探討教師角色在促進國小學童論證表現的改變－以啟發式科學寫作(SWH)教學為情境的四年個案研究

The Role of the Teacher in Engaging Elementary School Students in Argumentation Utilizing the Science Writing Heuristic: Four-Year Case Studies

陳穎志(Ying-Chih Chen) ； 曾敬梅(Ching-Mei Tseng) ； 張文華(Wen-Hua Chang)

《科學教育學刊》 Volume 18 Issue 5 (2010/10) Pp. 417-442

https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2010.1805.02

Abstracts

The way a teacher uses different roles impacts on students' successful engagement in argumentative practice. This study conceptualized four critical roles for teachers-director, moderator, coach, participant-to support students in the construction of scientific argument, and explored the way three teachers used different roles in implementing the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach in elementary school classrooms. Research data was accumulated over 4 years through video recordings of science classes. The Modified Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (m-RTOP) was used to analyze videotaped science lessons. Analysis of the data indicated that there was a shift in the areas of teacher support, teacher questioning, student voice, and science argument, and the correlations among the four areas are significant (r=.83~.96, p＜.01). Several levels of subsequent analysis were completed related to teacher role and student argumentation. Results indicate that the teachers increasingly played all four roles during the four years of the study, which is referred to as richness of teacher role, instead of only using the director role as they did in the first year. The results also show that these teachers learned to appropriately implement the roles in different activities and contexts, which is flexibility of teacher role. As teacher roles shifted, student voice increased and the elements of argument were practiced and more successfully represented. Finally, this study suggests that teacher professional development should be designed systematically and should consist of ongoing training rather than a one-time event.

Keywords

科學論證 ； 教師角色 ； 教師專業成長 ； 啟發式科學寫作

Parallel abstracts

The way a teacher uses different roles impacts on students' successful engagement in argumentative practice. This study conceptualized four critical roles for teachers-director, moderator, coach, participant-to support students in the construction of scientific argument, and explored the way three teachers used different roles in implementing the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach in elementary school classrooms. Research data was accumulated over 4 years through video recordings of science classes. The Modified Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (m-RTOP) was used to analyze videotaped science lessons. Analysis of the data indicated that there was a shift in the areas of teacher support, teacher questioning, student voice, and science argument, and the correlations among the four areas are significant (r=.83~.96, p＜.01). Several levels of subsequent analysis were completed related to teacher role and student argumentation. Results indicate that the teachers increasingly played all four roles during the four years of the study, which is referred to as richness of teacher role, instead of only using the director role as they did in the first year. The results also show that these teachers learned to appropriately implement the roles in different activities and contexts, which is flexibility of teacher role. As teacher roles shifted, student voice increased and the elements of argument were practiced and more successfully represented. Finally, this study suggests that teacher professional development should be designed systematically and should consist of ongoing training rather than a one-time event.

Parallel keywords

Scientific Argumentation ； Science Writing Heuristic SWH ； Teacher Role ； Teacher Professional Development

References

佘曉清(1999)。生物教師的教學信念、教學、與師生互動—個案研究。科學教育學刊。7(1)，35-47。

林樹聲(2006)。從爭議性科技議題的教學設計和實踐中詮釋科學教師的角色—個案研究。科學教育學刊。14(3)，237-255。

洪振方(1994)。從孔恩異例的認知與論證探討科學知識的重建(博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所。

教育部(2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要：自然與生活科技學習領域。臺北市:教育部。

黃翎斐、張文華、林陳涌(2008)。不同佈題模式對學生論證表現的影響。科學教育學刊。16(4)，375-393。