許瑛玿Hsu, Ying-Shao張文馨Zhang, Wen-Xin2019-09-052021-11-072019-09-052018http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G080045004S%22.&%22.id.&amp;http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/104560本研究欲探討融入論證活動的社會性科學議題（SSI）決策課程對學生非形式推理、決策方法的使用及小組協作學習中的調整行為之間的關連。研究使用混合性研究，以質性資料為主，輔以單組前後測設計。研究對象以便利取樣，來自新北與高雄2所學校共3班多元選修課的學生，參與研究的學生有共38人。學生以2人一組，小組協作的形式進行SSI決策課程。研究收集的資料有學生的非形式推理能力測驗前、後測，小組學習單、小組討論與操作電腦之側錄影片。結果顯示，本研究發展的SSI決策課程能有效提升學生非形式推理能力（t = 3.73，p< .001），課程中，學習單的分析結果顯示小組在SSI決策課程中，大多能夠考量至少2-3個與議題相關的證據，並指出SSI中的兩難之處，也多能利用這些證據為自己的決策提出至少2個具辯護性的理由，但在提出反論點上通常缺乏辯護性理由、也未能思考本身決策的限制條件或重申反論點的負面證據；在決策方法的使用上，課程前、後學生使用的決策方法沒有顯著改變，大多數學生傾向於使用非補償性方法（前測：25人、後測：23人），課程中小組使用的決策方法與前後測中的決策方法都沒有顯著相關，顯示學生在SSI中的由個人進行決策或集體決策進行決策時的決策方法可能不同；此外，比較高（HIRG）、低非形式（LIRG）推理能力小組在協作學習過程中的決策方法與調整行為差異，其結果顯示，HIRG，只使用補償性（4組）與非補償性方法（3組），LIRG則只使用非補償性（2組）與無策略（3組）；另外，在小組協作調整的比較上， LIRG大多時候是在單純執行認知任務（49%），HIRG則有較多的監控與評鑑行為40%。HIRG展現較多比例的社會共享調整行為（73.19%），LIRG僅有55.06%的社會性共享調整行為。依據遲滯序列分析的結果顯示，相較於LIRG，HIRG重視對任務需求的辨識，且在辨識任務需求之後能訂定較具體的任務目標與計畫，並較能主動在監控與評鑑後調整小組內的認知行為。上述結果顯示，融入論證活動的SSI決策課程能有效提升學生的非形式推理能力，若學生在小組學習過程中正確釐清任務需求，能協助小組訂定較具體的目標與策略，應該能促使其主動監控與調整組內的認知表現，並展現較高的非形式推理能力且使用具體的方法進行決策。 關鍵字：社會性科學議題、決策、非形式推理、調整行為、小組協作調整行為This study aimed to explore the interplay between 10th grade students’ informal reasoning, decision-making approach and their co-regulated behaviors in groups on socio-scientific issues. The mixed method supplemented with a one-group pretest-posttest design was adopted to collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data for reaching the research purpose. The current study used convenient sampling to invite 38 students participating in this study who were from two schools at New Taipei City and Kaohsiung City. They engaged in an SSI decision-making learning module collaboratively (2 members as a group). The data included the pre and post-tests of informal reasoning abilities, worksheets, and computer screen logs. The result of pre- and post-tests showed that students’ informal reasoning abilities were significantly improved after an SSI decision-making learning module(t = 3.73，p< .001). The analysis of students’ informal reasoning performances in groups also showed that students could consider more than 2 relevant evidence and identify the contradictory on an SSI. They also could make a decision based on more than 2 justified reasons. However, most students in groups could not pose any counter-argument with justification. They could not think of the limitation of their decision and restated the negative influences of the counter-arguments without justification in theirgroup discourses. In addition, there was no significant difference on students’ decision-making approaches before and after the intervention of the learning module. Students usually considered their decision with non-compensatory approaches (before: 25, after: 23 students). Moreover, students’ decision-making approaches on their group discussions about the SSI in the decision-making learning module were not related to their decision-making approaches on the pre-test nor on the post-test. This result indicated that students’ decision making at an individual level might be different from the decision they made at a collective level. After comparing students’ regulated behaviors in groups and their decision-making approaches between higher (HIRG) and lower (LIRG) informal reasoning groups, it indicated that the 4 HIRGs used compensatory and the other 3 HIRGs used non-compensatory approach to reach their group decision. As opposed to HIRG, 2 LIRGs employed non-compensatory approaches and the other LIRGs used intuitive approaches to make a decision in groups. The results also showed that HIRG demonstrated more monitoring and evaluating behaviors (40%) and LIRG focused more on executing the cognitive task (49%) during collaborative learning on the SSI decision-making learning module. Most of HIRG’s regulated behaviors in groups were social-shared regulated behavior (73.19%) but and LIRG only showed about 55% social-shared regulated behaviors. Finally, the results of leg sequential analysis manifested that HIRG focused on identifying the demands of the learning task. They would set a specific goal and used strategies after clarifying the demands of the learning task. They also actively regulated their cognitive performance after some monitoring and evaluating behaviors. According to the results in this study, we found that the SSI decision-making learning module embedded argumentation activities could improve students’ informal reasoning abilities. Students demonstrated higher informal reasoning and employed a specific decision-making approach in groups in an SSI context if they could clarify the task demands and set a clear goal associated with actively monitoring and regulating their collaborative learning. Keywords: socio-scientific issue, decision-making, informal reasoning, regulation, co-regulated behaviors社會性科學議題決策非形式推理調整行為小組協作調整行為socio-scientific issuedecision-makinginformal reasoningregulationco-regulated behaviors