![]() |
|
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:41 、訪客IP:3.21.159.83
姓名 張心怡(Hsin-Yi Chang) 查詢紙本館藏 畢業系所 網路學習科技研究所 論文名稱 社會科主題深學:衝突式多文本閱讀與論證活動設計與實驗
(Theme-based Deep Reading of Social Studies: Design and Experiment of Conflicting Texts Reading and Argumentation)相關論文 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) 現今教學現場多以單一文本的教科書為主並由教學者進行講述式教學,學生往往被動吸收知識,少有獨立思辨的機會,單一知識來源侷限學生的思考,面對不同的議題與問題情境時,學生能使用的資源相對不足。再者,因應時代變遷、資訊快速傳遞,人們每天可由不同媒體獲得社會議題資訊,這些訊息擁有不同角度與多元立場,皆影響我們對議題的判斷,學習辨別訊息真實性、整合內容,進而形成自身立場,需要運用批判思考能力。先前研究團隊發展之「主題深讀」模式發現能夠輔助學生進行多文本理解並促進想法產出,故本研究嘗試結合社會性科學議題,以「衝突式多文本」閱讀與「論證」活動發展「社會科主題深學」模式,使學生學習社會議題多元知識與批判思考之技巧。本研究目的為設計與評估「社會科主題深學」教學模式於國小教學現場實行之可行性,並探討其模式對學生在社會議題理解與批判思考能力之影響。
本研究共分為兩階段進行,第一階段為前導研究,此階段為初探「主題深讀」模式於社會科教學現場實行之可行性,於教學現場以「主題深讀」模式進行「衝突式多文本」閱讀活動,由1名五年級教學者帶領1個班級,共計31名學生進行活動,結果發現透過引導,國小五年級學生已能理解「衝突式多文本」內容,但僅少數學生之想法內容進入論證階段,故於活動後與班級導師及研究團隊修正教學模式,擬於第二階段以「論證」活動取代原「討論」活動發展為「社會科主題深學」模式;第二階段為實驗研究,此階段由2名五年級教學者帶領2個班級,共計61名學生進行活動,研究者以班級將學生分為「論證組」31名與「討論組」30名,論證組採用「社會科主題深學」模式,學生閱讀文章、紀錄想法後,進行「論證」活動;「討論組」學生以原「主題深讀」模式,學生閱讀主題文章後,寫下想法並進行小組討論。本研究欲比較「論證組」與「討論組」對文於衝突式多文本之理解、論證能力、批判思考能力與想法產出之差異。
研究結果發現:「論證組」與「討論組」的學生想法產出皆有增加,顯示教學活動幫助學生提升想法多元性,「論證組」透過論證活動能夠提升學生論述與批判思考能力,學生能夠提出個人主張,證據與支持的想法,部分學生能夠針對同儕想法提出反駁,然而兩組之閱讀理解表現面向並未有顯著提升。
摘要(英) Classroom nowadays tends to deprive students′ opportunity of independent thinking because of the teacher-centered classroom setting. In this way, students absorbed knowledge passively from teachers′ lecture with solitude material. Limited knowledge resource restrained students′ thinking and resulted in the inadequate reference when facing different topic and conditions. Moreover, to catching up with the latest trend, it is critical to possess the ability of independent thinking, identifying the authenticity and integrating the incoming information. Previously, the research team has developed by "Syntopical reading model for deep learning" and noticed with this learning mode; students can be benefited from multi-text understanding and expediting the ideas output. Thus, this research combined the topics in social studies to develop by "theme-based deep reading of social studies" based on "conflicting text" reading and "argumentation" activity to enhance students′ learning in multi-knowledge in today′s′ society as well as the skills in critical thinking. The goal of this research is to design and evaluate the feasibility of "theme-based reading model for deep learning of social studies" in today′s′ classroom in the elementary school and the influence of students′ ability in critical thinking and understanding of social topics.
This research was divided into two phases. The first phase, the pilot study is to investigate the feasibility of "theme-based reading model for deep learning of social studies." 31 students from a class with a teacher were involved in the research. The research team would modify the teaching mode with the classroom teachers after the activity and decided to increase argumentation activity in second phase. The second phase, the experimental research involved 61 students and two teachers from 2 fifth-grade class. The participants are divided into two groups. Argumentation group (AG) participated in "theme-based reading model for deep learning of social studies" to read the articles, record ideas and replace original discussion with argumentation, while discussion group (DG) did discussion activity. The researcher aimed to compare students’ ability in idea generation, critical thinking between AG and DG.
The result indicated that "theme-based reading model for deep learning of social studies" enhanced ability in generating ideas on both groups, which means the activity is useful for increasing the diversity of views. AG improved the ability in expressing and critical thinking ability than more DG. Students can bring out personal ideas, evidence, some of them even can critic peers′ ideas. However, the reading comprehension ability of two groups are not significantly raised.
關鍵字(中) ★ 主題深讀
★ 社會科主題深學
★ 多文本閱讀
★ 衝突式文本
★ 論證活動
★ 批判思考能力關鍵字(英) ★ Syntopical reading model for deep learning
★ theme-based reading model for deep learning of social studies
★ multiple-text reading
★ conflicting texts
★ argumentation
★ critical thinking論文目次 第 1 章 緒論………………………………………………………………………1
1.1 研究背景與動機…………………………………………………………1
1.2 研究目的………………………………………………………………………6
1.3 研究問題………………………………………………………………………6
1.4 名詞解釋………………………………………………………………………7
1.5 研究限制………………………………………………………………………10
1.6 論文架構………………………………………………………………………11
第 2 章 文獻探討……………………………………………………………13
2.1 「主題深讀」教學模式之演進…………………………13
2.2 多文本閱讀…………………………………………………………………15
2.3 論證活動………………………………………………………………………19
2.4 批判思考技巧……………………………………………………………27
第 3 章 研究設計……………………………………………………………29
3.1 整體研究流程……………………………………………………………31
3.2 前導研究介紹……………………………………………………………33
3.3 前導研究結果……………………………………………………………33
第 4 章 「社會科主題深學」設計……………………………47
4.1 「論證」活動設計……………………………………………………48
4.2 「衝突式多文本」教學與教材設計…………………58
4.3 研究流程………………………………………………………………………78
4.4 工具與資料分析………………………………………………………80
第 5 章 結果與討論………………………………………………………87
5.1 閱讀理解測驗……………………………………………………………87
5.2 中小學批判思考技巧測驗……………………………………88
5.3 社會科教學活動比較………………………………………………89
5.4 訪談結果………………………………………………………………………100
第 6 章 結論與未來展望………………………………………………109
6.1 結論………………………………………………………………………………109
6.2 研究貢獻………………………………………………………………………112
6.3 未來展望………………………………………………………………………113
參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………………114
中文文獻…………………………………………………………………………………114
英文文獻…………………………………………………………………………………116
附錄一、學生訪談大綱……………………………………………………118
附錄二、學習單…………………………………………………………………119
附錄三、社會科主題深學「論證組」學生立場表………120
附錄四、「社會科主題深學」活動教案…………………121參考文獻 王韻齡(2017)。國中八年級以下適用,大考中心主任劉孟奇:大學考試大變革,多閱讀長文、讀閒書。親子天下。取自https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/3917?utm_source=Flipedu.FB&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=cp-f4-editor-170922
吳怡靜(2016)。教育強國 芬蘭啟動新教改。天下雜誌598期。取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5076498
林志能、洪振方(2008)。論證模式分析及其評量要素。科學教育月刊,312,2-18。
林樹聲、黃柏鴻(2009)。國小六年級學生在社會性科學議題教學中之論證能力研究─不同學業成就學生間之比較。科學教育學刊,17(2),111-133。
柯華葳(2011)。語文課與閱讀能力的培養。教育研究月刊,210,5-14。
柯華葳、詹益綾(2006)。國民小學(二至六年級)閱讀理解篩選測驗。臺北:教育部。
唐淑華、蔡孟寧、林烘煜(2015)。多文本課外閱讀對增進國中學生理解歷史主題之 研究:以「外侮」主題為例。教育科學研究期刊,60(3),63-94。
張玉成(1993)。思考技巧與教學。臺北市:心理。
張鈿富(2009)。歐美澳公民關鍵能力發展之研究。台北: 國立教育資料館。
陳雅慧、賓靜蓀(2015a)。專訪芬蘭教委會課綱主席哈梅琳(上):為孩子儲備7大未來能力。親子天下。取自https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/1711
陳雅慧、賓靜蓀(2015b)。專訪芬蘭教委會課綱主席哈梅琳(下):兼容觀點、打造未來的新課綱。親子天下。取自https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/1711
曾建銘(2015)。 21世紀評量的發展趨勢。教育脈動,(1),156-164。
楊斐鈞(2017)。主題深讀模式與平台之實踐:透過多文本閱讀與討論以提升學生想法運用與文本理解的表現(碩士論文)。取自http://etd.lib.nctu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/ncugsweb.cgi/login?o=dncucdr&s=id=%22GC104524016%22.&searchmode=basic
葉玉珠(1999)。批判思考意向量表。未發表之量表。
葉玉珠、葉碧玲、謝佳蓁(2000)。「中小學批判思考技巧測驗」之發展。測驗年刊, 4791),27-46。
靳知勤、楊惟程、段曉林(2010a)。引導式Toulmin論證模式對國小學童在科學讀寫表現上的影響。科學教育學刊,18(5),443-467。
靳知勤、楊惟程、段曉林(2010b)。國小學童的非形式推理之研究─以生物複製議題之引導式論證為例。課程與教學季刊,13(1),209-232。
廖長彥、張菀真、陳秉成、陳德懷(2016)。興趣驅動之提問式主題閱讀模式發展與評估。教育學報,44(2),1-25。
蘇衍丞(2011)。應用鷹架式論證教學提升國小高年級學生之論證能力。未出版之碩士論文,國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所,嘉義市。
Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy forlearning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). New York: Longman.
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
De Bond, E. (1985). The CoRT thinking program. Thinking and learning skills, 1, 363-388.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentationin classroom. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5-24.
Ennis, R. H. (1987). “A taxonomy of critical thinking disposition and abilities.” In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (eds.). Teaching thinking skills. New York: Freeman.
Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation inscience classrooms. Chapter in S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 47-69). Dordrecht: Springer.
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.
Finnish National Agency for Education. [FNAE] (2017). The new curricula in a nutshell. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/curricula_and_qualifications/basic_education/curricula_2014
Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 520-561.
Hartman, D. K., & Allison, J. (1996). Promoting inquiry-oriented discussions using multiple texts. In L. B. Gambrell & J. F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions! Fostering engaged reading (pp.106-133). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hartman, D. K., & Hartman, J. A. (1993). Reading across texts: Expanding the role of the reader.The Reading Teacher, 47(3), 202-211.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction,14(2), 139-178.
Ogle, D. M. (1986). KWL: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The reading teacher, 39(6), 564-570.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004).Enhancing the quality of argument in school science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(10), 994-1020.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.
Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socioscientific contexts. In S. Erduran, & M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives form classroombased research (pp. 179-199). Springer: The Netherlands.
Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C., Britton, McNish, M., & Bosquet, D.(1996). What happens when students read multiple resource documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430-456.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97-116). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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.指導教授 陳德懷(Tak-Wai Chan) 審核日期 2018-1-30 推文 plurk
funp
live
udn
HD
myshare
netvibes
friend
youpush
delicious
baidu
網路書籤 Google bookmarks
del.icio.us
hemidemi
myshare