臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：以科學讀寫模式提升國小學童論證能力之研究
書刊名：科學教育學刊
作者：李如偉／蘇明洲／黃湃翔／呂仲誠／高慧蓮 引用關係
作者(外文)：Lee, Ju-wei／Su, Ming-chou／Huang, Pai-hsian／Liu, Chung-cheng／Kao, Huey-lien
出版日期：2012
卷期：20:6
頁次：頁483-514
主題關鍵詞：科學讀寫；海洋教育；論證能力；Scientific reading and writing；Marine education；Argumentation ability
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(6) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:6
  • 共同引用共同引用:48
  • 點閱點閱:43
本研究主要以科學讀寫模式進行海洋資源議題教學，藉以探討學生論證能力的改變情形以及教師所使用的教學策略和歷程改變。研究參與者為30位五年級學生，以「海洋資源」為教學主題，採用科學讀寫為主要教學模式並融入促進學童論證之教學策略，其中利用圖片、影片、互動式短片、辯論會片段及社會性科學議題等多元的素材，編寫適合的教材與閱讀文本，並設計論證式科學寫作單，其中以開頭引語、短文填空、關鍵詞的提示等方式做為題目的引導，以期達提升學童論證能力之教學目標。研究過程中進行論證式科學寫作單之撰寫，並將學童之論證式科學寫作單內容及得分進行質化和量化的分析和比較。研究發現教學後學生理由之陳述具因果關係性，亦能歸納文本中相關的訊息，使得理由更趨完整與正確；學生能以個人經驗為基礎，並考量經濟及生態等觀點，做為主張的基礎，增加論點數目；反駁的次數增加且能提出理由；能主張完整的陳述，且提出反駁觀點，豐富了論證的組成。經由統計結果顯示，教學初期與教學後期的論證總分有顯著差異，表示論證能力有顯著的提升；學生在理由的正確性、論點數目的多寡、反駁出現的次數、論證組成的多寡等四個論證面向的得分皆有顯著差異，且都具有高效果量。
The purpose of this study was mainly to explore the change of students’ argumentation ability situation by integrating the Scientific Reading and Writing (SRW) model into marine resource teaching. In addition, the study also explored teaching strategies that the teachers used and recorded changes of process. The participants were 32 fifth graders. The researchers adopted the SRW as mainly teaching model and integrated the teaching strategy of promoting students’ argumentation ability. The researchers made use of diverse materials, such as pictures, films, interactive short films, debate fragments, and socio-scientific issues, to compile appropriate teaching materials and reading texts in order to foster the students’ argumentation ability. The researchers developed Scientific Argumentation Writing Sheets (SAWS) with the questions guided by the beginning quotation, fill-in-the-blank and keyword prompt. The students were asked to write them down during the teaching process. The contents and scores of the students’ SAWS were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively respectively. After the teaching, major findings in the study were as follows: (1) The students’ warrant statements included the causal relationship. They could also summarize related message in the text to make their warrants more complete and correct; (2) Students could base on their personal experiences, and consider the economic and ecological standpoints as the basis of the claims to increase the amounts of argument; (3) The frequency of students’ rebuttal increased and they could put forward their warrants; (4) Students could make complete statements for their claims, propose rebuttal viewpoints, and therefore the components of argumentation were more abundant. Moreover, the statistics results showed that there were four significant large effects on students’ argumentation ability, including the accuracy of warrant, the amounts of argument, the frequency of rebuttal, and the amounts of argumentation components.
期刊論文
1.陳文典(19920600)。怎樣引導兒童發表?。國教月刊，38(5/6)，14-17。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.林雅慧、張文華、林陳涌(20030300)。國小低年級學生參與科學對談的類型之研究。科學教育學刊，11(1)，51-74。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Zeidler, D. L.、Walker, K. A.、Ackett, W. A.、Simmons, M. L.(2002)。Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas。Science Education，86(3)，343-367。  new window
4.陳文正、古智雄、許瑛玿、楊文金(20110200)。概念卡通論證教學促進學童論證能力之研究。科學教育學刊，19(1)，69-99。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.Driver, R.、Newton, P.、Osborne, J.(2000)。Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classroom。Science Education，84，287-312。  new window
6.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。  new window
7.Sadler, T. D.、Fowler, S. R.(2006)。A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation。Science Education，90(6)，986-1004。  new window
8.Osborne, J.、Erduran, S.、Simon, S.、Monk, M.(2001)。Enhancing the quality of argument in school science。School Science Review，82(301)，63-70。  new window
9.高慧蓮(20060800)。九年一貫課程提升學生科學本質能力指標表現可行教學模組之開發研究。科學教育學刊，14(4)，401-425。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.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。  new window
11.Van Zee, E. H.(2000)。Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion。International Journal of Science Education，22(2)，115-142。  new window
12.Guthrie, J. T.、Wigfield, A.、Barbosa, P.、Perencevich, K. C.、Taboada, A.、Davis, M. H.、Scafiddi, N. T.、Tonks, S.(2004)。Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction。Journal of Educational Psychology，96(3)，403-423。  new window
13.Osborne, R. J.、Wittrock, M. C.(1983)。Learning science: A generative process。Science Education，67(4)，489-508。  new window
14.靳知勤、楊惟程、段曉林(20100100)。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，13(1)，209-232。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.Duschl, R. A.、Osborne, J.(2002)。Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education。Studies in Science Education，38(1)，39-72。  new window
16.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。  new window
17.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。  new window
18.Kuhn, D.(1992)。Thinking as argument。Harvard Educational Review，62(2)，155-179。  new window
19.靳知勤、楊惟程、段曉林(20101000)。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。new window  延伸查詢new window
20.林樹聲、黃柏鴻(20090400)。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。new window  延伸查詢new window
21.黃柏鴻、林樹聲(20070900)。論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思。科學教育月刊，302，5-20。  延伸查詢new window
22.高涌泉(2010)。科學教育必須注重閱讀與敘事能力100(6)，34-36。  延伸查詢new window
23.Dawson, V. M.、Venville, G.(2010)。Teaching strategies for developing students' argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics。Research in Science Education，40，133-148。  new window
學位論文
1.吳靜宜(2008)。國小社會性科學議題教學之研究--台灣能源的開發與利用(碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.胡芳禎(2008)。國小高年級社會性科學議題教學成效之研究--以「土石流發生」教學模組為例(碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Graham, S.、Hebert, M. A.(2010)。Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report。Washington, DC：Alliance for Excellent Education。  new window
2.臺灣PISA國家研究中心(2011)。臺灣PISA 2009結果報告。臺北市：心理出版社。  延伸查詢new window
3.Toulmin, Stephen E.(1958)。The Use of Argument。Cambridge University Press。  new window
4.Bereiter, Carl、Scardamalia, Marlene(1987)。The Psychology of Written Composition。Hillsdale, New Jersey：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.。  new window
5.Cohen, J.(1988)。Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences。Hillsdale, NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates。  new window
6.Kuhn, Deanna(1991)。The skills of argument。Cambridge University Press。  new window
7.Wellington, J. J.、Osborne, J.(2001)。Language and literacy in science education。Open University Press。  new window
其他
1.教育部(20080915)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要重大議題（海洋教育），http://www.edu.tw/eje/content.aspx?site_content_sn=15326。  延伸查詢new window
2.林維真(2003)。視覺圖像媒體之簡介，http://edtech_ntu. edu. tw/epaper/920410/tips/tips_1. asp。  延伸查詢new window
3.黃柏鴻(2007)。提升國小六年級學生論證能力之行動研究--以社會性科學議題為例。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.黃翎斐(2005)。教學策略對論證形成的影響。  延伸查詢new window
5.黃翎斐、胡瑞萍(2006)。論證與科學教育的理論和實務。  延伸查詢new window
6.楊惟程、靳知勤(2006)。國小六年級學童對科學讀寫活動融入自然科教學之知覺研究。  延伸查詢new window
7.蔡俊彥、黃台珠、楊錦潭(2008)。國小學童網路論證能力及科學概念學習之研究。  延伸查詢new window
8.蔡銘津(2002)。寫作構思歷程的認知及其在寫作教學上的涵意。  延伸查詢new window
9.謝慈雪(2010)。國中生社會性科學議題的論證研究。  延伸查詢new window
10.蘇衍丞(2011)。應用鷹架式論證教學提升國小高年級學生之論證能力。  延伸查詢new window
11.Albe, V.(2008)。When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Stu¬dents' argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue。  new window
12.Barrow, L. H.; Germann, P.(1987)。Acid rain education and its implications for cur¬ricular development: A teacher survey。  new window
13.Belland, B. R.(2010)。Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds。  new window
14.Cavagnetto, A. R.(2010)。Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts。  new window
15.Cervetti, G. N.; Barber, J.; Dorph, R.; Pearson, P. D.; Goldschmidt, P. G.(200904)。Integrating science and literacy: A value proposition? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association。  new window
16.Crocker, B.; Dennison, J.; Butts, D.(198603)。The relationships between performance of science thinking skills and reading comprehension skills of elementary students。  new window
17.Erduran, S.(2008)。Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classroom。  new window
18.Erduran, S.; Ardac, D.; Yakmaci-Guzel, B.(2006)。Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of preservice secondary science teachers。  new window
19.Erduran, S.; Simon, S.; Osborne, J.(2004)。TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse。  new window
20.Felton, M. K.; Herko, S.(2004)。From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents’ persuasive writing。  new window
21.Gaskins, I. W.; Guthrie, J. T.; Satlow, E.; Ostertag, J.; Six, L.; Byrne, J., et al.(1994)。Integrating instruction of science, reading, and writing: Goals, teacher development, and assessment。  new window
22.Goodman, K.(1997)。Putting theory and research in the context of history。  new window
23.Jimènez-Aleixandre, M. P.; Lopez-Ro- driguez, R.; Erduran, S.(200504)。Argumentative quality and intellectual ecology: A case study in primary school。  new window
24.Lemke, J. L.(1998)。Teaching all the all guage of science: Words, symbols, images and actions。  new window
25.Lewis, J.; Leach, J.(2006)。Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge。  new window
26.Mason, L.; Scirica, F.(2006)。Prediction of students,argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding。  new window
27.Means, M. L.; Voss, J. F.(1996)。Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels。  new window
28.Miller, B.; McCardle, P.(2011)。Reflections on the need for continued research on writing。  new window
29.Nielsen, J. A.(2012)。Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions。  new window
30.Nussbaum, E. M.(2002)。Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom。  new window
31.Patrick, H.; Mantzicopoulos, P.; Samara-pungavan, A.(2009)。Reading, writing, and conducting inquiry about science in kindergarten。  new window
32.Patronis, T.; Potari, D.; Spiliotopou-lou, V.(1999)。Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching。  new window
33.Pearson, P. D.; Moje, E.; Greenleaf, C.(2010)。Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other。  new window
34.Petit, A.; Soto, E.(2002)。Already experts: Showing students how much they know about writing and reading arguments。  new window
35.Romance, N. R.; Vitale, M. R.(2001)。Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications。  new window
36.Romance, N. R.; Vitale, M. R.(2008)。Perspectives for improving school instruction and learning: An interdisciplinary model for integrating science and reading in grades K-5。  new window
37.Rowell, P. M.(1997)。Learning in school science: The promises and practices of writing。  new window
38.Sadler, T. D.(2004)。Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research。  new window
39.Siegel, H.(1989)。The rationality of science, critical thinking, and science education。  new window
40.Simonneaux, L.(2008)。Argumentation in socioscientific contexts。  new window
41.Venville, G. J.; Dawson, V. M.(2010)。The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science。  new window
42.Vitale, M. R.; Romance, N. R.(2012)。Using in-depth science instruction to accelerate student achievement in science and reading comprehension in grades 1-2。  new window
43.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。  new window
44.Walker,K. A.; Zeidler, D. L.(2007)。Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry。  new window
45.Wu, Y. T.; Tsai, C. C.(2012)。The effects of university students’ argumentation on socio-scientific issues via on-line discussion in their informal reasoning regarding this issue。  new window
46.Yerrick, R. K.(2000)。Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction。  new window
47.Yore, L. D.; Shymansky, J. A.(198504)。Reading, understanding, remembering and using information in written science materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science。  new window
48.Yore, L. D.; Shymansky, J. A.(199709)。Constructivism: Implication for teaching, teacher education and research- Breakthroughs, barriers and promises。  new window
49.Zohar, A.; Nemet, F.(2002)。Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：885（臺灣：852，外國：33） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2156165 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67956865
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上