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：探討高中生在社會性科學議題決策課程中非形式推理能力、小組協作調整行為與決策方法的關係
作者：張文馨
作者(外文)：Zhang, Wen-Xin
校院名稱：國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱：科學教育研究所
指導教授：許瑛玿
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2018
主題關鍵詞：社會性科學議題；決策；非形式推理；調整行為；小組協作調整行為；socio-scientific issue；decision-making；informal reasoning；regulation；co-regulated behaviors
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(1) 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:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:20
本研究欲探討融入論證活動的社會性科學議題（SSI）決策課程對學生非形式推理、決策方法的使用及小組協作學習中的調整行為之間的關連。研究使用混合性研究，以質性資料為主，輔以單組前後測設計。研究對象以便利取樣，來自新北與高雄2所學校共3班多元選修課的學生，參與研究的學生有共38人。學生以2人一組，小組協作的形式進行SSI決策課程。研究收集的資料有學生的非形式推理能力測驗前、後測，小組學習單、小組討論與操作電腦之側錄影片。結果顯示，本研究發展的SSI決策課程能有效提升學生非形式推理能力（t = 3.73，p < .001），課程中，學習單的分析結果顯示小組在SSI決策課程中，大多能夠考量至少2-3個與議題相關的證據，並指出SSI中的兩難之處，也多能利用這些證據為自己的決策提出至少2個具辯護性的理由，但在提出反論點上通常缺乏辯護性理由、也未能思考本身決策的限制條件或重申反論點的負面證據；在決策方法的使用上，課程前、後學生使用的決策方法沒有顯著改變，大多數學生傾向於使用非補償性方法（前測：25人、後測：23人），課程中小組使用的決策方法與前後測中的決策方法都沒有顯著相關，顯示學生在SSI中的由個人進行決策或集體決策進行決策時的決策方法可能不同；此外，比較高（HIRG）、低非形式（LIRG）推理能力小組在協作學習過程中的決策方法與調整行為差異，其結果顯示，HIRG，只使用補償性（4組）與非補償性方法（3組），LIRG則只使用非補償性（2組）與無策略（3組）；另外，在小組協作調整的比較上， LIRG大多時候是在單純執行認知任務（49%），HIRG則有較多的監控與評鑑行為40%。HIRG展現較多比例的社會共享調整行為（73.19%），LIRG僅有55.06%的社會性共享調整行為。依據遲滯序列分析的結果顯示，相較於LIRG，HIRG重視對任務需求的辨識，且在辨識任務需求之後能訂定較具體的任務目標與計畫，並較能主動在監控與評鑑後調整小組內的認知行為。上述結果顯示，融入論證活動的SSI決策課程能有效提升學生的非形式推理能力，若學生在小組學習過程中正確釐清任務需求，能協助小組訂定較具體的目標與策略，應該能促使其主動監控與調整組內的認知表現，並展現較高的非形式推理能力且使用具體的方法進行決策。
關鍵字：社會性科學議題、決策、非形式推理、調整行為、小組協作調整行為
This study aimed to explore the interplay between 10th grade students’ informal reasoning, decision-making approach and their co-regulated behaviors in groups on socio-scientific issues. The mixed method supplemented with a one-group pretest-posttest design was adopted to collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data for reaching the research purpose. The current study used convenient sampling to invite 38 students participating in this study who were from two schools at New Taipei City and Kaohsiung City. They engaged in an SSI decision-making learning module collaboratively (2 members as a group). The data included the pre and post-tests of informal reasoning abilities, worksheets, and computer screen logs. The result of pre- and post-tests showed that students’ informal reasoning abilities were significantly improved after an SSI decision-making learning module(t = 3.73，p < .001). The analysis of students’ informal reasoning performances in groups also showed that students could consider more than 2 relevant evidence and identify the contradictory on an SSI. They also could make a decision based on more than 2 justified reasons. However, most students in groups could not pose any counter-argument with justification. They could not think of the limitation of their decision and restated the negative influences of the counter-arguments without justification in their group discourses. In addition, there was no significant difference on students’ decision-making approaches before and after the intervention of the learning module. Students usually considered their decision with non-compensatory approaches (before: 25, after: 23 students). Moreover, students’ decision-making approaches on their group discussions about the SSI in the decision-making learning module were not related to their decision-making approaches on the pre-test nor on the post-test. This result indicated that students’ decision making at an individual level might be different from the decision they made at a collective level. After comparing students’ regulated behaviors in groups and their decision-making approaches between higher (HIRG) and lower (LIRG) informal reasoning groups, it indicated that the 4 HIRGs used compensatory and the other 3 HIRGs used non-compensatory approach to reach their group decision. As opposed to HIRG, 2 LIRGs employed non-compensatory approaches and the other LIRGs used intuitive approaches to make a decision in groups. The results also showed that HIRG demonstrated more monitoring and evaluating behaviors (40%) and LIRG focused more on executing the cognitive task (49%) during collaborative learning on the SSI decision-making learning module. Most of HIRG’s regulated behaviors in groups were social-shared regulated behavior (73.19%) but and LIRG only showed about 55% social-shared regulated behaviors. Finally, the results of leg sequential analysis manifested that HIRG focused on identifying the demands of the learning task. They would set a specific goal and used strategies after clarifying the demands of the learning task. They also actively regulated their cognitive performance after some monitoring and evaluating behaviors. According to the results in this study, we found that the SSI decision-making learning module embedded argumentation activities could improve students’ informal reasoning abilities. Students demonstrated higher informal reasoning and employed a specific decision-making approach in groups in an SSI context if they could clarify the task demands and set a clear goal associated with actively monitoring and regulating their collaborative learning.
Keywords: socio-scientific issue, decision-making, informal reasoning, regulation, co-regulated behaviors
中文：
方素琦、許瑛玿（2017）。探討大學生在社會性科學議題情境中個人與集體決策能力之展現。科學教育學刊，25（4），頁391-412。 doi: 10.6173/CJSE.2017.2504.04
王凱平（2014）。大專學生對社會性科技議題之問題解決能力分析。教育傳播與科技研究（108），頁73-90。 doi: 10.6137/rect.2014.108.05
吳貞儀、許瑛玿、張文馨、方素琦（2017）。社會性科學議題線上教學模組對高中生多元面向決策的影響。數位學習科技期刊，9（3），頁 69-94。
吳舉宏（2012）。生物教學中社會性科學議題與非形式推理能力的培養。生物學教學，37（10），頁 9-11。 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-7549.2012.10.004
孟獻華、李廣州（2010）。國外「社會性科學議題」課程及其研究綜述。比較教育研究（11），頁 31-36。
林宗進、林樹聲、陳映均（2010）。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），頁 229-252。 doi: 10.6173/cjse.2010.1803.03
林樹聲（2007）。國小資深科學教師的專業改變:以基因改造食品議題之教學為例。科學教育學刊，15（3），頁 241-264。
林樹聲、靳知勤（2012）。國小教師實踐社會性科學議題教學之教師知識成長與比較。科學教育學刊，20（1），頁 41-68。
高華、余嘉元（2006）。推理過程中的非理性現象的新解釋。南京師大學報（社會科學版）（4），頁106-110。 doi: 1001 4608(2006)04 0106 05
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。未出版之博士論文，國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所，台北市。
陳新豐（2003）。線上題庫等化連結方式之比較。花蓮師院學報， 17，頁 153-192。
黃柏鴻、林樹聲（2007）。論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思。科學教育（302），頁 5-20。
靳知勤、楊惟程、段曉林（2010）。國小學童的非形式推理之研究－以生物複製議題之引導式論證爲例。課程與教學，13（1），頁 209-232。
鄧陽（2015）。科學論證及其能力評價研究。未出版之博士論文，華中師範大學教育學院，武漢，湖北。

西文：
Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191-1206. doi: 10.1080/09500690902991805
Aikenhead, G. (1994). What is STS in science teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67-90. doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
Berthold, K., Nckles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 564-577. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.007
Bouyias, Y., & Demetriadis, S. (2012). Peer-monitoring vs. micro-script fading for enhancing knowledge acquisition when learning in computer-supported argumentation environments. Computers and Education, 59(2), 236-249. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.001
Braund, M., Scholtz, Z., Sadeck, M., & Koopman, R. (2013). First steps in teaching argumentation: A South African study. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(2), 175-184. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.03.007
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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20278
Burek, K., & Zeidler, D. L. (2015). Seeing the forest for the trees! Conservation and activism through socioscientific issues. In M. P. Mueller & D. J. Tippins (Eds.), EcoJustice, Citizen Science and Youth Activism: Situated Tensions for Science Education (pp. 425-441). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Bybee, R., Harms, N., Ward, B., & Yager, R. (1980). Science, society, and science education. Science Education, 64(3), 377-395. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730640312
Chan, C. K. K. (2012). Co-regulation of learning in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 63-73. doi: 10.1007/s11409-012-9086-z
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2016). Is collaborative learners’ adoption of metacognitive regulation related to students’ content processing strategies and the level of transactivity in their peer discussions? European Journal of Psychology of Education. doi: 10.1007/s10212-016-0323-8
Demetriadis, S. (2013). Research evidence on the impact of technology-enhanced collaboration scripts on learning. In D. Hernández-Leo, T. Ley, R. Klamma, & A. Harrer (Eds.), Scaling up Learning for Sustained Impact (pp. 97-110). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
DiDonato, N. C. (2012). Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instructional Science, 41(1), 25-47. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9206-9
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187
Edelson, C. D., Tranoff, A., Schwille, K., Bruozas, M., & Switzer, A. (2006). Learning to make systematic decisions. The Science Teacher, 73(4), 40-45.
Eggert, S., & Bogeholz, S. (2010). Students' use of decision-making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: An application of the Rasch Partial Credit Model. Science Education, 94(2), 230-258. doi: 10.1002/sce.20358
Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Students' use of decision-making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: An application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94(2), 230-258. doi: 10.1002/sce.20358
Eggert, S., Ostermeyer, F., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Socioscientific decision making in the science classroom: The effect of embedded metacognitive Instructions on students' learning outcomes. Education Research International, 2013, 1-12. doi: 10.1155/2013/309894
Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). ‘Should we kill the Grey Squirrels?’ A study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401-428. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.619211
Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237. doi: 10.1002/tea.21076
Evans, J. S. (1984). Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 451-468. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01915.x
Evans, J. S. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
Evans, J. S. (2010). Thinking twice: Two minds in one brain: Oxford University Press.
Evans, J. S., & Thompson, V. A. (2004). Informal reasoning: Theory and method. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 58(2), 69.
Foong, C.-C., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2013). Students’ argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in a confucian classroom: Is transfer possible? International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331-2355. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.697209
Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296. doi: 10.1080/09500690701787909
Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551-570. doi: 10.1080/09500690701744595
Grace, M., Lee, Y. C., Asshoff, R., & Wallin, A. (2015). Student decision-making about a globally familiar socioscientific Issue: The value of sharing and comparing views with international counterparts. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1855-1874. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1054000
Grau, V., & Whitebread, D. (2012). Self and social regulation of learning during collaborative activities in the classroom: The interplay of individual and group cognition. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 401-412. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.003
Hadwin, A. F., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspecitves of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240-264.
Hadwin, A. F., Wozney, L., & Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: A socio-cultural analysis of changes in teacher–student
discourse about a graduate research portfolio. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 413-450. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1274-7
Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalisation and politicisation of science education. Curriculum Studies, 2(1), 71-98. doi: 10.1080/0965975940020104
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670. doi: 10.1080/09500690305021
Hong, J.-L., & Chang, N.-K. (2004). Analysis of korean high school students' decision-making processes in solving a problem involving biological knowledge. Research in Science Education, 34(1), 97-111. doi: 10.1023/B:RISE.0000020884.52240.2d
Hou, H.-T., & Wu, S.-Y. (2011). Analyzing the social knowledge construction behavioral patterns of an online synchronous collaborative discussion instructional activity using an instant messaging tool: A case study %J Comput. Educ. 57(2), 1459-1468. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.012
Hou, H. T. (2015). Integrating cluster and sequential analysis to explore learners' flow and behavior patterns in a simulation game with situated-learning context for science courses: A video-based process exploration. Computer in Human Behavior, 48, 424-435.
Hsu, Y.-S., Wang, C.-Y., & Zhang, W.-X. (2017). Supporting technology-enhanced inquiry through metacognitive and cognitive prompts: Sequential analysis of metacognitive actions in response to mixed prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 701-712. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.004
Isohätälä, J., Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2017). Socially shared regulation of learning and participation in social interaction in collaborative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 81, 11-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.10.006
Jho, H. (2015). A literature review of studies on decision-making in socio-scientific issues. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 35(5), 791-804. doi: 10.14697/jkase.2015.35.5.0791
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190. doi: 10.1080/09500690210134857
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3-27). Dordre-cht: Springer.
Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 341-359. doi: 10.1007/s11423-011-9230-5
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. doi: 10.1002/sce.10024
Klaczynski, P. A., & Cottrell, J. M. (2004). A dual-process approach to cognitive development: The case of children's understanding of sunk cost decisions. Thinking & Reasoning, 10(2), 147-174. doi: 10.1080/13546780442000042
Kolsto, S. D. (2001). "To trust or not to trust "Pupils ways of judging information encounterd in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 24(14), 1689-1716.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673-689. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199611)80:6<673::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-G
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Education Review, 62(2), 155-179. doi: 10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730770306
Lajoie, S. P., & Lu, J. (2011). Supporting collaboration with technology: Does shared cognition lead to co-regulation in medicine? Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 45-62. doi: 10.1007/s11409-011-9077-5
Lator, B. W., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory: The construction of scientific facts. Princetion, NJ: Princetion University Press.
Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11-24. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660150103
Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170-177. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2007.9656093
Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2010). Students' reasoning processes in making decisions about an authentic, local socio-scientific issue: bat conservation. Journal of Biological Education, 44(4), 156-165. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2010.9656216
Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students' reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross-context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787-807. doi: 10.1002/sce.21021
Levy Nahum, T., Ben-Chaim, D., Azaiza, I., Herskovitz, O., & Zoller, U. (2010). Dose STES-oritented science education promote 10th-grade students' decision-making capability? International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1315-1336.
Liu, S.-Y., Lin, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). College students' scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517. doi: 10.1002/sce.20422
Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2017). Capturing temporal and sequential patterns of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation in the context of collaborative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 160-174. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.009
Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. Handbook of educational psychology, 2, 287-303.
McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students' views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793-823. doi: 10.1002/tea.20430
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139-178.
Meyer, H. (2018). Teachers’ thoughts on student decision making during engineering design lessons. Education Sciences, 8(1). doi: 10.3390/educsci8010009
Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. F. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 573-588. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.050
Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., Tytler, R., & Barraza, L. (2014). Developing and using an S3R model to analyze reasoning in web-based cross-national exchanges on sustainability. Science Education, 98(3), 517-542. doi: 10.1002/sce.21113
National Research Council, NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas Washington, D.C., USA: The National Academies Press.
Nicolaou, C. T., Korfiatis, K., Evagorou, M., & Constantinou, C. (2009). Development of decision‐making skills and environmental concern through computer‐based, scaffolded learning activities. Environmental Education Research, 15(1), 39-54. doi: 10.1080/13504620802567007
Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2008). Short-term versus long-term effects of cognitive and metacognitive prompts in writing-to-learn. Paper presented at the The 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1599887
Ohm, E. (2005). The relationship between formal and informal reasoning. (Doctor), University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Papadouris, N. (2012). Optimization as a reasoning strategy for dealing with socioscientific decision-making situations. Science Education, 96(4), 600-630. doi: 10.1002/sce.21016
Papadouris, N., & Constantinou, C. P. (2010). Approaches employed by sixth-graders to compare rival solutions in socio-scientific decision-making tasks. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 225-238. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.022
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754. doi: 10.1080/095006999290408
Pedretti, E. (1997). Septic tank crisis: A case study of science, technology and society education in an elementary school. International Journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1211-1230. doi: 10.1080/0950069970191007
Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601-626. doi: 10.1002/sce.20435
Perkins, D. N. (1985a). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 562-571. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.77.5.562
Perkins, D. N. (1985b). Reasoning as imagination. Interchange, 16(1), 14-26. doi: 10.1007/BF01187588
Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182. doi: 10.1080/0950069970190203
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Roth, A., Ogrin, S., & Schmitz, B. (2016). Assessing self-regulated learning in higher education: A systematic literature review of self-report instruments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 225-250. doi: 10.1007/s11092-015-9229-2
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42. doi: 10.1080/03057260802681839
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391. doi: 10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000119456
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. doi: 10.1002/tea.20042
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93. doi: 10.1002/sce.20023
Sakschewski, M., Eggert, S., Schneider, S., & Bogeholz, S. (2014). Students' socioscientific reasoning and decision-making on energy-related issues-development of a measurement instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2291-2313. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.920550
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472. doi: 10.1002/sce.20276
Schoor, C., Narciss, S., & Körndle, H. (2015). Regulation during cooperative and collaborative learning: A theory-based review of terms and concepts. Educational Psychologist, 50(2), 97-119. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540
Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2008). Argumentation and reasoning In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.), Elsevier handbook of educational psychology: New perspectives on learning and teaching. London: Elsevire Press.
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Shaw, V. F. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 2(1), 51-80. doi: 10.1080/135467896394564
Siribunnam, S., Nuangchalerm, P., & Jansawang, N. (2014). Socio-scientific decision making in the science classroom. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 5(4), 1777-1782. doi: 10.1155/2013/309894
Steinbach, J., & Stoeger, H. (2016). How primary school teachers' attitudes towards self-regulated learning (SRL) influence instructional behavior and training implementation in classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 256-269. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.017
Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M.（2015）。教育心理學-教與學的理論與實踐（陳宥儒等人譯）（二版）。台北市：華騰文化。（原作第二版2009年出版）
Svenson, O. (1992). Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes. Acta Psychologica, 80(1), 143-168. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(92)90044-E
Svenson, O. (1996). Decision making and the search for fundamental psychological regularities: What can be learned from a process perspective? Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 65, 252-267.
Svenson, O., Salo, I., & Lindholm, T. (2009). Post-decision consolidation and distortion of facts. Judement nd Decision Making, 4(5), 397-407.
Teig, N., & Scherer, R. (2016). Bringing formal and informal reasoning together: A new era of assessment? Frontier in Psychology, 7, 1097. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01097
Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz‐Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495. doi: 10.1080/09500690903524779
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tweney, R. D. (1991). Informal reasoning in science. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 3-16). Killsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ucan, S., & Webb, M. (2015). Social regulation of learning during collaborative inquiry learning in science: How does it emerge and what are its functions? International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2503-2532. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1083634
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkenmans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabb, E. C., . . . Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical background and contemporary developments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
van Gelder, T. J. (2000). Learning to reason: A reason!-Able approach. In C. Davis & T. J. van Gelder (Eds.), Cognitive science in Australia, 2000: Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Cognitive Science Society Conference. Adelaide: Causal.
Vandevelde, S., Van Keer, H., & Rosseel, Y. (2013). Measuring the complexity of upper primary school children’s self-regulated learning: A multi-component approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 407-425. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.09.002
Vandevelde, S., Van Keer, H., Schellings, G., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2015). Using think-aloud protocol analysis to gain in-depth insights into upper primary school children's self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 11-30. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.027
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977. doi: 10.1002/tea.20358
Volet, S., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 128-143. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.001
Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215-226. doi: 10.1080/00461520903213584
Voss, J. F., Blais, J., Means, M. L., Greene, T. R., & Ahwesh, E. (1986). Informal reasoning and subject matter knowledge in the solving of economics problems by naive and novice individuals. Cognition and Instruction, 3(3), 269-302.
Voss, J. F., Fincher-Kiefer, R., Wiley, J., & Ney Silfies, L. (1993). On the processing of arguments. Argumentation, 7(2), 165-181.
Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Leraning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Leraning and Instruction, 1, 337-350.
Walpuski, M., Tepner, O., Sumfleth, E., Dollny, S., Hostenbach, J., & Pollender, T. (2012). Multiple perspectives on students’scientific communication and reasoning in chemistry education. Acta Didactica Norge Conferrence Vision Teaching, 6(1).
Walton, D. N. (1990). What is reasoning? What Is an argument? The Journal of Philosophy, 87(8), 399-419. doi: 10.2307/2026735
Walton, D. N., & Brintion, A. (1997). Historical foundations of informal logic. New York, NY: Routledge.
Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students’ discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000072764
Wu, M., Tam, H. P., & Jen, T.-H. (2016). Educational measurement for applied researchers: Theory into practice. Berlin: Springer.
Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students' informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187. doi: 10.1080/09500690601083375
Yang, F. Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students' preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221-244. doi: 10.1080/09500690210126739
Yates, J. F., & Tschirhart, M. D. (2006). Decision-making expertise. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 421-438). New York: Cambirdge University Press.
Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483-496. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<483::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-8
Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 12, pp. 697-726). New York, NY: Routledge Press.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. doi: 10.1002/sce.20048
Zhang, X., Anderson, R. C., Morris, J., Miller, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. T., Lin, T. J., . . . Hsu, J. Y. L. (2015). Improving childrens competence as decision makers: Contrasting effects of collaborative interaction and direct instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 53(1), 194-223. doi: 10.3102/0002831215618663
Zhang, X., Anderson, R. C., Morris, J., Miller, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. T., Lin, T. J., . . . Hsu, J. Y. L. (2016). Improving children’s competence as decision makers: Contrasting effects of collaborative interaction and direct instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 53(1), 194-223. doi: 10.3102/0002831215618663
Zheng, L., & Yu, J. (2016). Exploring the behavioral patterns of Co-regulation in mobile computer-supported collaborative learning. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1). doi: 10.1186/s40561-016-0024-4
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135-147. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.794676
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008
 
 
 
 
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：776（臺灣：764，外國：12） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1725833 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67533565
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