化学课堂结构系统研究
|
摘要
结构是系统固有的属性,是系统研究最核心的环节。课堂教学是极其复杂的系统,课堂结构是课堂教学系统存在与演化的基本条件。美国著名的教育心理学家奥苏贝尔曾经说过“一堂课的效果如何,取决于课堂结构是否合理”,课堂结构是什么?这是一个看似简单却很难统一认识的问题。但是,学界对课堂结构还缺乏系统研究,尤其学科(化学)课堂结构研究在理论和实践上都未形成基本的范式和成熟的结论。因此,本研究聚焦于化学课堂结构,围绕“化学课堂结构是什么”、“化学课堂结构质量与课堂教学质量的关系如何”、“不同水平的化学课堂结构是否具有特征性”等一系列研究问题,开展了理论研究和实证分析相结合的系统研究工作。
本论文由导论、理论研究、实证分析和结语四个部分构成：
“导论”部分借助焦点团队访谈活动揭示了化学教师对课堂结构认识的局限性,并结合国内外有关课堂结构研究概况的系统考察,梳理了本课题的研究内容和研究路径。
第2、3、4、5章为理论研究部分,第2章对化学课堂教学“是何”、“为何”等本体问题进行了具体阐释；第3章以化学课堂教学本体问题的认识为基础,运用系统论核心观点重点分析了化学课堂教学的系统性特征,形成了对化学课堂结构的明确定义和相关认识；第4章从历时和共时到分层的角度,构建了化学课堂结构的理论模型；第5章以化学课堂结构的理论模型为依据,建立适用于分析化学课堂结构形成及其特征的研究模型(操作程序及分析工具),为实证分析部分提供了依据和手段。
第6、7、8章为本研究的实证研究部分。围绕“化学课堂结构对课堂教学优劣的影响”、“不同水平的化学课堂结构的共性与差异”以及“决定化学课堂结构质量的结构特征是什么,与哪些关键性因素有关”等一系列问题展开了实证分析。第6章对本论文的实证研究进行了整体设计,提出了实证研究的问题和基本思路,并遵循严密的课例筛选程序获得了由22则元素化学课例组成的课例样本；第7章选取课例样本中某教学主题的3则研究课例进行化学课堂结构的尝试性评价,据此生成化学课堂结构评价量表；继而针对22则研究课例并行实施正式的课堂结构评价与课堂教学质量评价活动以及评价结果的对比分析,揭示了化学课堂结构的优劣与化学课堂教学质量呈现正相关的关系,并指出了影响化学课堂结构质量的关键性因素；第8章以上述评价活动得到的三种课堂结构质量水平的代表课例为载体,依据影响课堂结构质量的关键性因素设计分析框架,深入比较了三种水平的元素化学课堂结构的共性和差异,共性表现为：三种水平课例不同类型知识的构成比例大小关系较稳定,知识的宏观组织和微观架构都反映了“性质”、“结构”、“制备”等知识之间的逻辑关系；基本认识框架和特定认识课题中的微观认识过程均在一定程度上反映了知识结构的展开逻辑。差异表现在：课堂结构质量水平较高课例中不同类型知识比例合理,知识宏观组织线索多元,微观架构关注知识铺展过程的思想性和方法性,能以多种方式构建清晰而有序的认识课题序列,能灵活运用多种认识方式或方法组织微观的认识过程；中等及较低水平课例核心知识偏多、知识组块也偏多且较少建立整体性的联系,认识课题之间关联性不强,微观认识过程中认识方式单一化等。
“结语”部分对研究过程加以回顾和总结,开展研究反思和提出未来工作的展望。
本研究对于化学课堂结构的研究是基础性的,也是系统性的。在课堂结构研究的理论层面和方法论层面都有了初步的尝试,并形成了重要的结论及启示,在今后,我们将进一步拓展化学课堂结构研究的问题域,并对研究方法、研究结论等进行验证并完善。
Structure is the inherent attribute of the system, and it is also considered as the core component of the research on the system. As we know, classroom is extremely complicated, and the structure of classroom is considered as the basis for the existence and evolution of the classroom instruction system. David Ausubel once mentioned "The quality of the class depends on its reasonability of the structure". Thus, for the question "what is the classroom structure?", It appears to be a simple question but it is difficult for us to seek the consensus answer. Due to the limited systematic researches conducted on the classroom structure, especially for analyzing the classroom in the specific subject domain, there were no basic paradigm and validated conclusions in both empirical studies and theoretical studies. Therefore, this study focused on the exploration of classroom structure in chemistry, and aimed to address a series of research questions, such as "What is the structure of chemistry classroom","What's the relationship between chemistry classroom structure and its instruction","Do different levels of chemistry classroom structure have their unique characteristics" We attempted to conduct theoretical study and empirical analysis on the chemistry classroom to answer the research questions and provided invaluable evidences for supporting our findings.
This dissertation consists of four parts:Introduction, theoretical backgrounds, empirical study and conclusions:
"Introduction" presented the limitations of chemistry teachers'understanding of classroom structure through focus-group interview; a literature review on the relevant studies of classroom structure at home and abroad was conducted to visualize the limitations on the research of classroom structure; finally, the author proposed the research content and methodology of this study.
Chapter2,3,4,5are the theoretical sections. Chapter2explained the ontology questions of the instruction of chemistry; Employing system theory, Chapter3analyzed the characters of the instruction in chemistry classroom based on the knowledge of ontological view. In this chapter, an elaborated definition and relevant concepts of the chemistry classroom structure were summarized and provided; Chapter4constructed a theoretical model of the chemistry classroom structure with diachronic, synchronic and layering perspectives; According to the theoretical model, Chapter5built a research model to interpret the characteristics of chemistry classroom structure (referring to the procedures and analytical tools), which was a foundation of the empirical analysis section below.
Chapter6,7,8are the empirical research sections, which aimed to address the research themes such as "the impact of chemistry classroom structure on the quality of the instruction","the commonality and difference among various levels of chemistry classroom structure" and "the crucial factors of the levels of chemistry classroom structure". Chapter6presented the research design of the empirical study, as well as proposed the purposes and methods. In this study,22typical lessons on element were adopted as exemplar cases via strict selection criteria; Chapter7produced an instrument for the evaluation of the chemistry classroom structure through analyzing and evaluating the classroom structure of three classes on element; then the authors conducted parallel evaluations of the quality of22classroom structure and instructions; the study indicated that there existed positive correlation relations between the levels of chemistry classroom structure and the quality of instruction. Meanwhile, that the key factors affecting the levels of classroom structure was found. Chapter8constructed an analytical framework based on the key factors affecting classroom structure, and conducted an in-depth comparison of commonality and differences of the three levels of typical chemistry lessons on element. The commonalities were found as follows:the proportion of different categories of knowledge in instructional content kept comparatively stable, macro and micro structures of knowledge was found to reflect the logical nature among "nature","structure" and "preparation"; Basic cognitive framework and the microscopic cognitive process were found to reflect the logical structure of knowledge. The differences were:the high level classroom structure has reasonable proportion of different categories of knowledge; its macro organizational clues and micro construction of knowledge were ideological and methodological, and had a clearly and orderly cognitive sequences, flexible micro cognitive process; the medium and low levels of classroom structure have higher proportion of core knowledge with more knowledge modulus, as well as few coherent relations among these knowledge modulus.There were no apparent relations between the cogintive topics, and with simplied micro-cognitive approach.
The section of conclusions reviews and summarizes the research, and reflects upon the limitations and proposes the work in the future.
This study is a foundational and systematic research on chemistry classroom structure. The author conducts a preliminary exploration on classroom structure from theoretical and methodological reviews, and draws important conclusions to shed the light for relevant researches. In the future, we will further expand the research domain of chemistry classroom structure to improve research methods and to verify unsolved problems.
本论文由导论、理论研究、实证分析和结语四个部分构成：
“导论”部分借助焦点团队访谈活动揭示了化学教师对课堂结构认识的局限性,并结合国内外有关课堂结构研究概况的系统考察,梳理了本课题的研究内容和研究路径。
第2、3、4、5章为理论研究部分,第2章对化学课堂教学“是何”、“为何”等本体问题进行了具体阐释；第3章以化学课堂教学本体问题的认识为基础,运用系统论核心观点重点分析了化学课堂教学的系统性特征,形成了对化学课堂结构的明确定义和相关认识；第4章从历时和共时到分层的角度,构建了化学课堂结构的理论模型；第5章以化学课堂结构的理论模型为依据,建立适用于分析化学课堂结构形成及其特征的研究模型(操作程序及分析工具),为实证分析部分提供了依据和手段。
第6、7、8章为本研究的实证研究部分。围绕“化学课堂结构对课堂教学优劣的影响”、“不同水平的化学课堂结构的共性与差异”以及“决定化学课堂结构质量的结构特征是什么,与哪些关键性因素有关”等一系列问题展开了实证分析。第6章对本论文的实证研究进行了整体设计,提出了实证研究的问题和基本思路,并遵循严密的课例筛选程序获得了由22则元素化学课例组成的课例样本；第7章选取课例样本中某教学主题的3则研究课例进行化学课堂结构的尝试性评价,据此生成化学课堂结构评价量表；继而针对22则研究课例并行实施正式的课堂结构评价与课堂教学质量评价活动以及评价结果的对比分析,揭示了化学课堂结构的优劣与化学课堂教学质量呈现正相关的关系,并指出了影响化学课堂结构质量的关键性因素；第8章以上述评价活动得到的三种课堂结构质量水平的代表课例为载体,依据影响课堂结构质量的关键性因素设计分析框架,深入比较了三种水平的元素化学课堂结构的共性和差异,共性表现为：三种水平课例不同类型知识的构成比例大小关系较稳定,知识的宏观组织和微观架构都反映了“性质”、“结构”、“制备”等知识之间的逻辑关系；基本认识框架和特定认识课题中的微观认识过程均在一定程度上反映了知识结构的展开逻辑。差异表现在：课堂结构质量水平较高课例中不同类型知识比例合理,知识宏观组织线索多元,微观架构关注知识铺展过程的思想性和方法性,能以多种方式构建清晰而有序的认识课题序列,能灵活运用多种认识方式或方法组织微观的认识过程；中等及较低水平课例核心知识偏多、知识组块也偏多且较少建立整体性的联系,认识课题之间关联性不强,微观认识过程中认识方式单一化等。
“结语”部分对研究过程加以回顾和总结,开展研究反思和提出未来工作的展望。
本研究对于化学课堂结构的研究是基础性的,也是系统性的。在课堂结构研究的理论层面和方法论层面都有了初步的尝试,并形成了重要的结论及启示,在今后,我们将进一步拓展化学课堂结构研究的问题域,并对研究方法、研究结论等进行验证并完善。
Structure is the inherent attribute of the system, and it is also considered as the core component of the research on the system. As we know, classroom is extremely complicated, and the structure of classroom is considered as the basis for the existence and evolution of the classroom instruction system. David Ausubel once mentioned "The quality of the class depends on its reasonability of the structure". Thus, for the question "what is the classroom structure?", It appears to be a simple question but it is difficult for us to seek the consensus answer. Due to the limited systematic researches conducted on the classroom structure, especially for analyzing the classroom in the specific subject domain, there were no basic paradigm and validated conclusions in both empirical studies and theoretical studies. Therefore, this study focused on the exploration of classroom structure in chemistry, and aimed to address a series of research questions, such as "What is the structure of chemistry classroom","What's the relationship between chemistry classroom structure and its instruction","Do different levels of chemistry classroom structure have their unique characteristics" We attempted to conduct theoretical study and empirical analysis on the chemistry classroom to answer the research questions and provided invaluable evidences for supporting our findings.
This dissertation consists of four parts:Introduction, theoretical backgrounds, empirical study and conclusions:
"Introduction" presented the limitations of chemistry teachers'understanding of classroom structure through focus-group interview; a literature review on the relevant studies of classroom structure at home and abroad was conducted to visualize the limitations on the research of classroom structure; finally, the author proposed the research content and methodology of this study.
Chapter2,3,4,5are the theoretical sections. Chapter2explained the ontology questions of the instruction of chemistry; Employing system theory, Chapter3analyzed the characters of the instruction in chemistry classroom based on the knowledge of ontological view. In this chapter, an elaborated definition and relevant concepts of the chemistry classroom structure were summarized and provided; Chapter4constructed a theoretical model of the chemistry classroom structure with diachronic, synchronic and layering perspectives; According to the theoretical model, Chapter5built a research model to interpret the characteristics of chemistry classroom structure (referring to the procedures and analytical tools), which was a foundation of the empirical analysis section below.
Chapter6,7,8are the empirical research sections, which aimed to address the research themes such as "the impact of chemistry classroom structure on the quality of the instruction","the commonality and difference among various levels of chemistry classroom structure" and "the crucial factors of the levels of chemistry classroom structure". Chapter6presented the research design of the empirical study, as well as proposed the purposes and methods. In this study,22typical lessons on element were adopted as exemplar cases via strict selection criteria; Chapter7produced an instrument for the evaluation of the chemistry classroom structure through analyzing and evaluating the classroom structure of three classes on element; then the authors conducted parallel evaluations of the quality of22classroom structure and instructions; the study indicated that there existed positive correlation relations between the levels of chemistry classroom structure and the quality of instruction. Meanwhile, that the key factors affecting the levels of classroom structure was found. Chapter8constructed an analytical framework based on the key factors affecting classroom structure, and conducted an in-depth comparison of commonality and differences of the three levels of typical chemistry lessons on element. The commonalities were found as follows:the proportion of different categories of knowledge in instructional content kept comparatively stable, macro and micro structures of knowledge was found to reflect the logical nature among "nature","structure" and "preparation"; Basic cognitive framework and the microscopic cognitive process were found to reflect the logical structure of knowledge. The differences were:the high level classroom structure has reasonable proportion of different categories of knowledge; its macro organizational clues and micro construction of knowledge were ideological and methodological, and had a clearly and orderly cognitive sequences, flexible micro cognitive process; the medium and low levels of classroom structure have higher proportion of core knowledge with more knowledge modulus, as well as few coherent relations among these knowledge modulus.There were no apparent relations between the cogintive topics, and with simplied micro-cognitive approach.
The section of conclusions reviews and summarizes the research, and reflects upon the limitations and proposes the work in the future.
This study is a foundational and systematic research on chemistry classroom structure. The author conducts a preliminary exploration on classroom structure from theoretical and methodological reviews, and draws important conclusions to shed the light for relevant researches. In the future, we will further expand the research domain of chemistry classroom structure to improve research methods and to verify unsolved problems.
引文
1 王晶莹.中美理科教师对科学探究及其教学的认识[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文,2009.108.
1 欧崇敬.从结构主义到解构主义[M].台北：扬智文化事业股份有限公司,1998.53.
2 欧崇敬.从结构主义到解构主义[M].台北：扬智文化事业股份有限公司,1998.67.
1 (比)布洛克曼著,李幼蒸译.结构主义：莫斯科—布拉格—巴黎[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.6.
2 高宣扬.结构主义概说[M].香港：天地图书,1983.81.
1 李克建.结构主义、后结构主义与教育研究：方法论的视角[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文,2007.50.
2 刘富华,孙维张.索绪尔与结构主义语言学[M].长春：吉林大学出版社,2003.49-57.
3 (比)布洛克曼著,李幼蒸译.结构主义：莫斯科—布拉格—巴黎[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.21-24.
1 高宣扬.结构主义概说[M].香港：天地图书,1983.195.
1 (比)布洛克曼著,李幼蒸译.结构主义：莫斯科—布拉格—巴黎[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.94.
2 对于静态系统,要素是构成该系统的基本材料；对于动态系统,可以把系统运行的基本单元看作组成要素,因此,我们可以把前者称为构成性要素,后者视为过程性要素。
1 (捷)夸美纽斯著,傅任敢译.大教学论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,1999.142-148.
2 沈振元.课的结构模式简介[J].上海教育科研,1992,(3)：19.
3 李妍.乔纳森建构主义学习环境设计理论的系统研究与当代启示[J].开放教育研究,2006,(6)：50-56.
4 沈振元.课的结构模式简介[J].上海教育科研,1992,(3)：19.
5 盛群力,褚献华.系统设计教学视野中的课堂教学结构[J].教育科学研究,2004,(1)：38-40.
1 瞿葆奎主编.教育学文集·教学(中册)[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1988.48.
2 白鸿胜主编.主体参与：现代课堂教与学[M].北京：新华出版社,1994.86.
1 本研究中提及教学要素,如无特别说明,指的就是构成性要素。
2 Marshall, H. H. (1976). Dimensions of classroom structure and functioning project:Final report. Berkeley,CA: University of California.
3 M.H·马赫穆托夫,杜殿坤译.现代的课[J].外国教育资料,1983,(6)：1-15.
4 Lee, Valerie E. and Julia B. Smith. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the Achievement and Engagement of middle-grade students. Sociology of Education,66(3):164-187.
5 朱永海,张新明.也论“教学结构”与“教学模式”[J].电化教育研究,2007(10)：36.
1 余胜泉,马宁.论教学结构——答邱崇光先生[J].电化教育研究,2003(6)：4-7.
2 Brown, A.L. (1992). Design Experiments:Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,2(2),141-178.
3 Qin, Zhining, David W. Johnson, and Roger T. Johnson.(1995). Cooperative Versus Competitive Efforts and Problem Solving. Review of Educational Research,65(2):129-143.
1 Shannon R. (2003). Effects of classroom structure on student achievement goal orientation. The Journal of Educational Research, vol 97,106-110.
2 刘知新,王祖浩.化学教学系统论[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,1996.174.
3 郑长龙.化学课堂结构的教学行为解读[J].化学教育,2010,(6)：44.
4 娄延果.化学课堂“教学行为对”及其组合的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学博士学位论文,2010.
1 秦青山.化学课堂的结构与功能[Jl.华人时刊,2011,(11)：40-42.
2 毛东海.化学课堂有效教学的“线索”和“结构”.化学教育,2012,(10)：23-27.
1 Sandoval, W. A.,& Daniszewski, K. (2004). Mapping the trade-offs in teachers'integration of technology supported inquiry in high school sciences classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology,13(2):161-178.
2 Chik, P. P. M. (2006). Differences in learning as a function of differences between hierarchical and sequential organisation of the content taught. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Hong Kong.
3 Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A.,& Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum:Lessons learned from two teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences,16(1),81-130.
4 Gage,N.L.(1963). Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago:Rand Mcnally转引自郑燕祥.教育的功能与效能[M].香港：广角镜出版有限公司,1986.71.
1 盖立春.复杂性科学视野下的化学课堂教学行为组合研究[D].长春：东北师范大学博士学位论文,201 1.
2 Barnes, D.,& Todd, F. (1995). Communication and Learning Revisited. Making Meaning Through Talk. Posrtsmouth, NH:Boynton/Cook Publishers.
3 Hake, R. R. (1998, January). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods:A sixthousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics,66(1),28-31.
4 Shachar, H.,& Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, achieving:effects of cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction,12,313-353.
5 Crouch, C.H.,& Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction:Ten years of experience and results, American Journal of Physics,69(9),970-977.
6 McMaster, K. N., Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of students with learning disabilities:An update of Tateyama-Sniezek's review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(2),107-117.
1 王鉴.课堂研究引论[J].教育研究,2003,(6)：79.
1 张旭,许林编著.现代教育技术[M].北京：科学出版社,1995.30.
2 鲍嵘.教学设计理性及其限制[J].教育评论,1998,(3)：32-34.
3 国家教委电化教育司编译.教学媒体与教学设计[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1990.181.
4 乌美娜.教学设计[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1994.12.
1 加涅著,皮连生等译.教学设计原理[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2005.131-133.
1 张传燧主编.解读行为主义教育思想[M].广州：广东教育出版社,2007.125.
2 盛群力,李志强编著.现代教学设计论[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1998.78.
3 盛群力.教学设计的基本模式及其特点[J].广州大学学报(社会科学版),2006,(7)：32-38.
1 王丽娟,张亿钧,李少斌等编著.教学设计[M].海口：南海出版公司,2003.47.
1 刘志军.课堂评价论[M].南宁：广西师范大学出版社,2002.1.
2 刘要悟.教学评价基本问题研究fM].兰州：甘肃文化出版社,1997.169.
1 刘要悟.教学评价基本问题研究[M].兰州：甘肃文化出版社,1997.155-159.
2 Teach for America. (n.d.) History. Retrieved April 20,2010, from http://www.teachforamerica.org/about/our_history.htm.
3 潘娟.教师课堂教学评价标准重构[D].北京：首都师范大学硕士学位论文,2004.11.
4 Ornstein,A.C.,(1990).Strategies for effective teaching. New York:Harper Collins Publisher.
5 Campell,1.(2003).Mindful learning:101 proven strategies for student and teacher success. Thousand Oaks,Calif:Corwin Press.
1 Bransford,J.,Brown,A.J.,Cocking,R.(1999).How people learn:brain, mind, experience and school. Washington D.C.:National Academy Publisher.
2 Kindsvatter,R.,Wilen,W.,Ishier,M.(2000).Dynamics of effective teaching. New York and London:longman.
3 Pianta, R.C., LaParo, K.M.,& Hamre, B. K. (2008).Classroom assessment scoring system.Manual:Pre-K. Baltimore:Brookes.
1 刘志军.课堂评价论[M].南宁：广西师范大学出版社,2002.53.
2 刘志军.课堂评价论[M].南宁：广西师范大学出版社,2002.54.
3 巴班斯基著,吴文侃译.教学教育过程最优化[M],北京：教育科学出版社,1986.191-205.
4 罗明基.教学论教程[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,1987.257-263.
5 何志汉.教学论稿[M].重庆：西南师范大学出版社,1988.388-389.
1 李蔚.提高课堂教学质量的心理学问题[M].北京：教育科学出版社,1992.143-155.
2 刘志军.主体教育理论与实验的跨世纪探索——第三届全国主体教育理论与实验学术研讨会综述[J].教育研究,1999,(4)：77-78.
3 刘知新.中学化学教材教法[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,1983.97.
1 刘知新.化学教学论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1990.168-170.
2 陈耀亭等.中学化学教材教法(第2版)M.北京：北京师范大学出版社,1992.172-173.
3 张多霞等.化学教学论[M].广州：广东高等教育出版社,1999.121
4 范杰.化学教学论[M].太原：山西科学技术出版社,2000.102
1 李方.课程与教学论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2005.6.
2 樊豫陇编著.现代教学论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2006.10.
1 李定仁,徐继存著.教学论研究二十年：1979-1999[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2001.61.
1 戴本博.亚里士多德教育思想浅论[J].安徽师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1987,(1)：65-70.
2 袁传明,杨汉麟.裴斯泰洛齐的教育思想——“爱的教育”浅析[J].教育探索,2010(2)：6-8.
3 李定仁.空想社会主义者欧文的教育思想[J].西北师范大学学报(社会科学版),1979,(5)；88-96.
4 徐艳国著.走向自由：教育与人的发展问题[M].武汉：华中师范大学出版社,1999.5-6.
1 美国科学促进协会,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的基准[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2002.36-37.
1 裴新宁.面向学习者的化学教学设计[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文,2003.13.
2 Lagowski J.J. (2002).The role of the laboratory in chemical education. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/research/chemed/lagowski/jjl_beijing_02.pdf (Accessed on 29 Sep,2011).
1 景天魁.社会认识的结构与悖论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1990.135.
1 洪晓楠.20世纪西方科学哲学发展述评[J].求实学刊,1999,(6)：31-37.
1 安文铸.教育科学与系统科学[M].长春：吉林教育出版社,1990.12.
2 杨文兰,高存臣.系统科学中的方法论与认识论的哲学思考[J].烟台师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),2000，(4)：25-30.
1 安文铸.教育科学与系统科学[M].长春：吉林教育出版社,1990.5.
1 钱学森.系统工程[M].长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1983.10.
2 L·贝塔朗非.一般系统论[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,1987.46.
1 余文森主编.现代教学论基础课程[M].长春：东北师范大学出版,2007.17.
1 王家云,张启树主编.现代教育学基础[M].合肥：安徽大学出版社,2004.167.
1 韩渊丰等著.区域地理理论与方法[M].西安：陕西师范大学出版社,1993.179.
2 吴也显.教学论新编[M].北京：教学科学出版社,1991.78-79.
3 苗东升著.系统科学精要[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1998.31.
1 刘俊荣.结构概念的再解读[J].系统科学学报,2010,(4)：15-19.
1 查有梁.系统科学与教育[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1993.65.
1 (苏)列·费·伊利切夫主编.作为一般发展理论的唯物辩证法[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1987.295.
1 中国辩证唯物主义研究会编,系统科学的哲学探讨[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1988.307-308.
1 孔祥军著.精品新闻学：理论建构与媒体运行[M].北京：新华出版社,2006.21.
2 (瑞士)费尔迪南·德·索绪尔著,高明凯译.普通语言学教程[M].商务印书馆,1980.143.
3 田汉族.交往教学论[M].长沙：湖南师范大学出版社,2002.137.
1 巴班斯基著,张定璋等译.教学过程最优化——一般教学论方面[M].北京：人民教育出版,2007.14
2 巴班斯基著,张定璋等译.教学过程最优化——一般教学论方面[M].北京：人民教育出版,2007.14.
1 刘友女.意识形态结构视域下中国主导意识形态问题研究[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文,2012.65.
1 占小红.学科思想教育的实践探索——基于“教育批评”的课例研究[J].教育理论与实践,2010,(2)：.39-41.
1 周怡.社会结构：由“形构”到“解构”[J].社会学研究,2000,(3)：55-66.
1 李松林.教学活动设计的理论框架——一个活动理论的分析视角[J].教育理论与实践,2011,(1).55.
2 李松林.教学活动设计的理论框架——一个活动理论的分析视角[J].教育理论与实践,2011,(1).56.
3 李松林.教学活动设计的理论框架——一个活动理论的分析视角[J].教育理论与实践,2011,(1).56.
1 居敖庆,卢嘉锡,徐光宪主编.化学哲学基[M].北京：科学出版社,1986.16-23.
1 李杰红,陈代武.化学知识的分类与教学设计[J].现代教育科学,2007,(1)：114.
2 刘知新主编.吴俊明,王祖浩著.化学学习论[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,2007.174.
3 刘知新主编.化学教学论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2009.252.
1 刘知新主编.化学教学论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2009.244.
2 刘知新主编.化学教学论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2009.258.
1 江家发主编.化学教学论[M].合肥：安徽人民出版社,2007.163.
1 周仁鸽.论化学课堂的整体构建[J].化学教学,2012,(8)：4.
1 陈波等编著.社会科学方法论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1989.83.
1 马林著.思维科学知识读本[M]北京：中共中央党校出版社,2009.106.
1 (德)乌尔里希·迪尔克斯.诠释哲学：进路、发展脉络和特征[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009,(3)：9-10.
1 高棣.诠释霸权的消除——艾柯对诠释标准的考量[J].济宁学院学报,2012,(4)：57.
1 乌杰著.系统辨证学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社2003.123.
1 李曙华.从系统论到混沌学[M].南宁：广西师范大学出版社,2002.47.
1 李灵芝.化学课堂教学设计论[M].郑州：郑州大学出版社,2006.347.
1 王策三著.教学认识论(修订本)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2002.154.
2 王策三著.教学认识论(修订本)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2002.143.
1 王策三著.教学认识论(修订本)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2002.10.
1 北京教科院基础教育教学研究中心课堂教学评价研制小组.课堂教学评价体系的研究与实验[J].课程·教材·教法,2003,(45)：45-49.
1.高奇编著.系统科学概论[M].济南：山东大学出版社,2001.
2.查有梁.系统科学与教育[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1993.
3.沈禄赓编著.系统科学概要[M].北京：北京广播学院出版社,2000.
4.陈忠等著.复杂性的探索：系统科学与人文[M]合肥：安徽教育出版社,2002.
5.吴彤著.多维融贯：系统分析与哲学思维方法[M].昆明：云南人民出版社,2005.
6.颜泽贤,张铁明著.教育系统论[M].郑州：河南教育出版社，1991.
7.魏宏森,曾国屏.系统论：系统科学哲学[M].北京：清华大学出版社,1995.
8.方可.教学原理与方法论[M].上海：上海文艺出版社,2002.
9.郝海,踪家峰著.系统分析与评价方法[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2007.
10.(美)怀海特著.思维方式[M].台湾：商务印书馆,2004.
11.工小燕编著.科学思维与科学方法论[M].广州：华南理工大学出版社,2006.
12.樊琪著.科学学习心理学：科学课程的教与学[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2002.
13.皮连生.教学设计：心理学的理论与技术[M].北京：高等教育出版社2000.
14.工升主编.教学设计法[M].石家庄：河北人民出版社,2006.
15.罗伟生,丁如全.教学研究理论与实践[M].北京：国家行政学院出版,2009.
16.张廷凯著.新课程设计的变革[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2003.
17.裴娣娜.现代教学论(第2卷)[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005.
18.王丽娟等编著.教学设计[M].海口：南海出版公司出版,2009.
19.赵伶俐著.课堂教学设计与操作技术[M].重庆：西南师范大学出版社,2002.
20.杨惠元著.课堂教学理论与实践[M].北京：北京语言大学出版社,2007.
21.徐建成著.课堂教学新视野[M].南京：南京师范大学出版社,2005.
22.施良方,崔允漷主编.教学理论：课堂教学的原理、策略与研究[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1999.
23.张诗亚著.惑论：教学过程中认知发展突变论[M].重庆：西南师范大学出版社,2003.
24.王策三.教学认识论[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002.
25.陆根书著.课堂学习论[M].西安：西安交通大学出版社,2002.
26.郭晓明著.课程结构论：一种原理性探寻[M].长沙：湖南师范大学出版社,2002.
27.汪霞著.课程理论与课程改革[M].合肥：安徽教育出版社,2007
28.钟启泉等.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)解读[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2001
29.刘知新,王祖浩.化学教学系统论[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,1996.
30.杨先昌,廖可珍,施志毅著.化学教育学[M].南昌,江西教育出版社,1991.
31.李晶,何彩霞主编.化学新课程与学科素质培养：化学教育新视野[M].北京：中国纺织出版社,2002.
32.毕华林,宋焕刚,刘知新化学教育思想研究[M].济南：山东教育出版社,2008.
33.北京师联教育科学研究所编.学科课程改革与教学创新·化学课程改革与课堂教学创新[M].北京：学苑音像出版社,2004.
34.朱嘉泰,白福秦主编.化学教育与素质教育[M].北京：中华工商联合出版社,1999.
35.贺湘善,吴俊明.化学学科教育学[M].北京：首都师范大学出版社,2001.
36.王祖浩主编.化学课堂教学行为研究及案例[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,2009.
37.刘知新主编.化学课程论[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,1996.
38.朱嘉泰,李俊著.化学教学艺术论[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,2002.
39.李灵芝编著.化学课堂教学设计[M].郑州：郑州大学出版社,2006.
40.吴茂江编著.化学新课程教学论[M].银川：宁夏人民出版社,2009.
41.江家发主编.化学教学论[M].合肥：安徽人民出版社,2007.
42.沈毅,崔允漷.课堂观察：走向专业的听评课[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008.
43.丁朝蓬.新课程评价的理念与方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2003
44.张小燕.逻辑·心理·认知：皮亚杰心理逻辑研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2007.
45.乔丽英,赵兰香.吉登斯结构化理论研究——对结构化理论中“结构”概念的深度审视[J].前沿,2007,(11).
46.张静.论德里达的结构观[J].江西社会科学,2010,(3).
47.包国庆.课堂结构论[J].高等师范教育研究,1991,(3).
48.胡卫平,魏运华.思维结构与课堂教学——聚焦思维结构的智力理论对课堂教学的指导[J].课程·教材·教法,2010,(6).
49.何克抗.教学结构理论与教学深化改革(上)[J].电化教育研究,2007,(7).
50.朱永海,张新明.也论“教学结构”与“教学模式”[J].电化教育研究,2007,(10).
51.古健平.思维结构：概念发生和形成的中介[J].江西杜会科学,1991,(3).
52.龙宝新.走向核心知识教学：高效课堂教学的时代意蕴[J].全球教育展望,2012,(3).
53.张建琼.国内外课堂教学行为研究之比较[J].外国教育研究,2005,(3).
54.余胜泉,陈玲.论教学结构的实践意义——再答邱崇光先生[J].电化教育研究,2005,(2).
55.郭元祥.论教育的过程属性和过程价值——生成性思维视域中的教育过程观[J].教育研究,2005,(9).
56.黎琼锋.意义的寻求——关于课堂教学的价值思考[J].全球教育展望,2008,(3).
57.杨辉.课堂教学活动系统的复杂性探索[J].教师教育研究,2007,(1).
58.刘兼.思维场·思维结构与科学的思维方式[J].心理学探新,1988,(1).
59.杨金海.略论思维结构[J]..郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1992,(1).
60.杨炳儒,马楠,谢永红.知识逻辑结构与思维形式注记教学法研究与探索[J].中国大学教学,2011,(4).
61.盛群力,褚献华.系统设计教学视野中的课堂教学结构[J].教育科学研究,2004,(1).
62.姜俊和.当代国外对教学过程本质的几种认识[J].外国教育研究,2001,(5).
63.刘云生.巴班斯基教学过程最优化理论的批判性思考[J].外国教育研究,1989,(2).
64.夏正江.重考教学活动的本质[J].教育研究,2000,(7).
65.朱德全,张家琼.论教学逻辑[J].教育研究,2007,(11).
66.钟启泉.教学活动理论的考察[J].教育研究,2005,(5).
67.朱佩荣.季亚琴科论教学的本质(上)[J].外国教育资料,1993,(5).
68.王海澜.知识论教学：开发学生思维的探索[J].上海教育科研,1998,(9).
69.李松林.教学活动设计的理论框架——一个活动理论的分析视角[J].教育理论与实践,2011,(1).
70.薛晓阳.教学概念的重建及其课堂的基本任务[J].教师教育研究,2010,(1).
71.刘徽.简单性与复杂性：思考课堂教学的新维度[J].全球教育展望,2005,(3).
72.陈佑清.教学活动的条件——目的性活动结构[J].教育理论与实践,2002,(2).
73.张钢,倪旭东.从知识分类到知识地图——一个面向组织现实的分析[J].自然辩证法通讯,2005,(1).
74.李定仁,范兆雄.教学要素与教学系统最优化[J].教育科学,2003,(6).
75冯忠良.结构化与定向化教学心理学原理[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,1998.
76.徐文彬.课堂教学中的本原性学科问题研究[J].教育研究与实验,2009,(4).
77.王祖浩.关于化学教学原则的思考与构想[J].化学教育,1996,(8).
78.程宏如.从“三论”微观逻辑与课堂教学系统[J].盐城师专学报(哲学社会科学版),1994,(3).
79.杜志宏.系统论指导下的课堂教学质量评价体系创新[J].现代教育科学,2008,(5).
80.杜明成.中学化学基本观念的内涵及其学习价值[J].山东教育,2006,(8).
81.龚孝华.课堂教学评价标准的反思与重构[J].教育探索,2002,(11).
82.北京教科院基础教育教学研究中心课堂教学评价研制小组.课堂教学评价体系的研究与实验[J].课程·教材·教法,2003(2)
83.吴颖民.课堂教学评价体系构建：问题与新思路[J].华南师范大学学报(社会科学版),2008,(3).
84.赵明仁.课堂教学评价研究[J].教育研究与实验,2003,(2).
85.吴维宁.专业化的课堂教学评价工具RTOP评介[J].教师教育研究,2011,(5).
86.杨淑萍.重新审视课堂教学评价的功能、内容与标准[J].教育理论与实践,2009,(10).
87.丁朝蓬,梁国立.我国课堂教学评价研究概况、问题与设想[J].教育科学研究,2006,(12).
88.梁惠燕,高凌飚.课堂教学评价的反思和框架重构[J].教育科学研究,2006,(6).
89.沈毅,崔允漷等.课堂观察框架与工具[J].当代教育科学,2007,(24).
90.张菊荣.课堂观察的基本理念和初步实践[J].中国教育学刊,2007,(9).
91.崔允漷,周文叶.课堂观察：为何与何为[J].上海教育科研,2008,(6).
92.黄荣金.国际数学课堂的录像研究及其思考[J].比较教育研究,2004,(3).
93.刘云生.课堂观察：现象、诊释与建构[J].中国教育学刊,2007,(2).
94.娄延果.化学课堂“教学行为对”及其组合的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学博士学位论文，010.
95.尹筱莉.化学专家·新手教师课堂教学特质比较研究[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文，2007.
96.孙亚玲.课堂教学有效性标准研究[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文,2004.
97.张瑞.理解与超越：情境适应性教学评价研究[D].重庆：西南大学博士学位论文,2011.
98.王丽君.关于高中学生化学思维方式及其培养的研究[D].北京：首都师范大学硕士学位论文,2006.
99.辛本春.中学生化学基本观念培养的研究[D].济南：山东师范大学硕士学位论文,2008.
100.顾建辛.化学思维能力结构及其培养[J].课程·教材·教法,1998,(11).
101.黄兴丰.数学课堂活动的研究[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文,2008.
I.Ames, C. (1992c). Classroom:Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology,84,261-271.
2.Gabel D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research:a look to the future. J Chem Education,76,548-554.
3.Duit, R.,Confrey, J. (1996). Improving Teaching and Learning; Teachers.College Press:New York,79-93.
4.Marshall, H. H. (1976). Dimensions of classroom structure and functioning project:Final report. Berkeley, CA:University of California.
5.Evans, K. L., Karabinos, M., Leinhardt, G.,& Yaron, D. (2006). Chemistry in the field and chemistry in the classroom:A cognitive disconnect.Journal of Chemical Education, 83(4),655-661.
6. Lee, Valerie E. and Julia B. Smith. (1993). Effects of School Restructuring on the Achievement and Engagement of Middle-grade Students. Sociology of Education,66(3),164-187.
7.Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments:theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,2(2),141-178.
8.Qin, Zhining, David W. Johnson, and Roger T. Johnson.(1995). Cooperative Versus Competitive Efforts and Problem Solving. Review of Educational Research,65(2),129-143.
9.Sandoval, W. A.,& Daniszewski, K. (2004). Mapping the trade-offs in teachers'integration of technology supported inquiry in high school sciences classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology,13(2),161-178.
10.Barnes, D.,& Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited. making meaning through talk. Posrtsmouth, NH:Boynton/Cook Publishers.
11.Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods:A sixthousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1),28-31.
12.Chik, P. P. M. (2006). Differences in learning as a function of differences between hierarchical and sequential organisation of the content taught. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Hong Kong.
13.Ornstein,A.C..(1990).Strategies for effective teaching. New York:HarperCollins Publisher.
14.Campell,1.(2003).Mindful learning:101 proven strategies for student and teacher success. Thousand Oaks,Calif:Corwin Press.
15. Brans ford, J., Brown, A. J.,Cocking,R.(1999).How people learn:brain, mind, experience and school. Washington D.C.:National Academy Publisher.
16.Kindsvatter,R.,Wilen,W.,Ishier,M.(2000).Dynamics of effective teaching. New York and London:longman.
17.Pianta, R.C., LaParo, K.M.,& Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system manual:Pre- K. Baltimore:Brookes.
18. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A.,& Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum:Lessons learned from two teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences,16(1), 81-130.
19.Duit, R.; Confrey, J. (1996).Improving Teaching and Learning; Teachers College Press:New York,79-93.
20.Jo Ellen Roseman,Luli Stern,& Mary Koppal.(2010). A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks Journal of Research in Science Teaching,47,47-70.
21.Neuendorf, K. A.(2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
22.W.H.Schmidt.(1992).TIMSS curriculum analysis:topic trace mapping. prospects,22(3),326-333.
23.Cohen, L.,Manion, L.,& Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5thed.). London: Routledge.
24.Bernstein, B.(1996).Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity:Theory, research, critique. London:Taylor and Francis.
25.Li, Yeping.(1999).An analysis of algebra content, content organization and presentation, and to-be-solved Problems in eighth-grade mathematics textbooks from Hong Kong, Mainland China, Singapore, and the United States, Unpublished University of Pittsburgh doctoral dissertation, Pittsburgh, PA.
26.Borko, H.,& Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D.Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York:Macmillan.
27. Horizon Research (2000). Inside the classroom observation and analytic protocol. Chapel Hill, NC:Horizon Research.
28.Khine, M.S.,& Fisher, D.L. (2003). Teacher-student interactions in science classrooms in Brunei. Journal of Classroom Interaction,38,21-28.
29.Berquist, W.H.,& Phillips, S. R. (1975). Classroom structures which encourage student participation. In classroom communication:collective readings for effective discussion and questioning,13-18.
30.National Research Council. (2005). How students learn:History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
31.Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
32.Yair, G. (2000). Reforming motivation:How the structure of instruction affects students' learning experiences. British Educational Journal,26,191-210.
33.Levy Nahum T, Mamlok-Naaman R, Hofstein A, Taber KS. (2010).Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding. Studies Sci Educ,46,179-207.
34.Hofstein A, Kesner M. (2006).Industrial chemistry and school chemistry:making chemistry studies more relevant. Int J SciEduc,28,1017-1039.
35.Waxman, H., Wang, M., Lindvall, M.,& Anderson, K. (1988). Classroom observation schedule technical manual. Pittsburgh, PA:University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
36. Fish, M.C.,& Dane. E. (2000). The classroom systems observation scale:development of an instrument to assess classroom using systems perspectives. Learning Environments Research,3, 67-92.
37.Cassady, J.C., Speirs-Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., Cross, T. L., Dixon, F. A.,& Pierce, R. L. (2004). The differentiated classroom observation scale. Roeper Review,26,139.
38.Patrick, H., Ryan. A. M., Anderman, L. H., Middleton, M., Linnenbrick, L., Hruda, L. Z., Edelin, K. C., Kaplan, A.,& Midgley, C. (1997). Observing patterns of adaptive learning:A protocol for classroom observations. Unpublished measure, University of MI, Ann Arbor.
39.Ysseldyke. J.E.,& Christenson, S.L. (1993). The instructional environment system Ⅱ.Longmont, CO:Sopris West.
40.Kilday, C. R.,& Kinzie, M. B. (2009). An analysis of instruments that measure the quality of mathematics teaching in early childhood.Early Childhood Education Journal,36(4),365-372.
41.Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2009). Working with teachers to develop fair and reliable measures of effective teaching.Seattle, WA:Author. Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/highschools/Documents/met-framing-paper.pdf.
42.Mayer,R.E.etal.(2000).A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:A revision of bloom' s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:Addison Wesley Longman.
43.Jablonka E.(2003).The structure of mathematics Lessons in German Classrooms: Variations on a Theme. Paper Presented as Part of the LPS symposium at the annual meeting of the American educational research association,Chicago,21-25.
44.LoPez-Real,F.J.,Mok, I.A.C.,Leung,F.K.5.& Marton,F.(2004).Identifying a pattern of teaching: An analysis of a Shanghai teacher,5 lessons. In L. Fan,N. Y.Wong,.K.S.Leung&F.Marton(Eds.),How Chinese learn mathematics:Perspectives from insiders. Singapore:World Scientific Publishing Co.
45.Ross,R.P.(1984).Classroom segments:the structuring of school time InL.W.Anderson(Eds.),Time and school learning:Theory, research, and practice.London:St. Martin's Press
46.Waring,S.,Orton,A.&Roper.T.(2005).Pattern and proof. In A. Orton(Eds.),Pattern in the teaching and learning of mathematics. London:Continuum.
47.Kintsch, W.. (1998).Comprehension:A paradigm for cognition.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
48.Krippendorff, K. (2004).Content Analysis:An Introduction to Its Methodology. Newbury Park, Califz Sage
49.Shuell, T. (1990). The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology.60,531-547
50.Fernandez, C. (2005). Lesson study:A means for elementary teachers to develop the knowledge of mathematics needed for reform-minded teaching? Mathematical Thinking and Learning,7(4),265-289.
51.Watanabe, T. (2002). Learning from Japanese lesson study. Educational Leadership,59(6), 36-39.
52.Cavalcante, P. S., Newton, D. P.,& Newton, L. D. (1997). The effect of various kinds of lesson on conceptual understanding in science. Research in Science and Technology Education,15(2), 185-193.
53.Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of "context" in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education,28(9),957-976.
54.Gutwill-Wise, J. (2001). The Impact of active and context-based learning in introductory chemistry courses:An early evaluation of the modular approach. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(5),684-690.
55.Rigano, D. L.,& Ritchie, S. M. (1994). Students'thinking in a chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education,24,270-279.
56.Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping:a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7,155-170.
57.Harrison, A.G.,& Treagust, D.F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules and chemical bonds: a case-study of multiple model use in grade-11 chemistry. Science Education.84,352-381.
58.Justi, R. (2002). Teaching and learning chemical kinetics. In J.K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R.Justi, D.F. Treagust & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education:Towards Research based Practice. Dordrecht NL:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
59.Smith, J.A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R.Harre & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.Van Driel, J.H.,& Graber, W. (2002). The teaching and learning of chemical equilibrium. In J.K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice. Dordrecht NL:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
61.Matthews, M. R. (2004). Thomas Kuhn's impact on science education:What lessons can be learned? Science Education,88,90-118.
62. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J.S.,& Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations:students'use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38,821-842.
63.Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons:Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64.Roth, W.-M., Boutonne, S., McRobbie, C.,& Lucas, K. (1999). One class, many worlds. International Journal of Science Education,21,59-75.
65.Khine, M.S.,& Fisher, D.L. (2003). Teacher-student interactions in science classrooms in Brunei. Journal of Classroom Interaction,38,21-28.
66.Wubbels, T. (1993). Teacher-students relationships in science and mathematics classes. Perth, Australia:National Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics,Curtin University of Technology.
67.Horizon Research (2000). Inside the classroom observation and analytic protocol. Chapel Hill, NC:Horizon Research.
1 欧崇敬.从结构主义到解构主义[M].台北：扬智文化事业股份有限公司,1998.53.
2 欧崇敬.从结构主义到解构主义[M].台北：扬智文化事业股份有限公司,1998.67.
1 (比)布洛克曼著,李幼蒸译.结构主义：莫斯科—布拉格—巴黎[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.6.
2 高宣扬.结构主义概说[M].香港：天地图书,1983.81.
1 李克建.结构主义、后结构主义与教育研究：方法论的视角[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文,2007.50.
2 刘富华,孙维张.索绪尔与结构主义语言学[M].长春：吉林大学出版社,2003.49-57.
3 (比)布洛克曼著,李幼蒸译.结构主义：莫斯科—布拉格—巴黎[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.21-24.
1 高宣扬.结构主义概说[M].香港：天地图书,1983.195.
1 (比)布洛克曼著,李幼蒸译.结构主义：莫斯科—布拉格—巴黎[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.94.
2 对于静态系统,要素是构成该系统的基本材料；对于动态系统,可以把系统运行的基本单元看作组成要素,因此,我们可以把前者称为构成性要素,后者视为过程性要素。
1 (捷)夸美纽斯著,傅任敢译.大教学论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,1999.142-148.
2 沈振元.课的结构模式简介[J].上海教育科研,1992,(3)：19.
3 李妍.乔纳森建构主义学习环境设计理论的系统研究与当代启示[J].开放教育研究,2006,(6)：50-56.
4 沈振元.课的结构模式简介[J].上海教育科研,1992,(3)：19.
5 盛群力,褚献华.系统设计教学视野中的课堂教学结构[J].教育科学研究,2004,(1)：38-40.
1 瞿葆奎主编.教育学文集·教学(中册)[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1988.48.
2 白鸿胜主编.主体参与：现代课堂教与学[M].北京：新华出版社,1994.86.
1 本研究中提及教学要素,如无特别说明,指的就是构成性要素。
2 Marshall, H. H. (1976). Dimensions of classroom structure and functioning project:Final report. Berkeley,CA: University of California.
3 M.H·马赫穆托夫,杜殿坤译.现代的课[J].外国教育资料,1983,(6)：1-15.
4 Lee, Valerie E. and Julia B. Smith. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the Achievement and Engagement of middle-grade students. Sociology of Education,66(3):164-187.
5 朱永海,张新明.也论“教学结构”与“教学模式”[J].电化教育研究,2007(10)：36.
1 余胜泉,马宁.论教学结构——答邱崇光先生[J].电化教育研究,2003(6)：4-7.
2 Brown, A.L. (1992). Design Experiments:Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,2(2),141-178.
3 Qin, Zhining, David W. Johnson, and Roger T. Johnson.(1995). Cooperative Versus Competitive Efforts and Problem Solving. Review of Educational Research,65(2):129-143.
1 Shannon R. (2003). Effects of classroom structure on student achievement goal orientation. The Journal of Educational Research, vol 97,106-110.
2 刘知新,王祖浩.化学教学系统论[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,1996.174.
3 郑长龙.化学课堂结构的教学行为解读[J].化学教育,2010,(6)：44.
4 娄延果.化学课堂“教学行为对”及其组合的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学博士学位论文,2010.
1 秦青山.化学课堂的结构与功能[Jl.华人时刊,2011,(11)：40-42.
2 毛东海.化学课堂有效教学的“线索”和“结构”.化学教育,2012,(10)：23-27.
1 Sandoval, W. A.,& Daniszewski, K. (2004). Mapping the trade-offs in teachers'integration of technology supported inquiry in high school sciences classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology,13(2):161-178.
2 Chik, P. P. M. (2006). Differences in learning as a function of differences between hierarchical and sequential organisation of the content taught. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Hong Kong.
3 Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A.,& Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum:Lessons learned from two teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences,16(1),81-130.
4 Gage,N.L.(1963). Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago:Rand Mcnally转引自郑燕祥.教育的功能与效能[M].香港：广角镜出版有限公司,1986.71.
1 盖立春.复杂性科学视野下的化学课堂教学行为组合研究[D].长春：东北师范大学博士学位论文,201 1.
2 Barnes, D.,& Todd, F. (1995). Communication and Learning Revisited. Making Meaning Through Talk. Posrtsmouth, NH:Boynton/Cook Publishers.
3 Hake, R. R. (1998, January). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods:A sixthousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics,66(1),28-31.
4 Shachar, H.,& Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, achieving:effects of cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction,12,313-353.
5 Crouch, C.H.,& Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction:Ten years of experience and results, American Journal of Physics,69(9),970-977.
6 McMaster, K. N., Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of students with learning disabilities:An update of Tateyama-Sniezek's review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(2),107-117.
1 王鉴.课堂研究引论[J].教育研究,2003,(6)：79.
1 张旭,许林编著.现代教育技术[M].北京：科学出版社,1995.30.
2 鲍嵘.教学设计理性及其限制[J].教育评论,1998,(3)：32-34.
3 国家教委电化教育司编译.教学媒体与教学设计[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1990.181.
4 乌美娜.教学设计[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1994.12.
1 加涅著,皮连生等译.教学设计原理[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2005.131-133.
1 张传燧主编.解读行为主义教育思想[M].广州：广东教育出版社,2007.125.
2 盛群力,李志强编著.现代教学设计论[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1998.78.
3 盛群力.教学设计的基本模式及其特点[J].广州大学学报(社会科学版),2006,(7)：32-38.
1 王丽娟,张亿钧,李少斌等编著.教学设计[M].海口：南海出版公司,2003.47.
1 刘志军.课堂评价论[M].南宁：广西师范大学出版社,2002.1.
2 刘要悟.教学评价基本问题研究fM].兰州：甘肃文化出版社,1997.169.
1 刘要悟.教学评价基本问题研究[M].兰州：甘肃文化出版社,1997.155-159.
2 Teach for America. (n.d.) History. Retrieved April 20,2010, from http://www.teachforamerica.org/about/our_history.htm.
3 潘娟.教师课堂教学评价标准重构[D].北京：首都师范大学硕士学位论文,2004.11.
4 Ornstein,A.C.,(1990).Strategies for effective teaching. New York:Harper Collins Publisher.
5 Campell,1.(2003).Mindful learning:101 proven strategies for student and teacher success. Thousand Oaks,Calif:Corwin Press.
1 Bransford,J.,Brown,A.J.,Cocking,R.(1999).How people learn:brain, mind, experience and school. Washington D.C.:National Academy Publisher.
2 Kindsvatter,R.,Wilen,W.,Ishier,M.(2000).Dynamics of effective teaching. New York and London:longman.
3 Pianta, R.C., LaParo, K.M.,& Hamre, B. K. (2008).Classroom assessment scoring system.Manual:Pre-K. Baltimore:Brookes.
1 刘志军.课堂评价论[M].南宁：广西师范大学出版社,2002.53.
2 刘志军.课堂评价论[M].南宁：广西师范大学出版社,2002.54.
3 巴班斯基著,吴文侃译.教学教育过程最优化[M],北京：教育科学出版社,1986.191-205.
4 罗明基.教学论教程[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,1987.257-263.
5 何志汉.教学论稿[M].重庆：西南师范大学出版社,1988.388-389.
1 李蔚.提高课堂教学质量的心理学问题[M].北京：教育科学出版社,1992.143-155.
2 刘志军.主体教育理论与实验的跨世纪探索——第三届全国主体教育理论与实验学术研讨会综述[J].教育研究,1999,(4)：77-78.
3 刘知新.中学化学教材教法[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,1983.97.
1 刘知新.化学教学论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1990.168-170.
2 陈耀亭等.中学化学教材教法(第2版)M.北京：北京师范大学出版社,1992.172-173.
3 张多霞等.化学教学论[M].广州：广东高等教育出版社,1999.121
4 范杰.化学教学论[M].太原：山西科学技术出版社,2000.102
1 李方.课程与教学论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2005.6.
2 樊豫陇编著.现代教学论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2006.10.
1 李定仁,徐继存著.教学论研究二十年：1979-1999[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2001.61.
1 戴本博.亚里士多德教育思想浅论[J].安徽师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1987,(1)：65-70.
2 袁传明,杨汉麟.裴斯泰洛齐的教育思想——“爱的教育”浅析[J].教育探索,2010(2)：6-8.
3 李定仁.空想社会主义者欧文的教育思想[J].西北师范大学学报(社会科学版),1979,(5)；88-96.
4 徐艳国著.走向自由：教育与人的发展问题[M].武汉：华中师范大学出版社,1999.5-6.
1 美国科学促进协会,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的基准[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2002.36-37.
1 裴新宁.面向学习者的化学教学设计[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文,2003.13.
2 Lagowski J.J. (2002).The role of the laboratory in chemical education. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/research/chemed/lagowski/jjl_beijing_02.pdf (Accessed on 29 Sep,2011).
1 景天魁.社会认识的结构与悖论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1990.135.
1 洪晓楠.20世纪西方科学哲学发展述评[J].求实学刊,1999,(6)：31-37.
1 安文铸.教育科学与系统科学[M].长春：吉林教育出版社,1990.12.
2 杨文兰,高存臣.系统科学中的方法论与认识论的哲学思考[J].烟台师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),2000，(4)：25-30.
1 安文铸.教育科学与系统科学[M].长春：吉林教育出版社,1990.5.
1 钱学森.系统工程[M].长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1983.10.
2 L·贝塔朗非.一般系统论[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,1987.46.
1 余文森主编.现代教学论基础课程[M].长春：东北师范大学出版,2007.17.
1 王家云,张启树主编.现代教育学基础[M].合肥：安徽大学出版社,2004.167.
1 韩渊丰等著.区域地理理论与方法[M].西安：陕西师范大学出版社,1993.179.
2 吴也显.教学论新编[M].北京：教学科学出版社,1991.78-79.
3 苗东升著.系统科学精要[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1998.31.
1 刘俊荣.结构概念的再解读[J].系统科学学报,2010,(4)：15-19.
1 查有梁.系统科学与教育[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1993.65.
1 (苏)列·费·伊利切夫主编.作为一般发展理论的唯物辩证法[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1987.295.
1 中国辩证唯物主义研究会编,系统科学的哲学探讨[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1988.307-308.
1 孔祥军著.精品新闻学：理论建构与媒体运行[M].北京：新华出版社,2006.21.
2 (瑞士)费尔迪南·德·索绪尔著,高明凯译.普通语言学教程[M].商务印书馆,1980.143.
3 田汉族.交往教学论[M].长沙：湖南师范大学出版社,2002.137.
1 巴班斯基著,张定璋等译.教学过程最优化——一般教学论方面[M].北京：人民教育出版,2007.14
2 巴班斯基著,张定璋等译.教学过程最优化——一般教学论方面[M].北京：人民教育出版,2007.14.
1 刘友女.意识形态结构视域下中国主导意识形态问题研究[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文,2012.65.
1 占小红.学科思想教育的实践探索——基于“教育批评”的课例研究[J].教育理论与实践,2010,(2)：.39-41.
1 周怡.社会结构：由“形构”到“解构”[J].社会学研究,2000,(3)：55-66.
1 李松林.教学活动设计的理论框架——一个活动理论的分析视角[J].教育理论与实践,2011,(1).55.
2 李松林.教学活动设计的理论框架——一个活动理论的分析视角[J].教育理论与实践,2011,(1).56.
3 李松林.教学活动设计的理论框架——一个活动理论的分析视角[J].教育理论与实践,2011,(1).56.
1 居敖庆,卢嘉锡,徐光宪主编.化学哲学基[M].北京：科学出版社,1986.16-23.
1 李杰红,陈代武.化学知识的分类与教学设计[J].现代教育科学,2007,(1)：114.
2 刘知新主编.吴俊明,王祖浩著.化学学习论[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,2007.174.
3 刘知新主编.化学教学论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2009.252.
1 刘知新主编.化学教学论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2009.244.
2 刘知新主编.化学教学论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2009.258.
1 江家发主编.化学教学论[M].合肥：安徽人民出版社,2007.163.
1 周仁鸽.论化学课堂的整体构建[J].化学教学,2012,(8)：4.
1 陈波等编著.社会科学方法论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1989.83.
1 马林著.思维科学知识读本[M]北京：中共中央党校出版社,2009.106.
1 (德)乌尔里希·迪尔克斯.诠释哲学：进路、发展脉络和特征[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009,(3)：9-10.
1 高棣.诠释霸权的消除——艾柯对诠释标准的考量[J].济宁学院学报,2012,(4)：57.
1 乌杰著.系统辨证学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社2003.123.
1 李曙华.从系统论到混沌学[M].南宁：广西师范大学出版社,2002.47.
1 李灵芝.化学课堂教学设计论[M].郑州：郑州大学出版社,2006.347.
1 王策三著.教学认识论(修订本)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2002.154.
2 王策三著.教学认识论(修订本)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2002.143.
1 王策三著.教学认识论(修订本)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2002.10.
1 北京教科院基础教育教学研究中心课堂教学评价研制小组.课堂教学评价体系的研究与实验[J].课程·教材·教法,2003,(45)：45-49.
1.高奇编著.系统科学概论[M].济南：山东大学出版社,2001.
2.查有梁.系统科学与教育[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1993.
3.沈禄赓编著.系统科学概要[M].北京：北京广播学院出版社,2000.
4.陈忠等著.复杂性的探索：系统科学与人文[M]合肥：安徽教育出版社,2002.
5.吴彤著.多维融贯：系统分析与哲学思维方法[M].昆明：云南人民出版社,2005.
6.颜泽贤,张铁明著.教育系统论[M].郑州：河南教育出版社，1991.
7.魏宏森,曾国屏.系统论：系统科学哲学[M].北京：清华大学出版社,1995.
8.方可.教学原理与方法论[M].上海：上海文艺出版社,2002.
9.郝海,踪家峰著.系统分析与评价方法[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2007.
10.(美)怀海特著.思维方式[M].台湾：商务印书馆,2004.
11.工小燕编著.科学思维与科学方法论[M].广州：华南理工大学出版社,2006.
12.樊琪著.科学学习心理学：科学课程的教与学[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2002.
13.皮连生.教学设计：心理学的理论与技术[M].北京：高等教育出版社2000.
14.工升主编.教学设计法[M].石家庄：河北人民出版社,2006.
15.罗伟生,丁如全.教学研究理论与实践[M].北京：国家行政学院出版,2009.
16.张廷凯著.新课程设计的变革[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2003.
17.裴娣娜.现代教学论(第2卷)[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005.
18.王丽娟等编著.教学设计[M].海口：南海出版公司出版,2009.
19.赵伶俐著.课堂教学设计与操作技术[M].重庆：西南师范大学出版社,2002.
20.杨惠元著.课堂教学理论与实践[M].北京：北京语言大学出版社,2007.
21.徐建成著.课堂教学新视野[M].南京：南京师范大学出版社,2005.
22.施良方,崔允漷主编.教学理论：课堂教学的原理、策略与研究[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1999.
23.张诗亚著.惑论：教学过程中认知发展突变论[M].重庆：西南师范大学出版社,2003.
24.王策三.教学认识论[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002.
25.陆根书著.课堂学习论[M].西安：西安交通大学出版社,2002.
26.郭晓明著.课程结构论：一种原理性探寻[M].长沙：湖南师范大学出版社,2002.
27.汪霞著.课程理论与课程改革[M].合肥：安徽教育出版社,2007
28.钟启泉等.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)解读[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2001
29.刘知新,王祖浩.化学教学系统论[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,1996.
30.杨先昌,廖可珍,施志毅著.化学教育学[M].南昌,江西教育出版社,1991.
31.李晶,何彩霞主编.化学新课程与学科素质培养：化学教育新视野[M].北京：中国纺织出版社,2002.
32.毕华林,宋焕刚,刘知新化学教育思想研究[M].济南：山东教育出版社,2008.
33.北京师联教育科学研究所编.学科课程改革与教学创新·化学课程改革与课堂教学创新[M].北京：学苑音像出版社,2004.
34.朱嘉泰,白福秦主编.化学教育与素质教育[M].北京：中华工商联合出版社,1999.
35.贺湘善,吴俊明.化学学科教育学[M].北京：首都师范大学出版社,2001.
36.王祖浩主编.化学课堂教学行为研究及案例[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,2009.
37.刘知新主编.化学课程论[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,1996.
38.朱嘉泰,李俊著.化学教学艺术论[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,2002.
39.李灵芝编著.化学课堂教学设计[M].郑州：郑州大学出版社,2006.
40.吴茂江编著.化学新课程教学论[M].银川：宁夏人民出版社,2009.
41.江家发主编.化学教学论[M].合肥：安徽人民出版社,2007.
42.沈毅,崔允漷.课堂观察：走向专业的听评课[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008.
43.丁朝蓬.新课程评价的理念与方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2003
44.张小燕.逻辑·心理·认知：皮亚杰心理逻辑研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2007.
45.乔丽英,赵兰香.吉登斯结构化理论研究——对结构化理论中“结构”概念的深度审视[J].前沿,2007,(11).
46.张静.论德里达的结构观[J].江西社会科学,2010,(3).
47.包国庆.课堂结构论[J].高等师范教育研究,1991,(3).
48.胡卫平,魏运华.思维结构与课堂教学——聚焦思维结构的智力理论对课堂教学的指导[J].课程·教材·教法,2010,(6).
49.何克抗.教学结构理论与教学深化改革(上)[J].电化教育研究,2007,(7).
50.朱永海,张新明.也论“教学结构”与“教学模式”[J].电化教育研究,2007,(10).
51.古健平.思维结构：概念发生和形成的中介[J].江西杜会科学,1991,(3).
52.龙宝新.走向核心知识教学：高效课堂教学的时代意蕴[J].全球教育展望,2012,(3).
53.张建琼.国内外课堂教学行为研究之比较[J].外国教育研究,2005,(3).
54.余胜泉,陈玲.论教学结构的实践意义——再答邱崇光先生[J].电化教育研究,2005,(2).
55.郭元祥.论教育的过程属性和过程价值——生成性思维视域中的教育过程观[J].教育研究,2005,(9).
56.黎琼锋.意义的寻求——关于课堂教学的价值思考[J].全球教育展望,2008,(3).
57.杨辉.课堂教学活动系统的复杂性探索[J].教师教育研究,2007,(1).
58.刘兼.思维场·思维结构与科学的思维方式[J].心理学探新,1988,(1).
59.杨金海.略论思维结构[J]..郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1992,(1).
60.杨炳儒,马楠,谢永红.知识逻辑结构与思维形式注记教学法研究与探索[J].中国大学教学,2011,(4).
61.盛群力,褚献华.系统设计教学视野中的课堂教学结构[J].教育科学研究,2004,(1).
62.姜俊和.当代国外对教学过程本质的几种认识[J].外国教育研究,2001,(5).
63.刘云生.巴班斯基教学过程最优化理论的批判性思考[J].外国教育研究,1989,(2).
64.夏正江.重考教学活动的本质[J].教育研究,2000,(7).
65.朱德全,张家琼.论教学逻辑[J].教育研究,2007,(11).
66.钟启泉.教学活动理论的考察[J].教育研究,2005,(5).
67.朱佩荣.季亚琴科论教学的本质(上)[J].外国教育资料,1993,(5).
68.王海澜.知识论教学：开发学生思维的探索[J].上海教育科研,1998,(9).
69.李松林.教学活动设计的理论框架——一个活动理论的分析视角[J].教育理论与实践,2011,(1).
70.薛晓阳.教学概念的重建及其课堂的基本任务[J].教师教育研究,2010,(1).
71.刘徽.简单性与复杂性：思考课堂教学的新维度[J].全球教育展望,2005,(3).
72.陈佑清.教学活动的条件——目的性活动结构[J].教育理论与实践,2002,(2).
73.张钢,倪旭东.从知识分类到知识地图——一个面向组织现实的分析[J].自然辩证法通讯,2005,(1).
74.李定仁,范兆雄.教学要素与教学系统最优化[J].教育科学,2003,(6).
75冯忠良.结构化与定向化教学心理学原理[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,1998.
76.徐文彬.课堂教学中的本原性学科问题研究[J].教育研究与实验,2009,(4).
77.王祖浩.关于化学教学原则的思考与构想[J].化学教育,1996,(8).
78.程宏如.从“三论”微观逻辑与课堂教学系统[J].盐城师专学报(哲学社会科学版),1994,(3).
79.杜志宏.系统论指导下的课堂教学质量评价体系创新[J].现代教育科学,2008,(5).
80.杜明成.中学化学基本观念的内涵及其学习价值[J].山东教育,2006,(8).
81.龚孝华.课堂教学评价标准的反思与重构[J].教育探索,2002,(11).
82.北京教科院基础教育教学研究中心课堂教学评价研制小组.课堂教学评价体系的研究与实验[J].课程·教材·教法,2003(2)
83.吴颖民.课堂教学评价体系构建：问题与新思路[J].华南师范大学学报(社会科学版),2008,(3).
84.赵明仁.课堂教学评价研究[J].教育研究与实验,2003,(2).
85.吴维宁.专业化的课堂教学评价工具RTOP评介[J].教师教育研究,2011,(5).
86.杨淑萍.重新审视课堂教学评价的功能、内容与标准[J].教育理论与实践,2009,(10).
87.丁朝蓬,梁国立.我国课堂教学评价研究概况、问题与设想[J].教育科学研究,2006,(12).
88.梁惠燕,高凌飚.课堂教学评价的反思和框架重构[J].教育科学研究,2006,(6).
89.沈毅,崔允漷等.课堂观察框架与工具[J].当代教育科学,2007,(24).
90.张菊荣.课堂观察的基本理念和初步实践[J].中国教育学刊,2007,(9).
91.崔允漷,周文叶.课堂观察：为何与何为[J].上海教育科研,2008,(6).
92.黄荣金.国际数学课堂的录像研究及其思考[J].比较教育研究,2004,(3).
93.刘云生.课堂观察：现象、诊释与建构[J].中国教育学刊,2007,(2).
94.娄延果.化学课堂“教学行为对”及其组合的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学博士学位论文，010.
95.尹筱莉.化学专家·新手教师课堂教学特质比较研究[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文，2007.
96.孙亚玲.课堂教学有效性标准研究[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文,2004.
97.张瑞.理解与超越：情境适应性教学评价研究[D].重庆：西南大学博士学位论文,2011.
98.王丽君.关于高中学生化学思维方式及其培养的研究[D].北京：首都师范大学硕士学位论文,2006.
99.辛本春.中学生化学基本观念培养的研究[D].济南：山东师范大学硕士学位论文,2008.
100.顾建辛.化学思维能力结构及其培养[J].课程·教材·教法,1998,(11).
101.黄兴丰.数学课堂活动的研究[D].上海：华东师范大学博士学位论文,2008.
I.Ames, C. (1992c). Classroom:Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology,84,261-271.
2.Gabel D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research:a look to the future. J Chem Education,76,548-554.
3.Duit, R.,Confrey, J. (1996). Improving Teaching and Learning; Teachers.College Press:New York,79-93.
4.Marshall, H. H. (1976). Dimensions of classroom structure and functioning project:Final report. Berkeley, CA:University of California.
5.Evans, K. L., Karabinos, M., Leinhardt, G.,& Yaron, D. (2006). Chemistry in the field and chemistry in the classroom:A cognitive disconnect.Journal of Chemical Education, 83(4),655-661.
6. Lee, Valerie E. and Julia B. Smith. (1993). Effects of School Restructuring on the Achievement and Engagement of Middle-grade Students. Sociology of Education,66(3),164-187.
7.Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments:theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,2(2),141-178.
8.Qin, Zhining, David W. Johnson, and Roger T. Johnson.(1995). Cooperative Versus Competitive Efforts and Problem Solving. Review of Educational Research,65(2),129-143.
9.Sandoval, W. A.,& Daniszewski, K. (2004). Mapping the trade-offs in teachers'integration of technology supported inquiry in high school sciences classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology,13(2),161-178.
10.Barnes, D.,& Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited. making meaning through talk. Posrtsmouth, NH:Boynton/Cook Publishers.
11.Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods:A sixthousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1),28-31.
12.Chik, P. P. M. (2006). Differences in learning as a function of differences between hierarchical and sequential organisation of the content taught. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Hong Kong.
13.Ornstein,A.C..(1990).Strategies for effective teaching. New York:HarperCollins Publisher.
14.Campell,1.(2003).Mindful learning:101 proven strategies for student and teacher success. Thousand Oaks,Calif:Corwin Press.
15. Brans ford, J., Brown, A. J.,Cocking,R.(1999).How people learn:brain, mind, experience and school. Washington D.C.:National Academy Publisher.
16.Kindsvatter,R.,Wilen,W.,Ishier,M.(2000).Dynamics of effective teaching. New York and London:longman.
17.Pianta, R.C., LaParo, K.M.,& Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system manual:Pre- K. Baltimore:Brookes.
18. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A.,& Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum:Lessons learned from two teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences,16(1), 81-130.
19.Duit, R.; Confrey, J. (1996).Improving Teaching and Learning; Teachers College Press:New York,79-93.
20.Jo Ellen Roseman,Luli Stern,& Mary Koppal.(2010). A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks Journal of Research in Science Teaching,47,47-70.
21.Neuendorf, K. A.(2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
22.W.H.Schmidt.(1992).TIMSS curriculum analysis:topic trace mapping. prospects,22(3),326-333.
23.Cohen, L.,Manion, L.,& Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5thed.). London: Routledge.
24.Bernstein, B.(1996).Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity:Theory, research, critique. London:Taylor and Francis.
25.Li, Yeping.(1999).An analysis of algebra content, content organization and presentation, and to-be-solved Problems in eighth-grade mathematics textbooks from Hong Kong, Mainland China, Singapore, and the United States, Unpublished University of Pittsburgh doctoral dissertation, Pittsburgh, PA.
26.Borko, H.,& Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D.Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York:Macmillan.
27. Horizon Research (2000). Inside the classroom observation and analytic protocol. Chapel Hill, NC:Horizon Research.
28.Khine, M.S.,& Fisher, D.L. (2003). Teacher-student interactions in science classrooms in Brunei. Journal of Classroom Interaction,38,21-28.
29.Berquist, W.H.,& Phillips, S. R. (1975). Classroom structures which encourage student participation. In classroom communication:collective readings for effective discussion and questioning,13-18.
30.National Research Council. (2005). How students learn:History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
31.Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
32.Yair, G. (2000). Reforming motivation:How the structure of instruction affects students' learning experiences. British Educational Journal,26,191-210.
33.Levy Nahum T, Mamlok-Naaman R, Hofstein A, Taber KS. (2010).Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding. Studies Sci Educ,46,179-207.
34.Hofstein A, Kesner M. (2006).Industrial chemistry and school chemistry:making chemistry studies more relevant. Int J SciEduc,28,1017-1039.
35.Waxman, H., Wang, M., Lindvall, M.,& Anderson, K. (1988). Classroom observation schedule technical manual. Pittsburgh, PA:University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
36. Fish, M.C.,& Dane. E. (2000). The classroom systems observation scale:development of an instrument to assess classroom using systems perspectives. Learning Environments Research,3, 67-92.
37.Cassady, J.C., Speirs-Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., Cross, T. L., Dixon, F. A.,& Pierce, R. L. (2004). The differentiated classroom observation scale. Roeper Review,26,139.
38.Patrick, H., Ryan. A. M., Anderman, L. H., Middleton, M., Linnenbrick, L., Hruda, L. Z., Edelin, K. C., Kaplan, A.,& Midgley, C. (1997). Observing patterns of adaptive learning:A protocol for classroom observations. Unpublished measure, University of MI, Ann Arbor.
39.Ysseldyke. J.E.,& Christenson, S.L. (1993). The instructional environment system Ⅱ.Longmont, CO:Sopris West.
40.Kilday, C. R.,& Kinzie, M. B. (2009). An analysis of instruments that measure the quality of mathematics teaching in early childhood.Early Childhood Education Journal,36(4),365-372.
41.Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2009). Working with teachers to develop fair and reliable measures of effective teaching.Seattle, WA:Author. Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/highschools/Documents/met-framing-paper.pdf.
42.Mayer,R.E.etal.(2000).A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:A revision of bloom' s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:Addison Wesley Longman.
43.Jablonka E.(2003).The structure of mathematics Lessons in German Classrooms: Variations on a Theme. Paper Presented as Part of the LPS symposium at the annual meeting of the American educational research association,Chicago,21-25.
44.LoPez-Real,F.J.,Mok, I.A.C.,Leung,F.K.5.& Marton,F.(2004).Identifying a pattern of teaching: An analysis of a Shanghai teacher,5 lessons. In L. Fan,N. Y.Wong,.K.S.Leung&F.Marton(Eds.),How Chinese learn mathematics:Perspectives from insiders. Singapore:World Scientific Publishing Co.
45.Ross,R.P.(1984).Classroom segments:the structuring of school time InL.W.Anderson(Eds.),Time and school learning:Theory, research, and practice.London:St. Martin's Press
46.Waring,S.,Orton,A.&Roper.T.(2005).Pattern and proof. In A. Orton(Eds.),Pattern in the teaching and learning of mathematics. London:Continuum.
47.Kintsch, W.. (1998).Comprehension:A paradigm for cognition.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
48.Krippendorff, K. (2004).Content Analysis:An Introduction to Its Methodology. Newbury Park, Califz Sage
49.Shuell, T. (1990). The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology.60,531-547
50.Fernandez, C. (2005). Lesson study:A means for elementary teachers to develop the knowledge of mathematics needed for reform-minded teaching? Mathematical Thinking and Learning,7(4),265-289.
51.Watanabe, T. (2002). Learning from Japanese lesson study. Educational Leadership,59(6), 36-39.
52.Cavalcante, P. S., Newton, D. P.,& Newton, L. D. (1997). The effect of various kinds of lesson on conceptual understanding in science. Research in Science and Technology Education,15(2), 185-193.
53.Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of "context" in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education,28(9),957-976.
54.Gutwill-Wise, J. (2001). The Impact of active and context-based learning in introductory chemistry courses:An early evaluation of the modular approach. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(5),684-690.
55.Rigano, D. L.,& Ritchie, S. M. (1994). Students'thinking in a chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education,24,270-279.
56.Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping:a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7,155-170.
57.Harrison, A.G.,& Treagust, D.F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules and chemical bonds: a case-study of multiple model use in grade-11 chemistry. Science Education.84,352-381.
58.Justi, R. (2002). Teaching and learning chemical kinetics. In J.K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R.Justi, D.F. Treagust & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education:Towards Research based Practice. Dordrecht NL:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
59.Smith, J.A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R.Harre & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.Van Driel, J.H.,& Graber, W. (2002). The teaching and learning of chemical equilibrium. In J.K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice. Dordrecht NL:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
61.Matthews, M. R. (2004). Thomas Kuhn's impact on science education:What lessons can be learned? Science Education,88,90-118.
62. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J.S.,& Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations:students'use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38,821-842.
63.Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons:Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64.Roth, W.-M., Boutonne, S., McRobbie, C.,& Lucas, K. (1999). One class, many worlds. International Journal of Science Education,21,59-75.
65.Khine, M.S.,& Fisher, D.L. (2003). Teacher-student interactions in science classrooms in Brunei. Journal of Classroom Interaction,38,21-28.
66.Wubbels, T. (1993). Teacher-students relationships in science and mathematics classes. Perth, Australia:National Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics,Curtin University of Technology.
67.Horizon Research (2000). Inside the classroom observation and analytic protocol. Chapel Hill, NC:Horizon Research.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |