專精教師與生手教師經營論證教學的分析與比較__臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

來源文獻資料
摘要
外文摘要
引文資料

題名：	專精教師與生手教師經營論證教學的分析與比較
書刊名：	科學教育學刊
作者：	洪振方／林裕仁／魏子婷
作者(外文)：	Hung, Jeng-fung／Lin, Uy-len／Wei, Tzu-ting
出版日期：	2010
卷期：	18:3
頁次：	頁205-227
主題關鍵詞：	分析表徵；爭議性科技議題；論證教學；Representation；Socio-science issues；Argumentation teaching
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(4) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:4 共同引用:0 點閱:36

本研究目的在於分析與比較專精教師與生手教師，進行論證教學的品質、特色與異同。研究對象為技術學院的2位教師與五專部護理系學生213位，教學課程為「生活科技」，並在此課程中融入爭議性科技議題的論證活動。資料蒐集關注於師生的對話論證內容。資料分析時，本研究發展「對話論證表徵」分析舉證支持立場、反駁與質疑，與化解反駁等三面向的論證內涵與品質。研究發現生手教師班級的論證教學多基於舉證支持立場，師生對話論證的內容與品質較不豐富；專精教師班級的對話論證內涵亦多基於舉證支持立場，而教師重視理性、和諧的對話氣氛，更能引導學生學習反駁與質疑、化解反駁的對話論證，以及表現高品質的論證內容。

以文找文

The purpose of this study was to analyze the features, progress and quality of students’ argumentation in socio-scientific issue taught by an inexperienced teacher and an experienced teacher. We developed a representation as an analytical tool for tracking the progress and quality of students’ argumentation. We found Chinese students tend to be unwilling to become involved in any kind of verbal exchange which has the potential for conflict (i.e. argumentation). The primary reason for such hesitancy is fear of becoming emotionally upset. When teaching students the objective process of claim/support within the context of an argumentation class, the teacher who had no past experience teaching argumentation was less effective than the experienced teacher in helping students to view such a verbal exchange objectively without involving their emotions. The experienced teacher tended to be more sensitive than the inexperienced teacher to students’ shift from objective involvement to emotional involvement.

以文找文

期刊論文
1.	Simon, S.、Osborne, J.、Erduran, S.(2004)。TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the Application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse。Science Education，88(6)，915-933。
2.	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(3)，293-321。
3.	Oliveira, A. W.、Sadler, T. D.(2008)。Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，45(5)，634-658。
4.	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(2)，219-256。
5.	Zohar, A.、Dori, Y. J.(2003)。Higher Order Thinking Skills and Low-achieving Students: Are They Mutually Exclusive?。The Journal of the Learning Sciences，12(2)，145-181。
6.	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。
7.	Sadler, T. D.、Fowler, S. R.(2006)。A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation。Science Education，90(6)，986-1004。
8.	Meyer, H.(2004)。Novice and Expert Teachers' Conceptions of Learner's Prior Knowledge。Science Education，88(6)，970-983。
9.	Osborne, J.、Erduran, S.、Simon, S.、Monk, M.(2001)。Enhancing the quality of argument in school science。School Science Review，82(301)，63-70。
10.	Kuhn, D.(1993)。Science as argument: Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking。Science Education，77(3)，319-317。
11.	Sandoval, W. A.、Millwood, K. A.(2005)。The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations。Cognition and Instruction，23(1)，23-55。
12.	Zohar, A.、Degani, A.、Vaaknin, E.(2001)。Teachers' Beliefs about Low-achieving Students and Higher Order Thinking。Teaching and Teachers’ Education，17(4)，469-485。
13.	Driver, R.、Newton, P.、Osborne, J.(2000)。Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms。Science Education，84(3)，287-312。
14.	Lawson, A. E.(2003)。The nature and development of hypothetico‐predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching。International Journal of Science Education，25(11)，1387-1408。
15.	Avraamidou, L.,、Zembal-Saul, C.(2005)。Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year elementary teacher’s specialized practices and knowledge。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，42(9)，965-968。
16.	Hogan, K.,、Maglienti, M.(2001)。Comparing the epistemological under-pinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，38(6)，663-687。
17.	Kolsto, S. D.(2006)。Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk focused socio-scientific issue。International Journal of Science Education，28(14)，1689-1716。
18.	Lynch, S.(1997)。Novice teachers’ encounter with national science education reform:Entanglements or intelligent interconnections?。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，34(1)，3-17。
19.	Pontecorvo, C.,、Girardet, H.(1993)。Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics。Cognition and Instruction，11(3-4)，365-359。
20.	Roth, W. M.(1997)。Interactional structures during a grade 4-5 open-design engineering unit。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，34(3)，273-302。
21.	Roth, W. M.,、Welzel, M.(2001)。From activity to gestures and scientific language。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，38(1)，103-136。
22.	Shepardson, D. P.,、Britsch, S. J.(2006)。Zones of interaction: Differential access to elementary science discourse。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，43(5)，443-466。
23.	Stamovlasis, D.、Tsaparlis, G.、Dimos, A.(2006)。A study of group interaction processes in learning lower secondary physics。Journal of Research in Science Teaching，43(6)，556-576。
24.	Verheij, B.(2005)。Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme。Argumentation，19(3)，347-371。
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.	Warburton, E.、Torff, B.(2005)。The effect of perceived learner advantages on teachers' beliefs about critical-thinking activities。Journal of Teacher Education，56(1)，24-33。
27.	Zeidler, D. L.(1997)。The central role of fallacious thinking in science education。Science Education，81(4)，483-496。
28.	Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford,B., Friedrichsen, P.,、Land, S.(2002)。Scaffolding pre-service science teachers’evidence-based arguments during an investigation of nature selection。Research in Science Education，32(4)，437-463。

圖書
1.	Toulmin, Stephen Edelston(1958)。The Uses of Argument。Cambridge University Press。
2.	Kuhn, D.(2005)。The skills of argument。Education for thinking。London。
3.	Mercer, N.(2000)。Words and minds: How we use language to thinking together。Abingdon, UK。
4.	Simon, S., Osborne, J.,、Erduran, S.(2003)。Systemic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities。Leadership and professional development in science education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning。London。
5.	Veerman, A.(2003)。Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue。Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments。Dordrecht, NL。
6.	Zohar, A.(2004)。Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teaches’ professional development。Dordrecht：Kluwer Academic。

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	不同學習領域教師對探究與探究教學的看法與教學實務
2.	模擬失敗為治理成功之母？FishBanks情境模擬教學應用於公共資源困境之啟示
3.	故事探究教材融入自然與生活科技課對學生參與表現與成就之影響
4.	國小教師實踐社會性科學議題教學之教師知識成長與比較

1.	合作式推理教學對學童論證能力之影響

無相關書籍

無相關著作

1.	培養環境公民行動的大學環境教育課程--整合理性、情感、與終極關懷的學習模式
2.	線上小組學習的發生處--以迷思概念為探針
3.	當數學遇見原民文化--發展原民數學模組之個案研究
4.	不同性別七年級學生論證科學新聞之學習效益
5.	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
6.	以論證活動探討國小學童論證能力和科學本質之表現

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫