Title

從認識論的觀點探究大學生論證思考之能力與模式

Translated Titles

Investigating Undergraduates' Skills and Models of Argumentation from the Perspective of Epistemology

Authors

張淑女

Key Words

認識論 ; 論證思考 ; 能力 ; 模式 ; Epistemology ; Argumentation ; Skills ; Models

PublicationName

臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2004年

Academic Degree Category

博士

Advisor

邱美虹 博士

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

本研究旨在以認識論的觀點探討大學生之論證思考能力與論證模式之差異性,其中所採用的認識論觀點包括:藉由拉卡扥斯之科學研究綱領理論作為分析學生論證模式的基礎架構,並以邏輯經驗主義與進化認識論的觀點分析學生科學判準之依據,進一步探討持有不同科學判準觀點之學生其論證思考能力與論證模式之差異性。 總共有70位受試者參與本論文之研究,其中40位科學主修之受試者,來自桃園縣某私立醫學大學的大學生;30位非科學主修之受試者,來自台北縣某國立藝術大學的大學生。本研究以六個社會科學相關具爭議性的開放性議題為主要工具,進一步藉由受試者的寫作報告分析受試者的論證思考能力、論證模式、與科學判準依據,最後,以小組討論方式探討論證改變的條件。資料分析的部份是以質化與量化兩種分析方式進行。量化的資料部份,是以Excel(Microsoft軟體)、獨立T檢定和MANOVA(SPSS 10.0版)分析不同主修背景、不同科學判準依據、與不同論證能力之受試者其論證思考能力指標表現、論證模式、與理由來源類別的差異性。 本研究結果顯示,以科學研究綱領作為分析論證思考的架構是可行的,但是,所有受試者只有9位受試者可以呈現出完整的科學研究綱領之論證思考模式。研究顯示,進一步可以事實型模式、價值型模式、與政策型模式作為論證思考的硬核模式:科學主修、高論證能力與持進化認識論者在核心概念屬性為「未知有害性」與「已知有害性」時,皆是以事實型模式為硬核之主張;而非科學主修、低論證能力與持邏輯經驗主義者在核心概念屬性為「未知有害性」時,是以價值型模式為硬核之主張,在核心概念屬性為「已知有害性」時是以事實型模式為硬核之主張。科學主修與持有進化認識論之受試者其論證能力總分顯著高於非科學修與持邏輯經驗主義之受試者,進一步分析論證能力指標顯示,在支持理由來源類別數目與正面啟示法兩項論證能力指標有顯著的差異性,而所有受試者的理由來源類別多來自個人經驗與科學信念。就論證改變的研究結果,顯示論證改變與否和受試者的主修背景、論證能力是沒有關係的,並且只有在可理解的、與合理的條件之下論證改變才有可能發生。

English Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences of undergraduates’ skills and models of argumentation via the viewpoints of epistemology. On one hand, the researcher used Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as the basic framework to analyze students’ models of argumentation. On the other hand, the researcher analyzed students’ scientific justification according to the viewpoints from logical empiricism and evolutionary epistemology, and investigated the differences of skills and models of argumentation from students who held different scientific justification. Total seventy subjects from two different universities participated this study. There were 40 science-major students from a medical university in Taoyuan county, and the other 30 nonscience-major students from an art university in Taipei county. The main instrument of this study was open-ended questions of six socioscientific and controversial issues. The researcher analyzed students’ skills, models of argumentation, and viewpoints of scientific justification via their writing reports based on the six issues. In the end, the researcher conducted group discussions for exploring the conditions of the change of arguments. The researcher used qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the data. Excel, Independent T test and MANOVA were adopted to investigate the differences of skills and models of argumentation and sources of supporting reasons from students who had different total scores of skills, majored in different subjects, and held different viewpoints of scientific justification. From the results of this study, the researcher found using scientific research programmes as a framework to analyze argumentation was workable, but only nine students could present the whole model of argumentation. Furthermore, the researcher classified students’ hard core into three models, which were factual model, value model and policy model. Students from three groups of science-major, with higher skill of argumentation, and held evolutionary epistemology used factual model as the claim of hard core while they dealt with issues, no matter their harm to life is known or unknown. However, students from another three groups of nonscience-major, with lower skill of argumentation, and held logical empiricism used value model as the hard core while met the issues which is harmless to life so far. On the contrary, these three groups of students adopted factual model to cope with the issues which have been known their dangerous to life. Moreover, the performance on skills of argumentation was better in the two groups of students from science-major and holding the viewpoints of epistemology than the other two groups of nonscience-major and holding the viewpoints of logical empiricism. In addition, the researcher analyzed the performance on the indicators of skills and found the numbers of sources regarding supporting reasons, and positive heuristic were at significant level difference. In detail, the supporting reasons came most from personal experiences and science belief in all groups of subjects. In the end, in terms of the change of arguments, the researcher found students’ background and skills of argumentation were both not related to the change of arguments. Besides, intelligible and reasonable conditions were the two main factors to change student’s arguments.

Topic Category 理學院 > 科學教育研究所
社會科學 > 教育學
Reference
  1. 邱美虹(2000)︰概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊,第8卷,第1期, 1-34。
    連結:
  2. 胡瑞萍與林陳涌(2002):寫作與科學學習。科學教育月刊,第253期, 2-18。
    連結:
  3. Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children's arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 135-167.
    連結:
  4. Angeles, P. A. (1999). The harper collins dictionary of philosophy.New York: Harper Collins.
    連結:
  5. Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    連結:
  6. Bloom, B. S. (1954). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive domail.New York: Longmans, Green & Co.
    連結:
  7. Burgess, T., & Swann, J. (2003). The rejectability of karl popper: Why popper's ideas have had so little influence on social practice. Higher Education Review, 35(2), 57-65.
    連結:
  8. Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41, 1123-1130.
    連結:
  9. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 129-186). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    連結:
  10. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
    連結:
  11. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason and the human brain.New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
    連結:
  12. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
    連結:
  13. Emeren, F. H. V. (1995). A world of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 17(2), 144-158.
    連結:
  14. Engle, A. R., & Conant, R. C. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.
    連結:
  15. Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational researcher, 18(3), 4-10.
    連結:
  16. Fellows, N. J. (1994). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 985-1001.
    連結:
  17. Fimenez-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.
    連結:
  18. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
    連結:
  19. Gentner, D., & Grudin, J. (1985). The evolution of mental metaphors in psychology: A ninety-year retrospective. American Psychologist, 40, 181-192.
    連結:
  20. Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, 93-104.
    連結:
  21. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 117-159.
    連結:
  22. Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    連結:
  23. Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science:Prentice Hall.
    連結:
  24. Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classroom: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3/4), 451-494.
    連結:
  25. Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learn science. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 383-396.
    連結:
  26. Hewson, P. W. (1982). A case study of conceptual change in special relativity: The influence of prior knowledge in learning. European Journal of Science Education, 4, 61-78.
    連結:
  27. Hogam, K. (1999). Sociocognitiveroles in science group discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 855-882.
    連結:
  28. Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877-893.
    連結:
  29. Keil, F. C. (1979). Semantic and conceptual development: An ontological perspective.Cambridge, MA: Harverd University Press.
    連結:
  30. Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    連結:
  31. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915.
    連結:
  32. 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.
    連結:
  33. Keys, W. C. (1994). The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: An interpretive study of six ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1003-1022.
    連結:
  34. Keys, W. C. (1995). An interpretive study of students' use of scientific reasoning during a collaborative report writing intervention in ninth grade general science. Science Education, 79(4), 415-435.
    連結:
  35. Keys, W. C. (1997). A investigation of the relationship between scientific reasoning conceptual knowledge and model formulation in a naturalisitc setting. International Journal of Science Education, 19(8), 957-970.
    連結:
  36. Keys, W. C. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065-1084.
    連結:
  37. Keys, W. C. (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.
    連結:
  38. Kortland, K. (1996). An sts case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673-689.
    連結:
  39. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harverd Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.
    連結:
  40. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
    連結:
  41. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    連結:
  42. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    連結:
  43. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmers.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    連結:
  44. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific reserach programmes.Cambridge: Canbridge university press.
    連結:
  45. Latour, B. W., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    連結:
  46. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71-94.
    連結:
  47. Lawson, E. A. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 237-252.
    連結:
  48. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
    連結:
  49. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
    連結:
  50. 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.
    連結:
  51. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    連結:
  52. Nersessian, N. (1989). Conceptual change in science and in science education. Synthese, 80, 163-183.
    連結:
  53. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The plase of argument in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576.
    連結:
  54. Nickles, T. (1980). Scientific discovery, logic, and rationality.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
    連結:
  55. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 947-967.
    連結:
  56. Nussbaum, M. E. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. Social Studies, 93(3), 79-85.
    連結:
  57. Nussbaum, M. E., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
    連結:
  58. Patronis, P. 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, 745-754.
    連結:
  59. Perkins, D. N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psycjology, 77, 562-571.
    連結:
  60. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational researcher, 18(1), 16-25.
    連結:
  61. Pilar, M., & Fimenez-Aleixandre. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
    連結:
  62. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-687.
    連結:
  63. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-200.
    連結:
  64. Popper, K. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery.London: Hutchiuson.
    連結:
  65. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzong, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 81, 173-192.
    連結:
  66. Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969-983.
    連結:
  67. Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 27-45.
    連結:
  68. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
    連結:
  69. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engeering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27.
    連結:
  70. Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation. Informal Logic, 17(2), 159-176.
    連結:
  71. Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927.
    連結:
  72. Solomon, J. (1983). Learning about energy: How pupils think in two domain. European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 49-59.
    連結:
  73. Solomon, J. (1985). The pupils' view of electricity. European Journal of Science Education, 7(3), 281-294.
    連結:
  74. Tao, P.-K., & Gunstone, R. (1999). The process n conceptual change in force and mtion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-882.
    連結:
  75. Thorndyke, P. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory for narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
    連結:
  76. Tirri, K., & Pehkonen, L. (2002). The moral reasoning and scientific argumentation of gifted adolescents. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8(3), 120-129.
    連結:
  77. Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81, 387-404.
    連結:
  78. Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815-832.
    連結:
  79. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
    連結:
  80. Voss, J. F., Blais, J., Means, M. L., Greene, T. R., & Ahwesh, E. (1986). Informal reasoning and subject matter knowledge in the solving of ecnomics problems by naive and novice individuals. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 269-302.
    連結:
  81. Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991a). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337-350.
    連結:
  82. Yang, F.-Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students' prefernce and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221-244.
    連結:
  83. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.
    連結:
  84. 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.
    連結:
  85. 一、中文部分
  86. 吳嘉麗(2004):化學、醫藥與社會。台北市:中國化學會, 223-228。
  87. 邱美虹(1993):科學教科書與概念改變。科學教育月刊,第163期, 2-8。
  88. 邱美虹、陳英嫻(1995)︰月相盈虧之概念改變。師大學報,第40期, 509-548。
  89. 陳英娥(2002):教室中的數學論證之研究。教育研究資訊,第十卷,第六期,111-132。
  90. 第一次全國科學教育會議公聽會提案資料(2002)。
  91. 舒煒光、邱仁宗 (1998):當代西方科學哲學述評。台北市:水牛出版社。
  92. 路君約、盧欽銘、及歐滄和(1994):多因素性向測驗。台北市:中國行為科學社股份有限公司。
  93. 趙文敏(1988):拓樸學導論。台北市:九章出版社。
  94. 二、英文部分
  95. American heritage dictionary. (2001).). New York: Random House, Inc.
  96. Anderson, R. D., Kahl, S. R., Glass, G. V., & Smith, M. L. (1983). Science education: A meta-analysis of major questions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 379-385.
  97. Angell, R. B. (1964). Reasoning and logic.New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
  98. Applebee, A. N. (1991). Informal reasoning and writing instruction. In J. F. Voss, D. Perkins & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 401-414). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  99. Baron, J. (1988). Thinking and deciding.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  100. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  101. Buskes, G., & van, R., Arnoud. (1997). Topological spaces: From distance to neighborhood.New York: Springer-Verlag.
  102. Carey, S. (1985). Cinceptual change in childhood.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  103. Chi, M. T. H. (1993). Analyzing verbal data to represent knowledge: A practical guide.Unpublished manuscript, Pittsburgh, PA.
  104. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Creativity: Shifting across ontological categories flexibly. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith & J. Vaid (Eds.), Conceptual structures and processes: Emergence, discovery and change (pp. 209-234). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
  105. Clement, J. (1991). Nonformal reasoning in experts and in science students: The use of analogies, extreme cases, and physical intuition. In J. F. Voss, D. Perkins & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 345-362). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Eralbaum Associates.
  106. Coles, M. J., & Robinson, W. D. (1989). Teaching thinking: A survey of programmes in education.Bristol: The Bristol Press.
  107. Duschal, A. R., & Hamilton, J. R. (1992). Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice.New York: State University of New York.
  108. Fisher, A. (1988). The logic of real arguments.Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
  109. Gagne, R. M. (1974). The conditions of learning (2nd ed. ed.). New York: Holt, Rinerhart & Winston.
  110. Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). A constructive view of learning science. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  111. Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In K. G. Tobin & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199-218). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  112. Keil, F. C. (1999). Conceptual change. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.), The mit encyclopedia of cognitive sciences.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  113. Klein, P. D. (1999). Peopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203-270.
  114. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of arguments.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  115. Lacey, A. R. (1996). A dictionary of philosophy-3rd edn.New York: Routledge.
  116. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  117. MOE. (1998). 1-9 grades curriculum guidelines.Taipei: MOE.
  118. Nickerson, R. S. (1991). Modes and models of informal reasoning: A commentary. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 291-309). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  119. Perkins, D. N., Faraday, 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, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  120. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An envolutionary approach.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  121. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  122. Rieke, R. D., & Sillars, M. O. (1997). Argumentation and critical decision making.New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.
  123. Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1981). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three models of learning. In R. Klatsky & J. W. Cotton (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  124. Solomon, J. (1991). Group discussions in the classroom. School Science Review, 72, 29-34.
  125. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive science and educational theory and practice.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  126. Swann, J. (1999). Making better plans: Problem-based versus objectives-based planning. In J. Swann & J. Pratt (Eds.), Improving education: Realist approaches to method and research.Lodon: Cassell.
  127. Swann, J. (2003). A popperian approach to research on learning and method. In J. Swann & J. Pratt (Eds.), Educational research in practice: Making sense of methodology.Lodon: Continuum.
  128. Swann, J. (2003). What inhibits learning in school: A popperian analysis. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association, Heriot-Watt Univeristy, Edinburgh.
  129. Taylor, C. (1996). Defining science:Medison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
  130. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  131. Tweney, R. D. (1991). Informal reasoning in science. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education.Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  132. Voss, J. F. (1991b). Informal reasoning and international relationship. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education.Hillsdale, New jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  133. Voss, J. F., Perkins, D., & Segal, J. (1991c). Informal reasoning and education.Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  134. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternatives conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning.New York: Macmillan.
Times Cited
  1. 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。臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所學位論文。2005。1-171。
  2. 李亭誼(2011)。探討不同科學認識觀的八年級學生在社會性科學議題上論證能力的表現。臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所學位論文。2011。1-136。