本研究旨在呈現國中生態單元的教學中,學生在進行任務討論時,同儕對話呈現的概念地位改變過程,並探究小組討論中影響概念地位改變的同儕因素和教學因素。參與研究的是台北縣某國民中學的一個七年級班級,研究者在三個月的教學觀察後,選取焦點小組作深入的分析。研究者觀察並錄影該班整個生態單元的教學活動,並收集小組討論的錄音帶、學習單和教師發給各小組閱讀的教材文本,此外,亦針對教師和學生分別進行教學理念的晤談、概念學習狀況,以及對於學習情境想法的晤談。分析對話時,主要是運用P. Hewson和J. Lemberger所形成的編碼架構,分析小組進行任務時的對話,之後再配合所收集的其他資料,詮釋個案小組討論各核心概念時,所展現的概念地位改變過程,並分析及詮釋可能影響概念地位改變的同儕因素和教學因素。 根據研究結果發現,第一,在小組所呈現的概念改變過程中,小組會受到教師任務設計和鼓勵學生舉例作答的影響,因而在進行討論的時候偏好使用例子類別的發言;小組在面對可以運用具體經驗聯想的概念時,則會偏向使用語言和知識論類別的發言來決定概念地位的升降。第二,在同儕的影響方面,由於小組對於任務詮釋的影響,使得小組所形成進行任務的態度,會以完成學習單為目標;在自主性強的討論情境中,學生的發言風格,可以區分成討論的領導者,與討論的充實者;另外,在運用例子類別發言時,組員的學望會有較明顯的影響。第三,在教學的影響方面,由於學生具有運用資訊的自主權,卻缺乏閱讀動機和策略,教師提供的教材文本因而無法發揮預期的效果;再加上,教師沒有進一步確認學生對任務的理解,學生發生誤解或忽略教師所提供訊息的情形。針對以上結論,建議教師在進行合作學習的教學時,對於教師所提供的必要訊息,可以進一步去確認學生的理解情形;在面對比較抽象的概念時,可以先加強學生的知識背景;此外,應加強學生閱讀訊息的動機與策略,並培養學生進行磋商的習慣和能力,以提升小組討論的效能和品質。
The purposes of this study were to explore the changing process of conceptual status in the taped group discussions, and to explore the influences came from peers and the teacher’s instructions. A group of five 7th graders were selected after three-month classroom observation. Collected data include field-notes, observation journals, interviews, taped group discussions, worksheets, and instructional texts. The researcher modified P. Hewson and J. Lemberger’s coding framework and used it to analyze the taped discourse. The coding result and other data collected were combined to interpret the changing process of the conceptual status in terms of each discussed concept. In addition, the possible influences came from peers and the teacher’s instructions were also interpreted. Major findings were as following: First, for the teacher’s task design and teaching style of encouraging students to provide answers in instances, students tended to use “examplars” to represent their understandings of concepts during the conceptual changing process; and the first two influential codes of discourse were “language” and “epistemology”. Second, regarding peer factors, students were concerned about completing worksheets; students usually divided into “guiding” members and “extending” members in discussions; and students’ academic status functioned obviously when they used “examplars” in expressing ideas. Third, regarding the teacher’s instructions, students didn’t use the instructional texts in the way as expected while they had full ownership but were lacking of motivation and strategies to read the texts. According to the findings above, there came to some suggestions about the instruction strategies. Before entering into group discussion phase, the teacher may ensure students’ understandings of provided information; when dealing with abstract concepts, the teacher may build students’ knowledge background first; the teacher may promote students’ motivation and improve their strategies for using information; and the teacher may enhance students’ competency in negotiating viewpoints to reach the goals of co-construction through group discussions.