以CHILDES分析一對一科學教學活動中師生互動共建科學知識的行爲表現

Analyzing Behavioral Interactions between Teacher and Student of Co-constructing Scientific Knowledge in One-to-One Tutoring Activities Via CHILDES

10.6173/CJSE.2004.1202.01

邱美虹(Mei-Hung Chiu)；林秀蓁(Show-Jane Lin)

一對一家教系統 ； 認知師徒制 ； 兒童語料交換系統 ； One-to-One Tutoring System ； Cognitive Apprenticeship ； CHILDES

科學教育學刊

12卷2期（2004 / 06 / 01）

133 - 158

繁體中文

根據本研究之前的研究結果顯示，利用Collins, Brown, & Newman所提出認知師徒制的六大面向（即示範、訓練、鷹架、闡明、反思和探索）所設計之化學平衡課程，認知師徒組學生學習後的成效優於非認知師徒組，且使用較多的「平衡過程」(Equilibration Process, EP)屬性述詞，並可建構出微觀的動態隨機之化學平衡心智模式。是什麼原因造成兩組學生學習上質與量的不同呢？本研究旨在從行爲面向，深入比較兩組的教師、學生及師生互動在此層面上之異同，並藉助「兒童語料交換系統」(Child Language Data Exchange System, CHILDES)進行分析工作，希冀釐清一對一家教科學學習活動中師生互動建構科學知識之類型與機制。研究結果發現，認知師徒組的教師展現高頻率的發問行爲，且會根據學生的回應而詢問延伸性的開放性相關問題，尤其在教授化學平衡的可逆及動態本質之活動單元中以一系列的提問，使學生有更多的機會進行更深入的思考，故導致學生產生較多的預測與解釋，學習成效較佳。非認知師徒組教師的高頻率行爲則是分散在發問、講述及回應三個類別中，若有發問則以新的封閉性問題爲主，大多與學生的回應無關，而是依循教師的既定教學計畫進行，因此，學生多以簡短的是否對錯或是填空式回答教師的問題，且教師也少繼續詢問相關的問題，所以學生的學習成效較差。

According to results of our previous studies, we found that the Cognitive apprenticeship group (CA group) students attained outperformed than the Non-cognitive apprenticeship group (Non-CA group) students. They also indicated that the CA group used more predicates with equilibration process nature, and constructing the mental models of chemical equilibrium with dynamic nature of matter. But what were the causes to make such qualitative and quantitative differences in the learning effect between the students of CA and Non-CA groups? The purpose of this study was from the aspect of behavior, to deeply compare these two groups about the patterns of teachers, students and interactions between teachers and students to identify the mechanisms of the interactions between the teacher and the student on co-constructing scientific knowledge during the one-to-one tutoring activities via CHILDES (Child Language Data Exchange System). Our result showed that the CA group teacher adopted high frequent asking questions, and followed the responses of students to propose related-open questions to provide students more opportunities to think deeper and deeper. Especially during the activities about the nature of reversibility and dynamics, the teacher addressed series of questions to inspire the student to engage in deeper thinking. As a result, it led students to generate more predictions and explanations to achieve better learning effect. The higher frequent behaviors of the Non-CA group teacher were distributed in asking questions, direct instruction and responses categories. Most of the teacher's questions are closed questions, and less related to student's prior response, just following the line of teacher's teaching plan. As a result, most of the Non-CA group students answered teacher's questions by brief yes-or-no responses or filling the blanks directly. After students giving out their answers, the teacher seldom continued to ask related questions, so the students gained a worse learning effect. Implications for science education are discussed.

1. Anderson, B. C.,Bell, L. C.,Perfetti, C. A.(1995).Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,4(2),167-207.
2. Bruer, J. T.,W. Bechtel,G. Graham (Eds.)(1998).A companion to cognitive science.Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.
3. Chi, M. T. H.(1996).Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring.Applied Cognitive Psychology,10,33-49.
4. Chi, M. T. H.(1997).Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,6(3),271-315.
5. Chi, M. T. H.,Bassok, M.,Lewis, M. W.,Reimann, P.,Glaser, R.(1989).Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems.Cognitive Science,15,145-182.
6. Chi, M. T. H.,deLeew, N.,Chiu, M.-H.,Lavancher, C.(1994).Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding.Cognitive Science,18,439-477.
7. Chi, M. T. H.,R. Giere (Ed.)(1992).Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
8. Chi, M. T. H.,R. Glaser (Ed.)(2000).Advances in instructional psychology.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Chi, M. T. H.,Siler, S. A.,Jeong, H.,Yamauchi, T.,Hausmann, R. G.(2001).Learning from human tutoring.Cognition Science,25,471-533.
10. Chiu, M. H.,Chou, C. C.,Liu, C. J.(2002).Dynamic processes of conceptual change: Analysis of constructing mental models of chemical equilibrium.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(8),688-712.
11. Clark, H. H.(1996).Using language.New York:Cambridge University Press.
12. Collins, A.,Brown, J. S.,Newman, S. E.,L. B. Resnick (Ed.)(1989).Knowing, learning, and instruction: essays in honor of Robert Glaser.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
13. Comer, J. P.(2003).Making schools of education bridges to better learning.The Chronicle of Higher Education,49(20),20.
14. Cox, R.,McKendree, J.,Tobin, R.(1999).Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse: A controlled comparison.Instructional Science,27(6),431-458.
15. De Jager, B.,Reezigt, G. J.,Creemers, B. P. M.(2002).The effects of teacher training on new instructional behaviour in reading comprehension.Teaching and Teacher Education,18(7),831-842.
16. DeBourgh, G. A.(2001).Using web technology in a clinical nursing course.Nurse Educator,26(5),227-233.
17. Dunbar, K.,W. Bechtel,G. Graham (Eds.)(1998).A companion to cognitive science.Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.
18. Ebenezer, J. V.,Connor, S.(1998).Learning to teach science: A model for the 21st century.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
19. Elbaum, B.,Vaughn, S.,Hughes, M. T.(2000).How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research.Journal of Educational Psychology,2000(92),4.
20. Ferrari, M.,Chi, M. T. H.(1998).The nature of naive explanations of natural selection.International Journal of Science Education,20(10),1231-1256.
21. Hendricks, C. C.(2001).Teaching causal reasoning through cognitive apprenticeship: What are results from situated learning.The Journal of Educational Research,94(5),302-311.
22. Jarveka, S.(1998).Socioemotional aspects of students` learning in a cognitive-apprenticeship environment.Instructional Science,26(6),439-472.
23. Jarveka, S.,Bonk, C. J.,Lehtinen, E.(1999).A theoretical analysis of social interactions in computer-based learning environments: Evidence for reciprocal understandings.Journal of Educational Computing Research,20(3),363-388.
24. Knapp, N. F.,Winsor, A. P.(1998).A reading apprenticeship for delayed primary readers.Reading Research and Instruction,38(1),13-29.
25. Lemke, J. L.,B. J. Fraser,K. G. Tobin (Eds.)(1998).International handbook of of science education.Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer.
26. Lepper, M. R.,Woolverton, M.,Mumme, D. L.,Gurtner, J. L.,S. P. Lajoie,S. J. Derry (Eds.)(1991).Computers as cognitive tools.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Longino, H. E.,L. Alcoff,E. Potter (Eds.)(1993).Feminist epistemologies.New York:Routledge.
28. MacArthur, D.,Stasz, C.,Zmuidzinas, M.(1990).Tutoring techniques in algebra.Cognition and Instruction,7(3),197-244.
29. MacWhinney, B.(2000).The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. MacWhinney, B.,Snow, C.(1985).The child language data exchange system.Journal of Child Language,12,271-296.
31. McKendree, J.,Stenning, K.,Mayers, T.,Lee, J.,Cox, R.(1998).We observing a dialogue may benifit learning: The vicarious learner.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,14,110-119.
32. Merriam, S. B.(1988).Case study research in education: A qualitative approach.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass Publishers.
33. Merrill, D. C.,Reiser, B. J.,Merrill, S. K.,Landes, S.(1995).Tutoring: Guided learning by doing.Cognition and Instruction,13(3),315-372.
34. Minkel, W.(2001).Live from Tutor. com, it`s homework help.School Library Journal,47(7),24.
35. Newell, A.,Simon, H. A.(1972).Human problem solving.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
36. Palinscar, A. S.,Brown, A. L.(1984).Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition Science,1,117-175.
37. Patel, A.,Kinshuk,Russell, D.(1999).Designing life-long learning systems for numeric domains.Educational Technology,39(5),8-11.
38. Rogoff, B.(1990).Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.New York:Oxford University Press.
39. Roth, W.-M.,Bowen, G. M.(1995).Knowing and interacting: A study of culture, practices, and resources in a grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor.Cognition and Instruction,13(1),73-128.
40. Stockhausen, L. J.,Zimitat, C.(2002).New learning: Re-apprenticing the learner.Educational Media International,39(3/4),331-338.
41. Tilley, C. L.(2001).Cognitive apprenticeship.School Library Media Activities Monthly,18(3),37-38.
42. Vadasy, P. F.,Jenkins, J. R.,Antil, L. R.(1997).The effectiveness of one-to-one tutoring by community tutors for at-risk beginning readers.Learning Disability Quarterly,20,126-139.
43. 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,38,159-190.
44. Wilkes-Gibbs, D.,Clark, H. H.(1992).Coordinating beliefs in conversation.Journal of Memory and Language,31,183-194.
45. 邱美虹、周金城、林靜雯(2000)。以述詞分析法探究認知師徒制的教學成效。中華民國第十六屆科學教育學術研討會，台北:
46. 邱美虹、劉嘉茹、周金城、梁家祺(1999)。認知師徒制對學生化學概念改變的影響。中華民國第十五屆科學教育學術研討會，彰化:

1. 蔡智文、洪振方(2007)。概念發展等同於概念範疇發展：以國中一年級學生酸鹼中和概念發展為例。高雄師大學報，22(3)，39-61。
2. 楊雅筑、段曉林(2015)。故事探究教材融入自然與生活科技課對學生參與表現與成就之影響。科學教育學刊，23(2)，129-153。
3. 鄭立婷,曾郁然,洪瑞兒,林煥祥(2022)。以閱讀科學文本教學模式提升高中生科學能力之探究。科學教育學刊，30(3)，217-239。
4. (2013)。概念發展過程之思考語言初探：以國中一年級學生酸鹼中和概念學習為例。教育研究學報，47(1)，89-111。
5. (2013)。認知師徒制對一位中學數學實習學生教學實務知識與信念的改變。教育與心理研究，36(1)，29-61。