Title

以解釋本質探討中學演化論之教科書內容與教學

Authors

湯偉君

Key Words

教科書 ; 解釋類型 ; 科學解釋 ; 演化論 ; 複雜系統觀 ; 突現 ; 機制性解釋 ; 功能性解釋

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

2007年

Academic Degree Category

博士

Advisor

邱美虹

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

「解釋」是解釋者、接受解釋者與被解釋物,三者間的互動,也是科學教室常見的行為,包括教師對學生解釋某一自然現象,或是教科書對師生解釋某一自然現象。本研究即以「解釋」為出發,探討演化論之教科書編寫與教學。 透過科學哲學對解釋的討論,以及科學界對「演化」解釋的典範變遷,兩者作為主要的理論基礎。本研究主要分成兩大主軸,一是分析當今教科書演化課文的內容,一是建立演化機制的改良版課文,並檢視其成效。在教科書探討方面,研究者首先針對現今高、國中七個版本生物相關教科書的「演化」專章和「演化機制」的內容,以「解釋類型」、「複雜系統特性」進兩角度進行分析,並特別針對「演化機制」專節,進行內容分析。在改良課文的探討方面,筆者以「解釋類型」、「複雜系統特性」融入演化機制解釋的撰寫,並以國、高中各三班學生進行教學及前後測,除量的分析之外,也以晤談資料檢視學生的演化概念。 研究結果發現,現今演化教科書編寫,主要仍以達爾文天擇說為典範,即使提及當代對天擇說的修正,也以天擇說的補充角色出現,亦即,現有可含攝天擇說的融貫理論,並不被視為可以取代天擇說。同時部分教科書對於「人擇的類比」、「拉馬克的歷史地位」、「達爾文的理論發展史」的撰寫方式,都有值得討論的議題。 在筆者發展的三組新課文,經轉化為教學材料進行教學後,發現同時包含「解釋類型」與「複雜系統觀」的EC組,學習效果最佳。只有「複雜系統觀」的C組又比只有「解釋類型」的E組來的佳。在高中施用的效果較國中為佳。除了以測驗題成績進步做衡量外,筆者自行發展的演化概念模式層級,也發現這樣的結果。 所謂演化概念層級是以區分「演化現象」、「演化機制」兩不同層次的解釋,將學生的演化概念,區分成「知道生物會演變與否」、「知道生物會演變,但對生物演化方向的理解為何」、「知道生物會朝某方向演化,但演化機制的理解為何」等三大層級,並依正確及完整程度,從中再區分出數個次層級,一共九種基本模式。以此模式可輕易且有效精細的捕捉到學生的演化另有概念及演化概念改變情形。 最後筆者認為教科書基於其文本權威,不應逃避對演化機制做出更正確解釋的責任,本研究將「複雜系統特性」融入演化機制解釋的嘗試,初步證明有效且值得參考。而對演化概念的評量,筆者也建議可採比分數更富意義,非文字的圖形表徵:演化概念模式圖。

English Abstract

Explanations are interactions among explanations, audiences, and explainers. They are used to communicate ideas between teachers and their students in the classroom. The explanatory activity also happens in the interaction between textbook writers and their readers. Textbooks writers always try to offer satisfactory explanations for teachers or students about how and why a phenomenon takes place. Little research has been done in science education research regarding the relationship between the essentials of explanation and science education. The purpose of this study is to explore the implications of the explanation theory in science teaching, especially in textbook contents and teaching. Evolution concepts are chosen as examples to illustrate the relationships in the study. The researcher bases the dissertation on the discussions about explanations in science philosophy and the paradigms shift about evolution. The study encompasses two issues. The first one is to analyze the descriptive contents about evolution in current textbooks. The other one is to evaluate three modified textbook materials about evolution designed by the researcher based on explanatory types and the complex system view. The analyzed evolution texts are from three senior and four junior high school biology textbooks in Taiwan. In addition, there were 200 students: 95 seventh-grade and 105 tenth-grade students, who participated in the pre-post tests and the teaching programs. The seventh-grade students were assigned into three groups: explanatory group (E), complex group (C), and explanatory and complex group (EC). Different groups separately received three different teaching programs which are based on three modified evolution texts. They all received pre- and post-tests. Some students were selected, based on their achievements, to attend one-on-one interviews to examine their conceptions about evolution. Same operations were applied to senior high students. The results of this study indicate that Darwinian selection is still the major paradigm in evolution texts in biology textbooks. Some modified theories may be represented in texts, but they are only complementary explanations for Darwinian selection. Accordingly, these new explanations for evolution are not viewed as a new paradigm. Some textbooks’ treatment of issues, for example, ‘analogy of artificial selection,’ ‘historical status of Lamarck,’ and ‘the development of Darwinian selection,’ is worthy of further discussions. The results of this study also show that the EC group students—taught with explanatory types and the complex system view merged into evolution texts—developed significantly improved understanding when compared to the other two groups. The C group students, taught with the complex system view merged into evolution texts, developed better understanding than did the E group students. The teaching materials of the E group have only explanatory types merged into evolution texts. Senior high school students could make more significant progress during teaching programs compared to junior high school students. These results were based on assessments not only from test scores but also from the interview data. The data from the interviews were classified into different evolution concept levels. The so-called evolution concept levels were developed by the researcher and can represent the differential understanding of evolution. They encompass two levels of explanations: the evolutionary phenomenon and evolutionary mechanisms. The researcher differentiates between the following three layers of understanding about evolution: ‘knowing whether living organisms can evolve’, ‘knowing living organisms can evolve and in which direction,’ and ‘knowing the mechanisms of how living organisms evolve.’ The strategy of assessing students’ understanding about evolution is a better research strategy than quantitative analyses for elucidating the subtle change of individual student’s evolution conceptions. In sum, the researcher argues that textbooks cannot evade the responsibility to make the most appropriate explanations for evolutionary mechanisms. This study initially demonstrates the success for developing students’ understanding of evolution by merging the complex system view into evolutionary mechanism explanations and teaching. The researcher also suggests adopting visual representations—the diagrams of evolution concept model that are more meaningful than test scores—as a new instrument for assessing student understanding of evolution.

Topic Category 理學院 > 科學教育研究所
社會科學 > 教育學
Reference
  1. 李哲迪(2006)高中物理教科書與學生關於力的話語與合法化的語言策略. 國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文.
    連結:
  2. 周珮儀(2002) 國小教師解讀教科書的方式 國立台北師範學院學報,15,115-138
    連結:
  3. 林靜雯(2006)由概念演化觀點探索不同教科書教學序列對不同心智模式學生電學學習之影響. 國立台灣師範大學科學教育所博士論文,台北市(未出版)
    連結:
  4. 邱美虹和林秀蓁(2004)以childes分析一對一科學教學活動中師生互動共建科學知識的行為表現 科學教育學刊,12(2),133-158
    連結:
  5. 邱美虹(2000)概念改變研究的省思與啟示 科學教育學刊,8(1),1-34
    連結:
  6. 茬家續(2007)高一學生生物演化概念分析與概念改變教學之研究 國立台灣師範大學科學教育所碩士論文,台北市(未出版)
    連結:
  7. 許良榮(1997)科學課文結構對於科學學習的影響 國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文(未出版)
    連結:
  8. 陳世文(2007)科學文本之級位分體論述與師生對其語意理解之研究 國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,台北市(未出版)
    連結:
  9. 陳藍萍(2004)高一學生生物演化概念之研究 國立台灣師範大學科學教育所碩士論文,台北市
    連結:
  10. 湯偉君和邱美虹(2007) 複雜系統、突現及其對科學教育的啟示 科學教育月刊,301,17-25
    連結:
  11. 湯偉君(2006) 如何讓學生理解ATP---一個類比教學實例 科學教育月刊,286(Mar),51-55
    連結:
  12. 趙雅琳(2004)科學教科書之「主題相關組」結合「體裁」分析 國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,台北市(未出版)
    連結:
  13. 劉昭宏和郭重吉(1995)教科書在國中理化教學中的應用之個案研究 科學教育學刊,第六期,89-112
    連結:
  14. 劉誠宗(2003)學生對物種起源的解釋架構一貫性之探析 國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,台北市(未出版)
    連結:
  15. Abrams, E., & Southland, S.(2001). The how's and why's of biological change: How learners neglect physical mechanisms in their search for meaning. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1271-1281.
    連結:
  16. Aleixandre, M. P. J.(1994). Teaching evolution and natural selection: A look at textbooks and teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 519-535.
    連結:
  17. Anderson, B., & Wallin, A.(2006). On developing content-oriented theories taking biological evolution as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 673-695.
    連結:
  18. Bardell, D.(1994). Some ancient-greek ideas on evolution. The American biology teacher, 56(4), 198-200.
    連結:
  19. Bateson, G.(1979). Mind in nature. A necessary unity. New York: E.P.Dutton.
    連結:
  20. Beauchamp, G., & Ruxton, G. D.(2007). False alarms and the evolution of antipredator vigilance. Animal Behaviour, 74, 1199-1206.
    連結:
  21. Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W.(1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415-427.
    連結:
  22. Bogen, J.(2005). Regularities and causality; generalizations and causal explanations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 397-420.
    連結:
  23. Bonnie, K. E., & Earley, R. L.(2007). Expanding the scope for social information use. Animal Behaviour, 74, 171-181.
    連結:
  24. Boomsma, J. J.(2007). Kin selection versus sexual selection: Why the ends do not meet. Current Biology, 17, 673-683.
    連結:
  25. Bosomaier, T., & Green, D.(1998). Patterns in the sand: Computers, complexity and life. Australia: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd.
    連結:
  26. Brandont, R. N.(1997). Does biology have laws? The experimental evidnce. Philosophy of Science, 64(proceedings), s444-s457.
    連結:
  27. Bromham, L., & Oprandi, P.(2006). Evolution online: Using a virual learning environment to develop active learning in undergraduates. Journal of Biological Education, 41(1), 21-25.
    連結:
  28. Brumby, M. N.(1981). The use of problem-solving in meaningful learning in biology. Research in Science Education, 11(1), 103-110.
    連結:
  29. Brumby, M. N.(1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. Science education, 68(4), 493-503.
    連結:
  30. Chi, M. T. H.(2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The journal of the Learning Science, 14(2), 161-199.
    連結:
  31. Chi, M. T. H., & Slotta, J. D.(1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 249-260.
    連結:
  32. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & La Vancher, C.(1994a). Eliciting self-explanation improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
    連結:
  33. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N.(1994b). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
    連結:
  34. Childress, M. J., & Lung, M. A.(2003). Predation risk, gender and the group size effect: Does elk vigilance depend upon the behaviour of conspecifics? Animal Behaviour, 66, 389-398.
    連結:
  35. Conradt, L., & Roper, T. J.(2005). Consensus decision making in animals. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 20(8).
    連結:
  36. Craver, C. F.(2001). Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philosophy of Science, 68, 53-74.
    連結:
  37. Craver, C. F.(2002). Interlevel experiment and multilevel mechanisms in the neuroscience of memory. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), S83-S97.
    連結:
  38. Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S.(1997). Scientific views and religious beliefs of college students: The case of biological education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 429-445.
    連結:
  39. Dagher, Z. R., & Cossman, G.(1992). Verbal explanations given by science teachers: Their nature and implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 361-374.
    連結:
  40. Darden, L.(2002). Strategies for discovering mechanisms: Schema instantiation, modular subassembly, forward/backward chaining. Philosophy of Science, 69(September), 354-365.
    連結:
  41. Deadman, J. A., & Kelly, P. J.(1978). What do sceondary school boys understand about evolution and heredity before they are taught the topics? Journal of Biological Education, 12(1), 7-15.
    連結:
  42. Demastes, S. S., John Settlage, J., & Good, R.(1995). Students' conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: Cases of replication and comparison. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 535-550.
    連結:
  43. Dixon, D.(1998). After man - a zoology of the future. London: Eddison Sadd Editions.
    連結:
  44. Dobzhansky, T.(1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35, 125-129.
    連結:
  45. Dupre, J.(1993). The disorder of things: Harward University Press.
    連結:
  46. Ferrari, M., & Chi, M. T. H.(1998). The nature of naive explanations of natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1231-1256.
    連結:
  47. Flannery, M. C.(1993). Evolution at the center. The American biology teacher, 55(6), 372-375.
    連結:
  48. Futuyma, D. J.(1998). Evolutionary biology,(3 ed.). Sinauer: Mass.
    連結:
  49. Gauld, C.(1992). Wilberforce, huxley & the use of history in teaching about evolution. The American biology teacher, 54(7), 406-410.
    連結:
  50. Gleick, J.(1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking.
    連結:
  51. Glennan, S.(1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44(1), 49-71.
    連結:
  52. Glennan, S.(2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69(September), 342-353.
    連結:
  53. Godfrey-Smith, P.(2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: The university of Chicago Press.
    連結:
  54. Goldstone, R. L.(2006). The complex systems see-change in education. The journal of the Learning Science, 15(1), 35-43.
    連結:
  55. Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y.(2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 414-466.
    連結:
  56. Gould, S. J.(1992). Ever since darwin: Reflections on natural history. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
    連結:
  57. Griffiths, J. A., & Brem, S. K.(2004). Teaching evolutionary biology: Pressures, stress, and coping. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 791-809.
    連結:
  58. Hempel, G. G.(1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.
    連結:
  59. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R.(2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The journal of the Learning Science, 15(1), 53-61.
    連結:
  60. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G.(2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127-138.
    連結:
  61. Holland, J. H.(1992). Adaptation in natural and artifical systems: MIT Press.
    連結:
  62. Horwood, R. H.(1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science education, 72(1), 41-49.
    連結:
  63. Humphreys, P.(1997a). Emergence, not supervience. Philosophy of Science, 64(supplement), 337-345.
    連結:
  64. Humphreys, P.(1997b). How properties emerge. Philosophy of Science, 64, 1-17.
    連結:
  65. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U.(2006). Complexity systems in education: Scientific and education importance and implication for the learning science. the journal of the Learning Science, 15(1), 11-34.
    連結:
  66. Jeffery, K. R., & Roach, L. E.(1994). A study of the presence of evolutionary protoconcepts in pre-high school textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 507-518.
    連結:
  67. Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N.(1996). Change in students' understanding of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 879-900.
    連結:
  68. Keown, D.(1988). Teaching evolution: Improved approaches for unprepared students. American Biology Teacher, 50, 407-410.
    連結:
  69. Krebs, J. R., & Davies, N. B.(1993). An introduction to behavioural ecology(3 ed.): Wiley-Blackwell.
    連結:
  70. Lesh, R.(2006). Modeling students modeling abilities: The teaching and learning of complex systems in education. The journal of the Learning Science, 15(1), 45-52.
    連結:
  71. Machamer, P.(2004). Activities and causation: The metaphysics and epistemology of mechanisms. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18(1), 27-39.
    連結:
  72. Machamer, p., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F.(2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(March), 1-25.
    連結:
  73. Marks, J.(1983). Science and the making of the modern world: HeineMann.
    連結:
  74. Martin, J. R.(1970). Explaining, understanding and teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.
    連結:
  75. Novak, J. D.(1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949.
    連結:
  76. Penner, D. E.(2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students' understanding of emergent phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 784-806.
    連結:
  77. Penner, D. E.(2001). Complexity, emergence, and synthetic models in science education. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn & T. Okada(Eds.), Designing for science: Implication from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    連結:
  78. Raia, F.(2005). Students' understanding of complex dynamic systems. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), 297-308.
    連結:
  79. Rees, P. A.(2007). The evolution of textbook misconceptions about darwin. Journal of Biological Education, 41(2), 53-55.
    連結:
  80. Resnick, M.(1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively prarllel microwords. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    連結:
  81. Resnick, M.(1996). Beyond the centralized mindset. Journal of the Learning Science, 5, 1-22.
    連結:
  82. Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U.(1998). Diving into complexity: Developing probabilistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. The Journal of the Learning science, 7(2), 153-172.
    連結:
  83. Ruse, M.(2005). Darwinism and mechanism: Metaphor in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 285-302.
    連結:
  84. Salmon, W. C.(1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    連結:
  85. Salmon, W. C.(1989a). Four decades of scientific explanation. In P. Kitcher & W. C. Salmon(Eds.), Scientific explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    連結:
  86. Salmon, W. C.(1989b). Four decades of scientific explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    連結:
  87. Scharmann, L. C.(1993). Teaching evolution: Designing successful instruction. The American biology teacher, 55(8), 481-486.
    連結:
  88. Schmidt, H.-J.(2003). Shift of meaning and students' alternative concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1409-1424.
    連結:
  89. Settlage, J. J.(1994). Conceptions of natural selection: A snapshot of the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 449-457.
    連結:
  90. Shankar, G., & Skoog, G. D.(1993). Emphasis given evolution and creationism by texas high school biology teachers. Science Education, 77(2), 221-233.
    連結:
  91. Shtulman, A.(2006). Qualitative differences between naive and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 170-194.
    連結:
  92. Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. H.(2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 261-289.
    連結:
  93. Smith, B. R., & Blumstein, D. T.(2008). Fitness consequences of personality: A meta-analysis. Behavioral ecological, 10(2), 448-455.
    連結:
  94. Soderberg, P., & Price, F.(2003). An examination of problem-based teaching and learning in population genetics and evolution using evolve, a computer simulation. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 35-55.
    連結:
  95. Sterelny, K., & Griffiths, P. E.(1999). Sex and death: An introduction to philosophy of biology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    連結:
  96. Swarts, F. A., Anderson, O. R., & Swetz, F. J.(1994). Evolution in secondary school biology textbooks of the prc, the USA, and latter stages of the ussr. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 475-505.
    連結:
  97. Tabery, J. G.(2004). Synthesizing activities and interactions in the concept of a mechanism. Philosophy of Science, 71(January), 1-15.
    連結:
  98. Talanquer, V.(2007). Explanation and teleology in chemistry eduction. International Journal of Science Education.
    連結:
  99. Treagust, D. F., & Harrison, A. G.(2000). In search of explanatory frameworks: An analysis of richard feynman's lecture 'atoms in motion'. International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 1157-1170.
    連結:
  100. Treagust, D. F., & Mamiala, T. L.(2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353-1368.
    連結:
  101. Treves, A.(2000). Theory and method in studies of vigilance and aggregation. Animal Behaviour, 60, 711-722.
    連結:
  102. Trowbridge, J. E., & Wanderse, J. H.(1994). Identifing critical junctures in learning in a college course on evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 459-473.
    連結:
  103. Unsworth, L.(2001). Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 585-609.
    連結:
  104. Waldrop, M. M.(1992). Complexity - the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Touchstone.
    連結:
  105. Wong, D.(1996). Students' scientific explanations and the context in which they occur. Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 495-511.
    連結:
  106. Wood-Robinson, C.(1994). Young peoples' ideas about inheritance and evolution. Science in Science education, 24, 29-47.
    連結:
  107. Woodward, J.(2000). Explanation and invariance in the special sciences. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51, 197-254.
    連結:
  108. Woodward, J.(2002). What is a mechanism? A counterfactual account. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), s366-s377.
    連結:
  109. Yoon, S. A.(2007). An evolutionary approach to harnessing complex systems thinking in the science and technology classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 1-32.
    連結:
  110. Zohar, A., & Ginossar, S.(1998). Lifting the taboo regarding teleology and anthropomorphism in biology education - heretical suggestion. Science Education, 82, 679-697.
    連結:
  111. 李建會(1995)還原論、突現論與世界的統一性 科學技術與辯證法,12(5),5-8
  112. 李夏和戴汝為(1999)突現--系統研究的新觀念 控制與決策,14(2),97-102
  113. 李家維(2007)總編輯的話--面對科學與宗教的衝突 科學人,8,10
  114. 周成功(1994)尼采的狂放世界 In 齊若蘭(譯)(Ed),複雜:走在秩序與混沌邊緣 台北市: 天下文化
  115. 林正弘(1991)伽利略、波柏、科學說明 台北市: 東大出版
  116. 林孟慧(1998)理化類比對國三學生地球科學概念學習的影響 國立台灣師範大學科學教育所碩士論文,台北市(未出版)
  117. 武杰和李宏芳(2000)非線性是自然界本質嗎? 科學技術與辯證法,17(2),1-5
  118. 段德智、尹大貽和金常政等譯(2004)哲學辭典 (Vol 2) 台北市: 城邦文化
  119. 范冬萍和張華夏(2005)突現理論:歷史與前沿 自然辯證法研究,21(6),5-10
  120. 范冬萍(2005a)突現論的類型及其理論訴求 科學技術與辯證法,22(4),49-53
  121. 范冬萍(2005b)論突現性質的下向因果關係 哲學研究(7),108-114
  122. 孫克勤譯(1989)達爾文物種原始精義 台北市: 台灣省立博物館出版部
  123. 張明渭和張康英(1995)生物五千年 (Vol 初版) 台北市: 曉園出版社
  124. 張賴妙理(1999)初任暨資深國中生物教師在運輸作用、遺傳與演化單元的教學表現之個案研究 國立台灣師範大學科學教育所博士論文,台北市(未出版)
  125. 陳志良(2001)西洋哲學三百題 建宏出版社,台北市
  126. 陳思廷(2005)「科學哲學專題:科學解釋」暑期讀書會
  127. 舒煒光和邱仁宗主編(1998)當代西方科學哲學述評 (2 ed) 台北市: 水牛圖書出版事業有限公司
  128. 楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢和李亦園(2001)社會及行為科學研究法 台北市: 東華書局
  129. 葉篤莊、周建人和方宗西等譯(1998)物種起源 台北市: 台灣商務印書館
  130. 謝愛華(2003)突現論:科學與哲學的新挑戰 自然辯證法研究,19(9),84-87
  131. 藍順德(2004)二十年來國內博碩士論文教科書研究之分析 國立編譯館館刊,32(4),2-25
  132. 關崇智(1997)生物學發展史 台北市: 淑馨出版社
  133. Achinstein, P.(1988). The illocutionary theory of explanation. In J. C. Pitt(Ed.), Theories of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  134. Audi, R.(Ed.).(1999). The cambridge dictionary of philosophy(2 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  135. Auyang, S. Y.(1998). Foundations of complex-system theories: In economics, evolutionary biology, and statistical physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  136. Bar-Yam, Y.(2003). Dynamics of complex systems. New York: Perseus Publishing.
  137. Chi, M. T. H.(1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Implications for learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere(Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science(pp. 129-186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  138. Chi, M. T. H.(1997). Creativity: Shifting across ontological categories flexibly. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith & J. Vaid(Eds.), Creative thought: An introduction of conceptual structures and processes(pp. 209-234). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  139. Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D.(2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason(Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice(pp. 3-27). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  140. Geraedts, C. L., & Boersma, K. T.(2006). Reinventing natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 28(8), 843-870.
  141. Glennan, S.(2005). Modeling mechanisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 443-464.
  142. Guyot, P., Drogoul, A., & Lemaitre, C.(2005). Using emergence in participatory simulation to design multi-agent systems. Paper presented at the the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands.
  143. Kitcher, P., & Salmon, W. C.(Eds.).(1989). Scientific explanation. Minnesotapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  144. Kuhn, T. S.(1970). The structure of scientific revolution(Vol. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  145. Liu, L., Marathe, S., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E.(2005). Function before form: An alternative approach to learning about complex system. Paper presented at the the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Motereal QC.
  146. Novak, J. D.(1995). Concept mapping: Strategy for organizing knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit(Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice(pp. 229-245). New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbamm Associates.
  147. Ohlsson, S.(1991). Young adult's understanding of evolutionary explanations: Preliminary observations. University of Pittsburgh: Learning Research and Development Center.
  148. Salmon, W. C.(1998). Causality and explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  149. Scriven, M.(1988). Explanations, predictions, and laws. In J. C. Pitt(Ed.), Theories of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  150. Tang, W. C., & Chiu, M. H.(2007). Analyze the science curriculum standards with the kinds of scientific explanation. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference 2007, Malmo.
  151. Thagard, P.(1992). Conceptual revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  152. Thagard, P.(1999). How scientists explain disease? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  153. Unsworth, L.(1997). Explaining explanations: Enhancing science learning and literacy development. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 43(1), 34-49.
  154. Veel, R.(1997). Learning how to mean - scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin(Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workspace and school(pp. 161-195). London: Cassel.
  155. Von Fraassen, B. C.(1988). The pragmatic theory of explanation. In J. C. Pitt(Ed.), Theories of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  156. Whitley, B. E. (2002). Principles of research in behavioral science (2 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Times Cited
  1. 吳佳玲(2000)。影響高一學生地球科學問題解決能力之相關變項探討。臺灣師範大學地球科學系學位論文。2000。1-0。
  2. 仇惟善(2004)。創造性問題解決教學對國中資優學生之應用研究。臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系在職進修碩士班學位論文。2004。1-159。
  3. 莊雯心(2011)。國小一年級教師運用課程地圖進行課程設計與教學反思~以一個閱讀教學活動為例~。臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系學位論文。2011。1-231。
  4. 吳文龍(2012)。以概念演化探討物質三態變化之教科書內容與教學對學童心智模式發展歷程之影響。臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所學位論文。2012。1-342。
  5. 林岱瑋(2013)。從八卦系統看從業人員之創造性問題解決模式-以資訊科技從業人員為例。臺灣師範大學社會教育學系學位論文。2013。1-78。