第五章 結論與建議
第二節 建議
三、 英文部份
Bar, V., & Travis, A. S. (1991). Children’s views concerning phase changes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 363-382.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind in nature. A necessary unity. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and method. (3nd ed.). Boston : Allyn and Bacon .
Bonder, G. (1991). I have found you an argument: The conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. Journal of Chemical Education, 68, 385-388.
Bruce, B. C. (2000). Benefits of P.O.E. Retrieved October 24, 2006, from http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/~chip/pubs/inquiry/POE/POEbenefits.shtml
Bybee, R. W., Ellis, J. D., & Mathew, M. R. (1992). Teaching about the history and nature of science and technology: An instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 327-337.
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factor influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074-79.
Chang, C. M. (1993). Using a microcomputer-based laboratory in teaching selected concepts in mechanics. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leeds, UK.
Clayton, W. M. (1993). Predict-observe-explain science activities in the junior high classroom – a qualitative inquiry. Unpublished MED thesis, Saint Mary's university, Canada.
Clough, E. E., & Driver, R. (1986). A study of consistency in the use of students’ conceptual framework across different task contexts. Science Education, 70(4), 473- 496.
Cook, A. (1985). Clarification of proposition in science teaching. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 37- 43.
Dagher, Z. R., & Cossman, G. (1992). Verbal explanation given by science teacher: Their nature and implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 361-374.
Driver, R. H. (1981). Pupils’ alternative frameworks in science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(1), 93-101.
Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as a scientist. Milton Keynes, U.K. : Open University Press.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science : Open University Press.
Duit, R. (1997, November). Understanding understanding – on interpreting discourse in interview and classroom practice. Paper presented at the International Conference on Interpretive Research in Science Education,Taipei, Taiwan.
Edington, J. R. (1997). What constitutes a scientific explanation? Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.
Edgington, J. R., & Barufaldi, J. P. (1995). How research physicists and high-school physics teachers deal with the scientific explanation of a physical phenomenon. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Francisco.
Fekete, P., & Walker, P. (1997). Interactive teaching resources for thermal physics available on the web. Retrieved August 24, 2007, from
http://science.uniserve.edu.au/newsletter/vol8/fekete.html#ref
Finley, F. N. (1983). Science process. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 20 (1), 47-54.
Fisher, K. M. (1985). A misconception in biology: Amino acids and translation. Journal of Reasearch in Science Teaching, 22(1), 53-62.
Friedman, M. (1974). Explanation and scientific understanding. The Journal of Philosophy, 71(1), 5-19.
Friedman, M. (1988). Explanation and understanding. In J. C. Pitt. (Ed.), Theories of explanations. (pp. 180-198). New York: Oxford University Press.
Fuson, K. (1976). Piagetian stages in causality: Children’s answers to why? Elementary School Journal, 77, 150-157.
Gunstone, R. F. (1990). “Children’s science”: A decade of developments in constructivist views of science teaching and learning. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(4), 9-19.
Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1981). Understanding of gravity. Science Education, 65, 291-299.
Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer.
Halliday, M. A. K., ＆ Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science:Literacy and discursive power.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Hempel, C. G., (1965). The logic of functional analysis. In aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free172 Press; London:
Collier-Macmillan, 297-330.
Hempel, C. G., ＆ Oppeheim, P. (1988). Studies in the logic of explanation. In. J. C. Pitt (Ed.), Theories of explanation (pp. 9-50). New York: Oxford University Press.
Horwood, R. H. (1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science Education, 72(1), 41-49.
Jungwirth, E. (1979). Do students accept anthropomorphic and teleological formulations as scientific explanations? Journal of College Science Teaching, 8, 152-155.
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 probing understanding.
Research in Science Education, 31(4), 589-615.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31 (2) , 338-368.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71(5), 721-734.
Liew, C. W., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). A predict-observe-explain teaching sequence for learning about students’ understanding of heat and expansion of liquids. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41(1), 68-71.
Liew, C. W., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). The effectiveness of predict-observe-explain tasks in diagnosing students’ understanding of science and in identifying their levels of
achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, April 13-17, 1998. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED420715)
Lipton, P. (1993). Inference to the best explanation. New York: Routledge.
Martin, J. R. (1970). Explaning, understanding and teaching. NewYork: McGraw-HillBook Company.
McCubbin, W. L. (1984). The role of logic in students’ assessments of scientific explanations.
European Journal of Scuence Education, 6 (1), 67-77.
Methembu, 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 Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education.
ISSN:1324-9339.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children's beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 777-805.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D. C : National Academy Press.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ohlsson, S. (1992). The cognitive skill theory of articulation: A neglected aspect of science education. Science Education, 1, 111-192.
Osborne, R. (1984). Children’s dynamics. Physics Teacher, 22, 504-508.
Osborne, R., & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the changes of state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(9), 825-838.
Palmer, D. (1995). The POE in the primary school: An evaluation. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 323-332.
Pallrand, G. J. (1996). The relationship of assessment to knowledge development of science education. Phi Delta Kappan, 315-318.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, London: Sage.
Pitt, J. C. (Ed.). (1988). Theories of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Reiner, M. (1991). Patterns of thought on light, and underlying commitments. In R. Duit, F.
Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 99-109). Kiel, Germany: IPN, University of Kiel.
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001).
BGuile: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms’
cognition and instruction：Twenty-five years of progress. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roberts, D. A. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases”in science education.
Science Education, 66(2), 243-260.
Russell, T. (1999). An introduction to P.O.E. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://educ.queensu.ca/~russellt/howteach/p-o-e.htm
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations.
Journal of theLearning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
Schulz, S. (1993). Structure and content of children’s explanations of physical events. Poster session presented at the AREA Annual Meeting, St. Louis.
Scriven, M. (1988). Explanations, predictions and laws. In J. C. Pitt (Ed.), Theories of explanation (pp. 51-74). New York: Oxford University Press.
Searle, P. & Gustone, R. F. (1990). Conceptual change and physics instruction: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research
Association. Boston, MA, April 16-20, 1990. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED320767).
Solomon, J. (1986). Children’s explanations. Oxford Review of Education, 12(1), 41-51.
Stepans J. & Kuehn, C. (1985). Children’s conceptions of weather. Science and Children, 44-47.
Sutherland L. M. (2002). Guidelines for explanation in scientific inquiry. UM and UPS teacher meetings (July).
Sutton, C. R. (1992). Word, science and learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Taber, K. S. (2001). Shifting sands: a case study of conceptual development as competition between alternative conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 731-753.
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tobin, K. G. (1986). Student task involvement and achievement in process-oriented Science activities. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 70(1), 61-72.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Prediction-observation-explanation. In White, R＆
Gunstone, R. (Eds.), Probing understanding (pp. 44-64). London : The Falmer Press.
Wong, D. (1996). Students’ scientific explanations and the contexts in which they occur. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 495-509.
Zuzovsky, R., & Tamir, P. (1999). Growth patterns in students’ ability to supply scientific explanation: Findings from the third international mathematics and science study in Israel.
International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1101-1121.
附錄
附錄一 實驗活動單
實驗一
實驗四
實驗二 沙網
實驗五
挖洞
塑膠片
實驗三
附錄二 晤談逐字稿示例
晤談日期：民國 95 年 12 月 30 日 晤談時間：下午 2 時～2 時 45 分
晤談地點：台中市某國小之教師研究室 晤談者（以 I 為代號）：研究者
晤談對象（以T為代號）：○○國小○○○教師（編號 T104 教師）
訪談逐字稿內容
內容 I：好．．．
T：P.O.E。「O」是什麼？是觀察嗎？
I：對。「O」是 Observation，然後「P」就是先預測嘛～就是預測、觀察、實驗，
然後就解釋。然後我可能就是請你預測的時候，你要說明你的原因。然後如果 你看完實驗結果，有跟你的預測有一點出入的話，你可以補充說明。
T：喔～好。
I：那可以請老師簡單介紹一下你的學經歷背景？從大學開始，是唸師專還是唸？
T：我的學經歷呀～好，我學歷～我是唸師專然後讀中國醫藥學院藥學系，然後 中藥所，阿然後就當自然科輔導員。這個是經歷啦～然後就當自然科完就覺得 自已還不夠，所以就又去讀了自科所，阿目前自科所快要畢業了。然後經歷的 部份，都是在仁愛國小擔任自然科，大概有十年以上的教學經歷。
I：喔喔～好。謝謝老師。老師你的教授是哪一個？
T：黃文柏老師。
I：喔～不錯不錯。（笑）好那我們就先來實施實驗一的部份，那請老師做預測，
就是我等下這樣子拿出水面，我的手沒有扶著，然後杯子裡面的水會不會流下 來？
T：不會。
I：那老師你的理由是什麼？
T：理由喔～因為大氣壓力呀。大氣壓力撐著。呵～我覺得啦～
I：恩～大氣壓力撐住就對了。好～那我們就作實驗看看。然後，對～沒有錯。
T：對。因為我有和學生做過（笑）。
I：恩～好。對，這個比較簡單，那我們來看實驗二的部份，實驗二的部份差別，
只是我在這邊綁了一個沙網。那也是一樣，我等下會垂直拿起來。老師你可以 看圖，這樣子．．．
T：咦～這我們也做過。許良榮老師有帶我們做過．．．（笑）
I：呵呵～對對對。我就是他的學生。那老師你可以預測一下，它裡面的水會不會
I：對。老師你還有沒有要補充？就是你看到這樣的結果。就是針對你的說法。
I：不是～我是說薄膜為什麼沒有撐住水？如果大氣壓力平均的話。老師你的想法 是什麼？
T：大氣壓力如果平衡～因為薄膜的力量不足以撐住這些水的重量呀～
I：喔～所以說水就會流下來了？
T：對。
I：喔～好謝謝。最後一個實驗了。我會加快速度。這個吸管嘛～那我先講一下，
因為是先放下去，然後以壓住，那請老師預測我等下拿起來的時候，吸管裡的 水柱會不會流下來？
T：你是說壓住之後，還是沒有壓住？
I：ㄟ～是壓住上來。
T：你是先放下去再壓住？
I：對。
T：喔～然後再拿上來。那水當然不會流下來呀～
I：那老師的原因是什麼？
T：跟第一個一樣呀～有大氣壓力呀～而且那水那麼輕，絕對不會掉下來。
I：恩恩～那除了大氣壓力的作用之外呢？你覺得還什麼其他意思嗎？
T：我覺得還是大氣壓力，如果你要看那個水柱的話，跟這個一樣。它表面也是有 一個薄膜。
I：也是有表面張力的作用？
T：對。表面張力。
I：ok~謝謝。
T：就只有這樣喔～
＊訪談結束＊