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：探討教師角色在促進國小學童論證表現的改變--以啟發式科學寫作(SWH)教學為情境的四年個案研究
書刊名：科學教育學刊
作者：陳穎志／曾敬梅／張文華
作者(外文)：Chen, Ying-chih／Tseng, Ching-mei／Chang, Wen-hua
出版日期：2010
卷期：18:5
頁次：頁417-442
主題關鍵詞：科學論證；教師角色；教師專業成長；啟發式科學寫作；Scientific argumentation；Science writing heuristic；SWH；Teacher role；Teacher professional development
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(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:69
  • 點閱點閱:155
教師角色類型與運用是學生論證表現的關鍵因素。本研究以SWH教學為情境，概念化支持學生進行論證的教師角色―主導者、主持人、教練和參與者，並分析三位美國教師四年的SWH教學影帶，探討教師運用這四類角色的情形及對學生論證的衝擊。首先以修改之改革式教學觀察評量表(m-RTOP)分析影帶，結果發現在教師支持、教師提問、學生意見與科學論證有明顯轉變，且四個領域間有高度相關(r = .83 ~ .96, p < .01)。接續分析教師角色與學生論證，結果顯示在四年間，教師逐漸頻繁地應用四個角色，展現出豐富性，並在不同的教學活動與教室情境中使用不同角色，展現出靈活度。同時，學生的意見增加，且更能善用論證元素。最後，本研究建議對於教師專業發展課程應以長期且有系統的方向設計。
The way a teacher uses different roles impacts on students’ successful engagement in argumentative practice. This study conceptualized four critical roles for teachers -- director, moderator, coach, participant -- to support students in the construction of scientific argument, and explored the way three teachers used different roles in implementing the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach in elementary school classrooms. Research data was accumulated over 4 years through video recordings of science classes. The Modified Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (m-RTOP) was used to analyze videotaped science lessons. Analysis of the data indicated that there was a shift in the areas of teacher support, teacher questioning, student voice, and science argument, and the correlations among the four areas are significant (r = .83 ~ .96, p < .01). Several levels of subsequent analysis were completed related to teacher role and student argumentation. Results indicate that the teachers increasingly played all four roles during the four years of the study, which is referred to as richness of teacher role, instead of only using the director role as they did in the first year. The results also show that these teachers learned to appropriately implement the roles in different activities and contexts, which is flexibility of teacher role. As teacher roles shifted, student voice increased and the elements of argument were practiced and more successfully represented. Finally, this study suggests that teacher professional development should be designed systematically and should consist of ongoing training rather than a one-time event.
期刊論文
1.McNeill, K. L.、Pimentel, D. S.(2010)。Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms:The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation。Science Education，94(2)，203-229。  new window
2.Yore, L. D.、Treagust, D. F.(2006)。Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy-empowering research and in forming instruction。International Journal of Science Education，28(2)，291-314。  new window
3.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。  new window
4.Martin, A. M.、Hand, B.(2009)。Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study。Research in Science Education，39(1)，17-38。  new window
5.Scott, P. H.、Mortimer, E. F.、Aguiar, O. G.(2006)。The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons。Science Education，90(4)，605-631。  new window
6.Zembal-Saul, C.(2009)。Learning to teach elementary school science as argument。Science Education，93(4)，687-719。  new window
7.林樹聲(20060600)。從爭議性科技議題的教學設計和實踐中詮釋科學教師的角色--個案研究。科學教育學刊，14(3)，237-255。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.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
9.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。  new window
10.McNeill, K. L.(2009)。Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena。Science Education，93(2)，233-268。  new window
11.Crawford, Barbara A.(2000)。Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，37(9)，916-937。  new window
12.劉宏文、張惠博(20010600)。高中學生進行開放式探究活動之個案研究--問題的形成與解決。科學教育學刊，9(2)，169-196。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.佘曉清(19990300)。生物教師的教學信念、教學、與師生互動--個案研究。科學教育學刊，7(1)，35-47。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.顏弘志、段曉林(20061000)。建構主義取向教學的實踐--一位國小自然科教師信念、教學實務的改變。科學教育學刊，14(5)，571-595。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.Driver, R.、Newton, P.、Osborne, J.(2000)。Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms。Science Education，84(3)，287-312。  new window
16.Abd-El-Khalick, F.、BouJaoude, S.、Duschl, R.、Lederman, N. G.、Mamlok-Naaman, R.、Hofstein, A.、Niaz, M.、Treagust, D.、Tuan, Hsiao-Lin(2004)。Inquiry in science education: International perspectives。Science Education，88(3)，397-419。  new window
17.Newman, W. J. Jr.、Abell, S. K.、Hubbard, P. D.、McDonald, J.、Otaala, J.、Martini, M.(2004)。Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods。Journal of Science Teacher Education，15(4)，257-279。  new window
18.黃翎斐、張文華、林陳涌(20080800)。不同佈題模式對學生論證表現的影響。科學教育學刊，16(4)，375-393。new window  延伸查詢new window
19.Chin, C.(2007)。Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，44(6)，815-843。  new window
20.Davis, K. S.(2003)。“Change is hard”:What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices。Science Education，87(1)，3-30。  new window
21.Dori, Y. J.,、Herscovitz, O.(2005)。Casebased long-term professional development of science teachers。International Journal of Science Education，27(12)，1413-1446。  new window
22.Ford, M.(2008)。Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning。Science Education，92(3)，404-423。  new window
23.Hand, B. M., Wallace, C. W.,、Yang, E. -M.(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。  new window
24.Hohenshell, L. M.,、Hand, B.(2006)。Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study。International Journal of Science Education，28(2-3)，261-289。  new window
25.Lapadat, J.(2000)。Construction of science knowledge: Scaffolding conceptual change through discourse。Journal of Classroom Interaction，35(2)，1-14。  new window
26.McGinn, M. K.,、Roth, W. -M.(1999)。Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies。Educational Researcher，28(3)，14-24。  new window
27.Mercer, N.(2008)。The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis。Journal of the Learning Sciences，17(1)，33-59。  new window
28.Polman, J. L.(2004)。Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments。Cognition and Instruction，22(4)，431-466。  new window
29.Roehrig, G.,、Garrow, S.(2007)。The impact of teacher classroom practices on student achievement during the implementation of a reform-based chemistry curriculum。International Journal of Science Education，29(14)，1789-1811。  new window
30.Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E.,Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., et al.(2002)。Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: There formed teaching observation protocol。School Science and Mathematics，102(6)，245-253。  new window
31.Wallace, C. S.(2004)。Framing new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses, and the "Third space"。Science Education，88(6)，901-914。  new window
會議論文
1.Basir, M., Pinny, B., Chen, Y. -C., Chanlen,N.,、Tseng, C., Hand, B., et al.(2009)。The role of teaching practice in transformation of teachers in inquiry-based environment。Ames, IA。  new window
學位論文
1.洪振方(1994)。從孔恩異例的認知與論證探討科學知識的重建(博士論文)。國立師範大學。new window  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Halliday, Michael A. K.、Martin, J. R.(1993)。Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power。London：Falmer Press。  new window
2.Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L.,、Wisw, K.(2008)。Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children’s science writing。Portsmouth,NH：National Science Teacher Association。  new window
3.Lemke, J. L.(1990)。Talking science: Language, learning, and value。Ablex。  new window
4.教育部(2008)。97年國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要自然與生活科技學習領域。臺北市：教育部。  延伸查詢new window
5.National Research Council(1996)。National Science Education Standards。Washington, DC：National Academy Press。  new window
6.Toulmin, Stephen Edelston(1958)。The Uses of Argument。Cambridge University Press。  new window
7.Strauss, Anselm L.、Corbin, Juliet M.(1990)。Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedure and techniques。Sage。  new window
8.Duschl, R. A.(2008)。Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria。Argumentation in science education。Dordrecht, Netherlands。  new window
9.Hand, B. M.(2008)。Introducing the science writing heuristic approach。Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic。Rotterdam, Netherlands :。  new window
10.Treagust, D. F.(2007)。General instructional methods and strategies。Handbook of researchon science education。Mahwah,NJ。  new window
11.Twenty First Century Science.(2006)。Twenty First Century Science. GCSE science.Higher and foundation textbooks;teacher and technician guide; ICT resources。Oxford。  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：883（臺灣：868，外國：15） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1931025 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67734015
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