科學論證與社會性科學議題論證教學在提升國中學生道德敏感度和論證能力的成效

Abstract

本研究目的是探討科學論證或社會性科學議題論證，對於國中一年級學生的道德敏感度和論證能力之影響。研究採準實驗研究設計，研究對象為新竹市某國中一年級三班的的學生為對象。實驗組A(N=31)進行四堂科學論證教學，實驗組B(N=31)進行四堂社會性科學議題論證教學，對照組(N=30)進行一般教學。三組學生於教學前後填寫「道德敏感度評量卷」。兩組實驗組學生則在參與論證課程時，填寫「論證課程學習單」。道德敏感度評量卷及論證課程學習單等兩種數據都經過質性資料的編碼分類，且兩種數據均依據評分表由兩位受過訓練的評分者進行評分，評分者一致性分別為.933和.939。量化資料則透過t-test、單因子共變數分析、重複量數、或卡方檢定進行統計分析。 研究結果顯示：（一）論證教學後，科學論證組與SSI論證組在道德敏感度總分上皆有顯著進步，一般教學後的學生在道德敏感度總分上沒有顯著進步。（二）SSI論證後，學生道德敏感度進步的人數比例最多，退步比例最少，且其進步效果顯著優於一般教學組。（三）科學論證或SSI論證後，學生的論證品質總分顯著進步。（四）比較SSI論證和科學論證，發現學生的論證品質進步的程度和學生的論證品質進步人數的比例，兩者間沒有顯著差異。 所以，本研究結果顯示科學論證課程和SSI論證課程都能有效提升道德敏感度。但是，SSI論證比科學論證能協助較多學生發展道德敏感度。而且，科學論證或SSI論證均能提昇學生的論證能力。建議科學課程應融入科學論證或SSI論證，以促進學生發展道德敏感度和論證能力。

The purpose of this study was to improve the seventh graders’ moral sensitivity and argumentation quality through argumentation of scientific and socioscientific issues (SSI). The study adopted quasi-experimental design. The seventh graders of three classes came from a junior high school in Hsin-chu city. One class was the experimental group A (N=31) which focused on scientific argumentation, another class was the experimental group B (N=31) which focused on SSI argumentation, and the other one was the comparison group (N=30) whcih conducted the traditional instruction.All of the students were administrated the Test for Ethical Sensitivity in Science(TESS) before and after the instruction. Two experimental groups were asked to complete the argumentation worksheet during the argumentation. Both the TESS and the argumentation worksheet had been coded through the process of qualitative analysis. Two researchers were involved in scoring the TESS and the argumentation worksheet. The Pearson correlation coefficient of inter-rater consistency of the TESS and the argumentation worksheet were .933 and .939, respectively. Chi-square, t-test, repeated measures and analysis of covariance were employed to analyze the quantative data. The results of the study were the followings: (1)Both the experimental group A and the experimental group B showed statistically significant improvement on the scores of TESS after the instruction, but the comparison group did not. (2)In comparison with other two groups, the experimental group B contains the most amounts of improved students and the least amounts of regressive students in the TESS. SSI argumentation induces significantly more development of moral sensitivity than general instruction. (3)After scientific or SSI argumentation, both the experimental group A and the experimental group B showed statistically significant improvement on argumentation quality. (4)Students’ improvement on argumentation quality and the amount of improved students on argumentation were similar between scientific argumentation and SSI argumentation. In sum, the results show that both scientific argumentation and SSI argumentation can improve students’ moral sensitivity. However, SSI argumentation can help more students to develop their moral sensitivity than scientific argumentation can, and both scientific argumentation and SSI argumentation can enhance students’ argumentation quality. In order to improve studnets’ moral sensitivity and argumentation quality, scientific argumentation and SSI argumentation are suggested to integrate to science curriculum.