基於知識翻新理論的合作論證學習活動對於國小高年級學生英語議論文寫作表現之影響：以基因改造食品議題為例

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：18

、訪客IP：3.145.15.34

姓名

林宛萱(Wan-Syuan Lin) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

基於知識翻新理論的合作論證學習活動對於國小高年級學生英語議論文寫作表現之影響：以基因改造食品議題為例
(Improving Elementary School Students′ English Argumentative Writing Performance through Knowledge Building and Collaborative Argumentative Activities. Take Genetic Modification Food as an Example.)

相關論文

★ 支援國小科展探究教與學之網路科展探究系統的開發與評估	★ 教師科展專業知識分享社群平台系統開發與評估
★ 科學小論文寫作平台的建置與評估	★ 「探究教學線上教師社群平台」之建置與評估:以知識管理理論為基礎
★ 科學閱讀平台之發展與評估	★ 以鷹架為基礎之科展探究系統平台之開發與評估
★ Improving Novice Teachers’ Instructional Practice Through Online Multilevel Reflection: The Role of Novice Teachers’ Beliefs	★ The Effect s of Video-based Reflection on Preservice Teachers′ Micro Teaching Focusing on Meaningful Learning with ICT
★ Examining Teachers’ Online Video-Based Reflective Practice for Professional Development Regarding Guided-Discovery Learning Instruction	★ 數位教育遊戲之開發與評估：以「Mr.道耳頓的奇幻歷險」為例
★ 應用自然語言處理技術開發基於知識翻新理論之線上非同步合作論證平台與平台初步評估	★ 同步討論與反思系統（SDRS）對小學生知識建構學習環境感知和學習成果的影響
★ 具有集成設計框架的同步在線論證系統用戶界面：重新設計和評估	★ 科學探究學習系統之開發與評估
★ 支援科學專題學習之線上學習平台開發與評估	★ 線上合作共同備課平台：開發與評估

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]

至系統瀏覽論文 (2025-8-1以後開放)

摘要(中)

在2030雙語國家政策推動之下，學生的英語文能力越來越受到重視，「寫作」是語文學習的綜合表現與應用，學生在撰寫英語議論文的過程中，可以將腦海中抽象的想法轉化為書面上具體的論點。因此，本研究旨在探討基於知識翻新理論的合作論證學習活動，對於國小高年級學生知識建構學習環境經驗、英語寫作自我效能以及對英語議論文寫作表現的影響。
本研究採用實驗研究法之準實驗設計，研究對象為兩班國小五年級學生，其中一班為實驗組共二十六人，另外一班為對照組共二十六人。本研究分別對兩班實施七週「基於知識翻新理論的合作論證學習活動」以及「基於知識翻新理論的傳統論證學習活動」，研究分析資料包括質性及量化資料，分別為教學前與教學後撰寫之「知識建構學習環境的經驗問卷」、教學前與教學後施測之「英語寫作自我效能量表」和「英語議論文寫作的文章」。研究資料經處理分析後，得研究結果如下：
一、相較於「基於知識翻新理論的傳統論證學習活動」，「基於知識翻新理論的合作論證學習活動」對於學生知識建構學習環境的經驗未能有顯著效果。
二、相較於「基於知識翻新理論的傳統論證學習活動」，「基於知識翻新理論的合作論證學習活動」更能顯著提升學生的英語寫作自我效能。
三、相較於「基於知識翻新理論的傳統論證學習活動」，「基於知識翻新理論的合作論證學習活動」更能顯著提升學生的英語議論文寫作架構、質量與字數。
最後，本研究也建議教學者在國小英語寫作教學上，可以參考基於知識翻新理論的合作論證學習活動，並融入社會性科學議題，藉此提升學生英語議論文的寫作成效。研究者也建議未來可以增添蒐集學生「非形式推理」能力以及增加個人反思與小組反思，並採取更多元的教學策略，以提升學生英語議論文寫作的質與量。

摘要(英)

The government has launched the Bilingual 2030 policy; therefore, Students’ English ability are considered to become much more important. “Writing” is the comprehensive performance and application of language learning. In the process of writing English argumentative essays, students can transform abstract ideas in their minds into concrete arguments on writings. Therefore, This study mainly investigated the effects of knowledge building theory and argumentative activities on elementary school students’ experience about knowledge building environment, English writing self-efficacy, and argumentative writing ability toward English learning.
This study was conducted with a quasi-experimental research design. The research subjects were fifty-two fifth graders. Twenty-six students in one class were assigned to be experimental group, while the other class were assigned to be control group. The research treatment was conducted for seven weeks of “knowledge building theory and collaborative argumentative activities” and “knowledge building theory and traditional argumentative activities”. The research data contained qualitative and quantitative data , which were “the experience of knowledge building environment”, “English writing self- efficacy” and “English argumentative essays” for pre-tests and post-tests. After the research data was processed and analyzed, the research results are as follows.
1. Compared to “knowledge building theory and traditional argumentative activities”, “knowledge building theory and collaborative argumentative activities” cannot significantly improve students’ experience of knowledge building environment”.
2. Compared to “knowledge building theory and traditional argumentative activities”, “knowledge building theory and collaborative argumentative activities” can significantly improve students’ English writing self-efficacy.
3. Compared to “knowledge building theory and traditional argumentative activities”, “knowledge building theory and collaborative argumentative activities” can significantly improve students’ argumentative writing structure and quality.
Finally, This study suggests that teachers should pay more attention on English writings for Elementary school students. Teachers could combine Knowledge building theory, argumentative activity and social scientific issues to improve the efficiency of English argumentative writing. Therefore, this study also suggests that future instructors could collect more research data about “informal reasoning” , “group reflection” and “individual reflection”. Moreover, instructors should utilize multiple teaching strategies to promote students’ English argumentative writing performance.

關鍵字(中)

★ 知識翻新
★ 英語議論文寫作
★ 合作論證
★ 社會性科學議題
★ 雙語教學

關鍵字(英)

★ Knowledge building
★ English argumentative writing
★ collaborative argumentative activities
★ social scientific issues
★ bilingual education

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
致謝詞 iv
表目錄 vii
圖目錄 ix
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 5
第四節名詞解釋 7
第五節研究範圍與限制 9
第二章文獻探討 11
第一節知識翻新 11
第二節英語議論文寫作 17
第三節合作論證 24
第三章研究方法 27
第一節研究對象 27
第二節研究設計 29
第三節研究流程 32
第四節教學設計 33
第五節研究工具 41
第六節資料蒐集與分析 46
第四章研究結果與討論 57
第一節「知識建構學習環境的經驗問卷」結果分析 60
第二節「英語寫作的自我效能量表」結果分析 67
第三節實驗組與對照組在「英語議論文寫作表現」之分析 73
第四節研究結果之整理與討論 85
第五章結論與建議 91
第一節結論 91
第二節建議 93
參考文獻 95
附錄 100

參考文獻

中文文獻
王立仁（2018）。電腦輔助知識翻新活動對於大學生英文議論文寫作表現之影響。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所，桃園縣。
林樹聲（2004）。重視自然與生活科技學習領域中科技爭議議題的融人與探討。
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。Journal of Curriculum Studies， 11（1），頁 23-57。
洪圓善、范斯淳（2020）。應用社會性科學議題發展國小科技教育議題融入課程-以塑膠微粒為例。工業科技教育學刊（13），頁 80-88。
國家發展委員會（2018）。 2030 雙語國家政策發展藍圖。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。
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學校語文領域-英語文：。
黃嘉眉（2020）。以想法為中心的合作科學探究學習平台之系統開發與初步評估。國立中央大學。
楊忠祥、陳鈺芳（2013）。如何從學術論文之統計量數計算效果量: 以 Cohen d, η^ 2 與 ω^ 2 為例。臺灣運動心理學報， 13（2），頁 75-90。
鄭宇傑（2019）。基於知識翻新理論之線上同步合作論證學習平台之開發與初步評估; Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Knowledge Building Theory-based Online Synchronous Collaborative Argumentation Learning Platform。國立中央大學。

英文文獻
Amogne, D. (2013). Enhancing students writing skills through the genre approach. International Journal of English Literature, 4(5), 242-248.
Andrews-Weckerly, S., Ferretti, R., & Lewis, W. (2004). Determinants of the quality of arguments written by students with and without learning disabilities.
Brooks, C. D., & Jeong, A. (2006). Effects of pre‐structuring discussion threads on group interaction and group performance in computer‐supported collaborative argumentation. Distance Education, 27(3), 371-390.
Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D. F., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of educational psychology, 105(1), 25.
Chan, C. K. K. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing and sustaining knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 147-186.
Chanie, B. S. (2013). Assessing pre-engineering students writing errors at Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia. Journal of Media Communication Studies, 5(3), 20-24.
Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Menekse, M. (2009). Initial structuring of online discussions to improve learning and argumentation: Incorporating students’ own explanations as seed comments versus an augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions. Journal of Science Education Technology, 18(4), 321-333.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. J. S. e. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. 84(3), 287-312.
Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of educational psychology, 92(4), 694.
Han, J., Kim, K. H., Rhee, W., & Cho, Y. H. (2021). Learning analytics dashboards for adaptive support in face-to-face collaborative argumentation. Comput Educ, 163, 104041. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104041
Hasani, A. (2016). Enhancing Argumentative Writing Skill through Contextual Teaching and Learning. Educational Research Reviews, 11(16), 1573-1578.
Hong, H.-Y., Chen, F.-C., Chai, C.-S., & Chan, W.-C. (2011). Teacher-education students’ views about knowledge building theory and practice. Instructional Science, 39(4), 467-482.
Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers Educational Research Review, 48(3), 427-445.
Jin, T., Su, Y., & Lei, J., J (2020). Exploring the blended learning design for argumentative writing. Language LearningTechnology, 24(2), 23-34.
Jonassen, D. H., & Cho, Y. H. (2011). Fostering argumentation while solving engineering ethics problems. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 680-702.
Karbach, J. (1987). The Using Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation. Journal of Teaching Writing, 6(1).
Kathpalia, S. S., & See, E. K. (2016). Improving argumentation through student blogs. 58, 25-36.
Kaur, S. (2015). Teaching strategies used by Thai EFL lecturers to teach argumentative writing. Procedia-Social Behavioral Sciences, 208, 143-156.
Lee, H., Choi, Y., & Ko, Y. (2014). Designing collective intelligence-based instructional models for teaching socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 523-534.
Lin, K. Y., Hong, H. Y., & Chai, C. S. (2014). Development and validation of the knowledge-building environment scale. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 124-132. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.10.018
Manegre, M., & Gutiérrez-Colón, M. (2020). Foreign language learning through collaborative writing in knowledge building forums. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-13.
Meier, S., McCarthy, P. R., & Schmeck, R. R. (1984). Validity of self-efficacy as a predictor of writing performance. Cognitive therapy research in Science Education, 8(2), 107-120.
Neff-van Aertselaer, J., & Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). Argumentation patterns in different languages: An analysis of metadiscourse markers in English and Spanish texts. Developing contrastive pragmatics interlanguage, 87-102.
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79-106. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
Pei, Z., Zheng, C., Zhang, M., & Liu, F. (2017). Critical Thinking and Argumentative Writing: Inspecting the Association among EFL Learners in China. English Language Teaching, 10(10), 31-42.
Peters, M. L., & Kortecamp, K. (2010). Rethinking undergraduate mathematics education: The importance of classroom climate and self-efficacy on mathematics achievement. Current Issues in Education, 13(4).
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge (Vol. 360): Oxford University Press Oxford.
Putra, I. D. G. R. D., Saukah, A., Basthomi, Y., & Irawati, E. (2020). The Predicting Power of Self-Efficacy on Students′ Argumentative Writing Quality. Journal of Asia TEFL, 17(2), 379.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Situational interest and academic achievement in the active-learning classroom. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 58-67. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.11.001
Sachs, J. D. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet, 379(9832), 2206-2211. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60685-0
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353-376.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking skills creativity, 1(1), 41-48.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67-98.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building. The Cambridge.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2010). A brief history of knowledge building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 36(1).
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2, 397-417.
Shehab, H. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2015). Cognitive load of critical thinking strategies. 35, 51-61.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument: Cambridge university press.
Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, 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.
Wee, S.-M., Yoon, J.-Y., & Lim, S.-M. (2014). An analysis on argumentation structure development of preservice teachers through argumentative writing on earth science related SSI. Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 7(1), 11-23.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 191-211): Springer.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio‐scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371-400.
Yoo, B.-h., Kwak, Y., & Park, W.-M. (2020). Analysis of Argumentation Structure in Students′ Writing on Socio-scientific issues (SSI): Focusing on the Unit of Climate Change in High School Earth Science I. Journal of the Korean earth science society, 41(4), 405-414.
Zhang, J., & Sun, Y. (2011). Reading for idea advancement in a grade 4 knowledge building community. Instructional Science, 39(4), 429-452.
Zhu, G., & Kim, M. S. (2017). A review of assessment tools of knowledge building: Towards the norm of embedded and transformative assessment. Knowledge Building Summer Institute, Philadelphia, PA.

指導教授

吳穎沺(Ying-Tien Wu)

審核日期

2022-7-26

推文