臺灣高中生之科學本體觀、科學知識觀、科學心智習性與科學學習目標導向

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	林宗進 Tzung-Jin Lin
論文名稱：	臺灣高中生之科學本體觀、科學知識觀、科學心智習性與科學學習目標導向 High School Students’ Scientific Ontological Beliefs, Scientific Epistemic Beliefs, Scientific Habits of Mind, and Goal Orientations in Learning Science
指導教授：	蔡今中 Chin-Chung Tsai
口試委員:	邱國力 Guo-Li Chiou 李旻憲 Min-Hsien Lee 梁至中 Jyh-Chong Liang 蔡孟蓉 Meng-Jung Tsai
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	應用科技學院 - 應用科技研究所 Graduate Institute of Applied Science and Technology
論文出版年：	2014
畢業學年度：	102
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	153
中文關鍵詞：	目標導向、心智習性、信念、知識論、本體論
外文關鍵詞：	Habits of mind, Epistemology, Ontology, Beliefs, Achievement goal theory
相關次數：	點閱：389 下載：1
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

本研究旨在探討臺灣高中學生所持有之科學本體觀、科學知識觀、科學心智習性與科學學習目標導向。本研究分成兩個部份，在第一部份，600位臺灣高中學生分別填寫科學知識觀、科學心智習性與科學學習目標導向的三份量化問卷，藉以了解科學知識觀、科學心智習性與科學學習目標導向的關係。在第二部份中，挑選出具有代表性之40位學生，藉由質性訪談的方式深入瞭解其科學本體觀與科學知識觀的關係，以及科學本體觀在其科學心智習性與科學學習目標導向所扮演的角色。主要研究結果顯示，持有越趨向於建構主義科學知識觀之學生越可能顯示正向的科學心智習性，亦越可能採用精熟目標的科學學習導向。此外，路徑分析結果顯示，學生之科學心智習性，在科學知識觀與科學學習目標導向關係中，可能扮演重要的中介角色。而質性訪談的結果指出，首先，學生的科學本體觀可分成「自然的狀態性」與「自然的結構性」兩個面向。再者，學生越傾向理想主義的科學本體觀則越可能持有較為建構主義科學知識觀。本研究亦歸類出學生之科學本體觀與科學知識觀包括「實在主義/實證主義」、「理想主義/建構主義」、「實在主義/建構主義」、「實在主義/混合」與「混合/混合」等五種類型。另外，藉由分析學生之不同科學本體觀在其科學心智習性與科學學習目標導向問卷分數後，學生持有越偏向理想主義的科學本體觀，越有可能持有正向的科學心智習性與採用精熟目標的科學學習導向。然而，若學生在「自然的結構性」面向持有傾向實在主義的科學本體觀，他們則會傾向採用表現趨避科學學習目標導向。

The purpose of this study aimed to investigate high school students’ ontological and epistemic views about within the domain of science, scientific habits of mind, and goal orientations in learning science. To this end, the current study contained two parts of investigation. The first part of the study contained a sampling pool of 600 Taiwanese high school students. The students’ responses based on three separate instruments were intended to render quantitative indicators to represent students’ scientific epistemic beliefs, scientific habits of mind, and their goal orientations in learning science. The interplay as well as the structural relations among these constructs were then clarified. In addition, the second part of the study contained 40 representative participants selected from the sampling pool. These participants were interviewed about their ontological beliefs and scientific epistemic beliefs. These collected interview data also served as the research foundation to explore and substantiate the potential relationships between scientific ontological beliefs and other three variables in this study. In general, the first part of this study revealed that the students possessing more availing scientific epistemic beliefs tended to show more positive scientific habits of mind, and endorse mastery goal orientations in learning science. Furthermore, the path analysis unraveled that the students’ scientific habits of mind may serve as mediators between their scientific epistemic beliefs and goal orientations in learning science. For the second part of this study, 40 representative students selected from the sampling pool were deeply interviewed about their scientific ontological beliefs and scientific epistemic beliefs. Through analyzing the selected students’ interview responses, two dimensions (i.e., status of nature and structure about nature) regarding scientific ontological beliefs were derived and found to be associated. Moreover, a total of five pattern variations were found based on the selected students’ categorizations of ontological and epistemic beliefs (i.e., Realist/Empiricist, Idealist/Constructivist, Realist/Constructivist, Realist/Mixed, Mixed/Mixed). Overall, the students holding Idealist ontological beliefs in the two dimensions tended to have Constructivist epistemic beliefs. In addition, the students with more sophisticated ontological beliefs were more oriented to possess more positive scientific habits of mind and adopt mastery goal orientations in science learning. However, the students with less availing ontological beliefs (i.e., Realist) concerning the structure about nature may tend to endorse Performance-avoidance goal orientation in learning science.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………1
I.1. Need for the Study………………………………………………………...………1
I.2. Outline of the Study……………………………………………………………….6
I.3. Research Questions…………………………………………………………..........8
I.3.1. General research question………………………………………………….8
I.3.2. Specific research questions………………………………………………..8
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………  10
II.1. The Philosophical Foundations of Ontology and Epistemology of Science
II.1.1. Synthesizing ontological and epistemological stances in science………10
II.2. The Scientific Ontological Beliefs………………………………………………13
II.2.1. Conceptualizing ontological beliefs……………………………………..13
II.2.2. The challenge of classifying ontological beliefs………………………...14
II.2.3. The significance of ontological beliefs in science learning……………...15
II.3. The Scientific Epistemic Beliefs………………………………………………..18
II.3.1. Situating Epistemic beliefs………………………………………………18
II.3.2. The domain-specific trait of epistemic beliefs…………………………..19
II.3.3. The need to expand the dimensions of epistemic beliefs………………..20
II.3.4. The underlying relationships between ontological beliefs and epistemic beliefs…………………………………………………………………………...22
II.4. Scientific Habits of Mind……………………………………………………….25
	II.4.1. Scientific habits of mind…………………………………………………25
	II.4.2. Scientific habits of mind may be epistemic……………………………...27
	II.4.3. Significance of scientific habits of mind in science education…………..29
II.5. Achievement Goal Theory………………………………………………………31
	II.5.1. Conceptual Foundation of Goal Orientation……………………………. 31
	II.5.2. Learners’ epistemic attributes and goal orientations…………………….34
II.6. An Integrated Model of the Researched Epistemic Attributes…………………..37
II.7. Theoretical Model……………………………………………………………….39
CHPATER III: METHDOLOGY…………………………………….41
III.1. General Research Design………………………………………………………41
III.2. Participants……………………………………………………………………..46
III.3. The Instruments for the Quantitative Part of the Study………………………...47
III.3.1.Measuring students’ scientific epistemic beliefs………………………...47
III.3.2. Assessing students’ scientific habits of mind…………………………...49
III.3.3. Evaluating students’ goal orientations in learning science……………. 51
III.4. The Data Analysis for the Quantitative Part of the Study……………………...54
	III.4.1. The factor analysis for the SEBI, SHOMI, and GOLSI………………...54
	III.4.2. The reliability analysis for the SEBI, SHOMI, and GOLSI………….....55
	III.4.3. The correlation analysis for the quantitative data………………………55
	III.4.4. The structural relations among SEBI, SHOMI, and GOLSI……………56
	III.4.5. Selection of the representative students for qualitative study…………..56
III.5. The Data Collection for the Qualitative Part of the Study……………………..58
III.5.1. The interview questions of scientific ontological beliefs and scientific epistemic beliefs………………………………………………………………. 58
CHPATER IV: MAJOR FINDINGS…………………………………62
CHPATER V: RESULTS………………………………………...……72
V.1. Students’ Scientific Epistemic Beliefs Derived from Scientific Epistemic Beliefs Instrument (SEBI) ………………………………………………………………72
V.1.1. The exploratory factor analysis of SEBI…………………………………72
V.1.2. The confirmatory factor analysis of SEBI………………………………..74
V.1.3. The interrelations between factors of SEBI………………………………75
V.2. Students’ Scientific Habits of Mind Obtained from Scientific Habits of Mind Instrument (SHOMI)…………………………………………………………….77
V.2.1. The exploratory factor analysis of SHOMI……………………………....77
V.2.2. The confirmatory factor analysis of SHOMI……………………………..78
V.2.3. The interrelations between factors of SHOMI……………………………79
V.3. Students’ Goal Orientations in Learning Science Obtained from Goal Orientations in Learning Science Instrument (GOLSI)…………………………80
	V.3.1. The exploratory factor analysis of GOLSI………………………………..80
V.3.2. The confirmatory factor analysis of GOLSI……………………………...81
V.3.3. The interrelations between factors of GOLSI…………………………….82
V.4. The Relationships between Students’ Responses on the SEBI, SHOMI, and GOLSI…………………………………………………………………………...84
V.4.1. The relations between the students’ responses on the SEBI and SHOMI..84
V.4.2. The relations between the students’ responses on the SEBI and GOLSI...85
V.4.3. The relations between the students’ responses on the SHOMI and
GOLSI……………..……………………………………………………...86
V.4.4. Constructing the path model among the students’ responses on the SEBI, SHOMI, and GOLSI………………………………………………………86
V.5. The Selected Students’ Scientific Ontological Beliefs Gained from the
Interview………………………………………………………………………...89
V.5.1. The interview framework for understanding the students’ scientific ontological beliefs………………………………………………………..89
V.5.2. The associations between the selected students’ ontological beliefs about the status of nature and structure about nature…………………………...94
V.6. The Selected Students’ Scientific Epistemic Beliefs Gathered from Interview…96
V.6.1. The interview framework for understanding the selected students’ scientific epistemic beliefs…………………………………………………………96
V.6.2. The results of the selected students’ scientific epistemic beliefs………..101
V.6.3. The associations between the selected students’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing…………………………………………………………….103
V.7. The Interplay between the Selected Students’ Scientific Ontological Beliefs and Their Scientific Epistemic Beliefs……………………………………………...104
V.7.1. The qualitative pattern variations between the selected students’ scientific ontological beliefs and scientific epistemic beliefs……………………...104
V.7.2. The interplay between the students’ scientific ontological beliefs about Status of nature and their scientific epistemic beliefs gathered from qualitative data……………………………………………………..……106
V.7.3. The interplay between the students’ scientific ontological beliefs about Structure about nature and their scientific epistemic beliefs gathered from qualitative data…………………………………………………………..107
V.7.4. The differences between Idealist and Realist students’ responses to the SEBI……………………………………………………………………..108
V.8. The role of students’ scientific ontological beliefs on their scientific habits of mind……………………………………………………………………………110
V.9. The role of students’ scientific ontological beliefs on their goal orientations in learning science…………………………………………………………….….112
CHPATER VI: DISSCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS…………...114
VI.1. Discussion of the major findings……………………………………………...114
	VI.1.1. The first part of the study……………………………………...………114
VI.1.2. The second part of the study…………………………………………..119
VI.2. Implications…………………………………………………………………...122
VI.2.1. Implications for methodology…………………………………………122
VI.2.2. Implications for science education…………………………………….124
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………….128
APPENDICES……………………………………………………….. 148
	Appendix A: Scientific Epistemic Beliefs Instrument (SEBI)………………...148
	Appendix B: Scientific Habits of Mind Instrument (SHOMI)………………...150
Appendix C: Goal Orientations in Learning Science Instrument (GOLSI)…...151
Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Evaluating Scientific Ontological Beliefs and Scientific Epistemic Beliefs……………………………………………….152

 
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Contrasting the traditional stance and postmodern stance regarding ontology and epistemology of science…………………………………….12
Table 2.2. The key features of four scientific habits of mind………………………. 26
Table 2.3. The 2 by 2 achievement goal framework…………………………………34
Table 3.1. An overview of data collection method in the current study……………...42
Table 5.1. The exploratory factor analysis, reliability, factor means, and standard deviations of the SEBI (n = 321)……………………………….................73
Table 5.2. The confirmatory factor analysis and reliability of the SEBI (n = 279)…..74
Table 5.3. The interrelations between the factors of SEBI…………………………...76
Table 5.4. The exploratory factor analysis, reliability, factor means, and standard deviations of the SHOMI (n = 321)……………………………………….77
Table 5.5. The confirmatory factor analysis and reliability of SHOMI (n = 279)…...79
Table 5.6. The interrelations between the factors of SHOMI………………………...79
Table 5.7. The exploratory factor analysis, reliability, factor means, and standard deviations of the GOLSI (n = 321)………………………………………..80
Table 5.8. The confirmatory factor analysis and reliability of the GOLSI (n = 279)...81
Table 5.9. The correlations between the factors of GOLSI…………………………..83
Table 5.10. The correlations between the students’ responses on the SEBI and SHOMI (n = 321)…………………………………………………………………...84
Table 5.11. The correlations between the students’ responses on the SEBI and GOLSI (n = 321)…………………………………………………………………..85
Table 5.12. The correlations between the students’ responses on the SHOMI and GOLSI (n = 321)………………………………………………………….86
Table 5.13. The framework for categorizing interviewees’ scientific ontological beliefs…………………………………………………………………….90
Table 5.14. Results for selected students’ scientific ontological beliefs (N = 40)……94
Table 5.15. The associations among the selected students’ beliefs concerning status of nature and structure about nature (N = 40)………………………………..95
Table 5.16. The framework for categorizing interviewees’ scientific epistemic belief………………………………………………………………………96
Table 5.17. Results for selected students’ scientific epistemic beliefs (N = 40)……102
Table 5.18. The associations among the selected students’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing (N = 40)……………………………………………………103
Table 5.19. The pattern variations between the selected students’ scientific ontological beliefs and scientific epistemic beliefs………………………………… 105
Table 5.20. The association among the students’ ontological beliefs about the status of nature and epistemic beliefs about knowledge and knowing……………106
Table 5.21. The association among the students’ ontological beliefs about the structure about nature and epistemic beliefs about knowledge and knowing……..108
Table 5.22. The differences between idealist and realist students’ responses to the Scientific Epistemic Beliefs Instrument (SEBI)…………………………109
Table 5.23. The differences between idealist and realist students’ responses to the Scientific Habits of Mind Instrument (SHOMI)…………………………110
Table 5.24. The differences between idealist and realist students’ responses to the Goal Orientations in Learning Science Instrument (GOLSI)……………113
 
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Theoretical model of the current study…………………………………. 40
Figure 3.1. An overview of the research design in this study………………………..45
Figure 5.1. Path model with standardized path coefficients representing relations among variables considered in the first part of the study………………..88

                                

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 353-374.
Akerson, V. L., & Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Relationships among learner characteristics and preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20, 45-58.
Alexander, P. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (2007). First steps: Scholars’ promising movements into a nascent field of inquiry. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Re-framing the problem of conceptual change in learning and instruction (pp. 221-236). The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Alles, D. L. (2004). Synthesizing scientific knowledge: A conceptual basis for non-majors science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 36-39.
Alsop, S. (2005). The affective dimensions of cognition: Studies from education in the sciences. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Barzilai, S. & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A multifaceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49, 13-35.
Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A multifaceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49, 13-35.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). A constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39, 31-42.
Beghetto, R., & Baxter, J. A. (2012). Exploring student beliefs and understanding in elementary science and mathematics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 942-960.
Blalock, C., Lichtenstein, M., Owen, S., Pruski, L., Marshall, C. & Toepperwein, M. (2008). In pursuit of validity: a comprehensive review of science attitude instruments 1935-2005. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 961-977.
Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2004).Epistemological beliefs and implicit theories of intelligence as predictors of achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 371-388.
Briell, J., Elen, J. E., Verschaffel, L., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Personal epistemology: Nomenclature, conceptualizations, and measurement. In J. Elen, E. Stahl, R. Bromme, & G. Clarebout (Eds), Links between beliefs and cognitive flexibility. UK: Springer.
Brookes, D., & Etkina, E. (2009). “Force,” ontology, and language. Physical Review Special Topics -Physics Education Research, 5, 010110-1-010110-13.
Buehl, M. M. & Alexander, P. A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences among domain-specific epistemological belief clusters. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 697-726.
Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 385-418.
Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain general or domain specific? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 415-449.
Buell, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 385-418.
Calik, M. & Coll, R. K. (2012). Investigating socioscientific issues via scientific habits of mind: Development and validation of the scientific habits of mind survey. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1909-1930.
Calik, M., Turan, B., & Coll, R. K. (in press). A cross-age study of elementary student teachers’ scientific habits of mind concerning socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.
Cano, F. (2005). Consonance and dissonance in students’ learning experience. Learning and Instruction, 15, 201-223.
Chan, N.-M., Ho, I. T., & Ku, K. Y. L. (2011). Epistemic beliefs and critical thinking of Chinese students. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 67-77.
Chen, J. A. (2012). Implicit theories, epistemic beliefs, and science motivation: A person-centered approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 724-735.
Chen, J. A., & Pajares, F. (2010). Implicit theories of ability of Grade 6 science students: Relation to epistemological beliefs and academic motivation and achievement in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 75-87.
Chen, S. (2010). The view of scientific inquiry conveyed by simulation-based virtual laboratories. Computers & Education, 55, 1123-1130.
Cheung, W. S. & Hew, K. F. (2010). Examining facilitators’ habits of mind in an asynchronous online discussion environment: A two cases study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 123-132.
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161-199.
Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D. & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L.A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of research on epistemic cognition: Applying philosophy to psychology and education. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141-167.
Chiu, M.-H., Chou, C.-C., & Liu, C.-J. (2002). Dynamic processes of conceptual change: Analysis of constructing mental models of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 713-737.
Claussen, S., & Osborne, J. (2013). Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital and its implications for the science curriculum. Science Education, 97, 58-79.
Coll, R. K. & Taylor, N. (2001). Using constructivism to inform tertiary chemistry pedagogy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 215-216.
Coll, R. K., Lay, M.-C., & Taylor, N. (2008). Scientists and scientific thinking: Understanding scientific thinking through an investigation of scientists views about superstitions and religious beliefs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4, 197-214.
Coll, R. K., Taylor, N., & Lay, M. C. (2009). Scientists’ habits of mind as evidenced by the interaction between their science training and religious beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 725-755.
Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I. & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186-204.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd Ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S. M., Pannuzzo, N., & Butera, F. (2006). Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 766-776.
DeBacker, T. K., & Crowson, H. M. (2006). Influences on cognitive engagement: Epistemological beliefs and need for closure. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 535-551.
DeBacker, T. K., Crowson, H. M., Beesley, A. D., Thoma, S. J., & Hestevold, N. L. (2008). The challenge of measuring epistemic beliefs: An analysis of three self-report instruments. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 281-312.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dottin, E. S. (2009) Professional judgment and dispositions in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 83-88.
Dottin, E. S. (2010). Dispositions as habits of mind: Making professional conduct more intelligent. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, UK: Open University Press.
Duit, R. & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671-688.
Duncan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students’ understandings of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 938-959.
Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Psychology.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Eick, C. J., & Stewart, B. (2010). Dispositions supporting elementary interns in the teaching of reform-based science methods. The Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 783-800.
Eick, C. J., & Stewart, B. (2010). Dispositions supporting elementary interns in the teaching of reform-based science material. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 783-800.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85, 554-567.
Elder, A. D. (2002). Characterizing fifth grade students' epistemological beliefs in science. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 347-364). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.
Elliot, A. J., & Moller, A. C. (2003). Performance-approach goals: Good or bad forms of regulation? International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 339-356.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613-628.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 139-156.
Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404-423.
Friedrichsen, P., Van Driel, J., & Abell, S. (2011) Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95, 358-376.
Friedrichsen, P., Van Driel, J., & Abell, S. (2011) Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95, 358-37
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational Research: An introduction (7th ed.). NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Gauld, C. F. (2005). Habits of mind, scholarship, and decision making in science and religion. Science & Education, 14, 291-308.
Gluck, A.L. (1999). Open-mindedness versus holding firm beliefs. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 33, 269-276.
Good, R. & Shymansky, J. (2001). Nature-of-science literacy in benchmarks and standards: Post-modern/relativist or modern/realist? Science & Education, 10, 173-185.
Grant, H. & Dweck, C.S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541-553.
Greene, J. A., & Yu, S. (2014). Modeling and measuring epistemic cognition: A qualitative re-investigation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 12-28.
Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43, 142-160.
Gresalfi, M. S., & Cobb, P. (2006). Cultivating students’ discipline-specific dispositions as a critical goal for pedagogy and equity. Pedagogies, 1, 49-57.
Gupta, A., Hammer, D., & Redish, E. F. (2010). The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 285-321.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Hammer, D., Gupta, A., & Redish, E. F. (2011).On static and dynamic intuitive ontologies. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 163-168.
Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2006). Moving from border crossing to convergence of perspectives in language and science literacy research and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 101-107.
Henry S. E., & Bushnell, M. (2003). The role of reflection in epistemological change: Autobiography in teacher education. Educational Studies, 34, 259-276.
Hew, K. F. & Cheung, W. S. (2011). Student facilitators’ habits of mind and their influences on higher-level knowledge construction occurrences in online discussions: A case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48, 275-285.
Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405.
Hofer, B. K. (2004). Exploring the dimensions of personal epistemology in differing classroom contexts: Student interpretations during the first year of college. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 129-163.
Hofer, B. K. (2006). Domain specificity of personal epistemology: Resolved questions, persistent issues, new models. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 85-95.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.
Hofer, B. K., & Sinatra, G. M. (2010). Epistemology, metacognition, and self-regulation: Musings on an emerging field. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 113-120.
Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51-70.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
Kang, N. H., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89, 140-165.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141-184.
Kardash, C. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2012). Thinking and behaving like scientists: Perceptions of undergraduate science interns and their faculty mentors. Instructional Science, 40, 875-899.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kitchener, R. (2002). Folk epistemology: An introduction. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 89-105.
Kizilgunes, B., Tekkaya, C., & Sungar, S. (2009). Modeling the relations among students’ epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 243-255.
Koballa, T. R. & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In: Abell, S. K. & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education (pp.75-102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kremer, K., Specht, C., Urhahne, D., & Mayer, J. (2014). The relationship in biology between the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Biological Education, 48, 1-8.
Kuhn, D., & Park, S.-H. (2005). Epistemological understanding and the development of intellectual values. International Journal of Educational Research, 43,111-124.
Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp.121-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kwak, Y. (2001). Profile change in preservice science teacher’s epistemological and ontological beliefs about constructivist learning: Implications for science teaching and learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus
Lavigne, G. L., Vallerand, R. J., & Miquelon, P. (2007). A motivational model of persistence in science education: A self-determination theory approach. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 351-369.
Lee, M.-H., Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: a content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1999-2020.
Levers, M.-J. D. (2013). Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. SAGE Open, 3, 1-6.
Lewis, J., & Kattmann, U. (2004). Traits, genes, particles and information: Revisiting students’ understanding of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 195-206.
Liang J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Relational analysis of college science-major students’ epistemological beliefs toward science and conceptions of learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2273-2289.
Liang, J.-C., Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). The relations between scientific epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning science among science-major undergraduates in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19, 43-59.
Limon, M. (2006). The domain generality-specificity of epistemological beliefs: A theoretical problem, a methodological problem, or both? International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 7-27
Lin, T.-J., Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). The commonalities and dissonances between high school students’ and their science teachers’ conceptions of science learning and conceptions of science assessment: A Taiwanese sample study. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 382-405.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edition, pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37, 69-78.
Liu, X. (2004). Using concept mapping for assessing and promoting relational conceptual change in science. Science Education, 88, 373-396.
Lucas, K. B. & Roth, W. M. (1996). The nature of scientific knowledge and student learning: Two longitudinal case studies. Research in Science Education, 26, 103-129.
Lundqvist, E., Almqvist, J., & Ostman, L. (2009). Epistemological norms and companion meanings in science classroom communication. Science Education, 93, 859-874.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 593-614.
Mason, L., & Boldrin, A. (2008). Epistemic metacognition in the context of information searching on the Web. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 377-404). New York: Springer.
Matthews, M. R. (2009) Science, worldviews and education: An introduction. Science & Education, 18, 641-666.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M.L., Hruda, L., Anderman, E.M., Anderman, L., Freeman, K.E., Gheen, M., Kaplan, A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M.J., Nelson, J., Roeser, R., & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Ministry of Education. (2003). Grade 1-9 curriculum guidelines. Taipei: Ministry of Education.
Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 317-377.
Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173-190.
Muis, K. R. (2008). Epistemic profiles and self-regulated learning: Examining relations in the context of mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 177-208.
Muis, K. R., & Foy, M. J. (2010). The effects of teachers’ beliefs on elementary students’ beliefs, motivation, and achievement in mathematics. In L. D. Bendixen & F. Feucht (Eds.), Personal Epistemology in the Classroom: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice (pp.435-469). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3-54.
Murphy, P. K. (2005, November). Toward a model of topic knowledge and belief change. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Southwest Consortium for Innovative Psychology, Las Vegas, Nevada.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2008). Research on future skill demands. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nola, R. (2004). Pendula, models, constructivism and reality. Science & Education, 13, 349-377.
OECD (2013). Draft PISA 2015 Science Framework. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.htm (retrieved June 23, 2014)
Ogbom, J. (1988). A map of science. Personal submission to the National Curriculum Working Group on Science Education
Olafson, L., & Schraw, G. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices within and across domains. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 71-84.
Olafson, L., Schraw, G., & Vander Veldt, M. (2010). Consistency and development of teachers’ epistemological and ontological world views. Learning Environment Research, 13, 243-266.
Osborne, J. F., Simon, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079.
Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35, 227-241.
Patrick, H., & Yoon, C. (2004). Early adolescents’ motivation during science investigation. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 319-328.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (1999). Student motivation and epistemological beliefs. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1999, 17-25.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Phan, H.P. (2008). Predicting change in epistemological beliefs, reflective thinking and learning styles: a longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 75-93.
Phillips, D. C. (1997). How, why, what, when and where: perspectives on constructivism in psychology and education. Issues in Education, 3, 151-194.
Pintrich, P. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459-470.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Pintrich, P. R., Conley, A. M., & Kemplar, T. M. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal theory and research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 319-337.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W. & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
Pugh, K. J., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Koskey, K. L. K., Stewart, V. S., & Manzey, C. (2010). Motivation, learning, and transformative experience: A study of deep engagement in science. Science Education, 94, 1-28.
Reiner, M., & Eilam, B. (2001). Conceptual classroom environment-A system view of learning. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 551-568.
Richter, T., & Schmid, S. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 47-65.
Rolland, R. G. (2012). Synthesizing the evidence on classroom goal structures in middle and secondary schools: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Review of Educational Research, 82, 396-435.
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Philosophical papers (Vol. I). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Roth, W.-M., & Lucas, K. (1997). From “truth” to “invented reality”: A discourse analysis of high school physics students’ talk about scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 145-179.
Ruttkamp, E. (2002). A model-theoretic realistic interpretation of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ryder, J. (2002). School science education for citizenship: Strategies for teaching about the epistemology of science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 637-658.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. Science Educator, 13, 39-48.
Saleh, I. S., & Khine, M. S. (2009). Fostering scientific habits of mind: Pedagogical knowledge and best practices in science education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.
Schraw, G. (2013). Conceptual Integration and Measurement of Epistemological and Ontological Beliefs in Educational Research. ISRN Education. Retrieved from http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/education/aip/327680/
Schraw, G. J., & Olafson, L. J. (2008). Assessing teachers’ epistemological and ontological worldviews. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs. Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 25-41). Australia: Springer Verlag.
Sere, M.-G. (2002). Towards renewed research questions from the outcomes of the European project Labwork in Science Education. Science Education, 86, 624-644.
Sere, M.-G., Fernandez-Gonzalez, M., Gallegos, J.A., Gonzalez-Garcia, F., De Manuel, E., Perales, F.J., & Leach, J. (2001). Images of science linked to labwork: A survey of secondary school and university students. Research in Science Education, 31, 499-523.
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The “warming trend” in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 107-115.
Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510-528.
Slotta, J. D. (2011). In defense of Chi’s ontological incompatibility hypothesis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 151-162.
Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2006). The impact of ontology training on conceptual change: Helping students understand the challenging topics in science. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 261-289.
Southerland, S. A., & Sinatra, G. (2005). The shifting roles of acceptance and dispositions in understanding biological evolution. In S. Alsop (Ed.), Beyond Cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science (pp. 69-78). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Sowell, S. (2006). Describing teachers’ conceptual ecologies for the nature of science. Science Education, 90, 874-906.
Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, B., & Scherz, Z. (2009). Teaching scientific communication skills in Science Studies- Does it make a difference? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 875-903.
Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory of explicating the practice of science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 501-520.
Steinkuehler, C., & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 530-543.
Taber, K. S. (2006). Beyond constructivism: the progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in Science Education, 42, 125-184.
Topcu, M. S. (2013). Preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology: A mixed study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 1-26.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth graders. Science Education, 82, 473-489.
Tsai, C.-C. (2000). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42, 193-205.
Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 771-783.
Tsai, C.-C., Ho, H.-N., Liang, J.-C., Lin, H.-M. (2011). Scientific epistemic beliefs, conceptions of learning science and self-efficacy of learning science among high school students. Learning and Instruction, 21, 757-769.
Tuan, H.-L., Chin, C.-C. & Shieh, S.-H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire for assessing students’ motivation toward science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 639-654.
Urhahne, D., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2011). Conceptions of the nature of science-Are they general or context specific? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 707-730.
Valanides, N. & Angeli, C. (2005). Effects of instruction on changes in epistemological beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 314-330.
Vedder-Weiss, D. & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: Inevitable or not? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 199-216.
Vedder-Weiss, D. & Fortus, D. (2012). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: A follow-up study? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1057-1095.
Venville, G., Gribble, S. J., & Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young children’s understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Science Education, 89, 614-633.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Constructivism in science education (pp. 11-30). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Vrugt, A. & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 30, 123-146.
Wickman, P.-O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88, 325-344.
Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689-725.
Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 338-369.
Zeidler, D. L., Berkowitz, M. & Bennett, K. (2014). Thinking (scientifically) responsibly: The cultivation of character in a global science education community. In M. P. Mueller, D. J. Tippins, & A.J. Steward (Eds.), Assessing schools for generation R (Responsibility): A guide to legislation and school policy in science education (pp. 83-99). The Netherlands: Springer.

全文公開日期 2019/07/28 (校內網路)
全文公開日期 2024/07/28 (校外網路)
全文公開日期 2024/07/28 (國家圖書館：臺灣博碩士論文系統)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文