國小六年級學生在社會性科學議題教學中之論證能力研究－不同學業成就學生間之比較

Students' Constructing Argumentation about a Socioscientific Issue-The Differences between Sixth Graders with Different Levels of Academic Achievement

10.6173/CJSE.2009.1702.02

林樹聲(Shu-Sheng Lin)；黃柏鴻(Po-Hung Huang)

論證 ； 社會性科學議題 ； 國小學生 ； 學業成就 ； Argumentation ； Socioscientific Issues ； Elementary School Students ； Academic Achievement

科學教育學刊

17卷2期（2009 / 04 / 01）

111 - 133

繁體中文

The purpose of the study was to explore the differences between sixth graders with different levels of academic achievement after they experienced the construction of background knowledge about a socioscientific issue-The establishment of high-speed rail. The researcher adopted a causal-comparative research design. The participants were an elementary science teacher and 68 students. The data were collected through an argumentation questionnaire and participant observation. The findings indicated that there was no statistically significant difference (p＞.05) among low, middle and high achievers on the posttest for argumentation skills and for the score differences between pretest and posttest. However, middle achievers were significantly different (p＜.05) from low achievers on the scores for formulating supportive arguments. Most students elaborated their arguments after the construction of background knowledge. High achievers were inclined to use rebuttals or rebuttals with supplementary warrants or with elaborated warrants as supportive arguments. Low achievers tended to only use supplementary warrants or elaborated warrants as supportive arguments. Meanwhile, low and middle achievers could make arguments, counterarguments or rebuttals like high achievers did when they were asked to have oral argumentations in the classes.

The purpose of the study was to explore the differences between sixth graders with different levels of academic achievement after they experienced the construction of background knowledge about a socioscientific issue-The establishment of high-speed rail. The researcher adopted a causal-comparative research design. The participants were an elementary science teacher and 68 students. The data were collected through an argumentation questionnaire and participant observation. The findings indicated that there was no statistically significant difference (p＞.05) among low, middle and high achievers on the posttest for argumentation skills and for the score differences between pretest and posttest. However, middle achievers were significantly different (p＜.05) from low achievers on the scores for formulating supportive arguments. Most students elaborated their arguments after the construction of background knowledge. High achievers were inclined to use rebuttals or rebuttals with supplementary warrants or with elaborated warrants as supportive arguments. Low achievers tended to only use supplementary warrants or elaborated warrants as supportive arguments. Meanwhile, low and middle achievers could make arguments, counterarguments or rebuttals like high achievers did when they were asked to have oral argumentations in the classes.

1. 蔡俊彥、黃台珠、楊景潭(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(2)，171-192。
   連結：
2. Aikenhead, G. S.(2005).Science-based occupations and the science curriculum: Concepts of evidence.Science Education,89,242-275.
3. Alexander, R.(2006).Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk.York:Dialogos.
4. Anderson, R. C.,Chinn, C.,Chang, J.,Waggoner, M.,Yi, H.(1997).On the logical integrity of children's arguments.Cognition and Instruction,15(2),135-167.
5. Braund, M.,Lubben, F.,Scholtz, Z.,Sadeck, M.,Hodges, M.(2007).Comparing the effect of scientific and socio-scientific argumentation tasks: Lessons from South Africa.School Science Review,324,67-76.
6. Chambliss, M.,Murphy, P. K.(2002).Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument structure in written texts.Discourse Processes,34,91-115.
7. Driver, R.,Newton, P.,Osborne, J.(2000).Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom.Science Education,84,287-312.
8. Freeley, A. J.,Steinberg, D. L.(2005).Argumentation and debate.Belmont, CA:Thomson Wadsworth.
9. Jeong, A.,Lee, J.-M.(2008).The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation.British Journal of Educational Technology,39(4),651-665.
10. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P.(2002).Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management.International Journal of Science Education,24(11),1171-1190.
11. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P.,Erduran, S.,S. Erduran (Eds.),M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.)(2008).Argumentation in science education.UK:Springer.
12. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P.,Rodríguez, A. B.,Duschl, R. A.(2000)."Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics.Science Education,84(6),757-792.
13. Kolsto, S. D.(2006).Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socioscientific issue.International Journal of Science Education,28(14),1689-1716.
14. Kortland, K.(1996).An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue.Science Education,80(6),673-689.
15. Kuhn, D.(1992).Thinking as argument.Harvard Educational Review,62,155-178.
16. Kuhn, D.(1993).Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.Science Education,77,319-337.
17. Kuhn, D.(1991).The skills of argument.New York:Cambridge University Press.
18. Lao, J.,Kuhn, D.(2002).Cognitive engagement and attitude development.Cognitive Development,17,1203-1217.
19. Mason, L.,Scirica, F.(2006).Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding.Learning and Instruction,16(5),492-509.
20. 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(2),139-178.
21. Naylor, S.,Keogh, B.,Downing, B.(2007).Argumentation and primary science.Research in Science Education,37,17-39.
22. Osborne, J.,Erduran, S.,Simon, S.(2004).Enhancing the quality of argument in school science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(10),994-1020.
23. Patronis, T.,Potari, D.,Spiliotopoulou, D.(1999).Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implication for teaching.International Journal of Science Education,21(7),745-751.
24. Rivard, L. P.(2004).Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers?.Science Education,88,420-442.
25. Sadler, T. D.(2004).Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(5),513-536.
26. Sadler, T. D.,Donnelly, L. A.(2006).Socio-scientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality.International Journal Science Education,28(12),1463-1488.
27. Sadler, T. D.,Fowler, S. R.(2006).A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation.Science Education,90,986-1004.
28. Sadler, T. D.,Zeidler, D. L.(2005).The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues.Science Education,89(1),71-93.
29. 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.
30. Scholtz, Z.,Braund, M.,Hodges, M.,Koopman, R.,Lubben, F.(2008).South Aferican teachers' ability to argue: The emergence of inclusive argumentation.International Journal of Educational Development,28,21-34.
31. Schommer, M.,Hutter, R.(2002).Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues.The Journal of Psychology,136(1),5-20.
32. 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.
33. Simonneaux, L.,S. Erduran (Eds.),M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.)(2008).Argumentation in science education: Perspectives form classroom based research.Springer:The Netherlands.
34. Stanovich, K. E.(1999).Who is rational? Studies in individual differences in reasoning.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Stanovich, K. E.,West, R. F.(1998).Individual differences in rational differences in rational thought.Journal of Experimental Psychology,127,161-188.
36. Taber, K. S.,Cooke, V. M.,de Trafford, T.,Lowe, T. J.,Millins, S.,Quail, T.(2006).Learning to teach about ideas and evidence in science: Experiences of teachers in training.School Science Review,87(321),63-73.
37. Toulmin, S.(1958).The uses of argument.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
38. von Aufschnaiter,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,45,101-131.
39. Voss, J. F.,Means, M. L.(1991).Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation.Learning and Instruction,1,337-350.
40. Voss, J. F.,van Dyke, J. A.(2001).Argumentation in psychology: Background comments.Discourse Processes,32(2-3),89-111.
41. Wray, D.,Lewis, M.(1997).Extending literacy: Children reading and writing non-fiction.London:Routledge.
42. Wu, Y.-T.,Tsai, C.-C.(2007).High school students' informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses.International Journal of Science Education,29(9),1163-1187.
43. Yerrick, R. K.(2000).Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction.Journal of Research in Science Education,37(8),807-838.
44. Zeidler, D. L.,Osborne, J.,Erduran, S.,Simon, S.,Monk, M.,D. L. Zeidler (Ed.)(2003).The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education.Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic.
45. Zeidler, D. L.,Sadler, T. D.,Simmons, M. L., Howes, E. V.(2005).Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education.Science Education,89,357-377.
46. Zohar, A.,Dori, Y. J.(2003).Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive?.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,12(2),145-181.
47. 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.
48. 李佳生、林樹聲(2008)。探究國小高年級學生科學論證之表現與問題。第二十四屆科學教育學術研討會，彰化市:
49. 林樹聲(2008)。行政院國科會三年期計畫－第二年成果報告(NSC 95-2522-S-415-001-MY3)行政院國科會三年期計畫－第二年成果報告(NSC 95-2522-S-415-001-MY3),嘉義縣:國立嘉義大學科學教育所。
50. 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。
51. 教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北市:教育部。
52. 黃柏鴻、林樹聲(2007)。論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思。科學教育月刊，320，5-20。
53. 蔡金宗、林樹聲(2008)。國小六年級學生對湖山水庫議題之論證研究。第二十四屆科學教育學術研討會，彰化市:
54. 蔡俊彥、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。

1. 陳映均、林樹聲、林宗進(2010)。大學生對基因改造作物議題的認知與論證能力之研究。科學教育學刊，18(3)，229-252。
2. 董曜瑜、楊景盛、陳秀溶、王國華(2017)。社會性科學議題情境下論證式探究教學與課程對七年級學生科學學習成就、論證能力和科學素養之影響。科學教育學刊，25(S)，485-500。
3. 許瑛玿,張文馨,吳貞儀(2021)。提問鷹架設計對學生社會性科學議題決策能力表現的影響。課程與教學，24(4)，199-227。
4. 許瑛玿、張文馨、吳貞儀、方素琦(2017)。社會性科學議題線上教學模組對高中生多元面向決策的影響。數位學習科技期刊，9(3)，69-94。
5. 靳知勤,夏玉林(2021)。問題答案關係策略融入閱讀教學對國小六年級學生閱讀理解與論證能力之影響：以社會性科學議題為例。科學教育學刊，29(3)，191-217。
6. 靳知勤、林樹聲(2012)。國小教師實踐社會性科學議題教學之教師知識成長與比較。科學教育學刊，20(1)，41-68。
7. 林樹聲(2012)。從科學課堂中應用爭議性議題教學促進國小六年級學生道德思考。科學教育學刊，20(5)，435-459。
8. 劉湘瑤、黃書涵、陳柏熹、陳冠利(2015)。以情境式試題評量中學生能源素養。教育科學研究期刊，60(2)，167-196。
9. 羅藝方,楊淑晴,林佳弘,周坤億(2022)。永續發展教育架構下STREAM跨領域教育之探究。課程與教學，25(2)，87-127。
10. 潘怡如、陳雅君、林煥祥(2018)。以科學新聞融入教學提升中學生自我效能及論證能力之探討。科學教育學刊，26(1)，71-96。
11. 蘇明洲、黃湃翔、高慧蓮、李如偉、呂仲誠(2012)。以科學讀寫模式提升國小學童論證能力之研究。科學教育學刊，20(6)，483-514。
12. 蘇衍丞、林樹聲(2012)。在社會性科學議題情境下應用鷹架教學提升國小六年級學生論證能力。科學教育學刊，20(4)，343-366。
13. 謝憶芳、劉湘瑤、陳冠利(2013)。環境議題教學提升國小學生科學素養之研究：以太陽能電池議題為例。環境教育研究，10(1)，35-64。
14. 楊桂瓊,洪瑞兒,林煥祥(2012)。以論證活動探討國小學童論證能力和科學本質之表現。科學教育學刊，20(2)，145-170。
15. 楊文金、陳文正、許瑛玿、古智雄(2011)。概念卡通論證教學促進學童論證能力之研究。科學教育學刊，19(1)，69-99。
16. 張慧娟,拉罕羅幸,李暉(2022)。偏鄉國小地方本位之社會性科學議題教學。科學教育學刊，30(S)，403-424。
17. 鍾昌宏、王國華(2014)。國民中學學生接受不同電腦模擬融入論證式探究的教學模式之學習成效探討─以遺傳單元為例。數位學習科技期刊，6(3)，19-40。
18. (2016)。如果可以這樣學自然！─國小學生在社會性科學議題教學中知識、動機與合作能力的改變。教育學報，44(2)，101-126。