本研究主要探討高中生透過十六節「科學新聞論證活動」後，學生在科學論證能力及科學自我效能提升之情形；並分析低科學自我效能者與高自我效能者在科學論證能力表現之差異。以準實驗研究設計，使用「科學論證文本測驗」和「科學自我效能量表」為研究工具，收集學生前、後測在科學論證能力及科學自我效能的資料。本研究以便利取樣選取屏東縣某高中二年級，一個班級為實驗組(N=29)進行十六節的實驗教學，另選取一般教學的班級(N=29)為對照組，共計58位學生參加本研究，其中並由實驗組選取四位在科學論證能力進步最大的學生進行個別訪談。所獲的資料以SPSS12.0進行描述性統計、單因子共變數分析、相依樣本t檢定及獨立樣本t 檢定等資料。分析研究發現：(1)實驗組學生在論證文本測驗表現顯著優於對照組( F=43.93***, p<.001) ，並且在科學自我效能表現也優於對照組(F=45.77***，p<.001)。(2)實驗組低科學自我效能的學生在論證能力後測成績表現優於(t=2.85**, p<.01)高科學自我效能者學生之表現。(3)實驗組學生論證能力成績變化量與科學自我效能成績變化量具有中度正相關(α=.46*, p <.05)。本研究發現可作為科學教師意圖提升低論證能力及低科學自我效能中學生在教學上之參考依據。

This study quasi-experimental was designed to explore the efficacy of using science news to promote the development of secondary student’s science argumentation ability, and science self-efficacy. A pre-posttest design was employed to invite. One class of 11th grades (N=29) as the experimental group with 16 lessons argumentation instruction, while another class (N=29) with the similar backgrounds using traditional instruction served as the comparison group. The instruments of science argumentation ability test and science self-efficacy questionnaire and follow-up interviews were used to assure the two group students’ performance. The results indicated that the experimental group students outperform those of comparison group in science argumentation ability and science self-efficacy. Further analysis reveals that the low science self-efficacy students in the post-test of science argumentation ability outperform high science self-efficacy students. Finally, significant correlation exists between the experimental group students’ pre-posttest variation scores in the science argumentation ability test and the science self-efficacy questionnaire.

第壹章 緒論 p1
第一節研究背景與重要性 p1
第二節研究目的與待答問題 p5
第三節名詞釋義 p6
第貳章文獻探討 p7
第一節建構論在科學學習之應用 p7
第二節科學新聞在科學學習之應用 p13
第三節論證能力與科學新聞之相關研究 p15
第四節科學自我效能在科學學習的重要性 p24
第叁章研究方法 p29
第一節研究架構 p29
第二節研究工具 p31
第三節研究對象 p37
第四節研究流程及實施過程 p38
第五節資料分析 p43
第肆章研究結果分析與討論 p45
第一節教學後實驗組與控制組論證能力與科學自我效能後測成績之差異
性 p45
第二節實驗組在科學新聞論證教學後，其論證能力及科學自我效能提升
之情形 p48
第三節論證能力與科學自我效能前後測成績之關聯性 p53
第四節實施論證教學活動中，實際運作的具體成效及困難。p 55
第伍章討論與建議 p60
第一節討論 p60
第二節建議 p64
參考文獻 p66
附錄 p76
附錄一申請研究工具(科學自我效能量表)使用同意函 p76
附錄二科學論證測驗文本 p77
附錄三論證教學活動內容 p81
附錄四科學新聞論證活動學習單p83

中文部分
何仕仁、黃台珠、吳裕益 (2007)。科學自我效能量表之發展。科學教育學刊，15(6)，613-626。
吳明隆、涂金堂 ( 2005 )。SPSS與統計應用分析。台北：五南。

李松濤、林煥祥、洪振芳(2010)。探究式教學對學童科學論證能力之探究。科學教育學刊，18(3)，177-203。

林佳慧(2005)。高職化工科學生在化學實習課與理論課之自我效能展現個案研究，國立彰化師範大學，未出版，彰化縣。

林煥祥（2007）。智育理念與實踐。載於教育部（主編），德智體群美五育理念與實踐。（60-62頁）。台北市：教育部。

林煥祥主編 (2008)。臺灣參加PISA 2006成果報告。行政院國家科學委員會。編號：NSC95-2522-S-026-002。

林素微(2008)。台灣學生數學素養的表現。載於林煥祥(主編)，台灣參加PISA2006成果報告(131-164頁)。台南市：PISA國家研究中心。取自：http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/download/2006pisa/2006PISA.pdf

洪振方、林志能。(2011). 網路與課室學習環境促進學童論證能力之效益。教育實踐與研究, 24(1), 67-106.

楊淑萍，林煥祥(2010)。由家庭經濟資源及文化資源探討我國學生在PISA科學、數學素養的表現科學。教育學刊，18(6)，547-562。

張春興（1991）。現代心理學。台北市：東華書局。

教育部(2010)。普通高級中學必修科目「基礎化學」課程綱要。取自：http://ftp.nssh.ntpc.edu.tw/natural/09-chemi.pdf.

梁茂森（1998）。國中生學習自我效能量表之編制。教育學刊, 14, 155-192 。

許德發（1999）。專科學生對科學的態度、生物學科自我效能與其營養健康信念表徵、學業成就之關係研究。國立台灣師範大學博士論文，未出版，台北市。

黃俊儒(2008)。構思科技社會中的即時學習：以學生及專家對於科學新聞文本之理解差異為例。科學教育學刊，16(1)，105-124。

黃俊儒、簡妙如(2008)。「科學家發明了什麼？！」−解析學生對於科學新聞中的科技產物意象。科學教育學刊，16(4), 415-438。

黃思珮 (2008)。不同背景高中生對生物學的態度和生物科自我效能之調查研究。國立彰化師範大學碩士論文，未出版，彰化縣。

黃柏鴻、林樹聲(2007)。論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思論。科學教育，302，5-20。

黃翎斐、胡瑞萍(2006)。論證與科學教育的理論和實務。科學教育，292，15-28。

詹志禹. (2002). 建構論: 理論基礎與教育應用 (Vol. 1). 正中書局. 流傳文化. 墨文堂文化.
楊宏珩、段曉林(2001)。合作學習-高中化學教學之行動研究。科學教育學刊，9(1),55-77。

楊桂瓊、林煥祥、洪瑞兒(2012)。以論證活動探討國小學童論證能力和科學本質之表現。科學教育學刊，20(2)，145-170。

蔡佩穎、張文華、林雅惠、張惠博(2012)。初探論證科學新聞對七年級學生生物學習之效益。中等教育，63(1)，13-34。

蕭建華、張俊彥(2012)。介入自我效能對不同性別學生「自我學習評估」與「學習成效」之影響—以高一地球科學為例。科學教育月刊，352，28-34。
英文部分
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations ofthough and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bonder, GM (1986). Constructivism: A Theory of Knowledge, Journal of Chemical Education,63, 873-878.

Boulter, C., & Gilbert, J. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. J. M. Costello & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practice of argumentation (pp. 84-98). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: Arhetorical approach to social psychology.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Binkley, R. W. (1995). Argumentation, education and reasoning. Informal Logic,17(2), 127-143.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self‐efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485-499.

Carson, R. 2002. The epic narrative of intellectual culture as a framework for curricular coherence. Science & Education, 11: 231–246.

Cobern, W. W.(1993). Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The Practice of constructivism in science education (pp.39-50). Hillsdale, New Jersey : LEA.

Cobb, P .& Steffe , L. P.(1983).The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics education,14(2) ,83-94.
Godding, P. R., & Glasgow, R. E.(1985). Self-efficacyand outcome expectations as predictorsof controlled smoking state. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9(5), 583-590.

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 discoursein science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.

Dimopoulos, K., & Koulaidis, V. (2003). Science and technology education for
citizenship: The potential role of the press. Science Education, 87, 241-256.

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation:
Developments in the application of Toulmin'sargument pattern for studying
science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.

Elliott, P. (2006). Reviewing newspaper articles as a technique for enhancing the Scientific literacy of student-teachers. International Journal of Science Education,28(11), 1245-1265.

Gardner, G. E., Jones, M. G. and Ferzli, M. (2009). Popular media in the biology classroom: Viewing popular science skeptically. American Biology Teacher,71, 351–354.

Girous, H. A.(1988) Teacher as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Graig, J., & Ayres, D. (1988). Does primary science affect girls’ and boys’ interest in secondaryscience? School Science Review, 69, 417–426.

Halkia, K., & Mantzouridis, D.(2005). Students’ views and attitudes towards the communication code used in press articles about science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1395-1411.

Halkia, K. (2003). Teachers’ Views and Attitudes Towards the Communication Code and the Rhetoric Used in Press Science Articles. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, E. Hatzikraniotis, G. Fassoulopoulos &M. Kallery (Eds.), Science Education Research in the Knowledge-Based Society (pp. 415-423): Springer Netherlands.

Hodson ,D. (1998).Toward a Philosophically More Valid Science Curriculum. Science Education, 72, 19-40.

Hong, Z.R. & Lin, H.S. (2011b). An Investigation of students’ personality traits and attitudestoward science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(7), 10017–1028

Hong, Z. R., Lin, H. S., & Lawrenz, F. P. (2012). Effects of an Integrated Science and Societal Implication Intervention on Promoting Adolescents’ Positive Thinking and Emotional Perceptions in Learning Science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 329-352.

Jarman , R., & McClune, B. (2002). A survey of the use of newspapers in science instruction by secondary teachers in Northen Ireland. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10),997–1020.

Jarman, R., & McClune B. (2007). Developing scientific literacy: Using news media in the classroom. England, MH: Open University press.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., &Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2005). Argument Construction and Change while Working on a Real Environment Problem. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. Jong & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the Quality of Science Education (pp. 419-431): Springer Netherlands.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.

Kachan, M. R., Guilbert, S. M., & Bisanz, G. L. (2006). Do teachers ask students to read news in secondary science?: Evidence from the Canadian context. Science Education, 90(3), 496-521.

Korpan, C.A., Bisanz, G.L., & Bisanz J. (1997).Assessing literacy in science: evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81, 515–532.

Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2),155-178.

Kupermintz, H. (2002). Affective and conative factors as aptitude resources in high school science achievement. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 123-137.

Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002).Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students' situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 139-162.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language,learning, and values. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

Mason, L. (2001). Responses to anomalousdata on controversial topics andtheory change. Journal of Learningand Instruction, 11(6), 453-483.

Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students' interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science,12(2), 123-145.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation inschoolscience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). IDeas, Evidence & Argument in Science: CPD Training Pack. King's College.

OECD. (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris: OECD

OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.

Wellington, J. (1991). Newspaper science, school science: friends or enemies? International Journal of Science Education, 13(4),363–372.

Wheatley, G .H.(1991) .Constructivist Perspectives on Science and Mathematics Learning. Science Education,75(1),9-21.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospectiveteachers’ sense of efficacy andbeliefsabout control.Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 81-91.

Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science,critical thinking and science education.Synthese, 80(1), 9-42.

Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation. Informal Logic, 17(2), 159-176.

Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils' understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63-82.

Tsai, C.-C. (1998). Science learning and constructivism. Curriculum and Teaching, 13, 31-52.Curriculum and Teaching, 13,31-52.

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: University Press.

Piaget, J.(1965).The Moral Judgment of the Clild. New York: The Free Press.

Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Trans. D. Coltman.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3d Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Van Eemeren, F. H. (1995). A world of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 17(2), 144-158.

von Glasersfeld , E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.),The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 23–38).

von Manen, M.(1991). The tact of teaching ; The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. NY: SUNY Press.

Vygotsky , L. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.