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：科學探究與實作課程的發展、實施與評量：以實驗室中的科學論證為核心之研究
書刊名：科學教育學刊
作者：張珮珊／賴吉永／溫媺純
作者(外文)：Chang, Pei-shan／Lai, Chi-yung／Wen, Lydia Meichun
出版日期：2017
卷期：25:4
頁次：頁355-389
主題關鍵詞：科學探究與實作課程；科學寫作；科學論證；Scientific inquiry and practice curriculum；Science writing；Scientific argumentation
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(7) 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:6
  • 共同引用共同引用:36
  • 點閱點閱:66
本研究目的為發展一符應核心素養之科學探究與實作課程，並探討學生科學論證與科學概念的學習成效。本課程以酵素為主題，參照十二年國教自然領綱(草案)的學習內容，藉逆向課程設計含實驗任務的四大探究單元，期望學生透過探究實作來探索知識的建構、理解寫作在知識轉化與科學社群溝通的重要性，故以啟發式科學寫作(Science Writing Heuristics, SWH)協助學生運用「酵素概念暨科學論證寫作簿」發展基於證據的科學論證。本研究採單組前、後測(成就測驗)設計，藉「酵素概念成就測驗」瞭解學生科學概念理解情形，並以「勾選式論證寫作評分表」評量其論證表現，再藉逐步迴歸分析來預測論證寫作品質的最佳指標，以期提升論證教學與評量之效益。研究發現，18位高中生的酵素概念學習顯著進步(p ＜ .001)，且四次科學論證寫作表現良好，皆達優良論證寫作標準。然而，學生論證表現存在顯著的個別差異。低論證表現組學生的各論證向度表現受探究任務影響大，但整體而言，在「問題」、「主張」向度均有進步，且概念理解表現與高論證表現組學生相當。此外，預測各次論證寫作品質的最佳指標有「主張─證據關係」、「主張」與「證據」，然整體寫作品質的最佳預測指標仍為「證據」。最後根據研究發現，提出教學與研究建議。
The aims of this study were to develop a scientific inquiry and practice curriculum corresponding with core literacy, and to investigate students' conceptual learning and performance of scientific argumentation in laboratory contexts. Based on Grade 1-12 Curriculum Guidelines for Nature Science Discipline, we developed the curriculum, which included four inquiry enzyme experiments through Backward Design. The learning outcome we expected was that students could explore the construction of knowledge through practicing and understanding the importance of writing in the scientific community. Therefore, we employed the Science Writing Heuristic approach to guide students' scientific argumentation in the ＂Enzyme Concept & Scientific Argumentation Writing Journal.＂ Achievement test and check-type argumentative writing evaluation sheets were adopted to evaluate the results. Step-wise multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine important argument components. The results indicated that 18 participants from a senior high school in Southern Taiwan did excellently on the conceptual achievement test (p ＜ .001) and written argumentation, which suggested that this curriculum could help students develop their scientific concepts and scientific argumentation. However, there were distinct differences between individuals' argumentative performances. Compared to the stable performance across written argumentation of high argumentation performance group, the performance of low argumentation group was affected by the inquiry tasks. But overall, the ＂question,＂ ＂claim＂ argument components and the concepts of enzyme were improved in low performance group. Furthermore, the predictive components of argumentative writing quality were ＂claim-evidence relationship,＂ ＂claim,＂ and ＂evidence.＂ Taken as a whole, the ＂evidence＂ component was the most important predictor for overall argumentative writing. Last, we provided teaching and research suggestions according to our results.
期刊論文
1.李明昆、洪振方(20101100)。國三學生對探究性科學問題提問之研究。臺北市立教育大學學報. 教育類，41(2)，111-148。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Osborne, J.(2010)。Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse。Science，328(5977)，463-466。  new window
3.Lin, Shu-sheng、Mintzes, Joel J.(20101200)。Learning Argumentation Skills through Instruction in Socioscientific Issues: The Effect of Ability Level。International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education，8(6)，993-1017。  new window
4.Berland, L. K.、Reiser, B. J.(2009)。Making sense of argumentation and explanation。Science Education，93(1)，26-55。  new window
5.Kelly, G. J.、Takao, A.(2002)。Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing。Science Education，86(3)，314-342。  new window
6.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
7.Walker, J. P.、Sampson, V.(2013)。Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，50(5)，561-596。  new window
8.林宗進、林樹聲、陳映均(20100600)。大學生對基因改造作物議題的認知與論證能力之研究。科學教育學刊，18(3)，229-252。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.Shrout, P. E.、Fleiss, J. L.(1979)。Intraclass correlations: Use in assessing rater reliability。American Psychological Association，86(2)，420-428。  new window
10.Katchevich, D.、Hofstein, A.、Mamlok-Naaman, R.(2013)。Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments。Research in Science Education，43(1)，317-345。  new window
11.Rivard, L. P.(2004)。Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers?。Science Education，88(3)，420-442。  new window
12.蔡佩穎、張文華、林陳涌、張惠博(20131200)。不同性別七年級學生論證科學新聞之學習效益。科學教育學刊，21(4)，455-481。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.Russ, Rosemary、Coffey, Janet E.、Hammer, David、Hutchinson, Paul(2009)。Making Classroom Assessment More Accountable to Scientific Reasoning: A Case for Attending to Mechanistic Thinking。Science Education，93(5)，875-891。  new window
14.Lord, T.、Orkwiszewski, Terri(2006)。Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory。American Biology Teacher，68(6)，342-345。  new window
15.Berland, L. K.、Hammer, D.(2012)。Framing for scientific argumentation。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，49(1)，68-94。  new window
16.Tuan, Hsiao-lin、Chin, Chi-chin、Tsai, Chi-chung、Cheng, Su-fey(20051200)。Investigating the Effectiveness of Inquiry Instruction on the Motivation of Different Learning Styles Students。International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education，3(4)，541-566。  new window
17.Kind, P. M.、Kind, V.、Hofstein, A.、Wilson, J.(2011)。Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory: Exploring effects of task features。International Journal of Science Education，33(18)，2527-2558。  new window
18.蘇衍丞、林樹聲(20120800)。在社會性科學議題情境下應用鷹架教學提升國小六年級學生論證能力。科學教育學刊，20(4)，343-366。new window  延伸查詢new window
19.何宗穎、王敏男、謝佩妤、郭幸宜、趙大衛、黃台珠(20131200)。大學普通生物學實驗課程應用探究鷹架自我評估策略對學生探究能力表現之影響。科學教育學刊，21(4)，401-429。new window  延伸查詢new window
20.林志能、陳玲君、洪振方(20101200)。高一學生多變因因果推理與論證能力之相關研究。教育實踐與研究，23(2)，1-35。new window  延伸查詢new window
21.洪逸文、湯宜佩(2016)。高中特色課程的開發與實施：以論證課程為例。課程研究，11(1)，23-57。  延伸查詢new window
22.Akkus, R.、Gunel, M.、Hand, B.(2007)。Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences?。International Journal of Science Education，29(14)，1745-1765。  new window
23.Backus, L.(2005)。A year without procedures: Removing procedures from chemistry labs creates opportunities for student inquiry。The Science Teacher，72(7)，54-58。  new window
24.Chen, Y.-C.、Hand, B.、Park, S.(2016)。Examining elementary students' development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry。Science & Education，25(3/4)，277-320。  new window
25.Choi, A.、Notebaert, A.、Diaz, J.、Hand, B.(2010)。Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms。Research in Science Education，40(2)，149-169。  new window
26.Chen, Y.-C.、Steenhock, J.(2014)。Arguing like a scientist: Engaging students in core scientific practices。The American Biology Teacher，76(4)，231-237。  new window
27.Choi, A.(2010)。Argument structure in the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach。Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education，30(3)，323-336。  new window
28.Choi, A.(2012)。Using the writing template provided by the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach for quality arguments。Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education，32(9)，1470-1488。  new window
29.Choi, A.、Hand, B.、Greenbowc, T.(2013)。Students' written arguments in general chemistry laboratory investigations。Research in Science Education，43(5)，1763-1783。  new window
30.Hofstein, A.、Lunetta, V. N.(2004)。The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st century。Science Education，88(1)，28-54。  new window
31.Grimberg, B. I.、Hand, B.(2009)。Cognitive pathways: Analysis of students' written texts for science understanding。International Journal of Science Education，31(4)，503-521。  new window
32.Hung, P.-H.、Hwang, G.-J.、Lee, Y.-H.、Wu, T.-H.、Vogel, B.、Milrad, M.(2014)。A problem-based ubiquitous learning approach to improving the questioning abilities of elementary school students。Journal of Educational Technology & Society，17(4)，316-334。  new window
33.Holliday, W. G.、Yore, L. D.、Alvermann, D. E.(1994)。The reading-seience learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers and promises。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，31(9)，877-893。  new window
34.Hofstein, A.、Navon, O.、Kipnis, M.、Mamlok-Naaman, R.(2005)。Developing students' abilities to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，42(1)，791-806。  new window
35.Keys, C. W.(1999)。Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students' written discourse about scientific investigations。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，36(9)，1044-1061。  new window
36.Ketpichainarong, W.、Panijpan, B.、Ruenwongsa, P.(2010)。Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory。International Journal of Environmental and Science Education，5(2)，169-187。  new window
37.Krajcik, J.、McNeill, K. L.、Reiser, B. J.(2008)。Lcaming-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy。Science Education，92(1)，1-32。  new window
38.Kipnis, M.、Hofstein, A.(2008)。The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of meta-cognitive skills。International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education，6(3)，601-627。  new window
39.Lin, Huann‐shyang、Hong, Zuway‐R、Chen, Chung‐Chih、Chou, Chien‐Ho(2011)。The effect of integrating aesthetic understanding in reflective inquiry activities。International Journal of Science Education，33(9)，1199-1217。  new window
40.McComas, W.(2005)。Laboratory instruction in the service of science teaching and learning: reinventing and reinvigorating the laboratory experience。Science Teacher，72(1)，24-29。  new window
41.McElhinny, T. L.、Dougherty, M. J.、Bowling, B. V.、Libarkin, J. C.(2014)。The status of genetics curriculum in higher education in the United States: Goals and assessment。Science & Education，23(2)，445-464。  new window
42.Osborne, J.(2014)。Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change。Journal of Science Teacher Education，25(2)，177-196。  new window
43.Roth, K.、Gamier, H.(2006)。What science teaching looks like: An international perspective。Educational Leadership，64(4)，16-23。  new window
44.Sanders, E. R.、Moberg-Parker, J.、Hirsch, A. M.、Lee, P. Y.、Shapiro, C.、Toma, S.(2016)。Transforming laboratory education in the life sciences。Microbe，11(2)，69-74。  new window
45.Sampson, V.、Enderle, P.、Grooms, J.、Witte, S.(2013)。Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas。Science Education，97(5)，643-670。  new window
46.Russ, R. S.(2014)。Epistemology of science vs. epistemology for science。Science Education，98(3)，388-396。  new window
47.Shapiro, C.、Moberg-Parker, J.、Toma, S.、Ayon, C.、Zimmerman, H.、Roth-Johnson, E. A.(2015)。Comparing the impact of course-based and apprentice-based research experiences in a life science laboratory curriculum。Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education，16(2)，186-197。  new window
48.Sere, M.-G.(2002)。Towards renewed research questions from the outcomes of the European project Labwork in Science Education。Science Education，86(5)，624-644。  new window
49.Wood, W. B.(2009)。Innovations in teaching undergraduate biology and why we need them。Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology，25，93-112。  new window
50.Watson, J. R.、Swain, J. R. L.、McRobbie, C.(2004)。Research report: Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries。International Journal of Science Education，26(1)，25-45。  new window
51.Yesildag-Hasancebi, F.、Kingir, S.(2012)。Overview of obstacles in the implementation of the argumentation based science inquiry approach and pedagogical suggestions。Mevlana International Journal of Education，2(3)，79-94。  new window
52.Newton, P.、Driver, R.、Osborne, J.(1999)。The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science。International Journal of Science Education，21(5)，553-576。  new window
53.顧炳宏、陳瓊森、溫媺純(20110600)。從學生的表現與觀點探討引導發現式教學作為發展探究教學之折衷方案角色的成效--以密度概念為例。科學教育學刊，19(3)，257-282。new window  延伸查詢new window
54.Driver, R.、Asoko, H.、Leach, J.、Mortimer, E.、Scott, P.(1994)。Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom。Educational Researcher，23(7)，5-12。  new window
55.邱美虹(2016)。科學模型與建模：科學素養中的模型認知與建模能力。臺灣化學教育，11。  延伸查詢new window
56.Zeidler, D. L.(1997)。The central role of fallacious thinking in science education。Science Education，81(4)，483-496。  new window
57.Ford, M.(2008)。Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning。Science Education，92(3)，404-423。  new window
會議論文
1.林煥祥、洪振方、佘曉清、李松濤、李輝、秦爾聰(2016)。PISA 2015。第三十二屆科學教育國際研討會。臺中市：中華民國科學教育學會。  延伸查詢new window
2.Kind, P.、Wilson, J.、Hofstein, A.、Kind, V.(2010)。Stimulating peer argumentation in the school science laboratory: Exploring the effect of laboratory task formats。The 2010 National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual International Conference。Philadelphia, PA。  new window
研究報告
1.Schiller, A.(2015)。Understanding by design unit lesson plans for the next generation science standards: Life science。  new window
圖書
1.Next Generation Science Standards Lead States(2013)。Next generation science standards: For states, by states。National Academies Press。  new window
2.Wallace, C. S.、Hand, B.、Prain, V.(2004)。Writing and Learning in the Science Classroom。Kluwer Academic Publishers。  new window
3.National Research Council(2011)。A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas。Washington, DC：National Academies Press。  new window
4.Wiggins, Grant P.、Mctighe, Jay(2005)。Understanding by design。Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development。  new window
5.Lemke, Jay L.(1990)。Talking science: Language, learning, and values。Ablex。  new window
6.教育部(2009)。普通高級中學課程綱要。台北：教育部。  延伸查詢new window
7.教育部(2016)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要自然科學領域（草案）。臺北市：教育部。  延伸查詢new window
8.Hand, B. M.(2007)。Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic。Rotterdam：Sense。  new window
9.Krajcik, J.、Reiser, B. J.、Sutherland, L. M.、Fortus, D.(2013)。Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology (IQWST)。Greenwich, CT：Active Science。  new window
10.教育部(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。  延伸查詢new window
11.Wellington, J. J.、Osborne, J.(2001)。Language and literacy in science education。Open University Press。  new window
12.林煥祥、佘曉清(2017)。PISA 2015臺灣學生的表現。心理出版社。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.Hofstein, A.、Walberg, H. J.(1995)。Instructional strategies。Improving science education。Chicago, Illinois：The National Society for the Study of Education。  new window
2.McNeill, K. L.、Krajcik, J.(2007)。Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations。Thinking with data: Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition。New York, NY：Taylor & Francis。  new window
3.Cavagnetto, A.、Hand, B.(2012)。The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms。Perspectives on scientific argumentation。Dordrecht：Springer。  new window
4.Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.(2008)。Designing argumentation learning environments。Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research。Dordrecht：Springer。  new window
5.Kelly, G.、Regev, J.、Prothero, W.(2008)。Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation。Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research。Dordrecht：Springer。  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
 
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：813（臺灣：807，外國：6） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1885225 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67690170
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