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

The Effect of Argumentation-Based Inquiry Instruction and Course in Socio-Scientific Context on 7th Grade Students' Achievements, Argumentation Skills and Scientific Literacy

10.6173/CJSE.2017.25S.04

楊景盛(Ching-Sheng Yang)；董曜瑜(Yao-Yu Tung)；陳秀溶(Shiou-Rung Chen)；王國華(Kuo-Hua Wang)

社會性科學議題 ； 科學素養 ； 科學學習成就 ； 論證式探究 ； 論證能力 ； Socio-Scientific Issues ； Scientific Literacy ； Achievements ； Argumentation-Based Inquiry ； Argumentation Skills

科學教育學刊

25卷S期（2017 / 12 / 01）

485 - 500

繁體中文

本研究針對「人類與環境」單元，以社會性科學議題「國光石化是否興建」為主題，發展論證式探究課程，並評估此課程之教學對七年級學生在科學學業成就、論證能力與科學素養上的影響。研究採用準實驗研究設計，對象為彰化地區某國中兩班七年級學生，其中實驗組(N = 30)接受「論證式探究課程」之教學，控制組(N = 35)則接受傳統講述教學。教學介入持續兩週、共3節課。教學前、後，兩組學生分別接受科學學習成就測驗和科學素養評量的施測，而論證能力問卷由於時間限制僅實施後測。研究結果顯示：實驗組在科學學習成就、論證能力和科學素養都顯著優於控制組(p ＜ .01)。

The purpose of this research is to develop an argumentation-based Inquiry instruction and course in Socio-Scientific Issue (SSI)-＂KouKuang Petrochemical Project,＂ and to assess its effectiveness on students' scientific learning achievements, argumentation skills and scientific literacy. The study adopted a quasi-experimental design. The research samples were 7th grade students in a junior high school in Changhua. The experimental group (N = 30) received the argumentation-based inquiry instruction and course with SSI, and the control group (N = 35) received traditional instruction. The intervention with 3 sessions lasted for 2 weeks. Each group subsequently completed pre- and post- achievement test and scientific literacy assessment. Because of the time limitation, argument skill questionnaire was administered without pretest. The result showed that the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in students' achievements, argumentation skills and scientific literacy (p ＜ .01).

1. 林樹聲、黃柏鴻(2009)。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。科學教育學刊，17(2)，111-133。
   連結：
2. 洪振方、封中興(2011)。運用「以建模為基礎的論證教學模式」促進國二學生的科學學習成效─以光學單元為例。臺北市立教育大學學報，42(1)，85-124。
   連結：
3. 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。
   連結：
4. 陳志忠、鄧惠珍(2010年11月23日)。國光石化專題報導第二集─石化業的未來。查詢日期：2018年1月10日，檢自http://news.sdtv.com.tw/News_detail.html?sn=12201&p5=2&select_5=%B0%EA%A5%FA%A5%DB%A4%C6#news_top
5. Aydeniz, M.,Pabuccu, A.,Cetin, P. S.,Kaya, E.(2012).Argumentation and students' conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,10(6),1303-1324.
6. Chang, H.-Y.,Wu, H.-K.,Hsu, Y.-S.(2013).Integrating a mobile augmented reality activity to contextualize student learning of a socioscientific issue.British Journal of Educational Technology,44(3),95-99.
7. Driver, R.,Newton, P.,Osborne, J.(2000).Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.Science Education,84(3),287-312.
8. Duschl, R. A.,Osborne, J.(2002).Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.Studies in Science Education,38(1),39-72.
9. Eastwood, J. L.,Sadler, T. D.,Zeidler, D. L.,Lewis, A.,Amiri, L.,Applebaum, S.(2012).Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues.International Journal of Science Education,34(15),2289-2315.
10. Erduran, S.(Ed.),Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P.(Ed.)(2007).Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research.Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer.
11. Jho, H.,Yoon, H.-G.,Kim, M.(2014).The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: The case study of students' debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea.Science & Education,23(5),1131-1151.
12. Kind, P. M.,Kind, V.,Hofstein, A.,Wilson, J.(2011).Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory-Exploring effects of task features.International Journal of Science Education,33(18),2527-2558.
13. Kuhn, D.(2010).Teaching and learning science as argument.Science Education,94(5),810-824.
14. Kuhn, D.,Goh, W.,Iordanou, K.,Shaenfield, D.(2008).Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment.Child Development,79(5),1310-1328.
15. National Research Council(2013).Next generation science standards: For states, by states.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
16. National Research Council(1996).National science education standards.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
17. National Research Council(2000).Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
18. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(2009).PISA 2009 Assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science.
19. 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.
20. Sadler, T. D.(2009).Socioscientific issues in science education: Labels, reasoning and transfer.Cultural Studies in Science Education,4(3),697-703.
21. Sadler, T. D.,Romine, W. L.,Topçu, M. S.(2016).Learning science content through socioscientific issues-based instruction: A multi-level assessment study.International Journal of Science Education,38(10),1622-1635.
22. Sampson, V.,Grooms, J.,Walker, J.(2010).Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study.Science Education,95(2),217-257.
23. Toulmin, S. E.(1958).The uses of argument.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
24. Venville, G. J.,Dawson, V. M.(2010).The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,47(8),952-977.
25. 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.
26. Walker, J. P.,Sampson, V.,Grooms, J.,Anderson, B.,Zimmerman, C. O.(2011).Argumentdriven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students' conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes toward science.Journal of College Science Teaching,41(4),74-81.
27. Wang, T. H.(2014).Implementation of web-based argumentation in facilitating elementary school students to learn environmental issues.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,30(5),479-496.
28. Zeidler, D. L.,Sadler, D. L.(2011).An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions of socioscientific reasoning.Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction,New York:
29. 洪振方、封中興(2011)。以「探索—論證—評價」為基礎的探究教學模式在國中自然科之教學成效。科學教育研究與發展季刊，60，1-34。
30. 張緯文、林樹聲(2014)。實施議論文寫作活動提升國小學生論證與寫作能力。科學教育月刊，368，2-19。
31. 教育部(2003)。科學教育白皮書。臺北市:作者。
32. 教育部(2012)。十二年國民基本教育：開啟孩子的無限可能。臺北市:作者。

1. 陳文正,古智雄(2023)。從「熱認知觀點」探討國小學童的論證學習與科學解釋合理性判斷之研究。科學教育學刊，31(2)，109-132。
2. 鄭可萱、李松濤(2018)。當科學素養與閱讀素養相遇：高中學生科學新聞閱讀策略之實驗研究。教育科學研究期刊，63(4)，157-192。