20日，檢自https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/63/pta_18538_24Y0851_60502.pdf。
劉俊庚（2010）。探討模型與建模對於學生學習原子概念之影響。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
劉湘瑤(2016)。科學探究的教學與評量。科學研習，55(2)，5-11
鐘建坪（2010）。引導式建模導向探究教學初探。科學教育月刊，328,2-19。
鐘建坪（2013）。模型本位探究策略在不同場域學習成效之研究。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
國家教育研究院(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校——自然科學領域。查詢日期：2018年11月20日，檢自https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/63/pta_18538_24Y0851_60502.pdf。
劉湘瑤(2016)。科學探究的教學與評量。科學研習，55(2)，5-11
謝州恩、吳心楷(2005)。探究情境中國小學童科學解釋能力成長之研究。師大學報：科學教育類，50(2)，55-84。
英文部分
Apedoe, X. S. (2008). Engaging students in inquiry: Tales from an undergraduate geology laboratory-based course. Science Education, 92(4), 631-663.
Bell, D. (2002). Making science inclusive: Providing effective learning opportunitiesfor children with learning difficulties. Support for Learning, 17(4), 156-161.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. N. H. Heinemann: Portsmounth.
Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell, & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (20-46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Brickman P., Gormally C., Armstrong N., Hallar B. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students' science literacy and confidence. Int. J. Schol. Teach. Learn. 3, 1-22.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Buckley, B. C. & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Investigating the Role of Representations and Expressed Models in Building Mental Models. In J. K. Gilbert and C.J. Boulter(eds.), Developing Models in Science Education (pp.119-135.) Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J. D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R. F., Gerlits, B., et al. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogicaTM: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 23-41.
Campbell, B., Kaunda, L., Allie, S., Buffler, A. & Lubben, F. (2000). The communication of lab investigations by university entrants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 839–853.
Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N. H., & Chapman, H. (2010). Development of instruments to assess teacher and student perceptions of inquiry experiences in science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 13–30.
Cheng, M. F., Lin, J. L., Lin, S. Y., & Cheng, C. H. (2017). Scaffolding middle school and high school students’modeling processes. Journal of Baltic Science
Education, 16(2), 207–217.
Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Implications for learning and discovery in sciences. In R.Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science:Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science(129-186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Chiu, M.-H., & Lin, J.-W. (2019). Modeling competence in science education. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1. Retrieved December 10, 2019, from https://diser.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43031-019-0012-y
Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education.
International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.
Costenson, K. & Lawson, A.E. (1986). Why isn't inquiry used in more classrooms? The American Biology Teacher, 48(3), 150-158.
de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: The Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1, 3–16.
Dewey, J.[1933(1910)]. How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
diSessa, A. A.(1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman 8: P. Pufall (Eds), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49-70).
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23 (7), 5-12.
Edelson, D.C., Gordin, D.N. & Pea, R.D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 391-450.
Ertepinar, H. & Geban, O. (1996). Effect of instruction supplied with the investigative oriented laboratory approach on achievement in a science course.
　　Educational Research, 38, 333–344.
European CommissionScience education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. European Commission., Brussels (2007)
Gibson, H. L. (1998). Case studies of an inquiry-based science programs’ impact on students’ attitudes towards science and interest in science careers. ERIC document reproduction service no. ED 417 980.
Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86, 693-705.
Giere, R. N. (1999). Using models to represent reality. In L. Magnani, N. J.Nersessian, & P.Thagard (eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery ( 41-57). New York:Kluwer.
Gilbert, J. K. (1993). Models and modeling in science education. Hatfield: The Association for Science Education.
Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modeling : routes to more authentic science education, International Journal of Science, & Math Education, 2, 115-130.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert and C. J. Boulter (eds.)
Glynn, S. M., & Duit, R. (1995). Learning science meaningfully: constructing conceptual models. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B., et al. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891–894.
Greca, I. M., & Moriea, M. A. (2000). Mental model, conceptual models, and modelling.International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1-11.
Grosslight, L.; Unger, C.; Jay, E., & Smith, C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science conceptions of middle and high school students and experts.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799-822.
Halloun, I. A. (2006).Modeling Theory in Science Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Hansen, M. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
Harlen, W. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in science and mathematics. Review of Science Mathematics & ICT Education, 7, 9–33.
Harms, N. C. & Yager, R. E. (eds.) (1981). What research says to the science teacher,Vol. 3. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atom, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), 352-381. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<352::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-J
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79, 171–212.
Jeong, H., Songer, N. B., & Lee, S.-Y. (2007). Evidentiary competence: Sixth graders' understanding for gathering and interpreting evidence in scientific investigations. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 75-97.
Jong, C. P.; Chiu, M. H. & Chung, S. L. (2015).The use of modeling-based rext to improve students’ modeling competencies.Science Education, 99(5),986–1018.
Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modeling, and implications for the education of modelers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387.
Keselman A. (2003) Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,40 (2003), pp.898-921
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. doi: 10.1177/1365480216659733
Krajcik, J., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-Based Learning. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 275-297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139519526.018
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., & Fredricks, J. (1998). "Inquiry in Project-Based Science Classrooms: Initial Attempts by Middle School Students. The Journal Of The Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313-350.
Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. L. (2014). Teaching science in elementary and middle school: A project-based approach (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. 404 pp. ISBN 978-0-415-53405-5,
Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1998). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Khan, S. (2007). Model-Based Inquiries in Chemistry. Science Education, 91, 877-905.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000b). Model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2000). Symbolizing, communicating, and mathematizing: Key components of models and modeling. Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers , 361– 384
Liu, C. K., & Chiu, M. H. (2010). Modeling process of structure of the atom and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Paper presented at ASERA 2010, Australia,Sydney.
Louca, T., Zacharia, Z.C., & Constantinou, C.P. (2011). In quest of productive modeling-based learning discourse in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 919–951.
Luckie, D. B., Maleszewski, J. J., Loznak, S. D., & Krha, M. (2004). Infusion of Collaborative Inquiry throughout a Biology Curriculum Increases Student Learning: a Four-year Study of "Teams and Streams". Advances in Physiology Education, 28(4), 199-209.
Mäeots M., Pedaste M., Sarapuu T. 2008. Transforming students’ inquiry skills with computer-based simulations. In 8th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 1–5 July, Santander, Spain. DOI:10.1109/ICALT.2008.239.
Maia, P. F., & Justi, R. (2009). Learning of chemical equilibrium through modelling-based teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 603-630.
Martin-Hansen(2002). Defining Inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naïve theories of motion.In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mentalmodels (pp.299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc.
Namdar, B., & Shen, J. (2015). Modeling-oriented assessment in K-12 science education: A synthesis of research from 1980 to 2013 and new directions. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 993-1023. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1012185
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nersessian, N.J. (2008) Creating Scientific Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
NGSS (2013). View the NGSS (next generation science standards) in disciplinary core idea (DCI) Arrangements, in topic arrangements, performance expectations individually. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
Niss, M. (2009). Metamodelling messages conveyed in five statistical mechanical textbooks from 1963 to 2001. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5),
697-719.
Pedaste M., Mäeots M., Siiman L.A., De Jong T., Van Riesen S.A., Kamp E.T., Tsourlidaki E. (2015) Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational research review 14, 47-61.
Passmore, C., Stewart, J., & Cartier, J. (2009). Model-based inquiry and school science:Creating connections. School Science and Mathematics, 109(7), 394–402
Pfundt, F. & Duit, R. (1991). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. (3rd ed.). Keil, West Germany: IPN.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science education, 66(2), 211-227.
Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D. A. (1981).Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In R. Klatsky & J. W. Cotton(Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Salomon, G., D. N. Perkins, & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20
, 2–9.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
Saari, H., & Viiri, J. (2003). A research-based teaching sequence for teaching the concept of modeling to seventh-grade students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1333-1352.
Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 410-422.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab, & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1–103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Schwarz, C. V. & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: developing students’understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205.
Schwarz, C.V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.
Sensevy, G., Tiberghien, A., Sylvain Laube, J. S., & Griggs, P. (2008). An epistemological approach to modeling: cases studies and implications for science teaching. Science Education, 92, 424-446.
Shen, J., & Conferey, J. (2007). From conceptual change to transformative modeling: a case study of an elementary teacher in learning astronomy. Science Education, 91,948-966.
Shrigley, R.L.(1990). Attitude and behavior correlates. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 97-113.
Stake,R.E.,& Easley,J.A.(1978).Case studies in science education.Urbana,IL:Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation,University of Illinois.
Thomas, J.W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk. http://www.k12reform.org/foundation/pbl/research
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368.
Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2002). Experienced teachers’ knowledge of teaching and learning of models and modelling in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1255-1272. doi:10.1080/09500690210126711
Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development.Review of educational research, 57, 51-67.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change [special issue].Learning and instruction, 4, 45-69.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). "Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students. "COGNITION AND INSTRUCTION, 16(1), 3-118.
Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2003). Content effects in self-directed inductive learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 381-402
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112-143.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941– 967.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2015). Models and Modeling: An Introduction. (pp. 1-11). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172-223.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
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：688（臺灣：685，外國：3） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2541260 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68341531
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