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：融入式科學寫作下學生學習成果及學生推理能力和對教師互動行為感受與其寫作品質之研究
作者：林雅慧
校院名稱：國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱：科學教育研究所
指導教授：張惠博
張文華
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2008
主題關鍵詞：融入式科學寫作；教師互動行為；寫作文本品質
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(1) 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:79
本研究旨在探究融入式的錨定寫作教學對不同學習特質的學生在科學學習及寫作文本表徵之成效。研究選取中部市區一所國民小學的四年級學生，其中，有4個班級共97位學生進行融入式的錨定寫作教學，稱錨定寫作組；另3個班級的75位學生則進行融入式寫作教學，稱不錨定寫作組；另有4個班級，共74位學生則是一般教學，未實施科學寫作。收集的數據，包括學生的單元概念前後測成績、學生晤談資料及學生的寫作文本資料。學生的學習特質類別，係利用瑞文氏圖形推理測驗，依據學生的瑞文氏常模等級，歸類學生的推理能力層級。此外，依據教師互動問卷（QTI）的前後測差值，以區分在實施融入式寫作活動後學生知覺到教師教學行為的變化趨勢，藉以進而探討不同推理能力層級與不同知覺類型的學生的寫作文本品質。
本研究首先檢視實施融入式科學寫作後學生在單元概念測驗的表現。結果發現實施融入式科學寫作組的概念得分顯著優於沒有融入科學寫作的一般自然科教學組。其次，在融入式科學寫作活動中，探究不同的融入形式對學生科學學習之影響。再就不同學習特質的學生群，分別探討在錨定寫作組與不錨定寫作組的學習表現。
利用單因子共變數分析兩組學生在單元概念測驗的得分，研究結果發現，相同瑞文氏等級的學生，錨定寫作組在單元概念測驗的得分並沒有顯著優異的表現。依據學生知覺到教師教學行為的變化趨勢將學生加以分群，發現只有在寫作後對教師有幫助的/友善的（CD）的行為知覺有上升趨勢的學生，以及對教師在了解的（CS）和有領導力的（DC）的行為知覺有下降趨勢的學生，方能呈現錨定寫作組在單元概念成績的顯著優異表現。
　　研究利用寫作文本評鑑圖分析學生的寫作文本品質得分。並以t-test檢驗參與融入式寫作的學生在五個寫作學習單元的寫作文本得分，發現，只有瑞文氏等級中上與中等的學生群，方能突顯錨定寫作的成效。依據學生知覺到教師教學行為的變化趨勢將學生分群，發現能知覺到更多教師的領導行為（CD為０或正數）、覺得教師對自己較不了解（CS為負值）及感受到教師給予較少的責任與自由度（SC為負值）的學生群，錨定寫作組在寫作品質的評鑑總分方能顯著優於不錨定寫作組。
　　本研究亦藉由檢視學生組織寫作文本的方式，並輔以學生晤談資料之分析，以歸類出學生表徵寫作文本的特色。結果顯示，倘依學生瑞文氏等級進行分析，發現錨定寫作組的文本，在「原理」的呈現有不同的表徵方式；不錨定寫作組的文本也呈現了對於「觀察現象」的不同表徵方式。依據學生知覺到教師教學行為的變化趨勢將學生分群，發現，寫作後對教師行為知覺有提升的學生群，寫作時較偏向對觀察現象的描述，其中，錨定寫作組較能利用原理來整合相關概念；寫作後對教師行為知覺有下降的學生群，錨定寫作組的文本描述傾向於以精簡的方式呈現，然而，部分不錨定寫作組的學生，在面對觀察現象與原有思維產生衝突時，其文本表徵能呈現較佳的概念整合能力。綜合上述可知錨定式的寫作，能有效改善學生在寫作活動後對教師較負向的行為知覺，並可以協助學生表徵出更精緻的寫作文本。
The purposes of this study are to explore the effect of anchored-writing activities embedded in the science writing context and to understand the anchored-writing activities’ effect on students’ science performance and their presentation of writing text. There were one hundred and seventy-two fourth graders involved in embedded writing group, including ninety-seven students of four classes in the anchored-writing activities (anchored-writing group) and seventy-five students of three classes in the embedded science-writing activities (non-anchored-writing group), and seventy-four fourth graders of four classes involved in conventional science learning (non-embedded writing group).
Students’ pre-test and post-test of a researcher-developed concept-test, interviews and science written texts were collected. Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) of Raven’s progressive Marties was adopted to identify students’ level of reasoning ability. Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) was adopted to identify students’ perceptual change of their teachers’ interactive behaviors. The analysis of covariance was applied to concept-test scores and evaluation criteria were developed and applied to score the written texts. The data indicated that embedded writing group significantly outperformed non-embedded writing group on the concept-test.
Comparing cognitive outcomes of students in anchored-writing group and non-anchored-writing group, it was also found that students of the same SPM level didn’t show significant difference in their score of the concept-test. Only the anchored-writing group students who with positive change scores of QTI in helping/friendly (CD) scale and negative in understanding (CS) and leadership (DC) scales outperformed non-anchored writing group students in the concept-test.
Students’ score of the five written texts were examined by using t-test. It is found that students of above average and middle level of SPM in anchored-writing group scored significantly higher than those in non-anchored-writing group. The anchored-writing group students who with positive change scores of QTI in leadership (DC) and negative in understanding (CS) and student responsibility/freedom (SC) scales outperformed non-anchored writing group students in the total scores of five written texts.
Interview transcripts and written texts were further analyzed by the constant comparative methods to explore the characteristics of students’ text presentation. Comparing students with same SPM level, students in anchored-writing group tended to generate and apply ”principle” in written texts and students in non-anchored writing group tended to provide description of ”observed phenomenon” in written texts. Students with positive score changes of QTI tended to provide description of ”observed phenomenon” in written texts and students in anchored writing group tended to provide more elaborate description with integrated principle. Students with negative score changes of QTI in anchored-writing group tended to provide brief description in written texts but some students in non-anchored writing group could present better integration when they encountered with conflict between phenomenon and their initial thought. Based on the evidences listed above, it is concluded that the anchored-writing activities have effects of increasing students’ perception of the teachers’ interactive behavior in writing activities and facilitating students to produce more sophisticated written texts.
參考文獻
中文部份
王金泉（2005）。九年級學生科學寫作與學習成就之探討－以「溫度與熱」為例。國立台灣師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
王漢清（2005）。國小自然科教室實施科學讀寫促進合作學習之行動研究。國立台中教育大學碩士論文（未出版）。
牛頓自然與生活科技教學指引（2004）。台北市：牛頓開發教科書股份有限公司。
吳佳蓮（2005）。科學探究活動中國小五年級學童科學解釋能力及認識論之研究。台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
吳水煌（2003）。科學寫作促進學生科學概念學習之研究。國立嘉義大學碩士論文（未出版）。
吳明清（1999）。教育研究：基本觀念與方法分析。台北：五南圖書。
李美惠（2005）。科學寫作在自然科學教學與評量的應用－以電影中酸鹼現象之觀察與解釋為例。國立台灣師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
佘曉清（1998）。中學科學教學環境中師生互動量表的發展與研究。科學教育學刊， 6(4)，403-416。new window
林雅慧、張文華和林陳涌（2003）。國小低年級學生參與科學對談的類型之研究。科學教育學刊，11(1)，51-74。new window
林雅慧、張文華和張惠博（2004）。發展一個學習科學的寫作模型之行動研究。論文發表於2004年行動研究研討會。台東：台東大學。
林雅慧和張文華（2005）。Bridging Expository Writing and Learning Science。論文發表於閱讀與寫作在科學與數學應用之國際研討會。彰化：彰化師範大學。
林雅慧、張文華和張惠博（2007a）。發展錨定式科學寫作模式之行動研究。科學教育學刊，15(5)，491-520。new window
林雅慧、蔡佩穎、張惠博和張文華（2007b）。不同寫作對象對於四年級學生科學寫作內容之影響的探討。師大學報：科學教育類，52，49-78。
促進理解之科學評量—人本建構取向觀點（丁信中等人譯）（2004）。台北市：心理出版社。（原著出版年：2000年）
俞筱鈞（1993）。瑞文氏圖形推理測驗系列指導手冊。台北市：中國行為科學社。
徐新逸（1995）。如何借重動腦科技來提升問題解決能力？---談「錨式情境教學法」 之理論基礎與實例應用（上）。教學科技與媒體，20，25-30。new window
張淑女（2004）。從認識論的觀點探究大學生論證思考之能力與模式。台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。new window
張瑞曼（2004）。科學寫作與學習成就相關分析研究：以高二學生學習「種子萌發和幼苗生長」單元為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
教育部（2001）。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。台北市：教育部。new window
陳威良（2005）。從後設認知探討國小六年級學童科學表徵實務的發展歷程。國立台北師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
陳易芬（1997）。我國國民小學測驗使用現況調查研究。台中師院學報，11，113-136。new window
陳于丞（2005）。實施科學寫作活動對自然與生活科技領域學習之影響---以國小五年級學童為例。國立台中教育大學自然科學教育學系碩士論文（未出版）。
陳威霖（2005）。實施啟發式科學寫作教學之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
陳鳳如（1993）。活動式寫作教學法對國小兒童寫作表現與寫作歷程之實驗效果研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文（未出版）。new window
陳鳳如和郭生玉（2000）。閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程模式之調配度研究。師大學報， 45(1)，1-18。
陳幸萱（2004）。以系統功能語法觀點分析學生科學寫作及其與學生學術成就之相關研究。國立台灣師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
梁郁汝（2003）。國小自然科教室實施科學寫作之行動研究。國立嘉義大學碩士論文（未出版）。
黃子晏（2004）。以科學寫作探究國中學生有關光的迷思概念。國立嘉義大學碩士論文（未出版）。
楊榮祥（1998）。改善學術研究和教室實務的關係。科學教育學刊，6(4)， 321-323。new window
葉雪枝（1998）。後社認知寫作策略對國小四年級記敘文能力提昇之影響研究。國立台北師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
葉連祺和林淑萍（2003）。布魯姆認知領域教育目標分類修訂版之探討。教育研究，105，94-106。
舒煒光和邱仁宗（1991）。當代西方科學哲學述評。台北：水牛。
曾慧禎（2002）。國小六年級學童在寫作歷程中後設認知行為之研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。new window
蔡佩穎（1998）。國一學生參與生物實驗活動之過程分析與成效探討。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
蔡志賢（2003）。科學寫作融入國小自然科教學的行動研究。國立嘉義大學碩士論文（未出版）。
鄧禹（2005）。利用科學寫作方式探討國小五年級學童科學迷思概念之研究 －以水的變化為例。國立花蓮教育大學碩士論文（未出版）。
盧秀琴（2001）。配合九年一貫課程之自然科教材教法教學研究。國民教育，41(4)，8-14。
薛承泰（2004）。實徵研究的反思—以教育為主軸的分析。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育研究方法論（105-124頁）。台北：心理出版社。
謝州恩和吳心楷（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，50（2），55-84。
羅廷瑛（2004）。兩種建構取向教學模式對國小學生「自然與生活科技領域」科學學習表現之影響。國立台灣師範大學博士論文（未出版）。new window


英文部分
Anderson, W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Blooms’ educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bell, B., Bareiss, R., & Beckwith, R. (1993). The role of anchored instruction in the design of a hypermedia science museum exhibit. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 636)
Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84(4), 486–506.
Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environment, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 239-298.
Brooke, H., & Solomon, J. (1998). From playing to investigating: Research in an interactive science center for primary pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 959-971.
Bybee. R.W. (1997). Achieving science literacy: From purposes to practices. Heinemann, NH: Portsmouth.
Champagne, A. B., & Kouba, V. C. (2000). Writing to inquire: Written products as performance measures. In J. J. Mintzes., J. H. Wandersee., & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic Press.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Duit, R., Roth, W.-M., Komorek, M., & Wilbers, J. (1998). Conceptual change cum discourse analysis to understand cognition in a unit on chaotic systems: Towards an integrative perspective on learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1059-1073.
Eills, R. A., Taylor, C., & Drury, H. (2006). University student conceptions of learning through writing. Australian Journal of Education, 50(1), 6-28.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition & Communication, 28, 122-128.
Fisher, D., Henderson, D., & Fraser, B. (1995). Interpersonal behaviour in senior high school biology class. Research in Science Education, 25, 125-133.
Fisher, D. L., & Rickards, T. W. (1997). Gender and cultural differences in teacher-student interpersonal behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association , Chicago, Minois.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environment: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527-564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Freedman, R. L. (1999). Science and writing connections. New York: White Plains.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the naturee and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Flower, L., & Hays, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32.
Galbraith, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1999). Effective strategies for the teaching and learning of writing. Learning and Instruction, 9, 93-108.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and sacience instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Goh, S. W., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behaviour, classroom environment and student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning Environments Research, 1, 199-229.
Guha, S. (1999). Playful activities for young children. Science and Children, 37(2), 36-40.
Hand, B. (2004). Cognitive, constructivist mechanisms for learning science through
writing. In C. S. Wallace & B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the
science classroom (pp. 21-32). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Halliday, M., & Martin, J. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learning strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737-755.
Hand, B., Prain, V., & Trobe, L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035.
Hand, B., Treagust, D., & Vance, K. (1997). Student perceptions of the social constructivist classroom. Science Education, 81, 561-575.
Hand. B., & Wallace, C. W. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149.
Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed ). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science education, 83(2), 115-130.
Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690.
Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.
Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as socio-cultural practicees through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 883-915.
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342.
Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive process in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203-270.
Klein, P. D. (2000). Elementary students’ strategies for writing-to-learning in science. Cognition and instruction, 18(3), 317-348.
Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 143-178.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2004). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for research in Science Teaching, Dallax, TX.
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of Tchers of Eglish.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul(Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and sacience instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Levy, J., Brok, P. D., Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2003). Students’ perceptions of Interpersonal aspects of the learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 6, 5-36.
Lin, Y. H., & Chang, W. H. (2002). An elementary teacher’s action research on scaffolding students in talking science. Paper presented at the 2002 NARST Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LO, U.S.A.
Lin, Y.H., & Chang, W. H. (2003). An elementary teacher’s action research on engaging students in talking science. Paper presented at ESERA conference, Netherlands.
Lin, Y. H., & Chang, W. H., & Chang, H. P. (2005). A preliminary study on fourth graders’ perception of science teachers’ interpersonall behaviours. Paper prepared at the 2005 NARST Annual Conference, Dallas, TX, USA.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mason, L., & Buscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptuall change: What changes? Instructional Science, 28(3), 199-226.
Maskill, R. (1988). Logical language, natureal strategies and the teaching of science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(5), 485-495.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
Norman, K. I., & Hayden, K. L. (2002). K-12 instruction in the United States: Integrating national standards for science and writing through emerging technologies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 469626)
NRC(National Research Council). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Patterson, E.W. (2001). Structuring the composition process in scientific writing. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 1-16.
Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 179-201.
Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83(2), 151-162.
Raimes, A. (1999). Keys for writers: A brief handbook (2nd Ed.). Boston: Houghton. Mifflin. http://www.stanford.edu/~arnetha/expowrite/info.html retrieved 2005/2/13.
Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., Janessen, T., Braaksma, M., & Kieft, M. (2006). Writing experiment manuals in science education: The impact of writing, genre, and audience. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3), 203-233.
Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983.
Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88, 420–442.
Roth, R. G. (1987). The evolving audience: Altermatives to audience a accommodation. College Composition and Communication, 38, 47-55.
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.
Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2001). The role of children’s journals in elementary school science activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 43-69.
Sutton, C. (1989). Writing and reading in science: The hidden messages. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing science: Images of science in science education. Lewins: Falmer Press.
Sutton, C. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 1–18.
Thier, M., & Daviss, B. (2002). The new science literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2004). From “Try It and See” to strategic exploration: Characterizing young children’s scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 94-118.
Van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 115-142.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, C. S., & Hand, B. (2004). Children’s views of writing to learn. In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 1–18). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Wallberg, H. J. (1976). The psychology of learning environment: Behavioural, structural or perceptual? Review of Research in Education, 4, 142-178.
Wellington, J. (2000). Teaching and learning secondary science. London and New York: Routledge.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promoteunderstanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.
Wubbles, T. (1993). Teacher-student relationships in science and mathematics classes. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
Wubbels, T. & Brekelmans, M. (1998). The teacher factor in the social climate of the classroom. In B. J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education( pp. 565-580). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1991). A comparison of interpersonal behavior of Dutch and American teachers. International Journal of Intercultural relations, 15, 1-18.
Wubbles, T., & Levy, J. (1993). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education. London: Falmer Press.
Yore, L. D. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instruction and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 105–122.
Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.
Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., & Wallace, C. S. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347-352.
Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. V. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy---empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 291-314.
 
 
 
 
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：1163（臺灣：1159，外國：4） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1885225 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67685998
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