跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.235.120.150) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/31 15:01
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:謝世達
研究生(外文):Shih-Ta Hsieh
論文名稱:國小高年級科學教室中爭議性科技議題討論的師生對話分析研究
論文名稱(外文):Discourse Analysis of a Controversial Socio-Scientific Issue between a Science Teacher and His Sixth-grade Students
指導教授:林樹聲林樹聲引用關係
指導教授(外文):Shu-Sheng Lin
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立嘉義大學
系所名稱:國民教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2004
畢業學年度:92
語文別:中文
論文頁數:191
中文關鍵詞:科學教學智識獨立話語分析教室觀察爭議性科技議題
外文關鍵詞:Science instructionIntellectual independenceDiscourse analysisClassroom observationControversial socio-scientific issue
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:15
  • 點閱點閱:526
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:125
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
本研究旨在透過爭議性科技議題--「基因改造食品」的教學與討論,分析科學教室內的話語,以瞭解國小高年級師生展現智識獨立的情況。
研究採質性研究,主要方法包括教室觀察、訪談,工具則包括自編之「智識獨立編碼類別檢核表」、「非智識獨立編碼類別檢核表」,以及分別針對教師和學生的「半結構訪談問卷」等。研究對象為嘉義市某國小年資長達30年之自然科教師,及其任教的四班六年級學生,共133名。觀察時間區分為兩階段,每階段兩個班級,每班觀察6節課,共歷經3個月。資料分析後獲致下列研究結果:
一、教師和學生在爭議性科技議題的教學中,皆以「回應」和「討論」編碼類別的百分比最多,且智識獨立的百分比皆高於非智識獨立的百分比。
二、學生回應不夠深入時,教師會採取「直接講述或說出答案」或「幫學生做解釋」等非智識獨立的行為來指導學生。
三、個案老師已形塑出自己的教學習慣,若非刻意改變,許多教學行為仍會延續過去的習慣。
四、教師和學生所引發的話語模式共五種,其中教師部份分別歸類為IRE、IRE、IRE及IRE等四種,第五種為學生所引發的話語模式。
五、相較於在IRE的模式中,師生話語模式在IRE、IRE、IRE模式與學生引發的話語模式中,學生較能展現出智識獨立的特質。
This study aims to examine the intellectual independence of sixth graders via analyzing their discourse in science classrooms during the teaching and discussions of a controversial socio-scientific issue - Genetically Modified Food.
This is the qualitative research. Classroom observation and in-depth interviews were included to collect data. The subjects were a teacher teaching science for thirty years and his 133 students of four classes in sixth-grade at an elementary school in Chiayi City. There are two stages during observation period. Each stage includes two classes, and each class was observed in six courses for three months. The results are as follows:
 “Responses” and “discussions” of the encoding category formed a large percentage of the teaching. Intellectual independence achieved a higher percentage than non-intellectual independence.
 When the students couldn’t thoroughly answer the teacher’s questions, the teacher adopted non-intellectual independence approach such as giving “direct explanations or answers” or “ elaborating on students’ responses” to guide students.
 The teacher had formed his teaching methods which would be continually adopted unless they were purposely being changed.
 Among five types of discourses between teachers and students, IRE, IRE, IRE and IRE were initiated by the teacher while the fifth type of discourse was initiated by the students.
 Compare with IRE, students could reveal the characteristics of intellectual independence much more in the discourse of teacher’s IRE, IRE & IRE and the discourse initiated by the students when discourse was practicing.
中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
目次 iii
表目次 v
圖目次 vii
第壹章 緒論
第一節 研究動機和背景 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題 3
第三節 研究範圍與限制 4
第四節 名詞釋義 4
第貳章 文獻探討
第一節 爭議性科技議題與教學 6
第二節 教學中的智識獨立 10
第三節 教室中的師生互動 14
第四節 師生對談的話語分析 18
第參章 研究方法
第一節 研究流程 29
第二節 研究對象 32
第三節 資料收集的方法和內容 34
第四節 資料的處理和分析 40
第五節 研究信度與效度 42
第六節 研究者的立場與角色 43
第肆章 研究結果與討論
第一節 教師智識獨立的展現 44
第二節 學生智識獨立的展現 63
第三節 個案師生的話語模式及其對智識獨立的影響 76
第伍章 結論與建議
第一節 結論 87
第二節 建議 88
參考文獻
中文部分 91
外文部分 92
附錄
附錄一 半結構訪談問卷--教師第一次訪談 99
附錄二 半結構訪談問卷--教師版 100
附錄三 半結構訪談問卷--學生版 101
附錄四 教師訪談逐字稿 102
附錄五 學生訪談逐字稿 123
附錄六 爭議性科技議題教案 153
附錄七 上課錄音逐字稿與編碼 159
表 次
表2-1 「獨立思考與解決問題」在各學習階段之能力指標 10
表2-2 智識獨立與智識相依的特徵 11
表2-3 Oliver與Nichols(2001)的文獻中有關「智識獨立」的概念表 12
表2-4 FIAC系統的話語互動類別 21
表2-5 科學教室中話語分析的相關研究 24
表3-1 智識獨立歸類與Munby智識獨立特徵的對應 36
表3-2 智識獨立編碼類別--教師部份 37
表3-3 智識獨立編碼類別--學生部份 38
表3-4 非智識獨立編碼類別 39
表4-1 個案老師第一階段中智識獨立編碼項目的表現次數與百分比 45
表4-2 第一階段個案老師非智識獨立的表現 51
表4-3 個案老師在第一階段中展現智識獨立與非智識獨立之話語次數與百分比 54
表4-4 個案老師在第一、二階段中智識獨立展現比較 56
表4-5 個案老師在第一、二階段中「提出證據」的表現 57
表4-6 個案老師在第一、二階段中「回應」的表現 57
表4-7 個案老師在第一、二階段中「給予發表或討論的機會」的表現 58
表4-8 個案老師在第一、二階段中「判斷」的表現 59
表4-9 個案老師在第一、二階段中「非智識獨立」的表現 60
表4-10 個案老師在兩階段中智識獨立與非智識獨立之話語比例 61
表4-11 學生在第一階段中智識獨立編碼項目的表現次數與百分比 63
表4-12 第一階段學生非智識獨立表現 68
表4-13 第一階段學生展現智識獨立與非智識獨立之話語比例 69
表4-14 第一、二階段中學生智識獨立展現比較 70
表4-15 第一、二階段中學生「提出證據」的表現 71
表4-16 第一、二階段中學生「回應」的表現 72
表4-17 第一、二階段中學生「討論」的表現 73
表4-18 第一、二階段中學生「判斷」的表現 74
表4-19 第一、二階段中學生「非智識獨立」的表現 74
表4-20 兩階段學生智識獨立與非智識獨立之話語比例 75
表4-21 IRE模式與智識獨立編碼對照舉例 79
表4-22 IRE模式與智識獨立編碼對照舉例 79
表4-23 IRE模式與智識獨立編碼對照舉例 80
表4-24 學生所引發的話語模式與智識獨立編碼對照舉例 81
表4-25 五種話語模式在兩階段中分佈的情形 84
圖 次
圖3-1 研究流程圖 31
圖4-1 第一階段個案老師智識獨立展現的情形 46
圖4-2 第一階段個案老師非智識獨立展現的情形 52
圖4-3 第一階段學生智識獨立展現的情形 64
圖4-4 第一階段學生非智識獨立展現的情形 69
中文部份
王鼎銘(2001)。爭議性科技議題對九年一貫科技教育的啟示。生活科技教育,34(12),2-11。
江紹倫(1980)。識知心理學說與應用。台北:聯經。
余光雄(1993)。英語語言學概論。台北:書林。
呂木琳(1998)。教學視導─理論與實務。台北:五南。
李幼蒸(1996)。人文符號學--人文科學認識論研究。台北:唐山。
李田英(1992)。自然科教學個案研究:國小自然科教學(一)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
李暉(2000)。科學話語與科學概念之學習:以國中生理化課學習為例。彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文(未出版)。
李暉、郭重吉、段曉林(1994)。國中理化教師試行建構主義教學之個案研究。科學教育,5,27-51。
周祝瑛(1995)。國中日常教學活動之生態研究。行政院教育改革審議委員會報告。
林芬遠(1997)。國中生物課教室口語之探究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
林雅慧(2001)。國小低年級教師進行科學對談之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
林樹聲(2001)。從科學素養的培育談科學類通識課程--「現代科技爭議探討」之課程設計的個案說明。通識教育季刊,8(2),109-134。
林樹聲(2003)。重視自然與生活科技學習領域中科技爭議議題的融入與探討。載於林生傳等主編,國民中小學九年一貫課程理論基礎(二)(頁453-464)。台北:教育部。
武國華(2001)。國小六年級自然教室中全班討論與科學知識建構歷程之詮釋性研究。臺北市立師範學院自然科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
柯華葳(1993)。台灣地區國民小學教師教學方法與教學實況調查。台灣省教育廳。
孫仲山(1996)。師生互動的教學理論。高市文教,57,38-41。
張春興(1996)。教育心理學-三化取向。台北:東華。
張美玉(1998)。建構取向的科學教室內師生互動實例。科學教育學刊,6(2), 149-168。
教育部(2001)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。台北:教育部。
陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。台北:五南。
陳秉璋(1991)。社會學理論。台北:三民。
陳奎熹(1986)。教育社會學。台北:三民。
陳奎熹(1992)。教育社會學研究。台北:師大書苑。
陳奎熹、王淑俐、單文經、黃德祥(1996)。師生關係與班級經營。台北:三民。
陳美玉(1997)。師生合作反省的教學。教育資料與研究,15,35-41。
陳敏健(2001)。以批判對話分析法探討國小自然科教學中師生的語文行為、立場和知識。臺中師範學院自然科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
黃政傑(2000)。教學原理。台北:師大書苑。
黃崑巖(2003,10月22日)。智識分子與知識分子。中國時報,A4。
熊同鑫(1998a)。 語言在自然科教室內的意涵:一間後山教室內教學活動的記事。台東師院學報,9,1-36。
熊同鑫(1998b)。語言在自然科教室的角色:學童對話分析。第十四屆科學教育學術研討會論文彙編,107-113。高雄:高雄師大。
蓋允萍(2003)。跨領域個案班級中師生互動的話語類型與過程技能教學的分析研究。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
劉美慧(1998)。議題中心教學法的理論與實際。花蓮師院學報,8,173-199。
蔡敏玲(2001)。尋找教室團體互動的節奏與變奏。台北:桂冠。
外文部份
AAAS (1989). Science for all American. New York: Oxford University Press.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453-475.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). The social contrast of science: implications for teaching science. In J. Solomon and G.. Aikenhead (Ed.), STS education: international perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Barnett, J. (1992). Language in the science classroom: some issues for teachers. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 38(4), 8-13.
Bentley, D., & Watts, M. (1992). Communicating for understanding. In D. Bentley and M. Watts (Ed.), Communicating in school science: groups, tasks, and problem solving (pp.1-26). London: The Falmer Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: an introducation to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Press
Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.432-463). New York: Macmillan.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning. Portsman, NH: Heinemann.
Cheek, D. W. (1992). Thinking constructively about science, technology, and society education. New York: State University of New York Press.
Clarke, P. (2000). Teaching controversial issues. Green Teacher, 62, 29-32.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1991). Analogies from the philosophy and sociology of science for understanding classroom Life. Science Education, 75(1), 23-44.
Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative analysis. Social research and educational studies series. London: Falmer Press.
Dagher, Z., & Cossman, G. (1992). Verbal explanations given by science teachers: their nature and implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 29(4), 361-374.
Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teacher’s Journal, 47(4), 38-44.
Dawson, V. M., & Taylor, P. C. (1998). Establishing open and critical discourses in the science classroom: reflecting on initial difficulties. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 317-336.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. P. G.. (1994). Investigating classroom talk. Washington D.C.: Flamer.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: the development of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.
Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: the social and cognitive ecology of teacher-student interaction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp.29-62). Cambridge University Press.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Foucault, M. (1972). /王德威譯(1993)。知識的考掘。台北:麥田。
Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories responding with curricula. Columbia University, New York: Teacher College Press.
Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transational perspective on teaching and Learning: a framework for adult and higher education. New York: PERGAMON Press.
Geddis, A. N. (1991). Improving the quality of science classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science Education, 75(2), 169-183.
Geddis, A. N. (1998). Analyzing discourse about controversial issues in the science classroom. In D. A. Roberts and L. Ostman (Ed.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp.29-62). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses. PA: Taylor & Francis.
Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: a methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119-169.
Glasson, G. E., & Lalik, R. V. (1993). Reinterpreting the learning cycle form a social constructivist perspective: a qualitative study of teachers’ belief and practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 187-207.
Greasser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104-137.
Harms, H., & Yager, R. E. (1981). What research says to the science teacher (Vol. 3), Washington D. C., National Science Teachers Association.
Heath, S. B. (1978). Teacher talk: language in the classroom. Language in education: Theory and practice, 9. (ERIC Document Reporduction Service, No. ED 222346).
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431-473.
Hickman, F. M. (1985). Charting a course through risk and controversy: Strategies for science teacher. In R. W. Bybee(Ed.), Science/ Technology/ Society: 1985 Yearbook of the National Science Teachers Association(pp.175-199). National Science Teachers Association.
Hicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning, and teaching. Review of Research in Education, 21, 49-95.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL QUARTERLY, 33(3), 453-484.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lucas, K., & Roth, W. M. (1996). The nature of scientific knowledge and student Learning: Two longitudinal case studies. Research in Science Education, 26(1), 103-127.
Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: an introduction to critical discourse analysis. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (pp.3-48). Washington D. C.: American educational research association.
Mead, G.. (1934). Mind, self & society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons-social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis : a sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Moje, E. B. (1995). Talking about science: an interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high school science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 349-371.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2000). Analysing discourse in the science classroom. In R. Millar, J. Leach, and J. Osborne (Ed.), Improving Science Education (pp.126-142). Open University Press.
Munby, H. (1980). Analysing teaching for intellectual independence. In H. Munby, G. Orpwood and T. Russell (Ed.), Seeing curriculum In a new light (pp.11-33). Boston: University Press of America.
Munby, H., & Roberts, D. A. (1998). Intellectual independence: a potential link between science teaching and responsible citizenship. In A. R. Douglas and L. Ostman (Ed.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
National Science Teacher Association. (1982). Position statement on science /technology/society: Science education for the 1980’s. In F. K. Brown & D. P. Butts, (Eds.), Science teaching: A profession speaks. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1984). Social constraints in laboratory and classroom tasks. In B. Rogoff and Lave, J. (Ed.), Everyday cognition, (pp.173-193). MA: Harvard University.
Norris, S. P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: toward a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79(2), 201-217.
National Science Teacher Association. (1990). Science/technology/society: A new effort for providing appropriate science for all (Position Statement). In NSTA handbook, pp. 47-48. Washington, DC: Author.
Nuthall, G. (1997). Understanding student thinking and learning in the classroom. In B. J. Biddle (Ed.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp.681-768). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Okebukola, P. A., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (1986). Effects of teachers’ verbal exposition on students’ level of class participation and achievement in biology. Science Education, 70(1), 45-51.
Oliver, J. S. & Nichols, B. K. (2001). Intellectual independence as a persistent theme in the literature of science education: 1900-1950. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 49-56.
Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-182.
Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers'''' beliefs about the nature of science: comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261-278.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science education, 19(2), 167-182.
Rubba, P. A. & Harkness, W. L. (1993). Examination of preservice and in-service secondary science teachers'''' beliefs about science-technology-society interactions. Science Education, 77(4), 407-431.
Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: can teachers’ questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 27-45.
Scheffler, I. (1966). Conditions of knowledge: an introduction to epistemology and education. Chicago: Scott, Foresman; Taipei: Mei Ya.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science: the teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Snow, C. E., & Kurland, B. F. (1996). Sticking to the point: talk about magnets as a context for engaging in scientific discourse. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp.189-220). Cambridge University Press.
Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils'''' understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63-82.
Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issue presented on television: knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 431-444.
Stradling, R. (1984). The teaching of controversial isues: an evaluation. Educational Review, 36(2), 121-129.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbooks of research on science teaching and learning (pp.45-93). New York: Macmillan.
Valerio, N. L. (2001). Creating safety to addresss controversial issues: strategies for the classroom. Multicultural Education, Spring, 24-28.
van Rooy, W. (2000). Controversial issues within biology: enriching biology teaching. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 46, 20-26.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky''''s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotsky perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
West, D. J., & Watson, D. E. (1996). Using problem-based learning and educational reengineering to improve outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 400242)
Wilaon, E., Haas, M., & Laughlin, M. (1999). Teachers’ perspective on incorporating current controversial issues into the curriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440907).
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Yager, R. E. & Roy, R. (1994). STS: Most Pervasive and Most Radical of Reform Approaches to “Science” Education. In R.E. Yager (Ed.), What research says to science teacher, 7, 7-13. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Yager, R. E. (1990). The Science/Technology/Society Movement in the United States: Its Origin, Evolution, Rationale. Social Education, 54, 198-201.
Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education. New York: State University of New York Press.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top