不同佈題模式對學生論證表現的影響

The Impact of Question-positing on Students' Argumentation

10.6173/CJSE.2008.1604.01

黃翎斐(Ling-Fei Huang)；張文華(Wen-Hua Chang)；林陳涌(Chen-Yung Lin)

論證 ； 對話分析 ； Argumentation ； Discourse Analysis

科學教育學刊

16卷4期（2008 / 08 / 01）

375 - 393

繁體中文

本研究旨在探究教師的佈題模式對學生論證表現的影響，合作對象為一資深的國中教師，研究進行課室觀察與教學活動錄影，分析教師在課室中採用何種佈題模式引發學生的論證及促進學生完成論證。整個蒐集資料過程為一個學期，每週三節，總共蒐集錄影帶50捲。本研究發展以圖示的方式來呈現教學歷程的全貌，亦對論證的因子再做更詳盡的分類和定義，使得在論證評鑑時能有所依據。分析對話後，依教師引起論證的佈題模式分為三類：主張式、選擇式及開放式，這三種佈題模式各有其優缺點。主張式佈題模式教學因開放度不高，因此其論證所產生的反駁頻率較低；而開放式佈題模式因無一標準答案；論證的進行就較多樣而反駁頻率也高；選擇式佈題模式教學所發生的論證表現則介於兩者中間，因由於它半開放的特性提供學生自由選擇，亦提供方向讓學生可進行討論論證。另外在論證品質的評鑑方面，主張式和開放式佈題模式教學呈現兩極化的品質，而選擇式佈題模式所發生的反倒有維持較好的水準。

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of a teacher's question-positing on students’ performance of argumentation. The cooperating teacher, Mrs. Liu, is an experienced junior high school teacher of biology. During the period of observation, classes were videotaped and data were analyzed to investigate the patterns of question-positing that Mrs. Liu used to trigger and promote students' argumentation. Data collection lasted for one semester, three times a week, and 50 tapes were collected. A graphic representation, modified from Toulmin's model of argumentation, was used to represent the discourse among students and the teacher in the classes observed. A rubric was developed with detailed categories and definitions of the components of argumentation so the quality of argumentation could be assessed. Three patterns of question-positing were noted, claim-provided model, claim-optional model, and open model and each had its own advantages and disadvantages. In the claim-provided model, the direction of discussion was limited and, therefore, there was less room for rebuttal performed by students. In the open model, there was not a single fixed answer expected by the teacher and the discourse became complicated and raised more rebuttals. The claim-optional model was in between the other two. Regarding the quality of argumentation, the claim-provided model and open model had opposite results and the claim-optional model resulted in better quality of argumentation.

1. Coburn, A.(1998).Constructivism and Science Teaching.Bloomington, IN:Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation.
2. Cohen, E. G.(1994).Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.Review of Educational Research,64(1),1-35.
3. Collins, H.,Pinch, T.(1994).The Golem: What Everyone Should Know about Science.New York:Cambridge University Press.
4. Driver, R.,Newton, P.,Osborne, J.(2000).Establishing the norms of scientific argument-ation in classroom.Science Education,84(3),287-312.
5. Duschl, R. A.,Osborne, J.(2002).Supporting and promting argumentation discourse in science education.Studies in Science Edcuation,38(1),39-72.
6. 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.
7. Flander, N. A.,B. J. Biddle,W. J. Ellons (Eds.)(1964).Contemporary Research on teacher Effectiveness.New York:Bolt, Rinehart & Winston.
8. Gayford, C.(1993).Discussion-based group work related to environmental issue m science classes with 15-year-old pupils in England.International Journal of Science Education,15(5),521-529.
9. Hemple, C. G.(1965).Aspects of scientific explanation and other essay in the philosophy of science.New York:The Free Press.
10. Inch E. S.,Wamick B.,Danielle, E.(2002).Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument.Boston:A Pearson Education Company.
11. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P.,Lopez-Rodriguez, R.,Erduran, S.(2005).Argumentative quality and intellectual ecology: A case study in primary school.Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas.
12. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P.,Pereiro-Munoz, C.(2002).Knowledge procedures or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management.International Journal of Science Education,24(11),1171-1190.
13. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P.,Rodriguez, A. B.,Duschl, R. A.(2000).`Doing the lesson` or Doing science”: Argument in high school genetics.Science Education,84(6),757-792.
14. Joyce, B.,Weil, M.,Showers, B.(1992).Models of Teachings.MA:Allyn and Bacon.
15. Kelly, G. J.,Takao, A.(2002).Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students` use of evidence in writing.Science Education,86(3),314-342.
16. Krummheuer, G.,P. Cobb,H. Bauersfeld (Eds.)(1995).Emergence of Mathematical Meaning.Hilldale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Kuhn, D.(1991).The skill of argument.New York:Cambridge University Press.
18. Kuhn, D.(1993).Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.Science Education,77(3),319-337.
19. Latour, B.,Woolgar, S.(1979).Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts Princeton.NJ:Princeton University Press.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Robinson, W. R.,Niaz, M.(1991).Performance based on instruction by lecture and by interaction and its relationship to cognitive variables.International Journal of Science Education,13(2),203-215.
23. Simonneaux, L.(2001).Role-play or dabate to promote students` argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis.Imerna-tional Journal of Sciecne Education,23(9),903-927.
24. Toulmin, S. E.(1958).The use of argument.Cambridge UK:Cambridge University Press.
25. Van Eemeren, F. H.(1995).A world of dif-ference: the rich state of argumentation theory.Informal Logic,17(2),144-158.
26. Voss, J. F.,Dyke, A. J. V.(2001).Argo-mentation in psychology: Background corn-meats.Discourse Processes,32(2&3),89-111.
27. Vygotsky, L. S.(1962).Thought and Language.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
28. Wellington, J.,Osborne, J.(2001).Language and literacy in science education.Buckingham:Open University Press.
29. Yore, L. D.,Bisanz, G. L.,Hand, B. M,(2003).Examining the literacy component of science Literacy 25 years of language arts and science research.International Journal of Science Education,25(6),689-725.
30. 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.
31. 楊文金(1998)。「同儕科學家意像」對訊息合理判斷的 影響分析。師大學報：科學教育類，43(1)，1-17。

1. 方廷榕(2011)。國中學生的解題策略與推理歷程研究－以一個非例行性問題為例。中原大學教育研究所學位論文。2011。1-100。