近年來的研究顯示，社會性科學議題論證學習能增進學生的科學知識、促進學生對科學實務的理解；但學生常在論證過程中陷入「輸贏式爭辯」。因此，本研究設計強調合作論證之外顯教學以增進學習者之論證品質，並檢驗其對於學習者論證行為的影響。本研究受試者為高中學生共80名，研究者將受試者隨機分入實驗組、控制組中，並分別對實驗組學生施以「合作論證教學」、對照組學生則施以「傳統論證教學」，接著讓實驗組、控制組學生2人一組，於本研究開發之「線上同步合作論證平台」就「是否支持台灣用核能發電解決供電問題」議題進行進行50分鐘的線上同步論證活動。學生在線上同步合作論證平台中的發言皆被研究者記錄、分類、編碼，並以滯後序列分析技術分析其論證行為。研究結果顯示實驗組學生之論證行為與對照組學生相似。進一步將受試學生分為「高合作品質」以及「低合作品質」兩類，並比較不同合作品質組成之論證小組（高＋高合作品質、高＋低合作品質、低＋低合作品質）的論證行為，可以發現兩位高合作品質學生所組成之論證小組，在線上同步論證過程中會分享更多的知識、想法，並積極共同建構對議題的理解。最後亦對未來之研究方向提供建議。

Recent research showed SSI-based argumentation learning activities may benefit learners in their scientific knowledge acquisition and understanding of scientific practice. However, previous research has revealed that learners usually tend to fall into debate-type win-lose situation during argumentation. To improve the quality of students’ argumentation, this study designed an explicit collaborative argumentation instruction and explored its effects on students’ argumentation pattern. A number of 80 high school students participated in this study and they were randomly assigned to the experimental group for “collaborative argumentation instruction” and the control group for “traditional argumentation instruction”. The two groups of students were assigned in dyads and were asked to propose their arguments for 50 minutes. The issue for argumentation in this study is the use of nuclear power for solving the power shortage problem in Taiwan synchronously on a self-developed collaborative argumentation platform. This study also assessed students’ perceived collaboration quality after argumentation. All the students’ arguments were analyzed qualitative and categorized into different categories. Then, argumentation patterns of the two groups of students were analyzed by using Lag-sequential Analysis. Results shows that the students in the experimental group showed similar argumentation patterns as those in the outperformed control group. Besides, this study also found that the dyads with higher perceived collaboration quality had more complex argumentation patterns in which students seemed to have better knowledge and idea sharing and co-construction during online collaborative argumentation process. The implications for future research and teaching practices were discussed.

Albe, V. (2007). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67-90. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-460). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 259-282. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9088-2
Berland, L. K., & Lee, V. R. (2012). In Pursuit of Consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857-1882. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.645086
Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5. doi:10.1007/bf02505022
Clark, D., Sampson, V., Stegmann, K., Marttunen, M., Kollar, I., Janssen, J., . . . Laurinen, L. (2010). Online Learning Environments, Scientific Argumentation, and 21st Century Skills. In E. Bernhard (Ed.), E-Collaborative Knowledge Construction: Learning from Computer-Supported and Virtual Environments (pp. 1-39). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.
Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching Strategies for Developing Students' Argumentation Skills About Socioscientific Issues in High School Genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133-148. doi:10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Understanding dialogic argumentation among middle school science students. Paper presented at the Invited paper at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Montreal, Canada.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. doi:10.1002/sce.20012
Foong, C.-C., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2013). Students' Argumentation Skills across Two Socio-Scientific Issues in a Confucian Classroom: Is transfer possible? International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331-2355. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.697209
Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2009). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: a review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), 571-606. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing Argumentation Learning Environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 91-115). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439-457. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8
Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974-1016. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.832004
Kopp, B., & Mandl, H. (2011). Fostering argument justification using collaboration scripts and content schemes. Learning and Instruction, 21(5), 636-649. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.02.001
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. doi:10.1002/sce.3730770306
Kuhn, T. S. (1963). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. American Journal of Physics, 31(7), 554-555. doi:10.1119/1.1969660
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (2013). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts: Princeton University Press.
Lee, D., Huh, Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Collaboration, intragroup conflict, and social skills in project-based learning. Instructional Science, 43(5), 561-590. doi:10.1007/s11251-015-9348-7
Leitão, S. (2003). Evaluating and Selecting Counterarguments: Studies of Children's Rhetorical Awareness. Written Communication, 20(3), 269-306. doi:10.1177/0741088303257507
McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194-204. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00086.x
McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., Gonzalez-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026-2046. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547
McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Scientific Argumentation: The Impact of Professional Development on K-12 Teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936-972. doi:10.1002/sce.21081
McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific Discourse in Three Urban Classrooms: The Role of the Teacher in Engaging High School Students in Argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229. doi:10.1002/sce.20364
Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428-456. doi:10.1002/sce.21001
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79-106. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59-76. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.013
Nussbaum, E. M., Kardash, C. M., & Graham, S. E. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157.
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of Epistemic Beliefs and Scientific Argumentation in Science Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999. doi:10.1080/09500690701545919
Ortega, F. J. R., Bargallo, C. M., & Alzate, O. E. T. (2014). Teachers' change of conceptions on argumentation and its development in science class. Ensenanza De Las Ciencias, 32(3), 53-70. doi:10.5565/rev/ensciencias.985
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315-347. doi:10.1002/tea.21073
Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2010). Questioning the evidence for a claim in a socio-scientific issue: an aspect of scientific literacy. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(3), 203-226. doi:10.1080/02635143.2010.506413
Rudsberg, K., Ohman, J., & Ostman, L. (2013). Analyzing Students' Learning in Classroom Discussions about Socioscientific Issues. Science Education, 97(4), 594-620. doi:10.1002/sce.21065
Sa, L. P., & Queiroz, S. L. (2007). Promoting argumentation in undergraduate chemistry teaching. Quimica Nova, 30(8), 2035-2042. doi:10.1590/s0100-40422007000800041
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42. doi:10.1080/03057260802681839
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260. doi:10.1080/09500690500336957
Taskin, O. (2013). Pre-service science teachers' acceptance of biological evolution in Turkey. Journal of Biological Education, 47(4), 200-207. doi:10.1080/00219266.2013.788540
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach (Vol. 14): Cambridge University Press.
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. doi:10.1002/tea.20213
Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to Argue and Arguing to Learn: Argument-Driven Inquiry as a Way to Help Undergraduate Chemistry Students Learn How to Construct Arguments and Engage in Argumentation During a Laboratory Course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561-596. doi:10.1002/tea.21082
Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting Discourse about Socioscientific Issues through Scaffolded Inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410. doi:10.1080/09500690601068095
Walton, D. (2006). Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(5), 745-777. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.016