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：國中理化老師的數理課程統整觀
作者：蔡淑君
作者(外文)：Shu-ChunTsai
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：邱守榕
段曉林
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2010
主題關鍵詞：數理統整；課程統整；科學與數學統整
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:0
  • 點閱點閱:133
科學與數學課程的統整不僅僅在科學學習需要時將數學的知識、方法視為解決科學問題的工具而已，而是能夠在科學概念中有意義地運用數學，或是在數學概念中有意義的運用科學的情境脈絡促進理解。本研究旨在從理化老師對數理課程的信念、知識連結和實務展現等面向，討論數理課程統整的內涵與模式，選擇富含數理交互詮釋的「力與運動」單元作為理化老師表現知識連結與實務的平台，聚焦其信念的特徵、連結的性質和在實務中課程統整的方法。
本研究為個案研究，分準備與探索兩個階段實施，準備階段為聚焦個案和熟悉研究場域，探索階段則為收集主要的研究資料以回答待答的問題。資料收集的方法包括訪談、概念連結圖和教學實務錄影，資料收集後，從數理統整和表徵的觀點以詮釋分析方法進行資料分析。
結果發現，在信念方面，個案老師對數理課程的統整可分為學習需求、知識需求以及解題需求等三個面向，在知識方面，個案老師對數理課程連結的差異根源於對數學知識的定位和數學知識之間連結的豐富程度，這些差異影響數理課程統整的深度。在實務方面，個案老師則能展現以數學談論科學和以科學談論數學兩個方向，數學可以將科學知識抽象化後以合適的數學語言表徵科學概念，在表徵的過程中啟發相關的數學系統知識與科學知識連結而進行推論，並且反之，能展現科學提供負載科學的情境與脈絡來表徵數學知識，或以相關的科學系統知識重新詮釋數學概念。綜合個案教師對數理課程統整的信念、知識和實務展現關係所提出的五種模式中反映出，信念和知識不能單一作為數理課程統整實務的條件，且都會影響數理課程統整的強度與深度。統整的實務表現之必要條件為豐富的學科知識，縱使具備此條件，有意義的數理課程統整尚需倚賴良好的統整信念。
因此，本研究在課程內容方面建議將有共同構念的數學與科學課程加以整理，提供數理老師能夠操作的數理課程統整索引。在師資培育方面則建議數理統整的信念和知識在同一個情境中發展，兩者才能在數理課程統整中相互成長。
In learning science or dealing with scientific problems, the use of mathematics concept and skill may be considered not only as tools but also as windows to have better understanding on science concepts. And vice versa, fueled by scientific experiences and knowledge, mathematics understanding can be enriched. It is clear that integration is beneficial for different disciplines. The objective of this study is to investigate contents and models of science teachers’ integration of science and mathematics along facets including belief, knowledge and practice in integration. The topic purposefully selected is the Newtonian motion that provides ample opportunities for science teachers to demonstrate their belief, knowledge and practice of science and mathematics integration. This case study is accomplished firstly by pin down objects for further investigation and then collecting and analyzing data. Data comprises of interview with objects, concept maps and video of objects’ teaching practices. Those are analyzed by interpretive methodology from integration and representation perspectives.
Findings are delineated according to facets. The facet of science teachers’ belief on knowledge of integration of science and mathematics can be classified into three types of needs: for learning, for developing knowledge and for solving problems. In knowledge of integration facet, there are differences between teachers and those differences may be traced back to the complexity of inner-connection within mathematics concept maps and inter-connection between science and mathematics concept maps. The practice facet can be realized from two directions: using mathematics to talk about science and vice versa. By applicable use of mathematics knowledge, science concept can be deduced and described mathematically. In the process of such mathematics abstraction, science and mathematics knowledge may be fused so that science can ride on the powerful mathematics vehicle to gain fruitful results. On the contrary, infused with science knowledge, mathematics can be fertilized by meaningful interpretations resides in scientific context that yield ways for renaissance. There are five models found in describing relations among belief, knowledge and practice of integration. Those models reflect that both of belief and knowledge will affect the amplitude and stretch of integration but any one of them is not sufficient for the existence of integration in practice. Along with abundant knowledge, it requires solid belief to make integration a reality in practice.
Suggested by results of this study, we advise a collective subject matter of different disciplines with same essence will provide handy reference for science and mathematics teachers. In future teacher preparation programs, belief issue taught accompany with doing integration of different content knowledge may lead to a better result not only in understanding but also in practice.
一、中文部分
王美芬（2001）。九年一貫學校本位、統整課程及多元評量的實踐—以「自然與生活科技」領域為例。科學教育研究與發展季刊，25，1-16。
凃柏原、梁恩琪、翁大德和楊毅立(2004)：國中生基本學力測驗自然科試題分析研究。國立台南師範學院測驗統計研究所科技化測驗與能力指標評量國際研討會，國立台南師範學院。
科學中的數學方法（水木耳譯）（1995）。新竹：凡異。。
科學教育的詮釋性研究。（李田英等譯）（1993）。1993年國際詮釋性研究研討會講義，臺灣師範大學。
教育心理學─認知取向（林清山譯）（1997）。台北：遠流。（原著出版年：1987年）。
教育部（2004）。九年一貫課程數學學習領域之能力指標。2004年6月19日，取自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC/fields/2003/math_3_1.php。
曹亮吉（2002）。自然哲學的數學原理。科學月刊，18(7)。民國99年1月4日，取自http://episte.math.ntu.edu.tw/articles/sm/sm_18_07_1/index.html。
陳忠志, Taylor, P. C. & Aldridge, J. M.（1998）。國中教師科學本質及科學教學信念對理化教室環境的影響。科學教育學刊，6(4)，383-402。new window
陳素玲（2002）。國小自然課本的數學概念與科學推理之分析研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，屏東市。
馮松林（2006）。探究高中學生對化學實驗中測量之理解。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。未出版，彰化市。new window
黃譯瑩（1998）。課程統整之意義探究與模式建構。國家科學委員會研究彙刊：人文及社會科學，8(4)，616-633。
熊同鑫、王振興和陳淑麗（2001）。以國小高年級自然科為核心之課程統整設計研究。科學教育學刊，9(2)，123-145。new window
歐用生（1999）。從「課程統整」的概念評九年一貫課程。教師天地，101，15-24。new window
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究理論與應用。台北：心理出版社。
蔡淑君、段曉林和邱守榕（2006）：數理教師對科學、數學與數理統整的態度與信念。科學教育學刊，14(5)，545-570。new window
錢正之（2003）。方程式定性分析在運動學的教學與研究。科學教育學刊，11(3)， 331-350。new window
薛梨真（1999）。國小實施統整課程的可行性研究。初等教育學報，12，125-167。new window
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。

二、英文部分
Alexander, R. (1992). Policy and practice in primary education. London: Routledge.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J. D., Hirstein, J. & Walen, S. (1997). Integrated mathematics interfaced with science. School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 45-49.
Basista, B. & Mathews, S. (2002). Integrated science and mathematics professional development programs. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 359-370.
Basista, B., Tomlin, J., Pennington, K. & Pugh, D. (2001). Inquiry-based integrated science and mathematics professional development program. Education, 121(3), 615-624.
Bastide, F. (1990). The iconography of scientific texts: Principles of analysis. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar(Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 187–229). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 616-622.
Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62(8), 750-762.
Bennett, N., Desforges, C., Cockburn, A. & Wilkinson, B. (1984). The quality of pupils’ learning experiences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berlin, D. F. (1994). The integration of science and mathematics education: Highlights from the NSF/SSMA wingspread conference plenary papers. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 32-35.
Berlin, D. F. & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15-24.
Berlin, D. F. & White, A. L. (1992). Report from the NSF/SSMA Wingspread conference: A network for integrated science and mathematics for teaching and learning. School Science and Mathematics, 92(6), 340-342.
Berlin, D. F. & White, A. L. (1994). The Berlin-White integrated science and mathematics model(BWISM). School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 2-4.
Berlin, D. F. & White, A. L. (1998). Integrated science and mathematics education：evolution and implications of a theoretical model. In Fraser, B. J. & Tobin, K. G. (Eds.), International handbook of science education(pp.499-512), Great Britain：Kluwer Academic.
Billings, E. M. & Klanderman, D. (2000). Graphical representations of speed: Obstacles preservice K-8 teachers experience. School Science and Mathematics, 100(8), 440-450.
Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bowen, G. M. & Roth, W.-M. (2002). Why students may not learn to interpret scientific inscriptions. Research in Science Education, 32, 303-327.
Bowen, G. M. & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063-1088.
Brown, W. R. & Wall, C. E. (1976). A look at the integration of science and mathematics in the elementary school - 1976. School Science and Mathematics, 76(7), 551-562.
Brassel, H. M. & Rowe, M. B. (1993). Graphing skills among high school physics students.School Science and Mathematics, 93, 63-71.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their relationships to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 53-62.
Chambers, J., Cleveland, W., Kleiner, B. & Tukey, P. (1983). Graphical methods for data analysis. Belmont: Wadsworth International Group.
Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought process. In M. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 327–345.
Colburn, A. & Echevarria, J. (1999). Meaningful lessons. The Science Teacher, 66(2), 36-39.
Confrey, J. (1993). Learning to see children’s mathematics: Crucial challenges in constructivist reform. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 299-321). Washington, DC: AAAS Press.
Cornett, J. W., Yeotis, C. & Terwilliger, L. (1990). Teacher personal pratical theories and their influence upon teacher currivular and interactional actions: A case study of a secondary teacher. Science Education, 74(5), 517-529.
Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W. B., Sandmann, A. & Ahern, J. (1999). A literature review of science and mathematics integration. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421-430.
Davison, D. M., Miller, K. W. & Metheny, D. L. (1995).What does integration of science and mathematics really mean? School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 226-230.
De Ford, D. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 351–381.
Desforges, C. & Cockburn, A. (1987). Understanding the mathematics teacher: A study of practice in first schools. London: Falmer.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London: Croom Helm.
Elliott, B., Oty, K., Mcarthur, J. & Clark, B. (2001). The effect of an interdisciplinary algebra/science course on student’ problem solving skills, critical thinking skills and attitudes towards mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(6), 811-816.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65.
Farenga, S. J. & Joyce, B. A. (1999). Intentions of young students to enroll in science courses in the future : An examination of gender differences. Science Education, 83, 55-75.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known in teacher-knowledge research. In: Darling-Hammond, L.(Ed.) Review of research in education, 20. Washington, D.C.: American Education Research Association.
Foss, D. H. & Pinchback, C. L. (1998). An interdisciplinary approach to science, mathematics, and reading: Learning as children learn. School Science and Mathematics, 98(3), 149-155.
Gabel, D. L., Sherwood, R. D. & Enochs, L. (1984). Problem-solving skills of high school chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(2), 221-233.
Goldberg, F. M. & Anderson, J. H. (1989). Student difficulties with graphical representations of negative values of velocity. The Physics Teacher, 27, 254–260.
Gravemeijer, K. & Doorman, M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education: A calculus course as an example. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 111–129.
Greeno, J. G. (1988). The situated activities of learning and knowing mathematics. In M. J. Behr, C. B. Lacampagne, & M. M. Wheeler(Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(pp.481-521). Dekalb IL: IGPME-NA.
Greeno, J. G. & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361-367.
Grouws, D. A. & Good, T. L. (1989). Research into practice: Issues in problem-solving instruction. Arithmetic Teacher, 36(8), 34-35.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The Alternative Paradigm Dialog. In E. G. Guba(Ed.), The paradigm dialog. CA: Sage.
Haigh, W. & Rehfeld, D. (1995). Integration of secondary mathematics and science methods course: A model. School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 240-247.
Halliday, D. & Resnick, R. (2007). Fundamentals of physics (8th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Halloun, I. A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056-1065.
Handal, B. (2003). Teachers’ mathematical beliefs: A review. The Mathematics Educator,13(2), 47-57.
Harste, J. C. & Burke, C. L. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research’. In: Pearson, P.D. (Ed.) Reading: Theory, research and practice. New York: Mason Publishing.
Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A. & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. D. Pearson(Eds), Handbook of reading research(pp.641-668). New York: Longman.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G.(1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
Huntley, M. A. (1998). Design and implementation of a framework for defining integrated mathematics and science education. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 320-327.
Isaacs, A., Wagreich, P. & Gartzman, M. (1997). The quest for integration: School mathematics and science. American Journal of Education, 106, 179-206.
Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Janvier, C. (1987). Translation process in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics, (pp.27-32). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65-90.
Kanari, Z. & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 748-769.
Kaput, J. J. (1987). Representation systems and mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp 19-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Koirala, H. P. & Bowman, J. K. (2003). Preparing middle level preservice teachers to integrate mathematics and science: Problems and possibilities. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 145-154.
Kramarski, B. & Mevarech, Z. R. (1997). Cognitive-metacognitive training within a problembased Logo environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 425-445.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (1997). Integrated, interdisciplinary, or thematic instruction? Is this a question or is it questionable semantics? School Science and Mathematics, 97(2), 57-58.
Lederman, N. G. & Niess, M. L. (1998). 5 Apples + 4 Oranges = ?. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 281-284.
Lehman, J. R. (1994). Integrating science and mathematics: Perceptions for preservice and practicing elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 94(2), 58-64.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O. & Stein, M. K. (1990). Function, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-64.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lemke, J.L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J.R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge.
Lesh, R., Post, T. & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics, (pp.33-40). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lewis, S. P., Alacaci, C., O’Brien, G. E. & Jiang, Z. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ use of mathematics in a project-based science approach. School Science and Mathematics, 102(4), 172-179.
Lin, J.-Y. (2007). Responses to anomalous data obtained from repeatable experiments in the laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 506-528.
Lonning, R. A. & DeFranco, T. C. (1997). Integration of science and mathematics: A theoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 97(4), 212-215.
Lyle, K. S. & Robinson, W. R. (2002). Talking About Science. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(1), 18-20.
McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L. & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503-513.
McGinnis, J. R., Kramer, S., Shama, G., Graeber, A., Parker, C. A. & Watanabe, T. (2002). Undergraduates' attitudes and beliefs about subject matter and pedagogy measured periodically in a reform-based mathematics and science teacher preparation program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 713-737.
McGinnis, J. R., McDuffie, A. & Parker, C.(1999a). An investigation in preparing teacher candidates to make connections between science and mathematics. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, Massachusetts.
McGinnis, J. R., McDuffie, A. & Parker, C. (1999b). An action research perspective of making connections between science and mathematics in a science methods course. Paper presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Austin, Texas.
McGinnis, J. R., Parker, C. & Graeber, A. (2000) What happens to first year teachers prepared to make connections between science and mathematics when they enter the workplace? Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, Louisiana.
McGinnis, J. R., Kramer, S., Shama, G., Graeber, A., Parker, C. A. & Watanabe, T. (2002). Undergraduates’ attitudes and beliefs about subject matter and pedagogy measured periodically in a reform-based mathematics and science teacher preparation program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 713-737.
McGinnis, J.R., Shama, G., Graeber, A. & Watanabe, T. (1997). The assessment of elementary/middle level candidates' attitudes and beliefs about the nature of and the teaching of mathematics and science. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
McGinnis, J.R., Watanabe, T., Shama, G. & Graeber, A. (1997). Development of an instrument to measure teacher candidates' attitudes and beliefs about mathematics and science. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, Illinois.
McKendree, J., Small, C., Stenning, K. & Conlon, T. (2002). The role of representation in teaching and learning critical thinking. Educational Review, 54(1), 57-67.
Mevarech, Z.R. & Kramarsky, B. (1997). From verbal descriptions to graphic representations: Stability and change in students’ alternative conceptions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 229-263.
Mokros, J.R. & Tinker, R.F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369-383.
Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A. H. & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T.A. Romberg, E. Fenemma, & T.P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 69-100). New York: Erlbaum.
Mousoulides, N. & Gagatsis, A. (2004). Algebraic and geometric approach in function problem solving. Proceedings of the 28th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education. (Vol. 3, pp. 385-392). Bergen, Norway: Program Committee of the 28th PME Conference.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston: VA: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (2003). Standards for science teacher Preparation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nemirovsky, R. & Rubin, A. (1992). Students’ tendency to assume resemblances between a function and its derivative. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oakley, J. S. (1974). Reflection on the integration of mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 74(4), 293-296.
Ormerod, M. B. & Duckworth, D. (1975). Pupils’ attitudes to science: A review of the research. Atlantic Highlands. NJ: Humanities Press.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P. & Loef, M. (1989). Teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 1-40.
Rief, F. (1983). How can chemists teach problem solving? Journal of Chemical Education, 60, 948-953.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D. & Lioyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Education Research Journal, 28, 3, 559-586.
Roth, K. J. (1994). Second thoughts about interdisciplinary studies. American Educator, 18(1), 44-48.
Roth, W.-M. (2004). Emergence of graphing practices in scientific research. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4, 595-627.
Roth, W.-M. & Bowen, G. M. (1994).Mathematization of experience in grade 8 open-inquiry environment: An introduction to the representational practices of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 293-318
Roth, W.-M. & McGinnis, M. K. (1998).Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35-59.
Rutherford, J. & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schoenfeld, A., Smith, J., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Volume 4)(pp. 55-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schön, D. (1983) The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.
Schwartz, J. E. & Riedesel, C. A. (1994). The relationship between teachers’ knowledge and beliefs and the teaching of elementary mathematics.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366 585)
Shaffer, P.S., & McDermott, L.C. (2005). A research-based approach to improving student understanding of the vector nature of kinematical concepts. American Journal of Physics, 73, 921-931.
Shah, P. (1997). A model of the cognitive and perceptual processes in graphical display comprehension. Paper presented at the American Association for Artificial Intelligence 1997 Fall Symposium: Reasoning with Diagrammatic Representations, Menlo Park, CA.
Sharma, S. V. (2006). High school students interpreting tables and graphs: Implications for research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 241-268.
Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 479-541.
Shternberg, B. & Yerushalmy,M. (2003). Models of functions and models of situations: On design of modeling-based learning environments. In R. Lesh and H.M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 479–498). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Steen, L. A. (1994). Integrating school science and mathematics: Fad or folly? In D. F. Berlin (ed.), NSF/SSMA Wingspread conference: A network for integrated science and mathematics teaching and learning (pp.7-12). Columbus, Ohio: National Center for Science Teaching and Learning.
Stevens, C. & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers knowledge and beliefs regarding science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 2-9.
Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M. & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213-226.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stuessy, C. L. (1995). Invited comments: A model for preservice teacher preparation that integrates the teaching and learning of mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 30-31.
Testa, I., Monroy, G. & Sassi, E. (2002). Students’ reading images in kinematics: The case ofreal-time graphs. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 235-256.
Thompson, A. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105- 127.
Tobin, K. & Fraser, B. J. (1989). Barriers to higher-level cognitive learning in high school science. Science Education, 73(6), 659-682.
Trowbridge, D. E. & McDermott, L. C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48, 1020–1028.
Tsai, C. C. (2003). Taiwanese science students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the laboratory learning environments: Exploring epistemological gaps. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 847-860.
Underhill, R. (1995). Editorial. School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 225.
Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 21, 14-23.
Westbrook, S. L. (1998). Examining the conceptual organization of students in an integrated algebra and physical science class. School Science and Mathematics, 98(1), 19-25.
Woolnough, J. (2000). How do students learn to apply their mathematical knowledge to interpret graphs in physics?. Research in Science Education, 30(3), 259-267.
Wu, H.-K. & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders’ use of data tables and graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 63-95.
 
 
 
 
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：1276（臺灣：1256，外國：20） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1669892 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67473574
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