中小学生的科学探究及影响因素
|
摘要
以科学探究为核心的科学教育已经成为科学教育改革中最受关注的理念之一。学生的科学探究因其具有重要的理论意义和现实意义而受到研究者的重视,科学探究的研究也得到了教育学、学科教学以及心理学等众多领域的关注,心理学领域对科学探究的研究与对科学思维或科学推理的研究是分不开的,并且在科学探究的策略与影响因素等方面取得了大量的成果。但仍然还存在一些不足,如以往研究主要是针对科学探究的不同阶段进行的,缺乏对科学探究全过程的整合研究,对科学探究的评价指标不一致;对学生科学探究的发展特点的研究较少;对影响因素的系统研究较少等。
本研究首先对学生科学探究的实质作了深入的理论分析,认为科学探究是一种高级的问题解决活动,具有和问题解决相同的认知机制;其中认知策略是探究的核心;科学探究是一种积极的知识建构活动,建构过程中个体的科学认识论信念、对科学的态度、推理能力等起重要的作用。在这一理论框架的指导下,对小学五、六年级和初中七、八年级学生的科学探究的特点及影响因素作了进一步探讨。
实证研究分两部分,第一部分即研究一,采用计算机模拟的自我指导实验探究任务,任务内容为单摆实验和弹簧实验,要求被试自主探究影响单摆摆动频率和弹簧伸拉长度的因素,并以科学探究的全过程为研究对象,以被试探究中的实验设计策略水平、证据评价策略水平以及正确推论结果作为衡量科学探究的指标,系统探讨了小学高年级和初中学生科学探究的特点。第二部分首先对本研究需要的两个问卷进行了进一步的修编,通过研究二和研究三分别考察了学生科学认识论信念问卷与对科学的态度量表的结构和特点。研究四探讨了科学认识论信念、对科学的态度、推理能力、知识与科学探究的关系,并采用结构方程综合考察了不同任务条件下、小学和初中样本中各因素对科学探究的综合影响。研究发现:
(1)科学探究中学生所使用的实验设计策略主要有完全设计策略、局部连锁策略、局部控制策略、分离变量水平策略和无策略五种;所使用的证据评价策略主要有:两两比较策略、共同发生策略、理论评价策略和无策略四种。
(2)无论是实验设计水平和证据评价水平,还是正确推论数量,均不存在显著的性别差异;但都存在显著的年级差异,表现为:小学高年级学生与初中学生之间,小学、初中与大学生之间差异显著,但五、六年级之间,七、八年级之间差异不显著。
(3)任务难度对学生的实验设计和正确推论有显著影响,学生三变量任务中的实验设计水平、正确推论百分比都显著低于两变量任务;在证据评价水平上,任务难度的差异不显著。另外,正确排除的平均数明显低于正确包含的平均数,说明中小学学生作排除性推论比包含性推论困难。
(4)本研究中编制的《科学认识论信念问卷》的信、效度较高;问卷所包含的三个因子:知识的来源、知识的确定性和知识的发展性能够较好地解释科学认识论信念的结构;学生的科学认识论信念存在显著的年级差异,但不存在显著的性别差异。总的来说,随年级升高,认识论信念也越积极。
(5)对《对科学的态度量表》的分析结果表明,这一工具有效可靠,该量表包括四个因子:对科学价值的态度、对科学学习的态度、对参与科学探究活动的态度和对科学家与科学相关生涯的态度;各年级学生在《对科学的态度量表》各因子得分上,随着年级升高显著下降,年级越低,对科学的态度越积极;在科学学习和科学生涯维度上存在显著的性别差异,男生较女生更积极。
(6)科学认识论信念、对科学的态度、推理能力对科学探究均具有显著的影响,其中对科学的态度在认识论信念对科学探究能力的影响中起部分中介作用;在不同难度的任务以及小学和初中样本中,认识论信念所起的作用是稳定的,在较难的三变量任务中,推理能力对科学探究的影响作用最大。
本研究的结果对科学教育和教学实践有重要的启发意义,对中小学生科学探究的策略方法的培养应当成为科学教育的重要内容;另外培养学生积极的科学认识论信念和对科学的正向的态度也科学教育的重要途径。
The argument for science inquiry as the core of science education has gained great emphasis in the field of science education reform. In the field of education, teaching, and psychology, researchers have paid great attention to student’s science inquiry due to its theoretical and practical significance. In psychology, science inquiry was conducted under the labels“scientific reasoning”and“scientific thinking”. There have been considerable researches investigating the psychological mechanism of science inquiry, especially the strategies of science inquiry and the affecting factors. However, there are still questions needing to be explored further. First, the previous research on science inquiry was mainly focused on the seperate stages of science inquiry. It’s still unclear about the characteristics of the whole process of science inquiry. Second, the evaluation index of science inquiry ability is inconsistent. Third, there are only few studies exploring the development of science inquiry. Finally the studies on affecting factors were also inconsistent.
This research first made theoretical analysis on the essence of science inquiry. We considered science inquiry as a problem-solving activity that uses the same information-processing mechanisms identified in other problem-solving contexts; The cognitive strategies are the core of inquiry; Science inquiry is an active knowledge construction activity; Individual epistemological belief of science, attitudes toward science, and reasoning ability play an important role in this process. Guided by those theories, the current research investigated the characteristics of science inquiry and the affecting factors, with students of grade 5, 6, 7 and 8 as the subjects.
The experiment studies include two parts. In the first part, study 1 was designed to investigate the development of the science inquiry ability in the group of the primary and secondary School student, and how the task difficulty affects science inquiry. We used the self-directed, computer simulated inquiry task, namely pendulum and string task It required the subjects to find the factors that affected the swing frequency of the pendulum and the level of stretch of the string. To evaluate the ability of science inquiry, we analyzed subjects’experiment-design strategies, evidence-evaluation strategies, and results of inference. In the second part, also with the primary and secondary school student as subjects, Study 2 and study 3 were designed to investigate the structure and characteristics of epistemological-belief-of-science questionnaire and the attitudes-toward-science questionnaire respectively. Study 4, using the structural equation method, investigated further how the reasoning ability, the epistemological belief of science, and the attitudes toward science affected the science inquiry. The main findings were as follows:
1. For the primary and secondary school students, there were five types of experiment design strategies : global design strategy, partially organized strategy, local chain strategy, focus on single variable level strategy, and no design strategy; there four types of evidence evaluation strategies: couples comparison strategy, covariation strategy, theory based strategy, and no evaluation strategy.
2. There was no significant sex difference in correct inference, experiment design and evidence evaluation. But there were significant grade difference. The difference came from the comparison between the primary and secondary school students. But there was difference neither between grade 5 and grade 6 students nor between grade 7 and grade 8 students.
3. Task difficulty influenced the process of experiment design and inference. The level of experiment design and the percentage of correct inference in three variables task were significantly lower than those in the two variables task. However, task difficulty did not inflence in the process of evidence evaluation. In addition, the number of correct exclusive inference was much smaller than that of inclusive inference ones. So we can come to the conclusion that it was more difficult for students to make exclusive inference than to make inclusive inference.
4. The epistemological-belief-of-science questionnaire used in this research has high reliability and validity. It included three factors: source of knowledge, certainty of knowledge and development of knowledge. Those three factors could interpret well the psychological structure of epistemological belief of science. There were significant grade differences, but no sex differences in the epistemological belief of science. Overall, the higher the grade, the more positive the epistemological belief is.
5. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis showed that the Attitudes toward Science Scale (ATSS) had high reliability and validity. The Attitudes toward Science Scale included four factors: attitudes toward science value, attitudes toward learning science, attitudes toward participating in science activities and inquiry, attitudes toward scientists and career related to science. There was significant grade difference in ATSS due to the fact that lower–grade students have more positive attitude than the higher-grade students. Sex difference was only found in attitudes toward learning science and attitudes toward scientists and career related to science. The boy’s score was much higher than the girl’s.
6. Epistemological belief of science, attitudes toward science and reasoning ability significantly affected science inquiry. Attitudes toward science partly mediated the relations between epistemological belief and inquiry ability. Epistemological belief of science affected science inquiry steadily inrespective of task difficulty or grade; however, the effect of reasoning ability on science inquiry was larger for the difficult three-variable task than for the easy two-variable task.
The implications of the results to science education and teaching are that the science inquiry strategy is important content in science education, and should be paid great importance. Building positive epistemological belief of science and attitudes are also crucial.
本研究首先对学生科学探究的实质作了深入的理论分析,认为科学探究是一种高级的问题解决活动,具有和问题解决相同的认知机制;其中认知策略是探究的核心;科学探究是一种积极的知识建构活动,建构过程中个体的科学认识论信念、对科学的态度、推理能力等起重要的作用。在这一理论框架的指导下,对小学五、六年级和初中七、八年级学生的科学探究的特点及影响因素作了进一步探讨。
实证研究分两部分,第一部分即研究一,采用计算机模拟的自我指导实验探究任务,任务内容为单摆实验和弹簧实验,要求被试自主探究影响单摆摆动频率和弹簧伸拉长度的因素,并以科学探究的全过程为研究对象,以被试探究中的实验设计策略水平、证据评价策略水平以及正确推论结果作为衡量科学探究的指标,系统探讨了小学高年级和初中学生科学探究的特点。第二部分首先对本研究需要的两个问卷进行了进一步的修编,通过研究二和研究三分别考察了学生科学认识论信念问卷与对科学的态度量表的结构和特点。研究四探讨了科学认识论信念、对科学的态度、推理能力、知识与科学探究的关系,并采用结构方程综合考察了不同任务条件下、小学和初中样本中各因素对科学探究的综合影响。研究发现:
(1)科学探究中学生所使用的实验设计策略主要有完全设计策略、局部连锁策略、局部控制策略、分离变量水平策略和无策略五种;所使用的证据评价策略主要有:两两比较策略、共同发生策略、理论评价策略和无策略四种。
(2)无论是实验设计水平和证据评价水平,还是正确推论数量,均不存在显著的性别差异;但都存在显著的年级差异,表现为:小学高年级学生与初中学生之间,小学、初中与大学生之间差异显著,但五、六年级之间,七、八年级之间差异不显著。
(3)任务难度对学生的实验设计和正确推论有显著影响,学生三变量任务中的实验设计水平、正确推论百分比都显著低于两变量任务;在证据评价水平上,任务难度的差异不显著。另外,正确排除的平均数明显低于正确包含的平均数,说明中小学学生作排除性推论比包含性推论困难。
(4)本研究中编制的《科学认识论信念问卷》的信、效度较高;问卷所包含的三个因子:知识的来源、知识的确定性和知识的发展性能够较好地解释科学认识论信念的结构;学生的科学认识论信念存在显著的年级差异,但不存在显著的性别差异。总的来说,随年级升高,认识论信念也越积极。
(5)对《对科学的态度量表》的分析结果表明,这一工具有效可靠,该量表包括四个因子:对科学价值的态度、对科学学习的态度、对参与科学探究活动的态度和对科学家与科学相关生涯的态度;各年级学生在《对科学的态度量表》各因子得分上,随着年级升高显著下降,年级越低,对科学的态度越积极;在科学学习和科学生涯维度上存在显著的性别差异,男生较女生更积极。
(6)科学认识论信念、对科学的态度、推理能力对科学探究均具有显著的影响,其中对科学的态度在认识论信念对科学探究能力的影响中起部分中介作用;在不同难度的任务以及小学和初中样本中,认识论信念所起的作用是稳定的,在较难的三变量任务中,推理能力对科学探究的影响作用最大。
本研究的结果对科学教育和教学实践有重要的启发意义,对中小学生科学探究的策略方法的培养应当成为科学教育的重要内容;另外培养学生积极的科学认识论信念和对科学的正向的态度也科学教育的重要途径。
The argument for science inquiry as the core of science education has gained great emphasis in the field of science education reform. In the field of education, teaching, and psychology, researchers have paid great attention to student’s science inquiry due to its theoretical and practical significance. In psychology, science inquiry was conducted under the labels“scientific reasoning”and“scientific thinking”. There have been considerable researches investigating the psychological mechanism of science inquiry, especially the strategies of science inquiry and the affecting factors. However, there are still questions needing to be explored further. First, the previous research on science inquiry was mainly focused on the seperate stages of science inquiry. It’s still unclear about the characteristics of the whole process of science inquiry. Second, the evaluation index of science inquiry ability is inconsistent. Third, there are only few studies exploring the development of science inquiry. Finally the studies on affecting factors were also inconsistent.
This research first made theoretical analysis on the essence of science inquiry. We considered science inquiry as a problem-solving activity that uses the same information-processing mechanisms identified in other problem-solving contexts; The cognitive strategies are the core of inquiry; Science inquiry is an active knowledge construction activity; Individual epistemological belief of science, attitudes toward science, and reasoning ability play an important role in this process. Guided by those theories, the current research investigated the characteristics of science inquiry and the affecting factors, with students of grade 5, 6, 7 and 8 as the subjects.
The experiment studies include two parts. In the first part, study 1 was designed to investigate the development of the science inquiry ability in the group of the primary and secondary School student, and how the task difficulty affects science inquiry. We used the self-directed, computer simulated inquiry task, namely pendulum and string task It required the subjects to find the factors that affected the swing frequency of the pendulum and the level of stretch of the string. To evaluate the ability of science inquiry, we analyzed subjects’experiment-design strategies, evidence-evaluation strategies, and results of inference. In the second part, also with the primary and secondary school student as subjects, Study 2 and study 3 were designed to investigate the structure and characteristics of epistemological-belief-of-science questionnaire and the attitudes-toward-science questionnaire respectively. Study 4, using the structural equation method, investigated further how the reasoning ability, the epistemological belief of science, and the attitudes toward science affected the science inquiry. The main findings were as follows:
1. For the primary and secondary school students, there were five types of experiment design strategies : global design strategy, partially organized strategy, local chain strategy, focus on single variable level strategy, and no design strategy; there four types of evidence evaluation strategies: couples comparison strategy, covariation strategy, theory based strategy, and no evaluation strategy.
2. There was no significant sex difference in correct inference, experiment design and evidence evaluation. But there were significant grade difference. The difference came from the comparison between the primary and secondary school students. But there was difference neither between grade 5 and grade 6 students nor between grade 7 and grade 8 students.
3. Task difficulty influenced the process of experiment design and inference. The level of experiment design and the percentage of correct inference in three variables task were significantly lower than those in the two variables task. However, task difficulty did not inflence in the process of evidence evaluation. In addition, the number of correct exclusive inference was much smaller than that of inclusive inference ones. So we can come to the conclusion that it was more difficult for students to make exclusive inference than to make inclusive inference.
4. The epistemological-belief-of-science questionnaire used in this research has high reliability and validity. It included three factors: source of knowledge, certainty of knowledge and development of knowledge. Those three factors could interpret well the psychological structure of epistemological belief of science. There were significant grade differences, but no sex differences in the epistemological belief of science. Overall, the higher the grade, the more positive the epistemological belief is.
5. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis showed that the Attitudes toward Science Scale (ATSS) had high reliability and validity. The Attitudes toward Science Scale included four factors: attitudes toward science value, attitudes toward learning science, attitudes toward participating in science activities and inquiry, attitudes toward scientists and career related to science. There was significant grade difference in ATSS due to the fact that lower–grade students have more positive attitude than the higher-grade students. Sex difference was only found in attitudes toward learning science and attitudes toward scientists and career related to science. The boy’s score was much higher than the girl’s.
6. Epistemological belief of science, attitudes toward science and reasoning ability significantly affected science inquiry. Attitudes toward science partly mediated the relations between epistemological belief and inquiry ability. Epistemological belief of science affected science inquiry steadily inrespective of task difficulty or grade; however, the effect of reasoning ability on science inquiry was larger for the difficult three-variable task than for the easy two-variable task.
The implications of the results to science education and teaching are that the science inquiry strategy is important content in science education, and should be paid great importance. Building positive epistemological belief of science and attitudes are also crucial.
引文
1. Baumgartner E, Reiser B J. Strategies for supporting student inquiry in design tasks. Conference of the American Educational Research Association, 1998
2. Bevevino M M, Dengel J, Adams K. Constructivist theory in the classroom. Clearing House,1999, 72(5): 275-279
3. Burbules N C, Linn M C. Response to contradiction: scientific reasoning during adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1988, 80(1): 67-75
4. Burns. J. C. Okey. J. R. and Wise. K. C. Development of an Integrated Process Skill Test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1985, 22(2), 169-177
5. Carey S, Smith S. On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 1993, 28(3): 235-251
6. Carey S. Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2000, 21(1): 13-19
7. Carpendale J I, Chandler M K. On the distinction between false belief understanding and subscribing to an interpretive theory of mind. Child Development, 1996, 67: 1686-1760
8. Cavallo A M, Rozman M, Potter W H. Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 2004, 104(6): 288-300
9. Chen Z, Klahr D. All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 1990, 70(5): 1098-1120
10. Chen Z, Klahr D. Remote transfer of scientific-reasoning and problem-solving strategies in children. Advances In Child Development And Behavior. 2008, 36: 419-70
11. Chi M T H, Roscoe R D. The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon and L.Mason (Eds.):”Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice”. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2002, 3-27
12. Chinn C A, Brewer W F. Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 2001, 19(3): 323-393
13. Chinn C A, Malhotra B A. Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 2002, 86: 175-218
14. Conley A M, Pintrich P R, Vekiri I, Harrison D. Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2004, 29: 186-204
15. Crowley K, Callanan M A, Tenenbaum H R, Allen E. Parents explain more of ten to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. American Psychological Society, 2001, 12(3): 58-261
16. Crowley K, Siegler R S. Explanation and generalization in young children’s strategy learning. Child Development, 1999, 70(2): 304-316
17. Dawson C, Rowell J A. All other things equal: A study of science graduates solving control of variables problems. Research in science and technology education, 1986, 4: 49-60
18. Echevarria M. Anomalies as a catalyst for middle school students’knowledge construction and scientific reasoning during science inquiry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2003, 95(2): 57-374
19. Edelson D C, Gordin D N, Pea R D. Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1999, 8: 391-450
20. Ediger M. Recent trends in the social studies. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 2004, 31(3): 240-245
21. Eflin J T, Kite M E. Teaching scientific reasoning through attribution theory. Teaching of Psychology, 1996, 23(2): 87-91
22. Feist G J, Gorman M E. The psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of General Psychology, 1998, 2(1): 3-47
23. Fender J G. Collaborative scientific reasoning: How parents support development and facilitate transfer of a scientific-reasoning strategy. University of Pittsburgh, 2004
24. Fender J G, Crowley K. How parent explanation changes what children learn from everyday scientific thinking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2007, 28(3): 189-210
25. Flavell J H, Flavell E R, Green F L, Moses L J. Young children’s understanding of fact beliefs versus value beliefs. Child Development, 1990, 61: 915-928
26. Gelder T V, Bulka A. Reason!: Improving Informal reasoning skills. Australian Computers in Education Conference, 2000
27. Gelman R. Cognitive Development. Stevens Handbook of Experimental Psychology, 2002, 12(2)
28. Germann P J. Development of the attitude toward science in school assessment and its use to investigate the relationship between science achievement and attitude toward science in school. Journal of research in science teaching, 1988, 25(8): 689-703
29. Germann P J. Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh-grade students to the science process skill of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1996, 33(1): 79-99
30. German T P. Children's causal reasoning: Counterfactual thinking occurs for‘negative’outcomes only. Developmental Science, 1999, 2(4): 442-447
31. Gill M G, Ashton P T, Algina J. Changing preservice teachers’epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2004, (29): 164-185
32. Gleason M E, Schauble L. Parents’assistance of their children’s scientific reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 2000, 17(4): 343-378
33. Gopnik A, Sobel D M, Schulz L E, Lymour C. Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology, 2001, 37(5): 620-629
34. Gray J, Camp P, Holbrook J, Kolodner J. Science talk as a way to assess student transfer and learning: Implications for formative assessment. American Educational Research Association, 2004
35. Grayson N. Holmbeck. Testing for Mediation and Moderation. http://www.4researchers.org/articles/370
36. Greenhoot A F, Semb G. Prior beliefs and methodological concepts in scientific reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2004, 18: 203-221
37. Griffithsa A K, Barman C R. High school students’views about the nature of science: Results from three countries. School Science & Mathematics, 1995, 95(5): 248-256
38. Grosslight L, Unger C, Jay E. Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1991, 28(9): 799-822
39. Halonen J S, Bosack T, Clay S, McCarthy M. A rubric for learning, teaching, and assessing scientific inquiry in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 2003, 30(3): 196-208
40. Hand B, Wallace C W, Yang E M. Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 2004, 26(2): 131-149
41. Harp S F, Mayer R E. How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1998, 90(3): 414-434
42. Harrison A M, Schunn C D. The transfer of logically general scientific reasoning skills. Cognitive Science Conference, 2004
43. Havdala R, Ashkenazi G. Coordination of theory and evidence: Effect of epistemological theories on students' laboratory practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2007, 44(8): 1134-1159
44. Hmelo-Silver C E, Nagarajan A, Day R S.“It's Harder than We Thought It Would be”: A Comparative Case Study of Expert-Novice Experimentation Strategies. Science Education, 2002, 86(2): 219-243
45. Hofer B K, Pintrich P R. The development of epistemological theories: Belief s about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 1997, 67: 88-140
46. Hoff K E, Ervin R A, Friman P C. Refining functional behavioral assessment: analyzing the separate and combined effects of hypothesized controlling variables during on going classroom routines. School Psychology Review, 2005, 34(1): 45-57
47. Hoover S M, Feldhusen J F. The scientific hypothesis formulation ability of gifted ninth-grade student. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1990, 82(4): 838-848
48. Howe C. Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1998, 16: 574-575
49. Johnson A, Moher T, Yong-Joo Cho, Edelson D, Russell E. Learning science inquiry skills in a virtual field. Computers & Graphics, 2004, 28: 409-416
50. Johnson-Laird P N. Mental models and deduction. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2001, 5: 434-442
51. Joolingen W R v, Jong T d. An extended dual search space model of scientific discovery learning. Instructional Science, 1997, 25: 307-346
52. Kahle J B, Parker L H, Rennie L J. Gender differences in science education: Building a model. Educational Psychologist, 1993, 28(4): 379-404
53. Kardash C M, Scholes R J. Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1996, 88(2): 260-271
54. Kenny J, Colvill, M. Primary science: Professional learning and curriculum development in Northern Tasmania. Teaching Science - the Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 2008, 54 (1): 35-38
55. Ketelhut D. The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in river city, a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 2007, 16 (1): 99-111
56. Kirschner P, Sweller J, Clark R E. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 2006, 41(2): 75-86
57. Klaczynski P A, Narasimham G. Development of scientific reasoning biases: Cognitive versus ego-protective explanations. Developmental Psychology, 1998, 34: 175-187
58. Klaczynski P A, Robinson B. Personal theories, intellectual ability, and epistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging, 2000, 15(3): 400-416
59. Klaczynski P A. Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 2000, 71: 1347-1366
60. Klahr D, Dunbar K. Dual search space during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 1988, 12: 1-48
61. Klahr D, Fay A, Dunbar K. Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 1993, 25: 111-146
62. Klahr D, Simon H A. Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychology Bulletin, 1999, 125(5): 524-543
63. Klahr D, Nigam M. The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 2004, 15(10): 661-667
64. Klahr D, Li J. Cognitive research and elementary science instruction: From the laboratory, to the classroom, and back. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2005, 14: 217-238
65. Koslowski B, Okagaki L. Non-Humean indices of causation in problem-solving situations: Causal mechanism, analogous effects, and the status of rival alternative accounts. Child Development, 1986, 57: 1100-1108
66. Koslowski B, Okagaki L, Lorenz C, et al. When covariation is not enough: The role of causal mechanism, sampling method, and sample size in causal reasoning. Child Development, 1989, 60: 1316-1327
67. Koslowski B. Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press, 1996
68. Krajcik l, Blumenfeld P C, Marx R W, et al. Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 1998, 7(3/4): 313-348
69. Kuhn D, Amsel E, O’Loughlin M. The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1988
70. Kuhn D. Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 1989, 96: 674-689
71. Kuhn D, Schauble L, Garcia-Mila M. Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 1992, 9: 285-327
72. Kuhn D. Pearsall S. Relations between metastrategic knowledge and strategic performance. Cognitive Development, 1998, 13: 227-247
73. Kuhn D, Black J, Keselman A, Kaplan D. The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 2000, 18: 495-523
74. Kuhn D, Pearsall S. Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2000, 1: 113-129
75. Kuhn D. How do people know? Psychological Science, 2001, 12: 1-8
76. Kuhn D, Dean D Jr. Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory Into Practice, 2004, 43 (4): 268-273
77. Kuhn D, Dean D. Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference. Journal of Cognition & Development, 2004, 5: 261-288
78. Kuhn D, Dean D. Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variable? American Psychological Society, 2005, 16: 866-870
79. Kuhn D. Reasoning about multiple variables: Control of variables is not the only challenge. Science Education, 2007, 91(5): 710 - 726
80. Kwon Y J, Lawson A E. Linking brain growth with the development of scientific reasoning ability and conceptual change during adolescence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2000, 37(1): 44-62
81. Kyzaa E A, Edelson D C. Scaffolding middle school students' coordination of theory and evidence. Educational Research & Evaluation, 2005, 11 (6): 545-560
82. Lawson A E, Clark B, et al. Development of scientific reasoning in college biology: Do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2000, 37: 81-101
83. Lee O, Buxton C, Lewis S. Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2006, 43 (7): 607-636
84. Leighton J P, Gokiert R J, Ying Cui. Investigating the statistical and cognitive dimensions in large-scale science assessment. American Educational Research Association Meeting, 2005
85. Leighton J P, Gokiert R J, Ying C. Using Exploratory and Confirmatory Methods to Identify the Cognitive Dimensions In a Large-Scale Science Assessment. International Journal of Testing, 2007, 7(2): 141-189, 49
86. Lin X D, Lehman J. Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 1999, 36(7): 1-22
87. Lucas A M, Kenneth T. Problems with”Control of Variables”as a Process Skill. Science Education, 1987, (5): 685-690
88. Masnick A M, Klahr D. Error matters: An initial exploration of elementary school children’s understanding of experimental error. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2003, 4: 67-98
89. Mastropieri M A, Scruggs T E, Butcher K. How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 1997, 31(2): 199-211
90. Mastropieri M A, Scruggs T E, Boon R, Carter K B. Correlates of inquiry learning in science: Constructing concepts of density and buoyancy. Remedial & Special Education, 2001, 22(3): 130-138
91. McCabe D P, Castel A D. Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 2008, 107(1) : p343-352
92. McKay E. Cognitive skill acquisition through a meta-knowledge processing model. Interactive Learning Environments, 2002, 10(3): 263-291
93. Mercer N, Dawes L, Wegerif R, et al. Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 2004, 30(3): 359-377
94. Metz K E. Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 2004, 22: 219-290
95. Moreno R, Mayer R E. Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2004, 96(1): 165-173
96. Osborne J, Simon S, Collins S. Attitudes towards Science: A review of literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 2003, 25(9): 1049-1079
97. Pape J. Scientific inquiry in early childhood - A Tasmanian perspective. Teaching Science, 2006, 52 (3): 30-31
98. Pauen S. Children’s reasoning about the interaction of force. Child Development, 1996, 67: 2728-2742
99. Penner D E, Klahr D. The Interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain-general discovery strategies: A study with sinking objects. Child Development, 1996, 67: 2709-2727
100. Pillow B H. Children’s and adults’evaluation of certainty of deductive inferences, inductive inferences, and guesses. Child Development, 2002, 73(3): 779-792
101. Pine J, Aschbacher P, Roth E. Fifth graders' science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2006, 43 (5): 467-484
102. Quinn J, Alessi S. The effects of simulation complexity and hypothesis generation strategy on learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 1994, 27: 75-91
103. Ramey-Gassert L. Learning science beyond the classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 1997, 97(4): 433-450
104. Rowell P M, Ebbers M. Shaping school science: Competing discourses in an inquiry-based elementary program. International Journal of Science Education, 2004, 26(8): 915-934
105. Ruffman T, Perner J, Olson D R, et al. Reflecting on scientific thinking: children’s understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation. Child Development, 1993, 64: 1617-1636
106. Russ R, Scherr R, Hammer D, Mineska J. Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education. 2008, 92(3): 499 - 525
107. Russell B, Anton E L. Relationships between effective inquiry use and the development of scientific reasoning skills in college biology labs. National Science Foundation, 2001
108. Sandoval W A. Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’scientific explanations. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 2003, 12(1): 5-51
109. Schauble L, Glaser R, Raghavan K, et al. Causal models and experimentation strategies in scientific reasoning. The Journal of The Learning Science, 1991, 1(2): 201-238
110. Schauble L, Glaser R, Duschl R A, et al. Students’understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1995, 4: 131-166
111. Schauble L. The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 1996, 32: 102-119
112. Schauble L. Syntax or substance? What is scientific reasoning? Human Development, 1999, 42: 278-282
113. Schauble L. Scientific thinking: More on what develops. Human Development. 2003, 46: 2-3
114. Scheiner, James H, Tiller, et al. A content analysis of research published in the journal of research in science teaching from 1985 through 1989. Issues in Accounting Education, 1993, 10(1): 222-232
115. Schommer M. Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 1990, (82): 498-504
116. Schraw G, Sinatra G M. Epistemological development and its impact on cognition in academic domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2004, 29: 95-102
117. Schulz L E, Bonawitz E B. Serious Fun: Preschoolers Engage in More Exploratory Play When Evidence Is Confounded. Developmental Psychology, 2007, 43(4): 1045-1050
118. Schunn C D, Anderson J R. The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 1999, 23(3): 337-370
119. Schwartz M. The place of dissent in inquiry, learning, and reflection. Midwestern Educational Researcher, 2006, 19(1): 10-14
120. Shaklee H, Paszek D. Covariation judgment: Systematic rule use in middle childhood. Child Development, 1985, 56: 1229-1240
121. Shaughnessy M E. An interview with Deanna Kuhn. Educational Psychology Review, 2004, 16(3): 267-282
122. Siegler R S, Liebert R M. Acquisition of formal scientific reasoning by 10 and 13 year olds: Designing a factorial experiment. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11: 401-402
123. Siegler R S, Crowley K. The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 1991, 46: 606-620
124. Simon H A, Langley P, Bradshaw G L. Scientific discovery as problem solving. Synthese, 1981, 47: 1-27
125. Simpson R D, Oliver J S. Attitudes toward science and achievement motivation profiles of male and female science students in grade six through ten. Science Education, 1985, 69(4): 511-526
126. Simpson R D, Oliver J S. A summary of major influences on attitude toward science and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 1990, 74(1): 1-23
127. Sloman S A. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 1996, 119(1): 3-22
128. Smith C L, Maclin D, Houghton C, et al. Sixth-grade students’epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 2000, 18(3): 349-422
129. Sobel D M, Tenenbaum J B, Gopnik A. Children’s causal inferences from indirect evidence: Backwards locking and Bayesian reasoning in preschoolers. Cognitive Science, 2004, 28: 303-333
130. Sodian B, Zaitchik D, Carey S. Young children’s differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 1991, 62: 753-766
131. Sophian C, Huber A. Early developments in children’s causal judgments. Child Development, 1984, 55: 512-526
132. Southerland S A, Sinatra G M, Matthews M R. Belief, Knowledge and science education. Educational Psychology Review, 2001, 13(4): 325-350
133. Spelke E S. Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? American Psychologist, 2005, 60 (9): 950-958
134. Stanovich K E, West R F. Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1997, 89(2): 342-357
135. Stoddart T, Abrams R, Gasper E, et al. Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning-a report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 2000, 22( 12): 1221-1246
136. Stokking K, Schaaf M, Jaspers J, Erkens G. Teachers’assessment of students’research skills. British Educational Research Journal, 2004, 30(1): 92-116
137. Strand S. Consistency in reasoning test scores over time. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2004, 74: 617-631
138. Sullivan F R. Robotics and Science Literacy: Thinking Skills, Science Process Skills and Systems Understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2008, 45(3): 373-394
139. Sun R, Slusarz P. The interaction of the explicit and the implicit in skill learning: A dual-process approach. Psychological Review, 2005, 112(1): 159-192
140. Taylor V S, Erwin K W, Ghose M, et al. Models to increase enrollment of minority females in science-based careers. Journal of the National Medical Association, 2001, 93(2): 74-77
141. Temiz B K, Ta?ar M F, Tan M, Development and validation of a multiple format test of science process skills. International Education Journal, 2006, 7(7), 1007-1027
142. Toth E E, Klahr D, Chen Z. Bridging research and practice: A cognitively based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 2000, 18: 423-459
143. Toth E E, Klahr D, Chen Zhe. Bridging research and practice: A cognitively based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition & Instruction, 2004, 8(4): 423-437
144. Trickett S B, Trafton J G."What if..." The Use of Conceptual Simulations in Scientific Reasoning. Cognitive Science, 2007, 31(5): 843-875
145. Triona L M, Klahr D. Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students’ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 2003, 21(2): 149-173
146. Tsai, Chin-Chung. Teachers' Scientific Epistemological Views: The Coherence with Instruction and Students' Views. Science Education, 2007, 91(2): 222-243
147. Tschirgi J E. Sensible Reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 1980, 51: 1-10
148. Tytle R, Peterson S. From "Try It and See" to Strategic Exploration: Characterizing Young Children's Scientific Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2004, 41(1): 94-118
149. Tytler R, Peterson S. A Longitudinal Study of Children's Developing Knowledge and Reasoning in Science. Research in Science Education, 2005, 35(1): 63-98
150. Van Zee E H. Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 2000, 22(2): 115-142
151. Vosniadou S, Brewer W F Mental. Models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 1992, 24: 535-585
152. Walach H. Folk psychology and the psychologyical background of scientific reasoning. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 2007, 14(3): 209-212
153. Ward S L, Byrnes J P, Overton W F. Organization of knowledge and conditional reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1990, 82(4): 832-837
154. White B Y, Frederiksen J R. Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 1998, 16: 3-118
155. Williams S M, Hmelo C E. Guest editors’introduction. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 1998, 7(3/4): 265-270
156. Windschitl M. Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2000, 48(2): 81-96
157. Windschitl M, Dvornich K, Ryken A E, Tudor M, Koehler G. A comparative model of field investigations: aligning school science inquiry with the practices of contemporary science. School Science & Mathematics, 2007, 107 (1): 382-390
158. Winters F I, Azevedo R. High-school students’regulation of learning during computer-based science inquiry. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2005, 33 (2): 189-217
159. Wood E, Groves A, Bruce S, et al. Can gender stereotypes facilitate memory when elaborative strategies are used? Educational Psychology, 2003, 23(2): 169-180
160. Woods B S. Happenings, truth, and the“Particular Go”of philosophy’s potential contribution to educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 2003, 38(3): 157-164
161. Wylie l, McGuinness C. The interactive effects of prior knowledge and text structure on memory for cognitive psychology texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2004, 74: 497-514
162. Yates G C R. Roadblocks to Scientific Thinking in Educational Decision Making Preview. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 2008, 32( 1): 125-137
163. Zimmerman C. The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 2000, 20: 99-149
164. Zimmerman C, Glaser R. A follow-up investigation of the role of cover story on the assessment of experimental design skills. CSE Technical Report, 2003, No. 594
165. Zimmerman C, Raghavan K, Sartoris M L. The impact of the MARS curriculum on students’ability to coordinate theory and evidence. International Journal of Science Education, 2003, 25: 1247-1271
166. Zimmerman C. The development of scientific reasoning: What psychologists contribute to an understanding of elementary science learning. Paper commissioned by the National Academies of Science (National Research Council’s Board of Science Education, Consensus Study on Learning Science, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade), 2005. http: // www 7. national academies. org/ bose/ Corinne_Zimmerman_Final_Paper.pdf
167. Zimmerman C. The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 2007, 27(2): 172-223
168.陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究.北京:教育科学出版社,2000
169.陈英豪,叶懋.国小学生科学态度量表及其相关因素之研究.台南师院学报,1991,24:1-26
170.丁邦平,罗星凯.美国基础科学教育改革及其主要特点.首都师范大学学报,2005,165(4):98-103
171.丁邦平.论基础科学课程与教学中“科学探究”的价值取向.教育科学,2006,22(2):16-19
172.杜秀芳,张承芬.科学探究的认知机制研究述评.心理科学,2007,30(2):391-393
173.杜秀芳,张承芬.科学探究学习——心理学的研究视角.教育导刊,2007,6:11-14
174.杜秀芳.评价学生科学探究能力的两种不同视角.教育科学研究,2009,4:
175.郭玉英.学生的科学探究能力:国外的研究及启示.课程.教材.教法,2005,25(7):93-96
176.郝京华.论科学教育中的科学方法教育问题.教育研究与实验,2000,6:16-20
177.戢守志译.美国国家研究理事会——美国国家科学教育标准.科学技术文献出版社,1999
178.靳玉乐.探究教学论.西南师范大学出版社,2001
179.库恩著.科学革命的结构.上海科学技术出版社,1980年版
180.李超平,田宝,时勘.变革型领导与员工工作态度:心理授权的中介作用.心理学报,2006,38(2):297-307
181.李祥兆.数学归纳推理的认知过程研究.数学教育学报,2005,14(2):68-70.
182.李亦菲,朱新明.一种通用的口语报告编码方案.心理学动态,1998,6(4):47-51
183.梁宁建,杨志勇,张增修.问题解决策略的元认知研究.心理科学,2001,24 (3):280-282
184.廖伯琴、黄希庭.智商对物理问题解决表征体系动态特征的影响.心理科学,2000,23(5):522-524
185.廖伯琴.中学生物理问题解决的表征差异及其成因探析.成都:四川教育出版社,2001
186.林世娟,何小曼.国小学童“科学态度”及“对科学的态度之研究”——以植物的生长教学活动为例.国立台北师范学院学报,1991,15:157-196
187.刘儒德,倪男奇.论学生的科学本质观.比较教育研究,2002,8:7-11
188.刘儒德,陈红艳.小学生数学学习观调查研究.心理科学,2002a(25):194-197
189.刘儒德,邓利.小学生语文学习观调查研究.心理发展与教育,2002b(18):54-58
190.刘儒德,宗敏,刘治刚.论学生学习观的结构.北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2006,1:15-20
191.龙麟如.国小学生对科学的态度与相关变项关系之研究.国立台湾师范大学硕士论文,1997
192.罗国忠.第三次国际数学和科学研究的科学探究能力评价体系及其启示.物理教学探讨,2007,22(6):1-2
193.罗国忠.多因素问题的科学探究.内江师范学院学报,2007,22(2):91-93
194.罗国忠.学生对科学探究的理性认识和操作性能力的实证研究.绵阳师范学院学报,2007,26(2):65-69
195.美国国家教育研究理事会.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——学与教的指南.美国国家科学院出版社,2001
196.乔际平.物理学习心理学.高等教育出版社,1991
197.任长松.新课程学习方式的变革.人民教育出版社,2003
198.任长松.探究式学习——学生知识的自主建构.教育科学出版社,2005
199.孙燕青,张建伟.初二学生的科学观及其与科学发现学习的关系.心理发展与教育,2003,2:47-52
200.佟秀丽,莫雷,Chen Zhe.国外儿童科学思维发展的新探索.心理科学,2005,28(4):933-936
201.佟秀丽,莫雷,Zhe Chen.国外儿童认知发展与学习的最新研究述评.心理科学,2006,29(3):735 - 739
202.唐剑岚,周莹,黄国稳.初中生数学认识信念量表的数学模型.广西师范大学学报:自然科学版,2007(3):60-63
203.王瑞明,莫雷.用微观发生法促进儿童的认知发展.心理学探新,2003,23(3):41-45
204.王婷婷.关于我国高中生认识论信念的初步研究.华东师范大学硕士论文,2004
205.温忠麟,侯杰泰,马什赫伯特.结构方程模型检验:拟合指数与卡方准则.心理学报,2004,36(2):186-194
206.向远辉.中小学生控制变量能力发展的案例研究.广西师范大学硕士研究生学位论文,2005
207.熊召弟等译,Glynn & Yean著.科学学习心理学.(台)心理出版社,1996
208.徐学福.模拟视角下的探究教学研究.西南师范大学博士学位论文,2003
209.杨龙立.中小学生在科学成就及对科学的态度中性别差异的探讨.国立台湾师范大学教育研究所博士论文,1991
210.喻平,唐剑岚.个体认识论的研究现状与展望.心理科学进展,2007,15(3):443-450
211.袁薇薇,吴庆麟.科学思维的心理学探索.心理科学,2008,31(4):956-959
212.张红川,王耘.论定量与定性研究的结合问题及其对我国心理学研究的启示.北京师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2001,4:99-105
213.张承芬.教育心理学.山东教育出版社,2006
214.张建伟.基于计算机模拟的科学发现学习——内在条件与学习支持研究.北京师范大学博士学位论文,2000
215.张建伟,陈琦.科学发现学习的新近研究.心理学动态,2001,9(4):289-294
216.张建伟,陈琦.学习支持对基于计算机模拟的发现学习的影响.心理学报,2002,34(5):487-493
217. Zhe Chen,叶嘉雯,莫雷,温红博,王瑞明.发现学习及其促进.心理发展与教育,2008,1:119-122
218.中华人民共和国教育部.全日制义务教育科学(3-6年级),(7-9年级)课程标准(实验).北京师范大学出版社,2001
219.钟启泉编译.现代教学论发展.教育科学出版社,1992
220.庄嘉坤.国小学生科学态度潜在类别的分析研究.屏东师院学报,1995,8:112-135
221.庄嘉坤.国小学生对科学的态度之探讨.1995年度师范学院教育学术论文发表会论文集,1996,1-29
222.肖春梅,喻平,颜丽增.高中生数学认识信念的现状及对学习的影响.数学教育学报2007,l6(3):40-43
2. Bevevino M M, Dengel J, Adams K. Constructivist theory in the classroom. Clearing House,1999, 72(5): 275-279
3. Burbules N C, Linn M C. Response to contradiction: scientific reasoning during adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1988, 80(1): 67-75
4. Burns. J. C. Okey. J. R. and Wise. K. C. Development of an Integrated Process Skill Test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1985, 22(2), 169-177
5. Carey S, Smith S. On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 1993, 28(3): 235-251
6. Carey S. Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2000, 21(1): 13-19
7. Carpendale J I, Chandler M K. On the distinction between false belief understanding and subscribing to an interpretive theory of mind. Child Development, 1996, 67: 1686-1760
8. Cavallo A M, Rozman M, Potter W H. Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 2004, 104(6): 288-300
9. Chen Z, Klahr D. All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 1990, 70(5): 1098-1120
10. Chen Z, Klahr D. Remote transfer of scientific-reasoning and problem-solving strategies in children. Advances In Child Development And Behavior. 2008, 36: 419-70
11. Chi M T H, Roscoe R D. The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon and L.Mason (Eds.):”Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice”. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2002, 3-27
12. Chinn C A, Brewer W F. Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 2001, 19(3): 323-393
13. Chinn C A, Malhotra B A. Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 2002, 86: 175-218
14. Conley A M, Pintrich P R, Vekiri I, Harrison D. Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2004, 29: 186-204
15. Crowley K, Callanan M A, Tenenbaum H R, Allen E. Parents explain more of ten to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. American Psychological Society, 2001, 12(3): 58-261
16. Crowley K, Siegler R S. Explanation and generalization in young children’s strategy learning. Child Development, 1999, 70(2): 304-316
17. Dawson C, Rowell J A. All other things equal: A study of science graduates solving control of variables problems. Research in science and technology education, 1986, 4: 49-60
18. Echevarria M. Anomalies as a catalyst for middle school students’knowledge construction and scientific reasoning during science inquiry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2003, 95(2): 57-374
19. Edelson D C, Gordin D N, Pea R D. Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1999, 8: 391-450
20. Ediger M. Recent trends in the social studies. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 2004, 31(3): 240-245
21. Eflin J T, Kite M E. Teaching scientific reasoning through attribution theory. Teaching of Psychology, 1996, 23(2): 87-91
22. Feist G J, Gorman M E. The psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of General Psychology, 1998, 2(1): 3-47
23. Fender J G. Collaborative scientific reasoning: How parents support development and facilitate transfer of a scientific-reasoning strategy. University of Pittsburgh, 2004
24. Fender J G, Crowley K. How parent explanation changes what children learn from everyday scientific thinking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2007, 28(3): 189-210
25. Flavell J H, Flavell E R, Green F L, Moses L J. Young children’s understanding of fact beliefs versus value beliefs. Child Development, 1990, 61: 915-928
26. Gelder T V, Bulka A. Reason!: Improving Informal reasoning skills. Australian Computers in Education Conference, 2000
27. Gelman R. Cognitive Development. Stevens Handbook of Experimental Psychology, 2002, 12(2)
28. Germann P J. Development of the attitude toward science in school assessment and its use to investigate the relationship between science achievement and attitude toward science in school. Journal of research in science teaching, 1988, 25(8): 689-703
29. Germann P J. Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh-grade students to the science process skill of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1996, 33(1): 79-99
30. German T P. Children's causal reasoning: Counterfactual thinking occurs for‘negative’outcomes only. Developmental Science, 1999, 2(4): 442-447
31. Gill M G, Ashton P T, Algina J. Changing preservice teachers’epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2004, (29): 164-185
32. Gleason M E, Schauble L. Parents’assistance of their children’s scientific reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 2000, 17(4): 343-378
33. Gopnik A, Sobel D M, Schulz L E, Lymour C. Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology, 2001, 37(5): 620-629
34. Gray J, Camp P, Holbrook J, Kolodner J. Science talk as a way to assess student transfer and learning: Implications for formative assessment. American Educational Research Association, 2004
35. Grayson N. Holmbeck. Testing for Mediation and Moderation. http://www.4researchers.org/articles/370
36. Greenhoot A F, Semb G. Prior beliefs and methodological concepts in scientific reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2004, 18: 203-221
37. Griffithsa A K, Barman C R. High school students’views about the nature of science: Results from three countries. School Science & Mathematics, 1995, 95(5): 248-256
38. Grosslight L, Unger C, Jay E. Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1991, 28(9): 799-822
39. Halonen J S, Bosack T, Clay S, McCarthy M. A rubric for learning, teaching, and assessing scientific inquiry in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 2003, 30(3): 196-208
40. Hand B, Wallace C W, Yang E M. Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 2004, 26(2): 131-149
41. Harp S F, Mayer R E. How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1998, 90(3): 414-434
42. Harrison A M, Schunn C D. The transfer of logically general scientific reasoning skills. Cognitive Science Conference, 2004
43. Havdala R, Ashkenazi G. Coordination of theory and evidence: Effect of epistemological theories on students' laboratory practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2007, 44(8): 1134-1159
44. Hmelo-Silver C E, Nagarajan A, Day R S.“It's Harder than We Thought It Would be”: A Comparative Case Study of Expert-Novice Experimentation Strategies. Science Education, 2002, 86(2): 219-243
45. Hofer B K, Pintrich P R. The development of epistemological theories: Belief s about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 1997, 67: 88-140
46. Hoff K E, Ervin R A, Friman P C. Refining functional behavioral assessment: analyzing the separate and combined effects of hypothesized controlling variables during on going classroom routines. School Psychology Review, 2005, 34(1): 45-57
47. Hoover S M, Feldhusen J F. The scientific hypothesis formulation ability of gifted ninth-grade student. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1990, 82(4): 838-848
48. Howe C. Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1998, 16: 574-575
49. Johnson A, Moher T, Yong-Joo Cho, Edelson D, Russell E. Learning science inquiry skills in a virtual field. Computers & Graphics, 2004, 28: 409-416
50. Johnson-Laird P N. Mental models and deduction. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2001, 5: 434-442
51. Joolingen W R v, Jong T d. An extended dual search space model of scientific discovery learning. Instructional Science, 1997, 25: 307-346
52. Kahle J B, Parker L H, Rennie L J. Gender differences in science education: Building a model. Educational Psychologist, 1993, 28(4): 379-404
53. Kardash C M, Scholes R J. Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1996, 88(2): 260-271
54. Kenny J, Colvill, M. Primary science: Professional learning and curriculum development in Northern Tasmania. Teaching Science - the Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 2008, 54 (1): 35-38
55. Ketelhut D. The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in river city, a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 2007, 16 (1): 99-111
56. Kirschner P, Sweller J, Clark R E. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 2006, 41(2): 75-86
57. Klaczynski P A, Narasimham G. Development of scientific reasoning biases: Cognitive versus ego-protective explanations. Developmental Psychology, 1998, 34: 175-187
58. Klaczynski P A, Robinson B. Personal theories, intellectual ability, and epistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging, 2000, 15(3): 400-416
59. Klaczynski P A. Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 2000, 71: 1347-1366
60. Klahr D, Dunbar K. Dual search space during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 1988, 12: 1-48
61. Klahr D, Fay A, Dunbar K. Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 1993, 25: 111-146
62. Klahr D, Simon H A. Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychology Bulletin, 1999, 125(5): 524-543
63. Klahr D, Nigam M. The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 2004, 15(10): 661-667
64. Klahr D, Li J. Cognitive research and elementary science instruction: From the laboratory, to the classroom, and back. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2005, 14: 217-238
65. Koslowski B, Okagaki L. Non-Humean indices of causation in problem-solving situations: Causal mechanism, analogous effects, and the status of rival alternative accounts. Child Development, 1986, 57: 1100-1108
66. Koslowski B, Okagaki L, Lorenz C, et al. When covariation is not enough: The role of causal mechanism, sampling method, and sample size in causal reasoning. Child Development, 1989, 60: 1316-1327
67. Koslowski B. Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press, 1996
68. Krajcik l, Blumenfeld P C, Marx R W, et al. Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 1998, 7(3/4): 313-348
69. Kuhn D, Amsel E, O’Loughlin M. The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1988
70. Kuhn D. Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 1989, 96: 674-689
71. Kuhn D, Schauble L, Garcia-Mila M. Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 1992, 9: 285-327
72. Kuhn D. Pearsall S. Relations between metastrategic knowledge and strategic performance. Cognitive Development, 1998, 13: 227-247
73. Kuhn D, Black J, Keselman A, Kaplan D. The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 2000, 18: 495-523
74. Kuhn D, Pearsall S. Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2000, 1: 113-129
75. Kuhn D. How do people know? Psychological Science, 2001, 12: 1-8
76. Kuhn D, Dean D Jr. Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory Into Practice, 2004, 43 (4): 268-273
77. Kuhn D, Dean D. Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference. Journal of Cognition & Development, 2004, 5: 261-288
78. Kuhn D, Dean D. Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variable? American Psychological Society, 2005, 16: 866-870
79. Kuhn D. Reasoning about multiple variables: Control of variables is not the only challenge. Science Education, 2007, 91(5): 710 - 726
80. Kwon Y J, Lawson A E. Linking brain growth with the development of scientific reasoning ability and conceptual change during adolescence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2000, 37(1): 44-62
81. Kyzaa E A, Edelson D C. Scaffolding middle school students' coordination of theory and evidence. Educational Research & Evaluation, 2005, 11 (6): 545-560
82. Lawson A E, Clark B, et al. Development of scientific reasoning in college biology: Do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2000, 37: 81-101
83. Lee O, Buxton C, Lewis S. Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2006, 43 (7): 607-636
84. Leighton J P, Gokiert R J, Ying Cui. Investigating the statistical and cognitive dimensions in large-scale science assessment. American Educational Research Association Meeting, 2005
85. Leighton J P, Gokiert R J, Ying C. Using Exploratory and Confirmatory Methods to Identify the Cognitive Dimensions In a Large-Scale Science Assessment. International Journal of Testing, 2007, 7(2): 141-189, 49
86. Lin X D, Lehman J. Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 1999, 36(7): 1-22
87. Lucas A M, Kenneth T. Problems with”Control of Variables”as a Process Skill. Science Education, 1987, (5): 685-690
88. Masnick A M, Klahr D. Error matters: An initial exploration of elementary school children’s understanding of experimental error. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2003, 4: 67-98
89. Mastropieri M A, Scruggs T E, Butcher K. How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 1997, 31(2): 199-211
90. Mastropieri M A, Scruggs T E, Boon R, Carter K B. Correlates of inquiry learning in science: Constructing concepts of density and buoyancy. Remedial & Special Education, 2001, 22(3): 130-138
91. McCabe D P, Castel A D. Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 2008, 107(1) : p343-352
92. McKay E. Cognitive skill acquisition through a meta-knowledge processing model. Interactive Learning Environments, 2002, 10(3): 263-291
93. Mercer N, Dawes L, Wegerif R, et al. Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 2004, 30(3): 359-377
94. Metz K E. Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 2004, 22: 219-290
95. Moreno R, Mayer R E. Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2004, 96(1): 165-173
96. Osborne J, Simon S, Collins S. Attitudes towards Science: A review of literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 2003, 25(9): 1049-1079
97. Pape J. Scientific inquiry in early childhood - A Tasmanian perspective. Teaching Science, 2006, 52 (3): 30-31
98. Pauen S. Children’s reasoning about the interaction of force. Child Development, 1996, 67: 2728-2742
99. Penner D E, Klahr D. The Interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain-general discovery strategies: A study with sinking objects. Child Development, 1996, 67: 2709-2727
100. Pillow B H. Children’s and adults’evaluation of certainty of deductive inferences, inductive inferences, and guesses. Child Development, 2002, 73(3): 779-792
101. Pine J, Aschbacher P, Roth E. Fifth graders' science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2006, 43 (5): 467-484
102. Quinn J, Alessi S. The effects of simulation complexity and hypothesis generation strategy on learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 1994, 27: 75-91
103. Ramey-Gassert L. Learning science beyond the classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 1997, 97(4): 433-450
104. Rowell P M, Ebbers M. Shaping school science: Competing discourses in an inquiry-based elementary program. International Journal of Science Education, 2004, 26(8): 915-934
105. Ruffman T, Perner J, Olson D R, et al. Reflecting on scientific thinking: children’s understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation. Child Development, 1993, 64: 1617-1636
106. Russ R, Scherr R, Hammer D, Mineska J. Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education. 2008, 92(3): 499 - 525
107. Russell B, Anton E L. Relationships between effective inquiry use and the development of scientific reasoning skills in college biology labs. National Science Foundation, 2001
108. Sandoval W A. Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’scientific explanations. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 2003, 12(1): 5-51
109. Schauble L, Glaser R, Raghavan K, et al. Causal models and experimentation strategies in scientific reasoning. The Journal of The Learning Science, 1991, 1(2): 201-238
110. Schauble L, Glaser R, Duschl R A, et al. Students’understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1995, 4: 131-166
111. Schauble L. The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 1996, 32: 102-119
112. Schauble L. Syntax or substance? What is scientific reasoning? Human Development, 1999, 42: 278-282
113. Schauble L. Scientific thinking: More on what develops. Human Development. 2003, 46: 2-3
114. Scheiner, James H, Tiller, et al. A content analysis of research published in the journal of research in science teaching from 1985 through 1989. Issues in Accounting Education, 1993, 10(1): 222-232
115. Schommer M. Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 1990, (82): 498-504
116. Schraw G, Sinatra G M. Epistemological development and its impact on cognition in academic domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2004, 29: 95-102
117. Schulz L E, Bonawitz E B. Serious Fun: Preschoolers Engage in More Exploratory Play When Evidence Is Confounded. Developmental Psychology, 2007, 43(4): 1045-1050
118. Schunn C D, Anderson J R. The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 1999, 23(3): 337-370
119. Schwartz M. The place of dissent in inquiry, learning, and reflection. Midwestern Educational Researcher, 2006, 19(1): 10-14
120. Shaklee H, Paszek D. Covariation judgment: Systematic rule use in middle childhood. Child Development, 1985, 56: 1229-1240
121. Shaughnessy M E. An interview with Deanna Kuhn. Educational Psychology Review, 2004, 16(3): 267-282
122. Siegler R S, Liebert R M. Acquisition of formal scientific reasoning by 10 and 13 year olds: Designing a factorial experiment. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11: 401-402
123. Siegler R S, Crowley K. The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 1991, 46: 606-620
124. Simon H A, Langley P, Bradshaw G L. Scientific discovery as problem solving. Synthese, 1981, 47: 1-27
125. Simpson R D, Oliver J S. Attitudes toward science and achievement motivation profiles of male and female science students in grade six through ten. Science Education, 1985, 69(4): 511-526
126. Simpson R D, Oliver J S. A summary of major influences on attitude toward science and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 1990, 74(1): 1-23
127. Sloman S A. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 1996, 119(1): 3-22
128. Smith C L, Maclin D, Houghton C, et al. Sixth-grade students’epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 2000, 18(3): 349-422
129. Sobel D M, Tenenbaum J B, Gopnik A. Children’s causal inferences from indirect evidence: Backwards locking and Bayesian reasoning in preschoolers. Cognitive Science, 2004, 28: 303-333
130. Sodian B, Zaitchik D, Carey S. Young children’s differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 1991, 62: 753-766
131. Sophian C, Huber A. Early developments in children’s causal judgments. Child Development, 1984, 55: 512-526
132. Southerland S A, Sinatra G M, Matthews M R. Belief, Knowledge and science education. Educational Psychology Review, 2001, 13(4): 325-350
133. Spelke E S. Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? American Psychologist, 2005, 60 (9): 950-958
134. Stanovich K E, West R F. Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1997, 89(2): 342-357
135. Stoddart T, Abrams R, Gasper E, et al. Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning-a report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 2000, 22( 12): 1221-1246
136. Stokking K, Schaaf M, Jaspers J, Erkens G. Teachers’assessment of students’research skills. British Educational Research Journal, 2004, 30(1): 92-116
137. Strand S. Consistency in reasoning test scores over time. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2004, 74: 617-631
138. Sullivan F R. Robotics and Science Literacy: Thinking Skills, Science Process Skills and Systems Understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2008, 45(3): 373-394
139. Sun R, Slusarz P. The interaction of the explicit and the implicit in skill learning: A dual-process approach. Psychological Review, 2005, 112(1): 159-192
140. Taylor V S, Erwin K W, Ghose M, et al. Models to increase enrollment of minority females in science-based careers. Journal of the National Medical Association, 2001, 93(2): 74-77
141. Temiz B K, Ta?ar M F, Tan M, Development and validation of a multiple format test of science process skills. International Education Journal, 2006, 7(7), 1007-1027
142. Toth E E, Klahr D, Chen Z. Bridging research and practice: A cognitively based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 2000, 18: 423-459
143. Toth E E, Klahr D, Chen Zhe. Bridging research and practice: A cognitively based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition & Instruction, 2004, 8(4): 423-437
144. Trickett S B, Trafton J G."What if..." The Use of Conceptual Simulations in Scientific Reasoning. Cognitive Science, 2007, 31(5): 843-875
145. Triona L M, Klahr D. Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students’ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 2003, 21(2): 149-173
146. Tsai, Chin-Chung. Teachers' Scientific Epistemological Views: The Coherence with Instruction and Students' Views. Science Education, 2007, 91(2): 222-243
147. Tschirgi J E. Sensible Reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 1980, 51: 1-10
148. Tytle R, Peterson S. From "Try It and See" to Strategic Exploration: Characterizing Young Children's Scientific Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2004, 41(1): 94-118
149. Tytler R, Peterson S. A Longitudinal Study of Children's Developing Knowledge and Reasoning in Science. Research in Science Education, 2005, 35(1): 63-98
150. Van Zee E H. Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 2000, 22(2): 115-142
151. Vosniadou S, Brewer W F Mental. Models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 1992, 24: 535-585
152. Walach H. Folk psychology and the psychologyical background of scientific reasoning. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 2007, 14(3): 209-212
153. Ward S L, Byrnes J P, Overton W F. Organization of knowledge and conditional reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1990, 82(4): 832-837
154. White B Y, Frederiksen J R. Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 1998, 16: 3-118
155. Williams S M, Hmelo C E. Guest editors’introduction. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 1998, 7(3/4): 265-270
156. Windschitl M. Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2000, 48(2): 81-96
157. Windschitl M, Dvornich K, Ryken A E, Tudor M, Koehler G. A comparative model of field investigations: aligning school science inquiry with the practices of contemporary science. School Science & Mathematics, 2007, 107 (1): 382-390
158. Winters F I, Azevedo R. High-school students’regulation of learning during computer-based science inquiry. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2005, 33 (2): 189-217
159. Wood E, Groves A, Bruce S, et al. Can gender stereotypes facilitate memory when elaborative strategies are used? Educational Psychology, 2003, 23(2): 169-180
160. Woods B S. Happenings, truth, and the“Particular Go”of philosophy’s potential contribution to educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 2003, 38(3): 157-164
161. Wylie l, McGuinness C. The interactive effects of prior knowledge and text structure on memory for cognitive psychology texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2004, 74: 497-514
162. Yates G C R. Roadblocks to Scientific Thinking in Educational Decision Making Preview. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 2008, 32( 1): 125-137
163. Zimmerman C. The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 2000, 20: 99-149
164. Zimmerman C, Glaser R. A follow-up investigation of the role of cover story on the assessment of experimental design skills. CSE Technical Report, 2003, No. 594
165. Zimmerman C, Raghavan K, Sartoris M L. The impact of the MARS curriculum on students’ability to coordinate theory and evidence. International Journal of Science Education, 2003, 25: 1247-1271
166. Zimmerman C. The development of scientific reasoning: What psychologists contribute to an understanding of elementary science learning. Paper commissioned by the National Academies of Science (National Research Council’s Board of Science Education, Consensus Study on Learning Science, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade), 2005. http: // www 7. national academies. org/ bose/ Corinne_Zimmerman_Final_Paper.pdf
167. Zimmerman C. The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 2007, 27(2): 172-223
168.陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究.北京:教育科学出版社,2000
169.陈英豪,叶懋.国小学生科学态度量表及其相关因素之研究.台南师院学报,1991,24:1-26
170.丁邦平,罗星凯.美国基础科学教育改革及其主要特点.首都师范大学学报,2005,165(4):98-103
171.丁邦平.论基础科学课程与教学中“科学探究”的价值取向.教育科学,2006,22(2):16-19
172.杜秀芳,张承芬.科学探究的认知机制研究述评.心理科学,2007,30(2):391-393
173.杜秀芳,张承芬.科学探究学习——心理学的研究视角.教育导刊,2007,6:11-14
174.杜秀芳.评价学生科学探究能力的两种不同视角.教育科学研究,2009,4:
175.郭玉英.学生的科学探究能力:国外的研究及启示.课程.教材.教法,2005,25(7):93-96
176.郝京华.论科学教育中的科学方法教育问题.教育研究与实验,2000,6:16-20
177.戢守志译.美国国家研究理事会——美国国家科学教育标准.科学技术文献出版社,1999
178.靳玉乐.探究教学论.西南师范大学出版社,2001
179.库恩著.科学革命的结构.上海科学技术出版社,1980年版
180.李超平,田宝,时勘.变革型领导与员工工作态度:心理授权的中介作用.心理学报,2006,38(2):297-307
181.李祥兆.数学归纳推理的认知过程研究.数学教育学报,2005,14(2):68-70.
182.李亦菲,朱新明.一种通用的口语报告编码方案.心理学动态,1998,6(4):47-51
183.梁宁建,杨志勇,张增修.问题解决策略的元认知研究.心理科学,2001,24 (3):280-282
184.廖伯琴、黄希庭.智商对物理问题解决表征体系动态特征的影响.心理科学,2000,23(5):522-524
185.廖伯琴.中学生物理问题解决的表征差异及其成因探析.成都:四川教育出版社,2001
186.林世娟,何小曼.国小学童“科学态度”及“对科学的态度之研究”——以植物的生长教学活动为例.国立台北师范学院学报,1991,15:157-196
187.刘儒德,倪男奇.论学生的科学本质观.比较教育研究,2002,8:7-11
188.刘儒德,陈红艳.小学生数学学习观调查研究.心理科学,2002a(25):194-197
189.刘儒德,邓利.小学生语文学习观调查研究.心理发展与教育,2002b(18):54-58
190.刘儒德,宗敏,刘治刚.论学生学习观的结构.北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2006,1:15-20
191.龙麟如.国小学生对科学的态度与相关变项关系之研究.国立台湾师范大学硕士论文,1997
192.罗国忠.第三次国际数学和科学研究的科学探究能力评价体系及其启示.物理教学探讨,2007,22(6):1-2
193.罗国忠.多因素问题的科学探究.内江师范学院学报,2007,22(2):91-93
194.罗国忠.学生对科学探究的理性认识和操作性能力的实证研究.绵阳师范学院学报,2007,26(2):65-69
195.美国国家教育研究理事会.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——学与教的指南.美国国家科学院出版社,2001
196.乔际平.物理学习心理学.高等教育出版社,1991
197.任长松.新课程学习方式的变革.人民教育出版社,2003
198.任长松.探究式学习——学生知识的自主建构.教育科学出版社,2005
199.孙燕青,张建伟.初二学生的科学观及其与科学发现学习的关系.心理发展与教育,2003,2:47-52
200.佟秀丽,莫雷,Chen Zhe.国外儿童科学思维发展的新探索.心理科学,2005,28(4):933-936
201.佟秀丽,莫雷,Zhe Chen.国外儿童认知发展与学习的最新研究述评.心理科学,2006,29(3):735 - 739
202.唐剑岚,周莹,黄国稳.初中生数学认识信念量表的数学模型.广西师范大学学报:自然科学版,2007(3):60-63
203.王瑞明,莫雷.用微观发生法促进儿童的认知发展.心理学探新,2003,23(3):41-45
204.王婷婷.关于我国高中生认识论信念的初步研究.华东师范大学硕士论文,2004
205.温忠麟,侯杰泰,马什赫伯特.结构方程模型检验:拟合指数与卡方准则.心理学报,2004,36(2):186-194
206.向远辉.中小学生控制变量能力发展的案例研究.广西师范大学硕士研究生学位论文,2005
207.熊召弟等译,Glynn & Yean著.科学学习心理学.(台)心理出版社,1996
208.徐学福.模拟视角下的探究教学研究.西南师范大学博士学位论文,2003
209.杨龙立.中小学生在科学成就及对科学的态度中性别差异的探讨.国立台湾师范大学教育研究所博士论文,1991
210.喻平,唐剑岚.个体认识论的研究现状与展望.心理科学进展,2007,15(3):443-450
211.袁薇薇,吴庆麟.科学思维的心理学探索.心理科学,2008,31(4):956-959
212.张红川,王耘.论定量与定性研究的结合问题及其对我国心理学研究的启示.北京师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2001,4:99-105
213.张承芬.教育心理学.山东教育出版社,2006
214.张建伟.基于计算机模拟的科学发现学习——内在条件与学习支持研究.北京师范大学博士学位论文,2000
215.张建伟,陈琦.科学发现学习的新近研究.心理学动态,2001,9(4):289-294
216.张建伟,陈琦.学习支持对基于计算机模拟的发现学习的影响.心理学报,2002,34(5):487-493
217. Zhe Chen,叶嘉雯,莫雷,温红博,王瑞明.发现学习及其促进.心理发展与教育,2008,1:119-122
218.中华人民共和国教育部.全日制义务教育科学(3-6年级),(7-9年级)课程标准(实验).北京师范大学出版社,2001
219.钟启泉编译.现代教学论发展.教育科学出版社,1992
220.庄嘉坤.国小学生科学态度潜在类别的分析研究.屏东师院学报,1995,8:112-135
221.庄嘉坤.国小学生对科学的态度之探讨.1995年度师范学院教育学术论文发表会论文集,1996,1-29
222.肖春梅,喻平,颜丽增.高中生数学认识信念的现状及对学习的影响.数学教育学报2007,l6(3):40-43