科學探究與實作課程的發展、實施與評量：以實驗室中的科學論證為核心之研究

The Development, Implementation and Assessment of a Scientific Inquiry and Practice Curriculum: The Scientific Argumentation in the Laboratory

10.6173/CJSE.2017.2504.03

張珮珊(Pei-Shan Chang)；賴吉永(Chi-Yung Lai)；溫媺純(Meichun Lydia Wen)

科學探究與實作課程 ； 科學寫作 ； 科學論證 ； Scientific Inquiry and Practice Curriculum ； Science Writing ； Scientific Argumentation

科學教育學刊

25卷4期（2017 / 12 / 01）

355 - 389

繁體中文

本研究目的為發展一符應核心素養之科學探究與實作課程，並探討學生科學論證與科學概念的學習成效。本課程以酵素為主題，參照十二年國教自然領綱(草案)的學習內容，藉逆向課程設計含實驗任務的四大探究單元，期望學生透過探究實作來探索知識的建構、理解寫作在知識轉化與科學社群溝通的重要性，故以啟發式科學寫作(Science Writing Heuristics, SWH)協助學生運用「酵素概念暨科學論證寫作簿」發展基於證據的科學論證。本研究採單組前、後測(成就測驗)設計，藉「酵素概念成就測驗」瞭解學生科學概念理解情形，並以「勾選式論證寫作評分表」評量其論證表現，再藉逐步迴歸分析來預測論證寫作品質的最佳指標，以期提升論證教學與評量之效益。研究發現，18位高中生的酵素概念學習顯著進步(p ＜ .001)，且四次科學論證寫作表現良好，皆達優良論證寫作標準。然而，學生論證表現存在顯著的個別差異。低論證表現組學生的各論證向度表現受探究任務影響大，但整體而言，在「問題」、「主張」向度均有進步，且概念理解表現與高論證表現組學生相當。此外，預測各次論證寫作品質的最佳指標有「主張─證據關係」、「主張」與「證據」，然整體寫作品質的最佳預測指標仍為「證據」。最後根據研究發現，提出教學與研究建議。

The aims of this study were to develop a scientific inquiry and practice curriculum corresponding with core literacy, and to investigate students' conceptual learning and performance of scientific argumentation in laboratory contexts. Based on Grade 1-12 Curriculum Guidelines for Nature Science Discipline, we developed the curriculum, which included four inquiry enzyme experiments through Backward Design. The learning outcome we expected was that students could explore the construction of knowledge through practicing and understanding the importance of writing in the scientific community. Therefore, we employed the Science Writing Heuristic approach to guide students' scientific argumentation in the ＂Enzyme Concept & Scientific Argumentation Writing Journal.＂ Achievement test and check-type argumentative writing evaluation sheets were adopted to evaluate the results. Step-wise multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine important argument components. The results indicated that 18 participants from a senior high school in Southern Taiwan did excellently on the conceptual achievement test (p ＜ .001) and written argumentation, which suggested that this curriculum could help students develop their scientific concepts and scientific argumentation. However, there were distinct differences between individuals' argumentative performances. Compared to the stable performance across written argumentation of high argumentation performance group, the performance of low argumentation group was affected by the inquiry tasks. But overall, the ＂question,＂ ＂claim＂ argument components and the concepts of enzyme were improved in low performance group. Furthermore, the predictive components of argumentative writing quality were ＂claim-evidence relationship,＂ ＂claim,＂ and ＂evidence.＂ Taken as a whole, the ＂evidence＂ component was the most important predictor for overall argumentative writing. Last, we provided teaching and research suggestions according to our results.

1. 何宗穎、王敏男、謝佩妤、郭幸宜、趙大衛、黃臺珠(2013)。大學普通生物學實驗課程應用探究鷹架自我評估策略對學生探究能力表現之影響。科學教育學刊，21(4)，401-429。
   連結：
2. 李明昆、洪振方(2010)。國三學生對探究性科學問題提問之研究。臺北市立教育大學學報，41(2)，111-148。
   連結：
3. 林志能、陳玲君、洪振方(2010)。高一學生多變因因果推理與論證能力之相關研究。教育實踐與研究，23(2)，1-36。
   連結：
4. 林宗進、林樹聲、陳映均(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。
   連結：
5. 林煥祥、洪振方、佘曉清、李松濤、李暉、秦爾聰(2016)。PISA2015。第三十二屆科學教育國際研討會，臺中市:
   連結：
6. 蔡佩穎、張文華、林陳涌、張惠博(2013)。不同性別七年級學生論證科學新聞之學習效益。科學教育學刊，21(4)，455-481。
   連結：
7. 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：
8. 顧炳宏、陳瓊森、溫媺純(2011)。從學生的表現與觀點探討引導發現式教學作為發展探究教學之折衷方案角色的成效─以密度概念為例。科學教育學刊，19(3)，257-282。
   連結：
9. 教育部(2016)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要：自然科學領域(草案)。臺北市：作者。
10. Akkus, R.,Gunel, M.,Hand, B.(2007).Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences?.International Journal of Science Education,29(14),1745-1765.
11. Backus, L.(2005).A year without procedures: Removing procedures from chemistry labs creates opportunities for student inquiry.The Science Teacher,72(7),54-58.
12. Berland, L. K.,Hammer, D.(2012).Framing for scientific argumentation.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,49(1),68-94.
13. Berland, L. K.,Reiser, B. J.(2009).Making sense of argumentation and explanation.Science Education,93(1),26-55.
14. Chen, Y.-C.,Hand, B.,Park, S.(2016).Examining elementary students' development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry.Science & Education,25(3-4),277-320.
15. Chen, Y.-C.,Steenhoek, J.(2014).Arguing like a scientist: Engaging students in core scientific practices.The American Biology Teacher,76(4),231-237.
16. Choi, A.(2012).Using the writing template provided by the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach for quality arguments.Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education,32(9),1470-1488.
17. Choi, A.(2010).Argument structure in the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach.Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education,30(3),323-336.
18. Choi, A.,Hand, B.,Greenbowe, T.(2013).Students' written arguments in general chemistry laboratory investigations.Research in Science Education,43(5),1763-1783.
19. Choi, A.,Notebaert, A.,Diaz, J.,Hand, B.(2010).Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms.Research in Science Education,40(2),149-169.
20. Driver, R.,Asoko, H.,Leach, J.,Mortimer, E.,Scott, P.(1994).Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom.Educational Researcher,23(7),5-12.
21. Erduran, S.(Ed.),Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.(Ed.)(2008).Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research.Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer.
22. Ford, M.(2008).Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning.Science Education,92(3),404-423.
23. Fraser, B. J.(Ed.),Walberg, H. J.(Ed.)(1995).Improving science education.Chicago, IL:National Society for the Study of Education.
24. Grimberg, B. I.,Hand, B.(2009).Cognitive pathways: Analysis of students' written texts for science understanding.International Journal of Science Education,31(4),503-521.
25. Hand, B. M.(Ed.)(2007).Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic.Rotterdam, The Netherlands:Sense.
26. Hofstein, A.,Lunetta, V. N.(2004).The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st century.Science Education,88(1),28-54.
27. Hofstein, A.,Navon, O.,Kipnis, M.,Mamlok-Naaman R.(2005).Developing students' abilities to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,42(7),791-806.
28. Holliday, W. G.,Yore, L. D.,Alvermann, D. E.(1994).The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers and promises.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,31(9),877-893.
29. Hung, P.-H.,Hwang, G.-J.,Lee, Y.-H.,Wu, T.-H.,Vogel, B.,Milrad, M.(2014).A problem- based ubiquitous learning approach to improving the questioning abilities of elementary school students.Journal of Educational Technology & Society,17(4),316-334.
30. Katchevich, D.,Hofstein, A.,Mamlok-Naaman, R.(2013).Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments.Research in Science Education,43(1),317-345.
31. 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.
32. Ketpichainarong, W.,Panijpan, B.,Ruenwongsa, P.(2010).Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory.International Journal of Environmental and Science Education,5(2),169-187.
33. Keys, C. W.(1999).Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students' written discourse about scientific investigations.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36(9),1044-1061.
34. Khine, M. S.(Ed.)(2012).Perspectives on scientific argumentation.Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer.
35. 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),2577-2558.
36. Kind, P.,Wilson, J.,Hofstein, A.,Kind, V.(2010).Stimulating peer argumentation in the school science laboratory: Exploring the effect of laboratory task formats.Paper presented at the 2010 National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual International Conference,Philadelphia, PA:
37. Kipnis, M.,Hofstein, A.(2008).The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,6(3),601-627.
38. Krajcik, J.,McNeill, K. L.,Reiser, B. J.(2008).Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy.Science Education,92(1),1-32.
39. Krajcik, J.,Reiser, B. J.,Sutherland, L. M.,Fortus, D.(2013).Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology (IQWST).Greenwich, CT:Active Science.
40. Lemke, J. L.(1990).Talking science: Language, learning, and values.Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
41. Lin, H.-S.,Hong, Z.-R.,Chen, C.-C.,Chou, C.-H.(2011).The effect of integrating aesthetic understanding in reflective inquiry activities.International Journal of Science Education,33(9),1199-1217.
42. Lin, S.-S.,Mintzes, J. J.(2010).Learning argumentation sills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,8(6),993-1017.
43. Lord, T.,Orkwiszewski, T.(2006).Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory.The American Biology Teacher,68(6),342-345.
44. McComas, W.(2005).Laboratory instruction in the service of science teaching and learning: reinventing and reinvigorating the laboratory experience.Science Teacher,72(7),24-29.
45. McElhinny, T. L.,Dougherty, M. J.,Bowling, B. V.,Libarkin, J. C.(2014).The status of genetics curriculum in higher education in the United States: Goals and assessment.Science & Education,23(2),445-464.
46. McNeill, K. L.,Krajcik, J.(2007).Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations.Thinking with data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition,Mahwah, NJ:
47. National Research Council(2011).A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
48. Newton, P.,Driver, R.,Osborne, J.(1999).The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science.International Journal of Science Education,21(5),553-576.
49. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States(2013).Next generation science standards: For states, by states.Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
50. Osborne, J.(2010).Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse.Science,328(5977),463-466.
51. Osborne, J.(2014).Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change.Journal of Science Teacher Education,25(2),177-196.
52. 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.
53. Rivard, L. P.(2004).Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers?.Science Education,88(3),420-442.
54. Roth, K.,Garnier, H.(2006).What science teaching looks like: An international perspective.Educational Leadership,64(4),16-23.
55. Russ, R. S.(2014).Epistemology of science vs. epistemology for science.Science Education,98(3),388-396.
56. Russ, R. S.,Coffey, J. E.,Hammer, D.,Hutchison, P.(2009).Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking.Science Education,93(5),875-891.
57. Sampson, V.,Enderle, P.,Grooms, J.,Witte, S.(2013).Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas.Science Education,97(5),643-670.
58. Sanders, E. R.,Moberg-Parker, J.,Hirsch, A. M.,Lee, P. Y.,Shapiro, C.,Toma, S.(2016).Transforming laboratory education in the life sciences.Microbe,11(2),69-74.
59. Schiller, A.(2015).University of Northern Iowa.
60. Séré, M.-G.(2002).Towards renewed research questions from the outcomes of the European project labwork in science education.Science Education,86(5),624-644.
61. Shapiro, C.,Moberg-Parker, J.,Toma, S.,Ayon, C.,Zimmerman, H.,Roth-Johnson, E. A.(2015).Comparing the impact of course-based and apprentice-based research experiences in a life science laboratory curriculum.Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education,16(2),186-197.
62. Shrout, P. E.,Fleiss, J. L.(1979).Intraclass correlations: Use in assessing rater reliability.Psychological Bulletin,86(2),420-428.
63. Tuan, H.-L.,Chin, C.-C.,Tsai, C.-C.,Cheng, S.-F.(2005).Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry instruction on the motivation of different learning styles students.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,3(4),541-566.
64. Walker, J. P.,Sampson, V.(2013).Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,50(5),561-596.
65. Wallace, C. S.,Hand, B.,Prain, V.(2004).Writing and learning in the science classroom.Boston, MA:Kluwer.
66. Watson, J. R.,Swain, J. R. L.,McRobbie, C.(2004).Research report: Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries.International Journal of Science Education,26(1),25-45.
67. Wellington, J.,Osborne, J.(2001).Language and literacy in science education.Philadelphia, PA:Open University Press.
68. Wiggins, G.,McTighe, J.(2005).Understanding by Design.Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
69. Wood, W. B.(2009).Innovations in teaching undergraduate biology and why we need them.Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology,25,93-112.
70. Yesildag-Hasancebi, F.,Kingir, S.(2012).Overview of obstacles in the implementation of the argumentation based science inquiry approach and pedagogical suggestions.Mevlana International Journal of Education,2(3),79-94.
71. Zeidler, D. L.(1997).The central role of fallacious thinking in science education.Science Education,81(4),483-496.
72. 佘曉清編、林煥祥編(2017)。PISA 2015臺灣學生的表現。臺北市:心理。
73. 邱美虹(2016)。科學模型與建模：科學素養中的模型認知與建模能力。臺灣化學教育，11
74. 洪逸文、湯宜佩(2016)。高中特色課程的開發與實施：以論證課程為例。課程研究，11(1)，23-57。
75. 教育部(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市:作者。
76. 教育部(2009)。普通高級中學課程綱要。臺北市:作者。

1. 湯宜佩(Yi-Pei Tang);張文馨(Wen-Hsin Chang);許瑛玿(Ying-Shao Hsu)(2021)。針對高中科學論證教學研究回顧與評析。教育科學研究期刊。66(4)。217-243。