跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.221.73.157) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/06/20 21:43
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:李佳生
研究生(外文):Chia-Sheng Lee
論文名稱:應用論證教學促進國小五年級學童科學論證能力之研究
論文名稱(外文):Improving the 5th Graders' Scientific Argumentation Skills through the Instruction in Scientific Contexts
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:科學教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2009
畢業學年度:97
語文別:中文
論文頁數:142
中文關鍵詞:論證教學科學論證五年級
外文關鍵詞:argumentation instructionscientific argumentationthe fifth graders
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:11
  • 點閱點閱:924
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:200
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
本研究旨在利用科學問題進行論證教學,以提升國小五年級學童論證能力。研究對象為嘉義縣某鄉三所國小五年級學生。研究採準實驗研究設計,以「動物、植物、觀測星星」為教學主題,實驗組(N=25)進行36節的論證教學,對照組(N=29)則進行36節的一般教學。兩組學生於教學前後接受「科學論證問卷」施測。研究結果顯示:(一)論證教學比一般教學顯著提升學生的論證技能總得分(p<.05),且實驗組得分有顯著進步(p<.05),對照組則無(p>.05);實驗組論證得分的進步幅度顯著高於對照組(p<.05);(二)論證教學比一般教學顯著提升學生陳述理由的後測得分(p<.05),但實驗組得分沒有顯著進步(p>.05),對照組亦無(p>.05);實驗組在理由得分的進步幅度沒有顯著高於對照組(p>.05);(三)論證教學比一般教學顯著提升學生陳述證據的後測得分(p<.05),且實驗組得分有顯著進步(p<.05),對照組亦然(p<.05);實驗組在證據得分的進步幅度顯著高於對照組(p<.05);(四)論證教學比一般教學顯著提升學生陳述支持性論點的後測得分(p<.05),而實驗組得分有顯著進步(p<.05),對照組則無(p>.05);實驗組在支持性論點得分的進步幅度顯著高於對照組(p<.05)。
This purpose of this study was to improve the 5th graders’ scientific argumentation skills through the instruction in scientific contexts. The study adopted quasi-experimental design. There were 25 students in the experimental group which was engaged in the argumentation instruction; while there were 29 students in the comparison group which was received traditional instruction. The study lasted for three months and there were three 40 minute-class periods in each week. The students were asked to complete pre- and posttests on scientific argumentation skills during the teaching experiment. The main results of this study were the followings: (1) the experimental group’s total scores in the posttest were significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p<.05). The experimental group showed statistically significant improvement on the total scores (p<.05) but the comparison group did not (p>.05). The experimental group’s improvement on the total scores was significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p<.05). (2) The experimental group’s scores on making warrants in the posttest were significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p<.05). The experimental group did not show statistically significant improvement on the scores of making warrants (p>.05). The comparison group did not, either (p>.05). The experimental group’s improvement on the scores of making warrants was not significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p>.05). (3) The experimental group’s scores on constructing evidence in the posttest were significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p<.05). Both the experimental group and the comparison group showed statistically significant improvement on the scores of constructing evidence (p<.05). The experimental group’s improvement on the scores of constructing evidence was significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p<.05). (4) The experimental group’s scores in the posttest on formulating supportive arguments were significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p<.05). The experimental group showed statistically significant improvement on the scores of formulating supportive arguments (p<.05) but the comparison group did not (p>.05). The experimental group’s improvement on the scores of formulating supportive arguments was significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p<.05).
目次
中文摘要………………………………………… i
英文摘要………………………………………… ii
目次……………………………………………… iv
表次…………………………………………… vii
圖次…………………………………………………x
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機……………………… 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題………………… 2
第三節 研究範圍與限制……………………… 3
第四節 名詞釋義……………………………… 4
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 論證的意涵…………………………… 5
第二節 論證的教學與評量策略……………… 10
第三節 科學論證實證研究………………… 14
第三章 研究方法與步驟
第一節 研究流程…………………………… 23
第二節 研究架構與設計…………………… 25
第三節 教學設計…………………………… 26
第四節 研究對象…………………………… 31
第五節 研究工具…………………………… 32
第六節 資料處理與分析…………………… 34
第四章 結果與討論
第一節 不同教學方式促進學童論證之比較…… 39
第二節 實驗組與對照組理由改變情形………… 44
第三節 實驗組與對照組證據改變情形………… 55
第四節 實驗組與對照組支持性論點改變情形… 64
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 結論……………………………………… 75
第二節 建議……………………………………… 76
參考文獻
 中文部分………………………………………… 79
 外文部分……………………………………… … 81
附錄
 附錄一 論證教學教案………………………… 86
 附錄二 論證學習單一………………………… 101
附錄三 論證學習單二………………………… 102
附錄四 論證學習單三………………………… 103
附錄五 論證學習單四………………………… 104
附錄六 論證表格……………………………… 105
附錄七 科學論證問卷………………………… 106
附錄八 學生「科學論證問卷」填寫範例…… 119
表次
表2-1 科學論證之實證性研究……………………… 20
表3-1 論證教學、教學活動、教學目標與教學策略…27
表3-2 資料處理類別、代碼與意義………………… 34
表 3-3 論證分析之類別、含意、例子與計分…… 37
表4-1-1 實驗組與對照組論證得分前測之平均數與標準差 …40
表4-1-2 實驗組與對照組論證前測總分之t檢定…………… 40
表4-1-3 實驗組與對照組後測論證得分之平均數與標準差 …41
表4-1-4 實驗組與對照組前後測論證得分之t檢定……… … 41
表4-1-5 教學前後實驗組與對照組論證總分改變幅度t檢定 …42
表4-1-6 教學後實驗組與對照組論證總分迴歸係數同質性考驗
分析摘要表……………………………………………………… 43
表4-1-7 教學後實驗組與對照組論證總分之共變數分析摘要表………………………………………………………………… 43
表4-2-1 實驗組與對照組理由得分前測之平均數與標準差… 45
表4-2-2 實驗組與對照組理由前測得分之t檢定……………… 45
表4-2-3 實驗組與對照組「組內」之理由分數前後測t檢定… 46
表4-2-4 教學前後實驗組與對照組「組間」理由分數改變量t檢
定………………………………………………………………… 46
表4-2-5 教學後實驗組與對照組迴歸同質性考驗分析摘要表… 47
表4-2-6 教學後實驗組與對照組理由分數之共變數分析摘要表 47
表4-3-1 實驗組與對照組證據得分前測之平均數與標準差…… 56
表4-3-2 實驗組與對照組證據前測得分之t檢定……………… 56
表4-3-3 實驗組與對照組「組內」之證據分數前後測t檢定… 57
表4-3-4 教學前後實驗組與對照組「組間」證據總分改變幅度t檢定………………………………………………………………… 58
表4-3-5 教學後實驗組與對照組證據總分迴歸同質性考驗分析摘
要表……………………………………………………………… 58
表4-3-6 教學後實驗組與對照組證據分數之共變數分析摘要表… 59
表4-4-1 實驗組與對照組支持性論點得分前測之平均數與
標準差……………………………………………………………… 64
表4-4-2 實驗組與對照組支持性論點前測得分之t檢定……… 65
表4-4-3 實驗組與對照組「組內」之支持性論點總分前後
測t檢定…………………………………………………………… 65
表4-4-4 教學前後實驗組與對照組「組間」支持性論點總分
改變幅度t檢定…………………………………………………… 66
表4-4-5 教學後實驗組與對照組支持性論點總分迴歸同質性考驗
分析摘要表……………………………………………………… 67
表4-4-6 教學後實驗組與對照組支持性論點分數之共變數分析
摘要表…………………………………………………………… 67
圖次
圖2-1 Toulmin的論證架構圖…………………………………… 7
圖2-2 Toulmin論證架構實例圖………………………………… 8
圖3-1 研究流程圖………………………………………………… 24
圖3-2 研究架構圖………………………………………………… 25
圖3-3 小組討論流程圖…………………………………………… 31
圖4-2-1 教學後實驗組理由類別人數…………………………… 49
圖4-2-2 教學後對照組理由類別人數…………………………… 49
圖4-3-1 教學後實驗組與對照組證據類別人數………………… 60
圖4-4-1 教學後實驗組支持性論點各類別人數點……………… 68
圖4-4-2 教學後對照組支持性論點各類別人數………………… 69
參考書目
中文部分
李佳生、林樹聲(2008,12月)。探究國小高年級學生科學論證之表現與問題。論文發表於中華民國第二十四屆科學教育學術研討會,彰化。
育橋文教事業(2008)。牛頓教科書自然與生活科技教學指引第六冊。台北:育橋文教事業。
邱皓政 (2006)。量化研究與統計分析-SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析(第三版),台北:五南。
林燕文、洪振方(2007)。對話論證的探究中學童論述策略對促進科學概念理解之 研究。屏東教育大學學報,26,285-324。
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。 九年一貫課程理論基礎叢書,453-465。台北:教育部。。
林寶山(1993)。教學原理。台北:五南出版社。
張靜儀、李采褱(2004)。國小中、高年級學童光迷思概念與相關因素探究。 國立屏東教育大學學報,20,315-354。
張靜儀、余世裕(2002)。 國小學童對聲音迷思概念之研究 。屏東師院學報,16,395-434。
教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要自然與生活科技學習領域。臺北: 教育部。
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。
黃柏鴻(2007)。提升國小六年級學生論證能力之行動研究。未出版之碩士論文, 國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所,嘉義。
黃柏鴻、林樹聲(2007)。論證教學相關實證研究之回顧與省思。科學教育月刊,302,5-20。
蔡俊彥、黃台珠、楊錦潭(2008)。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。






















外文部分
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.
Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 401-422.
Cho, K., & 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. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G.,Hendricks, S., & Hickey,D. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861.
De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Brker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Science, 11(1), 63-103.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S., (1999, March). Promoting argumentation in middle school science classrooms: A Project SEPIA evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, USA.
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.
Griffard, P. B., & Wandersee, J. H. (2001). The two-tier instrument on photosynthesis: what does it diagnose?. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1039-1052.
Herrenkohl, L., Palinscar, A., DeWater, L.S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451–493.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84 (6), 757-792.
Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science:an evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431-446.
Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students’ science unquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233.
Kuhn, D.(1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155-178.
Kyza, E., & Edelson, D. C. (2005). Scaffolding middle school students’ coordination of theory and practice.Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(6), 545–560.
Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
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. and Santi, M. (1994, April). Argumentation structure and metacognition in constructing shared knowledge at school. Paper Presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association , New Orleans, LA.
Mason, L., & Scirica F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16 (5), 492-509.
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139.
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.
Naylor, S., & Keogh, B.(2000). Concept Cartoons In Science Education. Cheshire, UK: Millgate House Publishers.
Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Dowing, B. (2007). Argumentation and Primary Science. Research in Science Education. 37(1), 17-39.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nussbaum, M. E. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. Social Studies, 93(3), 79-84.
Nussbaum, M. E. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(3), 286-313.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157–169.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World (Vol.1). Paris: OECD.
Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203–215.
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.
Pederson, S. & Liu, M. (2002). The transfer of problem-solving skills from a problem-based learning environment: The effect of modeling an expert’s cognitive processes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 303-320.
Perkins, D. N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psycjology, 77, 562-571.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.
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.
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.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L.,& McRobbie, C. (2004).Student’s discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London: Faimer.
van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159-190.
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top