问题呈现方式与中学生科学猜想思维活动关系的初步研究
|
摘要
猜想与假设是科学探究活动的核心环节之一,它的深度和广度,也就是猜想与假设的质量决定了探究活动的质量和深入程度。而决定猜想质量的主要是探究问题内容本身,另外还有探究问题的呈现方式,以及探究者的兴趣、认知风格等因素。但是在一线探究式教学实践中探究问题呈现方式和中学生思维活动的关系的确让很多人困惑。本文从这一切入点着手,进行了三种具体常见呈现方式与中学生提出科学猜想思维活动关系的初步研究。
猜想和假设是科学探究活动的核心,具有预见性,在一定程度上决定着探究的方向,起着承上启下的作用,同时也是学生思维活动最为活跃和最为发散的阶段。因此研究中学生猜想与假设的思维活动,对促进探究式教学的开展以及教学改革都有着重要的意义。
一般来说,中学生提出猜想与假设都是根据已有的经验和知识进行的。为了更深入地研究猜想与假设的思维活动的真实情况,本文以物理学科为背景,通过精心设计的调查问卷以及三个真实问题情景,采用问卷调查和访谈相结合的方式,选取阳溯中学高一年级126名学生进行测试,同时还进行了CSA认知风格测试,获得了比较全面、详细而真实的第一手数据。然后对调查问卷、访谈信息和CSA认知风格测试结果进行比较分析,在样本范围之内得出以下结论:
1.有着共同非常熟悉生活经验的探究问题,图文、视频和实物三种呈现方式被试提出猜想的数量和质量没有显著性区别,这与有丰富教学经验的教师和专家根据经验判断的结果相一致。
2.科学含量不高的探究问题,图文、视频和实物的呈现方式下,提出猜想与假设的数量视频和图文两种方式存在显著性差异,而实物与其他两种方式的差异没有达到显著性水平;三种呈现方式下的猜想质量都不高,实物呈现方式稍好于其他方式。
3.现象与学生经验相左,且需要一定的知识水平才能解决的问题,图文、视频和实物三种呈现方式下,提出猜想与假设的数量存在显著差异,其中图文与其他两种呈现方式存在显著性差异,视频和实物呈现方式未达到显著性差异水平;而猜想质量实物呈现方式最好。真实的探究实验器材让学生感到亲切,也更容易引起学生的探究兴趣,而使学生能较快地进入探究状态。
4.总体来看,实物呈现方式人均提出的猜想数量最多,图文次之,视频第三。猜想与假设是探究者在感知到外部实验现象的信息和结合自己内部已有的知识、经验基础之上对探究问题提出的猜测估计或者假定性解释。实物与其他呈现方式相比,可以多角度多层次地给探究者提供更多立体时空的刺激信息,引起知觉注意,因此提出了比其他两种呈现方式更多的猜想与假设。
5.人均使用的思维策略频数,图文呈现方式明显少于其他两种呈现方式,而实物呈现方式好于视频呈现方式。
6.实物的呈现方式,被试使用的思维策略集中在观察和类比两种思维策略,图文方式主要使用类比思维策略,视频方式使用的思维策略除了观察和类比之外还用了演绎和溯因等思维策略,种类较多,利于培养学生的发散思维和创新思维。
7.学生提出猜想数量的多少与题目呈现的先后有关,先呈现的问题学生提出的猜想数量多,后呈现的问题学生提出的猜想数量少。
8.整体型和表象型认知风格的被试适合图文呈现方式下提出高质量的猜想与假设;分析型风格的被试,适合用视频呈现方式呈现探究问题,提出高质量的猜想与假设;言语型风格的被试最不适合在实物呈现提出高质量的猜想与假设;实物呈现方式下,绝大多数认知风格的被试都能提出高质量的猜想与假设。
从总体上来看,在猜想与假设环节,实物呈现方式无论是在数量、思维策略使用次数和猜想质量方面都优于是其他呈现方式。结合已有的研究表明:要想学生提出丰富的猜想并进一步地探究下去,实物的重要性和不可替代性不言自明。
Conjecture and hypothesis is one of the step of scientific inquiry activities. The quality of conjecture and hypothesis that is its depth and breadth, decides to the inquiry’s quality and depth.While the quality of conjecture is mainly decided by the content of inquiry,the problem-presenting mode, as well as the interests of explorer .In the inquiry teaching practice, many instructors are confused about the essential relations between the problem-presenting mode and scientific conjecture thinking activities of secondary school students. This paper is about the primary study on the relation-ship of three typical types of problem-presenting modes and scientific conjecture thinking Activity of secondary school students.
Conjecture and hypothesis which is the core of scientific exploration activities, determines the direction of inquiry to certain extent, and plays a connecting role . It is the most active and divergent stage in students’thinking activity. Therefore, research on scientific conjecture thinking Activity of secondary school students is significant to promote inquiry teaching and teaching reform.
Generally, students conduct their conjecture and hypothesis according to the knowledge they have already known( ideas they have). In order to show the true situation of conjecture and hypothesis thinking activity of middle school students when they are doing scientific activities, this study takes the physics subject as the background, the 126 students of grade 1, senior middle school as research subjects. We use a well-knitted questionnaire and clinic interviews which is combined with three true problem situations to examine the students selected from the middle schools in Yangshuo County of Guangxi Province, the study has a comprehensive and detailed first-hand data. The results of thorough analysis and research on the information from the above mentioned interview and investigation show as the following.
1. To the inquiry problems which is common and very familiar life experience to students, there is no significant difference of the quantity and quality of conjecture under the test of three presenting modes——the picture and text, video and real material . This result is consistent with the conclusion drawn by experienced teachers and experts according to experience.
2. To the inquiry problem embodying less Scientific knowledge, there is no significant difference in quantity of conjecture,and the quality of conjecture is low .The presenting mode of real material is better than the other two types.
3. when Phenomenon and students’experience conflict with each other , and the solving of exploration problem need certain knowledge level. There exist notable difference in the quantity of conjecture under three presenting modes—the picture and text, video and real material; Real material presentation modes is best. Real experiment equipment is not only approachable to student, but also easier to arouse a student exploration interest, makes students enter exploration state quicker.
4. Overall, the conjecture quantity on average is maximum under real material presenting mode, picture and text mode take second place, video mode third. Conjecture and hypothesis are guesstimate or assumed explaination to exploration problem , which are made on inquirer’s integration between perception to outside experiment phenomenon information and inner knowledge , experience basis. Comparing with two other mode ,Real material presentation mode can provide three-dimensional space-time information to stimulate inquirer under multiple points of view and echelons, so the inquirer can make more conjecture and hypothesis than two other modes.
5. The average frequency of thinking strategy under the presenting mode of the picture and text ,is obviously less than the other two types,while the presenting mode of real material is better than the video presenting mode .
6.Students’thinking strategy concentrate on observation and analogy under the presenting mode of real material .Students manily use analogy thinking strategy under the presenting mode of the picture and text .In spite of observation and analogy ,students also use deduce and tracing back thinking strategy under the video presenting mode, which is helpful to foster the student's volatilizable and innovative thought.
7. The quantity of students’conjecture is related to sequence of problem presentation. To the problem appearing earier, quantity of students’conjecture is larger than those appearing later.
8.The students of wholist cognitive style and imagery cognitive style are fit for bringing forward high conjecture quantity under the presenting mode of picture and text ; The students of analytic cognitive style are fit for bringing forward high conjecture quantity under video-presenting mode; The students of the verbal cognitive style are not fit for bringing forward high conjecture quantity under the presenting mode of real material .Generally , most cognitive style can bring forward high conjecture quatity under the presenting mode of real material .
Overall, on conjecture and hypothesis stage, under the presenting mode of real material , the conjecture quality and quantity as well as thinking stragtegy are better than the other two modes .Combining with some other finished research, we can conclude : In promoting students to make rich conjecture and to probe into further, it is obvious that real material object is significant and irreplaceable.
猜想和假设是科学探究活动的核心,具有预见性,在一定程度上决定着探究的方向,起着承上启下的作用,同时也是学生思维活动最为活跃和最为发散的阶段。因此研究中学生猜想与假设的思维活动,对促进探究式教学的开展以及教学改革都有着重要的意义。
一般来说,中学生提出猜想与假设都是根据已有的经验和知识进行的。为了更深入地研究猜想与假设的思维活动的真实情况,本文以物理学科为背景,通过精心设计的调查问卷以及三个真实问题情景,采用问卷调查和访谈相结合的方式,选取阳溯中学高一年级126名学生进行测试,同时还进行了CSA认知风格测试,获得了比较全面、详细而真实的第一手数据。然后对调查问卷、访谈信息和CSA认知风格测试结果进行比较分析,在样本范围之内得出以下结论:
1.有着共同非常熟悉生活经验的探究问题,图文、视频和实物三种呈现方式被试提出猜想的数量和质量没有显著性区别,这与有丰富教学经验的教师和专家根据经验判断的结果相一致。
2.科学含量不高的探究问题,图文、视频和实物的呈现方式下,提出猜想与假设的数量视频和图文两种方式存在显著性差异,而实物与其他两种方式的差异没有达到显著性水平;三种呈现方式下的猜想质量都不高,实物呈现方式稍好于其他方式。
3.现象与学生经验相左,且需要一定的知识水平才能解决的问题,图文、视频和实物三种呈现方式下,提出猜想与假设的数量存在显著差异,其中图文与其他两种呈现方式存在显著性差异,视频和实物呈现方式未达到显著性差异水平;而猜想质量实物呈现方式最好。真实的探究实验器材让学生感到亲切,也更容易引起学生的探究兴趣,而使学生能较快地进入探究状态。
4.总体来看,实物呈现方式人均提出的猜想数量最多,图文次之,视频第三。猜想与假设是探究者在感知到外部实验现象的信息和结合自己内部已有的知识、经验基础之上对探究问题提出的猜测估计或者假定性解释。实物与其他呈现方式相比,可以多角度多层次地给探究者提供更多立体时空的刺激信息,引起知觉注意,因此提出了比其他两种呈现方式更多的猜想与假设。
5.人均使用的思维策略频数,图文呈现方式明显少于其他两种呈现方式,而实物呈现方式好于视频呈现方式。
6.实物的呈现方式,被试使用的思维策略集中在观察和类比两种思维策略,图文方式主要使用类比思维策略,视频方式使用的思维策略除了观察和类比之外还用了演绎和溯因等思维策略,种类较多,利于培养学生的发散思维和创新思维。
7.学生提出猜想数量的多少与题目呈现的先后有关,先呈现的问题学生提出的猜想数量多,后呈现的问题学生提出的猜想数量少。
8.整体型和表象型认知风格的被试适合图文呈现方式下提出高质量的猜想与假设;分析型风格的被试,适合用视频呈现方式呈现探究问题,提出高质量的猜想与假设;言语型风格的被试最不适合在实物呈现提出高质量的猜想与假设;实物呈现方式下,绝大多数认知风格的被试都能提出高质量的猜想与假设。
从总体上来看,在猜想与假设环节,实物呈现方式无论是在数量、思维策略使用次数和猜想质量方面都优于是其他呈现方式。结合已有的研究表明:要想学生提出丰富的猜想并进一步地探究下去,实物的重要性和不可替代性不言自明。
Conjecture and hypothesis is one of the step of scientific inquiry activities. The quality of conjecture and hypothesis that is its depth and breadth, decides to the inquiry’s quality and depth.While the quality of conjecture is mainly decided by the content of inquiry,the problem-presenting mode, as well as the interests of explorer .In the inquiry teaching practice, many instructors are confused about the essential relations between the problem-presenting mode and scientific conjecture thinking activities of secondary school students. This paper is about the primary study on the relation-ship of three typical types of problem-presenting modes and scientific conjecture thinking Activity of secondary school students.
Conjecture and hypothesis which is the core of scientific exploration activities, determines the direction of inquiry to certain extent, and plays a connecting role . It is the most active and divergent stage in students’thinking activity. Therefore, research on scientific conjecture thinking Activity of secondary school students is significant to promote inquiry teaching and teaching reform.
Generally, students conduct their conjecture and hypothesis according to the knowledge they have already known( ideas they have). In order to show the true situation of conjecture and hypothesis thinking activity of middle school students when they are doing scientific activities, this study takes the physics subject as the background, the 126 students of grade 1, senior middle school as research subjects. We use a well-knitted questionnaire and clinic interviews which is combined with three true problem situations to examine the students selected from the middle schools in Yangshuo County of Guangxi Province, the study has a comprehensive and detailed first-hand data. The results of thorough analysis and research on the information from the above mentioned interview and investigation show as the following.
1. To the inquiry problems which is common and very familiar life experience to students, there is no significant difference of the quantity and quality of conjecture under the test of three presenting modes——the picture and text, video and real material . This result is consistent with the conclusion drawn by experienced teachers and experts according to experience.
2. To the inquiry problem embodying less Scientific knowledge, there is no significant difference in quantity of conjecture,and the quality of conjecture is low .The presenting mode of real material is better than the other two types.
3. when Phenomenon and students’experience conflict with each other , and the solving of exploration problem need certain knowledge level. There exist notable difference in the quantity of conjecture under three presenting modes—the picture and text, video and real material; Real material presentation modes is best. Real experiment equipment is not only approachable to student, but also easier to arouse a student exploration interest, makes students enter exploration state quicker.
4. Overall, the conjecture quantity on average is maximum under real material presenting mode, picture and text mode take second place, video mode third. Conjecture and hypothesis are guesstimate or assumed explaination to exploration problem , which are made on inquirer’s integration between perception to outside experiment phenomenon information and inner knowledge , experience basis. Comparing with two other mode ,Real material presentation mode can provide three-dimensional space-time information to stimulate inquirer under multiple points of view and echelons, so the inquirer can make more conjecture and hypothesis than two other modes.
5. The average frequency of thinking strategy under the presenting mode of the picture and text ,is obviously less than the other two types,while the presenting mode of real material is better than the video presenting mode .
6.Students’thinking strategy concentrate on observation and analogy under the presenting mode of real material .Students manily use analogy thinking strategy under the presenting mode of the picture and text .In spite of observation and analogy ,students also use deduce and tracing back thinking strategy under the video presenting mode, which is helpful to foster the student's volatilizable and innovative thought.
7. The quantity of students’conjecture is related to sequence of problem presentation. To the problem appearing earier, quantity of students’conjecture is larger than those appearing later.
8.The students of wholist cognitive style and imagery cognitive style are fit for bringing forward high conjecture quantity under the presenting mode of picture and text ; The students of analytic cognitive style are fit for bringing forward high conjecture quantity under video-presenting mode; The students of the verbal cognitive style are not fit for bringing forward high conjecture quantity under the presenting mode of real material .Generally , most cognitive style can bring forward high conjecture quatity under the presenting mode of real material .
Overall, on conjecture and hypothesis stage, under the presenting mode of real material , the conjecture quality and quantity as well as thinking stragtegy are better than the other two modes .Combining with some other finished research, we can conclude : In promoting students to make rich conjecture and to probe into further, it is obvious that real material object is significant and irreplaceable.
引文
1 罗星凯等译.科学探究欲国家科学教师标准——教与学的指南[M].北京:科学普及出版社,2004:1.
2 中华人民共和国教育部.全日制义务教育物理课程标准(实验稿)[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2001:3.
3 殷蕊.从猜想到假设——试析科学探究过程中猜想与假设的关系[J].学科教学,2007(1):40-42.
4 李洪玉.思维策略[M].天津:百苑文艺出版社,2002:27-28.
5 李力红.大学生言语——表象认知风格个体在记忆系统中信息表征偏好的研究[D].长春:吉林大学,2005.
6 Riding. R. J., & Rayner. S. G.,庞国维译.认知风格与学习策略[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社.2003:8.
7 John B.Best 著.黄希庭译.认知心理学[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社出版.2000: 33-72. http://baike.baidu.com/view/86539.htm
8 乔际平.物理学科教育学[M].北京:首都示范大学出版社,1999:183-188.
9 邓铸,余嘉元.问题解决中对问题的外部表征和内部表征 [J],心理学动态,2001.03.
10 Zhang J.The nature of external representation in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 1997, 21(2): 179-217.
11 John B.Best 著.黄希庭译.认知心理学[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社出版.2000: 111.
12 John B.Best 著.黄希庭译.认知心理学[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社出版.2000: 397.
13 Riding. R. J., & Rayner. S. G.,庞国维译.认知风格与学习策略[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社.2003:7-8.
14. Hamblin. D. H.,(1981) Teaching Study Skills. Oxford: Basil Blackwell:21.
15 Riding. R. J,.&Chama, L(1991)Cognitive styles: an overview and integration. Educational Psychology 11,193-215.
16 Rayner, S.,& Riding, 8.(1997) Towards a categorization of cognitive styles and learning styles, Educational Psychology 17, P5-28.
17 Richard Riding, Michael Grimley, Hassan Dahraei, Glonia Banner. (2003)cognitive style, working memory and learning behaviour and attainment in school subjects, British Journal of Educational Psychology.Vol.P73
18 Riding. R. J., & Rayner. S. G.,庞国维译.认知风格与学习策略[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社.2003:7-91.
19 Hitendra Pillay(1998) An investigation of the effect of individual cognitive preferences on learning through computer-based instruction.Educational Psychology. 18,P171-176.
20 同[18]
21 Riding, R. J. (1991) Cognitive Styles Malysis. Birmingham: Learning and Training Technology.
22 阴国恩, 戴斌荣. 材料呈现方式对初中生和大学生分类的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2002(4): 6-10.
23 阴国恩, 戴斌荣. 材料呈现方式对大学生分类活动的影响研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2002(6): 705-708.
24 陈丽君, 张庆林. 蔡治.材料呈现方式对儿童不同领域问题发现的影响[J]. 心理科学,2006(2):297-300.
25 刘儒德,徐娟.文本内容和图文顺序对图片理解的影响[J].心理科学 2006,29(5):1076-1080.
26 汤仲华.关于“猜想与假设”教学中几个问题的讨论[J].物理通报,2004(11):16-19.
27 李德强,杨凌云.对猜想与假设的思考[J].科学课(小学版),2003(1):12-13.
28 陈信余.发展学生“猜想与假设”能力的几点措施[J].教学月刊(中学版),2006(2):29-31.
29 教育部人事司组织编写.高等教育心理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1998:203
30 胡玉汉.科学教学中学生“猜想与假设”能力培养[J].教书育人,2007(10):28-29.
31 李奇云.关于中学生猜想与假设思维活动的初步研究[D]. 广西师范大学硕士研究生毕业论文,2005:20-25.
32 陈丽娟,蔡亚萍. 漫步在科学的阶前——发展学生猜想与假设能力的策略探究[J].广西教育学院学报,2006(02):40-43.
33 文庆城,许应华.PTA 量表法——学生猜想与假设能力评价探讨[J].教学与管理,2005(02):39-40.
34 张培林等.科学研究的方法[M].北京:科学出版社,2002:137-139
35 教育部人事司组织编写.高等教育心理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1998.8:203
36 卡尔·波普尔著[英].猜想与反驳——科学知识的增长方式(傅季重等译)[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1986:4.
37 C.G.亨佩尔著[美].自然科学的哲学(陈维航译)[M].上海:上海科学技术出版社,1986.35-42.
38 引自于 Jia-Chi Liang(2002). Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan.Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.P51—52.
39 Jia-Chi Liang(2002). Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan.Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.P78.
40 Hoover, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1990). The scientific hypothesis formulation ability of gifted ninth-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 838-848.
41 姚蕾,吴星,何永红,徐道宏.关于高一学生化学探究能力的调查及思考—高中化学课程探究性学习的方法和途径研究课题初报[J].化学教育,2004(7).
42 张琴美.从杠杆平衡作业看学生的科学假设检验思维[D].桂林:广西师范大学,2003.
43 李奇云.关于中学生猜想与假设思维活动的初步研究[D]. 桂林:广西师范大学,2005.
44 许应华.现阶段高中生化学猜想与假设能力的调查研究[D].桂林:广西师范大学,2005.
45 张军鹏.理科学生探究能力现状的调查与思考[J].课程·教材·教法,2003(11).
46 Quinn, M. E. (1971). Evaluation of a method for teaching hypothesis formation to sixth graders. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Abstract retrieved 2008-2-25,from ERIC datebase
47 Pouler, C. A.,Wright, E. L.(1980). An Analysis of the Influence of Reinforcement and Knowledge of Criteria on the Ability of Students to Generate Hypotheses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17 (1) ,31-37.Abstract retrieved 2008-2-25,from ERIC datebase
48 Frederiksen N.(1973). Development of Provisional Criteria for the Study of Scientific Creativity. Abstract retrieved 2008-2-25,from ERIC datebase
49 陈铮.信息呈现方式和学生的认知风格对多媒体环境下科学学习效果影响的实验研究 [D].重庆:西南师范大学,2004.
50 李奇云.关于中学生猜想与假设思维活动的初步研究[D]. 桂林:广西师范大学,2005.
51 刘乃忠.注重培养中师生的科学猜想能力[J].宁德师专学报(自然科学版),Vol.10 No.2,1998(2).
52 何定梁.生活中的物理[M].上海:上海远东出版社,2000:66.
53 李奇云.关于中学生猜想与假设思维活动的初步研究[D]. 桂林:广西师范大学,2005.
54 王健.中学生科学探究能力的培养研究[D].北京:首都师范大学,2006:79.
55(美)弗拉维尔等著,邓赐平译. 认知发展(第四版)上海[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2002:218.
56 周林.查子秀.关于超常儿童发散性思维的一次教学实验研究[J].心理科学通讯,1987(5).
57 李奇云. 关于中学生猜想与假设思维活动的初步研究 [D].桂林:广西师范大学,2005.
58 张春兴.教育心理学——三化取向的理论与实践[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社,1998:97.
59 许应华. 现阶段高中生化学猜想与假设能力的调查研究 [D],桂林:广西师范大学,2005.
60 李力红. 认知风格分析测验(CSA)修订及大学生样本的划界尝试[J].心理学探新,Vol.26 2006(4).
61 张军鹏.物理教学与学业评价[M].广东:广东教育出版社,2005.123.
62 罗筑华.中学生科学猜想与假设能力的发展研究 [D].桂林:广西师范大学,2008.(未发表)
63 刘剑锋.中学生科学假设质量及其影响因素的初步研究[D]. 桂林:广西师范大学,2008.(未发表)
64 Riding. R. J., & Rayner. S. G.,庞国维译.认知风格与学习策略[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社.2003:142.
65 Riding. R. J., & Rayner. S. G.,庞国维译.认知风格与学习策略[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社.2003:139-140.
66 Riding. R. J., & Rayner. S. G.,庞国维译.认知风格与学习策略[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社.2003: 139-140.
67 刘小兵,罗星凯.一个“出乎意料”的问题引发的探索活动[J] .学科教育, 2004(11):32-35.
68 安忠,刘炳升.中学物理实验教学研究[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1986:288-289.
2 中华人民共和国教育部.全日制义务教育物理课程标准(实验稿)[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2001:3.
3 殷蕊.从猜想到假设——试析科学探究过程中猜想与假设的关系[J].学科教学,2007(1):40-42.
4 李洪玉.思维策略[M].天津:百苑文艺出版社,2002:27-28.
5 李力红.大学生言语——表象认知风格个体在记忆系统中信息表征偏好的研究[D].长春:吉林大学,2005.
6 Riding. R. J., & Rayner. S. G.,庞国维译.认知风格与学习策略[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社.2003:8.
7 John B.Best 著.黄希庭译.认知心理学[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社出版.2000: 33-72. http://baike.baidu.com/view/86539.htm
8 乔际平.物理学科教育学[M].北京:首都示范大学出版社,1999:183-188.
9 邓铸,余嘉元.问题解决中对问题的外部表征和内部表征 [J],心理学动态,2001.03.
10 Zhang J.The nature of external representation in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 1997, 21(2): 179-217.
11 John B.Best 著.黄希庭译.认知心理学[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社出版.2000: 111.
12 John B.Best 著.黄希庭译.认知心理学[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社出版.2000: 397.
13 Riding. R. J., & Rayner. S. G.,庞国维译.认知风格与学习策略[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社.2003:7-8.
14. Hamblin. D. H.,(1981) Teaching Study Skills. Oxford: Basil Blackwell:21.
15 Riding. R. J,.&Chama, L(1991)Cognitive styles: an overview and integration. Educational Psychology 11,193-215.
16 Rayner, S.,& Riding, 8.(1997) Towards a categorization of cognitive styles and learning styles, Educational Psychology 17, P5-28.
17 Richard Riding, Michael Grimley, Hassan Dahraei, Glonia Banner. (2003)cognitive style, working memory and learning behaviour and attainment in school subjects, British Journal of Educational Psychology.Vol.P73
18 Riding. R. J., & Rayner. S. G.,庞国维译.认知风格与学习策略[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社.2003:7-91.
19 Hitendra Pillay(1998) An investigation of the effect of individual cognitive preferences on learning through computer-based instruction.Educational Psychology. 18,P171-176.
20 同[18]
21 Riding, R. J. (1991) Cognitive Styles Malysis. Birmingham: Learning and Training Technology.
22 阴国恩, 戴斌荣. 材料呈现方式对初中生和大学生分类的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2002(4): 6-10.
23 阴国恩, 戴斌荣. 材料呈现方式对大学生分类活动的影响研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2002(6): 705-708.
24 陈丽君, 张庆林. 蔡治.材料呈现方式对儿童不同领域问题发现的影响[J]. 心理科学,2006(2):297-300.
25 刘儒德,徐娟.文本内容和图文顺序对图片理解的影响[J].心理科学 2006,29(5):1076-1080.
26 汤仲华.关于“猜想与假设”教学中几个问题的讨论[J].物理通报,2004(11):16-19.
27 李德强,杨凌云.对猜想与假设的思考[J].科学课(小学版),2003(1):12-13.
28 陈信余.发展学生“猜想与假设”能力的几点措施[J].教学月刊(中学版),2006(2):29-31.
29 教育部人事司组织编写.高等教育心理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1998:203
30 胡玉汉.科学教学中学生“猜想与假设”能力培养[J].教书育人,2007(10):28-29.
31 李奇云.关于中学生猜想与假设思维活动的初步研究[D]. 广西师范大学硕士研究生毕业论文,2005:20-25.
32 陈丽娟,蔡亚萍. 漫步在科学的阶前——发展学生猜想与假设能力的策略探究[J].广西教育学院学报,2006(02):40-43.
33 文庆城,许应华.PTA 量表法——学生猜想与假设能力评价探讨[J].教学与管理,2005(02):39-40.
34 张培林等.科学研究的方法[M].北京:科学出版社,2002:137-139
35 教育部人事司组织编写.高等教育心理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1998.8:203
36 卡尔·波普尔著[英].猜想与反驳——科学知识的增长方式(傅季重等译)[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1986:4.
37 C.G.亨佩尔著[美].自然科学的哲学(陈维航译)[M].上海:上海科学技术出版社,1986.35-42.
38 引自于 Jia-Chi Liang(2002). Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan.Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.P51—52.
39 Jia-Chi Liang(2002). Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan.Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.P78.
40 Hoover, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1990). The scientific hypothesis formulation ability of gifted ninth-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 838-848.
41 姚蕾,吴星,何永红,徐道宏.关于高一学生化学探究能力的调查及思考—高中化学课程探究性学习的方法和途径研究课题初报[J].化学教育,2004(7).
42 张琴美.从杠杆平衡作业看学生的科学假设检验思维[D].桂林:广西师范大学,2003.
43 李奇云.关于中学生猜想与假设思维活动的初步研究[D]. 桂林:广西师范大学,2005.
44 许应华.现阶段高中生化学猜想与假设能力的调查研究[D].桂林:广西师范大学,2005.
45 张军鹏.理科学生探究能力现状的调查与思考[J].课程·教材·教法,2003(11).
46 Quinn, M. E. (1971). Evaluation of a method for teaching hypothesis formation to sixth graders. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Abstract retrieved 2008-2-25,from ERIC datebase
47 Pouler, C. A.,Wright, E. L.(1980). An Analysis of the Influence of Reinforcement and Knowledge of Criteria on the Ability of Students to Generate Hypotheses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17 (1) ,31-37.Abstract retrieved 2008-2-25,from ERIC datebase
48 Frederiksen N.(1973). Development of Provisional Criteria for the Study of Scientific Creativity. Abstract retrieved 2008-2-25,from ERIC datebase
49 陈铮.信息呈现方式和学生的认知风格对多媒体环境下科学学习效果影响的实验研究 [D].重庆:西南师范大学,2004.
50 李奇云.关于中学生猜想与假设思维活动的初步研究[D]. 桂林:广西师范大学,2005.
51 刘乃忠.注重培养中师生的科学猜想能力[J].宁德师专学报(自然科学版),Vol.10 No.2,1998(2).
52 何定梁.生活中的物理[M].上海:上海远东出版社,2000:66.
53 李奇云.关于中学生猜想与假设思维活动的初步研究[D]. 桂林:广西师范大学,2005.
54 王健.中学生科学探究能力的培养研究[D].北京:首都师范大学,2006:79.
55(美)弗拉维尔等著,邓赐平译. 认知发展(第四版)上海[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2002:218.
56 周林.查子秀.关于超常儿童发散性思维的一次教学实验研究[J].心理科学通讯,1987(5).
57 李奇云. 关于中学生猜想与假设思维活动的初步研究 [D].桂林:广西师范大学,2005.
58 张春兴.教育心理学——三化取向的理论与实践[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社,1998:97.
59 许应华. 现阶段高中生化学猜想与假设能力的调查研究 [D],桂林:广西师范大学,2005.
60 李力红. 认知风格分析测验(CSA)修订及大学生样本的划界尝试[J].心理学探新,Vol.26 2006(4).
61 张军鹏.物理教学与学业评价[M].广东:广东教育出版社,2005.123.
62 罗筑华.中学生科学猜想与假设能力的发展研究 [D].桂林:广西师范大学,2008.(未发表)
63 刘剑锋.中学生科学假设质量及其影响因素的初步研究[D]. 桂林:广西师范大学,2008.(未发表)
64 Riding. R. J., & Rayner. S. G.,庞国维译.认知风格与学习策略[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社.2003:142.
65 Riding. R. J., & Rayner. S. G.,庞国维译.认知风格与学习策略[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社.2003:139-140.
66 Riding. R. J., & Rayner. S. G.,庞国维译.认知风格与学习策略[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社.2003: 139-140.
67 刘小兵,罗星凯.一个“出乎意料”的问题引发的探索活动[J] .学科教育, 2004(11):32-35.
68 安忠,刘炳升.中学物理实验教学研究[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1986:288-289.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |