臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

運用數位論證模式提升學生論證與 PISA 科學能力之研究
研究生：楊文宗 指導教授：佘曉清 博士
國立交通大學教育研究所碩士班
摘 要
本研究結合數位論證學習的網路環境，針對國中二年級自然與生活科技的理化課程內容，設計小組論證教學模式與個人論證教學模式學習形成科學議題課程，進行實驗比較，期望提升學生PISA科學能力。本研究針對之PISA科學能力包括形成科學議題、解釋科學現象與科學舉證能力。
研究實驗採用實驗研究法之準實驗設計，研究對象為常態分班的國中二年級學生四個班，其中兩個班個人論證為58人，兩個班小組論證60人。兩個組進行論證結合六個主題PISA科學能力的課程，個人論證以數位網路論證介面進行個人論證模式的PISA科學能力學習課程，小組論證以數位網路論證介面進行小組論證模式的PISA科學能力學習課程，比較兩組在理化主題相依二階概念測驗、理化主題相依科學能力測驗和理化主題相依論證能力測驗三個測驗之前測、後測的差異，同時針對兩組的學習歷程進行分析，深入了解學生PISA之科學能力成長比較。
結果顯示，不同數位論證教學模式均能提升學生科學概念的建構和PISA科學能力，但兩組在科學概念建構與科學能力上並未達顯著差異。而理化主題相依論證能力測驗上，不論哪一種數位論證教學模式均能提升學生的論證能力，兩種教學模式在學生科學論證的能力達顯著差異，個人論證教學模式較小組論證教學模式佳。在迴歸分析中發現理化主題相依二階概念後測成績對理化主題相依科學能力後測成績最具解釋力，其次是理化主題相依科學論證後測成績。
其次在數位論證學習歷程方面，顯示科學能力總分上，兩種數位論證的教學模式隨著單元的學習有顯著進步的趨勢，即兩種教學模式對於學生科學能力的學習成效相當，但兩種教學未達顯著。在科學論證總次數上，兩種數位論證教學模式在各單元學習課程中Level 1(概念正確且論證要素部分完整)與Level 2(概念正確且論證要素是完整)的論證總次數表現上的確有差異，個人論證總次數表現比小組論證好。同時在Level 2論證次數的表現上有顯著差異也受教學模式影響。在論證歷程中論證各要素宣稱(C)、依據(W)、支持(B)、反駁(R)，兩組在Level 2論證次數的表現上有顯著差異也受教學模式影響，即個人論證比小組論證表現佳。
本研究顯示，不同數位論證教學模式可提升中學生PISA科學能力，包括形成科學議題、解釋科學現象與科學舉證能力，同時可提升科學概念的建構與論證之能力，同時發現個人論證在論證能力上的提升不論在品質與次數上均顯著優於小組論證。


關鍵字：PISA科學能力、科學論證、網路化學習

Promote students’ argumentation ability and PISA scientific competencies through the use of digital scientific argumentation

Student：Wen-Tsung Yang Advisor：Hsiao-Ching She, Ph.D
National Chiao Tung University, Institute of Education
Abstract
This study aims to to examine the difference in effectiveness between two digital scientific argumentation programs – one with an group argumentation component and one with an self-argumentation component – on 8th students’ physical science argumentation ability and PISA scientific competencies. A quasi-experimental design was used in this study. Two classes of 8th grade students received the on-line group argumentation learning program involving physical science concepts, and the other two classes of 8th grade students received the same on-line self-argumentation learning program, for six weeks. All 118 students were administered the physical science concepts test, physical science concept dependent formulating scientific issue test, and physical science dependent argumentation test before and one week after learning. In addition, both group students’ on-line argumentation, formulating scientific issue process was collected. Results showed that the students of both groups made progress from pre- to post-test on their physical science concepts, physical science concept dependent formulating scientific issue test, and physical science dependent argumentation test. Only the physical science dependent argumentation test shows the significant difference between two on-line argumentation groups. The self-argumentation group significantly outperform than to the group-argumentation group on their argumentation ability. Regression results indicated that hold of physical scientific conceptions is the best predicator for students’ ability of PISA scientific competencies, followed by argumentation ability. The quantity and quality of on-line physical scientific arguments that students generated in a series of argumentation questions improved across the six topics, and the self-argumentation group’s students outperform than to the group-argumentation students. The qualitative results of on-line PISA scientific competencies were equally perform for both groups. This clearly demonstrates that students’ argumentation ability and PISA scientific competencies were both facilitated through receiving either self or group on-line Synchronous Argumentation physical science learning program. More important, the student’s argumentation ability significantly performs better while self-digital argumentation was used, regardless of the quantitative or qualitative data.

Keywords: PISA scientific competencies, scientific proof, network learning

目錄
中文摘要……………………………………………………….i
英文摘要……………………………………………………….iii
誌 謝……………………………………………………….v
目 錄………………………………………………………. vii

第一章 緒論………………………………………………….1
第一節 研究背景和研究動機…………………..1
第二節 研究目的 ……………………………….2
第三節 研究問題 ……………………………….4
第四節 名詞釋義 ……………………………….5
第五節 研究範圍與限制 ……………………….6
第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………….7
第一節 PISA科學能力 …………………………..7
第二節 科學論證………………………………….12
第三節 網路科學學習 …………………………..26
第四節 小結……………………………………….30
第三章 研究方法 ………………………………………….33
第一節 研究對象………………………………..33
第二節 研究設計………………………………..34
第三節 研究流程………………………………..35
第四節 研究工具………………………………..38
第五節 課程設計 ……………………………….46
第六節 資料收集與分析 ……………………….47
第四章 研究結果與討論 ………………………………….51
第一節 各項測驗的分析………………………..51
第二節 網路學習歷程之科學能力與論證能力
分析……………………………………..56
第五章 結論與建議 ……………………………………….71
第一節 結論與討論……………………………..71
第二節 建議……………………………………..74

參考文獻
中文部分…………………………………………..79
英文部分…………………………………………..81
附錄
附錄一 理化主題相依概念測驗單一選擇題版本
…………………………………………….89
附錄二 理化主題相依科學能力測驗 …………….93
附錄三 理化主題相依論證能力測驗 …………….97
附錄四 論證模式融入科學能力課程設計 ……….99
附錄五 科學能力與論證品質記錄分級標準…….105
附錄六 數位網路論證學習歷程………………….107

參考文獻
一、中文部分
李佳生 (2009)。應用論證教學促進國小五年級學童科學論證能力之研究。嘉義縣：國立嘉義大學碩士論文。
林奇賢 (1998)。網路學習環境的設計與應用。資訊與教育雜誌，67，34-49。
林奇賢、馬榮燦、林志能（2000）。網路學習與網路學校的發展對教師專業路線的衝擊。資訊與教育，79，3-7。
易國榮 (2003)。網路化雙重情境學習模式對國小學生的真菌概念改變之研究。國立交通大學理學院網路學習碩士在職專班碩士論文。國立交通大學碩博士論文全文檢索系統，GT009173508。
邱榮章 (2006)。探究教學活動對國中學生『自然與生活科技』科影響之行動研究。彰化縣：國立彰化師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
洪瑟貞，陳錦章 (2010)。融入論證的教學策略對七年級學生光學單元學習成就與論證能力影響之研究。彰化縣：國立彰化師範大學碩士論文。
施富吉 (2010)。論證式探究教學對八年級學生浮力概念改變與論證能力影響之研究。彰化縣：國立彰化師範大學碩士論文。
梁志平 (2004)。建構主義式的網路科學學習對國中生力的概念學習之研究。國立交通大學理學院網路學習碩士在職專班碩士論文。
翁筱嵐 (2010)。探討不同層次鷹架式之形成科學性議題網路課程對國中學生形成科學性議題能力之影響。國立交通大學碩士研究所碩士論文。
教育部（2000）。國民中小學課程綱要自然與生活科技學習領域。台北市：行政院教育部。
教育部 (2000)：國民中小學九年一貫課程總綱。台北： 教育部。
莊明樺 (2010)。探討純粹比對類比與傳達屬性類比網路課程對國小學生科學概念建構與類比推理能力之影響。國立交通大學碩士研究所碩士論文。
陳怡仁 (2008)。應用數位化雙重情境學習課程探討多媒體呈現形式對國中生遺傳概念建構之影響。國立交通大學碩士研究所碩士論文。
陳姿津 (2007)。『科學類比推理』網路互動學習研究－促進國中生電學概念之建構與推理能力。國立交通大學理學院網路學習碩士在職專班碩士論文。
陳倩嫻 (2008)。探討數位論證學習課程對中學生科學概念建構與論證能力之影響。國立交通大學碩士研究所碩士論文。
陳梅香 (2010)。探討鷹架式網路形成科學議題課程對國小學生形成科學議題能力與科學探究能力之影響。國立交通大學碩士研究所碩士論文。
游文楓，佘曉清 (2003)。網路化問題解決教學策略對學生生物學習成效的影響。第十九屆科學教育學術研討會論文發表。
黃柏鴻、林樹聲 (2007)。論證教學相關實徵性研究之回顧與省思論。科學教育，302，5-20。
黃莉郁 (2009)。探討多重表徵之呈現方式對高中學生「熱膨脹」概念改變的認知歷程與腦波變化的影響。國立交通大學碩士研究所碩士論文。
黃翎斐、胡瑞萍 (2006)。論證與科學教育的理論與實務。科學教育，292，15-28。
黃翎斐、張文華、林陳涌 (2008)。不同佈題模式對學生論證表現的影響。科學教育學刊，16，375-393。
萬祥傑 (2009)：國小高年級學童小組數位科學論證 ──熱認知的取向。花蓮縣：國立花蓮教育大學碩士論文。
葉冠慧 (2009)。應用網路化論證提昇國中學生論證能力與化學反應概念改變。國立交通大學碩士研究所碩士論文。科學教育研究與發展季刊 Research and Development in Science Education qualterly 2010，第五十六期， 53-74頁 2010, No.56, 53-74 科學探究活動中的科學推理 吳百興* 張耀云 吳心楷
廖婭妏 (2005)。運用『科學推理』於網路互動學習—促進國中生原子概念之建構與推理。國立交通大學碩士研究所碩士論文。國立交通大學碩博士論文全文檢索系統，GT009248534。
蔡俊彥、黃台珠、楊錦潭 (2006)。國小學童網路論證能力及科學概念學習之研究。科學教育學刊， 16，171-192。
鄭憲聰，陳錦章 (2011)。融入論證導向的教學策略對國三學生力與運動單元學
習成效影響之研究。彰化縣：國立彰化師範大學碩士論文。

二、英文部分
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing
for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education,
22(8), 797-817.
Bell, D. (2002). Making science inclusive: Providing effective learning opportunities for children with learning difficulties. Support for Learning, 17(4), 156-161.
Bloom, J. W. (2001). Discourse, Cognition, and Chaotic Systems: An Examination of Students’ Argument About Density. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 447-492.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brem, S. K., & Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and Evidence in Informal Argument. Cognitive Science, 24(4), 573-604.
Bybee, R. W., & Landes, N. M. (1988). The biological sciences curriculum study (BSCS). Science and Children, 25(8), 36-37.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Scotter, P. V., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A.,& Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications.
Bybee, R. W., & Landes, N. M. (1988). The biological science curriculum study (BSCS). Science and Children, 25(8), 36-37.
Chen, C. H. & She, H.C. (2012). The impact of Recurrent On-line Synchronous
Scientific Argumentation on Students’ Argumentation and Conceptual Change.
Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 197-210.
Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2005). Analyzing the quality of argumentation supported by personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at The 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Learning 2005, The Next 10 years!, Taipei, Taiwan.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
Clark, D. B. & Sampson, V. D. (2007a). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
Clark, D. B., Sampson, A. W., & Erkens, G. (2007b). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343-374.
Clark, D. B., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., & Erkens, G. (2008). Technology-enhanced learning environments to support students’ argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 217-243). New York: Springer.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47-69). New York: Springer.
Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 663-687.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Lopez-Rodriguez, R., & Erduran, S. (2005). argumentative quality and intellectual ecology: A case study in primary school. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A.B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
Jenmann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205-226). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kelly G. F., Stephen Druker & Catherine Chen (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn D. (1992). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
Kuhn, D., Katz, J. B., & Dean, D. (2004). Developing reason. Thinking and Reasoning, 10, 197-219.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. London: Harvard University Press.
Lawson, A. E. (2002). Sound and Faulty Arguments Generated by Preservice Biology Teachers When Testing Hypotheses Involving Unobservable Entities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(33), 237-252.
Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypotheticopredictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.
Lederman, N. G. (2001). The many flavors of scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching National Meeting, St. Louis, MO, March 2001.
Liao, Y.W., & She, H.C. (2009). Enhancing Eight Grade Students’ Scientific Conceptual Change and Scientific Reasoning through a Web-based Learning Program. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 228-240.
Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.
Mason, L. & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topic by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492-509.
Millar. R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000:Science Education for the Future. London: Nuffield Seminer Series Interim Report V3.
Newton, P., Driver, R.& Osborne, J.(1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
OECD (1999).Measure student knowledge and skill:A new framework for assessment. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2009a). PISA 2009 Assessing Framework: Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics, and Science. OECD, Paris.
OECD (2009). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do- Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics, and Science. OECD, Paris.
OECD (2010). PISA 2009 assessment framework - key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Retrieved September 3, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/40/44455820.pdf
Osborne J., Erduran S., Simon S. & Monk M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82, 63-70.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Osborne, J. (2006, July). The importance of argument in science education. In Science Education Center National Taiwan Normal University (Chair), International workshop of argumentation in science teaching and learning, Taipei, Taiwan.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
Petit, A., & Soto, E. (2002). Already Experts: Showing students how much they know about writing and reading arguments. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(8), 674-682.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
She, H. C. & Fisher, D. (2002). Teacher communication behavior and its association with students’ cognitive and attitudinal outcomes in science in Taiwan. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 63-78.
She, H. C. & Fisher, D. L. (2003). Web-base e-learning environments in Taiwan: The impact of the online science flash program on students’ learning. In M. S. Khine, & D. L. Fisher (Eds.), Technology-rich learning environment: A Future perspective (pp.343-368). Singapore: World Scientific.
She, H.C. (2004). Facilitating changes in ninth grade students’ understanding of dissolution and diffusion through DSLM instruction. Research in Science Education, 34(4), 503-526.
She, H.C. (2005). Enhancing eighth grade students’ learning of buoyancy: The interaction of teachers’ instructional approach and students’ learning preference styles. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 609-624.
She, H. C. (2006, July 31). Keynote speech (in English): Promoting students’ Scientific reasoning ability and conceptual change through SCCR digital learning program. Paper presented at International Workshop of Argumentation in Science Teaching and Learning. Taipei, NTNU, Science Education Center.
She, H.C. & Lee, C.Q. (2008). SCCR Digital Learning System for Scientific Conceptual change and Scientific Reasoning. Computers & Education, 51(2), 724-742.
She, H.C., & Liao, Y.W. (2010). Bridging Scientific Reasoning and Conceptual Change through Adaptive Web-based Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 99-119.
Simon, S. , Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, R. & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy: children reading and writing non-fiction. London: Routledge.
Yeh, K.H. & She, H.C. (2010). On-line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation
Learning: Nurturing Students’ Argumentation Ability and Conceptual Change in
Science Context. Computers & Education, 55(2), 586-602.
Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.