整合論證教學與創造力問題解決教學之研究

The Research of Integration in Argumentation Instruction and Creative Problem-Solving Instruction

10.6769/JENCUE.201112.0103

林官蓓(Kuan-Pei Lin)；林顯輝(Shean-Huei Lin)

論證教學 ； 創造力問題解決教學 ； 教師專業成長 ； argumentation instruction ； creative problem solving instruction ； teachers' professional development

彰化師大教育學報

20期（2011 / 12 / 01）

103 - 124

繁體中文

論證教學與創造力問題解決教學存在許多共通之處，本研究的目的即是在探討教師如何設計開放性的科學議題，來進行整合論證教學與創造力問題解決教學，並探討此整合教學的設計與教學原則。透過質性研究方式蒐集並分析資料，本研究發現：1.創造力問題解決與論證教學的整合關鍵在於教師能夠設計開放性議題，讓學生主動去探索與學習，再藉由小組討論互動中進行論證與創造，2.資料蒐集、整理與閱讀，是學生參與創造力與論證活動所面臨的首要問題，學生藉由多元的探索活動，配合教師提供的諮詢與引導，能增進論證與創造力整合學習之豐富度與興趣。3.整合論證與創造力教學中，教師除了需對論證的結構與意涵要有深刻的理解外，亦需能安排與組織具備創造力的學習環境，並配合學生的能力、興趣與先備知識，讓他們更有機會與同儕進行互動與溝通，在彼此的意見交流中培養論證與創造的能力。4.論證學習中有關小組協商、合作、批判、質疑等過程，是可以與創造力問題解決的思考歷程相輔相成。在小組與同儕的討論中，學生間彼此的提問與質疑，存在著引發進一步發揮創造力的潛能，此也是創造力問題解決表現的機會，如發現問題、設計問題解決方案、執行問題解決方案，以及評估問題解決方案等歷程，均可能在小組合作的學習中表現出來。

This study sought to explore how teachers design open-ended scientific questions to integrate argumentation instruction and creative problem-solving instruction, as well as to explore the design and teaching principles of this integrated instruction. The researchers used qualitative method to collect and analyze data. The findings were as follows:1. The key point of integration in argumentation instruction and creative problem-solving instruction was that teachers could design open-ended questions for students to explore and learn actively. And then through group discussion, students could produce argumentation and creativity during the process.2. To collect and read the relevant information were the main problem for students who participated in the activities of argumentation and creative problem-solving. Through multiple exploratory activities and teachers' guides, it could promote students' interests in the integrated learning.3. To improve students' abilities of argumentative and creative problem-solving skills, the teachers needed to have deeper understanding in how to design an inquiry-based and students-center learning environment. The teachers also needed to encourage students to communicate and share their ideas with each other based on students' abilities, interests, and prior knowledge.4. The ability of argumentation and creative problem-solving were complementary to each other in which students cooperated, negotiated and discussed the possible solution in an open-end-question environment. Students could share their creative ideas in such environment and their cognitive operations of making arguments and creative thinking were working in the same time. The Teachers then had the opportunities to integrate and improve students' high order thinking skills, such as argumentation and creative problem-solving skills.

1. Billing, M.(1987).Arguing and thinking: A rhetoric approach to social psychology.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
2. Bricker, A. L.,Bell, P.(2008).Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education.Science Education,92,473-498.
3. Brophy, D.(2001).Comparing the attributes, activities, and performance of divergent, convergent, and combination thinkers.Creativity Research Journal,13(3),439-455.
4. Burden, P. R.,Byrd, D. M.(1994).Method for effective teaching.Boston, MA.:Allyn and Bacon.
5. Chan, C. K.(2001).Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information.Instructional Science,29,443-479.
6. Chao, C. Y.,Hsiao, H. C.(2000).The evaluation and improvement for a creative thinking oriented course of mechanical product design and manufacturing.International Conference of Engineering and Computer Education
7. 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,45,293-321.
8. Erduran, S.,Jiménex-Aleixandre, M. P.(2007).Argumentation in science education: Perspective from classroom-base research Perspective from classroom-base research.Springer Press.
9. Erduran, S.,Simon, S.,Osborne, J.(2004).Taping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse.Science Education,88,915-933.
10. Hu, W.,Adey, P.(2002).A scientific creativity test for secondary school students.International Journal of Science Education,24(4),389-403.
11. Jiménex-Aleixandre, M.P.,Rodríguez, A.B.,Duschl, R.(2000)."Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics.Science Education,84,757-792.
12. Kelly, G. J.,Bazerman, C.(2003).How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis.Applied Linguistics,24(1),28-55.
13. Kuhn, D.(1993).Science as argument: Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking.Science Education,77,319-317.
14. Mouchiroud, C.,Lubart, T. I.(2002).Social creativity: A cross-sectional study of 6- to 11- year-old children.International Journal of Behavioral Development,26(1),60-69.
15. Oliveira, A. W.,Sadler, T. D.(2008).Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45,634-658.
16. Parnes, S. J.(1967).Creative behavior guidebook.NY:Scribners.
17. Runco, M. A.(Ed.)(1994).Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity.New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
18. Runco, Mark A.(Ed.)(1994).Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity.New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
19. Sadler, T. D.,Fowler, S, R.(2006).A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation.Science Education,90,986- 1004.
20. Sandoval, W. A.(2003).Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations.Journal of the Learning Sciences,12,5-51.
21. Sandoval, W. A.,Millwood, K. A.(2005).The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations.Cognition and Instruction,23,23-55.
22. Schwarz, B. B.,Neumann, Y.,Gil, J.,Ilya, M.(2003).Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity.Journal of the Learning Sciences,12,219-256.
23. Sternberg(1995).Scientific creativity: A short overview.Educational Psychology Review,7(3),25-241.
24. Toulmin, S.(1958).The uses of argument.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
25. van Amelsvoort, M.,Andriessen, J.,Kanselaar, G.(2007).Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-basedlearning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams.Journal of the Learning Sciences,16,485 - 521.
26. 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,45,101-131.
27. Zohar, A.,Nemet, F.(2002).Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39,35-62.
28. Zohar, D.(1997).Rewiring the corporate brain: Using the new science to rethink how we structure and lead organizations.San Francisco:Berett-Koehler.
29. 毛連塭(2000)。創造力研究。台北:心理出版社。
30. 林秀吟(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，國立台北師範學院。
31. 林煥祥、洪振方、洪瑞兒(2007)。,教育部。
32. 林顯輝(2010)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,行政院國家科學委員會。
33. 林顯輝(2000)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,行政院國家科學委員會。
34. 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。國立高雄師範大學高雄師大學報，15，641-662。
35. 陳文典(2000)。由國民中小學課程目標看─「自然與生活科技」學習領域之教學與教材。科學教育月刊，231，40-57。
36. 陳龍安(1998)。創造思考教學的理論與實際。台北:心理。