引導式Toulmin論證模式對國小學童在科學讀寫表現上的影響

Exploring the Impact of Guided TAPping Scientific Reading-Writing Activity on Sixth Graders

10.6173/CJSE.2010.1805.03

靳知勤(Chi-Chin Chin)；楊惟程(Wei-Cheng Yang)；段曉林(Hsiao-Lin Tuan)

引導式Toulmin論證模式引導式TAP ； 科學素養 ； 科學寫作 ； 科學閱讀 ； 閱讀與寫作 ； Guided Toulmin's Argument Pattern Guided TAP ； Scientific Literacy ； Scientific Writing ； Scientific Reading ； Reading and Writing

科學教育學刊

18卷5期（2010 / 10 / 01）

443 - 467

繁體中文

本研究結合讀寫活動和Toulmin論證模式(Toulmin's Argument Pattern, TAP)成爲「引導式Toulmin論證模式」（簡稱引導式TAP），期以結構與明確化特性，協助國小六年級學童進行科學讀寫，並檢視其成效。研究採單組前、後測設計，27名學生參與；起始於基因改造食品讀寫活動，隨後從事閱讀理解測驗與短文撰寫，此爲前測；繼之，以具結構化特性之TAP細格工作單，供學生填寫，組織其相關概念；最末，再進行一次閱讀理解測驗與短文撰寫，做爲後測。所蒐集分析的資料包括閱讀理解成績、撰文得分、課程回饋意見等。研究發現學童的閱讀理解在前、後測間無顯著差異，且前測答對率已接近八成，顯示先前之閱讀活動已使學童對基因改造相關內容有了充分的理解，足以做爲從事後續填寫TAP論證細格之所需。至於在短文撰寫方面，前、後測間達顯著差異；且科學用詞在後測時增加，一般生活用詞則減少。綜上，引導式TAP可協助學童科學讀寫中整理思考，以提升讀寫表現。末了，本文亦就本模式之運用提出相關建議。

Based on the importance of constructing a useful reading-writing strategy for elementary students, this study aimed to develop the guided TAPping module that utilizes an integrated approach with TAP (Toulmin's Argument Pattern) and scientific reading-writing activity, to explore the impact of argumentation on reading and writing. 27 sixth graders participated in this one-group pretest-posttest design study. Both in the pre/posttests, all students engaged in active scientific reading-writing activities on a genetically modified foods issue. TAP argumentation work occurred between the pre/posttests, which involved all students filling out the eight wbqr/WBQR (warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal) argument cells. Data collections and analysis included reading comprehension scores, essays, the use of science words in essays, and students' responses from feedback questionnaires as well as interviews. The impact of TAP on reading and writing revealed that no significant difference in reading comprehension was found between the pre/posttests, but a significant difference occurred in essay writing. The total science words in all students' essays were more than in the pretests. Moreover, the students' responses expressed that the design of TAPping cells worksheets helped them to conscientiously and carefully do the reading-writing activities, that the method of reading-writing activity connecting TAP argumentation work provided them with valid prior knowledge for arguing, and that the module of guided TAPping helped them achieve a learning effect in writing automaticity. This study suggests that integrating TAP argumentation work with reading-writing activity is a useful strategy in elementary school literacy learning.

1. 洪月女、靳知勤(2008)。科學寫作理論與教學之探討。課程與教學季刊，11(2)，173-192。
   連結：
2. 楊惟程、靳知勤(2006)。國小六年級學童對讀寫活動融入自然科教學之知覺研究。科學教育學刊，14(1)，29-53。
   連結：
3. 靳知勤(2007)。科學教育應如何提升學生的科學素養—臺灣學術精英的看法。科學教育學刊，15(6)，627-646。
   連結：
4. 靳知勤、陳又慈(2007)。臺中縣市國小自然科教師對以STS議題從事教學之調查研究。科學教育學刊，15(1)，25-52。
   連結：
5. 靳知勤、楊惟程、段曉林(2010)。國小學童的非形式推理之研究—以生物複製議題之引導式論證爲例。課程與教學季刊，13(1)，209-232。
   連結：
6. Abram, S.(2007).The pipeline k-12 reference work: Learning to not answer their questions.MultiMedia & Internet@Schools,14(6),23-25.
7. Andrews, R.,Torgerson, C.,Low, G.,McGuinn, N.(2009).Teaching argument writing to 7- to 14-year-olds: An international review of the evidence of successful practice.Cambridge Journal of Education,39(3),291-310.
8. Bolton, F.(2007).Top-level structures.Teaching Pre K-8,37(6),46-47.
9. Brown, T. J.,Throop, S.,Timku, L.(2009).More than meets the eye.Science and Children,47(4),28-31.
10. Erduran, S.(Ed.),Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P.(Ed.)(2008).Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research.Dordrecht, Netherlands:Springer.
11. 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.
12. Felton, M. K.,Herko, S.(2004).From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents' persuasive writing.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,47(8),672-684.
13. Firooznia, F.,Andreadis, D. K.(2006).Information literacy in introductory biology.Journal of College Science Teaching,35(6),23-27.
14. Florence, M. K.,Yore, L. D.(2004).Learning to write like a scientist: Coauthoring as an enculturation task.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(6),637-668.
15. Glynn, S. M.,Muth, K. D.(1994).Reading and writing to learning science: Achieving scientific literacy.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,31(9),1057-1073.
16. Goodman, K.(1997).Putting theory and research in the context of history.Language Arts,74(8),595-599.
17. Hand, B.,Prain, V.(2006).Moving from border crossing to convergence of perspectives in language and science literacy research and practice.International Journal of Science Education,28(2-3),101-107.
18. Hynd, C.,Holschuh, J.,Nist, S.(2000).Learning complex scientific information: Motivation theory and its relation to student perceptions.Reading & Writing Quarterly,16(1),23-57.
19. Kanari, Z.,Millar, R.(2004).Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(7),748-769.
20. Klauda, S. L.,Guthrie. J. T.(2008).Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology,100(2),310-321.
21. Kolstø, S. D.(2001).Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues.Science Education,85(3),291-310.
22. LaBerge, D.,Samuels, S. J.(1974).Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading.Cognitive Psychology,6(2),293-323.
23. Mayer, R. E.(2004).Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction.American Psychologist,59(1),14-19.
24. Morgan, W.,Beaumont, G.(2003).A dialogic approach to argumentation: Using a chat room to develop early adolescent students' argumentative writing.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,47(2),146-158.
25. Naumann, J.,Richter, T.,Flender, J.,Christmann, U.,Groeben, N.(2007).Signaling in expository hypertexts compensates for deficits in reading skill.Journal of Educational Psychology,99(4),791-808.
26. Nichols, J. T.(2009).The 3 directions: Situated information literacy.College & Research Libraries,70(6),515-530.
27. Osborne, J.(2002).Science without literacy: A ship without a sail?.Cambridge Journal of Education,32(2),203-218.
28. Palincsar, A. S.,Duke, N. K.(2004).The role of text and text-reader interactions in young children's reading development and achievement.The Elementary School Journal,105(2),183-197.
29. Prain, V.,Hand, B.(1996).Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices.Teaching and Teacher Education,12(6),609-626.
30. Rasinski, T.,Rikli, A.,Johnston, S.(2009).Reading fluency: More than automaticity? More than a concern for the primary grades?.Literacy Research and Instruction,48(4),350-361.
31. Reznitskaya, A.,Anderson, R. C.,Kuo, L.-J.(2007).Teaching and learning argumentation.Elementary School Journal,107(5),449-472.
32. Reznitskaya, A.,Kuo, L.-J.,Clark, A.,Miller, B.,Jadallah, M.,Anderson, R. C.(2009).Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions.Cambridge Journal of Education,39(1),29-48.
33. Rivard, L. O. P.(1994).A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,31(9),969-983.
34. Rosa, M. H.(1994).Relationships between cognitive styles and reading comprehension of expository text of African American male students.Journal of Negro Education,63(4),546-555.
35. Saddler, B.,Andrade, H.(2004).The writing rubric.Educational Leadership,62(2),48-52.
36. Sadler, T. D.(2004).Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(5),513-536.
37. Savin-Baden, M.,Wilkie, K.(2006).Problem-based learning online.New York:Open University Press.
38. Shymansky, J. A.(2005).Defining and measuring reading comprehension.the Reading and Writing in Science and Mathematics International Conference of the Symposium,Changhua, Taiwan:
39. Simon, S.,Erduran, S.,Osborne, J.(2006).Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom.International Journal of Science Education,28(2-3),235-260.
40. Steffe, L. P.(Ed.),Gale, J. E.(Ed.)(1995).Constructivism in education.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
41. Toulmin, S. E.(1958).The uses of argument.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
42. Volkmann, M. J.,Abell, S. K.,Zgagacz, M.(2005).The challenges of teaching physics to preservice elementary teachers: Orientations of the professor, teaching assistant, and students.Science Education,89(5),847-869.
43. Wellington, J.,Osborne, J.(2001).Language and literacy in science education.Philadelphia:Open University Press.
44. Weston, D. R.(2005).Training in infant mental health: Educating the reflective practitioner.Infants & Young Children,18(4),337-348.
45. Wittrock, M. C.(Ed.)(1986).Handbook of research on teaching.New York:Macmillan.
46. Yin, Y.,Vanides, J.,Ruiz-Primo, M. A.,Ayala, C. C.,Shavelson, R. J.(2005).Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,42(2),166-184.
47. Yore, L. D.,Treagust, D. F.(2006).Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction.International Journal of Science Education,28(2-3),291-314.
48. Young, T. E.(2008).Core science reference and series titles.Book Links,17(4),42-42.
49. Young, T. E.(2007).Library "science": Make it work!.Library Media Connection,26(1),24-26.
50. Zeidler, D. L.,Walker, K. A.,Ackett, W. A.,Simmons, M. L.(2002).Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas.Science Education,86(3),343-367.
51. Zembal-Saul, C.(2009).Learning to teach elementary school science as argument.Science Education,93(4),687-719.
52. 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.
53. 張淑女(2004)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所。
54. 梅伊爾、林清山譯(1994)。教育心理學—認知取向。臺北市:遠流。
55. 陳慧娟(1998)。科學寫作有效促進概念改變的教學策略。中等教育，49(6)，123-131。
56. 靳知勤(2006)。行政院國家科學委員會研究計畫成果報告行政院國家科學委員會研究計畫成果報告,臺中市:臺中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系。
57. 靳知勤(2006)。行政院國家科學委員會研究計畫成果報告行政院國家科學委員會研究計畫成果報告,臺中市:臺中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系。
58. 錡寶香(1999)。國小學童閱讀理解能力之分析。國教學報，11，100-133。

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。