探討世界咖啡館融入社會性科學議題教學對高中生論證能力的培養

Abstract

由於現今跨領域教學的研究蓬勃發展以及科技不斷進步所引起的社會問題，以及根據自身經驗，大眾時常透過社群媒體或新聞等單向獲取的方式來認識議題。在學校教學方面，議題討論的課程仍不普及，因此，本研究旨在探討具有雙向溝通且包容多元觀點的世界咖啡館活動融入社會性科學議題的教學策略，以培養學生的論證能力。並在課堂中教授能源議題的內容，設定能源議題的討論情境。本研究欲了解學生論證能力在教學前、後的表現，以及學生的論證能力與知識的關係。現今的教學理念強調「能力」的培養，而非單純的「知識」傳授，因此，除了能源議題外，本研究欲探討學生對能源和基因工程議題的論證能力，以及他們的推理論證模式是否因教學有所改變。並探討學生在世界咖啡館討論的推理面向與論證能力的關聯。本研究採用混合研究法，以便利取樣方式選取台北市某高中一年級其中四個班級共116名學生作為研究對象。本研究以能源議題為主題進行3週共5節課的教學。教學開始前，測驗學生對能源議題及基因改造食品議題的論證能力，以及測驗學生對能源議題的認知程度；教學中，蒐集學生上課所使用的學習單及對話內容作為質性資料進行分析，其中三個班級學生經歷世界咖啡館的三回合討論，另一個班則是以影片欣賞的方式進行社會性科學議題的教學；教學結束後，再次測驗學生對能源議題及基因工程議題的論證能力。研究統計顯示課堂上概念引介可能影響學生的論證能力，有參與概念引介者，在後測的論證成績有顯著上升。社會性科學議題教學在一定程度上能夠提升學生的論證能力，特別是當學生充分參與世界咖啡館討論中探討多面向、具啟發性的議題時，效果更加顯著。然而，議題設計與討論引導的品質對最終的學習效果具有重要影響。未參與概念引介的學生在後測中的表現有所下降，且他們在討論過程中易於出現冷漠態度，顯示出背景知識對有效論證的必要性。此外，議題的選擇和討論的豐富度也影響學生的推理能力和論證表現。未來的研究應進一步探索不同教學策略如何影響學生在各類議題上的論證能力，並探討如何在社會性科學議題教學中更有效地結合背景知識和批判性思維技能，以促進學生全面的科學素養發展。This study aimed to infuse the World Café approach into socio-scientific issue (SSI) instruction to foster senior high school students’ argumentation competencies. The study aims to understand students' argumentation competencies before and after the teaching intervention. Additionally, current teaching emphasizes fostering "competencies" rather than merely transmitting "knowledge." Therefore, this study also aims to explore students' argumentation skills on other issues, such as genetic engineering, and investigate whether there have been changes in their reasoning modes and argumentation competencies. Furthermore, the study explores the relationship between the reasoning modes discussed bystudents in the World Café and their argumentation competencies.The mixed-methods design is adopted in this study. A convenient sample of 116 grade 10 students from a high school in Taipei City participated in this study. The study conducts a three-week, five-hour teaching experiment on energy issues as the topic. Before the teaching, students' argumentation competencies of energy and GMO issues and their knowledge of energy were assessed. During the teaching sessions, three classes engaged in three rounds of the World Café discussions, where we gathered students' learning worksheets and recorded their group dialogues as qualitative data for analysis. In contrast, another class approached the SSI by watching a video related to the nuclear energy topic and subsequent whole-class discussions. After the teaching ended, the students' argumentation competencies on energy and genetic engineering issues were assessed again.The results found that introducing energy-related facts and concepts in the first lesson may have influenced students' argumentation abilities, as participants showed significant improvement in post-test scores. It is evident that SSI teaching can enhance argumentation competencies, particularly when students engage in comprehensive conceptual phases and discuss multi-perspective topics in the World Café discussions. Students who did not participate in the conceptual introduction showed decreased post-test performance and indifferent attitudes during discussions, highlighting the necessity of background knowledge for effective argumentation. Additionally, topic selection and discussion richness influenced reasoning abilities and performance. Future research should explore how different teaching strategies affect argumentation skills across topics and investigate how to integrate background knowledge and critical thinking skills in SSI curricula to promote comprehensive scientific literacy development.