探討使用不同論證任務對大學生學習摩擦力概念之成效

Abstract

摘要 本研究目的為探討大學生透過不同的論證任務學習摩擦力概念時，受試者的學習成效為何。研究中使用Toulmin論證模式中的「論據」與「反駁」，讓兩組受試者透過執行不同的論證任務學習摩擦力，藉此探討兩組別受試者的摩擦力應用知識與迷思概念改善情形，並觀察受試者執行任務時的表現。因執行的論證任務不同將受試者分成兩組：論據組有24人而反駁組有22人。 針對本研究之研究目的與問題，說明研究結果如下： 1. 應用知識學習成效與迷思概念改善情形在組別間並無顯著差異，不論使用哪種論證方式學習並無顯著差異。 2. 論證能力在學生的學習過程中扮演了重要的角色，高論證能力的受試者在摩擦力的應用知識學習成效和迷思概念的改善情形皆比低論證能力的受試者稍好，達邊緣顯著。 3. 以任務表現進行分析，發現論證能力與迷思概念分別顯著地影響任務表現，但論證能力與迷思概念間並無交互作用。即高論證能力的受試者的任務表現比低論證能力的受試者來得好；低迷思概念的受試者的任務表現則比高迷思概念的受試者來得好。 4. 整理兩組別受試者訪談時對於執行論據與反駁任務的想法，發現受試者執行完論證任務後，大多有發現兩論證任務的功能。反駁組中，覺得反駁相較於論據對於學習比較有用的受試者，認為反駁可以多一個思考的角度檢視自己的想法是否有錯；而論據組中覺得論據相較於反駁比較有用的受試者則認為論據可以幫助我們連接證據跟主張，有系統地產生正確概念架構。Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the learning effects of different argumentation tasks on university students’ concepts of friction. Two groups of students learned about friction through generating warrants (N = 24) and rebuttals (N = 22), two components of the Toulmin Argument Pattern, respectively. Their performance in applied knowledge, reduction of misconceptions, and task performance were observed and compared. Four major findings are discussed as follows: 1. The performance in the post-test was significantly better than that in the pre-test. But the differences between groups were not significant. 2. Students’ argumentation ability was important for learning. Students with higher argumentation ability had slightly better performances in both applied knowledge (p< .07) and reducing misconceptions (p < .06) than those with lower argumentation ability. 3. Both the argumentation ability and misconception before task affected the task performance. Students with higher argumentation ability had better task performance than those with lower argumentation ability. Students with fewer misconceptions also had better task performance than those with more misconceptions. 4. From the interview after task, both groups of students perceived the benefit of the task assigned to them. Students in the rebuttal group felt that generating rebuttals can provide an alternative viewpoint to examine the correctness of their thoughts. Students in the warrant group felt that generating warrants can help them connect the data with the claim and establish a framework of correct knowledge systematically.