建構主義在科學教育上的應用
The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education
| 節 | 週四 |
|---|---|
3 10:10–11:00 | 建構主義在科學教育上的應用 HA217 2 節連堂 |
4 11:10–12:00 |
* 根據陽明交大上課時間表所列
1. Exploring constructivist theories of knowledge and learning, and how these theories can apply to science education practice 2. Engage in fruitful discussions and reflection about science teaching and learning based on constructivist ideas 3. Learning to construct a review of literature in a self-selected topic relating to classroom instruction
1. Attendance and participation (20%) 2. Mid-term reflection report (20%) 3. Constructivist teaching activities design and practice (teaching demonstration + lesson plan) (20%) 4. End-term reflection report (20%) 5. In/after-class worksheets/assignment (20%)
| 週次 | 主題 |
|---|---|
| 第 1 週 | Introduction |
| 第 2 週 | Constructivist approaches to learning in science (Cakir, 2008) |
| 第 3 週 | Holiday |
| 第 4 週 | The call for constructivism (Brooks & Brooks, 1999: Ch 1-3) |
| 第 5 週 | Guiding principles ofconstructivism (Brooks & Brooks, 1999: Ch 4-5) |
| 第 6 週 | Guiding principles of constructivism (Brooks & Brooks, 1999: Ch 6-7) |
| 第 7 週 | Guiding principles of constructivism (Brooks & Brooks, 1999: Ch 8-9) |
| 第 8 週 | Mid-term exam |
| 第 9 週 | Inquiry-based teaching (Lin, Hong, & Cheng, 2009; Lin, Hong, & Chen, 2013 ) (1) |
| 第 10 週 | Inquiry-based teaching (Lin, Hong, & Cheng, 2009; Lin, Hong, & Chen, 2013 ) (2) |
| 第 11 週 | Problem-based learning (Schmidt, Rotgans, & Yew, 2011) |
| 第 12 週 | Argumentation (Lin, Hong, & Frances, 2012) |
| 第 13 週 | Concept map assessment (Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 2000: Ch 2) |
| 第 14 週 | Demonstration of constructivist teaching (1) |
| 第 15 週 | Demonstration of constructivist teaching (2) |
| 第 16 週 | Demonstration of constructivist teaching (3) End-term exam |
| 第 17 週 | Flexible teaching week |
| 第 18 週 | Flexible teaching week |
1. Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist Approaches to Learning in Science and Their Implications for Science Pedagogy: A Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(4), 193-206. 2. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M.G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 3. Lin, H. Hong, Z. R. & Cheng, Y. Y. (2009). The interplay of the classroom learning environment and inquiry-based activities. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1013-1024. 4. Lin, H., Hong, Z. R., & Chen, Y. (2013). Exploring the development of college students' situational interest in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2152-2173. 5. Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I., & Yew, E. HJ. (2011). The process of problem‐based learning what works and why. Medical Education, 45, 792–806. 6. Lin, H., Hong, Z. R., & Frances, L. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computer & Science, 59, 378-384. 7. Glynn, S. M., Duit, R. & Thiele, R. B., (1995). Teaching science with analogies: A strategy for construction knowledge. In S. M. Glynn, & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning Science in the Schools: Research Reforming Practice (pp. 247-274). Routledge. 8. Wong, E. D. (1993). Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 367-380. 9. Edmondson, K. M. (2000). Assessing science understanding through concept map. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H., Wandersee, & J. D., Novak (Eds), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 15-40). Academic Press.
- 地點
- HA202A
- 時間
- Make an appointment with the teacher
- 聯絡方式
- Extension: 58052; E-mail: yachunchen@nctu.edu.tw