C9 8 5 0.4 0.03 Logan & Skamp, 2008 Holbrook & Rannikmae, 2007
Hutchison &
Hammer, 2010 Simon &
Johnson, 2008 Bryce & Gray, 2004
68
69
性科學議題中的論證」45 篇、C1「以論證能力作為科學教育課程目標」33 篇。
在比例上，我國學者在各類別發表比例最高的前三名依序為 C9「論證與態度的 關係」13%、C2「科學建模與論證品質」9%、C8「社會性科學議題中的論證」
8%。台灣學者未在 C4「論證過程的科學語言或對話模式」、C5「論證時同儕互 動」、C7「小組討論如何影響論證」等三類別發表文章。
70
第伍章 結論與建議
本研究併用文件探勘法以及傳統文獻分析方法針對 WoS 的社會科學引文資 料庫(SSCI)中論證相關研究文獻進行分類，找出論證研究領域的重要研究主題，
並比較國內外科學教育學者在論證研究主題上的差異。本研究自 CERP、IJSE、
JRST、RSE、S&E、SE 等六個在科學教育領域具代表性的電子期刊資料庫搜尋 從 1965 年至 2014 年止共 279 篇論證文獻資料進行分析。
經文件探勘法群集後，將 279 論證相關文獻分為九大群組，分別為：
C1：「以論證能力作為科學教育課程目標」之相關研究 C2：「科學建模與論證品質」之相關研究
C3：「以論證增進科學學習成效」之相關研究
C4：「論證過程的科學語言或對話模式」之相關研究 C5：「論證時同儕互動」之相關研究
C6：「探究實驗與論證」之相關研究
C7：「小組討論如何影響論證」之相關研究 C8：「社會性科學議題中的論證」之相關研究 C9：「論證與態度的關係」之相關研究
研究結果顯示九類主題中，數量最多的為 C3「以論證增進科學學習成效」
之相關研究共 94 篇，本次收錄的文獻資料，有三分之一與透過論證教學增進科 學學習成效有關，其次為 C8「社會性科學議題中的論證」之相關研究共 49 篇，
佔所有文章的 18%，本類別文章透過社會性科學議題進行論證研究，第三為 C1
「以論證能力作為科學教育課程目標」之相關研究 34 篇，佔所有文章的 12%。
本研究以文件探勘法對論證相關研究分群命名後，由專家判讀並計算分類之 一致性，各類別一致性皆在 0.8 以上，惟第九類「論證與態度的關係」一致性僅 0.4，可能是因為「態度」指涉的意義多重，例如：「科學態度」、「對科學的態度」
或「對社會性科學議題的立場態度」，因指涉意義多重，導致本類別的一致性不 高。
71
將各類別一致性加權相加後，得到的平均一致性為 0.86。葉宜芬(2012)針對 科學探究領域以叢集分析分群並對各群命名，由專家判讀後得到的平均一致性為 0.85，與本研究的一致性相似，顯示文件探勘法對於分類文章具有一定的效度。
國內外學者的差異方面，國外學者的研究以數量來看前三名依序為 C3「以 論證增進科學學習成效」、C8「社會性科學議題中的論證」、C1「以論證能力作 為科學教育課程目標」，國內學者發表數量的前三名依序為 C8「社會性科學議 題中的論證」、C2「科學建模與論證品質」、C3「以論證增進科學學習成效」。
國內學者在「論證過程的科學語言或對話模式」、「論證時同儕互動」、「小組 討論如何影響論證」等三個主題的研究發表則相對缺乏。由於本研究的樣本來自 CERP、IJSE、JRST、RSE、S&E 與 SE 等六本期刊，「論證過程的科學語言或對 話模式」、「論證時同儕互動」與「小組討論如何影響論證」等三類文章數為零，
僅表示台灣學者未在這六本期刊中發表這三類文章，並不代表台灣學者未在其它 期刊發表。
279 篇論證相關文章中，國內學者佔 11 篇，百分比為 3.9%，而在所有科教 主題研究文獻 7541 篇中，國內學者佔 165 篇，百分比為 2.2%。國內學者在論證 相關研究所佔的百分比較所有科教研究主題百分比高將近兩倍。
在研究限制與對於未來研究的建議方面，本研究的抽樣文章來自於國內學者 曾元顯透過資料探勘法所指出 SSCI 資料庫教育與教育研究期刊當中屬於科教相 關的六本期刊(Tseng et al., 2013)，未來應可擴大取樣範圍，例如 Computer &
Education，International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 等科教學者 常投稿之期刊，以提升研究結果之可類推性。本研究對文章進行分類的特徵詞來 自文獻資料的論文關鍵詞與論文敘述詞欄位，未來建議可以比對此種方式與透過 TF-IDF、ENTROPY 等不同方法篩選特徵詞，對於文章分類結果造成的差異。本 研究屬探究性分析法，文中的統計數據皆採描述性報告，未來或可針對這類文章 分類方法的誤差與統計檢定分析方法進行相關研究，以利進行群組比較或趨勢分 析。
72
參考文獻
一、中文部分
吳玫緗、蔡今中（2007）。科學知識觀與學生在社會科學性議題論證之相關 性。國立交通大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，新竹市。
洪振方、封中興（2011）。運用 [以建模為基礎的論證教學模式] 促進國二學生 的科學學習成效-以光學單元為例。臺北市立教育大學學報，100，85，
124。
翁秀玉、段曉林（1997）。科學本質在科學教育上的啟示與作法。科學教育月 刊，210。
許玫理、郭重吉（1993）。我國國民中學自然科學教師科學哲學觀點之調查研 究。科學教育，(4)，183-236。
劉宏文（1996）。建構主義的認識論觀點及其在科學教育上的意義。科學教育月 刊。
蔡俊彥、黃台珠、楊錦潭(2007)。符合 Toulmin 論證模式之系統發展研究:
TANET。國立高雄師範大學科學教育所、南台科技大學數位設計學院。
尹其言、楊建民（2010）。應用文件分群與文件探勘技術於機器學習領域趨勢分 析以 SSCI 資料庫為例。長榮大學學報，14，1-16。
許中川、陳景揆（2001）。探勘中文新聞文件。資訊管理學報，7(2)，103，
122。
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北市：教育部。
二、西文部分
American Association for the Advancement of science.(1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington，D.C.: Author.
Apté, C. (1997). Data mining: an industrial research perspective. Computational
73
Science & Engineering, IEEE, 4(2), 6-9.
Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an Inquiry‐based Approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to Traditional Science Teaching Practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745-1765.
Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67-90.
Bell, P. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 69-95.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793.
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology:
Cambridge University Press.
Binkley, R. (1995). Argumentation, education and reasoning. Informal Logic, 17(2).
Bloom, J. W. (2001). Discourse, cognition, and chaotic systems: An examination of students' argument about density. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 447-492.
Cheng, W.-L. (2005). The Research on A Single Classifier in Text Classification of Multi-Class.
Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio‐scientific issues.
International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally‐seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3),
253-74
277.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science:
McGraw-Hill International.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation:
Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
Eskin, H., & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2013). Argumentation as a Strategy for Conceptual Learning of Dynamics. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1939-1956.
Feldman, R., & Dagan, I. (1995). Knowledge Discovery in Textual Databases (KDT).
Paper presented at the KDD.
Giere, R. N., Bickle, J., & Mauldin, R. F. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Fort Worth, TX.
Giddens, A. (2013). The consequences of modernity: John Wiley & Sons.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity.
Hearst, M. A. (1999). Untangling text data mining. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Computational Linguistics.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education:
Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11),
1347-75
1362.
Hong, Z.-R., Lin, H.-s., Wang, H.-H., Chen, H.-T., & Yang, K.-K. (2013). Promoting and Scaffolding Elementary School Students' Attitudes Toward Science and Argumentation Through a Science and Society Intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1625-1648.
Hotho, A., Nürnberger, A., & Paaß, G. (2005). A Brief Survey of Text Mining. Paper presented at the Ldv Forum.
Hundal, S., Levin, D. M., & Keselman, A. (2014). Lessons of researcher–teacher co-design of an environmental health afterschool club curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1510-1530.
Jho, H., Yoon, H.-G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: The case study of
students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science & Education, 23(5), 1131-1151.
Jime´ nez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers?
Argumentation and decision making about environmental management.
International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). " Doing the lesson" or" doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science
Education, 84(6), 757-792.
Kastens, K. A., Agrawal, S., & Liben, L. S. (2009). How Students and Field Geologists Reason in Integrating Spatial Observations from Outcrops to Visualize a 3‐D Geological Structure. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 365-393.
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317-345.
Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as
sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in
76
Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915.
Kitcher, P. (1988). The child as parent of the scientist. Mind & Language, 3(3), 217-228.
Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second‐generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 143-178.
Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-179.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: University of Chicago press.
Kulatunga, U., & Lewis, J. E. (2013). Exploration of peer leader verbal behaviors as they intervene with small groups in college general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 576-588.
Kulatunga, U., Moog, R. S., & Lewis, J. E. (2013). Argumentation and participation patterns in general chemistry peer‐led sessions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1207-1231.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation:
Cambridge university press.
Lawson, A. E. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities*. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 237-252.
Logan, M., & Skamp, K. (2008). Engaging students in science across the primary
77
secondary interface: Listening to the students’ voice. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 501-527.
Losiewicz, P., Oard, D. W., & Kostoff, R. N. (2000). Textual data mining to support science and technology management. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 15(2), 99-119.
Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.
McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86(4), 505-525.
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999.
Oliveras, B., Márquez, C., & Sanmartí, N. (2014). Students’ Attitudes to Information in the Press: Critical Reading of a Newspaper Article With Scientific Content.
Research in Science Education, 44(4), 603-626.
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.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School science review, 82(301), 63-70.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching.
78
International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery: Routledge.
Quinn, V. (2002). Critical Thinking in Young Minds: Taylor & Francis.
Rod Watson, J., Swain, J. R., & McRobbie, C. (2004). RESEARCH REPORT:
Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.
Rop, C. J. (2003). Spontaneous inquiry questions in high school chemistry
classrooms: Perceptions of a group of motivated learners. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 13-33.
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
Salton, G., & McGill, M. J. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.
Sandoval, W. A., & Ç am, A. (2011). Elementary children's judgments of the epistemic
79
status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95(3), 383-408.
Schweingruber, H. A., Duschl, R. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking Science to School:: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8: National Academies Press.
Shannon, C. E. (2001). A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, 5(1), 3-55.
Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation?
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation:
Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
Smith, J., Wilson, S. B., Banks, J., Zhu, L., & Varma‐Nelson, P. (2014). Replicating Peer‐Led Team Learning in cyberspace: Research, opportunities, and challenges.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(6), 714-740.
Singhal, A. (2001). Modern information retrieval: A brief overview. IEEE Data Eng.
Bull., 24(4), 35-43.
Tan, A.-H. (1999). Text mining: The state of the art and the challenges. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the PAKDD 1999 Workshop on Knowledge
Tan, A.-H. (1999). Text mining: The state of the art and the challenges. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the PAKDD 1999 Workshop on Knowledge