• 沒有找到結果。

科學知識觀與學生在社會科學性議題論證之相關性

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "科學知識觀與學生在社會科學性議題論證之相關性"

Copied!
120
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)國立交通大學教育研究所 碩士論文. 科學知識觀與學生在社會科學性議題論證之相關 性 The relationship between scientific epistemological beliefs and students’ argumentation on socio-scientific issues.. 研究生:吳玫緗 指導教授:蔡今中. 教授. 中華民國九十七年七月.

(2) 科學知識觀與學生在社會科學性議題論證之相關性 The relationship between scientific epistemological beliefs and students’ argumentation on socio-scientific issues.. 研 究 生:吳玫緗. Student: Mei-Hsiang Wu. 指導教授:蔡今中 教授. Advisor: Chin-Chung Tsai, Ph.D.. 國 立 交 通 大 學 教育研究所 碩 士 論 文. A Thesis Submitted to Institute of Education College of Humanities and Social Science National Chiao Tung University For the Degree of Master in Education July, 2008 Hsinchu, Taiwan, Republic of China. 中華民國九十七年七月.

(3) 科學知識觀與學生在社會科學性議題論證之相關性 研究生:吳玫緗. 指導教授:蔡今中 博士 國立交通大學教育研究所. 摘要 本研究目的為首先描述國中生在社會科學性議題論證表現。再者探討國中學 生的科學知識觀與他們進行社會科學性議題論證表現的相關性,其中包含立場改 變情形、決策形式、推理類型以及擷取文本主張與建立論證。 研究對象為某所宜蘭市國中的國二學生四個班 144 人,給予學生「科學知識 觀量表」與兩個「社會科學性議題」論證活動,一個單元為「基因改造食品」另 一個則是「焚化爐建立」 ,依其文本次序安排分別為:「一致/相反」與「相反/一致」 文本,閱讀完後擷取文本內的主張並建立支持、反駁與駁斥的論證。 結果顯示在兩個論證活動中「先呈現立場一致」文本的學生立場改變比例比 「先呈現立場相反」文本的高。而深入探討立場與文本擷取關係,在「焚化爐」 論證活動中原有與最終立場為反對者在「反對性言論」中能擷取較多的言論。接 著分析文本擷取與論證的關係,在「基改食品」論證活動中學生在「最終立場一 致」與「相反」的文本擷取個數皆與支持、反駁、駁斥與論證總數成正相關。在 「焚化爐」論證活動中「最終立場一致」文本擷取個數與學生的支持論證以及總 數成正相關; 「最終立場相反」文本擷取個數與學生支持、反駁、駁斥以及總數都 呈現正相關。 我們分析科學知識觀與決策類型的關係,在「基改食品」論證活動中「證據 型」學生在「發展」與「驗證」科學知識觀分數比「直覺型」學生高。而探討其 推理情形與科學知識觀的關係,在「基改食品」論證活動中「推理總數」和科學 知識觀的「來源」、「發展」、「驗證」、「文化影響」的因素有正相關;「推理總類」 數目和科學知識觀的「發展」、「驗證」、「文化影響」因素呈現正相關。而探討學 生論證情形與科學知識觀的關係,只有在「基改食品」論證活動中學生反駁論證 與科學知識觀「社會性協商」呈現正相關,其餘皆無。最後我們檢驗科學知識觀 與學生擷取文本的關係,在「基改食品」論證活動中「來源」因素的科學知識觀 分別與「原有立場一致」和「原有立場相反」文本擷取個數有正相關。而在「焚 化爐」論證活動中, 「文化影響」的科學知識觀也與「原有立場一致」和「原有立 場相反」文本擷取個數有正相關。因此本研究指出科學知識觀擁有較成熟觀點有 助於學生在社會科學性議題推理的傾向。 關鍵字:論證、科學知識觀、社會性科學議題 i.

(4) The relationship between scientific epistemological beliefs and students’ argumentation on socio-scientific issues. Student: Mei-Hsiang Wu. Advisor: Chin-Chung Tsai, Ph.D. Institute of Education National Chiao Tung University. Abstract The purpose of this study was to describe the middle school students’ argumentation on socio-scientific issues and to explore the relationship between scientific epistemological beliefs and students’ argumentation on socio-scientific issues. Students’ argumentation analyses include position change, decision-making, reasoning modes, text extraction and construction of arguments. There were 144 8th students from four classes of a middle school at I-Lan city who were involved in this study. All students were administered scientific epistemological beliefs questionnaire and two socio-scientific issues that were related to “GM food” and “Incinerator”. The text included two versions, one is “agree/against” (presenting supporting ideas first and then the ideas of against), while the other is “against/ agree”. Students extracted claims after reading the text and constructed supportive argument, counter-argument and rebuttal. The result showed that students’ position change proportion on “agree/against” text was higher than that in “against/ agree” text. To explore the relationship between the position and claim extracted, those who had original and final position in against can extracted more claims on the incinerator issue. And then an analysis between arguments and claim extracted, indicated that students’ claim numbers at both final consistent and opposite texts were correlated with supportive argument, counter-argument rebuttal and total argument numbers on the GM food issue. Students’ claim numbers at final consistent text were correlated with supportive and total argument numbers and the claim numbers at final opposite text were correlated with supportive argument, counter-argument rebuttal and total argument numbers on the incinerator issue. We analyzed the relationship between students’ scientific epistemological beliefs and the decision-making on the issues. Students who made evidence-based decision on the GM food issue were scored higher than those who made intuitive-based decision at scientific epistemological factors of “development” and “justification” on the GM food issue. Students’ total numbers of making reasoning were correlated with the “source” “development”, “justification” and “couture impact” epistemological factors and the reasoning mode numbers were correlated with “development”, “justification” and “couture impact” epistemological factors on GM food issue. The “social negotiation” epistemological factor was correlated with counter-argument on GM food issue. The “source” epistemological factor was correlated with the claim numbers at original consistent and opposite text on the GM food issue and the “culture impact” epistemological factor was correlated with extracted claim numbers at original consistent and opposite texts on the incinerator issue. In summary, students’ mature scientific epistemological beliefs might favor students’ reasoning on socio-scientific issues. Keyword: argumentation, scientific epistemological beliefs, socio-scientific issues. ii.

(5) 誌. 謝. 隨著論文的出爐,碩士生涯也將劃上句點,心情是既快樂又很不捨在交大的 那段美好日子。我會懷念在研究所師生和樂融融的場景。在這裡感謝教過我的老 師們,從你們身上我學到很多,這一趟求學歷程走的很有價值。 而論文的完成,首先要感謝楊芳瑩老師與佘曉清老師你們不吝教導,你們精 闢深入的研究意見讓整個論文能夠更完整。另外最要感謝的是指導教授蔡今中老 師,謝謝您這段時間總是用最大的包容性與耐心指導我的研究,每次論文遇到瓶 頸自己解不開時,您總是用最專業的角度但用最淺顯易懂的方式讓我知道我研究 的盲點在哪裡以及告訴我研究的邏輯性應該為何,每次和您 meeting 後思路就變 的清晰許多,論文又能往前一大步邁進,很感謝您一步一腳印的帶領我往前邁進。 而在這段研究所生涯中很感謝有你們這群教育所 93 級的寶貝一起度過,尤其 是怡仁寶貝和我一起修了不少忘不了的課,弘昇在論文產出的階段給予我不少的 支持,我們總是互相打氣。在寫作時期一直在精神上給我最大支柱的江小芬、小 猪,謝謝您們不時的關心我並給予我鼓勵,真的有你們真好。我的實習同事淑珍 和信一在我最後衝刺論文的這段時間,每次心裡不安就寫信給你們,不然就是拉 著你們去求神拜佛,謝謝你們成為我心靈的窗口。大學同學阿志,我們有著共同 聊不完的話題,每次壓力大和你一起聊聊,心情就愉快很多,謝謝你。另外谷瑋 謝謝你,如果沒有你我沒有機會來交大,也謝謝你陪伴我度過研究所的日子,因 為有你的支持,我才能一直走到最後。 最後要感謝的是我的家人,阿欵媽媽、嘉琳姊姊與銓興,謝謝你們在經濟上 給我支柱,包容我寫作這段時間脾氣暴躁,也謝謝你們總是一直督促我趕快把論 文給產出。謝謝嘉琪姊幫我商請他任教學校的同事讓我進行施測。我的論文最想 獻給你們,我最愛的家人。. iii.

(6) 目. 錄. 中文摘要 ····················································································································i 英文摘要 ·················································································································· ii 誌謝························································································································· iii 目錄··························································································································iv 表目錄 ······················································································································vi 圖目錄 ··················································································································· viii 第一章 緒論 ·············································································································1 第一節 研究背景 ·····························································································1 第二節 研究動機與目的··················································································3 第三節 研究問題 ·····························································································4 第四節 名詞界定 ·····························································································5 第五節 研究範圍與限制··················································································7 第二章 文獻探討 ·····································································································8 第一節 科學論證 ·····························································································8 壹、論證的定義························································································8 貳、論證的理論架構 ··············································································9 參、論證在科學教育上所扮演的角色 ··················································12 肆、社會科學性議題與論證 ··································································16 第二節 學生的科學知識觀與科學論證 ························································22 壹、個人科學知識觀的定義 ··································································22 貳、學生的科學知識觀與學習 ······························································22 參、學生科學知識觀與科學論證的關係 ··············································26 第三章 研究方法 ···································································································29 第一節 研究對象 ···························································································29 第二節 研究架構與設計················································································29 第三節 研究流程 ···························································································31 第四節 研究工具 ···························································································34 壹、科學知識觀量表··············································································34 貳、社會科學性議題論證活動 ······························································38 第五節 資料處理與分析················································································39 壹、社會科學性議題非形式推理分析法 ··············································39 貳、統計分析 ·························································································43 第四章 研究結果與討論························································································46 第一節 學生的科學知識觀初步處理 ····························································46 壹、Tsai & Liu (2005)學生的科學知識觀點··········································46. iv.

(7) 貳、Conley et al (2004)學生的科學知識觀點 ·······································47 第二節 學生在社會科學性議題論證表現分析 ············································49 壹、文本操弄下立場改變情形 ······························································49 貳、決策形式與立場改變······································································54 參、論證表現 ·························································································56 肆、決策類型與論證表現······································································59 伍、文本擷取與先後立場······································································61 陸、文本擷取與論證表現······································································64 第三節 科學知識觀與學生在社會科學性議題論證表現的相關 ·················67 壹、科學知識觀與決策··········································································67 貳、科學知識觀與社會科學性議題推理 ··············································70 參、科學知識觀與論證表現 ··································································72 第四節 學生的科學知識觀與其在不同文本順序操弄下社會科學性議題 論證的表現差異··············································································76 壹、科學知識觀與「先呈現立場一致言論」立場改變的差異 ···········76 貳、科學知識觀與「先呈現立場相反言論」立場改變的差異 ···········78 參、科學知識觀與文本擷取 ··································································80 第五章 結論與建議 ·······························································································82 第一節 結論與討論························································································82 壹、學生在社會科學性議題的論證表現 ··············································82 貳、科學知識觀與學生在社會科學性議題論證表現的相關 ···············85 参、科學知識觀與學生在不同文本順序操弄下社會科學性議題論證 的表現差異······················································································86 肆、不同社會科學性議題上學生論證表現的異同·······························87 第二節 科學教育上的應用············································································88 第三節 建議 ···································································································89 參考文獻 ·················································································································90 附錄一:Tsai & Liu (2005)科學知識觀量表 ·························································94 附錄二:Conley, Pintrich, Vekiri & Harrison (2004)科學知識觀量表 ··················97 附錄三:基因改造食品論證活動··········································································99 附錄四:焚化爐建立論證活動············································································105. v.

(8) 表目錄 表 2-1-1 表 3-3-1 表 3-4-1 表 3-4-2 表 3-5-1 表 3-5-2 表 3-5-3 表 4-1-1 表 4-1-2 表 4-2-1 表 4-2-2 表 4-2-3 表 4-2-4 表 4-2-5 表 4-2-6 表 4-2-7 表 4-2-8 表 4-2-9 表 4-2-10 表 4-2-11 表 4-2-12 表 4-2-13 表 4-2-14 表 4-2-15 表 4-2-16 表 4-3-1 表 4-3-2 表 4-3-3 表 4-3-4 表 4-3-5 表 4-3-6 表 4-3-7 表 4-3-8 表 4-4-1 表 4-4-2. 學生解決策略模式(Kolstψ, 2001) ·······················································20 論證活動中的文本操弄 ········································································32 科學知識觀量表(Tsai & Liu, 2005)·······················································36 科學知識量表(Conley et al., 2004)························································37 學生在社會科學性議題上欲做的分析·················································44 學生科學知識觀與社會科學性議題論證表現欲做分析 ·····················45 學生的科學知識觀在不同文本操弄下欲做的分析 ·····························45 Tsai & Liu (2005)學生的科學知識觀點因素分析與信度值摘要表·····47 Conley et al., (2004) 學生的科學知識觀點因素分析與信度值摘要表48 基因改造食品論證活動各組人數 ························································49 基因改造食品論證活動原有立場與文本操弄下各組人數 ·················50 學生在基因改造食品論證活動不同文本操弄下立場改變的情形······50 焚化爐建立論證活動各組人數 ····························································51 焚化爐建立論證活動原有立場與文本操弄下各組人數 ·····················51 學生在焚化爐建立論證活動中不同文本操弄下立場改變的情形······52 基因改造食品論證活動之決策類型與立場改變 ·································54 焚化爐建立論證活動之決策類型與立場改變·····································54 基因改造食品論證表現次數分配與描述性統計 ·································56 焚化爐建立論證表現次數分配與描述性統計·····································57 基因改造食品決策類型在各類型論證個數之差異 ·····························59 焚化爐建立決策類型在各類型論證個數之差異 ·································60 基因改造食品不同先後立場對於支持與反對文本擷取個數差異······62 焚化爐建立不同先後立場對於支持與反對文本擷取個數差異 ·········62 基因改造食品議題在一致與相反文本擷取個數與論證表現相關······65 焚化爐建立議題在一致與相反文本擷取個數與論證表現相關 ·········65 科學知識觀與基因改造食品議題的決策類型·····································68 科學知識觀與焚化爐建立議題的決策類型·········································68 科學知識觀與基因改造食品議題推理類型的相關 ·····························70 科學知識觀與焚化爐建立議題推理類型的相關 ·································71 科學知識觀與基因改造食品議題論證表現的相關 ·····························72 科學知識觀與基因改造食品論證高低層級在科學知識觀得分差異··73 科學知識觀與焚化爐建立論證高低層級的科學知識觀得分差異······73 科學知識觀與焚化爐建立議題論證表現的相關 ·································74 科學知識觀與基因改造食品「先呈現立場一致」立場改變 ·············77 科學知識觀與焚化爐建立「先呈現立場一致」立場改變 ·················77. vi.

(9) 表 4-4-3 表 4-4-4 表 4-4-5 表 4-4-6. 科學知識觀與基因改造食品「先呈現立場相反」立場改變 ·············79 科學知識觀與焚化爐建立「先呈現立場相反」立場改變 ·················79 科學知識觀與基因改造食品文本擷取個數的相關 ·····························80 科學知識觀與焚化爐建立文本擷取個數的相關 ·································81. vii.

(10) 圖目錄 圖 2-1-1 圖 2-1-2 圖 2-1-3 圖 3-2-1 圖 3-2-2 圖 3-5-1. 論證模式圖(Toulmin, 1958) ··································································11 Toulmin 的論證架構簡化模式(Patronis et al., 1999) ····························11 學生的論證系統架構(Patronis et al, 1999) ···········································19 研究架構圖····························································································30 研究設計圖····························································································31 社會科學性議題非正式推理分析法架構圖(Wu & Tsai, 2007) ······40. viii.

(11) 第一章 緒論 第一節 研究背景 科學的發展過去認為科學是實證的過程,科學理論、知識的宣稱立基於對於 外在事物的觀察,經由科學探究過程獲得的科學知識就是真理,固定不容許被推 翻,科學家在科學發展的過程中扮演中立客觀的研究者,負責在真實世界中發現 科學知識。而近幾十年科學的發展轉變成為科學是一種知識建構的社會化過程 (Taylor, 1996),包含推測和論證,科學知識的宣稱立基於由足夠的證據中去做適 當、合理推測的論證過程。因科學家的背景不同,使用的科學方法也不同,結果 不可能價值絕對中立,其中在詮釋現象與推論的部份蘊含科學家的理論派點、知 識信念與價值觀。新的科學哲學的思維認為科學知識必須接受科學社群的檢驗並 判斷其價值,嚴謹的科學論證因此扮演著重要角色。科學家如何在足夠且有效的 證據下呈現自己的主張來說服別人的過程就是科學論證,所以科學論證對於科學 的發展是一個不可或缺的要素。 而近十幾年來科學素養在科學教育中越來越被重視。科學教育的目的清楚表 示希望學生能夠體驗與理解豐富的自然世界、能適當的運用科學的過程和原則作 出個人的決定、能理智參與公共討論且能針對科學和技術的議題加以辯論,以及 學生在職業中能運用所學的知識、理解力與技術來提高他們的經濟生產力(NRC, 1996) 。NRC(1996)並指出具有科學素養的人能去參與國家或地方決策的相關的 科學議題,能運用科學與科技的資訊來表達出自己的意見,一個有素養的公民應 該要能夠評量科學資訊的來源以及依照證據去評量論證並且能從適當的論證當中 做出一個結論。因為科學素養逐漸成為焦點,在科學課程當中應該要提供學生機 會去參與一些議題的討論,討論議題時論證的技巧則顯得重要,學生要能在議題 辯論的過程中能評斷論證並且建立自己立場的論證來說服別人。 1.

(12) 在現代許多的政策都與科學有關,這些議題都是社會所關切並且均涉及科學 的向度,稱為「社會科學性議題」 。隨著科學與科技日新月異,人們的生活則跟著 越來越進步,科技或科學應用於社會所造成的結果或影響往往跨越目前社會規範 所能接受的範圍,而科技應用的背後又出現不確定的衝擊與風險(Kolstψ, 2001)。 例如:因為工業發達與科技的先進所產生的廢氣造成的全球暖化、或是核能發電與 輻射線背後的風險為何…等,這些與科學或科技相關的社會議題通常屬於爭議性 的問題,並沒有所謂絕對的答案與最佳的解決方式,這個全憑個人所考慮與評量 的因素下的判斷決定。在民主社會許多議題都是需要藉由社會大眾交換意見達成 共識才可以實行,通常不同的團體所考量的利弊因素不同而持有不同的立場。如 何經由聽取別人的意見,並且能夠評斷他人的說法是否可以信賴且具有合理性與 說服性。如何衡量各種因素的優缺點以及知道它們所造成的風險為何,並從眾多 意見當中來整合有用的資訊來支持自己的立場,並下決策。這則是目前科學課程 所要提供學生機會參與公共議題來模擬將來身為科學素養的公民該如何參與公共 政策的討論、並培養學生面對「社會科學性議題」應有的態度。 為了達到科學教育目的培育具有「科學素養」的學生,STS 的課程因應而生, STS 課程是要讓學生瞭解科學、科技與社會之間交互作用的關係,其中的主要目 的之一是要讓學生對於「社會科學性議題」具備察覺心,在 STS 課程除了培養學 生探究、決策或問題解決的能力之外,在面對真實生活中所發生的「社會科學性 議題」進行討論時更重要的是能應用所學的科學知識內容並且使用科學論證的方 法與利用科學的思維去考慮衡量議題的本質,來做判斷與決策,因此在 STS 課程 當中議題導向的教學策略應該更備受重視。. 2.

(13) 第二節 研究動機與目的 科學與科技的進步之下所造成的結果或是地方或國家政策的執行可能會引起 社會議題,這類的「社會科學性議題」多數具有爭議性,而受到民眾的關注與討 論。未來學生長大後出了社會依舊會面對到不少「社會科學性議題」 ,我們希望學 生將來能夠理智的運用科學性的方法或是能夠以科學的思維與態度去思考「社會 科學性議題」做出符合科學性的最佳抉擇,並且期待他們有機會能運用科學素養 的能力參與公共政策與事務進而影響到決策擬定或執行。我們期盼科學素養能從 小培育起,科學素養並不是一種口號而是一個實務的行動,在科學課程上應提供 學生機會來實際的參與「社會科學性議題」的討論,所以在科學教育上學生面對 「社會科學性議題」的表現則成為值得關注的研究問題。 在現在這個資訊爆炸的時代,學生獲得資訊的來源無所不在,報章雜誌、媒 體與網路上時常都會出現有關於「社會科學性議題」的報導與討論,學生面對從 四面八方對於各種議題的資訊或言論,這些資訊和言論會影響到學生的價值判 斷。在眾多資訊、百家說法中如何分辨何者可以採信、何者不能採信,學生必需 具備論證能力與技巧並懂得驗證資訊。因而論證的能力以及資訊驗證對於學生在 面對「社會科學性議題」顯得相當重要。因此本研究者關注的問題為國中學生面 對「社會科學性議題」的主題時,外在的資訊對於學生決策會造成什麼影響以及 他們在「社會科學性議題」論證的情形,並檢驗學生的科學知識觀是否與他們論 證的表現有關。. 3.

(14) 第三節 研究問題 基於研究動機與目的,列出研究問題如下: 一、學生的科學知識觀對於學生在社會科學性議題論證表現的相關 1-1「學生的科學知識觀」與學生在「社會科學性議題的論證表現」的相關性。 1-2「學生的科學知識觀」在不同「社會科學性議題」主題下「論證表現」的 差異。 二、學生科學知識觀在面對與自己立場一致與相反的言論下學生論證表現的差異 2-1「學生的科學知識觀」對於學生在面對「先呈現與自己立場一致的言論」 其立場改變的差異。 2-2「學生的科學知識觀」對於學生在面對「先呈現與自己立場相反的言論」 其立場改變的差異。 2-3「學生的科學知識觀」對於學生面對「與自己立場一致的言論」其擷取主 張的表現。 2-4「學生的科學知識觀」對於學生面對「與自己立場相反的言論」其擷取主 張的表現。. 4.

(15) 第四節 名詞界定 本節先將研究中的變項給予其概念定義,並解釋研究中出現的重要的名詞用 來協助讀者瞭解其中的含意進而利於論文的閱讀與瞭解。 一、科學論證(science argumentation) 個體或一群人在科學知識或與科學相關的議題上所進行的討論辯證過程,是 一種「解釋推理過程」的行為,也就是「個體意圖向他人來解釋自己推理的解決 過程」 。在此研究中所指的論證活動類型為個人的寫作論證(詳細定義與說明請見 第二章第一節)。 二、社會科學性議題(Socio-Scientific Issues, SSI) 與科學或是科技有關而社會所關心的議題,此種議題我們稱之為「社會科學 性議題」,在此研究所指的 SSI 是特指具有爭議性的兩難問題。安排的 SSI 議題類 型為科技應用背後代表的不確定的衝擊與風險(詳細定義與說明請見第二章第一 節)。 三、科學知識觀(scientific epistemological beliefs) 這裡指的是學習者對於科學知識(knowledge)和獲得科學知識的過程(knowing) 的信念與學生的科學思考過程,包含對於科學知識本質的信念、如何建構科學知 識以及如何評量科學知識(詳細定義與說明請見第二章第二節)。 四、非形式推理(informal reasoning) 在一個複雜且缺乏一個明確的解決方法之下,去評量他人所持的立場並產生 自己的立場稱作「非形式推理」 。此研究中所關心的推理形式與層級請詳見第三章 第五節資料分析。. 5.

(16) 五、決策(decision making) 在此研究所指的「決策」是指面對 SSI 時個人以一些論證為基礎藉由評量論 證來決定支持或反對他人論證的主張來表達對於議題的意見與決定。此研究所關 心的學生決策形式在此區分為直覺導向與證據導向兩類,詳細說明請見第三章 第 五節資料分析。 六、支持論證(support argument) 為論證者建立支持自己的立場的論點來說服別人接受。此研究為學生需針對 自己的立場來寫下支持立場的論證。 七、反駁論證(counter-argument) 對於論證者而言為其知識宣稱遭受到駁斥,提供一個異於自己立場的宣稱。 在此研究中為學生針對自己的論證自行提出駁斥,也就是自行提出與自己立場對 立的主張。 八、駁斥(rebuttal) 駁斥是對於一個宣稱提出質疑,為論證者對自己立場對立的主張加以反駁的 意見,目的在為自己的宣稱進行辯護。在此研究為學生對於「自己先前寫下的異 於自己主張的反駁論證」進行辯護。. 6.

(17) 第五節 研究範圍與限制 此研究的對象為針對國中學生的族群,無法推論到其他學齡的學生,且論證 的主題為「社會科學性議題」的科學論證因主題的類型不同不可與科學性主題的 科學論證相提並論,SSI 的科學論證中所使用的為「非形式推理」無法完全用邏輯 的方法來去評量去推理的情形,且此研究論證的類型為寫作論證無法看到學生在 論證間真實互動的情形。而樣本來源為宜蘭市的一所公立國中二年級的學生,樣 本人數約為 144 人,研究結果受到地域性與樣本數的影響,無法推論到大範圍的 樣本。. 7.

(18) 第二章 文獻探討 第一節 科學論證 論證(argumentation)不單指出現在科學社群中一群科學家在辯論科學知識,論 證運用的範圍十分廣泛,科學只是論證使用的其中一個領域範疇。我們將個體或 一群人在科學知識或與科學相關的議題上所進行的討論辯證過程稱之為科學論證 (scientific argumentation) (Driver, Newton & Osborn, 2000)。在本小節我們分別針對 論證的定義、論證的理論架構、論證在科學教育上所扮演的角色以及社會性科學 議題與論證來進行探討。 壹、論證的定義 論證的定義有幾個面向。第一、論證的架構:論證是發展建立論點的過程,個 體在過程中要尋求一個好的、合理的證據來支持自己的主張(claims)或是命題 (propositions)(Andrews, 2005;Toulmin, 1958),強調前提(premise)與結論(conclusion) 中間關係的連結,必需提出有效的證據與理性符合邏輯的推論才能夠建立一個有 效的論點,我們也可以說論證是一種「解釋推理過程」的行為,是個體意圖向他 人來解釋自己推理的解決過程(Newton, Driver & Osborne, 1999)。第二、情境觀點, 論證是在特定社會情境下的一種人類活動(Driver et al., 2000),其具有目的性的, 依據特定的情境需求下才會進行論證活動。第三、論證的互動關係,Willard & Arthur (1989)論證是當兩個或多個人持有互不相容的立場時的所進行的互動,是一種溝通 的方式。當團體在進行討論時比較偏好大家意見相同,若團體中有不一致的意見 出現時論證就扮演一個溝通的角色,使團體的對話才能繼續進行下去。並非所有 的論證都包含第三面向,要看當下的情境與使用目的來決定。. 8.

數據

圖 2-1-1:  論證模式圖(Toulmin, 1958)
圖 2-1-3:學生的論證系統架構(Patronis et al, 1999)  在「社會科學性議題」並不像科學研究一般使用「形式推理」 (formal reasoning) 由一個固定不變的前提運用邏輯思考循序漸進的推理即可獲得一個結論(Sadler,  2004),「社會科學性議題」通常為複雜、開放、不具備良好的結構的爭議性問題且 沒有一個正確的答案,且需要考慮多種因素,無法單純由前提推理即獲得一個結 論。在「社會科學性議題」的論證下所所運用的是「非形式推理」(informal  reasoning),
圖 3-2-1:研究架構圖
圖 3-2-2:研究設計圖
+7

參考文獻

相關文件

Look at all the words opposite and complete the following networks. Make two or three other networks to help you to learn the words on the opposite page. Match the adjectives on

Let f being a Morse function on a smooth compact manifold M (In his paper, the result can be generalized to non-compact cases in certain ways, but we assume the compactness

Robinson Crusoe is an Englishman from the 1) t_______ of York in the seventeenth century, the youngest son of a merchant of German origin. This trip is financially successful,

Monopolies in synchronous distributed systems (Peleg 1998; Peleg

Corollary 13.3. For, if C is simple and lies in D, the function f is analytic at each point interior to and on C; so we apply the Cauchy-Goursat theorem directly. On the other hand,

Corollary 13.3. For, if C is simple and lies in D, the function f is analytic at each point interior to and on C; so we apply the Cauchy-Goursat theorem directly. On the other hand,

The difference resulted from the co- existence of two kinds of words in Buddhist scriptures a foreign words in which di- syllabic words are dominant, and most of them are the

* School Survey 2017.. 1) Separate examination papers for the compulsory part of the two strands, with common questions set in Papers 1A & 1B for the common topics in