國中生社會性科學議題的論證研究
Abstract
本研究以三個社會性科學議題做為教學素材，探討兩組國中學生分別經過和未經過論證寫作，在科學本質觀的差異。研究結果發現實驗組學生（145人）實施論證寫作後，在「了解科學本質量表」的得分顯著高於對照組學生（111人）。
實驗組學生進行論證寫作時，學習單的框架包含五個面向：「自己對於議題的立場」、「依據何種理由支持或反對議題」、「理由背後的證據」、「他人可能的反駁」、「自己對他人反駁的再反駁」。學生在議題二、三的論證完整度顯著高於議題一。尤其是學業成就高分組和中分組學生能提出「反駁、「再反駁」的人數增加了，而低分組學生在三個議題的論證能力則沒有顯著差異。
學生支持或反對議題的理由大致可區分為依賴直覺、依賴情感、依賴理性三種，其中多數的理由是依賴情感或理性，只有少數理由依賴直覺。學生在論證的過程中使論證品質降低的原因如下：未提出證據、提出的證據和理由無關、誇大證據的效力、無法察覺他人可能的反駁、無法針對他人的反駁提出再反駁。
This study investigated how argument writing on socioscientific issues (SSI) contributed to the understanding of nature of science among junior high school students. For this purpose, the teaching materials were 3 SSI curriculums. The students of experimental group (N=145) implemented the argument writing, but the students of control group (N=111) did not. The results revealed that the students of experimental group gained higher score in the “Understanding Nature of Science Questionnaire” than the students of control group. (p< .05) Learning sheets for the students of experimental group included five dimensions of argument writing: the claims in SSI, the reasons for supporting or objecting to SSI, the evidences for the reasons, counter-arguments from others, and the rebuttals to against the counter-arguments. The students appeared elaborate argumentation on the 2nd and 3rd SSI than in the 1st SSI. High academic level students and middle academic level students proposed more valid “counter-arguments” and “rebuttals” in 2nd and 3rd SSI than in the 1st SSI. However, there were no significant differences in the quality of low academic level students’ argumentation in these 3 SSI. Students supporting or objecting to the SSI by offering warrants of rationalistic, emotive, and intuitive forms. Their warrants often relied on emotions and rationalities, few relied on intuition. Some students’ common mistakes reduced the quality of arguments. These mistakes included the following reasons: some students didn’t show any data to support their claims, some students’ data cannot correspond to their warrants, and some students exaggerate the data. Furthermore, some students cannot perceive other students’ counter-arguments, or they cannot make rebuttals to against counter arguments.
This study investigated how argument writing on socioscientific issues (SSI) contributed to the understanding of nature of science among junior high school students. For this purpose, the teaching materials were 3 SSI curriculums. The students of experimental group (N=145) implemented the argument writing, but the students of control group (N=111) did not. The results revealed that the students of experimental group gained higher score in the “Understanding Nature of Science Questionnaire” than the students of control group. (p< .05) Learning sheets for the students of experimental group included five dimensions of argument writing: the claims in SSI, the reasons for supporting or objecting to SSI, the evidences for the reasons, counter-arguments from others, and the rebuttals to against the counter-arguments. The students appeared elaborate argumentation on the 2nd and 3rd SSI than in the 1st SSI. High academic level students and middle academic level students proposed more valid “counter-arguments” and “rebuttals” in 2nd and 3rd SSI than in the 1st SSI. However, there were no significant differences in the quality of low academic level students’ argumentation in these 3 SSI. Students supporting or objecting to the SSI by offering warrants of rationalistic, emotive, and intuitive forms. Their warrants often relied on emotions and rationalities, few relied on intuition. Some students’ common mistakes reduced the quality of arguments. These mistakes included the following reasons: some students didn’t show any data to support their claims, some students’ data cannot correspond to their warrants, and some students exaggerate the data. Furthermore, some students cannot perceive other students’ counter-arguments, or they cannot make rebuttals to against counter arguments.
Description
Keywords
社會性科學議題, 論證, 科學本質, 國中生, socioscientific issues, argument, nature of science, the junior high school students