第五章 結論與建議
第三節 建議
本節根據本研究結果的現象與問題,提出建議作為日後研究與教學參考 第一、本研究指出文本順序會影響學生立場改變,我們的文本操弄為雙文本 其順序為「一致/相反」與「相反/一致」,將來可設計多文本不同次序來探討文本 順序是否會影響學生社會科學性議題的決策。第二、我們所分析的學生論證表現 是根據能夠建立論證的「量」,也就是計算其個數,將來可以採取看學生論證的「質」
部分,依學生建立的論證品質給於不同的等級視其論證表現。第三、在進行論證 活動前需先給予學生適當的論證訓練以及相當的背景知識以支持他們的論證。第 四、此研究指出在「證據型」的學生比「直覺型」學生在科學知識觀「發展」與
「驗證」分數高,將來可以進一步訪談「證據型」與「直覺型」在科學知識觀「發 展」與「驗證」因素上的觀點有什麼地方不一樣。最後、本研究發現科學知識觀
「來源」與「文化影響」與學生文本擷取個數有正相關,將來可設計多種言論觀 點讓學生自由去擷取而視其學生科學知識觀「來源」與「文化影響」如何影響學 生擷取言論。
參考文獻
Andrews, R. (2005). Models of argumentation in educational discourse, Text, 25(1), 107-127.
Baxter Magolda, MB (1992). Knowing and Reasoning in College. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Collins, A. (1998). National science education standard: A political document. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 711-727.
Conley, A. M., Printrich, P. P., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in
epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186-204.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s image of science.
Buckingham, UK: Open University press.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
Duschl, R. and Osborne, J.(2002) Supporting and prommoting argumentation discourse.
Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Highhouse, S. & Gallo, A. (1997). Order Effects in Personnel Decision Making. Human Performance, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 10(1), 31-46.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13, 353-383.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997) The development of epistemological theories:
Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.
Hogarth, R. M. ,and Einhorn, H. J. 1992. Order effects in belief updating: The
belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24:1-55.
Hude, P. R. (1997). Scientific literacy: new mind for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416.
Jimenez-aleizandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the Lesson or Doing Science: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment:
understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey4-Bass.
Kitcherner, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26, 222-232.
Kolstφ, S. D. (2001). To trust or not to trust. pupils’ ways of judging information
encountered in a socio-scientific issues. International journal of science education, 23(9), 877-901.
Kortland, K. (1996) An STS case study about students’ decisions making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673-689.
Krajcik, J. S. (2000).Advantages and challenges of using the World Wide Web to fosters sustained science inquiry in middle and high school classrooms. Paper presented at 網路科技對教育的影響研討會,國立台灣師範大學,2000 年 10 月 16-17 日。
Kuhn, D. (1962). Science argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 74–103.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive development, 15, 309-328.
Lunns, S. (2002). What we think we can safely say: primary teachers' views of the nature of science. British educational research journal, 28(5), 649-672.
Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and instruction, 16, 492-509.
Mayor, D., & Taylor, P. C. (1995). Teacher epistemology and scientific inquiry in computerized classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching,32(8), 839-854.
Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematic: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 317-373.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the
553-576.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Bendixen, L. D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: the role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognitive, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(4), 573-595.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
Osborne J., Erduran S., & Simon S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 82, 63-70.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulous, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching.
International journal of science education, 21, 745-754.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
Shaw, V. F. (1996). The cognitive process in informal reasoning. Thinking and reasoning, 2, 51-80.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (9), 903-927.
Taylor, C. (1996). Defining science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin press.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Trumbull, D. J., Scarano, G.., & Bonney, R. (2006). Relations among two teachers' practices and beliefs, conceptualizations of the nature of science, and their implementation of student independent inquiry projects. International journal of science education, 28(14), 1717-1750.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth graders. Science Education, 82(4), 473-489.
Tsai, C.-C. (2004). Information commitments in web-based learning environments.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 105-112.
Tsai, C.-C., & Liu, S.-Y. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemological views toward science. International journal of science education, 27(13), 1621-1638.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. & Henkemans, F. S., et al. (1996). Fundamentels of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and
Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weinstock, M. P., Neuman, Y., & Glassner, A. (2006). Identification of informal
reasoning fallacies as a function of epistemological level, grade level, and cognitive ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 327-341.
Willard & Arthur, C. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa :University of Alabama Press
Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a
socio-scientific issues: qualitative and quantitative analyses. International journal of science education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
Yang, F. Y. (2005). Student views concerning evidence and the expert in reasoning a socio-scientific issue and personal epistemology. Educational Studies, 31(1), 65-84.
Zeilder, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views:Beliefs in the nature of science and response to socioscientific dilemmas.
Science Education, 86, 343-367.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.
附錄一:「Tsai & Liu(2005)科學知識觀量表」
10. 科學家可能選擇部份(非全部)實驗數據以驗證自己既有理論。 5 4 3 2 1
題目 你的同意程度 幾乎完全同意 大致而言同意 同意與不同意程度幾乎相同
大 致而言
不同
意 幾
乎完全
不同
意
29. 不同文化族群的人,有不同的方法或過程來獲得有效的科 學知識。
5 4 3 2 1
30. 有一部份的科學知識來自民間傳說與神話。 5 4 3 2 1 31. 科學知識對不同文化族群的人有不同的價值。 5 4 3 2 1 32. 不同文化族群的人,有同樣的方法解釋自然現象。 5 4 3 2 1 33. 因科學具有普遍性和客觀性,所以各個文化下科學知識是
相同的。
5 4 3 2 1
34. 科學是客觀的,因此科學獨立於民族的文化之外。 5 4 3 2 1
35. 科學知識發展受文化的影響。 5 4 3 2 1
附錄二:「Conley, Pintrich, Vekiri & Harrison(2004)科學知識觀量表」
題 目 你的同意程度
附錄三:「基因改造食品論證活動」
親愛的同學你好:
這是一份關於社會-科學的議題活動,主要在了解你們對於科學性的生活議 題的看法,以及經由專家學者的言論,是否會改變你原有的看法。此活動與你 們的學業成績無關,請安心的作答。你的資料僅作為研究之用。你的看法將對 本研究貢獻良多。謝謝。
PS:請務必填寫姓名,以方便活動後能深入訪談你的看法。
交通大學教育研究所研究生:吳玫緗 班級: 年 班 姓名: 性別: □男 □女
[活動說明]
請在進行活動之前仔細閱讀活動說明,依照說明的指示來進行活動。
1. 活動進行時間總共為 1 堂課 40 分鐘。
2. 依照活動的順序進行作答,請勿跳著作答。
3. 每一頁在框框中都有一篇文章,請閱讀完文章後,想一想在進行作答 4. 每一頁確定作答完成再翻頁,不可以再翻回前一頁去看或更改看法。
5. 請盡量寫出你的看法。
[活動一]:基因改造食品
問題一:你聽過基因改造食品嗎?
□ 聽過,請用簡短的字句解釋你所知道的基因改造食品。
我所知道的基因改造食品是 (若不知道的請勾下一個選項)
□ 曾聽過,但不知道什麼是基因改造食品
□ 不曾聽過
確定作答完成了嗎?完成後Æ請翻下一頁
「大俗賣!大俗賣!含維生素 a 的基因改造高麗菜一顆只要 45 元;低膽固
接下來讓我們來看看一些基因改造食品正反兩方的立場。
世界反對基因改造行動聯盟:
問題五:
問題七
附錄四:「焚化爐建立的論證活動」
親愛的同學你好:
這是一份關於社會-科學的議題活動,主要在了解你們對於科學性的生活議 題時的看法,以及經由各方面的言論,是否會改變你原有的看法。此活動與你 們的學業成績無關,請安心的作答。你的資料僅作為研究之用。你的看法將對 本研究貢獻良多。謝謝。
PS:請務必填寫姓名,以方便活動後能深入訪談你的看法。
交通大學教育研究所研究生:吳玫緗 班級: 年 班 姓名: 性別: □男 □女
[活動說明] 請在進行活動之前仔細閱讀活動說明,依照說明的指示來進行活動。
6. 活動進行時間總共為 1 堂課 40 分鐘。
7. 依照活動的順序進行作答,請勿跳著作答。
8. 每一頁在框框中都有一篇文章,請閱讀完文章後,想一想在進行作答 9. 每一頁確定作答完成再翻頁,不可以再翻回前一頁去看或更改看法。
10. 請盡量寫出你的看法。
[活動一]:垃圾處理-焚化爐
問題一:
你聽過焚化爐嗎?
□ 聽過,請用簡短的字句解釋你所知道的焚化爐。
我所知道的焚化爐是 (若不知道的請勾下一個選項)
□ 曾聽過,但不知道什麼是焚化爐
□ 不曾聽過
以下是對於垃圾處理與焚化爐的基本介紹
接下來讓我們來看看對於「焚化廠的建立」正反兩方的立場。
環境保護協會
問題五:
問題七