問題答案關係策略融入閱讀教學對國小六年級學生閱讀理解與論證能力之影響：以社會性科學議題為例

The Effect of Question-Answer-Relationship Strategy on the Argumentation and Reading Comprehension Abilities of the Sixth Graders Through Infusing Socioscientific Issue Texts

10.6173/CJSE.202109_29(3).0001

夏玉林(Yu-Lin Xia)；靳知勤(Chi-Chin Chin)

社會性科學議題 ； 問題答案關係策略 ； 論證能力 ； 閱讀理解能力 ； 閱讀教學 ； Socioscientific Issue ； Question-Answer-Relationship Strategy ； Argumentation Ability ； Reading Comprehension Ability ； Reading Instruction

科學教育學刊

29卷3期（2021 / 09 / 01）

191 - 217

繁體中文

本研究探討國小六年級學生閱讀社會性科學議題文本中，融入問題答案關係策略，對其閱讀理解與論證能力的影響。研究採準實驗研究設計，實驗組（n = 24）與對照組（n = 26）各一班，其中實驗組接受以問題答案關係策略之社會性科學議題閱讀教學，對照組接受社會性科學議題閱讀教學，共計11節課。而教學議題為「動物實驗」與「神豬比賽」；教學介入前、中、後，各接受一次閱讀理解與論證能力施測。研究工具為「閱讀理解測驗」與「論證能力測驗」。第一階段教學的「動物實驗」中，兩組皆為進行「社會性科學議題文本閱讀、思考單、討論」的教學過程；第二階段「神豬比賽」議題的教學則如前階段相同的歷程，惟實驗組在討論中融入問題答案關係策略，對照組則否。研究結果顯示：一、實驗組的閱讀理解及論證能力，均獲致顯著成長。二、實驗組與對照組的閱讀理解及論證能力中測成績間無差異。三、後測時，實驗組的閱讀理解及論證能力均顯著高於對照組。

This quasi-experimental investigation explored the effects of an instructional intervention using a question-answer-relationship strategy with two Socioscientific Issue (SSI) on sixth grade students' argumentation ability (AA) and reading comprehension ability (RCA). One experimental group (n = 24) and one control group (n = 26) participated in 11 hours of instruction. The SSI teaching topics were ＂animal experiment＂ and the Taiwan Hakka community traditional ＂holy pig competition＂ ritual. Two research instruments used with each group before, during, and after the instructional intervention were a RCA test and an AA test. When teaching the ＂animal experiment＂ SSI, the teacher instructed both groups to (1) read a SSI-text, (2) complete a ＂thinking sheet,＂ and then (3) discuss the SSI. When teaching the ＂holy pig competition＂ to both groups, the teacher used the same instructional process. However, the teacher incorporated the question-answer-relationship strategy into the students' discussion of the SSI in the experimental group, but did not incorporate this strategy into the students' discussion of the SSI in the control group. Results showed (1) both AA and RCA of the experimental group significantly increased; (2) no significant differences were found in the AA and RCA mid-tests in the two groups; and (3) the experimental group had significantly higher scores in AA and RCA post-tests than the control group.

1. 李如偉, J.-W.,蘇明洲, M.-C.,黃湃翔, P.-H.,呂仲誠, C.-C.,高慧蓮, H.-L.(2012)。以科學讀寫模式提升國小學童論證能力之研究。科學教育學刊，20(6)，483-515。
   連結：
2. 林樹聲, S.-S.(2012)。在科學課堂中應用爭議性議題教學促進國小六年級學生道德思考。科學教育學刊，20(5)，435-459。
   連結：
3. 林樹聲, S.-S.,黃柏鴻, P.-H.(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：
4. 靳知勤, C.-C.,吳靜宜, C.-Y.(2017)。國小學童在社會性科學議題教學中的非形式推理改變：以不同條件下之能源決策為例。科學教育學刊，25(1)，21-46。
   連結：
5. 靳知勤, C.-C.,楊惟程, W.-C.,段曉林, H.-L.(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為例。課程與教學季刊，13(1)，209-232。
   連結：
6. 靳知勤, C.-C.,楊惟程, W.-C.,段曉林, H.-L.(2010)。引導式Toulmin論證模式對國小學童在科學讀寫表現上的影響。科學教育學刊，18(5)，443-467。
   連結：
7. 趙毓圻, Y.-C.(2011)。科學教室中的論證能力培養。資優教育季刊，119，1-8+34。
   連結：
8. 謝進昌, J.-C.(2015)。有效的中文閱讀理解策略：國內實徵研究之最佳證據整合。教育科學研究期刊，60(2)，33-77。
   連結：
9. Ari, G.(2014).The effects of SQ3R and DR-TA reading strategies used by fifth grade students on comprehension.Journal of Theory and Practice in Education,10(2),535-555.
10. Duke, N. K.,Pearson, P. D.(2002).Effective practices for developing reading comprehension.What research has to say about reading instruction,Newark, DE:
11. Gagné, R. M.(1985).The condition of learning and theory of instruction.New York, NY:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
12. Gerrig, R. J.,O’Brien, E. J.(2005).The scope of memory-based processing.Discourse Processes,39(2-3),225-242.
13. Gilakjani, A. P.,Sabouri, N. B.(2016).How can students improve their reading comprehension skill?.Journal of Studies in Education,6(2),229-240.
14. Goodman、 K.,洪月女（譯）, Y.-N.(Trans.)(1998).談閱讀.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological.
15. Helfeldt, J. P.,Henk, W. A.(1990).Reciprocal question-answer relationships: An instructional technique for at-risk readers.Journal of Reading,33(7),509-514.
16. 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.
17. King, A.(1989).Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures.Contemporary Educational Psychology,14(4),366-381.
18. Kintsch, W.(1988).The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review,95(2),163-182.
19. Kintsch, W.,Welsch, D. M.(1991).The construction-integration model: A framework for studying memory for text.Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock,Hillsdale, NJ:
20. 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.
21. Lin Y.-R.,Hung, J.-F.(2016).The analysis and reconciliation of students’ rebuttals in argumentation activities.International Journal of Science Education,38(1),130-155.
22. Namdar, B.,Shen, J.(2016).Intersection of argumentation and the use of multiple representations in the context of socioscientific issues.International Journal of Science Education,38(7),1100-1132.
23. Nguyen, T. B. T.,Nguyen, B. H.(2018).The effects of question-answer relationship strategy on EFL high school students’ reding comprehension.European Journal of English Language Teaching,3(4),34-48.
24. Ogle, D. M.(1986).K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text.The Reading Teacher,39(6),564-570.
25. Oulton, C.,Dillon, J.,Grace, M. M.(2004).Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues.International Journal of Science Education,26(4),411-423.
26. Pearson, P. D.,Cervetti, G. N.(2017).The roots of reading comprehension instruction.Handbook of research on reading comprehension,New York, NY:
27. Pearson, P. D.,Cervetti, G. N.(2015).Fifty years of reading comprehension theory and practice.Research-based practices for teaching common core literacy,New York, NY:
28. Pearson, P. D.,Johnson, D. D.(1978).Teaching reading comprehension.New York, NY:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
29. Raphael, T. E.(1986).Teaching question answer relationships, revisited.The Reading Teacher,39(6),516-522.
30. Raphael, T. E.,Au, K. H.(2005).QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas.The Reading Teacher,59(3),206-221.
31. Raphael, T. E.,George, M.,Weber, C. M.,Nies, A.(2009).Approaches to teaching reading comprehension.Handbook of research on reading comprehension,New York, NY:
32. Raphael, T. E.,McKinney, J.(1983).An examination of fifth-and eighth-grade children’s question-answering behavior: An instructional study in metacognition.Journal of Reading Behavior,15(3),67-86.
33. Raphael, T. E.,Pearson, P. D.(1985).Increasing students’ awareness of sources of information for answering questions.American Educational Research Journal,22(2),217-235.
34. Sadler, T. D.,Amirshokoohi, A.,Kazempour, M.,Allspaw, K. M.(2006).Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,43(4),353-376.
35. Slavin、 R. E.,張文哲（譯）, W.-J.(Trans.)(2013).教育心理學：理論與實務.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:學富文化=Pro-Ed..
36. Suswika, W.,Herlina, R.,Faridah, D.(2020).Question answer relationship (QAR) strategy in critical reading on narrative text.Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literacy,4(1),95-102.
37. Toulmin, S. E.(1958).The uses of argument.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
38. Utami, N. P.,Regina,Rosnija, E.(2020).Improving students’ reading comprehension on recount text through question answer relationship strategy (QAR).Journal of English Education Program,1(2),143-154.
39. van den Broek, P.(2010).Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation.Science,328(5977),453-456.
40. Walker, K. A.,Zeidler, D. L.(2007).Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry.International Journal of Science Education,29(11),1387-1410.
41. Wu, Y.-T.,Tsai, C.-C.(2007).High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses.International Journal of Science Education,29(9),1163-1187.
42. Yore, L. D.,Anderson, J. O.,Chiu, M.-H.(2010).Moving PISA results into the policy arena: Perspectives on knowledge transfer for future considerations and preparations.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,8(3),593-609.
43. Yore, L. D.,Shymansky, J. A.(1991).Reading in science: Developing and operational conception to guide instruction.Journal of Science Teacher Education,2(2),29-36.
44. Zeidler, D. L.,Nichols, B. H.(2009).Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice.Journal of Elementary Science Education,21(2)
45. Zeidler, D. L.,Sadler, T. D.,Simmons, M. L.,Howes, E. V.(2005).Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education.Science Education,89(3),357-377.
46. 王瓊珠, C.-C.(2004).故事結構教學與分享閱讀.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological.
47. 林振欽, J.-C.,陳竹上, J.-S.(2012)。論證教學模式之建構及其運用於環境倫理相關研究之分析：以博碩士論文為例。應用倫理教學與研究學刊，7(1)，115-126。
48. 林煥祥, H.-S.(2016)。超越紙筆之外—談科學教育之評量。科學研習，55(11)，33-40。
49. 林煥祥, H.-S.(2016)。制式科學教育的發展與省思。科學研習，55(11)，18-19。
50. 林樹聲, S.-S.(2004)。,臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:行政院國家科學委員會=National Science Council。
51. 林樹聲, S.-S.(2003)。重視自然與生活科技學習領域中科學爭議議題的融入與探討。國民中小學九年一貫課程理論基礎，臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:
52. 柯華葳,張郁雯,詹益綾,丘嘉慧,Ko, H.-W.,Chang, Y.-W.,Chan, Y.-L.,Chiu, C.-H.(2017)。,桃園市=Taoyuan, Taiwan:國立中央大學=National Central University。
53. 柯華葳, H.-W.(2006).教出閱讀力.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:天下雜誌=CommonWealth Magazine.
54. 柯華葳, H.-W.(1993)。語文科的閱讀教學。學習輔導：學習心理學的應用，臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:
55. 洪月女, Y.-N.,靳知勤, C.-C.,廖世傑, S.-C.(2010)。國小科學教師對科學閱讀之認知與教學。東海教育評論，4，94-126。
56. 洪瑞兒, Z.-R.,王薪惠, H.-H.,魯盈讌, Y.-Y.(2017)。學生問卷分析成果。PISA 2015臺灣學生的表現，新北市=New Taipei, Taiwan:
57. 張芬芬, F.-F.,張嘉育, C.-Y.(2015)。十二年國教「議題融入課程」規劃芻議。臺灣教育評論月刊，4(3)，26-33。
58. 張蔣耀文, Y.-W.,施登堯, D.-Y.(2018)。學生中心教學之概念解析。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(7)，164-177。
59. 教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要—國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校：自然科學領域。臺北市：作者。[Ministry of Education. (2018). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education for elementary school, junior high and general senior high schools—The domain of natural sciences. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.]
60. 教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要—自然與生活科技領域。臺北市：作者。[Ministry of Education. (2003). Grade 1-9 curriculum guidelines—Science and technology. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.]

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。