臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
本研究旨在應用「颱風」和「能源」單元探究教師發問對學生回答之影響。研究對象為一位教學年資達十四年的國小自然科教師及其任教的一班六年級學生，共觀察二十六節課。研究透過上課觀察、教師訪談、學生問卷調查和教師反省日誌撰寫等方法收集資料。研究發現：
一、個案教師發問以聚歛性問題居多，主要是藉此類問題建立學生科學知識與概念，並引導學生說出自己的想法。
二、學生在回應聚歛性問題時所呈現的回答類型包括「簡言、精緻化、因果關係、反駁、質疑、未回應、答非所問」等七種；而學生在回應擴散性問題時，則較聚歛性問題多出了「相關整合」和「評鑑判斷」兩種回答類型。
三、教師提出有關爭議性科技議題的問題時，學生較易呈現「評鑑判斷」的回答類型；而進行實驗活動時，教師習慣採用「鼓勵學生提出問題」的發問方式，所以學生回答以「質疑」實驗結果的類型居多。
四、教師過度的追問，反而導致學生產生畏縮、中斷學生回答和不願回答的負面效果。
五、當個案教師發問後，採取鼓勵學生質疑、反駁、給予小組討論等策略教學時，學生的回答呈現相關整合和精緻化類型居多，對整個科學對話的深入和擴展有促進作用。
六、影響個案教師發問類型的因素主要包括「教材、教師教學習慣、學生的回應」等。

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the influences of a science teacher’s questioning on students’ answers in the classroom. The participants were a science teacher who has been teaching for fourteen years and one class of the sixth-grade students. The two lesson units, which were “typhoon” and “energy source”, were taught individually for total twenty-six hours. The data were collected through the classroom observation, interviews with the teacher, the student questionnaire, and the teacher’s reflective journal. The study revealed the following findings:
1. The teacher usually used the convergent questions to help students to construct the basic science concepts and to guide the students to reply them.
2. The strategies of the students’ answer to the convergent questions the teacher posed can be categorized into seven types, such as short answers, elaboration, causal-effect reasoning, rebuttal, query, no response, and giving an irrelevant answer. When the teacher posed the divergent questions, the strategies of the students’ answer were two more types, such as synthesis and evaluation.
3. When the teacher posed the questions related to a controversial socio-scientific issue, the students tended to adopt the evaluation strategy to answer them. Moreover, the teacher encouraged the students to raise questions when he conducted an experiment activity. Therefore, the students were inclined to use query strategy when they dealt with the experimental results in the whole class discussion.
4. The teacher sometimes was over questioning or cross-questioning, which caused the students to become silence or to refuse to reply. Moreover, it would interfere in the students’ reply, too.
5. When the teacher encouraged the students to query, have rebuttal to others’ responses or discuss with the others, the students’ reply to the teacher’s question would become much more integration and elaboration. It broadened and improved the students’ talk in science.
6. The factors that influenced on the teacher’s questioning were teaching materials, teaching aptitude of the teacher and the students’ responses.

目次
中文摘要……………………………………………………………… i
英文摘要…………………………………………………………… ii
目次 ……………………………………………………………… iii
表次 ………………………………………………………………… vi
圖次 ……………………………………………………………… viii
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機與研究背景…………………………………… 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題 …………………………………… 3
第三節 研究範圍和限制 ………………………………………… 4
第四節 名詞釋義 ………………………………………………… 4
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 爭議性科技議題與科學教育 …………………………… 6
第二節 爭議性科技議題和自然與生活科技學習領域…………… 9
第三節 科學對話的重要和類型 ……………………………… 14
第四節 教師發問的影響 ………………………………………… 30
第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究流程 ………………………………………………… 39
第二節 研究對象 ………………………………………………… 42
第三節 資料收集 ………………………………………………… 43
第四節 資料處理與分析 ………………………………………… 45
第五節 研究信度與效度 ………………………………………… 58
第六節 研究者的角色 …………………………………………… 59
第四章 研究結果與討論
第一節 個案教師的發問情形………………………………………60
第二節 學生回答的情形 ………………………………………… 84
第三節 兩個單元教學中教師發問和學生回答之差異……………99
第四節 教師發問遭遇的問題 ……………………………………117
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 結論………………………………………………………130
第二節 建議………………………………………………………132
參考文獻
中文部分 …………………………………………………………… 134
外文部分 …………………………………………………………… 136
附錄
附錄一 教師半結構訪談問卷 …………………………………… 142
附錄二 能源的利用與空氣污染單元學習心得問卷 ……………143
附錄三 「美濃水庫興建與否」議題融入「颱風與地震」簡案…148
附錄四 「核能四廠興建與否」議題融入「能源利用和空氣污染」簡案 …… ……………………………………………… 154
附錄五 教師訪談逐字稿……………………………………………160
附錄六 教師反省日誌………………………………………………168
附錄七 教室觀察逐字稿……………………………………………173

表次
表 2-1 國小自然與生活科技學習領域課程綱要中反映爭議性科技議題理念之內容 ………………………………………………… 9
表 2-2 適合融入爭議性科技議題之國小自然與生活科技學習領域的冊別和單元…………………………………………………… 12
表 2-3 科學對話類型的實徵性研究 ……………………………… 26
表 2-4 發問的實徵性研究……………………………………………37
表 3-1 資料處理的代碼與意義 …………………………………… 46
表 3-2 教師發問類型編碼表……………………………………… 47
表 3-3 學生回答類型編碼表……………………………………… 48
表 4-1 「颱風」單元教師發問之主要問題 ……………………… 60
表 4-2 「能源」單元教師發問之主要問題……………………… 62
表 4-3 兩階段個案教師發問類型之次數與百分比……………… 70
表 4-4 兩階段教學中學生回答類型之次數與頻率……………… 95
表 4-5 兩階段個案教師發問類型之次數與百分比……………… 99
表 4-6 「能源」單元第二節課教室觀察 ……………………… 101
表 4-7 兩階段個案教師發問聚歛思考性問題類型之次數 …… 105
表 4-8 兩階段教學中的實驗活動………………………………… 109
表 4-9 兩階段教學中質疑回答類型百分比……………………… 110
表 4-10 兩階段教學中反駁回答類型百分比…………………… 111
表 4-11 兩階段教學中教師讓學生小組討論的問題…………… 113
表 4-12 兩階段教學中相關整合回答類型百分比……………… 114
表 4-13 兩階段教學中精緻化回答類型百分比………………… 115
表 4-14 擴散性問題師生對話花費時間 ……………………… 117
表 4-15 學生學習心得問卷第四題答題內容…………………… 123
表 4-16 學生開放性問卷第三題答題內容……………………… 125
表 4-17 「能源」單元第三節教室觀察逐字稿………………… 126
表 4-18 教師讓學生進行小組討論的時間……………………… 128

圖次
圖3-1 研究流程圖…………………………………………………… 41
圖4-1 兩階段個案教師發問類型之次數與百分比………………… 71
圖4-2 兩階段教學中學生回答類型之百分比……………………… 96

參考文獻
中文部分
方炳林（1976）。普通教學法。台北：教育文物。
王文科（2003）。課程與教學論（五版一刷）。台北：五南。
王美芬、熊昭弟（2001）。國民小學自然科教材教法（初版九刷）。台北：心理。
王莉玲（1993）。幼稚園實習教師發問技巧的分析。幼兒教育學報，2，35-60。
甘漢銧、熊召弟與鍾聖校（1996）小學自然科教學研究（初版四刷）。台北：師大書苑
吳清山、林天祐（2003）。教育小辭書。台北：五南。
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。
佘曉清（1999）。生物教師的教學信念、教學、與師生互動－個案研究。科學教育學刊，6 (4)，403-416。
林育安（2005）。發問技巧對國中七年級學生數學學習影響之研究。國立高雄師範大學數學系碩士論文。（未出版）
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（2003）。國小低年級教師進行科學對談之行動研究。科學教育學刊。11(1)，51-57。
林雅慧（2003）。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（2004）。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。九年一貫課程理論基礎叢書（二），頁453-465。台北市：教育部。
林樹聲（2004）。通識素養的培育與爭議性科技議題的教學。南華通識教育研究，2，25-37。
洪綺霞（2004）國中資淺暨資深自然科教師概念組織、教學表徵、發問問題類型與評量方式之研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
張玉成（1988）。教師發問技巧（三版）。台北：心理。
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北：教育部。
曾景泉（1999）。影響生物實習教師使用發問類比之學科教學知識成份。國立台灣師範大學生物研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
黃春貴（1999）。中學國文教學實務精講。台北：萬卷樓。
楊妙芬（1996）。教師發問與候答時間－國小師生教室行為研究。屏東師院學報，9，97-119。
楊榮祥（1989）。生物教學問題與改進－談教師的發問技術。當前師範教育問題研究， 770-779。
溫家男（2002）。高中生物科資深與實習教師發問策略之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
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。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
謝世達（2004）。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。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
謝甫宜（2001）。國小自然科教師應用發問策略促進有意義學習之詮釋性研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
鍾聖校（2002）。自然與科技課程教材教法（初版三刷）。台北：五南
蘇育任（1998）。建構與解構－掙脫建構主義的桎梏。國立台中師院學報，12，369-393。





外文部分
Abrams, E. (1998). Talking and doing science: important elements in teaching-for-understanding approach. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp.307-323). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). What Is STS Science Teaching, In Solomon, J. & Aikenhead, G. S. (Eds), STS Education: International perspectives on reform (pp.47-59). New Yark: Teachers College Press.
Barden, L. M.(1995). Effective questioning ＆ the ever-elusive higher-order question. The American Biology Teacher, 57(7), 423-426.
Blanchette, J. (2001). Questions in the online learning environment. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'enseignement à distance, 16(2), 157-178.
Carin, A. A.& Sund, R. B. (1971). Developing questioning techniques. Ohio: Chales E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discurse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom Interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. Internation Journal of Science Education,28,1315-1346.
Cosgrove, M. & Schaverien, L. (1996). Children’s conversations and learning science and technology. Internation Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 105-116.
David, J., Paul, E.&Donald, K.(1989). Methods for teaching: A skills approach. London: Merrill Publishing Company.A Bell and Howell Information Company.
Dawes, L. (2004). Talk and learning in classroom science. Internation Journal of Science Education,26 (6), 677-695.
Doing, B. (1997). What makes scientific dialogue possible in the classroom? Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, U.S.A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 413 246)
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and Paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. P. G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk. Washington D.C.: Flamer.
Fleer, M. (1992). Identifying teacher-child interaction which scaffolds scientific thinking in young children. Science Education, 76, 373-397.
Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories responding with curricula. Columbia University, New York: Teacher College Press.
Gergen, K. J. (1995). From Construction in Context to Reconstruction in Education. In L. P. Steffesnd, & J. Gale (Eds), Constructivism in education, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Gilbert, S. W.(1992). Systematic questioning: Taxonomies that develop critical thinking skills. The Science Teacher. 59(12), 41-46.
Handerson, J., Wellington,J. (1998). Lowering the language barrier in learing and teaching science. School Science Review. 79(288), 35-46.
Harlen, W. (1988). Science education: primary school programmes. In T. Husen & T. N. postlethwaite (Eds.), The international Encyclopedia of education, Vol. 8, 4456-4461.
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.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
Hunkins, F. P. (1972).Questioning strategies and techniques.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Jarcho, I. S. (1985). Curricular approach to teaching STS: a report on units, modules, and course. In R. W. Bybee (Ed), Science/Techconology/Society, 1985 yearbook of the national science teachers association (pp.162-173). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Jones, M. G., & Garter, G. (1998). Small groups and shared constructions. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp.261-278). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
King, A.(1994).Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ”To trust or not to trust,…”-pupils` ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. Internation Journal of Science Education, 23, 877-901.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values (pp.167-176). New York: Ablex.
Martin, R., Sexton, C., Wagner, K., & Gerlovich, J.(1998). What do you need to know about using questions as a science teaching tool? In R. Martin, C. Sexton, K. Wagner, J. Gerovich(Eds.).Science for all children.(2nd Ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., &Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and delepoment of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111.
Millar, R. (1997). Science today: problem or crisis? In R. Levinson & J. Thomas (Eds.), Science education for democracy: what can the school curriculum achieve? (pp.87-101). New York: Routledge.
Oulton, C., Dillon, F., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. Internation Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V.(1999). Student argumentation in decision making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. Internation Journal of Science Education, 21, 745-754
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.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. Internation Journal of Science Education, 19, 167-182.
Rojas-Drummod, S., Perez, V., Velez, M., Gomez, L., &Mendoza, A. (2003). Talking for reasoning among Mexican primary school children. Learning and Instruction, 13
, 653-670.
Roth, W. M.(1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 737-751.
Ryan, F. L. (1974). The effect on social studies achievement of multiple student responding to different levels of questioning. The Journal of Experimental Education. 42. 71-75.
Ryan, R. B.(1973). Differentiated effects of levels of questioning on student achievement. The Journal of Experimental Education. 41, 63-67.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. Internation Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.
Sagerman, N., & Mayer, R. E.(1987). Forward transfer of diefferent reading strategies evoked by adjunct questions in science text. Journal of Education Psychology,79(2), 189-191.
Shepardson, D. P. & Britsch, S. J.(2006). Zones of internation: differential access to elementary science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 443-466.
Solomon, J. (1987). Social Influence on the Construction of Pupils’s Understanding of Science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63-82.
Stradling, R. (1984). The teaching of controversial isues: an evaluation. Educational Review, 36(2), 121-129.
van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpaon, D., & Wild, J.(2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159-190.
van Zee, E. H., Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 229-271.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Tool and symbol in child development. In M. Cole (Ed.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp.19-30). Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: an empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493-516.
Wilaon, E., Haas, M., & Laughlin, M. (1999). Teachers’ perspective on incorporating current controversial issues into the curriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440 907).
Wilen W. W.(1991). Questioning skills, for teachers.(3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: NEA Professional Library, National Education Association.
William, P. C., Mary, A. C., & Barbara, W. S. (2005). Environmental science：A global concern (pp. 216-237). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wooddruff, E., & Meyer, K. (1997). Expalanation from intra- andinter-group discourse: Students building knowledge in the science classroom.Research in Science Education, 27(1), 25-39.
Wragg, E. C., & Brown,G. ( 2001). Questioning in the secondary school. New York: Routledge Famler.
Wragg, E. C., & Brown,G. (1993). Questioning. New York: Routledge Famler.
Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/Technology/Society as reform in science education. New York: State University of New York Press.
Yip, D. y. (2004). Questioning skills for conceptual change in science instruction. Journal of Biological Education.38(2),76-83.