專精教師與生手教師經營論證教學的分析與比較

The Analysis and Comparison of Students' Argumentation in Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Classroom

10.6173/CJSE.2010.1803.02

洪振方(Jeng-Fung Hung)；林裕仁(Uy-Len Lin)；魏子婷(Tzu-Ting Wei)

分析表徵 ； 爭議性科技議題 ； 論證教學 ； Representation ； Socio-Scientific Issues ； Argumentation Teaching

科學教育學刊

18卷3期（2010 / 06 / 01）

205 - 227

繁體中文

本研究目的在於分析與比較專精教師與生手教師，進行論證教學的品質、特色與異同。研究對象爲技術學院的2位教師與五專部護理系學生213位，教學課程爲「生活科技」，並在此課程中融入爭議性科技議題的論證活動。資料蒐集關注於師生的對話論證內容。資料分析時，本研究發展「對話論證表徵」分析舉證支持立場、反駁與質疑，與化解反駁等三面向的論證內涵與品質。研究發現生手教師班級的論證教學多基於舉證支持立場，師生對話論證的內容與品質較不豐富；專精教師班級的對話論證內涵亦多基於舉證支持立場，而教師重視理性、和諧的對話氣氛，更能引導學生學習反駁與質疑、化解反駁的對話論證，以及表現高品質的論證內容。

The purpose of this study was to analyze the features, progress and quality of students' argumentation in socio-scientific issue taught by an inexperienced teacher and an experienced teacher. We developed a representation as an analytical tool for tracking the progress and quality of students' argumentation. We found Chinese students tend to be unwilling to become involved in any kind of verbal exchange which has the potential for conflict (i.e. argumentation). The primary reason for such hesitancy is fear of becoming emotionally upset. When teaching students the objective process of claim/support within the context of an argumentation class, the teacher who had no past experience teaching argumentation was less effective than the experienced teacher in helping students to view such a verbal exchange objectively without involving their emotions. The experienced teacher tended to be more sensitive than the inexperienced teacher to students' shift from objective involvement to emotional involvement.

1. Andriessen, J.(Ed.),Baker, M.(Ed.),Suthers, D.(Ed.)(2003).Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments.Dordrecht, NL:Kluwer Academic.
2. Avraamidou, L.,Zembal-Saul, C.(2005).Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year elementary teacher's specialized practices and knowledge.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,42(9),965-968.
3. Clark, D. B.,Sampson, V.(2008).Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(3),293-321.
4. Driver, R.,Newton, P.,Osborne, J.(2000).Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.Science Education,84(3),287-312.
5. 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.
6. Hogan, K.,Maglienti, M.(2001).Comparing the epistemological under-pinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(6),663-687.
7. 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.
8. Kolstø, S. D.(2006).Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a riskfocused socio-scientific issue.International Journal of Science Education,28(14),1689-1716.
9. Kuhn, D.(1993).Science as argument: Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking.Science Education,77(3),319-317.
10. Kuhn, D.(Ed.)(2005).Education for thinking.London:Harvard University Press.
11. 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.
12. Lynch, S.(1997).Novice teachers' encounter with national science education reform: Entanglements or intelligent interconnections?.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,34(1),3-17.
13. Mercer, N.(2000).Words and minds: How we use language to thinking together.Abingdon, UK:Routledge.
14. Meyer, H.(2004).Novice and expert teachers' conceptions of learners' prior knowledge.Science Education,88(6),970-983.
15. Oliveira, A. W.,Sadler, T. D.(2008).Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(5),634-658.
16. Osborne, J.,Erduran, S.,Simon, S.,Monk, M.(2001).Enhancing the quality of argument in school science.School Science Review,82(301),63-70.
17. Pontecorvo, C.,Girardet, H.(1993).Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics.Cognition and Instruction,11(3-4),365-359.
18. Roth, W. M.(1997).Interactional structures during a grade 4-5 open-design engineering unit.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,34(3),273-302.
19. Roth, W. M.,Welzel, M.(2001).From activity to gestures and scientific language.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(1),103-136.
20. Sadler, T. D.,Fowler, S, R.(2006).A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation.Science Education,90(6),986-1004.
21. 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.
22. Schwarz, B. B.,Neuman, Y.,Gil, J.,Ilya, M.(2003).Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity.Journal of the Learning Sciences,12(2),219-256.
23. Shepardson, D. P.,Britsch, S. J.(2006).Zones of interaction: Differential access to elementary science discourse.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,43(5),443-466.
24. Stamovlasis, D.,Dimos, A.,Tsaparlis, G.(2006).A study of group interaction processes in learning lower secondary physics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,43(6),556-576.
25. Toulmin, S. E.(1958).The uses of argument.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
26. Verheij, B.(2005).Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's scheme.Argumentation,19(3),347-371.
27. 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.
28. Wallace, J.(Ed.),Loughran, J.(Ed.)(2003).Leadership and professional development in science education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning.London:Routledge.
29. Warburton, E.,Torff, B.(2005).The effect of perceived learner advantages on teachers' beliefs about critical-thinking Activities.Journal of Teacher Education,56(1),24-33.
30. Zeidler, D. L.(1997).The central role of fallacious thinking in science education.Science Education,81(4),483-496.
31. Zembal-Saul, C.,Munford, D.,Crawford, B.,Friedrichsen, P.,Land, S.(2002).Scaffolding pre-service science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of nature selection.Research in Science Education,32(4),437-463.
32. Zohar, A.(2004).Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students' learning and teaches' professional development.Dordrecht, NL:Kluwer Academic.
33. Zohar, A.,Degani, A.,Vaaknin, E.(2001).Teachers' beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking.Teaching and Teachers' Education,17(4),469-485.
34. 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),145-182.

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。