提問鷹架設計對學生社會性科學議題決策能力表現的影響

The Effects of Question-Prompt Scaffolding Designs on Students' Decision-Making on Socio-Scientific Issues

10.6384/CIQ.202110_24(4).0008

吳貞儀(Jen-Yi Wu)；張文馨(Wen-Xin Zhang)；許瑛玿(Ying-Shao Hsu)

決策能力 ； 協作學習 ； 社會性科學議題 ； 鷹架 ； decision-making ability ； collaborative learning ； socio-scientific issue ； scaffold

課程與教學

24卷4期（2021 / 10 / 01）

199 - 227

繁體中文

為探討在電腦輔助協作學習環境的提問鷹架設計對學生進行社會性科學議題決策學習之影響，本研究利用封閉性問題和開放性問題，設計混合提問鷹架與開放性提問鷹架兩種線上教學模組，以準實驗研究法隨機分派一所高中二年級學生參與水庫和綠建築兩個議題，各為期4節課的決策學習。兩種模組各41份有效樣本在發電議題前測決策表現沒有顯著差異；但學生的水庫議題學習單顯示，混合提問鷹架模組學生的決策表現顯著優於開放性提問鷹架模組的學生；而綠建築議題學習單，則兩種模組學生的決策表現無顯著差異；但核能議題後測的決策表現，開放性提問鷹架模組學生顯著優於混合提問鷹架模組的學生，並且低決策能力學生與高決策能力學生之間的表現落差已不顯著。此結果反映在協作學習環境中的開放性提問鷹架提供學生適當挑戰，能增進其決策表現的學習表現。

To explore the effects of question prompt scaffolding on students' decision-making on socio-scientific issues in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment, this study designed a SSI online module with open-ended question prompts and another module mixed with open-ended or close-ended question prompts. Using the quasi-experimental research method, the 11th-grade classes in a senior high school were randomly assigned to two modules to learn about the decision-making on issues of water reservoir and green building lasting for four class periods. The results of 41 valid samples showed no significant difference found between the performances on the pretest about electricity supply of students in the two modules. Regarding their performances on the tasks in the first water-reservoir issue, the students in the module with mixture design performed significantly better than those in the module of open-ended question prompts. However, no significant difference was found between the performances on tasks about the second green-building issue of students in the two modules. Moreover, in the posttest about nuclear power issue, the students in the module of open-ended question prompts performed better than those in the module with mixture design. In addition, the performance gap between the students with low decision-making ability and high decision-making ability was no longer obvious. It is suggested that in the collaborative learning environment, open-ended question prompts provide certain optimal challenges that can significantly promote students' performances on decision-making.

1. 吳貞儀,許瑛玿,張文馨,方素琦(2017)。社會性科學議題線上教學模組對高中生多元面向決策的影響。數位學習科技期刊，9(3)，69-94。
   連結：
2. 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，17，111-133。
   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，20，343-366。
   連結：
4. Anker-Hansen, J.,Andrée, M.(2015).Affordances and constraints of using the socio-political debate for authentic summative assessment.International Journal of Science Education,37(15),2577-2596.
5. Belland, B. R.(2014).Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions.Handbook of research on educational communications and technology,New York, NY:
6. Belland, B. R.,Gu, J.,Kim, N. J.,Turner, D. J.(2016).An ethnomethodological perspective on how middle school students addressed a water quality problem.Educational Technology Research and Development,64(6),1135-1161.
7. Belland, B. R.,Kim, C.,Hannafin, M. J.(2013).A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition.Educational Psychologist,48(4),243-270.
8. Belland, B. R.,Weiss, D. M.,Kim, N. J.,Piland, J.,Gu, J.(2019).An Examination of Credit Recovery Students’ Use of Computer-Based Scaffolding in a Problem-Based, Scientific Inquiry Unit.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,17(2),273-293.
9. Chin, C.(2007).Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,44(6),815-843.
10. Deci, E. L.,Ryan, R. M.(2000).The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.Psychological Inquiry,11(4),227-268.
11. Du, J.,Ge, X.,Xu, J.(2015).Online collaborative learning activities: The perspectives of African American female students.Computers & Education,82,152-161.
12. Eggert, S.,Ostermeyer, F.,Hasselhorn, M.,Bögeholz, S.(2013).Socioscientific decision making in the science classroom: The effect of embedded metacognitive instructions on students’ learning outcomes.Education Research International,2013,1-12.
13. Fang, S.-C.,Hsu, Y. S.,Lin, S.-S.(2019).Conceptualizing Socioscientific Decision Making from a Review of Research in Science Education.International Journalof Science and Mathematics Education,17(3),427-448.
14. Ge, X.,Chen, C. H.,Davis, K. A.(2005).Scaffolding novice instructional designers' problem-solving processes using question prompts in a Web-basedl earning environment.Journal of Educational Computing Research,33(2),219-248.
15. Ge, X.,Land, S. M.(2004).A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions.Educational Technology Research and Development,52(2),5-22.
16. Giuliodori, M. J.,Lujan, H. L.,DiCarlo, S. E.(2008).Collaborative group testing benefits high- and low-performing students.Advances in Physiology Education,32,274-278.
17. Grace, M.,Lee, Y. C.,Asshoff, R.,Wallin, A.(2015).Student decision-making about a globally familiar socioscientific issue: The value of sharing and comparing views with international counterparts.International Journal of Science Education,37(11),1855-1874.
18. Han, S.,Capraro, R.,Capraro, M. M.(2015).How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,13(5),1089-1113.
19. Haruehansawasin, S.,Kiattikomol, P.(2018).Scaffolding in problem-based learning for low-achieving learners.Journal of Educational Research,111(3),363-370.
20. Hmelo-Silver, C. E.,Barrows, H. S.(2006).Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator.Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning,1(1),21-39.
21. Hsu, Y. S.,Lai, T.-L.,Hsu, W.-H.(2015).A Design Model of Distributed Scaffolding for Inquiry-Based Learning.Research in Science Education,45(2),241-273.
22. Hsu, Y. S.,Lin, S.-S.(2017).Prompting students to make socioscientific decisions: embedding metacognitive guidance in an e-Learning environment.International Journal of Science Education,39(7),964-979.
23. Jonassen, D. H.(1997).Instructional design models for well-structured and illstructured problem-solving learning outcomes.Educational Technology Research and Development,45(1),65-94.
24. Jonassen, D. H.(2011).Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments.London, UK:Routledge.
25. Kajamies, A.,Vauras, M.,Kinnunen, R.(2010).Instructing low-achievers in mathematical word problem solving.Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,54(4),335-355.
26. Karpudewan, M.,Roth, W. M.(2018).Changes in primary students’ informal reasoning during an environment-related curriculum on socio-scientific issues.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,16(3),401-419.
27. 范德鑫(1992)。共變數分析功能、假設及使用之限制。師大學報，37，133-163。
28. 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。