探究高中生於論證遊戲中的協同論證模式與過程

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：55

、訪客IP：3.137.169.35

姓名

邱國洋(Kuo-Yang Chiu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

探究高中生於論證遊戲中的協同論證模式與過程
(A Qualitative Case Study Investigating High School Students’ Pattern of Dialogic Argumentation in Argumentation Game)

相關論文

★ 課室小組討論活動的口語參與-以六名大學師資生為例	★ 地理素養教學在台灣中學的教學和挑戰－以三位中學地理科教師為例
★ 探究師資生素養導向課程之設計能力與改變	★ 探究課室小組討論觀點——以「課程發展與設計」的師資培育課程為例
★ 以設計研究法發展思考程序課程設計原則

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)

本研究設計一款在地論證遊戲「謎城‧中壢」作為論證情境，觀察高中生小組在遊戲中表現出的論證能力樣貌。遊戲參考Jan於新加坡南洋理工大學學習科學研究所（National Institute of Education, 2013）開發的「綠城秘密檔案」（Green City Blues），以在地的社會事件與在地議題、需要推理的卡牌資料、多人合作的遊戲機制為設計基礎，設計一款作為論證研究所需的情境。論證理論則參考Kuhn（2005）的多人協同論證中「理論與證據協調過程」認識論分析方式，以及Squire和Jan（2007）的協同論證遊戲研究。本研究提出以下研究問題：
一、高中生小組如何辨識與使用遊戲中的資料？
二、高中生小組如何從資料發展可能的假設？
三、高中生小組如何建立並發表論證？
研究聚焦小組於遊戲內收集資料、產生假設與建立論證的過程，個案單位為社區高中學生一年級與二年級各兩組，皆為同班三人一組，對南桃園附近地區有基礎認識。本研究觀察四組高中生個案小組的小組協同論證，描寫小組於遊戲中不同階段的樣貌。透過個案交互比對分析，統整與高中生小組論證有關的議題，如小組有關處理資料與撰寫筆記的後設認知、觀點碰撞時的選擇依據、於結論時不完全表達小組觀點的理由等。
本研究的貢獻有三點：提供高中生群體於協同論證的樣貌，描寫多人合作的協同論證樣貌並比較與個人論證的差異，提供後續論證相關研究參考；提供研究論證情境的設計，做為設計在地論證情境時的案例；提供論證教學實務的學生能力參考，比較不同高中生小組的論證能力差異，描寫學生論證能力與困難點，可做為未來教學的指標。

摘要(英)

This qualitative case study investigates high school students’ pattern of dialogic argumentation by using the self-made place-based argumentation card game “Dazing City Zhongli.” The card game, which is based on Jan’s card game “Green City Blue” (National Institute of Education, 2013), could create the situation for argumentation by providing social issues and local incidents, files and data to reason, and multiplayer game rules. The theory of the research is mainly based on Kuhn’s (2005) dialogic argumentation perspective, and the dialogic argumentation research by Squire and Jan (2007).
The research aims to investigate high school students’ pattern of dialogic argumentation, which leads to three sub-questions:
(1) How do high school students recognize and use data in-game?
(2) How do high school students develop possible hypotheses from the data?
(3) How do high school students establish and present their argumentation?
The research focuses on the teams’ in-game process of collecting data, developing hypotheses, and establishing argumentation. The cases are four teams in the first and second year in community high school. Each team has three students in the same class, with a basic knowledge of South Taoyuan. The result examines the dialogic argumentations of four cases and describes cases’ patterns in different phases. The research uses collective case studies to summarize the issues about high school students’ argumentation, e.g., the groups′ metacognitions about processing data and writing notes, the basis for selection when perspectives conflict, and reasons for not fully expressing the groups′ views at the conclusion.
There are three research contributions: Provides high school students’ pattern of dialogic argumentation and describes the differences between dialogic argumentation and personal argumentation for further research; Provides the local argumentation situation as a reference for argumentation situation designs; Describes students′ argumentation abilities and difficulties as indicators for teaching.

關鍵字(中)

★ 協同論證
★ 遊戲學習
★ 桌上遊戲
★ 情境學習
★ 遊戲設計

關鍵字(英)

★ Dialogic argumentation
★ Game-based learning
★ Tabletop games
★ Situated learning
★ Game designs

論文目次

第一章緒論 1
第一節研究目的 1
第二節研究動機 2
第三節研究機會 3
第二章文獻探討 5
第一節論證的意義與其重要性 5
一、論證的定義 5
二、教育系統的論證 6
三、從科學論證到大眾論證 7
第二節論證模式與論證能力 8
一、 Toulmin論證模式 8
二、 Giere 科學推理模型 10
三、 Kuhn的多人協同論證觀點 11
第三節論證的能力與評量 13
一、論證結構觀點的論證能力與評量 14
二、認識論觀點的論證能力與評量 15
第四節論證情境的建構 16
一、情境學習理論 16
二、論證情境的教學策略 18
三、論證情境的學習者對話 19
第五節提供論證情境的遊戲 20
一、遊戲的定義 20
二、遊戲何以產生情境 21
三、遊戲情境產生的學習 22
第三章「謎城‧中壢」論證遊戲設計 27
第一節遊戲說明 27
一、遊戲簡介與遊戲目標 27
二、遊戲配件說明 27
三、遊戲流程 33
第二節遊戲設計理論基礎 35
一、遊戲卡牌與遊戲玩家定位的設計 35
二、遊戲玩法與內容編排的設計 36
第三節遊戲設計歷程 42
一、概念發想 42
二、製作雛形 43
三、驗證成效 44
四、修正美化 45
第四節論證遊戲與課堂學習之結合 47
第四章研究方法 49
第一節研究法說明 49
第二節研究問題 50
第三節研究個案 51
第四節研究流程 52
一、確認研究個案 53
二、遊戲前準備 54
三、遊戲流程 54
四、遊戲後訪談 56
第五節資料收集 56
一、遊戲過程影像記錄 57
二、遊戲過程對話記錄 58
三、玩家討論筆記 58
四、研究者觀察筆記 58
五、遊戲過後團體訪談記錄 59
第六節資料分析 59
第五章研究成果 63
第一節四組高中生小組個案簡述 63
一、高一筆記組（A1） 69
二、高一直覺組（A2） 72
三、高二謹慎組（B1） 74
四、高二歡樂組（B2） 76
第二節辨識與使用遊戲中的資料（收集資訊） 81
一、探索新資料 82
二、整合新資料與既有假設 85
三、記錄與整理資料 87
第三節從資料發展可能的假設（建立假設） 91
一、建立或修改假設 92
二、檢核假設所使用的資料 99
三、使用筆記產生假設 101
四、處理多種假設 103
第四節建立並發表論證（小組結論） 105
一、組內假設與結論發表的內容差異 105
二、論述案件的策略 107
第五節發現與討論 108
一、有關小組處理資料與撰寫筆記的後設認知 109
二、觀點碰撞時的選擇依據 110
三、於結論時不完全表達小組觀點的理由 112
第六章研究反思、貢獻與侷限 115
第一節使用論證遊戲的反思 115
一、「遊戲」一詞給玩家的想像 115
二、論證情境需要時間與空間沉浸 116
三、真實情境引起在地議題的討論 117
四、使用卡牌使討論脈絡可見 117
第二節研究限制與貢獻 118
一、研究限制 118
二、研究貢獻 119
第三節未來研究建議 119
一、小組論證所需的能力 120
二、性別、類組、年齡層、學力程度的差異 121
三、成員彼此熟悉程度的差異 121
引用文獻 123
附錄一實驗研究參與同意書 131

參考文獻

Aarseth, E. (2012). A Narrative Theory of Games. FDG’12 May 29-June 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/2282338.2282365
Andriessen J., Baker M., Suthers D. (2003) Argumentation, Computer Support, and the Educational Context of Confronting Cognitions. In: Andriessen J., Baker M., Suthers D. (eds) Arguing to Learn. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7_1
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to Learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of: The learning sciences (p. 443–459). Cambridge University Press.
Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), In Proceedings of CSCL ′97: The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 10-19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology (New ed.). Cambridge University Press; Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l′Homme.
Binkley, R. W. (1995). Argumentation, education and reasoning. Informal Logic, 17(2), 127-143.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA [etc.: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform, 1991, 121-138.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American educator, 15(3), 6-11.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(33), 287-312.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72.
Felton, M. & Kuhn, D. (2001). The Development of Argumentive Discourse Skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 135-153.
Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 5-16.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Video Games and Embodiment. Games and Culture, 3(3–4), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412008317309
Giere, R. N. (1991). Understanding Scientific Reasoning, 3rd edition. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jan, M. (2009). Designing an Augmented Reality Game-based Curriculum for Argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Jan, M. (2018). Designing new media for new literacy in an arts classroom: A lesson about designed affordance and perceived affordance. In K. Kennedy and J. Lee (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Schools and Schooling in Asia, (pp. 166-178). 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81 (5), 533-559.
Koster, R. (2013). A theory of fun for game design. 2nd ed. North Sebastopol, California: O′Reilly Media.
Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2003). The Development of Argument Skills. Child development. 74. 1245-60. 10.1111/1467-8624.00605.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571350
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Latour, B. W., & Woolgar, S. (1986). An anthropologist visits the laboratory. In B. Latour & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (pp. 83 – 90). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of Hypothetico-Predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human development, 43(6), 332-360.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, N.J: Ablex Pub. Corp.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. Penguin Press.
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Boston, MA: MIT press.
McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: the claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Boston: Pearson.
McNeill, K. L. & Martin, D. M. (2011). Claims, evidence and reasoning: Demystifying data during a unit on simple machines. Science and Children. 48(8), 52-56.
Moshman, D., & Geil, M. (1998). Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking & Reasoning, 4(3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467898394148
National Institute of Education (2013). Game-based Learning. SingTeach, 45, 1-3. Singapore: National Institute of Education.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
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.
Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that Make Us Smart: Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
OECD (2016), "PISA 2015 Results in Focus", PISA in Focus, No. 67, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa9237e6-en.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 82, 63-70.
Passmore, C. & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching ,39(3),185-204.
Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education (1st ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-000
Sandoval, W. A. & Milwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students′ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1). 23-55.
Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Jossey-Bass higher education series. Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right… if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461–494. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_2
Shaffer, D. W., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Before every child is left behind: How epistemic games can solve the coming crisis in education (WCER Working Paper): University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). " Thick" Authenticity: New Media and Authentic Learning. Journal of interactive learning research, 10(2), 195-216.
Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Synthese, 80(1), 9-42.
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.
Squire, K. & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing Scientific Argumentation Skills with a Place-based Augmented Reality Game on Handheld Computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 16. 5-29. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Los Angeles: Sage.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H. (1995). A world of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 17(2), 144-158.
Willard, C. A. (1983). Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
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。[Lin, C.-N., & Hung, J.-F. (2008). A critical review of argumentation in science education. Science Education Monthly, 312, 2-18.]
方永泉（2000）。論證。教育大辭書。2022年5月14日取自https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1314131/
林煥祥（2009）。科學素養的評量。科學發展月刊，438，66-69。[Lin, H.-S. (2009). Assessment of scientific literacy. Science Development, 438, 66-69.]
洪詠善（2018）。素養導向教學的界定、轉化與實踐。載於蔡清華（主編），課程協作與實踐（第二輯），58-74。臺北市：教育部師資課程教學與評量協作中心。
洪逸文、湯宜佩（2016）。高中特色課程的開發與實施：以論證課程為例。課程研究，11(1)，23-57。
國家教育研究院（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程體系發展指引。2021年2月22日，取自https://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/23/relfile/8006/51083/c1f743ce-c5e2-43c6-8279-9cc1ae8b1352.pdf
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等校-自然科學領域。臺北市：教育部。
黃柏鴻、林樹聲（2007）。論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思。科學教育月刊，302，5-20。[Huang, P.-H., & Lin, S.-S. (2007). Literature review and reflection on the research about argumentation instruction. Science Education Monthly, 302, 5-20.]
詹明峰、張鐵懷（2018）。遊戲學習分析架構。數位學習科技期刊，10(3)，1-20。
鄭晉昌（1993）。電腦輔助學習的新教學設計觀－認知學徒制。教育資料與圖書館學，31(1)，55-66。
蘇威任（譯）（2016）。什麼是遊戲？。臺北市：開學文化。(Chauvier, S. 2007)
蘇詠梅、鍾媚（2010）。科學探究中的“不科學”。亞太科學教育論壇，11(1)，文章三。

指導教授

詹明峰(Mingfong Jan)

審核日期

2022-5-26

推文