[首頁] [第一章課程：知識的兩極─本體與認識] [第二章知識與知覺─理性與感性] [第三章感性與理性] [第四章認知趨使教學策略] [第五章概念趨使教學策略] [第六章技能趨使教學策略] [第七章後設認知策略] [第八章教學設計] [第九章資訊融入教學] [第十章教材設計] [第十一章微觀教學]
>>翻閱章次

第一章課程：知識的兩極─本體與認識

附錄：

[補充社會學基礎]
[國外優良數位學習內容競賽與認證介紹]
[國外教案]
[認識論會計教育研究案例]
[一貫課程]
[國內教案]

第一章課程：知識的兩極─本體與認識

林美純

國立彰化師範大學商業教育學系商教育學系

931商科教材教法講義

壹、前言

本講次引領各位從一篇文章及一個網站譯名，來思考本體、認識、物件、對象等，屬於知識論現象學的議題。

論文題目：

西文中第三人稱單數「是」(is)的存在論意義

來源：http://www.siwen.org/xingershangxue/is.htm

摘要：針對近期一些文章認爲只能將西方的Being（是）譯成中文的“是”字, 本文明確提出了反對意見，認爲這將完全遮蔽西方中being所具有的本體意義。隨後，在考查了西方哲學史中有關Being研究的存在論發展史之後，認爲自亞裏士多德之後，西方的Being字就同第三人稱單數是is（是）相分離，什麽成爲了本體。這樣以來，直到康得爲止，西方的存在論主要是思辨存在論。在康得之後，康得確定了本體不是認識論的物件，而是屬於實踐哲學的領域。儘管康得已經意識到了存在論中第三人稱單數“是”的意義，並提出了存在並不是謂詞的理論，但是，他並沒有追問存在的意義問題。只有到了海德格爾那裏，他用此在將第三人稱單數“是”同being重新溝連起來，使得西方的存在論從先驗的、思辨的本體重新回到了生命世界之中，重新開啓出了存在論的辯證法。因此，本文認爲，第三人稱單數“是”字具有最爲原始的存在論意義。這種意義就在於它是打通西方哲學二元對立的真正的拱心石，是辯證法的基礎，從而在西方哲學史中存在論發展的層面上，給出了本文不同意將西方being只能譯爲中文“是”的理由。

註：

1.中國大陸目前有一個中小學教育的重要網站：www.being.org.cn ，其網站中文譯名為「惟存教育」。

2. ontology字源於希臘文，onta即英文being之意。見http://www.crrs.org/m25c.htm

貳、本體(Ontology)

1.本體，在資訊學，是知識/訊息的基底架構

An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization

2.本體，在領域知識，是概念與概念之間的概念架構

3.本體，在哲學，是惟存，為實踐的哲學

refers to the subject of existence

a branch of metaphysics relating to the nature and relations of being

4.本體，是物件的描述與分類

The study of the categories of things that exist or may exist in some domain

5.本體，在教材，是用來定義某個領域內的專業辭彙的含義和關係，即一個正式的辭彙表，可提供共同的理解。

• To share common understanding of the structure of information among people or software agents

• To enable reuse of domain knowledge

• To make domain assumptions explicit

• To separate domain knowledge from the operational knowledge

• To analyze domain knowledge

6.本體，是事物發生的的根本道理，思考外在世界如何存在之問題時，作為思考主體的人，必然會設想：被認識的對象，其本體或本質究竟為何？這個問題涉及希臘哲學中有關存在（being）和流變（becoming）兩種世界觀之間的對立。

7.本體，即知識表徵

參考文獻：

1.語意網路建置

http://ckip.iis.sinica.edu.tw/CKIP/ontology/

2. 從對話行動舞臺的意義探究教育行政專業的重建

http://www.epa.ncnu.edu.tw/epforum/vol3/3-7.pdf

參、認識(Epistemology)

	認識	本體	方法
經驗主義(Empiricist approaches)	透過經驗而得到的知識。	我們所經驗到的事即存在之知識。	僅需要陳述經驗之事實。
實證主義(positivist approaches)	知識的獲得雖然仍由經驗，但是該經驗是被同領域之學者確信建立於可檢驗之基礎上。	經同領域之學者認同之證據。	可驗證的事實陳述，通常是指「科學的方法」。
人本主義(Humanistic approaches)	知識的獲得主觀地由個人的世界產生	知識的存在在於人們識覺(perceive)到的。	涉及個人世界之研究。它與實證主義方法相反，強調個別性 (individuality)及主觀性(subjectivity)，而不看重複製性 (replicability)及真實性(truth)。
結構主義(structuralist approaches)	世界之外貌(我們所理解的)並未展示形成該世界之「機制」	研究形成該世界之機制，需要可以證明「機制」真正存在的本體論，然而「機制」是無法直接觀察的，惟有透過思考。	研究者多採取理論之建構(如模式、數學公式等之建立)，藉以證明觀察到的知識。因為該知識的存在難以用直接的證據證明，所以也無法測試。

典範	存有論預設	認識論預設	方法論預設
實證主義	素樸實在論	客觀的／素樸二元論／發現真理	實驗法，證實假設
後實證主義	批判實在論	客觀的／修正二元論／接近真理	實驗法，否證假設
結構主義	間接實在論	客觀的／交互作用論／分析真理	實驗法，結構分析
詮釋學	個人觀念論	主觀的／互為主體論／悟入真理	辯證法，理解詮釋
批判理論	社會觀念論	主觀的／價值承載論／導出真理	辯證法，對話溝通

肆、知識(Knowledge)

一、先前知識

1. 內隱知識與外隱知識

2. 概念性的知識

3. 後設認知知識

4. 知識的介面

二、數位學習知識類型

1. 技能趨使

模式

為什麼

如何做

技能趨使模式

學習特定知識和技能時需要訓練師、策進者、同儕等例行的回饋和支持

· 安排嚴謹自訂進度的小組學習計畫表

· 教學者引導概覽及總結的自訂進度學習教材

· 透過非同步線上實驗室或傳統教室示範程序及歷程

· 提供電子郵件支持

· 設計長期專案

技能趨使之學習計畫設計(ASTD)

	Technology-based techniques	Non-technology based techniques
Announcement	· LMS · email push	· flyer · mail · phone
Overview session	· email · Webinar	· traditional classroom
Self-paced learning	· Web-based tutorial · e-books · EPSS · simulations	· articles · books · job-aids · on-the-job training
Query resolution	· email · FAQ · instant messenger	· face-to-face meeting
Demonstration	· Web meeting · simulations	· traditional classroom
Practice	· simulation	· workbook assignment
Feedback	· email	· face-to-face meeting · print report
Closing session	· email · Webinar	· traditional classroom
Certification	· Web-based test	· print test

2. 態度趨使

模式

為什麼

如何做

態度趨使模式

發展新態度新行為的教材需要同儕互動和無風險環境

· 舉行同步網路會議

· 分派群組專題

· 執行角色扮演模擬

態度趨使之學習計畫設計(ASTD)

	Technology-based techniques	Non-technology based techniques
Announcement	LMS or email push	flyer, email, or phone
Overview session	· email · Webinar	· traditional classroom
Self-paced learning	· Web-based tutorial · e-books · simulations	· articles · books · workbooks with "if-then" decision tables
Query resolution	· email · FAQ · instant messenger	· face-to-face meeting with expert
Assessment	· simulations	· print test
Collaborative session	· Webinar · chat	· role-playing with peers
Practice	· simulations	· role-playing with peers
Feedback and closing session	· email · Webinar	· traditional classroom

3. 能力趨使

模式

為什麼

如何做

能力趨使模式

擷取並轉移內隱知識，學習者於工作上觀察專家、與專家互動

· 分派督導

· 發展知識倉儲

能力趨使之學習計畫設計(ASTD)

	Technology-based techniques	Non-technology based techniques
Assign guides or mentors	email	phone
Create a community	space on the Internet or intranet	study groups
Practice	· email · discussion forums · simulations	· face-to-face meetings · workshops · phone
Hold discussion	· discussion forums · chat	· face-to-face meetings · workshops · phone
Resolve queries	· email · instant messenger	· face-to-face meeting
Capture learning	· stories and data compiled in a knowledge repository (LMS/LCMS)	· white papers

伍、青蛙單元教案分析與本土對照

1.本體：兩棲動物

2.對象：青蛙

3.主體：我、生物學家

4.教學設計案例(一)：教導事實

Frog Facts WebQuest

Virginia Science SOL 2.5

Barbara Hess, Amy Carter, Amber Hodges, & Lauren Dykhuis

Radford University Teacher Education

Introduction

Have you ever wondered about the life of a frog and we are not talking about Kermit?
So come with us to discover the wonderful world of a frogs life cycle, you’ll be "hoppy" you did.

Task

You will search for information using the Internet sites listed below to answer questions about the life cycle of frogs. Find a partner and create five of your own questions about what you would like to know about frogs life cycle. Some examples of excellent questions are: What do they eat? Who eats them? What are the stages they go through before becoming an adult?

Advice

There are so many sites on frogs. Do not get caught up in things that are not related to the life cycle of frogs. Use your time wisely and work efficiently.

Internet Sites

http://www.exploratorium.edu/frogs/index.html
http://www.geocities.com:0080/TheTropics/1337/info.html
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu

Process

The teacher will draw a KWL (what we know, what we want to know, and what we learned) chart on the board and discuss what we know already about frogs and their life cycle. Then the class will separate into pairs and construct their own questions as part of their W on the chart. The pairs will begin their search for answers using the Internet recording their findings under the L in the chart. Once completed the class will regroup and review what we know, discuss what we wanted to know from the paired groups and record the learned information under the L.

　

All of the information gathered as well as, the KWL chart should be placed in their Science notebooks under Frog Life Cycle.

Evaluation

Life Cycle section in notebook including KWL chart
Content of findings

Conclusion

By the end of this lesson you should have a basic understanding of the life cycle of the frog.

Graphics courtesy of: http://www.geocities.com:0080/TheTropics/1337/info.html & http://www.exploratorium.edu/frogs/about.htm

5.教學設計案例(二)：問題導向教學

What kind of habitat do I provide for my frog or toad?

You should always try to simulate your frog or toad's natural outdoor habitat. In general, your vivarium should include: 1) enough room for the frog or toad to move/hop/crawl about, 2) pebbles or turf on the bottom of the vivarium, 3) a dish of unchlorinated water for the frog or toad to sit in, 4) a hollow log, sticks, or rocks that provide a hiding place, and 5) an ample food supply, such as crickets. **You can buy crickets and de-chlorination drops at your local petstore. Check out Frogland for more information about pet frog care.

(Photo of Gray Treefrog, courtesy of Don, KY.)

陸、知識信念(Epistemological Beliefs)

一、定義(What is the epistemological beliefs?)

· Beliefs about knowledge and knowing

· How people come to know and how individuals beliefs influenced on the cognitive process (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997).

二、理論架構

(一)、發展模式

Individuals move through some specified sequence in their ideas about knowledge and knowing, as their ability to make meaning evolves.

模式1. The Perry Scheme (Perry)

1. Dualistic: right and wrong, absolutist view and belief that truth can be known and the role of the teacher is to communicate it.

2. multiplism: individuals are likely to see conflicting views as equally valid.

3. relativism: the self consciousness of being an active maker of meaning. Some views are better than others.

4. commitment within relativism: the anticipation, clarification, and ongoing refinement of commitments

· "learners cycle through three increasingly complex encounters with diversity in the form of multiples:

· multiple opinions about a given subjects or issue

· multiple contexts/perspectives from which to understand or analyze issues or arguments

· multiple commitments through which one defines his or her values and identity.

· As learners confront these level of multiplicity, their meaning making shifts and evolves in predictable ways "(Moore, 2002, p. 22).

· References:

Jonassen, D.H., Marra, R.M., & Palmer, B. (2002). Epistemological Development: An implicit Entailment of Constructivist Learning Environments. In S. Dijkstra & N. Seel (ed.), Instructional design: International perspectives, vol. 3. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marra, R.M., Palmer, B., & Litzinger, T.A. (2000). The Effects of a First-Year Engineering Design Course on Student Intellectual Development as Measured by the Perry Scheme. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(1), 39-46.

Moore, W.S. (1994). Student and Faculty Epistemology in the College Classroom: The Perry Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development. In K. Pritchard & R. M. Sawyer (Ed.), Handbook of College Teaching. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Moore, W.S. (1989). The learning environment preferences: Exploring the construct validity of an objective measure of the Perry Scheme of Intellectual Development. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 504-514.

Moore, W. S. (2002). Understanding learning in a postmodern world: Reconsidering the Perry scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Ed.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

Perry, W.G. (1970). Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A scheme. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Perry, W.G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American College (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perry, W.G. Jr. (1998). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college year: A scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

模式2.Women's ways of knowing (Belenky, 1986)

this scheme focuses on the role of self as knower, and outlines a progressive integration and coordination of the subjective and objective modes of knowing across five positions:

Silence: women experience a passive, voiceless existence, listening solely to external authority.
Received knowing: women see knowing as originating outside the self and can reproduce and speak abut this knowledge.
Subjective knowledge: women are more likely to see truth as an intuitive reaction, personally experienced.
Procedural knowledge: women demonstrate reasoned reflection, applying objective, systematic procedures of analysis.
- separate knowing:impersonal and detached, best evidenced in critical thinking, and the hallmark of traditional, rigorous undergraduate education.
Constructed knowledge: women see themselves as participants in the construction of knowledge.

· References:

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, G.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Trule, J.M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Clinchy, B. M. (1990). Issues of gender in teaching and learning. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 1, 52-67.

Clinchy, B.M., Belenky, M.f., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J.M. (1985). Connected education for women. Journal of Education, 167(3), 28-45.

模式3.Epistemological Reflection Model (Baxter Magolda)

"Baxter Magolda's definition of epistemology is focused on the nature of learning as situated in the college classroom context and less on assumptions about knowledge"(Hofer, & Pintrich, 1997, p. 98).

· Assumptions

Epistemic assumptions and the structures they constitute are socially constructed: "The meaning we make of our experiences depends partially on our initial epistemic assumptions, partially on the nature of dissonance we experience when we encounter other with different assumptions, and partially on the context in which the dissonance occurs"

context bounded stories: "The meaning they make of their experience is grounded in the context of their epistemic assumptions and particular experiences" (Magolda, 2002, p. 91)

· Four ways of knowing

absolute knowing (receiving or mastering knowledge): knowledge is certain and obtained from authorities
transitional knowing (interpersonal and impersonal patterns): knowledge is partially certain and requires understanding
independent knowing (inter individual and individual patterns): knowledge is uncertain and requires independent thinking or individual challenging
contextual (integrating relational and impersonal knowing): knowledge is context bounded

· References:

Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1987). The affective dimension of learning: Faculty-student relationships that enhance intellectual development. College Student Journal, 21, 46-58.

Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2002). Epistemological Reflection: The evolution of epistemological assumptions from age 18 to 30. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Ed.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

Baxter Magolda, M.B., & Porterfield, W.D. (1985). Assessing intellectual development: The link between theory and practice. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.

模式4. Reflective Judgment (King and kitchener)

"Reflective judgment delineates the development of the process of knowing and reasoning"(Hofer, 2001, p. 358).

this model emphasizes on the intellectual tasks involved in open ended problem solving rather than closed-ended, the attention to epistemic assumptions, and the articulation of stages of development

· Seven stage model (Three levels)

1. Pre-reflective (stage 1,2, and 3): individuals are unlikely to perceive that problems exist for which there may be no correct answer.

"I know what I have seen."

"If it is on the news, it has to be true."

"When there is evidence that people can give to convince everybody one way or another, then it will be knowledge, until then, it's just a guess."

2. Quasi-reflective (stage 4 and 5): A growing realization that one cannot know with certainty.

"I'd be more inclined to believe evolution if they had proof. It's just like the pyramids: I don't think we'll ever know. Who are you going to ask? No one was there."

"people think differently and so they attack the problem differently. Other theories could be as true as my own, but based on different evidence."

3. Reflective (stage 6 and 7): Knowledge is actively constructed and must be understood contextually.

"Its very difficult in this life to be sure. Thee are degrees of sureness. You come to a point at which you are sure enough for a personal stance on the issue."

"One can judge an argument by how well thought-out the positions are, what kinds of reasoning and evidence are used to support it, and how consistent the way one argues on this topic is as compared with other topics."

(King and kitchener, 2002, p. 41-42).

· Educational implications

¨ Show respect for students' assumptions, regardless of the developmental stage they exhibit.

¨ Discuss controversial, ill structured issues with students throughout their educational activities, and make available resources that show the factual basis and lines of reasoning for several perspectives.

¨ Crate many opportunities for students to analyze others' points of view for their evidentiary adequacy and to develop and defend their own points of view about controversial issues.

¨ Teach students strategies for systematically gathering data, assessing the relevance of the data, evaluating data sources, and making interpretive judgments based on the available data.

¨ Give students frequent feedback, and provide both cognitive and emotional support for their efforts.

¨ Help students explicitly address issues of uncertainty in judgment making and to examine their assumptions about knowledge and how it is gained.

¨ Encourage students to practice their reasoning skills in many settings to gain practice and confidence applying their thinking skills. (King and Kitchener, 2002, p. 55).

· References:

King, P.M., & kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

King, P.M., & kitchener, K.S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

King, P.M., kitchener, K.S., Davison, M.L., Parker, C.A., & Wood, P.K. (1983). The justification of beliefs in young adults: A longitudinal study. Human Development, 26, 106-116.

King, P.M., kitchener, K.S., Wood, P.K., & Davison, M.L. (1989). Relationships across developmental domains: A longitudinal study of intellectual, moral, and ego development. In M.L. Commons, J.D. Sinnott, F.A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Adult development: Comparisons and applications of developmental models (pp. 57-78). New York: Praeger.

kitchener, K.S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26, 222-232.

kitchener, K.S. (1986). The reflective judgment model: Characteristics, evidence, and measurement. In R.A. Mines & K.S. Kitchener (Eds.), Adult cognitive development: Methods and models (pp. 76-91). New york: Praeger.

kitchener, K.S., & Fischer, K.W. (1990). A skill approach to the development of reflective thinking. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills (pp. 48-62). New York: Karger.

kitchener, K.S., & King, P.M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 89-116.

kitchener, K.S., King, P.M., Wood, P.K., & Davison, M.L. (1989). Sequentiality and consistency in the development of reflective judgment: A six-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 73-95.

kitchener, K.S., Lnch, C.L., fischer, K.W., & Wood, P.K. (1993). Developmental range of reflective judgment: The effect of contextual support and practice on developmental stage. Developmental Psychology, 29(5), 893-906.

模式5. The Skills of Argument (Kuhn):

"Kuhn's work on informal reasoning was an attempt to study how individuals responded to everyday, ill structured problems that lack definitive solutions"(Hofer and Pintrich, 1997. p. 103).

level	Assertions	Reality	Knowledge	Critical thinking
Realist	Assertions are COPIES of an external reality	Reality is directly knowable	Knowledge comes from external source and is certain	Critical thinking is unnecessary
Absolutist	Assertions are FACTS that are correct or incorrect in their representation of reality	Reality is directly knowable	Knowledge comes from external source and is certain	Critical thinking is a vehicle for comparing assertions to reality and determining their truth or falsehood
Multiplist	Assertions are OPINIONS freely chosen by and accountable only to their owners	Reality is NOT directly knowable	Knowledge is generated by human minds and is uncertain	Critical thinking is irrelevant
Evaluativisit	Assertions are JUDGMENTS that can be evaluated and compared according to criteria and argument and evidence	Reality is NOT directly knowable	Knowledge is generated by human minds and is uncertain	Critical thinking is valued as a vehicle that promotes sound assertions and enhances understanding

(Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002, p. 124)

· References:

Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135-153.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.

Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive development. In L. Balter & C. Tamis Le-Monda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1-8.

Kuhn, D. (2001). Why development does (and doesn't) occur: Evidence from the domain of inductive reasoning. In R. Siegler & J. McClelland (Eds.), Mechanisms of cognitive development: Neural and behavioral perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., O'Laughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495-523.

Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding.Cognitive Development, 15, 309-328.

Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 285-327.

Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

Weinsotck, M. (1999). Epistemological understanding and argumentative competence as foundations of juror reasoning skill. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

· Related links

Deanna Kuhn' s Web site (http://www.tc.columbia.edu/faculty/dk100/home.htm)
Education for thinking project web site (http://www.tc.edu/centers/eft/defalut.asp)

(二)、視知識論為一獨立信念系統(As a system of Independent beliefs)

A belief system made up of five more or less independent dimensions, which are structure, certainty, source of knowledge, and control and speed of knowledge acquisition(These do not follow a general sequence)

模式6. Schommer’s multidimensional model (Epistemological Beliefs)

Stability of knowledge (tentative---unchanging)
Structure of knowledge(isolated bits---integrated)
Speed of Learning(quick-all-or-none learning---gradual learning)
Ability to Learn(innated---life-long improvement)
source of knowledge (authority---observation and reason)

personal epistemology may be conceptualized as a system of beliefs
Beliefs within the system are more or less independent, that is, it cannot be assumed that beliefs will be maturing in synchrony.
Epistemological beliefs are better characterized as frequency distributions rather than dichotomies or continuums.
Epistemological beliefs have both indirect and direct effects.
Whether epistemological beliefs are domain general or domain independent will vary over time for any particular individual.
Epistemological beliefs development and change is influenced by experience. (Shommer, 2002, p. 106)

· References:

Alexander, P.A. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychologist, 27, 33-51.

Bendixen, L.D. (2002). A process model of epistemic belief change. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

Bendixen, L.D., Dunkle, M.E., & Schraw, G. (1994). Epistemological beliefs and reflective judgment. Psychological Reports, 75, 1595-1600.

Bendixen, L.D., Schraw, G., & Dunkle, M.E. (1998). Epistemic beliefs and moral reasoning. Journal of Psychology, 132, 187-200.

Jehng, J.J., Johnson, S.D., & Anderson, R.C. (1993). Schooling and students' epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 23-35.

Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (1995). role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in secondary school students' learning science concepts from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 282-292.

Ryan, M.P. (1984). conceptions of prose coherence: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1226-1238.

Ryan, M.P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 249-258.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of educational psychology, 82(2), 498-504.

Schommer, M. (1993). Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning among postsecondary students. Research in Higher Education, 34(3), 355-370.

Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406-411.

Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning. In R. Garner & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 25-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological beliefs research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293-319.

Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 435-443.

Schommer, M., & Dunnel, P.A. (1994). A comparison of epistemological beliefs between gifted and non-gifted high school students. Roeper Press, 16(3), 207-210.

Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 424-432.

Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1997). Epistemological beliefs and valuing school: Considerations for college admission and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38, 173-185.

Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological beliefs system. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

Schraw, G., Bendixen, L.D., & Dunkle, M.E. (2002). Measuring epistemological beliefs.In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

Schraw, G., Dunkle, M.E., & Bendixen, L.D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523-538.

Windschitl, M. & Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: The roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 35, 145-160.

Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 435-443.

· Related links

Lisa D. Bendixen's web site (http://www.unlv.edu/faculty2/bendixen/)

模式7.知識源

Epistemological resources (Hammer and Elby)

· Beliefs might be consistent within a context, but not across contexts.

· Situated and contextualist perspective

"Students may use the resource of knowledge as propagated stuff in one context with few of the other resources activated, while in a different context resources from all four of the general categories may be used"(Pintrich, 2002, p. 397).

· References:

Bell, P., & Linn, M.C. (2002). Beliefs about science: how does science instruction contribute? In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

diSessa, A., Elby, A, & Hammer, D. (2002). J's epistemological stance and strategies. In G. M. Sinatra and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional Conceptual Change (pp. 237-290). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Elby, A. (1999). Another reason that physics students learn by rote. American Journal of Physics, 67, S53-S60.

Elby, A. & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85 (5), 554-567.

Hammer, D. (1994). Students' beliefs about conceptual knowledge in introductory physics. International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 385-403.

Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics.Cognition and Instruction, 12, 151-183.

Hammer, D. (1995). Epistemological beliefs in teaching introductory physics. Science Education, 79, 393-413.

Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? Journal of the Learning Science, 5, 97-127.

Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64 (10), 1316-1325.

Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15 (4), 485-529.

Hammer, D. (1999). Physics for first-graders? Science Education 83 (6), 797-799.

Hammer, D. (2000). Teacher inquiry. In J. Minstrell, & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 184-215.

Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, Physics Education Research Supplement, 68 (S1), S52-S59.

Hammer, D. (2001). Powerful technology and powerful instruction. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2:Carrying Forward the Conversation (pp. 339-403), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hammer, D. & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chapter introduction

Hammer, D. and Schifter, D. (2001). Practices of inquiry in teaching and research. Cognition and Instruction., 19 (4), 441-478. Abstract.

Linn, M.C. , & Songer, N.B. (1993). How do students make sense of science? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly Journal of Developmental Psychology, 39, 47-73.

Songer, N.B., & Linn, M.C. (1991). How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration? In M.C. Linn, N.B. Songer, & E. L. Lewis (Eds.), Students' models and epistemologies of science, a special issue of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761-784.

· Related links:

David Hammer's web site (http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~davidham/)

Andrew Elby's web site (http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~elby/index.htm)

Nancy Butler Songer' web site (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~songer/index.html)

三、知識信念與學習(Epistemological Beliefs and Learning)

· Epistemological development: Epistemology is developmental, development is the aim of education, and thus part of the goal of education is to foster epistemological development

Learning outcome: epistemological development

· System of beliefs and Learning: Epistemology exists in the form of beliefs, and learning is influenced by the epistemological beliefs that individuals hold

learning outcome: academic performance

· Resources: Epistemology is either theory-like or exists as more fine grained epistemological resources, and in the process of learning such theories and resources are activated and engaged in way s that are context dependent.

learning outcome: knowledge construction

(一)、知識發展(Epistemological development)

· Whether higher levels of education are associated with higher stages of epistemological development and what aspects of education foster this process of development (Hofer, 2002, p. 368).

· Higher educational attainment is correlated with higher stages of reflective judgment, with just under a half-stage growth occurring on average during the college years (King and Kitchener, 1994).

· College has some small but measurable impact on epistemological development and that advanced epistemological thinking may occur infrequently in the U.S. adult population, the exception being those with graduate education.

(二)、知識信念(Epistemological Beliefs)

· Relation between students' epistemological beliefs and their information processing strategies ( Ryan, 1984), cognitive processing strategies (Kardash and Howell, 2000), the interpretation of evidence on controversial issues (Kardash and Scholes, 1996).

· Students with more empiricist beliefs were more likely than constructivists to employ rote-like learning strategies (Tsai, 1998).

(三)、知識源(Epistemological Resources)

· Individuals have a collection or network of epistemological resources activated in different contexts that can be linked in a multiplicity of combinations.

(四)、知識論與教學(How personal epistemology related to instruction)

Working model of how epistemological theories influence classroom learning (Hofer, 2002., p. 372).

(五)、知識信念與教學型態之間的互動(Interaction between epistemological beliefs and type of instruction)

· Type of instruction may influence beliefs. In a study of calculus instruction, college students in constructivist sections evidenced more sophisticated beliefs about mathematics than those in traditional sections (Hofer, 1999).

· Windschitl and Andre (1998): Students who had more advanced epistemological beliefs learned more through a constructivist treatment and those with less advanced beliefs learned more with an objectivist treatment.

四、議題(Issues (Pintrich, 2002, p. 389- 414) )

(一)、建構的本質(Nature of construct)

· Personal epistemology concerns an individual's cognition about the nature of knowledge and the nature of knowing

· Personal epistemology includes an individuals' cognition and beliefs about the nature of learning, intelligence, instruction, classrooms, domain-specific beliefs about disciplines, and beliefs about the self.

(二)、組成(Components)

· There are more than one and less than ten independent dimensions that are necessary to define an individuals' personal epistemology.

· The unitary voices: the cognitive developmental models assume that epistemological thinking is more qualitative, organic, or holistic and can't be broken down into independent components, at least not coherently.

· The resources and situated voices: the resources are situated in different contexts and that different contexts may activate or invoke different resources.

(三)、領域知識的普扁性與特殊性(Domain generality vs. domain specificity)

· Epistemological thinking is domain-specific

· Domain general

(四)、發展改變的本質(Nature of developmental change)

· Epistemological thinking becomes more "sophisticated" over the course of development

(五)、改變機制(Mechanism of change)

· Epistemological development is a function of both internal psychological mechanisms as well as contextual facilitators and constraints.

(六)、個人知識論與認知、動機、學習的關係(Relations of personal epistemologies to cognition, motivation, and learning)

· Personal epistemologies can facilitate and constraint academic cognition, motivation, and learning.

(七)、個人知識論研究法與測量(Methods and measurement in the study of personal epistemologies)

· Personal epistemologies can and should be assessed using a diversity of methodologies.

· Reference:

Schraw, G., Bendixen, L.D., & Dunkel M.E. (2002). Development and validation of the epistemic belief inventory. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

Wood, P., & Kardash, C. (2002). Critical elements in the design and analysis of studies of epistemology. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

Wood, P., Kitchener, K., & Jensen, L. (2002). Considerations in the design and evaluation of a paper-and-pencil measure of epistemic cognition. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

· Reference

Hofer, B. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405.

Hofer, B. (2001) Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353-382.

Hofer, B. (2002). Personal epistemology as a psychological and educational construct: An introduction. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich, Ed., Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.

Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.

· Related links

Barbara K. Hofer's web site (http://www.middlebury.edu/~psych/Barbara_Hofer.html)

Gale Sinatra's web site (http://education.unlv.edu/EP/Faculty/Sinatra/gsinatra.html)

柒、建構

2004年9月──2005年9月彰化師大網路教學課程

國立彰化師範大學商業教育學系

林美純編寫

Last update 2005/01/05

壹、 前言

貳、 本體(Ontology)

參、 認識(Epistemology)

肆、 知識(Knowledge)

一、先前知識

1. 內隱知識與外隱知識

2. 概念性的知識

3. 後設認知知識

4. 知識的介面

二、數位學習知識類型

1. 技能趨使

Non-technology

2. 態度趨使

3. 能力趨使

伍、青蛙單元教案分析與本土對照

陸、知識信念(Epistemological Beliefs)

一、定義(What is the epistemological beliefs?)

二、理論架構

(一)、發展模式

模式1. The Perry Scheme (Perry)

模式2.Women's ways of knowing (Belenky, 1986)

模式3.Epistemological Reflection Model (Baxter Magolda)

模式4. Reflective Judgment (King and kitchener)

模式5. The Skills of Argument (Kuhn):

Assertions

(二)、視知識論為一獨立信念系統(As a system of Independent beliefs)

模式6. Schommer’s multidimensional model (Epistemological Beliefs)

模式7.知識源

三、知識信念與學習(Epistemological Beliefs and Learning)

(一)、知識發展(Epistemological development)

(二)、知識信念(Epistemological Beliefs)

(三)、知識源(Epistemological Resources)

(四)、知識論與教學(How personal epistemology related to instruction)

(五)、知識信念與教學型態之間的互動(Interaction between epistemological beliefs and type of instruction)

四、議題(Issues (Pintrich, 2002, p. 389- 414) )

(一)、建構的本質(Nature of construct)

(二)、組成(Components)

(三)、領域知識的普扁性與特殊性(Domain generality vs. domain specificity)

(四)、發展改變的本質(Nature of developmental change)

(五)、改變機制(Mechanism of change)

(六)、個人知識論與認知、動機、學習的關係(Relations of personal epistemologies to cognition, motivation, and learning)

(七)、個人知識論研究法與測量(Methods and measurement in the study of personal epistemologies)

柒、建構

壹、前言

貳、本體(Ontology)

參、認識(Epistemology)

肆、知識(Knowledge)