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。 ;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.
