支援教室內科學探究學習活動 - 運用電腦輔助學生進行繪圖科學解釋

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	張家榮 Chia-Jung Chang
論文名稱：	支援教室內科學探究學習活動 - 運用電腦輔助學生進行繪圖科學解釋 Supporting Scientific Inquiry Learning in Classrooms through Computer Assisted Scientific Explanation with Drawings
指導教授：	劉晨鐘 Chen-chung Liu
口試委員:
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	資訊電機學院 - 網路學習科技研究所 Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology
論文出版年：	2014
畢業學年度：	102
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	179
中文關鍵詞：	科學解釋、繪圖、解釋模式、電腦模擬、學習科學的概念、學習科學的方法
外文關鍵詞：	scientific explanation, computer simulation, drawings, explanation patterns, conceptions of learning science, approaches to learning science
相關次數：	點閱：22 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

近年來研究學者與教育者越來越重視科學解釋，許多研究指出學生透過建構科學解釋不僅可以促進他們對於科學概念的深層理解，而且可以培養探究能力以及改善他們對於學習科學的觀點。目前主要有CER (Claim-Evidence-Reasoning)和POE (Prediction-Observation-Explanation)這兩種解釋活動引導學生進行科學解釋，然而學生仍有困難使用文字清楚地說明他們的科學解釋。而且，這兩種解釋活動對於學生的學習成就、學習科學的概念和學習科學的方法有什麼程度上的影響仍不清楚。因此，本研究提出一個以解釋為基礎的探究學習環境，整合解釋活動、動畫模擬以及多媒體繪圖工具支援學生使用語文與繪圖方式去建構科學解釋。
本研究進行兩個實證性研究調查這樣的學習環境對於學生建構科學解釋的影響。本研究主要分析學生應用的解釋模式，並探討低階與高階解釋模式對於學生在學習成就、學習科學的概念與方法這三方面有什麼不同的影響。此外，本研究各別調查CER和POE活動對於學生學習科學的影響，並進一步探索這兩種活動對於學生在學習成就、學習科學的概念與方法上有什麼不同的影響。
實驗結果顯示繪圖方式對於教育者和研究學者在科學教育上具有獨特的益處，而且根據學生繪圖科學解釋發現有六種解釋模式，包含無關型、迷思型、參照型、比較型、類推型和分析型。低階與高階解釋模式相互比較，結果發現CER和POE活動可能會導致那些使用低階解釋模式的學生使用更多的表層的策略學習科學。對於CER和POE兩種活動皆能改善學生的學習成就、學習科學的興趣、以記憶方式和為了考試而學習科學的概念、深層學習動機和深層策略。兩種活動相互比較，結果發現學生在CER活動中傾向使用高階解釋模式，然而學生在POE活動中傾向使用低階解釋模式。而且相較於POE活動，CER活動可能無法有效地提升學生以理解的概念學習科學；相較於CER活動，POE活動可能可以提升學生使用應用的觀點去學習科學。

Scientific explanation has gained much attention from researchers and educators in science education in recent years. Numerous studies have argued that, by constructing scientific explanations, students cannot only obtain a deep understanding of science concepts, but can also foster the ability to make science inquiries and refine their conceptions of learning science. The claim-evidence-reasoning (CER) and prediction-observation-explanation (POE) inquiry activities are two salient activities developed to guide students to construct scientific explanations. However, students still tend to have difficulty articulating their scientific explanations with verbal representations. In addition, to what extent the two explanatory activities may impact students’ learning achievement, conceptions of and approaches to learning science is still unclear. Hence, this study proposes an explanation-based inquiry learning environment integrating animated simulation and multimedia drawing tools to facilitate students’ articulation of their explanations with the support of both verbal and nonverbal representations.
Two empirical studies were conducted to investigate the extent of the environment’s impact on students’ scientific explanations. In addition to discussing the beneficial effects of drawing on students’ scientific explanations, the impacts of the CER activity with drawings and the POE activity with drawings on students’ learning achievement, learning interest and confidence, conceptions of and approaches to learning science, and explanation patterns were investigated. This research further investigated the differences between 1) the CER and POE activities with drawings, and 2) low- and high-level explanation patterns in terms of students’ scientific explanations, learning achievement, conceptions of and approaches to learning science.
The results show the prominent benefits of drawing in science education for educators and researchers. Moreover, both the CER and POE activities with drawings improved the students’ learning achievement and learning interest, their conceptions of memorizing and testing, and their deep motivation and deep strategies. The study further found that different students’ explanation patterns influenced their learning achievement, conceptions of and approaches to learning science. Also, the results of investigating the different effects of the CER and POE activities with drawings indicate that the CER group tended to use high-level explanation pattern, while the POE group tended to use low-level explanation pattern. Moreover, compared to the POE activity with drawings, the CER activity with drawings may not effectively enhance students’ conception of understanding to learn science. Compared to the CER activity with drawings, the POE activity with drawings may enhance students’ use of the conception of applying to learn science. The implications of these results for supporting scientific explanation learning in classrooms are also discussed.

摘要    i
Abstract    iii
Table of Contents    v
List of Figures    viii
List of Tables    x
Chapter 1 Introduction    1
1-1    Background and Motivation    1
1-2    Research Questions    6
1-3    Thesis Organization    9
Chapter 2 Literature Review    10
2-1    Scientific explanation in science learning    10
2-2    Difficulties in constructing scientific explanation    11
2-3    Scientific Inquiry Environment Support for Constructing Scientific Explanations    13
2-4    Drawing to display the construction process of scientific explanation    19
2-5    An explanation-based inquiry learning environment enhances conceptions of and approaches to learning science    25
Chapter 3 Method    28
3-1    Participants    28
3-2    Claim-evidence-reasoning and prediction-observation-explanation groups    29
3-3    Procedure    32
3-4    Instruments    34
3-4-1    The explanation-based inquiry learning environment    34
3-4-2    Learning Test    42
3-4-3    Conceptions of Learning Science Questionnaire    42
3-4-4    Approaches to Learning Science Questionnaire    44
3-4-5    The open-ended questionnaire    46
3-5    Data Analysis    47
Chapter 4 Result    50
4-1    The framework of scientific explanation analysis    50
4-1-1    The categories of explanation patterns students applied in the CER activity with drawings    61
4-1-2    The categories of explanation patterns students applied in the POE activity with drawings    63
4-2    The effect of low- and high-level explanation patterns in the CER activity with drawings        65
4-2-1    The effect of low- and high-level explanation patterns in the CER activity with drawings    65
4-2-2    The effect of low- and high-level explanation patterns in the POE activity with drawings    73
4-3    Study 1: Explanation-Based Inquiry Learning Environment Supporting the CER Activity with drawings    89
4-3-1    Students’ Learning Achievement    89
4-3-2    Students’ Conceptions of Learning Science    90
4-3-3    Students’ Approaches to Learning Science    92
4-3-4    Students’ Learning Interest and Confidence    94
4-4    Study 2: Explanation-Based Inquiry Learning Environment Supporting the POE Activity with drawings    97
4-4-1    Students’ Learning achievement    97
4-4-2    Students’ Conceptions of Learning Science    98
4-4-3    Students’ Approaches to Learning Science    100
4-4-4    Students’ Learning interest and confidence    101
4-5    The effect of the POE and CER activities on the students’ science learning    104
4-5-1    Students’ Explanation patterns    104
4-5-2    The effect of the two activities on students’ learning achievement    106
4-5-3    The effect of the two activities with drawings on students’ conceptions of learning science    107
4-5-4    The effect of the two activities with drawings on students’ approaches to learning science    115
Chapter 5 Discussion    116
5-1    The effect of scientific explanation with drawings    117
5-1-1    The benefits of drawing in science education    117
5-1-2    The difference between low- and high-level explanation patterns in the CER and POE activities with drawings    118
5-2    The effect of the CER activity on students’ learning achievement, conceptions of and approaches to learning science    121
5-2-1    The benefit of the CER activity with drawings on learning achievement            122
5-2-2    The benefits of the CER activity with drawings for students’ conceptions of learning science    123
5-2-3    The benefits of the CER activity with drawings for students’ approaches to learning science    125
5-3    The effect of the POE activity with drawings on students’ explanation patterns, learning achievement, conceptions of and approaches to learning science    128
5-3-1    The benefits of the POE activity with drawings for learning achievement            129
5-3-2    The benefit of the POE activity with drawings on students’ conceptions of learning science    132
5-3-3    The benefit of the POE activity with drawings for students’ approaches to learning science    134
5-4    The different effects of the CER and POE activities on students’ explanation patterns, learning achievement, conceptions of and approaches to learning science    136
Chapter 6 Conclusion and Implications    141
References    145
Appendix 1 The Conceptions of Learning Science Questionnaire    156
Appendix 2 The Approaches to Learning Science Questionnaire    161
Appendix 3 The open-ended Questionnaire    164

                                

Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp. 191-208). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Ainsworth, S., Musgrove, S., & Galpin, J. (2007). Learning about dynamic systems by drawing for yourself and for others. Paper presented at the EARLI 2007 conference, Budapest, Hungary. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/Shaaron.Ainsworth/Learning%20by%20Drawing_earli_2007.pdf
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096-1097.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2008). Fostering second graders' scientific explanations: A beginning elementary teacher's knowledge, beliefs, and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 381-414.
Black, J. B., & McClintock, R. O. (1996). An interpretation construction approach to constructivist design. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist Learning Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Brewer, W. F., Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (1998). Explanation in scientists and children. Minds and Machines, 8(1), 119-136.
Bollen, L., Gijlers, H., & van Joolingen, W. (2012). Computer-Supported Collaborative Drawing in Primary School Education–Technical Realization and Empirical Findings. In Herskovic, V., Hoppe, H. U., Jansen, M. & Ziegler, J. (Eds.), Collaboration and Technology (pp. 1-16). Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Bowker, R. (2007). Children’s perceptions and learning about tropical rainforests: An analysis of their drawings. Environmental Education Research, 13(1), 75-96.
Brooks, M. (2009). Drawing, visualisation and young children’s exploration of “big ideas”. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 319-341.
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074-1079.
Chang, C. J., Liu, C. C., & Shen, Y. J. (2012). Are One-to-One Computers Necessary? An Analysis of Collaborative Web Exploration Activities Supported by Shared Displays. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 3-13.
Chang, N. (2012a). What are the roles that children’s drawings play in inquiry of science concepts? Early Child Development and Care, 182(5), 621-637.
Chang, N. (2012b). The Role of Drawing in Young Children’s Construction of Science Concepts. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(3), 187-193.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149-210.
Coştu, B., Ayas, A., & Niaz, M. (2010). Promoting conceptual change in first year students’ understanding of evaporation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(1), 5-16.
Coştu, B., Ayas, A., & Niaz, M. (2012). Investigating the effectiveness of a POE-based teaching activity on students’ understanding of condensation. Instructional Science, 40(1), 47-67.
de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63-103.
Dove, J. E., Everett, L. A., & Preece, P. F. W. (1999). Exploring a hydrological concept through children's drawings. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 485-497.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas and the learning of science. In R. Driver, E. Guesne & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s Ideas in Science (pp. 1-9). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young People’s Images of Science. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Edens, K. M., & Potter, E. (2003). Using descriptive drawings as a conceptual change strategy in elementary science. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 135-144.
Ehrlén, K. (2009). Drawings as representations of children's conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 31(1), 41-57.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
Gotwals, A. W., Songer, N. B., & Bullard, L. (2012). Assessing students’ progressing abilities to Construct Scientific Explanations. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishing.
Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1981). Understanding of gravity. Science Education, 65(3), 291-299.
Hayashi, T., Nakayama, H., & Tarumi, H. (2012, September). Thinking Representation Tools for Science Education with Drawings. In Barolli, L., Xhafa, F., Dobre, C., Bessis, N., & Trausan-Matu, S., Emerging Intelligent Data and Web Technologies (EIDWT), 2012 Third International Conference on (pp. 265-269). MA, USA: IEEE. doi:10.1109/EIDWT.2012.34
Hayes, D., Symington, D., & Martin, M. (1994). Drawing during science activity in the primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 16(3), 265-277.
Hempel, G. G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (1999). Dialogue as data: Assessing students' scientific reasoning with interactive protocols. In Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.), Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View (pp. 95-127). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.
Horwood, R. H. (1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science Education, 72(1), 41-49.
Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H. K., & Hwang, F. K. (2008). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understandings about seasons: the design of a technology-enhanced learning environment. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 127-147.
Jonassen, D. H., & Cho, Y. H. (2008). Externalizing mental models with mindtools. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding Models for Learning and Instruction (pp. 145-160). New York, NY: Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(3), 757-792.
Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom use of multimedia-supported predict–observe–explain tasks in a social constructivist learning environment. Research in Science Education, 34(4), 427-453.
Kearney, M., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. G. (2001). Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported predict–observe–explain tasks to probe understanding. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 589-615.
Köse, S. (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: Using drawings as a research method. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3(2), 283-293.
Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). IQWST: Investigating and Questioning Our World through Science and Technology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., O'Loughlin, M., Schauble, L., Leadbeater, B., & Yotive, W. (1988). The Development of Scientific Thinking Skills. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/research/ccms/site.archive/documents/Students_Evidence_Based_Scientific_Explanations.pdf
Li, J. (2003). U.S. and Chinese cultural beliefs about learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 258–267.
Lee, M.-H., Johanson, R. E., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92(2), 191-220. doi:10.1002/sce.20245
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English-language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12-21. doi:10.3102/0013189X027004012
Lee, Y., & Law, N. (2001). Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 111-149. doi:10.1080/09500690119851
Leenaars, F. A. J., van Joolingen, W. R., & Bollen, L. (2013). Using self‐made drawings to support modelling in science education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 82-94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01272.x
Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 16-26. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005
Liew, C. W., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). A Predict-Observe-Explain Teaching Sequence for Learning about Students' Understanding of Heat and Expansion Liquids. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41(1), 68-71.
Liu, C.-C., Cheng, Y.-B. & Huang, C.-W. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational problem solving. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1907-1918. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.002
Liu, C. C., Liu, K. P., Chen, W. H., Lin, C. P., & Chen, G. D. (2011). Collaborative storytelling experiences in social media: Influence of peer-assistance mechanisms. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1544-1556. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.002
Marton, F. (1983). Beyond individual differences. Educational Psychology, 3, 289–303.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233-268. doi:10.1002/sce.20294
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
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In Lovett, M. & Shah, P. (Eds.), Thinking with Data: Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233–265). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008a). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In Luft, J., Bell, R. & Gess-Newsome, J. (Eds.), Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting (pp. 121-134). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008b). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78. doi:10.1002/tea.20201
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D.J, Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
Mthembu Z., (2001). Using the predict–observe–explain technique to enhance the students' understanding of chemical reactions (short report on pilot study). Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Retrieved from: http://publications.aare.edu.au/01pap/mth01583.htm
Ministry of Education. (1999). Curriculum Outlines for “Nature Science and Living Technology”. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. doi:10.1080/095006999290570
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory: 2nd Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
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
Pallrand, G. J. (1996). The relationship of assessment to knowledge development in science education. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(4), 315-18.
Palmer, D. (1995). The POE in the primary school: An evaluation. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 323-332. doi:10.1007/BF02357405
Piaget, J., & Vonèche, J. (2007). The Child’s Conception of the World. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc.
Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning Through Constructing Representations in Science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2751-2773. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.626462
Prokop, P., & Fancovicová, J. (2006). Students’ ideas about the human body: Do they really draw what they know. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(10), 86-95.
Reiser, B. J., Berland, L. K., & Kenyon, L. (2012). Engaging Students in the Scientific Practices of Explanation and Argumentation. Science and Children, 49(8), 8-13.
Reiser, B.J., Krajcik, J. Moje, E.B., & Marx, R.W. (2003). Design strategies for developing science instructional materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from: http://www.umich.edu/~hiceweb/iqwst/Papers/reiser_krajcik_NARST03.pdf
Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Children's choice of drawings to communicate their ideas about technology. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 239-252. doi:10.1007/BF02357399
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
Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument‐Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217-257. doi: 10.1002/sce.20421
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation‐driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372. doi:10.1002/sce.10130
Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary: Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101-120.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141-156.
Schwamborn, A., Mayer, R. E., Thillmann, H., Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2010). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 872-879. doi:10.1037/a0019640
Searle, P., & Gunstone, R. (1990). Conceptual change and physics instruction: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, USA.
Songer, N. B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 141-165. doi:10.1002/tea.20454
Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2009). When and how does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610–631. doi:10.1002/tea.20313
Tao, P. K. (1999). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39-57. doi:10.1080/095006999290822
Tao, P. K., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer‐supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-882. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<859::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-J
Tsai, C. C. (2001). The interpretation construction design model for teaching science and its applications to Internet-based instruction in Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 21(5), 401-415.
Tsai, C. C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: A phenomenographic analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1733-1750. doi:10.1080/0950069042000230776
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129-40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.129
Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 142-166. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.001
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
White, R. and Gunstone, R. (1992). Prediction-observation-explanation. In: R White and R Gunstone (eds), Probing Understanding (pp. 44-64). London: The Falmer Press.
Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing Sixth Graders’ Inquiry Skills to Construct Explanations in Inquiry‐based Learning Environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289-1313. doi:10.1080/09500690600621035
Wu, H. K., Lin, Y. F., & Hsu, Y. S. (2013). Effects of representation sequences and spatial ability on students’ scientific understandings about the mechanism of breathing. Instructional Science, 41(3), 1-19.
Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842. doi:10.1002/tea.1033
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

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文