小組建立假設的合作探究策略－以網路環境為例

Collaborative Inquiry Strategies of Team Hypotheses Building in a CSCL Environment

10.6173/CJSE.2012.2004.01

張秀美(Hsiu-Mei Chang)；陳斐卿(Fei-Ching Chen)；曾仁佑(Ren-Yow Tzeng)

大氣科學 ； 合作探究策略 ； 建立假設 ； 接應投入 ； 電腦支援協作學習 ； Atmospheric Science ； Collaborative Inquiry Strategy ； Hypothesis Building ； Responsive Engagement ； Computer Supported Collaborative Learning

科學教育學刊

20卷4期（2012 / 09 / 01）

295 - 317

繁體中文

本文研究小組成員在「建立假設」階段共同發展的「合作探究策略」。研究場域是大氣科學為主題的82個小組網路合作探究活動，每個小組大約五至六人，歷經長達兩週的「建立假設」活動。首先分析650筆高中生在此階段的合作探究困難，再以合作探究成果較好的五個小組討論區共652篇討論文章為例，分析成員的「合作探究策略」。資料的分析層次有三，以單篇為單位的「探究行動」、以跨篇為單位的「探究策略」、以及隱藏在探究策略背後、以成員間接應投入為單位的「合作探究策略」，本文聚焦於第三層次。結果顯示五種化解探究困難之「合作探究策略」：一、「開啟」與「跟隨」創造出共同對話；二、刻意引起注意及共鳴；三、收斂時機的相伴催促；四、扼要而深入的追問；五、不同觀點的查核考驗。研究探究學習的多數文獻是聚焦在「探究行動」與「探究策略」等層面，本文指出：合作較為成功的小組並非徒具有效的「探究策略」，尚須深掘成員間互動脈絡的「合作探究策略」，才能勾勒更為完整與真實的小組合作探究圖像，這些「合作探究策略」可以作為教學者鷹架小組合作探究活動的參考。

Scientific inquiry learning is not unproblematic. Previous research on learners' collaborative inquiry has heavily focused on the cognitive aspects of inquiry strategies. We know little about how the inquiry strategies were accomplished collaboratively. In other words, the dynamic process of inquiry involving several people has received little attention. Taking the stage of hypotheses building as an example, this study examined the responsive engagement of learners engaged in inquiry activities in small groups. Two research questions were raised. First, what are the difficulties of engaging in collaborative hypothesis building? Second, what strategies do productive groups develop to deal with these difficulties? Three different levels of analysis were used to identify collaborative strategies when encountering difficulties of hypotheses building: inquiry action, inquiry strategy, and collaborative inquiry strategy. To be specific, this study is aimed to challenge the traditional perspective on the overwhelming emphasis on cognitive aspects of inquiry. Instead, the results of this study revealed the importance of collaborative inquiry strategies developed among group members. The results identified five key collaborative inquiry strategies related to responsive engagement: ”Initiation and follow-up as opportunities for developing communal topics,” ”Drawing attention purposely in order to focus on or resonate with,” ”Pushing collectively for convergent dialogue,” ”Concise and sharp questioning,” and ”Checking out the ideas of complicators.” Some methodological and practical consideration concerning collaborative inquiry activities were further discussed.

1. 秦爾聰、林勇吉、陳俊源(2009)。探討高二學生在三角探究教學中的解題表現。科學教育學刊，17(5)，433-458。
   連結：
2. Chamberlin, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 15, 92-96.
3. Apedoe, X.(2008).Engaging students in inquiry: Tales from an undergraduate geology laboratory-based course.Science Education,92(4),631-663.
4. Baker, M.,Andriessen, J.,Lund, K.,van Amelsvoort, M.,Quignard, M.(2007).Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates.International Journal of Computers-Supported Collaborative Learning,2(2-3),315-357.
5. Ben-David, A.,Zohar, A.(2009).Contribution of meta-strategic knowledge to scientific inquiry learning.International Journal of Science Education,31(12),1657-1682.
6. Bricker, L. A.,Bell, P.(2008).Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education.Science Education,92(3),473-498.
7. Chen, F. C.,Jiang, H. M.,Lee, Y. W.(2004).Addressing the challenges of secondary school students' collaborative inquiry-based learning-The Porscin experience.Earth Science Classroom Agenda for Learning and Teaching,Taoyuan, Taiwan:
8. Chen, F. C.,Jiang, H. M.,Lin, H. L.,Wang, H. R.(2001).High school students' attempts at primary data in PBL via network: Lain experience.5th Global Chinese Conference on Computing in Education,Taoyuan, Taiwan:
9. Chin, C.,Osborne, J.(2010).Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,47(7),883-908.
10. 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.
11. Crawford, B. A.(2000).Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,37(9),916-937.
12. Duschl, R. A.(2007).Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria.Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research,Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
13. 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.
14. Felton, M.,Kuhn, D.(2001).The development of argumentive discourse skill.Discourse Processes,32(2-3),135-153.
15. Fisher, S. D.,Gettys, C. F.,Manning, C.,Mehle, T.,Baca, S.(1983).Consistency checking in hypothesis generation.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,31(2),233-254.
16. Furberg, A.(2009).Socio-cultural aspects of prompting student reflection in web-based inquiry learning environments.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,25(4),397-409.
17. Giere, R. N.,Bickle, J.,Mauldin, R.(2006).Understanding scientific reasoning.Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
18. Gijlers, H.,Saab, N.,Van Joolingen, W. R.,De Jong, T.,Van, Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M.(2009).Interaction between tool and talk: How instruction and tools support consensus building in collaborative inquiry-learning environments.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,25(3),252-267.
19. Grandy, R. E.,Duschl, R. A.(2007).Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference.Science & Education,16(2),141-166.
20. Herrenkohl, L. R.,Tasker, T.,White, B.(2011).Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry.Cognition and Instruction,29(1),1-44.
21. Janssen, J.,Erkens, G.,Kanselaar, G.(2007).Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning.Computers in Human Behavior,23(3),1105-1125.
22. Jiménez-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.
23. Kim, H.,Song, J.(2005).The features of peer argumentation in middle school students' scientific inquiry.Research in Science Education,36(3),211-233.
24. Krajcik, J.,Blumenfeld, P. C.,Marx, R. W.,Bass, K. M.,Fredricks, J.,Soloway, E.(1998).Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students.Journal of the Learning Sciences,7(3-4),313-350.
25. Kuhn, D.,Pearsall, S.(2000).Developmental origins of scientific thinking.Journal of Cognition and Development,1(1),113-129.
26. Lave, J.,Wenger, E.(1991).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
27. Lawson, A. E.,Clark, B.,Cramer-Meldrum, E.,Falconer, K. A.,Sequist, J. M.,Kwon, Y.-J.(2000).Development of scientific reasoning in college biology: Do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist?.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,37(1),81-101.
28. Llewellyn, D.(2005).Measurement stations.Science Scope,29(1),18-21.
29. National Research Council(2000).Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
30. Oh, P. S.(2010).How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some strategies found in abductive inquiry activities of earth science.Journal of Science Education,32(4),541-560.
31. 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.
32. Park, J.(2006).Modeling analysis of students' processes of generating scientific explanatory hypotheses.International Journal of Science Education,28(5),469-489.
33. Pathak, S. A.,Kim, B.,Jacobson, M. J.,Zhang, B.(2011).Learning the physics of electricity: A qualitative analysis of collaborative processes involved in productive failure.International Journal of Computers Supported Collaborative Learning,6(1),57-73.
34. Quinn, M. E.,George, K. D.(1975).Teaching hypothesis formation.Science Education,59(3),289-296.
35. Roth, W.-M.,Lee, Y.-J.(2007)."Vygotsky's neglected legacy": Cultural-historical activity theory.Review of Educational Research,77(2),186-232.
36. Selles-Martinez, J.(2004).International Earth Science Olympiad: What to test and how to do so.First International Earth Science Olympiad Conference,Seoul, Korea:
37. Toulmin, S. E.(1958).The use of argument.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
38. Turner, D.(2005).Local underdetermination in historical science.Philosophy of Science,72(1),209-230.
39. Weinberger, A.,Fischer, F.(2006).A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning.Computers & Education,46(1),71-95.
40. Wenham, M.(1993).The nature and role of hypotheses in school science investigations.International Journal of Science Education,15(3),231-240.
41. 吳百興、張耀云、吳心楷(2010)。科學探究活動中的科學推理。科學教育研究與發展季刊，56，53-74。
42. 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。
43. 洪振方(2003)。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。高雄師大學報，15(3)，641-662。
44. 葉辰楨、王國華、蔡明致(2010)。後設認知鷹架策略融入科學探究教學之探討。科學教育研究與發展季刊，58，1-32。

1. 陳斐卿,張芷瑄(2020)。教師集體課程創新：轉化能動性概念工具的再探究。課程與教學，23(1)，93-116。
2. 王明旭(2023)。協作學習理論發展團隊協作四部曲之跨域教學成效評估：以設計思考課程為例。教育實踐與研究，36(1)，73-120。
3. 鄭凱天、曾仁佑、陳斐卿、張秀美(2014)。線上小組學習的發生處―以迷思概念為探針。科學教育學刊，22(2)，185-209。