學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 線上科學對話與知識建構對大學生語言學習的影響
Effects of online scientific discourse and knowledge building on college students’ language learning作者 廖筱毓
Liao, Hsiao Yu貢獻者 洪煌堯
Hong, Huang Yao
廖筱毓
Liao, Hsiao Yu關鍵詞 知識建構教學
科學探究
語言鷹架
問題品質
語言詞彙
knowledge building
scientific inquiry
language scaffold
questioning
scientific vocabulary日期 2012 上傳時間 1-Feb-2013 16:52:46 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究旨在探究線上科學對話的知識建構活動對大學生在語言學習與運用上的影響。研究對象為大學生。藉由觀察大學生在知識論壇(Knowledge Forum)學習平台上的討論活動，以分析學生科學知識建構習得的情形、與科學語言使用的模式。同時在知識論壇裡也設定個人與小組的學習目標、協助其進行科學探究，並經由個人與同儕間的集體合作來幫助彼此發揮最大的學習效果。其中，學生在知識論壇上的知識建構活動主要以對話方式進行。在為期18週的科學探究活動裡，大學生在知識論壇上逐步形成科學學習社群，而觀察這個社群裡大學生語言使用的模式與情形是本研究的核心。 本研究採個案研究。以修習自然科學概論的大學生(N=52)為研究對象，資料來源有：(1) 大學生期末成果報告；(2) 知識論壇上的提問內容；(3)語言鷹架使用資料；與(4)平台上的對話詞彙資料。資料分析主要聚集在探討大學生的分組期末報告評分結果與以下其它分析的關係，包括(1)知識論壇上的提問問題品質分析；(2)大學生於知識論壇上語言鷹架的使用情形分析；與(3)大學生於知識論壇上語言詞彙的使用情形分析。 本研究獲致結論有四：(1)透過對話的知識建構活動能夠達到促進語言習得的效果；(2)透過對話的知識建構活動能有助於改進學生提問問題的品質；(3)語言鷹架的使用能幫助學生加強組織各類知識的能力；與(4)透過對話的知識建構活動能讓學生在詞彙使用上更豐富。本研究希望幫助語言教學者與研究者了解，語言學習可以是隱藏於科學探究下的一項附屬學習。希望透過本研究的結果可以啟發未來致力於語言教學的教育工作者在進行教學時有更多不一樣的想法與作法，進而促進不同的語言學習效果。
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether online scientific discourse within a knowledge building context has any effects on college students’ language learning. Participants were 52 first-year college students in a university in Taiwan. Knowledge Forum--an online learning software program designed for knowledge building—was employed to provide an open and free learning environment for students to engage in scientific discourse, information-sharing, reflection on scientific knowledge, and disciplinary knowledge integration etc. Students worked collectively in Knowledge Forum for 18 weeks, and they gradually formed a learning community.Research method of this study was based on case study. Data sources mainly came from: (1) students’ final presentation; (2) student’s questions contributed in Knowledge Forum; (3) language scaffolds employed by students in Knowledge Forum; and (4) students’ discussion as recorded in a Knowledge Forum database. Data analysis were performed to look into the relationships between scores of students’ final group presentations and (1) qualities of questions asked by students from different groups; (2) language scaffolds used by different groups of students; as well as(4) keywords contributed and applied in discussion that were posted by students. The main results were listed as follows: (1) knowledge building with online discourse activities was found helpful in improving students’ language learning; (2) knowledge building with online discourse seemed to help enhance the qualities of students’ questions asked during their scientific inquiry; (3) language scaffolds could be used to help support students for integrating different types of scientific knowledge together; and (4) knowledge building with online discourse could help students enrich their use of scientific vocabularies. Suggestions were made to educators and researchers on teaching strategies and lesson plans. It is hoped that this study may help educators and researchers gain better understanding of the relationships between science learning and language learning which has been rarely studied.參考文獻 中文部分中文斷詞系統。 (from http://ckipsvr.iis.sinica.edu.tw/)王博賢。(2010)。知識翻新教學對小學生科學探究活動與科學合作概念之影響。國立政治大學教育學院教育系碩士論文。布魯納。 (1995)。 教育的歷程（The Process of Education) (邵瑞珍譯)。 台北市: 五南圖書出版有限公司。布魯納。 (2001)。 教育的文化:文化心理學的觀點 (宋文理譯)。 台北市: 遠流。江曉原&劉兵。 (2007)。 南腔北调 : 科学與文化之關係的對話。 北京: 北京大學出版發行 自然與科技課程綱要研修小組。 (2000)。 國民教育九年㆒貫課程綱要「自然與科技」學習領域-「自然科學與生活科技」課程綱要。教育部。吳佳蓉。 (2010)。 學習社群在電腦支援合作學習環境中的知識共構--以自然科學史為例。 國立政治大學教育學院教育系碩士論文。李秀芬。(2011)。華語文溝通教學策略研究--- 以5C 融入之AP中文教學為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系博士論文。李暉、郭重吉。 (1999)。 科學話語與科學概念之學習：以國中生理化課學習為例 科學教育, 第十期。周秋香。 (2005)。 自然科學與生活科技概論。 台北市: 心理出版社。周進洋。 (2003)。 從概念知識連結看科學教室符號互動。科教處學術研討會-2003 數學與科學的對話 : 概念學習。 林寶英。 (1998)。 科學史取向的大學生物通識教育之研究。 國立高雄師範大學。金吾倫。 (1991)。 自然觀與科學觀。 台北市：水牛出版社。洪文東。 (1999)。 科學的創造與發明。 臺北市：台灣書店。祝惠珍。 (2006)。 網路學習社群中的共構面貌：以迷思概念為探針。 中央大學。張公瑾。 (1998)。 文化語言學發凡: 雲南大學出版社。張宇慧。 (2010)。 以想法為中心的知識翻新學習對團隊創造力之影響。 政治大學教育學院教育學系碩士論文。張金蘭。 (2009)。 5C 理論在華語文教學中的運用。 中原華語文學報。張春興、林清山著。 (1987)。 教育心理學: 東華書局。教育部。 (2003)。 九年一貫課程綱要。 臺北市教育部。教育部統計資料發布。 (2012)。 預告統計資料。 (http://win.dgbas.gov.tw/dgbas03/bs7/calendar/calendar.asp)郭重吉。 (1988a)。 從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。 科學發展月刊，第二十卷(第五期)， 頁548-568。郭重吉。 (1988b)。 從認知的觀點探討自然科學的學習。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所教育學報，第13期，頁351-378。第13期。陳申。 (2001)。 語言文化教學策略研究。 北京: 語言文化大學出版社。陳昇飛。 (2005)。 理論與實務的對話─建構主義在數學教育上的再思。 台中師院學報， 18(2)，頁71-87。陳美如。 (1997)。 臺灣語言教育政策的回顧與展望 高雄: 復文 陳淑敏。 (1994)。 Vygotsky的心理發展理論和教育。 屏東師學院報， 第7期，頁121-143。曾慶原。 中文詞頻統計軟體。 (http://web.bp.ntu.edu.tw/Webusers/ftlin/PCount/index.asp)黃秀文。 (1994)。 全語淺探。 教師之友， 35(4)，頁 8-11。黃秋娟。 (1995)。 魏考斯基理論之探究─潛在發展區域。 淡江大學,，台北。黃瑞田。 (2003)。 文化與語言相互研究的理論鉤沉。 南師語教學報，第一期，頁 111-128。劉宏文、張惠博。(2001)。高中學生進行開放式探究活動之個案研究-問題的形成與解決。科學教育學刊，9(2)，頁169-196西文部分Barnett, R. (1992). Improving Higher Education: Total Quality Care. Bristol: Open University Press.Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (Ed.). (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and remedial capabilities in children`s composing. London: John Wiley & Sons.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987a). Psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, N.J. ; London: Erlbaum.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987b). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves : an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments. EARLI Advances in Learning and Instruction Series.Burnett, R. E. (1990). technical Communication (Second edition ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Carr, M. M., Hewitt, J., Scardamalia, M., & Reznick, R. K. (2002). Internet-based otolaryngology case discussions for medical students. [Comparative Study]. The Journal of otolaryngology, 31(4), 197-201.Cazden, C. B. (1995). The language teaching and learning: Psychological Publishing Company.Christie, F. (1985). Language Education. Victoria: Deakin University.Concise Oxford English dictionary [electronic resource]. (2011). 12th ed. = 1.0. Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the Classroom. NY: Linda Moser/ Professional Book Center.Druckman, D. (2009). Doing Research: Methods of Inquiry for Conflict Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage.Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers` College Press.Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science : literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.Hodson, D. (1988). Experiments in science and science teaching. Education Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 53-66.Howe, A. (1996). Development of science concepts within a Vygotskian framework. Science Education, 80(1), 35-51.Jonassen, D. (2004). Learning to solve problems: an instructional design guide Francisco: Pfeiffer.King, A. (1989). Effect of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366-381.King, A. (1994). Guiding Knowledge Construction in the Classroom: Effects of Teaching Children How to Question and How to Explain. American Education Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science : Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.McNamee, G. D. (1979). The social interactive origins of narrative skills. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (University of California at San Diego), 1(4), 63-68.Millar, R. D., R. (1987). Beyond Processes. Studies in Science Education, 14(1), 33-62.Mylopoulos, M., & Scardamalia, M. (2008). Doctors` perspectives on their innovations in daily practice: implications for knowledge building in health care. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov`t]. Medical education, 42(10), 975-981.O`Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 791-820.Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence (M. B. Piercy, D. E., Trans.). London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Piaget, J. (2002). The language and thought of the child. New York: Routledge Classics.Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.Rosovsky, H. (1991). The university: an owner`s manual. New York: W W Norton & Co Inc.Scardamalia, M. (2002a). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge: Chicago: Open Court.Scardamalia, M. (2002b). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge: Chicago: Open Court.Scardamalia, M (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In education and Technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIOScardamalia, M. (Ed.) (2004) In Education and technology: An encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.Scardamalia, M. (Ed.). (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Chicago: Open Court.Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (Ed.). (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, andtechnology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Fillion, B. (1981). Writing for results : a sourcebook of consequential composing activities. TorontoLa Salle, Ill.: OISE Press ;Open Court.Simon, H. A. (1992). Scientific discovery as problem solving International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 6(1), 3-14.Sun, Y., Zhang, J & Scardamalia M. (2008). Knowledge Building and Vocabulary Growth over Two Years, Grades 3 and 4. Springer Science+Business Media, 38(2), 147-171.The Oxford English Dictionary. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.Tobin, K. (1993). The Practice of constructivism in science education. New Jersey Hove: HillsdaleTomlinson, H. H., & Henderson, W. (1995). Computer supported collaborative learning in schools: A distributed approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 133-140.Tumblin, E.J. (1999). Literacy Development and Learning Through Knowledge Building Technology in Canada’s Eastern Arctic: Educators’ Perspectives. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp. 349-355). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Tylor, E. B. (1889). Primitive Culture:Researches Into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art and Custom: Kessinger Pub Co.Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. hanfmann and G. Vakar, trans. and ed.). Cambridge, MA: Press.Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Though and language (A. Kozulin ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩士學位學程
98161019
101資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0981610193 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 洪煌堯 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hong, Huang Yao en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 廖筱毓 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Liao, Hsiao Yu en_US dc.creator (作者) 廖筱毓 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Liao, Hsiao Yu en_US dc.date (日期) 2012 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Feb-2013 16:52:46 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Feb-2013 16:52:46 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Feb-2013 16:52:46 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0981610193 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/56872 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 華語文教學碩士學位學程 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 98161019 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 101 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在探究線上科學對話的知識建構活動對大學生在語言學習與運用上的影響。研究對象為大學生。藉由觀察大學生在知識論壇(Knowledge Forum)學習平台上的討論活動，以分析學生科學知識建構習得的情形、與科學語言使用的模式。同時在知識論壇裡也設定個人與小組的學習目標、協助其進行科學探究，並經由個人與同儕間的集體合作來幫助彼此發揮最大的學習效果。其中，學生在知識論壇上的知識建構活動主要以對話方式進行。在為期18週的科學探究活動裡，大學生在知識論壇上逐步形成科學學習社群，而觀察這個社群裡大學生語言使用的模式與情形是本研究的核心。 本研究採個案研究。以修習自然科學概論的大學生(N=52)為研究對象，資料來源有：(1) 大學生期末成果報告；(2) 知識論壇上的提問內容；(3)語言鷹架使用資料；與(4)平台上的對話詞彙資料。資料分析主要聚集在探討大學生的分組期末報告評分結果與以下其它分析的關係，包括(1)知識論壇上的提問問題品質分析；(2)大學生於知識論壇上語言鷹架的使用情形分析；與(3)大學生於知識論壇上語言詞彙的使用情形分析。 本研究獲致結論有四：(1)透過對話的知識建構活動能夠達到促進語言習得的效果；(2)透過對話的知識建構活動能有助於改進學生提問問題的品質；(3)語言鷹架的使用能幫助學生加強組織各類知識的能力；與(4)透過對話的知識建構活動能讓學生在詞彙使用上更豐富。本研究希望幫助語言教學者與研究者了解，語言學習可以是隱藏於科學探究下的一項附屬學習。希望透過本研究的結果可以啟發未來致力於語言教學的教育工作者在進行教學時有更多不一樣的想法與作法，進而促進不同的語言學習效果。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of this study was to investigate whether online scientific discourse within a knowledge building context has any effects on college students’ language learning. Participants were 52 first-year college students in a university in Taiwan. Knowledge Forum--an online learning software program designed for knowledge building—was employed to provide an open and free learning environment for students to engage in scientific discourse, information-sharing, reflection on scientific knowledge, and disciplinary knowledge integration etc. Students worked collectively in Knowledge Forum for 18 weeks, and they gradually formed a learning community.Research method of this study was based on case study. Data sources mainly came from: (1) students’ final presentation; (2) student’s questions contributed in Knowledge Forum; (3) language scaffolds employed by students in Knowledge Forum; and (4) students’ discussion as recorded in a Knowledge Forum database. Data analysis were performed to look into the relationships between scores of students’ final group presentations and (1) qualities of questions asked by students from different groups; (2) language scaffolds used by different groups of students; as well as(4) keywords contributed and applied in discussion that were posted by students. The main results were listed as follows: (1) knowledge building with online discourse activities was found helpful in improving students’ language learning; (2) knowledge building with online discourse seemed to help enhance the qualities of students’ questions asked during their scientific inquiry; (3) language scaffolds could be used to help support students for integrating different types of scientific knowledge together; and (4) knowledge building with online discourse could help students enrich their use of scientific vocabularies. Suggestions were made to educators and researchers on teaching strategies and lesson plans. It is hoped that this study may help educators and researchers gain better understanding of the relationships between science learning and language learning which has been rarely studied. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與動機 1第二節 研究問題與目的 5第三節 重要名詞釋義 5第四節 研究範圍與研究限制 7第二章 文獻探討 10第一節 科學的發展與探究 10第二節 語言與科學 13第三節 現今語言教學的趨勢 17第四節 語言鷹架介紹 19第五節 知識建構理論 23第三章 研究方法 27第一節 背景介紹 27第二節 教學設計 28第三節 研究設計與實施程序 34第四節 資料蒐集與相關資料的處理 36第五節 研究工具 41第四章 研究發現與結果 45第一節 大學生學習成果 45第二節 大學生於知識論壇的提問情形 48第三節 知識論壇上使用語言鷹架及問題類型的關係 55第四節 大學生在知識論壇中語言使用的變化 58第五章 結論與建議 67第一節 結論 67第二節 建議 69參考文獻 72中文部分 72附錄一 期末報告評量表 78 zh_TW dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0981610193 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識建構教學 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 科學探究 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語言鷹架 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 問題品質 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語言詞彙 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) knowledge building en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) scientific inquiry en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) language scaffold en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) questioning en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) scientific vocabulary en_US dc.title (題名) 線上科學對話與知識建構對大學生語言學習的影響 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Effects of online scientific discourse and knowledge building on college students’ language learning en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文部分中文斷詞系統。 (from http://ckipsvr.iis.sinica.edu.tw/)王博賢。(2010)。知識翻新教學對小學生科學探究活動與科學合作概念之影響。國立政治大學教育學院教育系碩士論文。布魯納。 (1995)。 教育的歷程（The Process of Education) (邵瑞珍譯)。 台北市: 五南圖書出版有限公司。布魯納。 (2001)。 教育的文化:文化心理學的觀點 (宋文理譯)。 台北市: 遠流。江曉原&劉兵。 (2007)。 南腔北调 : 科学與文化之關係的對話。 北京: 北京大學出版發行 自然與科技課程綱要研修小組。 (2000)。 國民教育九年㆒貫課程綱要「自然與科技」學習領域-「自然科學與生活科技」課程綱要。教育部。吳佳蓉。 (2010)。 學習社群在電腦支援合作學習環境中的知識共構--以自然科學史為例。 國立政治大學教育學院教育系碩士論文。李秀芬。(2011)。華語文溝通教學策略研究--- 以5C 融入之AP中文教學為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系博士論文。李暉、郭重吉。 (1999)。 科學話語與科學概念之學習：以國中生理化課學習為例 科學教育, 第十期。周秋香。 (2005)。 自然科學與生活科技概論。 台北市: 心理出版社。周進洋。 (2003)。 從概念知識連結看科學教室符號互動。科教處學術研討會-2003 數學與科學的對話 : 概念學習。 林寶英。 (1998)。 科學史取向的大學生物通識教育之研究。 國立高雄師範大學。金吾倫。 (1991)。 自然觀與科學觀。 台北市：水牛出版社。洪文東。 (1999)。 科學的創造與發明。 臺北市：台灣書店。祝惠珍。 (2006)。 網路學習社群中的共構面貌：以迷思概念為探針。 中央大學。張公瑾。 (1998)。 文化語言學發凡: 雲南大學出版社。張宇慧。 (2010)。 以想法為中心的知識翻新學習對團隊創造力之影響。 政治大學教育學院教育學系碩士論文。張金蘭。 (2009)。 5C 理論在華語文教學中的運用。 中原華語文學報。張春興、林清山著。 (1987)。 教育心理學: 東華書局。教育部。 (2003)。 九年一貫課程綱要。 臺北市教育部。教育部統計資料發布。 (2012)。 預告統計資料。 (http://win.dgbas.gov.tw/dgbas03/bs7/calendar/calendar.asp)郭重吉。 (1988a)。 從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。 科學發展月刊，第二十卷(第五期)， 頁548-568。郭重吉。 (1988b)。 從認知的觀點探討自然科學的學習。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所教育學報，第13期，頁351-378。第13期。陳申。 (2001)。 語言文化教學策略研究。 北京: 語言文化大學出版社。陳昇飛。 (2005)。 理論與實務的對話─建構主義在數學教育上的再思。 台中師院學報， 18(2)，頁71-87。陳美如。 (1997)。 臺灣語言教育政策的回顧與展望 高雄: 復文 陳淑敏。 (1994)。 Vygotsky的心理發展理論和教育。 屏東師學院報， 第7期，頁121-143。曾慶原。 中文詞頻統計軟體。 (http://web.bp.ntu.edu.tw/Webusers/ftlin/PCount/index.asp)黃秀文。 (1994)。 全語淺探。 教師之友， 35(4)，頁 8-11。黃秋娟。 (1995)。 魏考斯基理論之探究─潛在發展區域。 淡江大學,，台北。黃瑞田。 (2003)。 文化與語言相互研究的理論鉤沉。 南師語教學報，第一期，頁 111-128。劉宏文、張惠博。(2001)。高中學生進行開放式探究活動之個案研究-問題的形成與解決。科學教育學刊，9(2)，頁169-196西文部分Barnett, R. (1992). Improving Higher Education: Total Quality Care. Bristol: Open University Press.Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (Ed.). (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and remedial capabilities in children`s composing. London: John Wiley & Sons.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987a). Psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, N.J. ; London: Erlbaum.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987b). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves : an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments. EARLI Advances in Learning and Instruction Series.Burnett, R. E. (1990). technical Communication (Second edition ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Carr, M. M., Hewitt, J., Scardamalia, M., & Reznick, R. K. (2002). Internet-based otolaryngology case discussions for medical students. [Comparative Study]. The Journal of otolaryngology, 31(4), 197-201.Cazden, C. B. (1995). The language teaching and learning: Psychological Publishing Company.Christie, F. (1985). Language Education. Victoria: Deakin University.Concise Oxford English dictionary [electronic resource]. (2011). 12th ed. = 1.0. Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the Classroom. NY: Linda Moser/ Professional Book Center.Druckman, D. (2009). Doing Research: Methods of Inquiry for Conflict Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage.Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers` College Press.Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science : literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.Hodson, D. (1988). Experiments in science and science teaching. Education Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 53-66.Howe, A. (1996). Development of science concepts within a Vygotskian framework. Science Education, 80(1), 35-51.Jonassen, D. (2004). Learning to solve problems: an instructional design guide Francisco: Pfeiffer.King, A. (1989). Effect of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366-381.King, A. (1994). Guiding Knowledge Construction in the Classroom: Effects of Teaching Children How to Question and How to Explain. American Education Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science : Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.McNamee, G. D. (1979). The social interactive origins of narrative skills. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (University of California at San Diego), 1(4), 63-68.Millar, R. D., R. (1987). Beyond Processes. Studies in Science Education, 14(1), 33-62.Mylopoulos, M., & Scardamalia, M. (2008). Doctors` perspectives on their innovations in daily practice: implications for knowledge building in health care. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov`t]. Medical education, 42(10), 975-981.O`Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 791-820.Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence (M. B. Piercy, D. E., Trans.). London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Piaget, J. (2002). The language and thought of the child. New York: Routledge Classics.Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.Rosovsky, H. (1991). The university: an owner`s manual. New York: W W Norton & Co Inc.Scardamalia, M. (2002a). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge: Chicago: Open Court.Scardamalia, M. (2002b). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge: Chicago: Open Court.Scardamalia, M (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In education and Technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIOScardamalia, M. (Ed.) (2004) In Education and technology: An encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.Scardamalia, M. (Ed.). (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Chicago: Open Court.Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (Ed.). (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, andtechnology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Fillion, B. (1981). Writing for results : a sourcebook of consequential composing activities. TorontoLa Salle, Ill.: OISE Press ;Open Court.Simon, H. A. (1992). Scientific discovery as problem solving International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 6(1), 3-14.Sun, Y., Zhang, J & Scardamalia M. (2008). Knowledge Building and Vocabulary Growth over Two Years, Grades 3 and 4. Springer Science+Business Media, 38(2), 147-171.The Oxford English Dictionary. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.Tobin, K. (1993). The Practice of constructivism in science education. New Jersey Hove: HillsdaleTomlinson, H. H., & Henderson, W. (1995). Computer supported collaborative learning in schools: A distributed approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 133-140.Tumblin, E.J. (1999). Literacy Development and Learning Through Knowledge Building Technology in Canada’s Eastern Arctic: Educators’ Perspectives. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp. 349-355). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Tylor, E. B. (1889). Primitive Culture:Researches Into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art and Custom: Kessinger Pub Co.Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. hanfmann and G. Vakar, trans. and ed.). Cambridge, MA: Press.Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Though and language (A. Kozulin ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. zh_TW
