跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.20.240) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/02/27 13:06
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

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:楊桂瓊
研究生(外文):Kuay-keng Yang
論文名稱:論證教學對國小學童的效益探討
論文名稱(外文):The exploration of teaching argumentation for elementary school students.
指導教授:林煥祥林煥祥引用關係
指導教授(外文):Huann-shyang Lin
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中山大學
系所名稱: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:2009
畢業學年度:97
語文別:中文
論文頁數:103
中文關鍵詞:論證教學科學本質論證能力
外文關鍵詞:Nature of scienceargumentation instructionArgumentation ability
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:6
  • 點閱點閱:455
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究旨在探討論證教學對國小學童在提升論證能力及科學本質的成效。以前後測準實驗研究設計,選取高雄市一所國小五年級某一班22位學童為實驗組,持續進行八週的論證教學;另一班22位學童為控制組進行一般課程之教學。所有實驗組及控制組學生於本研究前後實施論證能力測驗及科學本質量表測驗。經由統計分析結果發現:一、論證教學後實驗組學生的論證能力顯著優於控制組(Cohen d=1.13)。然而實驗組學生的科學本質並沒有顯著的提升。二、實驗組學生的論證能力前測與科學本質前測之間達中度顯著相關(r = .444*,p< .05),但兩者的後測關聯係數值卻末達到顯著水準(r =.135,p>.05)。進一步分析發現,傳統觀之學生其在論證能力的提升率有優於現代觀之學生。
This study was designed to explore pupils’ argumentation ability and understanding about the nature of science during the argumentation activities. The method of quasi-experiment with non-equivalent group pretest-posttest design was employed. One class of 5th graders (N=22) was selected as the experimental group with 8-week argumentation instruction, and the other class (N=22) with the similar backgrounds taught with traditional instruction was served as the control group. The instruments of Argumentation Ability Test and Nature of Science (NOS) questionnaire were used in pre- and post-tests. The result indicated that the experimental group students outperform their counterparts in argumentation ability. However, there is no significant difference between the two groups on their understanding about the nature of science. Further analysis reveals that the experimental students with contemporary view of NOS make progress differently from those who are with traditional view of NOS.
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與重要性 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 4
第三節 名詞釋義 5
第四節 研究範圍與限制 7
第貳章 文獻探討 8
第一節 科學本質對科學教育的重要性 8
第二節 論證的要旨及在科學本質的定位 17
第三節 論證與科學本質之實證研究 22
第叁章 研究方法 26
第一節 研究架構與設計 26
第二節 研究工具 29
第三節 實施過程 34
第四節 資料蒐集與分析 40
第肆章 研究結果分析與討論 44
第一節 科學本質與論證能力之提升情形 44
第二節 教學後實驗組與控制組後測成績是否有顯著差異之分析 58
第三節 論證能力與科學本質前後測得分之關聯性 61
第四節 個案學生在學習高層次的論證具有的困難 66
第伍章 結論與建議 73
第一節 結論 73
第二節 建議 74
參考文獻 75
附錄 81
附錄 一 申請研究工具(科學本質量表)使用同意函 81
附錄 二 論證能力紙筆測驗文本 82
附錄 三 論證教學活動教材內容 85
附錄 四 論證教學活動學習單 89
中文部分
王靜如(2006)。傳達科學本質之理論與教學實例。台北:秀威資訊科技。
古智雄(2001)。國小學童科學問題合理性判斷的熱認知喚起與弱化作用。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
吳明隆、涂金堂(2005)。SPSS與統計應用分析。台北:五南。
吳統雄(1985)。態度與行為研究的信度與效度:理論、反應、反省。2009年04月7日,取自:http://tx.shu.edu.tw/Jx/%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95/%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90-%E4%BF%A1%E5%BA%A6%E8%88%87%E6%95%88%E5%BA%A6%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90.htm
林陳涌(1996)。「了解科學本質量表」之發展與效化。科學教育學刊, 4, 1-58。
林煥祥(2007)。智育理念與實踐。載於教育部(主編),德智體群美五育理念與實踐。(60-62頁)。台北市:教育部。
高慧蓮、蘇明洲和黃子瑜(2003)。九年一貫課程國小科學本質教學與學習材料之研究與發展。論文發表於第十九屆中華民國科學教育學術研討會,國立台灣師範大學。(NSC 90-2511-S-153-009-X3)。
張春興(2002)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。台北:東華。
教育心理學-認知取向(林清山譯)(1997)。台北市:遠流。(原著出版年:1987)
教育部(2001)。國民中小學九年一貫課程總綱。台北:教育部。
教育部(2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要自然與生活科技學習領域。97課程網修訂,2009年3月29日,取自:http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC/index.php.
教育測驗與評量(2009)(王振世、何秀珠、曾文志、彭文松譯)。台北:雙葉。(原著作出版年:1995)
郭生玉(2003)。心理與教育測驗。台北市:精華書局。
陳坤源(2007)。提昇國小學童論證能力之研究。國立花蓮教育大學碩士論文,未出版,台東。
陳忠志, Taylor,P.C.,& Aldridge,J.M.(1998)。國中教師科學本質及科學教學信念對理化教室環境的影響,科學教育學刊,6(4),383-402。
黃柏鴻、林樹聲(2007)。論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思論。科學教育,302, 5-20。
黃翎斐、胡瑞萍(2006)。論證與科學教育的理論和實務。科學教育,292,15-28。
楊文金(1998)。「同儕科學家意象」對訊息合理性判斷的影響分析。師大學報,43(1),1-17。
楊文金(1999年3月)。學生如何學習科學:學生與科學家的類比。劉君燦、廖麗貞(主持人),科學史、哲於科學教育學術研討會暨研習會,國立高雄師範大學。
廖麗貞、林寶英和洪振芳(2000)。將達爾文演化論發展史融入大學生命科學通識課程之研究。科學教育學刊,8(2),179-198。
蔡俊彥和黃台珠(2008)。學童論證能力及科學本質觀之研究。屏東教育大學學報-理工類,28,85-116。

英文參考文獻
Abimbola, I. O. (1983). The relevance of the "new" philosophy of science for the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 83(3), 181-193.
Aikenhead, G., Ryan, A. G., & Fleming, R. W. (1987). High-school graduates beliefs about science technology-society: Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71,145–161.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL1997), Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 10-19
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.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-364.
Binkley, R. W. (1995). Argumentation, education and reasoning. Informal Logic, 17, 127-143.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
Bloom, J. W. (2001). Discourse, cognition, and chaotic systems: An examination of students'' argument about density. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 447-492.
Boulter, C. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. S. M. Costello & S.Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practice of argumentation.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
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.
Ebel, R. L. & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement. (5th ed.).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Erduran, S., Ardac, D., & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin''s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 451-493.
Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skill of argument: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3).
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(3), 237-252.

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.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1997). A study of progression in learning about the nature of science : Issues of conceptualisation and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 147-166.
Lederman, J., & Ko, E. (2004). Views of nature of science, Form E. Unpublished manuscript, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831-879). Englewood cliffs: NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development,use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225-239.
Lin, H. S., & Chen, C. C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers'' understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773-792.
Lochhead,J. & Dufresne,R.(1989) . Helping students understand difficult science concepts through the use of dialogues with history.(ERIC ED312158)
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2000). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. InW. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3-39). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
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.
Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students'' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86(4).
Nussbaum, J. (1989). Classroom conceptual change: Philosophical perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 530-540.
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.
Palmquist, B. C., & Finley, F. N. (1997). Preservice teachers'' views of the nature of science during a postbaccalaureate science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6).
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.
Rogers, P. J. (1982). Epistemology and history in the teaching of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 4(1), 1-10.
Rubba, P. A., & Anderson, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4),449-458.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.
Schommer-Aikins, M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The Journal of psychology, 136(1), 1-5.
Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17, 159-176.
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), 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.
Songer, N. B. & Linn, M. C. (1992). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? In M. K. Pearsall (Ed.), Scope, sequence and coordination of secondary school science, Vol. II: Relevant research (pp.197-219). Wash., DC: NSTA.
Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761-784.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: University Press.
Tsai, C. C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth graders. Science Education, 82(4), 473-489.
Tsai, C. C. (1999). Content analysis of Taiwanese 14 year olds'' information processing operations shown in cognitive structures following physics instruction, with relations to science attainment and scientific epistemological beliefs. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(2), 125-138.
Van Eemeren, F. H. (1995). A world of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 17, 144-158.
Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y., & Tabak, I. (2004). Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(1), 77-94.
Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students'' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing Reflective judgment through Socioscientific Issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.
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.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top