物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系构建研究
|
摘要
自《全日制义务教育物理课程标准(实验稿)》将科学探究作为课程内容与教学方式引入物理课程以来,科学探究逐渐成为众多物理教师课堂教学实践中的一个重要组成部分。然而,部分教师对科学探究所持有的认识误区和实践误区又严重影响了探究教学的有效性,导致探究教学在学校教学实践中遭遇阻力。因此,如果能有可靠、有效的物理探究课教学评价模型,将可在评价探究课教学有效性的同时,发挥其诊断功能,促进中学物理教师对探究课内涵及其有效教学特征的把握,从而实现探究课在学生生成知识、发展实践能力、培养创新精神,凸显学生主体生命价值和意义上的作用。然而,当前已有的课程改革背景下的物理课堂有效教学评价模型并未从把握物理探究课的价值定位、反映探究课特质、统筹“探究性”和“教学有效性”两个基本构念入手建立相关指标或标准,不具有针对物理探究课教学有效性进行评价的功能。
由此,如何突破探究教学实践中的困难与瓶颈,纳入物理教育研究者的观点,并考虑一线教师、学生的看法,建构一个可靠、有效的物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系是本研究的核心问题。围绕这一核心问题,派生出以下一些具体问题：
(1)已有的科学探究教学评价研究、课堂教学观察方案研究及探究教学理论与实践研究文献对本指标体系构建提供了哪些经验?
(2)如何通过专家咨询法建构物理探究课有效教学评价指标?
(3)如何通过中学物理教师及中学生的问卷调查检验中学师生对探究课有效教学评价指标的必要度观点并分析不同背景变量中学师生指标必要度的观点差异?
(4)如何构建物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系的权重体系?
(5)物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系在实施中的信度和效度如何?如何发挥其探究课教学质量评价中的诊断功能?
本研究采取了量化研究为主,质性研究为辅的技术路线。所应用的研究方法主要有：文献法、观察法和调查法,调查法包括专家咨询法和问卷调查法。
本论文主要包括五部分研究内容：
研究一：在系统考察国内外探究教学评价研究以及美国科学和数学课堂观察方案研究的基础上,思考探究课教学质量评价中的“探究性”与“教学有效性”、“教师”与“学生”以及“活动性”与“思维性”三对关系,厘清物理探究课教学的价值定位,探寻评价标准设计的可操作化策略,完成物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系的初步构想和内涵分析。
研究二：基于专家咨询法构建物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系。建立由高等院校物理教育理论研究者与中学教研员、物理教师两大类人员组成的专家咨询小组,经两轮专家意见咨询,对初构指标及评价标准必要度进行检验、修订,建立了具有专家效度的物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系。
研究三：基于中学师生观点的物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系构建。把依据专家咨询建构完成的“物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系”改编成“中学师生对物理探究课评价指标重要性观点的调查问卷”,通过问卷调查了解中学师生的指标必要度观点,分析不同背景变量中学师生指标必要度观点差异,通过调查数据对物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系做内部一致性信度检验和内容效度分析。
研究四：物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系的指标权重构建。采用对数加权法建立物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系的权重体系。
研究五：物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系的实施探索。为检验物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系在实际应用中的可靠性和有效性,依据独立观察者课堂探究教学实录测评结果,做指标体系评分者信度和构念效度分析。并应用该指标体系做一节浮力探究课的诊断日志。经以上五部分研究,建构完成物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系。
本研究的主要结论：
(1)物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系由三级指标、三十三条评价标准构成。从探究活动设计与实施、课堂文化、内容和教学效果4个维度建构一级指标；从问题、证据、解释、发表、学习情境、师生关系、内容选择、内容意义和目标达成9个维度建构二级指标；从探究问题适切性、实验器材及安全性、实验设计数据收集、评价证据、形成假设、进行推理、交流和论证、严谨尊重、合作、支持、倾听、适度、准确阐释、合理建构、联系、知识理解、过程和情感19个维度建构三级指标。
(2)物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系各级指标均具有必要度但重要程度不同。专家、中学物理教师及中学生三类人群认同上述指标对物理探究课教学质量评价的必要性。但专家也认为,各一级指标按其对探究课教学质量所起影响作用由大到小依次为探究活动设计与实施、内容、教学效果、课堂文化。
(3)物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系具有良好的内部一致性信度和内容效度。综合师生问卷调查信度评估结果表明,物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系具有良好的内部一致性信度。综合师生问卷调查内容效度评估结果表明,探究活动设计与实施、课堂文化、内容以及教学效果四个量表均具有良好的内容效度。
(4)普通中学与省级重点中学物理教师、高中物理教师对指标必要性认同度更高。总体而言,相比县和地市级重点中学物理教师、初中物理教师,前述类型的物理教师对指标必要性有更高认同。
(5)不同背景变量中学生指标必要度观点存在差异。总体而言,相比地级市中学生,省会或直辖市中学生对指标必要性认同度更高；相比地市级重点中学学生,普通中学和省级重点中学学生对“课堂文化”指标必要性有更高认同,但在“探究活动设计与实施”指标上则恰好相反；与初中生相比,高中生对指标必要性认同度更高。
(6)物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系在实践应用中具有良好的评分者信度、构念效度并可发挥其诊断功能。应用物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系所做探究课教学实录测评表明,不同评价者对探究课教学质量地评价具有良好的一致性,且“探究性”和“教学有效性”是指标体系结构的一个强有力的整合力量。同时,以“观察笔记”“个人笔记”和“诊断笔记”为框架组织的教学诊断,可发挥该指标体系在改进教师探究教学实践上的作用。
依据研究发现和结论,本研究对物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系的应用、物理教师提高探究课教学质量的途径以及对后续研究的展望等进行了一些讨论。
本研究通过对物理探究课有效教学评价内涵、目标与指标体系的探索,有效整合了理论思考和实证研究,对深刻理解物理探究课的价值定位及其教学特征有重要意义。同时,物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系在具体学校情境中的应用,对促进教师专业成长、改进探究课教学实践和学生学业进步具有现实意义。
Since scientific inquiry had been introduced into physics curriculum as course content and teaching method by Physics Curriculum Standard of Full-time Compulsory Education(Experiment draft),it has become an important part of many physics teachers' classroom practice increasingly. However, the effection of inquiry teaching has largely been disturbed by the cognitive and practical misunderstandings hold by some teachers, which made inquiry teaching face some resistance in school's teaching practice. Therefore, on condition that reliable and effective evaluation model of physics inquiry teaching can be acquired, it would useful to evaluate the effectiveness of physics inquiry teaching, in the meaning time, play its diagnostic function. Which would promote physics teacher's understanding of the connotation of physics inquiry lesson and the features of effective inquiry teaching, then the function of inquiry lesson on student's concept understanding, development of pratical ability, cultivation of creative spirit, highlighting student's value of life would come true. However, the current curriculum reform-based evaluation model on physics teaching can not grasp the value orientation of physics inquiry lesson, reflect the speciality of inquiry teaching and balance two fundamental principle:"inquiry-orientation" and "effective teaching", thus make it impossible to use these evaluation model to assess the effectivess of physics inquiry teaching.
The key problem of this study is how to construct a reliable and valid evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson. To achieve this aim, the difficulties faced by inquiry teaching practice, the opinions of physics education researchers, as well as the viewpoints of middle school's physics teachers and their students must be considered. Based on this key problem, there are a number of specific questions:
(1)What experiences can be absorbed by current studies on inquiry teaching evaluation, classroom observation protocol as well as the instructional theory and practice of inquiry?
(2)How can Delphi method be used to construct the evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson?
(3)How can questionnaire survey be used to investigate middle school physics teachers and their students'viewpoints on the necessity of the evaluation indicator for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson? Meanwhile, the differences of their opinions on the necessity of the evalution indicator hold by middle school physics teachers and their students with different demographic features would be analysed.
(4)How can the weight system of the evaluation indicator system be constructed?
(5)What is the reliability and validity of this evaluation indicator system be used to evaluate the quality of inquiry teaching of physics lesson? How can its diagnostic function be expressed in the process of teaching quality evaluation of inquiry lesson?
The technical route of this study is quantitative research primarily and supplemented by qualitative research. The major research methods used in this study include literature method, observational method and survey method. The survey method include Delpi method and questionnaire method.
This dissertation is mainly divided into five parts:
The first part of this study investigates the current research on inquiry teaching evaluation at home and abord, as well as American science and mathsmatics classroom observation protocol, deliberates three relationships in inquiry lessons's evalution, namely the relationship between "inquiry" and "teaching effectiveness", the relationship between "teacher" and "student", the relationship between "activity" and "thinking", clarifies the value orientation of physics inquiry lesson and explores the operationalization strategies of designing evaluation criterion. Thus, the original evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson, as well as its connotation analysis, are completed in this part.
This second part of this study employs the Delphi method to construct evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson. The expert consultation group was constituted by two kinds of expert, researchers of physics educational theory in universities and physics teachers working in middle school.The necessity of original indicator and evaluation criterion were examined and revised by two-round consultation of experts'opinion, thus established the expert validity of the evaluation indicator system.
The third part of this study revised the evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson based on the surveys of physics teacher and middle school students. The evaluation indicator system established in above step was adapted to student and teacher's questionnaire. Their opions on the necessity of indicator and criterion were investigated by questionaire. Based on the survey data, the understanding differences on the necessity of the evaluation indicator exists in teacher/student with different demographic features were analysed. The reliability and content validity of evaluation indicator system also be discussed in this part.
The fourth part of this study establishes weight system of the evaluation indicator system by using logarithmic weighting method.
The fifth part of this study put the evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson into practice. The purpose of this working is to examine the reliability and validity of the evaluation indicator system in real applications. According to the data came from two independent observers who scored the picture recording of physics inquiry lessons with the evaluation indicator system, the scorer reliability and construct validity of this evaluation indicator system were examined. Meanwhile, by using this evaluation indicator system, a diagnostic Log of an inquiry lesson on buoyancy was completed. Based on the above research, the evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson was constructed.
This study has following major conclusions:
(1)The evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson contains three-level indicator and33evaluation criteria. The primary indicators are built up through design and implementation of inquiry activity, classroom culture, content and teaching effect. The secondary indicators are established through question, evidence, explaination, report, learning situation, relations between students and teachers, content selection, content meaning and goal attainment. The tertiary indicators are built up through applicableness of scientific questions, experimental equipment and safety, experimental design, data collection, evidence assessment, hypothesis formation, making inference, communication and demonstration, rigorous and respect, cooperation, support, listening, moderation, accurate interpretation, reasonable construct, connection, knowledge understanding, process and emotion.
(2)A11levels of indicators have necessity but differ in their importance. The expert, physics teacher and middle school student highly acknowledge the necessity of all levels of indicators to evaluate the quality of inquiry lesson without exception. According to experts'opinion, when it comes to evaluate the inquiry teaching in physics classroom, the degree and impact of each indicator are different. As far as the primary indicators are considered, design and implementation of inquiry activity is the most important, content is the second one, teaching effect is the third one and classroom culture is the last one.
(3)The evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson is good at its internal consistency reliablity and content validity. Based on the results of teacher and student's questionnaire survey, the evaluation indicator system has good internal consistency reliablity. According to content validity assessment, all scales, namely design and implementation of inquiry activity scale, classroom culture scale, content scale and teaching effect scale achieve good content validity.
(4)Physics teacher who works in ordinary secondary school and key middle school at provincial level, as well as high school's physics teacher grade higher on the necessity of indicators. In general, compare to their counterparts who work in city's key middle school and junior high school, the aforementioned physics teachers grade higher on the necessity of indicators.
(5)There are significant differences in student's opinions on the necessity of indicators according to their background. In general, students who live in provincial capital or municipality grade higher than their counterparts in city. The ordinary secondary school students and key middle school students at provincial level grade higher on "classroom culture" than their counterparts in city's key middle school, but when it comes to the primary indicator of "design and implementation of inquiry activity", it happens the other way around. The senior high school student grade higher than junior high school student.
(6)The evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson has good scorer reliability, construct validity when it is used in practical application, meanwhile, express its diagnostic function. According to the data came from two independent observers who scored the picture recording of physics inquiry lessons with the evaluation indicator system, this indicator system achieves good consistency of the two observers, and verify that "inquiry" and "teaching effectiveness" are strong integration power of the indicator system's structure. Meanwhile, the teaching diagnose implemented by the framework of observation note, personal note and diagnostic note, make the indicator system develop its function of improving teacher's inquiry teaching practice.
According to the findings and conclusions of this study, the application of this evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson, the approaches which would helpful to improve the quality of physics inquiry lesson and suggestions for future study are discussed.
By means of investigating the connotation, goal and evaluation indicator system of effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson, this study integrate theoretical consideration and empirical research. Which has significance in understanding physics inquiry lesson's value orientation and its features of effective teaching. Meanwhile, the application of this indicator system in specific school situation can greatly facilitate teachers' professional development, improve their teaching practice and benefit to students' academic progress, it maks this study has strong practical significance.
由此,如何突破探究教学实践中的困难与瓶颈,纳入物理教育研究者的观点,并考虑一线教师、学生的看法,建构一个可靠、有效的物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系是本研究的核心问题。围绕这一核心问题,派生出以下一些具体问题：
(1)已有的科学探究教学评价研究、课堂教学观察方案研究及探究教学理论与实践研究文献对本指标体系构建提供了哪些经验?
(2)如何通过专家咨询法建构物理探究课有效教学评价指标?
(3)如何通过中学物理教师及中学生的问卷调查检验中学师生对探究课有效教学评价指标的必要度观点并分析不同背景变量中学师生指标必要度的观点差异?
(4)如何构建物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系的权重体系?
(5)物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系在实施中的信度和效度如何?如何发挥其探究课教学质量评价中的诊断功能?
本研究采取了量化研究为主,质性研究为辅的技术路线。所应用的研究方法主要有：文献法、观察法和调查法,调查法包括专家咨询法和问卷调查法。
本论文主要包括五部分研究内容：
研究一：在系统考察国内外探究教学评价研究以及美国科学和数学课堂观察方案研究的基础上,思考探究课教学质量评价中的“探究性”与“教学有效性”、“教师”与“学生”以及“活动性”与“思维性”三对关系,厘清物理探究课教学的价值定位,探寻评价标准设计的可操作化策略,完成物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系的初步构想和内涵分析。
研究二：基于专家咨询法构建物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系。建立由高等院校物理教育理论研究者与中学教研员、物理教师两大类人员组成的专家咨询小组,经两轮专家意见咨询,对初构指标及评价标准必要度进行检验、修订,建立了具有专家效度的物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系。
研究三：基于中学师生观点的物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系构建。把依据专家咨询建构完成的“物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系”改编成“中学师生对物理探究课评价指标重要性观点的调查问卷”,通过问卷调查了解中学师生的指标必要度观点,分析不同背景变量中学师生指标必要度观点差异,通过调查数据对物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系做内部一致性信度检验和内容效度分析。
研究四：物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系的指标权重构建。采用对数加权法建立物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系的权重体系。
研究五：物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系的实施探索。为检验物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系在实际应用中的可靠性和有效性,依据独立观察者课堂探究教学实录测评结果,做指标体系评分者信度和构念效度分析。并应用该指标体系做一节浮力探究课的诊断日志。经以上五部分研究,建构完成物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系。
本研究的主要结论：
(1)物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系由三级指标、三十三条评价标准构成。从探究活动设计与实施、课堂文化、内容和教学效果4个维度建构一级指标；从问题、证据、解释、发表、学习情境、师生关系、内容选择、内容意义和目标达成9个维度建构二级指标；从探究问题适切性、实验器材及安全性、实验设计数据收集、评价证据、形成假设、进行推理、交流和论证、严谨尊重、合作、支持、倾听、适度、准确阐释、合理建构、联系、知识理解、过程和情感19个维度建构三级指标。
(2)物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系各级指标均具有必要度但重要程度不同。专家、中学物理教师及中学生三类人群认同上述指标对物理探究课教学质量评价的必要性。但专家也认为,各一级指标按其对探究课教学质量所起影响作用由大到小依次为探究活动设计与实施、内容、教学效果、课堂文化。
(3)物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系具有良好的内部一致性信度和内容效度。综合师生问卷调查信度评估结果表明,物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系具有良好的内部一致性信度。综合师生问卷调查内容效度评估结果表明,探究活动设计与实施、课堂文化、内容以及教学效果四个量表均具有良好的内容效度。
(4)普通中学与省级重点中学物理教师、高中物理教师对指标必要性认同度更高。总体而言,相比县和地市级重点中学物理教师、初中物理教师,前述类型的物理教师对指标必要性有更高认同。
(5)不同背景变量中学生指标必要度观点存在差异。总体而言,相比地级市中学生,省会或直辖市中学生对指标必要性认同度更高；相比地市级重点中学学生,普通中学和省级重点中学学生对“课堂文化”指标必要性有更高认同,但在“探究活动设计与实施”指标上则恰好相反；与初中生相比,高中生对指标必要性认同度更高。
(6)物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系在实践应用中具有良好的评分者信度、构念效度并可发挥其诊断功能。应用物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系所做探究课教学实录测评表明,不同评价者对探究课教学质量地评价具有良好的一致性,且“探究性”和“教学有效性”是指标体系结构的一个强有力的整合力量。同时,以“观察笔记”“个人笔记”和“诊断笔记”为框架组织的教学诊断,可发挥该指标体系在改进教师探究教学实践上的作用。
依据研究发现和结论,本研究对物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系的应用、物理教师提高探究课教学质量的途径以及对后续研究的展望等进行了一些讨论。
本研究通过对物理探究课有效教学评价内涵、目标与指标体系的探索,有效整合了理论思考和实证研究,对深刻理解物理探究课的价值定位及其教学特征有重要意义。同时,物理探究课有效教学评价指标体系在具体学校情境中的应用,对促进教师专业成长、改进探究课教学实践和学生学业进步具有现实意义。
Since scientific inquiry had been introduced into physics curriculum as course content and teaching method by Physics Curriculum Standard of Full-time Compulsory Education(Experiment draft),it has become an important part of many physics teachers' classroom practice increasingly. However, the effection of inquiry teaching has largely been disturbed by the cognitive and practical misunderstandings hold by some teachers, which made inquiry teaching face some resistance in school's teaching practice. Therefore, on condition that reliable and effective evaluation model of physics inquiry teaching can be acquired, it would useful to evaluate the effectiveness of physics inquiry teaching, in the meaning time, play its diagnostic function. Which would promote physics teacher's understanding of the connotation of physics inquiry lesson and the features of effective inquiry teaching, then the function of inquiry lesson on student's concept understanding, development of pratical ability, cultivation of creative spirit, highlighting student's value of life would come true. However, the current curriculum reform-based evaluation model on physics teaching can not grasp the value orientation of physics inquiry lesson, reflect the speciality of inquiry teaching and balance two fundamental principle:"inquiry-orientation" and "effective teaching", thus make it impossible to use these evaluation model to assess the effectivess of physics inquiry teaching.
The key problem of this study is how to construct a reliable and valid evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson. To achieve this aim, the difficulties faced by inquiry teaching practice, the opinions of physics education researchers, as well as the viewpoints of middle school's physics teachers and their students must be considered. Based on this key problem, there are a number of specific questions:
(1)What experiences can be absorbed by current studies on inquiry teaching evaluation, classroom observation protocol as well as the instructional theory and practice of inquiry?
(2)How can Delphi method be used to construct the evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson?
(3)How can questionnaire survey be used to investigate middle school physics teachers and their students'viewpoints on the necessity of the evaluation indicator for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson? Meanwhile, the differences of their opinions on the necessity of the evalution indicator hold by middle school physics teachers and their students with different demographic features would be analysed.
(4)How can the weight system of the evaluation indicator system be constructed?
(5)What is the reliability and validity of this evaluation indicator system be used to evaluate the quality of inquiry teaching of physics lesson? How can its diagnostic function be expressed in the process of teaching quality evaluation of inquiry lesson?
The technical route of this study is quantitative research primarily and supplemented by qualitative research. The major research methods used in this study include literature method, observational method and survey method. The survey method include Delpi method and questionnaire method.
This dissertation is mainly divided into five parts:
The first part of this study investigates the current research on inquiry teaching evaluation at home and abord, as well as American science and mathsmatics classroom observation protocol, deliberates three relationships in inquiry lessons's evalution, namely the relationship between "inquiry" and "teaching effectiveness", the relationship between "teacher" and "student", the relationship between "activity" and "thinking", clarifies the value orientation of physics inquiry lesson and explores the operationalization strategies of designing evaluation criterion. Thus, the original evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson, as well as its connotation analysis, are completed in this part.
This second part of this study employs the Delphi method to construct evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson. The expert consultation group was constituted by two kinds of expert, researchers of physics educational theory in universities and physics teachers working in middle school.The necessity of original indicator and evaluation criterion were examined and revised by two-round consultation of experts'opinion, thus established the expert validity of the evaluation indicator system.
The third part of this study revised the evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson based on the surveys of physics teacher and middle school students. The evaluation indicator system established in above step was adapted to student and teacher's questionnaire. Their opions on the necessity of indicator and criterion were investigated by questionaire. Based on the survey data, the understanding differences on the necessity of the evaluation indicator exists in teacher/student with different demographic features were analysed. The reliability and content validity of evaluation indicator system also be discussed in this part.
The fourth part of this study establishes weight system of the evaluation indicator system by using logarithmic weighting method.
The fifth part of this study put the evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson into practice. The purpose of this working is to examine the reliability and validity of the evaluation indicator system in real applications. According to the data came from two independent observers who scored the picture recording of physics inquiry lessons with the evaluation indicator system, the scorer reliability and construct validity of this evaluation indicator system were examined. Meanwhile, by using this evaluation indicator system, a diagnostic Log of an inquiry lesson on buoyancy was completed. Based on the above research, the evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson was constructed.
This study has following major conclusions:
(1)The evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson contains three-level indicator and33evaluation criteria. The primary indicators are built up through design and implementation of inquiry activity, classroom culture, content and teaching effect. The secondary indicators are established through question, evidence, explaination, report, learning situation, relations between students and teachers, content selection, content meaning and goal attainment. The tertiary indicators are built up through applicableness of scientific questions, experimental equipment and safety, experimental design, data collection, evidence assessment, hypothesis formation, making inference, communication and demonstration, rigorous and respect, cooperation, support, listening, moderation, accurate interpretation, reasonable construct, connection, knowledge understanding, process and emotion.
(2)A11levels of indicators have necessity but differ in their importance. The expert, physics teacher and middle school student highly acknowledge the necessity of all levels of indicators to evaluate the quality of inquiry lesson without exception. According to experts'opinion, when it comes to evaluate the inquiry teaching in physics classroom, the degree and impact of each indicator are different. As far as the primary indicators are considered, design and implementation of inquiry activity is the most important, content is the second one, teaching effect is the third one and classroom culture is the last one.
(3)The evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson is good at its internal consistency reliablity and content validity. Based on the results of teacher and student's questionnaire survey, the evaluation indicator system has good internal consistency reliablity. According to content validity assessment, all scales, namely design and implementation of inquiry activity scale, classroom culture scale, content scale and teaching effect scale achieve good content validity.
(4)Physics teacher who works in ordinary secondary school and key middle school at provincial level, as well as high school's physics teacher grade higher on the necessity of indicators. In general, compare to their counterparts who work in city's key middle school and junior high school, the aforementioned physics teachers grade higher on the necessity of indicators.
(5)There are significant differences in student's opinions on the necessity of indicators according to their background. In general, students who live in provincial capital or municipality grade higher than their counterparts in city. The ordinary secondary school students and key middle school students at provincial level grade higher on "classroom culture" than their counterparts in city's key middle school, but when it comes to the primary indicator of "design and implementation of inquiry activity", it happens the other way around. The senior high school student grade higher than junior high school student.
(6)The evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson has good scorer reliability, construct validity when it is used in practical application, meanwhile, express its diagnostic function. According to the data came from two independent observers who scored the picture recording of physics inquiry lessons with the evaluation indicator system, this indicator system achieves good consistency of the two observers, and verify that "inquiry" and "teaching effectiveness" are strong integration power of the indicator system's structure. Meanwhile, the teaching diagnose implemented by the framework of observation note, personal note and diagnostic note, make the indicator system develop its function of improving teacher's inquiry teaching practice.
According to the findings and conclusions of this study, the application of this evaluation indicator system for effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson, the approaches which would helpful to improve the quality of physics inquiry lesson and suggestions for future study are discussed.
By means of investigating the connotation, goal and evaluation indicator system of effective inquiry teaching of physics lesson, this study integrate theoretical consideration and empirical research. Which has significance in understanding physics inquiry lesson's value orientation and its features of effective teaching. Meanwhile, the application of this indicator system in specific school situation can greatly facilitate teachers' professional development, improve their teaching practice and benefit to students' academic progress, it maks this study has strong practical significance.
引文
1 National Research Council. National Science Education Standards[M].Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1996:15.
2 Ontario Ministry of Education. Science:The Ontario Curriculum Grade 9 and Grade 10[EB/OL]. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/grade9.html,2008/2010-09-06.
3 Board of Studies NSW. Science:Years 7-10 Syllabus[EB/OL]. http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_sc/science.html,2009-08-14/2010-06-06.
4 Ministry of Education. Science in the New Zealand Curriculum[EB/OL]. http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/CurriculumAndNCEA/NationalCurriculum/Scie nce.aspx,2008-06-30/2010-07-10.
5 lbid.
6 Ministry of Education, Singapore. Science Syllabus:Lower Secondary Express/Normal (Academic)[EB/OL]. http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/science-lower-secondary-2008.pdf,2008/2011-06-06.
1 金京泽.韩国科学教育[D].上海：华东师范大学博士后研究工作报告,2004：36.
2 Department of Education and Science. Junior Certificate Science Syllabus[EB/OL]. http://www.curriculumonline.ie/uploadedfiles/JC/SciencesyllabusJC.pdf,2003/2010-06-06.
3 Department of Education. Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades 7-9 (Schools) Senior Phase[EB/OL]. http://www.education.gpg.gov.za/Document5/Documents/RNCS%20for%20Senior%20Phase.pdf,2005/2010-11-06.
2 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育物理课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012.
3 节素静.科学探究教学存在的问题及建议[J].中国教育学刊,2010(4)：54-56.
4 章建萍.科学探究活动中误区现象剖析及对策[J].教学与管理,2010(6)：47-49.
1 李欣.新课标下中学物理课堂教学评价标准设计研究[D].天津：天津师范大学,2009：32-34.
2 余晓秋.新课程高中物理课堂教学评价指标体系研究[D].上海：上海师范大学,2008：24.
3 徐秀萍.新课程理念下物理课堂教学评价指标体系构建的研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2008：59-60.
1 王晶莹.中美理科教师对科学探究及其教学的认识[D].上海：华东师范大学,2009：1.
2 余文森.有效教学十讲[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：2.
3 姜涛,廖伯琴.从国际视角看初任校长领导力发展[J].中国教育学刊,2012(9)：20-23.
1 李佳.高中物理教科书评价指标体系构建研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2011：5-6.
1 转引自陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2000：247.
1 斯滕伯格,威廉姆斯.教育心理学[M].张厚粲,译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2003：445.
2 Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T.& Krahn, J. The Delphi Method for Graduate Research[J]. Journal of Information Technology Education,2007,6:1-21.
3 Gordon, T. J. THE DELPHI METHOD[EB/OL]. http://www.gerenciamento.ufba.br/Downloads/delphi%20(1).pdf, 2011-12-20.
4 Skulmoski, G. J.. Hartman.F. T.& Krahn, J. The Delphi Method for Graduate Research[J].Journal of Information Technology Education,2007,6:1-21.
1 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编.现代汉语词典[M].北京：商务印书馆,1998：1529.
2 吴永军.关于有效教学的再认识[J].课程·教材·教法,2011(7)：9-14.
3 余文森.有效教学十讲]M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：4-10.
4 张璐.略论有效教学的评价标准[J].教育理论与实践,2000(11)：37-40.
5 孙亚玲.课堂教学有效性标准研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010：16-17.
1 美国国家研究理事会著.国家科学教育标准[M].戢守志等,译.北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999：30.
2 美国国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探究附属读物编委会著.科学探究与国家科学教育标准：教与学的指南[M].罗星凯等,译.北京：科学普及出版社,2010：14.
3 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M], Washington, DC:National Academy Press,2000:23.
3 王晶莹.中美理科教师对科学探究及其教学的认识[D].上海：华东师范大学.2009：12-13.
5Tang, X. W., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A.& Levin, D. M. The Scientific Method and Scientific Inquiry:Tensions in Teaching and Learning[J]. Science Education,2010,94(1):29-47.
1 Herron, M. The Nature of Scientific Inquiry[J]. The School Review,1971,79 (2):171-212.
2 Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A.& Evans, C. A. Inquiry in the Classroom:Necessary Components of a Useful Deflnition[A]. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland,& P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the Science Classroom:Realities and Opportunities[C]. Greenwich, CT:Information Age Publishing.2007.
3 Blanhard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A.& Granger, E. M. Is Inquiry Possible in Light of Accountability?:A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction[J]. Science Education,2010,94:577-616.
1 转引自关文信.初等教育课程与教学论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2006：161.
2 转引自陈玉琨.中国高等教育评价论[M].广州：广东高等教育出版社,1993：23.
3 陈玉琨.教育评价学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1998：7.
4 周谦.教育评价与统计[Ml.北京：科学出版社,1997：356.
5 袁金华.课堂教学论[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,1996：213.
6 李燕琴.基于优秀化学教师的课堂教学评价研究与实施[D].杭州：浙江师范大学,2007：2.
7 卢立涛,梁威,沈茜.我国课堂教学评价现状反思与改进路径[J].中国教育学刊,2012(6)：43-47.
8 冯平.评价论[M].北京：东方出版社,1995：74-81.
9 吴钢.现代教育评价教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008：91.
1 程书肖.教育评价方法技术[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2007：16.
2 周概容.应用统计方法辞典[M].北京：中国统计出版社,1993.
3 林崇德等主编.李春生分卷主编.中国成人教育百科全书·心理·教育[M].海口：南海出版公司,1994：353.
4 程书肖.教育评价方法技术[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2007：51.
1 Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N. H.& Chapman, H. Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms[J]. Journal of Science Teacher Education,2010, 21:13-30.
2 Marshall, J. C., Smart, J.& Horton, R. M. The Design and Validation of EQUIP:An Instrument to Assess Inquiry-based Instruction[J].International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,2009,8:299-321.
1 张亦飞,陈秉初.科学探究性学习的课堂教学评价标准[J].教育科学研究,2004(4)：24-26.
2 张亦飞.中学生物学探究性学习的课堂评价体系研究及实践[D].杭州：浙江师范大学,2005.
3 龚荣军.地理探究式教学评价模型的研究[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2008.
4 任荣贞.化学探究式课堂评价指标体系的建构研究[D].西安：陕西师范大学,2008.
5 刘德春.对“问题探究”教学评价的探究[J].现代中小学教育,2009(3)：75-77.
6 王较过,何传杰,张梦琴.探究式教学的有效性及其评价[J].教育理论与实践,2010(3)：47-48转54.
7 黄鹤,马云鹏.探究式教学实施程度评价的一种探索——SIRA课堂观察模式[J].教育发展研究,2012(6)：63-66.
10 Wong, ASL., Yung, BHW., Guo, Y.Y., Lederman, N.G.& Lederman, J.S. Comparison of Views about Inquiry-based Teaching Held by Science Teachers from Hong Kong, Mainland China and United States[J]. Paper presented at the meeting of NARST, Baltimore,2009.
1 Wong, ASL., Yung, BHW., Guo, Y.Y., Lederman, N.G.& Lederman, J.S. Comparison of Views about Inquiry-based Teaching Held by Science Teachers from Hong Kong, Mainland China and United States[J]. Paper presented at the meeting of NARST, Baltimore,2009.
2 Tang, X. W., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A.& Levin, D. M. The Scientific Method and Scientific Inquiry:Tensions in Teaching and Learning[J]. Science Education,2010,94(1):29-47.
3 Marshall, J. C., Smart, J.& Horton, R. M. The Design and Validation of EQUIP:An Instrument to Assess Inquiry-based Instructional. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,2009,8:299-321.
4 张杰艺,郭玉英,范佳午.美国对科学探究教学的界定及分析框架简介[J].课程·教材·教法,2011(7)：97-100.
1 Marshall, J. C, Smart, J.& Horton, R. M. The Design and Validation of EQUIP:An Instrument to Assess Inquiry-based Instruction[J]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,2009,8:299-321.
2 Ibid.
1 Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N. H.& Chapman, H. Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms[J].Journal of Science Teacher Education,2010, 21:13-30.
1 王晶莹,郭玉英.中美高中物理教师对探究教学认识的比较研究——基于四节探究教学录像的量化分析fJl.教育学报,2011(2)：54-59转67.
2 Wong, ASL., Yung, BHW., Guo, Y.Y., Lederman, N.G.& Lederman, J.S. Comparison of Views about Inquiry-based Teaching Held by Science Teachers from Hong Kong, Mainland China and United States[J]. Paper presented at the meeting of NARST, Baltimore,2009.
1 王较过,何传杰,张梦琴.探究式教学的有效性及其评价[J].教育理论与实践,2010(3)：47-48转54.
2 龚荣军.地理探究式教学评价模型的研究[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2008.
1 任荣贞.化学探究式课堂评价指标体系的建构研究[D].西安：陕西师范大学,2008.
2 张亦飞.中学生物学探究性学习的课常评价体系研究及实践[D].杭州：浙江师范大学.2005.
3 黄鹤.马云鹏.探究式教学实施程度评价的一种探索—SIRA课堂观察模式[J].教育发展研究，2012(6)：63-66.
1 刘德春.对“问题探究”教学评价的探究[J].现代中小学教育,2009(3)：75-77.
2 Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N. H.& Chapman, H. Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms[J]. Journal of Science Teacher Education,2010, 21:13-30.
1 National Research Council. National Science Education Standards[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1996:23.
2 Piburn, M, Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J. Benford, R.& Bloom, I. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol[EB/OL].http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/pubs/RTOP/RTOPTrgGd_IN002.pdf,2011-06-02.
3 National Science Foundation. IMD Product Classroom Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0071/nsf0071 13.pdf,2011-06-06.
4 North Cascades and Olympic Science Partnership. Science Classroom Observation Guide[EB/OL]. http://edmsp.mspnet.org/media/data/Science Classroom Observation Guide REFERENCE EDITION 41.pdf?m edia_000000005767.pdf,2011-06-06.
5 Horizon Research Inc. Local Systemic Change Through Teacher Enhancement Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/lsc/cop.pdf.2011-06-02.
1 Horizon Research Inc. Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic ProtocoI[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.pdf,2011-06-02.
2 RMC Research Corporation. OMLI Classroom Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/OMLIClassroomObservationProtocols.pdf?media 000000005734.pdf.2011-06-05.
3 姜涛,廖伯琴.从国际视角初任校长领导力发展[J].中国教育学刊,2012(9)：20-23.
4 National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Methods of Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness[EB/OL]. http://www.tqsource.org/publications/RestoPractice_EvaluatingTeacherEffectiveness.pdf,2011-05-20.
1 吴维宁.专业化的课堂教学评价工具RTOP评介[Jl.教师教育研究2011(9)：76-80.
2 Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J. Benford, R.& Bloom, I. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/pubs/RTOP/RTOPTrgGd_IN002.pdf,2011-06-02.
1 Blanhard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osbome, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A.& Granger, E. M. Is Inquiry Possible in Light of Accountability?:A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction[J]. Science Education,2010,94:577-616.
1 Campbell, T.& Bohn, C. Science Laboratory Experiences of High School Students Across one State in the U.S.: Descriptive Research from the Classroom[J]. Science Educator,2008,17(1):36-48.
2 Marshall, J. C, Smart, J.& Horton, R. M. The Design and Validation of EQUIP:An Instrument to Assess Inquiry-based Instruction[J]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,2009,8:299-321.
1 [瑞典]T·胡森，[德]T-N·波斯尔斯韦特主编.教育大百科全书(第九卷)[M].张斌贤等,译.重庆：西南师范大学出版社：海口：海南出版社.2006：239.
4Piburn, M.& Sawada, D. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP):Reference Manual[EB/OL]. http://www.public.asu.edu/-antonl/AssessArticles/Assessments/Biology%20Assessments/RTOP%20Reference%20 Manual.pdf,2011-06-08.
5 Jones, M. T.& Eick, C. J. Implementing Inquiry Kit Curriculum:Obstacles, Adaptations, and Practical Knowledge Development in Two Middle School Science Teachers[J]. Science Education,2007,91:492-513.
6 Horizon Research Inc. Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.pdf,2011-06-02.
1 RMC Research Corporation. OMLI Classroom Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/OMLIClassroomObservationProtocols.pdf?media_000000005734.pdf,2011-06-05.
1 吴钢.现代教育评价教程[Ml.北京：北京大学出版社,2008：99.
2 程书肖.教育评价方法技术[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2007：56.
3 王景英.教育评价学[M]长春：东北师范大学出版社,2005：56.
4 程书肖.教育评价方法技术[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2007：58-59.
1 程书肖.教育评价方法技术[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2007：49-55.
1 姜涛,廖伯琴.方法与建模：两种竞争的探究教学模式评析[J].课程·教材·教法,2012(10)：89-94.
2 吉尔伯特·萨克斯.教育和心理的测量与评价原理[M].王昌海等,译.南京：江苏教育出版社,2002：182-183.
1 郝志军.探究性教学的实质：一种复杂性思维视角[Jl.教育研究,2005(11)：66-70.
1 张军朋,许规清.中学物理科学探究学习评价与案例[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010：31.
1 崔允漷.有效教学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：258.
1 李燕琴.基于优秀化学教师的课堂教学评价研究与实施[D].杭州：浙江师范大学,2007：2。
2 卢立涛,梁威,沈茜.我国课堂教学评价现状反思与改进路径[J].中国教育学刊,2012(6)：43-47.
1 崔允漷.有效教学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：258-259.
2 王晶莹,郭玉英.中美高中物理教师对探究教学认识的比较研究——基于四节探究教学录像的量化分析[J].教育学报,2011(2)：54-59转67.
1 沈毅,崔允漷.课堂观察：走向专业的听评课[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008：106.
1 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:37.
2 Ibid,30.
3 Ibid,36.
4 王较过,何传杰,张梦琴.探究式教学的有效性及其评价[J].教育理论与实践,2010(3)：47-48转54.
5 National Research Council. National Science Education Standards[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press. 1996:31.
1 Windschitl, M., Thompson, J.& Braaten, M. Beyond the Scientific Method:Model-based Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations[J]. Science Education,2008,92(5),941-967.
2 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:30.
3 Horizon Research Inc. Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.pdf,2011-06-02.
1 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育物理课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：9.
2 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育化学课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：11-12.
3 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育生物学课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：6.
1 American Chemical Society. Middle School Chemistry[EB/OL]. http://www.middleschoolchemistry.com/lessonplans/,2011-9-26.
2 American Physical Society. Ben Franklin's Secret Message[EB/OL]. http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/physicsquest/past/pq06.cfm,2011-9-26.
1 杨祖念.物理探究课教学设计与实践[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010：100.
2 杜秀芳,高艳.中小学生科学探究策略的发展特点[J].教育学报,2012(6)：97-105.
5 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:45.
1 AQA. General Certificate of Secondary Education:Science A 44612011 Specification [EB/OL]. http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-W-SP-11.PDF,2011-8-06.
2 帕迪利亚.科学探索者——科学探究[M].华曦,华佳译.杭州：浙江教育出版社,2010：71-72.
3 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育物理课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：58.
4 AQA. General Certificate of Secondary Education:Science A44612011 Specification [EB/OL]. http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-W-SP-11.PDF,2011-8-06.
4 帕迪利亚.科学探索者——科学探究[M].华曦,华佳译.杭州：浙江教育出版社,2010：72-73.
1 Windschitl, M.,Thompson, J.& Braaten, M. Beyond the Scientific Method:Model-based Inquiry As a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations[J]. Science Education,2008,92(5),941-967.
2 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:53.
3 Ibid,171.
4 AQA. General Certificate of Secondary Education:Science A44612011 Specification [EB/OL]. http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-W-SP-11.PDF,2011-8-06.
1 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育物理课程标准[Ml.北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：54-57.
2 Tang, X. W., Coffey, J. E. Elby, A.& Levin, D. M. The Scientific Method and Scientific Inquiry:Tensions in Teaching and Learning[J]. Science Education,2010,94(1),29-47.
3 杜秀芳,高艳.中小学生科学探究策略的发展特点[J].教育学报,2012(6)：97-105.
4 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:27.
5 Ibid,28.
6 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育物理课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：10.
1 李燕琴.基于优秀化学教师的课堂教学评价研究与实施[D].杭州：浙江师范大学,2007：2.
2 沈毅,崔允沸.课堂观察：走向专业的听评课[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008：104-106.
1 Horizon Research, Inc. Highlights Report, Looking Inside the Classroom:A Study of K-12 Mathematics and Science Education in the United States[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com,2003-05/2011-06-02.
2 盛群力.论有效教学的十个要义——教学设计的视角[J].课程·教材·教法,2012(4)：13-20.
1 Mcdonald, S.& Songer, N. B. Enacting Classroom Inquiry:Theorizing Teachers'Conceptions of Science Teaching[J]. Science Education,2008,92(6):973-993.
2 Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A.& Granger, E. M. Is Inquiry Possible in Light of Accountability?:A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction[J]. Science Education,2010,94(4):577-616.
3 Furtak, E. M. The Problem with Answers:An Exploration of Guided Scientific Inquiry Teaching[J]. Science Education,2006,90(3),453-467.
4RMC Research Corporation.OMLI Classroom Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/OMLIClassroomObservationProtocols.pdf?media_000000005734.pdf,2011-06-05.
5 王较过,何传杰,张梦琴.探究式教学的有效性及其评价[J].教育理论与实践,2010(3)：47-48转54.
6 Horizon Research Inc. Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.pdf,2011-06-02.
7 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M].Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:76.
8 Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J. Benford, R.& Bloom, I. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol[EB/OL].http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/pubs/RTOP/RTOPTrgGdIN002.pdf,2011-06-02.
6 王鉴,张晓洁.论教学的二重性[J].高等教育研究,2007(1)：67-72.
1 Dalton, S. S. Pedagogy Matters:Standards for Effective Teaching Practice [EB/OL]. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6d75h0fz,2011-9-08.
2 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:91-92.
3 Windschitl, M., Thompson, J.& Braaten, M. Beyond the Scientific Method:Model-based Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations[J].Science Education,2008,92(5),941-967.
1 美国国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探究附属读物编委会著.科学探究与国家科学教育标准：教与学的指南[M].罗星凯等,译.北京：科学普及出版社,2010：133.
2 崔允漷.有效教学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：259.
1 崔允漷.有效教学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：13.
2 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:36.
3 Ibid,27.
4 Ibid,29.
5 Blanhard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A.& Granger, E. M. Is Inquiry Possible in Light of Accountability?:A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction [J]. Science Education,2010,94:577-616.
1 另有一位专家因公务繁忙,在第二次咨询问卷已全部发放后才返回了第一次咨询意见,该专家认为各项指标能很好抓住探究课的教学评价要素,对3条评价标准的措辞提出了修改建议,与其他19位专家意见汇总处理后的结果无重大、本质性差异。
1 李远远.基于粗糙集的指标体系构建及综合评价方法研究[D].武汉：武汉理工大学,2009：40-42.
1 柯惠新,沈浩.调查研究中的统计分析法(第二版)[M].北京：中国传媒大学出版社,2005：334.
2 Ibid,334-336.
1 张文彤,闫洁SPSS统计分析基础教程[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2004：291-292.
1 Patton,M.Qualitative evaluation and research methods[M].Beverly Hills,CA:Sage.1990:169.
2 Ibid.171.182.
1 吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务SPSS操作与应用[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010：181.
[1]陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2000.
[2]陈玉琨.教育评价学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1998.
[3]陈玉琨.中国高等教育评价论[M].广州：广东高等教育出版社,1993.
[4]程书肖.教育评价方法技术[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2007.
[5]崔允漷.有效教学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009.
[6]董素静.科学探究教学存在的问题及建议[J].中国教育学刊,2010(4)：54-56.
[7]杜秀芳,高艳.中小学生科学探究策略的发展特点[J].教育学报,2012(6)：97-105.
[8]冯平.评价论[M].北京：东方出版社,1995.
[9]郝志军.探究性教学的实质：一种复杂性思维视角[J].教育研究,2005(11)：66-70.
[10]关文信.初等教育课程与教学论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2006.
[11]龚荣军.地理探究式教学评价模型的研究[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2008.
[12]黄鹤,马云鹏.探究式教学实施程度评价的一种探索——SIRA课堂观察模式[J].教育发展研究,2012(6)：63-66.
[13]吉尔伯特·萨克斯.教育和心理的测量与评价原理[M].王昌海等,译.南京：江苏教育出版社,2002.
[14]姜涛,廖伯琴.从国际视角看初任校长领导力发展[J].中国教育学刊,2012(9)：20-23.
[15]姜涛,廖伯琴.方法与建模：两种竞争的探究教学模式评析[J].课程·教材·教法,2012(10)：89-94.
[16]金京泽.韩国科学教育[D].上海：华东师范大学博士后研究工作报告,2004.
[17]柯惠新,沈浩.调查研究中的统计分析法(第二版)[M].北京：中国传媒大学出版社,2005.
[18]李佳.高中物理教科书评价指标体系构建研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2011.
[19]李欣.新课标下中学物理课堂教学评价标准设计研究[D].天津：天津师范大学,2009.
[20]李燕琴.基于优秀化学教师的课堂教学评价研究与实施[D].杭州：浙江师范大学,2007.
[21]廖伯琴.例析课程改革中探究式教学的功能[J].中国教育学刊,2008(1)：65-66.
[22]林崇德等主编.李春生分卷主编.中国成人教育百科全书·心理·教育[M].海口：南海出版公司,1994.
[23]刘德春.对“问题探究”教学评价的探究[J].现代中小学教育,2009(3)：75-77.
[24]刘诚杰.论合作探究学习的意义和策略[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(3)：22-24.
[25]刘健智,何杰平,肖晓兰.农村初中物理科学探究教学现状实证分析[J].中国教育学刊,2011(8)：64-67.
[26]卢立涛,梁威,沈茜.我国课堂教学评价现状反思与改进路径[J].中国教育学刊,2012(6)：43-47.
[27]罗国忠.基于工作单的科学探究能力评价的有效性研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(11)：69-73.
[28]罗国忠.关于提出探究问题的实证研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2010(5)：83-86.
[29]M·苏珊娜·多诺万,约翰·D·布兰思福特主编.学生是如何学习的-课堂中的科学[M].宋时春,译.桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011.
[30]美国国家研究理事会著.国家科学教育标准[M].戢守志等,译.北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999.
[31]美国国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探究附属读物编委会著.科学探究与国家科学教育标准：教与学的指南[M].罗星凯等,译.北京：科学普及出版社,2010.
[32]帕迪利亚.科学探索者——科学探究[M].华曦,华佳译.杭州：浙江教育出版社,2010.
[33]任荣贞.化学探究式课堂评价指标体系的建构研究[D].西安：陕西师范大学,2008.
[34]沈金林.论物理教学中的“评估”要素[J].中国教育学刊,2006(4)：67-69.
[35]沈毅,崔允漷.课堂观察：走向专业的听评课[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008.
[36]盛群力.论有效教学的十个要义——教学设计的视角[J].课程·教材·教法,2012(4)：13-20.
[37]斯滕伯格,威廉姆斯.教育心理学[M].张厚粲,译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2003.
[38]孙亚玲.课堂教学有效性标准研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010.
[39]T·胡森,T·N-波斯尔斯韦特主编.教育大百科全书(第九卷)[M].张斌贤等,译.重庆：西南师范大学出版社；海口：海南出版社.2006。
[40]王慧君.科学探究课的旨趣和及对探究课中两个问题的思考[J].课程·教材·教法,2008(3)：66-69.
[41]王鉴,张晓洁。论教学的二重性[J].高等教育研究,2007(1)：67-72.
[42]王较过,何传杰,张梦琴.探究式教学的有效性及其评价[J].教育理论与实践,2010(3)：47-48转54.
[43]王晶莹.中美理科教师对科学探究及其教学的认识[D].上海：华东师范大学,2009.
[44]王景英.教育评价学[M].长春：东北师范大学出版社,2005.
[45]王晶莹,郭玉英.中美高中物理教师对探究教学认识的比较研究——基于四节探究教学录像的量化分析[J].教育学报,2011(2)：54-59转67.
[46]王星乔,米广春.论证式教学：科学探究教学的新图景[J].中国教育学刊,2010(10)：50-52.
[47]吴钢.现代教育评价教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
[48]吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务SPSS操作与应用[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.
[49]吴维宁.专业化的课堂教学评价工具RTOP评介[J].教师教育研究,2011(9)：76-80.
[50]吴永军.关于有效教学的再认识[J].课程·教材·教法,2011(7)：9-14.
[51]夏学梅.标准化的课堂观察对课程标准修订的政策意义[J].课程·教材·教法,2012(6)：31-34.
[52]徐秀萍.新课程理念下物理课堂教学评价指标体系构建的研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2008.
[53]许应华,徐学福.论科学假设能力的结构和培养[J].课程·教材·教法,2012(4)：86-91.
[54]杨承印,马艳芝.我国“探究教学”研究十年[J].教育学报,2007(4)：46-49转61.
[55]杨祖念.物理探究课教学设计与实践[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010.
[56]余文森.有效教学十讲[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009.
[57]余晓秋.新课程高中物理课堂教学评价指标体系研究[D].上海：上海师范大学,2008.
[58]袁金华.课堂教学论[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,1996.
[59]章建萍.科学探究活动中误区现象剖析及对策[J].教学与管理,2010(6)：47-49.
[60]张杰艺,郭玉英,范佳午.美国对科学探究教学的界定及分析框架简介[J].课程·教材·教法,2011(7)：97-100.
[61]张军朋,许桂清.中学物理科学探究学习评价与案例[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
[62]张璐.略论有效教学的评价标准[J].教育理论与实践,2000(11)：37-40。
[63]张亦飞.中学生物学探究性学习的课堂评价体系研究及实践[D].杭州：浙江师范大学,2005.
[64]张亦飞,陈秉初.科学探究性学习的课堂教学评价标准[J].教育科学研究,2004(4)：24-26.
[65]赵逸庶.高中物理科学探究活动实施现状研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2011.
[66]朱行建.国际教育评价中的科学探究能力测评简介及启示[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(2)：89-91.
[67]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编.现代汉语词典[M].北京：商务印书馆,1998.
[68]中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育化学课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012.
[69]中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育生物学课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012.
[70]中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育物理课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012.
[71]周概容.应用统计方法辞典[M].北京：中国统计出版社,1993.
[72]周谦.教育评价与统计[M].北京：科学出版社,1997.
[1]Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A.,& Evans, C. A. Inquiry in the Classroom:Necessary Components of a Useful Definition[A]. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland,& P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the Science Classroom:Realities and Opportunities[C]. Greenwich, CT:Information Age Publishing.2007.
[2]American Chemical Society. Middle School Chemistry [EB/OL]. http://www.middleschoolchemistry.com/lessonplans/,2011-9-26.
[3]American Physical Society. Ben Franklin's Secret Message [EB/OL]. http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/physicsquest/past/pq06.cfm,2011-9-26.
[4]AQA. General Certificate of Secondary Education:Science A 4461 2011 Specification [EB/OL]. http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-W-SP-11.PDF,2011-8-06.
[5]Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A.,& Granger, E. M. No Silver Bullet for Inquiry:Making Sense of Teacher Change Following an Inquiry-based Research Experience for Teachers. Science Education,2009,93(2),322-360.
[6]Blanhard, M. R., Southerland, S.A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A.& Granger, E. M. Is Inquiry Possible in Light of Accountability?:A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction [J]. Science Education,2010, 94:577-616.
[7]Board of Studies NSW. Science:Years 7-10 Syllabus[EB/OL]. http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_sc/science.html,2009-08-14/2010-06-06.
[8]Bob, L.& Johnson, JR. An Organizational Analysis of Multiple Perspectives of Effective Teaching:Implications for Teacher Evaluation[J]. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1997,11:69-87.
[9]Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N. H.& Chapman, H. Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms[J].Journal of Science Teacher Education,2010,21:13-30.
[10]Campbell, T.& Bohn, C. Science Laboratory Experiences of High School Students Across one State in the U.S.:Descriptive Research from the Classroom[J]. Science Educator,2008,17(1): 36-48.
[11]Dalton, S. S. Pedagogy Matters:Standards for Effective Teaching Practice [EB/OL]. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6d75h0fz,2011-9-08.
[12]Department of Education.Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades 7-9 (Schools) Senior Phase[EB/OL].http://www.education.gpg.gov.za/Document5/Documents/RNCS%20for%20Senior% 20Phase.pdf,2005/2010-11-06.
[13]Department of Education and Science. Junior Certificate Science Syllabus[EB/OL]. http://www.curriculumonline.ie/uploadedfiles/JC/SciencesyllabusJC.pdf,2003/2010-06-06.
[14]Edmund, W. N. Your guide & worksheet for applying the complete method of creative problem solving & decision making (SM-14) [EB/OL].2011-10-16. http://www.scientificmethod.com/guidewrksheet.html.
[15]Ellett, C. D.& Teddlie, C. Teacher Evaluation, Teacher Effectiveness and School Effectiveness: Perspectives from the USA[J]. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,2003,17(1):101-128.
[16]Erin, P. Assessing Scientific Inquiry[J].Science Scope,2008,31(5):27-33.
[17]Forbes,C.T.Preservice Elementary Teachers' Adaptation of Science Curriculum Materials for Inquiry-Based Elementary Science[J]. Science Education,2011,95(1):1-29.
[18]Friedrichsen, P., Driel, J. H.& Abell, S.K. Taking a Closer Look at Science Teaching Orientations[J]. Science Education,2011,95:358-376.
[19]Furtak, E. M. The Problem with Answers:An Exploration of Guided Scientific Inquiry Teaching[J]. Science Education,2006,90(3),453-467.
[20]Gordon,T.J.TheDelphiMethod[EB/OL].http://www.gerenciamento.ufba.br/Downloads/delphi% 20(1).pdf,2011-12-20.
[21]Harlow, D. B. Structures and Improvisation for Inquiry-based Science Instruction:A Teacher's Adaptation of a Model of Magnetism Activity[J]. Science Education,2010,94(1):142-163.
[22]Herron, M. The Nature of Scientific Inquiry[J]. The School Review,1971,79 (2):171-212.
[23]Horizon Research, Inc. Highlights Report, Looking Inside the Classroom:A Study of K-12 Mathematics and Science Education in the United States[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com, 2003-05/2011-06-02.
[24]Horizon Research Inc. Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.pdf,2011-06-02.
[25]Horizon Research Inc. Local Systemic Change Through Teacher Enhancement Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/1sc/cop.pdf,2011-06-02.
[26]Jones, M. T.& Eick, C. J. Implementing Inquiry Kit Curriculum:Obstacles, Adaptations, and Practical Knowledge Development in Two Middle School Science Teachers[J]. Science Education, 2007,91:492-513.
[27]Lee, O., Buxton, C, Lewis, S.& LeRoy, K. Science Inquiry and Student Diversity:Enhanced Abilities and Continuing Difficulties After an Instructional Intervention[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2006,43(7),607-636.
[28]Lu, X-s., Liu, Q-h.& Chen, J. Inquiry Learning's Implementation and Evaluation in the Teaching of Information Technology [J].Paper presented at the meeting of International Conference on Applied Physics and Industrial Engineering,2012.
[29]Lunsford, E.& Melear, C. T. Using Scoring Rubrics to Evaluate Inquiry[J].Jounal of College Science Teaching,2004,34(1):34-38.
[30]Mcdonald, S.& Songer, N. B. Enacting Classroom Inquiry:Theorizing Teachers'Conceptions of Science Teaching[J].Science Education,2008,92(6):973-993.
[31]Marshall, J. C, Smart, J.& Horton, R. M. The Design and Validation of EQUIP:An Instrument to Assess Inquiry-based InstructionfJ].International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2009,8:299-321.
[32]Ministry of Education. Science in the New Zealand CurricuIum[EB/OL]. http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/CurriculumAndNCEA/Nationa lCurriculum/Science.aspx,2008-06-30/2010-07-10.
[33]Ministry of Education, Singapore. Science Syllabus:Lower Secondary Express/Normal (Academic)[EB/OL]. http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/science-lower-secon dary-2008.pdf,2008/2011-06-06.
[34]National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Methods of Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness[EB/OL].http://www.tqsource.org/publications/RestoPractice_EvaluatingTeacherErTect iveness.pdf,2011-05-20.
[35]National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press,2000.
[36]National Research Council. National Science Education Standards[M]. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,1996.
[37]National Science Foundation. IMD Product Classroom Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http.//www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0071/nsf0071_13.pdf,2011-06-06.
[38]North Cascades and Olympic Science Partnership. Science Classroom Observation Guide[EB/OL].http://edmsp.mspnet.org/media/data/Science_CIassroom_Observation_Guide_REFE RENCE_EDlTION_4_1_.pdf?media_000000005767.pdf,2011-06-06.
[39]Ontario Ministry of Education. Science:The Ontario Curriculum Grade 9 and Grade 10[EB/OL]. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/grade9.html,2008/2010-09-06.
[40]Patton, M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods[M]. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage,1990.
[41]Piburn, M.& Sawada, D. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP):Reference Manual[EB/OL].http://www.public.asu.edu/～antonl/AssessArticles/Assessments/Biology%20Asses sments/RTOP%20Reference%20Manuai.pdf,2011-06-08.
[42]Piburn, M.,Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J. Benford, R.& Bloom, I. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol[EB/OL].http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/pubs/RTOP/RTOPTrgGd_IN002.pdf, 2011-06-02.
[43]RMC Research Corporation.OMLI Classroom Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/OMLIClassroomObservationProtocols.pdf?media_000000005734. pdf,2011-06-05.
[44]Rogers, M. A.& Abell, S. K. The Design, Enactment, and Experience of Inquiry-based Instruction in Undergraduate Science Education:A Case Study[J]. Science Education,2008,92: 591-607.
[45]Schwarz, C. Developing Preservice Elementary Teachers' Knowledge and Practices Through Modeling-centered Scientific Inquiry[J]. Science Education,2009,93(4),720-744.
[46]Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T.& Krahn, J. The Delphi Method for Graduate Research[J]. Journal of Information Technology Education,2007,6:1-21.
[47]Tang, X. W., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A.& Levin, D. M. The Scientific Method and Scientific Inquiry: Tensions in Teaching and Learning[J]. Science Education,2010,94(1):29-47.
[48]William, S.& Wilek, R. R. Pratical Considerations for Assessing Inquiry-based Instruction[J]. Jounal of College Science Teaching,2002,31(7):432-435.
[49]Windschitl M. Folk Theories of "Inquiry":How Preservice Teachers Reproduce the Discourse and Practices of an Atheoretical Scientific Method [J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2004,41 (5):481-512.
[50]Windschitl, M, Thompson, J.& Braaten, M. Beyond the Scientific Method:Model-based Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations[J]. Science Education, 2008,92(5),941-967.
[51]Wong, ASL., Yung, BHW., Guo, Y.Y., Lederman, N.G.& Lederman, J.S. Comparison of views about inquiry-based teaching held by science teachers from Hong Kong, Mainland China and United States[J]. Paper presented at the meeting of NARST, Baltimore,2009.
2 Ontario Ministry of Education. Science:The Ontario Curriculum Grade 9 and Grade 10[EB/OL]. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/grade9.html,2008/2010-09-06.
3 Board of Studies NSW. Science:Years 7-10 Syllabus[EB/OL]. http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_sc/science.html,2009-08-14/2010-06-06.
4 Ministry of Education. Science in the New Zealand Curriculum[EB/OL]. http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/CurriculumAndNCEA/NationalCurriculum/Scie nce.aspx,2008-06-30/2010-07-10.
5 lbid.
6 Ministry of Education, Singapore. Science Syllabus:Lower Secondary Express/Normal (Academic)[EB/OL]. http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/science-lower-secondary-2008.pdf,2008/2011-06-06.
1 金京泽.韩国科学教育[D].上海：华东师范大学博士后研究工作报告,2004：36.
2 Department of Education and Science. Junior Certificate Science Syllabus[EB/OL]. http://www.curriculumonline.ie/uploadedfiles/JC/SciencesyllabusJC.pdf,2003/2010-06-06.
3 Department of Education. Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades 7-9 (Schools) Senior Phase[EB/OL]. http://www.education.gpg.gov.za/Document5/Documents/RNCS%20for%20Senior%20Phase.pdf,2005/2010-11-06.
2 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育物理课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012.
3 节素静.科学探究教学存在的问题及建议[J].中国教育学刊,2010(4)：54-56.
4 章建萍.科学探究活动中误区现象剖析及对策[J].教学与管理,2010(6)：47-49.
1 李欣.新课标下中学物理课堂教学评价标准设计研究[D].天津：天津师范大学,2009：32-34.
2 余晓秋.新课程高中物理课堂教学评价指标体系研究[D].上海：上海师范大学,2008：24.
3 徐秀萍.新课程理念下物理课堂教学评价指标体系构建的研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2008：59-60.
1 王晶莹.中美理科教师对科学探究及其教学的认识[D].上海：华东师范大学,2009：1.
2 余文森.有效教学十讲[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：2.
3 姜涛,廖伯琴.从国际视角看初任校长领导力发展[J].中国教育学刊,2012(9)：20-23.
1 李佳.高中物理教科书评价指标体系构建研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2011：5-6.
1 转引自陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2000：247.
1 斯滕伯格,威廉姆斯.教育心理学[M].张厚粲,译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2003：445.
2 Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T.& Krahn, J. The Delphi Method for Graduate Research[J]. Journal of Information Technology Education,2007,6:1-21.
3 Gordon, T. J. THE DELPHI METHOD[EB/OL]. http://www.gerenciamento.ufba.br/Downloads/delphi%20(1).pdf, 2011-12-20.
4 Skulmoski, G. J.. Hartman.F. T.& Krahn, J. The Delphi Method for Graduate Research[J].Journal of Information Technology Education,2007,6:1-21.
1 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编.现代汉语词典[M].北京：商务印书馆,1998：1529.
2 吴永军.关于有效教学的再认识[J].课程·教材·教法,2011(7)：9-14.
3 余文森.有效教学十讲]M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：4-10.
4 张璐.略论有效教学的评价标准[J].教育理论与实践,2000(11)：37-40.
5 孙亚玲.课堂教学有效性标准研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010：16-17.
1 美国国家研究理事会著.国家科学教育标准[M].戢守志等,译.北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999：30.
2 美国国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探究附属读物编委会著.科学探究与国家科学教育标准：教与学的指南[M].罗星凯等,译.北京：科学普及出版社,2010：14.
3 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M], Washington, DC:National Academy Press,2000:23.
3 王晶莹.中美理科教师对科学探究及其教学的认识[D].上海：华东师范大学.2009：12-13.
5Tang, X. W., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A.& Levin, D. M. The Scientific Method and Scientific Inquiry:Tensions in Teaching and Learning[J]. Science Education,2010,94(1):29-47.
1 Herron, M. The Nature of Scientific Inquiry[J]. The School Review,1971,79 (2):171-212.
2 Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A.& Evans, C. A. Inquiry in the Classroom:Necessary Components of a Useful Deflnition[A]. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland,& P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the Science Classroom:Realities and Opportunities[C]. Greenwich, CT:Information Age Publishing.2007.
3 Blanhard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A.& Granger, E. M. Is Inquiry Possible in Light of Accountability?:A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction[J]. Science Education,2010,94:577-616.
1 转引自关文信.初等教育课程与教学论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2006：161.
2 转引自陈玉琨.中国高等教育评价论[M].广州：广东高等教育出版社,1993：23.
3 陈玉琨.教育评价学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1998：7.
4 周谦.教育评价与统计[Ml.北京：科学出版社,1997：356.
5 袁金华.课堂教学论[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,1996：213.
6 李燕琴.基于优秀化学教师的课堂教学评价研究与实施[D].杭州：浙江师范大学,2007：2.
7 卢立涛,梁威,沈茜.我国课堂教学评价现状反思与改进路径[J].中国教育学刊,2012(6)：43-47.
8 冯平.评价论[M].北京：东方出版社,1995：74-81.
9 吴钢.现代教育评价教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008：91.
1 程书肖.教育评价方法技术[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2007：16.
2 周概容.应用统计方法辞典[M].北京：中国统计出版社,1993.
3 林崇德等主编.李春生分卷主编.中国成人教育百科全书·心理·教育[M].海口：南海出版公司,1994：353.
4 程书肖.教育评价方法技术[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2007：51.
1 Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N. H.& Chapman, H. Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms[J]. Journal of Science Teacher Education,2010, 21:13-30.
2 Marshall, J. C., Smart, J.& Horton, R. M. The Design and Validation of EQUIP:An Instrument to Assess Inquiry-based Instruction[J].International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,2009,8:299-321.
1 张亦飞,陈秉初.科学探究性学习的课堂教学评价标准[J].教育科学研究,2004(4)：24-26.
2 张亦飞.中学生物学探究性学习的课堂评价体系研究及实践[D].杭州：浙江师范大学,2005.
3 龚荣军.地理探究式教学评价模型的研究[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2008.
4 任荣贞.化学探究式课堂评价指标体系的建构研究[D].西安：陕西师范大学,2008.
5 刘德春.对“问题探究”教学评价的探究[J].现代中小学教育,2009(3)：75-77.
6 王较过,何传杰,张梦琴.探究式教学的有效性及其评价[J].教育理论与实践,2010(3)：47-48转54.
7 黄鹤,马云鹏.探究式教学实施程度评价的一种探索——SIRA课堂观察模式[J].教育发展研究,2012(6)：63-66.
10 Wong, ASL., Yung, BHW., Guo, Y.Y., Lederman, N.G.& Lederman, J.S. Comparison of Views about Inquiry-based Teaching Held by Science Teachers from Hong Kong, Mainland China and United States[J]. Paper presented at the meeting of NARST, Baltimore,2009.
1 Wong, ASL., Yung, BHW., Guo, Y.Y., Lederman, N.G.& Lederman, J.S. Comparison of Views about Inquiry-based Teaching Held by Science Teachers from Hong Kong, Mainland China and United States[J]. Paper presented at the meeting of NARST, Baltimore,2009.
2 Tang, X. W., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A.& Levin, D. M. The Scientific Method and Scientific Inquiry:Tensions in Teaching and Learning[J]. Science Education,2010,94(1):29-47.
3 Marshall, J. C., Smart, J.& Horton, R. M. The Design and Validation of EQUIP:An Instrument to Assess Inquiry-based Instructional. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,2009,8:299-321.
4 张杰艺,郭玉英,范佳午.美国对科学探究教学的界定及分析框架简介[J].课程·教材·教法,2011(7)：97-100.
1 Marshall, J. C, Smart, J.& Horton, R. M. The Design and Validation of EQUIP:An Instrument to Assess Inquiry-based Instruction[J]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,2009,8:299-321.
2 Ibid.
1 Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N. H.& Chapman, H. Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms[J].Journal of Science Teacher Education,2010, 21:13-30.
1 王晶莹,郭玉英.中美高中物理教师对探究教学认识的比较研究——基于四节探究教学录像的量化分析fJl.教育学报,2011(2)：54-59转67.
2 Wong, ASL., Yung, BHW., Guo, Y.Y., Lederman, N.G.& Lederman, J.S. Comparison of Views about Inquiry-based Teaching Held by Science Teachers from Hong Kong, Mainland China and United States[J]. Paper presented at the meeting of NARST, Baltimore,2009.
1 王较过,何传杰,张梦琴.探究式教学的有效性及其评价[J].教育理论与实践,2010(3)：47-48转54.
2 龚荣军.地理探究式教学评价模型的研究[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2008.
1 任荣贞.化学探究式课堂评价指标体系的建构研究[D].西安：陕西师范大学,2008.
2 张亦飞.中学生物学探究性学习的课常评价体系研究及实践[D].杭州：浙江师范大学.2005.
3 黄鹤.马云鹏.探究式教学实施程度评价的一种探索—SIRA课堂观察模式[J].教育发展研究，2012(6)：63-66.
1 刘德春.对“问题探究”教学评价的探究[J].现代中小学教育,2009(3)：75-77.
2 Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N. H.& Chapman, H. Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms[J]. Journal of Science Teacher Education,2010, 21:13-30.
1 National Research Council. National Science Education Standards[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1996:23.
2 Piburn, M, Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J. Benford, R.& Bloom, I. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol[EB/OL].http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/pubs/RTOP/RTOPTrgGd_IN002.pdf,2011-06-02.
3 National Science Foundation. IMD Product Classroom Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0071/nsf0071 13.pdf,2011-06-06.
4 North Cascades and Olympic Science Partnership. Science Classroom Observation Guide[EB/OL]. http://edmsp.mspnet.org/media/data/Science Classroom Observation Guide REFERENCE EDITION 41.pdf?m edia_000000005767.pdf,2011-06-06.
5 Horizon Research Inc. Local Systemic Change Through Teacher Enhancement Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/lsc/cop.pdf.2011-06-02.
1 Horizon Research Inc. Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic ProtocoI[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.pdf,2011-06-02.
2 RMC Research Corporation. OMLI Classroom Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/OMLIClassroomObservationProtocols.pdf?media 000000005734.pdf.2011-06-05.
3 姜涛,廖伯琴.从国际视角初任校长领导力发展[J].中国教育学刊,2012(9)：20-23.
4 National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Methods of Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness[EB/OL]. http://www.tqsource.org/publications/RestoPractice_EvaluatingTeacherEffectiveness.pdf,2011-05-20.
1 吴维宁.专业化的课堂教学评价工具RTOP评介[Jl.教师教育研究2011(9)：76-80.
2 Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J. Benford, R.& Bloom, I. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/pubs/RTOP/RTOPTrgGd_IN002.pdf,2011-06-02.
1 Blanhard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osbome, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A.& Granger, E. M. Is Inquiry Possible in Light of Accountability?:A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction[J]. Science Education,2010,94:577-616.
1 Campbell, T.& Bohn, C. Science Laboratory Experiences of High School Students Across one State in the U.S.: Descriptive Research from the Classroom[J]. Science Educator,2008,17(1):36-48.
2 Marshall, J. C, Smart, J.& Horton, R. M. The Design and Validation of EQUIP:An Instrument to Assess Inquiry-based Instruction[J]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,2009,8:299-321.
1 [瑞典]T·胡森，[德]T-N·波斯尔斯韦特主编.教育大百科全书(第九卷)[M].张斌贤等,译.重庆：西南师范大学出版社：海口：海南出版社.2006：239.
4Piburn, M.& Sawada, D. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP):Reference Manual[EB/OL]. http://www.public.asu.edu/-antonl/AssessArticles/Assessments/Biology%20Assessments/RTOP%20Reference%20 Manual.pdf,2011-06-08.
5 Jones, M. T.& Eick, C. J. Implementing Inquiry Kit Curriculum:Obstacles, Adaptations, and Practical Knowledge Development in Two Middle School Science Teachers[J]. Science Education,2007,91:492-513.
6 Horizon Research Inc. Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.pdf,2011-06-02.
1 RMC Research Corporation. OMLI Classroom Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/OMLIClassroomObservationProtocols.pdf?media_000000005734.pdf,2011-06-05.
1 吴钢.现代教育评价教程[Ml.北京：北京大学出版社,2008：99.
2 程书肖.教育评价方法技术[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2007：56.
3 王景英.教育评价学[M]长春：东北师范大学出版社,2005：56.
4 程书肖.教育评价方法技术[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2007：58-59.
1 程书肖.教育评价方法技术[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2007：49-55.
1 姜涛,廖伯琴.方法与建模：两种竞争的探究教学模式评析[J].课程·教材·教法,2012(10)：89-94.
2 吉尔伯特·萨克斯.教育和心理的测量与评价原理[M].王昌海等,译.南京：江苏教育出版社,2002：182-183.
1 郝志军.探究性教学的实质：一种复杂性思维视角[Jl.教育研究,2005(11)：66-70.
1 张军朋,许规清.中学物理科学探究学习评价与案例[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010：31.
1 崔允漷.有效教学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：258.
1 李燕琴.基于优秀化学教师的课堂教学评价研究与实施[D].杭州：浙江师范大学,2007：2。
2 卢立涛,梁威,沈茜.我国课堂教学评价现状反思与改进路径[J].中国教育学刊,2012(6)：43-47.
1 崔允漷.有效教学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：258-259.
2 王晶莹,郭玉英.中美高中物理教师对探究教学认识的比较研究——基于四节探究教学录像的量化分析[J].教育学报,2011(2)：54-59转67.
1 沈毅,崔允漷.课堂观察：走向专业的听评课[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008：106.
1 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:37.
2 Ibid,30.
3 Ibid,36.
4 王较过,何传杰,张梦琴.探究式教学的有效性及其评价[J].教育理论与实践,2010(3)：47-48转54.
5 National Research Council. National Science Education Standards[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press. 1996:31.
1 Windschitl, M., Thompson, J.& Braaten, M. Beyond the Scientific Method:Model-based Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations[J]. Science Education,2008,92(5),941-967.
2 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:30.
3 Horizon Research Inc. Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.pdf,2011-06-02.
1 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育物理课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：9.
2 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育化学课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：11-12.
3 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育生物学课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：6.
1 American Chemical Society. Middle School Chemistry[EB/OL]. http://www.middleschoolchemistry.com/lessonplans/,2011-9-26.
2 American Physical Society. Ben Franklin's Secret Message[EB/OL]. http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/physicsquest/past/pq06.cfm,2011-9-26.
1 杨祖念.物理探究课教学设计与实践[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010：100.
2 杜秀芳,高艳.中小学生科学探究策略的发展特点[J].教育学报,2012(6)：97-105.
5 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:45.
1 AQA. General Certificate of Secondary Education:Science A 44612011 Specification [EB/OL]. http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-W-SP-11.PDF,2011-8-06.
2 帕迪利亚.科学探索者——科学探究[M].华曦,华佳译.杭州：浙江教育出版社,2010：71-72.
3 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育物理课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：58.
4 AQA. General Certificate of Secondary Education:Science A44612011 Specification [EB/OL]. http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-W-SP-11.PDF,2011-8-06.
4 帕迪利亚.科学探索者——科学探究[M].华曦,华佳译.杭州：浙江教育出版社,2010：72-73.
1 Windschitl, M.,Thompson, J.& Braaten, M. Beyond the Scientific Method:Model-based Inquiry As a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations[J]. Science Education,2008,92(5),941-967.
2 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:53.
3 Ibid,171.
4 AQA. General Certificate of Secondary Education:Science A44612011 Specification [EB/OL]. http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-W-SP-11.PDF,2011-8-06.
1 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育物理课程标准[Ml.北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：54-57.
2 Tang, X. W., Coffey, J. E. Elby, A.& Levin, D. M. The Scientific Method and Scientific Inquiry:Tensions in Teaching and Learning[J]. Science Education,2010,94(1),29-47.
3 杜秀芳,高艳.中小学生科学探究策略的发展特点[J].教育学报,2012(6)：97-105.
4 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:27.
5 Ibid,28.
6 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育物理课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：10.
1 李燕琴.基于优秀化学教师的课堂教学评价研究与实施[D].杭州：浙江师范大学,2007：2.
2 沈毅,崔允沸.课堂观察：走向专业的听评课[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008：104-106.
1 Horizon Research, Inc. Highlights Report, Looking Inside the Classroom:A Study of K-12 Mathematics and Science Education in the United States[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com,2003-05/2011-06-02.
2 盛群力.论有效教学的十个要义——教学设计的视角[J].课程·教材·教法,2012(4)：13-20.
1 Mcdonald, S.& Songer, N. B. Enacting Classroom Inquiry:Theorizing Teachers'Conceptions of Science Teaching[J]. Science Education,2008,92(6):973-993.
2 Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A.& Granger, E. M. Is Inquiry Possible in Light of Accountability?:A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction[J]. Science Education,2010,94(4):577-616.
3 Furtak, E. M. The Problem with Answers:An Exploration of Guided Scientific Inquiry Teaching[J]. Science Education,2006,90(3),453-467.
4RMC Research Corporation.OMLI Classroom Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/OMLIClassroomObservationProtocols.pdf?media_000000005734.pdf,2011-06-05.
5 王较过,何传杰,张梦琴.探究式教学的有效性及其评价[J].教育理论与实践,2010(3)：47-48转54.
6 Horizon Research Inc. Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.pdf,2011-06-02.
7 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M].Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:76.
8 Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J. Benford, R.& Bloom, I. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol[EB/OL].http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/pubs/RTOP/RTOPTrgGdIN002.pdf,2011-06-02.
6 王鉴,张晓洁.论教学的二重性[J].高等教育研究,2007(1)：67-72.
1 Dalton, S. S. Pedagogy Matters:Standards for Effective Teaching Practice [EB/OL]. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6d75h0fz,2011-9-08.
2 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:91-92.
3 Windschitl, M., Thompson, J.& Braaten, M. Beyond the Scientific Method:Model-based Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations[J].Science Education,2008,92(5),941-967.
1 美国国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探究附属读物编委会著.科学探究与国家科学教育标准：教与学的指南[M].罗星凯等,译.北京：科学普及出版社,2010：133.
2 崔允漷.有效教学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：259.
1 崔允漷.有效教学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：13.
2 National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2000:36.
3 Ibid,27.
4 Ibid,29.
5 Blanhard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A.& Granger, E. M. Is Inquiry Possible in Light of Accountability?:A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction [J]. Science Education,2010,94:577-616.
1 另有一位专家因公务繁忙,在第二次咨询问卷已全部发放后才返回了第一次咨询意见,该专家认为各项指标能很好抓住探究课的教学评价要素,对3条评价标准的措辞提出了修改建议,与其他19位专家意见汇总处理后的结果无重大、本质性差异。
1 李远远.基于粗糙集的指标体系构建及综合评价方法研究[D].武汉：武汉理工大学,2009：40-42.
1 柯惠新,沈浩.调查研究中的统计分析法(第二版)[M].北京：中国传媒大学出版社,2005：334.
2 Ibid,334-336.
1 张文彤,闫洁SPSS统计分析基础教程[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2004：291-292.
1 Patton,M.Qualitative evaluation and research methods[M].Beverly Hills,CA:Sage.1990:169.
2 Ibid.171.182.
1 吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务SPSS操作与应用[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010：181.
[1]陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2000.
[2]陈玉琨.教育评价学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1998.
[3]陈玉琨.中国高等教育评价论[M].广州：广东高等教育出版社,1993.
[4]程书肖.教育评价方法技术[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2007.
[5]崔允漷.有效教学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009.
[6]董素静.科学探究教学存在的问题及建议[J].中国教育学刊,2010(4)：54-56.
[7]杜秀芳,高艳.中小学生科学探究策略的发展特点[J].教育学报,2012(6)：97-105.
[8]冯平.评价论[M].北京：东方出版社,1995.
[9]郝志军.探究性教学的实质：一种复杂性思维视角[J].教育研究,2005(11)：66-70.
[10]关文信.初等教育课程与教学论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2006.
[11]龚荣军.地理探究式教学评价模型的研究[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2008.
[12]黄鹤,马云鹏.探究式教学实施程度评价的一种探索——SIRA课堂观察模式[J].教育发展研究,2012(6)：63-66.
[13]吉尔伯特·萨克斯.教育和心理的测量与评价原理[M].王昌海等,译.南京：江苏教育出版社,2002.
[14]姜涛,廖伯琴.从国际视角看初任校长领导力发展[J].中国教育学刊,2012(9)：20-23.
[15]姜涛,廖伯琴.方法与建模：两种竞争的探究教学模式评析[J].课程·教材·教法,2012(10)：89-94.
[16]金京泽.韩国科学教育[D].上海：华东师范大学博士后研究工作报告,2004.
[17]柯惠新,沈浩.调查研究中的统计分析法(第二版)[M].北京：中国传媒大学出版社,2005.
[18]李佳.高中物理教科书评价指标体系构建研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2011.
[19]李欣.新课标下中学物理课堂教学评价标准设计研究[D].天津：天津师范大学,2009.
[20]李燕琴.基于优秀化学教师的课堂教学评价研究与实施[D].杭州：浙江师范大学,2007.
[21]廖伯琴.例析课程改革中探究式教学的功能[J].中国教育学刊,2008(1)：65-66.
[22]林崇德等主编.李春生分卷主编.中国成人教育百科全书·心理·教育[M].海口：南海出版公司,1994.
[23]刘德春.对“问题探究”教学评价的探究[J].现代中小学教育,2009(3)：75-77.
[24]刘诚杰.论合作探究学习的意义和策略[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(3)：22-24.
[25]刘健智,何杰平,肖晓兰.农村初中物理科学探究教学现状实证分析[J].中国教育学刊,2011(8)：64-67.
[26]卢立涛,梁威,沈茜.我国课堂教学评价现状反思与改进路径[J].中国教育学刊,2012(6)：43-47.
[27]罗国忠.基于工作单的科学探究能力评价的有效性研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(11)：69-73.
[28]罗国忠.关于提出探究问题的实证研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2010(5)：83-86.
[29]M·苏珊娜·多诺万,约翰·D·布兰思福特主编.学生是如何学习的-课堂中的科学[M].宋时春,译.桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011.
[30]美国国家研究理事会著.国家科学教育标准[M].戢守志等,译.北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999.
[31]美国国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探究附属读物编委会著.科学探究与国家科学教育标准：教与学的指南[M].罗星凯等,译.北京：科学普及出版社,2010.
[32]帕迪利亚.科学探索者——科学探究[M].华曦,华佳译.杭州：浙江教育出版社,2010.
[33]任荣贞.化学探究式课堂评价指标体系的建构研究[D].西安：陕西师范大学,2008.
[34]沈金林.论物理教学中的“评估”要素[J].中国教育学刊,2006(4)：67-69.
[35]沈毅,崔允漷.课堂观察：走向专业的听评课[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008.
[36]盛群力.论有效教学的十个要义——教学设计的视角[J].课程·教材·教法,2012(4)：13-20.
[37]斯滕伯格,威廉姆斯.教育心理学[M].张厚粲,译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2003.
[38]孙亚玲.课堂教学有效性标准研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010.
[39]T·胡森,T·N-波斯尔斯韦特主编.教育大百科全书(第九卷)[M].张斌贤等,译.重庆：西南师范大学出版社；海口：海南出版社.2006。
[40]王慧君.科学探究课的旨趣和及对探究课中两个问题的思考[J].课程·教材·教法,2008(3)：66-69.
[41]王鉴,张晓洁。论教学的二重性[J].高等教育研究,2007(1)：67-72.
[42]王较过,何传杰,张梦琴.探究式教学的有效性及其评价[J].教育理论与实践,2010(3)：47-48转54.
[43]王晶莹.中美理科教师对科学探究及其教学的认识[D].上海：华东师范大学,2009.
[44]王景英.教育评价学[M].长春：东北师范大学出版社,2005.
[45]王晶莹,郭玉英.中美高中物理教师对探究教学认识的比较研究——基于四节探究教学录像的量化分析[J].教育学报,2011(2)：54-59转67.
[46]王星乔,米广春.论证式教学：科学探究教学的新图景[J].中国教育学刊,2010(10)：50-52.
[47]吴钢.现代教育评价教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
[48]吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务SPSS操作与应用[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.
[49]吴维宁.专业化的课堂教学评价工具RTOP评介[J].教师教育研究,2011(9)：76-80.
[50]吴永军.关于有效教学的再认识[J].课程·教材·教法,2011(7)：9-14.
[51]夏学梅.标准化的课堂观察对课程标准修订的政策意义[J].课程·教材·教法,2012(6)：31-34.
[52]徐秀萍.新课程理念下物理课堂教学评价指标体系构建的研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2008.
[53]许应华,徐学福.论科学假设能力的结构和培养[J].课程·教材·教法,2012(4)：86-91.
[54]杨承印,马艳芝.我国“探究教学”研究十年[J].教育学报,2007(4)：46-49转61.
[55]杨祖念.物理探究课教学设计与实践[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010.
[56]余文森.有效教学十讲[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009.
[57]余晓秋.新课程高中物理课堂教学评价指标体系研究[D].上海：上海师范大学,2008.
[58]袁金华.课堂教学论[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,1996.
[59]章建萍.科学探究活动中误区现象剖析及对策[J].教学与管理,2010(6)：47-49.
[60]张杰艺,郭玉英,范佳午.美国对科学探究教学的界定及分析框架简介[J].课程·教材·教法,2011(7)：97-100.
[61]张军朋,许桂清.中学物理科学探究学习评价与案例[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
[62]张璐.略论有效教学的评价标准[J].教育理论与实践,2000(11)：37-40。
[63]张亦飞.中学生物学探究性学习的课堂评价体系研究及实践[D].杭州：浙江师范大学,2005.
[64]张亦飞,陈秉初.科学探究性学习的课堂教学评价标准[J].教育科学研究,2004(4)：24-26.
[65]赵逸庶.高中物理科学探究活动实施现状研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2011.
[66]朱行建.国际教育评价中的科学探究能力测评简介及启示[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(2)：89-91.
[67]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编.现代汉语词典[M].北京：商务印书馆,1998.
[68]中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育化学课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012.
[69]中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育生物学课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012.
[70]中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育物理课程标准[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012.
[71]周概容.应用统计方法辞典[M].北京：中国统计出版社,1993.
[72]周谦.教育评价与统计[M].北京：科学出版社,1997.
[1]Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A.,& Evans, C. A. Inquiry in the Classroom:Necessary Components of a Useful Definition[A]. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland,& P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the Science Classroom:Realities and Opportunities[C]. Greenwich, CT:Information Age Publishing.2007.
[2]American Chemical Society. Middle School Chemistry [EB/OL]. http://www.middleschoolchemistry.com/lessonplans/,2011-9-26.
[3]American Physical Society. Ben Franklin's Secret Message [EB/OL]. http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/physicsquest/past/pq06.cfm,2011-9-26.
[4]AQA. General Certificate of Secondary Education:Science A 4461 2011 Specification [EB/OL]. http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-W-SP-11.PDF,2011-8-06.
[5]Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A.,& Granger, E. M. No Silver Bullet for Inquiry:Making Sense of Teacher Change Following an Inquiry-based Research Experience for Teachers. Science Education,2009,93(2),322-360.
[6]Blanhard, M. R., Southerland, S.A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A.& Granger, E. M. Is Inquiry Possible in Light of Accountability?:A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction [J]. Science Education,2010, 94:577-616.
[7]Board of Studies NSW. Science:Years 7-10 Syllabus[EB/OL]. http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_sc/science.html,2009-08-14/2010-06-06.
[8]Bob, L.& Johnson, JR. An Organizational Analysis of Multiple Perspectives of Effective Teaching:Implications for Teacher Evaluation[J]. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1997,11:69-87.
[9]Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N. H.& Chapman, H. Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms[J].Journal of Science Teacher Education,2010,21:13-30.
[10]Campbell, T.& Bohn, C. Science Laboratory Experiences of High School Students Across one State in the U.S.:Descriptive Research from the Classroom[J]. Science Educator,2008,17(1): 36-48.
[11]Dalton, S. S. Pedagogy Matters:Standards for Effective Teaching Practice [EB/OL]. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6d75h0fz,2011-9-08.
[12]Department of Education.Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades 7-9 (Schools) Senior Phase[EB/OL].http://www.education.gpg.gov.za/Document5/Documents/RNCS%20for%20Senior% 20Phase.pdf,2005/2010-11-06.
[13]Department of Education and Science. Junior Certificate Science Syllabus[EB/OL]. http://www.curriculumonline.ie/uploadedfiles/JC/SciencesyllabusJC.pdf,2003/2010-06-06.
[14]Edmund, W. N. Your guide & worksheet for applying the complete method of creative problem solving & decision making (SM-14) [EB/OL].2011-10-16. http://www.scientificmethod.com/guidewrksheet.html.
[15]Ellett, C. D.& Teddlie, C. Teacher Evaluation, Teacher Effectiveness and School Effectiveness: Perspectives from the USA[J]. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,2003,17(1):101-128.
[16]Erin, P. Assessing Scientific Inquiry[J].Science Scope,2008,31(5):27-33.
[17]Forbes,C.T.Preservice Elementary Teachers' Adaptation of Science Curriculum Materials for Inquiry-Based Elementary Science[J]. Science Education,2011,95(1):1-29.
[18]Friedrichsen, P., Driel, J. H.& Abell, S.K. Taking a Closer Look at Science Teaching Orientations[J]. Science Education,2011,95:358-376.
[19]Furtak, E. M. The Problem with Answers:An Exploration of Guided Scientific Inquiry Teaching[J]. Science Education,2006,90(3),453-467.
[20]Gordon,T.J.TheDelphiMethod[EB/OL].http://www.gerenciamento.ufba.br/Downloads/delphi% 20(1).pdf,2011-12-20.
[21]Harlow, D. B. Structures and Improvisation for Inquiry-based Science Instruction:A Teacher's Adaptation of a Model of Magnetism Activity[J]. Science Education,2010,94(1):142-163.
[22]Herron, M. The Nature of Scientific Inquiry[J]. The School Review,1971,79 (2):171-212.
[23]Horizon Research, Inc. Highlights Report, Looking Inside the Classroom:A Study of K-12 Mathematics and Science Education in the United States[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com, 2003-05/2011-06-02.
[24]Horizon Research Inc. Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.pdf,2011-06-02.
[25]Horizon Research Inc. Local Systemic Change Through Teacher Enhancement Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/1sc/cop.pdf,2011-06-02.
[26]Jones, M. T.& Eick, C. J. Implementing Inquiry Kit Curriculum:Obstacles, Adaptations, and Practical Knowledge Development in Two Middle School Science Teachers[J]. Science Education, 2007,91:492-513.
[27]Lee, O., Buxton, C, Lewis, S.& LeRoy, K. Science Inquiry and Student Diversity:Enhanced Abilities and Continuing Difficulties After an Instructional Intervention[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2006,43(7),607-636.
[28]Lu, X-s., Liu, Q-h.& Chen, J. Inquiry Learning's Implementation and Evaluation in the Teaching of Information Technology [J].Paper presented at the meeting of International Conference on Applied Physics and Industrial Engineering,2012.
[29]Lunsford, E.& Melear, C. T. Using Scoring Rubrics to Evaluate Inquiry[J].Jounal of College Science Teaching,2004,34(1):34-38.
[30]Mcdonald, S.& Songer, N. B. Enacting Classroom Inquiry:Theorizing Teachers'Conceptions of Science Teaching[J].Science Education,2008,92(6):973-993.
[31]Marshall, J. C, Smart, J.& Horton, R. M. The Design and Validation of EQUIP:An Instrument to Assess Inquiry-based InstructionfJ].International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2009,8:299-321.
[32]Ministry of Education. Science in the New Zealand CurricuIum[EB/OL]. http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/CurriculumAndNCEA/Nationa lCurriculum/Science.aspx,2008-06-30/2010-07-10.
[33]Ministry of Education, Singapore. Science Syllabus:Lower Secondary Express/Normal (Academic)[EB/OL]. http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/science-lower-secon dary-2008.pdf,2008/2011-06-06.
[34]National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Methods of Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness[EB/OL].http://www.tqsource.org/publications/RestoPractice_EvaluatingTeacherErTect iveness.pdf,2011-05-20.
[35]National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards:A Guide for Teaching and Learning[M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press,2000.
[36]National Research Council. National Science Education Standards[M]. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,1996.
[37]National Science Foundation. IMD Product Classroom Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http.//www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0071/nsf0071_13.pdf,2011-06-06.
[38]North Cascades and Olympic Science Partnership. Science Classroom Observation Guide[EB/OL].http://edmsp.mspnet.org/media/data/Science_CIassroom_Observation_Guide_REFE RENCE_EDlTION_4_1_.pdf?media_000000005767.pdf,2011-06-06.
[39]Ontario Ministry of Education. Science:The Ontario Curriculum Grade 9 and Grade 10[EB/OL]. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/grade9.html,2008/2010-09-06.
[40]Patton, M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods[M]. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage,1990.
[41]Piburn, M.& Sawada, D. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP):Reference Manual[EB/OL].http://www.public.asu.edu/～antonl/AssessArticles/Assessments/Biology%20Asses sments/RTOP%20Reference%20Manuai.pdf,2011-06-08.
[42]Piburn, M.,Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J. Benford, R.& Bloom, I. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol[EB/OL].http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/pubs/RTOP/RTOPTrgGd_IN002.pdf, 2011-06-02.
[43]RMC Research Corporation.OMLI Classroom Observation Protocol[EB/OL]. http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/OMLIClassroomObservationProtocols.pdf?media_000000005734. pdf,2011-06-05.
[44]Rogers, M. A.& Abell, S. K. The Design, Enactment, and Experience of Inquiry-based Instruction in Undergraduate Science Education:A Case Study[J]. Science Education,2008,92: 591-607.
[45]Schwarz, C. Developing Preservice Elementary Teachers' Knowledge and Practices Through Modeling-centered Scientific Inquiry[J]. Science Education,2009,93(4),720-744.
[46]Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T.& Krahn, J. The Delphi Method for Graduate Research[J]. Journal of Information Technology Education,2007,6:1-21.
[47]Tang, X. W., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A.& Levin, D. M. The Scientific Method and Scientific Inquiry: Tensions in Teaching and Learning[J]. Science Education,2010,94(1):29-47.
[48]William, S.& Wilek, R. R. Pratical Considerations for Assessing Inquiry-based Instruction[J]. Jounal of College Science Teaching,2002,31(7):432-435.
[49]Windschitl M. Folk Theories of "Inquiry":How Preservice Teachers Reproduce the Discourse and Practices of an Atheoretical Scientific Method [J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2004,41 (5):481-512.
[50]Windschitl, M, Thompson, J.& Braaten, M. Beyond the Scientific Method:Model-based Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations[J]. Science Education, 2008,92(5),941-967.
[51]Wong, ASL., Yung, BHW., Guo, Y.Y., Lederman, N.G.& Lederman, J.S. Comparison of views about inquiry-based teaching held by science teachers from Hong Kong, Mainland China and United States[J]. Paper presented at the meeting of NARST, Baltimore,2009.