提升議論文閱讀與寫作論證思考之數位化議論圖學習系統

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：81

、訪客IP：52.14.209.100

姓名

范承佑(Cheng-Yu Fan) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊工程學系

論文名稱

提升議論文閱讀與寫作論證思考之數位化議論圖學習系統
(Using Digital Argument Map Learning System to Improve Reading and Writing Effect of Argumentative Essay)

相關論文

★ 學習馬賽克-以教科書內容置入平板之合作式情境學習遊樂場	★ 為使用知識而設計的電子書- 以參考手冊為模式的電子書設計
★ 為使用知識而設計的電子書- 將紙本書籍以及電子書提供社群共建的機制	★ 高互動低資源損耗之課堂學習系統設計與實際教學環境導入接受度探討
★ 依學生偏好及學習狀態建構之學習輔助者與知識協尋系統	★ 網路資訊與學習系統之中文全文探勘工具
★ 支援使用者觀點之線上分析系統	★ 由網站行為歷程以貝式學習建立學習者模式之引導系統
★ 網路合作學習系統與小組互動觀察工具	★ 依作品集評量方式並支援學習狀況分析與監控之網路學習系統
★ 網路學習歷程之知識探索：學習效能評鑑之工具	★ 網路學習系統之手機端學習輔助系統
★ 以網站行為的歷程建立具時間性學習者模式	★ 行動學習資訊系統-學生端網路學習伺服器與個人數位助理端之學習系統
★ 應用貝式學習及決策樹之群組溝通網路監控系統	★ 以網路群組作品及活動依角色分析之群組合作監控系統

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

議論文是一種說服讀者的寫作文體，論證是議論文章的主要支架，而且，論證是一種可以理解議題並揭示議題重要性的方法，議論文對大多數人是非常困難的文體，需要高階的思考技巧才能閱讀或撰寫議論文。在台灣，學生們開始在小學五年級或六年級學習議論文；然而，在中文課程中，議論文的比例相對較低。教師可能沒有足夠的時間讓學生熟悉議論文與如何產生完整的論證；因此，學生很難寫出含有完整論證的議論文。證據表明，圖形組織，如概念圖和議論圖，可以幫助學生培養更好的論證能力並建立良好的論證結構。在這項研究中，我們設計了「數位化輔助議論文論證系統」，幫助學生學習論證結構，提高他們的論證能力。這項研究對新北市一所小學的學生進行了為期一個學年的實驗，第一個學期為閱讀實驗，第二個學期為寫作實驗，共有14個班（356名學生）。在第二個學期中，我們將所有班級分為四組：兩種類型的議論圖寫作組（已學習過議論圖的學生與剛學習議論圖的學生），概念圖寫作組和一般傳統寫作組，並探討每一組的學生在提高議論文寫作能力方面與在建立論證能力方面的差異性。實驗結果表明，議論圖寫作組學生的議論文寫作成效主要原因為駁反對論證的優於其他組別，因此議論圖寫作組學生的議論文寫作成效最佳（Mean =82.4，P=0.02），另外，從練習過程分析，議論圖寫作組學生的議論能力成長優於其他組別。

摘要(英)

Argumentation is a method used to understand issues and reveal the importance of issues. The argumentative essay has difficult to most people. In Taiwan, students start to learn argumentative essays at their fifth or sixth grade in elementary schools; however, the proportion of argumentative essays is relatively low in Chinese course. Teachers may not have enough time to teach argumentative essays in depth, and students are less familiar with these essays; therefore, it is difficult for students to produce a piece of good argumentative writing. Evidence indicates that graphic organization, such as concept maps and argument maps, could help students develop better argumentation ability) and build good argumentative structures. In this study, we designed the “computer-aided argumentative essay writing system” to help students learn structures of argumentation to enhance their argumentation ability. This study conducted an experiment on students in an elementary school in New Taipei City for one semester. There were 14 classes (356 students) in total, and we divided them into four groups: two type of the argument map writing group (already learning and just learning), the concept map writing group, and the traditional argumentative writing group. The experimental results showed that the argumentative essays of the students in the argument map writing group were better than those written by students in the other two groups.

關鍵字(中)

★ 議論文
★ 論證
★ 議論圖
★ 圖形組織

關鍵字(英)

★ Argumentative essay
★ Argument map
★ Argumentation
★ Graphic organization

論文目次

中文摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌謝 iii
Table of content iv
Figure index vii
Table index viii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Motivation 3
1.3 Purpose of the Present Study 4
Chapter 2 Related work 6
2.1 Argumentative Writing 6
2.2 Argumentation 7
2.3 Concept Map 9
2.4 Argument Map 10
Chapter 3 System Design and Implementation 14
3.1 Explain 15
3.2 Building argumentation graphic 15
3.3 Writing essay 16
3.4 The example model 17
3.5 The graphic organization model 18
3.6 The save and load model 19
3.7 The writing essay model 19
3.8 The preview model 20
3.9 The teacher editor model 21
3.10 The teacher review model 21
Chapter 4 Experiment method 25
4.1 Design 25
4.2 Measures 26
4.3 Materials 26
4.4 Procedure 26
Chapter 5 Experimental Result 32
5.1.1 The result of pretest and posttest of Argument map group 1, Concept map group and Traditional writing group 32
5.1.2 The result of Claim, Reason, and Evidence of Argument map group 1, Concept map group and Traditional writing group 34
5.1.3 The result of Supporting argumentation and Defense of opposing argumentation of Argument map group 1, Concept map group and Traditional writing group 35
5.1.4 The analysis of complete and cohesion of argumentation of Argument map group 1, Concept map group and Traditional writing group 37
5.2 The analysis of argumentation growth in the exercise of Argument map group 1, Concept map group and Traditional writing group 43
5.3.1 The analysis of pretest and posttest of Argument map group 2, Concept map group with other groups 48
5.3.2 The analysis of complete and cohesion of argumentation of Argument map group 2, Argument map group 1, Concept map group and Traditional writing group 50
5.4 The analysis of argumentation growth in the exercise of each group 55
5.5 Questionnaires and Interview 59
Chapter 6 Discussion 61
6.1 Discussion of Question 1 and Question 2 61
6.2 Discussion of Question 3 64
6.3 Discussion of Question 4 68
Chapter 7 Conclusion 70
Reference 72
Appendix 77

參考文獻

Amelsvoort, M. Andriessen, V. J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: how dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The journal of the learning sciences, 16(4), 485-521.
Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children′s arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 135-167.
Beyer, B. K. (1995). Critical Thinking. Fastback 385. Phi Delta Kappa, 408 N. Union, PO Box 789, Bloomington, IN 47402-0789.
Botley, S. P., & Hakim, F. (2014). Argument structure in learner writing: a corpus-based analysis using argument mapping. Kajian malaysia, 32(1), 45-77.
Butchart, S. (2009). Improving argumentation ability using web based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. AJET, 25(2), 268-291.
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2000). The concept map book. London: BBC Worldwide Ltd.
Chambliss, M. J., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument structure in written texts. Discourse Processes, 34(1), 91-115.
Chiang, K. H., Fan, C. Y., Liu, H. H., & Chen, G. D. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted argument map learning strategy on sixth-grade students’ argumentative essay reading comprehension. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75(16), 9973-9990.
Davies, W. M. (2009). Computer-assisted argument mapping: a rational approach. Higher Education, 58(6), 799-820.
Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?. Higher education, 62(3), 279-301.
Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, March). Promoting Argumentation in Middle School Science Classrooms: A Project SEPIA Evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation, 1-37.
Ferretti, R. P., Lewis, W. E., & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 577-589. doi: 10.1037/a0014702
Goldberg, T., Schwarz, B. B, & Porat, D. (2011). “Could They Do It Differently?” Narrative and argumentative changes in students’ writing following discussion of “hot” historical issues. Cognition and instruction, 29(2), 185-217.
Golder, C., & Coirier, P. (1996). The production and recognition of typological argumentative text markers. Argumentation, 10(2), 271-282.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., López-Ro¬driguez, R., & Erduran, S. (2005, April). Argumentative quality and intellectual ecol¬ogy: A case study in primary school. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Dallas, TX.
Koh, Y. C. (2004). The impact of scaffolding via online asynchronous discussions on students′ thinking skills in writing argumentative essays (Unpublished master’s thesis). Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Kuhn, D. (1992). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Li, L. Y. (2015). Development and evaluation of a Web-based e-book with a concept mapping system. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(2), 211-226.
Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2014). Counter argumentation and the cultivation of argumentation ability in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System, 45, 117-128.
Liu, P.L. (2011). A study on the use of computerized concept mapping to assist ESL learners’ writing. Computers & Education, 57, 2548-2558.
Milou, J.R., Saskia, B.G., Marielle, L., & Paul, A.K. (2014). Electronic outlining as a writing strategy: Effects on students′ writing products, mental effort and writing process. Computers & Education, 78, 352-366.
Moore, N. S., & MacArthur, C. A. (2012). The effects of being a reader and of observing readers on fifth-grade students’ argumentative writing and revising. Read & Writ, 25, 1449-1478.
Negari, G. M. (2011). A study on strategy instruction and EFL learners′ writing skill. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 299.
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.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. J. (2010). Concept Maps: Making Learning Meaningful, Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Concept Mapping, (Vol. 1, pp. 1-13). Viña del Mar, Chile: Universidad de Chile. Retrieved from http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2010papers/cmc2010-p1.pdf
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63-70.
Perkins, D. N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 562-571.
Persky, H., Daane, M., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Perry D. Klein and Mary A. Rose. (2010). Teaching Argument and Explanation to Prepare Junior Students for Writing to Learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), pp. 433-461.
Rider, Y., & Thomason, N. (2008). Cognitive and pedagogical benefits of argument mapping: LAMP guides the way to better thinking. Knowledge cartography, 113-130.
Salminen T., Marttunen M. & Laurinen L. (2010). Visualizing knowledge from chat debates in argument diagrams. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), pp. 379-391.
Santiago, H. C. (2011). Visual mapping to enhance learning and argumentation ability skills. Optometric Education, 36(3), 125-139.
Smet, M., Gruwel, S. B., Leijten, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). Electronic outlining as a writing strategy: Effects on students′ writing products, mental effort and writing process. Computers & Education, 78, 352-366.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with reason!able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85-90.
Villalon, J. & Calvo, R.A. (2011). Concept maps as cognitive visualizations of writing assignments. Educational technology & society, 14(3), 16-27.
Warnick, B., & Inch, E. S. (1994). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument. Macmillan College.
Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145-154.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students′ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of research in science teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
Zumbach, J. (2009). The role of graphical and text based argumentation tools in hypermedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 811-817.

指導教授

陳國棟(Gwo-Dong Chen)

審核日期

2019-1-17

推文