Title

兩種建構取向教學模式對國小學生「自然與生活科技領域」科學學習表現之影響

Translated Titles

The Effect of two Constructive Teaching Model on Primary School Students about “Science and Living Technology Areas”

Authors

羅廷瑛

Key Words

建構取向教學模式 ; 科學寫作 ; 行動研究 ; 科學學習表現 ; 科學學習歷程 ; Constructive Teaching Model ; Writing to Learn Science ; Action Research ; Science Learning Performance ; Science Learning Process

PublicationName

臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2003年

Academic Degree Category

博士

Advisor

張景媛

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

本研究主要目的為(一)分析兩種建構取向之教學模式(「科學寫作融入學習環教學模式」及「探究式教學模式」)對國小不同科學能力學習者其科學學習成就、科學學習態度與基本能力的影響,並進一步分析教學效果是否因不同的科學能力,而有差異。(二)探討不同科學能力學習者的科學寫作態度及科學學習歷程的心理建構之差異。(三)歸納影響學生科學表現之因素,提出建構取向教學模式的實施原則,以供教學實務者參考。為達致上述研究目的研究者採用行動研究、統計分析及質性研究三種研究法來進行研究,分為三個部分加以說明。 第一部分主要針對研究目的一,研究者在此部分,採用行動研究。研究者以台北縣安儒(化名)國小四年級學生2個班級共63位學生為研究對象,進行本研究所建構的「科學寫作融入學習環教學模式」之前導性研究,從前導性研究所獲得的反思,修正教學模式後,在正式研究中實施。待研究結束後,選取研究者觀察實施「探究式教學模式」的兩個班級學生,共62位學生,以「科學能力」和「教學法」為自變項,「四下自然科學習成就測驗」、「科學學習態度量表」、「科學歷程技能測驗」與「問題解決能力測驗」之得分為依變項,分別進行二因子變異數分析及二因子多變項變異數分析,以考驗兩種教學模式對學生科學學習表現的效果;在質性研究部分,研究者透過錄音、錄影、訪談及觀察等資料,整理出研究者對兩種建構取向教學法的反思。 第二部分主要針對研究目的二,研究者在此部分,採用統計分析及質性研究法。在統計分析部分,研究者以接受「科學寫作融入學習環教學模式」的63位學生為研究對象,以「科學能力」為自變項,「科學寫作態度量表」為依變項,進行單因子多變項變異數分析,以比較不同能力學習者其科學寫作態度的差異。在質性研究部分,研究者透過錄音、錄影、訪談、量表及試卷等的資料,比較不同科學能力學習者在學習歷程其心理建構之差異。 第三部分主要針對研究目的三,研究者在此部份,使用「影響科學表現因素之訪談大綱」,訪談24位個案學生及3位個案教師;並結合學生上課表現之觀察紀錄,歸納出影響學生科學學習表現之因素。 綜合研究結果,本研究的主要發現如下: 一、兩種教學模式對國小學生科學學習表現之影響: 1.「科學寫作融入學習環教學模式」之學生相較於「探究式教學模式」,在自然科學習成就、科學歷程技能中的「推理能力」以及問題解決能力中的「實施步驟計畫能力」,表現較優。 2.「探究式教學模式」之學生相較於「科學寫作融入學習環教學模式」,在「科學學習重要性」之科學學習態度表現較優。 3.高科學能力學習者在「問題產生能力」上,優於中科學能力學習者與低科學能力學習者。 4.高、中科學能力學習者在自然科學學習成就與「問題重要性知覺」、「提出解決方法」能力上,優於低科學能力學習者。 二、研究者對兩種建構式教學模式實施效果產生十項的反思。 三、比較不同科學能力學習者在科學學習歷程其心理建構之差異: 包含初始狀態、轉換歷程及終點狀態,其心理建構,均有差異存在。歸類: 1.科學學習者類型:高科學能力學習者為「問題解決型學習者」、中科學能力學習者為「循規蹈矩型學習者」與低科學能力學習者為「孤立無助型學習者」。 2.科學寫作類型:高科學能力學習者為「技巧型寫作者」、中科學能力學習者為「努力型寫作者」與低科學能力學習者為「發展型寫作者」。 四、分析影響不同科學能力學生其科學學習表現之因素有八項。 最後,研究者歸納研究結論,並提出研究結果應用及未來相關研究之建議,作為學校教師教學以及未來研究之參考。

English Abstract

The main purpose of this study were conducted to: (a)explore the effects of two Constructive Teaching Models which were “Writing to Learn Science Integrate into Learning Cycle Instruction Model” and “Inquire Instruction Model” on Primary School Students’ science achievement, science learning attitude and basic skill performance; (b)explore distinct learners’ science writing attitude and the differences of Science Learning Process in mental construction; (c)induce the factors that affect students’ performance and bring the practical principles of Constructive Teaching Model to provide suggestions for implementation of science teaching. The researcher adopted Action Research, statistics analysis and Qualitative research to accomplish the study purposes. The details were as follows: 1. The fist part was mainly for the first purpose of this study, which adopted Action Research. The researcher chose Ann Ru Primary School in Taipei county as the participants that including 63 students from two classes. These participants proceed pre-experimental design on Writing to Learn Science Integrate into Learning Cycle Instruction Model to get reflections to correct teaching models. At the end of this study, two classes was selected and observed to participate in Inquire Instruction Model. The researcher took “Science Ability,” ”Teaching Method” as independent variables, and “Science Learning Achievement Test,” “Learning Attitude Toward Science and Basic Skill,” “the Science Process Skill Test” and “the Problem Solving Ability Test” as dependence variables using the method of two-factor ANCOVA and two-factor MANOVA to test the effects on two teaching models that promote science learning performance. Besides, in Qualitative research, the researcher concluded the reflections toward two Constructive Teaching Models by recording, video, observing and interviewing. 2. The second part was mainly for the second purpose of this study, which adopted statistics analysis and Qualitative research. In statistics analysis part, the researcher chose 63 students as the participants, which accepted Writing to Learn Science Integrate into Learning Cycle Instruction Model. The researcher took “Science Ability” as independent variable and “Science Writing Attitude Scale” as the dependent variable using the method of ANOVA to compare the differences in distinct learners’ science learning attitude. In Qualitative research part, the researcher compared the differences of distinct learners’ Learning Process in mental construction by recording, video, interviewing, scale and testing. 3. The third part was mainly for the third purpose of the study. The researcher used The Conspectus of Interview of the Factors that Effect Students’ Performance by interviewing 24 students and 3 teachers, and combined that with the observation record of students’ performance in class, and summed up the factors of affecting students’ learning performance of science. The results of the study were as follows: 1.About students’ performance of science. (1)The Instruction Model of Science Writing into the Learning Cycle enhanced students’ ability of inference in the process of learning science technique, and the ability of planning for action step. (2)Inquire Instruction Model, enhanced students’ attitude of learning science. (3)The high science ability learners were better than medium and low ones on the ability of problem-producing. (4)High and medium science ability learners were better than low ones on the achievement of natural science, the consciousness of the importance of problem, and the ability of problem-solving. 2.About the researcher’s reflection was10. 3.Compare the difference of psychological construct for the different science ability learners’ learning process toward science. There were differences among the entering behavior, process, terminal behavior in psychological construct. It could be classified to two styles as follows: (1)The learning style toward science: the high science capable learner was called Problem-Solving Learner, the middle science learner was called Law-Abiding Learner, and the low science learner was called Helplessness Learner. (2)The writing style toward science: the high science capable learner was called Skilled Writer, the middle science learner was called Struggling Learner, and the low science learner was called Developing Writer. 4.There were 8 factors which influence students’ learning performance toward science on two constructive orientation instruction modes. Finally, the researcher induced research conclusions, and offered some suggestions for applications and future research.

Topic Category 教育學院 > 教育心理與輔導學系
社會科學 > 教育學
Reference
  1. 李玉慶(民89):自然科網路教學設計模式之研究─以國小「認識魚類」為例。元智大學資訊傳播研究所碩士論文,88YZU00676011。
    連結:
  2. 何蘊琪(民88):國小教師的主題統整教學歷程之分析暨合作省思專業成長模式之建構。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文(未出版)。
    連結:
  3. 邱美虹(民89):概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊,8(1),1-34。
    連結:
  4. 林曉雯(民90):國小自然科教學改進:合作行動研究。口頭發表於中華民國第17屆科學教育學術研討會。高雄師範大學科學教育研究所。
    連結:
  5. 林靜雯(民89):由概念改變及心智模式初探多重類比對國小四年級學生電學概念學習之影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,88NTNU0231015。
    連結:
  6. 高博銓(民92):知識經濟與學校革新。人文及社會學科教學通訊,14(1),6-24頁。
    連結:
  7. 耿筱曾、蕭建嘉(民91):以概念構圖的動態評量(CMDA)探討國小高年級學童的「地球運動」的概念改變。國立台北師範學院,15,197-228。
    連結:
  8. 程炳林(民89):國中生認知/意動成分與學習表現之相關研究。師大學報:教育類,45(1),43-59。
    連結:
  9. 盧秀琴(民90):情意教育融入國小自然科課程的模式探討。國立台北師範學院學報,14,615-646頁。
    連結:
  10. 盧秀琴(民91):情意教育理論的接納與實踐-一個國小自然科教師的個案研究。國立台北師範學院學報,15,315-336頁。
    連結:
  11. 簡正忠(民 91):探究式教學專業發展網展之建置及其對科學教師之影響。國立師範大學化學系碩士論文,91NTNU0065057。
    連結:
  12. 龍慧真(民90):學生繪製V圖對國二理化實驗教學之影響。國立師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,90NTNU0231034。
    連結:
  13. Abraham(1986),M.R.,& Renner,J.W.(1986).The sequence of learning cycle activates in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching ,23(2),121-143 .
    連結:
  14. Babad, E.(1995)The “Teacher’s Pet” phenomenon, students’ perception of teacher differential behavior , and students’ morale. Journal of Educational Psychology ,87,361-374.
    連結:
  15. Cawley .J.F.& Parmer,R.S.(2001).Literacy proficiency and science for student with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly,17,105-125.
    連結:
  16. Chan,C.,Burtis.J.,& Bereiter,C.(1997).Knowledge-building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change, Cognition and Instruction,15,1-40.
    連結:
  17. Cross,R.T & Yager,R.E(1998).Parents, social responsibility an science, technology and society(STS):a rationale for reform. Research in Science & Technological Education,16(1),5-18.
    連結:
  18. Davis-Dorsey,J.,Ross,S.M.,&Morison,G,R.(1991).The role of rewarding and context personalization in the solving of mathematical word problems. Journal of educational psychology,83(1),61-68.
    連結:
  19. Daigneault,S.,Braun,C.M J.,Whitaker,H.A.(1992).An empirical test of two opposing theoretical model of prefrontal function. Brain and Cognition,19,48-71.
    連結:
  20. Debbie,S.(1998). Engaging student in the learning cycle. NAESP-principal Magazine.http://www.naesp.org/comm. /p03 98e.htm.
    連結:
  21. Denckla,M.B.(1996).A theory and model of executive function. In G. R.
    連結:
  22. Lyon&N.A.Krasnegor(Eds),Attention, memory, and executive function (pp.263-278).Baltimore: Brookes.
    連結:
  23. Derry ,A.J.(1996).Cognitive schema in the constructivist debate. Educational Psychologist,31(3/4),163-174.
    連結:
  24. Driver,R.、Guesne,E,.&Tiberghien, A.(1989).Children’s ideas in science. Clarke Williams.
    連結:
  25. Ellsworth,J.Z.Buss,A.(2000).Autobiographical stories from preservice elementary mathematics and science students: implications for k-16 teaching. School Science and Mathematics,100(7),355-364.
    連結:
  26. Fisher ,A.L.(2000).SemNet software as an assessment tool . In Mintzes J.J ,Wandersee,J,H, and Novak,J.D.(Eds.),Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego,CA,USA: Academic Press.
    連結:
  27. Flower,L.,& Hayes,J.(1980).The dynamics of composing : making plans and juggling constraints .In L .Gregg& E. Steinberg (Eds),Cognitive process in writing (p31-50) .Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.
    連結:
  28. Gail.P.B.、Kristin,M.B & Robert,G.(2001).Notebook writing in three fifth-grade science classrooms. The Elementary School Journal,102(2),123-140 .
    連結:
  29. Gallagher ,J.J.(2000).Teaching for understanding and application of science knowledge. School Science and Mathematics,100(6),310-318.
    連結:
  30. Gallas, K.(1995). Talking their way into science-hearing children’s questions and theories responding with curricula. published by teacher College Press,1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York,NY10027.
    連結:
  31. Galleragher ,J.、Parker,J. & Ngwenya ,L.(2000). Embedded assessment and reform of science teaching and learning ,In preparation.
    連結:
  32. Gregg ,N.(2002).School is fun at recess:informal analysis of written language for students with learning disabilities .Journal of Learning Disabilities.35(1),7-22.
    連結:
  33. Hayer, J.R.、Flower,L.,、Schriver,K,A.、Stratman,J.F., & Carey,L.(1989).Cognitive process in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed)Advance in applied psycholinguistics:2 Reading 、writing ,and language learning (176-240).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    連結:
  34. Hppper.s、Swartz, C.W、Wakely., M.B、Kruif,R.E&Montgomery,J.W.(2002).Executive functions in elementary school child with sand without problems in written expression. Journal of Learning Disabilities,35(1),57-68.
    連結:
  35. Huber. R. A.; Moore. C. J.(2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry based. School Science & Mathmatics ,101(1),32-43.
    連結:
  36. Johnson ,D.,& Johnson ,R.(1994).Learning together and alone: Cooperative. competitive, and individual learning.(4 nd ed) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    連結:
  37. Joseph ,M.(1996).An introduction to science portfolios. Access excellence the national health museum classrooms of the 21st century. http://www.Access excellence . org/21st/TL /method-port. html.
    連結:
  38. Klein,P.D.(2000).The elementary students’ strategies for writing to learning science. Cognition & Instruction,18(3),317-348.
    連結:
  39. Lawson,A.E.(2001).Using the learning cycle to teaching biology concepts and reasoning patterns.
    連結:
  40. McCutchen ,D.(2000). Knowledge, processing and working memory:implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist ,35(1),13-28.
    連結:
  41. Nancy,R.R.&Michael,R.V.(2001).Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in elementary schools:multiyer foirnings,research issues,and policy. Internal Science Education, 23(4),373-404.
    連結:
  42. Nickles ,T.(2000): Kuhnian puzzle solving and schema theory. Philosophy of Science, 67,242-255.
    連結:
  43. Ost, J.&Costall, A.(2002):Misremembering Bartlett: A study in serial reproduction. British Journal of Psychology, 93,243-255.
    連結:
  44. Patterson, E.W.(2001).Structuring the composition process in science writing .Journal of International Science Education,23(1),1-16.
    連結:
  45. Reynolds,R. E.、Sinatra,G.. M.&Jetton, T.L.(1996):Views of knowledge acquisition and representation : a continuum form experience centered to mind center. Educational Psycholohist,31(2),93-104.
    連結:
  46. Piaget,J.(1971):Biology and knowledge .Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    連結:
  47. Scolavino, R.A.,(2002).Analysis of the implementon of the learning cycle teaching strategy by pre-service teacher in the MACSTEP science certification program .A dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Education at the University of Wisconsin Milwoukee,U0003047522.
    連結:
  48. Sovik, N& Heggberget ,M.(1997/1998).Strategy-raining related to children’s text production. European Education,29(4),61-71.
    連結:
  49. Stephen,R.H、Carl,W.S.、Melissa,B.W、Renee,K,&James ,W.M(2002).Executive functions in elementary school children with and without problems in written expression. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1),57-68.
    連結:
  50. Vounisadou,S.(1994).Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change【special issue.】Learning and Instruction,4,45-69.
    連結:
  51. 參考文獻
  52. 一、 中文部分
  53. 王夕堯(民91):行動式天文學博物館繼開放式教學研究。行政院國家科學委員會九十年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果期中報告,NS¥C90-2511-5-305-001。
  54. 牛頓版(民91):自然與生活科技教學指引。臺北:牛頓出版。
  55. 李介至(民92):國中班級教室-教師偏愛學生現象之探討。人文及社會學科教學通訊,141,138-155頁。
  56. 吳坤璋(民88):結合學習環策略與電腦網路於國小自然科教學之行動研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,88NKNU0231012。
  57. 谷瑞勉譯(民90):教室中的維高斯基-仲介的讀寫教學與評量。Vygotsky in the classroom mediated literacy instruction and assessment. Lisbeth Dixon-Krauss 編著。臺北:心理出版。
  58. 呂耀宗(民89):國小六年級自然科學建構式教學之研究。國立中正大學教育學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
  59. 邱廣興(民92):探究式教學在資訊融入自然與生活科技領域之研究。嘉義大學教育科技研究所碩士,91NCYU0620009。
  60. 林生傳(民88):台灣教育改革之新趨勢:探索與評析。教育研究(高師)。
  61. 林金盾、黃基礎(民91):提昇中小學生物教師素質的研究。行政院國家科學委員會九十年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果期中報告,NSC90-2511-S-003-051。
  62. 岳修平譯(民87):教學心理學-學習的認知基礎。Gagne, E.D., Yekovich, C.W., & Yekovich, F.R. (1993).The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd Edition).New York: Harper Collins。臺北:遠流出版。
  63. 林永菁(民92):不同教學法及心智能力與兒童地科概念認知層次的關係研究。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,92NHLT646005。
  64. 林財庫(民91):以科學史建構九年一貫自然與生活科技領域科技課程之統整教材與教學模式之研究。行政院國家科學委員會九十年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果期中報告,NSC90-2511-5-017-001。
  65. 林清山譯(民86):教育心理學 : 認知取向。Richard E. Mayer著。臺北:遠流出版。
  66. 侯政宏(民 84):探究式教學法與傳統教學法在國中地球科學「星象」單元中,學習成就之比較。國立師範大學地球科學系碩士論文,84NTNU0135005。
  67. 柳賢(民91):透過遠距合作學習建立反省互動的數學教師專業成長之社群之研究。行政院國家科學委員會九十年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果期中報告。NSC90-2511-S-017-014。
  68. 紀淑琴(民87):方格裡的春天-談寫作策略。教師天地,96卷,70-73頁。
  69. 游淑媚(民91):職前國小教師真實的科學探究能力之培育。台中師院學報,15,577-593.
  70. 高慧蓮(民91):國民中小學九年一貫自然與生活課技領域教學生學習材料之研究與發展-提昇中小學生對科學本質之認識。行政院九十年度國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果期中報告,NSC90-2511-S-153-X3。
  71. 唐國詩(民84):探究式教學法與傳統教學法在國中地球科學「太陽視運動」單元中,學習成就之比較。國立師範大學地球科學系碩士論文,84NTNU0135003。
  72. 姜滿(民86):國小學童地球運動之想法與概念改變歷程。台南師院學報,30,217-243。
  73. 程台生(民91):九年一貫課程考番薯教學模組設計研究(Π)。行政院國家科學委員會九十年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果期中報告,NSC90-2511-S-024-003-X3。
  74. 郭生玉(民74):教育與心理測驗。臺北:精華書局。
  75. 康軒版(民91):自然與生活科技教師手冊、課本及習作。臺北:康軒出版。
  76. 張玉燕(民85):建構導向的教學經營--以自然科為例。國教月刊,43(1),7-17。
  77. 陳甲辰(民90):我國國小中年級自然科教科書內容分析之比較研究。國立屏東師院數理教育研究所碩士論文,89NPTTC476001。
  78. 教育部(民89):教學創新,九年一貫。國民中小學九年一貫課程與學網站。http://teach.eje.ntnu.edu.tw/C-learn/C-main -frame.htm。
  79. 郭重吉(民81):從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。科學發展月刊,20(5),548-570。
  80. 黃台珠(民85):親愛的,我把孩子變「活」了!後設認知策略在科學教育上的成效研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所之演講稿整理。
  81. 黃台珠(民91):建構學習社群及評鑑系統促進數學與自然科學教師素質之研究-以合作行動研究模式提昇教師開發符合建構理念的生物教案模組能力之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果期中報告,NSC90-2511-S-017-011。
  82. 黃松源、王美芬(民90):國小自然科建構取向教學之行動實務。口頭發表於中華民國第17屆科學教育學術研討會。高雄師範大學科學教育研究所。
  83. 陳文典(民89):自然與生活科技學習領域課程綱要閱讀。南一書局印製。
  84. 陳忠志(民91):建構學習社群及評鑑系統促進數學與自然科學教師素質之研究-透過遠距網路進行理化教學輔導研究。行政院國家科學委員會九十年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果期中報告,NSC90-2511-S-017-012。
  85. 陳慧娟(民87):有效促進概念改變的教策略科學寫作。中等教育,49,(6),123-131頁。
  86. 陳秋男、王瑞芬、石正人(民91):利用螞蟻為材料開發主題式統整科學模組。行政院國家科學委員會九十年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果期中報告。
  87. 周淑惠(民91):解題與經驗取向的幼兒科學方案。行政院國家科學委員會九十年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果期中報告,NSC90-2511-S-134-001-X3。
  88. 唐國詩(民85):探究式教學法與講述式教學法在國中地球科學「星象」單元中學生學習成就之影響。國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文,84NTNU0135003。
  89. 翁玉華(民87):問題解決能力與科學過程技能之相關研究。國立師範大學地球科學教育研究所碩士論文,87NTNU3135002。
  90. 張文華(民91):提昇異質學生的科學學習-中學科學課室內之互動:社會語言分析。行政院國家科學委員會九十年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果期中報告。NSC90-2511-S-003-103。
  91. 張煇志(民90):運用網路社群互動協助小學生進行科學探究。「廿一世紀教育改革與教育發展」國際學術論文研討會,147-166頁。
  92. 張慧貞(民91):互動式合作學習學習教學法引入大班普通物理教室之可行性及學習成效之評估。行政院國家科學委員會九十年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果期中報告,NSC90-2511-5-035-001。
  93. 靳如勤(民91):本土科學素養內涵及其影響因素之研究。行政院國家科學委員會九十年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果期中報告,NSC90-2511-S-029-002。
  94. 楊振富譯(民91):學習型學校(schools that learn)。 Peter Senge 、Nelda Cambron-McCabe、Timothy Lucas 、Bryan Smith、Janis Dutton 、Art Kleiner 著, 臺北:遠見出版。
  95. 詹慧齡(民90):以學習環為基礎,將資訊科技融入國小自然科教學之行動研究。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,90NHLT646019。
  96. 熊召弟、王美芬、段曉林、熊同鑫(民85):科學學習心理學。臺北:心理出版。
  97. 熊同鑫(民91)性別、空間與科學教育。行政院國家科學委員會九十年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果期中報告,NSC90-2511-S-143-007。
  98. 劉國權(民89):STS及科學寫作活動對學童科學概念及科學相關態度之影響研究。台北市立師範學院自然科學教育研究所碩士論文,89TMTC0147001-。
  99. 劉靄雯、黃寶鈿(民82):化學師資基本能力及條件之初步研究。師大學報,203-222頁。
  100. 賴應三(民91):師院地球科學課程與教學中的創新與批判思考能力之探討。國立台北師範學院學報,15,337-371頁。
  101. 劉宏文(民90):高中學生進行開放式科學探究活動之個案研究。彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
  102. 蘇育任、張馨文(民91):師院大一學生電化學概念建構的研究。台中師院學報,471-498頁。
  103. 魏宗明(民86):國小實施數學寫作活動之研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
  104. 二、英文部分
  105. Alvarez,M.C.&Risko,V.J.(1989):Schema activation, and application .ERIC . Digest. ED3122611.
  106. Applebee,A.N.,、Langer,L.A., & Mullis ,I.V.S.(1986).The writing card: writing achievement in American school.Report.No15-w-02.National Assessment of educational progress.
  107. Black,P.J.& Lucas,A.M.(1993).Children’s informal ideas in science. New York.
  108. Blosser.P.E.(1985):Meta-analysis research on science instruction. ERIC/SMEAC Science Education Digest.No.1.ED259939.
  109. Bransford,J.,Brown,A, M.& Cocking,R.(Eds.).(1999).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school(Report of the National Research Council).Washington DC: National Academy Press.
  110. Champagne,A, & Kouba,V.(2000).Writing to inquire: written products as performance measurement. In Mintzess, J.J. Wandersee, J. H. & Novak ,J. D.(Eds) . Assessing science under standing :A human constructivist view .San Digo,CA: Academic press.
  111. Collins,A.& Stevens,A,L.(1982).Goals and strategies of inquiry teachers. In Glaser. R., Advance instructional psycholory,2,Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates,1982,65-119.
  112. Donald (1991). Origins of modern mind .Cambridge MA :Harvard University Press.
  113. Graves,D.(1983).Writing. Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  114. Harris ,K.R.,& Graham,S.(1996).Making the writing process work: strategies for composition and self- regulation .Cambridge . MA: Brookline.
  115. Henderson,J. G& Hawthorne ,R.D.(2000).Transformative curriculum leadership(2nd ed.) New Jersey: Upper Saddle River
  116. Heuser,D.(2000) .Reworking the workshop for math and science.Educational leadership,58(1),34-37.
  117. Huck,C.S.,、Hepler ,S & Hickman, J.(1987). Children’s literature in the elementary school(4th ed).New York: Holt, Rinehart and Worntsion ,Inc.
  118. John R,S& Shyoyer, M.G.(2002).Teaching elementary teacher how to use the learning cycle for guided inquiry instruction in science .Center for science ,Kansas State University.http://www.genesismission.org/educate/kitchen/foodthought /staver. Htm.
  119. Kepler,L.(1998).Journals of science. Instructor ,NEW YORK.108(3),82-83.
  120. Kuhn,T.S.(1962):The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  121. Mayer, R,E.(1999).The promise of education psychology: learning in the context area. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  122. Lawson, A.E.,、Abraham, M.R.& Renner,J.W.(1989).A theory of instruction: using the learning cycle to teach science conceptions and thinking skill.(Monongraph, Number One).Manhattan; NARST.
  123. Lea,J.,&Levy, C.M.(1999).Working memory as a resource in the writing process.In M.Torrance&G. Jeffery(Eds.),The cognitive demands of writing(pp.63-82).Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press.
  124. Levin,M.D.,Hooper,S.R.Montgomery,J.W.,Reed,M.,Sandler,A.,Swartz,C.,&Watson ,T.(1993).Learning disabilites. An interactive development paradigm. In G.R.Lyon,D.B.Gray,J.E Kavanagh,&N.A.Krasnegor(Eds.),Better understanding learning disabilities .New views from research and their implications for educational and public policies(pp.229-250).Baltimore:Brookes.
  125. Michael ,R.A(1997).The learning cycle approach to science instruction. Research Matters-to the science teacher No9701.Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry , University of Oklahoma, Norman,
  126. NAEP(1996).what do students known. science results for 4th.8th&12th grades.http://www.nagb.org/pubs/students /kids .html.
  127. Piaget ,J.(1970).Structurinalism (Chaninah Maschler, Trans.).New York: Harper and Row.
  128. Resnick,L.,&Nelson-LeGall,S.(1997).Socializing intelligence .In L.Smith,J.Dockrell,&P.Tomlinson(Eds.)Piaget, Vygotsky, and Berond (pp.145-158). Boston: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
  129. Rico.G.C.(1984).Writing the natural way. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin-Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  130. Rillero,P.,Cleland,J.,& Zambo,R.(1995).Write from the start: writing–to–learn science and mathematics. Eric Document Reproduction Service No.ED390708.
  131. Schneider.,R.(2001).Toward a cognitive theory of literary character: the Dynamics of Mental –Model Construction,35,4,607-641.
  132. Science education reform dialogue.(1998).Inquiry is a “hands-on” and“ mind-on” experience for both students and teachers: an interactive Q&A with experts on professional development for science teacher. Harvard education letter research online .http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/1998-so/rf-dialogue.shtml.
  133. Sulzby,E.,Teale,W.H.& Kamberelies ,G.(1989).Emergent writing in the classroom :home and school connection. In Strickland ,D,S&Morrow,L.M(Eds).Emerging literacy :young children learn to read and write. Newark,DC: Internation Reading Association,63-78.
  134. Tompkins,G.(1990).Teaching writing .New York: Macmillam. Balancing process and product.
  135. Vygostsky,L.S.(1962).Thought and Language.(Wiley: New York)
  136. Wallace,D.L.,& Hayes, J.R.(1991).Redefining revision for fresh men .Research in the Teaching of English,2,54-66.
  137. Yager, R.E.(1996).Science /technology/society as reform in science education. Albany , NY: State University of New York Press.
  138. Yore,L.D.& Shymansky, J.A.(1997).Constructionism: implication for teaching, teacher education and research breakthroughs, barriers and promise. Paper presents at the National Science Council ROC workshop for science educators .Taipei , Taiwan ,22-28.September.
  139. Young, R.,& Sullivan, P.(1984).A reconsideration .In R.J.Conners, L.S.Ede & A.A.Lunsford(Eds).Essays on classical rhrtoric, and modern discourse(p215-225).Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Times Cited
  1. 陳伶如(2007)。科學寫作融入5E學習環教學模式 在國小生活課程之研究。中原大學教育研究所學位論文。2007。1-153。 
  2. 邱郁雯(2009)。「玩樂器,學聲音」-5E學習環教學研究。臺東大學進修部課程與教學碩士班(夜間)學位論文。2009。1-213。 
  3. 蔡蕙文(2008)。STEM教學模式應用於國中自然與生活科技領域教學之研究。屏東科技大學技術及職業教育研究所學位論文。2008。1-173。 
  4. 王金泉(2004)。九年級學生科學寫作與學習成就之探討-以「溫度與熱」為例。臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所在職進修碩士班學位論文。2004。1-124。
  5. 黃湘菱(2006)。學生答題寫作特性及其與表現之相關研究。臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所學位論文。2006。1-160。
  6. 劉紀谷(2007)。大學生自我分化與社交焦慮之相關研究。政治大學教育研究所學位論文。2007。1-130。
  7. 蔡春桃(2010)。自我調整學習對七年級學生細胞另有概念之影響。中原大學教育研究所學位論文。2010。1-112。