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：小組建立假設的合作探究策略--以網路環境為例
書刊名：科學教育學刊
作者：張秀美／陳斐卿 引用關係／曾仁佑
作者(外文)：Chang, Hsiu-mei／Chen, Fei-ching／Tzeng, Ren-yow
出版日期：2012
卷期：20:4
頁次：頁295-317
主題關鍵詞：大氣科學；合作探究策略；建立假設；接應投入；電腦支援協作學習；Atmospheric science；Collaborative inquiry strategy；Hypothesis building；Responsive engagement；Computer supported collaborative learning
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(2) 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:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:54
  • 點閱點閱:119
本文研究小組成員在「建立假設」階段共同發展的「合作探究策略」。研究場域是大氣科學為主題的82個小組網路合作探究活動，每個小組大約五至六人，歷經長達兩週的「建立假設」活動。首先分析650筆高中生在此階段的合作探究困難，再以合作探究成果較好的五個小組討論區共652篇討論文章為例，分析成員的「合作探究策略」。資料的分析層次有三，以單篇為單位的「探究行動」、以跨篇為單位的「探究策略」、以及隱藏在探究策略背後、以成員間接應投入為單位的「合作探究策略」，本文聚焦於第三層次。結果顯示五種化解探究困難之「合作探究策略」：一、「開啟」與「跟隨」創造出共同對話；二、刻意引起注意及共鳴；三、收斂時機的相伴催促；四、扼要而深入的追問；五、不同觀點的查核考驗。研究探究學習的多數文獻是聚焦在「探究行動」與「探究策略」等層面，本文指出：合作較為成功的小組並非徒具有效的「探究策略」，尚須深掘成員間互動脈絡的「合作探究策略」，才能勾勒更為完整與真實的小組合作探究圖像，這些「合作探究策略」可以作為教學者鷹架小組合作探究活動的參考。
Scientific inquiry learning is not unproblematic. Previous research on learners’ collaborative inquiry has heavily focused on the cognitive aspects of inquiry strategies. We know little about how the inquiry strategies were accomplished collaboratively. In other words, the dynamic process of inquiry involving several people has received little attention. Taking the stage of hypotheses building as an example, this study examined the responsive engagement of learners engaged in inquiry activities in small groups. Two research questions were raised. First, what are the difficulties of engaging in collaborative hypothesis building? Second, what strategies do productive groups develop to deal with these difficulties? Three different levels of analysis were used to identify collaborative strategies when encountering difficulties of hypotheses building: inquiry action, inquiry strategy, and collaborative inquiry strategy. To be specific, this study is aimed to challenge the traditional perspective on the overwhelming emphasis on cognitive aspects of inquiry. Instead, the results of this study revealed the importance of collaborative inquiry strategies developed among group members. The results identified five key collaborative inquiry strategies related to responsive engagement: “Initiation and follow-up as opportunities for developing communal topics,” “Drawing attention purposely in order to focus on or resonate with,” “Pushing collectively for convergent dialogue,” “Concise and sharp questioning,” and “Checking out the ideas of complicators.” Some methodological and practical consideration concerning collaborative inquiry activities were further discussed.
期刊論文
1.Simon, S.、Osborne, J.、Erduran, S.(2004)。TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the Application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse。Science Education，88(6)，915-933。  new window
2.Bricker, L. A.、Bell, P.(2008)。Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education。Science Education，92(3)，473-498。  new window
3.Clark, D. B.、Sampson, V.(2008)。Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，45(3)，293-321。  new window
4.Ben-David, A.、Zohar, A.(2009)。Contribution of meta-strategic knowledge to scientific inquiry learning。International Journal of Science Education，31(12)，1657-1682。  new window
5.Osborne, J.、Erduran, S.、Simon, S.(2004)。Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，41(10)，994-1020。  new window
6.Krajcik, J. S.、Blumenfeld, P. C.、Marx, R. W.、Bass, K. M.、Fredricks, J.、Soloway, E.(1998)。Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students。Journal of the Learning Science，7(3/4)，313-350。  new window
7.Weinberger, A.、Fischer, F.(2006)。A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning。Computers and Education，46(1)，71-95。  new window
8.Crawford, Barbara A.(2000)。Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，37(9)，916-937。  new window
9.Felton, M. K.、Kuhn, M.(2001)。The development of Argumentive discourse Skill。Discourse Processes，32(2/3)，135-153。  new window
10.洪振方(20031200)。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(3)，641-662。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P.、Rodríguez, A. B.、Duschl, R. A.(2000)。"Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics。Science Education，84(6)，757-792。  new window
12.林燕文、洪振方(20070300)。對話論證的探究中學童論述策略對促進科學概念理解之研究。屏東教育大學學報，26，285-324。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.Roth, W.-M.、Lee, Y.-J.(2007)。"Vygotsky's neglected legacy": Cultural-historical activity theory。Review of Educational Research，77(2)，186-232。  new window
14.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。  延伸查詢new window
15.秦爾聰、林勇吉、陳俊源(2009)。探討高二學生在三角探究教學中的解題表現。科學教育學刊，17(5)，433-458。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.葉辰楨、王國華、蔡明致(2010)。後設認知鷹架策略融人科學探究教學之探討。科學教育研究與發展季刊，58，1-32。  延伸查詢new window
17.Apedoe, X.(2008)。Engaging students in inquiry: Tales from an undergraduate geology laboratory-based course。Science Education，92(4)，631-663。  new window
18.Baker, M.、Andriessen, J.、Lund, K.、van Amelsvoort, M.、Quignard, M.(2007)。Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates。International Journal of Computers-Supported Collaborative Learning，2(2/3)，315-357。  new window
19.Chamberlin, T. C.(1890)。The method of multiple working hypotheses。Science，15，92-96。  new window
20.Chin, C.、Osborne, J.(2010)。Students’ questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，47(7)，883-908。  new window
21.Fisher, S. D.、Gettys, C. F.、Manning, C.、Mehle, T.、Baca, S.(1983)。Consistency checking in hypothesis generation。Organizational Behavior and Human Performance，31(2)，233-254。  new window
22.Furberg, A.(2009)。Socio-cultural aspects of prompting student reflection in webbased inquiry learning environments。Journal of Computer Assisted Learning，25(4)，397-409。  new window
23.Gijlers, H.、Saab, N.、Van Joolingen, W. R.、De Jong, T.、Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M.(2009)。Interaction between tool and talk: How instruction and tools support consensus building in collaborative inquiry-learning environments。Journal of Computer Assisted Learning，25(3)，252-267。  new window
24.Grandy, R. E.、Duschl, R. A.(2007)。Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference。Science & Education，16(2)，141-166。  new window
25.Herrenkohl, L. R.、Tasker, T.、White, B.(2011)。Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry。Cognition and Instruction，29(1)，1-44。  new window
26.Janssen, J.、Erkens, G.、Kanselaar, G.(2007)。Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-sup- ported collaborative learning。Computers in Human Behavior，23(3)，1105-1125。  new window
27.Kim, H.、Song, J.(2005)。The features of peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific inquiry。Research in Science Education，36(3)，211-233。  new window
28.Kuhn, D.、Pearsall, S.(2000)。Developmental origins of scientific thinking。Journal of Cognition and Development，7(1)，113-129。  new window
29.Lawson, A. E.、Clark, B.、Cramer-Meldrum, E.、Falconer, K. A.、Sequist, J. M.、Kwon, Y.-J.(2000)。Development of scientific reasoning in college biology: Do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist?。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，37(1)，81-101。  new window
30.Llewellyn, D.(2005)。Measurement stations。Science Scope，29(1)，18-21。  new window
31.Oh, P. S.(2010)。How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some strategies found in abductive inquiryactivities of earth science。Journal of Science Education，52(4)，541-560。  new window
32.Park, J.(2006)。Modeling analysis of students' processes of generating scientific explanatory hypotheses。International Journal of Science Education，28(5)，469-489。  new window
33.Pathak, S. A.、Kim, B.、Jacobson, M. J.、Zhang, B.(2011)。Learning the physics of electricity: A qualitative analysis of collaborative processes involved in productive failure。International Journal of Computers Supported Collaborative Learning，6(1)，57-73。  new window
34.Quinn, M. E.、George, K. D.(1975)。Teaching hypothesis formation。Science Education，59(3)，289-296。  new window
35.Turner, D.(2005)。Local underdetermination in historical science。Philosophy of Science，72(1)，209-230。  new window
36.Wenham, M.(1993)。The nature and role of hypotheses in school science investigations。International Journal of Science Education，15(3)，231-240。  new window
會議論文
1.Chen, F. C.、Jiang, H. M.、Lee, Y. W.(2004)。Addressing the challenges of secondary school students’ collaborative inquiry-based learning-The Porscin experience。Taoyuan, Taiwan。  new window
2.Chen, F. C.、Jiang, H. M.、Lin, H. L.、Wang, H. R.(2001)。High school students' attempts at primary data in PBL via network: Lain experience。Taoyuan, Taiwan。  new window
3.Selles-Martinez, J.(2004)。International Earth Science Olympiad: What to test and how to do so。Seoul, Korea。  new window
圖書
1.Toulmin, Stephen E.(1958)。The Use of Argument。Cambridge University Press。  new window
2.National Research Council(2000)。Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards。Washington, DC：National Academy Press。  new window
3.Lave, Jean、Wenger, Etienne(1991)。Situated learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation。Cambridge University Press。  new window
4.Duschl, R. A.(2007)。Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria。Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research \\ S. Erduran ; M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.)。Dordrecht, The Netherlands。  new window
5.Giere, R. N.、Bickle, J.、Mauldin, R.(2006)。Understanding scientific reasoning。Belmont, CA。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
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：526（臺灣：515，外國：11） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2541260 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68349735
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