باقری، خسرو (1389). فلسفه تربیت جمهوری اسلامی ایران. جلد دوم. تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری.
ریاضی، نعیمه(1390). بررسی معرفت شناسانه خلاقیت و استنتاج اصول پرورش خلاقیت در فرایند تدریس. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه خوارزمی، دانشکده روان شناسی و علوم تربیتی.
کلارک، چارلز (1376). چرا معلمان به فلسفه نیاز دارند؟. ترجمه خسرو باقری در فلسفه تعلیم و تربیت معاصر. خسرو باقری و محمد عطاران. تهران: انتشارات محراب قلم.
نقیب زاده، میر عبدالحسین.(1387). نگاهی به نگرش‌های فلسفی سده بیستم. تهران: طهوری.
هاگرسون، نلسون ال (1387). کاوشگری فلسفی: نقد توسعی. ترجمه محمد جعفر پاک سرشت در روش شناسی مطالعات برنامه درسی. ادموند سی.شورت، ترجمه محمود مهر محمدی و همکاران. تهران: انتشارات سمت و پژوهشگاه مطالعات آموزش و پرورش.
Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N.G. (2007). Handbook of research on science education. New York: Tylor and Francis.
Bagheri Noaparast, K. (2010). Philosophy of education of Islamic Republic of Iran. Vol. 2. Tehran: Institude of cultural and social studies.
Bagheri Noaparast, K. (1995). Toward a more realistic
constructivism. Advances in personal construct theory, No. 3, 37-59.
Bazghandi, P., & Zarghami-Hamrah, S. (2011). The principles of teaching science based on the ideas of Feyerabend regarding the nature of science and the manner of its expansion. Procedia-Social and behavioral Sciences, No. 29, 969-975.
Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. New York: Rout ledge.
Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd Ed). Indianapolis/ Cambridge: Hackett publishing company.
Clarck, C. (1997). Why teachers need philosophy? Trans. Khosro Bagheri. In: Contemporary philosophy of education. K, Bagheri; M. Attaran. Tehran: Mehrab Ghalam.
Feyerabend, P.K. (1993). Against method (3 rd Ed). London: Verso.
Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K.G. (1988). International handbook of science education (Eds). New York: Springer.
Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K.G., & Mc Robie, C. J. (2012). Second international handbook of science education (Eds). New York: Springer.
Gabel, D. (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (Ed). London: Macmillan.
Given, L. M. (2008). The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. (Ed). London: Sage.
Glasersfeld, E. V. (2001). The radical constructivist view of science. Foundations of Science, special issue on The Impact of Radical Constructivism on Science, 6 (1–3), 31–43.
Goldman, S. (2007). Great scientific ideas that changed the world. Virginia: The teaching company.
Haggerson, N. L. (1991). Philosophical Inquiry: Ampliative Criticism. In E. C. Short (Eds), Forms of Curriculum Inquiry. New York: State University of New York Press.
Hanna, P., & Harrison, B. (2002). The limits of relativism in the late Wittgenstein". In A companion to relativism. Ed by Steven D. Hales. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hirst, P. H., & White, P.(1998). Philosophy of Education: Major thems in analytic tradition (Eds). New York: Routledge.
Hooker, C. (2011). Philosophy of complex systems. New York: Elsevier.
Kipnis, N. (2000). A history of science approach to the nature of science: learning science by rediscovering it. In the nature of science in science education: rationals and strategies. Ed by William F. McComas. London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman(Eds), Handbook of research on education.(pp 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Avoiding de- natured science: activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In the nature of science in science education: rationals and strategies. Ed by William F. McComas. London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Losee, J. (2001). A historical introduction to the philosophy of science (4 rd Ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Matthews, M. (2000). Foreword and introduction. In the nature of science in science education: rationals and strategies. Ed by William F. McComas.London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science. London & New York: Routledge.
McComas, W. F. (2000). The nature of science in science education: rationals and strategies. (Ed).London: Kluwer academic publishers.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2000). The role & character of the nature of science in science education. In the nature of science in science education: rationals and strategies. Ed by William F. McComas.London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Mintzes, J., & Leonard, W. H. (2006). Handbook of college science teaching. Arlington: National Science Teacher Association.
Naghib Zadeh, M, A. (2008). An Introduction to 20th philosophical views. Tehran: Tahoori.
Niaz, M. (2008). Teaching general chemistry: a history and philosophy of science approach. New York: Nova science.
Not, M., & Wellington, J. (2000). A program for developing understanding of the nature of science in teaching education. In the nature of science in science education: rationals and strategies. Ed by William F. McComas.London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Peters, M. A. (2006). Special issue—Philosophy of science education. Educational philosophy and theory, 38 (5), 579-584.
Pietschmann, H. (1995). Constructive realism and education in physics. In Vincent Shen & Tran Van (Eds.), Philosophy of science and education: Chines and European views. Washington: Library of congress cataloging- in- publication.
Popper, K. R. (2010). Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. New York & London: Routledge.
Riazi, N. (2011). Epistemological study of creativity and deducung the principles of developing creativity in the process of teaching. MA thesis. Kharazmi University. Education Faculty.
Rihoux, B. (2006). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods: Recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research. Journal of International Sociology, 21, 670-706.
Spector, B., Strong, P., & La porta, T. (2000). Teaching the nature of science as an element of science. Technology and society. In the nature of science in science education: rationals and strategies. Ed by William F. McComas.London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Staley, K. W. (1999). Logic, Liberty, & Anarchy: Mill & Feyerabend on scientific Method. The Social Science Journal, 36 (4), 603-614.
Sternberg, J. R. (2003). Wisdom, Intelligence and creativity sjnthesized. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Taber, K. S. (2006). Constructivism's new clothes: the trivial, the contingent, and a progressive research programme into the learning of science. Foundations of chemistry, 8, 189–219.
Trefil, J. (2003). The nature of science: An A-Z guide to the laws and principles governing our universe (Ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Wallner, F. (1994). Constructive realism: aspects of a new epistemological movement. Vienna: BraumÜller.
Wallner, F. (1995). Constructivism and alienating inter-disciplinarity: its educational concequences. In Vincent Shen & Tran Van (Eds). Philosophy of science and education: chiness and European views. Washington: Library of congress cataloging- in- publication.
Wallner, F. (1998). A new vision of science. 20th world conference of philosophy. Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Wallner, F., & Jandl, M. J. (2006). The importance of constructive realism for the indigenous psychologies approach. In Uichol Kim; kuo-Shu Yang & Kwang-Kuo Hwang (Eds). Indigenous and cultural psychology: understanding people in context. New York: Springer.
Zarghami-Hamrah, S. (2012). The Nature of Knowledge in Constructive Realism: A Ground for Revision of Chemistry Education in High Schools. In Friedrich Wallner et al., Aspects of constructive realism. New York: Peter Lang.
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله