:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:國小自然與生活科技教科書的語句類型分析--因果性解釋與預測性解釋的探討
書刊名:教科書研究
作者:陳均伊 引用關係
作者(外文):Chen, Jun-yi
出版日期:2013
卷期:6:1
頁次:頁57-85
主題關鍵詞:內容分析法因果性解釋科學教科書預測性解釋Content analysisCausal explanationScience textbookPredictive explanation
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:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:34
  • 點閱點閱:70
本研究旨在檢視國小自然與生活科技領域教科書(簡稱為科學教科書),探討其語句類型,以及使用科學解釋的數量與分布情形,包括:因果性解釋與預測性解釋。以98學年的A、B與C三個版本的科學教科書為研究樣本,從國小三至六年級,內容涵蓋物理、化學、生物、地球科學與生活科技等學科,共16,616句。採用科學解釋編碼系統,將句子分為:因果性解釋、預測性解釋、參與、事實描述,以及與科學內容無關等五種類別,由三位評分人員分別進行編碼,評分者信度為.98。研究發現教科書中有半數的句子屬於事實描述,因果性解釋和預測性解釋僅占四分之一。大致上,高年級教科書比中年級教科書較常使用因果性解釋的句子,但各版本間中、高年級的百分比差距不同。各學科中,物理和化學較其他學科使用較高比例的預測性解釋句子,而生物的事實描述句子比例較高。
Textbooks are regarded as valuable resources by teachers. The purpose of this study is to examine the mean percentage of scientific explanations, including causal explanation and predictive explanation, in science and technology textbooks in elementary schools in Taiwan. We analyzed three of the most widely used versions of elementary school science and technology textbooks (grades 3-6), covering physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, and technology, for a total 16,616 sentences. The coding system places sentences into five categories: causal explanation, predictive explanation, fact and description, engagement, and irrelevant. Interrater reliability is .98. We found that half of the sentences belonged in the fact and description category. Only a quarter of the sentences were causal explanation or predictive explanation in nature. Textbooks for grades five and six had higher percentages of causal explanation sentences than grades three and four. All subjects had lower percentages of causal explanation. The percentages of predictive explanation sentences in physics and chemistry were higher than those in other subjects. More fact-like statements were adopted in biology.
期刊論文
1.宋曜廷、黃信樽、陳學志(20120800)。能源與氣候變遷概念之內容分析--以自然與生活科技領域為例。教科書研究,5(2),1-30。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.莊善媛、李隆盛(20110600)。國中自然與生活科技教師對部編本教科書之滿意度調查研究。教科書研究,4(1),55-85。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.黃靖惠、洪志誠、許瑛玿(20121200)。九年一貫教科書「全球暖化概念」內容分析。教科書研究,5(3),27-57。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.蘇禹銘、黃台珠(20091100)。科學教師學校本位課程發展信念與實踐之個案研究。科學教育月刊,324,2-13。  延伸查詢new window
5.Brown, N. J. S.、Furtak, E. M.、Timms, M..、Nagashima, S. O.、Wilson, M(2010)。The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning。Educational Assessment,15,123-141。  new window
6.McNeill, K. L.、Krajcik, J.(2008)。Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning。Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45,53-78。  new window
7.Newton, D. P.、Newton, L. D.(2000)。Do teachers support causal understanding through their discourse when teaching primary science。British Educational Research Journal,26,599-613。  new window
8.Newton, D. P.、Newton, L. D.(2007)。An analysis of primary technology textbooks: Can they support cause and purpose explanations。Research in Science and Technological Education,25(2),199-210。  new window
9.Rymarz, R.、Engebretson, K.(2005)。Putting textbooks to work。British Journal of Religious Education,27,53-63。  new window
10.Premack, D.、Premack, J.(1995)。Levels of causal understanding in chimpanzees and children。Cognition,50(1/3),347-362。  new window
11.Sandoval, W.(2003)。Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations。The Journal of the Learning Sciences,12,5-51。  new window
12.Smolkin, L. B.、McTigue, E. M.、Donovan, C. A.、Coleman, J. M.(2009)。Explanation in science trade books recommended for use with elementary students。Science Education,93(4),587-610。  new window
13.Wong, E. D.(1996)。Students’ scientific explanations and the contexts in which they occur。Elementary School Journal,96(5),495-509。  new window
14.Yip, C. W.(2009)。Causal and teleological explanations in biology。Journal of Biology Education,43(4),149-151。  new window
15.陳文典(20011100)。課程變革對教學及學習模式的衝擊及其可能的回應。科學教育,244,48-51。  延伸查詢new window
16.李田英(20090800)。我國師資培育的優勢與問題。科學教育,321,12-26。  延伸查詢new window
17.Newton, L. D.、Newton, D. P.、Blake, A.、Brown, K.(2002)。Do Primary School Science Books for Children Show a Concern for Explanatory Understanding?。Research in Science & Technological Education,20(2),227-240。  new window
18.陳均伊(20100600)。教師專業成長之個案研究:一位國中自然教師探究教學觀點的轉變。教育科學研究期刊,55(2),233-264。new window  延伸查詢new window
19.謝州恩、吳心楷(20051000)。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。  延伸查詢new window
20.Sandoval, William A.、Reiser, Brian J.(2004)。Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry。Science Education,88(3),345-372。  new window
21.黃秋華、陸偉明(20120400)。小學國語教科書第三人稱代名詞的性別語義特徵之內容分析。教科書研究,5(1),85-113。new window  延伸查詢new window
22.Hempel, Carl Gustav、Oppenheim, Paul(1948)。Studies in the logic of explanation。Philosophy of Science,15(2),135-175。  new window
23.洪若烈(20030900)。國小教師之教科書使用方式及其影響因素之探討。國教學報,15,175-192。  延伸查詢new window
24.Martin-Hansen, Lisa(2002)。Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom。The Science Teacher,69(2),34-37。  new window
25.張世忠、蔡孟芳、陳鶴元(20121000)。國中科學教師的學科教學知識與科學教學導向之探討。科學教育學刊,20(5),413-433。new window  延伸查詢new window
26.Gilbert, J. K.、Boulter, C.、Rutherford, M.(1998)。Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses?。International Journal of Science Education,20,83-97。  new window
學位論文
1.林欣菁(2012)。國小社會領域教科書家庭觀之內容分析(碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.許宗淋(1999)。國小社會領域教科書環境議題內容分析之研究(碩士論文)。臺北市立教育大學,臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
3.賴文惠(2011)。性別平等教育議題年度比較之內容分析--以國小社會教科書為例(碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學,臺中市。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Banilower, E. R.、Boyd, S. E.、Pasley, J. D.、Weiss, I. R.(2006)。Lessons from a decade of mathematics and science reform: A capstone report for the local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative。Chapel Hill, NC:Horizon Research。  new window
2.Duschl, R.、Schweingruber, H.、Shouse, A.(2007)。Taking science to school: Learning and teaching in grades K-8。Washington, DC:National Research Council。  new window
3.Hinrichsen, J.、Jarrett, D.(1999)。Science inquiry for the classroom: A literature review。Portland:Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory。  new window
4.Salmon, Wesley C.(1998)。Causality and explanation。New York:Oxford University Press。  new window
5.黃光雄、簡茂發(1996)。教育研究法。臺北市:師大書苑。  延伸查詢new window
6.Minstrell, J.、van Zee, E. H.(2000)。Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science。Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science。  new window
7.Nagel, Ernest(1979)。The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation。New York:Harcourt Brace & World。  new window
8.Best, J. W.、Kahn, J. V.(2006)。Research in education。Boston:Needham Heights, MA:Allyn and Bacon。  new window
9.Fraenkel, J. R.、Wallen, N. E.(1996)。How to design and evaluate research in education。McGraw-Hill。  new window
10.National Research Council(1996)。National Science Education Standards。Washington, DC:National Academy Press。  new window
11.National Research Council(2000)。Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards。Washington, DC:National Academy Press。  new window
12.Kuhn, Thomas Samuel(1970)。The Structure of Scientific Revolutions。University of Chicago Press。  new window
其他
1.教育部(2008)。重訂標點符號手冊修訂版,http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/M0001/hau/c2.htm。  延伸查詢new window
2.教育部(2010)。國民中小學九年一貫課程總綱綱要,http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC/index.php。  延伸查詢new window
3.Schwartz, R. S.,Lederman, N. G.,Khishfe, R.,Lederman, J. S.,Matthews, L.,Liu, S. Y.(2002)。Explicit/reflective instructional attention to nature of science and scientific inquiry: Impact on student learning(No. ED 465622)。  new window
圖書論文
1.Brewer, W. F.、Chinn, C. A.、Samarapungavan, A.(2000)。Explanation in Scientists and Children。Explanation and Cognition。Cambridge, MA:MIT Press。  new window
2.Metz, K. E.(2000)。Young children’s inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry。Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science。Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE